The Majority Were Already On My Shit List...

...a few have been added.

Ya Gotta Love It!

Ear-POPPING MELTDOWN! FOX ANCHOR ERUPTS ON AIR [Ooh-Rah!] 

Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly erupted on the air with fierce anger Tuesday night, calling his network colleague Alan Colmes a liar during a heated discussion over alleged budget cuts by Barack Obama. 

O’Reilly launched into a tirade on Colmes for failing to specify any program President Obama would be willing to cut, other than entitlement programs such Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Read more and video here.  

ALAN COLMES: I disagree with what he is being said here. $2.50 in tax cuts for every dollar in tax increases. 

BILL O’REILLY: That’s not specific. 

COLMES: Yes, he has.  He has offered cuts in Medicare. He has offered cuts to entitlements. 

O’REILLY: That’s not specific. He has to say here are the programs that are going to go down. Here is how we are going to reform Medicare and Social Security. And the man refuses to do it. 

COLMES: That’s not true. 

O’REILLY: Hold it, hold it, because now I’m getting teed off at you. Give me one damn program he said he’d cut? One? 

COLMES: He has cut entitlements. 

O’REILLY: Not entitlements. One program. 

COLMES:  Why do you want to yell at me for? 

O’REILLY: Bull—-! Because you are lying! You are lying! 

COLMES: Don’t call me a liar. Don’t you sit there and call me a liar. 

O’REILLY: You’re lying – here is the proof. 

COLMES: You don’t like the president. You don’t like what he is doing. Don’t sit there and call me a liar. 

O’REILLY: I am. 

COLMES: I’m not lying. We can have a disagreement without you calling me a liar. That’s not necessary. 

O’REILLY: You are lying here. 

COLMES: We are not lying. 

O’REILLY: Where is the proof? 

COLMES: There is difference between having a disagreement and calling me a liar – that’s a personal attack. 

O’REILLY: This is why I’m calling you a liar: Give me one program he would cut. 

COLMES: He would cut Medicare, and Medicaid. He has offered cuts to those programs. 

O’REILLY: That’s not a specific program. 

COLMES: You asked me a program. Those are programs. 

After a commercial break, O’Reilly mentioned in the next segment that “I was probably too rough on Alan.”

Naww, Bill... you should have come over the desk at him, snatched him up by the stacking swivel and choked the living shit out of him!

Obama’s God Fails Him Again.

By JOHN RANSOM 

Just when you thought it couldn’t get more Orwellian, news came Thursday that government economists overstated 2nd quarter GDP numbers by whopping 31 percent. The BEA’s third revision to GDP for the quarter show that the economy actually grew at a pathetic annual rate of 1.3 percent rather than the previously-stated 1.7 percent. 

According to a Bureau of Economic Analysis report issued last year, the mean revision of this estimate since 1983 is 0.12 in real dollars. That means that the current revision of 0.4 is more than three times the norm.   

And while the media will be busy blaming the GDP numbers on “peaceful Libyans outraged by American disrespect for the Prophet,” a closer look at the numbers say that it was an act of god, not the Prophet, that is responsible. 

Ransom couldn't end it any better than this:

Not an act of THE God, but rather an act of A god.

And if any of my kids come up with this, I'll beat their ass! 

A Little Something To Occupy (Pun Intended) Your Weekend.

You Might Want To Have Something Else Lined Up, ‘Cause This Won’t Take Long.

The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything.

Wanna play?

No?

Too bad. 

You’re already playing; you just don’t know it.

By the way... you’re not  winning!

(A wave of the American flag to JonBerg for sending this to me. Thanks, JB!)

Meanwhile, Outside The Asylum...

The following is what I consider the main topics of Crystal’s article. I haven’t put in all those “...” to indicate missing copy. There’s a bunch more editorial stuff left out. Stuff that, supposedly, I studied while I was in my short career as a student of journalism. (Really, I suppose you couldn’t call it a “short” career. I managed to squeeze three years into a two year program at a junior college.)

It’s probably out of context, too. I broke some of the paragraphs down into seperate paragraphs for emphisis. All-in-all, please accept my appolgies for raping your article, Ben!

Read the whole thing here.

