Posts Tagged ‘partisan’

The ‘Slaughter Solition’ As Epitome Of Obama ‘Transparency’

March 17, 2010

I’m sure anyone you meet can tell you all about the self executing rule that the Democrats are now relying upon to pass their health care boondoggle.

They will know all about the “Slaughter solution.”  It will be “transparent” to them.

Because this is the most “transparent” administration in history.

Right?

Wrong.

Democrats routinely demonized the Bush White House as “the most secretive administration in history.”  But it is now a documented fact that the Obama administration is at least 50% more secretive than Bush:

PROMISES, PROMISES: Is gov’t more open with Obama?
By SHARON THEIMER Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) – The government’s use of legal exemptions to keep records secret rose during President Barack Obama’s first year in office, despite promises of increased openness, an Associated Press review found.

The review of annual Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that overall, the use of nearly every one of the open-records law’s nine exemptions to withhold information rose in fiscal year 2009, which ended last October. […]

Major agencies cited that exemption to refuse records at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, compared with 47,395 times during President George W. Bush’s final full budget year, according to annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.

This lack of transparency – hypocritical as it is because Obama demagogued Bush while promising to be so much better – has taken root in health care.  His “transparency” is an outrageous and incredibly cynical lie just like all his other outrageous and incredibly cynical lies.

The Democrats are like the “Mr. Brooks” character portrayed by Kevin Costner: self-designated pillars of the community who are all the while actually brutal mass-murdering schizophrenic psychopaths.  They say one thing in public, but the very ugly truth is a very different thing behind closed doors.

It’s rather fittingly ironic that ObamaCare is going to be shoved down our throats with Constitution-schmonstitution shenanigans named “The SLAUGHTER Solution” and “the Self EXECUTING Rule.

Barack Obama – who was THE most liberal U.S. Senator in Congress the year he announced his candidacy for president (in 2007) – stated as his core promise that he would “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars.”  But it turns out that he was a hard-core partisan ideologue radical.  It turns out that he is the most polarizing president in history.  It turns out that he would see this country erupt in flames not seen since the Civil War (when Republicans were as usual in the right and Democrats were as usual the party of genuine depravity) in order to impose an unpopular “fundamental transformation” onto the American people.

Now this lying demagogue – who attacked the reconciliation strategy as “majoritarian absolute power” right out of the ugliest pages of the Karl Rove playbook, and who claimed that anyone who would pursue such a strategy doesn’t believe in government – is now hypocritically and cynically embracing a strategy that makes reconciliation look positively tame.  I mean, at least you actually VOTED with reconciliation, even if that vote was a joke; with the “self executing” Slaughter solution, you don’t even bother with such pretension, but merely “deem” it to have been voted upon.

In the modernized version of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, the line from today’s bandits is, “Vote?  We aint got no vote!  We don’t need no vote!  I don’t have to show you any stinking vote!”

Obama is the one who doesn’t believe in government.  The man who once said, “You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus 1, but you can’t govern,” and who once said, “Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus, because he doesn’t believe in government,” now reveals himself to be the political anarchist who would blow up our entire political process in order to ram through his incredibly unpopular ideological agenda.

Our founding fathers went to war to rid themselves of a king who wasn’t half the tyrant Barack Obama has revealed himself to be.

And all the while he keeps brazenly trying to pass himself off as something he absolutely is not.

Reminds me of what the Bible says about the devil:

“But I am not surprised! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14, NLT).

Obama White House Accused By Democrat Of Federal Crime In Specter, Bennet Races

February 23, 2010

Richard Nixon was honest to a fault compared to Barack Obama – and Obama is displaying corruption in only a year (Nixon was into his second term before he got caught).

We have Obama on video telling what we now recognize were seven major lies in less than two minutes when he was lying his way to the presidency:

[Youtube link]

We’ve got Obama displaying a shocking pattern of corruption and lack of transparency in a case involving a friend and a sacred-cow program.  It is also a case of a president firing an Inspector General for the crime of investigating a crime in a manner that was not merely Nixonian, but Stalinist (link1; link2; link3; link4).  Rest assured that Obama has his own enemies list.

The case of the illegal firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin is far from over as it works its way through the legal system.

Getting closer to what we now have before us, we have the cases of the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and a list of political bribery shenanigans that gets too long to follow.

All from an administration that deceitfully promised unprecedented transparency and openness and continues to shamelessly represent itself as being the best thing since sliced bread.

But this story – supported by the testimony of Democrats – may be in a whole new class of corruption:

White House Accused of Federal Crime in Specter, Bennet Races
By Jeffrey Lord on 2.22.10 @ 6:09AM

“Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” — 18 USC Sec. 211 — Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

“In the face of a White House denial, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stuck to his story yesterday that the Obama administration offered him a “high-ranking” government post if he would not run against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary.”
Philadelphia Inquirer
February 19, 2010

“D.C. job alleged as attempt to deter Romanoff”
Denver Post
September 27, 2009

A bombshell has just exploded in the 2010 elections.

For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused — by Democrats — of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.

The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The favor requested in return? Withdrawal from Senate challenges to two sitting United States Senators, both Democrats supported by President Obama. The Senators are Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado.

