Posts Tagged ‘Romney’

Obama’s Outright, Apalling LIE As He Avoids Responsibility For HIS Appallingly Poor Decision Covered Up By Mainstream Media – But Here It Is

August 22, 2014

Obama is the most documented liar in the entire history of the human race, bar NONE.  NO HUMAN BEING in the entire history of the world has been seen by so many telling so many lies.

I stated that fact after Obama had “fundamentally transformed” America’s health care system based on lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.

But I’m going to add the word “treasonous” to “liar.”  Because when you lie about the national security of the United States of America, that’s what you are: a traitor.

It wasn’t that long ago that Barack Obama angrily denounced as a lie the allegation that he was responsible for the decision to withdraw US forces from Iraq - which of course facilitated the invasion from across Syria into Iraq by ISIS/ISIL:

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. — is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice — which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq. [link]

Well, there is not only video after video after video after video of Obama claiming credit for ending the war in Iraq:

If you go to this recent article, I’ve got Obama’s “I got us out of Iraq” boasts ad nauseam.  And they SHOULD make you nauseous.  One of the quotes I cite is this one when Obama boasts that he is pulling out all forces from Iraq in 2011:

“I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.”

So we already knew that when Barack Obama claimed that it wasn’t HIS decision to pull US forces out of Iraq and leave a vacuum for the next terrorist organization to occupy, Obama was a liar without shame, without decency, without honor, without integrity, without courage, without virtue of any kind.

Barack Hussein Obama is a pathologically wicked man.  And I believe that it is clear that he is a truly demon-possessed man.

But we have more now: which the mainstream media would have long since dug up had the president been a Republican liar rather than a Democrat liar.  We actually have Obama in a national debate specifically disavowing any status of forces agreement and arguing that he was hell bent on cutting and running and would not allow American troops to remain in Iraq:

In fact, Obama very clearly objected when Mitt Romney declared during a debate that both he and Obama would have preferred a status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) that left a residual force in Iraq:

“With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement,” Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. “That’s not true,” Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

So when Obama tries to disavow and duck his personal responsibility for his incredibly godawful, outrageous, immoral decision to pull our troops out of Iraq rather than leave a residual force that would have kept Iraq as safe and as secure as Obama and Biden BOASTED it had become after George Bush won the Iraq War after Democrats did EVERYTHING they could to thwart him and undermine him and demonize him and slander him for doing so, HE IS A LIAR.

Joe Biden said the following about the Iraq War that President Bush had won:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

So we have it on documented historical record that Obama and his administration weren’t just claiming credit for ending the war and pulling all our troops out; they were claiming credit for the safe, stable, peaceful Iraq that had been left behind as Bush left office.

We’ve got Obama’s own words to confirm that FACT from 2011 when he was pulling all our troops out:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

and:

“[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

We also know that the military was BEGGING Obama to change his mind with his incredibly stupid, depraved and evil decision to pull all out troops out and piss away all the sacrifices we had made:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

The generals KNEW this disaster would happen as terrorists swept back in.  But Barack Obama, reckless, demon-possessed Democrat FOOL that he is, ignored them and overrode them.

One of the architects of the successful surge strategy that turned the war around in Iraq PREDICTED the following AT THE VERY TIME THAT OBAMA WAS ANNOUNCING HIS WITHDRAWAL:

Key general: Iraq pullout plan a ‘disaster’
Others echo call for strength against Iran
By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times
Sunday, October 23, 2011

President Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq by Dec. 31 is an “absolute disaster” that puts the burgeoning Arab democracy at risk of an Iranian “strangling,” said an architect of the 2007 troop surge that turned around a losing war.

Retired Army Gen. John M. Keane was at the forefront of persuading President George W. Bush to scuttle a static counterinsurgency strategy and replace it with 30,000 reinforcements and a more activist, street-by-street counterterrorism tactic.

Today, even with that strategy producing a huge drop in daily attacks, Gen. Keane bluntly told The Washington Times that the United States again is losing.

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

U.S. troops will be vacating Iraq at a time when neither Baghdad’s counterterrorism skills nor its abilities to protect against invasion are at levels needed to fully protect the country, say analysts long involved in the nearly nine-year war.

“Forty-four hundred lives lost,” Gen. Keane said. “Tens of thousands of troops wounded. Over a couple hundred thousand Iraqis killed. We liberated 25 million people. There is only one Arab Muslim country that elects its own government, and that is Iraq.

“We should be staying there to strengthen that democracy, to let them get the kind of political gains they need to get and keep the Iranians away from strangling that country. That should be our objective, and we are walking away from that objective.”

How could Obama lie like this?  How could the Democrat Party so circle their wagons around such a clearly wicked and dishonest liar???

I submit to you that there is no possible way that Barack Obama and his Democrat Party and the media propaganda machine that protects him are all truly possessed by demons.  You cannot be that stupid, that blind, that depraved or even that dishonest without Satan owning your soul.

Barack Obama is the worst kind of coward there ever was.  He is a coward and a malignant narcissist who cannot face up to taking responsibility for his disgraceful decisions.

Now we’re back into Iraq and we can’t fight these brutally vicious people after Obama stupidly allowed them to gain a stranglehold over Iraq.

