Posts Tagged ‘wrong track’

If Hillary Won The Debate, Trump May Have Won The Argument

September 29, 2016

Kind of interesting.  I didn’t watch the entire debate as I had my hike to go on and so had to pull myself away from the debate spectacle – and so I didn’t get to see Lester Holt incredibly unfairly “fact check” the Donald on at least five major issues without ever ONCE bringing up ANY of the myriad of “fact-checkable” dirt on Hillary – but at the time I turned off the TV, it sure seemed to me that Hillary was more prepared for that debate and was doing a better job emphasizing her points.  While Trump was in my view coming across as being too argumentative and frankly squandering opportunities and failing to score on the points he was making.

But then again, what do I know?

Frankly, the very idea of “debates” is actually kind of silly.  We’ve been doing it for well over a century and all, but what’s really the point?  You remember when the President of the United States debated Vladimir Putin?  Oh, wait.  Me neither.  Because it’s never happened.

It would be a better demonstration of presidential fitness to put a knife in the hand of each party’s candidate and push them in a room together and lock the door.  And don’t open it until one of them comes out alive and the other one is a gashed pile of bloody meat on the floor.  I mean, at least we’ve got to see that kind of drama played out by Harrison Ford in “Air Force One.”

I’m just saying I don’t know what “winning” a debate really means, other than the pinky-in-the-air class getting to snort at the candidate that doesn’t suit their ideology very well.

Everybody is saying Hillary won the debate.  And like I said, I don’t blame them.

But maybe Donald Trump lost the debate but won the argument.

Take a look at one of the polls that came out after the debate (and which coming from the LA Times is NOT fond of Donald Trump):

New Poll Since Debate Shows Shift In Trump’s Poll Numbers
Highest poll participation …
by Jack Davis September 28, 2016 at 9:01am
After millions of Americans watched Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton debate on Monday night, a new poll shows support for Trump is increasing.
The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Daybreak tracking poll, which tracks Americans’ support for the presidential candidates on a daily basis, showed that as of Tuesday, Trump is leading Clinton 46.7 percent to 42.6 percent.
The poll, which unlike other polls tracks the same population over time, represents a significant comeback for Trump, who as of Aug. 14 was trailing Clinton 46.3 percent to 41.6 percent.
The national poll tracks the voting preferences of 3,000 participating voters, but not every voter participates every day. Participation in the wake of the debate was at 90 percent, making it one of the highest participation days since the poll began in July.
Trump has significant leads in many demographic groups.
He now leads Clinton among voters aged 18-34, 44.7 percent to 39.2 percent. Clinton had led among this group throughout the early part of the campaign.
Voters between 35-64 years old also side with Trump 45.5 percent to 43.5 percent. This group has changed preferences repeatedly. Trump also continues to lead among older voters with a 49.5 percent to 44.7 percent lead among voters 65 and over.
From the start, Trump has held a vast lead over Clinton among voters with a high school education or less, and trailed her among college graduates. Among voters with some college education, Trump posts a lead of 48.3 percent to 40 percent.
Among white voters, Trump leads 54.8 percent to 33.7 percent. Although his current 18.2 percent support among black voters is an increase from the summer, Clinton still has a strong showing among black voters with 74.3 percent. Clinton also leads among Hispanic voters, but by a narrower margin of 56.8 percent to 31.8 percent.
Clinton had led among women from the start, and currently leads Trump 50 percent to 38.8 percent. Among men, Trump leads Clinton 54.9 percent to 35.1 percent.
Voters with incomes under $35,000 have favored Clinton throughout the campaign. She leads Trump 49.5 percent to 39.2 percent among these voters. Voters with incomes from $35,000 to $75,000 favor Trump 51.1 percent to 37.6 percent. Upper income voters support Trump 47.9 percent to 43.2 percent.

That poll result goes hand in hand with this:

Post Debate Poll: Clinton Won on Performance, Trump Won Votes
September 27, 2016 By PPD Elections Staff

A Post Debate Poll conducted after the presidential showdown at Hofstra University finds Hillary Clinton put on the best performance, but Donald Trump won votes. While voters 47% to 44% think that Mrs. Clinton “won the first presidential debate,” Mr. Trump won over undecided voters who changed their mind by nearly a 3 to 1 margin.

Nine percent (9%) were undecided on the question of who won the debate.

Among those who were undecided (5%) before the debate, 31% changed their mind and now say they’ll support the New York businessman. By comparison, only 11% of previously undecided voters said they will now vote for the former secretary of state.

The results were noteworthy, considering more voters than not thought Mrs. Clinton gave a better debate performance. Authenticity, honesty and trustworthiness played and will continue to play a big role in voters’ preferences ahead of November.

“Voters are looking for Donald Trump to basically give them permission to vote for him, fair or not,” says PPD’s senior analyst Richard Baris. “If he improves in the next two debates, which he did during the primary, things could get really ugly really fast for Hillary Clinton.”

Regarding the debate, which most mainstream pundits gave to Mrs. Clinton, most voters expected her to be polished on stage. But they were watching to see if Mr. Trump could pass the presidential bar.

