Posts Tagged ‘re-election’

Obama – The Prez Who Says He’ll Screw America To Help Russia If They Wait Till He’s Reelected – Demands Europe Not Save Itself By Booting Greece Until After Election Day

August 25, 2012

I’ll just re-post the whole article for you on what Obama said to the Russians first:

You want to talk about a hard punch right in the gut of American national security.

Allow me to sum this up for you: Obama is telling the Russians, “I assure you that I’m going to cave in to you like the pandering weakling that I am. But I can’t do it yet. If I sacrifice American security before the election, the American people will rightly turn on me and I’ll be out – and you’ll have a strong leader to deal with who will confront you as an obvious opponent rather than the Neville Chamberlain-style Appeaser-in-Chief that you have in me. If you give me ‘space’ to get re-elected I promise you I’ll bow down before you the same way I’ve already bowed down so many times before. I’ll even apologize to you for America’s ‘aggression’ if you want me to. Heck, I just got through apologizing to the people who murdered American soldiers! So you KNOW I’m good for it!”

Hot mike moment: Obama overheard telling Medvedev he needs ‘space’ on missile defense
By NBC News’ Shawna Thomas

SEOUL, South Korea — It was a comment not intended for public consumption, and another lesson for President Barack Obama on the importance of being careful about what you say around microphones, especially in an election year.

At the end of a 90-minute meeting between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday, journalists rushed in to hear remarks from the leaders about the content of their talks.

Journalists spied the two leaders leaning close together and talking in hushed tones. According to those in the room, the conversation was difficult to hear but the videotape revealed Obama asking the Russian leader to wait until after the November election before pushing forward on the topic of a planned missile defense shield.

“Pool” videotape provided more information about the conversation between the two leaders:

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

While most journalists didn’t catch the rest, one Russian reporter managed to record the context with his equipment.

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

The planned anti-ballistic shield system has been one of many sore spots between the two world powers in the last few years.

Obama says US can reduce nuclear stockpile

Moscow says it fears the system would weaken Russia by gaining the capability to shoot down the nuclear missiles it relies on as a deterrent. It wants a legally binding pledge from the United States that Russia’s nuclear forces would not be targeted by the system.

That’s actually NOT what Moscow wants. Yes, it is their rhetorical posture to make them sound “reasonable,” but the reality is that Russia doesn’t just want some “contract.”

Moscow wants the United States to abandon this missile defense system altogether. Moscow wants to throw a monkey wrench into the entire system that the United States says is necessary to protect America from the now very real prospect of a nutjob Iranian ballistic missile attack.

You need to understand what current American policy is. And then you need to realize that Obama is signalling the Russians that he is going to abandon his own policy and undermine American security if Russia just gets off his back so he can get re-elected. Because getting re-elected is all that Obama cares about. And he’ll violate any trust no matter how sacred if it will purchase enough votes.

To frame it in terms of the title below, if Obama was going to “stick” to the missile shield as is official US policy as of just a few months ago (December 2011), he wouldn’t have anything to be afraid of. Which is to say that Obama is already planning on appeasing Russia; he just needs “space” to betray America:

U.S. sticking to missile shield regardless of Moscow
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON | Fri Dec 2, 2011 2:37pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama Administration plans to complete an anti-ballistic missile shield to protect European allies against Iran ”whether Russia likes it or not,” the U.S. envoy to NATO said on Friday.

Moscow’s objections to the project, which includes participation by Romania, Poland, Turkey and Spain, “won’t be the driving force in what we do,” Ivo Daalder, the ambassador, told reporters at a breakfast session.

The U.S. estimate of the Iranian ballistic missile threat has gone up, not down, over the two years since President Barack Obama opted for a new, four-phased deployment to protect the United States and NATO allies, Daalder said.

“It’s accelerating,” Daalder said of the U.S.-perceived threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles, “and becoming more severe than even we thought two years ago.”

“We’re deploying all four phases, in order to deal with that threat, whether Russia likes it or not,” he added. At the same time, he urged Moscow to cooperate in both to deal with Iran and to see for itself that, as he put it, the system’s capabilities pose its strategic deterrent force no threat.

If the perceived threat from Iran ebbs, “then maybe the system will be adapted to that lesser threat,” Daalder said.

[…]

Daalder said the sides remain at odds over, among other things, Russia’s demand for the legally binding pledge, before any cooperation, that its nuclear forces would not be targeted by the NATO elements.