Si Se Puede!: The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama

JUNE 19, 2012 by BEN CRYSTAL 

Had I been present in the Rose Garden when President Barack Obama issued his royal proclamation decreeing essential amnesty to 1.4 million illegal aliens, I would not have interrupted “his majesty” the way The Daily Caller’s Neil Munro did on Friday. Munro recognized Obama wasn’t kidding about his refusal to entertain any questions about his latest crime against the Nation. And Munro acted, asking why Obama favored “foreigners over American workers” before Obama could hightail it off to his next multimillion-dollar fundraiser. 

Kudos to Munro for at least trying to do what the sycophants who make up the rest of the White House press corps either can’t or won’t. 

But I wouldn’t have remained mum out of any sense of respect for the office of the Presidency. After all, during the eight years of George W. Bush’s Administration, the Democrats not only murdered respect for the office, they dismembered it and buried it in the Rose Garden. Besides, if Obama wants my respect (and I doubt he cares much, one way or another), he should consider earning it. I know, I know: “Earn” is a curse word to liberals -- much like “Constitution” or “law.” 

But I would have stayed quiet for two reasons: 

• The longer the tyrant of the teleprompter speaks without interruption, the more likely he is to do exactly what he did: garrote himself with own tongue. In announcing to the world that he would grant amnesty to more than 1 million illegal aliens, Obama reminded the Nation that he considers blowing perverse political kisses to criminals and their liberal enablers far more important than the rule of law and national social and economic security.
 
• By giving the Democrats something to whine about -- in this case, the sort of tactic they routinely deploy with much more fervor against their conservative betters -- Munro allowed them a chance to change the topic of discussion away from the Obama regime’s latest crimes and toward a perceived lack of respect for the President.

The usual suspects in the Democratic Party rocketed out of the gate with the predictable -- and predictably spurious -- charge of racism. Some pencil-necked junior varsity Al Sharpton type who calls himself “Touré” led the way with the tinfoil hat brigadiers at MSNBC, definitively stating: “This disrespect of this human being cannot be disconnected from the fact that he’s black.” While others in the corporate media -- including Sam Donaldson, who made a habit of shouting questions at President Ronald Reagan and who (I was surprised to learn) is still on this side of the grave -- chimed in, few examined the content of Obama’s revelation. 

Obama’s suspension of immigration law by fiat will not only grant essential amnesty to nearly 1.5 million illegal aliens, it will grant them a leg up against legal citizens in areas including higher education, social services and job opportunities. By engaging in such a craven political maneuver, Obama has signaled to the actual citizens of the United States that votes mean more than a populace already staggering under the weight of his enormously bad economic policies. Even The Washington Post cautioned: “the policy could create significant new competition for jobs and university slots at a time of nationwide recession.” 

And let us not forget the fact that Obama himself opposes his move: “…there are laws on the books that I have to enforce…perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true…”  

It is hardly news when Obama defies Constitutional and legal dictates in the name of politics. It ought to be news when he defies his own tenuous principles in the name of same.  

Then again, hypocrisy defines liberalism. Perhaps the liberals and their corporate media consider it newsworthy only when Obama actually sticks to principle. When he does, we’ll let you know. 

-- Ben Crystal

Part of Crystal's bio is that he is a "1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education.”

He has a LOT more credentials.

Read ‘em at the link.

Let me leave you with this last thought:

Europe's Gonna Jump All Over This... Just For YOU, Obimbo.

Hey, I'm hurting just like everyone else!

But if this would insure that Numbnuts won't be around after next January, I can live with it.(Sweat, Obimbo, you little nimrod.)

Not Only Do They Walk Among Us... They’re On Our Payroll!

Obama’s Jarrett: ‘People Who Receive that Unemployment Check Go Out and Spend It and Help Stimulate the Economy’

BY DANIEL HALPER

This evening [Feb 21, 2012,] speaking at North Carolina Central University in Durham, North Carolina, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said that folks getting and spending unemployment checks is a healthy thing . . . because it stimulates the economy:

“Even though we had a terrible economic crisis three years ago, throughout our country many people were suffering before the last three years, particularly in the black community,” Jarrett said. “And so we need to make sure that we continue to support that important safety net. It not only is good for the family, but it’s good for the economy. People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that’s healthy as well.”

As Jonathon M. Seidl from The Blaze said, “While the audio may sound incredible, the argument has been paraded out before. In August, Press Secretary Jay Carney said nearly the same thing:

“It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it, they’re going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually.”

