Posts Tagged ‘unemployment’

Democrat Debate Showed All You Need To Be A Democrat Is A Radical Contempt For Reality

October 14, 2015

It was amazing to see this debate.  CNN deliberately – out of their blatant bias – engineered their shot at the Republican debate to force Republicans to attack each other.  Every single question they asked in the Republican debate was, “Why don’t you think your opponent should be the next president?”

Many of the questions were framed in a way designed to encourage candidates to criticize other candidates’ positions on issues (or nonissues) rather than addressing issues themselves. (Others disagree with you. What do you think?! was the general thrust of the questioning.) “Mr Trump has repeatedly said that the $100 million you’ve raised for your campaign makes you a puppet for your donors. Are you?” Tapper asked Jeb Bush early on in the debate. There is no possible world in which that question could ever elicit an interesting or valuable answer.

But did CNN follow their own, let’s make the candidates eat each other and enjoy the Republican-on-Republican violence we ginned up?  Nope.

[…] Moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper said in a Sunday interview, “Going into the Republican debates, you pretty much knew there were a number of candidates who were willing to [attack each other].” He added, “That’s not the case, so far as we’ve seen, on the Democratic side.”

“I’m always uncomfortable with that notion of setting people up in order to kind of promote some sort of a face off,” Cooper continued, contradicting the entire format of the Republican debate CNN hosted.

CNN’s Jake Tapper seemed very comfortable getting the GOP candidates to face off against each other.

“Look, these are all serious people,” explained Cooper. “This is a serious debate. They want to talk about the issues and I want to give them an opportunity to do that.”

This is a rabidly biased “journalist” from a rabidly biased “news network.”  He’s telling us that Republicans have zero-point-zero interests in talking about issues, that really all they wanted to do was personally attack each other, and for some reason he had no problem being “uncomfortable” when he did to Republicans what he said he absolutely was NOT going to do to the Democrats.  Because, after all, according to Anderson Cooper, Democrat candidates “are all serious people.”  Whereas the governors and senators and incredibly successful field of Republicans are all clowns by simple definition of liberal demagogic ideology.

So what I’m telling you is that from the very outset, this debate was a JOKE.

And the result was it was boring and changed NOTHING.  Hillary Clinton got sheltered when she should have been shellacked.  And that was the plan.  I suppose that’s what “no fireworks” meant; the purpose of this debate from the ideological plotters and schemers was to reinforce whatever preconceived script they wanted to.

So there weren’t any seriously tough questions asked of the Democrats that they didn’t want to answer the way Republicans are asked tough questions that they don’t want to answer.  There also aren’t anywhere near as many debates for fascist Democrats who at this time in their wretched, degenerate existence despise free speech as there are for Republicans.

The debates were rigged from the outset to benefit the presumed queen empress of the space-time universe.

“Four debates. Four debates. Four debates, and only four debates. We are told—not asked—before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said on Friday. “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before.” […]

O’Malley says the DNC is only doing this to protect Clinton, and O’Malley isn’t alone in this theory. Sen. Bernie Sanders is unhappy as well.

“I believe at a time when so many people have given up on the political process, when 80 percent of people did not vote in the last election, 63 percent of the people did not vote, I believe that debates are a good thing,” Sanders said.

Democrats are by nature fascists and didn’t want to allow too many debates which would have allowed a challenger to rise and begin to threaten the selection by the Stalinist DNC – which is led by a fascist woman who implicitly acknowledged that there is ZERO difference between a “Democrat” and a “socialist” today.

“What is the difference,” between the platform of the Democratic Party and socialism Meet The Press host Chuck Todd asks Debbie Wasserman Schultz, leader of the Democrats. “Can you explain the difference?”

Again, she will not answer, following her non-answer to the same question on Thursday’s episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Nobody had to answer much during the staged Democrat debate on CNN.  That’s for sure.

As an example, I don’t recall very many questions about Bernie Sanders’ rape fantasy article that is just beyond creepy.  The left and their media lackeys couldn’t care less; that kind of awfulness very clearly only matters if the candidate is a Republican.  I mean, I’m sorry; Joy Behar of the ABC program The View gushed that Bernie Sanders is sexy; but aside from the fact that socialists are pathologically creepily in love with their masters (whether it was Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Bill Clinton or Obama or Sanders), it’s rather obvious that to put it in Sanders’ words, “she fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously.’’

The CNN debate had the premise, “Let’s not all reveal what pieces of garbage all we liberals are.”

I remember the last decent Democrat named John F. Kennedy.  I remember his saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  Today to be a true Democrat means screaming, “NO!  SCREW this country.  TAKE from it!  FORCE it to give to you!  Do NOTHING for it but take and take and TAKE from it until it collapses so we can impose the communism that the American founding fathers would have rather died more deaths than Obama’s debt to stop.  Because to be a damned Democrat is to hate the United States of America so much it is beyond unreal.  Prominent Democrat Party members say the goal is socialismLiberal academia say the goal is communism.  The liberal ACLU says the goal is communism.  The powerful liberal labor union SEIU says the goal is communismThe entire Obama presidency has been one to use manufactured crisis after manufactured crisis to impose a Stalinist dictatorship of government-by-executive order.

There were no questions about the sixty million abortions every single Democrat will one day scream in hell for.  No questions about the fact that to be a Democrat today means to be a sodomy-worshiping pervert who sticks his or her middle finger up at the God of the Bible and shrieks, “F*ck YOU!  Bring your wrath that you tell us about in Romans chapter one ON, God!  Give us raging floods and storms in one place and burning drought in another according to Amos 4:7.  We’ll just blame Your wrath on Republicans!”

I wish there were some religious questions, such as, “How do you respond to Jesus’ narrow, exclusivist statement of John 14:6, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  No one can come to the Father except through Me.”  I’d like to hear the candidates deal with the question, “Why has the Democrat Party so rabidly turned against Jesus Christ and the moral teachings of the Bible?”  But no.

