Posts Tagged ‘negotiations’

Obama Willing To Negotiate With Terrorist Nuke Wannabe Iran Forever But No Such Deal For GOP Who Just Massively Won Elections

November 24, 2014

Consider what I’m saying here in light of the fact that a primary ObamaCare architect has now been caught repeatedly – and I mean over and over and over again – pointing out that the operating thesis of the Obama administration is that the American people are stupid and that Obama’s fascist thugs had to lie to them and manipulate them with lies in order to pass ObamaCare.  Consider what I’m saying in light of the fact that we now have the smoking gun backing up everything that reporter Sharyl Atkisson claimed when she said the Obama thug White House was out to suppress her and target her and intimidate her in a manner that comes right out of fascism rather than a free society.  We now know that a senior Eric Holder aid contacted CBS to suppress Sharyl Atkisson.  Consider what I’m saying in light of the FACT that the Obama administration is THE most fascist and THE most dangerous rogue regime in American history, bar none.

It’s really an amazing thing, to watch the way the media covers the news.

As for the Jonathan Gruber revelations, do you know what the press is doing in “covering” it?  They’re saying, “Don’t consider what Gruber actually said about the fascist dishonesty behind the passage of ObamaCare that ought to get it thrown out by any legitimate Supreme Court; fixate on the bright shiny object about Gruber pointing out that the American people are stupid instead.

As for the man who revealed all the Gruber remarks?  He tried to give the story to the media, but strange thing, nobody in the press bothered to call him back.

And the crickets are still a’ chirping as the media basically continues to ignore the story that reveals that ObamaCare was in FACT the heart of darkness.

If you believe for half a second that a story about a senior Bush Iraq war architect called the American people stupid and claimed that the Bush administration had deliberately lied to garner support for their war would have been ignored, you are an even bigger fool than I think you are.

That’s exactly what happened in this case.  And to the extent that the media has bothered to cover it at all, they have played a bait-and-switch game by hyping the “stupid” remark rather than the “we lied to get this turd that no one would have supported if they’d known what it was” remark.

But how the media covers the news is as pervasive as it is fascist.  They keep playing the same dishonest tricks over and over and over again, either not bothering to cover Obama scandals AT ALL or only covering a trivial aspect of it and then dropping it.  And meanwhile the wheels of America’s destruction under Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” grinds on and on.

Back in September of 2013, Obama entered into negotiations with Iran over something that no president – including Obama himself, according to the fool’s own deceitful rhetoric – had ever been willing to negotiate: Iran becoming a full-fledged nuclear power.

Conservatives like John Bolton immediately predicted what would happen: Iran would take advantage of the “negotiations” to buy time, endlessly extending deadlines.  For instance, on October 1, 2013, Bolton anticipated precisely what is now taking place as a deal-desperate Obama AGAIN extends yet ANOTHER deadline:

Mr. Obama is inverting Dean Acheson’s maxim that Washington should only negotiate from strength. Even if there were some prospect that Iran could be talked out of its nuclear-weapons program, which there is not, the White House approach is the wrong way to start discussions. Given the president’s palpable unwillingness to use the military to enforce his Syria red line—let alone to answer the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack—and his paucity of domestic political support, Iran’s ayatollahs know that the president’s “all options on the table” incantation regarding their nuclear program carries no weight.

Iran undoubtedly wants relief from international sanctions, which have exacerbated decades of incompetent economic policy. But there is no evidence that the sanctions have impaired Iran’s nuclear or ballistic-missile programs. Instead, Tehran has increased its financial and military assistance to Assad and Hezbollah in Syria.

Mr. Rouhani’s strategy is clear: Lower the rhetorical temperature about the nuclear issue; make temporary, cosmetic concessions, such as allowing inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency at already-declared nuclear sites; and gain Western acceptance of its “reactor-grade” uranium enrichment. Once that goal is attained, Iran’s path to nuclear weapons will be unobstructed and within Tehran’s discretion.

Iran will demand in return that international sanctions be eased, focusing first on obtaining small reductions to signal Western “good faith.” Mr. Obama and Europe already seem eager to comply. Western diplomats will assert defensively that these concessions are merely a matter of “sequencing,” and that they expect substantive Iranian concessions. They will wait a long time. Mr. Rouhani fully understands that once sanctions start rolling back, restoring them will be hard, perhaps impossible, absent a major provocation.

Mr. Rouhani will not supply one. Instead, he will continue making on-again, off-again gestures seducing the West into protracted negotiations. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs will proceed unimpeded in unknown, undisclosed locations. This was his 2003-05 playbook.

Extended negotiations will enable Mr. Obama to argue that a “diplomatic process” is under way to resolve the Iranian nuclear threat. No phrase is more beloved at the State Department. Mr. Obama will then use this process on Israel to prevent pre-emptive military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

In time, even Hamlet came to understand that “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” Maybe one day President Obama will figure it out.

You read that entire article from more than a year ago and John Bolton predicted that Iran would paly Obama for the moral idiot fool that he is.

Everything Bolton said was right and continues to be even MORE right today.

In July 2014, you had this article title to say everything: “Iran Nuclear Talks Deadline Looms With Little Angst About Extension.”

Do you know WHY there has been such little angst?  Because the jackass propagandists in the mainstream media haven’t EVER examined the predictions and the results of those predictions from conservative experts like John Bolton seriously.  They have all along simply “reported” what the Obama administration said, then “reported” what the Obama administration said after the first time what the Obama administration said would happen didn’t happen, and on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, Iran keeps working on their nuclear bomb and they keep working on their ballistic missile technology without which a nuclear bomb is nearly useless.  And the day that Iran is capable of delivering a nuclear missile to Israel or worse yet, the United States, the world will inexorably move toward what the Bible calls “Armageddon.”

You might want to read my previous article, which interacts with a surprising admission of the fiasco of Obama’s negotiation strategy, titled, “Thanks For Armageddon: Liberals Implicitly Acknowledge Obama Completely Wrong On Iran And Conservatives Completely Right.”  In that article I stated:

So what happens when the talks with Iran that were idiotic to begin with went nowhere as anybody with any wisdom whatsoever knew would happen?  Obama did the bidding of his masters in Tehran and extended the talks so that Iran could once again draw out negotiations without any agreement.  So that Iran could keep working toward their goal of Armageddon while Obama rewarded them.

But here we are, extending the “negotiations” with Iran so they can keep working on their nuclear bomb and ballistic missile ambitions in peace and safety YET AGAIN.

Now, as morally insane as that “negotiation” with RABID EVIL is, understand that there is a group of people with whom Obama would burn down the world rather than negotiate: the majority of the American people whom he utterly despises.

The Republican Party seized control of the Senate, won more House Seats than they have held since FDR was poisoning America during World War II, taken such an overwhelming majority of governorships its beyond a joke and dominated state houses (see also here) after Obama said “make no mistake, my policies are on the ballot.”

After that election, Barack Obama acted exactly like Adolf Hitler would have acted after losing an election, after Joseph Stalin would have acted after losing an election, after Chairman Mao would have acted after losing an election.  In short, he acted just like the socialist “Government is God” monster that he is.

