The Future of America: Debate-able

Matt Walsh: It’s comforting to project all our anger onto politicians. Lord knows, they deserve a fair amount of it. However, the difficult reality is this: America’s biggest problem is its citizens, not its politicians. Indeed, its politicians are a symptom, a reflection, of its people. They may manipulate and coerce and propagandize, but when it comes down to it, in a democratic system, if a bunch of lunatics and scoundrels are in power it’s because the people chose to put them there. The sickness originates, then, with the people. And the people’s sickness is rooted in the soul.

Depressing how ignorant and narcissistic they are, many willfully so.

My mind kept going back to this fact last night as I watched the Democrat debate on CNN. To be honest, I’m not totally sure why I watched it. Clearly, a person must have some serious psychological issues if they elect to spend an evening with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It’s like choosing to be mentally water boarded for two and a half hours. Only a troubled man would willingly subject himself to such torment. I’ll be making an appointment with a therapist later today.

That’s why I wasn’t watching. I already have high blood pressure and heart problems I didn’t their help to my grave. Plus, it would just soul-crushingly depressing watch the Liberal Media coddle these nutters and the audience applauding them for it.

But whatever my masochistic motivations, I watched, and although I wasn’t terribly surprised by anything that occurred, I was nonetheless deeply disturbed and grieved. This is what’s become of my country, I kept thinking to myself. This is America. These are mainstream, popular, beloved Democrat politicians participating in a presidential election on national TV, yet from what they’re saying, you’d be excused for assuming they were just a handful of fringe crazies campaigning to be the next leader of some hippy commune in upstate Oregon.

corrupt

There wasn’t a single good or feasible or coherent idea offered at any point from anyone not named Jim Webb. Just hard-left hokum and naked socialism, because that’s precisely what millions of American voters demand.

The want the visceral, gutteral, hatred that they’d been raised on. They didn’t want ideas, they wanted EMOTIONS.

I’m old enough to remember when Democrat politicians in national elections had to pretend to be capitalist and at least vaguely Christian and constitutionalist to get elected. Now, it’s a race to see who can play the most convincing godless commie demagogue.

I started out my voting life as a Democrat. I even voted for Jimmy Carter, to my ultimate shame.

But they don’t make Democrats like, say JFK anymore. They were exterminated.

The Far Left is “centrist” to these loons.

With the frazzled Muppet from Vermont leading the way, all of the candidates (except Jim Webb, who apparently stumbled into the wrong debate) spent the first several minutes complaining about “income inequality.”

Because that is the emotional buzzword of The Party. Forget the facts, especially about the income gap GROWING under Obama…Liberals and Democrats don’t do facts.

This was a theme they’d all return to incessantly throughout the evening, because there’s nothing more exhilarating than listening to old rich white people complain about old rich white people.

The “diversity” of it is hilarious. But it would be a thoughtcrime for that to occur to them so their brains just skip that detail none the wiser.

Bernie Sanders lamented again and again that the “middle class is collapsing,” but never expressed any interest in seeing us poor middle class folk move up and out of the middle class.

Socialism doesn’t have a middle class, by the way. Just Very rich and everyone else whose poor. Talk about “inequality”… But again, that’s facts, and facts don’t matter.

For Sanders and the rest of them, the “middle class” should be all we peons aspire to. Success and wealth ought to be solely possessed by the left wing ruling class. Wealth is evil, you see, so that’s why we should let our great and generous protectors carry the burden.

After all, they are so vastly superior!

Middle Class! Inequality! Greed! Middle Class! Inequality! Greed! I can’t really blame them for shouting socialist catchwords all night. This is what their voters desire. They don’t desire capitalism, because capitalism means opportunity and freedom, and opportunity and freedom mean hard work. Economic freedom is so unpopular among liberals that Bernie Sanders openly disavowed it to the sound of roaring applause. Clinton was hesitant (for now) to fully label herself a socialist, so instead she said she’s a sorta-capitalist who thinks “capitalism has to be saved from itself.” This is another way of calling American people children who need to be rescued by benevolent bureaucrats, but that’s OK because Democrat voters fervently wish to be treated like children. They want their own failures and struggles in life to be the fault of “the rich” and they want a president who will magically make it better.

They want their Mommy Government to make the hurt of life go away.

It’s a bit awkward, of course, because they already voted for a guy who promised to do just that, yet the “income inequality” has only gotten worse. This, as Hillary asserted several times, is still the fault of the Republicans. Even when we had a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress, all of our economic woes could be laid at the feet of Republicans and “the rich.” But not every “the rich.” Just “the rich” who aren’t Democrat politicians, or Democrat donors like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, or union leaders, or Planned Parenthood executives, or Hollywood liberals, or university administrators, or any other group comprised mainly of wealthy left wingers.

Leftist “rich” = Good. Right-wing “rich”= Evil!

Isn’t Doublethink wonderful… 🙂

Anyway, the fact that the most prominent critics of “the rich” are themselves rich is of no concern to the Democrat voter. Consistency, logic, and sincerity are not priorities to this crew. They just want to be coddled and cuddled and soothed.

Don’t actually make them think. Thinking is too hard. Just let them have their primitive base emotions and leave it at that.

That’s why the candidates pivoted back to “inequality” and mythological, phantom issues like the gender wage gap over and over again, but never once, so far as I can remember, even mentioned the word “liberty” or “freedom.” This is where we are, culturally speaking. Five presidential contenders can spend 150 minutes blabbering on about their supposed principles and plans for America, but never once pretend to be even moderately concerned about protecting and preserving liberty.

And the Democrats watching are obliviously happy.

Why? Because Democrat voters don’t want liberty. It’s really that simple. They want easy answers and free stuff. On the free stuff end of the spectrum, all of the candidates received massive applause when they, often entirely out of nowhere and in response to completely unrelated questions, endorsed making college education free or much cheaper for citizens and non-citizens alike. And not only free college, but free health care, and more paid leave, and a doubled minimum wage.

