Obama 1 Vs Obama 2

Because I’m sick today I am going to reprint a series by one of my favourites, Thomas Sowell.

Many voters will be comparing Mitt Romney with Barack Obama between now and election day. But what might be even more revealing would be comparing Obama with Obama. There is a big contrast between Obama based on his rhetoric (“Obama 1”) and Obama based on his record (“Obama 2”).

For example, during the 2008 election campaign, Obama 1 spoke of “opening up and creating more transparency in government,” so that government spending plans would be posted on the Internet for days before they passed into legislation. After he was elected president, Obama said, “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

This Obama 1 sounds like a very good fellow. No wonder so many people voted for him.

But then there is Obama 2. He passed a mammoth ObamaCare bill so fast that even members of Congress didn’t have time to read it, much less the general public. It was by no means posted on the Internet for days before the vote, as promised.

The Constitution of the United States requires transparency as well. When people are nominated by a President to become Cabinet members, the Constitution requires that they be confirmed by the Senate before they can take office, so that facts about them can become known before they are given the powers of their offices.

Although President Obama complied with this requirement when he appointed Cabinet members, he also made other appointments to powerful positions created by Executive Orders — people aptly called “czars” for the vast, unchecked powers they wielded, in some cases greater than the powers exercised by Cabinet members.

These “czars” never had to be confirmed by the Senate, and so had no public vetting before acquiring their powers. We had unknown and unaccountable rulers placed over us.

Another aspect of transparency was the Constitution’s requirement that Congress pass a budget every year. The Democratically controlled Senate during the Obama administration has not passed a budget for three consecutive years.

Passing a budget makes the administration tell the public what it will pay for, what it will have to cut to reduce the deficit — and how big the deficit will be if they don’t cut anything. By not even passing a budget, Obama 2 and his party are in effect saying to the public, “It is none of your business.” Transparency?

In his oath of office, Barack Obama swore to see that the laws are faithfully executed, as all Presidents do. But that was Obama 1. Once in the White House, Obama 2 proceeded to explicitly waive the enforcement of laws he didn’t agree with.

The immigration laws are a classic example. Failing to get Congress to pass some version of amnesty, Obama 2 simply issued an Executive Order exempting certain classes of illegal immigrants from the immigration laws on the books.

Too many people have gotten sucked into a discussion of whether it is a good or a bad thing for people brought into the country as children to be exempted. But the whole reason for Constitutional government is to have all three branches of government agree on what the laws of the land shall be.

Obama 2 has decided instead that if Congress doesn’t do what he wants, he will do it by himself through Executive Orders.

If any President can unilaterally change the law, we are not likely to have the same freedom under rule by presidential fiat as under Constitutional government. This is especially dangerous in a President’s second term, when he need no longer have to consider what the voters want. With a couple more Supreme Court appointments he can permanently change the very nature of American government.

One of the most dangerous examples of a lack of transparency was inadvertently revealed last March when Obama 2, unaware that a microphone was on, told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that, after he is reelected, and never has to face the voters again, he will have the “flexibility” to make a deal with Russia on missile defense systems.

In other words, Obama will be able to make a deal with a country that has been America’s most implacable and most formidable adversary for more than half a century — a deal he couldn’t make if the voters knew about it before the election. Think about that chilling prospect, and what it reveals about the real Obama.

Nowhere is the contrast between Barack Obama, as defined by his rhetoric (“Obama 1”) and Barack Obama as defined by his actions (“Obama 2”) greater than in his foreign policy — and especially his policy toward Israel.

What if we put aside Barack Obama’s rhetoric, and instead look exclusively at his documented record over a period of decades, up to and including the present?

The first thing that is most striking about that record is the long string of his mentors and allies who were marked by hatred of the United States, and a vision of the world in which the white, Western nations have become prosperous by oppressing and exploiting the non-white, non-Western nations.

The person most people have heard of who matched that description has been Jeremiah Wright, whose church Barack Obama attended for 20 years, and was still attending when he began his campaign for the presidency. But Jeremiah Wright was just one in a series of mentors and allies with a similar vision and a similar visceral hostility to the West.

Barack Obama was virtually marinated in that vision from childhood. His mother clashed with her Indonesian husband when he began to move away from his earlier anti-Western radicalism and to work with Western businesses investing in Indonesia.

As a counterweight to whatever ideological influence her Indonesian husband might have on her son, she extolled the virtues of his absent Kenyan father, who remained a doctrinaire, anti-Western socialist to the end.

After Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents at age ten, his grandfather introduced him to a black man named Frank Marshall Davis, who had a long career of anti-American, anti-white propaganda that included a stint as a member of the Communist Party. Davis was Obama’s mentor on race throughout his adolescent years, until Obama left for college.

The progression of such mentors and like-minded contemporaries continued as Obama went through Occidental College, Columbia University and the Harvard Law School.

These included Professor Edward Said at Columbia, a spokesman for Palestinian terrorists, and Professor Derrick Bell at the Harvard Law School. Bell was an advocate of so-called “critical race theory” — an uncritical mishmash of notions by a man who said that he saw his role as deliberately annoying white people. Barack Obama literally embraced Professor Bell at a public gathering.

After Obama went out into the world and worked for a time in a private business, he regarded himself as being, in his own words, “a spy behind enemy lines.”

Later, when he began his political career by running for state office in Illinois, his campaign began with a fundraiser in the home of Bill Ayers, who had been a domestic terrorist who planted bombs in public places, including the Pentagon.

When this association was later revealed, Obama said that he was still a child during Ayers’ years as a terrorist. But Obama was by no means still a child when Ayers defended his years of terrorism in a statement that appeared in the New York Times — ironically, on September 11, 2001.

This is not the Barack Obama that most voters saw and elected President of the United States in 2008. What they saw was a carefully crafted image of a bright, articulate, energetic and genial fellow who would heal our racial and partisan divides. His likability was high and remained so, even after many became disappointed with his policies.

