Posts Tagged ‘unprecedented’

Critical Obama Supreme Court Nomination Fact Confirmed: Every Single Democrat In America Is A Pathologically Dishonest HYPOCRITE

March 17, 2016

I wrote about this once before (and have introduced a great many new facts that have appeared since then), but I will write about this again now that Obama has actually done it and officially started yet another vicious political fight by nominating a pick for the Supreme Court.  Today Obama nominated Merrick Brian Garland for the SCOTUS.

And then I’ll just rant on Democrats for awhile because it’s just so easy to do given the abject despicable moral hypocrites these people truly are.

Again, the Republican Party position is rather simple: Obama’s pick be damned because: a) the Democrats themselves have in their own repeated history justified ignoring Obama’s pick and b) because the American people ought to have the right to decide which Supreme Court Justice enters the SCOTUS by being able to vote for the president who makes that selection as well as the Senate who gets to confirm it within the short span of less than eight months.

Obama in his lame-duck status should not have the right to “fundamentally transform” America by “fundamentally transforming” the composition and subsequent philosophy of the Supreme Court this close to an election in which the American people would be able to say aye or nay to their own future path.

Let me further state that for Obama to wrap himself in the mantle of righteous outrage as the protector of all things Supreme Court is a JOKE given his record in which he’s been slammed down by unanimous SCOTUS decisions against him more than, well, anyone.  Humorously, the only other president who begins to compare to Obama’s pathetic toll of unanimous Supreme Court decisions against him was one William Jefferson Clinton.  Because there’s just something FASCIST in the water that Democrat presidents drink.

This just really and truly boggled the mind when I heard Obama was doing this several weeks ago:

Megyn Kelly stated Thursday evening on The Kelly File that she can find no instance in history where a sitting president of the United States has failed to attend the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice. It’s an unprecedented move on the part of Obama, who once again fails to uphold his duty as president, represent the country and set an example for the American people.

I admit that I didn’t agree with the whole “car czar” program, but I finally agree with something that Obama’s handpicked car czar, Steven Rattner, said:

“If we want to reduce partisanship, we can start by honoring great public servants who we disagree with.”

But Barack Obama, our Divider-in-Chief, showed once again that he has nothing but DISHONOR in his wicked soul.

Obama thus becomes the very first American president to shirk attending a funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice while simultaneously  demanding that he has the divine right of kings and gods to be able to replace that Justice on the Court.  All I can say is  that I suppose history continues unbroken – BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA IS NOT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT; HE IS AN UNAMERICAN PRESIDENT.

Obama basically told us that himself in his own biography, which he titled “Dreams FROM My Father.”  He’s not referring to dreams that he had of his father; rather he’s referring to the dreams that his father bequeathed him.  And what were Barack Obama Sr.’s dreams?  He was a MARXIST who despised countries like America.  Dinesh D’Souza very clearly documents the content of the terrible and un-American dreams that Barack Obama received from his pathologically dishonest communist daddy.

There is no question that it is technically true – and all sides affirm that fact – that Obama has “the constitutional right” to nominate someone for the Supreme Court if there is a vacancy.  Just as I have the similar constitutional right to walk into any black establishment and scream the N-word over and over and over again according to my 1st Amendment rights.  But 1) the mere fact that you have the “right” to do something doesn’t mean you ought to do it.  I have the righto to step in front of a damn bus, but if I have any brains I would realize that those brains would be splattered allover the pavement and there are consequences to my exercising my rights.  And 2) Obama had every bit as much of a right and a duty to honor the Justice he was demanding to replace at his funeral.  And he didn’t bother to show, so why should the Senate bother to show up to his nominee’s hearing???  How about instead if the U.S. Senate treats Merrick Garland the same damn way Obama treated Antonin Scalia and just refuses to show up even when they – just like Obama – easily could have done so in the name of “bipartisanship”???

Bipartisanship isn’t a river and it doesn’t flow in one direction; if you want it you have to give it.  Barack Obama is in the final year of his two-term presidency and he NEVER ONCE acted like he ever understood that or cared about even trying to understand it.  And please stop stupidly pretending otherwise, liberals.  Because to whatever extent you can show Republican representatives or senators not being properly bipartisan in a way that I can’t easily document YOUR representatives and senators not likewise being, please understand that it is uniquely a president’s duty to rise above that – and there is absolutely no question that Obama sank to new depths rather than rose to new heights in the partisan wars that he mostly ignited and inflamed with both his hostile words and his tyrannous actions.

If that isn’t enough, and frankly it is already, there is also a sacred constitutional principle called “the separation of powers.”  Each branch of government is co-equal and has the right to make its own rules that inform and govern its conduct within the Constitution.

And so also for the record, the United States Senate has the constitutional right and duty to “advise and consent” on ANY presidential nomination.  The Senate in this process has every bit as much of a constitutional right NOT to do something as Obama has to do it.  In fact, anyone who understands history should KNOW that: James Madison called the Senate “the great anchor” that dragged and prevented bad things from happening; George Washington called the Senate a cooling chamber, such as was used to cool down tea that was too hot.  The Senate as a body was more designed to prevent things from happening than it was designed to do things.  And therefore the Senate likewise has the right and duty to ADVISE Obama NOT to exploit this death by nominating anyone and the right and duty to absolutely REFUSE to consent to anybody Obama nominates.

This is called a basic fact of American history.

The SAME Constitution that gives a president the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacancy gives the Senate the right to say, “Up yours!” to a presidential nomination.

As a Senator himself, Barack Obama FILIBUSTERED a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court:

However, the truth is that, when they were senators, Obama, Biden, and Clinton all tried to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination to the court – and other Democratic party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer reveled in the idea that they were able to block every Bush #43 nomination to the federal courts.

We also have the example of Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden who in 1992 said when there was just a POSSIBILITY that George H.W. Bush MIGHT be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice:

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.” — Sen. Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

President George H.W. Bush was in office until January 20, 1993.  So Biden didn’t even say this in a presidential election year – the way it is now with Obama demanding the divine right to replace Scalia – rather Biden said this applied even in the year BEFORE the election year.

So all you’ve got to do is just refer to this as “the Biden Rule.”  But it’s a rule and it was started by Democrats.  And now they’re screaming at us for following THEIR rules.

And so let the Democrats hang on their own petard.

Democrats have a LONG history of doing the very thing they now claim is so evil:

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

Democrats have frequently played this same game.   New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, now the Senate Minority Leader and leader of all the Senate Democrats, said when a Republican was president that the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

And so this incredibly dishonest claim from Obama and the Democrats is so much nonsense it is beyond unreal: if anything, it IS unprecedented, other than all the damn times THEY did the very thing they now so loudly and dishonestly and hypocritically insist that Republicans would be violating sacred precedent to do.

