Posts Tagged ‘teleprompter’

Michelle Bachmann A Gaffe Machine? If Liberals Want To See A Gaffe Machine, Have Them Look At Their Fool-In-Chief

June 28, 2011

You want to see a gaffe?

Here’s a pretty darned good gaffe:

“Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma. They end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs when, if you, they just gave, you gave, treatment early, and they got some treatment, and uhhh a breathalyzer, or uhh, an inhalator, not a breathalyzer…”    

Here’s a REAL good one:

“I’ve now been in 57 states  I think one left to go.”

Oh!  There was this one, where Obama clearly couldn’t tell the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day (unless you want to argue Obama was having an “I see dead white people” moment):

“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes and I see many of them in the audience here today.”

There was this gem of intellectual horsepower in which Obama went to Israel and assured that country:

“Well let me be absolutely clear.  Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.”

There was the very recent moment in which Obama spoke to the 10th Mountain Division and said that their hero SFC Jared Monti was “the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually  came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”  SFC Monti had in fact been mortally wounded in action.  His audience was grieving for their fallen comrade, not celebrating a living hero.

There was this statement of Obama meeting his future self and talking about the encounter:

“I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”

Which of course was balanced out by Obama’s future self going back in time and signing in for him:

Obama got the date wrong by THREE YEARS.  I’ve done that “sign the check with the wrong year” in January thing.  But this is beyond the pale.

Obama has also demonstrated that he didn’t understand the difference between the Congressional Medal of Honor (which is ONLY given to war heroes who demonstrated extraordinary heroism and gallantry under enemy fire) and the Presidential Medal of Freedom (which is a political award a president can give to anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants to give it).  And the surrounding instance of that horrendous gaffe was even more horrendous as Obama was giving “shout outs” AFTER he had just heard American soldiers had just been ruthlessly gunned down on an American base by a Muslim terrorist Major.

Along with Obama’s saluting of a Navy “corpse man,” demonstrating he had absolutely no idea whatsoever what corpsmen are or what they do.

And there was that recent moment when Obama continued to chatter on and on over the British National Anthem – which is a no-no pretty much EVERYWHERE.

Now, I see those, and I’m supposed to think that liberals are right for believing that Michelle Bachmann is too stupid (or what’s that word?  Flaky?) to be President of the United States because she mistook John Wayne – who was born in Winterset Iowa – with John Wayne Gacy – who was born in Waterloo Iowa?

But you consider the mainstream media that pretty much glossed over ALL of that, and then suddenly making Michelle Bachmann’s gaffe about John Wayne Gacy the absolute CENTERPIECE of their questioning of her, and you realize that there are two Americas out there – the one the liberal mainstream media propagandists hate and the one the liberal mainstream media propagandists love.

Unlike Barack Obama, Michelle Bachmann doesn’t take a teleprompter every damn where she goes.  Unlike Barack Obama, Michelle Bachmann isn’t a hand puppet reading a script.  And unlike Barack Obama, most of Michelle Bachmann’s gaffes have nothing whatsoever to do with governing the nation.

If you believe that Michelle Bachmann isn’t fit to be president because of gaffes, and you aren’t loudly demanding that Barack Obama resign from office for crimes against intelligence, than you are a hypocrite and a fool.

The media gets on the liberal warpath, and it just doesn’t stop.  So they are already on another one out of their contention that our founding fathers were a bunch of racist bigots bent on keeping black people in slavery forever (because liberals always have hated America and always WILL hate it until it embraces Marxism and becomes the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of America.  Until that glorious day when the workers of the world truly unite into global socialism and America crawls into that coalition of hell they will continue to come unglued over candidates like Michelle Bachmann.

The founding fathers did NOT want slavery; but they were in the impossible position where they either allowed it or did not have a nation.  There was simply no way the pro-slavery states were going to give up slavery in 1787.  What the founding fathers did was compromise in such a way while writing our nations Constitution and laws in such a way that it was merely a matter of time before slavery would necessarily have to be abolished.

Take the three-fifths compromise that liberals often dump on to dump on America.  First of all the compromise had nothing whatosever to do with the ontology or humanity of black persons; it was completely directed at the extent of representation that slaves would have politically in determining the number of representatives and the distribution of taxes.  Second, which side wanted the slaves to have full representation?  THE SLAVERY SIDE.   The anti-slavery side wanted slaves to be accorded no representation at all, because counting them meant the slavery states would have more power and more money and therefore be able to resist demands to end slavery forever.

The southern states wanted to count slaves in the population of the nation, so that they could have more seats in the Congress, thereby increasing their political power. The northern states, on the other hand, were against including slaves in the population for the fear of increased Congressional seats in the southern states.

It was the pro-slavery side that demanded FULL representation.  In other words, Democrats – who demanded to hold on to slavery during the Civil War – CONTINUE to support the pro-slavery side even 225 years later!

Just to point out one more fact about the three-fifths compromise, one of the agreements reached was an END to the transatlantic slavery trade after twenty years.  Apparently, Democrats have always wanted that trade to continue.

P.S. Just in case you didn’t already think the media is cynical, vicious and biased enough as it was, George Stephanopoulos basically warned Michelle Bachmann that if she ran, the media would crawl through her five children’s and 23 foster children’s lives with the same anal probe they used on Sarah Palin’s emails.  ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, for the official record, was a Democrat media spinner prior to becoming a “journalist.”  If ABC asks Karl Rove to be an anchor, call me.

And, of course, we’re already seeing the same rabid leftwing dishonest smear propaganda beginning from the media that they used against Sarah Palin.

The media is just crossing out “Sarah Palin’s” name and scrawling in “Michelle Bachmann’s” name.  Because they’re cockroaches.  A recent attack on Michelle Bachmann was to call her “Barbie with fangs.”  Because liberal “journalists” can hate on women as much as they want to knowing they have a Holy Warrior’s Absolution from the so-called “feminist groups” to do so.

Update, June 29: How about THIS for a gaffe: Barack Obama screwed up the age of HIS OWN CHILD.  Obama TWICE referred to his oldest daughter Malia as being 13; she’s 12.

Advertisements

Liberals Saying Obama Sounds Like A Fool Because He’s Just So Darned Brilliant

May 28, 2011

Do you remember how liberals went off on Bush as stupid for eight years (not including the primary season leading up to the 2000 election) because of the way he talked?

Bush and the word “nuclear” was a favorite, of course.  And there were always a few awkward sentence constructions from a president who – unlike Obama – wasn’t slavishly attached to a teleprompter:

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he’s been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

.

The same left that ridiculed George Bush over his every verbal slip are now rushing in with “intellectual” defenses as to why Obama sounds like a babbling fool every single time he can’t read his lines off a screen.

Case in point from today’s Los Angeles Times:

Meghan Daum: Obama’s fast brain vs. slow mouth
It’s not that the president can’t speak clearly; he employs the intellectual stammer.

Apparently, a lot of people consider President Obama to be bumblingly inarticulate. “The guy can’t talk his way out of a paper bag!” a reader wrote to me recently. “Sarah Palin is a brilliant speaker. It’s the president whose sentences are undiagrammable,” said another in response to a column I wrote about Palin. It’s not just my readers, nor is it exclusively conservatives, who hold this view. A Google search of “does Obama have a speech impediment” turns up several pages of discussion among the president’s supporters and critics alike.Admittedly, the president is given to a lot of pauses, “uhs” and sputtering starts to his sentences. As polished as he often is before large crowds (where the adjective “soaring” is often applied to his speeches), his impromptu speaking frequently calls to mind a doctoral candidate delivering a wobbly dissertation defense.

But consider this: It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly. It’s that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN. If you’re a member or a fan of that subset, chances are the president’s stammer doesn’t bother you; in fact, you might even love him for it (he sounds just like your grad school roommate, especially when he drank too much Scotch and attempted to expound on the Hegelian dialectic!).