His geniality has carried him over many rough spots. But have you ever heard of a grumpy confidence man? Geniality is a prerequisite for the job.

What many regard as a failure of Obama’s foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, may well be one of his biggest successes. His desire to redistribute wealth domestically is part of a larger ideological vision that includes a redistribution of power internationally.

Obama has long said that the United States plays too large a role internationally. His policies suggest that Islamic countries need a larger role. The troubling question is whether he still sees his own role as “a spy behind enemy lines” in the White House.

Much puzzling behavior by Barack Obama falls into place when we go behind the image that he projects (“Obama 1”) to the factual reality of the man’s whole life and thrust (“Obama 2”).

Obama himself is well aware of the nature and importance of his image. In his own words, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” An 18th century philosopher put the matter bluntly: “When I speak, I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off.”

Many of Barack Obama’s actions as President of the United States reflect neither political expediency nor an attempt to promote the best interests of the American people. Take, for example, his bowing low from the waist to foreign leaders.

No President of the United States had ever done that before. It gained Obama nothing with the voters, nor was there any reason to think that he expected it to. Why then did he do it?

What did it accomplish? It brought the United States down a peg, in the eyes of the world, something that he has sought to do in many other ways.

These bows were perfectly consistent with his view of a maldistribution of power and prestige internationally, just as his domestic agenda reflects a felt need for a redistribution of wealth and power within American society.

It is not just the United States, but the Western world in general, including Israel, that needs to be brought down a peg, from the standpoint of the ideology prevalent among the people with whom Barack Obama has allied himself consistently for decades.

Against that background, it is not at all puzzling that President Obama has clamped down on offshore oil drilling by Americans in the Gulf of Mexico, but has actually encouraged and subsidized offshore oil drilling by Brazil with our tax dollars.

Nor is it surprising that he imposes draconian restrictions on industrial activities in the United States, in the name of fighting “global warming,” while accepting the fact that Third World nations that are beginning to industrialize will generate far more pollution than any restrictions in America can possibly offset.

That is another example of international redistribution — and payback for perceived past oppressions or exploitation of the West against the non-West. So is replacing pro-Western governments in the Middle East with Islamic extremist governments.

Some people may have gotten focused on the issue of Barack Obama’s birth certificate because so much of what he has done seems foreign to American ideals, traditions and interests. But birth tells us nothing about loyalty. One-time American Communist leader Earl Browder was descended from the Pilgrims.

Those who have questioned whether Barack Obama is really a citizen of the United States have missed the larger question: Whether he considers himself a citizen of the world. Think about this remarkable statement by Obama during the 2008 campaign: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that every other country is going to say, ‘OK.'”

Are Americans supposed to let foreigners tell them how to live their lives? The implied answer is clearly “Yes!” When President Obama went to the United Nations for authority to take military action and ignored the Congress of the United States, that was all consistent with his vision of the way the world should be.

How has Obama gotten away with so many things that are foreign to American beliefs and traditions? Partly it is because of a quiescent media, sharing many of his ideological views and/or focused on the symbolism of his being “the first black President.” But part of his success must be credited — if that is the word — to his own rhetorical talents and his ability to project an image that many people accept and welcome.

The role of a confidence man is not to convince skeptics, but to help the gullible believe what they want to believe. Most of what Barack Obama says sounds very persuasive if you don’t know the facts — and often sounds like sheer nonsense if you do. But he is not trying to convince skeptics, nor worried about looking ridiculous to informed people who won’t vote for him anyway.

This is a source of much polarization between those who see and accept Obama 1 and those who see through that facade to Obama 2.

During the same week the American ambassador to Libya was murdered and his dead body dragged through the streets by celebrating mobs, the president of the United States found time to go on the David Letterman show to demonstrate his sense of humor and how cool he is.

But Barack Obama did not have time to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of a nation repeatedly threatened with annihilation by Iranian leaders working feverishly toward the creation of nuclear bombs.

This was an extraordinary thing in itself, something that probably no other president of the United States could have gotten away with without raising a firestorm of criticisms and denunciations. But much of the media see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes to Barack Obama — especially during an election year.

Nor was this public rebuff of a publicly requested meeting with Netanyahu unique in its expression of disrespect, if not contempt, for both the man and his country.

Despite his glowing assertions of his commitment to Israel, especially in speeches to American Jewish groups, Obama has been working against Israel’s interests from his first day in the White House. As in many other contexts, what Obama says and does are often opposite.

The vision in which Obama has been steeped is one in which white Western nations have oppressed and exploited nonwhite, non-Western nations, becoming rich and arrogant at other people’s expense. It is a vision that calls out, not for justice, but for payback.

When Jeremiah Wright said, “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” — and Obama, by his own account, was moved to tears — it captured in a few melodramatic words what a whole series of Obama’s mentors and allies had been saying for decades. No wonder it resonated with him.

Despite hopes that Barack Obama’s election as president of the United States would mark the beginning of a post-racial era in America, no hope was ever so completely doomed from the outset.

Anyone who looks beyond Obama’s soothing words about race to his record, from his joining self-segregated black students in college to his appointing Al Sharpton as a White House adviser, can see the contrast between rhetoric and reality.

Obama is not the first leader of a nation whose actions reflected some half-baked vision, enveloped in lofty rhetoric and spiced with a huge dose of ego. Nor would he be the first such leader to steer his nation into a historic catastrophe.

In Obama’s case, the potential for catastrophe is international in scope, and perhaps irretrievable in its consequences, as he stalls with feckless gestures as terrorist-sponsoring Iran moves toward the production of nuclear bombs.

Obama’s rhetoric says he will protect Israel, but the actions of Obama have in fact protected Iran from an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities — until it is now questionable whether Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities can be destroyed by the Israelis.