“He was restrained, He came off much more natural,” said Shaun Ellis, an independent voter from Hopington, New Hampshire. “Hillary looked weak on the economy,” adding he decided “we need new blood.”

[…]

I don’t know for sure if this is all true.  There is such a tendency for people to see what they want to see and view reality through the prism of their ideology.

We’ll have to see what other polls are saying.

But I DO know what I think happened if the above is correct: I believe that Hillary won the debate on the rhetorical side, but Trump successfully won the argument by pounding home the fact that this country is and has been sliding in the wrong direction and Hillary represents the status quo (i.e. further and faster slide in the wrong direction).

The latest Rasmussen Poll says that 67% say that America is heading in the wrong direction, versus a Kim Jong Un-loving 28% who are happy with the direction Obama is taking the country in.  That strikes me as something of an obstacle for Hillary, who is more connected with “the wrong direction” than any candidate in modern political history.

And as the above article points out, people are just trying to see if the “change candidate” is sane enough and stable enough to take a chance on, given that the alternative of Hillary Clinton is just so damn reprehensible.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is a walking corpse counting on Barack Obama to drag her over the winner’s line.  But one little, tiny thing just happened: Obama just suffered a 97-1 smackdown in a bipartisan Senate that was united against our Disgrace-in-Chief.  And the House was just about as brutal in overturning Obama’s presidential veto in an IN-YOUR-FACE move by Congress.

Obama, meanwhile, continues to claim that everybody on planet earth is wrong and political and partisan save he alone because as our creator god he and he alone is all-wise.

That’s more than just a flesh wound, as they say.  And that’s gonna leave a mark, as they also say.

Hey, THAT would have been a nice question from Lester Holt for Hillary: do you agree with basically everyone, or do you agree with Obama that everyone but him is political and not willing to do the right thing???  But again, no toughies for Hillary from Lester.

I know, I know: the debate society types think Hillary won and that should be all she wrote about who should be president.  But the people who don’t give a damn about debates and just want a halfway-decent LEADER just don’t see it that way.

 

Advertisements

Why I Have Come To Believe That Donald Trump WILL Be Elected President in November 2016

May 31, 2016

There’s a lot of stuff swirling around in the media right now.  And it’s pretty much a wash.  On the one hand, Hillary Clinton is SO damn guilty by any reasonable standard of both outright criminality and indifferent incompetence it is beyond unreal.  Too bad the Washington Post decided to unleash thirty reporters to dig into Trump’s dirt rather than dig through Clinton’s emails, but this IS the age of Goebbels, after all.  I’ve come to realize that one of two things is going to have to happen for Hillary Clinton to get indicted regardless of her obvious guilt: 1) the FBI from Director Comey on down promise to resign in mass and publicly expose Obama as being the Stalinist thug traitor that he is which would force him and his lawthug attorney general to allow true justice to take its course, OR Obama actually has a plan to allow Clinton to be indicted and then step in and declare that Donald Trump is such a threat to America and to democracy and to world peace that he has no choice other than to follow the path of the worst dictators in history and order the election (that Trump would have won) suspended.

On the other hand, we’ve got all these polls that say Trump is going to have an impossible time winning enough women, Hispanics and blacks to possibly win the election.  To which I say that by now the entire media establishment has so thoroughly and completely discredited their ability to prognosticate what will actually happen that they have made themselves a joke.  Trump has proven these fools wrong so many times it is beyond unreal.  Their last giant mistake was the worst, when they gleefully predicted a vicious GOP feud leading up to a broken and brokered GOP convention and the entire Republican Party unraveling over Trump.  And of course just as gleefully predicted smooth sailing for Hillary Clinton who would be crowed queen dominatrix over the space-time universe.  And that was only two months ago.  And what is happening now is the precise OPPOSITE of what all the damn experts said would happen, and now Democrats are wringing their hands and publicly worrying that Bernie Sanders is destroying Hillary Clinton’s chance to win.

I’m going to make a prediction that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either of the above two paragraphs.

Allow me to state the twofold basis of my prediction succinctly: 1) Donald Trump will win because roughly 3/4ths of the American people believe we are heading in the wrong direction as a nation, and Hillary Clinton represents slogging down the path of that same wrong direction; versus Donald Trump who vows to shake things up.  And every time Clinton tries to fearmonger the American people with her demagoguery that Trump is a “loose cannon,” Trump says “That’s right.  And I’m going to start firing that cannon at everything that is preventing America from becoming great again.”  Obama just played that game – in a reckless, bitterly partisan, demagogic attack on foreign soil no less – claimed that overseas leaders are “rattled” by the prospect of a Trump presidency.  Without being able to name even ONE such leader, mind you.  And ignoring the fact that every ally of the United States has been way more than “rattled” by the OBAMA presidency.  And Trump heard that and basically said, “Good!  These leaders have been abusing and exploiting America for years, and it’s a damn good thing if they’re rattled.”  You want more of the wrong direction, Hillary is your candidate.  She’ll lead you straight to the hell you and your family deserve to rot in.

That thesis is well explained here by a liberal who realizes that prospect of right-direction versus wrong-direction.  And is frightened by it.  I wrote my own take on that article here.