On Friday, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrat challenging Specter for re-nomination, launched the controversy by accusing the Obama White House of offering him a federal job in exchange for his agreeing to abandon his race against Specter.

In August of 2009, the Denver Post reported last September, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina “offered specific suggestions” for a job in the Obama Administration to Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, a former state House Speaker, if Romanoff would agree to abandon a nomination challenge to U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. Bennet was appointed to the seat upon the resignation of then-Senator Ken Salazar after Salazar was appointed by Obama to serve as Secretary of the Interior. According to the Post, the specific job mentioned was in the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Post cited “several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.”

The paper also describes Messina as “President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop.” Messina’s immediate boss is White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Sestak is standing by his story. Romanoff refused to discuss it with the Denver paper. In both instances the White House has denied the offers took place. The Sestak story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reported by Thomas Fitzgerald, can be found here, While the Denver Post story, reported by Michael Riley, from September 27, 2009, can be read here.

In an interview with Philadelphia television anchor Larry Kane, who broke the story on Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Comcast Network show, Sestak says someone — unnamed — in the Obama White House offered him a federal job if he would quit the Senate race against Specter, the latter having the support of President Obama, Vice President Biden and, in the state itself, outgoing Democratic Governor Ed Rendell. Both Biden and Rendell are longtime friends of Specter, with Biden taking personal credit for convincing Specter to leave the Republican Party and switch to the Democrats. Rendell served as a deputy to Specter when the future senator’s career began as Philadelphia’s District Attorney, a job Rendell himself would eventually hold.

Asked Kane of Sestak in the Comcast interview:

“Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?”

“Yes” replied Sestak.

Kane: “Was it Secretary of the Navy?”

To which the Congressman replied:

“No comment.”

Sestak is a retired Navy admiral.

In the Colorado case, the Post reported that while Romanoff refused comment on a withdrawal-for-a-job offer, “several top Colorado Democrats described Messina’s outreach to Romanoff to The Post, including the discussion of specific jobs in the administration. They asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.”

The Post also noted that the day after Romanoff announced his Senate candidacy, President Obama quickly announced his endorsement of Senator Bennet.

The discovery that the White House has now been reported on two separate occasions in two different states to be deliberately committing a potential violation of federal law — in order to preserve the Democrats’ Senate majority — could prove explosive in this highly political year. The 60-seat majority slipped to 59 seats with the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, a Democrat, and the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown. Many political analysts are suggesting Democrats could lose enough seats to lose their majority altogether.

This is the stuff of congressional investigations and cable news alerts, as an array of questions will inevitably start being asked of the Obama White House.

Here are but a few lines of inquiry, some inevitably straight out of Watergate.

* Who in the White House had this conversation with Congressman Sestak?

* Did Deputy Chief of Staff Messina have the same conversation with Sestak he is alleged to have had with Romanoff — and has he or anyone else on the White House staff had similar conversations with other candidates that promise federal jobs for political favors?

* They keep logs of these calls. How quickly will they be produced?

* How quickly would e-mails between the White House, Sestak, Specter, Romanoff and Bennet be produced?

* Secretary of the Navy is an important job. Did this job offer or the reported offer of the US AID position to Romanoff have the approval of President Obama or Vice President Biden?

* What did the President know and when did he know it?

* What did the Vice President know and when did he know it? (Note: Vice President Biden, in this tale, is Specter’s longtime friend who takes credit for luring Specter to switch parties. Can it really be that an offer of Secretary of the Navy to get Sestak out of Specter’s race would not be known and or approved by the Vice President? Does Messina or some other White House staffer — like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — have that authority?)

* What did White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel know, and when did he know it?

* What did Congressman Sestak know and when did he know it? Was he aware that the offer of a federal job in return for a political favor — his withdrawal from the Senate race — could open the White House to a criminal investigation?

* What did Senator Specter know about any of this and when did he know it? .

* What did Governor Rendell, who, as the titular leader of Pennsylvania Democrats, is throwing his political weight and machine to his old friend Specter, know about this? And when did he know it?

* Will the Department of Justice be looking into these two separate news stories, one supplied by a sitting United States Congressman, that paint a clear picture of jobs for political favors?

* Will Attorney General Holder recuse himself from such an investigation?

While in recent years there have been bribery scandals that centered on the exchange of favors for a business deal (Democrat William Jefferson, a Louisiana Congressman) or cash for earmarks (Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham), the idea of violating federal law by offering a federal job in return for a political favor (leaving two hotly contested Senate races in this instance) is not new.

Let’s go back in history for a moment.

It’s the spring of 1960, in the middle of a bitter fight for the Democratic presidential nomination between then Senators John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, Stuart Symington and the 1952 and 1956 nominee, ex-Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson.

Covering the campaign for what would become the grandfather of all political campaign books was journalist and JFK friend Theodore H. White. In his book, the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Making of the President 1960, published in 1961, White tells the story of a plane flight with JFK on the candidate’s private plane The Caroline. The nomination fight is going on at a furious pace, and White and Kennedy are having another of their innumerable private chats for White’s book while the plane brings JFK back from a campaign swing where he spoke to delegates in Montana.

The subject? Let’s let White tell the story.

