Obama Promised Dems Trip To Disneyworld; Failed To Mention It Involved Crashing Plane Into Florida

[The above title derives from a quip made by Newt Gingrich on the Greta Van Susteren program, for what it’s worth].

Unless “hope and change” meant total Democrat annihilation (which it does for me, anyway), I would submit that something went wrong on Obama’s trip to Utopia.

There was a cartoon from months ago that pretty much summarized the election results from November 2:

And the American people – and most certainly conservatives – tried to warn them.  Repeatedly.

Remember Virginia?  When Republican Bob McDonnell won the governorship in a major setback to Obama? Remember  Massachusetts? And the shock defeat by Republican Scott Brown to win Ted Kennedy’s seat? Remember New Jersey?  Where Chris Christie defeated Obama-backed Jon Corzine with independents running away from Democrats to give Republicans the governor’s mansion in the bluest of blue states? Remember all the town halls across the nation?  Where senior citizens were red-faced furious at Democrats for passing ObamaCare? Remember the tea party events across the country? And how they just kept getting bigger and bigger even as the Democrats and the mainstream media first ridiculed them and then demonized them?

Meanwhile, now former House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi assured everyone that Democrats would keep control of the House.  And assured them “for sure.” And daring Republicans to “bring it on” in the process.  And kept assuring.  And then assuring some more.

And it wasn’t just Nancy Pelosi who lived in a bubble.  Lots of prominent Democrats did.  Such as DNC chairman Tim Kaine, who was predicting Democrats would keep the House of Representatives only days ago.

And, of course, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen joined San Fran Nan the very day of the election to loudly assure the world that the Democrats would keep their dominance in the House.

And, even after the admitted shellacking, Barack Obama demonstrated loudly and clearly today that he STILL doesn’t get it.

I don’t know if Obama and Pelosi cared one way or another; but Democrats were slaughtered for the sake of Obama’s incredibly unpopular agenda.  Obama kept using the metaphor of a car and a ditch, but no matter how many “Danger, Bridge Out!” warning signs he passed, he refused to change his course as he drove his party right off a cliff.

It was not just a slaughter; it was a historic slaughter:

WASHINGTON — Republicans rolled up historic gains to seize control of the House on Tuesday, as voters disenchanted with the economy, President Obama and government dealt a strong rebuke to Democrats in every corner of the country.

The GOP ousted Democratic freshmen and influential veterans, including some considered safe just weeks ago. Republicans piled up their biggest House gains since they added 80 seats in 1938: By early Wednesday, they had netted 60 formerly Democratic seats and led in four more. The GOP victory eclipsed the 54-seat pickup by the so-called “revolution” that retook the House in 1994 for the first time in 40 years and the 56-seat Republican gain in 1946.

And it’s actually even worse than that.  Because the most recent counts show that Republicans have seized 64 seats from Democrats.  With more elections still not yet called, that could well add to the number.

What we just witnessed was the biggest pick up by any party in any election since 1932.

Here’s the latest political map.  For you liberals, you are the ones who are now so marginalized you practically might as well not even exist:

I mean, literally, I have more legitimate grounds to deny the existence of liberals than I do the Tooth Fairy right about now.

And just two years ago you so incredibly arrogantly ruled the universe.  And you were lecturing Republicans on the extinction of the Grand Old Party.

You were a ship of fools, captained by even grander fools.

But it gets even worse.  Because we haven’t talked about the governor’s races yet:

Governors-Stunning loss for Democrats
Published in November 3rd, 2010

America changed overnight in a very big way. Based upon election results at this moment, sixty percent of our country will now be led by Republican Governors. That number may grow as a few states with uncertain election results are solidified.

Yesterday, there were 37 Governor’s races and Republicans won 24 of them. Democrats took only nine, Independents took one and three are too close to call at this moment (Connecticut, Minnesota and Vermont).

This is an absolutely stunning loss for Democrats who, prior to the election, held 26 states to the 24 held by Republicans.

The balance of power has shifted and this will impact the 2012 elections as well as redistricting that will occur in each state as a result of the 2010 Census.

But as bad as that is, it gets even worse than that.  We’re talking about complete devastation for Democrats in the state legislatures, where Republicans picked up a never-seen-in-history 680 state legislative seats.  In doing that, they gained majorities in 14 states, and unified majorities (gaining control in both branches) in 26 states.

From the National Journal:

While the Republican gains in the House and Senate are grabbing the most headlines, the most significant results on Tuesday came in state legislatures where Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats.

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures — the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control — meaning both chambers — of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

Republicans now hold the redistricting “trifecta” — both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship — in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina — probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats — Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals.

It wasn’t just a power shift; it was a historic power shift.  It was a massive repudiation.

Now, for all of that butt-kicking of the Democrats and the Democrat agenda, how did the mainstream media react?  Predictably.

I turned the channel from reliable, trustworthy Fox News to MSNBC and CNN.  It was comical.  From their coverage, you’d think that the entire election consisted in Harry Reid’s, Barbara Boxer’s, and Jerry Brown’s Democrat victories.

Barack Obama’s own Illinous Senate seat will now have a Republican’s butt-print all over it.  That personalizes this ass whipping; Obama couldn’t even hold on to his own seat – even after all the previous shenanigans Democrats tried to pull.  And Republicans snatched at least five other Senate seats from Democrats.  But how about that Harry Reid win?

Laugh, liberals.  Laugh hysterically.  Laugh until you fall down and pass out.

Because you’re butt-kicking is just getting started.  From Politico:

If Senate Democrats think 2010 is a tough cycle, just wait two more years.

They’ll probably hold the Senate majority Tuesday — with a couple of seats to spare, most analysts believe. But 2012 is a different story.

By then, Republicans will be poised to take control of the Senate — with pickup possibilities scattered across the map and a much narrower base of their own to defend.

It’s not simply the lopsided mathematics — with at least 21 Democratic seats on the table in 2012, including two independents who sit with the Democrats, compared with 10 Republicans. It’s where the seats are located.

Start with Democratic seats in three states where President Barack Obama lost in 2008: Nebraska, North Dakota and Montana.

Then go down a list of where Democrats are poised to lose Senate battles this year — Ohio, Florida and Missouri, for example — and Democrats will be right back at it in 2012, defending seats there again.

Throw in some bona fide tossup states — Virginia and New Mexico — and it’s pretty hard not to picture Republicans picking off the handful of seats needed to take control, if Tuesday goes as well for the GOP as experts expect.

For the official record, Republicans won all three of those Senate battles in Ohio, Florida and Missouri.

The really funny thing is that not winning the Senate during a tough economy is actually a blessing in disguise for Republicans – who never had much more than a halfway decent chance at best to capture the Senate this year.

Obama could have run against the Republican-owned Congress, the way Bill Clinton was able to do against Republicans after they took control of both branches in 1994.