Obama has utterly failed this country.  Obama and Democrats keep boasting of this low 5% unemployment rate.  But it has been based month after month with three and four times as many Americans just giving up and abandoning the hope of every getting a job for every American who actually finds a job.  The labor participation rate – measuring the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn job – reflects that reality: it has sunk to the lowest level since the nadir of Jimmy Carter’s failed presidency; and things are actually far WORSE than when Carter was president, because most a far larger share of American women stayed at home and managed families and households rather than trying to enter the workforce back then.  And if the labor participation rate were what George W. Bush had left Obama in January 2009, we would have double-digit unemployment.

As CNBC reported recently, “the rate for the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged remains stubbornly above prerecession levels.”   You need to understand that the “Great Recession” officially ended in June 2009, no thanks to anything Obama did because nothing he’d done had actually done a damn thing by then.  And you put those two facts together and Barack Obama’s presidency has not only done nothing for the unemployed and underemployed, but actually made things far WORSE for them.  He never helped them at ALL!  The Federal Reserve recently reported “that 22% of workers were juggling two or more jobs last year, higher than what government jobs data would suggest. And nearly one out of three Americans said that they have no retirement savings or pension.”  They reported “that nearly half of U.S. households reported they would have trouble meeting emergency expenses of just $400.”

Meanwhile, the income-gap has EXPLODED under Obama.  The rich have gotten richer and the middle class has vanished under this failed fool.

The people of Venezuela tried socialism and their reward is SEVEN HOUR LINES for groceries with the government-supervised result being empty shelves when you get there.  People are eating out of garbage cans because that’s all Obama’s socialist friends can provide for them.  THAT is the assured result of continuing to travel in the direction Obama has set for us and Hillary Clinton has vowed to keep us heading in.

Between the colossal failure of ObamaCare, the horrible taxation rates and the godawful regulations and impositions on businesses, people simply cannot find a decent full-time job anymore.  And Hillary Clinton promises you that she will take that crap ball and run down the manure field with it and spike that crap ball in the poop zone for a sh*tdown.

I’ll put it this way: there are a lot of people who will ultimately think, “Donald Trump can insult me all he wants.  I just want to have a damn job and be able to work without some stupid jackass fascist liberal making that impossible.”  And so a lot of people are going to say, “I hate Trump and I’m scared of Trump, but he’s better than a sure thing when that sure thing is a lump of sh*t – and that is exactly what Hillary Clinton is.”

I’ll give a personal story to add truth to that above paragraph.  Recently, my 94 year-old next door neighbor – who had lived in that house for over forty years – was heartbroken and devastated when liberal government forced her to dig up her beautiful green lawn that she had her deceased husband had cultivated over all those years.  It’s now gravelled and the only water allowed is the tears of an elderly widow.  And that’s because some activist liberal turd drove by, saw that lawn, and became offended that somebody was happy on her own property and that was evil.  Meanwhile, night after night after night I walk past a government indoctrination center that passes for a “public school.”  And night after night after night I see the total indifference of government to do what it forces helpless citizens it oppresses to do.  The water main right alongside the sidewalk is just spraying water and has been doing so for MONTHS.

Leak_School

There’s a good ten cubit feet of soil around that main that is just SATURATED from the all the damn wasted water from that constant leak.  And no jackass fascist bureaucrat gives a flying damn about it.  There are two public schools side-by-side – an elementary school and a middle school – and they BOTH routinely have so many water issues it’s beyond disgusting.  But it doesn’t matter who I’ve contacted or what I’ve done; nobody fixes these things for months.  Because it’s so far easier for a bureaucracy to harass and oppress an elderly widow than it is for those same jackbooted jackass bureaucrats to get off their own unionized asses and do their damn jobs.  Because what’s right for me to impose on thee is to hard to comply with for me.  Liberalism is about forcing OTHER people to comply with what they themselves don’t bother to do and then seizing OTHER people’s money to pay for it.

And I’ll tell you what: when my neighbor buckled under the threats of the liberal government, she had to fire her Hispanic gardeners who were paid to come twice a month and take care of that lawn.  Because heavy-handed leftist fascist government thugs who are hypocrites to their lying cores took their jobs from them.  And who should they vote for???  Should they vote for the liberals who will protect the Delta Smelt at all costs no matter how many human lives and jobs they destroy, or should they vote for the people who would not have cost them to lose their job in the first place???

California liberals – the same damnfools who are responsible for refusing to fix water leaks that cost thousands of gallons a year of wasted water – just where I am walking by – are the same damnfool people who have dismantled dams and emptied reservoirs that we desperately need because of environmentalist policies that are literally just evil.  Our water management system is fifty years old and the Democrats who have controlled California politics have steadfastly refused to do ANYTHING to modernize our ability to harness and channel rainfall and snowpack runoff.  “Climate change” is not a big deal; it is as old as planet earth and humanity has dealt with it for thousands of years; the true menace to the human race is liberalism and the fools who time and time again put bugs and fish and vermin above human lives.

Vote for Hillery.  Vote for hell.  Vote for more regulation that is going to strangle more jobs.  Vote for more and bigger government that is going to be completely unresponsive to anyone who is not “in” with the politically-connected class.