And so the Republicans who just won shocking majorities and can finally escape the tyrannous, fascist hell of Harry Reid

In reality, Harry Reid has now blocked more US Senators from offering any amendments to legislation more often than EVERY OTHER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER IN THE UNITED STATES COMBINED.  TIMES TWO.

– will get exactly ZERO-POINT-ZERO SECONDS to formulate an immigration policy with their new control that the American people gave them.

Even the New York Times has reported on Harry Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control.”

There are at least 352 Republican House-passed bills that are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk because Democrats are the REAL obstructionists as they played naked cynical politics in vain effort to protect their weaker members from taking votes that would have exposed them to the American people.

What does the fascist propaganda press do?  Ignore the 352 bills Democrats ignored, ignore the naked fascism of Harry Reid’s thug-style, and fixate on that ONE bill that Republicans didn’t move on in the House.  Because in the most wicked and dishonest media since Goebbels, Democrats’ sins can be myriad

But the same fascist moral monster who won’t give the GOP one freaking nanosecond to formulate an immigration policy and pass a bill has now proven he will give rabid terrorist rogue regime Iran eternal extensions until they have successfully developed their nukes and their ballistic missiles to carry their nukes on.

“I can’t wait forever,” Obama says of illegally imposing his fascism on the backs of an American people who just overwhelmingly rejected him by issuing de facto amnesty for at least five million illegal immigrants.  But of course he CAN wait forever for Iran to develop Armageddon for America and for Israel.

“I can’t wait forever.”  So therefore I won’t wait AT ALL.

Barack Obama had TWO FULL YEARS of absolute control over all three branches of elected government and didn’t give a rat’s hairy rabies-filled ASS about immigration or immigrants.  He could certainly wait THEN the same way he is now proving he can wait forever if need-be with nuclear-bomb-wanting Iran.  But he can’t wait AT ALL for a Republican majority who would do the thing Obama is most terrified of: pass a law with the full support of the American people.  So he sabotaged it in advance.

What Obama just did with immigration is like me negotiating over a sandwich with you – you know, after I’ve taken three giant bites out of the middle.  When two parties negotiate, one side gives up something to get something else and the other side gives up something to get something else: Obama just obliterated that by taking what he wanted and telling the Republicans who now control two-thirds of elected government, “If you give up everything I’ll give you a meaningless promise to do part of what you want but then I’ll lie and ignore the law like I have always done before.”

If you’ve got an alternative theory, liberal Nazi, then just explain why Obama waited until AFTER an election (given the fact that he knew if he’d done this before the election the landslide against him would have even been MORE disastrous for his party) but refused to wait until after the new Congress that was just affirmed by the American people in a process called “democracy” was allowed to be seated.  Explain why Obama did this after saying at least 22 times that doing what he did would be illegal, unconstitutional, anti-democratic, unfair to all the people who waited in line to legally immigrate and harmful to the American people as a flood of illegal immigration would occur as a result of the fascist act he took anyway.

There are now five million new “Americans” as millions more illegal immigrants on top of that number try to race in to our borders to exploit Obama’s lawless “law.”  Which means there will be millions more in the USA to experience the hell of the Iranian nuke that Obama is also letting in detonate over our atmosphere.

It’s really quite staggering: the same Barack Obama is almost simultaneously Hitler on one issue with his fascist edict and Neville Chamberlain on another with his “peace in our time” extensions with soon-to-be nuclear Iran.

 

Advertisements

Obama’s Supporters Turn On Him As He Proves He Is Useless As A Leader

August 4, 2011

This reminds of the fact that OBAMA IS A LOSER.

August 3, 2011
Obama’s Supporters Turn on Him
By Dick Morris

The pathetic performance of President Obama in the debt debate is showing the left how incompetent and weak the leader they selected is. Many are wishing they had Hillary Clinton in the White House instead! Once Obama has to move beyond a set teleprompter speech, he is lost. During the BP disaster, he showed what a poor administrator he is and now he has belied any pretensions to legislative skill. He is the un-Lyndon Johnson.

The consequences of this disillusionment will be profoundly felt in the 2012 election. Republicans and Independents will vote against Obama with their hands. Democrats and liberals will do so with their feet — by staying home. Turnout was the key to Obama’s 2008 electoral majority. The vote among the under 30-year-old Caucasians, African-Americans and Latinos set new records. Obama won, after all, about the same share of the Caucasian vote — in total — that Gore did in 2000. It was only because the Caucasian youth turnout offset defections by its middle aged and elderly. The African-American turnout rose from 11- to 14-percent and Latino votes rose by 1.5 points. It was from these fluctuations that he was able to win. Any diminution of the white-hot intensity of enthusiasm that animated his 2008 election will cost him dearly in the upcoming 2012 election.

Compare the performance of Bill Clinton in the 1995-1996 government budget crisis with that of Obama in the latest skirmish. In Clinton campaign tracking polls, the president’s approval rating rose from 40 percent in May of 1995 to 54 percent in January of 1996. This 14-point increase has its opposite equivalent in Obama’s plunge from 55 percent approval in May of 2011 to 40 percent approval in late July in the Gallup polling. Clinton and Obama’s approval ratings rose and fell by nearly identical amounts.

For Clinton, the standoff was a chance to show his strength. No Republican ever believed the president with a reputation for indecisiveness and wanting-to-please would ever stand up to them. But Clinton did, day after day, hammering away at his position and defending it against all comers. Obama had no plan and his position shifted by the hour. First, he wanted a clean debt limit increase with no budgetary attachments. Then, he would settle for cuts, but only minor ones. Then, he signed on for major cuts as long as there were tax increases to go with them. Finally, he abandoned it all and asked only that the deal last until after the election, so he would not have to go through this process again.

Clinton reaped great credit with Independents and moderates for fashioning a third way between liberal demands for deficits and conservative cuts in Medicare. Obama’s attempts to portray himself as pushing a “balanced approach” proved laughable in view of his surrender at the end. His attempt at negotiations resembled a surrender far more than a compromise. He’s no Henry Clay.

Finally, while Clinton earned the respect of his party’s left wing by his confrontation with Newt Gingrich, Obama has garnered only contempt from his colleagues for his craven inability to prevail despite holding a formidable array of cards in his hand.

That House Speaker John Boehner polled lower than Obama during the confrontation is scant comfort. Boehner is not running for president. When Clinton prevailed in 1996, it was against Bob Dole who was not only the senate majority leader, but was also his opponent for re-election. Clinton and Dole were, indeed, locked in a zero sum game. It does nothing for Obama if Boehner’s ratings drop.

Now Obama will have a devil of a time replenishing the enthusiasm that led his march to victory in 2008. He will instead meet with the same tepid support from his base that doomed Carter in 1980 and Bush Sr. in 1992. His voters are discovering that there is no there.

A big component of this problem is that Barack Obama is a pathologial narcissist.  It’s kind of hard to truly attract people to your cause when ultimately your “cause” is all about YOU.  Especially if YOU ARE A LOSER like Barack Obama.

Obama Is A Loser. And America Doesn’t Like Losers.