Let’s look at that a little closer. Unemployment checks -- the money you get for not having a job -- actually create jobs? Really? Money for not having a job creates jobs? Doesn’t that seem to be a bastardization of trickle-down economics, with a communist flavor? Aren’t businesses -- not the unemployed -- the job creators? And with that logic, should we just put everyone on the dole?

Seidl points out that, then just a week later, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack went on MSNBC to make the case that food stamps are job creators:

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack told MSNBC’s Morning Joe that the Obama administration has a jobs program already in place -- and it’s food stamps. When asked about new numbers that show one in every seven Americans now receiving food stamps from the federal government, Vilsack said that’s good news. Food stamps create jobs, Vilsack insisted, and managed to even come up with a new multiplier effect number:

Back at the time, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air asked:

So here’s the question. If food stamps create jobs, like Vilsack says here, and we’re putting record numbers of Americans on food stamps, then why aren’t we seeing record job creation? If every dollar spent on food stamps creates $1.84 in production, as Vilsack argues, and the number of food stamp recipients keeps rising, then why haven’t the GDP numbers reflected that fabulous growth?

There are two answers. . . The supposed multiplier effect does not take into consideration the cost of taking capital from the private sector, where it can be put to use for actual growth and job creation, for use by the government.

The other answer? The multiplier effect is completely bogus. For one thing, much of the money gets absorbed by the government bureaucracies that manage these programs. Second, as I alluded earlier, the evidence we see all around us shows us that we can’t get economic growth through government welfare programs.  If what Vilsack said was true, we’d be better off seizing all income and handing out food stamps. 

There are good humanitarian and social reasons for safety-net programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps, but economic growth isn’t one of them. The rise in both are indicators of failing economics.

Which brings us back to, “Money for not having a job creates jobs? Doesn’t that seem to be a bastardization of trickle-down economics, with a communist flavor? Aren’t businesses -- not the unemployed -- the job creators? And with that logic, should we just put everyone on the dole?”

Yeah, I guess so... until you run out of other people’s money (thank you, Margaret Thatcher.)

How do you even talk to people who have logic(?) like this?

We’ve come to a point in time where Democrats and Republicans can’t even talk together anymore. 

I truly believe that I’ll see a civil war in my lifetime. And it won’t be too civil.

A Picture NOT Worth 6.5 Trillion Dollars!

Thanks, JonBerg, for a sending a GREAT graphic idea!

I'd Say It's Working Pretty Well...

Diesel for my truck went up almost 10 cents a gallon today.

Obama Announces Support For 'Occupy Wall Street.'

A few months ago, a friend of mine (another one of the '53%ers' mentioned below) and I were talking about what was, and had been, happening. Our contention was that we would see another civil war sometime in our lifetime. There is no common ground anymore. Little did we know that what we were talking about a few short weeks ago would evolve, in such a short time, to what we're seeing today.

From Patriots PAC 

Barack Obama and chief White House ideologues like David Plouffe have hit the airwaves to announce their open, enthusiastic support of the blatantly Socialist "Occupy" movement making a mess in cities across the nation. 

 Over the last two years, we have suffered a President who calls the hardworking American public protesting as the Tea Party and as patriot groups everything from racist to violent to angry mobs. Yet when faced with an actual angry, violent, unruly mob -- he's OK with it, full of praise and compliments, as long as they are dedicated Socialists working to destroy capitalism.

That should worry all of us in the hated '53%' -- the middle class suckers who are paying the taxes that support all these confused kids, lefty parasites and SEIU deadbeats clamoring for even more of a free ride than they already have. ... The Democrat National Party has raised $70 million just this quarter to ensure Obama and his Marxist minions take a second term, and are able to redistribute, I mean 'spread around' everything that is left of YOUR money in 2012 -- after they 'shut down capitalism'!

Occupy is not going away. Frances Fox Piven was caught on video posted at The Gateway Pundit in an weird, nocturnal chanting session with Marxist acolytes of Occupy in McPherson Square last week, exhorting them to revolution, yelling they must 'stop trying to save the middle class' -- explaining it is all about over-throwing the middle class and achieving totalitarian revolution.

Piven called on the clueless, smiling college kids chanting back at her to 'help the jobless and the poor' to rise up in a violent show of solidarity and force, in calls dripping with Marxist language of class struggle that made her and her late husband Richard Cloward 60s icons of the revolutionary set. 