Obama’s handpicked Secretary of Defense just admitted this:

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel dramatically upgraded the U.S. government’s estimation of the threats America faces from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on Thursday, saying its jihadi network represents ‘an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else.’

ISIS is ‘as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen,’ Hagel told a group of reporters during a joint press conference he held with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

‘They’re beyond just a terrorist group.They marry ideology and a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well funded. …This is beyond anything we’ve seen, so we must prepare for everything.’

‘And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it and – and – and get ready.’

Obama stupidly, arrogantly, narcissistically, had called this group “junior varsity.”  And they are so much better and so much stronger and so much better organized than we are – thanks to the pathological disgrace wicked, vile Democrats put in office TWICE – that it should make you want to scream and rip out every shred of your hair.

In the same article cited above, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also gave his input on the consequences of Barack Obama’s incredibly stupid and pathologically evil decision to allow ISIS beheaders to first overwhelm Syria – which Republicans had begged Obama to contain – and then overwhelm Iraq:

Gen. Dempsey warned that America’s involvement in Iraq will continue for years to come, citing the intensity of hatred among ethnic, religious and tribal groups there.

‘The conflict against those groups – most of which are local, some of which are regional, and some of which are global in nature – that’s going to be a very long contest,’ he said.

‘It’s ideological. It’s not political. It’s religious in many cases. So, yes, it’s going to be a very long contest.’

At the same time the decorated general cautioned that the ‘required participation’ of the U.S. would remain one of coalition leadership ‘to provide the unique capabilities that we provide, but not necessarily all the capabilities’ – a suggestion that an unlimited release of military might to crush ISIS is off the table.

Dempsey added later in the briefing that ISIS can’t practically be contained in Iraq, since it also has deep roots and tremendous resources across the Syrian border.

The terror group ‘has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,’ the general explained.

‘Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border.’

Do you understand this?  Obama caused this.  This is BECAUSE of Obama.  We had WON in Iraq.  We had a chance to defeat Assad in Syria and aid a pro-democracy takeover of that country.  Obama lost both for us.

Let’s go back to the could haves, would haves and should haves, to the president we COULD have had if we didn’t have demon-possessed people destroying the soul and body of America (Democrats), if they hadn’t elected a complete fool for our president (Obama).  Let’s go back to John McCain’s strategy for securing Iraq:

[Voter at forum dubbed “EH” by McCain due to his likeness to Ernest Hemingway]: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years –-

Mr. McCain: Maybe a hundred.

We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.

That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

John McCain rightly pointed out that having won the war – which we did – we needed to secure and maintain what we had won.  That’s what we did in Japan.  That’s what we did in Europe.  That’s what we did in Korea.  That’s what we needed to do in Iraq.

The New York Times captured the exchange in a transcript form (same link as above).  The same “EH” had previously said:

E.H.: I want to say at the outset I’m not going to be voting for you. I’m going to be voting in the Democratic primary in order to defeat the senator from new york, who I refer to as a Joe Lieberman Democrat.

I have listened to Hillary Clinton say probably a hundred times that she will end the war and I’ve heard you say we can’t leave Iraq.

And you see, the thing is that McCain was RIGHT and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were WRONG.  We CAN’T leave Iraq.  It is stupid and in fact morally depraved to leave Iraq after we fought so hard to win there.  Weakness invites thugs, withdrawal invites and literally incites terrorists.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama might as well have said, “Please come in and take over and create a caliphate.”  Because that’s what their policy guaranteed.

The above discussion took place January 6, 2008.  At that time John McCain already understood that the corner had been turned in the war – which ultimately resulted in an exultant Joe Biden claiming victory in Iraq.  And McCain pointed out:

But the fact is it’s American casualties that the American people care about and those casualties are on the way down rather dramatically.

And the option, and I’ll say this again because you’ve got to consider the option. If we had withdrawn six months ago, I’d look you in the eye and tell you Al Queda would have said we beat the United States of America. If we’d gone along with Harry Reid and said the war was lost to Al Queda, then we would be fighting that battle all over the Middle East, and I am convinced of that and so is General Petraeus as well as others.

The Washington Post fact checker – a liberal paper, mind you – documented the disgraceful lies and frankly slander that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made of John McCain’s clearly wise policy.

John McCain was right.  The entire Democrat Party machine – including the Senate Majority Leader who had disgracefully said, “I believe the war is lost,” and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were united behind the defeat of America.  It is simply a fact that in hindsight anyone who isn’t a truly demon-possessed fool can see now.

And yes, ye demon-possessed Democrat who thinks Hillary is still anything other than a fool’s choice for president, Hillary Clinton JOINED Obama in betraying America in 2008 and slandering John McCain’s common sense wisdom regarding US policy in Iraq.