The conversation began in a burst of anger. A story had appeared in a New York newspaper that evening that an Eastern Governor had claimed that Kennedy had offered him a cabinet post in return for his Convention support. His anger was cold, furious. When Kennedy is angry, he is at his most precise, almost schoolmasterish. It is a federal offense, he said, to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor. This was an accusation of a federal offense. It was not so.

Let’s focus on that JFK line again:

“It is a federal offense, he said, to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”

With a fine and jail time attached if convicted.

What Larry Kane discovered with the response of Congressman Sestak — and Sestak is sticking to his story — combined with what the Denver Post has previously reported in the Romanoff case — appears to be a series of connecting dots.

A connecting of dots — by Democrats — that leads from Colorado to Pennsylvania straight into the West Wing of the White House.

And possibly the jail house.

“It is a federal offense,” said John F. Kennedy, “to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”

And so it is.

Obama – who is loudly and frequently patting himself on the back for how “bipartisan” he is, is the most radically ideological partisan who ever sat in the Oval Office.

And as Obama continues to push his ObamaCare boondoggle apparently to the very last Democrat, it is more than fair to ask: why on earth are we trusting these dishonest rat bastards with our health care system and literally with our very lives in the event that their government takeover succeeds?

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.


Sarah Palin Demolishes Obama’s Pretentions State of the Deception Speech

January 28, 2010

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:

Today at 2:17pm

While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.

Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.

He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”

He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.

He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.

Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.

He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.

He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.

He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?

Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?

In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.

Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.

Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.

He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.

Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.

– Sarah Palin

She nailed it.

Spending Demon Democrats Demand Another $1.9 TRILLION In Debt Ceiling

January 21, 2010

Would you mind giving me a small loan?  All I need is two trillion dollars.

I’m good for it.  Seriously.

Democrats seek to up debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion
By DAVID ROGERS | 1/20/10 8:47 PM EST

Upping the ante just a day after losing their 60th Senate seat, Democrats moved Wednesday to seek a $1.9 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling and give the Treasury adequate borrowing authority past November’s elections and into next year.

Republicans were caught off guard by the scale of the increase which follows a $290 billion short-term debt increase approved prior to Christmas. “That’s just escapism of the worst sort,” Sen. Judd Gregg (R.,N.H.) told POLITICO. But Democrats countered that their only alternative would be to give-in to a Republican strategy of forcing multiple smaller debt ceiling increases, designed to bleed them politically before November.

This perception was reinforced by a meeting Tuesday between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). By going now with the higher $1.9 trillion target, Democrats are making a high-stakes gamble that the party can pull together once more to put the debt ceiling issue behind them for this election year.

“We have to do this. The alternative is worse,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D—Mont.) in a brief interview.

Why can’t the Democrats do their “high-stakes gamble” with their own $2 trillion?

So the Democrats are clearly playing politics – wanting a massive and risky debt ceiling increase of nearly $2 trillion so that people will forget before the November elections.

And Republicans are being depicted as playing politics by making Democrats pass smaller, more incremental increases that would make Democrats look bad.

But Democrats look bad all by themselves.  And the incremental increases have never been anything even close to such a massive sum.  From Bloomberg:

The debt limit increase, raising the legal cap on government borrowing to about $14 trillion, would be the fourth in 18 months. A $1.8 trillion boost would probably be enough to prevent lawmakers from having to raise the limit again before next year’s midterm elections.

Such an increase would be more than twice the size of each of the past three debt limit increases, each of which lifted the cap by $800 billion or less.

So it’s really just political demagoguery to accuse the Republicans of pursuing a purely political agenda.  And this is how the leftwing political establishment and the leftwing media present a narrative instead of just presenting the facts.

There are actually more than a few people who think that the government is irresponsible, and shouldn’t have so much money to spend all at once, lest they piss it away and waste it.  I’m one of those people.

If your next door neighbors aren’t massively in debt, they’re probably such people, too.

Even Democrats were reluctant to vote for the last debt ceiling increase (of $290 billion) just before Christmas without a significant effort to reduce spending.

So to solve this problem – or at least go through the motions of pretending to solve it – “the Obama administration reached a tentative accord with congressional Democrats to create a version of the panel by executive order.  Obama’s proposal “would require Congress to vote on the commission’s recommendations without making any changes.”  And “with a commission created by presidential order, congressional leaders would promise to bring its proposals to a vote although such a vote wouldn’t be required by law.”

And that kind of crap-sandwich is what’s making Republicans roll their eyeballs about 180 degrees:

[Republican Senator Judd] Gregg told reporters that the proposal to create a commission by executive order was “a very cynical act by the administration” that “is by definition partisan and the whole purpose” is to have a bipartisan body.

“There is no way you can require a vote” by Congress so “it’s a nothing-burger,” Gregg said.

Which is to say that Obama wants to get a blank check of $1.9 trillion, which he hopes will tidy him over until AFTER the November midterms so Democrats won’t look bad coming for mere hundreds of billions in dribs and drabs.  And Republicans are supposed to go along with that, because they obviously should make the Democrats’ political fortunes the center of their world.  In exchange for this fools’ bargain, Republicans (and the fiscally responsible Democrats who don’t want to vote for it either) would get a commission that would have the power to impose nothing — the nothing burger.

I bet a nice, big, juicy nothing burger sounds pretty good to you.  Just don’t try to count on actually ever being able to eat it.

