What Liberals ‘Helping’ The Poor REALLY Looks Like (Exactly Like A Slum).

Liberals – with the help of the most dishonest media since Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda in the good old Nazi days or Joseph Stalin’s TASS in Moscow’s heyday – have convinced most ignorant people (i.e., the majority of the American people) that they are the ones who care about the poor.

Bullcrap.

They’ll tell you that unless you believe in their socialism you’re not a real Christian.  Even as they demand that art that puts the cross of Christ in a jar of urine be publicly funded and even as they openly attack religion on virtually every level of culture.

Again, bullcrap.

Obama sure didn’t give a flying damn about the poor before he decided to break his promise and run for president after saying he wouldn’t.  Because prior to that, he didn’t give the poor butkus.  And as hard as it is to be more cynical and selfish and greedy than Barack and Michelle Obama, Joe Biden actually managed to pull it off.  Obama’s less than one percent charitable giving – you know, with his OWN money rather than forcing other people to “give” – looks pretty damn good compared to Joe Biden’s less than one-eighth of one percent.

How do Democrats get away with demonizing Republicans when there are ten demons in them?  It’s easy: they are as dishonest and as slanderous as they are hypocritical.  So Mitt Romney – who was actually incredibly generous with his own money – was slandered by the media propaganda as being greedy while Barack Obama who actually IS greedy was eulogized as somebody who care’s deeply about these people he didn’t give a penny to when it mattered.

That’s why it was so easy for the party of FDR, of JFK, for 2000 Democrat candidate Al Gore and for 2004 Democrat candidate John Kerry to demonize Mitt Romney because he was rich just like they all were.  When you combine the flagrant dishonesty of the Democrat Party and the flagrant propaganda of the leftwing elite media, you can get away with pretty much anything.

Michelle Malkin in her excellent book “Culture of Corruption” documented that Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s top adviser was a ruthless liberal slumlord in Chicago before she became a liberal saint in Washington.

That’s right.  A slumlord.

But the Chicago Way is all the rave now.  Which is why liberal psycho Major Bloomberg took the trick with him to New York:

How in NYC the Homeless Pay $3,000/Month to Live in Tenements
Posted on February 12, 2013

I read a lot of news every day.  It’s become my life and my passion.  Rarely do I come across a story of greed and corruption so absurd that I can’t believe my own eyes as they scroll the page.  This is one of those stories.

This takes the concept of slumlord to an entirely new level.  As New York City struggles to find shelter for its increasingly large homeless population, some landlords are paying off their rent-stabilized tenants in order to overcharge the city on rentals for the homeless.  In some cases, the rent ends up being as high as $3,000 a month for a tiny room without a kitchen or a bathroom.  Yep, you read that correctly.  So next time you wonder why you are paying so much money for your little box in the sky, you can thank America’s growing slumlord industry.  Prepare your jaw to remain open for the next couple of minutes.

From the New York Times:

The city’s Department of Homeless Services pays many times the amount the rooms would usually rent for — spending over $3,000 a month for each threadbare room without a bathroom or kitchen — because of an acute shortage in shelters for homeless men and women.

Indeed, the amount the city pays — roughly half that amount goes to the landlord, while the other half pays for security and social services for homeless tenants — has encouraged Mr. Lapes to switch business models and become a major private operator of homeless shelters. He is by most measures the city’s largest and owns or leases about 20 of the 231 shelters citywide. Most of the other shelters and residences are run by the city or by nonprofit agencies, but his operation is profit-making, prompting criticism from advocates for the homeless and elected officials.

The fact that these modest living spaces have such high rents opens a window on a peculiarity of the city’s overall homeless policy. That policy, which was put in place in response to court settlements in 1979 and 2008, requires the city, under threat of sizable fines, to find a roof immediately for every homeless person. It has given landlords willing to house the homeless leverage to dictate rental prices and other terms.

With the number of homeless people rising to 30-year record levels — over 47,216 people as of early this month, 20,000 of them children — the city has struggled to find landlords willing to accommodate a population that includes people with mental health and substance abuse problems.

Wait a minute. The number of homeless is at a 30 year high?  How could this be in the booming economic recovery we’ve got going?

Joyce Colon, a resident there who entered the homeless system in December, said she was shocked by the violence and prostitution in the building.

“For $3,000 I could have gotten an apartment, a down payment and a security deposit and some furniture,” Ms. Colon, 49, said. “The landlord is getting $3,000 and I’m getting nothing.”

Patrick Markee, a senior policy analyst for the Coalition for the Homeless, blamed the Bloomberg administration for the continuing use of private landlords to house the homeless, citing a policy not to give the homeless priority for public housing projects and Section 8 vouchers because of long waiting lists.

Of course Bloomberg has his little paws in this somehow.  Perhaps he should’ve thought about this instead of spending his time banning large sodas.

“The crisis that’s causing the city to open so many new shelters is mostly of the mayor’s own making,” he said. “Instead of moving families out of shelters and into permanent housing, as previous mayors did, the city is now paying millions to landlords with a checkered past of harassing low-income tenants and failing to address hazardous conditions.”

Welcome to the recovery.

Full article here.

In Liberty, Mike

Follow me on Twitter!

“We need to help those poor, poor people,” liberals say.

Because just like everybody else, the poor have way to much money for liberals to be happy unless they can steal it.

I’m a conservative, which means I don’t like slums.  And I sure don’t like the government creating them the way they’ve created Cabrini-Green and so many other thousands of hellholes.  Liberals love them and keep creating more and more and more of them and they get filthy rich doing it.  Because the more ignorant and the more oppressed and the more poverty-crushed and the more welfare-dependent and the more entitlement-demanding these desperate people are, the more they will vote for the people who are keeping them ignorant and oppressed and poor.

The fact of the matter is that conservatives are signficantly more generous with their own money and time than are liberals.