You need to understand that when you vote for the Democrat Party, YOU ARE VOTING FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL.  You are voting for evil to prevail in foreign policy and national security – as is clearly documented here.  You are voting for evil to prevail in the murder of more innocent babies (already surpassing 56,662,169 and counting) than were killed on all sides, civilian and military, throughout the entirety of the worst and bloodiest war in all human history (“only” 56,125,262 killed).  You are voting for homosexual sodomy which is the rock bottom low that the Bible clearly teaches in Romans 1:18-32 is the nadir of culture and guarantees the full wrath of God on that culture.  You are voting for evil to prevail in your socialism, which is the replacement of God with your State and the death of the dignity of the human spirit as you plunge people into government dependency when they should be dependent upon God their Savior and upon His people rather than your bound-for-hell Bureaucrats.  Your precious “separation of church and state” is nothing more than a perversion of everything that this nation has stood for and is nothing short of the separation of God from America.  And it shows in everything you do and in everything you stand for.

If you are a Democrat you have radically rejected Jesus Christ and you will scream in the fire of hell for all eternity for your wickedness.  And even eternal hell will not last long enough for you to suffer for all that you did on earth for the blasphemous crimes you committed against God and against the image of God and against humanity.

 

Mitt Romeny Racks Up 47,000 Donations Totalling Over $4.6 Million In 24 Hours After ObamaCare Decision Announced

June 29, 2012

Maxine Waters said to the Tea Party, “Let’s get it on!”

Well, game on, you corrupt, dishonest hack.

Admiral Yamamoto was said to have made a frightening prediction for Japan even as all of his fleet was celebrating their apparently wild success at Pearl Harbor:

“I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

Obama and Democrats most certainly have a moment of success that was handed to them by Bush-appointee John Roberts.  But history amply documents that many such apparent victories turn out to be slow-moving disasters for those who celebrate them.  Not only is the ObamaCare that can now only be overturned by Republicans still wildly unpopular – and most importantly, wildly unpopular with independents to the tune of a whopping 70 percent who wanted it repealed – but it is also now officially the largest tax on the middle class in American history.  And that torpedoes Obama’s primary campagin rhetoric to be the protector of the middle class.

Then there’s also this: ObamaCare just ignited the Romney base to white-hot anger and very terrible resolve:

Romney campaign donations hit $4.6 million following health care decision
In a brief televised statement following the decision, Romney vowed that his first priority upon entering the White House would be repealing the so-called Obamacare law.
By Kristen A. Lee / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, June 29, 2012, 1:17 PM

President Obama may have won the health care battle at the Supreme Court, but Mitt Romney is claiming a victory in the money wars.

Since the court released its stunning 5-4 decision upholding Obama’s health care law Thursday morning, the Romney campaign has taken in a flood of donations from Republican supporters angry about the ruling.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul tweeted Friday that the campaign received more than 47,000 online donations totaling $4.6 million in the 24 hours since the ruling.

The surge in small donations indicates that the decision may be an effective weapon for Republicans to mobilize conservatives for the general election.

The Obama campaign is asserting that they took in even more.  The fact that they refused to produce any of their numbers to back those assertions up is evidence enough to refute their bogus claims.

In 2010 enraged Americans rose up in righteous outrage over the even-then wildly unpopular ObamaCare and gave Democrats a historic ass-kicking:

[Consider] the sheer extent of the disaster Obama led the Democrat Party into: this wasn’t the worst election drubbing since 1994; it was the worst election drubbing since 1938 (and since 1928 in the state legislatures).

We also took 11 governorships.

Here is the map of that 2010 ass-kicking (red = “Democrats SUCK!”):

Well, now ObamaCare is back on the table.  You are literally voting for your very lives, people.  Time to get really, really angry again.

And now Obama is a big-time major documented liar to go with being a narcissistic sociopath:

[ObamaCare is] the largest tax of the American middle class in the history of the Republic.

Obama is now a documented liar on his pledge to the middle class:

BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Obama promised it over and over:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

And:

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And in interviews with former Democrat spin doctors turned mainstream media “journalsits” Obama responded to questions:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase. It is a supermassive tax increase, in fact. And now the middle class is burdened with the largest tax increase in American history and it won’t be single dimes, but lots and lots of dollars, that Americans will find themselves paying. Like everything this cynical, dishonest president does, it will be sneaky: it won’t be all that much in year one beginning AFTER the election in 2013, but it will be more in year two and quite a bit more in year three.

You just wait and see how much you are going to pay for this monstrosity as it increasingly starts to blow up as it gets implemented.

There is already a $17 TRILLION funding gap in this monstrosity. And you aint seen nothin’ yet. Not only the absolute number but even the rate of those without insurance has INCREASED since ObamaCare was passed. And ObamaCare has raised the cost of medicine; the average family is paying over $2,000 more in health insurance premiums in a number of states since ObamaCare was passed. And that was EXACTLY what was predicted as compared to what would have happened HAD OBAMACARE NOT EXISTED, according to the CBO. But now we’re finding that health premiums are increasing by as much as 1,112 percent. And the Supreme Court decision today will likely cause this escalating cost spike to shoot at an even higher trajectory into the stratosphere.

This is what you will be voting for in 2012: do you want the kind of government-controlled health care system in which hundreds of thousands of elderly patients are terminated every single year just to make bed-space available as the inefficient government system crashes into chaos?  To put it into parallel terms given the population differences, 130,000 British elderly citizens euthanized every year amounts to at least 687,000 elderly Americans terminated.

Do you want 160 death panels?

