| | | |
Obama: Normal Presidents Don't Act Like This -- Part 2
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
December 18, 2011
So our Fraudinator-in-Chief goes to Osawatomie, Kansas to give yet another class warfare speech designed to scare us away from our evil capitalist money grubbing ways.
In the speech he said limited government that preserves free markets and "speaks to our rugged individualism" as Americans, "doesn't work" and "has never worked" and that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more and regulates more if they want to preserve the middle class.
Saul Alinsky's goal was to destroy the middle class, but to accomplish that one had to infiltrate it and sow the seeds of discontent. As an Alinsky acolyte Obama has been doing just that. He ran as a centrist and governed as leftist.
Here are some excerpts of this depressing Castro-like scold:
"'[T]here is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. 'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us," said Obama. "If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes--especially for the wealthy--our economy will grow stronger.
"Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.
"Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.
"It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.
"Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class==things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.
"Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.
"We simply cannot return to this brand of 'you’re on your own' economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.
This thing went on for over an hour. The students got to get out of class but they were, no doubt, thinking I'd rather be anywhere but here.
Fortunately we have Investors Business Daily to decode the lies in Obama's speech:
Five Big Lies in Obama's Economic Fairness Speech
http://news.investors.com/Article/594075/201112071902/obama-reruns-5-lies-in-fairness-speech.htm Election '12: One thing is certainly true about President Obama — no matter how many times people point out the falsehoods in his speeches, he just keeps making them. Case in point: his latest "economic fairness" address.
In that speech Tuesday, Obama once again tried to build a case for his liberal, big-spending, tax-hiking, regulatory agenda. But as with so many of his past appeals, Obama's argument rests on a pile of untruths. Among the most glaring:
• Tax cuts and deregulation have "never worked" to grow the economy. There's so much evidence to disprove this claim, it's hard to know where to start. But let's begin with the fact that countries with greater economic freedom — lower taxes, less government, sound money, free trade — consistently produce greater overall prosperity.
Here at home, President Reagan's program of lower taxes and deregulation led to an historic two-decade economic boom. Plus, states with lower taxes and less regulation do better than those that follow Obama's prescription.
Obama also claimed the economic booms in the '50s and '60s somehow support his argument. This is utter nonsense. Taxes at the time averaged just 17% of the economy. And there was no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Departments of Transportation, Energy or Education, and no EPA. Had Obama been around then, he would have decried it all as un-American.
• Bush's tax cuts on the rich only managed to produced "massive deficits" and the "slowest job growth in half a century." Budget data make clear that Obama's spending hikes, not Bush's tax cuts, produced today's massive deficits.
And Obama only gets his "slowest job growth" number by including huge job losses during his own term in office. Also, monthly pre-recession job growth under Bush was about 40% higher than post-recession growth has been under Obama.
• During the Bush years, "we had weak regulation, we had little oversight." This is patently false. Regulatory staffing climbed 42% under Bush, and regulatory spending shot up 50%, according to a Washington University in St. Louis/George Washington University study. And the number of Federal Register pages — a proxy for regulatory activity — was far higher under Bush than any previous president.
• The "wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century." Fact: the federal income tax code is now more progressive than it was in 1979, according to the Congressional Budget Office. IRS data show the richest 1% paid almost 40% of federal income taxes in 2009, up from 18% back in 1980.
• We can keep tax breaks for the rich in place, or make needed investments, "but we can't do both." Not true. Repealing the Bush tax cuts on the "rich" would raise only about $70 billion a year, a tiny fraction of projected deficits. With or without the Bush tax cuts, the country can't afford Obama's agenda.
Obama's continued dismal approval ratings suggest that voters aren't buying into these lies — yet.
But they might, if he's able to endlessly repeat them without a peep of protest from the mainstream press
Obama: Normal Presidents Don't Act Like This
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
November 22, 2011
Jimmy Carter gave us only one "malaise" speech when it was obvious that he was inept in the face of the Iran hostage crisis, the Soviet Union and the flagging U.S. economy. And that was towards the end of his term.
The Obama Malaise and Apology Tour has continued non-stop for almost three years. From bowing to foreign rulers, to calling the United States arrogant at the outset of his term, to throwing our allies, including Israel and Poland, under the bus, our Fraudinator-in-Chief was just getting started in 2009.
Obama at the G20 Summit in April 2009:
"In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
On the same trip Obama grudgingly acknowledged that he considers the U.S. to be an exceptional nation, but added a qualifier:
"I believe in American exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
Not content with bashing America overseas Obama began to grind American business into the ground under the boot of crony-capitalism (GM, Chrysler, GE, Solyndra for example). He has also taken to directly insulting Americans for their failure to embrace the Obama economic train, which, strangely, has yet to stop at the main street station. We understand Barack….you're so busy playing venture capitalist with tax dollars.
The year 2011 was the time for Obama's 'Hate America and Israel ' mask to come off.
It was time to beat up on Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. In May of 2011 Obama called for a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders as a "starting point for a peace deal" At a joint news conference at the White House Netanyahu took Obama to school saying "We cannot go back to those indefensible lines" "That's not going to happen" "History will not give the Jewish people another chance". That of course, enraged our child president.
At the November 2011 G20 summit Obama and France's Nicolas Sarkozy were caught agreeing privately that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is insufferable: Thinking the microphones were off Sarkozy was recorded confiding to Obama after a G-20 press conference regarding Bibi Netanyahu, "I cannot stand him. He is a liar," Obama responded, "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"
In October 2011, Obama complained that "we used to have the best stuff. Think about it: The world used to say 'Let's travel to America. Let's see the Golden Gate Bridge. Let's see the Hoover Dam. Let's see the amazing things that America built.'"
And in September 2011, he said the country "had gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track."
On the first leg of his November 2011 "get outta town" jaunt to Southeast Asia Obama told CEOs in Hawaii that the U.S. had been "lazy" in attracting foreign investment. Actually, the White House has been consistently demonizing it.
Obama: "It's important to remember that the United States is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world. But we've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted - well, people will want to come here and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America," Obama told a leery foreign CEO at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Hawaii.
Why would any foreign business invest in the United States unless it was one of the chosen few in the crony capitalist world of Obama.
Investors Business Daily:
In 2010 Japan's Toyota was humiliated over a safety issue. It wasn't enough to let the regulators deal with accusations about Toyota's brake pedals - as Ford and GM had been over comparable problems. The Obama White House had to publicly shame Toyota.
Accusations, later proven false, that Toyota brakes were faulty became a special hell for Toyota. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who had a conflict of interest as a regulator and shareholder in Toyota's U.S. competitors due to the auto bailout, encouraged Americans to "stop driving" Toyotas.
U.K. oil giant BP was put through a similar wringer after the Gulf oil spill of 2009. Instead of treating BP as a domestic company, Obama proudly announced he had his "boot on the neck" of the British company and, in a move of questionable legality, demanded $20 billion.
In 2009, Obama signed off on the Democratic Congress' special "Buy American" provisions in the $900 billion stimulus package, shutting out foreign investors for U.S. government contracts. The language was all about "patriotism," but it signaled that the U.S. wasn't welcoming foreigners.
On the second leg of his November 2011 "get outta town" jaunt to Southeast Asia, Obama told Australians that our kids are "behind" in education and that the solution is more government spending. What a surprise.
Obama: "A lot of poor children don't get the support they need when they're very young," Obama told a roomful of wide-eyed students down under. "So by the time they get to grammar school, they're behind."
A normal president wouldn't go around to other countries telling the locals that their country's schoolchildren are underachievers and slow-witted. In fact a normal president doesn't go around bashing his country at all.
Author Dinesh D'Souza, in his book The Roots of Obama's Rage, has speculated that the cause of Obama's hatred of Americans and Western Civilization in general, is because his grandfather was a prisoner of the British during the Kenyan civil wars, his father and mother were communists who abandoned him, and his formative associations were a mix of Muslims and communists. D'Souza is probably right. There is nothing inherently American, Western, inner-city black or otherwise where Obama's past is concerned. He may or may not be an American citizen….but he is a foreigner in every sense of the word.
It is long past time to recognize what is going on in the White House and throw Obama and his Chicago thugocracy out in November 2012.
Obama: Governing By Slogan
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
November 6, 2011
It started out with 'Hope and Change' and 'Yes we can.' Add a dollop of 'We are the ones we've been waiting for' and you had the recipe to cloud the judgment of normally seasoned and cynical liberal reporters, and even some conservative ones too.
After the disastrous 2008 election the slogans and catchphrases kept coming. Unemployment continued to increase, despite $800 billion in stimulus and Obamacare. To hide continued job losses Team Obama invented the phrase 'Jobs Saved or Created'. They don't use that one anymore, so universally reviled and ridiculed as it has now become.
There were also non-existent "shovel-ready" jobs just waiting to be filled. There were thousands of roads, bridges and schools (all union jobs, of course) that needed fixing or building. Eventually Obama and his minions had to admit that shovel-ready "wasn't as shovel-ready as we had hoped." So where did the money go? It still went to the unions, just not to union jobs.
As the recession increased its grip on the United States, our Fraudinator-in-Chief took to assigning blame.
The phrases "the economy my administration inherited," "ethics of greed," "reckless fat-cat bankers," and "selfish millionaires and billionaires", began to make it into the dialogue.
When that didn't magically stimulate anything Obama looked outwardly for something to fix blame on. He found it in the Japanese earthquake/tsunami and the economic turmoil in Europe. Our economy was beset with "headwinds" and "bumps in the road."
With no one left to blame but himself, Obama blamed the American people.
In October, Obama complained that "we used to have the best stuff. Think about it: The world used to say 'Let's travel to America. Let's see the Golden Gate Bridge. Let's see the Hoover Dam. Let's see the amazing things that America built.'"
And in September, he said the country "had gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track."
This predictably echoes Jimmy Carter in his infamous "malaise" speech: "the erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and political fabric of America."
Obama assigning blame to everyone but himself recalls the Soviet propaganda of avoiding blame for all of the failed 5-year plans. Worse than that it recalls Hitler in the last days of the Third Reich, blaming the defeat of Germany on the Germans:
On March 19, 1945 Hitler told his Minister of Armaments, Albert Speer, "If the war is lost the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue even a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves, because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have all been killed."
This is what comes of self-appointed demi-gods and narcissists.
Most recently we have been witness to Obama's latest faux-stimulus plan, his non-existent jobs bill. With great fanfare he called a joint session of Congress to announce the bill with repeated exhortations of "Pass this bill NOW!!" It did not have the desired effect.
That was followed by the "We can't wait" campaign that had Obama running around the country implying he was going to go around Congress to get a jobs bill. Isn't he doing that already on just about everything else?
The halcyon days of cramming bills through a one-party Congress are over. Even the Democrats in the Senate are voting against stripped down versions of the Obama jobs package.
Maybe the slogan du jour should be
Herman Cain: I'm ready for my High-Tech Lynching Mr. Demille
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Oct. 31, 2011
For two and a half years all we have heard, regarding any criticism of our Fraudinator-in-Chief by Republicans and the Tea Party, is how racist we are.
The standard line is from Janeane Garofalo:
"This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. -- Garofalo and the Tea Parties on the Olbermann Show".
There are a million other examples. Black Congressmen and women have suggested that failure to pass the Obama jobs bill is racist. Or failure to raise taxes is racist. Or not to support Obamacare is racist. You get the idea.
Enter Herman Cain, a black Republican running for President.
The liberal dilemma? As a liberal how do you explain away the racism in the Republican Party, now that Cain leading in the polls. It's easy….Republicans are giving themselves cover to hide their racism by supporting Cain !?!
Janeane Garofalo on Cain: "Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same.
"People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'" More Garofalo
Karen Finney on MSNBC
"One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy," Finney said. "I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he's a black man who knows his place. I know that's harsh, but that's how it sure seems to me."
Martin Bashir, on MSNBC asked "Can Cain spell Iraq?". And now Cain is accused of sexual harassment.
Buckle up folks, the high-tech lynching of Herman Cain is about to begin and the Democrats and the liberal media are about to make racist fools of themselves.
We remember how finally-deceased Sen. Ted Kennedy disgraced himself by dragging in Anita Hill to smear Justice Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination hearings. The thought of a conservative black man on the Supreme Court was inconceivable to liberals. Thomas had to be destroyed. Because if blacks are seen as not to be needing affirmative action, one of the pillars of the liberal agenda is destroyed and a key voting bloc vanishes.
What better way to destroy Thomas than to smear him sexually. It was a not-so-subtle reminder of the Jim Crow days when it was implied that blacks could not control their sexual urges. So Democratic klansmen in the South would hang them.
Politico: During Herman Cain's tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group,multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.
"They're going to come after me more viciously than they would a white candidate," Cain responded. "You're right. Clarence Thomas. And so, to use Clarence Thomas as an example, I'm ready for the same high-tech lynching that he went through -- for the good of this country." Cain smiled broadly. "I'm ready for the same high-tech lynching."
Ann Coulter: "Liberals are terrified of Herman Cain. He is a strong conservative black man. Look at the way they go after Allen West and Michael Steele and they aren't even running against Obama. They are terrified of strong, conservative, black men,"
The Democrats are also desperate to run against Romney so they are firing all the big smear guns now. Their racism is on full display. Their bankrupt philosophy is on full display. They are on full display. The fly in the Liberal ointment is that we are at the primary stage of the election and most states do not have open primaries.
So, this time, it will be the Republicans who decide who the candidate is, not the racist Democrats and not the paternalistic, condescending lib media.
to circumvent Congress. Like he hasn't already been doing that with climate regulation after climate regulation issued by the EPA.
The Obama Totalitarian Temptation Pt. II
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
September 28, 2011
On July 31 we brought you our Fraudinator-in-Chief talking to La Raza and channeling his inner totalitarian by expressing his desire for As Obama's poll numbers continue to crater, the impulse to embrace fascism runs evermore close to the surface.
In September of 2011 Obama repeated his La Raza sentiments to another Latino group – the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.
“As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own. There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress.”
Isn't that special? It doesn't stop with Obama. Democrats and progressives, as a whole, are getting desperate as they see their power ebbing.
Speaking to a Cary Rotary Club, democrat N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue's totalitarian temptation takes the form of suspending Congressional elections for two years so that Congress can focus on economic recovery and not the next election.
"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election."
Never mind the constitutional problems with Perdue's insanity....this is putting party above country, as Obama is forever accusing conservatives and Tea Partiers of doing.
It doesn't stop there. Writing in the New Republic, former Obama budget director Peter Orszag's totalitarian temptation is a need for less democracy:
In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, John Adams wrote that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” That may read today like an overstatement, but it is certainly true that our democracy finds itself facing a deep challenge: During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.
So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic. Mr. Orszag, we are on to you. You saw that Obama's policies didn't work and your profile in courage was to desert the sinking ship. Like most everyone who bailed from the first two Obama years, you didn't want the stench attached to your suit, but you are still a progressive spreading worn out Keyenesian claptrap.
If we re-elect Obama, Little Timmy-the-tax-cheat Geithner, Eric New Black Panther/Fast & Furious Holder, and the Ivy League freak show of Science Czar John Holdren and Regulation Czar Cass Sunstein and his Jew-hating wife Samantha Power, we will surely be committing suicide.
Obama to the Rich: Pay Your Fair Share.....Obama Lied
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
September 22, 2011
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief, in the face of plummeting polls, has declared a class war jihad on the rich. These insensitive bastards have to pay their fair share thunders Obama on a daily basis. This will be the campaign mantra for the next year. How very tiresome.
Obama's new base tax rate for the wealthy would ensure that millionaires pay at least at the same percentage as middle income taxpayers.
The new law is called it the "Buffett Rule" for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained that rich people like him pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.
Of course it is the 15% cap gains tax that Buffet was referring to because he does not take a salary from which income tax is derived. Buffet and Obama are comparing apples and oranges. And in speech after speech Obama is lying.