Those deeply buried facilities took time to build, and Obama’s policies gave them that time, with his lackadaisical approach of seeking United Nations resolutions and international sanctions that never had any serious chance of stopping Iran’s movement toward becoming a nuclear power. And Obama had to know that.

In March, “Foreign Policy” magazine reported that “several high-level sources” in the Obama administration had revealed Israel’s secret relationship with Azerbaijan, where Israeli planes could refuel to or from an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The administration feared “the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran,” according to these “high-level sources.” Apparently the risks of an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel are not so much feared.

This leak was one of the historic and unconscionable betrayals of an ally whose very existence is threatened. But the media still saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil. The only question now is whether American voters will wake up before it is too late — not just for Israel, but for America too.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The River De Nial

Kill our Ambassador win $450 Million Dollars!
The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million.

Yes, I know that was in Libya. But it’s still the “Arab Spring” and we are still rewarding the same basic Islamic Radicals because Obama promised the money to people he knew nothing about just because they were “liberators” in 2011 and he didn’t care then and he doesn’t care now.

He’s too busy campaigning to care.

We need good foreign policy decisions like that in the next 4 years when Iran nukes Israel or Israel attacks Iran to prevent it.

Hillary: “The recent riots and protests throughout the region have brought the challenge of transition into sharp relief,” Mrs. Clinton said, without mentioning the assistance to Egypt specifically. “Extremists are clearly determined to hijack these wars and revolutions to further their agendas and ideology, so our partnership must empower those who would see their nations emerge as true democracies.”

4 People were killed in a Terrorist attack and they just can’t face it.  How fast was it off the Ministry of Truth, hours?….

Talk about swimming up the river DE NIAL.

Speaking of Denial:

Spanish-language television network Univision plans to air a television special that it said reveals more violence than previously known, as well as the stories of how many more Operation Fast and Furious victims were killed, the network announced in a Friday release.

“The consequences of the controversial ‘Fast and Furious’ undercover operation put in place by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2009 have been deadlier than what has been made public to date,” the network said. “The exclusive, in-depth investigation by Univision News’ award-winning Investigative Unit — Univision Investiga — has found that the guns that crossed the border as part of Operation Fast and Furious caused dozens of deaths inside Mexico.”

Among other groups of Fast and Furious victim stories Univision says it will tell in the special to air Sunday evening at 7 p.m., is one about how “16 young people attending a party in a residential area of Ciudad Juárez in January of 2010″ were gunned down with weapons the Obama administration gave to drug cartel criminals through Fast and Furious.

Among other groups of Fast and Furious victim stories Univision says it will tell in the special to air Sunday evening at 7 p.m., is one about how “16 young people attending a party in a residential area of Ciudad Juárez in January of 2010″ were gunned down with weapons the Obama administration gave to drug cartel criminals through Fast and Furious.

“Univision News’ Investigative Unit was also able to identify additional guns that escaped the control of ATF agents and were used in different types of crimes throughout Mexico,” the network added. “Furthermore, some of these guns — none of which were reported by congressional investigators — were put in the hands of drug traffickers in Honduras, Puerto Rico, and Colombia. A person familiar with the recent congressional hearings called Univision’s findings ‘the holy grail’ that Congress had been searching for.” (DC)

But don’t worry, it was all Bush’s Fault! So just ignore it. 🙂
And then there’s the Schizoid ACLU who is Pro-Illegal but is apparently unhappy with Big Brother Obama.

NEW YORK — The Obama administration has overseen a sharp increase in the number of people subjected to warrantless electronic surveillance of their telephone, email and Facebook accounts by federal law enforcement agencies, new documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday revealed.

The documents, released by the ACLU after a months-long legal battle with the Department of Justice, show that in the last two years, more people were spied on by the government than in the preceding decade. The documents do not include information on most terrorism investigations and requests from state and local law enforcers. Nor do they include surveillance by federal agencies outside Justice Department purview, like the Secret Service.

Department of Justice agencies obtained 37,616 court orders for information about phone calls in 2011, according to the documents. That’s an increase of 47 percent from the 25,535 orders obtained by the government in 2009. Including Internet and email information requests, more than 40,000 people were targeted in 2011.

“We’re seeing a massive increase in requests for what as a technologist I would call metadata, so it’s not the what you say, but the who you say it to,” said Chris Soghoian, the principal technologist at the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

The government can legally collect that metadata, about who and when you call, email or instant message, because of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, passed in 1986. Back then, “pen registers,” which collect outgoing data like phone numbers, or “trap and trace” devices that collect incoming data, were physical devices that had to be attached to phone lines. It was an arduous process that limited widespread use.

Not so today. From the feds to local Mayberry cops, all that law enforcers needs in order to obtain an order allowing surveillance to file a procedural request with a judge certifying that the information will be used in conjunction with a criminal investigation. With contemporary technology, telecommunications providers can comply with those orders at the push of a button.

“Why are we seeing such a surge? We don’t really know,” said Soghoian. “It may be that there’s more and more FBI and DEA offices that are discovering the utility of these tools or using them more frequently.”

“Maybe the social networking sites and email providers just didn’t provide this information in the past, but now they do — but what is clear is that the numbers are growing at an alarming rate.”

The Justice Department data do not specify crimes the government was investigating when it requested the orders.

Particularly concerning, Soghoian said, are forms of communication, including emails and social networks, that the government may analyze with sophisticated techniques to turn messaging metadata into something more revealing. In a somewhat similar manner, the retailler Target used purchase histories to discover which of its customers were pregnant.

The Justice Department, in a statement, said the orders are legal — and necessary.

“In every instance cited here, a federal judge authorized the law enforcement activity,” said Dean Boyd, a spokesman. “As criminals increasingly use new and more sophisticated technologies, the use of orders issued by a judge and explicitly authorized by Congress to obtain non-content information is essential for federal law enforcement officials to carry out their duty to protect the public and investigate violations of federal laws.”