And by Obama’s demagoguery narrative, the Republicans will be evil if they don’t go along with this stupidity.

Note to Congress: try spending less.

I know one place you could start: the Obama White House averaged one party every three days during Obama’s first year.

Back in January 2009, before he signed his failed $787 billion stimulus bill into law, Barack Obama told America that everyone must sacrifice for the greater good. Everyone must have “some skin in the game.”

What he meant, of course, was that everyone would have to sacrifice to lift American out of the worst recession since the Great Depression except for Barack and Michelle Obama.

A party every three days, and nothing but the finest at the White House.  That’s a lot of Black Sea caviar and French truffles.

So you can see why Obama wants that $1.9 trillion.

Obama Promise To Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie

November 11, 2009

Back in March of 2008, the New York Times correctly identified what they described as the CORE of Barack Obama’s promise to the American people, and they correctly identified why reasonable people should be skeptical:

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?

Anyone who possessed more reason than their dog or cat, of course, should have known that the answer to the last question would be a resounding “NO!”  If Obama had wanted to be a “unifier,” he wouldn’t have been the most liberal (and radical) member of the U.S. Senate.

And of course, anyone who truly possessed even a shred of bipartisanship wouldn’t have spent 23 seconds in Jeremiah Wright’s demagogic, racist, anti-American, Marxist church, let alone 23 years.

In other words, any reasonably intelligent person should have known that Obama’s core promise as candidate was in actuality a cynical deception from a fundamentally dishonest politician who was cravenly willing to pass off any deceit to get himself elected.

Did Obama even attempt to live up to his core promise?  Not even close.

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

That speech – with that hard core partisan attack – was delivered within less than THREE WEEKS of his taking office.  Obama was claiming that Republicans didn’t even have a right to present their ideas, much less have any of their ideas or contributions considered.  Some attempt at “bipartisanship.”

It nearly immediately became obvious that Obama’s “transcending the ideological wars” was a cynical marketing gimmick offered by people who had no intention of living up to their campaign rhetoric.

Republicans reacted angrily to the president’s change in tone. Mr. Obama and the Democrats were talking eloquently about bipartisanship, they said, without letting the Republicans have any real influence.

“There is a disconnect between the tone of what I’ve been hearing, from the White House and the Democratic leadership, and the substance of what I’ve been hearing,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) said on the Senate floor Friday. “We thought what [bipartisanship] meant is that the president would define an agenda and then we’d sit down together and put forth our best ideas.”

If Republicans such as Lamar Alexander actually thought that way, they were as gullible as the American people who swallowed Obama’s lies much the same way that fish in a pond gobble up obnoxious kids’ spit.  Like those disgusting snot-filled lougies, Obama’s core promise of transcending the partisanship was something that the American people were so hungry for that they rushed to thoughtlessly gobble up even the most disgusting substitute.

Here’s what Obama recently said to Democrats, again as reported by the New York Times:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens’s election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

Note to world: Obama is talking about his own citizens.  And his hatred for them drips out like venom.

Not only is this caustic remark in no way close to anything even faintly resembling “bipartisanship,” but it is in fact diving to the bottom of the partisan, idelogical watters where the most loathsome bottom feeders reside.

Obama has demonized George Bush, demonized Wall Street (after having cynically taken more campaign contributions from Wall Street firms than anyone), demonized banks, demonized American citizens for exercising their rights at tea party events, demonized car manufacturers, demonized health insurance companies (whom he demagogued as “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads” even as HIS administration and party trotted out lie after lie against them), demonized doctors (whom he claimed amputated diabetics’ feet and yanked out childrens’ tonsils just to pad their fees), repeatedly demonized and attempted to undermine Fox News, demonized the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and demonized anyone else who disagreed with his radical agenda.

George Bush never even came close to being such a demagogue.  I frankly don’t believe that even NIXON was such a demagogue.

I have never seen such constant demagogic and demonizing rhetoric – against American citizens and American businesses – from a U.S. president of either political party in my adult lifetime.

That divisive demagoguery, in spite of his many promises to heal the divide and restore bipartisanship, is Obama’s biggest failure.  And his biggest lie.

Reconciliation As Nuclear Option: Note To Democrats – Republicans Have THEIR ‘Nuclear Option,’ Too

August 20, 2009

So I drag a woman walking down the sidewalk into a dark ally and tell her I would very much like to have sex with her – and it has to be done now, without debate.  She refuses; no negotiation, no compromise.  And of course I rape her.  The question is, who is to blame for the rape?

According to the Democrats’ view, it is clearly the woman.

President Barack Obama now realizes he probably will have to pass health reform with Democratic votes alone, White House officials say…

“We were forced into this by Republicans,” one official said.

Headline: “I was forced to rape…,” claims rapist.

The Republicans are like the woman; they oppose a government takeover of health care the way the woman opposes having sex with a stranger.  But because they stand up for their principles and refuse to compromise their values, they get raped.

The Republicans can’t stop anything the Democrats do.  Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  Demagoguing Republicans for the Democrats’ failure to come together is both absurd and immoral.  It is transparently false.  The only real battle going on is between liberal and conservative Democrats.

So why blame Republicans?  Because Democrats are demagogues.