There was one question that exposed the complete cowardice of the Democrat Party today.  Anderson Cooper asked each candidate to respond to the question, “Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter?”  And there was only ONE candidate on the stage – and no Democrat will vote for him because to be a Democrat is to be a toxically depraved human being – who answered that all lives matter.  That’s because to be a Democrat is to be an abject SLAVE to your party’s special interest, to your party’s rabid leftist base.

And so a good follow-up question would have been, “Why don’t you believe that white lives matter in America today?  Just why is it that you were such a damn, miserable COWARD to answer that last question the way you did, you despicable political weasels?”  But no.

No questions about how encouraging entire generations of Democrats to be welfare parasites for the incredibly cynical purpose of trying to force them to vote Democrat for life is “doing what you can for your country” rather than “not asking what your country can do for you.”

But that would be about actual reality.  And to be a Democrat is to be a snarling hater of reality.

So no real questions about how all the Democrats on the platform seem to be channeling the uber-leftist message that more Obamaesque policies will somehow lead to “social justice” and end income inequality when Obama’s damn policies have done more to make actual income inequality worse than any and all presidents before him.

There were no questions about why all the Democrat candidates vying for Obama’s ninth through twelfth years in office are making the horror of income inequality a primary issue in the seventh damn year of Obama.  What exactly did Democrats do to solve income inequality when Barack Obama was Democrat president, Harry Reid was Democrat Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi was Democrat Speaker of the House?  They made it worse than George W. Bush EVER made itEven the damn Obama White House’s own Economic Advisors’ Report acknowledges that Obama has exploded income inequality.  We just came out with a jobs report that features the lowest labor participation rate in the work force in 38 years.  I mean, “Yes, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.1 percent, but only because the workforce shrank by 300,000 or so.”  Which is a direct quote from PBS about the last jobs report.  But that’s reality.

And Democrats hate reality more than they love life.

So Democrats can explode a problem into a crisis and then exploit the crisis they create to slander and lie and demonize everybody but themselves.  Nobody has a job because they have regulated jobs out of existence.  But now they can exploit the fact that they destroyed all the jobs to blame those greedy, rich people should go bankrupt being forced to pay wages and benefits they can’t possibly afford to pay while they’re being forced to spend exorbitantly to conform to regulations they can’t possibly conform to.

And stupid people who despise reality believe their lies.

The labor participation rate – the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn JOB – has SHOCKINGLY PLUNGED under the wicked, depraved, foolish, idiotic policies of Democrat fascist socialist statism.  Even the New York Times is forced to call Obama’s last jobs report “grim.”  Because he has wildly FAILED.

No significant questions about Hillary Clinton’s private server or the pathologically fascist, paranoid and secretive shrew she had to have been and continues to remain in order to install one in the first place.  I would have loved to see Anderson Cooper treat the Democrat candidates like Republicans with questions such as, “Would you have installed a private email server and obliterated all legitimate transparency and accountability by purging your communications AFTER they had been lawfully subpoenaed?  Would YOU have risked national security by throwing out over 400 top-secret emails without adequate protections the way Hillary Clinton did?  Would you endorse right now every single Republican politician and appointee being able to install private servers in their homes to avoid accountability the way Hillary Clinton was able to do?  Do you believe there ought to be such a thing as transparency and accountability as Hillary Clinton very clearly does not?  Do you agree with Hillary Clinton that there ought to be one standard for her and a vastly different one for everyone else?  Or do you agree with Hillary Clinton as when Americans are being murdered under her watch, “What difference does it make?”

But no.  That would be dealing with reality.  And you’re not allowed to be a Democrat unless you have fang-dripping hatred for reality.

Bernie Sanders suggests that he was not being political when he said that his rival’s emails ought to be off-limits in the debate.  That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders being decent or courageous; it’s because he recognizes that Democrats frankly are miserable, wicked, depraved moral scum who don’t CARE that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who broke the law and horrifyingly violated our national security and belongs in prison.  He said what he said because he knew that the same damn perverted cowards who would have booed him if he’d had the courage and the decency to say that all lives matter would also have booed him if he pointed out Hillary Clinton’s crimes.

Because to a Democrat, abject, despicable moral COWARDICE masquerades for courage.  Which is why Democrats stupidly believe that Barack Obama is actually brave to be the modern equivalent of Neville Chamberlain who freed Hitler to unleash hell by his abject failure to stand up and have any kind of a backbone when the world desperately needed one in the days leading up to World War II.

No questions about our national debt and how it has exploded under Barack Obama and what Democrat presidents would do to reduce it rather than explode it even more.  No question of how Barack Obama wasn’t the worst hypocrite in the history of the entire universe when he demonized George Bush with these words on July 3, 2008 because George Bush had disgustingly added $4 trillion to the national debt:

Obama: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

No questions about the fact that Barack Obama has now more than doubled Bush’s debt after hypocritically demonizing him for it and no questions about the fact that by the time Obama leaves office, he will personally have added more to the debt than every single U.S. president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED.

Because to be a Democrat is to be so viciously hateful toward reality it is beyond unreal.

But wouldn’t that have been a good question: “How in the hell are you going to do all this leftist socialist crap and not bankrupt America?  Or are you going to be the same sort of rabid, demon-possessed LIAR the last Democrat president was and vomit out an ocean of lies?

No significant questions about the rise and spread of the threat of Islamic State or the caliphate Barack Obama’s foolish and depraved policies allowed them to carve out of a country where Obama once took credit for securing and a country where Obama once issued an infamous “red line” that he subsequently allowed his enemies to walk all over.

Because if you’re a Democrat you truly don’t give one flying DAMN about the actual state of the world.  You are a demon-possessed fool who lives in a web of lies spun by worse fools who are even more demon-possessed.

Meanwhile, the same ISIS that has owned Syria is now advancing on Baghdad.  And somehow Obama’s idiotic Democrat Party rhetoric is not stopping the screaming jihadists armed with heavy weapons.

Hey, I’ve got an idea: let’s just pretend that if we’re really, really nice to them and disarm our military capacity and bare our throats to their knives, they’ll see we’re no threat to them and leave us alone.  Because I’m a Democrat and I’ve never actually so much as touched actual reality in my entire useless life.