The ACLU supports an amendment to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act proposed by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) that would require disclosure of the number federal and state law enforcement surveillance requests. The legislation also would speed the release of that data.

Pen registers and trap and trace requests represent only one part of the federal government’s rapidly expanding electronic surveillance toolbox.

As technology gallops along and civil liberties law lags, Soghoian said, it is increasingly being left to the government and private corporations to decide what is legal and what is not. But citizens’ tools to track those new frontiers in privacy are lacking. It’s unclear, for instance, how many of the requests for information went to social networks like Facebook.

“I think there’s really something at a deep level creepy about the government looking through your communications records, and you never learn that they were doing it,” Soghoian said. (Huffington Post)

One Liberal on the same site said that at least they were doing it legally unlike Bush.

That make a difference to a Liberal, you know!

Wow! what a partisan reality we live in.

As long as there guy does it “legally” it’s ok that he’s spying on you.

NO IT ISN’T!

But as always, if you disagree you must be a racist. 🙂

And Liberals can do anything they want because it’s always someone’s fault.

Doesn’t that just give you the warm fuzzies.

Say, what is that buzzing noise outside my window?? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Origins

Americans must be wondering how much more of this “recovery” they can afford. New figures from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, compiled by Sentier Research , show that the typical American household’s real (inflation-adjusted) income has actually dropped 5.7 percent during the Obama “recovery.”

Yet it gets worse. Amazingly, incomes have dropped even more during the “recovery” than they did during the recession. In fact, they’ve dropped more than twice as much as they did during the recession.

Using constant 2012 dollars (to adjust for inflation), the median annual income of American households was $53,718 as of June 2009, the last month of the recession. Now, after 38 months of this “recovery,” it has fallen to $50,678 — a drop of $3,040 per household. (KFYI)

But he the guy in charge of this will give you free stuff and will make sure he sticks it to “rich” people!!! The other guy is just a gaffe-laden asshole. 🙂

And besides we all know it’s Bush’s Fault, after all… 🙂

The newest viral video is of a woman who says she will vote for Obama because she got a free cell phone from him. Now that’s the kind of intellectual voter response we need as a country! 🙂

The program is called Lifeline, established in 1984, originally created to subsidize landline phone service for low income Americans, funded by government-collected telecommunication fees, paid by consumers.

In 2008, the program was expanded to support cell phones which quickly escalated the cost of the program. In 2008 the program cost $772 million, but by 2011 it cost $1.6 billion.

A 2011 audit found that 269,000 wireless Lifeline subscribers were receiving free phones and monthly service from two or more carriers. Several websites have been created to promote “free” government cell phones, including the”The Obama Cell Phone” website at Obamaphone.net.

After all, a Cell phone must be a Human Right and if you deny it to people you must be a racist!. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

What a mean, evil racist! 🙂

But it’s Obama re-election time, so no one in the FCC is going to do anything about it. Don’t want to upset the peasants.

2016 Update

Two weeks ago, Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary “2016: Obama’s America” passed Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” for second place on the all-time box-office money list for political documentaries. It now has a box office gross of more than $32 million. But if you’re an independent or a liberal who’s unplugged from conservative websites and talk radio, you’d never know.
You didn’t see D’Souza on CBS or NBC (although he showed up on ABC’s “Nightline” in late night). There were no cover stories in Time or Newsweek. The film opened on just one screen in Houston when it premiered on July 13, and then spread to 10, and eventually to 1,000 theaters in August, and 2,000 theaters in September. A cultural sensation, yes — but somehow not newsworthy.
Al Gore, naturally, had every advantage of a beloved liberal almost-president. When it hit theaters in May of 2006, Time magazine wrote, “The movie got raves at the Sundance Film Festival … In Los Angeles theaters, the trailers have been getting ovations.” On NBC, Katie Couric sat down in the outdoors with Gore and told him that in the movie, “you’re funny, vulnerable, disarming, self-effacing.” On CBS, anchor Harry Smith gushed, “The box office receipts would indicate that it’s an action movie — you did better per screening than almost anything that’s come out this week.”
Even after Gore’s slideshow lecture/film eventually sputtered out at the Cineplex, several more rounds of fawning followed: an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize, and in between the gushing lines came the idea that Gore might (or should) run again for president. The “Goracle” gush was so heavy that Time collected it all together. He was “Al Gore — the improbably charismatic, Academy Award-winning, Nobel Prize-nominated environmental prophet with an army of followers and huge reserves of political and cultural capital at his command.”
And yet, D’Souza’s film was the Little Engine That Could — the film that could surpass Gore at the box office. He didn’t need MSNBC to put him on, although in August, he slammed them as cowardly: “You could watch that channel and not even know we have a film out — unless you saw a commercial that we’re running for our film. You look at Lawrence O’Donnell, you look at Rachel Maddow, you look at Chris Matthews. I mean, look at those cowards! … I would love to cross swords with those guys, but I think they’re all hiding under the desk.”
Whatever media elite notice D’Souza received began trickling in once it made the top ten of the weekend box-office hits in late August … and it wasn’t positive at all.
A Washington Post critic scoffed on August 24: “It is doomed to win precious few converts. It’s a textbook example of preaching to the choir. It has the air of a ‘Nightmare on Elm Street’ sequel, pandering to the franchise’s hardcore fans, while boring everyone else.”
And “An Inconvenient Truth” was different?
On August 29, ABC’s David Wright told D’Souza his film was “disingenuous” in suggesting Obama wanted to downsize America’s power and influence, and complained “D’Souza spins out the conspiracy theory” of America in dramatic economic and geopolitical collapse by 2016. The screen read “Conspirator-in-Chief.”
NPR weekend anchor Guy Raz took a few rhetorical swings at D’Souza in a September 1 interview. “Dinesh D’Souza, if you wanted to criticize or attack President Obama, why bend the truth? Why not just offer a policy critique rather than conjecture, and in many cases in this film, conspiracy?”
But what dominated Al Gore’s documentary if not a gloomy conjecture about the destruction of the planet through global warming? Wasn’t Gore a “Conspirator-in-Chief” that some people deny the “truth” of impending planetary doom for nefarious political ends? Gore’s film ridiculously claimed a 20-foot rise in sea level that would flood Manhattan.
The media weren’t negative about that conjecture. ABC’s story on Gore’s movie was summed up with the words “The Comeback Kid? Al Gore Takes On The World.”
Reporter Claire Shipman hailed “Gore’s personal journey toward environmental evangelism.” On NPR, anchor Robert Siegel hailed the film’s success, and began with a “quibble” and moved on: “Our science correspondent had only a couple of quibbles on claims about the melting snows of Kilimanjaro or the increasing power of hurricanes.” Gore quickly shot that down as unworthy. And The Washington Post reviewer (Desson Thomson) raved: “We’re pressure-cooking the planet to death — and Al Gore has the flow charts to prove it. We know what you’re thinking, but as this surprisingly absorbing film shows, Gore’s lectures are anything but dull.”
D’Souza’s movie was comparable to an over-the-top horror movie. Al Gore has proven we’re all about to bake and/or drown, and all that can be said about that spooky spectacle is it is “surprisingly absorbing.” Their arrogance knows no bounds. (Brent Bozell)