Vote for Romney.  Vote for your very own life and most certainly forn the lives of your parents and grandparents.

New Obama Ad Demonizes Romney For Jobs Destroyed During Romney’s Bain Capital Days: BUT CONSIDER WHAT OBAMA DID TO 20,000 DELPHI WORKERS

May 15, 2012

Obama, thy title is “Hypocrite-in-Chief.”

Bain under Mitt Romney invested in Staples, which had 89,000 employees as of Dec. 31, 2010.  Bain under Romney invested in Sports Authority, which had 15,000 employees as of July 2011.  Bain under Romney invested in Domino’s Pizza, which has added 7,900 jobs since 1999.  And those are just three of the many, MANY companies that Bain Capital turned around or created with its investment.

Some of the jobs that Romney has claimed credit for were created several years after he left the company. But there is no question that had he not been involved when he made the investment decisions he made, those jobs never would have existed at all.

Every single one of those well-over hundred thousand jobs that Romney created ought to be counted from the very premise of the current Obama ad: because the steel company (GST Steel) that is featured in the ad lost the jobs well AFTER Romney left Bain.  To go with the fact that it’s a laugh to blame Bain for those jobs at ALL.  Mitt Romney was in fact turning around the Olympics by the time those GST Steel jobs were lost.

So now the same people who are saying Mitt Romney shouldn’t get credit for the jobs created after he left Bain are demanding that Romney be blamed for jobs that were lost AFTER he left Bain.  Because the quintessential defining essence of a Democrat is abject personal hypocrisy and abject personal dishonesty.

Interestingly, the key decision-maker at Bain Capital during those two years after Romney left and when GST Steel was closed was none other than Jonathan Lavine. Who was Jonathan Lavine?  Lavine just happens to be a major Obama supporter and bundler who raised more than $100,000 for the Obama’s reelection campaign.  But please forget that, as it is just a fact and interferes with Obama’s demagoguery.

At Steel Dynamics Romney created 6,000 jobs. Why doesn’t that matter?  Same reason it doesn’t matter that Obama’s money bundler was actually the guy who ran Bain’s dismantling of any job losses at GST Steel.  So let’s forget Steel Dynamics and focus exclusively on Obama’s bogus attack campaign.

Meanwhile Barack Obama boasts of having created millions of jobs even as in actual fact the actual number of jobs has nosedived since his presidency as accurately measured by the labor participation rate. The numbers do not lie: you can see the participation rate nosediving year by year by year under Obama. And it’s now basically the lowest ever measured.

If the same labor participation rate that Bush left office with were applied to Obama’s economy, the unemployment rate would be 11.4%.

Since those who give up looking are not included in the official labor statistics, the more workers Obama crushes into total despair, the better for his unemployment numbers.

Under Obama, 88 million working-age Americans have simply dropped out of the damn labor force altogether. It is sickening to hear Obama boast of creating jobs when he’s annihilated MILLIONS of jobs that have now simply ceased to exist.

We can rightly demand, “Where are the jobs, Obama, you liar???”

Anyway, Obama just put out a new ad attacking Mitt Romney. You need to ignore the well-over 100,000 jobs that Romney created and focus on the people who lost their jobs as a result of Romney’s work buying bankrupt and dying companies and rebuilding them.

But Obama demonizes himself by his own demonization. Consider what Obama did – you know, the guy who credits himself with saving GM – to Delphi:

The Delphi Disaster: An Economic Horror Story Obama Won’t Tell
Posted By Michelle Malkin On September 22, 2010 @ 12:21 am In FrontPage

The White House believes it can win back depressed and economically stressed voters by turning President Obama into the storyteller-in-chief again. But victims of Obama’s Chicago politics don’t want to hear any more of his own well-worn tales of struggle and sacrifice. They’ve got their own tragedies to tell — heart-wrenching dramas of personal and financial suffering at the very hands of Obama.

Consider the real-life horror story of 20,000 white-collar workers at Delphi, a leading auto parts company spun off from GM a decade ago. As Washington rushed to nationalize the U.S. auto industry with $80 billion in taxpayer “rescue” funds and avoid contested court termination proceedings, the White House auto team schemed with Big Labor bosses to preserve UAW members’ costly pension funds by shafting their nonunion counterparts. In addition, the nonunion pensioners lost all of their health and life insurance benefits.

The abused workers — most from hard-hit northeast Ohio, Michigan and neighboring states — had devoted decades of their lives as secretaries, technicians, engineers and sales employees at Delphi/GM. Some workers have watched up to 70 percent of their pensions vanish.

John Berent of Marblehead, Ohio, lost one-third of his pension: “I worked as a salaried employee for GM (30 years) and Delphi (10 years). After 40 years of dedicated service, I was forced to retire. Then Delphi terminated my health care, life insurance, vision, dental, then terminated the pension plan. Everything I worked 40 years for was wiped out.”

Kelly Fabrizio of Franksville, Wis., saw her pension reduced by 55 percent after working 30 years at Delphi/GM: “I am truly scared for my future. Every day I wake up, shake my head and say out loud — This Is Not How It Was Supposed To Be.”