Back then, Republicans balanced the budget and reduced the deficit, and Slick Willie took credit for everything good that came along.

Instead, poor one-term Barry will have Harry Reid wrapped around his neck like an albatross in two years.  As all those Republican governors use the power of their offices to make sure he’s a one-term president.  Even as they supervise the redistricting to make it tougher for Democrats to make any kind of a comeback.

The Republican House doesn’t even have to do much, really.  All they need to do is vote on popular measures: the repeal of ObamaCare; permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone; capping spending at 2008 levels; maybe ending the earmark process.  And if Democrats in the Senate don’t pass it, well, doom on the Democrats in the Senate.

I think of it as a beautiful case of poetic justice and dramatic reversal wrapped into two election cycles, a story where Dorothy gets to say to the wicked witch of the West (and that’s Nancy Pelosi, not Christine O’Donnell), “I’ll get you my ugly, and your little messiah too!”

Absolutely everything that the most über-hard-core conservative commentators (such as Rush Limbaugh) have said about Barack Obama has come to pass exactly as they predicted.  The corrupt Chicago community organizer was totally unqualified and unprepared for the presidency, and he has proven to be a total disaster and disgrace to his own political party, along with America.

The worst thing that ever happened to the Democrat Party – to go along with the United States of America – was the election of Barack Obama.  And Republicans aren’t going to let Democrats forget it.  And I’m talking for years to come.

Al Sharpton: ‘The American Public Overwhelmingly Voted For Socialism When They Elected President Obama’

This is an article about raving moral idiocy.

What follows will be Al Sharpton’s version of what Adolf Hitler basically told his people: “Look, you voted for me in 1933.  You made me your Chancellor, and then you made me your Fuhrer.  So the fact that I wrote about killing all the Jews in my Mein Kampf while on the campaign trail to absolute power means that YOU voted to kill all the Jews.  And therefore you are now duty bound to round up as many Jews as you can find.”

You may not like my analogy regarding Hitler and Jews, but it is exactly the same as what Al Sharpton is essentially saying about Obama and ObamaCare.

There’s not a single major polling organization that has found that the people want ObamaCare.  And most polls have support for ObamaCare in the 30s, with basically 2-1 margins against it.  Here’s an example from CNN’s poll out yesterday:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill, and 39 percent favored it. All of the interviews were conducted before the House voted Sunday night, but the contents of the bill were widely known.

In addition, 56 percent said the bill gives the government too much involvement in health care; 28 percent said it gives the government the proper role and 16 percent said it leaves Washington with an inadequate role.

On the question of costs, 62 percent said the bill increases the amount of money they personally spend on health care; 21 percent said their costs would remain the same and 16 percent said they would decrease.

That matches the 20-point margin from the Fox News poll, which had the margin at 55% against versus only 35% for ObamaCare.

We’ve had three statewide elections during the ObamaCare debate.  All three states had voted heavily for Obama; and all three states elected Republicans over Democrats.  Even Camelot voted Republican, as Massachusetts voters elected a man who campaigned to be the 41st vote against ObamaCare to replace Ted Kennedy as their senator.

But none of that matters for Al Sharpton.  We voted for our Fuhrer on November 2008.  And the will of the Fuhrer is therefore ergo sum the will of the people.

Here’s Al Sharpton’s moral “logic”:

“I think that the president and Nancy Pelosi get credit,” Sharpton said. “I think this began the transforming of the country the way the president had promised. This is what he ran on.”

And if that transformation is socialism, then so be it, he explained. That is what the American public “overwhelmingly” voted for.

“First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama,” Sharpton said. “Let’s not act as though the president didn’t tell the American people – the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised.”

Despite polling showing otherwise leading up to the momentous occasion of the vote on health care reform, the claim this goes against the wishes of the American people is false based on the 2008 presidential election.

“I don’t understand Republicans saying this is against the will of the American people,” Sharpton said. “They voted for President Obama who said this was going to be one of the first things he would do and he has done the first hurdle of that tonight. So I think the American people was very loud and clear. This was not some concept the president introduced after he won. He ran on this and the American people won tonight because they got finally something from a president they voted for.”

Let me go back to my Hitler analogy.  It is my contention that, even if I had been fool enough to vote for Hitler in 1933, I had absolutely  no duty whatsoever to support his policy of killing Jews, even though I should have known all about his promise to do so when I voted for him.  Quite the contrary: I argue that I would have had a moral duty to oppose Hitler from carrying out his “final solution” policy, whether I had voted for him or not.

It is not only a bogus argument that Sharpton is making; it is a fundamentally immoral argument.

In one way, and one way only, I can’t disagree with Sharpton.  Barack Obama is a socialist – that’s what conservatives have been pointing out all along.  Sharpton now acknowledges that, but Democrats were falling all over themsleves to not only deny but denounce the charge during the campaign.

Now, Obama’s socialism is obvious to all, and Sharpton is saying, “You bought it, now you have to drive it and like it.”

The thing is, Al Sharpton fundamentally misunderstands a democratic republic.  In Marxist countries, you vote for your leader, and then that leader uses that vote to remain in power forever.  But in direct contradiction to those type of states, in America you have the right to change your mind.  You have the right to say, “I didn’t sign up for this.”  You have the right to say, “This isn’t what I voted for.”  You have the right to turn against the ideology, the policies, and even the person you voted for.

Al Sharpton’s “America” really looks more like Venezuela.  And Barack Obama should be president for life.  After all, didn’t we vote for him once?

Al Sharpton’s “America” is also a very hypocritical place.  Remember Iraq?  Americans – who voted for George Bush and even re-elected him – were once highly favorable of him, and supported the war in Iraq to numbers that dwarfed any support Obama ever had for ObamaCare.  But that didn’t stop Al Sharpton from railing against it, did it?

Suddenly, under Sharpton’s incredibly hypocritical vision, Republicans have utterly forfeited the right to oppose that Sharpton himself never seemed to feel he had forfeited when Bush was in power.

Now, I’m glad that Al Sharpton has finally openly affirmed that Barack Obama is a socialist.  I knew that was the case since March 2008, when I discovered that Obama had for 23 years been going to a “church” that spewed Marxist theology.  Sharpton is right about Obama’s socialism; but he’s wrong about America, he’s wrong about our political process, and he’s wrong about the American people.

Sharpton is right: Obama DID openly reveal his socialism.  But you had to read between the lines, because Obama would say one thing, and then say something else that was clearly in direct contradiction with the first thing he said.  And he did that over, and over, and over again.

Obama appeared to an audience in San Francisco and said of Pennsylvanians, “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”  It was hard-core Marxism, right out of Karl Marx’s “religion is the opiate of the masses”, except with a specifically anti-American twist.

He told another San Francisco audience that he planned to destroy America’s most plentiful source of energy (coal) with the power of government, bankrupt private coal producing businesses, and force the price of energy to “necessarily skyrocket.”