So per the Associated Press here are the facts:
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that’s less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
Households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Individuals $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Individuals making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes.
The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent.
The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150. So even if Buffet payed the top marginal income tax rate he would be paying more than his secretary, unless she is making $379,150 per year.
And even if Obama got his way and achieved the Leftist wet dream of soaking the rich, the amount of money collected would be negligible, maybe $19 billion, a one time baby windfall.
History also shows that when confiscatory taxes are imposed the rich, who drive spending at 33%, they cut back their spending and hide their cash. So, not only would the government collect less money than it expects, the economy would take yet another hit.
The cheap, emotional, short term satisfaction of sticking it to the evil rich would quickly give way to higher unemployment and more misery as the wealthy fold up their tents.....until someone sane is elected president.
Oh and Warren....just a reminder, your company Berkshire Hathaway owes taxes for the years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009. Pay your fair share and please stop lecturing us.
Regarding Obama's other A-list financial pal GE CEO Jeffery Immelt....GE payed no corporate income tax last year while shipping "green jobs" overseas to China. Immelt, who
has driven GE stock down in excess of 50% during his tenure, sits on Obama's phony Jobs Council. Most recently he was seen sitting next to Obama, yukking it up when Obama said
"shovel-ready wasn't quite as shovel-ready as we expected." He was also in the VIP gallery during Obama's recent ridiculous jobs speech to a joint session of Congress.
What are we missing here?
Jimmy Hoffa Is A Wimp and a Pussy
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
September 7, 2011
So much for the civil tone that our Fraudinator-in-Chief asked for after the Gabby Giffords shooting in January. We know what Obama really meant…..the Tea Party needs to tone it down, not the Democrats.
Hiding behind the skirts of the union workers and Obama at a Labor Day Teamsters rally, Jimmy Hoffa exhorted his charges to "take these son of bitches out." Granted most of Hoffa's rant was syntactically incorrect and incoherent. However, he managed to get his message across. Outwardly he wants to knock heads….inwardly I believe he is angry at Obama for not being tough enough.
Scratch the surface of a progressive and a union thug and you will find a wimp and a pussy. Yes Jimmy….you are a pussy. Like the cowardly Imam who sends his flock out as suicide bombers, Hoffa wants to send his troops out to fight a war while he sits in his comfortable office.
He also says "one thing about working people is we like a good fight" Who's we Jimmy? You wouldn't know the working people from the man in the moon. You've been busy stealing their money in the form of union dues for years, just like your old man.
Hoffa speaking at a rally for Obama in Detroit on Sept. 5:
We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the tea party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of (A)Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war. . . .
President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong. Is Hoffa a product of the public schools, or any school for that matter? Based on this rant it's obvious that he skipped sentence construction in English class.
Hoffa has refused to apologize for his remarks and Obama has not disavowed them either. At the daily press briefing the next day, White House spokesman Jay Carney ran interference for Obama when questioned by ABC's Jake Tapper about the Hoffa tirade:
JAKE TAPPER: And, lastly, Jay, in January, President Obama said, after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, "At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay all the ills of the world at people who think differently than we do, it's important to pause for a moment to make sure that we are talking to each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds." Did he mean that?
JAY CARNEY: Of course he did.
TAPPER: How does-- How do the comments by the teamster's president fit in with that?
CARNEY: Well, first of all, those weren't comments by the President. The President wasn't there. Secondly, and I think has been reported-
TAPPER: Comments by a union leader at an event that President Obama spoke at.
CARNEY: I understand that there is a ritual in Washington that somebody said something and then you link the associations and then everyone who has an association with him or her somehow has to avow or disavow. The President wasn't there. I mean, he wasn't on stage. He didn't speak for another twenty minutes. He didn't hear it. I really don't have any comment beyond that.
TAPPER: Okay, well, some of us covered the campaign and recall a time when someone made some harsh comments about then-Senator Obama while- during an introduction of a McCain rally and the Obama campaign was offended and expected an apology and Senator McCain came out and did so.
CARNEY: Well- Mr. Hoffa speaks for himself. He speaks for the labor movement, AFL-CIO. The President speaks for himself. I speak for the President. What the President was glad to do yesterday was have the opportunity to present his views on working Americans and the importance of taking measures to help working Americans to create jobs to grow the economy.
TAPPER: So, the precedent you're setting right now for the 2012 election is the candidates- the Republican candidates are the ones that we need to pay attention to and those who introduce them at rallies, their surrogates, you don't have to pay attention to anything they say.
CARNEY: Jake- I think I've said what I can say.
TAPPER: Is that the standard now?
CARNEY: You can report it as you like.
TAPPER: I'd rather not have to do this Washington Kabuki every time something happens, but if that's the standard, if that's the standard-
CARNEY: The standard is, we should focus on the actions we can take to grow the economy and create jobs, instead of focusing on Kabuki theater.
Nice job Jay. Your daily press briefings give a whole new meaning to the term Kabuki theater.
Never Fear -- Holder's DOJ is Protecting us from the Dastardly Gibson Guitar Company
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
August 28, 2011
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre or corrupt, along comes Eric Holder and his Junior Commie G-Men in the Justice Dept. to
protect us from............ ELECTRIC GUITARS!!!! The Holder Justice Department raided Gibson Guitar facilities in Nashville and Memphis because the company is using unfinished wood from India and this violates Indian law...not American law.
Wow....I feel safer already. Never mind the Black Panther voter intimidation case, or the government-sponsored gunrunning case known as Operation Fast and Furious.
This is really important. We have to find out if illegal wood is being used on the bridges and fingerboards of these guitars. What could be more urgent?
The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.) This action was taken without the support and consent of the government in India.
Press Release from Gibson: On August 24, 2011, around 8:45 a.m. CDT, agents for the federal government executed four search warrants on Gibson’s facilities in Nashville and Memphis and seized several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. Gibson had to cease its manufacturing operations and send workers home for the day, while armed agents executed the search warrants. Gibson has fully cooperated with the execution of the search warrants.
But wait, there's more. As usual it's all about the money....which the government now desperately needs because they have run up so much debt.
It turns out that one of Gibson’s leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Company. The CEO, Chris Martin IV, is a supporter of liberal causes, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the DNC over the last few election cycles. Actually, Martin got off cheap because, these days, $35,000 barely gets you dinner at the back table of an Obama fundraising dinner.
According to C.F. Martin’s catalog several of their guitars contain “East Indian Rosewood.” Ironically, that's the exact same wood in at least ten of Gibson’s guitars. Unfortunatley, Gibson CEO Henry E. Juszkiewicz does not have the Obama "imprimatur" because he supports Republicans.
The Obama administration, like all liberal/socialist/communist causes, is about the shakedown. I wonder how much "get-off-my-back" money Gibson will have to cough up to make this latest Obama business extortion disappear.
We also expect calls for mandatory guitar registration, government-issued performance licences for all guitarists, a voluntary (soon to be mandatory) recall of all Gibsons with the offending wood, a ten day waiting period for all Les Paul purchases and an outright ban on all assault guitars with extended necks.
Perhaps real Norwegian Wood would have been better.....I suggest a boycott of the liberal C.F. Martin & Company and those fatuous, self-righteous, Laurel Canyon hippy-dippy singer-songwriter badge-of-honor Martin acoustic guitars. After all, anything you can play acoustically you can play with a Les Paul plugged into a Marshall stack.
Obama: The Buck Stops Everywhere But Here
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
August 10, 2011
President Harry Truman, (Democrats, you know him of course...he's the one who didn't hesitate to drop two atomic bombs on Japan, thus ending World War II, avoiding an invasion, and saving 1,000,000 American lives)
famously said For the Obama drones, that means the buck stops at the president's desk, not at the door, not at the Rose Garden or at the White House gates. Our Fraudinator-in-Chief doesn't seem to get that.
"The Buck Stops Here." But why should he? This is the guy who voted present while an Ill. state senator, and farmed out the Stimulus, Obamacare and FinReg legislation to Congress. Now he's blaming the Tea Party for
our sorry financial situation and the S&P downgrade. He is a master of the blame game.
On August 8 Rush Limbaugh read a record of the blame Obama has heaped on everyone but himself (Rush did not include Obama blaming ATMs as an excuse for the unemployment figures.):
RUSH: Let me count the pages here. One, two, three, four, five, six pages -- six pages -- of news headlines and stories.
RUSH: Yeah, I'm gonna read the rest of the Obama blames. By the way, folks, do a Google search on it. "Obama blames" as a Google search term returns more than 490,000 hits. "Obama blames," no quotes -- just "Obama blames" -- returns 6,920,000 results on Google. Obama blames, Obama blames...everybody but himself. Obama is a man-child; immature, over his head, out of his league, unqualified.
Obama Blames Arab Spring and Japan's Earthquake on Struggling Economy and Job Situation, August 5th, 2011.
Obama Blames Messy Democracy for His Failed Policies, August 3rd, 2011; remarks by the president at a DNC event.
Obama Blames Congress for US Debt Mess; Obama news conference, June 29th, 2011.
Obama Blames Republicans for Slow Pace on Immigration Reform, July 25th, 2011. (This was page one.) Page two:
Obama Blames Media for Lack of Compromise in Washington; remarks by Obama at a town hall meeting July 22nd, 2011.
Obama Blames Technology for Struggling Economy; June 14th, 2011, NBC Today interview.
Obama Blames Oil Spectators for High Oil Prices; April 19th, 2011, remarks by Obama at a town hall meeting.
Obama Blames Reagan for America's Out of Control Debt and Spending; remarks by President Obama April 13th, 2011, Federal News Service.
Obama Blames Bush and Congress for Lack of Fiscal Discipline, April 13th, 2011; remarks by Obama, Federal News Service.
Obama Blames Bush-Congress for Putting Off Tough Decisions, August 17th, 2010; remarks at a fundraiser for Patty Murray.
Obama Blames Bush for Tax Cuts, Deficits; Obama town hall meeting on the economy in Racine, Wisconsin, June 30th, 2010.
Obama Blames Bush for Deficits, June 8th, 2010; remarks by Obama at a second fundraising reception for Senator Barbara Boxer.
Obama Blames GOP for Events that Led to Gulf Oil Spill; remarks by President Obama June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service.
Obama Blames Republicans for America Not Being Able to Solve Problems; remarks by President Obama June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service.
Obama Blames Corporations for Everybody's Problems, June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service. He said, "If you're a Wall Street Journal bank or an insurance company or oil company, you pretty much get to play by your own rules regardless of the consequences for everybody else."
Obama Blames Bush for Overall Standing of American Economy, April 19th, 2010, at a fundraising reception for Senator Boxer.
Obama Blames Bush, Congress for Deficits, February 1, 2010, delivering remarks on the budget.
Obama Blames Bush for Regulatory Policies; January 17th, 2010, remarks by the president at an event with attorney general Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.
Obama Blames Corporations for Everybody Else's Problems, June 3rd, 2010; remarks by President Obama.
Obama Blames Bush for Overall Standing of Economy and American Standing, April 19th of 2010. Obama delivering remarks at a fundraising reception for Senator Boxer and the DNC.
Obama Blames Bush and Congress for Deficits, February 1st, 2010, in remarks delivered on the budget.
Obama Blames Bush for Regulatory Policies, January 17th, 2010, remarks by the president at an event with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Obama Blames Wall Street Fat Cats for Economic Disaster, December 13th, 2009, CBS News' 60 Minutes. Obama Blames Bush for Overall Economy, September 27th, 2009, remarks by the president at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual dinner.
Obama Blames Bush for Stifling Unions, September 7th, 2009; remarks by the president at the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic.
Obama Blames Bush for Prescription Drug Bill; remarks by the president, health insurance reform town hall, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 11th, 2009.
Obama Blames Bush for Jobs, July 22nd, 2009; news conferences by the president.
Obama Blames Bush for Failure to Recognize Europe's Leading Role in the World, April 3rd, 2009; remarks by President Obama at a Strasbourg town hall, and in those remarks he said this: "So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world, instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive of you." That's Barack Obama, speaking in Europe at Strasbourg, blaming Bush for a failure to recognize Europe's leading role in the world, April 3rd, 2009.
Obama Blames Bush for Deficits, February 23rd, 2009; Obama delivering opening remarks at fiscal responsibility summit.
Candidate Obama Blames Fox News for his Elitist Label, New York Times, October 2008.
Candidate Obama Blames Fox News for Likely Loss in Kentucky Primary, May 2008.
Candidate Obama Blames Washington for High Gas Prices, April 25th, 2008; remarks of Senator Barack Obama, press availability on energy plan, 25 April 2008.
Happy Downgrade Mr. Purrezident...Happy Downgrade To Yoooouuuuuu
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
August 5, 2011
Coming on the heels of the second market crash in the Obama presidency, and one day after Obama's 50th birthday, Standard and Poor's downgraded the nation's top-notch triple-A credit rating, the first downgrade in U.S. history and a dramatic vote of no-confidence in the world's largest economy and its political leadership.
"We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA,'" S&P said in a statement.
"The downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011."
Lowering the nation's rating one-notch below AAA, the credit rating company said "political brinkmanship" in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government's ability to manage its finances "less stable, less effective and less predictable." It said the bi-partisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings "fell short" of what was necessary to tame the nation's debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings later on.
Liberals did what they always do....they blamed the messenger. We are waiting for them to blame Republicans and George Bush.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) called for increases taxes:
"The action by S&P reaffirms the need for a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines spending cuts with revenue-raising measures like closing taxpayer-funded giveaways to billionaires, oil companies and corporate jet owners."
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) predictably denounced the ratings downgrade, saying S&P was "trying to justify their reputation" after failing to spot problems in the nation's financial system before the economic crisis of 2008.
"These are some of the people who have the worst records of incompetence and irresponsibility around," Frank said on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show."
What Barney Frank didn't mention was his deplorable oversight and encouragement of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was directly responsible for the 2008 sub-prime mortgage financial crisis.
Five days before his election our Fraudinator-in-Chief said, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America!!!"
Congratulations Barack. You have achieved your vision. Mission accomplished.
The downgrade puts the U.S.on the same level as Belgium and Australia. We are now just one of many pathetic, unexceptional nations in the world now. We can regain our AAA rating but historically that will take nine to eighteen years.
Happy Birthday B.O., and please resign. Your work is done.
Daily Telegraph: This time we face the risk of double-dip recession without shock absorbers. Interest rates are already at or near zero in much of the OECD club. Fiscal deficits are stretched to the limits of safety.
China: The man who leads one of China’s top rating agencies says the greenback’s status as the world’s reserve currency is set to wane as the world’s most powerful policy makers convene to examine the implication of S&P’s decision to strip the United States of its triple “A” rating. But they are communists so who cares.
Alan Greenspan: "The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default." Thanks Al.
Democrats are now blaming the Tea Party for the downgrade....what a bunch of predictable, pathetic morons.
Default Avoided, Market Crashes, the Left Attacks the Tea Party....Again
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
August 5, 2011
"Go on Mr. President. Sign the debt deal. The stock market will love you for it."
Oops, after 8 days of market declines in anticipation of a government default, the stock market crashed another 512 points the day after Obama signed the deal. Thank you 'Bama.
This was a deal that nobody loved. Democrats voted against it because it didn't include tax hikes. Republicans voted against it because it didn't include enough budget cuts. Since the start of the debate, the lamestream media has labeled the Tea Party as the Hezbollah faction, hostage takers, terrorists, and traitors. Democrat politicians, incapable of any original thinking, picked up the mantra, pounding the terrorist moniker ad nauseum. At least the Tea Party wasn't called racists this time around.
Maureen Dowd ramped up the NY Times' vitriolic attacks against Tea Party conservatives, bizarrely describing them as "cannibals" "zombies" and "vampires.":
Tea Party budget-slashers didn't sport the black capes with blood-red lining beloved by the campy Vincent Price or wield the tinglers deployed by William Castle. But in their feral attack on Washington, in their talent for raising goose bumps from Wall Street to Westminster, this strange, compelling and uncompromising new force epitomized "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and evoked comparisons to our most mythic creatures of the night.