That’s very true.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Indy’s Top 25 List

Inspired by Obama’s appearance on David Letterman.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Please stop me when I get to the Bad stuff about Obama’s 4 years:

1. a Net loss of 1.3 million jobs overall.

2. Higher inflation due to devaluing of the dollar.

3. ANNUAL budget deficits in excess of a Trillion Dollars.

4. 15 million more people on Food Stamps.

5. More People than ever on Social Security Disability

6. Unemployment rate over 8% since February 2009. (the real one-U6- over 11%)

7. No Federal Budget since April 2009. $6 Trillion in NEW Debt.

8. Our Ambassador in Libya is killed and he’s still going on about an irrelevant film. Even though the evidence that it was a terrorist attack is overwhelming. But “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” according ton Obama in front of the UN.

9. More violent Illegal Aliens crossing the border because this administration is openly unwilling to do anything about it.

10. Fast & Furious

11. Health Care cost continue to rise even higher than they would have without Obamacare. And Obamacare is now going to cost 3 times as much as originally “promised” and it is even fully implemented yet.

12. Oh, yeah, it’s all Bush’s/Republicans/Christians/Rich people’s/Business’s Fault!

13. Totally unconcerned about Taxmageddon coming January 1st, 2013. Let alone the ObamaCare TAX.

14. Drones in US cities.

15. Let’s not meet with world leaders because we have opportunities to appear on David Letterman and The View.

16. Executive Fiats are the order of the day. Don’t get what you want, just go around the process. It’s good to be the King.

17. The Mom-In-Chief Michelle Obama will run your diet for you because you’re a moron. Mother Knows Best.

18. Nancy Pelosi: According to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Republicans are trying “suffocate the airwaves, suppress the vote, poison the debate, [so] people throw up their hands and say, ‘I just don’t even know if I want to participate in this.'” But, “we have to keep the campaign positive.”
🙂 And Nancy can’t be wrong, right?

19.  The Middle Class are NOT better off than they were 4 years ago when everything crashed.

Since the economic recovery started in June 2009, household incomes are down 5.7%, the Sentier data show, and they are down more than 8% since Obama took office. (IBD) But that’s Bush’s Fault! :)Four years later, with Obama running for re-election, it’s time to ask Americans: How’s that  Hope & change workin’ out for you?

20. First, the Congressional Budget Office released a detailed report on Obama’s massive electric car program. Its conclusion: The money “will have little or no impact on the total gasoline use and greenhouse gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years.”It also found that, even with the $7,500 tax credits, electric cars are a bad buy, costing owners far more over the life of the car than traditional gas-powered vehicles.Translation: Obama’s electric car subsidies are a complete and total waste of money. (IBD)The Chevy Volt (“ObamaCar”) loses $49,000 every time you sell one. Doesn’t that just say it all.
21. Over $500 Million wasted on Solar Power pie-in-the-sky. Solyndra, Ener 1, Beacon Power,Abound Solar, Amonix Solar,Spectra Watt, Eastern Energy, etc. all bankrupt all cost taxpayers money.
22. Inspirational Speeches23. If you disagree with a Liberal, choose one of the following: a) you’re a racist b) a moron c) you are in the pocket of rich people d) you want rich people to rape you blind.

24. Oh, yes, and the Immortal “YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT!”
25. Fifty-five percent of small business owners and manufacturers would not have started their businesses in today’s economy, according to a new poll that also reports 69 percent say President Obama’s regulatory policies have hurt their businesses.“There is far too much uncertainty, too many burdensome regulations and too few policymakers willing to put aside their egos and fulfill their responsibilities to the American people,” said Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, which commissioned the poll along with the National Federation of Independent Businesses. “To fix this problem, we need immediate action on pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that put manufacturers in the United States in a position to compete and succeed in an ever-more competitive global economy.” (Examiner)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 Now go out there, full of Hope and Change and Vote for Obama because you want 4 more years just like this… 🙂

Rewarding Behavior

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Eric Posner, on the super-liberal site The Slate: This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.

We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal; they emerged contingently from our own political history, a set of cobbled-together compromises among political and ideological factions responding to localized events. As often happens, what starts out as a grudging political settlement has become, when challenged from abroad, a dogmatic principle to be imposed universally. Suddenly, the disparagement of other people and their beliefs is not an unfortunate fact but a positive good. It contributes to the “marketplace of ideas,” as though we would seriously admit that Nazis or terrorist fanatics might turn out to be right after all. Salman Rushdie recently claimed that bad ideas, “like vampires … die in the sunlight” rather than persist in a glamorized underground existence. But bad ideas never die: They are zombies, not vampires. Bad ideas like fascism, Communism, and white supremacy have roamed the countryside of many an open society.