Roger Hoke of Columbus, Mich., and his wife were both longtime Delphi workers. His pension shrunk by more than 40 percent: “After 33 years with GM and another 10 with Delphi, what did I do wrong to deserve such a fate?”

Paul Dobosz of the Delphi Salaried Retiree Association recounts how they got screwed: “The Auto Task Force knew that the only thing standing in the way of GM getting what they wanted out of Delphi was the already frozen pension obligations.” They hatched a plan to dump those pensions on the federally run Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, while at the same time “devising a clever way to make the UAW pensions whole using GM and TARP money to accomplish it.

The scheme was documented in sworn depositions (that) revealed … that some groups of workers were more ‘politically sensitive’ and would be afforded special treatment (i.e. subsidy using TARP money) while others less politically worthy would be left out.”

In other words: Obama’s team of auto-crats — stocked with Big Labor-friendly appointees and self-admitted know-nothings about the car industry — decided to “cherry pick” (one Obama official’s own words) which obligations the new Government Motors company would assume and which they would abandon based on their own political whims and fealty. Due process and equal treatment of union and nonunion workers be damned. Administration officials assert that the Delphi workers’ pension fund was underfunded, but two separate actuarial analyses undercut the claim.

The Delphi workers sued the feds and will have a day in court on Sept. 24. They are not asking for a bailout. They are simply asking for fair treatment under the rule of law. Delphi supporters also point out that the very scheme used to “top up” the union workers’ pensions with taxpayer subsidies was challenged by the federal government and ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in the 1990s.

A separate investigation by TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky, announced last week, will also probe “whether political considerations played a role in favoring hourly over salaried retirees.” It shouldn’t take long to unearth the facts. Obama’s own former auto czar Steve Rattner admitted in his new memoir that “attacking the union’s sacred cow” could “jeopardize” the auto bailout deal.

While Obama conducts his worker empathy tour at staged town halls and rallies across the country, his Treasury Department continues to stonewall and refuses to answer questions about the Delphi disaster. But many workers left out in the cold know the truth: Lip-biting, yarn-spinning Obama doesn’t feel their pain. He caused it.

Twenty thousand Delphi workers lost their jobs, their pensions and their lives. And Barack Obama did it to them:

The unprecedented intrusion of the executive branch of the US government into the American auto industry when the Obama Administration orchestrated the General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcy processes is now leading to unprecedented responses. Groups that were clearly discriminated against and had their rights subordinated to politically powerful unions may actually have a winnable case against our own government as lawsuits are being brought against the US Treasury Dept. and others.

The Delphi salaried retirees who saw their pension benefits disintegrate after the GM bankruptcy are now suing the US Treasury, the Auto Task Force, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and ex-Auto Task Force heads, Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom. The first hearing against the Treasury Dept. and others will occur on August 17th. The basis of the suit is that the Obama Administration wrongfully used taxpayer dollars to pick winners and losers in the GM bankruptcy. I had a conversation with one of the lead plaintiffs, Chuck Cunningham, who explained how there was blatant favoritism and discrimination in regards to pension benefits for groups that should have had equal standing.

Mr. Cunningham, who is a retired senior executive of Delphi, informed me that the Delphi salaried workers’ benefit fund was one of the highest funded plans that were taken over by the Pension Benefits Guarantee Company (an independent agency of the US government administered by Presidential cabinet members) during bankruptcy processes. Other Delphi groups whose pensions were taken over included the UAW, International Union of Electrical Workers and the United Steelworkers Union. Can you take a guess at which groups fared the best?

While the pension funds involved should have been treated equally, politically powerful cronies of the Obama Administration were favored through a process called “topping up.” Treasury instructed GM to use taxpayer money to top up pension payments for the UAW, GM salaried workers, the IUE and the steelworkers’ union while Delphi salaried workers lost the majority of their benefits. The favored groups lost none of their pension payments, courtesy of the US taxpayers, and retained health care benefits. The non-politically connected Delphi workers lost 70% of their pensions and all of their health care benefits.

A congressional committee has been investigating the unfair treatment that Delphi retirees received compared to other groups. According to Mr. Cunningham, while he was not at liberty to discuss congressional actions, the investigations will continue. Thus far, much evidence from closed-door meetings between Treasury and the PBGC has been withheld from Delphi plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also will be releasing a four page document described as a “timeline of deception.”

The American people should pay close attention to the Delphi case. The auto bailouts are an ugly chapter in American history and should be viewed as such. Actions taken by the Obama Administration were manipulative and displayed a clear plan to redistribute wealth from taxpayers and less favored groups, like GM bondholders and Delphi retirees, to politically powerful friends of Obama. The claim that these actions were taken with the sole intention of saving jobs is false as evidenced by the Auto Tasks Force’s demands to close thousands of dealerships during the process. The intentions were to save UAW jobs and reward the groups with the most political clout. In the words of former head of the Auto Task Force, Ron Bloom, they “did it all for the unions.”

When the Obama Administration presents its case that the auto bailouts were a huge success, they are relying on an arrogant assumption that the majority of voters will not be paying close enough attention to the discrimination and unethical conduct that transpired. I don’t expect that most Americans will be too concerned with the losses incurred by Delphi retirees or GM bondholders, but there is a much more important reason to be concerned. If the executive branch of our government can seize assets from any one group of individuals and redistribute the wealth as they deem fit, all Americans are at risk. Congress should be unrelenting in its investigations and America should pay attention. Most of all, the unprecedented actions that took place should never have a chance of being repeated.