If you’re not, chances are you find yourself yelling “get to the point already!” at the television screen every time Obama’s search for the right word seems to last longer than the search for Osama bin Laden. And thanks to its echoes of the college lecture hall, you may think it comes across as ever so slightly (or more than slightly) left wing.

That’s kind of ironic, given that the godfather of the intellectual stammer is arguably none other than the paterfamilias of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley Jr. With his slouch, his glazed-eyed stare and a speaking style that suggested the entire Oxford English Dictionary was flipping through his mind while he searched for a word like “dithyramb,” he makes Obama’s extemporaneous speech seem canned — not to mention pedestrian — by comparison. In fact, if the people critiquing Obama’s meandering speech patterns were to see an old “Firing Line” segment, I daresay they would think Buckley was drunk or otherwise impaired.

Granted, Buckley didn’t hold political office (he made an unsuccessful run for mayor of New York in 1965). He was more an observer than a decider, which is pretty much the opposite of what you need to be to lead a nation. Obama, as much as his critics might hate to admit it, is more than a phlegmatic egghead. He’s proved he can act decisively; whatever his faults, he’s leading the nation far more effectively — albeit less colorfully — than Buckley would have led New York. (When asked what he’d do if he won the mayoral election, he famously responded, “Demand a recount.”)

Obama’s problem is not that he’s an intellectual (for the sake of argument let’s define it as someone who is scholarly, broadly informed and distinguished as a thinker). It’s that he sounds like an intellectual. Unlike other presumed political brainiacs — Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, for example — he isn’t able to bury his ideas behind a folksy regional accent or good-old-boy affectations when he wants to. Nor is he effective at “keeping it real” when he falls into traditionally African American cadences that he clearly never used when he was growing up.

By speaking as though he hails from everywhere, he ends up being from nowhere. The result is that people look at him and see not a Hawaiian or a Chicagoan or even a black man, but a university man.

Of course, the president enables that stigma by stammering his way through town hall meetings and other public dialogues as though they were philosophy lectures. Irritating? Sure. But inarticulate? Sorry, folks, but you’ll have to find another adjective. And take your time. The right word is usually worth waiting for.

Okay.  I understand.  Obama sounds so stupid because he’s so damned BRILLIANT.  And here, look.  There’s a conservative out there who did the same thing.

Or not.  I don’t recall William F. Buckley Jr. having moments like this one:

But that is a fact.  And such things are hindrances to most of the mainstream media’s “narratives.”

I don’t recall Buckley telling us about the 57 states (with one left to go) he’s visited in those sophisticated tones of his:

Nor do I remember Buckley making a visit to Westminster Abbey and getting the date wrong by three years as Obama just got through doing:

I don’t remember Bush – who of course was a moron (just ask any liberal) doing anything this braindead either.

Nope.  It’s brilliant, intellectual “university men” who ascend to such marvellous heights of intellect.

One fellow pointed out that “Bush could not pronounce Nuclear but he knew what it was (Iran, Obama).”  And, of course, that stupid Bush was right, and those “brilliant” Democrats were all wrong.

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy – Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

But why should it matter that Bush was right, and we are now facing a disastrous crisis that it’s just a damn shame that liberals basically ENTIRELY created with their abject REFUSAL to deal with a crisis, and their DEMONIZATION of anyone who tried?  Bush said “nuclear” funny, and that’s really all that matters if you’re properly sophisticated and, you know, professorial.  Bush was stupid even though he was entirely correct and the liberals who attacked him (including the three top liberals of the Obama administration with VP Biden and Secretary of State Clinton) were entirely wrong.

It doesn’t matter how many times we’re right and how many times they’re wrong.  Because they won’t acknowledge the truth and because the facts don’t really matter worth a damn to them.

There’s a concept in psychology called “accommodation and assimilation” that fits liberals in their steadfast refusal to follow the rules of normal learning.  In normal psychology, one assimilates new information into one’s worldview and accommodates one’s worldview as new facts come in that run contrary to the picture one has of the world.  Liberals don’t bother with that nonsense.  Rather, they rigidly adhere to their doctrines and simply paste-over whatever reality happens to get in the way.

I think of Harold Camping and his followers.  It didn’t matter than he falsely predicted the end of the world before in 1994.  It didn’t matter that the Bible that he’s doing all his “calculations” from specifically says no man can know the day or the hour of such things.  It doesn’t even matter that his prediction for the end of the world on May 21 turned out to be wrong.  Such facts don’t work, so so much the worse for the facts.  Now we’re assured that the world will end on October 21.  Really.  Better get ready.

Like Harold Camping and his followers, liberals are immune from any genuine learning.  They simply lack the character to deal with reality in an honest way.

Obama is brilliant because he graduated from Harvard, but Bush is stupid even though he graduated from Yale.  Previous Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was brilliant because he graduated from Yale, even though Bush had also graduated from Yale and even though Bush actually had a better accumulated grade average (77 versus 76) than Kerry.  Oh, and by the way, even though Bush also actually had a higher IQ than Kerry.  But so what?  Kerry had that arrogant Massachusett’s tone that just sounded so… so smart.  And of course, Bush was stupid because he had a few gaffes; ergo sum Obama is brilliant whenever he’s off his teleprompter because his gaffes are supposedly somehow kind of similar to brilliant people’s.

Or Bush was evil because of Gitmo, and rendition, and the Patriot Act, and domestic eavesdropping, and indefinite detentions, and military tribunals, etc. etc.; ergo sum, when Obama goes back on his demagogic rhetoric and pursues all the same policies that he demonized when Bush did them, it is Obama magnificently adapting his foreign policy.  Bush was evil for using enhanced interrogation and Obama was righteous to dismantle the CIA program that relied on such intelligence – even though Obama should get all the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and even though enhanced interrogation and the CIA program that Obama dismantled were absolutenly essential to getting Osama bin laden.

Or Bush was a poor leader because he wanted to raise the debt ceiling versus Obama showing his magnificent leadership in demanding that we raise the debt ceiling.  Or Obama standing for the Constitution when he attacked George Bush for wars that he got congressional approval for, versus being the bold defender of human rights when he launches a third war in Libya without bothering to get congressional approval.  Or Bush was a partisan hack and a failure as a leader because he divided the country, but the fact that Obama divided the country far more than Bush EVER DID after promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics” and “end the partisan and ideological wars ” is entirely due to conservatives.  Because Democrats have a moral obligation to attack a Republican president, but Republicans have a moral obligation to bow down before a Democrat messiah.  That sort of thing.

One has to wonder how their heads don’t just explode from containing all the contradictions.  But it turns out that when you live in your own little world – and particularly when you get to control the media and shape the “narrative” for society to consume – irritating things like facts and contradictions just don’t really matter.

Is It Racist To Suggest Obama Is Stupid? Ask Racist Liberals Who Spent 8 Years Calling George Bush Stupid

April 29, 2011

I can find a thousand pull quotes from “journalists” who serve as the court eunuchs for the Democrat Party, but I’ll just stick with one from Bob Schieffer:

“I want to go on to what Donald Trump said after he said ‘this is out’ and everything. He said, ‘we need to look at his grades and see if he was a good enough student to get into Harvard Law School.’ That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing. We can hope that that kinda comes to an end too.”

I mean, obviously, Schieffer is 100% correct.  I mean, the left would NEVER suggest that Republican president might be stupid, right?  And so for conservatives to suggest that Obama might not be the sharpest tack in the box can only be a code for “racism.”  Right?

Well, not quite.

The left tore into George Bush the way one of Michael Vick’s pit bulls tore into a piece of bloody meat.  And one of their favorite memes was the one that Bush was stupid.

Which demonstrates by their own warped, depraved and perverted logic that liberals are racist.