So that’s one.  And it’s a doozy.  Hillary promises you that the exact same failed solutions that drove this country into a ditch will get us out when it will dig us even deeper into that ditch.  Trump says he’s created tens of thousands of jobs by himself and he understands what entrepreneurs like him need to do the same for millions of Americans who just want to work rather than have a nanny-state give them welfare on the backs of other people.

Here’s two:

I thought back over the last fifty years plus and I realize that the American presidency is largely a popularity contest going back to when Kennedy defeated Nixon.  In that election, a singular moment defined the trend I am describing:

It’s now common knowledge that without the nation’s first televised debate — fifty years ago Sunday — Kennedy would never have been president. But beyond securing his presidential career, the 60-minute duel between the handsome Irish-American senator and Vice President Richard Nixon fundamentally altered political campaigns, television media and America’s political history. “It’s one of those unusual points on the timeline of history where you can say things changed very dramatically — in this case, in a single night,” says Alan Schroeder, a media historian and associate professor at Northeastern University, who authored the book, Presidential Debates: Forty Years of High-Risk TV. […]

What happened after the two candidates took the stage is a familiar tale. Nixon, pale and underweight from a recent hospitalization, appeared sickly and sweaty, while Kennedy appeared calm and confident. As the story goes, those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won. But those listeners were in the minority. By 1960, 88% of American households had televisions — up from just 11% the decade before. The number of viewers who tuned in to the debate has been estimated as high as 74 million, by the Nielsen of the day, Broadcast Magazine. Those that watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy was the clear winner. Many say Kennedy won the election that night.

In other words, if you were listening to that debate – and allowing your mind work unencumbered by your lying eyes – Nixon won.  But add in all the visual whiz-bangs, and the image of a handsome, vigorous Kennedy, and Kennedy wiped the floor with Nixon.  Because the facts were irrelevant and the image was everything.

And my thesis is that it has been that way ever since.

So let’s go down memory lane, from Reagan v. Carter in 1980.  Who had more personality?  More charisma?  The actor kicked peanut farmer ass.  Same thing when the actor destroyed Mondale in 1984.  Then we get to his successor, H.W. Bush vs. Dukakis in 1988: well, it wasn’t like H.W. Bush was a “best personality” winner, but compared to the turnip someone named Michael Dukakis?  H.W. in a landslide.  But then that same H.W. Bush met Bill Clinton in 1992, and the handsome, vigorous man who slickly played saxophone on the hip show Arsenio Hall took the win.   And we get to 1996, and who had more personality and charisma?  Bill Clinton or Bob Dole, who looked like the angry old man yelling at neighborhood kids to get the hell off his lawn?  That brings us to George W. Bush versus the wooden cigar store Indian otherwise known as Al Gore in 2000.  And “Dubya” won.  Or put it this way: “close is no cigar.”  Same thing when “Dubya” took on John Kerry, who sounded like the stiffest and most pompous ass imaginable in 2004.  Which brings us to our current national nightmare when a young, hip, charismatic, enigmatic figure named Barack Hussein Obama took on an old, white-haired decrepit named John McCain in 2008.  And then took it away again from the GOP’s answer to the aforementioned wooden cigar store Indian when he defeated the chump known as Mitt Romney.  And I can only wish that Romney had displayed the fire in his belly against Obama that he has recently displayed trying to take down Trump.  And all that Romney has proven is that if you don’t like boring establishment Republican RINOs, vote for Trump because Romney proves Trump aint one.

I’m just saying that the American presidency is largely a personality cult, and who has more personality and charisma: old hag Hillery – whose been a lying politician since dinosaurs walked the earth – or Donald Trump the hero of reality T.V. that brings us back full circle to Kennedy winning because of fake reality television to kick it all off???

I’m declaring that when people start looking at Hillary and The Donald, Trump will exude so much more personality and charisma than the screaming witch that the American people will cast their lot with him.  Hillery is actually and able debater, but she simply fails to connect with people because at her core – as her email mess and her secret server proves – she is a paranoid fascist who frankly can’t stand people being able to see her for what she truly is.

We just learn something very telling here through Hillary Clinton’s emails that the FBI managed to save after she tried first to delete emails that she was required by law to preserve and then to try to wipe her secret server that she stored them on to try to bypass any and all public accountability under things like the Freedom of Information Act: namely, she is so paranoid about revealing who she truly is it is beyond unreal.  She is THE most tightly scripted control-freak who ever ran for president by far.  This is a truly paranoid woman who demanded that her staff be able to examine a high school kid’s introductory remarks before a Clinton appearance.  She wants to have tight control over EVERYTHING, including what questions get asked and who gets to ask those questions.  Which is why this paranoid, fascist woman has refused to do a single press conference in over half a year (more than 180 days!).  Hillary Clinton knows that if you knew who she really was, you would reject her.  Whereas Donald Trump is out everywhere talking to anybody.