The Narcissism of a 2 year old spoiled brat in adults. That’s a Democrat.

I felt like I was in fifth grade again watching our class president promise us bi-weekly pizza parties. Even then I knew that kind of pledge was unrealistic and disingenuous. Even then I knew the school couldn’t possible pay for 70 pizza parties if we were going on field trips to the freaking post office because they couldn’t afford to take us to the zoo or the aquarium. Even then I knew you need money for things. I was 10. Democrat voters are adults.

But they absolutely don’t know better and more importantly, DON’T WANT TO know better and will actively fight you to NOT know any better.

They want to feel protected, like a child, by their parent Government, for all the evil people of the world. The Not-We.  (Doctor Who reference).

Naturally, nobody ever explained how a country with $18 trillion of debt and over $127 trillion of unfunded liability might manage to suddenly become Santa Claus for 320 million Americans and illegals.

And they don’t care, either.

Indeed, along with “liberty,” the phrase “national debt” was never uttered. And if they weren’t going to explain how the government would start handing out full ride scholarships, paid vacations, “living wages,” and free medical care to every human being who happens to exist within our borders, they certainly wouldn’t attempt to explain why.

And the sheep don’t care. “The Rich” (the evil one version) will pay for it, naturally.

The idea that college in particular should be free is not only absurd and unworkable but incredibly offensive to any self-sufficient adult (a small minority, I admit). I’ve got news for you, my fellow young people, college isn’t a human right. It’s also not a necessity. I pay a mortgage and support a family of four by myself, with no government handouts, and I do it without a college degree. It is possible. If you can’t afford college — and God knows it’s obscenely expensive and not worth the investment for most people — don’t go. Forge your own path. Think for yourself. Do something different with your life.

But that involves potential for failure and the Liberals never prepared them for that. Hard work, is well, HARD.

It’s much easier to sit back with your iPhone, your Starbucks, and let Mama Government just give you presents all day long.

You really want to drive down college costs? That’s how you do it. You can eliminate your own college expenses by simply choosing not to take on any college expenses. Crazy how that works, isn’t it? But that’s not what liberals want to hear. They want to hear about the crusty old socialist genie who will make free stuff appear out of thin air.

Poof! Free Stuff for everyone!

The gun control portion of the debate was the most instructive. All of the candidates (except Webb, it goes without saying) fiercely and passionately competed over who most opposes the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. Bernie Sanders was accused — accused! — of being not completely against our Constitutional rights to keep and bare arms, and had to take great pains to assure liberal voters that these were unfounded rumors. It was a scene that would have made Thomas Jefferson weep had he been around to witness it: presidential candidates rushing to distance themselves from the Constitution.

That’s Democrats for ya…

Later, the topic turned to foreign policy, and Hillary was only tentatively and briefly asked about her role in the Benghazi fiasco. While attempting to dodge the question, the moderator interrupted and reminded her that “Americans lost their lives.” Clinton curtly shot back, “I’ll get to that,” and proceeded to explain how her policies in Libya worked out splendidly because the Libyan people were able to hold an election.

And no one missed her non-answer I bet. And no “journalist” did either.

The problem, of course, is threefold: 1) She again callously dismissed the deaths of four Americans, because, put simply, she doesn’t care about any human life that isn’t her own.

Human Life must be part of THE AGENDA in order to matter. This is the “compassionate” and “sensitive” Left at its finest.

2) She forgot to mention the “democratic Libyan government” is now in exile, hiding away on a boat in Tobruck while militias run the country.

The consequences of a Liberal’s actions never matter. The intent was good, and that’s all that natters.

3) The real issue is that Clinton and Obama were running guns through Benghazi to Syrian terrorists. This is what got our ambassador killed, and it’s why both Clinton and Obama lied about it. Obviously, this incredible scandal should be enough to disqualify someone from the presidency and land them in prison for the rest of their lives, but here in America they aren’t even asked about it during a presidential debate, much less prosecuted for it.

wanted

Instead, the candidates were told to name the biggest national security threat we face, and two of the candidates said climate change. These, I remind you, are adults running for president of the United States who believe our greatest enemy is the weather. Islamic State is overseas torturing and decapitating women and children but, according to Bernie Sanders, the real problem is that temperatures get a little balmy in the summertime. God help us.

This moment of sheer dementia was eclipsed only by a question posed later on in the debate. The candidates were asked whether “black lives matter or all lives matter,” and those who answered agreed that only black lives matter. The question alone shows you how far the Democrat Party and the culture as a whole has fallen in just the last few years. During Obama’s first run, you would have been flabbergasted by such an inquiry. Do black lives or all lives matter? What? Huh? Really? Talk about a false dichotomy.

But White People are evil. 🙂 (except the white people on the Democrat President Ticket that is). 🙂

Now you barely bat an eye at the full frontal stupidity of the question or the insanity of the answer. You aren’t in the least bit surprised that Democrat politicians cannot simply affirm the value of all human life without upsetting a significant portion of their base. When “do all lives matters?” becomes a difficult gotcha question in politics, you know things have gone severely off the rails.

Perhaps the most unsettling moment came when Clinton was asked about her decision to commit a serious federal crime by conducting classified business on her private email servers. It should be no surprise that a pathological crook who spent decades intimidating and silencing her husband’s rape victims would think this, in comparison, is rather small potatoes. That’s to be expected. It’s the Democrat voter’s cooperation that’s the real outrage here.