“They have gotten themselves quite hung up on our unwillingness to put this in legally binding writing,” he said.

The administration was not convinced that such a pledge would be ratified by the U.S. Senate, he said, nor should Moscow be convinced that even if it were, “we wouldn’t necessarily at some point walk away from it,” as the George W. Bush administration did from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the only U.S.-Russia missile defense pact.

That withdrawal opened the way for the creation of an anti-missile defense shield that the U.S. government says is designed to protect the United States from countries like Iran and North Korea.

Daalder said that if the United States ever were placing interceptors to counter Russia’s nuclear missiles, “we wouldn’t deploy them in Europe. We would deploy them in the United States.”

The physics of missile defense intercepts make it “easier and better to approach an incoming missile from the opposite side than it is to try to chase it down.” he said. “That’s the way that it works.”

Russia knows full-well that we wouldn’t build a system designed to protect America from Russian missiles in Europe. What Russia is trying to do is create difficulties that will make the missile shield politically impossible to build altogether. The Russians also very much like the idea (which is why Russia has helped Iran develop its nuclear program to begin with) of America being vulnerable to Iran which very obviously gives Russia more influence and power over US policy. At least unless we build a missile defense shield.

And ask yourself whether the threat from Iran has gone up or down given that Iran was just caught red-handed scrubbing evidence of a nuclear weapons program at its Parchin facility.

But Barack Obama is worried about the Iranian threat. Obama isn’t worried about millions of Americans being murdered. Obama is looking out for #1. Obama is worried about his re-election and he will betray America if that’s what it takes to keep his job so he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of America from a constitutional republic into a Marxist banana republic.

This has always been a nation that was determined to protect itself. Barack Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” that. He just needs “space” to do it so he can betray the American people with impunity.

You see, it really isn’t about 320 million Americans or their pitiful national security.  It’s about Obama and his election.  You suck; Obama actually is a messiah and ergo sum Obama is the only being that is worth a damn on Obama’s view.

The current news item about Iran is that they have massively expanded and progressed on its nuclear weapons program.  And they are just as feverishly working on intercontinental ballistic missiles.  But what is silliness like that compared to the re-election of the most marvellous being who ever existed or who ever will exist? 

Obama supporters assure their fellow liberals, “After November, Obama can do anything he likes without bothering to care about the pitiful American people or worry about their stupid votes.”  We’re not talking about some mere “president,” people.  We’re talking about an emperor – a Führer!  Who are you, you insignificant little pissant gnat, to stop such greatness?

And so this same Obama is telling Europe, “With all due respect, please remember that only I matter.  You can save your continent and preserve the hundreds of millions of peasants who live there, but just don’t do it until AFTER I’m re-elected:

 Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day
US officials are worried that if Greece exits the eurozone, it will damage President’s election hopes
Oliver Wright  Friday 24 August 2012

The Obama administration will pressure European governments not to let Greece fall out of the eurozone before November’s Presidential elections, British Government sources have suggested.

Representatives from the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission are due to arrive in Athens next month to assess Greece’s reform efforts.

They are expected to report in time for an 8 October meeting of eurozone finance ministers which will decide on whether to disburse Greece’s next €31bn aid tranche, promised under the terms of the bailout for the country.

American officials are understood to be worried that if they decide Greece has not done enough to meet its deficit targets and withhold the money, it would automatically trigger Greece’s exit from the eurozone weeks before the Presidential election on 6 November.

They are urging eurozone Governments to hold off from taking any drastic action before then – fearing that the resulting market destabilisation could damage President Obama’s re-election prospects. European leaders are thought to be sympathetic to the lobbying fearing that, under pressure from his party lin Congress, Mitt Romney would be a more isolationist president than Mr Obama.

The President discussed the eurozone crisis with David Cameron during a conference call on Wednesday and both welcomed statements by the European Central Bank that it was “standing firmly behind the euro”.

The ECB is expected to present a plan in the next few weeks to help indebted countries like Spain and Italy by buying their government bonds.

Today, Prime Minister Antonis Samaras will travel to Berlin to meet Chancellor Angela Merkel, and to France tomorrow for talks with President François Hollande. He is asking that Greece be given more time to meet its deficit targets and implement its reforms as its economy is struggling through a fifth year of recession.

But Germany’s Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, said it was only months since creditors drew up a second bailout package and agreed on a massive debt write-down for Greece.