August 1, 2011

JULY 30, 2011
They’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feeling
Obama still has supporters, but theirs is a grim support.
by Peggy Noonan

The Republican establishment reasserted itself this week, and good thing, too, because the establishment was right. It said Republicans in the House should back and pass the Boehner bill on the debt ceiling because it goes in the right directions, contains spending cuts but not taxes, and is viable. So accept victory, avert crisis, and get it to the Senate.

The establishment was being conservative in the Burkean sense: acknowledge reality, respect it, and make the most progress possible within it. This has not always been true of them. They spent the first decade of this century backing things a truly conservative party would not have dreamed of—careless wars, huge spending and, most scandalously, a dreamy and unconservative assumption that it would all work out because life is sweet and the best thing always happens. They were mostly led by men and women who had never been foreclosed on and who assumed good luck, especially unearned good luck, would continue. They were fools, and they lost control of their party when the tea party rose up, rebuking and embarrassing them. Then the tea party saved them by not going third party in 2009-10. And now the establishment has come forward to save the tea party, by inching it away from the cliff and reminding it the true battles are in 2012, and after.

As this is written, the White House seems desperate to be seen as consequential. They’re trotting out Press Secretary Jay Carney, who stands there looking like a ferret with flop sweat as he insists President Obama is still at the table, still manning the phones and calling shots. Much is uncertain, but the Republicans have made great strides on policy. If they emerge victorious, they had better not crow. The nation is in a continuing crisis, our credit rating is not secure, and no one’s interested in he-man gangster dialogue from “The Town.” What might thrill America would be a little modesty: “We know we helped get America into some of this trouble, and we hope we’ve made some progress today in getting us out of it.”

But that actually is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about something that started to become apparent to me during the debt negotiations. It’s something I’ve never seen in national politics.

It is that nobody loves Obama. This is amazing because every president has people who love him, who feel deep personal affection or connection, who have a stubborn, even beautiful refusal to let what they know are just criticisms affect their feelings of regard. At the height of Bill Clinton’s troubles there were always people who’d say, “Look, I love the guy.” They’d often be smiling—a wry smile, a shrugging smile. Nobody smiles when they talk about Mr. Obama. There were people who loved George W. Bush when he was at his most unpopular, and they meant it and would say it. But people aren’t that way about Mr. Obama. He has supporters and bundlers and contributors, he has voters, he may win. But his support is grim support. And surely this has implications.

The past few weeks I’ve asked Democrats who supported him how they feel about him. I got back nothing that showed personal investment. Here are the words of a hard-line progressive and wise veteran of the political wars: “I never loved Barack Obama. That said, among my crowd who did ‘love’ him, I can’t think of anyone who still does.” Why is Mr. Obama different from Messrs. Clinton and Bush? “Clinton radiated personality. As angry as folks got with him about Nafta or Monica, there was always a sense of genuine, generous caring.” With Bush, “if folks were upset with him, he still had this goofy kind of personality that folks could relate to. You might think he was totally misguided but he seemed genuinely so. . . . Maybe the most important word that described Clinton and Bush but not Obama is ‘genuine.'” He “doesn’t exude any feeling that what he says and does is genuine.”

Maybe Mr. Obama is living proof of the political maxim that they don’t care what you know unless they know that you care. But the idea that he is aloof and so inspires aloofness may be too pat. No one was colder than FDR, deep down. But he loved the game and did a wonderful daily impersonation of jut-jawed joy. And people loved him.

The secret of Mr. Obama is that he isn’t really very good at politics, and he isn’t good at politics because he doesn’t really get people. The other day a Republican political veteran forwarded me a hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. It read like politics as done by Martians. The “Analytics Department” is looking for “predictive Modeling/Data Mining” specialists to join the campaign’s “multi-disciplinary team of statisticians,” which will use “predictive modeling” to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. “We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions.”

This wasn’t the passionate, take-no-prisoners Clinton War Room of ’92, it was high-tech and bloodless. Is that what politics is now? Or does the Obama re-election effort reflect the candidate and his flaws?

Mr. Obama seemed brilliant at politics when he first emerged in 2004. He understood the nation’s longing for unity. We’re not divided into red states and blue, he said, we’re Big Purple, we can solve our problems together. Four years later he read the lay of the land perfectly—really, perfectly. The nation and the Democratic Party were tired of the Clinton machine. He came from nowhere and dismantled it. It was breathtaking. He went into the 2008 general election with a miraculously unified party and took down another machine, bundling up all the accrued resentment of eight years with one message: “You know the two losing wars and the economic collapse we’ve been dealing with? I won’t do that. I’m not Bush.”

The fact is, he’s good at dismantling. He’s good at critiquing. He’s good at not being the last guy, the one you didn’t like. But he’s not good at building, creating, calling into being. He was good at summoning hope, but he’s not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire.

And so his failures in the debt ceiling fight. He wasn’t serious, he was only shrewd—and shrewdness wasn’t enough. He demagogued the issue—no Social Security checks—until he was called out, and then went on the hustings spouting inanities. He left conservatives scratching their heads: They could have made a better, more moving case for the liberal ideal as translated into the modern moment, than he did. He never offered a plan. In a crisis he was merely sly. And no one likes sly, no one respects it.

So he is losing a battle in which he had superior forces—the presidency, the U.S. Senate. In the process he revealed that his foes have given him too much mystique. He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist. He is a loser.  And this is America, where nobody loves a loser.

 

Democrat Senator Bayh Puts Kibosh On Two Giant Liberal Lies

February 17, 2010

Senator Evan Bayh apparently finally had a bellyfull of the Democrats steering the ship of state full speed ahead straight into a giant iceberg.

Bayh described a scenario of brain-dead politics and hyper-partisanship.

I remembered what the New York Times describes as the promise at the core of Senator Obama’s presidential campaign:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

And I remembered pointing out that Obama’s promise to transcend ideology and partisanship was his signature lie.

And I remembered that Obama is now recognized to be the most polarizing president in history.

The most liberal Senator in Congress had this message for Republicans who tried to share their objections to his massive stimulus program: “I won.”

And what followed from that point was a far leftwing agenda being shoved down Republicans’ throats without any attempt to win their votes via compromise.  The reasoning was that Democrats had total control of the House to go along with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.   Republicans were shut out of crucial negotiations.  And they were shut out as a general rule.  They did not get to have anything to do with writing the bills that they were told they had to vote for in order to be “bipartisan.”  They didn’t even get to READ bills with enormous ramifications before the votes.

The Democrats constantly did their business behind closed doors.

Even their meetings on “transparency” were done behind closed doors.

It wasn’t just Republicans.  The liberal Democrats were so partisan and so secretive that even the moderate blue dog Democrats found themselves shut out of ObamaCare negotiations.

The constant secrecy and continual backroom wheeling and dealing surrounding ObamaCare got so bad that senior Democrat Senator Dick Durbin was forced to make this admission to John McCain’s complaint that Republicans were kept completely in the dark:

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is. And I’m in the leadership,” Durbin said on the Senate floor.

Obama would flood the airwaves with message after message about transparency and about reaching out to Republicans with a bipartisan spirit of cooperation.  But what he says has a bad habit of not jiving with what he does.