Clinton said the whole thing was a right wing conspiracy and then started babbling about free college tuition. Sanders got on his knees and kissed the feet of Her Highness, insisting that Clinton’s rampant criminality is a distraction. The audience of trained seals burst into applause at the sight of two powerful people agreeing that powerful people shouldn’t be required to obey the law. Then the auditorium nearly exploded in a fit of joy and exuberance at this exchange between Lincoln Chafee, who is a person who apparently exists, and Her Highness:

CHAFEE: … There’s an issue of American credibility out there. So any time someone is running to be our leader, and a world leader, which the American president is, credibility is an issue out there with the world. And we have repair work to be done. I think we need someone that has the best in ethical standards as our next president. That’s how I feel.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?

CLINTON: No.

Her Highness refusing to address her illegal activities was, by far, the most popular response, or non-response, of the night. I felt like I was watching some sort of strange reimagining of a George Orwell book. It was creepy, really.

The Democrat Playbook, and instruction manual is “1984”.

Of course, there were a few other big applause lines, like when Hillary defended the baby killers at Planned Parenthood and when Bernie promised to raise taxes (a promise he repeated 16 times or so). Hillary scored points on several occasions by noting that she has a vagina. When asked how her administration won’t be a third Obama term, the only difference she could highlight is her genitalia. Hillary has made it clear that she’ll bust out the “I’m a woman” card anytime her back is against the wall, and it will always work with her supporters because her supporters are profoundly immature.

I did say that was going to be the ploy, did I not? 🙂 Vote for Obama or you’re a racist. Vote for Hillary or you’re a sexist!

There was one genuinely good line, courtesy of the sore thumb Jim Webb. All of the candidates were asked who they’d consider their number one enemy. Chafee said he was proud to make an enemy of poor coal miners. Clinton said her greatest enemies are not Islamic State or the Iranians, but Republicans. Sanders said something about corporatebankersWallStreetyaddayadda. Webb, the Marine veteran, said his number one enemy would be the Viet Cong soldier who threw a grenade at him, but “he’s not around anymore.”

It was a fantastic moment, particularly in contrast to the fools before him who bragged about fighting with coal miners and Republicans. Webb actually fought with his life on the line and defeated his enemy on the battle field. In a Republican debate, his answer would have brought the house down, as well it should. But in a Democrat debate, it was met with awkward silence, just like the silence that followed Webb’s earlier declaration that all human lives matter.

He was NOT WE. Who let him in?

This is the Democrat Party, ladies and gentlemen. Behold it and weep. Just remember to reserve most of your disgust for the people in the audience or at home who cheered as politicians promised us death, tyranny, and free crap. To give you an idea of how enthusiastic some of these people are, consider this: I offered criticisms of the candidates on Twitter last night and one liberal responded by saying she hopes my children kill themselves (she’s since deleted her account). I got an email from a Hillary fan this morning telling me she’ll “pray” I get leukemia. You’d like to think these reactions are isolated, but they aren’t. It’s pretty common.

All too common. And this, of course, is the vaunted and much bally-hooed “Tolerance” that Liberals go on about incessantly. 🙂

The Democrat Party exists in its current state because this country is infested by evil, fear, stupidity, and hatred. Clinton and Sanders are but manifestations of it. And never forget that they are just that: manifestations. Expressions of the spiritual malady that’s eating this nation alive, not the source or cause of it.

The voter and the politician are, in the end, one and the same, both equally to blame.

Speaking of Orwell, I’m reminded of the last line in “Animal Farm”:

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

TRUE.

And then there’s the RINO’s running the “opposition”  <snicker>… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Perception

“‘Celebrate diversity’ — the great bumper sticker — actually means ‘celebrate stultifying homogeneity,’” Canadian best-selling author and columnist Mark Steyn told The Daily Caller.

“As you know, if you go to the average American newsroom you can have diversity of race, diversity of gender, diversity of orientation — everything except the only diversity that matters, which is diversity of thought,” he said. “And the left does not want to celebrate diversity of thought. They rage against so-called intolerance, yet they themselves are stupefyingly intolerant.”

“They are conformity enforcers,” he explained,” but they’ve co-opted all the light, fluffy, happy, smiley-faced buzzwords.”

“That’s the classic trick taught to us by Orwell explicitly in ’1984.’ People of a conservative disposition read that book and think he’s warning of a dystopian future. People of the left read it and use it as a manual.”

Amen!
After all, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Egypt (now being run by the Radical Muslim Brotherhood) “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,”
That’s the left. They tell you they believe one thing and then they do the opposite. But when you point it out to them they get all puffy and huffy and call you bad names because you aren’t supposed to question the wisdom of Big Brother. That is a thoughtcrime and you should be “re-educated” to “the facts”.
LOOK AT ME I’M FANTASTIC!

Obama took something of a victory lap with his public remarks last week after the Labor Department released employment data showing that unemployment fell to 8.2 percent. In those remarks, Obama bragged that the economy added 600,000 jobs in the last three months and erroneously quoted President Rutherford B. Hayes in an attempt to paint the GOP as a backward party.

It’s about perception. The fact that more people quit looking and are not counted doesn’t matter. What matter is the PERCEPTION that everything is getting better and HE deserves all the credit!

The Remark: “One of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: ‘It’s a great invention but who would ever want to use one?'” Obama said. “That’s why he’s not on Mt. Rushmore.”

“He’s looking backwards, he’s not looking forward. He’s explaining why we can’t do something instead of why we can do something,” Obama said.

Arrogant much? Need to go on a Hubris Diet??

So New York Magazine: So we called up the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Fremont, Ohio, where Nan Card, the curator of manuscripts, was plenty willing to correct Obama’s ignorance of White House history. Just as soon as she finished chuckling. 

“I’ve heard that before, and no one ever knows where it came from,” Card said of Hayes’s alleged phone remark, “but people just keep repeating it and repeating it, so it’s out there.” 

Wait, so Hayes didn’t even say the quote that Obama is mocking him for? “No, no,” Card confirmed.

But since when did Facts ever get in the way of Liberal need for it to be true to serve their own goals.

Will said the president’s remarks illuminated his lack of historical perspective.