Britain is understood to have pressed the Germans to ensure that if eurozone leaders decide Greece’s position is unsustainable the financial “firewall” around Spain and Italy is made stronger. Officials are worried that if Greece was to exit the eurozone, the move could result in dramatic increases in the cost of debt for other weaker eurozone members – making their financial situation unsustainable.

Allow me to translate that part that says, “European leaders are thought to be sympathetic to the lobbying fearing that, under pressure from his party lin Congress, Mitt Romney would be a more isolationist president than Mr Obama.”  It’s pretty much the same thing as saying that Obama has assured Europe that he’ll promise to screw the American people to give Europe whatever bailout it wants as long as Europe doesn’t interfere with his re-election.  It’s pretty much the same promise Obama gave to Russia to screw American national security if Russia didn’t do anything to interfere with his re-election.

Greece, of course, has long-since proven that it is a giant black hole of bailouts.  Greece is a country that will promise anything to get the next bailout, then completely renege on its promises, then come begging for another bailout.  And given that it’s already worked so many times for them before, they’re going to keep doing it until Europe is a dry husk.  Greece is one of those cancers that has to be surgically removed or else the patient dies.

Not that Obama cares.  Obama is worried about the most important thing that ever existed or ever will exist: Obama.

I frankly don’t know whether Obama didn’t get his ass kicked nearly enough when he was a kid, or whether he got his ass kicked way too many times.  It was clearly one or the other, given the malignant narcissist he’s become.

Greece’s economy, Europe’s economy, hell our own economy, are all teetering and will very likely go over the brink.  But what matters any of that if Obama is re-elected?  His sheer wonderfulness is really all that ought to matter to anyone with the proper perspective.  All of the rest of us are but dust before him, and we ought to remember that.

Campaigner-in-Chief Says ‘You’re On Your Own’ To Democrats As He Jets From Fundraiser To Fundraiser

March 5, 2012

Barack Obama has been the greatest campaigner-in-chief in American history.  He has held a hundred fundraisers versus 49 at this same point for George W. Bush.  Mind you, Obama has ALWAYS been better at whoring for his cash stash than any other incumbant president.

But – just as in his personal life – don’t count on Barack Obama to be generous to others:

 W.H. to Dems: Expect no money
By: John Bresnahan
March 5, 2012 04:52 AM EST

President Barack Obama has a bleak message for House and Senate Democrats this year when it comes to campaign cash: You’re on your own.

Democratic congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have privately sought as much as $30 million combined from Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee — a replay of the financial help they received from Obama in 2008 and 2010.

But that’s not going to happen, top Obama aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe told Reid and Pelosi in back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill on Thursday, according to sources familiar with the high-level talks. It was a stark admission from a presidential campaign once expected to rake in as much as $1 billion of just how closely it is watching its own bottom line.

Messina and Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day, the sources said.

Plouffe is a senior political adviser to the president and served as campaign manager for Obama in 2008, while Messina is Obama’s campaign manager this cycle.

Hill Democrats won’t be seeing much of Obama at their own fundraisers this year, either. Obama has offered to do one money event each for the DCCC and DSCC. OFA officials suggested Vice President Joe Biden do two fundraisers for each campaign committee. Obama will instead send out an email and fundraising letter solicitations for both committees.

Nor, for that matter, have Obama or Biden committed to do events for individual Democratic lawmakers. That’s true even though 23 Democrat-held Senate seats are up for grabs in a competitive battle for control of that chamber. And no fundraisers have been scheduled yet for House and Senate Democrats with Cabinet officials, usually a staple of an election-year calendar for incumbent presidents looking to boost their party’s prospects.

The tightfistedness by the Obama campaign toward Hill Democrats reflects the harsh realities of the 2012 White House fight. Obama, who broke all fundraising records in his historic 2008 run, isn’t going to be the overwhelming financial juggernaut that he was four years ago. Obama still has a big edge in money raised and cash on hand — OFA and the DNC reported nearly $92 million in cash at the end of January after hauling in a combined $250 million last year, according to campaign records — over any Republican challenger.

But that still leaves Obama far short of the $1 billion that many pundits had predicted he would raise this cycle. Messina has railed against such claims for months, as it became a problem for Obama because some donors didn’t think he needed their support. Obama could still raise $700 million to $800 million, Democrats predict, a total that could be eclipsed by the GOP nominee, the Republican National Committee and shadowy pro-GOP super PACs.