Recently, another top Democrat Senator, Jay Rockefeller, pointed out regarding Obama’s promises that he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

Barack Obama and many Democrats have falsely demagogued the Republicans as “the party of no.” But that demonization is now exposed for the lie it always was:

And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.

At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.

“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.

The Republicans had been submitting bills to Obama all along.  Which means that every single time he characterized them as “the party of no” who weren’t contributing their own ideas to the debate, he was knowingly cravenly and despicably lying.

The only thing that is “bipartisan” now is that Democrat and Republican alike have no reason to trust Obama.

Obama promised again and again that he would transcend the political divide.  That was HIS promise, not the Republican minorities’ promise.  It was Obama who broke his word.  And it is Obama who should be held accountable to his broken promise.

Now disgusted former Obama supporter Mortimer Zuckerman put it this way:

“In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.”

All that garbage wasn’t the Republicans’ fault.  It was Obama’s and the Democrat leaderships’ fault.

So that’s one giant liberal lie put to bed.  Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress couldn’t have been more hyperpartisan or more ideological.

The Republicans were right to oppose their agenda.  And the polls of American voters that have radically swung in their favor prove it.

The second giant liberal lie that Evan Bayh put the kibosh on is the myth that the stimulus has somehow been a giant success in spite of the fact that it was a giant failure even by the Obama administration’s own standard.  Obama’s key economic advisers assured us that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%.

Even the leftist Huffington Post had this to say back in June of last year:

“The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today’s unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.”

Unemployment has soared past that 8% figure – and according to Obama’s own projections joblessness will be well over 8% until at least 2012.

Obama and his minions have repeatedly made spectacular claims about the “success” of the stimulus that fly in the face of reality.  According to Obama’s own Recovery.gov website, by the White House’s own numbers, Obama only claim 595,263 jobs that were at a cost of $272 billion.  That comes out to an astronomical $456,941 per job.

And at that rate, we can’t AFFORD for Obama to “create” any more jobs.

Democrat Senator Evan Bayh, a former governor who presumably knows something about job creation, absolutely destroyed the myth of any kind of stimulus success.

[Youtube link]

Quote:

“[I]f I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”

Obama and his supporters are falsely claiming over and over again that the stimulus created 2 million jobs.  And a prominent Democrat is essentially saying, “Show me just ONE.”

The number of lies that have been told about the Obama stimulus have been utterly breathtaking.

And the American people who’ve clearly heard at least one too many lies from Obama agree with Evan Bayh.

According to a New York Times/CBS poll, a whopping 94% of the American people agree with Bayh. Only 6% of Americans believe Obama’s massive porkulus has created jobs a full year after going into effect.

Only SIX PERCENT of Americans believe that Obama’s porkulus has created any jobs at all.  That means more Americans believe that space aliens have anally probed them than believe in the stimulus.  It also means that 94% think Obama and his entire administration and the entire Democrat congressional leadership are completely full of crap.

And 48% of Americans polled don’t think porkulus will EVER create jobs.

All that nothingness for the low, low price tag of only $862 billion.

As we head into the future, we find that the Democrats are still playing games rather than dealing fairly and squarely with legislation.

Democrats are still demagoguing, misrepresenting, and lying.

And until they quit – or until they are voted out – Republicans would be wise to avoid them and refuse to play around with them.


Democrats Beginning To Recognize That Obama Is A Total Failure As A Leader

February 9, 2010

If Democrats weren’t loathsome, self-righteous hypocrites and demagogues, I’d actually feel sorry for them, given the entirely  self-created and well-deserved state they are in due to the pathetic non-leadership of their failure-in-chief.  But they are, so I’m not.

Democrats chafe as White House wavers on health care bill
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 2/6/10 6:40 AM EST

President Barack Obama has left Democrats as confused as ever about how the White House plans to deliver a health care reform bill this year, after two weeks of inconsistent statements, negligible hands-on involvement and a sudden shift to a jobs-first message.

Democrats on Capitol Hill and beyond say they have no clear understanding of the White House strategy — or even whether there is one — and are growing impatient with Obama’s reluctance to guide them toward a legislative solution.

At a White House meeting Thursday with Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed frustration with the slow pace of the negotiations and the president’s decision not to weigh in publicly on a path forward, according to a Democratic source familiar with the meeting.

And some Democrats feel that every time they look to White House for clarity, they hear something different, as though the strategy is whatever the president or his top advisers said that day.

In the past two weeks, since Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate race, Obama or his top advisers have suggested all of the following: breaking the bill into smaller parts, keeping it together in one comprehensive package, putting it at the back of legislative line and needing to “punch it through” Congress, as Obama himself said Tuesday.

The latest comment came during a Thursday fundraiser when Obama described the “next step” as sitting down with Republicans, Democrats and health care experts. “Let’s just go through these bills — their ideas, our ideas — let’s walk through them in a methodical way so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense,” Obama said, describing a process that could take weeks, if not longer.

He first floated the idea during his State of the Union speech almost three weeks ago, but top congressional aides in both parties said Friday that they still have no idea what the president was talking about.

Even the White House struggled to explain what Obama had in mind. On Friday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said there was no meeting on the schedule.

At the same fundraiser, Obama seemed to acknowledge for the first time that Congress may well decide to scrap health care altogether — an admission that blunted his repeated and emphatic vows to finish the job.

“I’m not sure where the White House is right now,” said Ralph G. Neas, a longtime progressive activist who is now the head of the National Coalition on Health Care. “But I do believe that given everything that has happened, the time has come for more forceful presidential leadership. That is the only way to close the deal. That kind of leadership involves providing more precise guidance to Congress and a clear case to the American people on how this benefits families. The president must step up and wield the power of his office.”

So maybe electing a community organizer with 143 days of experience in the Senate isn’t such a great idea, after all.  Maybe electing THE most liberal U.S. Senator under the incredibly cynical and deceitful promise that he would be “post-partisan” (and is now recognized to be the most polarizing president in history) wasn’t such a great idea.

I mean, who could have possibly known, except maybe every single conservative on the planet?

No leadership, you say?  You mean electing a guy who never actually led anything in his life – not so much as a frigging LEMONADE STAND – might somehow translate into a political party and an entire nation drifting rudderless in an increasingly stormy sea?

For the record, Obama’s “next step” of meeting with both Republicans and Democrats is nothing more than a photo op and a fabricated pretension of bipartisan cooperation.  And the reason that even Democrats don’t have a clue as to what such a staged event would accomplish is that they understand that it would accomplish nothing.

Obama is trying to turn his ObamaCare boondoggle into a rhetorical campaign event rather than trying to actually produce health care legislation.

But let’s get back to the Democrats attacking Obama over his totally failed leadership:

Al Franken lays into David Axelrod over health care bill
By MANU RAJU & ANDY BARR | 2/4/10 7:47 PM EST

Sen. Al Franken ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod this week during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats.

Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration’s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact.

The sources said Franken was the most outspoken senator in the meeting, which followed President Barack Obama’s question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats at the Newseum on Wednesday. But they also said the Minnesotan wasn’t the only angry Democrat in the room.