And there are a gazillion articles like this that asked questions and came to conclusions about George Bush that must not dare be asked and answered about Barack Obama.  [Updated, 4/30]  Here’s one that shows that the attack on Bush’s intelligence – which we now know is a racist, racist, racist thing to do – was so widespread that it essentially formed the centerpiece of the Al Gore campaign:

Gore Camp Targets Bush’s Intelligence
By Carter M. Yang
ABC News, Oct 9

With his truthfulness under fire and his opponent gaining in the polls, Al Gore’s surrogates are openly questioning George W. Bush’s intelligence.

Since this weekend, the Gore team has been ratcheting up its efforts to paint Bush as “confused,” “bumbling,” “babbling” and “ignorant.”

“George W. Bush seems incapable of talking about the important issues in this campaign in a coherent way,” Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said today, just one in a series of statements from the Democratic candidate’s team drawing attention to the Texas governor’s mispronunciations and misstatements on the campaign trail.

“George Bush is routinely unable to string together a coherent sentence to explain his own proposals,” another Gore spokesman, Douglas Hattaway, said in an earlier statement this weekend. “Americans will decide whether Bush’s uncertain command of the facts and his garbled language bear on his ability to be an effective leader.”

Could that argument only be applied to Bush?  Let’s put that ugly little critter to bed:

We know that Obama uses his teleprompter far more than George Bush or any other president in the history of the republic.

We know that Obama even needs his prompter to speak in elementary schools:

We also know that Obama isn’t exactly coherent without the “TOTUS.”

And we know that in fact the man is an idiot:

“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

But how dare you acknowledge the obvious, no matter how obvious it is.  It’s RACIST to recognize the obvious.

Because, you see, liberals souls swim in a deep racist ocean, and the unadulterated hypocrisy which quintessentially defines them means that you can tee off on a white man, demonize him for his stupidity, his values, his greed, etc., but you must grovel in the sackcloth and ashes of white guilt at the feet of the black man.

Well, as long as that black man is a liberal.  Becuase if he’s a conservative, liberals are allowed – encouraged, even – to allow the racism that also defines them full-throttled expression:

Liberals often respond by pointing out that it isn’t just black liberals or Hispanic liberals who constantly demonize white men; white liberals demonize white men, too.  So it clearly can’t be racist.

I respond by pointing out that just as Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew and Adolf Hitler was in all probability a self-loathing Jew, white liberals are merely caucasian-hating caucasians:

Take Karl Marx.  The man was profoundly anti-Semitic.  He was also a Jew.

Here are some quotes from the VERY Jewish “intellectual” Karl Marx:

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)

“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?

Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
Adolf Hitler is likely to have had Jewish and African roots, DNA tests have shown.
By Heidi Blake 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010
 
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race?  I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

And it doesn’t surprise me at all that rabid leftwing socialists like Marx and Hitler would be the models for radical leftwing socialists right here and right now in America.

And if you want to see naked racism, I’ll gladly show you naked racism.

We constantly hear conservatives and Republicans compared to the Ku Klux Klan.  Because liberals are either too stupid or too dishonest (and I personally believe both too stupid and too dishonest) to understand that the Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and in fact the Klan continued to be profoundly and directly associated with the Democrat party well into the 20th century.  And all the Democrat Party did was understand that if they couldn’t own black people by slavery, they could eventually own them by political patronage through welfare and socialistic redistributionism.

What did Frederick Douglass, one of the great moral intellectuals of any race, have to say about what is THE policy of the Democrat Party back when “stupid” white men were literally dying by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves?

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”  On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

Liberals are people who project and mirror their own hate.  And they reduce human beings to the absolute lowest common denominator, rather than try to lift people up and help them become better.  Bottom line.

Racism and race-baiting isn’t the last resort of the left; it is their first knee-jerk response.  And that is because THEY are the racists.  Racism defines them; it is the essence of their beings.  Whereas Martin Luther King dreamed of a society in which his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”  But liberals angrily refuse to do that, and demand that color is everything, and that everything must be viewed through the lenses of race and racism.

I couldn’t be more disgusted with the vileness that characterizes the left.  I have as much right to call Barack Obama a stupid man as any liberal had to call George Bush a stupid man.  And you can easily identify as a racist the person who shouts that I don’t have that right.

And I don’t give a flying fig what color your skin is, and what color the skin of the person you’re defending or denouncing is.  If you play that game, you are a racist.  And a nasty hypocrite racist at that.

Hey Obama, Even DEMOCRATS Now Agree You Stink On Ice

October 31, 2010

It was such an incredibly short time ago that Obama was – literally – “sort of like God.”  Standing above the country, above the world, as he did.

Even people with Alzheimer’s can still recollect when Obama so incredibly pompously said:

“… I’m absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last best hope on earth.”

Sorry, “dude,” but “this was the moment” when America elected a big emission of fart gas.  Nothing more.

And now a whole hell of a lot of Democrats are realizing that their “messiah” was nothing more than a puff of flatulence in a hurricane.

Poll: Dems split over handing Obama ’12 nomination
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Alan Fram, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Democratic voters are closely divided over whether President Barack Obama should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012, an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll finds.

That glum assessment carries over into the nation at large, which is similarly divided over whether Obama should be a one-term president.

A real Democratic challenge to Obama seems unlikely at this stage and his re-election bid is a long way off. But the findings underscore how disenchanted his party has grown heading into the congressional elections Tuesday.

The AP-KN poll has tracked a group of people and their views since the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign. Among all 2008 voters, 51 percent say he deserves to be defeated in November 2012 while 47 percent support his re-election — essentially a tie.

Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed. Those favoring a contest include most who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsuccessful faceoff against Obama for the 2008 nomination. The poll did not ask if Democrats would support particular challengers.

America needed a leader, and instead it got a failure-in-chief who is such a lightweight puff of fart gas that he needs to use his damn teleprompter even at minor staff meetings, and at even at elementary schools to talk to 6th graders.

That’s not presidential and it’s not leadership; it’s a scripted pompous jackass who can’t even keep his own bullcrap rhetoric straight unless he can read it off a pair of screens.

Democrats mocked George Bush because of the occasional verbal gaffe.  But they joke is on them now, or, more appropriately, THEY are the joke now.  Because George Bush could actually get through a sentence without reading it off a damn screen, unlike the pathetic loser who has since replaced him:

President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter.

The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.

Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House’s stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.

Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.

Like I said, “the One” is nothing but empty, hollow fart gas.

And everyone who voted for him ought to be completely ashamed of themselves.

Democrats are morally stupid people.  But even nearly half of them have finally realized what a turd they put into the most powerful office in the world (at least it used to be before he wasted it like he wasted $3 trillion in borrowed money our great grandchildren will still be paying back to China).

The stimulus – aka the pompously titled “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” – was a giant empty puff of fart gas, just like the president who forced it through Congress so fast that no one in Congress even got a chance to read it.

Democrats mocked George Bush as “the worst president in history.”  But now even by their very own standard, it is Obama who wins the title by a landslide.

And, just two years after all the mainstream media propagandists sent Bush off with the worst poll numbers ever, more Americans believe Bush was a better president than Obama than the other way around:

“Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president.” Worse, Schoen adds, “43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.”

It now stands as a simple matter of fact that “Obama” stands for “One Big Ass Mistake, America.”

How much more failure do you want?

Vote these fool Democrats out of office on Tuesday, or be prepared to accept two more years of demagogic blame and constant excuses.

This ‘Blame Bush’ Crap Has Just GOT To End

August 23, 2010

Are you sick of Obama and the left unrelentingly blaming Bush for everything that is happening going on two years after he left office?  Do you think that Obama will ever man-up and actually become responsible for his presidency?

Me too, and me neither, respectively.

I went more than a little off on a liberal who dredged up this demagogic rhetorical garbage:

In Europe people laugh at us leaving in false dreams, wall streets spending false money, Bush starting a false war etc.