But the wolves have convinced the sheep that the sheepdogs are out to get them.  And now the sheepdogs are largely out of the wolves’ way.

P.S. Obama is nominating Penny Pritzker for Commerce Secretary – who happens to be the SAME Penny Pritzker who was at the EPICENTER of the sub-prime loan crisis that led to our housing collapse in 2008.  This same Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker paid out a half million dollars in penalties (read “bribe money”) to the government to avoid being criminally charged like the common criminal Chicago thug she in fact is.  If I were a conspiracy theoriest, I would assume that Democrats literally intentionally created the 2008 collapse in order to take control of the government so they could REALLY destroy America from within the system.

P.P.S. Obama is a hypocrite who keeps showing the abject hypocrsiy of liberalism with his pick of Jack Lew to run the Treasury Department.  Remember how being rich and having investments in the Cayman Islands was really, really bad?  Well, that’s only true if the Cayman Island account holder happens to be a Republican; it’s FINE for Democrats.  But let’s also not forget that Jack Lew was actually heading up the unit at Citibank that was making huge profits betting that the Community Reinvestment Act-created housing bubble would colllapse and thus profiteering off of poor people.  And then there’s the fact that this turd accepted a nearly one million dollar “bonus” days before Citibank took BILLIONS in government bailout money.  Which is to say that Obama’s Treasury Secretary pick personally profitted from poor people being forced out of their homes into … slums.

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether Obama’s present pick for Treasury Secretary is better than the last one – who was a certified tax cheat being given the job to make sure that conservatives and Republicans paid “their fair share” of the taxes HE didn’t pay.

Mainstream Media Pathological In Its Effort To Slant And Distort The News To Protect Their Messiah Obama And Defame Their Emmanuel Goldstein Romney

The Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz was driven to righteous anger yesterday:

September 17, 2012, 7:32 p.m. ET.
Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of ’08
The spectacle of reporters over the past week hounding Mitt Romney for speaking his mind does not come as a surprise.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

After an astounding week of ardent media focus on Mitt Romney’s criticism of the initial U.S. response to mob assaults on American diplomatic outposts, the furor is dying down—but it’s not over by any means. Nor was the message that the furor sent a negligible one.

Condemnations of Mr. Romney had come thick and fast. He had been “crass and tone deaf,” in the view of MSNBC’s Chuck Todd. He had committed a “slander” against the president, according to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic.

Journalists in pursuit of this story—to the exclusion of virtually all else going on—were quick to point out that denunciations of Mr. Romney were by no means limited to Democrats, that criticism came from Republican commentators too. This fact was hardly surprising—the sanctimony of the virtuous knows no political bounds.

The spectacle of those hordes of journalists in single-minded pursuit of the Romney story day after day—days that saw the killing of four Americans, embassies burned and trashed, mobs of the faithful running amok—shouldn’t have been surprising either. It’s the most dramatic indicator yet that in this election the pack journalism of four years ago is alive, and well, and in full cry again.

Especially wonderful to hear were all the charges about Mr. Romney’s political opportunism and tone-deafness—this after three days of a Democratic convention distinguished by shameless, nonstop exploitation of the military raid that put an end to Osama bin Laden. It is impossible to imagine any other president in American history orchestrating even two minutes—much less three days—of the self-glorification and wallowing in a victory won by the nation’s armed forces that was on display at the convention. If any of this orgy of boasting in the interest of a political campaign caught the attention of those commentators whose sensibilities were so offended by Mr. Romney last week, we haven’t heard about it.

The governor’s offense, as the world knows, had to do with his blast at the eye-popping apologias that had come from our Cairo embassy while mobs of the faithful were gathering to wreak havoc over a crude YouTube video insulting to Islam—apologies that Mr. Romney linked to the general inclinations of the Obama administration.

For this he was pilloried as having criticized the president in a time of urgent crisis. Or, as Andrea Mitchell put it Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Romney had come out with his statement when the State Department didn’t know where Ambassador Chris Stevens was—”the body was missing.”

At the time of Mr. Romney’s initial statement, of course, no word had as yet come about Stevens’s fate or those of his murdered colleagues. Which didn’t prevent members of the press and pundits from proclaiming, all the rest of the week, that Mr. Romney had embarked on a political attack while the world was aflame and the president embroiled in the crisis. The same president who would, in the midst of that crisis, go tootling off to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser.

By the time the presidential campaign had ended four years ago, the media’s role in driving the outcome had become a fact too obvious to dispute. The impact of the journalistic horde’s devotion to the Democratic candidates was clear, the evidence vivid—especially in the case of reporters transported to a state of ecstasy over candidate Obama’s speeches. One New York Times reporter wrote of being so moved he could barely keep from weeping. Not for nothing did the role of the press become a news story in itself—an embarrassing one that might, serious people thought, serve as a caution during future campaigns.

In 2012 Barack Obama is no longer delivering thrilling speeches, but an unembarrassed press corps is still available, in full prosecutorial mode when it comes to coverage of the Republican challenger. If you hadn’t heard the story about Mitt Romney’s bullying treatment of another student during his prep-school days—1965, that is—the Washington Post had a story for you, a lengthy investigative piece. On the matter of Mr. Obama’s school records, locked away and secured against investigation, the press maintains a serene incuriosity.

Mr. Obama continues to receive the benefits of a supportive media—one prone to dark suspicions about his challenger. The heavy ooze of moral superiority emanating from all the condemnations of Mr. Romney last week, all the breathless media reports on those condemnations, did not begin with something he said last week. But the moral superiority was certainly on its gaudiest display. Mr. Romney’s tone was offensive, unpresidential, his critics charged.

Yet it is the president of the United States—the same one who presented himself as the man who would transcend political partisanship because we were all Americans—who has for most of his term set about dividing the nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks “millionaires and billionaires.” Who makes it clear that he considers himself the president of the other—the good—Americans. How’s that for presidential tone?