If you are a Democrat, you are an evil being who belongs to the Party of Evil Beings.  Period.  There is nothing honest about you, or decent about you, or virtuous about you whatsoever.  You are a moral cockroach.

Here’s another thing: the Senate is now firmly in Republican hands (after disgraceful Democrats were caught being evil maybe a million times too often).  But when Democrats owned the Senate, they shoved their crap right down the Republicans’ throats and changed the damn Senate rules to do it with a process that was so toxic to the Constitution that it was called “the nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

But not when Democrats stole the show.  No, no, no, the rules of all propriety and decency and civility go right out the damn window every damn time it pleases them.  Just like the Nazi Party and Jews, the Democrat Party calls the Republicans “evil” and then justifies the most wildly partisan and cynical “final solutions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court became a “super legislature” thanks to the wicked Democrat Party, where they ruled by imposing massive societal change by finding “penumbras and emanations” that justified whatever the HELL they wanted to do, the SCOTUS has become a political branch.  And Obama just started another vicious war while blathering dishonest words that he was somehow above doing the very thing he is clearly doing.

And oh, I can go on.  The Democratic Party is the party that turned the name of a Supreme Court nominee into a verb by so utterly pouring out their demonic hate to poison the nomination that the process became known as “Borking.”  It had never been done before the Party of Cockroach Fascism started it.  This infamous Ted Kennedy slander was the worst of the slanders:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Robert Bork was a good man and eminently qualified to sit on the Court.  But Democrats are truly breathtakingly evil and hypocritical people.

And so, all the Obama crap about it being beyond the pale for a Senate to treat a nomination to the Supreme Court this way, all I can say in response is eat my fecal matter right out of the toilet bowl, you wicked hypocrite LIAR.

NO Democrat EVER has the right to question how Republicans treat a Supreme Court nominee or the entire nomination process after the same Democrats who have themselves refused to prevent appointments or allow confirmations of SCOTUS nominees also crawled into the gutter and invented the process of “borking” qualified nominees.

Speaking of “being qualified,” Barack Obama actually openly ACKNOWLEDGED that Judge Roberts was qualified.  But that didn’t MATTER then:

Obama admitted that Roberts was eminently qualified. He praised him highly.

“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn’t have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law…”

But, no he wasn’t going to vote for him anyway.

“I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination.”

In short, Obama chose to vote against Roberts because of his perceived conservative politics. Nothing else.

I mean, understand this in terms of what Obama said today as I write this:

To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise — that would be unprecedented,”

Gag me.  Just gag me.  It might have been “unprecedented” if it hadn’t been for YOU, Obama, you miserable roach.

Okay, so I just recorded the FACT that Obama voted AGAINST John Roberts EVEN AFTER HIMSELF ACKOWLEDGING THAT ROBERTS WAS “ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT IN MY MIND” QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.  Not only that, but Obama actually joined in a FILIBUSTER ATTEMPT to prevent Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination from ever seeing the light of day.  And the fact that the man is sitting on the SCOTUS this very day is historical proof that Alito was “qualified” to sit on the bench.

So in other words, just treat this guy Merrick Garland the same damn way that our Hypocrite-in-Chief treated Republican-appointed judges to the court when HE was a nothing Senator.  That and just burn in hell, hypocrites.

Republicans have the SAME right and duty to reject any judge Obama nominates simply because they don’t agree with Obama’s “overarching political philosophy.”  Period.  And you people are nothing but cockroach vile hypocrites to say otherwise.

In the same vein, Obama said in the same speech:

“At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they’re disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight,” Mr. Obama told an audience

And maybe, just maybe, our politics are so divided right now because the current occupant of the White House degenerated discourse to the point where he actually slandered Republicans by claiming that Republicans were actively trying to seek dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.  Obama actually slandered Republicans by insinuating that they wanted to kill off “grandparents who couldn’t afford to go to nursing homes, poor children with Down syndrome, and autism, and the profoundly disabled.” As the US News & World Report article points out, Obama is literally willing to say ANYTHING when it comes to viciously slandering his opponents.

Obama is our Thug-in-Chief who actually said when HE was a candidate for president, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” is now actually hypocrite enough to criticize Donald Trump – who correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall ever having commanded his followers to shoot their opponents with guns – for his “violence.”

But oh, when Obama dishonestly and hypocritically starts blathering patently false words about “courtesy and comity,” we are supposed to saw off the top of our skulls and scoop out our damn brains and believe this lying turd.

Or how about instead I realize that our politics are polarized because Barack Obama is a wicked man who polarized them, and then say, “Right back down your scrawny little weasel neck, you liar!”

I came across something Wednesday night that is just so illustrative of the left: I saw an article from USA Today titled, “Clinton Caught On Hot Mic Unknowingly Shares Good Things.”  And I’m thinking, what sweetness and light did Hillary Clinton share in her hot mic moment?  And I clicked on it obviously assuming that she’d said something nice and positive about somebody.

LIE.  Here’s all the article revealed about Clinton’s hot mic comments as Clinton talked to leftist propagandist Chris Matthews:

“You guys can’t stop covering (Trump),” Clinton said to Matthews. “He is a dangerous presence.”

Matthews seemed to put the onus on the viewer. “Nobody can tell what people want to watch,” he said. “They laugh at him.”

The conversation then shifted to Christie, with Clinton asking why he’s supporting Trump. “Did he have a debt?” she asked.

Seriously.  There were NO “good things” at all.  Unless you’re a hater to the nth power.  Does anyone seriously think for one second that Donald Trump thought that “dangerous presence” remark was a “good thing”?  Do you think Chris Christie thought Clinton’s mockery was?  Do you think ANY of Trump’s supporters think it was a “good thing”?

I’m just saying that the leftist media characterizing Clinton’s obviously polarizing and hostile comments to Donald Trump as a “good thing” reveals something that is just psychopathic in its delusion about the left in general.  Obviously, I say negative things about people; but I have the ability that Democrats very clearly lack to realize that I’m saying negative things rather than “good things.”  For some bizarre reason that again I can only see as a psychotic disconnect from reality, Democrats believe that Obama is this positive spirit when he has said so many hateful things about the Republican Party it is beyond unreal.  And I will challenge any Democrat out there to post all the hateful remarks George W. Bush made about the left and I’ll post all the hateful remarks Barack Obama has made about the right, and we’ll just see right quick who is the “positive spirit” and who is the true hater.  And I can guarantee you, Democrat, you won’t be happy with the result.  Because George W. Bush was for the most part a gracious man, whereas Barack Obama has been far too often a dark, bitter, hateful man who has stirred up rage in this nation as no other president before him.