America is the land of dreams, how come? Idiots like George Bush can get elected to president. If he can Become president, then what can the smart people do? Jump to pluto?.

Do you really expect Obama to fix the worst recession in 80 years in a bit more than 18 months? Which was created by 8 years of Reagan, 4 years by bush, Clinton’s last period and 8 years by Bush? What is he some kind of god?

I didn’t vote for Obama but I expect him to put us in the right direction in this 6 years (he most likely) has left. in 2007-2008 they estimated that the recession will peak in 2012, so there is still a lot left. Just imagine how it would be with Palin/McCain. McCain who wanted to keep Bush’s politics moving and Palin who thought Africa was a country.

Here was my response:

First of all, I must pause to mock you for making Europe the gold standard of measurement. I guess if you like Nazism, fascism, Marxism, socialism, and genocide up the wazoo, Europe must be the coolest place on earth.  I can see why you lefties love it so much.

What was it that Jefferson said? “The comparison of our governments with those of Europe, is like a comparison of heaven and hell.” Not that you give a damn what Jefferson said about anything.

Let me assure you that the Iraq War – which 60% of Democrat Senators voted to authorize (just for the record) – was a REAL war indeed.

Here’s a record of how Democrats were for that war before they were against it:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

And at least Bush had the decency to actually WIN his war. Barack Obama demonized the Iraq War and demonized the surge strategy that enabled us to win it. And Obama made Afghanistan “his war” in order to maintain the facade that he really wasn’t a weakling on foreign policy.  Bush did so well in Iraq that the Obama administration actually tried to take credit for the victory. And now we’re “floundering in Afghanistan” under Obama’s failed leadership.

That Sarah Palin who thought Africa was a country thing? False, you demagogue. It was a made-up “fact” that was reported as truth. And the ONLY documented “source” behind it has been revealed to be a hoax.

Now, you want to see a REAL idiot in action? How about a guy running for president who thinks there are 58 states? This is a man who is so fundamentally ignorant he doesn’t even know jack squat about his own country.

Youtube:

Quote:

It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

So let’s talk about what a total and absolute ideologue you are to condemn Sarah Palin for a bogus fabricated quote that she didn’t even say, and to then defend a guy who is on video saying something about 20 times as stupid.  Because that’s how the Democrat Party operates, in a nutshell.

For the factual record, Obama actually called Europe a country.  How is that not just as stupid as calling Africa a country?

Youtube:

Quote:

“One of the things that is a huge advantage for America compared to countries like Europe is, actually, we’re constantly replenishing ourselves with hungry, driven people who are coming here, and they want to work, and they start a business, and our population is younger and more dynamic, and that’s a good thing!”

Which is to say that Obama is unfit to be president by your own deceitful example.

And as for Bush being an idiot, at least he didn’t need a pair of damn teleprompters to say his name right. Maybe Bush would have sounded more “intelligent” to you if he read absolutely everything he said at every venue he went to off his teleprompters.

Here’s Obama without his teleprompter for one minute:

Which is why he needs to bring one everywhere – even to sixth grade classrooms – to not sound like the gibbering idiot he truly is.

So, oh, yeah, the country is much better off with its “Genius-in-chief,” isn’t it?

You don’t give one damn about the truth; you live in your own self-created reality in which Sarah Palin is stupid for something that she never said, while Barack Obama who said something stupider than Sarah Palin ever said in her life is still brilliant.

You would be completely ashamed of yourself, if you were capable of that attribute of moral character.

I write an article that shows how BY THE DEMOCRATS VERY OWN STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT Obama is the worst president in American history. And you’ve got nothing to say about that. Nothing but more “blame Bush.”

Another demonstration of your rabid leftist ideology that will NOT be fair: the economy goes into an absolute TOILET under Obama, but he’s not responsible for any of his policies.

The unemployment rate was 7.6% when Bush left office. But Obama is not responsible for the fact that it’s near 10% now and by most expert accounts will rise higher after he pissed away $862 billion (actually $3.27 TRILLION) in his boondoggle “stimulus”???

Why is it that you refuse to hold Obama to any kind of standard at all – even the standard he set for himself? The Obama administration said this was a terrible economy, but he had the solution, that his stimulus would keep unemployment from going over 8%. And by his own administration’s standard did he not utterly fail? Wasn’t he elected to make the economy better, instead of far worse?

And what do we say about the fact that unemployment is going up, rather than down?  Wasn’t Obama supposed to make things better rather than worse?

Jobless claims rise to highest level in 9 months
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer – Thu Aug 19, 2010

WASHINGTON – Employers appear to be laying off workers again as the economic recovery weakens. The number of people applying for unemployment benefits reached the half-million mark last week for the first time since November.

It was the third straight week that first-time jobless claims rose. The upward trend suggests the private sector may report a net loss of jobs in August for the first time this year.

Initial claims rose by 12,000 last week to 500,000, the Labor Department said Thursday.

Construction firms are letting go of more workers as the housing sector slumps and federal stimulus spending on public works projects winds down. State and local governments are also cutting jobs to close large budget gaps.

The layoffs add to growing fears that the economic recovery is slowing and the country could slip back into a recession.

Isn’t Obama kind of going the wrong way, Mr. “Blame Bush”???

We’ve got all kinds of measures showing that things are far worse than they ever were under Bush. But you, total rabid fundamentalist leftist ideologue that you are – can only shout “blame Bush!” all the louder.

Here’s one example from August 21, 2010 in the LA Times:

With consumers and businesses keeping a lid on expenses, more and more small and mid-size restaurants are throwing in their dish towels and closing up shop. […]

Nationwide, the number of restaurants dropped in 2010 for the first time in more than a decade, according to NPD, falling 5,202 to 579,416.

So, wow. That means that things haven’t been this bad since Bill Clinton was president and the Dot-com bubble he created blew up. That means that things were NEVER this bad under George Bush.

Bush inherited a terrible economic situation, too. First of all, the Dot-com bubble that Clinton passed to Bush created huge economic upheaval – to the tune of Nasdaq losing 78% of its value. Trillions of dollars of Clinton economic growth were just blown away like a fart in a hurricane.  The mainstream media didn’t report the facts of Clinton’s recession because they are shockingly biased liberal propagandists. Which is why so few Americans trust them anymore. Clinton took all the credit for the Dot-com build-up; Bush got all the pain when it blew up, suffering a huge recession that was all on Clinton’s tab. Then you add to that the 9/11 attack, which crippled the airline and tourism industry for months, and you should understand how bad Bush had it. But he didn’t blame Clinton a gazillion times; he manned up and solved the problem. He took an economic lemon and made 52 consecutive months of job growth.   In contrast, Obama hasn’t solved anything. All he’s done is blame and demonize.

Here’s another one from the August 21 2010 Associated Press report:

In the wake of news about a spike in new applications for unemployment benefits comes another potentially troubling sign: A record number of workers made hardship withdrawals from their retirement accounts in the second quarter.

What’s more, the number of workers borrowing from their accounts reached a 10-year high, according to a report issued Friday by Fidelity Investments.

Wow. Again, things haven’t been so bad since the last time a Democrat was president. Again, it was NEVER this bad under George Bush’s presidency.

How about trade deficit figures? From November 19 2009 Reuters:

WASHINGTON: The US trade deficit widened in September by an unexpectedly large 18.2 per cent, the most in more than 10 years, as oil prices rose for the seventh straight month and imports from China bounded higher, a US government report showed on Friday.

Hey, again, things weren’t so bad since a Democrat president last ran things. And it was never so bad under George Bush.