No one could have missed the importance to Mr. Obama’s campaign of the class-war themes that reverberated continually during the Democratic convention speeches. The references to “millionaires and billionaires” are by now a reliable applause line for the campaign. Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm underscored the point with an address whose opening line declared, with a strange note of defiance—it wasn’t the only thing strange about the speech—that the heart of America wasn’t to be found in corporate board rooms.

But it is Vice President Biden who has been the most faithful purveyor of Mr. Obama’s class-war theme. Earnest, affable, with a bottomless cache of wise maxims from his mother and father, the persuasive Joe Biden excels at explaining, in his accomplished infomercial tones, how the other side wants to ensnare you, the poor and the helpless. And how, I promise you, folks, Barack Obama isn’t going to let them.

Mitt Romney isn’t going to have an easy time defeating a president with Mr. Obama’s advantages. A friendly press corps surpasses all wealth, sayeth the sages. The governor will stand a far better chance if he takes to heart the lesson of the past week, when he seems to have recognized, at last, that there are issues in addition to the economy—matters like foreign policy, Iran, America’s stance in the world—that he must address. In the weeks that remain to this election, he will have to speak to those matters in depth and in unflinching terms that set him apart from his opponent. And he’ll have to do it often.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

A version of this article appeared September 18, 2012, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of ’08.

Bias is a function that emerges from the decision as to “what is news,” what’s considered news, what’s considered a gaffe.  And this was one amazing week.

Mitt Romney’s denunciation of a statement – the ONLY official statement from the Obama regime for 15 hours after the US Embassy in Cairo issued its famous “statement” and which was FINALLY likewise denounced by the Obama White House an hour AFTER Romney showed some leadership – was considered “news” more than the fact that the entire Middle East and Muslim world was melting down all around Obama’s weak foreign policy.

A US ambassador was raped and then murdered in a preplanned attack that the White House lied about because Obama failed to provide that ambassador with anywhere near adequate security.  The entire Muslim world was in flames.  But do you want to know what the media said the “news” was?  That Romney should have waited longer before issuing a statement. 

That Barack Obama’s “soft” foreign policy has utterly failed all over the world isn’t “news.”  That a US ambassador was raped and murdered isn’t “news.”  That Obama sent a good man to die in a dangerous hellhole without bothering to give him anywhere NEAR the security that he has provided his political adviser at Martha’s Freaking Vineyard isn’t “news.”  The fact that Obama is as we speak preparing to cut $131 million from embassy security isn’t “news.”  And the fact that the Obama White House and in fact the entire Obama regime have been caught repeatedly LYING about the cause of the Middle East meltdown isn’t “news.”

What’s the capital of Israel, President Obama?  Why are people in 33 Muslim countries burning our flag and burning pictures of YOU after your famous “new beginning,” President Obama?  Are all of these people at war with us or not, President Obama?  None of those embarrassing answers that Obama has no answer for is “news” so you can count on Pimp with a Limp (the only “journalists” Obama is willing to talk to these days) won’t ask such questions.

As for “gaffes,” how on earth is it NOT a MASSIVE gaffe that a sitting president of the United States declares than a country that has been an official ALLY of the United States for 23 years is in fact NOT an ally, only to be corrected by his own State Department which says that contrary to the president Egypt IS an ally?  Given the fact that Egypt is the heart of the Middle East, how is that not an ENORMOUS gaffe?  Egypt was declared a “major non-NATO ally of the United States” in 1989.  Is this a good time to make that kind of massive foreign policy error???  But that wasn’t really “news,” either; far better to attack Mitt Romney as often and over as many things as possible.

Nope.  Journalists will not look deeply at ANY of that because it hurts Obama, and Obama is the only messiah with whom they have to do.  And as much as “journalists” love their Big Brother, they hate Big Brother’s Emmanuel Goldstein.

Let’s Not Forget Who’s Most Important: No Marines for (Now) Murdered Ambassador In Hell Hole Libya, But A Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation

Puke alert time, better put on your raincoats:

No Marines for Libyan Ambassador, Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation
by Ben Shapiro
14 Sep 2012

Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.

That’s the pathetic foreign policy of the Obama administration, says Caddell today in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. “Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” Caddell explains. “The media has been completely uninterested. We don’t provide security for our ambassador in Libya, but she needs a full Secret Service security detail. And nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with this. And nobody in the press will ask. What kind of slavish stoogery are they perpetrating here?

“This country has reached the point of absurdity. There are people dead because we don’t have security details for them. But she’s privileged to have a full Secret Service detail on vacation?”

Caddell points out that Americans are already unhappy with President Obama on foreign policy aside from the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Caddell, along with Republican pollster John McLaughlin, runs Secure America, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “We’ve just finished two polls coming out in the field today,” says Caddell, “but we already know that people feel strongly about Iran; they feel strongly about the administration’s policy with regard to Islamic extremists. They don’t like the Obama administration’s handling of these issues. And this election won’t only be about the economy. The American people aren’t stupid. They can walk and chew gum at the same time.” 

Caddell does reserve heavy criticism for the Republican establishment, which he believes has ignored foreign policy issues for far too long. “When three quarters of the American people believe Iran will give nuclear weapons to terrorists, you can see that Americans care about this issue. And people overwhelmingly believe that Obama’s sanctions policies will not work. The pronounced minority who disagree with those positions seem to be centered in the mainstream media – and ground zero seems to be at NBC and MSNBC.”

This is particularly obscene because even the evil and wasteful devil Bush did not give his Great Satan adviser Karl Rove a Secret Service detail:

President Obama has expanded the very small group of top aides who are given the privilege of taxpayer-funded personal drivers — who take them from their house to work and back home again each day — to include two top political advisers.