Hot air: The positive good isn’t the disparagement of other people’s beliefs, it’s the freedom to “disparage,” a.k.a. criticize, those beliefs without fear of being locked up by the sensitivity police. Savor the irony of this guy hinting that we should go ahead and criminalize some especially dangerous retrograde ideas while he and a few select others on the left are busy reviving the idea of blasphemy laws to appease violent Islamist fanatics. I’m not sure how closely fascist regimes in the Middle East follow left/right debates in America, but if they do, they have every incentive to burn more buildings and kill more ambassadors in the name of avenging insults to the faith. There’s a small but apparently growing movement on one side of the aisle here that’s ready to hear them out and rebalance free-speech principles against, in Posner’s creepy phrase, “the need for order.”

And the President can’t be bothered to meet with these world leader, he has to do “The View”!

“I don’t care how offensive this video was, and it was terribly offensive. And we should shun it. But there’s never an excuse for violence, never an excuse for attacking embassies, never an excuse for killing innocent people, or assaulting our diplomats. In the age of the Internet, and you know, the way that any knucklehead who says something can post it up and suddenly it travels all around the world, you know, every country has to recognize that, you know, the best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it.”

The clip, though it aired today, was filmed yesterday in New York City. Today, however, the president did not ignore the video.

Instead, President Obama suggested a link between the video and the violence. “[A] crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.  Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity,” said Obama.

“It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well — for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith.  We are home to Muslims who worship across our country.  We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.  We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

…a fine idea that I would take more seriously if he had mentioned it before the movie was condemned by the Cairo embassy, blamed for the Benghazi attack by Susan Rice, apologized for by the State Department via TV ads in Pakistan, and then discussed at length by The One himself in his UN speech today. Scrambling to denounce the film the way the administration did made it that much more lucrative a pretext for Islamists to exploit; the U.S. government can’t ban the film, but attack an embassy or two and by golly they’ll fall all over themselves to reassure you that it’s a wicked, awful, evil piece of expression.

Even the Libyan President doesn’t buy the whole film meme:

In an exclusive interview with NBC News’ Ann Curry, President Mohamed Magarief discounted claims that the attack was in response to a movie produced in California and available on YouTube. He noted that the assault happened on Sept. 11 and that the video had been available for months before that.

“Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September,” he said. “They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message.”

“It’s a pre-planned act of terrorism,” he said, adding that the anti-Islam film had “nothing to do with this attack.”

DUH!
Even though the Administration has admitted it was terrorist attack they can’t admit to themselves because in paralytic Orwellian liberal reflex they just can’t stop talking about this insignificant video. Their view of reality doesn’t include THEM being attacked. Because they are so morally superior in their multicultural, politically correct, Orwellian “free speech” and are so sensitive that they can’t possible be the problem.

It’s NOT THE VIDEO STUPID! But liberal can’t get past their politically correct mindset. It has to be the video. It can’t be…GASP!…horror! THEIR FAULT!

In no way can that possibly be. Liberals are perfect. They are never at fault for anything. They are far too superior to you mere grubby little people for that!

So the answer is to be even less tolerant and to control people even more. 🙂

As Eugene Volokh recently pointed out, “Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated.” If all it takes to earn a White House call for global condemnation of a single piece of expression is some violent protests outside a dozen or two diplomatic missions, then the perpetually aggrieved know exactly what to do the next time they pluck out some bit of cultural detritus to be offended by.

It is not any politician’s job, and certainly not any American politician’s job, to instruct the entire world on which films to criticize.

And Liberals love to reward bad behavior. Especially bad behavior that favors them politically.

Like government dependence. Entitlement greed. Union thuggery. Voter Fraud. Class Warfare. Envy. Childishness. Narcissism.

So they get rewarded for their Class Warfare, “throwing grandma off a cliff” rhetoric. So they repeat it.

And if they get defeated, like 2010, they just come back even more determined. Even more insane.

They want it even more. They don’t learn from their mistakes. They just keep making them because they pay off in very unhealthy ways.

They are addicted to them.

So they can’t stop themselves. And they just get worse and worse.

And so does everything else!

But it’s not their fault! Just ask them. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

 

Redistribution

Now this is Redistribution:

An alarming data point from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee: More Americans are being added to food stamps than are finding jobs. The data is detailed in this chart, provided by the committee:

As the chart shows, between April-June 2012 (the most recent three month block for which government data is available), only 200,000 jobs have been created while 265,000 individuals have been added to the food stamp rolls. Additionally, in that time period, 246,000 workers were awarded disability.

Another chart shows that the last three month block is part of a larger trend. The chart, also from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee, shows that “Workforce Shrinks Since January 2009 While Millions Sign Up For Disability And Food Stamps.”

As the chart shows, since January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, the net change jobs has been negative (-1.3 million), while 5.7 million workers and dependents have been awarded disability and a whopping 15.1 million have been added to the food stamp rolls.

“A total of 46,670,373 Americans are now on food stamps,” according to the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. “The food stamp program has doubled in size since 2008 and quadrupled since 2001.”

And the government program isn’t cheap: “Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $770 billion over the next decade.” (Weekly Standard)

Round Two:

In remarks this morning to the Clinton Global Initiative, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed a radical idea: a global tax on elites around the world.

“One of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country,” Clinton said to laughter from the audience. “You know I’m out of American politics, but – (applause) – it is a fact that around the world, the elites of every country are making money.”

Clinton continued her rift on the rich. “There are rich people everywhere. And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries.”

The secretary of state suggested that the rich around the world do not give back to their communities. “They don’t invest in public schools, in public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally,” said Clinton.