How about all the foreclosures? Surely Obama has made that better? Oops. Again, things were NEVER this bad under Bush’s presidency:

US foreclosures up 4%; top 300000 for 17th month on the trot
by Jaspreet Virk – August 12, 2010

Foreclosure crisis doesn’t seem to be loosening its hold on the housing sector. After declining for the last three consecutive months, foreclosure activity is back up in the United States.

As per the ‘Foreclosure Market Report’ released by RealtyTrac, an online marketplace, giving insights into foreclosures, 325,229 houses received foreclosure filings in the nation, 4 percent up from June.

Not only there has been a jump in the number of houses receiving filings, the foreclosures have exceeded 300000 for the 17th straight month. One in every 397 houses received foreclosure notice from the lenders in July.

Hmmm. Obama’s been president for all of those 17 months. And Bush was president for none of them. But it’s all Bush’s fault, anyway, isn’t it? At least if you’re a hypocrite liberal, it is.

Under Obama, and ONLY under Obama, foreclosures are up 75% in the major metropolitan areas:

NEW YORK (Reuters)Foreclosures rose in 3 of every four large U.S. metro areas in this year’s first half, likely ruling out sustained home price gains until 2013, real estate data company RealtyTrac said on Thursday [in its midyear 2010 metropolitan foreclosure report].

Unemployment was the main culprit driving foreclosure actions on more than 1.6 million properties, the company said.

We’re not going to see meaningful, sustainable home price appreciation while we’re seeing 75 percent of the markets have increases in foreclosures,” RealtyTrac senior vice president Rick Sharga said in an interview.

Has Obama done anything to solve this problem – which was why our economy blew up in the first place? Absolutely not.

Obama failed – because he is a failure, and failing is what he does:

WASHINGTON – Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.

The program is intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Friday’s report from the Treasury Department suggests the $75 billion government effort is failing to slow the tide of foreclosures in the United States, economists say.

More than 2.3 million homes have been repossessed by lenders since the recession began in December 2007, according to foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac Inc. Economists expect the number of foreclosures to grow well into next year.

The government program as currently structured is petering out. It is taking in fewer homeowners, more are dropping out and fewer people are ending up in permanent modifications,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

There’s “hope and change” for you.  A failed president with failed policies.

As an update (August 24), I add the following headline:

Instant View: Existing home sales plunge to 15-year low
Tue Aug 24, 10:28 am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Sales of previously owned U.S. homes dropped in July to their lowest pace in 15 years, implying further loss of momentum in the economic recovery.

Existing home sales dropped by a massive 27% in July.  And, again, omigosh.  We haven’t seen terrible numbers like this since the last time a Democrat was president.  We NEVER saw anything like this during the Bush era.

How about budget deficits? Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit in his entire presidency, and the Democrats still blamed him for his spending; but the CBO now says that Obama will run a trillion-plus dollar defict next year, making it three years in a row. And we will have massive trillion-plus dollar deficits for as long as the eye can see because of Obama’s reckless unsustainable spending programs and the debt they will create. How about this? Obama’s deficit for July alone was more than Bush’s entire 2007-year deficit! And how about this one? Obama outspent Bush’s entire eight-year presidency’s deficit in just 20 months – after demonizing Bush for his spending!!!

From The Wall Street Journal, which, unlike the New York Slimes, the LA Slimes, the Chicago Tribune, and other major liberal papers, ISN’T actually financially and morally bankrupt:

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

Bush’s deficits were 2-3% of GDP.  Obama’s are at 12.8% of GDP – which is five to six times higher and bringing us closer and closer every day to the point of collapse.

Are the people better off under Obama than they were under Bush? I don’t think so:

More Americans are on food stamps now under Barack Obama’s failed presidency than at any time in history. And that certainly includes George Bush’s presidency.

But now Obama and the Democrats are going to raid the Food Stamp program to pay for their pet liberal projects. Because “Let them eat cake.”

How about bank failures? We kind of need banks for a healthy economy unless we want to go back to the barter system, you know:

Banks are failing at double the rate of last year.  During 2009, which the government claims was the peak of the recession, the total number of bank failures at this point in the year was 40.  It is already 83 for this year.

For the record, only 25 banks failed under Bush in 2008.  That number soared to 140 banks under Obama’s watch in 2009.  And now we’re already past 118 bank failures this year in 2010 with four more months to go.

But you can’t hold Barack Obama responsible for the fact that things are far, far, FAR worse under his presidency than they ever were under Bush’s. The ONLY reason you’ve got to “blame Bush” is that the 2008 economic meltdown happened under Bush’s presidency. You don’t even offer an actual reason or state an actual policy reason for the failure; you just blame Bush because he was there.  You don’t consider the fact that things were great until Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate in 2006 and royally screwed up the country (the unemployment rate before Democrats took over Congress in January 2007 was 4.6%).  Nope. Bush was president in 2008, so it was all his fault. Even though he warned SEVENTEEN TIMES that we needed to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or have an economic disaster on our hands, and even though Democrats were in lockstep refusal to deal with the landmine that caused us to implode in the first place.  But you are way too much of a twisted unhinged ideologue to apply the same argument to Obama now. What happened while Bush was president was Bush’s fault; and what happened while Zero was president is still Bush’s fault.

Do I want to go back to Bush’s “failed policies” when unemployment never got above 7.6% and averaged 5.2% for his presidency? As opposed to “moving forward” with Obama and his 10%-and-rising level? Pardon me, but I’ll take Bush.

Democrats are currently saying, “Do you want to go back to the way things were when Republicans were in control?”

When Republicans were last in control prior to 2007, we had full unemployment with an unemployment rate of only 4.6%.

So, yeah.  I WOULD like to go back to the way things were when Bush and Republicans were in control.  And I frankly want to know what idiot wouldn’t?

As for your question as to whether Obama is some kind of a god, I can’t help but point out that it wasn’t conservatives who kept putting the halo on Obama’s head:

A funny video provides a giant montage of Obama halos.

We weren’t the ones who said “This is the moment when when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal,” either.

We weren’t the ones who said, “You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”  So don’t blame us for Obama not living up to the ridiculous expectations he and his liberal minions fed to the culture.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is such a miserable, total failure that I see that even you can’t admit you voted for him.

On Obama’s 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman’s claim of being ‘over-taxed’

April 6, 2010

I looked over this story, and immediately realized that there was just something biblical about it.

First, as it ever should be, the words of the Bible:

Proverbs 10:8 “The wise of heart will receive commands, But a babbling fool will be thrown down.”

Proverbs 14:7 “Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge.”

Proverbs 17:12 “Let a man meet a bear robbed of her cubs, Rather than a fool in his folly.”

Proverbs 17:24 “Wisdom is in the presence of the one who has understanding, But the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth.”  Which is to say, the prudent man keeps the word of God continually in view. But the foolish man cannot fix his thoughts, nor pursue any purpose with steadiness.

Proverbs 17:28 “Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is counted prudent.”

Proverbs 18:2 “A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.”

Proverbs 26:12 “Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.”

Proverbs 27:22 Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, Yet his folly will not depart from him.

Ecclesiastes 5:3 “For the dream comes through much effort, and the voice of a fool through many words.”

Ecclesiastes 10:12 “Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious, while the lips of a fool consume him”

Ecclesiastes 10:14 “Yet the fool multiplies words. No man knows what will happen, and who can tell him what will come after him?”

And now for the words of Obama:

Obama’s 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman’s claim of being ‘over-taxed’
by Anne E. Kornblut

CHARLOTTE – Even by President Obama’s loquacious standards, an answer he gave here on health care Friday was a doozy.

Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a “wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care” package.

“We are over-taxed as it is,” Doris said bluntly.

Obama started out feisty. “Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have,” the president said.

He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer – more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, “F-Map”). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as “FICA”).

Always fond of lists, Obama ticked off his approach to health care — twice. “Number one is that we are the only — we have been, up until last week, the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance,” he said.