Hillary Clinton has proven over her entire career that she is the same “Fiefdom Syndrome” heartless, indifferent, tone-deaf lifelong bureaucrat-technocrat politician – especially as epitomized by Benghazi – who couldn’t be bothered to deal with the leaking water mains under her governance.   It boils down to the five words, “What difference does it make?”

And the answer is “None at all; IF you want to go in the same miserable failed direction that leads to hell.”  Otherwise it makes PLENTY of difference.

And so I predict Hillary will lose.   Not because she’s is GODAWFUL (which is WHY she should lose) but because she is BORING.  Because of a mindset that has been around for fifty years which has worked for and against both parties and to the betterment as well as the harm of this nation.

 

 

Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’

July 15, 2011

At the center of his tiny, shriveled little cockroach soul, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Allow me to recite the central tenet of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  And please, PLEASE someone explain to me how Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party are NOT Marxist given that they believe the SAME garbage.  Liberals constantly huff at the suggestion that they are socialists as though it is the silliest damn thing they have ever heard.  The thing is that they don’t want their ideology identified with socialism merely because it is a bad word.  BUT “IT” IS A BAD WORD FOR A REASON, AND “IT” IS IN FACT PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE.

The shoe fits, and Obama and his socialist Democrats need to wear it.

Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need”
Mike Brownfield
July 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

Over the past several weeks, America has seen on grand display in Washington a singular mindset emanating from the White House: We must raise taxes so that we can keep on spending. This week, though, America was treated to something different—a glimpse inside President Barack Obama’s mind, a roadmap of his economic worldview. And what was revealed was a philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with America’s job creators.

That insight came during the President’s press conference on Monday in which he broached the subject of raising taxes as part of the debt limit deal:

“And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

If you read between the lines, which doesn’t take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don’t “need” belongs to the government, as writer John Steele Gordon explains in Commentary. And, Gordon writes, Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy”:

To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. . . But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy?

How much income is too much? It’s hard to say, and the President doesn’t put a number on it. But that high-tax policy is so important to the President that he is willing to personalize the issue, offering up the fact that he has made a boatload selling books and can afford to pay taxes on it, as he did in his Twitter town hall when he remarked:

“But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book . . . for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me.”

On top of personalizing the issue, the President is pulling out all the stops in a take-no-prisoners demagoguery campaign, ranging from the subtle to the explicit. His criticisms of tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil and gas companies are legion, his calls for millionaires and billionaires to “pay a little bit more” are anything but subtle, and his threats over the failure to reach a tax-soaked debt limit deal are frightening.

The President’s “your money is the government’s money” mindset is having an impact on the mind’s of America’s job creators. A new survey of small business owners and executives prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows how the U.S. political environment has impacted the business environment, and the insights are troubling.

According to the survey, a vast majority of small business owners (84 percent) say the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. Tellingly, the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well. And when asked whether they’d like Washington to lend a hand or get out of they, 79 percent choose the latter.

And therein lies the difference. When President Obama sees successful businesses, he sees green. And when they look back, they see red. The President wants to take more so he can spend more and do more, whereas those who are the engine of America’s economy just want the government to do less so they can thrive. Unfortunately, a meeting of the minds seems a long way off.

Democrats are at their hearts Marxists and fascists who believe that you and everything you produce belongs to the government – and that the government should belong entirely to THEM so that they have the power to decide who wins and who loses.  I’ve written about this fact at length before.  Again, this is a central tenet of Marxism and socialism, but for some reason we’re not supposed to be able to call these people what they clearly are.

Mind you, this disgraceful little turd Barry Hussein is a HYPOCRITE Marxist, as the following evidence of what a stingy, selfish, greedy little swine Obama was with his own money just a few short years ago when he was a rich liberal who didn’t think anyone was watching.  Amazingly, the facts show that Obama didn’t seem to think there was such a thing as “money he didn’t need” then:

Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

Obama seemed to “need” every penny of his money when he was selfishly refusing to give basically ANYTHING to the poor that he now so hypocritically and self-righteously claims he cares about.  And that is a FACT.  So when this vile little hypocrite weasel self-righteously lectures us on how much we should be willing to give more in taxes to Big Brother, just realize it is coming from the very worst kind of demagogue and liar.

Then there’s the fact that if these rich liberals want to give more money, THEN THEY CAN AND SHOULD GIVE MORE MONEY.  They can give to charity; they can give to a government fund that uses the money to pay down the debt when they do their taxes.  They keep talking about how generous they should be but they never seem to be generous with their own money.

Let me go on quoting from the same article on liberals and “paying their fair share”:

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And don’t forget the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These people just make me want to lose my lunch into a bucket.  That’s something I wouldn’t mind donating to the government.

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?”  It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state.  They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful.  And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter.  He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government.  He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling.  Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger.  And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor.  And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact.  Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly.  Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans.  What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left.  The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service).  So what happens?  Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students.  And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.

Americans More Pessimistic About US Outlook Than At Any Time Since Start Of Obama’s Failed Presidency

April 22, 2011

As much as the mainstream media propaganda tries to pretend otherwise by restating Obama’s talking points as if they were facts, things are NOT going well for the U.S. economy.