She spoke just as she had written earlier this year in The Nation, "So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs? … The out-of-work have to stop blaming themselves for their hard times and turn their anger on the bosses, the bureaucrats or the politicians who are in fact responsible." 

Viola! The Occupy Movement is born and nurtured by Marxists, and Obama is determined to make the Republicans own its 'populist' outrage!

Meanwhile, the campaign Money Race is on. Make no mistake; this election will be one of the ugliest and most expensive in history -- no holds barred. The Obama Socialists are going for broke, literally. Barack Obama has George Soros and a band of billionaire and millionaire militant Marxists who will pour whatever funding they think it will take to 'transform' our Constitution-loving, free market America into their Marxist 'workers' paradise' of coercion, conformity, and constraint.

Mathematically, '53%ers' ought to be the majority. But, it appears there's a WHOLE LOT MORE of the loonies out there than there are of the '53%ers.' Besides, I don't know even know how the '53%' figure was arrived at. If we're the 53%, how did the Idiot in Chief come to occupy the White (Semi-White) House? So, in reality, I think this fuzzy mathematics can be thrown out the window.

And, yeah, the protesters want Obimbo to be re-elected! He and his 'administration' -- AKA George Soros and the Merry Band of Billionaire and Millionaire Militant Marxists -- are out there announcing their open, enthusiastic support of the blatantly Socialist 'Occupy' movement. 

The protesters are too stupid to see that the bailed out banks, unions, and Obimbo's green energy friends (the ones that created, and still ARE) creating his election slush fund, are the very factions they're protesting against! It’s amazing that Obimbo is still their Messiah, even though they've had three years of 'results' to look at. Given the obvious mentality of the protesters, I guess it's not too hard to see why, though.

That civil war may be coming sooner than we expected. Let me rephrase that -- the civil war is happening.

Want to know what's even more disheartening? The GOP establishment is giving us Obama-lite.

Whose Side Is He On?

I gotta admit straight out -- I robbed this. Well... sort of.

After editing for spelling, punctuation, grammatical errors, run on sentences, incomplete thoughts and a WHOLE LOT of rewrites... I may as well have written it.

The headline was even wrong; ‘WHOSE,’ not ‘WHO’S.’

And, of course, I HAVE TO ADD the cartoons!

The basic idea is here, though.

Politically, Obama Obimbo* is about as coordinated as a monkey humping a football covered in Crisco.

On one hand, you’ve got these Wall Street protests that Obama Obimbo* supports because he’s anti-capitalist, anti-American and anti-Big Business.

Then, you’ve got Obama Obimbo* supporting the unions who called for violence against the Tea Party. 

Then, AGAIN, you’ve got Obama Obimbo* claiming he’s on the side of the little guy; that’s what all of his political rhetoric has been about. Never mind that a bunch of idiots voted for him AFTER he said that his plan would produce “no more” than 8% unemployment (translation: “I’m going to create unemployment.”)

You’ve ALSO got the Obama Obimbo* who wants collection agencies to be able to call cell phones to force people to pay their debts because that is what would help the economy. 

Who’s Whose* side is this guy on?  I thought Big Business was the problem with them taking money from the little guy! 

I thought we were supposed to get everything for free. Lets recap: you won’t have to worry about gas in your car or paying your house mortgage -- probably because you won’t have a car or a house to mortgage. So, here you go... 

 
I’m not even that astute a political commentator, but this guy, Obama Obimbo,* just makes it too easy.

*There... I fixed THAT, too.

Driving the Rich Into The Sea.

This was sent to me by JonBerg. It’s out of  The Wall Street Journal and anything that I could possibly say would be anticlimactic.

Megaship ahoy! To escape higher taxes, the wealthy could relocate... to open waters. 

By SCOTT ADAMS  

According to biologists, billions of years ago the first sea creature wiggled onto the beach. This was a pivotal moment in life’s long march from amorphous sea snot into the highest form of mammalian beings -- hedge-fund managers. Many people see that as an improvement, but I’m not judgmental. What we don’t know is why the first sea creatures were so anxious to leave their ocean habitats. My guess is that it had something to do with taxes. 

Reliable people on television have informed me that taxes are the root cause of all behavior. And that means we can predict the future by looking at tax policy. In fact, I hear tax-related predictions every time I accidentally stop thinking about myself long enough to notice that others are talking. What I haven’t yet seen is anyone correctly predicting the future based on tax policy. Apparently that burden has fallen to me.