The Bush White House did not give the same privileges to any of its political advisers, according to former Bush administration officials. There is a record of the Clinton White House doing so once for two months, according to documents obtained by The Daily Caller.

Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, both senior advisers to the president, have been given the luxurious and prestigious perk of being picked up at their homes and driven to work or around town throughout the day in government vehicles chauffeured by military drivers, according to a list of those given the benefit provided to The Daily Caller by the White House.

In addition, Jarrett has been made a “protectee” of the Secret Service, a spokesman for the agency said. It is not clear to what extent Jarrett receives protection. Neither the White House or Secret Service would comment on the matter.

“We don’t discuss the scope or nature of protection for any Secret Service protectee due to operational security concerns,” said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan.

But except for a few weeks after 9/11, political advisers to Bush such as Karl Rove did not have Secret Service details with them except for the rare occasion where they gave a speech where protesters were expected.

Axelrod was given protectee status in the late summer of 2009, according to a blog written by a former Washington Post national security reporter. It is unclear whether he retains that status. Donovan declined to comment on Axelrod’s status.

Regardless, one knowledgeable source indicated that Jarrett has regular or semi-regular detail protection, which has left some questioning whether the close friend of the president’s, whose portfolio involves mostly outreach to the business sector and domestic policy, really needs the high level of security.

Okay, I’m going to quiz you now, and I’m warning you, it’s a tough question.  I say that because even our president wasn’t smart enough to answer it and he’s the most smartest man who ever lived.  Are you ready?

Which one of these people needed to have a security detail more:

Valerie Jarrett:

Or Ambassador Christopher Stevens:

Take your time now.  Like I said, this one COMPLETELY fooled your president.  Mind you, it might have been due to the fact that he’s skipped 62 percent of his daily intelligence briefings and just franklydoesn’t have a damn clue how to do his job.  They seem to have quit counting back in June after Obama had reached his 100th round of golf milestone, but do you have any idea how hard it is to keep your golf game sharp while endlessly campaigning?  Something damn well had to give.

And that’s why Obama was warned about this attack on the US Consulate in Libya a full 48 hours before it happened and did NOTHING:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

And it is why Obama also skipped the daily intelligence briefing the next day after the United States Consulate in Libya was destroyed and Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were murdered, you see.  Stuff like that just isn’t that important to Obama as compared to his campaigning and his golfing.

Oh, oh: 

There goes Mr. Creosote…

Full-Fledged Hypocrite Alert: Nancy Pelosi Made As Much As $5 Million Outsourcing Jobs To China, Obama Is The Outsourcer-In-Chief, And DNC Chair Has Offshore Accounts

This is like the dog.  Yes, forty or so years ago Mitt Romney went on a family vacation with the dog travelling on the roof in a crate.  But at least he Romney didn’t EAT his dog.  You would have thought the Obama campaign that made such a big damn deal about Romney’s dog would consider the contents of their boss’ stomach.

Democrats are evil for a number of reasons.  At the very pinnacle is the fact that Democrats are abject moral hypocrites and the quintessential sine qua non essence of liberalism is hypocrisy.

Thus Obama demonizes Mitt Romney as a jobs outsourcer when fact checkers not only have repeatedly said that Romney was NOT a jobs outsourcer, but that Barack Obama IS a jobs outsourcer (see even more evidence here).

We’ve got the shrill nasty shrew who is running the DNC – Debbie Wasserman Schultz – demanding that Mitt Romney release more of his tax returns than he already has when she herself not only hasn’t released HER tax returns but in fact she has done all kinds of the same things she is demonizing Romney over (such as offshore investments).

Also newsworthy is the fact that Valerie Jarrett – Obama’s “other other half” and his ÜBER top-level adviser – has an offshore account in Bermuda.

And it just so happens that Obama’s very own handpicked jobs council is chock-full of hoity-toity liberal OUTSOURCERS:

If Romney really wanted a juicy example of outsourcing, he would have to look no further than the president’s jobs council.

GE, Boeing, Xerox, American Express and Permac Industries – Obama jobs council members all – are documented outsourcers of jobs.

And now we’ve got Nancy Pelosi caught red-handed profiting from China and the Asian economies that suck American jobs away:

July 11, 2012
Nancy Pelosi made between $1-5 million on Asian investments in 2011

On the heels of The Weekly Standard’s report yesterday that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz — a vocal critic of Mitt Romney‘s investing practices, had herself dabbled in the foreign markets — we can add Nancy Pelosi to the list of prominent Democrats to profit from overseas investments.

According to Pelosi’s 2011 financial disclosure statement, the Democratic House Minority Leader received between $1 million and $5 million in partnership income from ”Matthews International Capital Management LLC,” a group that emphasizes that it has a “A Singular Focus on Investing in Asia.” A quick trip to the company website reveals a featured post extolling the virtues of outsourcing.

“Designed in California, Made in Manila”sounds like an excellent title for a smear ad to be run the by the Barack Obama campaign. Instead, it appears to be Nancy Pelosi’s investment strategy.

Pelosi is also a small investor in the embattled “Moduslink Global,” one of the “outsourcing pioneers” that Mitt Romney has been criticized for associating with while at Bain Capital.

It’s not surprising that a wealthy politician would invest globally (nor should it be considered problematic). This is interesting because of the attacks on Mitt Romney’s investments — because Obama purportedly believes in the virtues of “insourcing” and anti-globalization. (Obama appears to be running on a protectionist platform that went out of style with Canadian tuxedos)

Obama sure can preach the economic nationalism, but it doesn’t appear his fellow leaders and surrogates are buying the message.

If they aren’t, why should other Americans?

