Posts Tagged ‘revenge’

My Final Say On Why Barack Obama Does NOT Deserve Reelection

November 5, 2012

Obama has added a fourth dimension to dishonesty.  They used to say, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”  Now it’s “There are lies, damn lies, statistics and Obamanomics.”  Because Obama’s entire economic policy is a giant turd.  And while it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and feels like a turd if you’re idiot enough to touch it, Obama tells you it’s actually gold-plated.

The unemployment rate is HIGHER than it was when Obama took office.  It is HIGHER than it EVER WAS under George W. Bush.  But in spite of that reality, it somehow never stopped Obama from just demonizing Bush.  Obama has never taken personally responsibility for anything.

George Bush’s unemployment rate was 5.26% over eight years.  At this point near the very end of Obama’s failed first (and hopefully ONLY term), Obama has given us an average unemployment rate of over 9 percent (9.03%).

You’d think that a man who never came CLOSE to George Bush’s unemployment rate – and frankly a man who never WILL come close to Bush’s unemployment rate – wouldn’t talk so much smack about George Bush.  BUT THAT’S ALL OBAMA DOES.  And the reason that’s all he does is simply because it’s all he has: demagoguery and demonization and blame and Marxist class warfare.

I suppose I can understand why those monthly unemployment rates under Bush looked bad to Democrats.  Because people would expect them to get off their lazy little roach asses and get a damn job back then instead of Obama giving them food stamps for life.  Obama has increased food stamps by 53 percent under his presidency; and what the hell, if you go back to when Nancy Pelosi took over the House of Representatives and Harry Reid took over the US Senate in 2007, Democrats have increased food stamps by 70 percent.  And all you welfare parasites ought to really like that trend – at least until you’ve sucked more blood out of the increasingly few Americans who are actually producing anything and the country implodes and you starve because Obama trained you to be completely dependent sponges.  It will be bad for you then, but then again none of you have EVER been capable of thinking about tomorrow and actually taking steps to avoid catastrophe before, so why start now?  You don’t need a damn job; YOU’VE GOT OBAMA.

You also need to understand that Barack Obama has in no way, shape or form lowered the unemployment rate.  What he has done is massively increase the number of discouraged workers – who don’t count in the official unemployment rate calculations.

There’s a vital statistic called the “labor force participation rate.”  What is it?  It is the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a job.  And that rate has plunged and plunged and plunged every single year of Obama’s presidency.  I’ve written about this: if you look at November of 2010, the labor participation rate under Obama was at a 25-year low (i.e., worse than it EVER was under Bush) at 64.5%.   The next year, 2011, the participation rate was at a 27-year low at 63.9%.  In May of this year, the participation rate was at 63.6% and was the worst in thirty years.  And at that point just a few months ago the labor participation rate for men was the lowest it had EVER been since they started keeping records in 1948.  By August of this year it declined yet again to 63.5% to the lowest level in thirty-one years.

When our unemployment rate drops precipitously because four discouraged workers give up ever getting a job under this failed presidency for every one who actually gets a job, you need a new president.

If we applied the labor force participation rate that George Bush handed off to Obama, the unemployment rate would be well over 10 percent.

And what about the businesses that would be creating jobs if it weren’t for the fact that a turd is sitting in the White House where a president ought to be?

What is true of the labor force participation is also true of business start ups in America under Obama.  Two years ago – and this being during the so-called Obama “recovery,” the number of U.S. business start-ups and dropped 24% – and how the hell does that happen in a “recovery” when you’re supposedly coming out of a recession that you blame Bush for?  Last year the number of business start-ups had plunged to a 25 year low which was THE LOWEST level ever measured since the statistic began to be tracked in 1986.  Now under Obama’s utterly failed leadership and under his Marxist class warfare, the number of business start-ups is at a 30 year low.

Obama isn’t adding anywhere NEAR enough jobs to keep up with the 10 million people who have joined the workforce by virtue of becoming adults during his presidency.

I don’t understand.  Why do so many Democrats want America to weaken, to fail and to implode?  What is it about this country that so many people call “The Great Satan” that you Democrats despise so much?

You can look at America’s global competitiveness under Obama and see the same failure.  Last year, America dropped to fifth place.  This year, thanks to Obama’s leadership, America has plunged to seventh place in global competitiveness.  And in fact we have dropped down the ladder under Obama every single year of his failed presidency in global competitiveness.

And wait, I’m not done, because the United States has now also plunged in a manner described as “unprecedented” to TWELFTH place in prosperity under Obama.

We were #1 in the world in global competitiveness when George Bush handed the presidency to Barack Obama.

If you vote Democrat, I guess you think our decline is good.  You clearly do, because you thought that our being number one in the world under George W. Bush was somehow bad.  You want America to drop to twelfth place, to twentieth place, to fiftieth place.  Why?  What is morally and psychologically wrong with you?

And don’t think for a second that Democrats want more money in the pockets of working people.  Because the median household income has dropped $4,520 since that evil day that President Obama took officeBetting on Obama cost you 8.2% of the average American’s income.  That’s how much the average American has basically lost every year as a result of their lousy bet on Obama.  I don’t understand: why on earth do you want more of that?  Or maybe I should be asking you why on earth you want less and less money and freedom as long as you can have more Obama?