Today Obama said:

“I think early on, a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, ‘Look, let’s not give him a victory, maybe we can have a replay of 1993, ’94, when Clinton came in, he failed on health care and then we won in the mid-term elections and we got the majority. And I think there are some folks who are taking a page out that playbook,”

It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that Democrats haven’t offered Republicans ANYTHING they want, but only EVERYTHING they hate.  It’s not about the fact that not only were Republicans shut out of crafting health care legislation, but even Blue Dog DEMOCRATS were shut out of the process.

This is so like Obama: he depicts himself as standing loftily above everyone around him as the sole determiner of truth and justice – and then anyone who disagrees with him has the lowest politically partisan motives.  It’s really a remarkable trick for a man who was THE most liberal US Senator the year before he began his run for the presidency.

When Democrats talk about “going solo,” they aren’t just talking about using their overwhelming majority to impose ObamaCare – because they don’t have the Democrat votes for it.  Rather, they are talking about using a rare parliamentary procedure called “reconciliation”:

The debate over health care reform could be heading in a new direction. Democrats are considering going at it alone. That would mean trying to pass it without Republican support.

Caution: Relations between Dems and the GOP could get toxic.

Caution: Relations between Dems and the GOP could get toxic.

Democrats want to use a process called reconciliation. It would only require 51 votes in the Senate to get a health care bill passed. Normally, a bill would require 60 votes to be passed. Also, with the reconciliation process, only 20 hours of debate would be allowed, no filibuster would be allowed, stamping out opposition debate.

Reconciliation was created for budget items, because the federal government has a constitutional requirement to pass a budget.  The measure has never been used to advance legislation – although Bill Clinton threatened to use it to ram through his health care plan in 1993.  Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, who drafted the reconciliation process in 1974, was opposed to Clinton’s maneuver – just as he is opposed to Barack Obama’s doing it now.

Even Robert Byrd is adamant that reconciliation not be used to reform healthcare, as it leads down a slippery slope. Byrd is important here, because he developed the now-called Byrd Rule, that sets six conditions by which a provision can be excluded from reconciliation. This was intended to prevent abuse of the reconciliation tactic; otherwise, what stops anyone at anytime using this trick to avoid filibuster? The six conditions simply demand that if any provision of the bill is not about the budget, deficits, surpluses, or funding, then the whole package is thrown out.

This illegitimate abuse of the reconciliation as a “nuclear option” would poison any chance of bipartisanship for years – even decades – to come.

But it is well within the mindset of a president who falsely promised to be a “‘new politician’ who had risen above the partisan divide and didn’t have to lower himself into the gutter of the political past.”

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a different occasion.

Using reconciliation as a nuclear option wouldn’t be lowering oneself in a gutter; it would be growing gills and living in a sewer system filled with the very worst kind of toxic waste.

Republicans are finally starting to learn – about a decade late – that it’s time they started bringing guns to the fight with Democrats, too.

Don’t think the use of reconciliation won’t have massive consequences.

It should be known that Republicans have a nuclear option of their own:

[T]he Republicans can shut down the Senate for the next  year.  Those unfamiliar with the parliamentary procedure may not realize that a great many steps get skipped by unanimous consent.  Bill-reading is just one example.  One Senator can force each and every bill to be read aloud at every appearance it makes on the Senate floor, including when they are sent to committee.  For ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, one bill reading could take a week, keeping the Senate floor locked off from any other business.

All Republicans can do is stand up for their conservative values, and try to rally the American people to their cause.  They can’t stop the Democrats from passing a massive government takeover of health care along party lines.  They can’t even mount a filibuster without Democrats crossing over to join them.

All Democrat lies aside; this isn’t about a bill that Republicans won’t support.  It’s about a bill that can’t even sustain Democrat support.

If Democrats invoke the illegitimate process of a nuclear option to pass health care, they will start the nastiest war this country has seen since our Civil War in 1861.  It will lead to a political climate that will be uglier than any American has ever seen in his or her lifetime.

The conservative American Spectator writes:

While the White House has been floating the idea of using reconciliation to pass health care legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes, it should be seen as an empty threat. Let’s even set aside the fact that it would be a declaration of war that would shut down the Senate, that it would remove any pretense that Obama is a post-partisan president, and that ramming an unpopular bill down the throats of the public is not a politically astute move. Even if Democrats wanted to risk all of that for the greater goal of passing health care legislation, they couldn’t do it.

I hope they are right.  But I will not be the least bit surprised if it isn’t an empty threat at all.  Rather, what I regard as “empty” was the “post-partisan” promises (dare I say it again) of THE most liberal U.S. Senator the year before he ran for the presidency.

Be vigilant.  And be ready to go absolutely ballistic if this massive violation into our constitutional democracy is rammed down our throats.

Partisan Political Hack Leon Panetta Demonizes Dick Cheney

June 16, 2009

Leon Panetta is proving what a partisan political hack Americans always should have known he is and always has been.  I first called Panetta a “partisan political hack” back in January when he was first nominated.  And Panetta’s outrageous cheap-shot at Dick Cheney is nothing short than the tactics of a partisan political hack.

The difference between the CIA and the KGB has always been that the one was geared toward intelligence, while the latter was geared toward enforcing political ideology.  At least until Barack Obama came along, that is.  Now we’ve got our first “communist show trials” since the days of McCarthy and the latter days of the USSR in the works.