They were like cannibals, eating their own party and leaders alive. They were like vampires, draining the country's reputation, credit rating and compassion. They were like zombies, relentlessly and mindlessly coming back again and again to assault their unnerved victims, Boehner and President Obama. They were like the metallic beasts in "Alien" flashing mouths of teeth inside other mouths of teeth, bursting out of Boehner's stomach every time he came to a bouquet of microphones.
NY Times columnist Joe Nocera launched an idiotic attack against Tea Party, labeling them "terrorists" who wore "suicide vests" during the debt ceiling debate.
"You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America's most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn't care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that's what it took. For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They'll have them on again soon enough. After all, they've gotten so much encouragement. "
Fellow Times columnist Nicholas Kristof referred to Tea Partiers as a "national security threat from our own domestic extremists."
MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "The GOP has become the Wahhabis of American government, willing to risk bringing down the whole country in the service of their anti-tax ideology."
Is it possible for MSNBC to sink to new lows? In one of the more shocking interviews to hit the no-ratings network, Martin Bashir brought on addiction expert Stanton Peele to describe the Tea Party as addicts because they keep getting everything they want and will end up like the Norway shooter. In other words, when you are losing the argument dehumanize the enemy, in this case, the Tea Party.
Peele: "It reminds us of addiction because addicts are seeking something that they can't have. They [Tea Party members] want a state of happiness or nirvana that can't be achieved except through an artificial substance and reminds us of the Norway situation, when people are thwarted at obtaining something they can't, have they often strike out and Norway is one kind of example to one kind of reaction to that kind of a frustration."
Bashir then asked, "so you're saying that they are delusional about the past and adamant about the future?"
"They are adamant about achieving something that's unachievable, which reminds us of a couple of things. It reminds us of delusion and psychosis," Peele smugly stated.
We wouldn't call an increase of the debt by 2.4 trillion anything approaching a victory for the Tea Party. We call it a blank check for Obama as he begins his re-election effort.
It didn't stop with the leftist media. The parade of horribles included leftist politicians who felt compelled to join in. VP Joe Biden called the Tea Party terrorists. He gets points for original thinking. NOT!!!
Representative Emanuel Cleaver described the federal debt deal as a Satan sandwich.
On NBC Nancy Pelosi said it was a Satan sandwich with Satan fries. What, no Satan Shake?
Speaking to the liberal Think Progress, Pelosi wasn't finished:
"It is about destroying government - federal involvement in education. It's about lean air, clean water, food safety, public safety. You name it, they're there to diminish it. Destroy it."
John Kerry feels the media should censor the Tea Party. Kerry said the following on MSNBC's Morning Joe:
"And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.
"It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what's real, of who's accountable, of who is not accountable, of who's real, who isn't, who's serious, who isn't?"
At least Kerry was polite. What is scary is that this posturing, statist poof was almost elected president.
The Debt Ceiling and Obama's Totalitarian Temptation
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
July 31, 2011
Before saying anything else about the debt ceiling crisis, let's confirm one thing: Obama does not like you, the demcratic process or Congress. Democracy is just too cumbersome for a man so lofty as the president of the world.
He wants, more than anything else, to be our Dear Leader, Uncle Ho (or Uncle Joe, or Uncle B.O.), Il Duce, Der Führer, El Presidente (all crackpot socialists and Communists, by the way). And he has been leaving us breadcrumbs for the last two years.
1) In front of La Raza on July 25th our Fraudinator-in-Chief gave a speech and admitted that “the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting” when it came to dealing with Congress over the debt deal. And while he added the caveat that our democracy doesn’t work like that – the crowd was cheering the possibility of Obama side stepping Congress and doing things his own way.
2) Obama at a recent town hall: "I'm sympathetic to your view that this would be easier if I could do this entirely on my own. It would mean all these conversations I've had over the last three weeks, I could have been spending time with Malia and Sasha instead." Please sir, do us a favor and resign so you can play with your kids.
3) Apparently Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, "No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao's words in Tahrir Square." It's good to be the king.
Here's what the president of China gets to do:
The Mao-loving Thomas Friedman at the New York Times concurs. He doesn't like all that messy democracy and republic stuff.
If you're president of China, you get to starve and murder 50-70 million folks to implement a revolution and land reform.
If you're president of China, people around the world who are fighting for freedom don't really expect you to help.
If you're president of China, you don't have to put up with those annoying off-year congressional elections, and then negotiate your budget with a bunch of gun-and-religion-clinging congressmen and senators.
If you're president of China, you can fund national public radio (propaganda airwaves) to your heart's content.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China's leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.
Jean-François Revel wrote in his mid-1970's essay on anti-communism, The Totalitarian Temptation:
If a substantial minority in the West thus deliberately closes it's eye to obvious reality, the explanation may well lie in an acknowledged desire to live under Stalinism, not in spite of what it is, but because of what it is. Some want to wield the power of a tyrant, a wish from which none of us is free;
for others it is the need to submit to a tyrant's rule, and none of us is free from that murky impulse either. After all, if tyranny had never enjoyed the complicity of it's victims, the history our times, and many other times, would have been quite different.
Even in the best informed societies, there exists a third world of ignorance. Having been told over and over again that the free societies of the industrial West are history's most horrendous cases of oppression and misery,
that any change is preferable to the awful present, those who vote for the Western Communist parties lend their support to totalitarianism,
not thruough any desire for Stalinism, about which they know nothing, but because they believe this is the only route to reform and improvement in their lives. And, once they experience Stalinist rule, it will be too late once they change their minds. Perhaps the cheering morons at La Raza and Mr. Friedman should go live in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, or China, and experience the glory of the socialist utopia before condemning the rest of us to that misery.
And in Friedman's case perhaps he could sell his cush digs in Maryland, and stay in China permanently, heading up the communist bureau of the NY Times in Beijing. After all, they really know how to git 'er done over there.
High Noon for Obama, the GOP and the Debt Ceiling
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
July 19, 2011
Right from the outset let's call our Fraudinator-in-Chief and little Timmy "Tax Cheat" Geithner what they are: charlatans and disgraces to their offices. They have demagogued the debt ceiling debate, lied about checks not being able to go out, and have thrown temper tantrums during the meetings with Congressional representatives.
Here is the short list of outrages from recent weeks of this sorry tale:
From the Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell:
Obama said "don't call my bluff" to Eric Cantor, and stormed out of a meeting.
Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell offered to have Obama raise the debt ceiling so he would own the issue.
It is obvious that Obama has no plan of his own, other than to raise taxes and raise the debt ceiling, but specifics are non-existent.
Moody's threatened to downgrade our debt rating if the debt ceiling is not raised
Obama and Geithner can't promise checks would go out: "I cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it." President Obama, July 12, 2011 to CBS News.
Obama Aims for the Money You Don't "Need"
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?
The CBO's own numbers prove there are sufficient funds to cover the essential expenses, including social security. Here are the numbers:
Washington receives about $200 billion in monthly revenues and sends out roughly $50 billion worth of Social Security checks and the same amount of Medicare payments. Why is Obama claiming the checks may not go out?
Because Obama is playing the demagogue by trying to scare enough voters long enough to get through the November 2012 election to get himself re-elected. He is also trying to scare seniors into making panicked calls to their congressmen begging them to do whatever Obama and the Democrats want in order to keep the checks coming.
This is demagoguery of the worst sort because Obama has to know that what he is saying is false. When you and I say something we know to be false, it's called a "lie."
Here are the facts, as reported by MarketWatch and the Bipartisan Policy Center. You do the math:
That still leaves $39 billion each month. This is where Obama and the Democrats most fear to go. If Congress doesn't agree to raise taxes and the national debt limit, they will then have to make the tough choices about which of the remaining programs gets paid or cut and by how much:
The federal government receives approximately $200 billion in revenues each month.
Interest on the national debt in August will be approximately $29 billion.
Social Security will cost about $49. 2 billion.
Medicare and Medicaid will cost about $50 billion.
Active duty military pay will cost about $2.9 billion.
Veterans affairs programs will cost about $2.9 billion.
Meanwhile, Obama is claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.
Food stamps and welfare
Department of Education
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Justice, etc. etc.
"The American people are sold," Obama said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."
Again, Obama is lying. According to a July 14 Rasmussen poll just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling and 55% disagree and say it should not.
If Obama refuses to send out checks for purely political purposes, given that sufficient funds are "in the coffers", the House of Representatives should move to bring articles of impeachment against this sorry excuse for a president.
From the Washington Post:
Call Obama's bluff
By Charles Krauthammer,
July 14, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/call-his-bluff/2011/07/14/gIQAfzFyEI_story.html?hpid=z4 President Obama is demanding a big long-term budget deal. He won't sign anything less, he warns, asking, "If not now, when?"
How about last December, when he ignored his own debt commission's recommendations? How about February, when he presented a budget that increases debt by $10?trillion over the next decade? How about April, when he sought a debt-ceiling increase with zero debt reduction attached?
All of a sudden he's a born-again budget balancer prepared to bravely take on his own party by making deep cuts in entitlements. Really? Name one. He's been saying forever that he's prepared to discuss, engage, converse about entitlement cuts. But never once has he publicly proposed a single structural change to any entitlement.
Hasn't the White House leaked that he's prepared to raise the Medicare age or change the cost-of-living calculation?
Anonymous talk is cheap. Leaks are designed to manipulate. Offers are floated and disappear.
Say it, Mr. President. Give us one single structural change in entitlements. In public.
As part of the pose as the forward-
looking grown-up rising above all the others who play politics, Obama insists upon a long-term deal. And what is Obama's definition of long-term? Surprise: An agreement that gets him past Nov. 6, 2012.
Nothing could be more political. It's like his Afghan surge wind-down date. September 2012 has no relation to any military reality on the ground. It is designed solely to position Obama favorably going into the last weeks of his reelection campaign.
Yet the Olympian above-the-fray no-politics-here pose is succeeding. A pliant press swallows the White House story line: the great compromiser ("clearly exasperated," sympathized a Post news story) being stymied by Republican "intransigence" (the noun actually used in another front-page Post news story to describe the Republican position on taxes).
The meme having been established, Republicans have been neatly set up to take the fall if a deal is not reached by Aug. 2. Obama is already waving the red flag, warning ominously that Social Security, disabled veterans' benefits, "critical" medical research, food inspection - without which agriculture shuts down - are in jeopardy.
The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It's time to act. Time to call Obama's bluff.
A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500?billion containing $500?billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger.
The fat-cat tax breaks (those corporate jets) that Obama's talking points endlessly recycle? Republicans should call for urgent negotiations on tax reform along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles commission that, in one option, strips out annually $1.1?trillion of deductions, credits and loopholes while lowering tax rates across the board to a top rate of 23 percent. The president says he wants tax reform, doesn't he? Well, Mr. President, here are five months to do so.
Will the Democratic Senate or the Democratic president refuse this offer and allow the country to default - with all the cataclysmic consequences that the Democrats have been warning about for months - because Obama insists on a deal that is 10 months and seven days longer?
That's indefensible and transparently self-serving. Dare the president to make that case. Dare him to veto - or the Democratic Senate to block - a short-term debt-limit increase.
This is certainly better than the McConnell plan, which would simply throw debt reduction back to the president. But if the House cannot do Plan A, McConnell is the fallback Plan B.
After all, by what crazy calculation should Republicans allow themselves to be blamed for a debt crisis that could destabilize the economy and even precipitate a double-dip recession? Right now, Obama owns the economy and its 9.2 percent unemployment, 1.9 percent GDP growth and exploding debt about which he's done nothing. Why bail him out by sharing ownership?
You cannot govern this country from one house. Republicans should have learned that from the 1995-96 Gingrich-Clinton fight when the GOP controlled both houses and still lost.
If conservatives really want to get the nation's spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide. To seriously jeopardize the election now in pursuit of a long-term, small-government, Ryan-like reform that is inherently unreachable without control of the White House may be good for the soul. But it could very well wreck the cause.
And from the Wall Street Journal:
JULY 14, 2011
The Real GOP Debt Choice Do the Republicans want a showdown now, or in 2012?
by Kimberly Strassel Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking heat from some in his caucus for "caving" on debt-limit talks. They might instead be thanking him for finally laying out the real choice Republicans face in this debate: 2012 or 2010.
Put another way: With President Obama now committed only to bad options, does the GOP allow him to unilaterally take ownership of his spending mess going into the 2012 election? Or does the party remain so rigidly committed to its own 2010 promises of spending cuts that it joins the president in irresponsibility?
Republicans took a flyer on the debt debate, betting that the high stakes gave them enough leverage to force Mr. Obama to accede to spending cuts. It was bold. It was a potential shot at serious spending reform. It hasn't worked.
Instead of blinking, Mr. Obama has stubbornly dug in, committing himself either to whacking the country's credit or whacking the country's economy-or both. He's made clear to Republicans that the only deal he'll cut will require their help in those ruinous objectives.
Option No. 1 is for the GOP to do a $4 trillion "big deal," in which it gets some cuts, including to Medicare, though only in return for agreeing to significant tax hikes. The president forces Republicans to make a mockery of their own tax promises, and he gets cover for what's been his goal all along. He also gets to brag to his base about that victory, even as he demoralizes conservative voters.
Option No. 2 is the smaller, $2 trillion Biden deal. Even here the White House is demanding some tax increases, while Democrats insist a significant chunk of the cuts take place in future Congresses (which can ignore them). The conservative base will deride this as budget gimmickry, and the GOP will get little credit. The president, however, will boast to the rest of America that he has clocked "significant" spending reductions, and he'll run as a deficit-cutter.
Option No. 3 is for the GOP to go to the brink and share the turmoil or shutdown that follows default. Ask Newt Gingrich how that worked out for him in 1995. Mr. Obama today owns a failing economy. Republicans are begging for joint custody. Come turmoil in August, the president will lay every unemployment uptick, every poor economic statistic, at the foot of whatever panic or pain came out of the debt-ceiling mess-and the Republicans who helped push it to that point.
All this is why Mr. McConnell earlier this week proposed to step back and give the president authority to raise the debt ceiling. If he's so committed to his positions, let him swim in them. Let him own a deficit that's on track to hit $1 trillion for his third presidential year running. Let him tell America why he's cut nothing. Let him explain a credit downgrade caused by his failure to get serious about American debt.
Let him explain the slowing economy, the high unemployment and his proposals for new taxes-next summer. Let the Democrats up for re-election have to vote (as Mr. McConnell's proposal requires) to back up Mr. Obama's profligacy. Let Americans understand, clearly, that this is what they will continue to get if they re-elect him.
Resisting this position are dozens of House Republicans who were elected in 2010 on the promise that they would get America's spending problem under control immediately. This promise has been the animating principle behind all of Speaker John Boehner's and Mr. Cantor's negotiations with the White House. This crowd is aching for a giant spending-cut number to flaunt to the base, proving they are as good as their 2010 campaign word.
Yet despite campaigning on the Constitution, most appear to have missed the whole "separation of powers" bit. You know, the part that provides a presidential veto. Republicans cannot run government from the House alone, yet many have bought into their own debt-limit rhetoric. Rather than see this as the failed gamble it is, they truly believe they have the leverage to make this president give them all they want. "Call his bluff," goes the cry.
These are the same Republicans who have spent years rightly describing Mr. Obama as ideologically committed to giant government-the architect of stimulus, ObamaCare, blowout budgets. The same Republicans who believe Mr. Obama is pursuing a deliberate strategy to turn America into a European entitlement state. Yet now they believe he'll just roll over and give up all he's attained?