The Bible teaches that Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:4).  I don’t think the devil wears his angel of light costume as mere disguise; rather, this warped, ugly, deluded, hateful being actually thinks of himself that way.  He’s the good guy and God is evil.  Just as Democrats who worship homosexual perversion on an altar of murdered babies think that God is evil for being so intolerant for being opposed to the holocaust of His babies and of fatherhood in general, or to the perversion against nature itself that homosexuality truly is.

And who is the dark, evil, perverted force?  It’s the people who believe that human beings are of incommensurate, literally infinite value, who value LIFE.  It’s the people who honor God and pursue His ways.  And that is just one of the many ways that Democrats are the living embodiment of Isaiah 5:20 – “Woe to those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.”

You people literally have NO idea whatsoever what a dark and bitter and divisive force that you are.  You keep pushing and pushing and imposing and imposing; you shove homosexual marriage down our throats when no civilization in the entire history of the human race had ever done such an evil thing; just as you shoved abortion down our throats when likewise all of human history viewed children as a good thing for society and NEVER an evil thing.  And then after shoving these things down our throats – and I can go on, ObamaCare, the massive and foolish $862 billion “stimulus” that was actually a $3.27 trillion waste of money, pretty much ALL of Obama’s executive power-grabs, the dozens of times Obama has been voted down unanimously by the Supreme Court for his illegitimate and immoral power grabs, etc. – you call us “obstructionists” and “intolerant” just for standing in the way of your pursuit of hell.  Because change is good, after all.

Well, Donald Trump sure represents “change,” all right; and all of a sudden it’s a marvelous thing to be obstructionist and intolerant of change.

It is an amazing thing, how this label “obstructionist” has persisted throughout the liberal propaganda media for these years of Obama.  There was a time when Democrats controlled all three branches of elected government, and the Republicans couldn’t do anything.  But due to the Democrats’ unpopular and failed vision, the GOP won first the House and then the Senate.  We dominate in governors and in state governments.  But even now when they have firm control of two out of the three elected branches of government, they are STILL called “obstructionist,” because liberals believe with all their hearts that Obama is a Führer if not a god, and that to deny him anything amounts to unholy blasphemy.

There is frankly no other explanation for this; because when Democrats were the ones in the same exact position, they had a decidedly different view.

This article represents a classic example of this being not uncharacteristic, but ENTIRELY in harmony with the twisted, deluded, pathologically hypocrite roaches Democrats are.

But Democrats are the kind of people who say – and more frighteningly actually believe – “It’s never fascist when we do exactly what we accuse you of being fascist for doing.”

Yes, yes, good things.  Nothing but sweetness and light.  I mean, how can you imagine any “bad things” coming out of this rabid, toxic, vile witch???

Hillary Clinton Vicious

If you are a Democrat, I call you out as a Nazi because you are TEN TIMES as murderous as the Nazis ever were, you baby butchering monsters.  Sixty million babies have been murdered with every single Democrat held to account for that Holocaust of life.  Even just as the Nazi brownshirts, you are utterly rife with homosexual perversion.  And in the same manner, you are about a thousand times the hypocrites that they were.  And so no thank you to your Supreme Court appointment who would make even more of that hell possible.

The Republican majority Senate will do what the hell it wants and the Democrat minority will shut the hell up.  By the Democrats’ own damn rules.  And if Obama and Democrats now say those rules were wrong, then Obama and Democrats should kindly burn in hell for having imposed them in the first place.

If Obama gave a flying damn about the unity of the United States that he has so fractured and broken that on the Republican side we have Donald Trump and on the Democratic side we have socialist Bernie Sanders, he would yield in this election year and allow the incoming president to nominate a Justice with the support of a majority of the people.

But Obama DOESN’T give a flying damn about uniting America.  That was, as I pointed out only months into his dishonest presidency, merely one of his signature lies.

Obama has broken and torn any hope for unity in this nation apart by his wicked rule.  And because of Barack Obama and because of the vote and support of every single Democrat who sided with Obama in the most cynically ideological and divisive wars this nation has ever seen since Democrats started the damn Civil War in 1861, this nation will be at one another’s throats until it burns to the ground.

So LET this nation burn due to your continued pushing toward more and more divisiveness, Obama, but we will NOT be ruled by a tyrant one more minute.  I want nothing whatsoever to DO with a nation whose God is NOT the LORD, and I demand that Republicans stand up in the name of the last decent American citizen left – even if there is only ONE of us left – and stop Obama from appointing another tyrannous judge who will strip away my God-given and constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms.

It is just another amazing lie from the party of amazing liars that we’re told that Merrick Garland is a “moderate” when his own judicial history betrays him as anything but.  But to be a Democrat means to have no part in the truth.




Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Reacts To Obama’s Fascist Statements Undermining The Constitution’s Separation Of Powers And Role Of ‘Unelected’ Judiciary

April 5, 2012

First of all, I have previously written – at length – that Barack Obama is a fascist.  I hope more people will believe me now.

In that article, I begin by correcting the historical fabrication that “fascism” was somehow “right-wing.”  It was most certainly NOT.  Hitler and his Nazism was on the far right of the radical far LEFT.  Fascism was a rival brand of socialism along with communism; and the war between the fascist Nazis and the communist Marxists was akin to a war between Pepsi and Coke or between Bratz dolls and Barbie dolls.

Then I start ticking off examples of fascist things Obama has pulled off.  And of course I just go on and on because there’s just so much.   Obama is a spurting firehose of fascism.

Even given the fact that “Why I Call Obama A Fascist” is a loooong article, there are current examples galore: for example there is the recent “hot mic” moment in which Obama reveals he is a Quisling just waiting to betray America when he doesn’t have to be accountable to voters during his second term (and see also here).  There was the issue of ObamaCare and all the lies that went into selling it to the American people and all the terrible developments that have come out since such as the SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR FUNDING GAP and the fact that up to 20 million workers will lose their employee-based coverage and be thrown into an inferior healthcare system.  And then there is the issue of the headline above, of course.

When Obama demonized the Supreme Court and the separation of powers Monday, he was merely continuing to reveal his contempt at the Constitution and the founding fathers who wrote it, such as when he said:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot.”

And so it’s really no surprise that Obama would say to the Supreme Court the moment it revealed it might not support his fascist messiahship, “OUT, damn spot!”

It’s just so much easier for an Obama to “fundamentally transform America” when Hitler is the government and the government is Hitler, isn’t it?

Appeals Court Calls President’s Bluff on Obamacare
Tuesday, 03 Apr 2012 08:17 PM
By David A. Patten

President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court appeared to backfire Tuesday, when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to state whether the administration truly believes courts lack the authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional.