Nothing socialist about that one, eh?

He told Joe the plumber that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”  Obama said, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” And you just can’t get away from that “socialism” word.  It comes right out of Karl Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” playbook.

Al Sharpton is right.  It was socialism.  And Americans should have recognized that.

But many Americans didn’t.  Because Obama was saying all kinds of other stuff.  Because the Obama campaign and the mainstream media that was just spewing propaganda kept saying, “It’s not socialism!  Socialism, you say?  That’s outrageous!!!”

And too many Americans said, “Okay.  The New York Times says he’s wonderful.  He wouldn’t lie.”

But he DID lie.  And it was the New York Times that provided the core promise that Obama broke into a thousand cynical, disingenuous pieces.

I write about Obama’s biggest and most cynical lie in an article entitled, “Obama Promise to Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie.”  I provide a New York Times article that begins:

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

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

But he never even came close to healing anything.  He pushed a radical agenda, and demonized his opposition, right from the get-go.  Instead of reaching out to Republicans who were opposed to the slant of what turned out to be the gigantic stimulus boondoggle, Obama didn’t reach out: instead he said, “I won.”  Was THAT moving beyond the divisive politics of Washington???  Did that bring Democrats, independents, and Republicans together???

Not even close.

Do you call ramming a bill that will fundamentally transform our health care system, our society, and our very way of life on a narrow hard-core partisan vote by a nasty reconciliation process “moving beyond divisive politics”?

When John McCain spoke out about the incredibly corrupt process the Democrats had used to buy Democrat votes for ObamaCare behind closed doors, Obama told McCain, “We’re not campaigning anymore.  The election’s over.”

Excuse me?  Obama’s CALLING THAT DAMN SUMMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS AN ACT OF CAMPAIGNING.  And John McCain was not talking about the election; he was talking about the incredibly cynical process that was crafting a terrible health care bill.

But you see in Obama the same arrogance of power that Al Sharpton is trying to describe, that, “I am your elected Fuhrer and you WILL bow down and obey.”

Neither Obama or Sharpton ever gave Bush or HIS election (or re-election) one iota of the fealty they now demand Republicans and opponents must give to Obama.  It’s just an amazing act of hypocrisy.

In point of fact, the man who violated his CORE PROMISE – according to the New York Times – is now THE MOST POLARIZING PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

Allow me to wrap up: Is Obama a socialist?  yes, Al Sharpton is quite correct that Barack Obama told us all about his socialism.  Does that mean that we now must bow down before the Obama agenda?  No, nothing could be further from the truth – and the very fact that Sharpton thinks so should mark him as an anathema to the American political process.  Did Obama fundamentally lie and misrepresent himself to the American people?  Absolutely.  And do the American people now have a right to turn against Obama and his socialist policies?

To quote Sarah Palin, “You betcha we do!”

It Aint Just The Tea Party: CNN Poll Shows 56% Say Obama Government A Threat To Citizens’ Rights

Barack Obama and the Democrat Party, demagogues that they are, have tried to marginalize and demonize the Tea Party demonstrations from the very outset.

Well, the Tea Party is now 56% of the country on the issue of the threat that the Obama administration poses to freedom and liberty.

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens’ rights
Posted: February 26th, 2010 09:00 AM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken – though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what’s broken can be fixed.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.

Sean Curnyn makes an excellent point about the issue of Democrats and independents and a “partisan divide”:

“While it says, “only 37 percent percent of Democrats” believe this, I would rephrase that as “even 37 percent of Democrats” feel this way. When you’re losing independents to the tune of 63 percent on this issue, you sure can’t afford to also be losing over a third of Democrats.”

This view that an overwhelming majority of the people – even Democrats – now feel that the government under Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is out to trample their rights dovetails with an article I wrote last August entitled, “Health Care Debate: As Charges of Nazism Abound, Which Side Is Right?”

In that article, I begin with the following:

Nancy Pelosi upped the ante in the health care debate when she responded to a media question in the following manner:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

That being in addition to her reference to town hall protesters as “simply un-American.”

And now 56% of Americans are “simply un-American” on Nancy Pelosi’s view.

I’ve always got to point out the fact that “Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  And when the aforementioned National Socialist German Workers Party attacked the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during World War II, it was a war of the left fighting against the left.

How do such leftists think?  They think in Marxist or fascist, totalitarian terms.  It’s just who they are.

You should think about that when you have uber-liberal Bill Maher articulating what essentially amounts to the Democrat reconciliation strategy for health care in an August 24 interview on NBC’s Conan O’Brien program:

“You know, they’re talking about 60 votes they need,” Maher said. “Forget this stuff. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything. Sixty-percent? Sixty-percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country. He just needs to drag them to it.  Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this.”

You stupid morons who believe that you have rights.  Screw you.  You should be FORCED to comply with the liberal elitist intelligentsia.

Only 11 days ago Maher was at it again on CNN’s ‘Larry King Live’:

“But what the Democrats never understand is that Americans don’t really care what position you take, just stick with one,” Maher said. “Just be strong. They’re not bright enough to really understand the issues. But like an animal, they can sort of sense strength or weakness. They can smell it on you.”

Maher isn’t an elected politician – which is precisely why he can say what he’s saying.  But he is attempting to articulate the rationale behind forcing the American people to accept an ObamaCare boondoggle that they absolutely do not want.

It’s not just the polls that prove the American people don’t want the Democrats’ health care agenda; it’s the incredible victory of Scott Brown turning Camelot Republican by promising to be the 41st vote stopping it.  In voting for Scott Brown, the citizens of even one of the most liberal states in the country were effectively telling the Democrats, “We don’t want what you’re trying to impose; we’re taking away your filibuster-proof majority to stop this from happening.”

But the Democrats don’t CARE that you don’t want it.  They believe you are simply too stupid to be allowed to make such a choice for yourselves.  They are going to exercise raw, totalitarian power over you for your own good.

Let’s see what reconciliation is:

• It is “a change in the Senate rules” that “would change the  character of the Senate forever.”

• It is “majoritarian absolute power” which is “just not what the founders intended.”

• It is “the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis.”

• It evaporates “the checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic.”

• It is “almost a temper tantrum.”

• It is the abandonment of the concept of “a check on power” and an     abandonment of that which “preserves our limited government.”

• It is something that “will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority.”

• It “is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.”

• It “is a fundamental power grab.”

• It “is a tyranny of the majority.”

• It is “where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”

• It is a “naked power grab.”

• It is to “change the rules, break the rules, and misread the Constitution so that they will get their way.”

• It is “The Senate … being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the   precedent to ignore the way our system has worked, the delicate balance   that we have obtain that has kept this Constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”

• It is “the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”

If reconciliation is what these statements say it is, it is truly a fascist tactic that would only be employed by the most fundamentally unAmerican of totalitarians.