Listening to the Democrats on the stage, you got a vivid picture of why everything has melted down in the world: George W. Bush.  Seven years after he left office, he is STILL the ONLY actual leader who is to be held responsible for ANYTHING in America.  On their presentation, the world was idyllic and wonderful before Bush came along.  We were at peace and harmony with all living things.  And then the devil Bush came along and plunged America into war.  And even is spite of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is the true Messiah, come to save us from not having a nanny-state government that will wipe our filthy bottoms for us, he has not been able to overcome the wicked work of the devil Bush.

Gosh, you’d have to seriously hate reality to not remember that Democrats very clearly agreed with George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein DID in FACT have weapons of mass destruction that needed to be dealt with. Democrats like then-president Bill Clinton and then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright issued crystal-clear statements that Saddam Hussein had WMD going back a full three years before George W. Bush assumed office:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
— Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Let’s just use our power of liberalism to whitewash reality and smear it with whatever fecal matter that has been crammed into our heads that Hillary Clinton was just ONE of the Democrats who acknowledged Bush’s legitimacy in going to war after the United States was massively attacked on 9/11/2001.  Let’s just forget that Hillary Clinton AFTER Bush had invaded Iraq in response to the 9/11 attack said:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. — Sen. Hillary Clinton

Just consider how completely full of lies the Democrat narrative as presented on that staged stage last night truly revealed themselves to be.  On their warped, wicked, presentation of “reality,” all the 9/11 terrorists DIDN’T come into America when Bill Clinton was president.  Even though in actual reality ALL the 9/11 terrorists came into America while the president of the United States’ initials were W.J.C.  rather than G.W.B.

There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America.  They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.

It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia, the U.S.S. Cole and other debacles that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Bill Clinton was forced to acknowledge that he could have easily killed Osama bin Laden.  But bin Laden was just one more Clinton mess to leave for the hated Republican administration.  So to hell with it.

Bill Clinton left was the president who left America weak and blind by gutting our military and by gutting our intelligence capability:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse and a recession that was very nearly every bit as bad as the one in 2008 that Democrats used to pervert their way to power.  Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???

Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 economic crash.  But hey, that crash that Bill Clinton’s policies directly fed gave Democrats an excuse to say, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  So it was all good to the DNC.

Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed  first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.

So that was the world before George W. Bush attacked Iraq.  And Democrats are truly demon-possessed to demonize him the way they do.

But let’s now cut to after the war.  Let’s point out for the damn factual record the REALITY that George W. Bush left office as a VICTOR in that war in Iraq.

Joe Biden admitted it:

“I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 American troops come marchin’ home by the end of the summer. You’re gonna see a stable government in Iraq that is actually movin’ toward a representative government. I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed, how they have been deciding to use the political process, rather than guns, to settle their differences.” — Vice President Joe Biden

Barack Obama admitted it and even celebrated it:

“Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” — President Barack Obama, February 27, 2009

Even al Qaeda in Iraq itself acknowledged that George W. Bush had won the war in Iraq:

By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq.  I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters. — General Jack Keane

There is ZERO question that the war in Iraq – a war Democrats supported before treasonously turning against it because the Democrat Party is the PARTY of treason- was WON by the time Obama metastasized his way into the presidency.

Let’s go back to 2009 and see what Barack Obama did treasonously undermined EVERYTHING our generals and military commanders deeply believed we needed to do:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama didn’t have to leave Iraq.  HE WANTED TO IN SPITE OF ANY AND ALL WISDOM WHATSOEVER.

And a bloodbath has happened as a direct result of a pathologically wicked Democrat president of a pathologically wicked Democrat Party.

Let’s consider what President George W. Bush PREDICTED if a wicked fool like Barack Obama pursued his wicked foolishness:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — President George W. Bush

Bush was right.  Reality is a witness.  And Democrats need to be hunted down with dogs and burned alive if we are to have any chance of survival as a nation.

You listen to the morally diseased Democrat cockroaches who were spreading their filth on that stage last night and it was George W. Bush who somehow created the absolute meltdown in Syria.

First of all, it wasn’t George W. Bush who created the instability in Syria.  It was Barack Obama’s evil Federal Reserve policies that essentially created food riots.  Because the United States is – but won’t be for much longer, thanks to Obama’s fiscal insanity – the world’s Reserve Currency, all commodities such as oil are bought and sold in U.S. dollars.  And Obama’s fiscal policies ended up poisoning the currencies in poorer Middle Eastern countries as food prices skyrocketed relative to purchasing power.  Which the leftist mainstream media due to their own failure to comprehend reality had the moral idiocy to call “the Arab Spring” like it was somehow a good thing.  They were riots because people were starving because Barack Obama has failed the entire planet so abysmally.

Then there was Obama’s “red line” fiasco after the food riots dissolved Syria into brutal civil war that has now claimed about a quarter of a million lives while Obama dithered.  It was such a fiasco that Obama being the pathological liar and coward that he is claimed he didn’t say it.  Without any question to any rational mind capable of waking up and smelling the real world emboldened our worst enemies.

Conservative columnist Marc Thiessen more than a year and a half ago prophetically wrote an article with this title:

Obama’s weakness emboldens Putin

That article – written not yesterday but more than a year and a half ago – ends with these words:

Today, America is projecting weakness. Obama’s failure to enforce his red line in Syria projected weakness. His constant talk of withdrawal and ending wars so we can focus on “nation-building here at home” projects weakness. His decision to gut the U.S. defense budget and reduce the Army to pre-World War II levels projects weakness.

When your adversaries believe you are weak, they are emboldened to act — and prone to miscalculate. Putin believes there will be no real costs for his intervention in Ukraine because there were no costs in Syria. He knows the Obama Doctrine is to do just enough “not to get mocked.” If he is proved right, it will have consequences far beyond the Crimean Peninsula. A failure to impose costs on Russia will further embolden adversaries from Beijng to Pyongyang to Tehran — all of whom are measuring Obama’s resolve in Ukraine, just as Putin measured Obama’s resolve in Syria and found it lacking.