“What struck me this week is our president is not a great student of American history, as he showed in his uninformed preposterous remarks about Rutherford B. Hayes,” Will said during the online “Green Room” segment of  ABC’s “This Week.”

“But leave that aside, if he knew even recent American history he would know better than to come out and brag as he did this week when he said we created 600,000 jobs in three months.”

Will explained that while Ronald Reagan was president, he was able to add that many jobs in a single month, despite having entered office in 1981 in a deeper hole than Obama inherited in 2009.

“During the Reagan recovery of ’83-’84, they created 600,000 jobs in one month and in another month more than 700,000 jobs,” Will said. “So, Obama is really underscoring the weakness of his recovery.”

“The fact is, under the Reagan recession, unemployment hit 10.8 percent,” Will added. “So he was starting from a more difficult position.”

Thomson Reuters digital editor Chrystia Freeland said Obama was in a more difficult spot because he entered office after a financial crisis.

But Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan suggested that the president’s “incorrect or ill-thought-through” remarks were tarnishing his professorial reputation.

“Can I tell you something that I think is hurting the president’s reputation right now?” Noonan said.

“He has this reputation — he has for four years now that he has been famous in America as a really smart man. But he has said things lately that are so incorrect or ill-thought-through that people think, ‘He’s really smart. He must be being mischievous. He must be being deliberately provocative.’”

Partisan, anyone. Say whatever you have to regardless of whether it’s true or not to create the perception that serves your purposes that masks reality.

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. — Alinky’s “Rules for Radicals”

With that, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (on CNN — that has used the “N” word on live TV twice recently with no repercussions by the way):

“The focus of the Republican Party on turning back the clock for women really is something that’s unacceptable and shows how callus and insensitive they are towards women’s priorities,” Wasserman Schultz said.

“Because the policies that have come out of the Republican Party saying we should have to have a debate again over contraception and whether we should have access to it and it should be affordable, saying that like Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin, you know, he tried to quietly repeal the Equal Pay Act. Women aren’t going to stand for that,” Wasserman Schultz said. “Gov. Walker just signed a bill that repeals the equal pay law that they had in Wisconsin for years. You have Republicans that have engaged themselves for the entire Congress on trying to redefine rape as only being forceful rape, defunding Planned Parenthood and family planning programs.” (townhall.com)

The New Black Panther Party wants a race war and they want it to start tomorrow. In an audio recording of a planning meeting for a Trayvon Martin rally, New Black Panther Party members have plan violent action for what they are calling “revolution.”

“We’ve got to suit of and boot up and get prepared for the war we are in.”

“True revolution means some bloodshed.”

“We’re going to have to cause the red sea.”

“I’m talking about that blonde haired, blue eyed, sometimes brown eyed, caucasion walking around.”

“I am for violence.”

“I’m pissed off right now that the state of Florida isn’t on fire.”

“We’ve got to starve capitalism.”

“We want the complete removal of capitalism.” (townhall.com)

But don’t worry, they aren’t extremist or intolerant like Republicans and Conservatives. 🙂

If you’re a 20-year-old black male, you can beat an 85-year-old white woman to death and pummel her 90-year-old white husband straight into ICU, and it won’t make the national news.

Yep. Tyrone Woodfork, a black male who — much like Trayvon Martin — looks like Obama’s son, allegedly killed Nancy Strait and broke her husband Bob’s jaw, several ribs and shot him in the face with a BB gun last month in Tulsa. 20-year-old Tyrone also raped the nearly blind 97-pound Mrs. Strait, a great-great-grandmother, before he murdered her.

Did the above monstrous crime make the national news? Are you kidding me? Why, hell no. Of course not, silly!

Why wasn’t it fit for primetime, you ask? Well, it starred the wrong races in the wrong roles, and it thus did not fit into the fairytale the Left’s trying to foist on us goobers of Obamaland.

For those of you who have not heard diddly squat about a black twentysomething’s senseless, atrocious burglary, rape, battery and murder of an elderly white couple, here are the details regarding the couple, the crime and the culprit(s):

-Bob and Nancy Strait, the victims, grew up in rural Oklahoma during the Great Depression.

-Bob and Nancy met on a blind date in 1946 and married a month later. They had 6 kids, 18 grandkids and about 50 great- and great-great grandchildren.

-The Straits just celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary.

-Bob served in the 101st Airborne Division in WWII.

-Bob loved woodworking, and Nancy loved quilting.

-The couple used to sit on their porch and play the guitar and sing together during the warm summer evenings.

-On either Tuesday evening (3/13) or Wednesday morning (3/14) Tyrone invaded their home and stole $200 in cash as well as the Strait’s TV and Dodge Neon after raping Mrs. Strait and severely beating Mr. Strait.

– As noted, Nancy died from her injuries. Bob is in serious condition and is being treated at a nearby hospital.

-Mrs. Strait’s funeral was on Friday, March 23, 2012.

-The family has set up a fund—The Nancy Strait and Bob Strait Support Trust—to help pay for Nancy’s funeral service and Bob’s medical care.

-The Tulsa cops are looking for five more murderous morons suspected in this sick and twisted tale.(Townhall.com)

That doesn’t fit the Liberal “facts”, sorry, no one cares. Nothing politically useful.

Perception is reality. That’s all the Liberal left wants.

The Perception that everyone but them is a racist and a moron who needs their superior intellect and their superior dictatorship.

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

The Hallejuah Chorus!

CBS News: The nationwide average for regular unleaded slipped less than a penny to $3.764 per gallon. That ended a streak of price hikes that began on Feb. 8. Pump prices rose by more than 28 cents per gallon in that period, making gasoline the most expensive ever for this time of year.

Hurray for Obama! Let’s all have a Party!!! You can save 3 cents on your next 10 gallon tank full!

WOW! isn’t he amazing!!!!

“Your critics will say on Capitol Hill that you want gas prices to go higher because you have said before that will wean the American people off fossil fuels onto renewable fuels,” Henry said. “How do you respond to that?”

