Posts Tagged ‘Hurricane Katrina’

Obama’s Border Crisis Makes Bush’s Hurricane Katrina Actually Look Like A Heckuva Job, Brownie, Indeed. And It Makes Democrats Look Positively EVIL.

July 11, 2014

Do you remember that line from George Bush: “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job”???  Thanks to the mainstream media machine, that quote became immortalized as an out of touch president who looked out of an airplane to see the world from far below.

Too bad that media died and they decided to utterly abandon all journalistic principles to worship their messiah instead of reporting the damn news.

Otherwise they would see a president who can’t even be bothered to fly over the damn disaster zone that is our border with Mexico as tens of thousands and growing into hundreds of thousands of children come pouring across the border driven by the FACT that Barack Obama has abrogated all border enforcement and basically won’t deport ANYBODY.

I tell you the truth: one day, soon, at the very rock bottom of hell will be the reporters who abandoned their constitutional responsibility and instead published their ideology rather than the truth.  And standing on their shoulders will be the liberal progressive Democrats who stood on the shoulders of these dishonest propagandist shills throughout their political careers.

WHERE is the media publishing the damn photo of Obama looking out of his plane while on his way to a damn FUNDRAISER when at least Bush had the courtesy to fly over the disaster zone???

And of course they’re nowhere, just as the president who voted “present” more times than all the presidents in the entire history of our republic COMBINED ever voted “present” is nowhere to be found, that’s where.

Barack Obama is a truly evil man, a profoundly wicked man, a political ideologue, BY HIS OWN DEMONIC AND DEMAGOGIC STANDARD.

Listen to Barack Obama demonize George Bush for his “Katrina flyover”:

OBAMA:  “When the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast extended their hand for help, help was not there.  When people looked up from the rooftops, for too long they saw an empty sky.  When the winds blew and the floodwaters came, we learned that for all of our wealth and our power, something wasn’t right with America.  We can talk about what happened for a few days in 2005, and we should.  We can talk about levees that couldn’t hold, about a FEMA that’s seen as not just incompetent but paralyzed and powerless, about a president who only saw the people from the window of an airplane.”

Now it is official: George W. Bush – even at his very worst moment – was still about a trillion times more of a freaking man than Barack Obama ever has been or ever WILL be.  Because, to put it in Obama’s own slander, Obama is such a pathologically worthless sack of stink that he won’t even bother to “see the people from the window of an airplane.”

What a loathsome, uncaring, cynical, depraved piece of work our Coyote-in-Chief is to dare to say that about Bush and then not even be able to come CLOSE to manning up himself to GO TO THE DAMN BORDER AND PERSONALLY SEE THE DISASTER HE CAUSED.

What is Obama saying now?  This:

OBAMA:  “There’s nothing that has taken place down there that I am not intimately aware of and briefed on.  This isn’t theater.  This is a problem.  I’m not interested in photo-ops.  I’m interested in solving a problem.  And those who say I should visit the border, when you ask ’em what should we be doing, they’re giving us suggestions that are embodied in legislation that I’ve already sent to Congress.”

Let me ask you a question, liberal hypocrite: what if George Bush had pointed out that maybe he wasn’t all that interested in photo-ops, either.  For the record, he would be a few trillion times more honest than Obama – the first “selfie president” – is about not loving “photo-ops” whenever they suit his demonic agenda.

What would you craven, demon-worshiping hypocrites have said if George W. Bush had arrogantly said, “There’s nothing that has taken place down there [in that hurricane disaster zone] that I am not intimately aware of and briefed on”????  Tell me that you wouldn’t have held a national – hell, GLOBAL freak-out that would have lasted the rest of your worthless lives.

Obama now says, “This isn’t theater.  This is a problem.”

Very well, you future residents of hell, tell me NOW that Hurricane Katrina – unlike the Obama border fiasco – was just “theater” to you.  Tell me it actually WASN’T a “problem” such that the George W. Bush whom Barack Obama demonized should have and could have just done one fundraiser after another instead.

And tell me how it would have played with you vermin liberals had George Bush said, “This isn’t a theater.  This is a problem.  I’m not interested in photo-ops.  I’m interested in solving a problem.  So instead of going to the hurricane disaster zone like an actual LEADER, I’m instead going to demonize my political opponents and do NOTHING… well, except a damn freaking buttload of FUNDRAISERS”????

Do you Democrats have any concept whatsoever how EVIL you are???  And I don’t mean by MY standards; I mean by YOUR OWN as expressed by your pharaoh god-king, Emperor Obama???

Liberals make me want to puke until there’s nothing left and I dematerialize with their endless abject HYPOCRISY.

If you want to blame Bush as a failed president, fine.  But if you can’t recognize how failed Obama is BY THE VERY SAME STANDARDS YOU CONDEMNED BUSH, there is something so broken and so twisted and so vile it is simply beyond unreal.

To be a Democrat today is to be a hypocrite slime who says Bush is to blame for 9/11.  It doesn’t matter that ALL the damn terrorists entered the United States and largely completed their training while Bill Clinton was in office AFTER YEARS OF WEAK INACTION, just as it doesn’t matter to them that Bill Clinton had gutted both our intelligence and our military such that we were both weak and blind or that it was because of Bill Clinton’s pathetic weakness that an emboldened terrorist named Osama bin Laden started calling Americans “paper tigers.”

To be a Democrat today is to be a hypocrite without any virtue or honor who says Bush is to blame for the 2008 economic crash.  It doesn’t matter at ALL to you that Bill Clinton was JUST as to blame for the Dotcom Bubble collapse that led to a giant recession that was very close to being every bit as bad as what happened in 2008.  As George W. Bush assumed office, the nation was officially in RECESSION.

I know you don’t believe me, liberal.  After all, Clinton paved the streets with gold in your mythologies.  But Bloomberg reported this:

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. economy slipped into recession during Democrat Bill Clinton’s presidency rather than under President George W. Bush, the group that officially sets the timing of the country’s business cycles may decide.