And the American people know it:

Americans hold dim view of U.S. economic outlook: poll
Thu Apr 21, 10:54 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Americans are more pessimistic about the U.S. economic outlook than they have been since the start of the Obama administration and most believe the United States is on the wrong track, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Thursday.

The number of Americans who think the economy is getting worse jumped 13 percentage points in just one month, to 39 percent, the poll suggested.

Just 23 percent said they thought the economy was improving, down 3 percentage points from the previous month.

Seventy percent of respondents said the country was heading in the wrong direction and most think neither President Barack Obama nor Congressional Republicans share their priorities for the country, the poll showed.

The dour mood is dragging down performance ratings for President Barack Obama and both parties in Congress with the 2012 election season already underway, the poll found.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, while 75 percent said they disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.

While Washington is consumed with debate over deficit-reduction proposals, Americans seemed uncertain about the impact of cutting the deficit on the U.S. economy.

Some 29 percent of those polled said cutting the deficit would create more jobs, while 29 percent said deficit-cutting would cost jobs and 27 percent said it would have no effect on the employment outlook.

The poll found considerable support for Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy — 72 percent of respondents approved of that idea as a way to address the deficit.

Obama’s job approval stood at 46 percent, while 45 percent did not approve of his performance in office.

More than half of poll respondents, 56 percent, said they did not have a favorable view of Republicans in Congress, as opposed to 37 percent who said they did.

The Democratic Party fared somewhat better, with a 49 percent approval rating versus 44 percent disapproval.

The telephone survey of 1,224 adults was conducted Friday through Wednesday and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

According to Standard & Poor’s, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”  Which is to say that all of Obama’s financial fascism has made the American economy more vulnerable to total collapse than it has ever been.

If you saw an Obama election victory after the Republican and Democrat Party national conventions in August of 2008 and abandoned the stock market in favor of gold and silver, you would be closing in on about a 90% profit on the gold, which would pale in comparison to the more than 250% profit you would have made in silver. 

I’ve watched the market go up and down, but the numbers reveal it has clearly generally gone up.  But I’ve also noticed that most of the trades are held for a matter of minutes or even seconds and that the low volume that has characterized the market pretty much mean it’s only major-league institutional investors that are making the lion’s share of the profits.

In the market itself, two things are happening: one is that banks are able to borrow money at nearly a zero percent interest rate and then reinvest it in bonds for a safe and easy profit without those risky and pesky loans to small businesses.  The other thing is that there are virtually zero bankrupties of major business and financial sector entities because they can borrow money at the aforementioned artificially low interest to keep themselves alive no matter “artificial” that life is.  The moment we start to see interest rates go to their natural levels, you are going to see a giant swath of reorganizations (which is a fancy word for bankruptices).  It’s coming.

I’ve also watched as QE2 (that’s Quantitative Easing, the Obama Fed plan to manipulate interest rates by creating bogus money based on the government essentially borrowing from itself) has fed this big player stock market gluttony with artificial money creating artificially low interest rates.  The last time quantitative easing ended, the market lost about 16% of its total value in about two weeks.  QE2 is scheduled to end in June.  You do the predictive math about what’s going to happen in June/July.

I am reminded of a rather chilling 7 minute video about a fictional scenario which is starting to look more and more like a prophecy:

The plot of the highly realistic video is that Obama’s announcment of QE4 is met with the world market finally realizing that Obama is a clueless idiot.  And it proceeds to detail the unravelling of the entire financial system.

We are almost certainly going to see QE3.  The only way we WON’T see QE3 is if the “experts” rename what will be virtually exactly the same thing.  The liberal/progressive/socialist powers that be simply don’t have any other plan.  And whether it’s QE4 or QE5, at some point the world markets will come to the same conclusion that they arrive at in the fictional video above.

Last year, Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner actually used the power of the government to launch an investigation into Glenn Beck for pushing gold.  Media Matters mocked Glenn Beck, as usual.  A poster calling himself blk-in-alabam wrote on May 19 (8:08 pm ET):

“Beck cult members probably bought more gold today.  He tells they must taste the hair of the dog that bit them to get over the money they have already spent on gold.  Glen Beck tells them to hurry and buy gold before the facist socialist government take away their right to be used and suckered.”

If you were one of the Beck cult members who bought gold, congratulations: you made ($1,503 – $1,192) $311 an ounce – a 26% profit – without even leaving your house.  Not a bad profit for a paranoid cultist.  I wonder how much blk-in-alabam made on his portfolio, assuming he isn’t living in the basement of his mom’s house and “investing” all of his allowance on video games???

Here’s my question: has there been an investigation of Anthony Weiner for demonizing gold???

The American people are totally confused and divided, which is exactly what you would expect from “No, no, no.  Not God bless America.  God DAMN America!”  The other thing you’d expect from God damn America is that wicked and foolish people will continue to make poor choices and poor decisions.

Failure-in-Chief Obama Plunges To All-Time Low According To NBC/WSJ Poll

June 25, 2010

Maybe Americans don’t like hopey changey so much after all.

Have you ever had somebody say you can hope into one hand, and defecate into the other hand, and then see which hand gets full first?  Well, we took the “hopey-crappy challenge,” and now we’ve got a giant load of crap sitting in our White House, taking the place of an actual president who can truly lead and effectively govern, ought to be.