And now we’ve got Obama’s Homeland Security defining “rightwing extremists” in terms of Obama’s conservative political opponents (not to mention returning combat veterans), and we’ve also got Leon Panetta demonizing political disagreement by personally attacking the motives of conservatives.

Cheney: I Hope Panetta Was ‘Misquoted’ in Claiming My Wish for Attack
After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Dick Cheney says he hopes his “old friend” didn’t really say those words.

FOXNews.com
Monday, June 15, 2009

Dick Cheney says he wants to know if he heard Leon Panetta correctly.

After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Cheney said Monday he hopes his “old friend” didn’t really say those words.

“I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted,” Cheney said, in a written statement to FOX News. “The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the past eight years.”

Others were not quite willing to give Panetta the benefit of the doubt, as his politically charged quote stirred controversy on Capitol Hill.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called on Panetta to “retract immediately” his statement, arguing that the director crossed the line.

“I disagreed with the Cheney policy on interrogation techniques, but never did it cross my mind that Dick Cheney would ever want an attack on the United States of America,” the former GOP presidential candidate told FOX News Monday. “And it’s unfair, and I think that Mr. Panetta should retract, and retract immediately.

“By the way, I hear morale is not at an all-time high over at the CIA under Mr. Panetta’s leadership,” he said.

Panetta, a long-time Washington insider with scant intelligence experience, has been caught in the middle of a political war during his first few months on the job. First, he had to deal with morale issues as President Obama cracked down on the rules for detainee interrogations. Then he stepped up to dispute House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s allegation that the CIA misled Congress about the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

This time, he’s firing back against Cheney’s frequent media appearances in which he’s accused Obama of making America less safe.

According to The New Yorker, Panetta said Cheney “smells some blood in the water” on the security issue.

“It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics,” he said, according to the piece.

Asked about the statement, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ducked.

“I’m not going to get into motivations. That’s not what our business is. The president’s concern is keeping the American people safe,” Gibbs said Monday.

FOX News’ Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.

Maybe Gibbs isn’t “going to get into motivations.”  But his fellow liberal hack – CIA Director Leon Panetta – sure will.

Maybe the CIA has some kind of “motive analyzer” that Panetta zapped Dick Cheney with.  In the liberal tradition, I must ask, “Doesn’t Panetta need some kind of warrant to zap private citizen Cheney with his spook motive-detector gizmo?  Liberals and the ACLU should be crawling out of the woodwork.  Don’t forget, that’s what they did when they found out that the government was listening in to calls made to or from people on the terrorist watch list to or from this country.

This is classic liberal politics of demonization and demagoguery.  This is classic Nancy Pelosi.  This is classic Barack Obama.

A quote from an earlier article about the LAST TIME liberals hatefully and viciously teed-off on Dick Cheney should serve to show just how often Obama has demagogued – and hypocritically demagogued at that – Bush-era policies:

Right now, liberals like Keith Olbermann are teeing off on conservatives for waterboarding when we now learn that liberals like Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats were fully briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed,” and neither said or did anything to prevent such techniques.  And even the very liberal new CIA Director under Obam0, Leon Panetta, essentially says Pelosi is lying.  How are their attacks now anything but partisan demagoguery?

And right now, liberals including Barack Obama himself are deceitfully claiming the moral high ground even as the new liberal administration takes many of the same positions that it hypocritically and demagogically found so hateful on the campaign trail.  As many policies as Obama has undone that will make this country less safe, there have been almost as many that he once demonized, only to follow himself once in office.

For instance, President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate.  Given that President Bush used the technique against only three individuals shortly after the worst disaster in US history, how is Obama any different?  In fact he’s worse, because Bush and Cheney never demagogued the issue as Obama has repeatedly done.

Obama demonized Bush over the Bush policy on rendition.  But now this demagogue is quietly continuing to carry out the same rendition policy – abducting terrorist suspects and sending them to countries that will use harsh interrogation methods – even as he congratulates himself in front of a fawning media for his being better than Bush.  But Obama isn’t better than Bush and Cheney; he’s worse.  Because he’s a hypocrite and a demagogue.

In the words of the New York Times, military commissions was “a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.”  But now the hypocrite and demagogue is going to quietly use them himself.

And Obama has indicated that he likewise reserves the right to continue to hold some prisoners without trial indefinitely – a position he demonized during the campaign.  How can such a man who so hypocritically employed such demagoguery only to come to the same position as the man he demagogued claim any semblance of moral high ground?  Obama is lower than Bush in his character, not higher.  Bush and Cheney didn’t self-righteously demagogue; only Obama did.

Dick Cheney is often called “Darth Vader” by the left.  But I think in Cheney’s gracious response to Panetta’s vicious, hateful, and evil comment who the REAL “Darth Vaders” are.  Panetta savagely attacked Cheney’s motives; Cheney responded by politely pointing at policy disagreement.

Now that liberals have opened the door wide to attacking people based on their motives and their politics, let me do a little “motive assessment” of my own: Maybe Leon Panetta is aware that the morale of his agency is at a shocking low after the butchery Democrats have done to its credibility.  And maybe he is aware – due to the “depressed, sullen, and enraged” morale at the CIA in the wake of the Obama administration’s and Democrat’s attacks against them – that the United States is now exposed to another massive terrorist attack.