The president responded, almost disgusted: “Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States going into re-election wants gas prices to go up higher? Is that — [turning to the rest of the press corps] is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense? Look, here’s the bottom line with respect to gas prices: I want gas prices lower because they hurt families.”

What softball, first off…Not very hard hitting.

So that’s why I didn’t approve the Keystone Pipeline, have done everything in my power and my cronies power to destroy oil production in this country!!

So we can thank the heaven for his Anything But Oil Energy Policy because Gas prices have skyrocketed to levels this time of year they never have but that’s over now, we can relax and go out and by the Hummer because gas prices went down 3/10 of 1 cent!!

Hurray!

No “pain at the pump” stories this time around. No “it’s the presidents fault”.

No it’s rosy BS about 3/10 of a cent!

CNN’s past with holding Republican presidents accountable for fuel price spikes.

Take, for example, this 2008 article, entitled “’Two oil men’ to blame for high gas prices, Pelosi says.” You guessed it: the two “oil men” Pelosi blames are former president Bush and former vice president Cheney. The story focuses heavily on Nancy Pelosi’s attacks on Bush and his administration. CNN does not point out any “political realities” such as “there is almost nothing a politician can do about” gas prices.

In this article (also from 2008), CNN  states: “What the president should do immediately to lower gas prices, Pelosi said, is release oil from the 700 million barrels in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.” There is no mention of the “political reality” that apparently, no politician can make a difference regarding American gas prices.

2008 CNN: Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are vehemently opposed to increasing production on environmental grounds, so the president’s plan has virtually no chance of passage in the current Congress.

In turn, Democrats talk mostly about lowering demand for gasoline through research into alternative fuels — something the president talks about too — and more funds for mass transit.

“It’s got to involve investing in alternative fuels, so that we can have some alternatives to gas and significant investment in public transit,” Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, a key supporter of Barack Obama’s presidential bid, said Sunday.

These types of plans will take a long time to implement, so no quick fix there either.

And with the federal government now more than $9 trillion in debt, where would Congress find the money to pour into public transit and research into alternative fuels?

Now, it’s $16 Trillion and Guess What the Democrats want to SPEND EVEN MORE and a dop in gas prices of 3/10 of 1 cent is a God Send from The Heavens!! Amazing how that works…

In Saturday’s weekly address, Obama again acknowledged the impact of the hikes on people: “Even if you haven’t faced a job loss, it’s still not easy out there. Your paycheck isn’t getting bigger, while the cost of everything from college for your kids to gas for your car keeps rising. That’s something on a lot of people’s minds right now, with gas prices at $4 a gallon. It’s just another burden when things were already pretty tough.”

But it went down 3/10 of 1 cent so Rejoice and sing his praises!! 🙂

Tell me if this sounds familiar:

2011: “Whenever gas prices shoot up, like clockwork, you see politicians racing to the cameras, waving three-point plans for $2 gas,” he said. “You see people trying to grab headlines or score a few points. The truth is, there’s no silver bullet that can bring down gas prices right away.”

Still, Obama outlined his own attempt, having Attorney General Eric Holder launch a task force to look for fraud or manipulation of oil markets by traders and speculators.

Yep. Hilarious isn’t it!

So now comes the Class Warfare:

And he repeated a populist criticism of Big Oil, pushing for the end of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies. “That’s $4 billion of your money going to these companies when they’re making record profits and you’re paying near record prices at the pump. It has to stop,” Obama said.

So if you remove the subsidies what happens to the price of doing business (aka the price)–It goes up!

Amazing how that happens!! 🙂

Longer term, the president’s address called for more investment in “clean, renewable fuels,” tying it into the Washington debate over the budget and proposed spending cuts.

Sounds familiar somehow? 🙂

Obama likes to point out at his fund-raisers the unexpected crises he’s seen since taking office. In Chicago, as he touted achievements in his first term, he told the crowd, “Along the way, we had to deal with pirates. Who thought we were going to have to deal with pirates? That wasn’t in my campaign platform. Pandemic, earthquakes, oil spill.”

He can add the gas prices to the list, with no easy answers. (CNN)

But Prior to 2009 there were easy answers, IT WAS BUSH’s FAULT!

Fascinating… 🙂

Former co-host Meredith Vieira asked Chevron CEO David O’Reilly on the June 21, 2007 broadcast: “Would we be better off, sir, if gas prices were even higher, if it were four, five, six dollars a gallon? Wouldn’t that provide the incentive we need to come up with alternative forms of gas and to stop this dependence that we have on foreign oil?”

Tom Brokaw put to President-elect Obama in December of 2008 on Meet the Press: “Why not take this opportunity to put a tax on gasoline, bump it back up to $4 a gallonwhere people were prepared to pay for that, and use that revenue for alternative energy and as a signal to the consumers: ‘Those days are gone. We’re not going to have gasoline that you could just fill up your tank for 20 bucks anymore.'”

But now it’s the Hallejuah chorus for 3/10 of 1 cent!!!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Going Global

“We’ve got a choice. We can settle for a country where a few people do really, really well and everybody else struggles to get by”, Obama said.

“Or we can restore an economy where everybody gets a fair shot, everybody does their fair share, everybody plays by the same set of rules, from Washington to Wall Street to Main Street.” (but the 38,500 a person campaign donations from these people doesn’t hurt!)
“We need to get the deficit under control (we need to overspend less!)in a way that builds the economy. We do it in a way that’s consistent with American values so that everyone pays a fair share.”

The Obama budget is being seen on all sides as a partisan document that has little chance of being voted into law.

All out Campaign Mode…

Democrats in the Senate say that they will not bring it up for a vote.

So it’s all for show. And for Liberal Media Consumption and Talking Points.