New poll shows Obama approval at all-time low
Thu Jun 24, 2:28 pm ET

The White House has been fond of citing turning points lately, most recently when describing the administration’s handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Now President Obama faces a turning point of his own — and not for the better.

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Obama’s approval rating to be the lowest it’s been since he took office 18 months ago. According to the poll, only 45 percent approve of the job Obama is doing in the White House, compared with 48 percent who disapprove. And the numbers only get worse from there: Sixty-two percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track — the highest number recorded since just before Election Day in 2008 — and just one-third believe things are going to get better, a 7-point drop since a month ago and the lowest such number in the Obama presidency.

The fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill appears to be the biggest drag on Obama’s numbers. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of the crisis — including one in four Democrats.  But generally, the poll finds increasing doubts about Obama as a leader. Just 49 percent of those polled give Obama positive ratings when asked if he has “strong leadership qualities” — that’s a decline of 8 points since January and nearly 20 points from when he first took office. Less than half rate him positively when asked if he’s “honest and straightforward.” In January ’09, 63 percent gave him positive marks for “being firm and decisive in decision-making.” That number is now at 44 percent. Asked about his “ability to handle a crisis,” only 40 percent rate him positively, an 11-point drop since January. You can read the full poll results here.

Obama’s biggest problem: He’s lost the middle — the so-called independent and moderate voters who are generally given the most credit for his win back in 2008. According to the poll, 52 percent of self-described independent voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing. He’s even losing parts of his base. The poll finds Obama with 17 percent disapproval among Democrats — the highest number of his presidency.

None of this is good news for Democrats up for re-election this fall. Beleaguered Democrats had been counting on Obama’s coattails to help them, as polls have also showed a historic trend away from the Democratic Party. According to this new poll, the GOP has a 2-point edge over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot — but among voters who describe themselves as most interested in the 2010 midterms, the GOP jumps to a 21-point lead over Democrats.

— Holly Bailey is a senior politics writer for Yahoo! News.

Did you catch that red emboldened part about the Republicans currently having a 21-point lead over Democrats when you count the people who are actually going to vote?

Democrats had a 60 vote supermajority in the United States Senate.  They could pass ANYTHING.  And they used their power to pass shockingly terrible legislation that will haunt Americans for decades to come.  The American people corrected that disastrous mistake the first chance they had, but Democrats STILL have an overwhelming majority of 59 votes.  And they have a gigantic majority in the House of Representatives.  And yet they are such disastrous failures, and are in such total and complete disarray, that they can’t even pass a budget.  Which allows Democrats to continue their insane, destructive spending divorced from any checks or balances until the people finally get to hold them accountable in November.

Democrats have blamed Bush every step of the way.  They have acted like a child who comes to school every single day for a year and a half and tells the teacher that the dog ate his homework.

Well, eventually such bratty, irresponsible kids flunk out.

Obama Continues To Resort To Fabrication To Pimp His Porkulus

October 30, 2009

It would be nice if the Obama administration got its narrative straight.  Christine Romer, the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, says that the stimulus pretty much had all the effect it’s going to have.  And while she’s saying that, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is proclaiming that the stimulus was designed with a two-year horizon and that “half that effect is still ahead of us.”  Maybe they could get together and cook their story.

It wouldn’t hurt if the White House got its basic facts straight, while they were at it.

From the AP, in an article entitled, “Stimulus Watch: Stimulus Jobs Overstated In Report”:

WASHINGTON – The White House is promising that new figures being released Friday will be a more accurate showing of progress in President Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan. It aggressively defended an earlier, faulty count that overstated by thousands the jobs created or saved so far.

Ed DeSeve, serving as Obama’s stimulus overseer, said the administration has been working for weeks to correct mistakes in early counts that identified more than 30,000 jobs paid for with stimulus money. He said a new stimulus report Friday should correct many mistakes an Associated Press review found that showed the earlier report overstated thousands of stimulus jobs.

“I think you’ll see a pretty good degree of accuracy,” DeSeve said in an interview.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs downplayed errors in job counts identified by the AP’s review, telling reporters, “We’re talking about 4,000, or a 5,000 error.”

The AP reviewed a sample of federal contracts, not all 9,000 reported to date, and discovered errors in one in six jobs credited to the $787 billion stimulus program — or 5,000 of the 30,000 jobs claimed so far.

Even in its limited review, the AP found job counts that were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of paid positions; jobs credited to the stimulus program that were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs that were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:

• Some recipients of stimulus money used the cash to give existing employees pay raises, but each reported saving dozens of jobs with the money, including one Florida day care that claimed 129 jobs saved.

• A Texas contractor whose business kept 22 employees to handle stimulus contracts saw its job count inflated to 88 because the same workers were counted four times.

• The water department in Palm Beach County, Fla., hired 57 meter readers, customer service representatives and other positions to handle two water projects. But their total job count was incorrectly doubled to 114.