Only a genuinely evil and depraved political party would use such a despicable tactic.

Who said this about reconciliation?

Every single statement comes from Democrats as a result of Republicans merely discussing using the tactic to overcome a filibuster of a Bush judicial nomination.  Every single one.

Interestingly, Dianne Feinstein describes a progression which would start from a bad thing to an incredibly bad thing:

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation.

The current batch of Democrats skipped the executive appointments and went straight for the legislation where they could most directly impose their will upon the American people.

Americans are stupid, you see.  And the rules shouldn’t matter when it comes to overcoming the objections of hundreds of millions of dumb animals, as Bill Maher calls us.

Cows are herded.  Whether they are milked or slaughtered, it isn’t their choice.  They don’t get to choose.

And don’t think this isn’t the pervasive Democrat attitude toward the American people.

At one point during the health care summit Barack Obama said the following to cut down a Republican:

“Point number two, when we do props like this — stack it up and you repeat 2,400 pages, et cetera — you know, the truth of the matter is that health care is very complicated. And we can try to pretend that it’s not, but it is.”

This referring to Rep. Eric Cantor, who had and was reading and referring to the very Democrat Senate bill that ostensibly was the very subject of discussion.

It’s not a “prop,” Obama.  It’s the bill representing the boondoggle you are trying to cram down our throats.  And while you might think of us as a bunch of stupid animals – just like Bill Maher does – who can’t possibly understand health care, we understand it just fine.  You don’t like Rep. Cantor reading it because you don’t want the American people to be able to actually know what you are trying to impose on us.

But it’s too late, Mr. Elitist-in-Chief.

A solid majority of the American people now understand that you, your administration, and everyone who thinks like you in government represents a clear and present danger to our rights and our freedoms.

The Democrats now want to use “the nuclear option” in a way that no Congress has ever even TRIED to use it before.

They think we’re dumb like animals.  But even the dumbest of animals can bite back after they’ve suffered enough abuse.

The scent of blood is in the air.

Catch you in November.

Conspiracy Theory Revisited: Obama Helped Oswald Kill The Kennedys

I remember watching those documentaries about how Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have assassinated John F. Kennedy all by himself.  I saw the “magic bullet” theory presented.  I watched a couple conspiracy movies about who allegedly took part in the conspiracy and cover-up to kill Kennedy and why.

I don’t know what’s true about Oswald and John F. Kennedy, but when it comes to killing Kennedys politically, I have to pose a rival theory: Obama did it.

First there was Massachusetts.  Amazingly, Barack Obama created a 31 point swing and brought about the stunning and literally unimaginable victory for Republican Scott Brown.  Obama turned Camelot Republican.  He pretty much pounded the nails into the coffin of the Kennedy legacy in Massachusetts.

But Ted Kennedy’s past legacy isn’t the only thing Obama murdered with his rabidly and ideologically leftist policies: the last Kennedy in politics is now dropping out:

Rhode Island Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy, the last member of his legendary family currently serving in Congress, will announce on Friday that he is retiring, according to Democratic insiders. […]

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), the congressman’s father, passed away last year. Democrats unexpectedly lost his seat last month to Republican Scott Brown.

Patrick Kennedy is planning to run a two-minute TV ad on Saturday back home in Rhode Island to explain his decision, said a source close to the lawmaker. Democrats said Kennedy had reserved the air time in the last few days, which led some Democratic strategists to believe he was preparing to run a vigorous re-election campaign.

But several House insiders said, that over the last few days, Kennedy had privately informed Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders that he intended to leave Congress.

Although Kennedy never faced a serious threat in his overwhelmingly Democratic district, he was looking ahead to what may have been his toughest race yet this fall. Republicans are poised to nominate John Loughlin, an Army veteran and member of the Rhode Island legislature who raised more than $246,000 last year, putting him on pace to out-raise Kennedy’s recent challengers.

And Kennedy’s approval numbers were sagging. According to a poll taken by a Providence TV station earlier this month, the incumbent was viewed unfavorably by 56 percent of voters in his district and his re-elect — those voters who said they would definitely vote to return him to office — was only at 35 percent. […]

Given the nature of the district — it’s the more liberal of the Ocean State’s two — Kennedy’s decision will surely set off a fierce competition for the Democratic nomination. The 1st District includes blue-collar Pawtucket and much of Providence, the state’s capital and largest city.

That’s two Kennedys for Obama to Oswald’s one.  And Oswald only killed Kennedy physically; his legacy lived on for a generation.  Ted Kennedy’s signature issue of health care was utterly repudiated by his state; Obama wiped his legacy out.  And Patrick Kennedy is just fading away into the breeze.

Obama doesn’t need a gun like communist assassin Lee Harvey Oswald to wipe out Kennedys.  All he needs is a collection of failed policies.

What’s Happened To Obama’s Chicago-Way Thug-Style ‘Hope And Change’?

One of the things that was truly amazing during the 2008 campaign is that the mainstream media were hyper-eager to gather in droves over Sarah Palin’s and then Joe the Plumber’s trash cans for any dirt they could find, but utterly refused to examine Barack Obama’s record in the most politically corrupt city in America.

This is why Obama was able to say, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”  He could be whatever he wanted to depict himself, because the mainstream media wasn’t going to challenge anything he said.

Americans are finally beginning to understand who Mr. “blank screen” really is – and they are rejecting him in droves.  The pity is that they should have had an opportunity to learn who he was before they elected him.  But the dishonest ideologically-biased mainstream propagandists were not about to tell us anything they thought we might not want to hear.

The mainstream media have long held a “gatekeeper” mentality to the news, which is to say that they only told you what they wanted you to know, while holding back what they didn’t want you to know.

And they didn’t want you to know how Obama’s Chicago past would influence or even dictate his presidency: what happens in Chicago stays in Chicago.

But, inevitably, the American people were going to see the “Chicago side” of Barry Hussein.

From the Los Angeles Times blog:

President Obama Day 386: What’s happened to him?
February 9, 2010A favorite story about Chicago politics involves Roman Pucinski, who served six long terms of political apprenticeship in the Washington minor leagues of the U.S. House of Representatives before the Windy City’s vaunted Democratic political machine allowed him to step up and serve on the City Council.

The late Pucinski then served for 18 years as a loyal operative assigned to the 41st Ward (of 50).

It’s always useful for Chicago pols to have White House connections if, say, they’d like to dispatch someone famous to fly off to Copenhagen to lobby the International Olympic Committee for their city’s 2016 summer games bid.

But the Chicago Daley machine, which is actually a ruthless coalition of urban Democratic factions united by the steel reinforcing rods of self-interest, didn’t much care about this Barack Obama fellow before, as long as he was quiet, obedient and headed on a track out of town. How he acquired a reform label coming out of that one-party place is anyone’s guess.