“There was a lot of frustration in there,” said a Democratic senator who declined to be identified.

“People were hot,” another Democratic senator said.

Democratic senators are frustrated that the White House hasn’t done more to win over the public on health care reform and other aspects of its ambitious agenda — and angry that, in the wake of Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts Senate race, the White House hasn’t done more to chart a course for getting a health care bill to the president’s desk.

In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to “finish the job” on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken’s anger, and the sources in the room said he laid out his concerns much more directly than any senator did in the earlier public session.

For what it’s worth, this is yet another of the billions and billions of reasons to conclude the liberal mainstream media is utterly useless for truth.  They characterized the Republicans in the House as being hostile to Obama because “hostile Republicans” suited their narrative.  But Republicans were tail-wagging face-licking puppy dogs compared to what the Democrats had for Obama.

Guess that wasn’t part of the mainstream narrative, though.  The media wouldn’t want anyone to realize that Barack Obama being a gigantic colossal failure as a president isn’t a “Republican talking point,” but a now bipartisan-recognized reality.

Obama’s failure in leadership is not just in health care (where it couldn’t be more grossly apparent).  It’s anything and everything Obama has tried to do.

On issue after issue – demonstrating that he didn’t even have the power or leadership to win the Olympic games; taking months to dither over Afghanistan; issuing a completely irrational promise to close Gitmo; moving the terrorist trials to New York and treating terrorists like American citizens; mirandizing terrorist rather than water-boarding them until they grow gills; backing a completely idiotic approach to destroy our energy system and our economy along with it known as “cap-and-trade”; failing to influence the UN global warming debate at Copenhagen or push his agenda in any way; presiding over what even Obama himself called a “systematic breakdown” in the intelligence system; Iran making a mockery of American foreign policy while it boldly advances toward both nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to launch warheads; presiding over more jobs lost than any president has lost in any year since records started being kept in 1940; you can just go on and on and on (the above was just off the top of my head) – Obama has shown a profound lack of leadership.

This is serious.  It is no laughing matter.  We are the Titanic hurtling through the icebergs, and we have no functioning captain who is able to steer us.

Obama Calls For Tolerance And Civility While His Rabid Rodents Throw Hate Bombs

February 8, 2010

I hate Obama’s Marxist policies, certainly enough.  But the thing I despise most about Barack Obama is his galling personal hypocrisy.

He is a man who makes a false promise that he never keeps, and then continually congratulates himself about those very same promises.  He promised transparency that he never delivered, but keeps talking it up as though he really DIDN’T have  his meetings on “transparency” closed to the public and the media; and as though he really DID put the health care negotiations on C-SPAN like he promised at least 8 times on video; as though his ObamaCare WEREN’T so secretive that even senior Democrats admitted they were completely in the dark; and as though Obama really WEREN’T denying the media of access far worse than his predecessors had ever done.  He patted himself on the back for getting lobbyists out of Washington as if his administration DIDN’T have at least30 of them on the payroll; and attacked lobbyists at his state of the union as if he DIDN’T have a schmoochy meeting scheduled with them for the very next day.  He promised to end earmarks, then signed a bill that had nearly 9,000 of them – and just instructed Democrats to submit their earmark requests for the upcoming budget even as he told the country that he was “calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform.”  And all I can say when Obama talks about reforming earmarks now is that it is too damn bad we didn’t elect John McCain.

The left is angry at Obama’s failed promises (a failed promise = a lie, by the way) as well.  Obama promised to close Gitmo.  He lied.  Obama promised to have had the troops home from Iraq by now.  He lied.  Obama promised to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan with his own personal magnificence.  And more than TWICE as many American soldiers gave their lives under Obama in Afghanistan in 2009 than during Bush’s last year in office.

Is it any wonder that he is the most polarizing president we have ever seen?

But Obama’s signature lie was his cynical promise from the most radically leftist Senator in Congress to transcend the political divide and bring the parties together.  Democrats, of course, blame Republicans; but it wasn’t the Republicans who promised to do it, was it?  The president who mockingly told Republicans “I won” when they tried to talk to him, and who repeatedly demonized Republicans for their “failed policies of the past,” is now actually upset that Republicans would take anything approaching the same attitude with him that he took with them.

We’re not supposed to be able to talk about HIS failed policies after he attacked us about a hundred million times with the very same claim?

Is it any wonder that his polls are now even LOWER than they were before he gave that deceitful state of the union?

Obama wants conservatives to lay down their arms even as his cockroach minions continue to shrilly attack them.  Apparently he truly thinks people are that stupid.

Here were Obama’s words at the national prayer breakfast (which he ultimately politicized, because the man just can’t help himself):

Obama at “national prayer breakfast”: The President calls for tolerance and civility

At the event of the “national prayer breakfast” in Washington on Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama has urged his fellow countrymen to adhere to the ‘spirit of civility’, affirming that “civility is not a sign of weakness”.

The event which attracts leading political, religious and business leaders was witness to the famous oratorical power of the US president.

“Too often that spirit (of civility) is missing without the spectacular tragedy,” Mr. Obama said. “We become numb to the day-to-day crises. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, and our contests for power. And in this tower of babble, we lose the sound of God’s voice.”

He remarked that we should be open to differing views and make a concerted effort to abandon the cynicism and skepticism that have done enough harm to American politics already.

Obama has repeatedly dishonestly demonized Republicans as obstructionists and hatemongers – which, for the record, is a very obstructionistic and hatemongering thing for him to do.

In his Q and A session with House Republicans, Obama said:

I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, “This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”

And how are Democrats supposed to embrace Republican ideas in a bipartisan fashion when Democrats just like YOU repeatedly demonize George Bush and demagogue Republicans for “the failed ideas of the past,” Mr. Hussein?

There’s a joke that Obama finally honored George Bush by naming the tectonic region beneath Haiti as “Bush’s Fault.”  It’s not far from the truth.

Does Barry Husein seriously not realize that every single Democrat in the Senate voted for ObamaCare (not withstanding the outright bribes such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Nebraska Purchase)?  Since when is it that every single Democrat voting for a Democrat bill is good, but every single Republican voting against a Democrat bill is bad?  Wouldn’t both Republicans AND Democrats be voting both for and against a bipartisan bill?

Since Democrats love to claim about how “bipartisan” they have been, I would love to see a Democrat offer me a list reciting 100 specific instances in which Obama or Democrats have said, “We’ll do this your way” on significant elements of any and all legislation.

It would be nice if Obama and Democrats paid attention to the giant log in their own eyes.  Just for once in their lives.

Meanwhile, Obama’s supporters are like frothing-mouth rabid vermin:

New York Slimes I mean Times columnist Frank Rich:

New York Times columnist Frank Rich would have rebelled against the notion that opposing President Bush’s policies was unpatriotic. But he can shamelessly declare that opposing Obama’s agenda is unpatriotic – even if you’re John McCain. Rich wrote on Sunday:

If [Harry] Reid can serve as the face of Democratic fecklessness in the Senate, then John McCain epitomizes the unpatriotic opposition. On Wednesday night he could be seen sneering when Obama pointed out that most of the debt vilified by Republicans happened on the watch of a Republican president and Congress that never paid for “two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

Rich wasn’t going to find it ridiculous that Obama was blaming Bush for an “expensive” Medicare entitlement that Democrats voted for and/or felt wasn’t expensive enough – just as Obama blames Bush for the deficit effects of TARP, which he voted for.