The seven-member Business Cycle Dating Committee of the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based National Bureau of Economic Research may change its determination that the recession started in March 2001 to reflect recent revisions to government growth statistics, committee members, including Victor Zarnowitz, said.

“We are discussing it now, and in my opinion it should be changed,” Zarnowitz, a senior fellow at the Conference Board in New York, said in an interview. “In my opinion, the recession started in December 2000.”

Such a change might help Republicans deflect a principal criticism of Democrats seeking to unseat Bush in this year’s presidential election. Bush took office in January 2001.

And CNN reported the FACTS albeit sadly AFTER the fact when the facts would have actually made more of a difference:

John Kerry declared, “[George Bush] inherited the strongest economy in the world – and brought it to its knees.” There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the evidence now suggests that President Bush inherited a recession. Did the recession begin in the last quarter of 2000 or during the first months of the Bush presidency. Granted, even if the truth is that the recession began in the days after George W. Bush’s inauguration, most reasonable people would conclude that a president cannot on a dime turn a $10 trillion economy one way or the other. However, data and supporting analyses from economists indicate that the recession began well before Bush took office, making political criticism of the president on the jobs issue even more inappropriate. According the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the unofficial arbiter of business cycles, the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001. NBER analyzes four data series from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve Board, and other government sources. While previously NBER indicated the recession started in March 2001 (it has not formally revised that date), official revisions of the data indicate that the recession started earlier than that. For example, under revised calculations, real disposable income peaked in October 2000, rather than steadily rising in 2000 and early 2001 as indicated in the original data. Industrial production/manufacturing and trade sales both peaked in June of 2000, instead of September and August, respectively. Non-farm payroll employment peaked in February 2001, not March 2001. And monthly gross domestic product, which the NBER recently announced will be included in dating recessions, also peaked in 2000. According to the Council of Economic Advisers, the median date of these five data series is October 2000 – at least three months before George W. Bush took office. We also know that the stock market started to decline in March of 2000, business investment began to fall in the third quarter of 2000, and initial jobless claims began to rise at the end of 2000 – more evidence that the U.S. economy in late 2000 was in fact “on the front end of a recession,” as Vice President-elect Dick Cheney observed on Meet the Press on December 3, 2000. Senator John Kerry and other Democratic party leaders ignore or gloss over these facts. However, even professor Joseph Stiglitz, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, admits that “the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.”

So given the FACT that Bush and Clinton basically ended up with the same economic performance – with both presidents averaging 5.2% unemployment during their presidencies – the ONLY difference between Bush and Clinton was that Clinton’s recession blew up in Bush’s face as Clinton left office and Bush’s recession also blew up in Bush’s face before Bush left office.

The DotCom bubble burst was a HUGE recession, comparable to our so-called “Great Recession.”  It vaporized 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, which is the measure of tech stocks.  And it caused a massive $7.1 TRILLION loss for the U.S. economy.  And frankly the ONLY reason more people don’t remember that massive economic hit was because Bill Clinton let those pesky terrorists come into America to attack us.

The amazing thing is that had Clinton not left us vulnerable to the 9/11 attack, he would have received more of the blame due to him over the massive recession that began under his watch.  Instead, given the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the openly-liberal mainstream media, he was largely let off the hook for BOTH disasters.

But, yeah, to be a Democrat is to be the kind of personally dishonest hypocrite who blames Bush for Clinton’s economy, then blames Bush for Bush’s economy and then blames Bush for Obama’s economy EVEN SIX YEARS AFTER OBAMA TOOK DAMN OFFICE.

Getting back to this border meltdown, we’ve got to acknowledge something called a FACT: for all of Bush’s mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush did not cause the giant waves to wash over Louisiana.  You know, unlike Barack Obama, who sure as poop stinks DID cause the flood of immigrant children to wash over America.

Do you remember Lucifer Obama and his lieutenant Beelzebub Holder SUING Jan Brewer and declaring that ONLY the federal government had any right to enforce our border???  Do you remember how they falsely declared how secure the border was???

Do you remember Obama just flat-out demonically lying when he claimed over and over and over again that he was doing more deporting than any president when in FACT he was doing the LEAST???

In a stunning admission before a House Committee panel on Tuesday, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted that the Obama Administration has been artificially inflating deportation numbers. While the administration has claimed a “record number” of deportations, earning Pres. Obama the nickname “Deporter in Chief”, Johnson admitted that they have been counting border apprehensions that are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as deportations. […]

Jessica Vaughan, the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, has been arguing that actual deportations have declined under Pres. Obama. In her research, she says that if you count all removals, including those done by ICE and Border Patrol, then the Obama administration averages 800,000 removals per year. In comparison, George W. Bush would have removed more than 1.3 million illegal aliens per year, and Bill Clinton would have removed more than 1.5 million per year.

Vaughan also found that if you examine deportations from enforcement efforts by ICE, the number declined by 19 percent between 2011 and 2012 and was on track to decline another 22 percent in 2013. Further, the total number of deportations in 2011 was the lowest level since 1973.

Do you remember this story:

DHS document: 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions released in 2013
By Alexander Bolton – 03/31/14 05:45 AM EDT

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials last year released 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions, undercutting Democratic claims that President Obama has strictly enforced immigration laws.

An internal Department of Homeland Security document compiling statistics on arrests and deportations in 2013 showed that ICE agents encountered 193,357 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions but issued charging documents for only 125,478. More than 67,800 were released.

The data came from an end-of-year “Weekly Departures and Detention Report.”

The Center for Immigration Studies, a research group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws, estimates ICE agents released more than a third of illegal immigrants with criminal records they detained.

“ICE released 68,000 criminal aliens in 2013, or 35 percent of the criminal aliens encountered by officers. The vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama administration’s prosecutorial discretion policies,” Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote in a memo summarizing the DHS document.

ICE classifies illegal immigrants as criminal if they have been convicted of a crime, not including traffic offense, Vaughn noted.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, blasted the administration’s record.