But now that the sun has risen on the 386th day of the Obama White House, many political observers are coming to see that the ex-state senator from the South Side is running his federal administration in Washington much the way they run things back home: with a small….

…claque of clout-laden people from the same school who learned their political trade back in the nation’s No. 3 city, named for an Indian word for a smelly wild onion.

That style is tough, focused, immune to any distractions but cosmetic niceties. And did we mention tough. A portly, veteran Chicago alderman once confided only about 40% jokingly, that he had taken up jogging to lose weight but quickly gave it up as boring because “you can’t knock anyone down.” That’s politics the Chicago way.

For instance, remember how much we heard all last year about the need for healthcare legislation before early August, before October, before Thanksgiving, before Christmas, before the State of the Union? And how spanked the White House was by the Massachusetts Senate upset that Obama said his laser-vision for 2010 was on jobs and the economy?

So, what did he announce during a Super Bowl interview? More healthcare meetings, designed to politically box Republicans into the No-Nothing corner.

In the last few days at least three major outlets have published well-informed evaluations of Obama’s first year in office.  All are well worth reading.  The dominant themes: disappointment and disillusionment with the Chicago way.

In one respect it’s not surprising that a capitol city with its own style of take-no-prisoners politics should find a professed outsider’s style of smoother-spoken take-no-prisoners discomforting.

But now, no less than the Huffington Post headlined its Obama evaluation by Steve Clemons: “Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama presidency.”

The devastating Financial Times report by Edward Luce: “A fearsome foursome.”

And the Washington Post story by Ann Gerhart: “A year later, where did the hopes for Obama go?“

The Post story focuses on a handful of Obama supporters, so fiercely motivated and hopeful in 2008 and through the inauguration, now largely drifting back to normal lives lacking fulfillment of so many promises.

The other two fascinating accounts examine Obama’s close-knit team of Chicagoans: confidante Valerie Jarrett, who’s so intelligent she once hired Michelle Obama; Rahm Emanuel, the diminutive, acid-tongued chief of staff with overwhelmAxelrod and Obamaing energy and ambition; David Axelrod, the ex-Chicago Tribune politics reporter-turned-consultant who’s been coaching Obama forever; and Robert Gibbs, who isn’t from Chicago but that’s OK because he’s only the mouthpiece and the others keep a close eye on him.

Clemons focuses on how dead-on the Luce piece is and how the FT Washington bureau chief had to assiduously hide his sources as everyone was properly so fearful of retribution from the quartet around the mayor, er, president.

And Clemons attributes the lack of online link love to the Luce item Monday to the same fears among D.C. journalists dodging disfavor from the same four.

Quoting “administration insiders,” Luce says “the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. ‘I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,’ says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently.”

And both articles note, accurately, how savvy cabinet secretaries like Kathleen Sebelius at Health and Human Services and Ken Salazar at Interior have been marginalized because putting a media face on the Obama Oval Office can only be entrusted to the likes of Gibbs and Axelrod.

Another Luce source talks about the difference between campaigning, which is easier, and governing, which is the ultimate goal but takes a more refined skill-set:

‘There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,’ says one. ‘Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.’

Also noted, how most everything coming out of the executive office is filtered through a political prism above all. i.e. the Afghanistan troop surge speech that touched all the political bases in 4,582 words without once saying “victory.”

Warning that Obama needs to take action quickly, Clemons adds that needed advice from a broader range of advisers “is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang’s tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.”

David Gergen, who helped guide Bill Clinton out of not dissimilar troubled waters, tells Luce: “There is an old joke. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”

— Andrew Malcolm

Mark Steyn reminded viewers of Obama’s horribly botched pronunciation of the Navy Corpsmen who save the lives of wounded Marines, and then referred to “the four corpse men of the Obamaclypse.”  That’s quite accurate, as it turns out.  and these four corpse men are riding America into apocalypse right along with Barack Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s political future.

It’s scary to think that we have a preening peacock campaigning and campaigning with absolutely no idea how to actually govern.

Since the FT article is hard to obtain, and since I am all about preserving a record of the facts, here is the Luce article:

A Fearsome Foursome
By Edward Luce

At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: “A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Just over a year into his tenure, America’s 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington’s ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons – from Mr Obama’s decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president’s inability to convince voters he can “feel their [economic] pain”, to the apparent ungovernability of today’s Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis – and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington – most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office – each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people – Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

Two, Mr Emanuel and Mr Axelrod, have box-like offices within spitting distance of the Oval Office. The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.

With the exception of Mr Emanuel, who was a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, all were an integral part of Mr Obama’s brilliantly managed campaign. Apart from Mr Gibbs, who is from Alabama, all are Chicagoans – like the president. And barring Richard Nixon’s White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle.

“It is a very tightly knit group,” says a prominent Obama backer who has visited the White House more than 40 times in the past year. “This is a kind of ‘we few’ group … that achieved the improbable in the most unlikely election victory anyone can remember and, unsurprisingly, their bond is very deep.”

John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and founder of the Center for American Progress, the most influential think-tank in Mr Obama’s Washington, says that while he believes Mr Obama does hear a range of views, including dissenting advice, problems can arise from the narrow composition of the group itself.

Among the broader circle that Mr Obama also consults are the self-effacing Peter Rouse, who was chief of staff to Tom Daschle in his time as Senate majority leader; Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff; the economics team led by Lawrence Summers and including Peter Orszag, budget director; Joe Biden, the vice-president; and Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser. But none is part of the inner circle.

“Clearly this kind of core management approach worked for the election campaign and President Obama has extended it to the White House,” says Mr Podesta, who managed Mr Obama’s widely praised post-election transition. “It is a very tight inner circle and that has its advantages. But I would like to see the president make more use of other people in his administration, particularly his cabinet.”

This White House-centric structure has generated one overriding – and unexpected – failure. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Mr Emanuel managed the legislative aspect of the healthcare bill quite skilfully, say observers. The weak link was the failure to carry public opinion – not Capitol Hill. But for the setback in Massachusetts, which deprived the Democrats of their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate, Mr Obama would by now almost certainly have signed healthcare into law – and with it would have become a historic president.

But the normally liberal voters of Massachusetts wished otherwise. The Democrats lost the seat to a candidate, Scott Brown, who promised voters he would be the “41st [Republican] vote” in the Senate – the one that would tip the balance against healthcare. Subsequent polling bears out the view that a decisive number of Democrats switched their votes with precisely that motivation in mind.

“Historians will puzzle over the fact that Barack Obama, the best communicator of his generation, totally lost control of the narrative in his first year in office and allowed people to view something they had voted for as something they suddenly didn’t want,” says Jim Morone, America’s leading political scientist on healthcare reform. “Communication was the one thing everyone thought Obama would be able to master.”