The financial caution for the Obama team also reflects the growing power of super PACs, especially for Republicans. The groups — technically unaffiliated with any candidate yet already a huge factor in the GOP presidential contest — are prepared to dump tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, into the White House race. So far, Democrats, including Obama’s own super PAC allies, have been unable to match that flood of pro-Republican cash.

For instance, Crossroads, the Karl Rove-linked super PAC and nonprofit, will spend as much as $300 million bolstering the GOP presidential nominee and Republican congressional candidates and incumbents, POLITICO and other news organizations have reported.

In comparison, Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC founded by former presidential aides, raised just $59,000 in January after taking in $3 million last year. To counter the super PAC gap, Obama has been forced to embrace such outside groups, dispatching Plouffe and other campaign officials — and potentially Cabinet secretaries — to help bolster its efforts. Priorities USA Action is also coordinating money efforts with super PACs raising money for Hill Democrats.

Those huge sums of GOP money, much of it in the form of secret gifts from wealthy donors, have tilted the presidential campaign in an unprecedented way. In the past, an incumbent president like Obama with a broad base of small-donor support would have a significant financial edge against any challenger, particularly one who went through a long and costly primary season like this year’s eventual GOP nominee will have endured.

Crossroads, though, has already announced it will spend $20 million to pummel Obama and the Democrats this summer, a time when the prospective nominee would normally be focused on refilling his own campaign coffers. And super PACs more closely tied to Romney or one of the GOP presidential hopefuls could quickly shift targets with one mega-check from a big donor.

All of which leads to Obama’s decision to worry first about his campaign war chest, with the fate of Hill Democrats further down his “to do” list.

“Our top priority and focus is to secure the electoral votes necessary to reelect the president,” Messina said in a statement to POLITICO. “There’s no doubt that Democratic campaigns face a challenging new political landscape with special interests giving unlimited amounts to super PACs. We’re committed to doing everything we can to elect a Democratic House and Senate, and we’re having a conversation about the best way to achieve that goal.”

Messina added: “The organization and turnout operation we’re building on the ground in states across the country is unparalleled, and it will help to elect Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.”

OFA officials note that White House officials, Cabinet secretaries and top Obama surrogates — including Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chairwoman — have done 15 fundraisers for House and Senate Democrats so far this cycle.

They also point out that Obama’s effort to build a mammoth get-out-the-vote operation in key battleground states like Florida will benefit all Democrats on the ticket, not just the president. OFA and the DNC are expected to spend $50 million-plus in the Sunshine State this year, although an OFA spokesman would not comment on how much the campaign has budgeted for that critical state.

And Obama’s improved approval ratings, combined with a stronger economy and suddenly hopeful Senate Democratic map, are buoying party strategists on the Hill. They know, like the White House does, that Reid has no chance of retaining his majority, nor Pelosi a chance of becoming speaker again, if Obama doesn’t win reelection.

Some Democratic insiders caution as well that the Plouffe-Messina line on Thursday may not be the last word on campaign cash.

Officials for both the House and Senate Democratic campaign committees echoed the conciliatory White House message, despite the unhappiness in Democratic ranks over the Obama stance.

“The DCCC’s goal is to win 25 seats, and President Obama’s reelection is critical to our effort. We appreciate everything that OFA is doing to help and look forward to working with them as we each reach our goals this cycle,” said Jennifer Crider, the DCCC’s communications director.

“Keeping Mitch McConnell and the tea party in the minority is motivating Democrats across the country, and that is why Democratic senators and candidates will have the resources to win in November,” said Matt Canter, the DSCC’s spokesman. “We appreciate OFA’s cooperation with our efforts and look forward to even more support from the president’s campaign and the DNC.”

What’s really funny is the progression:

We go from this:

The 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be a multibillion-dollar contest. President Obama’s re-election committee is expected to raise at least $1 billion, and Republicans have high hopes that their nominee will reach the 10-figure level as well.

That’s brand-new territory for presidential candidates. In 2008, Obama raised nearly $746 million. That was double what George W. Bush raised just four years earlier — which itself was double what Bush raised four years before that.

It’s the first time ever that presidential fundraising shot up that fast. And it puts the Obama re-election operation within reach of raising $1 billion: a volume of cash that takes the campaign out of politics-as-usual.

to our present state of the Obama union.