Saving a sick company is like saving a cancer patient: you very often have to remove a lot of stuff in order to save the patient’s life. Just like with healthy cells infected with cancer cells, with sick companies, there are invariably more jobs than there is profitability – and you have to go in and cut out those jobs in order to bring the company back into balance so it can survive – so the company can survive and continue to employ the workers who can best support the company’s operations and bottom line.

It’s often labelled “creative destruction.”  It is simply a fact of reality.  The doctor removes part of the patient’s liver; but thank God because the entire patient would have died a lingering death if the doctor hadn’t taken out that part of the patient’s liver.

The essence of free markets is that some businesses succeed and others fail. Some jobs in failing businesses need to be preserved and others need to be cut. And the only people who abjectly refuse to understand this simple fact are communists.

If Obama’s ad against Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital has any validity whatsoever, Barack Obama himself is unfit for president by his own rhetoric and ought to resign in disgrace for what he did to Delphi workers.

Then there’s the whole issue of Bain Capital versus Obama Capital. That comparison doesn’t make Obama look good AT ALL.

On top of that you’ve got the further hypocrisy in the fact that top Obama officials worked for Bain Capital (OMB Director Jeffrey Zients).  One of Obama’s top bundlers worked for Bain Capital (former Bain managing director Jonathan Lavine).

Obama is a hypocrite, pure and simple. He is a pathologically dishonest man. This is no different from the Obama who demonized George Bush over Gitmo – only to keep Gitmo open throughout his own presidency and making himself a documented liar. This is no different from the Obama who demonized George Bush over the debt ceiling – only to not only increase the debt ceiling himself, but in fact to ram through the three highest increases in the entire history of the human race.

This is an abject liar who documents again and again that he is unfit to be president measured by his own lying rhetoric.

Barack Obama’s lies and hypocrisy are shameful and sickening. And if you support Obama, it is because you yourself are a dishonest person whose shriveled soul swims in a great ocean of hypocrisy.

‘Obama’s Approval Rating Has Hit The Lowest Level EVER In CBS News Polling’ – That’s A Quote From CBS

March 13, 2012

America won’t actually be safe until Obama sees a giant crowd of millions of Americans banging on the gates of the White House and he decides he’d better flee the country like many of the banana republic-style dictators have done before him.

March 12, 2012 6:30 PM
Poll: Obama’s approval rating sinks to new low
By Stephanie Condon

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

(CBS News) President Obama’s approval rating has hit the lowest level ever in CBS News polling, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times survey. The drop may be partially attributable to rising gas prices.

Just 41 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, according to the poll, conducted from March 7 to 11. Another 47 percent disapprove of his performance, up from 41 percent last month.

Mr. Obama’s approval rating was 50 percent last month.

The average U.S. price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 12 cents over the past two weeks. The poll found that most Americans, 54 percent, believe gas prices are something a president can do a lot about.

Americans have historically felt that a president can control gas prices, though experts attribute changes to a variety of factors, many outside of a president’s control. They also felt this way when gas prices spiked during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Chart - Are Gas Prices Something the President Can do a lot About (Credit: CBS)

When asked Tuesday by CBS Pittsburgh affiliate KDKA whether he can impact gas prices, Mr. Obama said, “Understandably people are frustrated when gas prices are going up, and there are things we can do, but they’re not going to result, provide results overnight.”

The president noted that the U.S. has reduced its dependence on foreign oil under his administration and that fuel efficiency standards for cars are being raised. The administration is exploring other ways to reduce prices, but Mr. Obama said the biggest contributor to the current high prices is rumors of war in the Middle East.

“Which is part of the reason I said a couple weeks ago let’s stop with the loose talk about war,” he said. “Because a lot of what’s driving this is people’s concern and fear that there might be major disruptions in the Middle East oil markets.”

Attacks from the Republicans running to replace Mr. Obama may be having an impact on his approval rating as well. His disapproval rating has risen to 89 percent among Republicans (from 82 percent last month), and more independents now disapprove of his job performance than approve. Though Mr. Obama’s approval rating among Democrats remains high, it has dropped seven points – from 85 percent last month to 78 percent today.

Of the four remaining GOP candidates, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has hit Mr. Obama particularly hard on high gas prices, promising on the campaign trail to bring down the price to $2.50.

Jim Ritterbusch, president of an oil trading advisory firm, told CBS News there are no quick fixes.

“It’s become somewhat of a political football,” Ritterbusch said. “But none of the candidates or the current president can flip a switch and drive gas prices down to $3 a gallon.”

Mr. Obama’s job rating on the economy remains about the same as it was last month – 39 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove.

The economy and jobs remains the most important problem facing the country today, according to 51 percent of Americans. Three in four Americans think the economy is at least somewhat bad, including 30 percent who say it is very bad.

More Americans, 30 percent, say the economy is getting better; 24 percent say it is getting worse. The public’s economic outlook was slightly better last month, when 34 percent said the economy was getting better.