And the Republicans are rolling over and kissing Liberal ass on the payroll tax because they don’t want “unfavorable” media coverage. 😦

Now, here’s the latest:

 

On Monday, White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling called for a “global minimum tax” to ensure that “nobody is escaping doing their fair share.”
Mr. Sperling added: “we will say more, perhaps not in gory detail, but in more detail, before the end of the month. And in terms of the revenues, the president is looking for shared sacrifice.”

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”  –Ronald Reagan

Americans make up half of the world’s richest 1%

It only takes $34,000 per person to be amid the richest 1% of people in the world.It only takes $34,000 per person to be amid the richest 1% of people in the world.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The United States holds a disproportionate amount of the world’s rich people.

It only takes $34,000 a year, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world. That’s for each person living under the same roof, including children. (So a family of four, for example, needs to make $136,000.)

So where do these lucky rich people live? As of 2005 — the most recent data available — about half of them, or 29 million lived in the United States, according to calculations by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic in his book The Haves and the Have-Nots.

Another four million live in Germany. The rest are mainly scattered throughout Europe, Latin America and a few Asian countries. Statistically speaking, none live in Africa, China or India despite those being some of the most populous areas of the world.

The numbers put into perspective the idea of a rapidly growing global middle class.

Sure, China and India are seeing their economies grow quickly, and along with that growth, large portions of their populations are also becoming richer. But remember, the emerging world is starting from a very low base to begin with, so its middle class is just that — still emerging, says Milanovic.

“It doesn’t seem right to define as middle class, people who would be on food stamps in the United States,” Milanovic said.

The true global middle class, falls far short of owning a home, having a car in a driveway, saving for retirement and sending their kids to college. In fact, people at the world’s true middle — as defined by median income — live on just $1,225 a year. (And, yes, Milanovic’s numbers are adjusted to account for different costs of living across the globe.)

In the grand scheme of things, even the poorest 5% of Americans are better off financially than two thirds of the entire world.(CNN)

So with this news our Taxes must crush us to death for the benefit of the rest of the world. We are EVIL INCARNATE! 🙂

The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject  poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of  government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary:  maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The  share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom  fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007,  according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

The problem by now is familiar to most. Politicians have expanded the  safety net without a commensurate increase in revenues, a primary  reason for the governments annual deficits and mushrooming debt. In  2000, federal and state governments spent about 37 cents on the safety  net from every dollar they collected in revenue, according to a New York  Times analysis. A decade later, after one Medicare expansion, two  recessions and three rounds of tax cuts, spending on the safety net  consumed nearly 66 cents of every dollar of revenue.

The recent recession increased  dependence on government, and stronger economic growth would reduce  demand for programs like unemployment benefits. But the long-term trend  is clear. Over the next 25 years, as the population ages and medical  costs climb, the budget office projects that benefits programs will grow  faster than any other part of government, driving the federal debt to  dangerous heights.

Americans are divided about the way forward. Seventy percent of  respondents to a recent New York Times poll said the government should  raise taxes. Fifty-six percent supported cuts in Medicare and Social  Security. Forty-four percent favored both.

The American public’s dependence on the federal government shot up  23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying  on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the  Heritage Foundation.

Now that’s why you want to vote for Obama, right? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
 Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok


 

Work to Do

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Emperor Obama speaks,“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker Heights, drawing applause from his audience.

President Obama today made an unprecedented “recess” appointment even though the Senate is not in recess – “a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer,” according to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

It turns out that the action not only contradicts long-standing practice, but also the view of the administration itself. In 2010, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained to the Supreme Court the Obama administration’s view that recess appointments are only permissible when Congress is in recess for more than three days. Here’s the exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

But you’re assuming that a power mad Liberal even remembers or care what he did yesterday let alone 2 years ago. You’d probably be wrong.

After all, they want what they want when they want it. Nothing else.

So it’s good to be the King.

And the media will spin it that Republicans were “obstructionists” so that he could appoint his cronies and his anti-business liberals.

Obama, in a prepared statement, said the nation deserves “to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day – whether it is to enforce new consumer protections or uphold the rights of working Americans.”

However, one question a judge could need to answer is whether Cordray will actually be able to assume those powers since he has been recess-appointed. The text of the Dodd-Frank law states that those powers will not take effect until the CFPB director “is confirmed by the Senate.”

Is the Earth counter rotating because of the spin?

“It looks like the goal here is more the headlines and the confrontation and the politicization of this new agency rather than a substantive outcome,” he said.

And if they are so eager to have this “consumer advocate” in place that they’ll risk a court fight means they really had something wicked coming our way and they really, really, want it.

Be Afraid. Be very Afraid.

***********

Here’s something to drive the Occup-poopers and the “evil” rich Liberals:

Americans make up half of the world’s richest 1%

It only takes $34,000 per person to be amid the richest 1% of people in the world.It only takes $34,000 per person to be amid the richest 1% of people in the world.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The United States holds a disproportionate amount of the world’s rich people.

It only takes $34,000 a year, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world. That’s for each person living under the same roof, including children. (So a family of four, for example, needs to make $136,000.)

So where do these lucky rich people live? As of 2005 — the most recent data available — about half of them, or 29 million lived in the United States, according to calculations by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic in his book The Haves and the Have-Nots.

Another four million live in Germany. The rest are mainly scattered throughout Europe, Latin America and a few Asian countries. Statistically speaking, none live in Africa, China or India despite those being some of the most populous areas of the world.

The numbers put into perspective the idea of a rapidly growing global middle class.

Sure, China and India are seeing their economies grow quickly, and along with that growth, large portions of their populations are also becoming richer. But remember, the emerging world is starting from a very low base to begin with, so its middle class is just that — still emerging, says Milanovic.

“It doesn’t seem right to define as middle class, people who would be on food stamps in the United States,” Milanovic said.