Interestingly, it wasn’t all that long ago that Obama was blaming his poor fundraising on his being so generous to the DNC (that we now know he won’t be giving a dime to):

President Obama’s reelection campaign will bring in a “moderate” amount of money when it reports its fundraising total to the Federal Election Commission in July, a senior campaign adviser said.

The adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that campaign officials have decided to devote the bulk of their early efforts to fortifying the Democratic National Committee rather than the president’s own reelection campaign, anticipating that DNC will need to spend the money earlier. This decision, they said, accounts for the lower total.

Obama advisers anticipate that the president’s campaign will face questions about whether it is on track to meet internal fundraising targets, which have not been disclosed. Inevitably, Obama’s take will be compared with Republican Mitt Romney’s because Romney is the closest thing the GOP field has to a front-runner. On Monday alone, Romney’s Nevada call-a-thon took in more than $10 million.

Obama raised a record-shattering amount of campaign money in the 2008 cycle–nearly $750 million.

An American Thinker article does an excellent job of both introducing the increasing desperation of the Obama campaign to raise funds and simultaneously points out the sheer hypocrisy of said Obama campaign.

It just strikes me as beyond amazing that the left continues to depict Obama as some transcendent political messiah when he is in fact the worst money-grubbing whore to ever stink up the White House.

More Hitler Youth-Stuff In Our Public Schools: Students Got Extra Credit For ‘Volunteering’ For Obama’s Campaign

February 22, 2012

I keep calling Democrats fascists (and see this article that contains a list of fascist Obama policies).  And that is because they just won’t stop acting like FASCISTS.

I’ve written about this government school indoctrination a number of times before.  But it just doesn’t stop with these roaches.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Nevada students received extra credit for volunteering for the Obama campaign; Update: Students received class credit

Update (2/22/12): I called Loretta Harper to ask her about the program, and she said the students aren’t getting extra credit, but class credit. More at the bottom of the post.

We’ve had public schools teaching kids to literally sing President Obama’s praises, so why not take a more direct route and put those kids to work?

Loretta Harper of Las Vegas is a newly named national co-chair of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. …

Harper, 58, is a counselor at Desert Pines High School. She’s also a member of the Board of Directors of the Nevada State Educators Association.

During the 2008 Obama campaign, when he won Nevada on his way to the presidency, Harper said she got more than 100 students extra credit when they volunteered to help elect the Democrat. (Emphasis added.)No word on if Harper, who makes $74,000 a year plus benefits, plans to expand outreach “efforts” like this nationwide now that she’s a co-chair of Obama’s re-election campaign, but if you’ve got “free labor” available, why not take advantage?

Never mind that Nevada’s high school graduation rate currently sits under 45 percent, liberals have a president to elect. We all have to get our priorities straight now, people.

In case you were wondering how Nevada can nearly triple inflation-adjusted, per-pupil education spending in the last 50 years and get stagnant results, tidbits like this provide part of the answer.

Update (2/21/2012): Shortly after I published this post, I called Loretta Harper to ask her for more details about this. Her is what she had to say:

First, she said the kids weren’t receiving extra credit as the RJ reported, they were receiving actual class credit. Students need 7.5 “extra curricular” credits to graduate and volunteering 60 hours gets them .5 credits. (There are other ways to get these credits too.)

Second, when I asked her if students approached her about volunteering for Obama or if she suggested it, her reply was “both ways.” (Emphasis added.) So, yes, she did use her position as a school counselor to steer students into volunteering for Obama’s campaign. If this was a private school, this wouldn’t be an issue, but she works for a public school.

Third, I asked her if the same thing would hold for a student wanting to volunteer for a Republican presidential candidate, and she said it would, but no students have asked her about that.

And yes, she is planning on having students volunteer for Obama to receive class credit again this year.

Obama is like Freddie Krueger; he keeps targeting our children.

Even more frighteningly, Obama is also like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, who pulled this crap too.

Failed President Obama’s Hometown Newspaper Says He Should Step Down At End Of First Term

September 19, 2011

The story of the moment:

Chicago Editorial Writer Suggests Obama Step Down After First Term
Published September 19, 2011|

President Obama’s hometown newspaper has some startling advice for the commander-in-chief — quit while you’re behind.

Citing the president’s record-low approval ratings and unease in the Democratic base, a Chicago Tribune editorial writer recommended over the weekend that Obama need not feel obligated to run for a second term.