“The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that immigration enforcement in America has collapsed. Even those with criminal convictions are being released. DHS is a department in crisis,” he said in a statement Sunday.

“Secretary Johnson must reject the president’s demands to weaken enforcement further and tell him that his duty, and his officers’ duty, is to enforce the law — not break it,” he added in reference to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

A spokeswoman for ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advocacy groups on both sides of the immigration debate have fired salvos back and forth over Obama’s track record enforcing the law.

Republicans say they cannot trust Obama to enforce the law, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) cited that as an obstacle to passing immigration reform through the House.

Pro-immigrant groups argue Obama has enforced the law too zealously.

Janet Murguía, the president of the National Council of La Raza, called Obama the “deporter in chief” earlier this month.

Senate Democrats like Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have called on Obama to halt the deportations of illegal immigrants who are immediate family members of U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that ICE officials moved to deport 28 percent fewer illegal immigrants from the interior of the country in 2013 than in 2012.

The group obtained the law enforcement records through a lawsuit.

They obtained the records through a lawsuit because Obama’s is the LEAST most transparent and the MOST dishonest administration in the entire history of the republic.  Because these shenanigans keep going on over and over and over again, whether it’s the fiasco of Benghazi and Obama’s lies and cover ups or the fiasco at the IRS and Obama’s lies and cover ups or the fiasco at the VA and Obama’s lies and cover ups.

Do you remember this story from well over a YEAR ago?

President Barack Obama and his administration appear to care about satisfying “special interest groups” within the Democratic base more than protecting the lives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, the ICE union boss told lawmakers Tuesday.

“Internally, the agency, in my opinion is falling apart. Morale is at an all-time low, according to recent federal surveys. The agency refuses to train our officers on these new policies, resulting in mass confusion and frustration… nobody really knows what’s going on,” Chris Crane, president the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, told the House Judiciary Committee.

He went on: “As our officers are investigated by ICE for enforcing U.S. immigration law as they see other officers threatened with suspensions for lawful arrests, increasingly officers feel they have become the enemy of this administration.”

Watch a portion of Crane’s testimony below:

Crane said ICE agents have been “essentially prohibited” from enforcing U.S. immigration law. He said agents are unable to arrest illegal aliens who are in the country illegally or immigrants who have overstayed their visas. “It’s basically not illegal anymore, generally speaking, not unless the alien has been convicted of a criminal offense.”

He said ICE agents are being forced to accept any illegal alien’s claim as to whether he or she graduated or is attending high school or college, thus qualifying them for Obama’s “deferred action for childhood arrivals” (DACA) privileges. Agents are “powerless” in requiring illegal aliens to prove they actually qualify.

“Death or serious injury to ICE officers and agents appears more acceptable to ICE, DHS, and Administration leadership, than the public complaints that would be lodged by special interest groups representing illegal aliens,” Crane said, according to a report by the Washington Examiner.

Several ICE agents have filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over policies that prevent immigration officials from enforcing federal immigration law.

Let’s go over the ICE union head’s testimony again:

“Internally, the agency, in my opinion is falling apart. Morale is at an all-time low, according to recent federal surveys. The agency refuses to train our officers on these new policies, resulting in mass confusion and frustration… nobody really knows what’s going on.” …    “As our officers are investigated by ICE for enforcing U.S. immigration law as they see other officers threatened with suspensions for lawful arrests, increasingly officers feel they have become the enemy of this administration.”

That was in February of 2013, nearly a year and a damn half ago.

Democrat, if you want to claim that Obama isn’t one-trillion percent responsible for this total anarchy and collapse on our border, you have that right as a future eternal resident of the fire of hell.  But I’m going to point out the fact that you are psychologically sick and you are morally evil.

Democrats are telling us that the border meltdown is the result of a 2008 law.  Fine.  And I’ll believe it when I see that there were hundreds of thousands of children streaming across our border beginning in 2008.  Only that isn’t TRUE.  It didn’t begin until Obama declared a de facto AMNESTY and basically assured his liberal voting bloc of Hispanics that he would never bother to enforce the law beyond his bogus dishonest application of pseudo statistics.

Even NOW Democrats are continuing to prove that they are so radically disassociated with reality that they belong in rubber rooms.  Because they’re saying that the reports that the Central American families are hearing – that if their children come to the US they will be able to stay here – aren’t true.  But they ARE true.  As Obama is proving by serving as their Coyote-in-Chief as he buses and flies these children all over America.  And then tells them to report to an INS facility when it is simply a FACT that 90% of them will NEVER report.

I now state it as a documented FACT that Brownie DID do a heck of a job during Hurricane Katrina.  Because we now see what a truly CRAPPY job really looks like.

 

 

 

 

Vicious Democrats Furious That Romney Visited Hurricane Isaac Disaster Site (Because Now The Hypocrites Can’t Demonize Him For NOT Visiting)

September 4, 2012

When I think of a Democrat I think of a little cockroach scurrying around wearing the face of Harry Reid:

Harry Reid Mitt Romney

Harry Reid: Mitt Romney Trip To Louisiana ‘Height Of Hypocrisy’
The Huffington Post  |  By Elise Foley Posted: 08/31/2012 4:15 pm Updated: 08/31/2012 4:40 pm

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Friday for traveling to Louisiana to survey damage left by Hurricane Isaac, saying his vice presidential pick aimed to block disaster relief last fall as a member of the House of Representatives.

“It is the height of hypocrisy for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to make a pretense of showing sympathy for the victims of Hurricane Isaac when their policies would leave those affected by this disaster stranded and on their own,” Reid said in a statement.

Romney visited Lafitte, La., Friday to meet with Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and first responders to the hurricane. “I’m here to learn and obviously to draw some attention to what’s going here,” Romney told Jindal, according to a pool report. “So that people around the country know that people [down] here need help.”

But Reid didn’t see it that way. He used the visit as an opportunity to bring up Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget, which he said would “gut disaster funding, making it much harder to get aid to our fellow Americans in their time of need.”

“This is yet another example of Mitt Romney’s extreme right wing agenda, which asks middle class families to sacrifice in order to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying their fair share,” Reid said.

Ryan campaign spokesman Brendan Buck responded with a counterattack.

“Paul Ryan believes providing aid to victims of natural disasters is a critical obligation and should be treated as a high priority within a fiscally responsible budget,” he said. “It’s sad that some see these heartbreaking events as opportunities to distort his record and play politics.”

President Barack Obama plans to visit Louisiana on Monday. Romney adviser Stuart Stevens told reporters he didn’t think it was inappropriate to precede Obama’s visit, ABC’s Emily Friedman tweeted.

When reporters asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about Romney’s visit, he took a far more diplomatic tone than Reid had.

“I think that it’s always important to draw attention to the fact that individuals and families and business owners are profoundly affected … that’s an important thing to do,” Carney said.

First of all, let’s say I’m talking to a typical liberal puke who is living in mommy’s basement believing that jobs are for capitalists and that he or she is entitled to live off of somebody or anybody else; you own something.  On Harry Reid’s demonic cockroach view, if you would be opposed if government barged into your house and took EVERY SINGLE THING YOU OWNED – your house (or mommy’s house anyway), your car, your clothes, your furniture, etc., etc. – to give them to disaster victims, then you are a bad person and you by definition don’t give a damn about anybody.

If you oppose ANY cut in government spending in ANY way, shape or form, if you don’t want infinite spending on disaster relief, you are a vile human being who should be demonized.  That’s Harry Reid’s view.  If you don’t want the State to have control over EVERYTHING so that it can offer relief with YOUR money, you’re evil.  You don’t care about anybody.  Only communists who want the government to have total dictatorial control over everything and everybody care.

Let me put it this way: let’s take Harry Reid’s position.  Couldn’t we do more for these poor disaster victims if we just taxed a little more?  And couldn’t we do even more if we just taxed a little more than that?  Democrats demonize the rich (like the good Marxists they are) and say we can have more money to help the poor if we just taxed the rich more; but we could have a LOT more money if the government just took it all on the Democrats own “logic,” right? 

FACT:  A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will “lose” – again, because Democrats are communists and literally believe that they own EVERYTHING the people earn, such that such that the government “loses” money if it doesn’t tax people more – $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended. And that sounds bad, doesn’t it?  But they also conclude in that same study that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period. If we can’t afford to “give” the rich$700 billion, then how on earth can we afford to “give” the middle class” $3 damn TRILLION? And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street? And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax?  That’s the way the old Soviet Union worked; if you DIDN’T work you were defined as a shirker and you went to the gulags to be a slave laborer until the system ground you into dirt.

You need to understand something about history: the Marxists who took over Russia and “fundamentally transformed it” into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were just like Obama and the Democrats when they took over.  They promised the damn world with their “hope and change” Utopia.  About the only thing you can say in comparison to the Marxist Soviets is that they weren’t as grandiose in their promises as Obama was; because at least the Soviets never promised they would lower the level of the oceans and heal the damn planet like Obama did.  But the rubber met the road, and once the Soviets got their power with their promises of “hope and change” for everybody that the “rich” would pay for and those promises failed, well, things started getting increasingly nasty.

Why did this happen?  You need to understand something: if you take away the incentive to work harder and smarter by taking away the reward for working harder, for longer hours, risking more, saving more, investing more, then the incentive to work diminishes.  It is a necessary result of the class warfare that the communists played in Russia and that the Democrats are playing now.  And as fewer and fewer people work, and the rich are demonized and taxed and then demonized and taxed some more, you will necessarily get exactly what we are seeing: fewer people working, fewer people paying taxes, more people on welfare and disability.  That’s when you get to the “dark side” of what Michelle Obama predicted: “Barack Obama will require you to work…  Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”  And Arbeit Macht Frei.

Obama heralded something that the human race had never seen: a trillion dollar annual deficit.  Not only was Obama the first president or leader to ever do that in human history, but he’s pulled off this insane feat every single year of his presidency.  One year – just one year – the reckless Marxist racked up a $1.6 trillion budget deficit making his bullcrap promises.  The day is going to come when Democrats get the power they want, and they will take over just as leftists have taken over every government they dominated.  And then will come the gulags.  There will just be no other way out, just as there was no other way out for the Russian communists.

So I presume that no liberal is reading this: because that would mean that said liberal hadn’t given up his or her computer to some victim in Louisiana and is therefore a greedy little rich bastard.  And we can safely say that all liberals are currently walking around naked because shame on them if they are wearing clothes that a hurricane victim could be wearing.  Or eating food that should go to a disaster victim.

Liberals are in love with the “generosity” that they display every time they spend money that they seized from somebody else.

That proof of abject liberal hypocrisy out of the way, let’s talk about what hypocrites liberals are.

This picture of George Bush was all Democrats needed to demonize Bush for refusing to visit the Katrina disaster area:

Democrats jumped all over Bush as “detached and uncaring” for merely flying over the disaster.

Bush was the kind of true leader who accepted responsibility even for the way he was viciously demonized.  Versus Obama who has never once accepted responsibility for a single thing in his entire life.

It didn’t matter that Bush flew over because had he landed he would have been taking up enormous security resources that would have been better spent helping victims.  Democrats aren’t people who care about facts or reality; all they care about is rhetoric and demagoguery.

It’s funny: Louisiana is now a Republican state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Maybe that’s because it wasn’t Republicans who left 2,000 school buses to sit uselessly in flood water while people died for lack of transportation. Maybe that’s because it wasn’t Republicans who offered the most idiotic excuses rather than own up to their utter failure to lead or organize.

But my God, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and Alabama – IN OTHER WORDS EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE GULF STATES – are now under Republican control, and yet you’ve got demon-possessed roachboy Harry Reid saying that Republicans literally don’t give a damn about Republicans.

When the Democrat leader of the United States Senate is allowed to make these kind of outrageous and morally insane remarks, it is all the proof you need to know that the Democrat Party is the Party of Roaches.

If Mitt Romney had NOT visited Louisiana to see the aid for victims of Hurricane Isaac, Harry Reid would have demonized him all the more.  Because Harry Reid is a demon-possessed little cockroach and demonizing hate is all that flows in his roach veins.

Meanwhile, where’s Obama?  He’s campaigning:

FORT BLISS, Texas — President Obama was planning to visit storm-stricken Louisiana before GOP rival Mitt Romney announced his plans, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One Friday morning.

Romney’s campaign announced his trip to New Orleans — he is touring areas hit by Hurricane Isaac this afternoon — hours before the White House announced Obama would cancel a planned Monday campaign event in Cleveland to divert to Louisiana.

Carney offered no details about where in Louisiana Obama would travel during his Monday trip.

“In terms of the President’s travel, obviously when you’re president of the United States, coordinating travel carries with it I think unique logistical challenges,” Carney said. “And it was the assessment of the president’s team, working with all the people involved in operations as well as people on the ground that Monday would be — was a good day for the president to visit.”

So the man who dropped everything and visited the disaster zone did it because he didn’t care; but the man who is campaigning, campaigning, campaigning and won’t be able to show up until Monday because he’s too busy campaigning hasn’t visited (but he would have! says his mouthpiece) because he cares so deeply.

Bullcrap.

Obama Worst President In History, According To 2004 Democrat Campaign Rhetoric

June 23, 2010

This is just too good.  Barack Hussein is far and away the very worst president in American history.  And that according to the very same standards that Democrats attacked George Bush with in 2004.

Democrats of 2004 Brand Obama Worst President
By Kevin Hassett – Jun 20, 2010

As we approach another general election, it will be interesting to see how the economic performance of Democrats is judged. If voters borrow the preferred method of John Kerry and other Democrats from 2004, Barack Obama will be revealed to be among the worst presidents in history.

During the 2004 election, Democrats constantly reminded voters that George W. Bush was the first president in decades to oversee a net loss of jobs.

The drumbeat was incessant. “This administration is the first since Herbert Hoover’s to actually lose jobs on its watch — 1.8 million jobs,” Kerry said at a campaign stop. His campaign chairman, Jeanne Shaheen, said Bush deserved “the first-ever ‘Herbert Hoover Award’ for having the worst jobs record since the Great Depression.”

The Hoover analogy was a stretch, as some recognized even back then. The watchdog election site factcheck.org wrote, “Comparing the Bush economy to Hoover’s Great Depression is just silly, and implying that tax cuts are not contributing to job growth deserves an ‘F’ in freshman economics.”

As an adviser to the Bush re-election campaign, I regularly rebutted the Hoover charge when I appeared on television to debate Kerry supporters in 2004. Here’s what I said then, and still say now: While some presidents arrive in Washington during boom times, others come during busts, and those often are the ones elected precisely because voters hope that they will change economic policies.

Jobless Recovery

Bush arrived just as the last recession was beginning — a bit of timing that Obama can relate to. Though that recession was brief, the subsequent jobless recovery did little to strengthen Bush’s record as he entered his reelection year.

Obama, of course, is just 17 months into his presidency, and more than two years from facing the voters personally. But with a big midterm congressional election upcoming, let’s see how Obama would fare if Kerry-like tactics were used on him.

The answer: not well. Whether the measurement is job creation, unemployment or growth of gross domestic product, the economy has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush.

First, job creation. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. shed 2.3 million jobs since February 2009, Obama’s first full month in office. Going back to World War II, that is by far the worst record for any president in his first 17 months, outpacing the job destruction experienced in the early Bush years by more than 800,000 jobs.

Campaign Fodder

For Obama, there is an even worse way to play the data, which might just become fodder for a political ad: From November 2008, the month he was elected, until now, the economy has shed an astonishing 4.4 million jobs. That’s worse than Hoover.

Sure, you can blame the first few months of that period on lame-duck President Bush. But perhaps companies accelerated their shedding of jobs because they were bracing for higher tax rates, increased union power and costly environmental taxes under Obama.

Other measurements are only slightly kinder to Obama. The two-percentage-point increase in unemployment rate during his presidency, to 9.7 percent from 7.7 percent, is the third-worst since World War II. Dwight Eisenhower and Gerald Ford saw bigger increases.

GDP growth under Obama, an abysmal 3 percentage points so far, is the fourth-worst in the postwar period. Eisenhower, Ford and Ronald Reagan all began their terms with worse GDP growth.

But hey, it was Kerry and the Democrats who made job creation the be-all and end-all measurement of a presidency, and by that standard, Obama is dredging a new low. It’s probably a good bet that Democrats who became so enamored of Hoover’s name in 2004 won’t be mentioning it much this year.

Republicans should be willing to drop it too — so long as some economic adviser to Kerry-Edwards ‘04 admits the campaign was wrong to bring up Herbert Hoover in the first place.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

So if you want to see the case that Barack Obama is the worst president in history, don’t bother reading what conservatives say; just listen to Democrats own rhetoric from just a few years ago.

This article’s findings as to just what a disaster Obama has been even measuring by the Democrats’ own standards does not include the recent information that Obama’s mortgage modification program has totally failed in every way imaginable, and that sales of new homes has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded? It was the mortgage industry that created the 2008 collapse – and Obama has done nothing but make a black hole of crisis even worse.

I can’t even imagine how shrilly the Democrats would have decried those facts had they occurred during the Bush years.

And, to go on, you want to talk about a president’s ability to handle a national disaster such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, day 64?  No matter how bad you want to say Bush was regarding Hurricane Katrina, Bush is now widely recognized to have done a far superior job.  How about war fighting?  Bush won in Iraq; Obama is floundering enormously in Afghanistan.

Basically, by whatever metric you want to use, Obama is the biggest disgrace to ever occupy the White House.

If this doesn’t prove that Democrats are a) pathological demagogues and b) completely unfit to govern, what possibly could?

Obama Wants To Know ‘Whose Ass To Kick.’ Tell Him To Start With His OWN

June 8, 2010

Obama falsely presented himself as a great unifier, a “new politician,” one who would transcendentally rise above petty bickering and usher us into a new Utopia.

And remember all that garbage about Obama pointing to his election as the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal?

The only problem is that he was in reality never anything more than a petty demagogue.  He’s a community organizer, and all that community organizers know how to do is racially divide communities and boycott businesses that create jobs and produce wealth.

Listen to the audio of Obama’s contemptibly arrogant boasts while watching footage of pelicans desperately floundering to somehow stay alive in the billions of gallons of oil contaminating the coasts.

And as Americans rightly blame Obama’s federal government more and more for this disaster, that demagogue is coming out to bite.

From the AP:

VENICE, La/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama said he wanted to know “whose ass to kick” over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, adding to the pressure on energy giant BP Plc as it sought to capture more of the leak from its gushing well.

“I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answer so I know whose ass to kick,” Obama said in an interview with NBC News’ “Today” to air on Tuesday.

They were the angriest words yet about the catastrophe from Obama, who has been criticized for his response to the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Obama reiterated that all those affected should be adequately compensated.

Why don’t you start by kicking your own ass, Obama?  And give it a good, hard kick right out of the office you are clearly not qualified to hold.

A Washington Post/ABC poll found that 69 percent of Americans believe the government had done a “not so good” or “poor” job handling the spill. Just over 1,000 people were surveyed in the poll, conducted between June 3 and 6.

Which is another way of saying, “Hey Obama, you suck!!!”

The American people think you should kick your own damn lying weaselly scrawny ass.

And here’s another little factoid via ABC:

A month and a half after the spill began, 69 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll rate the federal response negatively. That compares with a 62 negative rating for the response to Katrina two weeks after the August 2005 hurricane.

Which is to say you are now officially a bigger failure over the Gulf disaster than George Bush was over Hurricane Katrina, Obama.  Please wear the title of Worst President EVER” proudly.

You really want to know whose ass to kick, Obama?  I cite myself from a previous article, and that is hardly all the reasons to blame Obama:

Barack Obama took more money from British Petroleum than any politician over a twenty year period.  In spite of the fact that he had only been in national politics for less than three years.  Barack Obama’s administration approved the project and granted the permit for the doomed BP drilling site.  Barack Obama’s administration helped quash environmental problems and issued an environmental waiver to BP at said doomed site only days before the disaster.  Barack Obama failed to take the disaster seriously and delayed serious action for weeks, fiddling with fundraisers, golf outings, and vacations while the Gulf went to hell.  The Obama administration has continued to delay and waste time pursuing the dotting of the i’s and the crossing of the t’s regarding mindless bureaucratic inanities.

That’s hardly all the reasons to point out that Obama bears a massive amount of responsibility for this disaster, or that he has been a complete failure in responding to the disaster.  And even many liberals are realizing the scope of Obama’s failure.

Instead of idly speculating whose ass you should be kicking, why don’t you resign from office, so someone who knows what the hell he’s doing can instead actually lead us to an actual solution to this terrible crisis???

We will have our chance to kick Obama’s ass in November.

Update, June 9, 2010:

The Looking Spoon suggests that an Obama official help Obama decide whose ass should be kicked first by means of a mirror:

And Bill Kristol had a magnificent point to make about Obama calling meetings of experts so he could decide whose ass to kick:

The best thing about his statement is not really that I’m — excuse the vulgarity, “I want to kick some ass, I’m angry.”  If the president said that, you’d say, fine, he’s angry. But I love his formulation that the reason I listen to these experts is that they have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.

He’s so professorial that he thinks you have to call a meeting of experts to decide whose ass to kick. Don’t most politicians, most executives just decide that at some point, I’m going to go get mad and they don’t have the meetings experts in the Roosevelt Room to decide who to get mad at.

It had not yet occurred to me that I had never needed a room full of bureaucrats to decide whose ass I should kick until Kristol pointed that common sense out to me.  I’m just glad I wasn’t drinking milk when I heard this.

Bush Katrina Economy Obama Haiti Economy

January 18, 2010

Yesterday on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos substitute host Jake Tapper interviewed Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Bush could not have been more gracious in praising Obama’s relief efforts.

In other words, he didn’t try to do to Obama what Obama and the Democrats so viciously did to him.

And I couldn’t help but wonder: if Democrats believed their own crap about Bush and Katrina, why on earth would they be asking George Bush to lead an effort for Haitian relief now?

It has now been six days since the earthquake that destroyed Haiti.  Obama promised an unprecedented massive effort to provide emergency relief.

Has it been organized well?

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. relief effort after the Haiti earthquake started too slowly and cautiously, says a retired general who led the military relief effort on the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

“The next morning after the earthquake, as a military man of 37 years service, I assumed … there would be airplanes delivering aid, not troops, but aid,” said retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who coordinated military operations after disaster struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. “What we saw instead was discussion about, ‘Well we’ve got to send an assessment team in to see what the needs are.’ And anytime I hear that, my head turns red.”

The problem, Honore told USA TODAY, is that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, instead of the military, take the lead in international disaster response.

“I was a little frustrated to hear that USAID was the lead agency,” he said. “I respect them, but they’re not a rapid deployment unit.”

USAID immediately dispatched an assessment team and search-and-rescue teams, but there has still not been widespread distribution of food or water, three days after the Haiti earthquake.

Let’s file that as a ‘no’.

Very little in the way of actual lifesaving supplies had gone out as of the time of that article.  Has that situation improved?

Yesterday, ABC’s Tapper pointed out:

But it’s five days later, and still a lot of the relief effort, a lot of the aid has not gotten to the people who need it most.”

An exchange between Tapper and Raddatz:

So how about it, Martha? Is the relief effort getting to those who need it most?

RADDATZ: Well, we actually went with a convoy, one truckload of supplies yesterday. We arrived really early in the morning, expecting to track this truck, come back, and go out with another truck. It took us five-and-a-half hours to get these supplies where they were needed.

General Keen, the military commander, said that 70,000 bottles of water and 130,000 food rations had been handed out Saturday – four days after the disaster!  70,000 bottles of water for 3.5 MILLION people in need.  They needed 10 million bottles of water a day.

Let’s file that as another big ‘no.’

How many days did Bush get before Democrats hatefully and viciously attacked him?

Well, are they at least providing security for the relief supplies yet to come?

Another exchange during the ABC program between Jake Tapper and Martha Raddatz:

TAPPER: Speaking of chaos, Martha, we keep hearing about reports of sporadic violence. Where is the U.S. military in all this? Are they making attempts to secure the island?

RADDATZ: Absolutely not, Jake. They really aren’t. I keep hearing these numbers. There are about 4,200 American military supporting this mission, but mostly they’re out on the ships. They’re on the cutters. You’ve got the 82nd Airborne, not all of the 82nd Airborne, a brigade, about 3,500 soldiers are here. They’re expected to be here sometime next week. The Marines are not yet here, 2,200 Marines.

Jake Tapper pointed out to the US military commander for the region, General Keen, that:

General Keen, I’d like to go to you first. Martha Raddatz just reported that U.S. troops are not out there securing Haiti, even though there are sporadic outbursts of violence, some of them horrific. We heard a report of — in Petionville, a suburb of Port- au-Prince, a policeman handed over a suspected looter to an angry crowd. They stripped him, beat him, and set him on fire. We’ve also heard that some medical personnel are clearing the area because they don’t feel secure.

Sounds like another rather big ‘no’ vote.

I think I’ve amply proven the case that a week after the Haiti disaster a great deal separates what has been done from what could have been done.  I can’t help but remember how bitterly the left attacked Bush for the same failures following an unprecedented natural disaster.

This is what liberals would be saying about Barack Obama if they weren’t hypocrites: Barack Obama hates black people!!!  Barack Obama is creating a genocide of black people!!!

And Republican elected officials, if they were like Democrats, would be claiming accusing the Obama administration of “ethnic cleansing” in Haiti.

Because that’s how loathsome Democrats rolled just a few years back.  And yes, that’s right: the same Democrats who regard any criticism of Barack Obama as a form of blasphemy.

I was pointing that out last year during the Democrat National Convention when Democrats were STILL demonizing and demagoguing Bush for Hurricane Katrina.

The left ignored the fact that Hurricane Katrina was a supermassive disaster that simply overwhelmed the resources of the federal government regardless of who was in charge of it.  They ignored the fact that Bill Clinton hadn’t prepared New Orleans for such a disaster any better than George Bush did.  They ignored the fact that the heavily Democratic city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana had utterly failed to prepare, when such preparation should have been at the very core of their agenda.  They ignored details such as this:

The vultures of the venomous left are attacking on two fronts, first that the president didn’t do what the incompetent mayor of New Orleans and the pouty governor of Louisiana should have done, and didn’t, in the early hours after Katrina loosed the deluge on the city that care and good judgment forgot. Ray Nagin, the mayor, ordered a “mandatory” evacuation a day late, but kept the city’s 2,000 school buses parked and locked in neat rows when there was still time to take the refugees to higher ground. The bright-yellow buses sit ruined now in four feet of dirty water.

They ignored everything but their ideological agenda and the political axe-to-grind they had in their hands to swing at George Bush with.

And the propagandistic mainstream media helped them do it.

The same media that basically demanded that George Bush push a button and FIX New Orleans have gone out of their way to make excuses for the numerous failures in Haiti under Obama.

What is funny is that it was largely the attacks against Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina that led to the Democrat takeover of the House and the Senate in 2006.

Unemployment was 4.7% when the Democrats took over Congress.  It was 4.7% when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid assumed their respective majority leadership positions.  They have been in control of Congress ever since: and what is unemployment at now?

The Democrat Party/lamestream media narrative is that Bush was responsible for the economic meltdown because it happened during his watch.  There was never once a mention that it happened during Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s watch.  Because that particular narrative doesn’t fit their agenda.

George Bush called for reform of the housing finance market 17 times in 2008 alone — and Democrats ignored him.  They had been blocking his every effort to prevent disaster ever since Bush first tried to do so beginning in 2003.  At that time, Democrat Barney Frank led the effort to block reform, saying:

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

George Bush and John McCain repeatedly warned that if we didn’t address the situation, we would suffer a financial collapse.

John McCain wrote an urgent letter in 2006 that read:

These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs—and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns.

In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

John McCain signed another letter that ended with these words:

With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

Substantial testimony calling for improved regulation of the GSEs has been provided to the Senate by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, HUD, GAO, CBO, and others. Congress has the opportunity to recommit itself to the housing mission of the GSEs while at the same time making sure the GSEs operate in a manner that does not expose our financial system, or taxpayers, to unnecessary risk. It is vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that these institutions benefit from strong and independent regulatory supervision, operate in a safe and sound manner, and are primarily focused on their statutory mission. More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event either GSE should fail. We strongly support an effort to schedule floor time this year to debate GSE regulatory reform.

And they DID fail.  They massively, massively failed.

Only about a month before the whole system crashed, Barney Frank went on the record and said this:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”

They sure were, you fat, miserable, loathsome, obscene, disgusting, slobbering, lying toad.

The top three headlines under the Google search “Fannie Mae collapse”:

Freddie, Fannie Scam Hidden in Broad Daylight

Financial Markets Reeling from Fannie & Freddie Collapse and Evitable Government Bailout

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Too big not to fail

But as our economy exploded along with the boondoggle housing finance market artificially sustained by Fannie and Freddie, the Democrats demagogued the Republicans.  And the lamestream media duly reported it as though it were all the liberal’s-god-socialist-big-government’s truth.

And thus you see how the liberal demagoguery surrounding Hurricane Katrina led to the liberal demagoguery surrounding the economic collapse.

And it just never stops.

The Obama White House has been rather shamelessly politicizing the Haitian earthquake disaster to bolster up its low support.