Whatever issue arises, whether it is a failed terrorist plot in Detroit, the healthcare bill, economic doldrums or the 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan, the White House instinctively fields Mr Axelrod or Mr Gibbs on television to explain the administration’s position. “Every event is treated like a twist in an election campaign and no one except the inner circle can be trusted to defend the president,” says an exasperated outside adviser.

Perhaps the biggest losers are the cabinet members. Kathleen Sebelius, Mr Obama’s health secretary and formerly governor of Kansas, almost never appears on television and has been largely excluded both from devising and selling the healthcare bill. Others such as Ken Salazar, the interior secretary who is a former senator for Colorado, and Janet Napolitano, head of the Department for Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, have virtually disappeared from view.

Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. “I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,” says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. “If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them.”

In addition to hurling frequent profanities at people within the administration, Mr Emanuel has alienated many of Mr Obama’s closest outside supporters. At a meeting of Democratic groups last August, Mr Emanuel described liberals as “f***ing retards” after one suggested they mobilise resources on healthcare reform.

“We are treated as though we are children,” says the head of a large organisation that raised millions of dollars for Mr Obama’s campaign. “Our advice is never sought. We are only told: ‘This is the message, please get it out.’ I am not sure whether the president fully realises that when the chief of staff speaks, people assume he is speaking for the president.”

The same can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama’s November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president’s side.

The White House complained bitterly about what it saw as unfairly negative media coverage of a trip dubbed Mr Obama’s “G2” visit to China. But, as journalists were keenly aware, none of Mr Obama’s inner circle had any background in China. “We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president,” says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. “It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China.”

Then there are the president’s big strategic decisions. Of these, devoting the first year to healthcare is well known and remains a source of heated contention. Less understood is the collateral damage it caused to unrelated initiatives. “The whole Rahm Emanuel approach is that victory begets victory – the success of healthcare would create the momentum for cap-and-trade [on carbon emissions] and then financial sector reform,” says one close ally of Mr Obama. “But what happens if the first in the sequence is defeat?”

Insiders attribute Mr Obama’s waning enthusiasm for the Arab-Israeli peace initiative to a desire to avoid antagonising sceptical lawmakers whose support was needed on healthcare. The steam went out of his Arab-Israeli push in mid-summer, just when the healthcare bill was running into serious difficulties.

The same applies to reforming the legal apparatus in the “war on terror” – not least his pledge to close the Guantánamo Bay detention centre within a year of taking office. That promise has been abandoned.

“Rahm said: ‘We’ve got these two Boeing 747s circling that we are trying to bring down to the tarmac [healthcare and the decision on the Afghanistan troop surge] and we can’t risk a flock of f***ing Canadian geese causing them to crash,’ ” says an official who attended an Oval Office strategy meeting. The geese stood for the closure of Guantánamo.

An outside adviser adds: “I don’t understand how the president could launch healthcare reform and an Arab-Israeli peace process – two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations – without having done better scenario planning. Either would be historic. But to launch them at the same time?”

Again, close allies of the president attribute the problem to the campaign-like nucleus around Mr Obama in which all things are possible. “There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,” says one. “Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.”

The White House declined to answer questions on whether Mr Obama needed to broaden his circle of advisers. But some supporters say he should find a new chief of staff. Mr Emanuel has hinted that he might not stay in the job very long and is thought to have an eye on running for mayor of Chicago. Others say Mr Obama should bring in fresh blood. They point to Mr Clinton’s decision to recruit David Gergen, a veteran of previous White Houses, when the last Democratic president ran into trouble in 1993. That is credited with helping to steady the Clinton ship, after he too began with an inner circle largely carried over from his campaign.

But Mr Gergen himself disagrees. Now teaching at Harvard and commenting for CNN, Mr Gergen says members of the inner circle meet two key tests. First, they are all talented. Second, Mr Obama trusts them. “These are important attributes,” Mr Gergen says. His biggest doubt is whether Mr Obama sees any problem with the existing set-up.

So you learn that Obama is all fluff and no substance (i.e., all campaign mode and no actual governing mode), and that Obama has to rely on his “Chicago fearsome foursome” the way he relies on his teleprompter: ubiquitously (as in even in sixth grade classrooms!!!).

And you should think long and hard about the profound comparison of Nixon’s tight (and tightly wound) inner circle and Obama’s same same.  A tight, insular circle that answers to no one and keeps its counsel secret is a frightening thing in any republic.

Here’s another comparison between Obama and his alter ego.  And realize that for a CHICAGO POLITICIAN to say, “I am not a crook,” is pretty much like a Chicago politician saying, “I am not a Chicago politician.”

Everything is politics for Obama.  Political posturing, political preening, political hatchet jobs.  Nothing else matters.

It is frankly amazing to me that such a hypocritical and cynical man as Barack Obama was ever elected president.  He constantly lectures Republicans (and even Democrats when it suits him) to “rise above petty politics” when the very construction of his administration is completely about politics.

I have on several occasions compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  Both men were utterly ruthless (there’s your ‘Chicago Way’) in pounding head after head to achieve their signature domestic issues, and both men became utter failures as they attempted to have their personal domestic agenda at the expense of everything else.

People are starting to learn that the “blank slate” may well be blank because the man behind the grand facade has no soul.

Fox News Most Demonized By Obama, Most Trusted By Americans

Fox News is now far and away the most trusted name in news, even according to left-leaning Public Policy Polling.

I didn’t need a poll to know that.

Last week I wrote an article entitled, “In Hindsight Of Massachusetts, Who Presented The Truth: Obama, Or Fox News?”  And my contention was that Fox News was basically the only news organization that was broadcasting the truth all along, while the “Obama media” reported propaganda.

But now common sense is confirmed by polling:

Poll: Fox most trusted name in news
By ANDY BARR | 1/27/10 7:38 AM EST

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.

CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.

Each of the three major networks was trusted by less than 40 percent of those surveyed, with NBC ranking highest at 35 percent. Forty-four percent said they did not trust NBC, which was combined with its sister cable station MSNBC.

Thirty-two percent of respondents said they trusted CBS, while 31 percent trusted ABC. Both CBS and ABC were not trusted by 46 percent of those polled.

“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said PPP President Dean Debnam in his analysis of the poll. “But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”

The telephone poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Democrats – who completely rely on mainstream media propaganda to win elections – are panic-stricken.  Here’s what the Democratic Senatorial Committee said in a new pitch:

Republicans think Massachusetts was an endorsement of their stall tactics and personal attacks. A new poll names Fox News Channel as the most trusted news outlet. Sarah Palin has 1.2 million fans on Facebook and is the $100,000 headliner at the national tea party convention. If we don’t fight back, and stand up for America, then their version of America will get the upper hand.

We cannot let that happen. And with your help, we will not.

Republicans “don’t think” here; they simply recognize the obvious.  An unknown Republican running against the Obama agenda pulling out a win against a well known Democrat running for “Ted Kennedy’s seat” is a no-brainer confirmation of Republican opposition to Obama’s many high-spending boondoggles.