A few minutes later he got to the next point, which seemed awfully similar to the first. “Number two, you don’t know who might end up being in that situation,” he said, then carried on explaining further still.

“Point number three is that the way insurance companies have been operating, even if you’ve got health insurance you don’t always know what you got, because what has been increasingly the practice is that if you’re not lucky enough to work for a big company that is a big pool, that essentially is almost a self-insurer, then what’s happening is, is you’re going out on the marketplace, you may be buying insurance, you think you’re covered, but then when you get sick they decide to drop the insurance right when you need it,” Obama continued, winding on with the answer. [That entire droning paragraph full of drivel is ONE sentence, btw].

Halfway through, an audience member on the riser yawned.

But Obama wasn’t finished. He had a “final point,” before starting again with another list — of three points.

“What we said is, number one, we’ll have the basic principle that everybody gets coverage,” he said, before launching into the next two points, for a grand total of seven.

His wandering approach might not matter if Obama weren’t being billed as the chief salesman of the health-care overhaul. Public opinion on the bill remains divided, and Democratic officials are planning to send Obama into the country to persuade wary citizens that it will work for them in the long run.

It was not evident that he changed any minds at Friday’s event. The audience sat politely, but people in the back of the room began to wander off. [People in the front of the room were cursing over the tragic fact that they were sitting in the front of the room].

Even Obama seemed to recognize that he had gone on too long. He apologized — in keeping with the spirit of the moment, not once, but twice. “Boy, that was a long answer. I’m sorry,” he said, drawing nervous laughter that sounded somewhat like relief as he wrapped up.

But, he said: “I hope I answered your question.”

And, of course, I’m sure he didn’t.

For what it’s worth, do you remember how Brett Baier was attacked by the left for interrupting Obama during their interview on Fox News? That 17 minute answer ought to more than tell you why.

I actually quit watching Obama during the campaign.  This man who is billed as the greatest orator who ever lived has a habit of droning on and on without actually saying anything.  He hedges his phrases with so many caveats and exceptions that he never actually seems to come to a meaningful conclusion.  And that’s the primary reason that most people still don’t know who the hell he is or what the hell he truly stands for going on three full years after he started talking to the nation.

I heard Obama say one thing, and then later say a different thing, while saying, “As I’ve been saying,” too many times.

If I want to know what Obama said, I look for a transcript.  He’s reading practically everything he says off a teleprompter; why shouldn’t I read it as well?

The American mainstream media may swoon over Obama (or at least get shivers running up their legs), but Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, would have seen right through him.

“… the voice of a fool through many words.”

Update: Here’s an article entitled, “Obama’s 17 minutes of hate,” which supplies a few corrections to Obama’s blathering rhetoric.

Left Mocked Sarah Palin For Notes On Palm; Hope They Start Mocking Dianne Feinsten

February 13, 2010

Obama Mouthpiece Robert Gibbs mocked Sarah Palin for the five words she’d written on her palm, as did numerous mainline media propagandists such as MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

It is frankly amazing that the media went so nuts over Sarah Palin’s palm.  It’s like a dog and pony show, with all the media dogs and ponies prancing around whenever Sarah Palin says or does anything.

One interesting theory about the “palmgate” is that Sarah Palin is deliberately messing with the mainstream media’s minds, having every bit as little respect for them as they for her.  The only difference is that she keeps winning the game, and keep losing it.

Ordinary people who didn’t have an ideological axe to grind would probably find it difficult to understand how the people who are marching lockstep behind a man who literally has to bring his teleprompter into sixth grade classrooms could see a “gotcha!” moment in five words scrawled on a palm.

But let’s get past that obvious comparison and go straight apples-to-apples.

We now find out that the illustrious grand maven Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote words on her palm for a debate:

Sarah Palin wrote five words on her hand for a speech; there were no rules barring her from doing so.  In Dianne Feinstein’s case, she broke the rules and the etiquette of a debate.  She took an unfair advantage against her opponent.  She cheated.

Which makes her a Democrat in good standing.

Since Democrats argued that Sarah Palin was so stupid for writing on her palm, I propose that we administer an IQ test to Dianne Feinstein and to every single Democrat in office, and every Democrat who tests the same as or lower than Feinstein resign from office for being “f-ing retarded” (to quote Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel).

You find it again and again: hypocrisy defines liberals.  It is their core essence.

Maybe Democrats Should Change Their Symbol To An Ostrich

February 9, 2010

I had a very brief conversation with my Democrat neighbor (a retired professor emeritus in education).  I asked him what he thought about Obama.  He said he liked him, and I left it there: no point arguing with a fool – especially if that fool happens to be your neighbor.

But I was pretty shocked that an otherwise intelligent man would be unable to see that the president he likes so much is utterly laying waste to the party he likes so much.

There is more and more evidence coming out that even DEMOCRATS are recognizing that Barack Obama is a total failure as a president.  And I recently wrote a piece that quoted from a number of Democrat-written articles lamenting the complete failure that their failure-in-chief has turned out to be.

Obama’s polls have gone from the stratosphere right into the toilet bowl as Americans have finally begun to comprehend what this radical leftist is trying to do.

Republicans have won every single statewide election since Obama took office – with every victory occurring in states that voted heavily for Obama.  Obama actually managed to transform Camelot into a Republican state – something nobody would have dreamed possible only a short time ago.

But Democrats – and apparently the “smartest” Democrats in particular – continue to keep their heads shoved into the ground (or their rear ends).

Republicans certainly had their fair share of self-delusion in 2006 when the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate.  But as bad as it was, it wasn’t even close to this Obama-as-Messiah-worshiping disregard for reality.

But more and more and more news keeps coming out:

Americans Losing Hope, Looking For Change

By Ed Carson

Tue., Feb. 09, ’10    10:00 AM ET
(IBD)Voters are souring on the economy and the government’s remedies, according to February’s IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index. It fell 4.1% to 46.8, matching December’s level and the weakest since July.

“Persisting high unemployment and a wobbly stock market dampened January’s optimism,” said Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP, IBD’s polling partner. Readings below 50 signal pessimism.

Confidence in federal economic politics dived 7% to 38.3, the lowest since President Obama took office. That’s consistent with other polls showing a strong shift by Americans away from big government over the past year. The $787 billion stimulus failed to keep unemployment from soaring to double digits, now 9.7%. But it helped the deficit explode to $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009, with $1.6 trillion seen in 2010.

Obama has tried to stress economic issues since Scott Brown’s stunning Massachusetts election victory derailed health care legislation. He’s railed against fat-cat bankers while proposing new taxes and further curbs on the biggest banks. That populism can win easy political points, but it can also backfire. Stocks have sold off since Obama began his anti-Wall Street rhetoric.

He’s also proposed a jobs bill that includes a hiring credit for employers. But some Democratic lawmakers question that idea while many experts say the latest stimulus plans are too modest to make much of an impact. And any government boost will add to the gusher of red ink.

The new emphasis on jobs and the economy also is an implicit admission that for much of the past year Obama’s focus has been on health care.

That was a mistake in the eyes of independents. Their view of federal economic policies tumbled 12.7% vs. January and 30.3% since September.

Independents disapprove of Obama’s handling of economic issues by a 2-1 ratio (50%-25%). Just 3% think he’s doing an excellent job while 29% say it’s unacceptable. This extends a recent trend.

Swing voters’ view of Obama’s overall job performance sank 7.9% in February to 40.8, a new low for him. A year earlier, the rating was 72.9.

The IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index dipped 0.6 point to 50.2, holding just above the neutral 50 mark thanks to continued strong support from his liberal base. But the White House and congressional leaders fear most voters will soon lock in their negative views of the economy for the rest of the year, even if conditions improve in the summer.

That may already be happening. Three-fourths of independents have a favorable view of the tea party movement and say one-party control of the White House and Congress has been bad.

As today’s IBD story notes, independents were a key part of Obama’s coalition in 2008. But no longer:

“They truly believed in his campaign message of hope and change, but Obama’s performance has disappointed them,” Mayur said.

Independents are increasingly anxious about the economy as well as soaring government spending and deficits. Obama may be tempted to keep playing to his solid liberal base, but that could further alienate moderates.

Then again, maybe Obama can’t take his base for granted. His health care agenda is comatose, though Obama hasn’t issued a DNR order yet. Meanwhile, cap and trade is going nowhere, the Gitmo prison is still open and unions’ hoped-for card check bill never had much momentum. And while independents took the sharpest downturn in February, Democrats’ were less enchanted with federal economic policies and the six-month economic outlook. What’s going to motivate left-liberals, greens and labor to turn out in the midterm elections?

On the upside, Americans’ view of their own finances edged up 0.1 point to 53.5, holding in a tight range of modest optimism. But that’s well below the pre-recession reading of 60.8 in February 2007.

IBD/TIPP conducted the national poll of 902 adults from Feb. 1-7. The margin of error is +/-3.3 percentage points.

It wasn’t all that long ago before the way-too-left-leaning media pundits were smarmily predicting the permanent demise of the Republican Party and the permanent ascendancy of the Democrat Party.  They virtually ignored the Tea Party movement that now dominates the current political picture – and the coverage the movement has since received has been both incredibly condescending and incredibly biased.

No matter.  The mainstream media is merely another exemplification of the nation repudiating the left: now Fox News – the very Fox News that Obama repeatedly attempted to demonize – is the most trusted name in news.  And it is dominating the ratings as people increasingly abandon leftwing propaganda and embrace reality.

The Democrat-mainstream media industrial complex broadcasts the narrative that it’s the other way around – with quintessentially racist fearmongers hatefully attacking the Obama administration agenda and spreading a viral spirit of fear and obstructionism – but their narrative couldn’t be more wrong.  In reality, the American people gave Obama and the total Democrat majority a fair chance: and they recognize that Obama and the Democrats have utterly failed.

Obama’s polls nosedived to an all-time low yesterday, with the Marris-College survey revealing that Independents now oppose Obama by a 2-1 margin, and his approval has plunged to 44%.

And a whopping 75% of Americans are angry at the policies of the Obama and Democrat-controlled government.

CNN – which led off every single hour with Bush’s poll numbers when they hit their lowest point – did not bother to mention Obama’s poll numbers even ONCE last night.  Instead, they gleefully mocked the fact that Sarah Palin had written a total of four points on her palm.

A complete addiction to the Teleprompter of the United States of America is fine, as is referring to the highly-trained Navy medical personnel who save the lives of Marines on the battlefields as “corpse men“; writing seven words on one’s palm is apparently just beyond the pale.

CNN and the rest of the mainstream media are as dishonest as they think they can possibly get away with.

Independents are leaving Obama and the Democrat Party the way rats must have left the Titanic.  And it is quite possible that Democrats will abandon the Democrat Party before long, as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid continue to attempt to impose contemptible policies upon an American people who have done everything imaginable to scream that they do not want them.

If a few elitist Democrats want to continue to serenely play their violins while their party literally sinks around them, it will only make their going down all the sweeter.

Leftist Mainstream Media Shows Typical Blatant Bias Over Sarah Palin’s Palm

February 8, 2010

There’s a saying that when you point at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.  That pretty much sums up what happens when the left attacks Sarah Palin.

Palin’s Palm Holds the Answers
by Mike Krumboltz

Remember those quizzes you had on the state capitals back in junior high? Oh, the pressure! The temptation to write “Pierre, Olympia, Dover, Albany” on the inside of your hand was overwhelming, wasn’t it? But you resisted. Maybe Sarah Palin should have done the same.

The former vice presidential candidate seems to have been caught using curious crib notes during an interview this past weekend at the high-profile Tea Party Convention in Nashville. While speaking about her top political priorities, Ms. Palin gazed at her hand in a rather suspicious manner.

Later, Web researchers zoomed in on her left palm and found the following words scrawled in black ink: “Energy, Budget cuts (with “budget” crossed out), Tax, Lift American Spirits.” In an ironic twist during the speech, Ms. Palin worked in a jab against President Obama’s often-mocked use of TelePrompTers. You can watch the clip below or check out a close-up here.

Following the flap, the Web went wild. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC mocked Ms. Palin by relying on her own crib notes to recap highlights from Palin’s appearance. Her keynote speech, it should be noted, had the crowd on its feet. “Run, Sarah, run,” the crowd chanted (as in “please run for president in 2012”).

But palm-gate wasn’t the only bit of news sparked by Palin. Her defense of Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word “retards” raised eyebrows, as well. On Fox News Sunday, the anti “r-word” crusader contended that Limbaugh had used the word in the context of political humor and satire. Earlier in the week, the difference between her angry reaction to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s use of the “slur” and a more restrained response to Limbaugh’s made from some awkward fallout. Web searches on “sarah palin on fox news” and “palin limbaugh” have both surged as the controversy swirled.

Let’s start with Rahm Emanuel, Rush Limbaugh, and the expression “f-ing retarded.”  The mainstream liberal media is every bit as brain dead idiot stupid as Rahm Emanuel said as the ranks of the liberal activists that today’s journalists are largely drawn from.  Otherwise they would understand that Rush Limbaugh used the phrase the day after the Emanuel usage came out to derisively direct attention to what Obama’s chief of staff had said.

They couldn’t be more profoundly stupid to think that Rush Limbaugh just happened to use the same phrase – all the while repeatedly invoking Rahm Emanuel’s name – on his own to express the same sort of bias Emanuel had exhibited.

The mainstream media are not merely partisan ideological propagandists; they are dumbass partisan ideological propagandists.

By this idiotic logic, we should arrest all the female police officers who pose as prostitutes to bust johns for prostitution.

And it’s this unbelievable stupidity that made Rush essentially say, “Maybe Rahm Emanuel was right in using the phrase to refer to leftists.”  Because if ANYBODY is “f-ing retarded,” it is the left.

And for all the derision of being as dumb as a box of rocks, Sarah Palin demonstrates again that she is still smarter than every single member of the mainstream media combined.  Because she understands the difference between Rahm Emanuel using a disparaging term to mock the diminished intellects of the far left, and Rush Limbaugh’s using the same term to mock Rahm Emanuel and the galling self-righteous hypocrisy of the left.

And now let us regard the 4 words/phrases that Sarah Palin wrote on her palm.

I mean, really?

The moron-in-chief we elected as president is such a babbling idiot without his teleprompter –

– that he is forced to bring his teleprompters with him WHEREVER he goes lest he sounds like, well, what Rahm Emanuel said.

And “WHEREVER” includes sixth grade classrooms, folks:

Sarah Palin had a couple of words on her palm to help her remember a few ideas she wanted to make sure she covered.  Barack Obama has to have every single word scripted to ensure he doesn’t drool while he babbles incoherently.

So you go ahead and mock Sarah Palin for having a few words on her palm, liberals.

Just realize that you are implicitly acknowledging that your Obama Messiah is 50,000 times more stupid than Sarah Palin is by the very standard you are attacking her over.

What Obama’s Speeches And The Emperor’s New Clothes Have In Common

January 28, 2010

Like the emperor’s new clothes, Obama’s speeches count on people determining that if they don’t see the wisdom coming out of Obama’s mouth, they’re fools.

When, of course, it’s only fools who think that way to begin with.

By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer Hillel Italie, Ap National Writer Tue Jan 26, 12:02 am ET

NEW YORK – As a supporter of Barack Obama for president, former JFK speechwriter Ted Sorensen welcomed the young Democrat as a winning, Kennedy-esque orator who didn’t bore the public with “five-point programs” and lectures more fit for campuses than for campaigns.