Here’s the thing: there’s nothing wrong with Nancy Pelosi investing in Asia, or Valerie Jarrett or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz having offshore accounts, or Obama having “outsourcers” on his jobs council per se – apart from the fact that these rabidly evil pathologically dishonest cockroaches are vile hypocrites who do the very same thing that the demonize their opponents over even as demonize them.  It’s the same thing with our national security: Democrats have documented over and over again that they are pathological hypocrite liars who demonized Bush for policies only to have to turn around and uphold those policies because Bush was right and Democrats were evil.  People ought to have the right to invest wherever they believe they will get the best return; outsourcing is complicated and is often – though hardly always – good for America.  But the truth doesn’t matter when professional liars slander and demonize at such high speed the truth cannot possibly keep up.

Democrats are dishonest liars.  It is simply what they have become by their very nature.  They couldn’t care less about the truth; they couldn’t care less about what abject hypocrites they are.  All they care about is rhetoric and demagoguery.  And so they spout outrageous lies when they themselves are far worse than the people they are lying about.  And they get away with it again and again because they know that the mainstream media – propagandists all – are as dishonest as they are.  And they get away with it because the American people are becoming more ignorant and frankly stupid and more apathetic and uninvolved with reality.  The media repeats a liberal lie across the front pages and the network programs thousands of times, and the subsequent correction – if its even mentioned – comes so late and is so buried that an apathetic people will never be able to find it.

That’s why the beast, the Antichrist, is coming.  And that’s why the American people will soon be worshiping him and joyfully taking this big government messiah’s mark.  And it is why they will burn in hell.

Obama Forces Conservative Americans To Pay For Demonic Attack On Republican Party In A Church

“Separation of church and state” only applies to communists (it was in their constitution, not ours) and Republicans.  It doesn’t apply to Democrats because Democrats are hypocrites who don’t believe the crap they espouse applies to them.

I suppose it’s because Democrats realize that only Republicans believe in God, and so ergo sum “separation of church and state” should only apply to Republicans.

It was bad enough to learn that a senior Obama official was in a church demonizing Republicans.

But she did it with a Secret Service escort paid in substantial part by the very American people that she was demonizing:

Jarrett Reportedly Receives Secret Service Protection
Tuesday, 17 Jan 2012 12:50 PM
By Dan Weil

Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett seems to have Secret Service protection, Keith Koffler writes on his blog “White House Dossier.” It’s the first time the veteran White House correspondent has heard of someone at that level receiving the expensive assistance of Secret Service agents.

 

A local report said at least two agents were with Jarrett during her appearance at an Atlanta church Sunday ahead of Martin Luther King Day. She used the speech to attack Republicans.

 

A Koffler source said he saw Jarrett with at least two Secret Service agents at Reagan National Airport just before Christmas. One agent was in front of her at the security line, another was behind her, and there may have been a third at her side, the source told Koffler.

 

The blogger says that as far as he knows, in the Bush administration, at least toward the end of it, only the president and his family, the vice president, the White House chief of staff, the National Security adviser, and the Homeland Security adviser received Secret Service protection.

 

“It’s possible that Jarrett has received enough specific and credible threats to justify Secret Service protection, or that the Secret Service has for some other reason calculated that she needs bodyguards,” Koffler wrote. “But it’s also possible this is a case of oddly overdoing it – and overusing taxpayer resources.”

 

He notes that nine out of 10 Americans probably have no idea who Jarrett is.

 

“White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is far better known and spends his time warning terrorists and our foreign adversaries about bad behavior while trumpeting the killing of Osama Bin Laden,” Koffler quips. “I’m sure he does not have protection.”

Jay Carney is a liberal, though.  And that certainly means he has a limousine in this administration of chutzpah-filled hypocrites.

It pisses me off to no end that this vile woman would walk into a synagogue of satan (what a liberal church of abortion worship really is) and demonize Republicans even as she self-righteously calls for “a separation of church and state.”  And when she makes the very people whom she’s demonizing pay for her Secret Service entourage it just makes me want to vomit right in her pompous face.

Because this degree of self-righteous hypocrisy ought to make anybody sick enough to empty their guts on the closest Democrat.

Separation Of Church And State Only Applies To FALSE Gods: Valerie Jarrett Pimps Worship Of Messiah Obama The Savior At A Church

What happens to the cherished liberal ideology of “separation of church and state” (found only in the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)???

Preaching Politics

Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett is defending remarks she made Sunday, during a church service honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
 
Local media reported Jarrett was speaking from the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta when she criticized Republicans for blocking President Obama’s jobs bill.
 
Jarrett began — quote — “Teachers, and firefighters, and policeman, whose jobs are now in jeopardy because Congress, well let me be specific, because the Republicans in Congress…” — before she was cut off with laughter and applause.
 
The Republican National Committee responded by saying attacks from the pulpit seek to divide the country.

Valerie Jarrett is a senior official for the Obama administration.  I submit that the Obama administration should be charged with violating the Constitution.

Of course, what Jarrett did wasn’t wrong because she was talking about the one-true god of the one-true religion:

“You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

If you took the hypocrite out of a Democrat they would dematerialize because there just wouldn’t be anything left…

Barack Obama Oh-So Close To Being Jimmy Carter, Jr.

This article from a mainstream liberal does so many things.  1) It tells us the only thing that keeps Obama from already being the complete loser and failure Jimmy Carter was is Rahm Emanuel; 2) It tells us that Barack Obama has repeatedly ignored wise advice and paid attention to far-left liberal lunacy; and 3) It points out that the failure of health care isn’t Republican obstructionism, but Barry Hussein stupidity and his refusal to try to pass bills that Republicans could have supported.

I’m glad that even liberals are starting to recognize that this health care mess we’re in wasn’t the Republicans’ fault; it was Obama’s incompetence and hard-core liberal ideology.

Why Obama needs Rahm at the top

By Dana Milbank
Sunday, February 21, 2010; A13

Let us now praise Rahm Emanuel.