On Monday, Obama said that striking down his signature healthcare legislation would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” and would demonstrate a lack of “judicial restraint” by the Supreme Court.

He also pointed out that the nine Supreme Court justices are unelected, suggesting that it would therefore be undemocratic for them to overturn Obamacare, which narrowly eked through Congress by a seven vote margin in the House of Representatives.

“This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments,” Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday, pointing out the courts have had the authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions for over 200 years. “And [they are] trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly had lost intellectually and logically.”

The order from the 5th Circuit for the Justice Department to clarify its position on judicial authority came during a separate challenge to Obamacare brought by physician-owned hospitals.

As a Justice Department lawyer began arguing the government’s case, Appeals Judge Jerry Smith interrupted the presentation to ask if the 5th Circuit Court had the legal authority to strike down a law it finds to be unconstitutional. CBS News reports that when the government lawyer answered affirmatively, the judge stated that it was not clear to “many of us” that the president agrees.

The three-judge panel then gave the Justice Department until noon Thursday to provide a three-page letter clarifying whether it believes courts have the authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws.

“Clearly, Jerry Smith was upset by the president’s remarks and he has every right to demand clarification,” judicial expert Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice told Newsmax. “Obviously, he’s making a point as well as requesting clarification.

“But the president left himself open to that,” Levey added. “Of course the president doesn’t really believe the Supreme Court can’t strike down unconstitutional laws. But if the president’s going to say things like that to demagogue, then he is responsible for them.”

Many observers saw the president’s remarks as a clumsy attempt to “work the refs” and influence the court’s decision on his healthcare reforms. His challenge to the independent judiciary branch of government provoked widespread criticism from both sides of the aisle Tuesday.

“For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice,” wrote Washington Post correspondent Ruth Marcus, who has been a staunch defender of the president’s policies.

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, published a pointed editorial taking the president to task.

“Mr. Obama’s remarks suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law,” it stated. “As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama’s inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.”

By upping the ante, the 5th Circuit focuses more attention on a misstep that the administration would prefer go unnoticed. The president came under attack from the left and right Tuesday over what looked like a blatant attempt to intimidate the court and influence its verdict. He quickly backed off from his challenge to the judiciary, however.

“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution, and all of us have to respect it,” he said. “But it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to a duly elected legislature.”

Obama went on to assert that overturning congressional legislation was so extraordinary that the burden of proof would be on those who felt it could be unconstitutional.

That view, however, appeared to be at odds with the position of the key swing vote in the case, however: Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional,” Justice Kennedy said to U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli on the second day of oral arguments last week. “But, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”

[For the record, I added the link to the WSJ article.]

CBS begins its piece on this “unprecedented” fascism by Obama as follows:

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom. 

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

As the CBS piece points out, the heart of Obama’s “case” is simply purely dishonest – and Obama has the law degree to document that he’s a lying fool rather than just an ordinary fool.

And, on the “lying fool” thesis, let me further point out that this ObamaCare law – as dreadful and harmful to America as it is – would almost certainly have been declared constitutional had it not been for pathological deceit by Obama.  An LA Times piece, even while being written from a decidedly liberal perspective, backs up that contention:

In 2009, President Obama was asked whether the individual mandate in his healthcare plan was really just a tax in disguise. “I absolutely reject that notion,” he responded.

But if the president had been brave enough back then to call a tax a tax, his healthcare law might not be in such a mess today.

At the Supreme Court this week, both sides basically agreed that the Constitution allows the federal government to enact a national health insurance plan — even a government-run single-payer plan. (That, after all, is pretty much what Medicare is.) And both sides agreed that the Constitution allows the government to levy taxes to help pay for that health insurance. (We all pay a Medicare tax.)

But that’s not how Obama and the Democrats wrote their healthcare law. Instead, to avoid the stigma of the word “tax,” they included a requirement that everyone obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

It turns out that was a big mistake. As we now know, there’s one thing Americans hate even more than taxes, and that’s being ordered around by their government.

Even the left have widely panned Obama’s incredibly harsh remarks directed at the Supreme Court as untrue.  The reliably leftist LA Times editorial board affirmed that “There are several things wrong with the president’s remark.”

And then, the following day, when Obama allegedly tried to “walk back” his remark, he said more things that were untrue.  He tried to say that there hadn’t been a law struck down on economic issues since the New Deal days; that was a lie and Obama has the law credentials to know it is a lie: In 1999, in States v. Morrison and in 1995, in United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down laws that had been passed by Congress using an unconstitutionally-overly-broad usage of commerce clause as justification.  It hasn’t been that long since the Court exercised its Marbury powers which it has affirmed since 1803, and it isn’t that unusual.

Justice Kennedy rightly called that out in the first day of oral arguments before the SCOTUS.  Justice Kennedy said that today (Monday) Obama’s mouthpiece is arguing that the mandate is not a tax.  Tomorrow (Tuesday) the same Obama mouthpiece is going to come back to the same courtroom on the same case and argue the exact opposite thing from what he’d argued the day before.  And excuse me for pointing out what a collection of lying fascist fools you people are.

The same swing-vote (Kennedy) also affirmed that ObamaCare “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

And Justice Scalia pointed out that ObamaCare forced people to buy a product simply so the government could call it “commerce” and regulate it.  Justice Scalia said to the Obama lawyer’s examples, THOSE cases dealt with commerce; THIS case deals with people who HAVEN’T participated in commerce – people without insurance.  You’re going to force millions of Americans to buy something they haven’t bought just so you can then turn around and regulate them.  And if they don’t you’re going to hit them with a penalty you call a tax but only when it’s convenient to you to call it whatever you’re calling it at any given time.

I point out at the beginning of my above article re: Scalia that liberals as a species simply aren’t capable of listening and engaging in the other side’s arguments; they simply either want to shout and chant over you or declare you politically incorrect persona non grata.  And so when oral arguments began arguments that they could have heard and tried to counter for two years came as a complete shock to them – because they had never bothered to actually listen to us or engage with us – like the quintessential fascists that they are.  And the result was that the fascist left was shocked and panicked as they watched their government takeover of one-fifth of the American economy begin to go up in smoke.  Hence Obama’s unhinged statements denouncing the Supreme Court before it had even made its decision and certainly before any grounds for that decision had been provided.

My challenge for those who want to minimize Obama’s incredible words on Monday which followed his public attack on the Supreme Court at a State of the Union address is to find George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan doing anything like that and disrespecting the Supreme Court – a coequal branch of government – that way in such a public forum.

Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Nuclear Summit Completely Fatuous

April 15, 2010

Washington Post syndicated columnist and Fox News correspondent Charles Krauthammer had the following to say regarding Obama’s self-ballyhooed Nuclear Summit:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: What was unprecedented this week was the unprecedented use of the word “unprecedented” by the president to describe a conference which was completely fatuous. What were the accomplishments?

Yesterday we talked about the Ukrainian uranium. Today, as Steve indicated, our big advantage is that Chile, Mexico, and Canada will now sequester highly enriched uranium. I don’t know about you but I’ve been asleep nights worrying about Canadian uranium. I grew up in Canada. These people you don’t know what their capable of doing, and some of them remember the war of 1812.


Look, this was all a conference about changing the subject. The subject when it comes to proliferating nukes is Iran. If it acquires nukes, it’s the end of the NPT, it’s the end of all effort to prevent a weapon from falling in the hands of terrorism. It’s the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. It will change the world. It will change the Middle East. Everybody is going to arm as a result.

To not talk about it, as what happened in the conference, it came up in the press, afterwards, because it was left out, is to show how useless this whole thing was. I’m sure half of the leaders of these countries are going home, shaking their heads, and saying what was this all about? Is this a president who believes he’s actually achieved anything here?

You kind of get the sense that Obama accomplished nothing given what a body of 47 world leaders SHOULD HAVE been talking about – but didn’t even bother to mention.

Which is probably why Obama so totally shut out the press; so that fewer people would have the facts to know what a completely empty and meaningless political show truly was.

We saved the planet from Canadian uranium.  Yay.  I can finally stop worrying about that worrisome and vexing threat.

Meanwhile, Iran is about to become a nuclear weaponized state and change the world in terrifying ways.  And nobody’s going to do anything about it.

Fact-Checking Obama’s Bogus Bullpuckey Stimulus Claims

February 19, 2010

Obama’s fearmongering Congress into rushing the stimulus through so fast that no one in Congress could even read it was utterly demagogic.  His continuous dishonest claims since about the “success” of this pork-ridden slush fund have been deceitful and despicable.

Obama doesn’t just lie, he tells giant lies.  Big Lies, to cite a phrase from history.

Here’s one of the Big Lies that Obama told during his stimulus anniversary media blitzkrieg:

“And economists from across the political spectrum warned that if dramatic action was not taken to break the back of the recession, the United States could spiral into another depression.”

But Obama’s claim that economists “across the political spectrum” had sided with him was an utterly contemptible lie a year ago, and it is an even bigger lie now.  Last February I preserved the following.  Please note the title:

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

And there were a whopping load of economists who signed on to that statement – at least a couple hundred, just at a glance.

That’s 200 economists saying, “YOU LIE!”

The truth was rather this: “‘Economists across the Spectrum’ Continue to Flee Stimulus bill.”

Obama supporters provided exactly two names of conservatives whom they claimed constituted their “across the spectrum.”  Both claims were bogus.

Another Big Lie was the invention of the never-before-seen category of “saved or created” jobs.  It’s a load of rotting baloney.  Harvard economics Professor Gregory Mankiw has said, “There is no way to measure how many jobs are saved.” Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University has said “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?” If George Bush had EVER tried to use this same “saved or created” category, he would have been simultaneously mocked as a fool and attacked as a criminal who was trying to deliberately deceive the American people.  But a liberal Democrat did it, so the mainstream media has merely duly reported the totally-made-up self-serving “statistic” as though it weren’t a frankly horrifying lie.

Now, according to a CBS/New York Times poll, only six percent of the people believe that the stimulus has actually created any jobs:

No matter what the truth is about the stimulus act, public perception is the real battle Democrats have to fight politically as 2010 elections loom. And they are fighting that battle hard, based on the amount of e-mail traffic and stimulus promoting events Democrats are holding across the country today. It’s not going to be easy based on a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week that showed just 6 percent of the American public thinks the stimulus created jobs. Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steele ran with that figure yesterday saying that more people believe that Elvis is still alive than believe the stimulus is working.

For the record, Michael Steele is correct: 7% believe that Elvis is alive.  About the same percentage who believe space aliens anally probed them, I imagine.

Unfortunately, that six percent largely consist of the mainstream media.

It’s nice to see someone in the media take him on over some of his claims, particularly an economist with the prestige of a John Lott.  He apparently limits his takedown to the content provided during one particular interview.  But it is still a devastating, point-by-point, presentation of an administration that could care less about the truth, or about reality:

Updated February 19, 2010
Fact Checking Team Obama’s Stimulus Claims
By John Lott

A look at what the White House said about the stimulus and what they didn’t say…

On Wednesday, Fox News Channel’s Bill Hemmer interviewed Austan Goolsbee, the chief economist for the White House Recovery Board, on the one-year anniversary of the stimulus.

Here is a simple fact check of Mr. Goolsbee’s claims:

Hemmer: “What does the White House predict a year from now?”

Goolsbee: Let’s remember, you’re citing the claim that the unemployment rate wouldn’t go above 8 percent, but if you remember in that same projection they said that if we didn’t pass the stimulus it would only go to 9 percent, and it was above that before the stimulus even came into effect. What the administration and everyone else missed was the depth of the recession that was in place at the end of 2008 and at the beginning of 2009 when the President came into office.

In April, President Obama was busy touting the stimulus as having “already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” Press releases from the administration were already being sent out claiming saved jobs on April 1. Even well before that, on January 25, Lawrence Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, promised that the benefits from the stimulus bill would be seen “within weeks” after passage. Yet, despite Mr. Goolsbee’s claim, the unemployment rate did not rise above 9 percent until May, well after these claimed jobs were supposedly being created.

As for the statement that the president was “surprised” by how bad the economy was, during his first radio address to the nation on Jan. 24, Obama claimed, “We begin this year and this administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action.” In Obama’s first national press conference he talked about the United States finding itself in a crisis *12 times* and also took pains to emphasize that it was an “unprecedented crisis.” Given that the unemployment rate in 1983 reached 10.7 percent, if the president believed that we were indeed in an “unprecedented crisis” or at least the worst shape since the Great Depression, it is hard to see how the unemployment numbers could surprise him or those on his team.

The Obama administration has frequently claimed that they didn’t realize how bad the GDP numbers for the 4th quarter 2008 were when their first unemployment predictions were released, but the February 28 estimates were released well after the GDP numbers were out.

Mr. Goolsbee states that the economy was worse than he expected it to be. But there is another alternative explanation and that is that the stimulus created higher unemployment. In fact, my columns in this space predicted that during at the beginning of February 2009 that would be the case. Moving around a trillion dollars from areas where people would have spent it to areas where the government wants to spend it will move a lot of jobs away from those firms that are losing the money to those who are now favored by the government. Since people won’t instantly move from one job to another, there will be a temporary increase in unemployment.