Democrats are NOT people who want more money in working people’s’ pockets; they’re bitter, hateful people who want LESS money in other people’s’ pockets; they’re Marxists who want more and more and more money in the government’s pocket instead.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy.  You first need to understand that Obama has added $6 trillion to the debt in only four years after demonizing George Bush for adding over $4 trillion over eight years.  If Obama is reelected, he is on pace to TRIPLE the George Bush debt that he demagogued.  And this from a president who promised he’d cut spending and would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term but was upbraided by Tom Brokaw who said Obama would have to answer for his “out of control” $1.1 trillion deficit “that happened on his watch.”  And let’s not even think about the fact that our REAL debt that will ultimately bankrupt us all is the $222 trillion we owe when we consider the unsustainable Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid debt that we have to pay.

On the foreign policy front, let me just sum it up this way: our Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have massively lost confidence in Obama as commander-in-chief.  Obama paraded himself around as the president who got bin Laden (never mind that he depended enormously on the waterboarding-obtained intelligence that he demonized).  And Obama claimed that in getting bin Laden he had fatally wounded al Qaeda and that the war on terrorism was basically over.  And as a result Ambassador Chris Stevens was completely safe in Benghazi, Libya, and Obama could therefore cut his security even though the ambassador who was just about to be murdered in an al Qaeda terrorist attack was begging for MORE security.  The fact that Obama was utterly and completely wrong about his core foreign policy ought to matter.  But instead Obama has lied and then lied again when confronted with past lies such that the drip, drip, drip of Benghazi won’t hurt him until after the election is already over.  Which is exactly how a profoundly unworthy commander-in-chief would think.

Meanwhile, Obama’s cockroach media is working overtime to censor the news about this story so that Obama’s gamble will work.

Speaking of war zones, how about that Hurricane Sandy devastation?  Much of the country is lining up in gas lines that are taking as long as seven hours to get through.  Whole regions are devastated and thousands of victims have received absolutely no help at ALLAnger is beginning to increasingly erupt over the disastrous relief effortIt’s always amazing to watch as the same media that pounded George Bush day after day over Katrina refuse to cover the suffering Obama is responsible for after Hurricane Sandy.  Obama got his photo op pretending to be “commander-in-chief” and now he can leave victims out in the cold.  Literally.

Oh, did I mention “gas”?  How about them prices?  Obama has made gasoline TWICE as expensive as it was when he took office.

Obama summed it up pretty well: Democrats are people who vote with a heart full of revenge; Mitt Romney is a man who says that Republicans vote because of love of country.

And that bit of deceit is frankly stunning: why the hell is Obama demanding that people take revenge on Mitt Romney WHEN IT WAS INSTEAD BARACK OBAMA WHO HAS IMPLODED AMERICA YEAR AFTER YEAR OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS???  Just what did Mitt Romney do that Obama thinks people should take revenge on him for???  Why the hell doesn’t Obama realize that HE’S the man the American people need to take their revenge on, if they take revenge out on anyone at all???  Why is it that Barack Obama is that pathologically incapable of accepting any kind of responsibility at all???

Advertisements

Remember How Liberals Said Every Aggressive Move Against Terrorists Was ‘A Provocation’? Why Is It A Good Thing Now?

May 3, 2011

I remember how Obama and the rest of the left decried every agressive move President George W. Bush made as being a provocation that would only result in more violence and make the new wave of terrorism being waged against America even worse.

The war on terror was a provocation.  The Iraq War was a provocation.  The terrorist prison facility at Guantanamo Bay was a provocation.  The surge strategy was a provocation.  And “provoking” the terrorists was the worst possible way to react, we were constantly told.

On the surge strategy that won the Iraq War, Obama had said:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Sending more troops to win the fight will increase the violence.  And that is a bad, bad thing. 

On the Iraq War as provocation (and therefore a bad thing), a critique of Obama’s apology in his Cairo Speech says it all:

On “violent extremism” Obama clung to the meme of “Afghanistan War good/Iraq War bad.” Obama said, “Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.”

This does not make sense. Iraq was not a “war of choice.” Saddam Hussein, for a variety of reasons (not just on WMDs, which everyone believed Hussein had and which he was certainly pursuing) had made himself intolerable. And Saddam was certainly not responding to diplomacy; that was the main reason the coalition forces marched.

Obama also made his first cringing apology. “The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.” Well, no we did not. That is a flat out lie and a pander not only to liberal opponents of the war on terror but to the Muslim extremists Obama says he abhors.

It doesn’t matter that because of the very surge strategy that Obama personally demonized that Obama’s vice president was able to actually say the following about the Iraq War that Obama also demonized:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

I would point out that George Bush won his “war of choice” that “provoked strong differences.”  And Obama – even after eventually abandoning his own demqgoguery on the “surge” to implement a surge of his own in Afghanistan, and even after using Bush’s own general which the left demonized to implement that surge – is floundering badly in “the good war” of Afghanistan.  Which is why Afghanistan sure won’t be “one of the great achievements of the Obama administration.”