Somewhere in Washington our leaders are furiously planning an economic death spiral. It will start innocently with a modest tax increase on the rich, the same way you might pluck a chicken to give it fair warning before you barbecue it. The final phase will involve a tax rate on the top 1% of earners that is so high it can’t be described without the Viking word for pillage. I base my prediction on the fact that the country is out of money, poor people don’t have any, rich people do, and the middle class has almost figured out how voting works.

In the old days, every member of the middle class thought he or she had a chance of becoming rich. In that sort of optimistic environment, you don’t want to urinate in the pool that you hope to someday swim in. But lately there’s more fatalism in the air, thanks to our crushing debt and the hobo militias that I assume are forming all over the country. The middle class will soon trade their unrealistic dreams of wealth for the opportunity to transfer money from total strangers to themselves -- a process often referred to as fairness. That’s when the rich will get serious about an escape plan, just like the brave little sea creatures billions of years ago. 

But where can the rich go? Their choices include nations that have swarms of malaria-infested mosquitoes, bad TV, deadly climates, decapitation issues, French people, bland food and other signs of inhospitableness. When you consider these factors plus wars, pollution, terrorism, floods, droughts, earthquakes and tornadoes, I think you’ll agree that most of the surveyed land on Earth is unfit for fancy people. 

This is where technology trends come in. We’ve already entered the era of megaships, including plans for island-size vessels with permanent homes and businesses. We’ll soon see rapid advances in high-speed Internet for seafaring vessels, floating fisheries, hydroponic gardens, energy generated from waves, and desalination. The only other element needed to trigger mass migration of the wealthy to the oceans is a financial motive. If a billionaire can escape taxation by leaving his dirt-based country behind, he’ll save more than enough money to pay for his floating fortress of awesomeness. 

Out at sea, you can declare your own sovereign state or form alliances with other island-vessels. Taxes would be a thing of the past. Any government-like decisions can be handled through a Facebook page. The only downside would be listening to Ron Paul nagging you to use Twitter instead to keep government small. 

Pirates would be a cause of concern, obviously. But if a billionaire has enough money to buy an island-size vessel, he probably has enough to outfit it with a drone air force, radar, sonar, laser guns, torpedoes, ship-to-ship missiles, and other technology so cool that just thinking about it raises my testosterone count. 

If some country with a military tells you to move from its favorite part of the ocean, you can turn off your stabilizers and let the current do the rest. Your island home would be like a Gandhi that floats. (That’s not redundant, because I’m almost positive that Gandhi would go straight to the bottom of the pool if he tried to tread water.) 

And no nation is going to try to conquer an island vessel for its treasure, because most of the residents’ riches will be invested in financial instruments, not stuffed in mattresses on the ship. For a fully equipped military, the cost of attacking an island vessel would exceed the value of the designer handbags and gold toilets it could seize. 

The ocean is the safest place on Earth if you play it right. Super hurricanes caused by climate change (allegedly!) are no problem for ships that can relocate at any time. And droughts can’t hurt you if you get the desalinization technology right. There’s almost no problem so big that it can’t be avoided by a billionaire in the middle of an ocean. 

You might doubt my vision of the future, but let me ask you two questions: 1) How big is Larry Ellison’s yacht? 2) Does his Japanese-style house have paper walls for realism or to make it lighter because he plans to someday lift it with helicopters and move it to his boat?

Shades of the 1995 Kevin Costner post-apocalyptic science fiction film, Waterworld?

Obama’s Cabinet Does The Hokey Pokey.

The following is Lurita Doan’s column that was taken from today’s townhall.com. It’s in its entirety (with links, as it appeared) because it was just TOO GOOD to take bits and pieces from. The original didn’t have the cartoons. I added them to make it too, TOO GOOD.

Forget about Dancing with the Stars. If Americans want to see some really fancy footwork, just watch the senior members of the Obama Administration as they do the hokey pokey. The President is, perhaps, the greatest dancer of all as he constantly talks about his policy goals, waves it all about, only to take it all back as he turns himself around.  