If the GOP is so eager to call an Obama bluff, how about this: Call him on his argument that he is acting like a leader, working to fix the debt problem, offering the GOP the opportunity to go big. That's the story line Americans are being fed right now, and the GOP shores it up every time it agrees to another White House summit. A shame, since in fact the only Obama offers are for mediocre cuts, higher taxes, and the opportunity for Republicans to help permanently enshrine big government. That, or for joint ownership of a failing economy and/or shutdown turmoil.
Let him own it.
Unemployment is 9.2% -- Each Stimulus Job Cost $278,000
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
July 9, 2011
Unemployment ticked up to 9.2% in the month of June. Obviously there are a few more ATM machines, disasters in Japan, economic headwinds and bumps in the road than our Fraudinator-in-Chief thought, especially when he
is doing everything possible to create the bumps in the road.
The news was oddly presaged by senior Obama adviser David Plouffe who said, earlier in the week at a Bloomberg breakfast, that people won’t vote in 2012 “based on the unemployment rate.”
Plouffe: “The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers. People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’”
That incredible comment will provide any and all Republican candidates with their first effective campaign commercial.
Meanwhile the Obama Administration's "Seventh Quarterly Report" indicated very little impact from the $800 billion stimulus on the economy other than to cost the taxpayer
$278,000 per job created or saved (we love that expression). And the lion's share of those expensive jobs were in the public employee union sector.
On what they term the 'Job Double Dip" the Wall St. Journal opined:
President Obama's economic advisers have been leaving one by one to return to private life, and who can blame them. They used the entire Keynesian, liberal playbook to spur economic growth, and this is the result. The intellectual dissonance must be demoralizing.
In a historical note of irony, as the Great Depression persisted, FDR's Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau admitted that the New Deal had been a failure. On May 6, 1939 he said:
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."
From the Weekly Standard:
Obama's Economists: 'Stimulus' Has Cost $278,000 per Job
The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs. Jeffrey H. Anderson
When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it's clearly not trying to draw attention to the report's contents. Sure enough, the "Seventh Quarterly Report" on the economic impact of the "stimulus," released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama's economic "stimulus" did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.
Our Lawless President Pt.2 -- 5 Ways Obama is Circumventing Congress and Ruling by Executive Order
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
July 8, 2011
From defying court orders to end oil drilling bans to internet regulation, to implementing enironmental regulations through the EPA in defiance of Congress, to his refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act our Fraudinator-in-Chief
has shown a willingness to act as a government power unto himself. If he can't get what he wants from Congress, no worries. He'll just do it himself via executive order.
From the Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell:
For all of candidate Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric promising to respect Congress's authority to draft the nation's laws, President Obama has demonstrated a persistent pattern of circumventing the legislative branch via administrative fiat whenever his agenda stalls. And though one of the Obama campaign's legal advisers cautioned against a President who would "take the law into his own hands and shred it when it's convenient," he has done just that time and time again.
The Obama Administration generally employs one of two strategies to legislate without-and often in spite of-congressional action: (1) administrative decree establishing a new federal rule, or (2) a refusal to enforce existing federal law. In five separate policy areas, the President and the federal agencies under his command have spurned congressional authority to achieve Obama's objectives.
1. Environmental Regulation: President Obama has made it his mission to impose economy-killing environmental regulations on America in spite of clear congressional opposition. Take the White House-backed cap-and-trade bill, which would have created a market for "carbon credits" that businesses would have to trade in order to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.
The measure passed the House in 2009 but was defeated in the Senate. Undeterred, the Obama Administration sought to ram its agenda into law without congressional approval. It managed to classify carbon dioxide as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, thereby granting the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate its emission-despite warnings even from Members of Congress who wanted to regulate carbon emissions but recognized the problematic nature of doing so without congressional approval.
2. Labor Law: Expanding powerful labor unions is another Obama Administration objective. On June 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced plans to dramatically reduce the time to conduct unionization elections.
But in 2009, the Senate moved in the opposite direction. It removed the "card check" provision from the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act," effectively sinking a measure that could have dramatically increased union membership by rescinding workers' rights to a secret ballot election for union representation.
The NLRB's new rule will reduce the length of elections from about six weeks to 10-21 days, thereby limiting employers' abilities to present their own cases against unionization to workers-and making the formation of a union far more likely. Increased unionization was always card check's purpose. The NLRB is now attempting to achieve the same goal without Congress's approval.
3. Immigration Law: On immigration policy, the Obama Administration has not even waited for congressional action before charting its own legislative course. In May, Democrats reintroduced the DREAM Act-which would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the United States before they were 16-after the lame-duck Congress failed to pass it late last year.
But rather than waiting for Congress to act, officials at Obama's Department of Homeland Security have instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and attorneys to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" for illegal immigrants who have attended school in the United States, meaning far fewer such illegal immigrants will be prosecuted and deported. The agency cited a shortage of resources, but the decision amounts to a de facto implementation of the DREAM Act.
4. Selective Enforcement of Federal Law: Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, Obama's Justice Department decided in 2009 that it would simply stop enforcing those laws. Proposals to legalize marijuana at the federal level consistently fail to win congressional approval, but the Obama Administration decided to implement its agenda in spite of that lack of legislative support.
The Justice Department again employed this tactic in February when it announced that it would no longer enforce another federal law: the Defense of Marriage Act. The Administration did not agree with the law, so rather than attempting to repeal it via the standard legislative channels, it decided to ignore it.
5. Regulating the Internet: Obama's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided late last year to assume authority over Internet regulation despite a ruling by a federal appeals court explicitly denying the commission that authority. In contradiction of the court's ruling, the FCC voted 3-2 in December to pass the first-ever federal regulations on Internet traffic. The House has voted to block those regulations, but Obama has pledged to veto any such legislation.
More Bureaucratic Legislating Ahead: All of these examples demonstrate a striking lack of respect for the role of the legislative branch in American government. Despite paying lip service to Congress's constitutional role as the sole source of the nation's laws, the Obama Administration has ignored Congress wherever the people's representatives have declined to codify his agenda.
Nor is there any sign of this trend abating. Even now, the President is considering a number of proposals that would advance his legislative agenda without congressional consideration or approval, including re-regulation of campaign finance laws to circumvent a Supreme Court decision and waivers of the No Child Left Behind law in the face of congressional inaction.
Following the November elections, when President Obama's party lost control of the House, Obama told America that where he can't legislate, he will regulate. And that seems to be this Administration's modus operandi: If Congress refuses to abide by Obama's agenda, the President's bureaucratic machine will make its own laws.
Obama Administration Puts Israel on Terrorist Watchlist and is Negotiating With the Muslim Brotherhood
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
July 2, 2011
Neville Update: July, 8, 2011
After realizing their Leftist Jew-hating faces had actually been revealed, the Obama Administration took Israel off their terror watch list. Thanks guys....no green-powered gas chambers just yet.
The JTA reported:
Israel was included erroneously on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security terrorist watch list, a U.S. official said.
John Morton, the director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the department, said Israel’s recent appearance on a list compiled by the department’s office of the inspector general was a mistake.
“The addition of Israel in the OIG’s list of ICE’s ‘Third-Agency Checks’ (TAC) was based on inaccurate information provided to the OIG during the course of its audit,” Morton said in a statement sent by e-mail to JTA. “The U.S. does not and never has considered Israel to have links to terrorism, but rather they are a partner in our efforts to combat global terrorism. The United States maintains close intelligence-sharing relationships with Israel in order to address security issues within its own borders and in our mutual pursuit of safety and security around the globe.”
The list does not fault government policies and instead recognizes the likelihood that a suspect traveler from that country might have terrorist ties.
If a traveler from one of the countries is detained, the country’s inclusion on the list triggers a special check by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The list, attached to a May 10 document from the DHS Inspector General’s office, was reported last week by CNS News, a conservative news service. It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic, but here we go....again.
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief has put Israel on the terrorist watch list and is actively negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood.
The collaborative and treasonous nature of this regime knows no bounds.
From Dick Morris:
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) maintains a list of "specially designated countries" (SDCs) that "have shown a tendency to promote, produce or protect terrorist organizations or their members." The folks from these nations get special scrutiny when they enter the U.S.
Here's the list:
And so forth.
Israel? Yes Israel is one of the thirty-six SDCs that "promote, produce, or protect" terrorists, according to the Obama Administration. With splendid equality, they manage to list the world's biggest victim alongside the globe's leading perpetrators of terrorism. Israelis coming into America get the same high level of scrutiny that Iranians do!
This information, which comes to us courtesy of the wonderful website www.ruthfullyyours.com, is as shocking as it is credible.
That Obama has tried to maintain that there is a moral equilibrium between Israel and the aggressive Arabs that surround it is well known. But to list Israel as a promoter, protector, or producer of terrorism is quite extraordinary.
Doubtless some politically correct soul at ICE or in the State Department felt that the U.S. needed to show impartiality in making up its list and include non-Muslim countries. What better rebuttal to those who would claim that the ICE is profiling Muslims than to say that Israel is also on the list?
But Israel's inclusion on the list, to say nothing of the indignity inflicted on its citizens as they seek to enter the United States, is an insult and must be corrected at once!
And from Andrew McCarthy writing at National Review:
National Review Online
Andrew C. McCarthy
NR Contributing Editor
June 30, 2011 The Obama Administration Opens Formal Contacts With the Muslim Brotherhood
Don't say I didn't warn you. Besides explaining what the Muslim Brotherhood is and has always been, the major point of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the West Sabotage America was to warn that this day was coming. And so it has come: Reuters reports that the Obama administration has established a policy of formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood is the world's most important Islamist organization. It is openly, unabashedly committed to the destruction of the United States and the West. In typical Obama fashion, this disastrous decision to engage America's avowed enemies has been couched as the mere continuation of prior policy: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is reported to have confirmed that the U.S. would "resume" contacts which had "occurred in recent years." But make no mistake about it, this is a new policy.
To read the rest of this post, click here. If link does not work, please paste the following in your browser:
By the way, on the heels of Obama's announcement of the troop drawdown and our eventual capitulation in Afghanistan, the regime is also talking with the Taliban:
White House shifts Afghanistan strategy towards talks with TalibanSenior Washington officials tell the Guardian of a 'change of mindset' over Obama administration's Afghanistan policy
The White House is revising its Afghanistan strategy to embrace the idea of negotiating with senior members of the Taliban through third parties - a policy to which it had previously been lukewarm.
Obama Blames ATM Machines for High Unemployment
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
June 15, 2011
It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic, but here we go.
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief believes ATMs cause unemployment. He said it out loud for all to hear on the "Today Show."
Obama told Ann Curry his brilliant theory about why the economy hasn't been doing so well since he became president:
"There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."
So automation is the problem. Who'da thunk it. Let's close down the assembly lines, get rid of the computers, get out the oil lamps and head out to the rice fields. This way to UTOPIA!!!
This is after our genius Fraudinator-in-Chief joked about "shovel-ready" not being shovel-ready, driving into economic ditches, headwinds and bumps on the road back to prosperity, moats and alligators regarding illegal immigration, all the while talking over Britain's national anthem while toasting the Queen and telling Israel to back to the 1967 borders.
Obama: Damn those economic headwinds...full speed ahead!!!
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
June 8, 2011
On the day the Bureau of Labor Stats announced the increase in unemployment to 9.1% our Fraudinator-in-Chief visited the Chrysler Factory in Dayton Ohio, where he said the Jeep Wrangler couldn't make it over the cratering economy's rough terrain and those "few bumps in the road". His union buddies roundly booed him and he looked as stupid as he did toasting the Queen of England.
Back in Washington, on June 7, Obama insisted that the country is not at risk of slipping into a double-dip recession, but he conceded he does not know whether a sudden slowdown in job growth is a blip or an indication of a longer, more worrisome trend. The president said the nation is on a solid but uneven path to recovery and the key is to "not panic."
We are glad he is not concerned about a double dip. Obama has a job, for the next year and a half. We are pretty sure that the unemployed are worried about a double dip. But don't panic.
"I'm not concerned about a double-dip recession. I am concerned about the fact that the recovery that we're on is not producing jobs as quickly as I want it to happen," Obama said at a joint news conference with visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "Obviously we're experiencing some headwinds. We've still got some enormous work to do."
"We don't yet know whether this is a one-month episode or a longer problem. Consumers are currently experiencing "headwinds" like high gas prices," he said. Uh, Mr. President, your idiotic no-drill policies in the Gulf and your sweetheart deals with Brazil's Petrobras have contributed to the high oil Prices.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke noted that the job market and the economy have weakened in recent weeks. But he said that's mainly because of higher gas prices and the Japan crises -- factors that should ease in coming months-- and predicted growth would strengthen later this year.
Chauncey Gardener, from "Being There" said there will be "growth in the spring." And all the pinheads in Washington thought the simpleton was talking about the economy. The last scene in that movie depicted Chauncey sauntering into the White House…..
Excerpted from the Heritage Foundation Morning Bell (June 7):
The economic news keeps getting worse for America. Last month, the unemployment rate went up to 9.1 percent, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, and the average length of unemployment rose to more than nine months, the longest since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1948. But despite all the writing on the wall, President Barack Obama wants you and the 13.9 million unemployed Americans to hang on for the ride.
In his weekly address on Friday, President Obama played down May's terrible unemployment numbers as mere "bumps on the road to recovery" and blamed America's latest economic woes on high gas prices (which he can do something about, but hasn't), the earthquake in Japan, and "unease about the European fiscal situation." Meanwhile, his chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, parroted his boss's "bumps on the road" line and, on Sunday, told America not to worry about the jobs report, remarking, "Don't bank too much of any one month's jobs report. You want to look at a little bit of a trend to get a more accurate barometer." Goolsbee announced his resignation yesterday.
Unemployment Rate: 9.1% -- Obama: "We've hit a few bumps...."
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
June 3, 2011
Unemployment is up to 9.1 %, housing prices continue to fall, the Dow is off 800 points in just two weeks and consumer confidence is going down. Our Fraudinator-in-Chief
enjoyed a round of golf on Memorial Day. Today he journeyed up to the Chrysler Plant in Ohio to have a chili dog and declare that the American auto industry is "back". It's
starting to sound like the old five-year plan reports from the Soviet Union.
Here is a list of the economic headlines just from this week:
Hiring falls in May, unemployment rate rises to 9.1 percent
WASHINGTON - HIRING FALLS: Employers added 54,000 net new jobs in May, the fewest in eight months, and the unemployment rate rose to 9.1 percent. The bleak jobs report suggests the economy will remain weak for months. Employers added an average of 220,000 per month in the previous three months.
TEMPORARY FACTORS: Economists blamed mostly temporary factors, such as the spike in oil prices earlier this year and supply disruptions from Japan's earthquake.
SLOWING MOMENTUM: But most analysts don't expect a strong rebound later this year. With job growth slowing, home prices falling, and wages stagnant, the unemployment rate will likely remain high through next year.
The Story Continues Below
Horror for US Economy as Data Falls off Cliff
The last month has been a horror show for the U.S. economy, with economic data falling off a cliff, according to Mike Riddell, a fund manager at M&G Investments in London.
"It seems that almost every bit of data about the health of the US economy has disappointed expectations recently," said Riddell, in a note sent to CNBC on Wednesday.
"US house prices have fallen by more than 5 percent year on year, pending home sales have collapsed and existing home sales disappointed, the trend of improving jobless claims has arrested, first quarter GDP wasn't revised upwards by the 0.4 percent forecast, durables goods orders shrank, manufacturing surveys from Philadelphia Fed, Richmond Fed and Chicago Fed were all very disappointing."
ADP: U.S. Added Fewer Workers in May
Companies in the U.S. added fewer workers than forecast in May, a sign that job growth is struggling to gain momentum, data from a private report based on payrolls showed today.
Employment increased by 38,000 last month, the smallest increase since September, from a revised 177,000 in April, according to figures from ADP Employer Services. The median estimate in the Bloomberg News survey called for a 175,000 advance for May.