No, seriously.

It is the current fashion to blame President Obama’s disappointing first year on his chief of staff. “First, remove Rahm Emanuel,” writes Leslie Gelb in the Daily Beast, because he lacks “the management skills and discipline to run the White House.”

The Financial Times’s Ed Luce reports that the “famously irascible” Emanuel has “alienated many of Mr. Obama’s closest outside supporters,” while the New America Foundation’s Steve Clemons lumps Emanuel in with the “Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency.”

They join liberal interests who despised Emanuel long before he branded them “retarded.” Jane Hamsher of firedoglake.com, together with conservative activist Grover Norquist, demanded a Justice Department investigation into Emanuel, who is “far too compromised to serve as gatekeeper to the president.”

As Emanuel would say: What the [expletive deleted]?

Clearly, “Rahmbo” has no shortage of enemies in this town, and with Obama’s approval rating dipping below 50 percent, they have ammunition. But sacking Emanuel is the last thing the president should do.

Obama’s first year fell apart in large part because he didn’t follow his chief of staff’s advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter.

Obama chose the profane former Clinton adviser for a reason. Where the president is airy and idealistic, Rahm is earthy and calculating. One thinks big; the other, a former House Democratic Caucus chair, understands the congressional mind, in which small stuff counts for more than broad strokes.

Obama’s problem is that his other confidants — particularly Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, and, to a lesser extent, David Axelrod — are part of the Cult of Obama. In love with the president, they believe he is a transformational figure who needn’t dirty his hands in politics.

The president would have been better off heeding Emanuel’s counsel. For example, Emanuel bitterly opposed former White House counsel Greg Craig’s effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, arguing that it wasn’t politically feasible. Obama overruled Emanuel, the deadline wasn’t met, and Republicans pounced on the president and the Democrats for trying to bring terrorists to U.S. prisons. Likewise, Emanuel fought fiercely against Attorney General Eric Holder’s plan to send Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for a trial. Emanuel lost, and the result was another political fiasco.

Obama’s greatest mistake was failing to listen to Emanuel on health care. Early on, Emanuel argued for a smaller bill with popular items, such as expanding health coverage for children and young adults, that could win some Republican support. He opposed the public option as a needless distraction.

The president disregarded that strategy and sided with Capitol Hill liberals who hoped to ram a larger, less popular bill through Congress with Democratic votes only. The result was, as the world now knows, disastrous.

Had it gone Emanuel’s way, a politically popular health-care bill would have passed long ago, leaving plenty of time for other attractive priorities, such as efforts to make college more affordable. We would have seen a continuation of the momentum of the first half of 2009, when Obama followed Emanuel’s strategy and got 11 substantive bills on his desk before the August recess.

Instead, Congress has ground to a halt, on climate legislation, Wall Street reforms and virtually everything else. Emanuel, schooled by Bill Clinton, knew what the true believers didn’t: that bite-sized proposals add up to big things.

Contrast Emanuel’s wisdom with that of Jarrett, in charge of “intergovernmental affairs and public engagement” — two areas of conspicuous failure. Jarrett also brought in Desiree Rogers as White House social secretary; the Salahi embarrassment ensued. Then there’s Gibbs. It’s hard to make the case that you’re a post-partisan president when your on-camera spokesman is a hyper-partisan former campaign flack.

No wonder Emanuel has set up his own small press operation and outreach function to circumvent the dysfunctional ones that Jarrett and Gibbs run. Obama needs an old Washington hand to replace Jarrett and somebody with gravitas on the podium to step in for Gibbs.

The failure of the president’s message also reflects on his message maven, Axelrod, who is an adept strategist but blinded by Obama love. A good example was Obama’s unproductive China trip in November. Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod went along as courtiers; Emanuel remained at his desk in Washington, struggling to keep alive the big health-care bill that he didn’t want in the first place.

In hiring Emanuel, Obama avoided the mistakes of his Democratic predecessors, who first gave the chief of staff job to besotted loyalists. Now in trouble, Obama needs fewer acolytes and more action. Rahm should stay.

If Rahm Emanuel doesn’t have a giant man-crush on Barack Obama, maybe he should stay.  Certainly, if the Milbrank article has any truth to it, Rahm Emanuel would be the only one at the White House who has either common sense or a freaking clue.

It’s actually quite funny.  Democrats are increasingly at each others’ throats while all the while telling everyone (and I’m sure trying to reassure themselves) that everything is right as rain.

Whether Rahm Emanuel stays, or whether someone else goes, Barry Hussein is an utter failure, and a future utter disgrace.  You can change the whole rest of the team and it won’t matter, because their franchise player is an incompetent loser.

Saul Alinsky And the Obama-SEIU Ideology

This is worth a read:

Alinsky citing reveals SEIU-Obama ideology

U.S. purposefully mismanaged by President Andy Stern

The 2008 election was aimed, as Barack Obama said, “to fundamentally change America.” The American people did not do their homework. They thought he believed in the original paradigm. They were intentionally misled, but this could have been prevented.

Ask the leaders of the Democratic party who Saul Alinsky is and you will likely get obfuscation. They will tell you Barack Obama spent three years teaching Alinsky’s philosophy and methods but he likely will not answer questions about Alinsky. Hillary Clinton wrote her college dissertation on Alinsky but you won’t likely get a peep out of her.

Bluntly put, Alinsky is opposed to freedom. He is an elitist. He believed in communism and atheism. The fundamental values, as stated at the beginning of this column, are seen by Alinsky as horrors that have created mass inequities and careless behavior. What makes Alinsky dangerous is that he is insidious.

Alinsky’s primary approach to politics is deceit. The ends justify the means. He would create a communist Utopia dominated by his friends but not through open and honest debate. Therefore, they disguise themselves as believers in the republic and democracy. Gaining control is objective No. 1. This was the beginning of their revolution. The goal, then, for Alinsky was “to take from the haves and give to the have-nots.”