In May 2009, Secretary Chu put his hands all over the Solyndra loan which he said would be a model for what the government creation of “green” jobs. Chu attended the ground breaking with President Obama and cited Solyndra’s example in his speeches. Yet, now, with Solyndra’s mind-boggling profligacy, squandering $523 million in taxpayer money in less than two years and filing for bankruptcy protection, both Chu and Obama are eager to take their hands off as they shake them all about, blaming anyone other than themselves for the poor loan decision and the complete lack of oversight into the expenditure of the funds.

And, it seems Cabinet Secretary Steven Chu has cravenly decided to utilize a time-tested delaying tactic of sending a lower-ranking staffer, Jonathan Silver, the DoE loan guarantee officer to testify as he turns himself around. 

Both the White House and the Department of Energy officials are being disingenuous and possibly duplicitous in their adamant denials of wrongdoing. For those who understand the process of approving, and scheduling presidential appearances, there can be no doubt that the White House was closely involved in the Solyndra deal-making. 

Each week, executive branch agencies send a report to the White House informing the president (in absentia) of current and upcoming agency actions of note. Each week, executive branch agencies also notify the White House of potential activities at which they are requesting the president’s attendance, usually an agency event that highlights some aspect of the president’s management agenda, and usually providing the White House with several months’ advance notice. 

Presidential visits are highly coveted events, highly desired by cabinet heads, because the president’s visit raises the profile of the agency and provides much coveted photo-ops for agency employees. 

There is usually a good deal of back and forth discussions between Executive agency staffers, the Executive Agency White House Liaison and White House staffers regarding the type of event, the timing of the event and the substance of the event to ensure it warrants an appearance by the president.

All the facts in the president’s speech are reviewed (for example, the details verifying a loan mentioned in the speech) and signed off on by as many as 15 agency officials and even folks from OMB before the event is entered formally as a part of the president’s calendar. So, the likelihood that neither the White House, nor the leaders of DoE, were in any way knowledgeable or involved in the Solyndra loan deal is highly unlikely.

Sadly, Solyndra is but a recent example of Obama’s Cabinet officials’ skill with doing the hokey pokey. The Justice Department’s disastrous Operation Fast & Furious reveals a similar scenario -- an ill conceived, poorly executed idea that was hastily put into operation. And yet, after providing some 1200 assault weapons to Mexican cartels, which are now showing up in crimes and murders of American citizens, Americans once again see the Obama Administration shaking their hands and turning themselves about as they run for cover. 

Then, there is the case of the SEC. What does it mean when Americans see Obama’s executive appointees at the SEC all hiring lawyers to represent themselves as evidence of gross conflicts of interest starts to pile up?

Of course, no one is quite as skilled at the hokey pokey as President Obama. A year ago, Obama promised support for Palestinian statehood, no doubt hoping he could take it back before anyone caught wise that he was just posturing. But predictably, the Palestinians did not fully understand Obama was just doing part of his dance, and we now face a diplomatic crisis that is costing American prestige.

President Obama has saved his best dance moves for the economic crisis. Obama tells us he is all about jobs, jobs, jobs, but then turns himself about trying to explain why his Administration has prevented Boeing from expanding operations in South Carolina, costing thousands of jobs in the process. Obama urges quick Senate approval of a set of Free Trade Agreements which everyone agrees would be beneficial, but, Obama never quite tells Americans that he will not approve any of the agreements unless the Congress approves yet another bailout of Unions. 

Other favorite Obama hokey pokey moves include his claim that the stimulus would create millions of jobs and shrink unemployment to 8%. So too, was the claim that Obamacare would allow everyone to keep the healthcare insurance they currently have. Those claims were quickly pulled back and the Administration worked hard at obscuring the facts as they, once again, turned themselves about.

Perhaps, my personal favorite hokey pokey move, is watching Obama talk about the need for “a balanced plan” that calls for “shared sacrifice” and a need for millionaires and billionaires to “pay their fair share”. This move calls for lots [of] unusually skillful gyrations as Obama tells us that his bash-the-rich strategy is not really a craven example of class warfare. Obama also maintains that massive deficits requiring $100 billion dollar a month in loans can all be sustained indefinitely, so there really is no need to cut the expansive entitlement spending. In fact, Obama tells us entitlements can, and should, be expanded.

I usually end my posts with, “So much incompetency, so little time.” I’m going to add ‘corruption’ to it from now on... the two words, incompetency and corruption, define Obimbo and his ‘administration’ SO WELL! 