Such gains in employment are insufficient to help the world's largest economy accelerate after a surge in food and fuel costs earlier this year. Businesses added 207,000 jobs last month after a 268,000 gain in April and the jobless rate dipped to 8.9 percent from 9 percent, economists project a Labor Department report to show in two days.
"It is a warning shot across the bow that job growth is also weakening along with the other high frequency numbers," Eric Green, chief market economist at TD Securities Inc. in New York, said in an e-mailed note to clients. "The weakness reflects a general slowdown and turn in sentiment that set in with the sharp rise in energy prices, disruptions from Japan, and to a lesser extent risk aversion stemming from the Greek fiasco."
Labor Market Worries Rise on Weak Private Sector Job Growth
U.S. private-sector payroll growth slowed sharply in May, falling to the lowest level in eight months and prompting some economists to lower forecasts for job growth in Friday's U.S. government report.
The ADP Employment Services report is the latest in a string of data suggesting economic growth remained sluggish early in the second quarter after hitting a soft patch in the first months of the year. The economy grew at a tepid 1.8 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, softer than analysts originally anticipated.
"This only adds fuel to the argument that the slowdown story is here in the U.S.," said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets in New York.
"This is exactly what we do not want when other significant data shows things are slowing down as well."
US Manufacturing Growth Slowest Since Sept 2009
The pace of growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector tumbled in May, slackening more than expected to its slowest since September 2009, according to an industry report released Wednesday.
The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its index of national factory activity fell to 53.5 in May from 60.4 the month before. The reading missed economists' expectations for 57.7.
A reading below 50 indicates contraction in the manufacturing sector, while a number above 50 means expansion.
New orders fell to 51.0 from 61.7 in April, the lowest since June 2009. The index for prices paid fell to 76.5 from 85.5, below expectations of 82.0.
The data echoed earlier regional reports that showed softer manufacturing growth last month.
In other economic data, U.S. construction spending rose in April to record the largest gain in six months, likely boosted by home renovations, but the prior month's outlays were revised down sharply, a government report showed on Wednesday.
Wall Street Baffled by Slowing Economy, Low Yields: Trader
Wall Street is having a hard time figuring out what to do now that the U.S. economy appears to be sputtering and yields are so low, Peter Yastrow, market strategist for Yastrow Origer, told CNBC.
"What we've got right now is almost near panic going on with money managers and people who are responsible for money," he said. "They can not find a yield and you just don't want to be putting your money into commodities or things that are punts that might work out or they might not depending on what happens with the economy.
"We need to find real yield and real returns on these assets. You see bad data, you see Treasurys rally, you see all bonds and all fixed-income rally and then the people who are betting against the U.S. economy start getting bearish on stocks. That's a huge mistake."
Stocks extended losses after the manufacturing fell below expectations in May and the private sector added only 38,000 jobs during the month.
"Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything," Yastrow said. "We're on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it.
"We have many, many homeowners that are totally underwater here and cannot get out from under. The technology frontier is limited right now. We definitely have an innovation slowdown and the economy's gonna suffer."
However, he said he wouldn't sell stocks.
"Any bears out there better be careful because the dividend yields on these stocks look awesome relative to all the other investment vehicles out there," Yastrow said. "So bears are going to have to find a new way to express their discontent with the U.S. economy."
Obama Blows it in Great Britain -- Insults the Queen
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
May 26, 2011
Not content to trash Israel as our Fraudinator and Jew-Hater in Chief did last week, Obama is off to England and Ireland this week. As always, Obama's overseas junkets are rife with gaffes, apologies for America and much bowing and scraping to dictators. Obama did not disappoint. In just two days he:
Spoke in a terrible Irish accent
Erred during a tour of London's Westminster Abbey when he signed a guest book with a date in 2008.
Completely blew a toast to the Queen of England. Watch and be horrified:
Nile Gardner has written a list of the Obama's top ten insults Great Britain:
President Obama's top ten insults against Britain - 2011 edition
Read the entire article here:
In March last year I published a list of Barack Obama's biggest insults against America's biggest ally Great Britain, during his time in office. A lot of water has flown under the bridge since then, including the Gulf oil spill and the White House's campaign against BP, the now infamous Obama-Sarkozy press conference earlier this year, and the release by Wikileaks of US government documents revealing the Obama administration had betrayed Britain in order to appease the Russians over the New START Treaty.
In honour of President Obama's state visit to Britain this week, here's an updated and revised list, as a reminder to readers of the president's less than stellar track record when it comes to US-British relations. The US president will no doubt be careful not to offend his hosts when he travels to London, and he will receive a warm welcome from the Queen and the Prime Minister, as any American president would. But the prospect of an embarrassing diplomatic gaffe or insensitive remark cannot be ruled out from a world leader whose administration has all too often specialised in them. As I noted in my original piece:
Without a shadow of a doubt, Barack Obama has been the most anti-British president in modern American history. The Special Relationship has been significantly downgraded, and at times humiliated under his presidency, which has displayed a shocking disregard for America's most important partner and strategic ally.
There are a multitude of reasons for President Obama's dismissive approach to the UK, and here are a few: an obsession with engaging and appeasing America's enemies rather than cultivating allies; personal animosity towards Britain because of his grandfather's role as a Mau Mau supporter in 1950's colonial Kenya; Democrat resentment over British support for the Bush Administration over Iraq; left-wing disdain for the idea of Anglo-American exceptionalism and world leadership; support for supranational institutions such as the European Union over the supremacy of the nation state.
1. Siding with Argentina over the Falklands
For sheer offensiveness it's hard to beat the Obama administration's brazen support for Argentina's call for UN-brokered negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, despite the fact that 255 British servicemen laid down their lives to restore British rule over the Islands after they were brutally invaded in 1982. In a March 2010 press conference in Buenos Aires with President Cristina Kirchner, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Argentina a huge propaganda coup by emphatically backing the position of the Péronist regime.
In June last year, Mrs. Clinton slapped Britain in face again by signing on to an Organisation of American States (OAS) resolution calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, a position which is completely unacceptable to Great Britain. To add insult to injury, the Obama administration has insisted on using the Argentine term "Malvinas" to describe the Islands in yet another sop to Buenos Aires.
2. Calling France America's strongest ally
In January this year, President Obama held a joint press conference at the White House with his French counterpart, literally gushing with praise for Washington's new-found Gallic friends, declaring: "We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people." As I noted at the time:
Quite what the French have done to merit this kind of high praise from the US president is difficult to fathom, and if the White House means what it says this represents an extraordinary sea change in US foreign policy. Nicolas Sarkozy is a distinctly more pro-American president than any of his predecessors, and has been an important ally over issues such as Iran and the War on Terror. But to suggest that Paris and not London is Washington's strongest partner is simply ludicrous.
These kinds of presidential statements matter. No US president in modern times has described France as America's closest ally, and such a remark is not only factually wrong but also insulting to Britain, not least coming just a few years after the French famously knifed Washington in the back over the war in Iraq.
3. Downgrading the Special Relationship
Barack Obama very rarely refers to the Special Relationship, and has hardly even mentioned Britain in a major policy speech, either before or since taking office. The Anglo-American alliance is barely a blip on Obama's teleprompter screen, and he acts as though it simply does not exist. The Special Relationship has also been largely erased from the official lexicon of the State Department, and is barely used by US officials in London. Despite being America's only major reliable ally when the chips are down, London is now treated in Washington as though it were the same as any other European power, albeit less charitably than either Paris or Berlin.
4. Supporting a federal Europe and undercutting British sovereignty
The Obama administration's relentless and wrongheaded support for the creation of a federal Europe, from backing the Treaty of Lisbon to the European Security and Defence Policy, is a slap in the face for the principle of national sovereignty in Europe. British sovereignty is non-negotiable, and Obama's willingness to undermine it is both insulting to Britain and self-defeating for the United States.
While the Bush Administration was divided over Europe, the Obama team is ardently euro-federalist. Hillary Clinton described the Lisbon Treaty as "a major milestone in our world's history", and in an interview with The Irish Times in 2009 stated: "I believe [political integration is] in Europe's interest and I believe that is in the United States' interest because we want a strong Europe." And in May last year, Vice President Joe Biden described Brussels as the "capital of the free world."
And the US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman, has warned Britain that "all key issues must run through Europe." According to a report by The Parliament.com, in a private meeting with British MEPs at an event in the European Parliament in January, Susman called for a stronger British commitment to the EU, emphatically warning against British withdrawal:
I want to stress that the UK needs to remain in the EU. The US does not want to see Britain's role in the EU diminished in any way. The message I want to convey today is that we want to see a stronger EU, but also a stronger British participation within the EU. This is crucial if, together, we are going to meet all the global challenges facing us, including climate change and security.
5. Betraying Britain to appease Moscow over the New START Treaty
In February, The Daily Telegraph broke a major story with damaging implications for the Special Relationship, revealing that Washington "secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain's nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty." According to The Telegraph report:
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week. Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain's policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain's nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia's support for the "New START" deal. Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK's Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.
Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
6. Placing a "boot on the throat" of BP
The Obama administration's relentless campaign against Britain's largest company in the wake of Gulf oil spill was one of the most damaging episodes in US-UK relations in recent years, with 64 percent of Britons agreeing that the president's handling of the issue had harmed the partnership between the two countries according to a YouGov poll. The White House's aggressive trashing of BP, including a threat to put a "boot on the throat" of the oil giant, helped wipe out about half its share value, directly impacting the pensions of 18 million Britons. This led to a furious backlash in the British press, with even London mayor and long-time Obama admirer Boris Johnson demanding an end to "anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling".
7. Throwing Churchill out of the Oval Office
It is hard to think of a more derogatory message to send to the British people within days of taking office than to fling a bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office and send it packing back to the British Embassy - not least as it was a loaned gift from Britain to the United States as a powerful display of solidarity in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Obviously, public diplomacy is not a concept that carries much weight in the current White House, and nor apparently is common sense.
8. DVDs for the Prime Minister
Readers of this blog will know I'm no fan of Gordon Brown, but whatever one thinks of his third-rate premiership, Brown traveled abroad not as a private individual but as the leader of America's closest ally. He represented 61 million Britons including the Armed Forces, as well as a huge amount of British trade and investment with the United States. He was however treated shabbily when he visited the White House in March 2009, and denied a Rose Garden press conference as well as a dinner. To cap it all, the decision to send him home with an assortment of 25 DVDs ranging from Toy Story to The Wizard of Oz - which couldn't even be played in the UK - was a breathtaking display of diplomatic ineptitude that would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World country.
9. Insulting words from the State Department
The mocking views of a senior State Department official following Gordon Brown's embarrassing reception at the White House in March last year says it all:
There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment.
One would have thought that this kind of monumentally shallow insult would have resulted in at least a formal apology and a reprimand for the official involved, but unfortunately Obama administration apologies are strictly reserved for the French and assorted enemies of the United States.
10. Undermining British influence in NATO
Despite Nicolas Sarkozy's distinctly unflattering opinion of Barack Obama, the US president has gone to great lengths to appease French interests, even going as far as apologising to the French people in Strasbourg for hurting their feelings over the war in Iraq. The Obama administration has also done its best to give Paris a lead role in the NATO alliance at Britain's expense, granting it one of two supreme NATO command positions - Allied Command Transformation (ACT). This, despite the fact that France has for decades been ambivalent and obstructionist over NATO, and is failing to carry its weight in Afghanistan.
Obama: Our Jew Hater-in-Chief Outlines The Final Solution For Israel
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
May 21, 2011
Twenty years of marinating in Jeremiah Wright's Leftist Anti-American church, two auto-biographical Mein Kampfs (The Audacity of Me [Hope] and Dreams From My [Commie] Dad) and a lifetime of cavorting with communists and terrorists, has brought our Fraudinator and Jew-Hater-in-Chief to his own Final Solution for Israel: a return to the 1967 borders and the "right of return" for the Palestinians. The betrayal of Israel and the Jews has begun in earnest.
The morning after he secured the Democratic nomination, then-Senator Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and said the following:
"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," he said to thunderous applause. Jews in Israel and the United States swooned….they thought they had their knight in shining armor. Within a week, the Palestinians and the mainstream media denounced the new Obama approach, and Obama caved like a cheap suit.
On May 19, 2011, while Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu was en route to the US, Obama said this:
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it's important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. Well, there is a little problem with that. First of all, what does contiguous mean? A quick look at the map shows the West Bank and Gaza as two separate entities. Joining the two territories would mean carving up a large portion of southern Israel so they could be "contiguous." Another shitty "land for peace" deal?
Secondly, the pre-1967 lines endorsed by Obama include Jerusalem's holiest sites. Jews and Christians would be denied access to their holiest sites, which would certainly be desecrated as they were when Israel lost control of Jerusalem in 1948 or even more recently when Israel removed guards from Joseph's Tomb. Obama's Israel denies safety and religious rights to the Jewish state. So what happened to "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
It's very simple...Barack Obama hates Israel and hates Jews. What's more, he has a two year track record, as president, of deplorable treatment of Israel. The question is what will it finally take for American Jews to finally wake up and see the executioner in their midst...Cass Sunstein approved, environmentally friendly, "green" gas chambers powered by social justice, wealth redistribution and a dash of Zyklon-B?
Even some Jewish legislators were a little miffed at Obama's statements, no doubt fearing the wrath of their constituencies.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.): "Remind me again, why did the '67 borders change? (Israel was Attacked!!!)"
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.): "I strongly disagree with the President on the notion that somehow the '67 lines should be a starting point for any discussion having to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Obama did get support from the usual liberal Jewish appeasers:
Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee:
"It has been my expectation for many years, dating to the end of the Clinton Administration, that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would involve a border that is close to that of 1967 but with agreed upon land swaps. That is fully consistent with Israel's right to have defensible borders and to retain its settlement blocs, positions for which there is overwhelming support in Washington."
Liberal American Jewish advocacy groups, anxious to commit suicide, found themselves rushing to give cover to their favorite president. These groups included the American Jewish Congress, the National Jewish Democratic Council and the Anti-Defamation League, the latter of which typically concerns itself with combating the denigration of the Jewish people rather than foreign policy. Perhaps they should start being more concerned with foreign policy and survival.
And, of course, there was Israel's perennial appeaser, Tzipi Livni, the opposition leader in Israel and architect of the Gaza "land for peace" swap, who praised Obama's remarks, demonstrating that Jewish thought in the Middle East is not monolithic. Obviously neither is the desire to live monolithic among all Israeli Jews.
The Meeting and the Smackdown Enter Benjamin Netanyahu the day after Obama's policy speech. Needless to say, the Israeli PM was not pleased. At the after-meeting press conference Netanyahu took our "boy-king" to school, or the woodshed….which ever you prefer.
Obama went first, gassing around about the eternal friendship and the few differences between our nations…the usual scripted faux-lofty rhetoric:
Obama: "Obviously, there are some differences between us, the precise formulations and language. That's going to happen between friends." With a friend like Obama Israel doesn't need another enemy.
Then Netanyahu was up...excerpted from the full statement:
"Peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality."
On the Palestinian "right of return":
"It's not going to happen. Everybody knows it's not going to happen," he said. While the refugees need a place to live, he said, "It's not going to be resolved within the Jewish state."
On the Palestinian Authority as a negotiating partner:
The pre-requisite for peace talks must be the Palestinian Authority's rejection of Hamas, which Netanyahu called "the Palestinian version of al-Qaeda." He said his counterpart in peace talks, Mahmoud Abbas, must choose between Hamas and Israel. He also said Hamas had just rebuked Obama for the bin Laden takedown.
Obama pretty much got bitch-slapped by a true statesman. Here is the full video of the after-meeting press conference:
Former Israeli UN Ambassador Dore Gold writing in the Wall St. Journal:
It's no secret that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to lobby the U.N. General Assembly this September for a resolution that will predetermine the results of any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on borders. He made clear in a New York Times op-ed this week that he will insist that member states recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 lines, meaning Israel's boundaries before the Six Day War.