Steve Chapman said that with Obama facing the prospect of a double-dip recession and, if he wins reelection, a gridlocked second term, it might be better to call it a presidency and let someone else — maybe Hillary Clinton — carry the Democratic mantle in the 2012 election.

“I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election,” Chapman wrote in the Tribune. “He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013. That might be the sensible thing to do.”

Chapman said the high unemployment already makes it difficult for Obama to run. He noted that his recently unveiled jobs bill has not yet lit a brushfire of support, and that his party just lost two special elections in Congress.

“In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket,” Chapman wrote.

Though ex-Obama rival and now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has brushed off talk of presidential aspirations, Chapman said Clinton would be just the right fit.

“Her husband presided over a boom, she’s been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she’s never been accused of being a pushover,” he wrote. “Not only that, Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president.”

Obama was the first Democratic candidate for president ever endorsed by The Chicago Tribune. Chapman was on the board at the time.

The words “caveat emptor” apply here.

Democrats not only seized dictatorial control of Congress – not only owning the House of Representatives (which they’d controlled since 2006) but also seizing a filibuster-proof Senate Majority (which they’d ALSO controlled since 2006) – and elected the most radical, leftist president in U.S. history.

And the ONLY possible thing that could go wrong was that the American people would see Democrats in action and reject them.

Things really weren’t going all that awful until Democrats took control of the House and the Senate.  Yes, George Bush had tried seventeen times to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which ultimately caused our financial crisis – only to be continually thwarted by Democrats who used these Government Sponsored Enterprises as a cash cow for liberal social policies.  Yes, John McCain was one of the Republicans who in 2005 and 2006 had BEGGED Democrats to pass reforms on Fannie and Freddie before a crisis imploded the American financial system.

But nope.  Democrats would have nothing of it.  Barney Frank, July 14, 2008:

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

They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we’re going to do some things that are going to improve them.

For the factual record, our 2008 implosion officially began less than two months after Barney Frank said those words above on September 7, 2008 when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went bankrupt.  All the other players – Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc.  – found themselves holding toxic assets that they had purchased from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The massive mortgage backed securities which ONLY Fannie and Freddie could bundle had so many bad/bankrupt mortgages and it was so difficult to extricate the bad mortgages from the good ones that the entire securities packages were no longer assets, but liabilities.  Collapse after collapse followed.

Americans listened to the mainstream media – even though most Americans KNOW that the mainstream media is little more than the propaganda mouthpiece for the institutional left – and blamed George Bush entirely for the problems he tried to fix but couldn’t due to Democrat intransigence.

They elected a demagogue who promised messianic transformation of our society.  The man-made all kinds of impossible promises.   And the American people were stupid enough and depraved enough to believe those promises.

Frankly, I remember another moment in history as found in the words of jailed journalist Stephen Laurent – who went against the massive tide to oppose the Führer of that time:

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Obama DID fundamentally transform the United States of America, just as he promised he would do.  He imposed a “fundamental transformation” of our health care system with ObamaCare.  He imposed a “fundamental transformation” of our financial system with the Dodd/Frank Act.  Both of these monstrosities were well over 2,000 pages of power-grabbing legislation.  Both of these massive government takeovers have tens of thousands of additional pages that are literally still being written such that nobody knows what the law will truly look like by the time they are done.

When Obama couldn’t get his way with Congress – even the Democrat-controlled Congress prior to 2010 – he simply dictated his agenda by executive fiat.  He strangled businesses with EPA regulations that the Democrat Congress had rejected.  He decided that he was literally above the law: decreeing that he would not follow the Defense of Marriage Act that had been passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.  He decreed that he would abandon immigration law even after himself saying that doing so would be un-American, undemocratic and unconstitutional.  And, yes, he rammed home an incredibly unpopular ObamaCare takeover of the health care system that is also flagrantly unconstitutional.  And the ONLY reason that it hasn’t already been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court is because Obama has used every procedural gimmick available to prevent it from going to that court for a decision which he knows will go against his power grabbing.

But finally, people are increasingly waking up to their sobering senses and finding out that they had been duped by lies.

But everything that’s happened has been Bush’s fault, we’ve been told over and over and over again.

And so now even Obama’s hometown newspaper is parroting a famous quote from the past given to an infamous failure and fool from the past:

“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

In the name of God, GO, Obama.