Sarah Palin has such a huge following on Facebook because in a few paragraphs she can destroy an eternity’s worth of Obama mistatement of the union lies.  Palin is routinely slandered as being dumber than a box of rocks, but she saw the failures of Obama a year-and-a-half before the brilliant liberals were able to comprehend the same things about him.

And let’s talk about the Tea Party protesters.

A recent Rasmussen survey ran under the following title: “WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans.”  Which means they are clearly a major force.  But there’s more to say:

The loosely organized group made of up mostly conservative activists and independent voters that’s come to be known as the Tea Party movement currently boasts higher favorability ratings than either the Democratic or Republican Parties, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll coming out later today.

More than four in 10, 41%, of respondents said they had a very or somewhat favorable view of the Tea Party movement, while 24% said they had a somewhat or very negative view of the group. The Tea Party movement gained notoriety over the summer following a series of protests in Washington, D.C. and other cities over government spending and other U.S. economic policies.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, which controls both the White House and Congress, has a 35% positive rating compared with a 45% negative rating.

Who nailed that story right from the beginning?  Who charted the progress of the what may very well be the most important political story in decades?  Fox News.  Who completely dismissed it?  Everybody else.

It was the same kind of mainstream media ostrich that buried its head in the sand with the ACORN scandal, in which a couple of kids posing as a pimp and prostitute got ACORN office after office to demonstrate that they were willing to help a couple buy a house and cheat on their taxes  set up a prostitution ring of underage illegal immigrant girls.  ABC network news anchor Charles Gibson hadn’t even heard about the story, it was so low on their radar:

Gibson: HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning.

Roma: This is the American way!

Gibson: Or maybe this is just one you leave to the cables.

And note that in that story I AGAIN lambast the media for refusing to honestly cover the Tea Party events.  I showed the picture of the massive crowds at the event (and you KNOW they would have covered a NOW rally with eight feminists marching in a tight little circle):

The UK Daily Mail reported that one million people showed up for that Tea Party event in Washington D.C. What was the mainline media response?  To either not report the event at all, or to try to dismiss the massive crowds as a few nuts.

Time Magazine didn’t even bother to mention the massive Tea Party movement in it’s ‘Year in Review’ edition.  Like it never happened at all.  Nothing to see here, folks.

Obama trivialized, ridiculed, and attacked both the Tea Party movement and Fox News in one swoop:

“So, when you see – those of you who are watching certain news channels that on which I’m not very popular and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security”

He finally met with Republicans after Scott Brown’s victory kicked him hard right in the gonads.  After a full year of completely shutting them out.  In the one meeting he had with them he arrogantly smirked, “I won,” when Republicans tried to share their clearly-in-hindsight legitimate concerns.  And every single one of his “town halls” have been carefully scripted events in which Tea Party people are most definitely not invited.

Obama’s senior media representatives – one a self-admitted Maoist – proceeded to repeatedly attack the credibility of what is now recognized to be the most trusted name in news.

I wrote about how the mainstream media ridiculed the Tea Party movement.  Anderson Cooper used the sexually disgusting phrase “tea bagging” to refer to them.  And Keith Olbermann just went to straight rabid frothing hatred of them.  His interview with Janeane Garofalo on the Tea Party was so vile that I quit watching ’24’ as long as she was one it.

Keith Olbermann’s ratings have plunged 44% since last January as people get sick of his rabid lies.  Meanwhile Fox News not only runs circles around Olbermann in the ratings, but runs circles around the circles that they run around him and all the media leeches like him.

Obama is a liar and a demagogue, and he is the leader of a party of demagogues, supported by media propaganda.

Which is why the news organization that he demonized becoming the most trusted name in news is every bit as much of a slap in the face of the tiny degree of credibility he has remaining as it is a justification of Fox News.

Copenhagen Accord: Scott Brown Victory Saves U.S. From More Than Just ObamaCare

The Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts might be best analogized to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, in which a tiny little hobbit saves the world from an incredibly powerful dark and evil force hell-bent on totalitarian rule.

Things looked incredibly bleak.  The world was on the verge of going right down the drain into the sewer of socialism.  The dark and evil tyrant’s forces seemed unstoppable.  And yet somehow virtue, wisdom, and courage prevailed.  And a little hobbit named Frodo Baggins saved the day for freedom.

Scott Brown is our Frodo, of course.  I’ll leave it to you to figure out who the “dark and evil tyrant” is.  And that stunning upset victory in Massachusetts was analogous to Frodo successfully journeying to Mordor to throw the one-ring of Democrat power into the fiery hell of Mount Doom.

Brown’s victory likely saves the country from having the incredibly unpopular ObamaCare shoved down our throats.  But now we’re finding it did a lot more than that:

India, China won’t sign Copenhagen Accord

The Indian and Chinese governments have had a rethink on signing the Copenhagen Accord, officials said on Saturday, and the UN has also indefinitely postponed its Jan 31 deadline for countries to accede to the document.

An Indian official said that though the government had been thinking of signing the accord because it “did not have any legal teeth and would be good diplomatically”; it felt irked because of repeated messages from both UN officials and developed countries to accede to it.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has written to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon seeking a number of clarifications on the implications of the accord that India — with five other countries — had negotiated in the last moments of the Copenhagen climate summit in December, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“That letter, and the defeat of the Democrats in the Massachusetts bypoll, has forced the UN to postpone the deadline indefinitely,” an official said. “With the Democrats losing in one of their strongholds, the chances of the climate bill going through the US senate have receded dramatically.

“So if the US is not going to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent, which was a very weak target anyway, why should we make any commitment even if it does not have any legal teeth?” the official said.

China also appears in no mood to sign the accord.

“With the deadline postponed, we are not going to sign now,” said a Chinese official now here to take part in the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) meeting to chalk out a climate strategy.

The meeting of the four environment ministers Sunday is likely to end with the announcement of a fund they will set up to help other developing countries cope with the effects of climate change, said an official of the environment ministry.

Only four countries — Australia, Canada, Papua New Guinea and the Maldives — have signed the Copenhagen Accord so far, though Brazil, South Africa and South Korea have also indicated their willingness to do so.

Though Australia and Canada have signed, they have not indicated the greenhouse gas emission reductions they are committing under the accord — something developed countries are supposed to do.

China and India were never going to actually sign anything that was going to gut their economies.  They were building coal plants faster than happy puppies wag their tails.  And they are increasing their CO2 emissions at a mind-boggling rate.

But Obama doesn’t care about the US economy the way the leaders in China and India care about theirs; Obama was willing to sign an economic suicide pact with the global warming orcs even if our most formidable economic competitors played games and did nothing even as they were all-the-while talking the good talk.

What can I say but “Frodo lives!”

Scott Brown is the man who may have literally saved America – and the entire western world – from death by suicide.