You tell me how Thiessen wasn’t right now that Putin just swarmed into Syria, ordered the United States it had better stay the hell clear from them unless Obama wanted to get punched right in the mouth, and proceeded to start killing all of the few remaining U.S. allies in the region that we had left.  As Russia just snarled, “The Middle East is OURS now, America.  Get out, you pathetic little weasel coward Obama turds!”  And that is exactly what we’ve done.  Just as we’ve gotten out of the largest trading route in the world as China built an island and then militarized that island in the South China Sea while Obama did NOTHING because he has no credible threat whatsoever.

And we did it because Russia with Putin has demonstrated that he has the spine to fight and Barack Obama has demonstrated to the world that he is a pathetic coward who will NOT risk losing the support of his rabid leftist base that yearns for America to suffer terrible defeat so they can exploit the next crisis.  Nobody believes that weak little coward pussy will do anything no matter how much our worse enemies humiliate us or walk all over us.

And Democrats have the Lucifer in them to say that was Bush’s fault.

Everything about this debate was nothing but a sick joke.

But there is no possibility of any kind of actual “debate” when you have liars debating liars about whose lies sell to the membership of the most stupid and most depraved and most demonic party in the history of the world.




My Final Say On Why Barack Obama Does NOT Deserve Reelection

November 5, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Middle Class Wages Are Going DOWN Under Obama, Gas Prices Are Going UP And The Real Jobless Rate Is More Like 19 Percent

October 3, 2012

Hey, don’t forget to get out there and vote for Obama so you can have more of this:

September 7, 2012, 7:38 p.m. ET.
Those Jobless Numbers Are Even Worse Than They Look
Still above 8%—and closer to 19% in a truer accounting. Here’s a plan for improvement.

Don’t be fooled by the headline unemployment number of 8.1% announced on Friday. The reason the number dropped to 8.1% from 8.3% in July was not because more jobs were created, but because more people quit looking for work.

The number for August reflects only people who have actively applied for a job in the past four weeks, either by interview or by filling an application form. But when the average period of unemployment is nearly 40 weeks, it is unrealistic to expect everyone who needs a job to keep seeking work consistently for months on end. You don’t have to be lazy to recoil from the heartbreaking futility of knocking, week after week, on closed doors.

How many people are out of work but not counted as unemployed because they hadn’t sought work in the past four weeks? Eight million. This is the sort of distressing number that turns up when you look beyond the headline number.

Here’s another one: 96,000—that’s how many new jobs were added last month, well short of the anemic 125,000 predicted by analysts, and dramatically less than the (still paltry) 139,000 the economy had been averaging in 2012.

The alarming numbers proliferate the deeper you look: 40.7% of the people counted as unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more—that’s 5.2 million “long-term” unemployed. Fewer Americans are at work today than in April 2000, even though the population since then has grown by 31 million.

We are still almost five million payrolls shy of where we were at the end of 2007, when the recession began. Think about that when you hear the Obama administration’s talk of an economic recovery.

The key indicator of our employment health, in all the statistics, is what the government calls U-6. This is the number who have applied for work in the past six months and includes people who are involuntary part-time workers—government-speak for those individuals whose jobs have been cut back to two or three days a week.

They are working part-time only because they’ve been unable to find full-time work. This involuntary army of what’s called “underutilized labor” has been hovering for months at about 15% of the workforce. Include the eight million who have simply given up looking, and the real unemployment rate is closer to 19%.

In short, the president’s ill-designed stimulus program was a failure. For all our other national concerns, and the red herrings that typically swim in electoral waters, American voters refuse to be distracted from the No. 1 issue: the economy. And even many of those who have jobs are hurting, because annual wage increases have dropped to an average of 1.6%, the lowest in the past 30 years. Adjusting for inflation, wages are contracting.

The best single indicator of how confident workers are about their jobs is reflected in how they cling to them. The so-called quit rate has sagged to the lowest in years.

Older Americans can’t afford to quit. Ironically, since the recession began, employment in the age group of 55 and older is up 3.9 million, even as total employment is down by five million. These citizens hope to retire with dignity, but they feel the need to bolster savings as a salve for the stomach-churning decline in their net worth, 75% of which has come from the fall in the value of their home equity.

The baby-boomer population postponing its exit from the workforce in a recession creates a huge bottleneck that blocks youth employment. Displaced young workers now face double-digit unemployment and more life at home with their parents.

Many young couples decide that they can’t afford to start a family, and as a consequence the birthrate has just hit a 25-year low of 1.87%. Nor are young workers’ prospects very good. Layoff announcements have risen from year-ago levels and hiring plans have dropped sharply. People are not going to swallow talk of recovery until hiring is occurring at a pace to bring at least 300,000 more hires per month than the economy has been averaging for the past two years.

Furthermore, the jobs that are available are mostly not good ones. More than 40% of the new private-sector jobs are in low-paying categories such as health care, leisure activities, bars and restaurants.

We are experiencing, in effect, a modern-day depression. Consider two indicators: First, food stamps: More than 45 million Americans are in the program! An almost incredible record. It’s 15% of the population compared with the 7.9% participation from 1970-2000. Food-stamp enrollment has been rising at a rate of 400,000 per month over the past four years.

Second, Social Security disability—another record. More than 11 million Americans are collecting federal disability checks. Half of these beneficiaries have signed on since President Obama took office more than three years ago.

These dependent millions are the invisible counterparts of the soup kitchens and bread lines of the 1930s, invisible because they get their checks in the mail. But it doesn’t take away from the fact that millions of people who had good private-sector jobs now have to rely on welfare for life support.

This shameful situation, intolerable for a nation as wealthy as the United States, is not going to go away on Nov. 7. No matter who wins, the next president will betray the country if he doesn’t swiftly fashion policies to address the specific needs of the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed.

Five actions are critical:

1. Find the money to spur an expansion of public and private training programs with proven track records.

2. Increase access to financing for small businesses and thus expand entrepreneurial opportunities.

3. Lower government hurdles to the formation of new businesses.

4. Explore special subsidies for private employers who hire the long-term unemployed.

5. Get serious about the long decay in public works and infrastructure, which poses a dramatic national threat. Infrastructure projects should be tolled so that the users ultimately pay for them.