Prior to the Six Day War, Jerusalem had been sliced in two, and the Jewish people were denied access to the Old City and its holy sites. Jerusalem's Christian population also faced limitations. As America's ambassador to the U.N., Arthur Goldberg, would explain, Resolution 242 did not preclude Israel's reunification of Jerusalem. In fact, Resolution 242 became the only agreed basis of all Arab-Israeli peace agreements, from the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.
Mr. Abbas's unilateral move at the U.N. represents a massive violation of a core commitment in the Oslo Agreements in which both Israelis and Palestinians undertook that "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of Permanent Status negotiations." Palestinian spokesmen counter that Israeli settlements violated this clause. Yet former Prime Minister Rabin was very specific while negotiating Oslo in preserving the rights of Israeli citizens to build their homes in these disputed areas, by insisting that the settlements would be one of the subjects of final status negotiations between the parties.
By turning to the U.N., Mr. Abbas wants to use the international community to change the legal status of the territories. Why should Israel rely on Mr. Abbas in the future after what is plainly a material breach of this core obligation?
Ironically, Obama's ham-handed and amateurish Mid-East policy speech may have saved Israel. Until now the events unfolding around Israel were happening under the radar. The fake Libyan war and the idiotic Arab Spring, which is really a Muslim Brotherhood coup, were dominating the headlines.
Samantha Power: Obama's Reinhard Heydrich -- Architect of the Final Solution In 2002 Samantha Power sat for an interview with Harry Kreisler, the director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley. Kreisler asked her the following question:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine – Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Power: What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.
Power is calling for the defunding of US support for the Israeli military and funding a Palestinian army.
Jul 28, 2008: Power on an Invasion of Israel:
During the Obama campaign Power was fired for those remarks in addition to calling Hillary some unflattering names, and subsequently, quietly re-hired after the election. She is married to Obama's Reg Czar, Cass Sunstien.
There is an obscure doctrine entitled the championed by Obama Witches Cauldron Troika of UN Ambassador Susan Rice, top foreign policy adviser Samantha Power and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. This doctrine builds the framework by which countries can build coalitions, through the UN, to go to war. The 'Responsibility to Protect' 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine calls for international states to take responsibility for other states behavior to protect people against:
The above is the justification for the Libyan action even though Secretary of Defense Gates said Libya is not a vital interest for the U.S.
Crimes against humanity
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine would have been the justification for a future UN-sponsored coalition attack on Israel. Any country, hostile to Israeli interests, can now petition the U.N. for "redress" against any trumped up crime that Israel commits. The UN and Obama may yet hide behind that justification.
Until now, Israel was quietly being set up for an attack under the UN's Responsibility to Protect doctrine. The upcoming Gaza Flotilla II and the Abbas plan to lobby the U.N. General Assembly this September for the return to 1967 borders as a precondition for peace, would have backed Israel into a corner, making war inevitable. This war would have occurred after the 2012 presidential election.
An Obama victory would give Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood a free hand making an attack on Israel a certainty, with Obama leading from behind as he did with Libya. Under the UN Responsibility to Protect Obama would not have to sign on to anything. He just wouldn't support Israel as she is attacked from all sides. No need to get American hands dirty, no need to jeopardize important voting blocks. Israel would be on her own.
But because Obama is an arrogant man who loves the sound of his own voice, he screwed the pooch on this one. He let the cat out of the bag. He violated the Corleone mandate: "Never let anyone know what you're thinking."
We know what you are thinking. And better yet, the Israelis know what you are thinking. And, hopefully a few more American Jews know what you are thinking...maybe enough to make a difference in the 2012 election.
Bin Laden Killed by U.S. Special Forces
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
May 2, 2011
It has been a long time since the United States has anything to cheer about concerning the War on Terror. We can truly celebrate this day. The crowds that gathered outside the White House and in Times Square were sights for sore eyes.
Osama bin Laden is dead, killed by U.S. Special Forces. Congratulations to them and to President Obama. Congratulations to President Bush who said after the attacks, "We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail."
It turns out bin Laden was living in a huge compund about sixty miles north of Islamabad apparently with the knowledge of some in the Pakistani government. The U.S. thought the operation so sensitive that the Pakistani government was not informed, so infiltrated is that government by Islamists.
Muslim clerics are now complaining that the manner in which bin Laden was disposed of, burial at sea, was an insult to Islam. At the same time these same clerics (and many Lefists) complained that bin Laden had perverted the true "meaning" if Islam. As usual, evil wants to have it both ways.
On this day we can temporarily put aside the differences that have plagued us since the 9-11 attacks. Bin Laden is dead and justice has been served. There will be time enough for partisan squabbling and Monday morning quarterbacks.
'Nuff said. The War on Terror goes on. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Obama's Real Presidential Oath
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
April 18, 2011
On the day Barack Obama took the oath of office everyone thought he heard the standard Presidential Oath. Here's what he really said:
I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute anyone who opposes me or stands in my way, and will to the best of my ability, collapse and destroy the economy and the Constitution of the United States, insure union tranquililty and establish social and environmental justice, so help me Marx, Mao, Lenin, Alinsky and Cloward-Piven. Allahu Akbar!
And in conclusion I'd like to give a shout-out to my brothers and sisters in the LGBT Community….you know who you are. There you have it…the real agenda.
On Tax Day 2011 the S&P 500 downgraded the United States debt outlook (not the rating which is still, amazingly, Triple A) causing the Dow Jones to plunge 200 points.
Politico has reported that Al Jazeera is now a favorite "news outlet" for white house staffers.
In the halls of American power, the Arab Spring has brought Al-Jazeera in from the cold.
Seven years after then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the broadcaster's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable" and President George W. Bush joked about bombing it, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised it as "real news" in her recent Senate testimony.
Not only that, her staffers, as well as those of the CIA and the Obama White House, were attending the Congressional Correspondents' Dinner as Al-Jazeera's guests.
"They are a really important media entity, and we have a really great relationship with them," said Dana Shell Smith, the State Department's deputy assistant secretary for international media engagement, who speaks Arabic and has frequently appeared on the channel. "This administration has empowered those of us who actually do the communicating to be in a close relationship with Al-Jazeera. They understand that the relationship can't consist of complaining to each other about the differences we have."
A World Without America - The Leftist Dream
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
March 17, 2011
We now have a chance to see what the world is like when America abdicates is role as a leadership nation. For decades the Leftist mantra was that the United States should not be the 'policeman of the world'. Under our Fraudinator-in-Chief the Left is finally getting its wish. The world is in chaos. The tragedy in Japan has blown the Middle East off the front pages for now giving Obama perfect cover for not answering the 3:00 AM phone call.
This is not the first time Obama has been MIA during a crisis. He sat by during the Iranian uprisings in 2009. He was passive during the BP oil rig explosion, until he realized he could wring a lot of cash out of BP and institute his job-killing oil drilling moratorium. He dithered for months on the Afghanistan troop surge.
Of course, Obama has never been big on American exceptionalism. Back in the heady days of the 2008 campaign Obama spoke of American exceptionalism in the same way that the Greeks and the English view their own exceptionalism. So Obama's analysis paralysis is by design. We are just one of any number of nations, part of the overall mythical international community charged with solving the world's problems. In reality, nothing gets solved unless America leads. And we do not have a leader at this time.
But let's be fair. Obama is very busy. He's working on his NCAA bracket picks. He's playing golf and hosting concerts at the White House. And he's off for a little Spring Break action in Rio in the near future. And he's working on Women's History Day….whatever that is.
Yes, Obama is fiddling as the world burns.
UPDATE: March 18, 2011
Hours after this post appeared the UN imposed a no-fly zone over Libya. By voting 'present' on Libya, Obama's favorite tactic on
dealing with any thorny issue, he was able to look engaged without actually being engaged. Obama now has the international cover he needs to avoid blame if things go badly in Libya.
The heavy lifting will be done by the United States as usual, but France and the Arab League, who originally called for the no-fly zone, will be along for the ride to claim the credit.
Minutes after announcing the UN no-fly zone, Qaddafi declared a cease fire. Obviously he can't win against a multi-lateral force. But it will be
harder to dislodge him from power now that he has taken back all but the Benghazi rebel stronghold.
Here are a smattering of opinions from the Wall Street Journal:
Wall St. Journal, March 12, 2011
Libya is what a world without U.S. leadership looks like.
'This is the Obama conception of the U.S. role in the world-to work through multilateral organizations and bilateral relationships to make sure that the steps we are taking are amplified." -White House National Security Council spokesman Ben Rhodes, March 10, 2011, as quoted in the Washington Post
Whatever else one might say about President Obama's Libya policy, it has succeeded brilliantly in achieving its oft-stated goal of not leading the world. No one can any longer doubt the U.S. determination not to act before the Italians do, or until the Saudis approve, or without a U.N. resolution. This White House is forthright for followership.
We could go on, but you get the idea. When the U.S. fails to lead, the world reverts to its default mode as a diplomatic Tower of Babel. Everyone discusses "options" and "contingencies" but no one has the will to act, while the predators march.
The United Nations Security Council has imposed an arms embargo, but with enough ambiguity that no one knows whether it applies only to Gadhafi or also to the opposition. Even the U.S. State Department and White House don't agree.
The U.N. has referred events to the International Criminal Court for a war crimes investigation. Mr. Obama said yesterday this sent a message to Gadhafi that "the world is watching," as if Gadhafi didn't know. But it also sends a message that leaving Libya without bloodshed is not an option, because he and his sons will still be pursued for war crimes. Had Reagan pursued this strategy in the Philippines, Marcos might never have gone into exile.
France has recognized the opposition National Council in Benghazi, though the U.S. is only now sending envoys to meet with the opposition for the first time. Dozens of Western reporters can get rebel leaders on the phone, an opposition delegation has visited French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, but the U.S. is still trying to figure out who these people are. The American envoys better hurry because the rebels may soon be dead.
The French want a no-fly zone, but the Italians and Germans object. NATO is having "a series of conversations about a wide range of options," as President Obama put it yesterday, but NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen emerged from a meeting of defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday saying that "We considered . . . initial options regarding a possible no-fly zone in case NATO were to receive a clear U.N. mandate" (our emphasis). The latter isn't likely because both China and Russia object, but no doubt NATO will keep conversing about the "range of options" next week.
This was true in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s until the U.S. shamed Europe and NATO into using force with or without a U.N. resolution. And it has been true in every case in which the world finally resisted tyrants or terrorists, from the Gulf War to Afghanistan to Iraq. When the U.S. chooses to act like everyone else, the result is Rwanda, Darfur and now Libya. Daniel Hannan, March 12, 2011
He is not pursuing a set of random initiatives but a program of comprehensive Europeanization: European health care, European welfare, European carbon taxes, European day care, European college education, even a European foreign policy, based on engagement with supranational technocracies, nuclear disarmament and a reluctance to deploy forces overseas. Max Boot, March 16, 2011
On March 3, President Obama said that "Colonel Gadhafi needs to step down from power and leave. That is good for his country. It is good for his people. It's the right thing to do."
When the president of the United States publicly proclaims that the head of another state needs to "step down," his words carry considerable weight-or at least they should. Yet what has Mr. Obama done to back up his rhetoric? Not much beyond saying that "no option" is "off the table" and that he is actively "consulting" with American allies about how to act. At the rate those consultations are going, Gadhafi will have snuffed out the rebellion by the time that Mr. Obama decides on a course of action.
It's not too late to prevent this dire outcome. All that would be required is for Mr. Obama to show as much political courage as France and the Arab League. Neither is known for its principled support of freedom, but both have called for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. The Pentagon, from Defense Secretary Robert Gates on down, has reacted as if this would be a military operation on the order of D-Day. In reality, it would not be hard to ground Gadhafi's decrepit air force. Juan Williams, June 12, 2010
Juan Williams, an analyst for National Public Radio and Fox News, commenting on Fox News Sunday about President Obama's sinking approval ratings:
I think the problem here is this is an administration that, as Hillary Clinton famously pointed out, you may not want to have to answer the 3:00 a.m. call. These are guys who have tremendous vision about legislative achievements and specific things like health care, going forward on immigration, those difficult issues. . . . But when it comes to the crisis, when it comes to the gulf oil spill, the wars, the recession, they feel as if it's being imposed upon them, rather than taking the helm. That's what Americans are sensing right here. . . . Are you able to handle a crisis in a convincing way that inspires confidence? And so far, the president hasn't done that. Daniel Henninger, March 17, 2011
But what we've watched is not merely the failure of the gauzy notion of "internationalism." It's more specific than that. What has collapsed here is the modern Democratic Party's new foreign-policy establishment.
Barack Obama is the first Democratic president to assemble a foreign-policy team made up entirely of intellectuals who for years have developed a counter-thesis to the policies of presidents extending back to John F. Kennedy. We are in a "post-American world," they have argued, in which the U.S. is obliged to pursue its interests in concert with the rest of the world's powers, never alone.
In the Middle East, no one has stepped up, no one is leading alongside and our allies are in the rear, accomplishing nothing while they wait for . . . America.
This was a test case, and what we have seen is that a world in which the U.S. doesn't unmistakably lead is a world that spins its wheels, and eventually the wheels start to come off. When the U.S. instructs the Saudis not to intervene in Bahrain, and the Saudi army does precisely the opposite, the wheels are coming off the international order.
Pain At The Pump? - Obama and the Greens Are Loving This
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
March 8, 2011
In a January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle then-candidate Barack Housein Obama said this: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. "
When gas prices skyrocketed in mid-2008 Obama said he wasn't upset at the rise in prices, just the speed at which they climbed.
Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (now in contempt of court) have refused to broadly re-institute off-shore drilling in the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf, despite a court order lifting the ban.
The Obama Administration continues to noodle around about releasing the strategic oil reserves, and the Obamamobile, the Chevy Volt, is touted by Government Motors as the cure for our energy ills. We are also being urged to build rapid rail systems that no one wants.
Since our Fraudinator-in-Chief's inauguration the price of a gallon of gas has risen from $1.80 a gallon to $3.80.
All of this is the environmentalists' wet dream of limiting our mobility (and our freedom) by forcing us out of our cars and into public transportation.
During the Bush Administration the left went nuts calling for W's head and accusing him of being in bed with Big Oil. Sen. Chuck Schumer demanded senate hearings. Obama and the rest of the Left are strangely silent now.
Obama's Gas Price Migraine
MARCH 4, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487033 00904576178152820953870.html The Obama administration has its share of headaches: a possible government shutdown, Arab unrest, the union uprising. The real migraine may be a firestorm over gasoline prices.
Oil last week topped $100 a barrel, and gas has hit $4 a gallon in pockets of the country. The price is expected to keep heading up. This pain is being felt by a public still dazed by recession.
An immutable fact of expensive gasoline: Americans will find someone to blame. We can expect in coming months to hear many sober analysts attempt to explain the complex reasons for rising oil prices: inflation, Middle East tremors, growing demand. Expect, too, for all those reasons to vanish behind what most Americans will see as the far more obvious (and graspable) cause: President Obama's regulatory assault on domestic oil and gas production.
This is, after all, a White House that has put at the center of its domestic agenda its goal of a "green economy," which hinges on making fossil fuels too expensive for Americans to purchase. In January 2008, candidate Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Steven Chu, now Secretary of Energy, told this newspaper in the same year: "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." That would be, oh, $10 a gallon.
In March of last year, Mr. Obama reversed or scaled back nearly every major offshore oil opportunity that has come about since the price spike of 2008-effectively reimposing a moratorium on drilling off the coasts. His administration has killed leases in developmentally crucial areas of Alaska. His EPA has refused to issue permits. The White House used the BP oil spill as an excuse to also shut down the deep-water Gulf.