President Obama puts his Left hand in, then takes his Left hand out; he does the hokey pokey and he twists himself around, and that’s what it’s all about!

Let’s Party Like It’s 1917.

Erick Erickson’s post in REDSTATE this morning hits the X ring. His headline (Let’s Party Like It’s 1917) and the description of the DNC’s logo for the 2012 convention as being ‘Soviet chic,’ couldn’t be more accurate. 

When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, I had a feeling of, ‘So what? There’ll just be another faction to take its place.’ It’s just that I wasn’t expecting it to be the good ol’ US of A’s Democratic party. I don’t know why not. The Democratic party has been leaning that way for... oooh, some say since about since LBJ (may he rot in hell.) I say for at least the last 60-70 years -- maybe longer. Obimbo came in and double-timed the movement and shook America to the core. For some, it was a ‘Duuh’ moment. For others, it was the classic ‘I’ve-been-trying-to-tell-you-so!’ moment.

With Barack Obama’s class warfare speech yesterday, it seems the President’s 2012 campaign theme will be to party like its 1917. In a speech right out of a European socialist’s playbook, Barack Obama kept referring to basic fairness when demanding job creators pay more in taxes. Consider Obama’s online mouthpiece, Think Progress, rushing to his defense by, in essence, saying Obama’s plan isn’t class warfare because it does not go as far as the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1929. 

You actually should read the Think Progress post because actually what the writer claims is “strikingly different from a modern progressive agenda” is actually pretty darn similar, including an income tax to confiscate capital income -- something Obama’s Buffett tax seems to do. 

In any event, what Barack Obama nor any other leftist can answer is one simple question -- when the top 1% generate 20% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes in this country, what exactly is their fair share? 

But now it gets even worse. Yesterday I told you Obama wants to use General Motors as a distraction from Solyndra. Today it appears he is using Warren Buffett to distract us from raiding banks to line General Motors’ pockets, or at least the government’s because of the GM bailout. 

In Barack Obama’s deficit plan, he intends to raid American banks to make up the losses from the auto bailout. There’s just one problem. While hiding behind TARP to justify this raid, with costs that will be passed on to consumers, Obama is punishing the most successful banks putting them in a position to fail. At the same time, the Dodd-Frank bill guarantees no bank is too big to fail, so he is creating another bank bailout situation. 

Basically, the President wants to raise fees on banks with more than $50 billion in assets, i.e. the most successful banks. The weak banks that benefited the most from TARP will not actually be the ones to cover the auto bailout’s losses. The rich banks that needed the least help will shell out to cover the auto bailout and then find themselves among the ranks of weak banks. 

It’s not just individual wealth redistribution the President is championing here. He’s picking winners and losers in the free market and ensuring that some of the winners he does not like are forced to become losers. It’s corporate wealth redistribution to corporations the President picks. 

Considering both the inflation the American people are experiencing and the taxation Barack Obama wants to impose, you’d be forgiven for thinking he said “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” Of course, that was Vladimir Lenin. Too inflammatory for you? Just go back to Think Progress and consider, in their claims that Obama’s position is too mild to be considered class warfare, just how similar Barack Obama’s new tax schemes are to the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1929 -- complete with a “graduated income tax to confiscate capital income”, i.e. a necessary component of any surtax on millionaires just for the sake of taxing millionaires.

Actually, I think Obimbo may be the Socialists/Marxists/Democrats own worst enemy. The Democrats were doing pretty good while the rest of us were too busy WORKING and trying to make a living. We were ‘asleep.’ Obimbo, by fast-forwarding everything, opened our eyes to what was really going on and stirred the sleeping giant. At least, I HOPE the rest of us are the sleeping giant.

Like I said, Erickson’s post hits the X ring. Speaking of X rings and targets, that’s exactly what I’ve found the Demonics logo useful for... target practice. Thanks, Demonics! I knew that if you REALLY put your mind to it, you could come up with SOMETHING useful.

On another note, I had a post (My Ambition While Obimbo Is...WHATEVER he is) about how your liberal ‘friends’ can rat you out on Obimbo’s very own AttackWatch new Web site (may God help you, if you do have liberal ‘friends’ -- and, then, I gotta ask you...“WHY?!”) I have to give credit to FORGER - Racist TEAhadi for putting me on to this ‘cause Hitler REALLY puts Obimbo’s AttackWatch where it belongs... IN THE TRASH!