From a Newsweek article on the poor morale of the CIA:

[T]he CIA better change their mission to “CYA,” because our government is not going to stand behind you.”

Those concerns were echoed by a retired undercover operative who still works under contract for the agency (and asked to remain anonymous when discussing internal agency politics). Clandestine Service officers are both demoralized and angry at Obama’s decisions to release the memos and ban future agency use of aggressive interrogation tactics, the former operative said. “It embarrasses our families. You just can’t keep hitting us. Sooner or later we’re going to stop going out and working.” The official added that “a lot of offense was taken” among some Clandestine Service veterans when Obama declared that the interrogation practices the agency employed under Bush were wrong, even though the new Administration would not prosecute operatives for carrying them out.

Just maybe Panetta and his boss realize that the only way to avoid blame for such an upcoming attack will be to try to preemptively blame and scapegoat  conservatives by saying that THEY are somehow more responsible than the Democrats who totally undermined our war on terror at every single turn because conservatives might have somehow hoped for it.

Corrupt Democrats Join Partisan Media In Violating Privacy Rights

October 31, 2008

The media tore into the personal and private lives of Obama “infomercial” Roberta Johnston, Larry Stewart, Juliana Sanchez, and Mark and Melinda Dowell, launching a massive investigative journalism war against the private citizens.  State officials joined in the effort to uncover every detail of the citizens’ lives, using state computers from public agencies to conduct thorough background checks.  Details began to come out immediately.  It was discovered that – contrary to her statement that she could only afford half a gallon of milk – Juliana Sanchez was seen buying TWO gallons of milk.  And, in an even bigger bombshell shocker, the Missouri mother that claimed that she couldn’t afford enough snacks for her children was caught buying a new pair of shoes with money that easily could have paid for an entire MONTHS’ worth of snacks.  With shocking developments like these, the effort of going through their trash and the use of state computers to dig up dirt was more than warranted.

Of course, that won’t happen.  It won’t happen because these people are Democrats supporting a Democratic candidate.  And the media is the official propaganda arm for the Democratic National Committee and for the Obama campaign.

Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher wasn’t nearly so lucky.  You see, when Wurzelbacher asked Barack Obama – who was walking past his house – a question that revealed that Obama was a socialist who liked to “spread the wealth around,” he became an instant arch-enemy of the Democratic Party and therefore of the media.  It was immediately revealed that his name wasn’t really even “Joe,” but “Samuel.”  “Joseph” is his MIDDLE NAME, which clearly proved that he had deep character flaws.  And THEN it came out that he isn’t really even a licensed plumber, but was working under his employers’ license while he prepared to take the ‘Master plumber’ examination.  They gleefully revealed that Wurzelbacher had a tax lien (conveniently omitting the fact that Obama’s campaign treasurer Martin Nesbitt likewise has a tax lien).  Every salacious detail – or at least every detail that could at least be made to sound salacious – was published and carried on every network and every news service.

Democrats attacked John McCain.  He hadn’t properly vetted Joe the plumber, they accused (which is another way of accusing the McCain campaign of failing to be as Stalinist as Democrats).  Joe the plumber is a private citizen.  Nobody SHOULD be “vetting” him.  All the man did was ask a simple question.  It wasn’t Wurzelbacher’s fault that Obama unmasked himself as a socialist with his answer.

It didn’t stop there.  Democrats are far too corrupt, hypocritical, and crazed to stop when it comes to unleashing the politics of personal destruction to annihilate anyone who gets in their way.  If Democrats had integrity, well, they wouldn’t be Democrats.

The Democrats and their media lackeys did a pretty effective job at convincing people that they had somehow trashed Sarah Palin even though they didn’t have anything on her.  Wicked lies about her pregancy and her family and violating her personal privacy by hacking her email account weren’t too low for Democrats.  Nothing is too low for Democrats.  They began by attacking her as a bad mother and then degenerated from there.

It turned out that Joe Wurzelbacher’s confidential information had been accessed via Ohio state computers:

Ohio’s inspector general is investigating why a state agency director approved checking the state child-support computer system for information on “Joe the Plumber.”

Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, confirmed today that she OK’d the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15 presidential debate.

She said there were no political reasons for the check on the sudden presidential campaign fixture though the Support Enforcement Tracking System.

Amid questions from the media and others about “Joe the Plumber,” Jones-Kelley said she approved a check to determine if he was current on any ordered child-support payments.

Such information was not and cannot be publicly shared, she said. It is unclear if Wurzelbacher is involved in a child-support case. Reports state that he lives alone with a 13-year-old son.

“Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look” at them, Jones-Kelley said, citing a case where a lottery winner was found to owe past-due child support. “Our practice is to basically look at what is coming our way.”

Ohio Inspector General Thomas P. Charles confirmed today that he is investigating the incident to determine if “Joe”s” records were legally accessed by Job and Family Services employees.