Those errors were included in an early progress report on the stimulus released two weeks ago that featured numerous mistakes, including a Colorado business’ claim that its stimulus contract created more than 4,200 jobs. TeleTech Government Solutions actually hired 4,231 temporary workers for its stimulus project, but most of them worked for five weeks or less and the others no more than five months, company president Mariano Tan said.

The short-term positions should have been reported as 635 full-time, 40-hour-a-week jobs under the government’s method of calculating stimulus work, Tan said.

Now, first of all, stop and contemplate the farce that is going on here.  We have lost 3 million jobs since Obama bluffed and pandered his generational theft act through Congress.  And they are touting 30,000 jobs as a success?  I mean, 30,000 jobs created or saved is a massive failure on its face.  And then it turns out that even many of those 30,000 jobs are bogus.

Obama promised his Wreckovery Act would create 3 million new jobs.  The fact that he now has to play games to create the illusion that he “saved” or created a minuscule 30 thousand jobs is a screaming testimony to what a failure Obama has truly been.

The White House, according to media reports, is blasting the Associated Press for exposing this new Obama administration fabrication.  I guess they’re not a “legitimate news agency,” either.

The Obama administration has been pumping sunshine (a polite synonym for “lying”) practically since the day their porkulus generational theft act was passed back in February.  That was when Obama officials falsely promised the country that they would be able to keep unemployment below 8% if we gave them their stimulus.  Even liberals are increasingly acknowledging that Obama has been a total bust at job creation.

Obama now has a documented history of fallacious expectations and highly selective cherry-picking of “facts”.  It is par for the course for a president who only knows how to campaign, rather than to lead or to actually solve problems.

And nothing has been more completely fraudulent that their repeated attempts to argue that their Wreckovery Act created jobs.

The reality is that the European leaders who predicted government stimulus would fail to improve the economy were right, and Obama was wrong.  There is a clear correlation between stimulus money and unemployment, but it isn’t the kind of correlation Obama wanted: the more spending by government, the higher the unemployment rate.

We’re told that the economy grew by an annual rate of 3.5% last quarter, and that this signals the recession may be over.  But there’s a little factoid that needs to be understood, namely:

Economists forecast the nation’s total output grew at an annual rate of 3.3 percent between July and September, after contracting for a record four straight quarters. That growth has been fueled by a huge influx of government cash, including a temporary tax credit for first-time homeowners and a $1.25 trillion Federal Reserve program to keep mortgage rates low.

In other words, the GDP grew, my hind end.  Rather, the government spent a ton of money, the result of which was to artificially pump up the economy.  It’s the equivalent of borrowing a ton of money you don’t have to buy a car you can’t afford in order to impress your neighbors.  Only it’s Obama instead of you, and it’s trillions of dollars rather than thousands.

As a result of this fraud, the administration can pump up a number.  But the reality is very different.  Consumer confidence “unexpectedly” dropped in October just as we’re entering the critical Holiday shopping season, meaning the American people aren’t falling for the ruse.  And new home sales took an “unexpected” dump into the toilet to throw a bucketful of cold water into the face of anyone naive enough to buy the myth that we’re going to rise above our housing market woes.

As a result of too many partisan political shenanigans over too long a time, most Americans – by a solid 52% to 36% majority – believe that Obama has the country on the wrong track.

I would submit that a little more honesty, and a lot less bullpuckey, would go a long way.

Majority Of Americans Say Country Under Obama On Wrong Track

October 29, 2009

We keep getting news about how the economy is recovering, but we keep losing jobs.  Now we’re told that the GDP grew 3.5% last quarter, but buried in the middle paragraphs we’re told that the reason GDP increased is because of all the trillions of dollars of government spending propping up a hollowed-out shell of an economy that is ready to implode.

Most Americans don’t seriously follow the news, or know the facts.  But they are increasingly coming to the conclusion that something is wrong.

For First Time Under Obama, Majority Says U.S. Is on Wrong Track — by Bruce Drake, October 27, 2009

While the stock market has picked up and the country appears to be pulling out of the recession, a majority of Americans – for the first time in the Obama presidency – says the U.S. is headed down the wrong track, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted Oct. 22-25.

// Fifty-two percent say the country is on the wrong track compared to 36 percent who say it is headed in the right direction with 9 percent saying conditions are mixed and 3 percent undecided. While there have been pluralities saying the U.S. is on the wrong track in four of the previous five WSJ/NBC polls during Obama’s presidency, this is the first time the number broke 50 percent. The one month where that was not true was April when 43 percent said things were on the right track and an equal number said they were going in the opposite direction.

President Obama’s job approval rating stands at 51 percent, the same number it had been during the previous two months.

But the approval ratio for his handling of the economy has dipped from 51 in September to 47 percent in October. Forty-nine percent are very dissatisfied with the state of the economy and another 31 percent are somewhat dissatisfied. Seventeen percent are somewhat satisfied and only 2 percent are very satisfied.

The only thing Barack Obama has done well is demonize George Bush.

We didn’t elect a president who would lead us into the future; we elected a president who would keep pointing back at the past and demagoguery his predecessor.  Leaders don’t constantly blame their predecessors, as Barack Obama and his White House are constantly doing; rather they assess the situation, recognize the problem, and move the country forward.

People are starting to get that.