She continued, saying that it is up to foreign leaders to make the change. “And so it means for leaders telling powerful people things they don’t want to hear,” Clinton said.

“It means being transparent about budgets and revenues and bringing corruption to light. And when that happens, we shouldn’t punish countries for uncovering corruption. We should reward them for doing so. And it means putting in place regulations designed to attract and protect investment.”

Clinton’s boss, Barack Obama, has made raising taxes on the rich–at least, raising taxes on wealthy Americans–a centerpiece of his reelection campaign. (weekly standard)

Wanna know who the 1%er’s are Globally?

What for it… AMERICANS!!! 🙂

So the old double whammy!

Fascinating how that worked out!

An American Express/Harrison Group survey found:

According to the survey…

– 67% grew up in a middle class or poorer household.
– 85% made their wealth in their lifetime.
– 76% describe themselves as “Middle Class” at heart.
– 3% is the sum total of their assets that they inherited.

“This is the triumph of the Middle Class,” says Jim Taylor, Vice Chairman of the Harrison Group. “Even when older, the [One Percent] don’t lose the degree with which they see themselves as the repository of the Middle Class. That means hard work. That means the value of education. That means the value of family and luck.” (http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2012/05/07/who-are-the-one-percent/)

See also: http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/10/12/who-are-the-top-1-income-earners/

So the Liberal meme, especially about Romney, isn’t true. But if you had half a brain cell you knew that already. But believing it is heresy on the Left. The 1% aren’t just rich kids who inherited their money and robber baron assholes who exploited their employees like slave master in Ancient Egypt building the Pyramids.

But as I have said repeatedly, the truth doesn’t matter to Liberals. Perception does. Perception is reality. Reality is to be denied, debunked or discredited in their heads and they want it to be in yours.

Rich people are the root of all evil. Government is the Fountain of that’s Good.

Republicans are Evil. Democrats are Good.

Earning your own money- Evil. Earning someone elses money- Good.

It’s that simple. 🙂

P.s.

 

The National Business Group on Health this morning released their annual survey of employer health insurance policies.  The survey found that health insurance costs are expected to rise another 7% next year.  In addition, a majority (60%) of firms “plan to increase the percentage of the premium paid by employees in 2013,” while sizable numbers of firms plan to increase in-network deductibles (40%), out-of-network deductibles (33%), and/or out-of-pocket maximums (32%).

Candidate Obama repeatedly promised premiums would go down by $2,500 — and would go down that amount by this year.  Yet while candidate Obama promised that premiums would go DOWN by $2,500, they actually have gone UP by nearly as much — from $12,680 in 2008 to $15,073 in 2011.

What’s more, even though candidate Obama promised that “you will not have to change plans,” today’s survey found that the number of firms able to keep their pre-Obamacare coverage has decreased yet again.  Fully 57% of firms said they had no health plans with “grandfathered” (i.e., pre-Obamacare) status, and only about one-quarter (27%) were able to keep any portion of their coverage from before Obamacare’s passage – just two short years ago. (Freedom works)

But remember, if you live in reality of what is, you just wanna throw grandmas under the bus and off the cliff!

You have to live in Liberal fantasy land where they are always right no matter what reality says and everything is kumbuya utopia, or at least it will be once they completely and utterly crush you under their boots and make you do everything they want when they want because they want. 🙂

Oh, and it’s all Bush’s fault… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

The Real Issues

President Obama (yesterday) : Well, let’s see what I’ve done since I came into office. I said I’d end the war in Iraq. I did. I said that we’d go after al Qaeda. They’ve been decimated in the Fatah. That we’d go after bin Laden. He’s gone. So I’ve executed on my foreign policy. And it’s one that the American people largely agree with. So if Gov. Romney is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so.
Maybe it should be about the War he’s ignoring or is this just a War of Omission? 🙂
In all of the yelling and hoopla and recriminations about the terrorist attack and subsequent murders at the Libyan consulate at Benghazi, people are neglecting to understand the significance of some of the words coming out of the White House.
 
Words are important; it’s where people express their ideas and in many cases reflects their true feelings or how they express how they understand the universe. The White House is big on words; recently they taped Mitt Romney secretly in order to dastardly try and catch him in saying something recriminating. As a result, the American people seem to ignore some historically significant things that the White House is saying publicly which on the surface seem innocent, but are problematic on a much deeper level. The media is incorrectly is focusing on the minutiae of Romney’s truth while the looming iceberg of Obama’s words are ignored.
 
All along both Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and many other arms of government have been claiming that the video about the Islamic faith has been the cause of the events in Libya; that it was not a preplanned attack. Although there has been a small defense of the freedom of speech, the philosophical argument behind the accusation that a video created this mess, is that sometimes words can hurt and perhaps there should be a re-examination of the limits of our freedom of speech laws and rights.
 
It has been equated to yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, which is also restricted speech based on the ideological and ethical model that if great damage is done by speech, then it should be restricted.
Fair enough—on the surface. But if you argue that a video causing people to riot is under those same guidelines, aren’t you in effect arguing that the rights of freedom of speech are subject to the whims of an angry mob rather than the more objective rules of common sense? Should such videos come under the ‘theatre fire’ rule? If so then any group of people could shut down your ideas, thought or freedom of expression simply by burning down the local candy store.
 
Clinton said that the attacks were due to a video which was ‘disgusting’ and ‘deplorable’. Yet, this is the very thing that the First Amendment was established for; to protect speech no matter who it offends and no matter the content. It’s easy to defend the rights of free speech when it comes to newspapers and media reporting the events of the day. Anyone can do that. It takes a patriot however, to defend that right in the face of bald faced hate speech or pornographic content. It takes someone who understands that by restricting offensive content you restrict human beings ability to promote content that is less offensive.
Clearly, our current crop of leaders does not get that. In a full blown attack on the First Amendment our government has arrested and interrogated and intimidated the makers of the film and pressured YouTube and Google to remove the content from the internet (they have since refused). They have contacted the owners of the film and asked for it to be removed; they have used the power, authority and influence of the White House to control and restrict freedom of speech.
 