It’s zero hour. Policy makers need to understand that the most important family program, the most important social program and the most important economic program in America all go by the same name: jobs.

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.

A version of this article appeared September 8, 2012, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Those Jobless Numbers Are Even Worse Than They Look.

We’re a slight breeze away from the entire house of cards collapsing America into a depression that will make the one that started in 1929 look like a walk on a sunny beach.

Obama Says Economy A Lot Worse Than He Thought When He Took Office. Which Is To Say He’s Incompetent And Clueless And Shouldn’t Be Trusted Now.

October 3, 2012

That’s a central part of Obama’s case now.

Back then, he said that if his $862 billion stimulus (which is actually a $3.27 trillion boondoggle) was passed, unemployment would never exceed 8 percent and we’d have 5.4 percent unemployment by now.  It became obvious very quickly even to he lefties at CBS News that the Obama administration had made completely bogus claims.  Which is a polite way of saying they either completely lied out of their asses or that they were incompetent beyond belief.  Obama also said back then that he had three years to fix the economy and he wouldn’t deserve to be reelected and his presidency would therefore be a one-term proposition if he couldn’t get it done.

Of course, history now records that Obama didn’t actually make the economy better; he simply changed his bullcrap to a slightly different brand of bullcrap in the hopes you won’t be able to smell the bullcrap.

Four years of bogus promises later, Obama is now saying that the economy was far worse than he thought it was and of course you therefore can’t hold him responsible for what he said back then.  Let’s put aside that when Obama took office, he kept saying this was the worst situation since the Great Depression, which would imply he understood it was pretty much REALLY, REALLY BAD given the obvious rhetorical question, “And what the hell is worse than the Great Depression?”  Let’s also put aside the fact that the economy would have come ROARING back if an incompetent bureaucrat hadn’t kept throwing monkey wrenches into it while claiming he was fixing it.

Okay.  So how are we going to be able to EVER hold him responsible?  I mean, he’s saying he’s made the economy better now and he’s on the right track to fix everything.  Maybe he’s just as wrong as he was back then when he was also wrong, wrong, wrong.  Obama by his own lame excuse didn’t know jack squat back then and he still doesn’t know jack squat now.  So the world’s squirmiest political weasel says the only thing that a squirmy political weasel can say now that four years of his policies have failed: namely that it wasn’t his policies that failed; it was the rest of the world around him.  So how can you hold a liberal president responsible for not understanding the real world???

We just found out that our spending is actually escalating.

October 2, 2012
Congratulations Barry: 2012 budget deficit exceeds 2011 shortfall
Rick Moran

It  was close. A lot of us didn’t think he could do it. But we should have realized by now that when it comes to spending money we don’t have, Barrack H. Obama is the  champion.

CNS  News:

According to the U.S.  Treasury, the debt of the U.S.  government climbed by a total of $1,275,901,078,828.74 in fiscal 2012, which  ended yesterday.

That means  the federal government borrowed approximately an  additional $10,855  for each household in the United States just over the  past twelve  months.

The  total debt of the United States now equals approximately $136,690 per  household.

In  fiscal 2011, the debt increased by about $10,454 per household–$401  less than the $10,855 per household increase of 2012.

The  $1.2758 trillion that the debt increased in fiscal 2012 was about  $47.18  billion more than the $1.2287 trillion that the debt increased  in fiscal  2011.

The  federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30.

At  the close of business on Sept. 30, 2011, the total debt of the  U.S. government  was $14,790,340,328,557.15, according to the Treasury.  At the close of business  on Sept. 28, the last business day of fiscal  2012, it was  $16,066,241,407,385.89

That  meant the debt increased in fiscal 2012 by  $1,275,901,078,828.74.

At  the close of business on Sept. 30, 2010, the debt had stood at   $13,561,623,030,891.79.  Over the course of fiscal 2011, it increased by   $1,228,717,297,665.36 before closing at 14,790,340,328,557.15 on Sept.  30,  2011.

The  fiscal 2012 increase of $1,275,901,078,828.74 exceeded the fiscal 2011 increase  $1,228,717,297,665.36 by $47,183,781,163.38

Excuse  me, math is not one of my strong subjects but shouldn’t the budget deficit be,  like, you know, going down every year instead of going  up?

Sorry  – my bad. For a minute, I thought we were living in an alternate reality where  people actually took things like trillion dollar deficits seriously. I will now  return to La-La Land and make happy faces because President Obama has the  situation well in hand.

Obama – the man who demonized George Bush for adding $4 trillion in debt over eight years – has run up $6 trillion in four.  A full third of the entire US debt accumulated over the nation’s entire history has come under Obama’s presidency.

We’re like Europe now for the first time in American history under Obama: our economy is smaller than our debt and while our economy keeps shrinking because of the fool-in-chief’s stupid policies, our debt keeps heading straight up into space like a rocket.

We’re paying $9 billion a damn WEEK in interest servicing our debt – and most of that is going to China.  Just imagine that: if you had just one lousy day’s worth of America’s INTEREST payment, you’d be a billionaire and one of the richest people on the planet.  And even Obama’s own budget states that the interest on the national debt is about to quadruple.

CNN had an interesting article on how Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a deadbeat debtor nation way back in late 2009 after Obama’s spending rampage:

$4.8 trillion – Interest on U.S. debt
By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writerDecember 20, 2009: 7:37 AM ET

NEW YORK ( — Here’s a new way to think about the U.S. government’s epic borrowing: More than half of the $9 trillion in debt that Uncle Sam is expected to build up over the next decade will be interest.

More than half. In fact, $4.8 trillion.

If that’s hard to grasp, here’s another way to look at why that’s a problem.

In 2015 alone, the estimated interest due – $533 billion – is equal to a third of the federal income taxes expected to be paid that year, said Charles Konigsberg, chief budget counsel of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.