George Bush “stupidly’ chose to fight a war against a tyrant in a terrain that the United States could actually win.  The vastly more brilliant Obama chose to put all his marbles in an Afghanistan that has been the graveyard of empires for a thousand years.  Afghanistan also happens to feature a terrain that almost entirely nullifies our vast tactical and strategic advantages.  But that’s what you do when you think you’re too damn smart for your own good, I guess.

On Guantanamo Bay as a provocation, Obama said:

Guantanamo is probably the No. 1 recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations,” Obama said. “And we see it in the websites that they put up. We see it in the messages that they’re delivering.”

It didn’t matter that Guantanamo Bay was absolutely necessary, no matter how much it provoked people who were determined to be provoked.  That is just a fact, and facts don’t matter to demagogues.  It’s just an “inconvenient truth” that Gitmo is still open, and WILL REMAIN OPEN as long as Obama is president.

Then there was that nasty rhetorical phrase “war on terror” that was clearly too provocative, so Obama rebranded it as an “overseas contingency operation.”

The one thing that couldn’t be more clear: don’t you dare provoke these people.  It’s bad to provoke.  The mainstream media would crawl all over you if you dared to provoke.

So I’m left sitting here wondering how provocation suddenly went from a bad thing to a good thing just because the guy doing all the provoking was a Democrat.

Obama’s Middle East policies have resulted in dramatically escalated increases in violence throughout the Arab world.  Which would have been terrible if Bush had had anything to do with it, but which is okay because a liberal did it.  So the mainstream media has refused to harangue Obama on that unintended consequence of his budding Utopia.

In Libya, you’ve got a lot more of this “untended consequence” regarding Obama’s nearlty forgotten little third war he started in Libya:

TRIPOLI, Libya – Libyans shouting for revenge buried Moammar Gadhafi’s second youngest son to the thundering sound of anti-aircraft fire Monday, as South Africa warned that the NATO bombing that killed him would only bring more violence.

Libya’s leader did not attend the tumultuous funeral of 29-year-old Seif al-Arab, but older brothers Seif al-Islam and Mohammed paid their respects, thronged by a crowd of several thousand. Jostling to get closer to the coffin, draped with a green Libyan flag, mourners flashed victory signs and chanted “Revenge, revenge for you, Libya.”

Three of Gadhafi’s grandchildren, an infant and two toddlers, also died in Saturday’s attack, which NATO says targeted one of the regime’s command and control centers. Gadhafi and his wife were in the compound at the time, but escaped unharmed, Libyan officials said, accusing the alliance of trying to assassinate the Libyan leader.

NATO officials have denied they are hunting Gadhafi to break the battlefield stalemate between Gadhafi’s troops and rebels trying for the past 10 weeks to depose him. Rebels largely control eastern Libya, while Gadhafi has clung to much of the west, including the capital, Tripoli.

But of course NATO is denying that we’re hunting Gadafi in violation of United Nations policies against targeting political leaders.  After all, we’ve even denied we’re at war at all, preferring the nicer-sounding euphamism of “kinetic military action.”  “War” sounds so mean, and hardly something a brilliant liberal would do, after all.  The far more erudite liberals launch wave after wave of “kinetic military actions” instead.  And no matter how many of Gaddafi’s compounds somehow accidentally get targeted and blown up, that’s clearly all it is.

Now we’ve got Obama (almost as though Obama were himself one of the machine-gun toting SEALs) killing Osama bin Laden.  That clearly won’t provoke anybody.

America’s relationship with Pakistan was already at an all-time low due to Obama incessantly flying Predators over their country and launching rocket attacks on them.  But so what?  Provocation is a good thing now, because Obama is doing it instead of George Bush.  And if you’re brilliant, you don’t have to kowtow to such trivialities as consistency.

And so what if Obama ordered American troops to launch a military attack on Pakistani soil without bothering to even inform the Pakistanis?  No harm, no foul.  So what if we violated their sovereignty?  Obama is the leader of the world, and the sooner the world recognized that he is an imperial president, the better.  If you don’t like Obama pursuing “cowboy” tactics, or engaging in “you’re either with us or you’re against us” policies, well, you’re just not very enlightened.  Because it’s not fascist unless Republicans do it.

And al Qaeda, whom the left was so worried about provoking when George Bush was the guy doing the provoking?  They’ll get over it.  So we can ignore the little threat they just made less than a week ago about unleashing a “nuclear hellstorm” upon America if we killed or captured Osama bin Laden.

You think of Gitmo, the surge strategy, rendition, domestic eavesdropping, the Patriot Act, indefinite detentions, military tribunals and a host of other things Obama demonized George Bush and Dick Cheney over, and not only are they doing the same things, but they’re doing even worse.  But the same mainstream media that tore into George Bush like pitbulls going after raw bloody meat don’t seem to have time to dwell on Obama’s blatant hypocrisies.

Nor does Bush get any credit for having been right when Obama and the Democrats were so completely wrong by their own massive reversals to the Bush policies now.

We are watching a level of propaganda and fundamental hypocrisy overtake the United States of America by both the media and the White House that ought to simply stun you.