But there’s still more. Here’s this from Hemmer’s interview:

Hemmer: “So you are saying that you are standing by the numbers and you guys were right all along.”

Goolsbee: What I’m saying is that the impact of the stimulus is very much what they predicted it to be. What they missed — and what everyone missed — was the depth of the baseline that was in place as the president came into office, yes.

Two graphs illustrate Obama’s promises versus what actually happened. Whether one uses the president’s predictions when he came into office or his later predictions as provided on February 28, the actual unemployment rate lies well above either of those predictions.

See the figure here.

If one looks at both the number of people unemployed and the number who have left the labor force, “I can’t see any [employment] benefit from the stimulus,” Professor Stephen Bronars, a labor economist at the University of Texas at Austin, told me.

See the figure here.

And then there’s this from Hemmer’s interview with Goolsbee:

Hemmer: [What if you] Use the unspent stimulus of $514 billion to pay down the national debt?

Goolsbee: Well, Bill, I got to tell you when the people who burned down the back half of the house are complaining about how much it costs to rebuild it, I think we’re in a bit of a strange spot. As you know, the deficit was projected, before the president took office, to be $1.3 trillion, and that’s because we were teetering on the edge of a depression and we needed to put the focus — as we did — on getting us away from the abyss. If we hadn’t done that the deficit would be catastrophically worse even than it is this year and than it was projected to be when the president came in. We should not reverse the second half of the stimulus. It’s needed to get us out of the woods. Look out the window, the unemployment rate is near 10 percent. Now, the stimulus was never capable of restoring the 8 million jobs hole that was created by the recession beginning in 2007. It did part of it and the private sector needs to the rest.

During the middle of October, 2008, after the bailout bill had been passed, then-Senator Obama claimed (during the third presidential debate): “we are now looking at a deficit of well over half a trillion dollars.” Virtually all of the huge 2009 budget deficit of $1.4 trillion has been blamed on the Bush administration — as if Mr. Obama’s $862 billion stimulus (over two years) and his $410 billion supplemental spending bill in March had nothing to do with it. Mr. Obama also asked for $350 billion in TARP money to be released by the Bush administration immediately before he entered the White House. Bush had no plans to spend that money, but, by releasing it before he took office, Mr. Obama is able to claim that the spending should be counted towards the Bush administration.

Then there was this:

Hemmer pointed out that the White House is starting a pushing to focus on the deficit. Isn’t that a contradiction from this administration?

Here’s the response:

Goolsbee: [No.] Because you’re getting confused between the short term and the long term. What we need is to put a focus on deficit reduction in the long term. Everyone agrees with that, [and] the president wants to put a focus [on it]. The reason the budget commission failed, as you know, is because 7 Republicans that sponsored the bill turned around and voted against it when it became clear it was going to pass.

Actually, it isn’t clear how the administration can blame Republicans for the defeat of the budget commission. Democrats controlled 60 seats in the Senate at the time, and they could have approved the commission without a single Republican vote. Sixteen Republicans did vote for the commission (along with 37 Democrats), but 23 Democrats and 23 Republicans voted against the commission. The Republicans voted against it because they worried that the commission would rely heavily on new — and higher — taxes to reduce the deficit.

This came next…

Hemmer noted that a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that only 6 percent of Americans think that the stimulus has created jobs and 48 percent think that it will never create jobs.

Goolsbee: Well, look, that may be true. I’m just a policy guy. I’m not an expert on spinning and convincing. What I would say is if you go get the data from the private sector forecasters, from the non-partisan congressional budget, or you look at or the reports coming out of the Council of Economic Advisers, you see they are all hovering around the creating or saving of 2 million jobs thus far. And so the key is [that] the hole was extremely deep. This brought us part of the way up out of this abyss hole. But we need to do more. The president has never said that this is sufficient.

It is a bit of an exaggeration that everyone is in agreement with these claims. Cary Leahey, an economist and senior managing director with Decision Economics, one of the forecasters surveyed by The Wall Street Journal, provided me with one explanation for why the stimulus increased unemployment: “With transitional moves in government spending [from the stimulus], there will be dislocations in the economy that will lead to higher unemployment.” But he emphasized that he thought those effects would be “short-lived, six to nine months, definitely not more than a year.” Of the other three sources, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, or if you look at or the reports coming out of the Council of Economic Advisers, all are controlled by Democrats.

Then there was this…

Hemmer raised the point that only two places in the country have gained jobs during the last year: North Dakota and Washington, D.C.

Goolsbee: Well, certainly, if they’re going to be treated to the kind of rationale that you’re describing, it’s going to be very tough. But if you look at what, as I’m trying to describe, the recession began in 2007 – 8 million jobs were lost. If you restore 2 million jobs, that’s 2 million people who are at work, who would have been out of work had we not done that. But that doesn’t fill the entire 8 million hole. And so for you to say they only created jobs in North Dakota, you’re making the mistake of saying, well, the stimulus should have created more than 8 million jobs or else it didn’t have an impact. But that’s just logically incorrect.

Mr. Goolsbee simply isn’t answering Hemmer’s question. Hemmer was asking about the change in jobs since the beginning of last year to evaluate the impact of the stimulus, while Goolsbee is also discussing job losses from the end of 2007. There was nothing “logically incorrect” with Hemmer’s question.

There is also a simple math error in Mr. Goolsbee’s statement. He claims that things would have been even worse than the 8 million drop in jobs if the stimulus hadn’t been passed. What he may have meant to say is that without the stimulus 10 million jobs would have been lost (the 8 million that were lost plus the 2 million that were saved by the stimulus and would have been lost without it). But if the Obama administration really believes this, the unemployment rate in January would have been 11 percent, not 9.7 percent, and the Obama administration never predicted that the unemployment rate would go to 11 percent without the stimulus.

In any case, Goolsbee’s reluctance to explain why jobs, since the beginning of last year, have only increased in the District Columbia, where a lot of government jobs have been created, and North Dakota is understandable.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a contributor. He is an economist and author of “Freedomnomics.”

The first article that Lott linked to in the link titled “” has the following graph.  I leave you with it, as it pretty much shows at a glance just what a whopping load of failure Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus truly was:

Taxpayers Now On Hook For $23.7 TRILLION In Bailout Money

July 22, 2009

I don’t know if I should be more scared than angry or more angry than scared.  Suffice it to say, I’m both angry and scared as hell.

The Obama presidency is just one giant nightmare.  And just like most nightmares, it’s going to keep getting scarier and scarier and crazier and crazier the longer it goes on.