Obama Now Pimps Same Spending Freeze He Attacked As Candidate

Chutzpah alert.  Get out those emergency barf buckets and assume the emergency vomiting position.  Your president is speaking.

Obama – who got punched hard in the gonads when even the citizens of uber-lib MASSACHUSETTS rejected his idiotic policies – is going to announce a policy which he personally ATTACKED his rival over during the campaign.

From the Politico:

Barack Obama flatly rejected an across-the-board spending freeze when John McCain advanced the idea during the last debate of 2008 held at Long Island’s Hofstra University.

Times have changed — the October debate came in the midst of the financial crisis — but Obama rejected the idea, which he now sees as a first step to fiscal discipline. Then and now, he rejects McCain’s broad freeze as a fiscal “hatchet” — as opposed to the thus-far unspecified non-security freeze he’s planning now

MCCAIN: OK, what — what would I cut? I would have, first of all, across-the-board spending freeze, OK? Some people say that’s a hatchet. That’s a hatchet, and then I would get out a scalpel, OK?

Because we’ve got — we have presided over the largest increase — we’ve got to have a new direction for this country. We have presided over the largest increase in government since the Great Society.

Government spending has gone completely out of control; $10 trillion dollar debt we’re giving to our kids, a half-a-trillion dollars we owe China. [snip]

OBAMA: Well, look, I think that we do have a disagreement about an across-the-board spending freeze. It sounds good. It’s proposed periodically. It doesn’t happen.

And, in fact, an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet, and we do need a scalpel, because there are some programs that don’t work at all. There are some programs that are underfunded. And I want to make sure that we are focused on those programs that work.

If “it doesn’t happen,” then why are you proposing it now, Barry Hussein, you liar?  Because you are a cynical hypocrite whose trying to play games and pretend your a “fiscal conservative” now, that’s why.

The last year has proven you aren’t a “conservative” anything.  And the only thing “fiscal” you are is “out-of-control irresponsible.”

Now, John McCain would have begun his presidency with this freeze.  Barack Obama has a deficit of $1.3 TRILLION, and starts talking fiscal sanity only after getting his head handed to him by Scott Brown.

The only difference between 2008 and now is this:

This isn’t Barack Obama being honest.  The “honest” Obama spent trillions of dollars that your children’s grandchildren’s grandchildren will never be able to hope to repay.  This is Obama the ass in the cartoon above looking at what’s coming and hoping he can distract the American people with more of his lies.

Let’s see why that deficit rose so fast:

The federal budget deficit has already risen by $880 billion to an unprecedented $1.3 trillion. Most of the increase is attributable to recent increases in federal spending, including Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package, which the Congressional Budget Office says will actually shrink the economy in “the long run,” and which ended welfare reform, destroyed thousands of jobs in the export sector, and substituted welfare for productive investments.

And how much of a “freeze” are we talking about after all of Obama’s spending binges?

Not much:

The savings would be small at first, perhaps $10 billion to $15 billion, one official said. But over the coming decade, savings could add up to $250 billion

Please keep in mind that Obama himself raised discretionary spending by $140 billion in the brief time he’s been if office.  And now he’s going to cut it by $10 billion?  I faint with excitement!!!

Some mainstream pundits are saying that Obama is moving to the right, because they know that that is what Americans want to hear.  But this isn’t a move to the right; it’s barely a head fake to the right.

This isn’t a cut; it’s the incredibly cynical appearance of a cut.  It’s an illusion.  Sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing.

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out: “It’s not a hatchet, it’s not a scalpel.  it’s a Q-tip.”  He said, in light of the never-before-seen-in-the-history-of-the-human-race-sized $1.3 trillion Obama deficit, “It’s a rounding error; it’s lunch money.”

Your way to generous, Charles.  It’s Twinkie money, at best.

In 143 Days Scott Brown Will Be Qualified To Be President!

Democrats Suddenly Realize Filibuster Wrong After Scott Brown Victory

Do you remember all those Democrats denouncing the Senate rules that they were using to shove ObamaCare down our throats when they held absolute power?

Neither do I.

But I can show you a bunch of hypocrite weasel Democrats who suddenly are bothered by the filibuster immediately after Scott Brown entered the picture and took back a little of the total (as in ‘totalitarian’) power the Democrats had amassed.

From the Huffington Post:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) suggested that the Senate abolish the filibuster in recent interview with Air America Radio.

“It is time to shut it down,” Frank said. “God didn’t create the filibuster, it’s part of the Senate rules.”

He continued: “We have a serious constitutional problem. There has been a de facto amendment of the U.S. Constitution in an anti-small-D democratic direction.”

“It is outrageous,” Frank said. “It tends to be, in many cases, the senators from those smaller states that aggregate to get up to be the 40 .” Less populous states, he argued, end up with a disproportionate amount of power.

Frank wasn’t the only politician to speak out against the filibuster recently. Vice President Joe Biden made mention of the 60 vote requirement during a Florida fundraiser on Sunday:

“As long as I have served, … I’ve never seen, as my uncle once said, the constitution stood on its head as they’ve done. This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators,” Biden said. “No democracy has survived needing a supermajority.”

I’ll just briefly point out that a guy from tiny little Massachusetts who talks smack about “those smaller states that aggregate to get up to be the 40” amounts to the kind of naked chutzpah that I expect from Barney Frank.

Joe Biden is a rank liar without shame.  He doesn’t deserve to be a small town mayor, let alone the Vice President of the United States.

An LA Times article about how Democrats want to change the rules regarding filibusters points this out:

Democrats have used the filibuster against Republicans when the GOP was in the majority, most recently from 2001 to 2006. Back then, Democrats were great defenders of the right to filibuster Bush’s judicial nominations. At one point in 2003, Reid spent more than eight hours on the Senate floor protesting the fact that Republicans spent so much time on four disputed judges instead of on joblessness. Reid read six chapters from a book he’d written about his tiny hometown of Searchlight, Nev.

Today, Reid is the Senate majority leader and complains bitterly about GOP delaying tactics.

Which is another way of saying that hypocrisy and disingenuousness are the hallmark characteristics of the current crop of Democrats.  And every single Democrat who has ever advocated or participated in a filibuster (and that includes YOU, Barry Hussein) should be ridiculed for the empty suits they truly are, now.

For what it’s worth, Obama has filibustered more than once to poke Republicans in the eye.  But how DARE they use the same tactic to rain on HIS parade.

I despise such people.  I utterly despise them.

I believe that a few Republicans in the past likewise wanted to ban the practice of filibustering when THEY were the party in power, and when THEIR ox was being gored by the practice.  So it’s not necessarily a “party” thing.

It’s just a “hypocrite” thing.

But the lowest, nastiest, dirtiest, most loathsome hypocrite is the one who’s in your face pimping his obscene double-standard at the moment.

And these days, nobody but nobody does hypocrite better than Democrats.