Let’s go over Obama’s spending in 2009: there was the $862 billion stimulus (which again will ultimately cost America $3.27 TRILLION); there was the $410 billion Omnibus he passed a couple of months later; there was the $79 billion GM auto bailout which broke contract law and robbed the guaranteed secured bondholders to give the farm to Obama’s union allies; oh, and there was the $350 billion in TARP money that Obama voted for and requested that Bush leave for him that he spent.  And of course Obama spent that entire year fighting to pass his $2.6 trillion ObamaCare debacle that he promised would cut insurance premiums by $2,500 a year but instead raised them by $3,000 a year.

The stimulus that was sold on the promise of “shovel-ready jobs” ended up, even in Obama’s own words, being “not as shovel-ready as we thought” as it completely and utterly failed to do anything but bankrupt America and transform this nation into debt-slaves.

Obama has been wrong about absolutely everything he ever said.  Now he’s implicitly arguing, “I was wrong about the lies I told you back then, but why don’t you trust my current lies now?”

The Secret Of The Dishonest Unemployment Report Revealed – 4 Million Jobs DESTROYED Under Obama And Worst Labor Participation in 31 Years

September 24, 2012

I’ve written about the disastrous hollowing-out and destruction of the American economy by the Job-Destroyer-in-Chief before.  It’s good to see it being echoed by excellent conservative sites such as American Thinker and even BETTER to see it taken up by Reuters:

September 23, 2012
The ‘hidden’ unemployed
Rick Moran

Every month when the jobless numbers come out, Obama critics take pains to point out that the “official” number is very misleading.

One of the major reasons is that the published unemployment rate does not include such “hidden” workers as those working part time who would like to work full time, and those who have given up looking for work.

Reuters has a good piece today on the latter:

Economists, analyzing government data, estimate about 4 million fewer people are in the labor force than in December 2007, primarily due to a lack of jobs rather than the normal aging of America’s population. The size of the shift underscores the severity of the jobs crisis.

If all those so-called discouraged jobseekers had remained in the labor force, August’s jobless rate of 8.1 percent would have been 10.5 percent.

The jobs crisis spurred the Federal Reserve last week to launch a new bond-buying program and promise to keep it running until the labor market improves. It also poses a challenge to President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

The labor force participation rate, or the proportion of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one has fallen by an unprecedented 2.5 percentage points since December 2007, slumping to a 31-year low of 63.5 percent.

“We never had a drop like that before in other recessions. The economy is worse off than people realize when people just look at the unemployment rate,” said Keith Hall, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia.

The participation rate would be expected to hold pretty much steady if the economy was growing at a normal pace. Only about a third of the drop in the participation rate is believed to be the result of the aging U.S. population.

The economy lost 8.7 million jobs in the 2007-09 recession and has so far recouped a little more than half of them.

Economists say jobs growth of around 125,000 per month is normally needed just to hold the jobless rate steady.

Given the likelihood that Americans will flood back into the labor market when the recovery gains traction, a pace twice that strong would be needed over a sustained period to make progress reducing the unemployment rate.

Last month, employers created just 96,000 jobs.

Some areas of the country are better off than others jobs-wise, but that last factoid from Reuters should give us pause. There have only been two months during the Obama administration that have seen more than 250,000 jobs created. If there ever is anything like a normal recovery, the real unemployment rate will skyrocket once the discouraged workers are counted again by the BLS.

No one knows the future but God.  That said, it is my belief that if Obama is reelected, you will see a widespread dive in joblessness as small businesses that have just been hanging on hoping the turd would be voted out variously come to the conclusion, “The hell with it.”

Harvard Professor Provides Systematic And Scathing Take Down Of Obama’s Entire Presidency: Obama’s Gotta Go

August 21, 2012

The following isn’t a takedown of Obama for merely failing to turn the economy around; it is a scathing indictment of Obama’s entire premise for his 2008 entire campaign and failed presidency:

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go
Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT
Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”



Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

COVER STORY: Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

Niall Ferguson discusses Obama’s broken promises on ‘Face the Nation.’  [See site for video]

And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.

Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.

Newsweek’s executive editor, Justine Rosenthal, tells the story behind Ferguson’s cover story.  [See site for video]

And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion.

The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.

There’s some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.

Jobs Graphic


On paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to advise him.

According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone … I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)

This problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.

It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.

Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy.


Charles Ommanney for Newsweek

And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.

Ironically, the core Obamacare concept of the “individual mandate” (requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A much more accurate term would be “Pelosicare,” since it was she who really forced the bill through Congress.

Pelosicare was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.

The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.

GDP Graphic


Meanwhile, the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.

For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.

In Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate hug-a-foreigner speech: “In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another … The United States does not seek to contain China … On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.” Yet by fall 2011, this approach had been jettisoned in favor of a “pivot” back to the Pacific, including risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.

His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution. “I’m also proud to carry with me,” he told Egyptians, “a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum … I’ve come here … to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based … upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.”


Charles Ommanney for Newsweek

Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.

In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.” The result was a foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.

“This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times in February 2011. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”

Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”

The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.

America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.

It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative” since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.

Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.

Deficit Graphic


Over the past few years Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.

Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible. There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future” as a “business consumption tax.” Stockman needs to remind himself that the real “fairy-tale budget plans” have been the ones produced by the White House since 2009.

I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

Want to discuss this week’s cover story? Use the hashtag –just as it appears on the cover.

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.

I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Niall Ferguson is a professor of history at Harvard University. He is also a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His Latest book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, has just been published by Penguin Press.

This article is a complete ass-kicking of Obama.  Which is why the doctrinaire ideologue left immediately came so completely unglued by it.

Failed President Obama Continues Campaign Lies While Unemployment Rate INCREASES In 44 Out Of 50 States (That’s A Ninety Percent ‘You Suck Rate,’ Obama)!

August 20, 2012

“When I grew up a ’60’ on a test was an ‘F’ for “fail.”  Obama’s getting ninety percent of the economy wrong isn’t just a failure, it is the mother of all failures; it is failure on steroids; it is catastrophic, world-class, historic failure.