Most GOP voters expect Romney nomination
Most support U.S. military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons
Most say employers should be allowed not to cover contraception
Poll: Romney, Santorum narrow gap on Obama
Obama’s approval rating sinks to new low

Just 20 percent of Americans feel their family’s financial situation is better today than it was four years ago. Another 37 percent say it is worse, and 43 percent say it is about the same.

While his rating on the economy is about the same as last month, Mr. Obama’s rating on foreign policy has dropped 10 points. Now, just 40 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, while 41 percent disapprove. This is the first time since the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 that more Americans disapprove than approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing handling foreign policy.

Amid speculation that Israel may consider attacking Iran to stop its nuclear ambitions, Americans are split on the president’s handling of the situation in Iran: 42 percent approve, while nearly as many – 39 percent – disapprove. Nineteen percent don’t know.

CBS Radio News’ Rob Mank contributed to this report.


This poll was conducted by telephone from March 7-11, 2012 among 1009 adults nationwide.

878 interviews were conducted with registered voters, including 301 with voters who said they plan to vote in a Republican primary. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error for the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three points and six points for the sample of Republican primary voters. The error for subgroups may be higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

As we speak, both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum lead Barack Obama, according to most-reliable pollster Rasmussen:

With Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney adding to their primary wins Saturday, the latest Rasmussen poll shows both of them capable of posing a challenge to President Barack Obama in the November election.

According to Rasmussen’s poll of likely voters, the updated numbers show Romney ahead by five points in a hypothetical 2012 battle with the president. While Romney sits at 48 percent to Obama’s 43 percent, Santorum sits at 46 percent to Obama’s 45 percent. His one-point lead over Obama is Santorum’s second time ahead of the president.

Romney, Rasmussen reports, is the only other candidate to lead the president more than one time in the polls.

Obama’s approval index history shows a swing in his approval numbers, from 44 percent strongly approving of the president’s performance in January 2009, to 25 percent strongly approving now. The new numbers show that 44 percent strongly disapprove of the president’s performance, up from 16 percent in January 2009. Obama’s presidential approval index rating is -19.

Hopefully, this will at least shut the pie holes of the talking head fools who have asserted that “Obama is unbeatable.”

Gingrich Or Romney: Why I Don’t Care Who Wins (Florida Or Anywhere Else)

January 31, 2012

When I left for my evening walk, we were all waiting for the outcome of the Florida primary with varying degrees of bated breath.

I, for one, had a VERY low degree of bated breath.

I’m looking at two very flawed candidates taking the biggest axe-swipes at one another they possibly can.  Romney won Florida primarily because – due to his millions in super pac money – he had a bigger axe.

Romney’s super pacs outspent Gingrich’s by more than 4-1.  And while 82% of Gingrich’s pac ads were negative compared to 12% positive, fully 100% of Romney’s pac ads were negative.  Gingrich, on the other hand, is viscerally angry about Mitt Romney lying about him while he lies about the guy whose lies he’s complaining about.

In my own blogging, I have to deal with a version of this dilemma: to be mean or not to be mean, that is the question.

Having watched Democrats be vile for, well, for my entire lifetime, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can either join them or get beat by them.  If your enemy fire bombs your cities and shells your troops with poison gas, you either fire bomb their cities and use poison gas on their troops, or you surrender and hope that the people who practice total war on you won’t put make the slave yokes too tight around your necks.

Here’s where I’m going with that: I routinely have pointed out incredibly hateful things that Democrats have said about Republicans.  But in every single occasion, my issue wasn’t about “Democrats being hateful”; it was rather about “hypocritical Democrats who demonize Republicans as being hateful are themselves incredibly hateful.” I don’t expect Democrats to do anything OTHER than practice hate; it’s simply who they are at their demagogic and hypocritical cores.  Which is to say that I’m not attacking Democrats for their hate, but rather for their abject hypocrisy.

Both Gingrich and Romney are hypocrites, in that both – in their own words and in the words of their ads – routinely attack the other for his lies even while he himself is lying about the opponent whose lies he is attacking.  And I don’t care for that entrenched hypocrisy one bit.

Obama – the man both men are hoping to face – is the grand master of ALL hypocrites, of course.  This is a guy who has routinely deceitfully portrayed himself as “transcending” the political language of anger and blame while he himself has done more of both than ANY president who has ever “occupied” the White House.

Then there’s the “I’m the true conservative and my opponent is a moderate/liberal” thing.

Hey, Newt and Mitt: YOU BOTH HAVE ALL KINDS OF BETRAYAL OF CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES TO ANSWER FOR

Mitt Romney clearly had an incredibly liberal “Republican” record as governor of Massachusetts that Gingrich can attack.  The problem for Gingrich is that he actually ENDORSED the worst of that record (RomneyCare), took over a million dollars from the detestable liberal creation a.k.a. Fannie Mae, sat on a love seat couch with Nancy Pelosi in mutual agreement about global warming, demonized free market enterprise with Bain Capital, and that sort of thing.

Neither one of these guys is a true conservative looking back; and the only question is which one would be more conservative if they actually got into the White House.