But Joe the plumber HADN’T won the lottery.  And Roberta Johnston, Larry Stewart, Juliana Sanchez, and Mark and Melinda Dowell have ALSO been thrust into the public spotlight.  The least the media and the Democrats can do is give the Obama infomercial citizens the same microscopically-detailed proctological exam they have given Joe Wurzelbacher.  If one of these people didn’t pay a parking ticket 30 years ago, we should know about it as a “public service.”

Then it turned out that the state computer searches on Wurzelbacher were “more extensive than first acknowledged”:

A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on “Joe the Plumber” were more extensive than it first acknowledged.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed yesterday that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.

The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.

Jones-Kelley made the revelations in a letter to Ohio Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, who demanded answers on why state officials checked out Wurzelbacher.

Harris called the multiple records checks “questionable” and said he awaits more answers. “It’s kind of like Big Brother is looking in your pocket,” he said.

Then we found out that Helen E. Jones-Kelly – who had been behind the searches – was a Democrat who had given the maximum contribution of $2,300 to the Obama campaign.  We can only surmise whether she made further contributions under aliases such as Mickey Mouse, Will Good or Doodad.

Jones-Kelly assures everyone that there’s no way she intended anything political out of her tactics.  Why anyone would think that anything turned up in the state computer searches would have somehow found their way to the media is anybody’s guess.

Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland – who appointed Jones-Kelly this past January – claims that he is satisfied that there are no political overtures to the check on Wurzelbacher, a spokesman said.  And we should disregard the fact that the Ohio Governor is about as partisan a Democrat as they come, the kind of guy who’d be as likely to cover up Democratic political hatchet jobs as he would be to engage in demagoguery himself.

Liberals should be THRILLED, shouldn’t they?  They tried to sue the Bush Administration claiming the government had spied on private American citizens, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the ACLU wasn’t able to find anyone who had actually been spied upon.  Now they finally have a guy: Democrat government officials caught red-handed spying on a private citizen!  We can go back to the massive abuse of FBI files compiled against enemies of the Clinton Administration to see what hypocrites these people are.

Democrats are the greatest hypocrites since Jesus took on the nastiest of the Pharisees.  They regard their unsubstantiated allegations against Repubicans as being far more serious than the times they themselves are caught red-handed.  The fact that Democratic voter fraud organization ACORN has now been nailed in 21 states (with the list growing all the time) means nothing; the fact that Democrats allege that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote means everything.  The downfall of Rep. Mark Foley was a terrible disgrace that proved Republicans were corrupt and served as the straw that broke the camel’s back in the 2006 election; but the fact that Rep. Tim Mahoney was nailed doing far worse in the exact same district – with top Democratic officals trying to save his seat – is merely another sex scandal that should be ignored as a “private matter.”

Tragically, it may take an Obama victory, combined with an unholy Barack Obama-Harry Reid-Nancy Pelosi trifecta and one party domination, to finally break the trend that has been building.  After Democrats ruin the nation with their excesses, their incompetence, and their depravities, the public will turn on them, and turn on the media propaganda machine that put them in power.

As much as I would love to see Democratic power broken for a generation and the liberal media driven out of business, I pray it doesn’t come to that.

Why Barney Frank Can Stick His ‘Republicans With Hurt Feelings’ Remark

September 30, 2008

Yesterday, just before the House vote on the $700 billion bailout, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech in which she essentially called Republicans corrupt and stupid, laid the entire blame for the financial disaster at Bush’s and Republicans’ feet, and told Republicans that they would get all the blame and Democrats would take all the credit.  And then she asked Republicans to join her in a bipartisan vote.

In an outcome that was apparently astonishing only to Democrats, Pelosi’s ridiculously partisan approach backfired.

If Nancy Pelosi were a homeless bag lady (one can only dream), her marketing approach would be to slap you in the face, call you a stupid pig, and then ask you for money.

Democrats, partisan ideologues to the core as they are, simply could not admit that “Madam Speaker” said anything that was in any way inappropriate.  Barney Frank said:

“We don’t believe they had the votes and I think they are covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this: somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean that’s hardly plausible. And there were twelve Republicans who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America but not if anybody insulted them. I’ll make an offer: Give me those twelve people’s names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are, and maybe they’ll now think about the country.”

Well, let me just say this:they were 12 votes away from passing this thing, and if there actually were 12 Republicans who WOULD have voted for it if Nancy Pelosi hadn’t opened her big damn mouth – and passing the bill really was a really such a vital thing for the country – then maybe, just maybe, Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t have opened her big damn mouth.  Maybe a good leader doesn’t attack the people she needs to come through for her right before a huge vote.  I’m just sayin’.

But there’s something else.  It turns out that 12 Democrats on Barney Frank’s own Housing Financial Services Committee – of which he is chairman – voted against the bill he chided Republicans for voting against.  So I have an idea: maybe, just maybe, if Barney Frank had spent less time being a fat, arrogant, condescending, smarmy-mouthed little pervert ridiculing 12 Republicans after the vote; and more time getting his own damn Democrats on his own damn committee in order before the vote, he would have got his bill passed.

So if someone brings up the “Republicans with hurt feelings” retort, all you need to do – after pointing out the fact that Nancy Pelosi is the worst Speaker in history for smack talking Republicans immediately before a vote she wanted when she knew she needed heavy Republican support – you just bring it back home to Barney Frank and the fact that he really needs to shut his fat mouth about any lack of 12 votes.