But as Obama prepares to deliver his first State of the Union address, Sorensen wonders if the president hasn’t become more like the politicians he supposedly displaced.

“He is still a very eloquent, articulate speaker,” Sorensen says. “He is clearly well informed on all matters of public policy, sometimes, frankly, a little too well informed. And as a result, some of the speeches are too complicated for typical citizens and very clear to university faculties and big newspaper editorial boards.”

Authors, editors and speechwriters interviewed by The Associated Press agree that Obama is indeed a gifted and effective speechmaker, able to set a new tone with the Middle East in his Cairo speech or to turn public opinion, at least temporarily, in favor of changing the health care system after his address to Congress.

But even admirers have a hard time remembering what he actually says.

Ted Widmer, who edited an anthology of political speeches for the Library of America, praised Obama for his “masterful” style, but could not cite a specific line the president said. Similar observations were made by Jeff Shesol, David Frum and Harry C. McPherson, who wrote speeches for presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson, respectively.

“The speech he made in Cairo — I remember the intelligence, the breadth and the reasonableness,” McPherson says. “But I can’t tell you, and this is one of the shortcomings of the kind of speech he makes — I can’t quote anything, or cite anything, off the top of my head.”

“His speeches can go for pages without applause lines, making comprehensive arguments about particular issues,” said White House spokesman Bill Burton. “And though people may not remember particular lines or phrases from every speech, when he is done speaking, people always get a sense of who the president is and exactly where he is coming from.”

A distinctive phrase can define, or make history, like Franklin Roosevelt’s calling Dec. 7, 1941, “a date that will live in infamy” because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or President Ford’s declaration, upon taking office after Richard Nixon had resigned, that “our long national nightmare” was over. President Kennedy’s inaugural call to “ask what you can do for your country” helped inspire an era of public service, while President Reagan’s demand that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “tear down that wall,” the Berlin Wall, was a climactic moment of the Cold War.

“I think there are memorable lines in certain speeches (by Obama),” says presidential speechwriter Adam Frankel, who started writing for Obama when he was a candidate. “But what makes him unique as a speaker is not necessarily a single line but the overall story he tells and the seriousness with which he tells it and the trust he puts in people to understand a complicated argument.”

Frum and others warn that a speechwriter can be so eager to come up with a memorable quote that the overall text suffers. Obama’s preference for sustain explanation over snappy summaries is a good thing, Widmer says, because it means he’s treating the public as adults.

“Sound bites help people to remember a speech and think about the larger message of a speech, but they become a distortion if you only remember the fragment,” Widmer says. “You can end up with a situation like the presidential primaries where you’ve got eight people in an Iowa cornfield, all trying to have a striking single sentence in the middle of a speech.”

Geoffrey O’Brien, editor of the next edition of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, says that so far he has 12 Obama citings planned, but just one since he became president (though he says that could well change).

The passage he wants to include from Obama’s presidency comes from his inaugural speech, when Obama called the United States “a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.” He could not immediately cite any other lines from Obama’s presidential speeches.

“Obama is very strong at sort of coolly laying out issues, which may not be memorable, but is effective,” O’Brien says. “When he was running for president, he had to draw on a more impassioned style. He was addressing huge crowds of people.”

O’Brien says that when he talks about Obama with young people the phrase they remember is “Yes, We Can,” his campaign slogan.

Fred R. Shapiro, who edits the Yale Book of Quotations, mentioned a few phrases from Obama’s inaugural speech that could make the next edition some years from now. He cites Obama’s insistence that “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals” in the fight against terrorism, and that “a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served in a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.”

But Shapiro doesn’t think that any of his presidential statements have caught on widely with the public, certainly not at the level of then-candidate Obama’s private observation in 2008 that small-town Americans “cling to guns or religion.”

“The lines I mentioned from his inauguration have not become very famous,” Shapiro says. “And if they’re in the next Yale Book of Quotations, it will be more because they were borderline choices than because they were overwhelmingly clear-cut candidates.”

No presidential speech since President Kennedy’s inaugural, which has 11 mentions in the most recent Yale book, has been so quoted. A Kennedy-Sorensen trademark is chiasmus — what speechwriters call “reversible raincoats,” in which the second half of the phrase is a variation on the first half, such as “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”

The stature of Kennedy’s speech is one reason it hasn’t been matched. Shesol recalls an agreement among Clinton speechwriters that reversible raincoats should be avoided because Kennedy and Sorensen had so perfected them.

“I think it’s very important for people to remember the words. Words have power. A successful speech will resonate and phrases will provide a kind of power in the near term and the longer term,” Shesol said. “But, ultimately, it’s important to any president to be able to make continually clear who he is, what he believes and where he wants to go.”

Thurston Clarke, author of “Ask Not,” a well-regarded book on President Kennedy’s inaugural speech, wonders if Obama isn’t still reacting to criticism during the 2008 campaign that he was too good with words. His main opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, cited a quote from former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo that “You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of the late attorney general and New York senator, worried about the limits of “poetry or lofty language.”

“I think he’s scared of appearing too polished,” Clarke said. “I think it scared him from giving a great inaugural address and I think that was a huge mistake because no president gets an audience again like he does for his inaugural address.”

Allegations that Obama is holding back are “not true,” said Burton, the White House spokesman. “That speech (Kennedy’s) was 50 years ago, only underscoring the point that these iconic moments are so few and far between. But knowing a couple lines is not the best measure of a speech and certainly not of the effectiveness of a president.”

And thus the uber-leftist academicians circle the wagons to surround Obama as his apologists.  We saw the same mindset for FDR: FDR’s policies were a complete disaster; even his own treasury secretary said so:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

In April 1939, unemployment was still 20.7%

You start seeing fools early in this article. For example, JFK speechwriter Ted Sorensen doesn’t seem to understand that other people write Obama’s speeches.  And other people do the focus groups to to inform other people in the policy department to determine what those other people should write in those speeches.  Obama delivers other peoples’ words well; he’s helpless when he depends upon his own “oration.”

If you have any doubts about this, watch our “smooth, polished, Kennedy-esque orator,” watch him blathering on like the village idiot without his teleprompter screens and ask yourself if JFK ever did anything like this:

The opening three paragraphs from this AP article assume the liberal thesis that if the man who has bored us with more speeches and appearances only explained himself, the country would be thrilled with his uber-lib big-government policies.

My very favorite line from the article is Sorenson’s thesis: that “some of the speeches are too complicated for typical citizens and very clear to university faculties and big newspaper editorial boards.”  Which is the emperor’s new clothes, part deux.  If you were really really smart like we liberal elites, you’d understand the masterful wisdom that is The Obama.

Obama’s speechwriter (hey, Obama doesn’t write his own speeches after all, Ted!) Adam Frankel talks about “the trust [Obama] puts in people to understand a complicated argument.”  So if you don’t think what Obama’s saying makes any sense, you can know in advance that it’s because you’re ignorant.

When Obama speaks, you’d better not see the emperor’s underwear, or you’re stupid.

Then this group of Chris Matthews-clones who said they got shivers up their legs when Obama spoke admit that, “even admirers have a hard time remembering what he actually says.”

I’ll tell you a little secret: it’s because Obama takes way too long to say nothing.  Obama is all “masterful style” and absolutely no substance.  And these postmodernists who themselves believe in nothing beyond the most surface of appearances end up falling for nothing every single time as long as that nothing is eloquently painted with polished rhetoric.

In The Emperor’s New Clothes, the overwhelming majority are suckered by a couple of opportunists to willingly participate in a shocking display of collective ignorance despite what should be obvious to any with common sense.

There is nothing new under the sun,” wise Solomon once said.  And so we are right back to the vain emperor and his vain illusion that reveals the pretentiousness, pomposity, social hypocrisy, collective denial, and hollow ostentatiousness of our own time.