Obama taught this. He “community organized” under this philosophy. He has surrounded himself with people of like mind. John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn, Valerie Jarrett, and Van Jones are just a few of the core conspirators.

Alinsky knew the core beliefs of the American people. He knew they had to be deceived and manipulated. His opinion was they were too selfish to give up the America that was constructed by the founding fathers. His followers have taken over the Democratic Party although many Republicans also are participating in the movement under the guise of progressivism.

The change they want will fundamentally eliminate freedom, representative government, democracy, free enterprise, private ownership, individual responsibility and religious faith. I have no problem with them telling you that and putting it up for debate but they will not because they would be thrown out of office.

This strategy has been known since the late 1960s. Since they cannot challenge those positions successfully, the next best thing is to get into the current system through deceit. Tell people you are something you are not. Then destroy people’s belief in the system by destroying it from within. This is the strategy employed by the disciples of Alinsky.

Alinsky said, “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”

(from news-herald.com)

Related video: Saul Alinsky takes the White House

One of the fundamental “disappointments” that independents – who have massively abandoned Obama and his agenda – have is that Obama misrepresented himself (i.e., he lied) about who he was and what he would be about if he were elected president.

Too many people did not see Obama’s anti-free market agenda (Obama’s demagoguery of banks, of car companies, of insurance companies, of the Chamber of Commerce, of Fox News, etc.) coming.  They should have seen it, and they would have had they paid better attention, or had the mainstream media attempted to do its constitutionally-appointed duty.  But now they are left fearful.  Now they and the businesses they work for are being inundated with fundamentally hostile attacks against business.  And as a result we are forced to live through a period in which fully 77% of investors view their president as “anti-business.”

People didn’t vote for that.  They were lied to.

At the same time, Obama has surrounded himself with openly Marxist advisers (see also here), which brings out the crystal-clear-in-hindsight fact that Obama’s long association with Marxist radicals such as Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers.

An American Thinker piece ties Obama’s relationship with the pedophile communist Frank Marshall Davis to an early indoctrination in the philosophy of Saul Alinsky.

You reveal yourself in whom you choose as friends.  And Obama revealed himself:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

To cite Dr. Raymond Stantz from Ghostbusters, I wouldn’t have touched these people with a ten meter cattle prod.  And few Americans would have.

SEIU union president Andy Stern, who has visited the White House more than anyone else since Obama was elected, offers this view of the world:

– “Because workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore.”

– “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power.”

That is a radical agenda from a clearly Marxist worldview.  And how does Obama respond to this vision?

“Your agenda has been my agenda in the United States Senate.  Before debating health care, I talked to Andy Stern and SEIU members.”

“We are going to paint the nation purple with SEIU.”

In a frightening way.

And so people who understood Obama weren’t at all surprised that he would pick a manufacturing czar such as Ron Bloom who said:

Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, ’cause they’re convinced that there is a free lunch.

We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”

If this agenda doesn’t terrify you, it is because you are ignorant.  Just take a look at the giant black hole that Illinois state union employees and their unsustainable benefit schemes have put the taxpayers in.  And that same black hole is probably in your state, too.

Unions – whether public or private sector – are breaking the back of this country.  They are breaking down our society.  They are fundamentally destroying our American way of life.

And they now have someone who is helping them do it in the White House.

You start throwing out radical names of dangerous people that Obama has been associated with and a pattern emerges:  the aforementioned Davis, Jeremiah Wright (see also here and here and here), Khalid al-Mansour (more here), Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers.  And you realize that Obama has been steeped in a profoundly Marxist worldview.  Obama isn’t stupid; he knows that the American people don’t want that ideology.  But no one can conceal his worldview completely.  Critical observers saw it clearly.

And they accurately understood what it would portend if he was elected president.

Obama underscores the self-concealment of his worldview in his book which bears its title in inspiration of a Jeremiah Wright sermon that described his view that “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” (The Audacity of Hope):

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

A politician who has Obama’s ostensible verbal skills is, quite simply, not a “blank screen” unless he wants to be.

Obama did not want us to know who he was, because we would have rejected him as our leader if we knew.

The more we finally learn about who Obama really is and what he really wants to do, the less we are going to like it.

Obama Job Numbers, And Why Won’t The NBA Believe Me When I Say I’m 25 Feet Tall?

Obama keeps saying he’s created 2 million jobs.  And I keep filling up barf buckets.

One of the biggest Big Lies of the Obama administration was the invention of the never-before-seen category of “saved or created” jobs.  Simply put, it is a giant 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” shenanigan, he would have been simultaneously mocked as a complete moron 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 and self-serving “statistic” as though it weren’t a complete fabrication.

Why does Obama keep lying to the American people about jobs?

A couple of weeks ago, his three senior advisers trotted out with wildly disparate job numbers that Obama had ostensibly “saved or created.” On the very same day, David Axelrod said we had saved or created more than 2 million jobs.  Robert Gibbs said we’d saved 1.5 million jobs.  And Valerie Jarrett said we’d saved thousands and thousands of jobs.

Valerie Jarret would have to say, “thousands and thousands” a thousand times to get to Axelrod’s “2 million.”

The numbers are arbitrary bullcrap.  The Obama administration has “saved or created” as many jobs as they think they can get away with before they think the American people will realize they are liars.

We can go back and look at how shockingly deceitful Obama’s job claim numbers have been.  I never thought an American president could get away with so many shockingly transparent lies.  You have to be a hard-core lie ADDICT to tell these kind of lies.

We can go back and look at all the bogus congressional districts and phony zip codes that have been “saving or creating” job after job.