The true global middle class, falls far short of owning a home, having a car in a driveway, saving for retirement and sending their kids to college. In fact, people at the world’s true middle — as defined by median income — live on just $1,225 a year. (And, yes, Milanovic’s numbers are adjusted to account for different costs of living across the globe.)

In the grand scheme of things, even the poorest 5% of Americans are better off financially than two thirds of the entire world.(CNN)

So the Liberals have a lot more work ahead of them to make everything “fair” and “equal”. 🙂

So that’s why he has to have at least 4 more years! 🙂

The most “transparent” administration in history. Yes,VERY transparent. But what he’s transparent about is not a good thing.

**************

Given that Next Thursday will mark 1,000 days since the Senate passed a budget I present this by Judge Andrew Napolitano:

Since Barack Obama became president on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal government has not had a budget. It did not have one for the first two years of his presidency, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and it did not have one for 2011, when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans controlled the House.

The Senate — continuously under Democratic control during the entire Obama presidency — has not voted out and sent on to the House any annual budget since George W. Bush was president. The House sent a budget to the Senate a year ago, but the Senate rejected it and sent nothing back in return.

In the nearly three years that Obama has been in office, the government has been collecting revenue, borrowing cash and spending ravenously on the basis of what the government calls continuing resolutions — known in Washington by the initials “CR.”

When Congress enacts a CR, it basically authorizes the government to operate for a finite and brief period of time. The period of time does not coincide with the government’s fiscal year. The federal government’s fiscal year runs from October 1st to September 30th. Here we are at the beginning of a new calendar year, and your government does not have a budget for its fiscal year that began more than three months ago.

Instead, the feds have operated under 15 continuing resolutions throughout the Obama presidency. Some of these CRs have been for as long as nine months, and one was as short as 24 hours. There was a time when the end of a continuing resolution would have brought intense media scrutiny. Will the government stay open? Will it shut down? Who will get blamed? Will Congress let the president spend money the government doesn’t have? None of this produces drama any longer, because the bizarre has now become the routine.

This new year will bring certain new tax rates, specifically for the payroll tax. The payroll tax is what you pay and what your employer pays to fund Social Security. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme: It pays out more than it takes in, and the government lies about its solvency. It once had a cushion, called the Social Security Trust Fund, but Congress took that money and spent it.

Can you think of any crimes here? Running a Ponzi scheme is a crime — just ask Bernie Madoff. And spending money you have lawfully agreed to hold in trust for someone else can get you in a lot of hot water, and likely criminal charges. Just ask Jon Corzine.

So here we are, at the beginning of a new year, and employers and employees don’t know what their payroll taxes will be in March. You cannot run a business, and you should not run your household, without knowing months in advance what your regular expenses will cost you. But when you have a government in which both wings of the Big Government Party — that’s the Republican wing as well as the Democratic wing — think they can bribe the people with their own money and the only difference between the two is how much of a bribe, when both wings think they can write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event, no matter what the Constitution says, no matter what federal law says and no matter what the laws of economics say, is it any wonder the government is dysfunctional?

All of this demonstrates that the government lives in its own world. It writes laws for the rest of us and breaks them itself. It requires openness of corporations that trade publicly, but it won’t be transparent itself. It doesn’t read the laws it writes, and it doesn’t care about the Bill of Rights. What can you do? If you live in New Hampshire, you can vote for a game changer next week. There is only one on the ballot.

So hunker down, there is work to do. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

 

The Fault Lines

But when he does it in less than 3 years it’s not only ok, it’s:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Now don’t you feel better! 🙂

But you know he was just saying all that to get elected. Whether he believed it or not, didn’t matter. He wanted you to believe it.

And now for 2012 he wants you to believe it again. Forget everything about the last 3 years, except who’s fault it is–anyone’s but his.

Obama is only three years into his term, and has already surpassed $4T in terms of increasing the debt.  Is it still “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic”, Mr. President, or only when a Republican does it?

Apparently Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) didn’t go far enough when she blamed racism for the high unemployment rate among African-Americans. Today she made sure everyone got the real message: The Tea Party is the enemy.

They can go to Hell, according to Rep. Maxine Waters and While the media plays up the Los Angeles congresswoman’s “the Tea Party can go straight to hell’ comments from this weekend, they are ignoring what she said right after that. When the wild cheers of the audience calmed down, Rep. Waters then said: “And I intend to help them get there.”

But don’t worry, it’s the Tea Party/Republicans fault for not compromising and being “extreme”.

‘Intransigence’ and ‘Bigotry’ according to CNN’s Piers Morgan.

Some voters might be insulted by the suggestion that a little creative relabeling will fool them into embracing policies they would otherwise reject.

But that won’t stop the Orwellian Liberals. They don’t know any other way.

To disagree with them you must be absolutely stone cold STUPID. You have to be the biggest moron who ever walked the earth to believe they are wrong about anything.

So that’s when the hatred bubbles over and you get such wonderously non-judgemental, compassionate, and total willing to compromise for the greater good liberal comments as outlined. 🙂

Now that another massive new dose of deficit spending is no longer possible, the rigid Keynesian mind can only conceive of one alternative: a smaller dose of deficit spending. But to the Keynesian mind, a small dose of deficit spending will have a tiny impact compared to a massive dose of deficit spending. Obama can’t possibly have his heart in the “mini-stimulus” he’s likely to propose; he probably believes it’s doomed to failure because it’s too small. (DC)

And if you oppose it, you’re a “terrorist”, a “bigot”, “going to hell”, and “uncompromising”.

Now you can work with that can’t you? :0

The unemployment rate has been at or over 9 percent for 25 of the last 30 months. Why are we still waiting for Obama’s jobs plan?

It has been over 8% since February 2009.

But that’s not his fault. It’s not the Democrats fault.

It’s Bush…The Tea party…The Japan Tsunami…The Arabs…Iraq…Afghanistan…The ATM…automation…Corporations…The “rich”…The pizza delivery guy…. Anyone but them.