Onshore? Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has revoked oil-and-gas leases. The EPA is suffocating the coal industry with regulation. One of the president's only clear State of the Union proposals was to raise taxes on oil and gas. The White House's energy policy, says Dan Kish of the Institute for Energy Research, is "embargoing our own energy supplies to drive up their costs."
Democrats are already desperately spinning the press on why none of this will matter politically. Yes, the party took heat for its antidrilling policies in 2008, but it won't be the same this time. Americans, they say, just witnessed an oil spill; they are okay with a drilling ban. And so long as economic recovery stays on track, no one will sweat an extra buck a gallon. And so on.
The Democrats are right about one thing: It won't be the same as 2008. It will be politically worse. Nobody should forget the extraordinary public fury over $4 gas in 2008. The rage was enough to take Mr. Obama's flailing presidential opponent, John McCain, and propel him ahead in the polls, where he stayed until the financial crisis. Remember also that when oil prices peaked in July 2008, the unemployment rate was 5.7%.
President Bush largely escaped public blame. How could anyone lay high oil prices on a guy the left had spent eight years slamming as an "oil man"? But President Obama's anti-oil record is evident, and Republicans (who, unlike in 2008, run the House), will use their bully pulpit to directly connect prices to the Obama energy freeze.
This week we've seen the first rumblings of the oil-price political freight train that's coming. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell highlighted a Democratic proposal to raise gas prices with new levies on oil and gas, deeming it the "minivan tax." Washington state Rep. Doc Hastings, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, grilled Interior Secretary Ken Salazar Wednesday about the administration's de facto moratorium on deep-water drilling permits. Behind the scenes, GOP members are touching up energy bills, to provide a further contrast with the administration.
The White House sniffs trouble and this week rushed to issue its first Gulf deep-water permit since the spill. Yet the administration has so much wrapped up in its green-energy agenda-stimulus grants, subsidies, programs in every department-it seems unwilling to do more. The EPA has refused to budge on controversial carbon-emissions regulations. The president is now pushing for a "clean energy" mandate, the ugly stepchild of cap and trade. The White House is trying to recruit gullible Republicans to a "comprehensive" energy bill, though its goal appears to be to cloak a further renewable agenda behind the few bones it would toss to natural gas or nuclear.
The administration took a midterm election beating because the public saw it move to the left of reality on spending and health care. Rising gas prices now threaten to catch it out the same way on energy. If it wants to recapture public favor, it will have to make a major shift.
Our Lawless President, the Liberals and his Union Sycophants
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Feb 24, 2011
Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry and, apparently, being able to defy court rulings, not having to defend laws that you don't like, and being able to ditch work with faked medical excuses or to avoid unpleasant votes, all with impunity.
We are witnessing increasing lawlessness on the part of liberals, elected and unionized.
The Drilling Ban
Anyone remember the BP oil spill? Seems like a long time ago. It also does to our Fraudinator-in-Chief and his Interior Secretary Ken Salazar because they feel they can defy Federal Judge Martin Feldman's order to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to act on five pending deep water permit applications within 30 days. Obama and Salazar are hoping nobody notices.
Ensco, an oil drilling company, noticed. Since the drilling ban was lifted in October 2010, the Obama Administration has failed to issue a single permit, blaming "strained resources and [its own] new regulations". Ensco, the company that brought a lawsuit, believes, as Judge Feldman wrote, that the "government's continuous delays are intentional," part of an effort to use last year's BP oil spill as an excuse to limit fossil fuel extraction. In fact it is part of Obama's overall idiotic 'green' strategy and its desire to implement Cap and Trade through the EPA
Judge Feldman struck down the Obama Administration's first drilling moratorium and he has ruled Salazar in contempt for imposing a second moratorium that showed a "flagrant" disregard for the first ruling.
The Administration seems to think he's kidding. So much for Obama promising to do something about needless regulations that hurt the economy. We knew it was a lie from the start.
Defying Congress -- Net Neutrality and Cap and Trade
Congress said no to Net Neutrality and Cap and Trade. No matter to His Highness. The fix is in at the FCC and he's got his man (Lisa Jackson) at the EPA.
Net Neutrality has now been implemented by the FCC giving Obama effective control of the internet (can you say Ahmedinijad and Mubarak?) Can some trumped up emergency just prior to the 2012 election justify an internet shutdown? It's not outside the realm of possibility.
Lisa Jackson now has the power to regulate CO2 gasses via regulation rather than through any law passed by Congress. Fortunately the newly elected Republican House will hold hearings to put the brakes on this power grab by Obama.
Meanwhile Obamacare continues to be implemented even though U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, in Florida, has ruled it unconstitutional. The judge based his ruling on the unconstitutionality of the law's individual mandate. The ruling affects the 26 states who had joined together to file a case against the law, and states are openly declaring their intention to not implement the law in light of the ruling.
Vinson ruled Congress overstepped its bounds by instituting the individual mandate, but also said the entire law was unconstitutional since the individual mandate is not "severable,".
Unfortunately Vinson did not issue an injunction blocking the law from being implemented which is why Obama feels he can move ahead. In light of the confusion, premiums are going up on everyone, the entire system has been thrown into chaos and, instead of doing the prudent thing and waiting for the Supremes to weigh in, it's full speed ahead for our Fraudinator-in-Chief.
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
After 'chickifying' our military by ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, Obama has also decided that he likes gay marriage. Funny, he was against it before he was for it. He and AG Eric Holder have decided they simply won't enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed during the Clinton Administration. DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law, and clarifies that no state has to recognize a homosexual marriage from another state.
So Obama is violating his oath of office and failing in his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Impeachment anyone?
Union Protests in Wisconsin
Finally there's Wisconsin. The teachers are getting faked medical excuses to leave the classrooms so they can protest, along with their paper-pushing state workers, the cuts in benefits and collective-bargaining rights under consideration by the legislature. The police and firefighters don't seem to be on the job either. These are public employees. They should be fired if they don't return to work.
The story continues below:
The cowardly Democratic legislators have cut and run to Illinois to avoid a vote they are going to lose. The Governor should have them arrested for violating their oaths of office. At the very least they should be forced to resign.
And in the ultimate astro-turf move Obama has stuck his nose into a state matter by using his campaign arm, Organizing for America, to have thousands of "protestors" bussed in from around the country to feign a show of strength and solidarity with union losers who about to lose their jobs.
It's Custer's Last Stand for the public sector unions. If they lose, it's the end of the Democrats as we know them because they lose all of the money that keeps them going. If they win, it cascades throughout the unionized states and we start to resemble, even more, socialist Europe. Wisconsin Gov. Walker and the newly elected state Republicans need to stand strong and not give in.
Things are falling apart for the unions in Greece, but the riots continue as if the reality of state bankruptcy has no meaning.
In Egypt the unions are in partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood. What could possibly go wrong with that?
The Wisconsin protests are spreading to Ohio, Indiana and other key battleground states. And everywhere the flags and signs of socialism and communism are ever present - all supported from the White House.
Does anyone see a pattern here? November 2010 is the distant past and 2012 can't come fast enough.
in January: "Ain't no new guy. It's Charlie from just around."
Obama to Business:
Help Me Get Re-Elected -- Start Hiring!!! By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Feb 9, 2011
On Feb. 6, 2011 our Fraudinator-in-Chief had the temerity to visit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with new marching orders for business: Start Hiring!!
After spending the last two years vilifying the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business in general as having two horns and a tail, Obama has ordered American businesses to do their share to help the economy, calling on executives to "get in the game" and begin "investing" (read hiring) nearly $2 trillion accumulating on their balance sheets.
Obama on hiring:
Now is the time to invest in America. Today, American companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets. I know that many of you have told me that you are waiting for demand to rise before you get off the sidelines and expand, and that with millions of Americans out of work, demand has risen more slowly than any of us would like. I want to encourage you to get in the game.
Perhaps Obama should really listen to these businessmen. Willing demand to rise by simply hiring will not make demand rise.
And he has no real intention of cutting regulation:
Moreover, the perils of too much regulation are matched by the dangers of too little.
After telling Bill O'Reilly in a pre-SuperBowl interview, that he is not a social justice, wealth redistribution kind of guy he said this:
Of course, your responsibility goes beyond recognizing the need for certain standards and safeguards. If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports to help you compete, the benefits can't just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They should be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line. We cannot go back to the kind of economy - and culture - we saw in the years leading up to the recession, where growth and gains in productivity just didn't translate into rising incomes and opportunity for the middle class.
We all remember Obama lecturing Joe the Plumber that "when you spread the wealth it's good for everybody" And we also remember his 2001 remarks on NPR's WBEZ that the Founders did not address redistributive change in the Constitution.
Obama lied during the 2008 campaign and ran as a centrist. Once taking office he governed as a Leftist. Given Obama's extensive Leftist background (now documented in Stanley Kurtz's Radical in Chief) which the mainstream media refused to investigate, it was no surprise. No matter how much Obama tries to position himself as a likable centrist needing to get re-elected, nothing will erase the damage this Socialist and his henchmen in Congress did to this country over the last two years.
As we said in an Obama is lying to us again to get re-elected. The real question is does the nation fall for his act a second time.
Obama & Egypt -- Down the IslamoNazi Rat Hole
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Feb 7, 2011
At the dawn of the Cold War the accusation "who lost China" sounded throughout America and led to the defeat of the Democrats in the presidential election of 1952. In 1979 President Carter sold out the Shah of Iran and that country fell into the hands of radical Islamo-Nazis. That led to the election of Reagan in 1980. History seems to be repeating itself. Our Fraudinator-in-Chief and the rest of his administration are working overtime to enable the Muslim Brotherhood in its quest to take over Egypt. This fits right in with Obama's anti-colonialist narrative. Unless Obama reverses course and stands up to the Brotherhood, he will be hit with the modern equivalent of the 1952 question: Who Lost Egypt?
From Dick Morris:
The Iranian government is waiting for Egypt to fall into its lap. The Muslim Brotherhood, dominated by Iranian Islamic fundamentalism, will doubtless emerge as the winner should the government of Egypt's fall. The Obama Administration, in failing to throw its weight against an Islamic takeover, is guilty of the same mistake that led President Carter to fail to support the Shah, opening the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran.
Now is the time for Republicans and conservatives to start asking the question: Who is losing Egypt? We need to debunk the starry eyed idealistic yearning for reform and the fantasy that a liberal democracy will come from these demonstrations. It won't. Iranian domination will. What is going on in Egypt is anything but a true freedom and democracy movement. It is ironic that our Fraudinator-in-Chief didn't support the real democracy movement in Iran two years ago but has no problem encouraging the El Baradei and the Muslim Brotherhood who are now driving the protests in Egypt under the guise of a democracy movement.
Two years ago the United States, according to Obama, was not supposed to be meddling in the affairs of foreign nations. The protestors in Iran, rioting over a stolen election were hung out to dry and the Islamists under the Mullahs and Achmedinijad tightened their grip on the people.
Now we have Obama bloviating about a mainstream media driven democracy movement replete with windy statements and diplomatic double speak:
Obama -- Feb 1:
Good evening, everybody. Over the past few days, the American people have watched the situation unfolding in Egypt. We've seen enormous demonstrations by the Egyptian people. We've borne witness to the beginning of a new chapter in the history of a great country, and a long-time partner of the United States.
And my administration has been in close contact with our Egyptian counterparts and a broad range of the Egyptian people, as well as others across the region and across the globe. And throughout this period, we've stood for a set of core principles.
First, we oppose violence. And I want to commend the Egyptian military for the professionalism and patriotism that it has shown thus far in allowing peaceful protests while protecting the Egyptian people. We've seen tanks covered with banners, and soldiers and protesters embracing in the streets. And going forward, I urge the military to continue its efforts to help ensure that this time of change is peaceful.
Second, we stand for universal values, including the rights of the Egyptian people to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and the freedom to access information. Once more, we've seen the incredible potential for technology to empower citizens and the dignity of those who stand up for a better future. And going forward, the United States will continue to stand up for democracy and the universal rights that all human beings deserve, in Egypt and around the world.
Third, we have spoken out on behalf of the need for change. After his speech tonight, I spoke directly to President Mubarak. He recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable and that a change must take place. Indeed, all of us who are privileged to serve in positions of political power do so at the will of our people. Through thousands of years, Egypt has known many moments of transformation. The voices of the Egyptian people tell us that this is one of those moments; this is one of those times.
Now, it is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt's leaders. Only the Egyptian people can do that. What is clear -- and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak -- is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.
Furthermore, the process must include a broad spectrum of Egyptian voices and opposition parties. It should lead to elections that are free and fair. And it should result in a government that's not only grounded in democratic principles, but is also responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.
Throughout this process, the United States will continue to extend the hand of partnership and friendship to Egypt. And we stand ready to provide any assistance that is necessary to help the Egyptian people as they manage the aftermath of these protests.
Over the last few days, the passion and the dignity that has been demonstrated by the people of Egypt has been an inspiration to people around the world, including here in the United States, and to all those who believe in the inevitability of human freedom.
To the people of Egypt, particularly the young people of Egypt, I want to be clear: We hear your voices. I have an unyielding belief that you will determine your own destiny and seize the promise of a better future for your children and your grandchildren. And I say that as someone who is committed to a partnership between the United States and Egypt.
There will be difficult days ahead. Many questions about Egypt's future remain unanswered. But I am confident that the people of Egypt will find those answers. That truth can be seen in the sense of community in the streets. It can be seen in the mothers and fathers embracing soldiers. And it can be seen in the Egyptians who linked arms to protect the national museum -- a new generation protecting the treasures of antiquity; a human chain connecting a great and ancient civilization to the promise of a new day.
Thank you very much. A true profile in courage. When it was Islamists repressing and killing people in Iran there was absolutely no call for the Mullahs and Ahmedinijad to step down.
How different it is with the fall of Mubarak and an Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, poised to take power. This is Obama's and the Left's wet dream. It is also another step on the road to establishing the worldwide Muslim Caliphate.
As usual the Leftist mainstream media is lying to the average American in its reports. We are being treated to frothy reports by the likes of the New York Times, ABC's Sam Donaldson, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and the rest of the usual liberal suspects regarding the Muslim propaganda outfit, Al Jazeera and their "fair and accurate" reporting of the so-called freedom fighters on the streets of Cairo.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Al Jazeera is the mouthpiece for all the anti-Israel hatred and anti-Americanism and has been for the last decade. Once again the worldwide Left are being played by the Islamists. For now the narrative for the Left and the Islamists line up perfectly…hatred for capitalism, hatred for America and above all, hatred for Isreal.
The Left will rue the day they made common cause with these Islamic monsters. Once the Brotherhood is done with its conquest they will turn on the pansy Left and start eliminating the feminists, the gays, the wine sipping latte liberals and anyone else who academically supported this lie a of a freedom movement.
The story continues below:
After the Shiite Mullahs in Iran and Lebanon are through fighting the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Saudi Arabia the Left will be astonished when the Islamists turn on them. In the Leftist mind it can't happen to them…after all they are the enlightened ones, they are for reason, peace and non-violence. The alligator will eat them last if they just play ball with the Muslims.
Maybe then the Left will begin to fight back. After all what feminazi worth her salt, what sanctimonius guilt ridden liberal will want to put up with the constraints of Sharia law?
Or maybe not...Leftism is its own suicide pact with itself.
Or perhaps the chaos in Egypt will spill over to Iran and the folks will rise up and throw the Mullahs out….the Egyptians will reject the Muslim Brotherhood and some sanity will actually take root in the Middle East.
Our Fraudinator-in-Chief will then have a problem because there will be no radical Islamist movement in either country for him to support.
Excerpted from the Heritage Morning Bell:
There is a danger that the protests could lead to less, not greater, liberty in Egypt. While many of the groups organizing the protests (such as the April 6 Movement) do use pro-democracy rhetoric, there are powerful forces in the country that harbor Islamist goals that are incompatible with genuine democracy, including the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood. As Egypt's biggest and best-organized political group, the Brotherhood will be well-positioned to hijack a revolt.