It should be remembered that John McCain spent something like six years in the hellhole of the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam and suffered terribly physically as a result.  To accuse him of being “unpatriotic” after what he went through for his country is a disgrace from a disgrace of a newspaper.

Not to be outdone as a moral disgrace, Chris Matthews basically compared the Republican Party to the leftist communist regime that murdered well over a million people:

Chris Matthews: Far Right Republicans Like Cambodian Regime (VIDEO)

Huffington Post   |  Danny Shea First Posted: 02- 1-10 05:36 PM   |   Updated: 02- 1-10 05:59 PM

Chris Matthews compared the far right wing of the Republican Party to the Khmer Rouge, the genocidal Cambodian communist party led by Pol Pot, in MSNBC’s coverage of President Obama’s Q&A with House Republicans Friday night.

“The Republican Party is under assault from its far right,” Matthews said. “I don’t think I can remember either party being under assault by its extremes. I mean, there seems to be a new sort of purity test that unless you’re far right, you’re not a Republican, and this sort of tea party testing they’re doing now.”

Matthews called the party’s pull from the far right “frightening” in comparing it to the Cambodian regime.

“So what’s going on out there in the Republican Party is kind of frightening,” he said, “almost Cambodia reeducation camp going on in that party, where they’re going around to people, sort of switching their minds around saying, ‘If you’re not far right, you’re not right enough.’ And I think that it’s really – there’s going to be a lot of extreme language on the Republican side. And maybe, it will be a circular firing squad when this is all over.”

Just two days prior, Matthews came under fire for saying that he forgot President Obama was black for an hour while watching his State of the Union, a post-racial comment he would later clarify.

So let’s understand, this closet bigoted turd who is continuously aware of Obama’s blackness (light-skinned blackness with no Negro dialect only, mind you!) says that there’s a lot of extreme language coming from the Republican side — but only AFTER comparing those same Republicans to a communist regime that systematically murdered 1.7 million of their own people.

And speaking of bigoted turds….

Rachel Maddog I mean Maddow:

Maddow: Tea Party Conventioneers Are Racists In White Hoods
By Noel Sheppard
Sat, 02/06/2010

Rachel Maddow on Friday referred to attendees of the National Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tennessee, as white-hooded racists.

Continuing MSNBC’s sad tradition, Maddow first attacked one of the convention’s speakers: “The opening speech last night was given by failed presidential candidate, ex-congressman and professional anti-immigrant, Tom Tancredo who started the event off with a bang, a big loud racist bang.”

From there, she went after the audience (video embedded below the fold with transcript).

What a bigoted, vicious, racist thing of you to say, Rachel.  But according to Obama, who only attacks Fox News for being biased, Barry Hussein tacitly approves of every single word.

And we can get back to Barack Obama and pretty much the entire Democrat Party as repeatedly demagoguing the Republican Party as “the party of no” when it is now an openly acknowledged fact that they were never any such thing.

Cited from a recently written article:

For another thing, it isn’t true that Republicans have ever been “the party of no” and offered no ideas:

Despite the “lecture” by the commander-in-chief, as one member described it, Republicans had the opportunity to articulate the proposals they’ve sent to the president over the past year.

And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.

At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.

“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.

In other words, it is now a matter of public record that Democrats have been intentionally lying, misrepresenting, slandering, and demagoguing Republicans all along.  Why on earth should Republicans have cooperated with these vile people?

So Democrats can just shut the hell up with their accusations of Republicans saying or doing ANYTHING until they clean up the thousands of cockroach nests that constitute their political wing, and start being HONEST for once in their lives.

Personally, I am quite willing to cease fire on the rhetoric wars; all I need to see is for Barack Obama to denounce the mainline media for their lies rather than continually attacking Fox News; all I need to see is the Maddows and the Olbermanns and the Mathews of the news to be fired; all I need to see is for the left to quit demonizing and demagoguing.  And I will happily practice all the “tolerance” and “civility” Obama wants.

The problem is that that will never happen, because the left is demagogic and hypocritical to their very cores of their dried-out, shriveled little souls.

And the fact that Barack Obama is out in front of the cameras beseeching for “tolerance” and “civility” while his minions are viciously and hatefully attacking day after day without any rebuke from the president just proves my point.

Most Transparent Health ‘Reform’ In History So Secretive Even Democrats Are ‘In The Dark’

December 14, 2009

Barack Obama promised to put the health care debate on C-SPAN so that everybody could be informed about and engaged with the process.

That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process,” Obama said at a debate in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

The special interests and lobbyists, he said, “will resist anything that we try to do. … And the antidote to that is making sure that the American people understand what is at stake.”

Obama promised:

To achieve health care reform, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”

Not negotiating behind closed doors.  Bringing all parties together.  Broadcasting the negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see.

Those were the words of Barack Hussein Obama, documented liar, fraud, and hypocrite.

In the age of Obama, lobbying and lobbyists has doubled.  Now THERE are some jobs Obama has “created or saved.”  And the leftist labor unions – who want everybody to pay massively more so they can get more – don’t want to pay taxes that they expect everybody else to pay.

On December 6, Obama went to the Capitol to push health care in a closed door session for a meeting with Democrat Senators in which he excluded Republicans and excluded the press:

At the Capitol during a rare Sunday session of the Senate, Obama delivered a closed-door pep talk to the fractious Democratic caucus that lasted about 45 minutes. Deep divisions remain over abortion coverage, but there was hope for compromise on whether the government should directly offer health insurance in competition with private companies.“They’re going to get it done,” Obama said as he left. He avoided specifics in the meeting with senators and took no questions.

How “open” and “transparent” of him.

Here’s the blunt, simple reality:

Washington, Oct 21 For days now, a small group of Democrats in Congress and members of the Obama Administration have been meeting behind closed doors on Capitol Hill to hammer out the details of their costly government takeover of health care. This is despite President Obama’s repeated pledges on the campaign trail last year that these discussions would be open and televisedOne Capitol Hill newspaper has called these secret talks “a slap at … the taxpayers who will be asked to foot the bill for whatever reform plan does get adopted.” Now Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) has introduced a resolution demanding that these critical negotiations be conducted in the open “under the watchful eye of the American people.” With the fate of one-sixth of our economy in the balance, anything less than full transparency is unacceptable.

And now we find that Republicans – who have been shut out all along – are not the only ones who have been excluded in this byzantine, twisted, closed-door process:

Sen. Durbin says he’s ‘in the dark’ on possible healthcare reform compromise
By Eric Zimmermann – 12/11/09 12:33 PM ET

The 10 Democratic senators who crafted a healthcare compromise are keeping its details a secret, says Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Friday.

Responding to a complaint by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that Republicans haven’t been told what’s in the new bill, Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, responded that he’s in the same position.

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is. And I’m in the leadership,” Durbin said on the Senate floor.