Why, you can almost believe Obama’s claims when just one lawnmower was all it took to “save or create” a whopping 50 jobs (and that as reported by the New York Times).  I mean, if we produce just 6 million lawnmowers, we can have total employment of every single man, woman, and child in America.

And even given Obama’s OWN INFORMATION, he has only “saved or created” 595,263 jobs as of February 20, 2010.  Which amounts to $456,941 per job given how much of the porkulus slush fund otherwise known as stimulus dollars have been paid out.

595,263 can become more than 2 million if it’s stretched long enough.

I tried Obama’s tactic.  I called up every single team in the NBA and told them I was 25 feet tall.  Only nobody believed me.  I really hoped my six foot body could be out there on the floor with Shaquille O’Neal, and I could simply tell any skeptic who doubts my 25-foot status that “they just aren’t looking at the full picture” or something similar.

Senator Evan Bayh, in announcing that he would not run again as a Democrat for the U.S. Senate, had this to say to convey the truth:

“[I]f I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”

[link] [Youtube]

That’s an awfully far cry from 2 million, isn’t it?

According to a recent New York Times/CBS poll, a whopping 94% of the American people agree with Bayh. Only 6% of Americans believe Obama’s massive porkulus has created jobs a full year after going into effect.

Only SIX PERCENT of Americans believe that Obama’s porkulus has created any jobs at all.  That means more Americans believe that space aliens have anally probed them than believe in the stimulus.  It also means that 94% think Obama and his entire administration and the entire Democrat congressional leadership are completely full of crap.

So why does the mainstream media keep reporting that Obama has saved or created 2 million jobs, when 94% of the American people – even according to CBS and the New York Times!!! – don’t think he’s created ANY jobs?

I have an even better question for you: why on earth do you keep watching or reading the mainstream media when they keep reporting flagrant lies as if they were facts?

Do you like being lied to?  Were you told so many lies as a child that you now need a constant stream of lies to stay in your little happy place?

Meanwhile, even as Obama falsely tells us that he gave us 2 million jobs this year, and that we are “clearly” emerging from the recession – which means even MORE job growth in future years – his own numbers are telling him that he will leave office in 2012 with unemployment higher than it was when he came in.

If you’re willing to believe that Obama saved or created 2 million jobs, please send me $99.99 for my miraculous elixir that is guaranteed to make you 25 feet tall.  And for an extra $99.99, I will send you a ruler that will prove that you have grown fourfold.

And please ignore the fact that the contents of the bottle look and taste rather like urine.

Why Does Obama Keep Lying To Us About Jobs?

A few weeks ago, three inner-sanctum Obama circlers came out and provided three different numbers as to how many jobs they thought that Obama had created:

David Axelrod: Axelrod, on CNN’s State of the Union: “But understand that, in this recession that began at the beginning of 2007, we’ve lost 7 million jobs. Now, the Recovery Act the president passed has created more than — or saved more than 2 million jobs. But against 7 million, you know, that — that is — it is cold comfort to those who still are looking.”

Valerie Jarrett: Jarrett, on NBC’s Meet the Press: “The Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs. There are schoolteachers and firemen and— and— teachers all across our country, policemen, who have jobs today because of that recovery act. We’re investing in infrastructure. We’re investing in public education so that our kids can compete going forth into the next— generation.”

Robert Gibbs: Gibbs, on “Fox News Sunday”: “Well, Chris, let’s take for instance the example you just used of the stimulus package. We had four quarters of economic regression in terms of growth, right? Just last quarter, we finally saw the first positive economic job growth in more than a year. Largely as a result of the recovery plan that’s put money back into our economy, that saved or created 1.5 million jobs.”

You get the sense that 1) these people have no idea what they are talking about; and 2) they are pulling numbers right out of their butts.

Barry Hussein has repeatedly used the 2 million number.  After all, it’s bigger and sounds better.  Why should he care about reality?

But let’s look at reality for just one second:

Jobs Saved: PR or Fact?
While the unemployment rate continues to rise–to 10.2 percent in October–the debate over the “jobs saved” concept also continues, most recently on last Sunday’s Meet the Press with host David Gregory asking Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner whether the concept is PR or Fact. Gregory first quotes Allan Meltzer saying “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?” Gregory then pops the question to Secretary Geithner. Watch this short video clip for his answer, and then search your textbook as Professor Meltzer suggests.

And you will search in vain.

Had George Bush tried this crap talking about all the jobs his administration had “saved,” the mainstream media would have been tearing into him like pit bulls tearing into red meat.  Because it is a giant fabrication created for the sake of pure political posturing.

Obama hasn’t “created or saved” anywhere NEAR 2 million jobs.  And his own numbers prove it.

Here’s a screenshot from Obama’s Recovery.gov site, accessed Thursday, February 11, 2010:

Let’s see: 595,263 jobs versus 2 million: Obama is a big fat liar.  And a transparent liar at that.

We find that the government has spent $272 billion in stimulus funds so far.  And $272 billion divided by 595,263 jobs comes out to $456,941 per job.

Obama has created his own Pyrrhic victory.  For the sake of argument, suppose Obama has created jobs with his stimulus, contrary to the bogus zip codes, nonexistent congressional districts, and the claims that a single lawnmower “saved” 50 jobs as evidence to the contrary.  Damn, we’ll go bankrupt if we create many more.

Which is to say it is every big as gigantic of a boondoggle and failure as every single House Republican who voted against the stimulus said it would be.

You’ve got to do your own research to see what a stinking pile of lies Obama’s jobs figures have truly been, with billions of stimulus dollars disappearing into bogus zip codes and nonexistent congressional districts.  You can be certain that the Obama administration and the sycophantic mainstream media will tell you the truth.

Now we’re hearing that the White House is forecasting that the economy will expand by 95,000 jobs a month.  But we should believe one word they’re saying WHY???  All they’re doing is taking a demonstrated dishonest metric and pointing it at the future.