What difference does it make what stories the country’s attention was drawn to? How would that excuse Obama’s failure to even have a plan to address what he has repeatedly acknowledged to be America’s number one problem?

It doesn’t. But Liberals love distractions and diversions away from the truth that they have failed so miserably that it should be totally obvious to even a moron.
But it apparently isn’t, is it 🙂
But you can expect one thing for sure for The Democrats come September- more poll-tested euphemisms for raising tax rates so they can spend even more.
Why?
Because it’s all they know. Everything else is outside of their universe. It’s foreign. It’s evil. It’s bad. It’s “Extreme”.
And we can’t have extremism in the defense of liberty now can we. 🙂
Mainstream Liberal/Ministry of Truth Media Update
CBS’s Norah O’Donnell, filling in on Face the Nation, just couldn’t comprehend how a candidate espousing true conservative views could possibly capture the White House. Referring to Rick Perry, she demanded: “Can the Republican Party elect someone President who doesn’t believe in global warming?”
Well, that’s would be just Stupid now wouldn’t it! Of Course Global Warming is absolutely and unequivocally true. You’d have to be a moron not to think so.
On The Stimulus: “Well, many economists say had they not done the stimulus, it would have been much worse.”
Oh, really, are they all Keynesian Economists by any chance?
CNN’s Jack Cafferty slammed the “intellectual lightweights” leading the Republican presidential field on Wednesday, wondering why their supporters “seem to be allergic to brains.” (MRC)
But don’t worry, it’s you, not them, that are uncompromising, extreme, and just plain stupid… 🙂
A report from the Employment Policies Institute finds that only one in five members of Congress has an academic background in business or economics.
And 7 of the top 10 Richest millionaires in Congress are Democrats.
Feeling that “Hope and Change” yet?

The Vast Left Wing Disparity

Just in case you had any hope for the Mainstream Media not being totally in the tank for the Leftists and Liberals in this country:

The New York Times and the Washington Post issued open calls on Thursday asking their readers to help them “investigate” emails from Sarah Palin’s tenure as governor of Alaska. There was no indication of what this investigation was supposed to uncover.

Dirt, any dirt. Even if they have to stretch it or fabricate it. They want dirt!!
They have to feed their Palin Derangement Syndrome.
The New York Times said: “We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy emails, people and events that we may want to highlight.”
Mind you, they got bored very quickly by Obama and his domestic terrorist connections and radical ideas on Socialism, Social Justice, Keynesian Economics, and Black Liberation Theology.
Imagine a newspaper in 2008 asking readers’ help in perusing Barack Obama’s emails as U.S. senator and Illinois state senator. Or for that matter, help in unearthing his college records. The howls from “mainstream” journalists and Democratic politicians would have been deafening.
You couldn’t discuss most anything about The One without being labeled a racist.
Now it’s 2011:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is bored and uninterested in Anthony Weiner, but was all over Mark Foley in 2006 like mud on a pig!
In the first 2 weeks of Mark Foley who resigned Immediately
ABC,CBS,NBC ran 55 stories.
With Weiner who still Refuses to Resign the first 2 weeks
were 10 stories.
The networks piled on 152 stories about Rep. Mark Foley in the story’s first 12 days in the fall of 2006, but they weren’t the only ones with a vast left-wing disparity. Time and Newsweek each devoted cover stories and multiple pages to the Foley scandal. Time put an elephant’s rear end on the cover with the words “What a Mess…Why a tawdry Washington sex scandal may spell the end of the Republican revolution”. Newsweek had a huge picture of Foley (with a small President Bush in front of his face) with the huge headline “Off Message” and the subhead “Foley’s Secret Life: How a Predator’s E-mail Sex Scandal Could Cost Bush Congress.”
Time also paid for a poll asking “Do you think Republican leaders in Congress handled the Foley situation properly or do you think they tried to cover it up?” It was 16 to 64 for a coverup. (NB)
Weiner:  Newsweek was too busy making fun of Mormons to even mention it. And Time, well hows 1 sentence & 13 words on page 83 for you!
Oh, and how about their obsession with bathroom stall “toe toucher” Larry Craig??.
When it’s a Liberal, Liberals don’t care and downplay it so much they don’t want you to care or better yet to even know.
They have no morals or standards for themselves because that allows them to do any damn thing they want, when they want, because they want.
They only get “outraged” over Non-Liberals for the political gain they perceive.
That’s it.
And the Liberal Media is no different.
Appearing on Tuesday’s NBC Today, advertising executive Donny Deutsch  (and MSNBC regular) and psychotherapist Robi Ludwig both agreed that the American people should not stop being “shocked” by political sex scandals. Deutsch declared: “…we have to stop being shocked and amazed….when men who are conquerors by nature also chase women….we as a society have got to become a little more anesthetized to this.”
As long as it’s a Liberal, that is.
Remember the “it was nothing” poo-poo of President Clinton having oral sex in the Oval office?
The Liberal media doesn’t.
They went after the people who leaked it. Just like they went after Andrew Breitbart this time.
The Liberal Media is totally biased and totally a propaganda arm of the Liberal Democrats.
Period.
There was an 8-to-1 story bias after Jared Loughner shot Congressman Giffords, about how Conservative Hate Speech had obviously pushed this guy over the edge.
It wasn’t true. But the liberal media didn’t care.
It was an opportunity to score some hate points.
Then they came out with their “civility” guidelines, which as it turned out were only meant to muzzle non-liberals not their hate speech and vile political bile.
And that’s why they are crowdsourcing the Palin Emails. They want dirt! Any dirt!
And if they don’t get it they’ll make it up!
It’s not like they care if they are lying.
It’s not as if you’re supposed to care that they are lying.
Why would that matter?
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:

“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”

“But the plans were on display …”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

And Leopards in the Liberal Media are not going to change their spots. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok