Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
On the “Tonight Show” with Jimmy Fallon, First Lady Michelle Obama explained that it was more important than ever for young people older than 26 to sign up for health insurance.
“A lot of young people think they’re invincible, but the truth is young people are knuckleheads,” she laughed, pointing out that they often cut themselves while cooking or injure themselves by dancing on bar stools.
Obama added that thanks to Obamacare, coverage for young people was much cheaper.
What do young people need? They need to experience what socialism truly is: the redistribution of wealth. And they need to experience why it is EVIL: by being the ones who suffer from it instead of benefitting from it.
If we did this with organ harvesting, and one group of people always benefitted with better health and longer lives while other people had their parts cut out and died, you might think it was a good thing – provided it was OTHER PEOPLE’S ORGANS and you were the one benefitting. But let’s imagine the federal organ thugs finally came after YOU. Suddenly it wouldn’t be so damn wonderful anymore, would it???
But let’s just remember something, “You didn’t build that.” If you studied hard when other kids were outside playing, went to college when other young people were shortsightedly dropping out for dead-end jobs, studied and got good grades while the stupid kids who did go to college were partying like there was no tomorrow, worked hard while other people played hard, scrimped and saved to buy your own business while other people were buying quads and boats and toys, took a chance to believe in yourself enough to start your own business when other people were playing it safe, worked eighty hours a week when other people were bitching about working even with all the damn exclusions of their damn union agreements, and actually BUILT your own business while other people were sitting on their lazy asses, just remember: OBAMA made you what you are. It was by Obama’s godlike greatness and NOT by your own hard work and creativity.
If you have any pride in yourself at ALL, ANY confidence whatsoever in YOUR OWN abilities and willingness to work to get ahead, YOU DIDN’T BUILD OBAMA.
It was lazy, loafing parasitic LOSERS and naïve, gullible moral idiots who built Obama. And it’s long past time to tear him down while there’s still an America left to rebuild.
I remember the immortal words of Richard Pryor when he described the attitude of a Chinese restaurant: “You order shit, you EAT shit!”
And now these finally older and wiser young people are “knuckleheads.”
Congratulations, young people. You’re finally going to get your chance to “grow up” and suffer for your stupidity and idiocy in 2008 and then incredibly AGAIN in 2012. Now it’s time to get used to your life SUCKING because Obama REDISTRIBUTED what made it worth living.
Congratulations, young people. You finally will get a chance to grow up and be treated like enemies of the state by the fascist you voted for. You finally understand the fascist essence that is the Obamas. If you aren’t with them, you are an enemy who has to be ridiculed and ultimately demonized.
Congratulations, young people. You finally get a chance to understand the logic of liberalism: you need our giant government State and if you don’t want it you are either too stupid or too evil to understand that we’re from the Government as God and we’re here to help you.
Actually, that might come across as a “hopeful” note (with young people finally growing up) and I’m no longer hopeful.
Young people now represent everything that is immoral and depraved and pathetic and weak about this country. Let me explain why:
It was young people who elected Obama. Aside from blacks they were THE largest percentage bloc who elected Obama. And who ARE these people? They are vile, self-absorbed hypocrites just like liberal labor unions and Democrat politicians. They want all this socialist crap that makes people suffer – as long as it makes OTHER people suffer. But like all Democrats, of whom the quintessential essence is hypocrisy and selfishness and envy of other people, the moment THEYhave to pay for what they voted for, they rebel. Because they are BAD people.
Decent people would never have voted for this fascist liar in the first place. But bad people – and that very much includes young people – are like pigs who can be trusted to eventually roll in their own filth and vote Democrat again. Because they are narcissistic liars and narcissistic liars always trust liars who tell them what they want to hear rather than what is true.
Michelle Obama gave a nice speech, I’m sure (I preferred to gag myself with a giant spoon to watching it, but that’s another story).
I have to admit that as I was really choking on that damn spoon, there was a point when it actually occurred to me that maybe listening to Michelle’s speech might be more fun.
Having heard some of her top lines, I now know that I made the right choice gagging on that damn spoon.
“I love that for Barack, there is no such thing as “us” and “them” – he doesn’t care whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or none of the above…he knows that we all love our country…and he’s always ready to listen to good ideas…he’s always looking for the very best in everyone he meets.”
I mean, holy crap. Barry Hussein loves us all the same? Seriously???
Her whole task was to say why. And her answer was,“Why? Because essentially he’s a saint.”
Because of his upbringing and because of his emotions and because of his humanity. He does of this because he cares. And the brilliance of it is this: It drained Obama of any, either, ideological motivation, or any having to do with self interest or ambition, which I think is sort of a more plausible explanation.
He’s a man highly who is liked and highly ideological. A man of the left who sees the role of the government as ordering, the reorderering, of society in a way to make it more just, as he understands it . And also, extremely ambitious. A self made man who makes himself out of nothing, rises out of nowhere. But all of that, in her telling, doesn’t even exist. The only reason he does what he does, he cares about women, he cares about immigrants, he cares about the poor. He cares about the unemployed. He cares, he cares, he cares.
She told the story of a Gandhi. And, you know, looking at the scene, looking at how he’s conducted himself in the presidency and particularly in the campaign, with ruthlessness and determination and drive, it’s not quite a plausible story. I’m sure in the arena, it was a plausible story. I saw the tears, but I’m afraid, I thought it was a great speech, but I didn’t buy a line of it.
Krauthammer was being too kind. Michelle wasn’t implying that Obama was any mere saint. The Obamas are far too grandiose in their narcissism to settle for such mendacity. She was letting us know that Barack is our messiah, our Jesus. And “black Jesus” – as Obama campaign manager David Axelrod calls him – loves us all the same. Because he’s a messiah, he’s a god, and he’s just that much better than you are, you trifling mortal.
Street vendors across downtown Charlotte are selling posters and artwork depicting President Obama as Jesus Christ and the Democratic National Convention is expected to feature a stained-glass window backdrop during their meeting.
One poster features an image of the president in prayer with the headline, “Prophecy Fulfilled.”
“Barak is of Hebrew origin and its meaning is ‘flash of lightning,” the poster notes, referencing a passage in in the Old Testament book of Judges.
Hussein, they allege, is a Biblical word meaning “good and handsome.”
“So you see, Barak was destined to be a good and handsome man that would rise like a flash of lightning to win victory in a battle against overwhelming odds,” the poster read.
The posters were being sold outside security zones at the Democratic National Convention. The posters are not sanctioned by the DNC.
An Obama calendar, obtained by Fox News, features two religious images of the Commander-in-Chief.
The month of August includes a photograph of Obama’s birth certificate with the words “Heaven sent.”
The president was born on Aug. 4th.
The entry also includes a photograph of Obama along with a passage of Scripture from the New Testament.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” the entry read — referencing John 3:16.
The month of November includes an image of individuals with their hands on Obama’s back — with the words “The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want.”
Fox News also obtained a photograph of a DNC stage design. It resembled a giant stained glass window. It’s unclear what the imagery will be used for.
The comparisons to Jesus Christ have brought strong condemnation from some evangelicals — including Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX.
“If Barack Obama is the promised Messiah, I think there are going to be many Christians who are profoundly disappointed,” Jeffress told Fox News. “One only has to look at Obama’s record to understand that he is absolutely, positively not the promised One.”
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama: “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
** Obama: “I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am.”
** Obama: “It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers”
** Obama: “We’re going to punish our enemies”
** Obama: “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”
Since there’s no “us and them” when it comes to Barack Obama, I am counting on Obama to look at his audience of Democrats tomorrow night and say, “You aren’t the kind of folks who represent our core American values.” Because it sure seemed to be pretty damned “us” and “them” when Obama said that about Republicans.
Glad I chose to gag on that spoon. Because lies make me a lot more nauseous than any stupid spoon could.
“I guess it’s more interesting to imagine this conflicted situation here and a strong woman. But that’s been an image that people have tried to paint of me since the day Barack announced. That I’m some angry black woman.”
Asked how she deals with that image, Mrs. Obama said “I just try to be me.” — Michelle Obama
Hey, Michelle, as you trot out the race card to demonize your critics, I’d just like to suggest the very real possibility that your problem is that you ARE an “angry black woman.”
You know, the kind of lifelong angry, bitter woman who would say something like this:
And, of course, this story is about the debilitating friction between this “angry black woman” – who the last time I checked had NOT been elected as president yet – and the professional staff that were doing a pretty piss poor job even BEFORE Michelle in her role of a lifetime as “Lady Macbeth” started interfering with them and undermining them.
Michelle Obama was privately fuming, not only at the president’s team, but also at her husband.
In the days after the Democrats lost Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in January 2010, Barack Obama was even-keeled as usual in meetings, refusing to dwell on the failure or lash out at his staff. The first lady, however, could not fathom how the White House had allowed the crucial seat, needed to help pass the president’s health care legislation and the rest of his agenda, to slip away, several current and former aides said.
To her, the loss was more evidence of what she had been saying for a long time: Mr. Obama’s advisers were too insular and not strategic enough. She cherished the idea of her husband as a transformational figure, but thanks in part to the health care deals the administration had cut, many voters were beginning to view him as an ordinary politician.
The first lady never confronted the advisers directly — that was not her way — but they found out about her displeasure from the president. “She feels as if our rudder isn’t set right,” Mr. Obama confided, according to aides.
Rahm Emanuel, then chief of staff, repeated the first lady’s criticisms to colleagues with indignation, according to three of them. Mr. Emanuel, in a brief interview, denied that he had grown frustrated with Mrs. Obama, but other advisers described a grim situation: a president whose agenda had hit the rocks, a first lady who disapproved of the turn the White House had taken, and a chief of staff who chafed against her influence. […]
But that spring, Mrs. Obama made it clear that she thought her husband needed a new team, according to her aides. When the president decided to deliver a lofty speech about overhauling immigration laws in June 2010, even though there was no legislation on the table and the effort could hurt vulnerable Democrats, Mr. Emanuel objected. Aides did not produce the speech he wanted and the president stayed up much of the night rewriting — but the address drew a flat reception. Mr. Obama was irritated, two advisers said, and told Ms. Jarrett to keep an eye on other top staff members to make sure that they delivered what he wanted.
Several West Wing aides said they had heard secondhand that Mrs. Obama was angry about the incident. Later, they said they wondered: was the president using his wife to convey what he felt?…
But at Mr. Emanuel’s 7:30 a.m. staff meeting the next day, Ms. Jarrett announced that the first lady had concerns about the White House’s response to the book, according to several people present. All eyes turned to Mr. Gibbs, who started to steam.
“Don’t go there, Robert, don’t do it,” Mr. Emanuel warned.
“That’s not right, I’ve been killing myself on this, where’s this coming from?” Mr. Gibbs yelled, adding expletives. He interrogated Ms. Jarrett, whose calm only seemed to frustrate him more. The two went back and forth, Ms. Jarrett unruffled, Mr. Gibbs shaking with rage. Finally, several staff members said, Mr. Gibbs cursed the first lady — colleagues stared down at the table, shocked — and stormed out.
This is, to my knowledge, the first administration with THREE chiefs of staff. So far. And all of them being appointed in a single term. And there is clearly a very angry black woman behind some of that mess, isn’t there? Maybe we should rename the position “Chump of Staff” after you get through shredding them.
So let’s say we don’t call you an “angry black woman” – and I don’t think anyone of note did until you started calling yourself that to score pity points with your “race card well-played” demagoguery. Let’s say instead we call you a “privately fuming black woman.”
But while we’re on the subject of “angry black women,” let’s recount a few other angry black women who got a face full of hell from the hypocrite elite media establishment; women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. And of course women like Margaret Thatcher.
Reporting from London — The face peering from the ads and posters belongs to Meryl Streep, but the shadow that hovers over the land is definitely Margaret Thatcher’s.
The reaction to the film “The Iron Lady” has illuminated just how polarizing “Mrs. T.” (or “TBW” — “that bloody woman”) remains a generation after her ouster from 10 Downing St.
Love her or hate her — and there are plenty of people on both sides — it seems that hardly anyone here can watch the movie without their personal feelings entering into it.
Put Sam Fogg in the “hate” camp.
“It’s not possible for anyone who’s lived in the Thatcher era to see it objectively,” the 57-year-old art dealer said after a recent screening in London. “I didn’t like it — it was a hagiography…. It didn’t show a lot of her economic and social policies that turned the country into the selfish modern England we live in now.”
The film, which features Streep as Thatcher in a bravura performance as Britain’s only female prime minister, is stirring up extra passion because it offers the British a look at their past just as they appear to be repeating it.
After a long hiatus, Britain is once again being ruled by Thatcher’s Conservative Party, led by politicians who grew up under her 1979-90 premiership and who consider themselves heirs to her small-government, free-enterprise ideology. In a drive to slash public spending, officials have embarked on a series of stinging budget cuts as deep as any she ever ordered.