While Obama has promised us unparalleled transparency, we have had the truth concealed from us, and we have been lied to.  And the TARP Inspector General’s report should wake up every American and

U.S. Rescue May Reach $23.7 Trillion, Barofsky Says (Update3)

By Dawn Kopecki and Catherine Dodge

July 20 (Bloomberg) — U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The Treasury’s $700 billion bank-investment program represents a fraction of all federal support to resuscitate the U.S. financial system, including $6.8 trillion in aid offered by the Federal Reserve, Barofsky said in a report released today.

“TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale and complexity,” Barofsky said in testimony prepared for a hearing tomorrow before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the U.S. has spent less than $2 trillion so far and that Barofsky’s estimates are flawed because they don’t take into account assets that back those programs or fees charged to recoup some costs shouldered by taxpayers.

“These estimates of potential exposures do not provide a useful framework for evaluating the potential cost of these programs,” Williams said. “This estimate includes programs at their hypothetical maximum size, and it was never likely that the programs would be maxed out at the same time.”

Barofsky’s estimates include $2.3 trillion in programs offered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., $7.4 trillion in TARP and other aid from the Treasury and $7.2 trillion in federal money for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, credit unions, Veterans Affairs and other federal programs.

Treasury’s Comment

Williams said the programs include escalating fee structures designed to make them “increasingly unattractive as financial markets normalize.” Dependence on these federal programs has begun to decline, as shown by $70 billion in TARP capital investments that has already been repaid, Williams said.

Barofsky offered criticism in a separate quarterly report of Treasury’s implementation of TARP, saying the department has “repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations” needed to provide transparency and fulfill the administration’s goal to implement TARP “with the highest degree of accountability.”

As a result, taxpayers don’t know how TARP recipients are using the money or the value of the investments, he said in the report.

‘Falling Short’

“This administration promised an ‘unprecedented level’ of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise,” Representative Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the oversight committee, said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.”

The Treasury has spent $441 billion of TARP funds so far and has allocated $202.1 billion more for other spending, according to Barofsky. In the nine months since Congress authorized TARP, Treasury has created 12 programs involving funds that may reach almost $3 trillion, he said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should press banks for more information on how they use the more than $200 billion the government has pumped into U.S. financial institutions, Barofsky said in a separate report.

The inspector general surveyed 360 banks that have received TARP capital, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The responses, which the inspector general said it didn’t verify independently, showed that 83 percent of banks used TARP money for lending, while 43 percent used funds to add to their capital cushion and 31 percent made new investments.

Barofsky said the TARP inspector general’s office has 35 ongoing criminal and civil investigations that include suspected accounting, securities and mortgage fraud; insider trading; and tax investigations related to the abuse of TARP programs.

We were sold the stimulus (more commonly known to people who actually knew what was going on as ‘porkulus,’ and more accurately known as the Generational Theft Act) as a $787 billion package.  But it was actually no such thing.  The media kept talking about billions; but the actual figure was $3.27 TRILLION.  That’s right.  $3.27 trillion.  We were lied to.  Costs that were clearly part of the legislation weren’t disclosed to us, and now on top of getting far less than what was advertised, we are paying far more for the privilege than was advertised.

Now we find out that Obama and his gang of thieves has done much the same with TARP.  Somehow, while we weren’t looking, “TARP evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale and complexity.”  And by the same people who promised us an “‘unprecedented level’ of accountability and oversight.”  And lo and behold, TARP has exploded under all the darkness into a mushroom cloud of government obligations that dwarf anything imaginable.

And all that’s coming out of the Obama administration is some stumbling excuse from the Treasury Department’s spin doctor that it really isn’t as bad as the inspector general scrutinizing TARP says it is.

What we are getting from the Obama administration is an unceasing projection of rosey-colored scenarios that have no connection whatsoever to reality.  When they are forced to offer some sort of excuse, they claim they didn’t realize the economy was so weak (even when they were fearmongering it into comparisons of the Great Depression to sell their stimulus package) – and then they immediately offer up yet another mindlessly and freakishly rosy scenario in their very next breaths!!!  And then, of course, based on these projections, they are racking up insane spending atop insane spending.

Wall Street analyst Meredith Whitney, who gained a reputation of credibility after boldly predicting doom when everyone around her was seeing roses last year, is now predicting 13% unemployment and a very tough future for banks due to the continuing mortgage meltdown.

The White House is refusing to release its own annual midsummer US budget update because it doesn’t want the American people to see how bad things are until after they’ve passed their massive health care boondoggle.  Many now believe that budget release accounts for Obama’s frenzied push to pass health care before the August recessHow’s THAT for “unparalleled transparency”?

As said, Meredith Whitney is predicting 13% or higher unemployment.  What you may not know is that we are already at Great Depression levels of unemployment right now, and that our current 9.5% unemployment rate would be nearing 20% if it were calculated the way it was in 1980.


Note: The SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated “discouraged workers” defined away during the Clinton Administration added to the existing BLS estimates of level U-6 unemployment.

We face a future damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t dilemma: the only reason interest rates aren’t shooting skyward is because the market is in such a doldrum.  But the moment recovery begins to rear its head in Barack Obama’s game of economic Whack-a-Mole (where he whacks down small businesses and private-sector employment), hyperinflation due to our massive indebtedness will likely attack us.  The prospect of a jobless recovery, followed by Zimbabwe-levels of inflation looms very large in our future.

We’ve set ourselves up for hyperinflation.  We have massively increased our money supply even as our GDP has plummeted.  We have an increasing lack of confidence on the part of investors that we will be able to maintain the value of our currency (and see here), forcing demand for higher and higher interest rate payments on future bonds.  Those were the conditions of the Wiemar Republic; those were the conditions of Zimbabwe; and those are the conditions in the Late Great USA.

Pretty soon, we will be facing the Sophie’s Choice prospect of whether we want massively high interest rates, or massively high inflation – or best of both worlds – both massive interest AND hyperinflation.  We’ve got experts such as Johns Hopkins Professor of applied economics Steve Hanke and National Bureau of Economic Research economist Anna Schwartz seeing the inflation bogeyman rearing its genuinely ugly head.  And we’ve got investors beginning to start betting big on a coming hyperinflationary economy.

The thing is, we have a giant mega-trillion ton anvil cued over our collective heads.  And it is just waiting to drop.

So you see massive debt exposure to US economic structures.  You see higher unemployment.  You see historically low levels of tax revenue.  You see terrible recent mortgage default rates now turning “markedly worse.” You see all kinds of indicators that our debts are getting larger and larger even as our ability to repay them becomes smaller and smaller.

And it is with that backdrop that we should contemplate the massive, mind-numbingly enormous numbers hanging over everything this administration has done, is doing, or is trying to do.  With the debt he’s accumulating going up by the trillions, Obama issued the petty promise to cut his spending by a measly $100 million.  And he couldn’t even fulfill that insignificant budget cut.  All he knows how to do is spend and spend and spend.