And as long as the Obama regime continues to recklessly head this nation in the wrong direction, we are living in God damn America.

Obama Puts His Re-Election Over Welfare Of Nation By Demanding Long-Term Debt Ceiling Extension As Condition For Deal

July 29, 2011

Obama came out demanding a debt ceiling hike with no strings attached, no spending cuts, lots of taxes and one that would go beyond November 2012 to keep his presidency safe.

At this point, he is going to get none of those things.

Obama wants a long-term debt ceiling extension. What needs to be understood is that:

Over the last 40 years, there have been 37 separate debt limit increases that last 6 months or less, and never once has the federal government ultimately defaulted on its debt. Meanwhile, the $2.4 trillion increase President Obama is seeking represents the largest single debt hike in history, and, quite conveniently, it kicks the can down the road past both his and Senator Nelson’s re-election bids next year.

Obama himself underscored this fact when he said during his incredibly demagogic address to the nation on July 25:

“President Reagan did it [i.e. raised the debt ceiling] 18 times.”

Well, do the math yourself. What is 8 years divided by 18? That’s 96 months divided by 18, or about once every five months.

As I already pointed out, Democrats forced Ronald Reagan to come to them an average of every five months and nine days to plead for another debt ceiling extension. And the Obama argument that not giving him a long-term extension now is simply factually untrue. Every single president has done it over and over and over again without catastrophe; how is Obama’s presidency so weak and so incompetent that he now absolutely must have what they did not need???

The answer comes down to one simple thing: Obama’s presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. He has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER positive to run on. He certainly has nothing positive to say about himself in this debt ceiling fiasco, having never ONCE come out with any kind of plan or demonstrated any kind of leadership whatsoever.  While the nation has sunk into this debt ceiling crisis, Obama has been doing an average of a campaign event every three days.  So you can see where his priorities are.

Obama is a pure demagogue.  What did he say to George Bush in 2006, when he joined EVERY SINGLE OTHER DEMOCRAT IN THE SENATE IN VOTING FOR A DEBT CEILING INCREASE FOR GEORGE BUSH?

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Obama needs to resign from office as a completely failed leader.  Why should Republicans treat him one iota better than the vindictive way he treated Bush over the same issue???

Every single Democrat who is “outraged and appalled” by the Republicans’ behavior is a hypocrite who ought to be ashamed of himself or herself.

History is on Republicans’ side in every part of this debate.

As for a short-term extension – which Obama selfishly refuses because he doesn’t want this issue to derail his political campaign next year – realize that DEBT EXTENSIONS HAVE BEEN SHORT TERM AFFAIRS FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS.  And why should it be any different for Obama now?

As for the amount Obama seeks “the biggest debt-limit increase in history” whether it is in sheer dollar amount or expressed as a percentage of GDP.  And combined with the long-term extension he is demanding, why the hell SHOULDN’T the Republicans – who ran on cutting spending – not make HUGE demands if it is going to give up such a debt-ceiling increase???

If Democrats want to demagogue Republicans by claiming that they are “holding America hostage” (or whatever their shrill attack is), remind yourself that Barack Obama PERSONALLY used the debt ceiling to demonize George Bush, and that not a single Democrat on the Senate voted for Bush’s debt ceiling increase request in 2006.  How on earth are Republicans not more than justified in holding Obama’s feet to the fire as they seek to stop the fiscal insanity and save our country and our children now???

Finally, how DARE Barack Obama bother to try to run for president again when our nation is in crisis RIGHT NOW and he is AWOL.  Even The New York Times – hardly a source friendly to conservatives – has attacked Barack Obama for “being on the sidelines.”  That article begins with this picture of a White House press corps wondering where the hell their president is while our country faces a crisis:

WASHINGTON — For an hour on Wednesday the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, fielded questions about what, if anything, President Obama was doing to help end the impasse in Congress over the imminent need to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

The New York Times article proceeds to state that “Mr. Obama is in danger of seeming a spectator at one of the most critical moments of his presidency.”  But he’s not in danger of seeming a spectator; HE IS A SPECTATOR AND THE COUNTRY IS IN DANGER OF HAVING ITS CREDIT RATING YANKED – the effects of which will be devastating across the economy due to higher interest rates for everything.

Obama needs to get a deal done.  And all he’s doing is giving demagogic speeches that further divide a nation that – cynical and deceitful promises to the contary – he has already divided enough.