The unemployment rate, which soared during her first years as prime minister, is now at its highest since 1994. Like Thatcher, Prime Minister David Cameron is sparring with Britain’s unions and with Europe, the Tories’ perennial boogeyman. And for good measure, riots erupted across England in August, just as race riots shook Britain not long after Thatcher came to power.
The sense of political deja vu has only sharpened the fault lines that Thatcher opened and that still run through British society.
To her admirers, she will always be the forceful leader who, blue eyes flashing and handbag swinging, dragged Britain out of its socialist torpor and restored the country’s swagger. Like Republicans who eagerly wrap themselves in the mantle of her contemporary and political soul mate, Ronald Reagan, many Conservatives here still invoke her name and zealously defend her reputation and legacy as arguably Britain’s most dominant prime minister of the 20th century after Winston Churchill.
Cue the loud sniping at “The Iron Lady’s” portrayal of Thatcher as a frail octogenarian suffering from dementia, even though Thatcher is a frail octogenarian suffering from dementia.
One of her former Cabinet ministers denounced it as “ghoulish”; another declared that she was never the “half-hysterical, over-emotional” woman shown in the movie.
“It’s a fantastic piece of acting by Meryl Streep, but you can’t help wondering, why do we have to have this film right now?” Cameron complained to the BBC. “It is a film much more about aging and elements of dementia rather than about an amazing prime minister.”
Cameron, who was 12 when Thatcher assumed the office he holds now, has steered away from describing himself as an out-and-out Thatcherite, preferring to cast himself as a new-model Tory.
“The Conservatives have a more, if you like, human face in David Cameron,” said Jon Tonge, a political scientist at the University of Liverpool. “But I wouldn’t say the policies are that different from Margaret Thatcher’s.”
On the other side, many of Thatcher’s detractors still regard her as a monster who promoted heedless individualism and who once famously declared there was “no such thing as society,” a creed they believe the current government is gleefully pursuing.
For them, the Thatcher years are a wound that not only never healed but has gotten worse. They too dislike the film’s portrait of Thatcher as a doddering old woman who has imaginary conversations with her dead husband, not because they prefer to see her in her prime but because it humanizes a woman they still consider the devil.
“You only have to say her name, and people express the most vehement opinions,” the film’s director, Phyllida Lloyd, told the Guardian newspaper. “I’ve met friends who have said, ‘I’m going to be very torn about [your movie], because I made a pact with a friend at university that we would party on the day of her death.'”
Internet forums, left-wing journals and radio call-in shows seethe with still-undimmed rage from Thatcher loathers who seem unable, or unwilling, to separate Lloyd’s work of cinematic art from its subject.
“How can anyone make a star out of this evil woman?” one listener emailed a radio call-in show. “If you look at England today, you can trace most of our problems back to her.”
Hey Michelle, how about if you wait until a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity depicts you as a crazed Lady Macbeth waving a bloody sword and your copy of Das Kapital around before you get your panties in a bunch over what very much appears to be a basically TRUE characterization of you?
You take a look at what the mainstream media and the Democrat Party did to conservative women and you seriously need to do a whole lot less talking and a whole lot more shutting the hell up.
Nothing screams “angry black woman” more loudly than playing the race card the moment you get confronted with some rather nasty facts about your disposition and the polarizing climate it is creating, fwiw.
And here we are again, with cockroaches I mean Democrats being cockroaches I mean Democrats.
Rep. Ryan was at a restaurant with a dinner party when out of the blue this vile professor comes over and goes ballistic at his table, creating a giant scene until she was thrown out on her ear for being so rude and hateful.
It would probably be better if the management simply asked people at the door what party they belonged to and blocked Democrats as haters BEFORE they barged in and started scenes, in my view.
The following article asks some pretty wonderful questions of this leftwing self-righteous hypocrite. I then have more piling on to do when Byron York gets done with this liberal turd:
Paul Ryan accuser won’t talk By:Byron York | Chief Political Correspondent Follow Him @ByronYork | 07/11/11 8:47 AM.
Susan Feinberg, an associate professor of management and global business at Rutgers University, caused a stir in the left-wing blogosphere over the weekend with her account of witnessing House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan drinking a glass of $350-a-bottle wine at an upscale restaurant near the Capitol. (Feinberg, who was at the restaurant, Bistro Bis, with her husband to celebrate her birthday, knew the wine was pricey because she could make out the name on the label and checked it on the wine list.) Feinberg confronted Ryan, accusing him of hypocrisy for drinking an expensive wine while advocating reduced spending for Medicare and Medicaid. But she didn’t stop there. Feinberg also suggested Ryan might be guilty of ethics violations, secretly snapped a photo of him and two dinner companions, and then took the “story” to Talking Points Memo, the lefty site which ran a high-profile piece suggesting Ryan might be guilty of some sort of wrongdoing.
Ryan told TPM that his two dinner-mates had ordered the wine, and that he, Ryan, didn’t know what it cost and drank only one glass. Ryan’s explanation was supported by TPM’s account, presumably based on Feinberg’s recollection, which said that when Feinberg confronted Ryan about the cost of his wine, “Ryan said only: ‘Is that how much it was?'”
Nevertheless, Feinberg and TPM hinted that Ryan might have violated House ethics rules by accepting an expensive meal from lobbyists. But it turned out that the two men with whom Ryan was dining were, as he said, economists and not lobbyists. Feinberg and TPM also suggested that Ryan might have violated House rules against accepting gifts in general. But it turned out that Ryan had paid for his meal and wine — Ryan even showed TPM his copy of the receipt, which TPM then posted on the web.
Having failed to catch Ryan in an act of wrongdoing, Feinberg and TPM accused him of hypocrisy. Ryan’s dining companions, one of whom was a wealthy hedge-fund manager, ordered two bottles of the $350 wine. Ryan, by his own account, drank one glass but nevertheless paid for one of the bottles. But the $700 wine bill outraged Feinberg and her husband, who were at the restaurant to celebrate her birthday. “We were just stunned,” she told TPM. “I was an economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out that those two bottles of wine was more [sic] than two-income working family making minimum wage earned in a week.” When she had finished her own meal, Feinberg confronted Ryan and angrily asked him “how he could live with himself” for drinking expensive wine while advocating cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Feinberg left the restaurant after management intervened.
In one brief and unpleasant moment, Ryan got a taste of 2012-style political combat in which everyone, everywhere is a potential opposition campaign tracker and there are plenty of press outlets ready to publish a tracker’s accusations.
On Saturday, I sent Feinberg an email asking a few questions about the incident and about her unhappiness with Ryan. First, the photo she snapped of Ryan and two men sitting a few tables away appeared to be taken from her own table, and on that table was a bottle of wine. (Feinberg told TPM that she and her husband had shared a “bottle of great wine.”) A check of the Bistro Bis wine list — in much the way that Feinberg did at the restaurant — shows that the wine was a Thierry et Pascale Matrot 2005 Meursault, which is $80 per bottle at Bistro Bis. Was that, in fact, Feinberg’s bottle of wine?
I asked Feinberg, an economist, what price constituted outrageous in her mind. Would she have been as upset if Ryan’s wine were $150 a bottle? Or $100 a bottle? Or perhaps $80 a bottle, like her own — which is, after all, more than a day’s labor for a worker making the minimum wage.
If the problem was not just the wine’s cost, then what other factors were involved in Feinberg’s anger? Was it because she thought Rep. Ryan was a hypocrite for drinking expensive wine while recommending reduced spending on Medicare and Medicaid? Was it because she believed Rep. Ryan was corrupt for drinking with two men she suspected were lobbyists? And finally, did Feinberg believe she behaved appropriately in the matter? Would it be appropriate for a conservative who felt strongly about, say, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, or Rep. Barney Frank, to do something similar to them under similar circumstances?
Feinberg’s response was brief: “I’m sorry. I have no comment on this.”
After the TPM story was published, a number of left-leaning websites picked up the tale. New York magazine wrote that Ryan has “$350, fiscally imprudent, fancypants” taste in wine. The Atlantic wrote that Ryan “is in the habit of drinking $350-a-bottle wine,” although the publication presented no evidence to support that contention. The Atlantic also expressed hope that the wine story would become as much of a political burden on Ryan as the $400 haircut was on former presidential candidate John Edwards.
Ryan himself is downplaying, but not avoiding, the matter. He answered questions from TPM, producing the receipt, but has said little else. When asked whether incidents like this might happen again in the future, with Democrats and Republicans engaged in mortal combat over federal spending, a person close to Ryan said only: “I would hope that it was just one woman who had a little too much to drink and had a little too much fire in her belly and just decided to cross a line. Paul is more than happy to have a debate and understands that people disagree with him, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do that.”
It turns out that this Professor Susan Feinberg worked on John Kerry’s campaign. The relevant facts about Senator John Kerry and his rich liberal activist wife occur near the end of this very recently written piece (again, Democrats are just hypocrites ALL the time; there’s literally ALWAYS something to prove it constantly going on):
Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.
Obama gave .4% of his income. In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity. When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.
And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER. Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.
And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen. Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts. There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes. There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes. There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht. There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family. And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill. And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.
And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix. Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering. She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.
These are the hypocrite vermin who constantly lecture us about how “the rich should pay their fair share.” And these slime certainly should. But of course, while they screech the Marxist screed of class warfare, they know that they’ve written the tax laws to benefit themselves and their supporters – to the extent they even bother to follow those tax laws that they demand everybody else follow to begin with.
“The audacity of indifference.”
You think these people don’t know their way around $350 bottles of wine the way you know the way to the bathroom in your own home?
Let’s get back to Susan Feinberg and the guy she thought deserved to be president. John Kerry’s wife is a filthy rich heiress who inhereited the Heinz fortune. But guess how much taxes she pays? She’s structured it so she actually pays less than the median American family. Did she HAVE to do that? Oh, no. She just wanted to screw you, the typical taxpayer, by using every possible gimmick to lessen her tax burden even while she self-righteously lectures everybody else about their “duty to pay more.” SHE could pay more, but she is a liberal, and ergo sum a hypocrite.
How about John Kerry himself? Well, John Kerry splurged on himself to buy a $7 million yacht. Not feeling any need to give American workers jobs, Kerry opted to buy his yacht in New Zealand. And then, not feeling any need to pay taxes, Kerry opted to moor his yacht in Rhode Island rather than in his own state of Massachusetts, so he could save $1/2 a million in tax. But that doesn’t stop him from lecturing everybody else.
A small government free market guy who believes people should be free to keep and spend their own money having a $350 bottle of wine is not hypocritical; a liberal who says the rich should pay more in taxes while welching on his or her own taxes is, by contrast, a quintessential hypocrite.
I’d say I was amazed at the chutzpah of a liberal who goes to dine at a high-end restaurant and then is appalled that a Republican would actually go to the same restautant. But I have long come to understand that the essential ingredient to liberalism is blatant abject hypocrisy. To put it in the context of her own story, “When she had finished her own pricey meal, she got up and rudely gave Paul Ryan a facefull of the hell her husband tragically has to live with every night of his life for daring to have a pricey meal.”
The Los Angeles Times print edition ran this story on July 2 under the considerably more Marxist headline, “Wealthy benefit from recovery as workers struggle“:
WASHINGTON (AP) — This is one anniversary few feel like celebrating.
Two years after economists say the Great Recession ended, the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s.
After previous recessions, people in all income groups tended to benefit. This time, ordinary Americans are struggling with job insecurity, too much debt and pay raises that haven’t kept up with prices at the grocery store and gas station. The economy’s meager gains are going mostly to the wealthiest.
Workers’ wages and benefits make up 57.5 percent of the economy, an all-time low. Until the mid-2000s, that figure had been remarkably stable — about 64 percent through boom and bust alike.
[…]
But if the Great Recession is long gone from Wall Street and corporate boardrooms, it lingers on Main Street:
— Unemployment has never been so high — 9.1 percent — this long after any recession since World War II. At the same point after the previous three recessions, unemployment averaged just 6.8 percent.
— The average worker’s hourly wages, after accounting for inflation, were 1.6 percent lower in May than a year earlier. Rising gasoline and food prices have devoured any pay raises for most Americans.
— The jobs that are being created pay less than the ones that vanished in the recession. Higher-paying jobs in the private sector, the ones that pay roughly $19 to $31 an hour, made up 40 percent of the jobs lost from January 2008 to February 2010 but only 27 percent of the jobs created since then.
[…]
Hard times have made Americans more dependent than ever on social programs, which accounted for a record 18 percent of personal income in the last three months of 2010 before coming down a bit this year. Almost 45 million Americans are on food stamps, another record.
[…]
Because the labor market remains so weak, most workers can’t demand bigger raises or look for better jobs.
“In an economic cycle that is turning up, a labor market that is healthy and vibrant, you’d see a large number of people quitting their jobs,” says Gluskin Sheff economist Rosenberg. “They quit because the grass is greener somewhere else.”
Instead, workers are toughing it out, thankful they have jobs at all. Just 1.7 million workers have quit their job each month this year, down from 2.8 million a month in 2007.
The toll of all this shows in consumer confidence, a measure of how good people feel about the economy. According to the Conference Board’s index, it’s at 58.5. Healthy is more like 90. By this point after the past three recessions, it was an average of 87.
How gloomy are Americans? A USA Today/Gallup poll eight weeks ago found that 55 percent think the recession continues, even if the experts say it’s been over for two years. That includes the 29 percent who go even further — they say it feels more like a depression.
Allow me to start with the second paragraph in the story:
“Two years after economists say the Great Recession ended, the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s.”
The weakest and most lopsided of any recovery since the 1930s, you say???
WHO WAS PRESIDENT IN THE 1930s? WHICH PARTY DOMINATED BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE IN THE 1930s?
And next let me ask you, “Are there any similarities between socialist Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt and socialist Democrat Barack Hussein Obama??? And the answer is, “HELL YES THERE ARE!!!”:
Which is to say, “This is the worst the U.S. economy has ever been since the LAST time we had a socialist just like FDR – and the mainstream media proudly hailed Obama as FDR and Obama’s as a NEW “New Deal.”
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
”Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. ”We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
[…]
”The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. ”Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”
And of course all the “experts” the mainstream media love to trot out have all bought hook, line and sinker the notion that capitalism is something to be loathed and feared. So they demand that America pursue asinine government stimulus policies that fail even by the “experts'” own standards, and then these same “experts” proceed to argue that the economy failing to recover somehow is proof that more of the same thing that already failed is necessary.
These “experts” whom the mainstream media give a loud microphone to to espouse their socialist views are pathologically incapable of seeing this connection between socialist policies and an economy in the doldrums. Every bit of negative economic news is invariably “unexpected” (liberals favorite adjective to wave a hand at bad economic developments whenever a Democrat president is in charge), because these “experts” cannot separate the inevitable results of their ideology from their terribly failed ideology. There has to be a disconnect, or more commonly, a scapegoat.
I think of the Soviet Union, which literally blamed the total failure of their entire political philosophy and the ruinous policies that philosophy entailed by claiming that their agricultural output had been adversely affected due to 72 years of bad weather. And the Soviet Union has gone the way of the Dodo bird for that very reason.
Is America under Obama the next Dodo bird to fall apart while we’re assured that everything is fine while some suitable scapegoat bears the blame for every failure that can’t be ignored???
It couldn’t be the fact that socialism is nothing more than state-planned economic failure. It had to be something else, ANYTHING else.
The Big Brother from the novel 1984 had Emmanuel Goldstein. The Big Brother who is now occupying our White House has George W. Bush.
The next obvious question to ask and answer is, “Why are the wealthy benefitting while the workers struggle?”
The answer is twofold: 1) because when you attack the employers, the first thing to go is the employees and 2) because that’s exactly how crony capitalism works.
There is a magnificent book entitled, New Deal Or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America, which should be required reading. Burton Folsom Jr. points out that when FDR structured his many policies and regulations that strangled economic growth, he did so in such a way that favored the big crony capitalist corporations at the expense of the smaller businesses that could no longer compete given the costly regulatory requirements. The smaller businesses were forced out of the market while the big businesses protected themselves with insider deals based on access to and influence with the government that only they could afford. And there is no question whatsoever that – even as FDR employed the class warfare of socialism – the rich got richer while the poor got poorer. Income tax revenues plunged as the wealthy sheltered their wealth from the high tax rates and the poor paid an increasingly high overall percentage of tax revenues via excise taxes. Regulations mandating higher pay for workers priced those workers right out of their jobs. Folsom provides the official data to back it up.
In 1929, prior to FDR demonizing the rich, income taxes accounted for 38% of total revenue collected, and corporate income taxes accounted for 43%. Excise taxes which burdened the poor only counted for 19% of revenues. By 1938, the rich and the corporations had protected themselves from FDR’s demagogic tax policies (but the poor couldn’t), such that the only 24% was collected in income taxes (versus 38%) and only 29% from corporate income taxes (versus 43%). Meanwhile the poor-punishing excise taxes (e.g. gasoline tax) soared from 19% to 47% of the total taxes collected. Meanwhile, when income taxes were kept low, the wealthy invariably paid FAR MORE in the total tax revenue as they put their money out to invest in and expand the economy in pursuit of the profits. And they created millions of jobs in doing so.
And the exact same mindset is yielding the exact same results ALL OVER AGAIN. Obama has put the fear of God (actually the fear of the Soviet-style STATE) into the wealthy and the corporations. They keep hearing Obama demagogue them, and they keep sheltering their money. And they will CONTINUE to keep doing that until the threat of Obama is gone. Just like they did with FDR.
That said, there is also a deliberate and fundamental misunderstanding of fascism by the left. If you read leftists, you come away thinking that somehow “fascism” is the takeover of a state by corporations. But stop and think: Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, Hess and all the other key Nazis WEREN’T corporate CEOs who took over the state; THEY WERE SOCIALIST POLITICIANS WHO TOOK OVER THE CORPORATIONS. They usurped the corporations and FORCED them to perform THEIR agenda. They either performed the Nazis’ will or they were simply taken away from their rightful owners and nationalized.
And to the degree that German crony capitalist corporations helped Hitler in his rise to power, THEY WERE JUST MORE USEFUL IDIOTS.
The same sort of takeover of German corporations by socialists is building in America. Take Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat, as the perfect example. What did she say of the oil companies?
“This liberal will be all about socializing … uh uh … would be about … basically … taking over … and the government running all of your companies.”
THAT’S what Hitler did, too. Hitler got this power through regulations that required corporations to do his bidding, just like Obama has now REPEATEDLY done.
I stand by that sweeping statement. People need to realize that “Nazi” stood for “National SOCIALIST German Workers Party,” and that both Nazi socialism and Soviet socialism were big government socialist tyrannies that failed their people. As to our own experiment with socialism here in the USA, I point out in an article that explains how “Government Sponsored Enterprises” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies led us into economic implosion in spite of warnings for YEARS prior to the 2008 economic collapse:
The timeline is clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were giant behemoths that began to stagger under their own corrupt weight, as even the New York Timespointed out:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so big — they own or guarantee roughly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market — that the thought that they might falter once seemed unimaginable. But now a trickle of worries about the companies, which has been slowly building for years, has suddenly become a torrent.
And it was FANNIE and FREDDIE that collapsed FIRST before ANY of the private investment banks, which collapsed as a result of having purchased the very mortgaged backed securities that the Government Sponsored Enterprises SOLD THEM. It wasn’t until Fannie and Freddie collapsed that investors began to look with horror at all the junk that these GSE boondoggles had been pimping.
The man who predicted the collapse in 1999 wrote a follow-up article titled, “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess.” It really should have read, “Blame DEMOCRATS.” Because they were crawling all over these GSEs that they had themselves created like the cockroaches they are. But Wallison is nonpartisan
That Chicago corruption extends right into Obama’s home, by way of his wife Michelle. This is a woman who sat on high-paying boards in direct quid-pro-quo consequences of Obama advancing in public office. And in some of those boards, she participated in the worst kind of hospital patient-dumping.
Here’s a video of Michelle Obama you ought to watch – if you can stand the revelations:
Too bad we voted to nationalize the Chicago Way.
I also pointed out that when you attacked employers, the ones who would be hit the most and the hardest would be EMPLOYEES.
Through the 12 months ended in March of last year, 505,473 new businesses started up in the U.S., according to the latest data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s the weakest growth since the bureau started tracking the data in the early 1990s. It’s down sharply from the record 667,341 new businesses added in the 12 months that ended in March 2006.
Many times large corporations will even lobby for more regulations for their own industry because they know that they can handle all of the rules and paperwork far easier than their smaller competitors can. After all, a large corporation with an accounting department can easily handle filling out a few thousand more forms, but for a small business with only a handful of employees that kind of paperwork is a major logistical nightmare.
When it comes to hiring new employees, the federal government has made the process so complicated and so expensive for small businesses that it is hardly worth it anymore. Things have gotten so bad that more small businesses than ever are only hiring part-time workers or independent contractors.
So what we actually have now is a situation where small businesses have lots of incentives not to hire more workers, and if they really do need some extra help the rules make it much more profitable to do whatever you can to keep from bringing people on as full-time employees.
And who do all these rules and regulations hurt the most but the very people Democrats cynically and deceitfully claim they are trying to help? Meanwhile, who does it help the most but the crony capitalist corporations who DON’T do most of the hiring in America who can profit from Obama’s war on business that results in the destruction of their small business competition.
A Slowdown for Small Businesses
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: June 14, 2011
In the latest sign that the economic recovery may have lost whatever modest oomph it had, more small businesses say that they are planning to shrink their payrolls than say they want to expand them.
That is according to a new report released Tuesday by the National Federation of Independent Business, a trade group that regularly surveys its membership of small businesses across America.
The federation’s report for May showed the worst hiring prospects in eight months. The finding provides a glimpse into the pessimism of the nation’s small firms as they put together their budgets for the coming season, and depicts a more gloomy outlook than other recent (if equally lackluster) economic indicators because this one is forward-looking.
While big companies are buoyed by record profits, many small businesses, which employ half of the country’s private sector workers, are still struggling to break even. And if the nation’s small companies plan to further delay hiring — or, worse, return to laying off workers, as they now hint they might — there is little hope that the nation’s 14 million idle workers will find gainful employment soon.
“Never in the 37-year history of our company have we seen anything at all like this,” said Frank W. Goodnight, president of Diversified Graphics, a publishing company in Salisbury, N.C. He says there is “no chance” he will hire more workers in the months ahead.
“We’re being squeezed on all sides,” he says.
So let me ask again the question that the Los Angeles Times phrased: “Why are the wealthy benefitting from the ‘recovery’ as workers struggle?
And the answer is simple: because Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are socialist who have destroyed the engine that creates the jobs that workers depend upon to flourish.
An interesting fact is that businesses are now forced to spend $1.7 TRILLION a year in regulatory compliance costs. That is a massive hidden tax on their viability; it exceeds the overt income taxes businesses have to pay, and it most certainly exceeds their profits. And right now Obama is attacking them via the Dodd-Frank regulatory legislation, via the EPA, via OSHA, via ObamaCare and via the ridiculous actions of the NLRB in addition to their tax burden. Just to name a few. The result is businesses terrified to expand and further place their necks under Obama’s axe blade.
Meanwhile, Obama’s socialist policies have not only devastated the worker by destroying his jobs, but they’ve ruined America on numerous other levels, too. Take the housing crisis – which was THE cause of the economic implosion of 2008. Did Obama make it better? Well, here’s a headline for you from CNBC: “US Housing Crisis Is Now Worse Than Great Depression.” Which is to say that Democrats – who first created the housing crisis by refusing to allow the regulation of their pet socialist wealth redistribution agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – took something awful and turned it into an American Dream-massacring nightmare.
The latest job figures simply further document my point: Obama is destroying America job by job. Not only did the unemployment rate go up to 9.2% (Obama promised the American people that the unemployment rate would be 7.1% by now if he got his massive government-spending stimulus); not only were the previous two month figures adjusted DOWNWARD by some 45,000 jobs; not only have a third of the unemployed been unemployed for at least a YEAR with fully half of the unemployed having been unemployed for over six months (which is unprecedented); not only did the economy create an incredibly dismal 18,000 jobs (versus the 100,000 the economists naively expected); but a quarter million more people simply walked away from the workforce entirely – abandoning any hope that Obama will do anything more than crush their hopes of finding a job.
Here are the lyrics to the vile loathsome crap that passes off as “poetry” to Barack and Michelle Obama:
A Letter to the Law
Dem boy wanna talk… [indistinguishable]
Whatcha gon do if ya got one gun?
I sing a song for the hero unsung
with faces on the mural of the revolution
No looking back cos’ in back is what’s done
Tell the preacher, god got more than one son
Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton
I walk like a warrior,
from them I won’t run
On the streets, they try to beat us like a drum
In Cincinnati, another brother hung
A guinea won’t see the sun
with his family stung
They want us to hold justice
but you handed me none
The same they did to Kobe and Michael Jackson
make them the main attraction
Turn around and attack them
Black gem in the rough
You’re rugged enough
Use your mind and nine-power, get the government touch
Them boys chat-chat on how him pop gun I got the black strap to make the cops run They watching me, I’m watching them
Them dick boys got a lock of cock in them
My people on the block got a lot of pok* in them and when we roll together we be rocking them to sleep
No time for that, because there’s things to be done
Stay true to what I do so the youth dream come
from project building
Seeing a fiend being hung With that happening, why they messing with Saddam? Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button Killing over oil and grease no weapons of destruction How can we follow a leader when this a corrupt one
The government’s a g-unit and they might buck young black people
Black people In the urban area one
I hold up a peace sign, but I carry a gun.
Peace, ya’ll.”
So let’s honor “poets” that say killing police is a good thing. Let’s honor a guy who said we should burn George Bush to death for the war in Iraq, etc.
I can imagine a “poet” writing a “poem” that “cleverly” connects the similarity in the names of Obama and Osama. And then “cleverly” suggest that Obama should share the same fate Osama just received.
And I imagine that there would probably be a market for garbage like that, masquerading as “art.” Because there are a lot of diseased minds in this country.
But here’s the difference: George and Laura Bush would not have had that filth corrupting their White House if they’d been president and first lady for a million billion years. And in this case the “diseased minds” belong to Barack and Michelle Obama.
I will never understand how Barack Obama can give one astonishingly hypocritical moral lecture after another, and then invite moral filth like this into the White House.
If a Republican President were to invite the “white” equivalent of this cockroach “Common,” the media would spend the rest of his presidency seeing page one stories about his racism.
For what it’s worth, this “Common” guy came out of Jeremiah Wright’s and Barack Obama’s Trinity United Church. Which is just one more illustration of what a moral sewer this synagogue of satan truly is.
“Common” also eulogized a convicted cop murderer (Assata Shakur) in a song titled, “A Song for Assata,” in which he said of her: “Your power and pride is beautiful. May God bless your soul.” Shakur, a violent racist Black Panther formerly known as Joanne Chesimard, was convicted for the 1973 slaying of Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike. She escaped prison in 1979, and is living in asylum in Cuba.
I shouldn’t even have to adress how vile it is to sing “inspirational” songs in celebration of something that evil. The only thing I can think of that would be more vile than that would be for a president and first lady to celebrate that kind of moral filth in the White House.
I have always said that Barack Hussein Obama is a genuinely evil man. It just keeping getting easier and easier for me to stand by that statement.
Liberals live in a world of massive hypocrisy and gigantic double standards. I think of how they demonized – and continue to demonize – the Tea Party movement as being violent and white. And then we saw what white liberals in Wisconsin were capable of. For the record, Tea Partiers NEVER threatened to molest a liberal politician’s kids; “obstructionist” “Party of No” Republicans NEVERleft their state because they were too undemocratic to vote; Tea Partiers NEVER smashed windows and rioted in political offices; and they most certainly NEVER caused $7 million in damage with their vandalism. But none of that matters when hypocrisy defines your entire ideology.
Obama gave less than 1% of his income a year to charity until he decided to run for president. But now this man who refused to give his own money even to charties he most strongly beleived in is a strong proponent of forcing others to give their money to a government they rightly increasingly despise. Being generous with other people’s money isn’t righteousness; it is wickedness. The man is a quintessential hypocrite.
Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wages, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!” (Revelation 6:6).
Messiah Obama wisely understands that we need sky high energy prices to force us to abandon lifestyles that are bad for the world. That way he can keep the promise he made to the earth: “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” The earth is much bigger than your little children, so Obama can break his competing promises to you and your family. In fact, your evil if you want him to keep his promises that would prevent him from his messianic duties of healing the whole world.
A gallon of gas was $1.79 when Obama took over from that terrible George Bush. Unfortunately, it has gone up about 110% under Obama, to $3.88 this week. Damn that Bush devil! Can you believe the way he actually wanted to keep the cost of our energy low, so people could do awful stuff like drive to work? The half of us who sponge off the other half don’t need work, so why should the half we sponge off of?
We already voted for the “hope and change” of $9 a gallon gas in the wonderful fundamentally transformative election of 2008. And how dare people get angry about that now!!!
Because Obama in his blessed wisdom knows that most Americans are far, far too stupid to understand anything that happens gradually, such as gas rising to the $8 a gallon levels like they are in Europe. And it doesn’t really matter how much the American people suffer. Not compared to healing earth and lowering the seas like Moses. Obama will be better than Moses; he’ll make the level of the whole ocean change!!!!
And food? So what if the price of food is going through the roof? Michelle Obama will tell you that you’re too fat anyway. You need to lose a whole lot of weight, and her husband’s policies will give you the help you need. You shouldn’t be allowed to eat half as much food as you eat, anyway. They don’t get to eat in North Korea, and it’s a socialist worker’s Utopia. So why should it be any different in the worker’s Utopia your Dear Leader is trying to create for you here? North Koreans are 5.3 inches (13.5 cm) shorter and 30 pounds (13.5 kg) lighter than those fat overfed capitalist South Korean bastards. And American kids should be as short and gaunt as their fellow socialist travellers.
I sure hope I’m not putting too much crap in the sandwich I’m feeding you. Because excrement is a precious commodity in North Korea. And it should be just as precious here.
But just in case you think the hope and change of Obama’s fundamental transformation is already more than you can bear, it gets even better. The cost of having a roof over your head is skyrocketing, too. Which might help you not worry so much about the price of food and the price of fuel.
Record numbers of Americans are paying more than half of their pretax income for rental housing, according to a new study.
The study, by the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, found that the recession’s toll on incomes had increased more families’ housing-cost burdens. Almost 26% of renters spend more than half of their income on rent and utilities. Another 26.2% spend 30% to 50% of their incomes.
The study’s findings are similar to the findings of the Center for Housing Policy, which found that working families, both renters and homeowners, were spending a larger proportion of their income on housing. [..]
Lower-income renters have historically struggled to find affordable housing and have paid a disproportionate share of their income in rent. But, according to the study, that problem is moving up the income ladder with more lower-middle-income renters and middle-income renters paying 30% to 50% of their incomes for rent and utilities. […]
The study offers the latest in a series of grim statistics about the scarcity of rental housing, especially for the working poor. The supply has not kept up with demand in part because of a shortage of apartments, a key source of new rentals. Developers cut back on such projects when the economy deteriorated in 2009, which drove down vacancies and boosted rents. Analysts say they expect rents to keep climbing as developers try to ramp up new projects and catch up with demand.
In many areas, the demand is driven by families who lost their homes to foreclosure during the housing bust and ended up searching for rentals. Meanwhile, as the job market recovers, more newly employed young adults appear to be seeking their own apartments instead of living with their parents, putting even more upward pressure on rental rates, according to one of the study’s researchers.
But don’t worry. Pretty soon, thanks to Obama’s financial policies, you’ll have cash. Lots and lots of cash. Wheelbarrows full of it, in fact.
Let’s start out with the story as told by uberlib Kate Sheppard:
A new report from the Governor’s Highway Safety Association is getting lots of press today because some reporters, rather bizarrely, have tried to blame the increase in pedestrian deaths in 2010 on First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign.
The reporters in question posit that perhaps the increase in the number of pedestrians struck by cars last year, after four years of decline, is because people are out exercising more, choosing to walk when possible instead of hopping in the car. TBD has a good post in which the GHSA’s executive director, Barbara Harsha, explaining that she never said that at all. The group isn’t sure exactly what caused the uptick in deaths—and they certainly can’t pin it on Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative.
Now, do I think for a single second that Michelle Obama’s initiative should be blamed for the spike in pedestrian deaths?
No.
Then again, I don’t think like a liberal.
Sarah Palin got widely blamed for Jared Loughner’s shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and many others in Tucson Arizona for no other reason than that she had a map that “targeted” vulnerable Democrats – Giffords included – for political defeat.
It wasn’t just the far-left that did this; even supposed “mainstream” journalists were all over themselves denouncing Sarah Palin for her inciting violence.
They didn’t really give a damn that Democrats themselves routinely used the same sort of maps to “target” Republicans:
Nor did they think it worthwhile to mention that Bob Beckel – the Democrat strategist who ran Walter Mondale’s campaign – claimed that he invented “targeting” maps. And that, therefore, the worse thing Republicans did was respond to this act of hate and violence by fighting back.
Nor did they decide it was worthwhile to mention the fact that not only did a leftwing group “target” Gabrielle Giffords for defeat because she wasn’t liberal enough for them, but they actually used the word “dead” in reference to her:
The website Daily Kos has also deleted a diary about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords entitled “My Congresswoman Voted Against Pelosi, Now She’s Dead To Me,” but so far has not deleted a post by founder Markos Moulitsas that lists Giffords’ district among those on their “target list,” and noted that “Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.”
We have since learned that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between Sarah Palin and anything that Sarah Palin said or did or posted and Tucson gunman Jared Loughner.
But that didn’t stop the rabid left, did it?
But allow me to think like a liberal, for a second…
Okay, I’m back from the sudden urge to vomit that overcame me. My stomach is now as devoid of its contents as my mind of rationality. I now return to my experiment of thinking like a liberal.
If we apply the left’s “guilty until proven innocent” tactic on Michelle Obama, where do we end up?
With all due respect, there is FAR more evidence linking Michelle Obama to the traffic deaths of pedestrians (after all, she did encourage people to get out there and walk, and she should have known that many people who were stupid enough to take advice from her in the first place would be too stupid to survive an encounter with the real world).
It seems obvious that, applying liberal methodology, we should immediately brand Michelle Obama a mass-murderer. And we should continue to denounce her until we do a study and determine that every single pedestrian killed had never once heard her instruction to “move.”
And, of course, if so much as one pedestrian causality ever heard Michelle Obama say “let’s move,” then obviously Michelle Obama as much as killed that poor victim.
And all we need to condemn Michelle Obama for her “Let’s Murder” initiative is to apply the same standard that the left applied to Sarah Palin.
But that is no longer the case. Now, Democrats are behind by larger margins due to their incredibly failed and incredibly fascist policies. So they have to cheat bigger than ever before to steal elections.
There are all kinds of other examples to show that the Democrat Party is the party of cheating and corruption.
Add to that Democrat states such as New York and Illinois disenfranchising military service members – who vote heavily Republican – of the right to vote in violation of the law.
There was the “sales pitch” that ObamaCare would bend the cost-curve down; that if you liked your health plan you could keep it; that the mandates weren’t a tax; etcetera. And every single one of those promises was just an obscene lie.
To be a Democrat today is to support institutional cheating, fraud and lies. If you are a Democrat, you are a despicable cheating liar by proxy. Just embrace it. It is what you vote for. It is what you support. It is who and what you are. And shame on you.
If there was ever a “Let them eat cake” administration, this one’s it.
I like the hilariously cynical “Newsflash” part of this ABC News title. It brings out the massively disconnected look of contempt for the “forgotten man” in Obama’s eyes.
“Wave at all the little nobodies, daughters, wave at all the little nobodies. Emperor worship is all they have left to live for.”
Last night President Obama and First Lady Obama dined at State Road Restaurant in West Tisbury on Martha’s Vineyard.
Their dinner companions were family friends Dr. Eric and Cheryl Whitaker, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, and lawyer and business executive Vernon Jordan and wife Ann Dibble Jordan.
As they departed the restaurant at 9:55 pm ET, reporters asked the president if he was enjoying his vacation even with the rain.
“I’m having a great time,” the president said. “Doing a lot of reading”
[Snip]
Kenworth said she’d been asked not to talk about what the Obamas ordered, but “the whole table got lobster tempura with island corn succotash and lemon vinaigrette” in addition to their individual entrees.
You wouldn’t have asked for about 310 million doggy bags for those lobster tempura leftovers, would you, Barry?
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the American people are watching their economy go directly to hell. As in, “Go to hell. Go directly to hell. Do not pass ‘Recovery Summer,’ do not collect $200.”
Obama’s having a grand old time because he doesn’t give a flying fart about the following facts that have gripped the country while he was gripping a golf club:
All of these things were reported as occurring during one of Obama’s four golf outings on his sixth vacation so far just this year.
And the bad news is that I am very likely missing some real important seriously bad news that’s happened during Obama’s little holiday from responsibility (but after all, it IS “Bush’s fault,” right? And why should Obama do anything to take responsibility when he can just continue to demonize Bush?).
But, I mean Obama’s having a good time, right? Just imagine how much the worse our our sucky little lives would have been if Obama’s vacation lacked some luxury that turned his smile into a frown…
Michelle Obama, the Bride of Messiah, decried America as a “downright mean” place in 2008, that was “guided by fear.” Maybe so. But thanks to your husband, Michelle, it’s gotten a whole hell of a lot meaner and a whole hell of a lot more fearful in the two years since in which Obama has led us down the path to ruin.
May Obama, having the rest and clarity of yet another vacation, decide to resign from office before it’s too late to save what is left of the nation.
You probably won’t listen to my version of “In the name of God, GO!” But it would sure be better for America – and even for your own party – if you did.
On the bright side, for you, Barry:
There’s a place for “the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.”
Mother Teresa started it, and it’s still running strong. Although you don’t deserve it, Barry, there will be a place for you to go after you’ve imploded the entire American and global economies.
Start Thinking Right 