So get scared.  Get angry.  And get ready for the beast.

We voted for “No, no, no.  Not God bless America.  God damn America!”  And now we’re going to get to see what “God damn America” looks like.

Ali Obama And The Forty Czars: A Frightening Story

July 9, 2009

Ali Baba had his forty thieves.  Ali Obama has at least 31 czars (reported today to be as high as 34) — and counting.  Whether Ali OBama’s czars also qualify as “thieves” or not, I shall leave to you to determine.

Reuters has a story entitled, “Obama fashions a government of many czars,” that begins, “Name a top issue and President Barack Obama has probably got a “czar” responsible for tackling it.”  Personally, I kind of like the “czar-free” government our founding fathers fashioned for us better.

Apparently I’m not alone in my preference.  Even Democrat Robert Byrd is one the record arguing that “President Obama’s ‘czar strategy’ is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.”

Taxpayers for Common Sense have been trying to keep track of all the Obama czars.  It’s difficult given the lack of accountability and openness that has emerged from the administration that said they’d make accountability and openness their hallmarks.  These czars have no accountability to anyone but Obama.  Democrats would be screaming bloody murder if George Bush had done such a thing, but mum has been the word as Barack Obama has ran an end-run around the Constitution (which has appallingly little regard for czars) and around Congressional oversight.

Too many czars (The Daily Citizen)
Pub Date: Jul 08, 2009

It has taken President Barack Obama less than eight months to do what imperial Russia could not do in 400 years.

Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that Obama has appointed 31 “czars.” That’s more than ruled Russia during its entire imperial history.

Obama has appointed a California water czar, a Mideast peace czar and a Mideast policy czar, a pay czar (to determine how much the private sector should pay, not the government), a health care czar, an energy czar and a green jobs czar, a Sudan czar, a climate change czar and numerous others, with the promise of more to come. And, if you can’t keep track of all the czars, don’t worry. Obama has also appointed an information czar.

The president should feel right at home when he visits Russia this week.

Few of these czars require any congressional approval, but Obama has given many of them power over cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation.

Taxpayers for Common Sense says all these appointments don’t guarantee that the federal bureaucracy will work any better. If anything, the group notes, the appointments simply add another layer to that bureaucracy, something that rarely makes the government more responsive to taxpayers.

More worrisome is the clear trend towards the government, especially the federal government, getting involved in an increasing amount of our daily lives. Equally troubling is the idea that the solution to any problem that faces us is a stronger hand on the reins.

The czars did Russian no favors. We have no reason to expect they will do the United States any good.

Robert Byrd used the words “unprecedented power grab” to describe Obama’s “centralizing authority.”  I’m getting really fed up with Obama’s “unprecedented power.”  When I googled the phrase “unprecedented power” and “Obama” I got 3,370,000 hits.  Which is about 3, 370,000 hits too many.  And really scary hits, too, such this one from Money Morning:

The plan clearly grants the central bank unprecedented new powers to conduct comprehensive examinations of almost any U.S. financial company, as well as any of that company’s foreign affiliates. It would also give the central bank oversight of any commercial company that owns a banking charter known as an industrial loan company, according to The Journal.

There’s also various synonyms for “unprecedented,” such as “sweeping”:

Washington (AP) – Health care overhaul legislation from President Barack Obama’s congressional allies would create a federal insurance czar with sweeping new powers to oversee medical plans nationwide, an idea already drawing fierce criticism.

Liz Peek in a Wall Street Weekly piece entitled “Obama’s Czars Play Russian Roulette With Business” describes the much-more-harmful-than-helpful role of massive federal control over more and more of our economy and our way of life:

To date, this administration has seemed more interested in penalizing and correcting businesses than in inspiring growth and profitability. Oversight measures are abounding, big and small. Next week the Treasury is set to release its plan for financial regulatory reform, which was meant to simplify the tangled web of overseers now in place – a system that grew up piecemeal as the banking and trading sector grew in size and sophistication. The word is that instead of reducing the number of agencies, Treasury Secretary Geithner will propose two new ones. Why? Because the congressional committees that are charged with monitoring these organizations refuse to give up power. I have to laugh.

When you stop and think about it, Obama is seizing total control of everything while simultaneously arguing his administration really isn’t responsible for anything.  That’s what makes me laugh.

Rahm Emanuel, Ali Obama’s chief of staff, said something only a couple of weeks after the election – before Obama assumed his “unprecedented power” – that serves to show that none of this has been a coincidence.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

This seizure of sweeping, unprecedented power in the name of “crisis” in order to gain political advantage should truly frighten you if you understand history.

Jonah Goldberg wrote,

Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation.  Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency (Liberal Fascism, p. 43).

You can go back to a February 13, 2009 Wall Street Journal article to see that Barack Obama is firmly in precisely such a fascist crisis-hyping tradition.

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.

Michael J. Boskin wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.  It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

The Associated Press says:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year, exploding the record federal deficit past $1.8 trillion under new White House estimates.

Budget office figures released Monday would add $89 billion to the 2009 red ink — increasing it to more than four times last year’s all-time high as the government hands out billions more than expected for people who have lost jobs and takes in less tax revenue from people and companies making less money.

The editorial board of the  liberal Washington Post writes:

To put it bluntly, the fiscal policy of the United States is unsustainable. Debt is growing faster than gross domestic product. Under the CBO’s most realistic scenario, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will reach 82 percent of GDP by 2019 — roughly double what it was in 2008. By 2026, spiraling interest payments would push the debt above its all-time peak (set just after World War II) of 113 percent of GDP. It would reach 200 percent of GDP in 2038.

And all of this reminds me of the Cloward-Piven strategy:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

I genuinely believe that Barack Obama – a follower of Saul Alinsky as well as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate when he belonged to it to go along with a long and deep relationship with leftist radicals – is pursuing a “heads we win, tails you lose” strategy.  If the economy somehow picks up under all of this massive spending and even more massive debt, then Democrats win big and Republicans lose.  If – much more likely – the economy crashes under its own massive weight due to hyperinflation as interest payments on the debt soar, then a starving, terrified people will scream for help from their government.  And Democrats will win the pure-socialist totalitarian state they have always envisioned.  Either way, Obama liberals believe they will win big.

Ali Obama and his 31 (or is it 34?  Incredibly, the media seems to have stopped reporting the growing number!) czars are no friends of America or the Constitution that framed its laws.  And whether Obama and his gang of czars intend to or not, their “redefinition of the role of government in our economy and society” will very likely overwhelm our entire way of life and send it crashing down.