Stop and think about it.  This process has become so byzantine, so closed, and so secretive, that even the #2 Democrat in the Senate is completely in the dark as to what is going on.  Ten Democrats – and a whopping load of special interests – are formulating the takeover of 1/6th of the American economy.

This came out of a discussion between Senators John McCain and Dick Durbin.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend about the situation as it exists right now? Right now, no Member on this side has any idea as to the specifics of the proposal the majority leader, I understand, has sent to OMB for some kind of scoring. Is that the way we want to do business, that a proposal that will be presented to the Senate sometime next week and voted on immediately–that is what we are told–is that the way to do business in a bipartisan fashion? Should we not at least be informed as to what the proposal is the Senate majority leader is going to propose to the entire Senate within a couple days? Shouldn’t we even know what it is?

Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Arizona, I am in the dark almost as much as he is, and I am in the leadership. The reason is, because the Congressional Budget Office, which scores the managers’ amendment, the so-called compromise, has told us, once you publicly start debating it, we will publicly release it. We want to basically see whether it works, whether it works to continue to reduce the deficit, whether it works to continue to reduce the growth in health care costs.

We had a caucus after this was submitted to the Congressional Budget Office, where Senator Reid and other Senators who were involved in it basically stood and said: We are sorry, we can’t tell you in detail what was involved. But you will learn, everyone will learn, it will be as public information as this bill currently is on the Internet. But the Congressional Budget Office has tied our hands at this point putting it forward. Basically, what I know is what you know, having read press accounts of what may be included.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend from Illinois–and by the way, I would like to do this again. Perhaps when he can get more substance into many of the issues.

Mr. DURBIN. Same time, same place tomorrow?

Mr. McCAIN. I admit these are unusual times. But isn’t that a very unusual process, that here we are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the majority leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don’t get it.

Durbin acknowledges that Republicans have been kept completely in the dark (and fed on horse sh*t) because even he himself – the number two man in the Democrat Senate – has been kept in the dark.  He blames the Congressional Budget Office – because it’s either the CBO, or the Democrats, and he will not blame the Democrats.

Newsflash: the CBO does not have the power to prevent Democrats from releasing all the details of the Democrats’ bill.  Democrats have refused to release the details of the Democrats’ bill.

We are in a situation in which a tiny handful of Democrats are writing up an ideological and partisan takeover of a whopping chunk of the economy.  And if you think these people have any integrity at all, you need to reread this article, because you clearly didn’t understand what is coming out of Washington.

Democrats’ Idea Of Bipartisanship Is HARD CORE Partisanship

September 27, 2008

We are in the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression, and Democratic leadership is playing the same hard core ideological political games that got us into this mess to begin with.  You’ve heard the phrase, “fighting like rats on a sinking ship”?  Well, the Democrats are the rats in this story (which really isn’t much of a metaphor).

First you have the fact that House Republicans were largely excluded from the negotiating process.  And then, surprise: they weren’t happy about it.

Then we have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calling upon John McCain to become directly involved in the negotiation process – only to viciously attack him when he actually tried to become directly involved.  A whole bunch of Democrats then dove onto the pile, falsely claiming that a bipartisan deal had been struck when none actually had, and that McCain had thrown a monkey wrench into it – even though he had said very little at the explosive and divisive meeting which Democrats had Obama chair.  Democrats – in an obvious act of presidential politics – were out claiming that John McCain was playing “presidential politics.”

Then we get to look at the actual bill that the Democrats have been working on – and expect Republicans to agree to – only to find that it is a clear pork-laden giveaway to traditional Democratic allies such as ACORN, Big Labor, and the trial lawyer lobby.  ACORN has been involved in more cases of documented voter fraud than any organization in history; yet STILL receives federal money thanks to Democrats’ efforts.

And, of course, when Democrats came back this morning for more “bipartisan” negotiations, the two Republicans were shocked to find not two Democrats joining them, but NINE:

Pelosi made her remarks as the negotiators streamed into her office, and that group is much bigger than expected; instead of just the four principals, a number of other prominent Democrats, including Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (Mont.), Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.) and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer also entered the meeting.

This leaves House Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri and New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg severely outnumbered as the only Republicans in the room. Oh yeah, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. But he’s been at loggerheads with the House GOP for the last week, so he they might not be singing from the same songbook on this one.

The ship is sinking, and Democrats are determined to cynically use every ideological play in their playbook, apparently counting upon a biased media and an ignorant population to set up their next play.

And what is their next play?  When the Republicans refuse to accept the crap the Democrats are trying to feed them, Democrats will flood the airwaves to proclaim that Republicans are refusing to play ball and stave off a meltdown.

Obama Forced To Reveal Mutually Contradictory Positions

July 23, 2008

A July 20 Associated Press story asked the question which answer is obvious: “Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?” The article begins:

NEW YORK – Television news’ royalty will fly in to meet Barack Obama during this week’s overseas trip: CBS chief anchor Katie Couric in Jordan on Tuesday, ABC’s Charles Gibson in Israel on Wednesday and NBC’s Brian Williams in Germany on Thursday.

The anchor blessing defines the trip as a Major Event and — much like a “Saturday Night Live” skit in February that depicted a press corps fawning over Obama — raises anew the issue of fairness in campaign coverage.

The news media have devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The reality is, “Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?” is a rhetorical question (a question with such a patently obvious answer there is no point in answering) to any but the most deluded.

But what we are seeing is that there is some evidence that the media – and particularly the three elite network anchors who had been described as “Obama’s three press secretaries” – don’t like being so obviously “in the tank” for Obama. They want to show their viewers that they really aren’t as biased as everyone thinks they are. And that means finally asking Obama a few tough questions instead of merely basking in his magnificence the way they usually do.

Katie CouricSURPRISE! – attempted to pin Obama down on some of his inherent contradictions regarding Iraq.

Obama stuck to the same position he gave at a press conference. Allow me to emphasize certain statements in boldface:

Sens. Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, and Jack Reed just released a statement about their day in Iraq. The three are overnighting in Baghdad and will arrive in Amman tomorrow for their first and only press conference of their trip to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The statement notes the security progress in Iraq but gives the new military tactics a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, and Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, all opposed the troop surge.

Obama in an interview with ABC News that’s posted at the bottom of this story in which he says if he had it to do all over again he would still oppose the troop surge. He told ABC what he did not expect or anticipate in Iraq was the Sunni uprising against Al Qaeda and among the Shi’ites decision to play ball politically via cease fires rather than continue their campaign of violence. How the surge affected the calculations in either case is left unsaid by Obama, according to ABC.

The surge is and has been the central story in Iraq since it began in January 2007. Obama, who told CBS on Sunday, that he “never” has doubts about his foreign policy, is in no way re-evaluating the surge or what he did or did not anticipate would arise from it. This may give fodder to John McCain’s camp and other skeptics of Obama’s approach to military tactics, strategic thinking and the ability to adapt his own views to unexpected events.

So our military gets only “a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence“? And so who gets the real credit for Obama? The Sunni sheiks and the Iraqi government for disarming Shiite militias such as Sadrs!

Does that jive with history? Is it just a coincidence that things were going poorly that Democrats were claiming defeat left and right, and then we had the surge, and then things started going well even as Democrats claimed they weren’t? And our soldiers were just window dressing while Iraq fixed all of its own problems?

I hope you’re not actually as stupid as Barack Obama thinks you are.

President Bush announced the surge strategy on January 7, 2007. 20,000 additional U.S. troops were committed, with the majority – 5 brigades – heading into Baghdad. Within slightly over a month, there were enough American troops to substantially back an Iraqi-led effort to secure the city of Baghdad.

Do you remember Demacrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, “The war is lost“? in April of 2007?

Who doesn’t realize that it was General David Petraeus and the surge that John McCain had been advocating all along that turned things around?

Who doesn’t realize that if we hadn’t listened to great men like Petraeus – and ignored trivial fools like Obama – we would have cut and run in abject disgrace from an emboldened terrorist enemy?

According to the New York Times:

When the Anbar tribes first began cooperating, they told the Americans where the extremists were hiding weapons caches, burying bombs, and running safe houses. Then they set up checkpoints and began engaging in gunfights with Qaeda cells in the Ramadi area.

With attacks decreasing against both Americans and Iraqis in Anbar, and large numbers of tribesmen lining up to join local security forces, the American military has begun to try to replicate its success.

A story by the Times clearly shows the bulk of the Sunni fighters signing on to fight the terrorists and insurgents beginning sometime in May 2007, directly coinciding with the surge. 4,000 Marines deployed to Anbar province.

It is simply a lie to claim that the Sunnis began fighting on their own, or that the surge did not massively influence their willingness to fight. To the extent that the Anbar resistance preceded the surge, it was small, it relied greatly upon American soldiers, and it didn’t explode until after the surge.

The same applies with the Shiite efforts. The effort to disarm Shiite militias such as Moktada al Sadrs Mahdi army. A New York Times story appearing on October 11, 2007 begins (again, boldface mine):

BAGHDAD, Oct. 11 — In a number of Shiite neighborhoods across Baghdad, residents are beginning to turn away from the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia they once saw as their only protector against Sunni militants. Now they resent it as a band of street thugs without ideology.

It wasn’t until the surge took effect – and Shiites began to recognize that they were protecting them – that the Shiite people began to renounce the militias and the Shiite-backed Iraq government had the backing to demand the disarmament of the troublesome militias.

Barack Obama is thus revealed as a demonstrated liar without shame who gives our heroic soldiers – who have been absolutely magnificent – a “fraction of the credit.” I GIVE THEM ALL THE CREDIT!!!

Our soldiers succeeded when cowardly and craven men like Harry Reid and Barack Obama predicted that they would fail, and very likely even rooted for them to fail (You might recall House Majority Whip James Clyburn acknowledging that good news from Iraq was bad news for Democrats; or you might recall Rep. Jack Murtha presuming that Marines were guilty of war crimes and convicting them before the trial which exonerated them).

The soldiers succeeded. It was Obama and his fellow Democrats who failed.

Barack Obama gives our soldiers no credit because this man who “never has doubts about his foreign policy” cannot acknowledge he was wrong – no matter how obviously and completely wrong he was.

Liberals claim that Bush was inflexible and would not admit his mistakes? Obama is rigid to about the trillionth power.

Obama’s rigid ability to deny reality emerged again as he went to Israel and Gaza.

He had previosly said:

“Let me be clear,” Senator Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Then as a result of Palestinian anger he said:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

As a direct result of Obama’s complete abandonment of his earlier position, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said of Obama’s reversal:

“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah. “The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”

Way to go, Barack. You sure contributed to Mideast peace. Any other issues you want to resolve with your courage, your integrity, your resolve, and your strength of character?

Now, any normal human being would acknowledge that they had changed their position. But not Barack Obama. He is so personally arrogant, so unyielding, so deceitful, and so intellectually dishonest even with himself, that he simply does not have that capacity within him.

“I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. I have said it before and will say it again…but I’ve also said that it is a final status issue” that must be decided by negotiation, he said in the southern Israeli town of Sderot.

No. You continue to lie. You continue to say things that are the logical contradiction of what you said earlier, and then you continue to deceitfully and disingenuously misrepresent yourself having been consistent all along.

We can also go back to his incredibly foolish campaign promise from last July:

In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?…..”

“I would,” Obama answered.  “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.”

And his website USED to say:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions

Now he says:

A year ago, Obama was asked whether he would meet personally, without preconditions, with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations during the first year of his administration to resolve differences with the United States. Obama said he would.

On Wednesday Obama said, “I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation.”

The point is to say, “No. You didn’t say that at all, you lying weasel. Are you such a completely dishonest man that you can so blatantly lie even to yourself? In grammatical terms, those “if…then” constructions are called “conditionals.” The fact is, you have by now applied so many DIFFERENT PRECONDITIONS to your “without preconditions” policy that your original statement is revealed to have been a) foolish beyond belief; and b) a complete lie.

This man is dangerous, and it is nowhere revealed more than in his foreign policy. He is completely incompetent; he is completely untrustworthy; he is completely wrong; and he is completely unable to recognize obvious contradictions.

Returning to the issue of Iraq, let me make a point: Obama claims the surge was wrong because we’ve diverted resources we should have used in Afghanistan to Iraq. And Obama’s alternative to the surge in Iraq was to instead exert diplomatic pressure by setting a timetable for withdrawal. Obama believes that by setting a date for retreating from Iraq in stone the Iraqi government would be pressured into getting their act together.

Now, if Obama really thought that idea that would have worked in Iraq, why then is he now proposing what clearly amounts to the exact same surge strategy for Afghanistan instead of demanding a withdrawal date that would pressure the Afghani government into getting their act together?

Do you see the inherent contradiction?

Obama’s position on the surge has essentially been: “The surge will fail.” Then he said, “It kind of worked, but we still shouldn’t have done it.” And now he says, “The same strategy that I vehemently opposed in Iraq will work in Afghanistan but it was my idea all along.”

I wrote an article titled, “U.S. vs. Nuclear Iran: Russia, China Block Any Resolution – Again,” that establishes the virtually identical similarities between trying to check a possibly weaponized Iraq with the current environment of trying to check a possibly weaponized Iran. By Obama’s philosophy, we can not move to use military power to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons until: 1) We are absolutely certain they have them (a belief based on the known intelligence is not enough); 2) United Nations resolutions justifying war; and 3) a military alliance similar in size to that of the Gulf War in 1991. Since NONE of those three conditions are likely to be met, we cannot possibly attack Iran to prevent their development of nuclear weapons. And then we would be dealing with a nuclear-armed terrorist belligerent state that is immune to attack (unless you want World War III) and free to attack our interests again and again with impunity.

What would a President Obama do? This is a man who can’t even stand up to his own rhetoric, much less terrorist murders.

Barack Obama is a complete disaster waiting to happen. If we are foolish enough to elect him president, rogue tyrants and totalitarian leaders will recognize Barack Obama’s insipid pandering weakness and immediately begin to exploit him, and the world will be shocked to discover just how empty he truly is.