Publicly they say America stands for the freedom of speech, but privately they throw it under the bus in an effort to score political points with our enemies; enemies who will just as soon murder us all as look at us.
Keep that in mind the significance of this tack- a President who stands together with your enemies to limit your freedoms while they kill your ambassadors and burn your embassies under the superficial argument that it might save lives.
 
To emblematically kneel before enemies that hold a knife to the throats of America and its freedoms is neither the leadership that we want nor need in the White House. To act with weakness and cowardice in the face of brutality and violence is exactly what is meant when those who stand against Team Obama claim we show weakness in our foreign policy. Tragically, it merely encourages our enemies to do worse and sacrifices the standards of our society and the role of a Constitutional government.
 
Do we really want a President that stands with our enemies in a moment of crisis during an act of war?
 

This is the failed foreign policy of Progressive politics and the legacy of Barack Obama. Heaven help us if he is given another four years in November. (Thomas Purcell)

OBAMA: “When it comes to our national security decisions– any pressure that I feel is simply to do what’s right for the American people. And I am going to block out– any noise that’s out there.”

Thomas Sowell: Former president Bill Clinton told the Democratic National Convention that Barack Obama has a plan to rescue the economy, and only the fact that the Republicans stood in his way has stopped him from getting the economy out of the doldrums.

From all this, and much else that is said in the media and on the campaign trail, you might think that the economy requires government intervention to revive and create jobs. It is Beltway dogma that the government has to “do something.”

History tells a different story. For the first 150 years of this country’s existence, the federal government felt no great need to “do something” when the economy turned down. Over that long span of time, the economic downturns were neither as deep nor as long lasting as they have been since the federal government decided that it had to “do something” in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929, which set a new precedent.

One of the last of the “do nothing” presidents was Warren G. Harding. In 1921, under President Harding, unemployment hit 11.7 percent — higher than it has been under President Obama. Harding did nothing to get the economy stimulated.

Far from spending more money to try to “jump start” the economy, President Harding actually reduced government spending, as the tax revenues declined during the economic downturn.

This was not a matter of absent-mindedly neglecting the economy. President Harding deliberately rejected the urging of his own Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, to intervene.

The 11.7 percent unemployment rate in 1921 fell to 6.7 percent in 1922, and then to 2.4 percent in 1923. It is hard to think of any government intervention in the economy that produced such a sharp and swift reduction in unemployment as was produced by just staying out of the way and letting the economy rebound on its own.

Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed to the delegates to the Democratic National Convention that no president could have gotten us out of the recession in just one term.

But history shows that the economy rebounded out of a worse unemployment situation in just two years under Harding, who simply let the market revive on its own, as it had done before, time and time again for more than a century.

Something similar happened under Ronald Reagan. Unemployment peaked at 9.7 percent early in the Reagan administration. Like Harding and earlier presidents, Reagan did nothing, despite outraged outcries in the media.

The economy once again revived on its own. Three years later, unemployment was down to 7.2 percent — and it kept on falling, as the country experienced twenty years of economic growth with low inflation and low unemployment.

The Obama party line is that all the bad things are due to what he inherited from Bush, and the few signs of recovery are due to Obama’s policies beginning to pay off. But, if the economy has been rebounding on its own for more than 150 years, the question is why it has been so slow to recover under the Obama administration.

The endless proliferation of anti-business interventions by government, and the sight of more of the same coming over the horizon from Barack Obama’s appointees in the federal bureaucracies, creates the one thing that has long stifled economic activity in countries around the world — uncertainty about what the rules of the game are, and the unpredictability of how specifically those rules will continue to change in a hostile political environment.

Both history and contemporary data show that countries prosper more when there are stable and dependable rules, under which people can make investments without having to fear unpredictable new government interventions before these investments can pay off.

A great myth has grown up that President Franklin D. Roosevelt saved the American economy with his interventions during the Great Depression of the 1930s. But a 2004 economic study concluded that government interventions had prolonged the Great Depression by several years. Obama is repeating policies that failed under FDR.

Despite demands that Mitt Romney spell out his plan for reviving the economy, we can only hope that Governor Romney plans to stop the government from intervening in the economy and gumming up the works, so that the economy can recover on its own.

OBAMA (this weekend): “Well, it’s a lot of rhetoric, but there aren’t a lot of facts supporting it. Taxes are lower on families than they’ve been probably in the last 50 years. So I haven’t raised taxes.  I’ve cut taxes for middle class families by an average of $3,600 per typical family.”

Everything else is a lie. (Bush’s/Republican’s Fault)  🙂

And it’s clearly, all Bush’s Fault!
The Left and Obama and are not to blame for any of it.
Almost every expert and pundit has it wrong about the people of the Middle East; most certainly the State Department does, and as a result our foreign policy under Team Obama is in shambles.  The recent uprising and attacks on American consulates in the Gulf region is not about a film, and it’s not even about religion – it’s about power and symbolism.
 
People are wondering why an American ambassador who wished nothing but good for the Libyan people was treated so brutally and murdered. The State Department believes that a brief film on YouTube caused it, but that is hardly the case.
 
It was because the ambassador, Chris Stevens, WAS doing so much good.
 
America represents freedom, education, technology and wealth to the people of Libya, as it does to most of the world. These are the very things that would free the Libyans from the grip of evil from groups like Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism. By killing Stevens, who was thought of so highly by the local people, these groups are telling the locals: “We are in control, America cannot help you, do what we tell you”.(Thomas Purcell)
Sounds like Obama and his government is the solution to everything approach. He wants all the power. The Democrats want all the power.
The Power to control you completely. To make you completely dependent on them.
So is this different? Maybe its not.
And that maybe THAT”s the real problem.