The New York Times reports that the crowd's reaction to a Sunday speech by ElBaradei was mixed, with one Muslim Brotherhood supporter telling the Times: "ElBaradei doesn't live here and doesn't know us. We need a leader who can understand Egyptians." For his part, ElBaradei seems completely out of touch with what the Brotherhood represents, telling ABC's Christiane Amanpour: "The Muslim Brotherhood is in no way extremist."
The Obama Administration's response so far has been slow and they have sent mixed signals. On Friday, Vice President Joe Biden denied that President Mubarak was a dictator and stated that Mubarak should not step aside. And on Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people." But yesterday she appeared on Fox News and urged the start of an "orderly transition" to bring about a "democratic, participatory government" while stopping short of calling for Mubarak's ouster.
The Obama Administration has been slow to embrace calls for liberty in Egypt is completely consistent with the Obama Doctrine as applied in the Middle East. When the Iranian people rose against the regime in Tehran in the wake of a disputed national election, Obama offered virtually no support for the cries for freedom. He was too committed to his engagement strategy with the Iranian regime, believing his "charm offensive" would be enough to deter them from pursuing nuclear weapons. Those efforts have completely failed.
State of the Union - Obama Fiddles While the Middle East Burns
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Jan 29, 2011
The Middle East is on fire.
The Tunisian president Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali, was recently forced from power and had to flee the country. Lebanon is now firmly in the hands of Hezbollah and Syria, and by proxy Iran. Lebanon's 5 year old Cedar Revolution is dead.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is poised to overthrow the 30 year old Mubarak regime. There is now unrest in Jordan and Albania.
A Chechen Muslim separatist suicide bomber blew himself up at Moscow's Domodedovo International Airport killing 35 people and injuring more than 160.
An Islamic revolution in Egypt means a disruption of oil through the Suez canal and, almost assuredly, a two-front war with Israel -- from Lebanon and Egypt.
Remember Hillary's 3:00 AM phone call ad from the 2008 campaign? Well Barack, it's 3:30 AM and the White House phone is ringing off the hook. So what does our Fraudinator-in-Chief offer up on State of the Union night?
The story continues below:
More social engineering instead of real governance in the face of a global political meltdown.
It's obvious that Obama is in over his head because in this latest international meltdown all he can offer is platitudes about meaningful dialogue and admonishing the parties in Egypt not to engage in violence. That'll show 'em.
Investments (government spending) in bio fuels,
Investments (government spending) in wind and solar
Investments (government spending) in solar shingles,
Investments (government spending) in information technology,
Investments (government spending) in greater Internet access
Investments (government spending) in education
Investments (government spending) renewable energy
One million electric vehicles on the road by 2015
"Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail,"
This is truly the presidency without a president.
In his State of the Union speech, doing his best Reagan imitation, Obama said, "This is our generation's Sputnik moment."
In the next moment he proposed to inspire us with high-speed rail and companies making solar shingles. Not exactly the stuff of moon landings. In fact Nasa is currently engaged in Muslim outreach and scrapping the next-generation shuttle fleet. Houston, we have a problem.
Once Obama got through the annoying attempt to conjure Reagan the Obama policy menu had three main points: clean energy, education and infrastructure, all neatly lifted, almost verbatim, from his budget message two months into his presidency: "Our budget will make long overdue investments in priorities-like clean energy, education, health care, and new infrastructure…new jobs that pay well" such as "installing solar energy panels and wind turbines."
Obama's obsession with clean energy, healthcare, and social justice through wealth redistribution is the ONLY policy point that exists in what passes for an administration.
The crisis in the Middle East is simply getting in the way of Obama's fundamental domestic transformation.
From the Wall St. Journal:
JANUARY 28, 2011.
Cap and Trade Returns From the Grave The president's plans for "clean energy standards" amount to carbon controls by other means.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL The president presented his new, conciliatory face to the nation this week, and his State of the Union was as notable for what it didn't include as what it did. He uttered not one word about global warming, a comprehensive climate bill, or his regulatory attempts to reduce carbon. Combined with his decision to give the axe to controversial climate czar Carol Browner, political analysts took all this as further proof that Barack Obama was moving to the middle, making nice with Republicans.
Listen carefully to Mr. Obama's speech and you realize he spent plenty of it on carbon controls. He just used a different vocabulary. If the president can't get carbon restrictions via cap and trade, he'll get them instead with his new proposal for a "clean energy" standard. Clean energy, after all, sounds better to the public ear, and he might just be able to lure, or snooker, some Republicans into going along.
The official end of cap and trade, and Mrs. Browner, wasn't conciliation-it was necessity. The public now understands that cap and trade is an economy killer, and no small number of Democrats lost their seats in midterms for supporting it. Few in the party want to take it up again, and House Republicans won't let it pass. Mr. Obama would be crazy to continue calling for it.
Mrs. Browner, for her part, had become a political liability. As czar, she's had sweeping control over administration policy-all of it unaccountable.
But Mr. Obama has no intention of letting go of his carbon-free world. He instead went to plan B. Specifically, he called in his speech for the nation to "join" him in a "new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources." What the president was in essence calling for-in happier, fuzzier, broader language-is what policy wonks refer to as a "renewable portfolio standard." This is a government mandate requiring that utilities produce annually a specific amount of their electricity from renewable sources-wind, solar, biofuels.
Many Republicans understand the situation. Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, chair of House Energy and Commerce, put out a statement following the speech that insisted "the answer is not to hyper-subsidize preferred industries or to force consumers and job creators to purchase energy they can't afford." Reached on the phone, Mr. Upton elaborated, telling me the president's remarks "smell like cap and trade all over again." He noted that 28 states already have their own renewable standards and so "why have a federal mandate?"
And this from Dick Morris:
OBAMA SPEECH SHOWS HE'S OUT OF TOUCH
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on January 26, 2011 Henry Kissinger, in his memoir of the Ford administration, Years of Upheaval, articulated the central rule of governing: "It is a statesman's duty to bridge the gap between his nation's experience and his vision. If his vision gets too far out ahead of his nation's experience, he will lose his mandate. But if he hews too close to the conventional, he will lose control over events."
Obama has gone from the first of these dangers to the second.
In his first two years in office, he was manifestly so far removed from America's experience and ideals that he lost the election of 2010. His big spending, overregulation, government takeovers and bailouts and healthcare program cost him his mandate. But, in his State of the Union speech, he hewed so close to the conventional that he will now lose control over events.
His speech marks the real end of his presidency and the ascendancy of congressional government led by the House Republican agenda.
A president's major power is his ability to set the national agenda. But Obama's State of the Union agenda was so boring, mundane, conventional and recycled that it will not capture either the national imagination or even center stage. It cannot drown out the drama of Republican efforts to slash spending, repeal ObamaCare, roll back federal regulations, block carbon taxes, kill union card-check and free community banks from regulatory paralysis. The ball is now in the Republicans' court.
The central mission of the Clinton comeback was to eradicate the memory and record of 1993-94. The compelling agenda spelled out by the president captured the nation's attention and blotted out his early failures. Welfare reform, deficit reduction, tobacco regulation and Clinton's second two-year agenda stole the stage from HillaryCare, gays in the military, Waco and the Clinton tax increases.
But as the Republicans repeal or defund the discredited Obama programs of 2009-10, they will assure that these failed initiatives dominate the election of 2012. If Obama opts for stalemate -- his only alternative to surrender if the GOP holds firm -- he will just prolong the shelf life of these issues and assure that they will provide the issues in 2012 -- to his detriment.
On another level, Obama's speech was a plea for a second chance. But his opposition to the Republican agenda will belie his moderation and will show it to be the same sleight of hand as was his vague embrace of change during his presidential campaign. Americans believe in the old adage: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." They will give a president a second chance, but not a third one.
In the meantime, a star was born in the Republican reply delivered by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. His articulation of conservative principles was the clearest and most compelling I have heard since Ronald Reagan. The force of his delivery, the reasonableness of his manner and the positive tone with which he undermined and discredited Obama's program were all admirable. When he said that the president's spending programs were "stimulus repackaged as investments" he rebutted the bulk of the president's speech. Ryan, who swears he won't run for president, may find himself drafted.
Obama's proclamation that he had "broken the back of the recession" will inspire howls of disbelief and ridicule throughout the nation. With 9 percent-plus unemployment, how can a president say these words with a straight face?
To Obama's credit, this was the first pro-American speech he has given, embracing American exceptionalism, celebrating the American Dream and honoring our servicemen and women -- boilerplate for any other president, but unusual for this one. His calls for recruiters to be allowed on campus, his rejection of earmarks and pledge to veto them and his embrace of medical malpractice reform were the only good points in his speech.
This speech was not enough to save this presidency.
Democrats Playing the 'Climate of Hate' Card in the Wake of Arizona Murders
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Jan 10, 2011
After the Kennedy assassination the New York Times blamed the crime on the pervasive 'climate of hate' supposedly sweeping the country in the 1960's. In reality, it was a "silly little"communist as Jackie Kennedy described Lee Harvey Oswald, who killed the president. But the Left preferred to describe him as a disturbed young man and a lone gunman.
With the Pavlovian response by the Left, blaming Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party and whoever else they can think of on the right, the playing of the 'climate-of-hate' card is now in full swing. It's the narrative, rather than the truth, that the Left needs to control, to enact their agenda.
And it's a tried and true tactic.
Bill Clinton blamed the Oklahoma City Bombing on Rush Limbaugh, the militia movement and the 'climate of hate". It was really Timothy McVeigh.
George Bush was hung in effigy, had a movie made about his assassination, and was branded a war criminal and a liar over the 8 years of his presidency.
Democrats are now planning the usual feel-good useless legislation that always gets pushed in the wake of a national tragedy. One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson, promising to introduce legislation targeting the high-capacity ammunition the gunman used. Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Robert Brady plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or images that could be interpreted as inciting violence toward members of Congress or federal officials, an obvious free-speech violation.
We wonder if Brady's idiotic bill would apply to those Leftists who threaten Republicans….we aren't holding our breath.
The Left has always lamented that Obama hasn't had his 9/11 or his Oklahoma City bombing to exploit. Now Democrat strategists are saying "They (Obama) need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers, just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people." Well, that was 1994, before the internet and the rise of conservative media. It won't work now.
The Left cannot thrive on peace and prosperity. It needs to agitate, foment discontent and enact solutions in search of non-existent problems. In a word, the Left must have societal unrest to be heard. Here is an impromptu list of the hate the Left has been dining out on over the last 20-30 years courtesy of Michelle Malkin:
And that is just a partial list.
TEA PARTY/GOP HATE
ANTI-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HATE
ANTI-CONSERVATIVE FEMALE HATE
LEFT-WING MOB HATE - campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
HATE CRIMES - the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection
At various times during his Administration, our Fraudinator-in-Chief has said the following:
Chris Matthews called for the jamming of a CO2 pellet into Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Sarah Palin has been depicted with a rifle being held to her head.
If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. - June 2008.
I want you to go out and talk to your neighbors… I want you to argue with them, get in their faces. - September 2008.
I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry. - March 2009.
If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder, and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on November 2. - October 2010.
President Reagan was shot. Of course, the mainstream media didn't call for a dialing down of the anti-Reagan rhetoric in vogue at the time. They simply said John Hinckley was a disturbed young man.
And the mainstream media has the nerve to accuse conservatives of creating a "climate of hate?"
How about Florida Democrat Alan Grayson condemning his opponent as a "religious fanatic" and calling him "Taliban Dan Webster?" What about when Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina falsely accused Tea Party members of hurling racial epithets at him? And what about the ginned up spitting accusation by House Democrats just before ObamaCare was jammed down the nations' throat?
Whenever a Muslim goes on a shooting spree, or gets caught trying to blow up an airliner or Times Square, liberals are quick to admonish us not to pass judgment without all of the facts. Not so when it suits their 'climate-of-hate' narrative.
The narrative as usual falls apart with the slightest bit of research.
Accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner appeared to have been long obsessed with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
A safe at Mr. Loughner's home contained a form letter from Ms. Giffords' office thanking him for attending a 2007 "Congress on your Corner'' event in Tucson. The safe also held an envelope with handwritten notes, including the name of Ms. Giffords, as well as "I planned ahead," "My assassination," and what appeared to be Mr. Loughner's signature, according to an FBI affidavit.
So Loughner was planning this long before the Tea Party and Sarah Palin were on the scene. Sorry Lefties. Based on this history and his collection of youtube videos one might conclude Loughner is just a disturbed young man. But you will never hear that from the Left.
Liberal hypocrisy has no limits.
From the Wall St. Journal:
The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel
Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don't help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
JANUARY 10, 2011
By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS Shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner's killing spree might fill the bill.
With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."
Pima County, AZ Sheriff Clarence Dupnik held a press conference during which he blamed vitriolic political rhetoric for provoking the mentally unstable, and lamented Arizona's becoming the "mecca of prejudice and bigotry." Video courtesy of AFP.
The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors-"lock and load"-and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this-or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"-it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.
There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.
American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. "Where," asked Mr. York, "was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?"
Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill.
So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?
Assassination Attempt on Democrat Congresswomanperson -- Krugman Blames GOP
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
Jan 8, 2011
Folks, the politically inspired violence ALWAYS comes from the Left. Whether it's union and/or police riots ginned up by community organizers against government austerity measures or some minority crook getting shot by the cops, nutbags flying planes into IRS buildings, Muslim terrorist scum flying jets into towers or murdering soldiers, political assassinations and assassination attempts, you name it….the violence ALWAYS comes from the Left. And don't give us the Timothy McVeigh/Oklahoma bombing one-off. That's as tired and pathetic as blaming Bush for 9.4% unemployment and the stagmant economy.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona (D) was shot in the head by a gunman who opened fire outside a grocery store during a meeting with voters. Giffords was among at least 10 people wounded, and the hospital said her outlook was optimistic as she was responding to commands from doctors despite having a bullet go through her head. The death toll included a 9-year-old girl, a federal judge, and a staffer for the Democratic congresswoman.
Police say the shooter was in custody, and was identified by people familiar with the investigation as Jared Loughner, 22. Pima County Sheriff's officials said he used a 9 mm pistol to carry out the shooting spree.
Well, his name is Jared Loughner.
The Pansy Left and Progressives were quick to blame the Tea Party and the dreaded GOP as proof that things are getting out of hand. Of course, that's exactly what conservatives would do in the wake of the mid-term elections….go on a shooting spree. Wouldn't you go on a shooting spree if you'd just won control of the House of Representatives, nominal control of the Senate and neutered the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda?
On Twitter Leftist traitor Jane Fonda blamed the shooting on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Tea Party:
And Paul Krugman of the NY Times:
A Democratic Congresswoman has been shot in the head; another dozen were also shot.
We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She's been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she's a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that "the whole Tea Party" was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin's infamous "crosshairs" list.
Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it's been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing.
You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we're going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it's long past time for the GOP's leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers. What a loser. Sorry Paul, your imaginary tea partier turned out to be a leftist.
Here's a list of Loughner's favorite reading material:
Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.
"It is a tragedy for Arizona, and a tragedy for our entire country," President Barack Obama declared. Our Fraudinator-in-Chief certainly has a gift for stating the obvious and the mundane
Jared's also nuts. From his YouTube account:
In case they disappear we've saved some screen shots:
Little Jared also likes to burn the American flag:
And, as Leftists are wont to do, Daily Kos is re-writing history by scrubbing its site of Rep. Gabby Giffords and the now infamous "dead to me" post. Kos has a long history of scrubbing things like this, so we have the screenshots for the hit piece that was run on Congresswomanperson Giffords on Thursday January 6th, 2010. The article, entitled "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!", was written by someone calling him/herself BoyBlue.
Here's the scrubbed link.....And here's a screen of the scrubbed page:
It must have been a Tea Partier!!!!