Now, it comes down to this for me: who is truly more likely to defeat Obama if he gets the Republican nomination.  And the answer is: I have absolutely no idea.

The Republican establishment and the mainstream media are agreed that Mitt Romney is the guy with the best chance of beating Obama.  But guess what?  I don’t particularly trust the former and I actively despise the latter.

I DO know that the night that Ronald Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush to clinch the Republican nomination, the Carter campaign team toasted champagne.  Because Bush then was “the man most likely to defeat Carter” and Reagan was “the man who would lose in a landslide.”  And of course history reveals that Reagan took that champagne bottle and shoved it right up ….  Well, you get the idea.

That said, I also know a couple of contradictory things: I know, for example, that winning a campaign largely means raising massive money.  Romney beat Gingrich in Florida largely because he was able to outspend Gingrich by a 4-1 margin.  And of course what will be the margin of Obama who is going to be able to extort a billion dollars from his crony capitalist and union special interests?  Wouldn’t the same Gingrich who is bitterly complaining about Mitt Romney attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads be complaining about Barack Obama attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads?

And I also know that Mitt Romney has all of the charisma and excitement of the proverbial pitcher of warm spit, and Newt Gingrich is a guy who is capable of both fiery debate and oratory and the simple ability to fire up passion.

Which is more likely to win in November?  I don’t know.  I wish I could have seen a candidate who was capable of both.

So here I am, watching the Republican primary process unravel like sheer torture.  And I have absolutely no idea who to root for.

To continue, from my perspective, what I am watching is the worst possible scenario that the Republican nomination could have degenerated into.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have both publicly gone on the record as saying all of this is just wonderful and they hope the chainsaw fight will go one and on and on for as long as possible.

They might be right and I wrong, given the fact that both are far more politically accomplished than I’ll ever be.  But I cannot understand how.

I hate to introduce conspiracy theories, but it occurs to me that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings go UP when Democrats win.  And nothing would be better for Limbaugh’s career than Obama getting re-elected.  It is far easier to rip on a guy from the other party running things than it is to have to defend your guy’s policies.  As for Sarah Palin, she’s not running this year, but she might well run next time: and she sure would rather run against Obama’s cataclysmically failed record in 2016 than have to potentially wait until 2020 for her own shot at the title.

I hope I’m not right about their motivations, because I genuinely respect both Limbaugh and Palin.  But it remains a simple fact that the best thing that could happen for either of them professionally would be an Obama victory.

If one candidate could emerge, a few things would happen (all of them good, IMHO): 1) we could finally get to the case against Obama rather than the case against Romney or the case against Gingrich; 2) the Republican nominee could actually raise money for the war against Obama’s billion dollars rather than raising money to attack the other Republican(s) in the primary fight; 3) the attacks by Romney against Gingrich or Gingrich against Romney that Obama will be able to replay in his own hatefest would at least be lessened if the mud wrestling match ended now.

One last thing: I haven’t got involved in the slug fest (and I mean “slug” as much in the sense of “slimy crawling insect” as “punch-throwing”) because I genuinely believe in Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment that Republicans shouldn’t attack each other the way we’re seeing.  But I have watched other conservative blog sites such as Free Republic squander their credibility by (in the example of Free Republic) first picking Sarah Palin and viscerally attacking anybody who wasn’t Sarah Palin – including Newt Gingrich – and then picking Newt Gingrich and viscerally attacking Mitt Romney.  And my question is what will that site be worth to conservatives if Mitt Romney wins?

I am angry at the terrible Obama regime that has actually been WORSE than the terrible presidency I feared.  And I write with that sense of anger at what Obama has done to my country.  But one thing I can tell you about me is that I don’t WANT to be angry.  I WANT OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE and I want to see our country governed by policies that would at least forestall the collapse that Obama’s ruinous regime set into motion.  But I am convinced that there are conservatives who truly hate Obama and who feel empowered by that hatred and anger [liberals had the same unhinged hatred for Bush, fwiw].  And my question is are these conservatives unconsciously setting up Obama for victory so they can go on hating him.

For my own part, I plan to be done with political blogging one way or another after November.  If Obama wins, America truly deserves what it is going to get.  Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s reverend and spiritual advisor for over twenty years – prophetically said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  And “God damn America” was what the American people voted for in 2008.  If they want more God damn America, I’m washing my hands.  Jeremiah 11:14 says: “Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.”  And that would be exactly where America would fall (And I DO mean “America will fall”).  On the other hand, if Romney or Gingrich wins, I simply can’t see myself enthusiastically defending their administrations against the onslaught of the newest version of liberal “Bush derangement syndrome.”

Bottom line: one way or another, I’m going to lay my political hatchet down and start writing as an evangelical Christian trying to warn as many as will listen about the soon-coming last days.  Because one way or another, the beast of Revelation is coming.  And if Obama wins, his coming will be hastened all the more.

Don’t think for a second that I won’t drag myself off of my deathbed (hopefully it won’t come to that!) to vote for the Republican nominee, be it Romney or Gingrich or Santorum or ???.  But as I watch the primary drag out, I’m shaking my head with disgust rather than nodding it in enthusiasm.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 567 other followers