Unemployment rate rises in 44 states
By Bernie Becker – 08/17/12 12:59 PM ET

Close to 90 percent of states saw their unemployment rates rise in July, a potentially worrisome development for President Obama’s reelection campaign.

The Labor Department reported Friday that 44 states in all saw their jobless rate go up, with four states seeing no change at all. Only Idaho and Rhode Island — along with Washington, D.C. — saw their rates drop last month.

The economy added 163,000 jobs in July, the Labor Department said earlier this month, a figure that beat expectations and outpaced the sluggish job growth of the previous three months.

But Republicans also latched on to the fact that the national unemployment rate ticked back up, from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent.

The strength of the job market and the economy at large is still expected to play a key role in November’s match-up between Obama and the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

If Obama doesn’t lose this election in a total blowout, it is all you need to know to understand how morally and rationally sick this nation has become.

The Jeremiah Wright “No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!” presidency is moving along splendidly.  If Obama is re-elected, cue Antichrist, cue the Mark of the Beast, cue Armageddon – because hell is surely coming.

Obama Energy Solution: We Can Eat America’s Dogs And Then Drive Windmill Cars Powered By Our Flatulence

August 15, 2012

Obama decided to make his attack on Mitt Romney’s wind energy policy personal:

Obama Brings Back Dog-on-Roof Issue When Criticizing Romney
By Fred Lucas
August 14, 2012

( – While expressing his support for the wind industry, President Barack Obama took a veiled shot at his Republican opponent Mitt Romney for transporting his dog on the roof of his car almost 30 years ago in 1983, saying, “I know he’s had other things on his car.”

“During a speech a few months ago, Governor Romney even described his energy policy this way, I’m quoting here, ‘You can’t drive a car with a windmill on it.’ That’s what he said about wind power. ‘You can’t drive a car with a windmill on it,’” Obama told an audience in Oskaloosa, Iowa at the Nelson Pioneer Farm & Museum.

Obama went on to make an apparent reference to news stories concerning the widely reported 1983 vacation by the Romney family in which the family’s Irish sitter Seamus was placed in a carrier mounted to the rooftop for a 12-hour trip, with three stops. The Boston Globe first reported the matter in 2007.

“Now I don’t know if he’s actually tried that,” Obama said of Romney attaching a windmill to the car. “I know he’s had other things on his car. But, if he wants to learn something about wind, all he’s got to do is pay attention to what you’ve been doing here in Iowa.”

Obama also said, “The wind industry now supports 7,000 jobs here in Iowa, 75,000 jobs across the country. These jobs aren’t a fad. These are good jobs and they’re a source of pride we need to fight for.”

At a Romney campaign rally in Zanesville, Ohio on March 5, Romney criticized Obama on energy.

“What is his energy policy? It’s apparently to make it hard to get coal out of the ground with more regulations, makes it harder to get the gas out of the ground,” Romney said. “And as a result, while he’s happy with wind and solar – we all like wind and solar – but you can’t drive a car with a windmill on it. My plan is that we’re finally going to get America energy secure by taking advantage of our coal, our oil, our gas, and bringing in that Keystone pipeline from Canada.”

In April, dogs became more of an issue when additional news stories pointed out that in Obama’s autobiography, Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama discloses that he once ate dog meat as a child in Indonesia. Obama even joked about it at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner.

It’s frankly amazing that this cheap-shot artist Chicago thug is actually our president.

What’s good for the dog-eater ought to be good for the guy who once put his doggy carrier on the roof of his car, however.

You want to bring up Romney’s dog (who LIVED, by the way) in your attack on his energy policy?

Well, America, EAT your damn dog like Barry Hussein did and stick a propeller out of your butt to take advantage of your “natural gas.”

For the record, my own dog has repeatedly testified that she would rather be on Mitt Romney’s roof than digesting inside Barack Obama’s gut.  My dog also says that she would cause as much gastrointestinal distress to our first dog-eating president in history if he ate her – such that he’d get arrested for uncontrollable speeding in his windmill fartmobile.  And my dog says to vote for the guy who DIDN’T eat a dog.

And for the record, the green energy boondoggle that Obama keeps demanding for America hasn’t worked particularly well for Spain – a country that now “enjoys” 25% unemployment with young adults “enjoying” 53% unemployment.  The thing is, of course, that stupid rots the brain and goes into the bones.  And so this election is the harbinger for whether America wants to “enjoy” a Spain-style economy – and remember, Spain was once the mightiest nation on the planet, too – or whether we want to actually quit digging our hole deeper and start climbing out of it with Mitt Romney.

One way or another, if Obama gets re-elected, we’ll be doing something crazy to live in a world where Obama criminalized oil.  Will it be Obama’s windmill fartmobile or a Fred Flintstone car, I don’t know.  But it won’t be much longer before whatever it is – joke though it may be – won’t be funny.

Nancy Pelosi has some exciting models out.

Liberals Keep Blaming Bush And Keep Sounding More and More Like DUMBASSES

July 30, 2012

I get comments like this one all the time:

Dumbass, why dont you consider the MASSIVE drop in revenues due to the economic cliff the US fell off due to Bush’s policys. The downslide started mid 2007, sorry new president takes the helm in jan. 2009! Ship was sinking, obama just trying to bail out the water with resistance from all Republicans ! I hope gets on so we can blame everything on him…

So what can I say to such a brilliant mind?  Plenty:

Five things:

1) When George Bush took office, we had suffered the DotCom bubble collapse and Bush inherited a terrible recession (a couple of facts: America lost $7.1 trillion in wealth and the Nasdaq valuation lost 78% of its value). On top of that, America suffered the 9/11 attack because Bill Clinton had annihilated the military and intelligence budgets and capabilities in order to brag he “balanced the budget.” The 9/11 attack created an even DEEPER recession because the American people were afraid to travel to vacation or do business for a long time afterward. Bush started out in a hell hole.  But did you defend Bush, Charles? No, because you’re a demon-possessed cockroach hypocrite and you will only see the world as a leftwing ideologue.  It’s like the gas price spike: when Bush was president, the rise in prices were all Bush’s fault because Bush was president:

But now Obama’s the president and the fact that gas prices have averaged FAR more during Obama’s presidency (gas prices have averaged $3.25 under Obama versus only $2.33 under Bush) isn’t Obama’s fault at all.  The same thing is true of our spending and debt and the same damn thing is true of liberal hoity-toity issues like Gitmo.  At some point every liberal skull will explode from trying to contain all the contradictions.