And even when Obama abandons Haiti to go to Massachusetts to prop up Democrat Martha Coakley’s failing candidacy, Democrats manage to demagogue over Haiti.

Bill Clinton, the Obama-appointed special envoy for Haiti, didn’t bother to go there, but focused on what was far more important: Martha Coakely’s election bid in Massachusetts.

Someone asked Bill Clinton about that, and he said that relief for Haiti and the election of Martha Coalkey in Massachusetts were “just two sides of the same coin.” The blatant and breathtaking politicization is mindboggling!!!

What would the mainstream media be saying about Republican George Bush literally turning his back on a disaster to fly north to Massachusetts to campaign for a Republican – bringing us special envoy to Haiti to do so with him – rather than turn south to deal with the Haiti disaster?  What would these demagogues who deceitfully call themselves “journalists” have said?

Even if you’re a liberal, you’re not stupid enough to realize that the media would have unleashed hell on earth to attack George Bush for such a partisan political act of abandonment.

And that’s what I’m really getting at.  The double standard between treatment of Democrats and Republicans is so massive it is positively unreal.  Obama can screw up every which way and the media will let it pass; Bush could hit a homerun and the media would declare it a foul ball and then attack him for his incredibly poor swing.

Meanwhile, of course, millions of Haitians are suffering, and not getting helped.

Just as millions of Americans are suffering, and not getting helped.

Meanwhile, the news media largely continues to spin the economy positively, even as more jobs were lost under Obama in 2009 than for any president in any year since 194o.

Update January 29:

HUMAN TRAFFICKING, FOOD RIOTS AND LACK OF MEDICINE PLAGUE HAITI
John G. Winder , The Cypress Times
Published 01/29/2010 – 10:28 a.m. CST

Mass graves. Tent cities.More than 90% of the nation’s structures damaged or destroyed. No food.Amputees and orphans left to fend for themselves.  Nearly all of the businesses gone.  No employment.  Yet it still gets worse for the people of Haiti.

Haiti’s Prime Ministery, Jean-Max Bellerive told CNN that he is receiving reports of children being stolen and trafficked as slaves, sex slaves and for the purpose of having their organs harvested to be sold.

“There is organ trafficking for children and other persons also, because they need all types of organs,” Bellerive said.

UNICEF is also reporting that children are being taken from hospitals by traffickers.

Had this happened under George Bush, with these results, the lamestream media would be attacking Bush as the most evil man since Hitler and the most incompetent buffoon since God created incompetent buffoons.

Just pointing out the obvious truth.

Kudos To Obama For Accurately Describing Kanye West

September 15, 2009

I am a conservative, a Republican, and am proud to call myself a critic of virtually everything President Obama does.

But when a man tells it like it is, I’m willing to stand with him.

And Barack Obama told it like it was when he called Kanye West a “jackass” the other night.

President’s opinion of Kanye West sparks debate

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer David Bauder, Ap Television Writer

NEW YORK – President Barack Obama’s candid thoughts about Kanye West are provoking a debate over standards of journalism in the Twitter age.

ABC News says it was wrong for its employees to tweet that Obama had called West a “jackass” for the rapper’s treatment of country singer Taylor Swift. The network said some of its employees had overheard a conversation between the president and CNBC’s John Harwood and didn’t realize it was considered off the record.

The network apologized to the White House and CNBC.

Harwood had sat down with the president to tape an interview following his appearance on Wall Street on Monday. Although they are competitors, CNBC and ABC share a fiber optic line to save money, and this enabled some ABC employees to listen in on the interview as it was being taped for later use.

Their attention was drawn to chatter about West, who was widely criticized for interrupting Swift as she accepted an award at Sunday’s MTV Video Music Awards to say that Beyonce deserved it.

During what sounds like informal banter before the interview begins, Obama is asked whether his daughters were annoyed by West’s hijacking of Swift’s acceptance statement, according to an audio copy that was posted on TMZ.com.

“I thought that was really inappropriate,” Obama says. “What are you butting in (for)? … The young lady seems like a perfectly nice person. She’s getting her award. What’s he doing up there?”

A questioner chimes in, “Why would he do it?”

“He’s a jackass,” Obama replies, which is met with laughter from several people.

The president seems to quickly realize he may have gone too far, and jovially appeals to those assembled that the remark be kept private. “Come on guys,” he says. “Cut the president some slack. I’ve got a lot of other stuff on my plate.”

E-mails shot around among ABC employees about Obama’s comments, said Jeffrey Schneider, ABC News spokesman. Before anything was reported on ABC’s air or Web site, at least three network employees took to Twitter to spread the news.

One was Terry Moran, a former White House correspondent. He logged on to Twitter and typed: “Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a ‘jackass’ for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT’S presidential.”

When ABC News authorities found out about it, they had the tweets deleted after about an hour, Schneider said. Moran declined a request to comment.

Now, I can’t help but ask if ANY of the mainline journalists would have stumbled over themselves to erase traces of a hasty, off-the-cuff, and potentially embarassing remark by, let’s say, President George W. Bush.

I just don’t see the ABC authorities coming around and saying, “The President wants us to do WHAT?  Well, of course!  His wish is our command” if said president’s hankies born the gold-threaded initials “GWB.”  Or for that matter “GHWB” or “RWR.”

So, I might dump on the media over this matter, but not Barack Obama.

Kanye West is a jackass.  What’s more, Kanye West has been a jackass for years.  He was certainly a jackass when he said that President Bush didn’t care about black people during the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

If someone else wants to condemn Obama’s comment as being “unpresidential,” that’s their business.  It’s quite possible that many of our previous presidents would have caught themselves before making such a comment in front of the public.  But this is one conservative who applauds Barack Obama for taking the side of truth (at least this one time) and showing some well-merited outrage over some truly loathsome conduct.

I’m sure I’ll be shooting at you soon, Barry.  But, tonight, I got your back on this one.

And if you were watching that program with your daughters, and you were thinking like a father when Kanye West snatched that microphone away from a young Taylor Swift, then even MORE kudos to you.