I wrote an article right after the election that pretty much sums up my views: “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.”  It comes down to this: by your own measure shall ye be measured.  You don’t get to attack Bush and Republicans for eight years by going after Bush like rabid pit bulls attacking bloody meat and then get sanctimonious with us.  Dumbass.  Especially when by any measure: GDP growth, jobs, household wealth, deficits, spending, debt, consumer confidence, or any other measure, the economy did FAR better during the eight years of Bush than it EVER has under Obama.

As we speak, only 14% of Americans think their children will be better off than they were, versus 65% who think their children will be worse off.  That is the lowest it has EVER been.  Why is it Bush’s fault that in the fourth year of Obama Americans overwhelmingly believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction under Obama’s policies???  Even if Bush did everything terrible; shouldn’t Obama have been able to improve from terrible???  But he hasn’t; he’s made “terrible” MORE terrible.

2) Do you know what sane people do (my bad – of COURSE you don’t know what sane people do!) if they have less revenue? THEY SPEND LESS, YOU DUMBASS. But somehow your messiah never got the sanity memo so instead of spending less he imposed spending after spending measure and imposed levels of bureaucrats and regulators that this nation has never seen. You people are like the millionaire’s son who pisses away his inheritance and then says, “Well, it’s not like that means I’ve got to spend less or anything; I’m ENTITLED to spend more. I think I’ll go buy a Ferrari and crash it after a drunken party  And then I’ll celebrate ‘my recovery’ by buying another Ferrari.”

Even if everything you said was true – and it’s not – we should be spending LESS.  But what is your messiah doing?  He’s spending three times more and blaming Bush.  That is morally and rationally insane.

Liberals have a GSA-view of the universe.  But as Margaret Thatcher once famously said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”

3) Then there’s the fact that Democrats were nearly TOTALLY to blame for imposing all of the idiotic conditions that led to your “Massive drop in revenues.” “Bush’s policies?” Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it collapsed, you abject dumbass. Bush began trying back in 2003, and even the New York Slimes records that conservative economists were predicting back in 1999 that these stupid and immoral Democrat policies would explode the economy:

New York Times, Sep 30, 1999: “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. […]

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Barney Frank stated:

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Just before the bankruptcy and collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008, Barney Frank said THIS:

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

Dumbass, IT IS A DOCUMENTED FACT OF HISTORY THAT FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC COLLAPSED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2008 BEFORE ANY OTHER PRIVATE SECTOR PLAYER. Merill Lynch and Lehmen Brothers went down AFTER the GSEs and BECAUSE they suddenly found themselves holding billions of dollars in worthless Fannie and Freddie mortgage backed securities.  That was because Fannie and Freddie had bundled thousands mortgages together into their securities such that there was no way to separate the toxic debt from the good debt.  The entire system collapsed because the entire mortgage financial system suddenly became “toxic” due to that inability of the market to distinguish good debt and risk from toxic debt and risk.  ONLY Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to bundle those mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private sector. THAT was what caused the housing mortgage collapse that led to our 2008 economic implosion.  At the time of their collapse, the GSEs controlled 70% of all new home purchases.  It was that supermassive black hole of Democrat stupidity and depravity that imploded America in 2008.

I’ve preserved all of that and more here.

If the above isn’t bad enough, Obama has decided after demagoguing the crisis his party started in 2008 that 2008 never really even happened: he’s going right back to the policies that blew up the housing mortgage market in the first place.

If that isn’t enough, consider that between Democrat-imposed Social Security boondoggle and the Medicare and Medicaid boondoggles, the REAL national debt is well over $211 TRILLIONOur real yearly debt under Obama is nearly $6 trillion in the red every single year until America implodes and dies when our credit rating goes down again and our interest rates skyrocket.  And when you add to that the unfunded pension liabilities of liberal states like California and Illinois, we are well and truly screwed with Democrats being virtually entirely responsible for every penny of our unpayable and unsustainable debt that will necessarily bankrupt and kill America.  And all of this government takeover has been imposed in the name of helping the poor when history proves it has done the exact opposite.

And you’re going to blame Bush, you lunatic?

So you can take your “fell off due to Bush’s policies” and stuff them right up your idiot pie hole. Bush’s policies gave us an average 5.26% unemployment rate. When your messiah lives up to his lies come back and talk to me.

4) But let’s consider that in conservative states like Texas and Nebraska and North Dakota, the economies are surging and people from liberal states are moving to red states in DROVES to get jobs they won’t ever be able to get from retards like Democrats. These red states and several other red states have balanced their budgets. So why can’t Obama balance his damn budget instead of giving us four consecutive years of over a trillion in deficit for the first time in the entire history of the entire human race???

5) Obama told the American people that his policies would result in 5.6% unemployment by now and there would therefore be millions of Americans paying lots and lots of taxes. Obama promised us his policies would generate 4.3 percent GDP growth. Where was that promised economic recovery that would have obliterated the recession, you dumbass? You wouldn’t need to be making your dumbass excuses now if your messiah hadn’t lied to the American people.  Now Obama has to rely on pure crap to sell his lies, just like you. But instead your antichrist messiah has given us the worst labor participation rate since Jimmy Carter broke America and Ronald Reagan had to put it back together again. And if you compare Obama’s policies to Reagan’s policies you can understand why Reagan GREW the economy after everything went to hell and Obama is just going from bad to worse.  So on your very “dumbass” view YOUR messiah is a “dumbass.”  Either that, or it’s now your view that Obama LIED when he said he had a solution and he LIED when he projected that his policies would turn the economy around.  I guess what you’re saying is that it’s really “Bush’s fault” that Obama is a lying fool.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 605 other followers