About Me

Name: ApolloSpeaks
Email: reninvest2007@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

BURN BABY BURN, ENGLAND IN FLAMES

 
Letter: Welfare state has been a disaster for Britain

The welfare state is the most disastrous thing that has happened to England.

God's chosen religion of peace, justice and brotherhood for humanity is at it again spreading love, tolerance and civilized behavior by urging fellow Moslems to join the rioters in England to destroy the filthy, godless, infidel socialist country. I found this AP story at Jihad Watch (
see) and posted this comment there: 
 
BURN BABY BURN!
 
BURN DOWN BRITAIN FOR ALLAH,
 
MOHAMMED, SHARIA AND THE KORAN.
 
THEN SPREAD THE FIRE TO EUROPE, THE US, SOUTH AMERICA, ASIA AND EVERY CORNER OF THE INFIDEL WORLD.
 
ISLAM IS IMMORALITY IN PURSUIT OF ABSOLUTE POWER.
 
IT'S A FAITH OF LAWLESSNESS, MURDER AND DESTRUCTION OF EVERYTHING NOT ISLAMIC.
 
ONE GOD, ONE REVELATION, ONE WORLD IS OUR GOAL.
 
BURN BABY BURN!
 
ONLY BY DESTROYING THE INFIDEL WORLD CAN WE SAVE IT.
 
BY FIRE, SWORD AND SUBVERSION WE SHALL PREVAIL!
 
Postscript:
 
There may be Moslems participating in the mayhem and violence rocking Britain but they are not the cause for it. The young, mindless, insane savages rioting across the country is the work of democratic socialism and the welfare state (Obama's counterparts in England) with its dehumanizing policies of government dependence and entitlement mentality-government owes everyone a high standard of living and the rich must pay for it. The only way to deal with this mob of looters, arsons and thugs, as Ann Coulter says, is to smash it, and drastically reform the system. The only way to stave off such violence here at home is too kill Obama politically and wreck American progressivism.
 
Major websites linking this piece as as follows (click and see):
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON ON OBAMA'S NEED FOR THERAPY

 
Arianna Huffington, UCLA, June 12

As I mentioned in my last piece an irate Arianna Huffington told Larry O'Donnell in a recent interview
(see) that Obama is a mental case in need of "intense therapy" because of his "nonsensical" bi-partisan deal on the debt, and his lasar-like focus on reelection when creating jobs is his only path to success. True enough. Unless the jobs' picture and the GDP dramatically improve by election day Obama is done; he becomes a one term disaster doomed to lose and lose big when the votes are in on 11-6-2012. When asked by O'Donnell what Obama should do to reverse his fortunes Arianna answered that in addition to therapy he needs a " fundamental course correction;" meaning, of course, that deficit reduction is the wrong way to go and that he must return to reason, to the immaculate path of taxing the rich and social justice redistributionism. In short, to SPEND BABY SPEND with more and more stimulus is the only way to get the economy growing again-so says the Gospel According to Krugman.
 
But Arianna would be preaching to the choir. Obama's never left the church. There's nothing that Obama would rather do than try stimulating the economy anew with another colossal spending spree borrowed from the Chinese. Arianna and Obama share a common world view: they're Statist who believe in the supremacy of the State over human existence; that government is God on earth with salvational powers to perfect society and create the good life for all when it spends and spreads enough wealth. They believe that there's a government answer to practically every human problem great and small; and that it should be stronger than greedy, human, messy, economy crashing markets. Both believe that only government spending can put an end to this agonizing, overlong "GOP" caused recession. They believe that the $860 billion stimulus was undersized and that a bigger, badder package is needed to do the trick of jump starting the economy into rip roaring recovery.
 
But with evil Republicans controlling the House and the public (infected by Talk Radio and Fox) wanting government to live within its means (most Americans support a Balanced Budget Amendment) another large stimulus is politically unfeasible. So what good is intense therapy? How could Obama lying on a psychiatrist's couch change political reality?
 
If Arianna were honest or thinking straight she'd say it's not Obama who needs mental help. It's the American people who need it. It's those millions of voters who fired Pelosi and gave Boehner and the GOP control of the "hostage taking" House of Representatives. In short, the electorate are the culprits. Arianna who genuinely bleeds for the Middle Class and imagines that she's their champion (because of her empathy) is putting the blame in the wrong place. Because of the pain that she feels for the people she can't bring herself to blaming them for the Democrat debacle of 2010. Unlike her friend Bill Maher she won't call them morons for leaving the faith of 2008.
 

Obama Buddha

Instead she blames Obama. Why? Because he's let her down. Because she allowed him to raise her hopes to unrealistic heights; because she believed all the BS on who he was and what he'd achieve as commander in chief. With her friend Deepak Chopra she got carried away by the fanciful vision of not just fairness and equalizing wealth but a spiritual transformation and revolution in consciousness-a total transmutation extending from our bodies to our inmost beings. America at last would achieve SATORI* and cosmic awakening from illusion under the Obama regime. She and Chopra waited for the great day when the sky would open and angels descend (Hillary warned them that this wouldn't happen). But collective enlightenment never came. Such things aren't possible in this world. Individuals can find truth, grow wise and even know the Lord in part. But not a nation all at once. Conservatives have understood this from the start. The French Revolution shattered this lie and that should have put an end to it. But here we are 200 years later and leftists have learned nothing. So entranced are they by a vision of the good that can't be of this earth.
 
*Japanese term for Buddhist enlightenment.
 

Obama Buddha

Deepak Chopra's hullucinatory vision of Obama in 2008. This is what could happen to your mind after prolonged meditation on the anal chakra.
 
Complaining to O'Donnell Arianna asks mournfully whatever became of the Obama who "moved the nation in 08....who spoke so inspiringly at his nomination?" Meaning, whatever became of the Obama that never really was? The Obama in disguise who hid his stupidity, weakness and fatal flaws behind a mask of awesomeness. The Obama of her utopian dreams which idealized the man out of all reality abstracting him from flesh and blood, making him into a redeeming God? The Greek columns at Denver must have really enthralled her when in fact they foreshadowed this Greek tragedy or farce of a man given great power with little smarts.
 
Dictator 
Barackus Sophisticus
 
It's the people Arianna. They tied Obama's hands and cut off his nuts, on election day they said in one breath NO MORE STIMULUS! And now with the economy verging on a new and worse recession (48% fear a depression) most Americans are saying FOUR YEARS OF OBAMA IS ENOUGH!
 
Dictator Obama bans reporter 
 
If Obama were a dictator with absolute power what do you think he'd do Arianna? Would he cut spending and balance the budget? Would he cut taxes for Bill Gates, yourself and Buffet? Not a chance. He'd do what you'd do if that power were yours. He'd put the pedal to the medal and go into spending hyperdrive. He'd pull out the stops and go for broke running bigger deficits and debt, piling them up to Mt. Everest. Obama's problem Arianna (and yours as well) is the constitutional division of powers. Thank God for the Framers and Founders.
 
You imagine Arianna that somewhere in Obama there's a giant of a man; an heroic soul not living up to his potential; who revealed himself during the campaign then went into hiding once he was sworn in; a superman of sorts who can conquer all obstacles in his way and prevail if only he had the will and resolve. In that case it's not a therapist he needs but a Tony Robbins. But there's no such man in Obama Arianna. Even Robbins couldn't help him. Obama by nature is a mediocre man, passive, cool, detached, poorly gifted, lacking the right stuff for the presidency. He's a man of great deficiencies unable to summon the moral strength and energy to break down public resistance to a second stimulus. FDR was able to do this with the New Deal after Hoover's reckless spending and deficits failed. But not Obama. He's not even worthy to be FDR's shadow.
 
Moreover, Obama is no Woodrow Wilson who went over the heads of a hostile Republican Senate and made his case to the people for US membership in the League of Nations-an unpopular idea. Wilson ignoring his poor health crisscrossed the country and poured out his heart to the folks and started to change their view of the League until he had a stroke. But if Obama were to attempt this he would fail. It's not just that he's a poor communicator too cooly cerebral to be effective; it's that the League was a new thing untried and untested; the stimulus is not, it's been tried and it flopped; and the people won't give it a second thought.
 
Get used to the fact Arianna that Obama has bowed to public opinion, that he's resigned to the reality that a new stimulus is undoable. He's saying to himself, 'Either the stimulus will work by 2012 or it won't. Either way I'm in campaign mode focused on my reelection. And if the economy stays put in this rut or gets worse I'll blame it on Bush, the Republicans and those Tea Party jerks. What else can I do but give feckless speeches and put up appearances that I'm focused on jobs, recovery and growth. If I lose next year so be it. That's what elections are for. In the meantime I'll let nothing upset me and make the most of my presidency. I'll have a helleva time living it up with my Hollywood friends; I'll campaign, golf and party to the end, riding off into the sunset a failed one term president.' 
 
Major websites linking this piece are as follows (click and see):
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (24) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DOES BARACK OBAMA HATE BEING IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

 

 http://www.stopliberallies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/obamaFAIL.jpg

Obama hates and loves his job as president, hating it more with the passage of time because he's failing and losing the electorate. Lacking the character, intellect and stamina for the job our petulant, thin skinned, failure-in chief leads us to believe he'd rather be anywhere these days but the White House where the burden of power daily grows to the breaking point. The excessive campaigning, golfing, vacationing and partying, and now a bus tour through the heartlands called "One Nation" (ironic for this ultra-partisan pol) are much needed escapes from the pressures of office, from a job he mostly hates-but hates to leave because he wants a second term to prove his worth and place in history. 'Maybe my luck will change in 2013, and the stimulus will finally work,' thinks the luckless one whose presidency is stuck in the mud of a worsening economy.
 
http://bp1.blogger.com/_IUB41PC9XnE/R_jJojklfbI/AAAAAAAAAEU/a_96KxronLU/s1600-h/IMG_1086.jpg
Fate of Obama's getaway from Washington bus tour.

Needless to say Obama's best and happiest time is not today. His happiest days were during the 08 campaign before running a nation in crisis became an "undeserved" afflication inherited from Bush and the near crash of Capitalism. The hordes of wildly ecstatic and deluded fans holding him in awe, thinking him the messiah come to save them from whatever plagues and ailes them. To inspire those feelings again when the world was his for the taking; when millions blindly adored this black, charming, hypnotic man throwing themselves at his feet and screaming "Yes, we can!.". At the time I rightly called him Obama Maharaj Ji, named after the spellbinding Hindu kid of the 1970s; the messianic teenage faker who weaned Reenie Davis off of LSD with his fund of spiritual energy, then quickly faded from the scene
(see).
 
It's truly pathetic watching Obama desperately trying to recreate the spirit and excitement of 2008. Indeed, in his inmost heart he probably wishes he could return to the 08 campaign and freeze it in time turning it into one long perpetual Groundhog Day from the start of his candidacy to Election Day. Oh to endlessly relive Denver and Berlin (and victory night at Grant Park) when he had multitudes eating from his hand-dazzled and fooled by his charming smile, skin color, and soaring rhetoric of Hope and Change. That would be bliss to him and better than the presidency.
 
Indeed, better that than falling polls, crashing markets, collapsing trust and deepening disgust. Better that than Fox News, Hannity and Rush daily beating him up. Better that than Arianna, Queen of the Left, calling him a mental case on MSN-that was the ultimate insult from the ingrates on the left who got government run healthcare, and bigger deficits and debt which they take for signs of social progress (see). How dare they say that he's surrendered to the enemy, that he's off the reservation, that he's gone conservative on them. No.These aren't happy days for the president; everything's confused, upside down, out of joint-this isn't what he bargained for. But past is prelude of worse to come as a thousand ills converge on him from every side. Soon he'll be retired and living in regret, cursing Bush everyday for his presidential mess.

Postscript: Obama Speaks

Today our Triple D president (Depressor, Decliner, Downgrader in Chief) said that "America will always be a Triple A country." As he was speaking the Dow broke below 11,000. Good work Mr. President. Go on your bus tour and never come back.
 
Major websites linking this piece are as follows (click and see):
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (54) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

S&P SLAPS DOWN AMERICA AS OBAMA PRESIDES OVER ITS DECLINE

 
 
In fund raiser after fund raiser Obama claims that Hope and Change hasn't happened yet. He says that it's a slow process and that these last two and a half years are prelude to the great event. God help us.
 
Beginning in March 2010 Obama was warned repeatedly that this day was coming if America didn't get its financial house in order (see
). But made deaf, dumb and blind by his egalitarian ideas (which I predicted would be his undoing here and elsewhere) he chose to ignore it to his political peril and the ruination of our economy. Now he'll be known to posterity as the Downgrader-in-Chief, the president who made history by degrading America's credit standing and financial prestige due to his reckless spending and crackpot social justice schemes. Driven by a lunatic view of the discredited theories of Keynes (that we should borrow and spend endlessly until there's a robust recovery*) Obama believed that the nation would be prospering by now and he'd be on his way to a second term triumphing over the Tea Party, Fox, Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. But now all is lost for him as he falls in the polls and America slips further into economic chaos. Yes, it's 1937 all over again as the new FDR and his "new New Deal" completely unravel.
 
*This view is held by crack headed New Keynesians like Krugman, Reich, Galbraith, Geithner and Obama. Keynes rightly held that large structural deficits (such as we have) are a drag on the economy. The bigger the deficit the greater the drag in preventing recovery. If Keynes were alive today he'd be agreeing with Tea Party Republicans that the deficit needs to be drastically reduced if we're to have economic recovery (see).
 
Indeed, on August 3rd, one day after the debt ceiling deadline, Roland Burris celebrated his 74th birthday. You remember him (I wrote about him
here), he was the one who Rod Blagojavich (the corrupt Illinois Governor) put in Obama's vacant Senate seat as a result of a criminal investigation.  Born in 1937 during the Great Depression, in the very month that FDR's recession within the depression (or double dip depression) began*, Burris was a sign of things to come for America under this foolish leftist wrecking machine who's headed for political perdition in 2012, and a post-presidency worse than hell.
 
*Because of punishing corporate taxation, unionism, price fixing and the minimum wage, not cuts in government "stimulus" spending as leftist economics allege.
 
The day following Burris's birthday our tragic, ill-starred, fatally flawed President celebrated his 50th year on earth as the Stock Market fell 513 points, the steepest one day drop since the 08 financial crash-the leftist caused catastrophe that guaranteed Obama's election. And now one day later comes the S&P slapdown to add to our woes. It was all very predictable. "Much power and little wisdom is doomed to fail," says an ancient Chinese proverb. Put an inexperienced, poorly gifted, economic illiterate in power during a national crisis and epic failure is the result. How could it be otherwise? Rush had hoped (and he wasn't wrong) that Obama's un-American agenda to socialize and transform America would fail; but it was preordained as I have shown in dozens of articles on this blog, but especially here.
 
It is fascinating to note that Roland Burris' 74th birthday fell on the 925th day of Obama's failing presidency. What is fascinating and perhaps significant here is that 74 is a multiple of 37 2x; and 925 is a multiple of 37 25x, both indicating the ominous year 1937. And lastly, yesterday was the 927th day of Obama's presidency. This too is fascinating in that when 927 is multiplied by 209 it gives us the six digit number 193743, which needs no further comment,
 
 
Born two weeks apart and of different color skin, but twins of America's decline and ruination.

Postscript: Timothy Geithner
 
Six days after Obama gave his ominous April 13th speech on the deficit and debt (see) Timothy Geithner confidently predicted that S&P wouldn't downgrade the United States (see). 108 days later the impossible happened. America's now a AA+ nation along with high debt Japan and Spain. However, it appears that the number 108  has significance for this unprecedented event. I say this because 108 is a factor of the number 191700 1775x and 193752 1794x giving us the years 1917 (when the US first received its AAA rating from S&P), and 1937 which doesn't need explanation.
 
Moreover, Geithner, who was born August 18, 1961 (just 14 days after Obama) is the 75th Secretary of the US Treasury. Amazingly like 108 75 is a number with significance in its multiples. Hence, 75 is a factor of  191775 (2557x) and 201150 (2682x). This gives us the years that America both acquired and lost its AAA rating. Also amazing is that the number 201150 ends in 50. Amazing because the US lost its AAA rating one day after Obama's 50th birthday and 13 days before Geithner's 50th.
 
By the way, when multiplied by 2583 75 yields the number 193725 thus completing the trifector.
 
Also see
 
 
Major wbsites linking this piece are as follows:
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (35) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DICK DURBIN CONFIRMS MY PREDICTION ABOUT THE DEATH OF KEYNESIANISM

   
     drawing of a tombstone,
 
Cover of: The general theory of employment, interest and money by John Maynard Keynes

In a piece that I wrote in March 2009 (see here) I predicted from the signs not only the failure of Obama's grand stimulus plan to end the Great Recession (which is worsening as I write) but that this failure would mark the end of Big Government Liberalism and the long overdue death of Keynesian economics in America. And it looks as though my forecast was correct. For last Sunday night on the Senate floor Dick Durbin uttered words never heard in that chamber before. Bemoaning the bipartisan deal on the debt (which he voted for) Durbin said that it meant the DEATH OF KEYNES. This is what he said with an historic ring to it:

"The Republicans are killing Keynesian economics with their attempt to cut spending as the economy rebounds from a recession," wailed and warned Durban. "I would say ... that symbolically, that agreement is moving us to the point where we are having the final interment of John Maynard Keynes, He nominally died in 1946 but it appears we are going to put him to his final rest with this agreement (
see)."
 
Aside from the fact that after decades of repeated failure Keynesianism has dug its own grave this oracular statement is coming from the man who served with Obama as Senator from Illinois for three years. In fact, Durbin was born in 1944, or the 44th year of the 20th century denoting
Obama's presidency number. Moreover, on the day when Durbin gave his death of Keynes speech it was the 760th week of his senatorship. 760 is a multiple of 76 10x, or 76 without the zero, the exact numeric value of the name John Maynard Keynes, hence:
 
Januray 3, 1997 (Durbin's swearing in as Senator) to July 31, 2011 (Durbin's speech)=14 years, 6 months and 28 days = 5322 days=760 weeks.
 
JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES
1685  4175194  257551=76 (see appendix)
 
While Dick Durbin blames Republicans for the death of Keynsianism it's the man standing next to him that's thankfully killing it.
 
Furthermore, Durbin made his speech on the 44th president's 922nd day in office; this gives us two sets of numbers: 922 and 44. What is remarkable here is that if we reverse 922 to 229 and turn it into a five digit number ending in 44 we get 22944. Amazingly, this is the exact number of days separating Keynes' death from the economically ominous day of February 13, 2009, the day Dick Durbin and 59 senators passed the monstrous $860 billion Keynesian stimulus bill, hence
 
January 20, 2009 (Obama's inauguration) to July 31, 2011 (Durbin's death of Keynes speech) = 922 days.
 
April 21, 1946 (Keynes' death) to February 13, 2009 (passage of stimulus)= 62 years, 9 months and 22 days, or 22944 days.
 
And lastly, when Keynes died in 1946 he was 62*, which are the number of years separating his death from the election and swearing in of Obama as President.
 
*Keynes was born June 5, 1883.
 
Durbin is right, the death of Keyensian economics is at hand. Keynes can't fix recessions; can't fix depressions; can't fix stagflation; can't stimulate consumption or demand to get weak economies moving again. Put money in peoples' pockets during a recession and they save it or pay down their debts. Give funds to state and local governments to buy goods and services from the private sector and its used to balance their budgets. Use it to fund public works projects (as the Japanese have been doing for 22 years and Hoover and FDR did)) and a job is destroyed in the private sector for every one government creates (as Henry Hazlitt said). Indeed, though Keynesianism has been tested to tears for over 75 years internationally its die hard adherents like fanatic Paul Krugman cry NOT ENOUGH MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT. Enough is never enough for them; it's not enough for Japan with its 200% debt to GDP, or for Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy which have spent themselves into bankruptcy. Their message is spend baby spend whatever the cost until the magic number is reached when Keynes will work (whatever that is). But what we've spent on stimulus is enough for most Americans who intuitively understand what Ronald Reagan said that government spending and intervention is the problem. In short, Keynsianism is a failed economic theory that belongs to the dust bin of history; and that's where it's going along with Big Government Liberalism and Conservatism thanks to Barack Hussein Obama's colossally reckless spending and jobless, growthless stagflationary presidency.
 

 
Postscript
 
We mustn't overlook the unmistakble sign that Obama signed the debt reduction bill on the August 2nd deadline. As I recently wrote in THE GREAT DEBT CEILING SHOWDOWN AND THE SOLUTION OF WARREN HARDING this was the 88th anniversary of Warren Harding's death the Father of the Roaring Twenties whose economic policies (the opposite of Keynes) turned a deep and painful recession (some call it a depression) with a jobless rate of 11.7% into a roaring recovery with less than 4% unemployment in three short years. It seems miraculous but not if you understand that government was a ball and chain around the economy, a manacle that Harding shattered. For Harding, followed by Coolidge, slashed taxes, spending, and government regulations. They shrunk the size of government and expanded the private sector giving it more freedom to grow and prosper putting millions back to work. Harding/Coolidge is the way to unleash America's innovative genius and entrepreneurial energies. It's the ideal model for economic recovery, and I challenge anyone to show me differently.
 
APPNEDIX
 
The numerological system used in this work is as follows
 
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A B C D E F G H I
J K L M N O P Q R
S T U V W X Y Z

Major websites linking this piece are as follows:
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (40) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE TEA PARTY'S SLIGHT VICTORY


It fell far short of the outcome that many of us desired, merely slowing down our slide into bankruptcy and ruin; but yesterday was an awful day for Obama and his party, and a victory for the Tea Party, however slight. If you don't believe me then go to HuffPo, MoveOn or other leftist sites. You'll be scorched by the rage and fury burning there; the anger taking aim at Obama for this deal is volcanic.
 
Indeed, the reckless, feckless, clueless wonder gutted, gored and floored himself. His incompetency has finally caught up with him and has defined his presidency for the rest of his term. From calling for a clean increase in the debt with no spending cuts (despite Moody's downgrade threats); then agreeing to cuts with new taxes on the rich, the bluffer in chief's strategy of scaring us to death with the phony default date of August 2nd blew up in his face. The same public that rejected ObamaCare and believe that the stimulus has failed, who's suffered through his broken pledges, shams and lies for two painful years, opposed the debt ceiling increase with the Tea Party (see); and with the Tea Party wanted a Balanced Budget Amendment to bring down the deficit and debt, preferring spending cuts to tax hikes as the cure for our distress.
 
And now the emperor is naked with everyone to see what an amateur, joke and loser he is; they see a rank, inexperienced, poorly gifted man who imagined he was fated for greatness and renown-hoping to spend the nation into social justice heaven, and make peace by butt kissing his intolerant Moslem brethren. He's a nowhere man perplexed and lost who doesn't know himself anymore; whose exalted self-image and false self-esteem are being smashed to bits on the anvil of reality; who Providence is cutting down to size bringing his arrogance, ideology and dreams to naught. But the story isn't over, the worst is yet to come; but in the end this Republic will be reborn.

Major websites linking this piece are as follows (click and see):
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (52) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE GREAT DEFAULTER IN CHIEF


img.dailymail.co.uk

Be strong Republicans,
And call Obama's bluff. 
He doesn't want to go down in history
As THE GREAT DEFAULTER IN CHIEF.
So load it all on him.
Let him bear the cross. 
Dare him to default,
Or the 14th Amendment
Illegally invoke-
This is what scares him
And keeps him up at night. 
As the economy he's ruining
Continues to go south
In 2012 he'll be evicted 
From the White House.

                                  CRUCIFIXION WITHOUT RESURRECTION 

                     http://cdn.theurbandaily.com/files/2009/04/obama2009-as-crucified-christ-med-wide.jpg

He doesn't know the way, doesn't see the truth, doesn't have a second life as President.
It's a crucifixion without resurrection. The fate of false messiahs and saviors.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (15) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA'S GREAT ANTI-REAGAN MOMENT



Rogues gallery of Democrat politicans-those complicit in the great financial/housing crash of 2008-look on as the anti-Reagan President signs FINREG into law in the Ronald Reagan Building signaling the hoped for end of the Reagan Revolution.

Obama in his abyssmal ignorance and hatred of free market capitalism meant it to be a great symbolic occasion signaling to the nation the end of an era that nearly plunged us into a second great depression. For on July 21, 2010 Obama signed into law FINREG a sweeping new 2300 page financial regulations reform bill that would prevent another disastrous financial collapse.
 
And where did our great post-partisan uniter and healer sign this bill, the greatest financial overhaul since the Great Depression? In the Oval Office, on Capitol or somewhere else in the White House? NO! That wouldn't do. Just as he began his presidential race in Springfield, Illinois on the steps of the Old Court House in imitation of Lincoln, and took his oath of office on Lincoln's Bible, Obama needed a place of symbolic importance when he signed this historic bill: in short he needed the Reagan International Trade Building. What a grand gesture and brilliant bipartisan move. What a way to endear himself to Republicans, Tea Partiers and the Reagan Right. Signing into law a bill that massively grows the size and regulatory power of government in a building named in honor of the man who said  "Government is the problem." Imagine the reaction of the liberal press and the anti-capitalist Left if Reagan or Bush had done something similar: if they had signed into law their tax cutting bills in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. MSM would have went ballistic accusing them of intentionally insulting New Deal liberals and the memory of FDR.

Obama signing FINREG in the Reagan Building was like the Islamic supremacist Feisal Rauf building his triumphalist mosque near Ground Zero. It was meant to antagonize and divide not unite and heal wounds. What Obama did was the spiteful act of a leftist community agitator on a national scale never before seen. An insulting act of blatant f*ck youism to the opposition (excuse my French) and Reagan's memory.

Obama can't govern like Reagan, lead like Reagan, communicate like Reagan, negotiate like Reagan, win bipartisan support like Reagan; he can't inspire optimism and confidence in the people and business world like Reagan. Obama is a petty, vindictive little man unworthy to be Reagan's shadow. Overshadowed by the Gipper's victorious legacy of economic renewal at home (his policies created 20 million new jobs) and in defeating the Soviet Union abroad (and liberating millions) Obama's narcissism and delusional self-esteem needed a symbolic victory over his anti-socialist nemesis (which he can't get in reality); he needed to cut Ronald Reagan down to size and stick it to the Reagan Right out of spite. In short, this ceremony was designed to show Obama's contempt for Ronald Reagan and his policies and to herald the Death of Reaganism.
 
Indeed, in choosing the Reagan Building Obama was making it perfectly clear that he was Reagan's arch-enemy and polar opposite; that he was the GREAT ANTI-REAGAN come to slay the beast; and that by making FINREG the law of the land he was discrediting Reaganomics and fixing the mess supposedly and ultimately caused by Reagan's anti-government deregulation policies: the 2008 financial/housing collapse*.
 
*As you'll see below it was leftist economist Paul Krugman who planted this stupid and unprovable idea in Obama's uncritical mind.
 
But now that he's dropping like a rock in the polls and faced with defeat in 2012 the man who made a show (just one short year ago) of being Reagan's nemesis runs for cover donning Reagan's mantle and misusing his legacy to shame fiscally conservative small government
Republicans-to bash those who want less federal control and more freedom and certainty; who want to revive the depressed and failing economy, balance the budget and pull back the deficit and debt from the brink. If it weren't so pathetic it would be laughable. As Obama shrinks in stature he looks desperately to Reagan to save his hide* turning the great tax cutter into a compromising tax hiker to pressure the "anti-tax" GOP to fold. But Obama grabs at straws and there's no changing him. He's anti-Reagan to the bone with an anti-Reagan's destiny; he has a rendezvous with catastrophe driven by ideology as he leads the nation down the path to financial and economic ruin. Reaganism has no better friend than Barack Obama. And in the end Reaganism, the Founders and freedom shall prevail.
 
*After the shellacking he took in 2010 Obama wanted the public to know that he was reading a biography on Ronald Reagan during his Christmas vacation. Was he actually reading about Reagan to learn the secrets of his successful presidency? Or was this part of a ploy to appear more fiscally and economically conservative to our center right nation (see)?
 
 

http://crockettlives.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/obama-reagan.jpg

Unlike the ball and chain of Obamanomics creating uncertainty, misery, depression and fear Reagan the liberator of millions in Eastern Europe revived patriotic nationalism and economic optimism with his liberating, business friendly, pro-growth policies making us the "city on the hill" again. This is an act that Obama (the power grabbing statist control freak) can't follow as he heads into history a failed one term president.

Postscript I: Krugman's New York Times Article Blaming Reagan for 2008 Crash
 
It's practically certain that Obama's inspiration for signing FINREG at the Reagan Building was Paul Krugman's 2009 NY Times hit piece "Reagan Did It (see)." In this article Krugman advances the ridiculous notion that both the S&L Crisis of 1987 and the financial/housing collapse of 2008 were due to Reagan's deregulatory policies (not Jimmy Carter's*). The culprit, says Krugman, was the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act signed into law by Reagan in 1982. This allowed banks to provide adjustable rate mortgage loans to borrowers, which had little or nothing to do with the S&L collapse let alone the crash of 2008. What caused the S&L debacle was the recklessness of these institutions issuing billions in risky loans-a practice that started in the late 1970s under Jimmy Carter and continued during the Reagan years. Moreover, it was outrageous of Krugman to suggest that Garn-St. Germain had anything to do with the 2008 crash as this was caused by millions of sub-prime loans given to uncreditworthy families insanely started by Bill Clinton's National Homeownship Strategy for the poor.
 
 
But Obama, perhaps the most partisan president in US history, swallowed Krugman's disingenuous article hook, line and sinker. He wanted to believe the lie that Reagan ultimately created the mess that he inherited; and that he was somehow redeeming the country from Reaganism with his economic stimulus, healthcare and financial reform programs.
 
 

Postscript II: Reagan the Compromiser.
 
I don't get the analogy. Reagan a Conservative Republican President compromised with Tip O'Neil and the Democrat led House to raise taxes; while Obama, a Progressive Democrat President and anti-Reagan, wants John Boehner and the Republican led House to compromise with him in raising taxes on the rich. How then would the House be following Reagan's example when it's not the executive branch? Obama as usual got things upside down. If Obama were like Reagan he'd compromise with Boehner and not the other way around. He'd either agree not to raise taxes or agree to reform and simplify the tax code by flattening rates and taxing the 51% who pay nothing*.
 
*30% of these are wage earners.
 
LEGACY RR 
 
///////
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

APOLLO TAKES ON LOONWATCH OVER NORWAY MASSACRE AND BASHING OF SPENCER AND GELLER

 
loonwatch.com
 
 
 
I posted the following comment on LoonWatch in response to the article mentioned above which blame the writings of "anti-Moslem bigots" like Spencer, Pam Geller and others for Anders Breivik's murderous rampage in Norway:
 
"KILLER MORE ANTI-NORWEGIAN THAN ANTI-MOSLEM

This psychotic mass murderer was more anti-Norwegian than anti-Moslem. His hatred for Norwegians was greater than his hatred of Moslems. If not he would have car bombed a Moslem mosque followed by a shooting spree of believers in a Moslem neighborhood."

In response Webdawah posted the following comment:

"The article clearly shows (with a link) how Robert Spencer fosters antagonism against Muslims, and the liberals, or anyone for that matter who treats Muslims with a “smidgen of fairness and tolerance.” Anders does not hate Norwegians, nor does he hate Norway. He hates that fact that people who don’t share his cultural values are allowed to emigrate into his country, and intended to punish the people whose policies bring about such assault to his xenophobia and bigotry.

At the end of the day, he still hates Muslims and the people left of his politics. Not one more than the other. Almost identical to how Osama bin Laden went “Loon.” His initial criticisms were for the Saudi government… and the rest is history."

To which I replied:
 
"Anders bitterly hates [his fellow] Norwegians for tolerating and fostering Moslem immigration into Norway, which to his mind is a crime. This rampage which killed over 80 Norwegians was a murderous hate crime against his own people-who by and large support Norway’s immigration policies toward Moslems (policies ruining Norwegian values and culture)."

Webdawah came back with this:
 
 
"If his rage was towards Norwegians as a whole, he would not be political. He would not aim his anger at the left. The left is not the whole of Norway… obviously."

To which I replied:

"Norway is a center-left socialist country. Anders hates his country and its people (the vast majority) for being center-left [in their politics]. In short, his massacre of 80+ Norwegian citizens (mostly young people) is a hate crime against his country and race. Naturally he doesn’t hate those Norwegians who share his rage against his countrymen. But these radicals are few in number, despised and powerless."

In defense of Spencer and Geller I added this in a separate post:

HOW ARE SPENCER AND GELLER RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR THE ATROCITY IN NORWAY?

Where does Spencer or Geller say that the Norwegian people deserve the punishment of Norwegian on Norwegian mass murder as a lesson for being soft on Moslem immigration and in defending Western values? They’re no more to blame for those deaths than are Moslems who renounce political Islam and the violent atrocities and crimes of Mohammed, are at fault for jihadist attacks.

Webdawah responded with this:

"If Anders had quoted the Qur’an once in his long manifesto, Spencer, and Geller would have blamed it on Islam. If the guy had been a Muslim, they would have blamed it on Islam.

Guess what? The guy referenced Geller, and Spencer. They own him."

To which I replied (this was removed or never posted):

Also referenced in Breivik's manifesto are British philosopher John Stuart Mills, radical leftist writer Naomi Klein and Canadian peacemaker Lewis MacKenzie among others. I guess then Mills, Klein and MacKenzie also "own" Anders as well, and share in the responsiblity for his crime."

Not having seen this Webdawah never replied. But he wasn't the only one who responded to my posts. Salam for example wrote the following:

"Apollo. The thesis of his manifesto is that the western world is at war with Islam. In his mind, the war began when the ‘liberal, globalist, culturally marxist’ Nato decided to bomb Serbian forces. He describes in detail how the different phases of the war will evolve until Europe comes out victorious in 2084.

So he didn’t mass murder political youths because he was ‘anti-norwegian’ (really?), but because he considered them to be traitors in the ongoing war."

To which I replied (this too was never posted):

The vast majority of Norwegians support Norway's social democracy with its multicultural, politically correct, over tolerant values which Brievik believes underlies their self-destructive blindness to the growing threat of totalitarian Islam. Consequently this radical lunatic hates his countrymen and killed them to relieve his pent up anger and animosities which exploded on July 22nd. In short, Brievik's rampage was as much an anti-Norwegian hate crime as anything else.

Another poster named Rothwell then wrote this:

"ApolloSpeaks

Kindly do not stigmatize people with mental disorders by calling Breivik “psychotic.” He has no history of mental illness and there is no suggestion that he had breakdown and went on a rampage. His actions were the cold, deliberate and carefully calculated actions of a right-wing Christian terrorist who hated both Islam and liberals with equal fervor. His video he made just before his acts of terror is still widely available on the Internet, although YouTube has taken it down. In it he calls for a “Christian Crusade” against Islam in Europe that will be a “bloodbath” that will make WWWII look like a “picnic.” “KILLER MORE ANTI-NORWEGIAN THAN ANTI-MOSLEM,” as you stated is simply a falsehood. The terror in Norway is the direct result of years of right-wing hate speech by politicians and by the Islamophobe industry run by Spencer, Geller and their ilk and Geert Wilders and Herman Cain and the English Defense League and a host of other villains. They might as well have pulled the trigger themselves. Never forget that Joseph Goebbels, Reich Propaganda Minister, was one of Hitler’s closest advisers and one of the chief architects of the Holocaust, although he never actually did any of the hands on dirty work himself. The propagandists are just as guilty as the murderers for having intentionally incited the violence."

To this I replied (this was posted):

I stand corrected. The word I should have used is psycho [or psychopath] not “psychotic.” A man poisoned with deadly hatred against his own people because he believes they’re dangerously asleep to a lethal enemy within hell bent on destroying Norwegian culture in particular, and Western/Christrian civilization in general. A man driven to mass murdering his fellow citizens because he refuses any longer to be ignored, and wants their full undivided attention and that of the world. That I believe sums up this psycho. NO?

Then NassirH weighed in with this post:

"ApolloShrieks:

“HOW ARE SPENCER AND GELLER RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR THE ATROCITY IN NORWAY?”

Well, they both contributed very significantly to his anti-Muslim worldview (incidentally, you share many of his opinions). The loon was clear about the aforementioned and the proof is incontrovertible. I don’t think any honest person can deny that."

To which I responded (this was posted):

"NASSIRH

No doubt that Breivik reads Spencer and Geller. No doubt bin Ladin read the Koran and Hadiths. No doubt that Breivik’s world view is influenced by Spencer and Geller as is mine. But whereas bin Ladin was acting on the violent words, deeds, and predatory principles of the Prophet Mohammed Spencer and Geller are civilized people (both religious humanists) with a peaceful liberal democratic outlook who’ve neither killed nor harmed anyone to advance their cause. To be sure some of Breivik’s thinking can be traced back to them, but not his murderous rage. The divide between them is so great you could drive Obama’s budget through it."

NassirH came back with this rebuttle:

"Using ApolloShrieks superb logic, “jihadists” are more anti-Muslim than anti-American because most of those they kill are Muslims. Or as ApolloShrieks would put it, “JIHADISTS MORE ANTI-MOSLEM THAN ANTI-AMERICAN!”

Breivik was clear about his motivations, regardless of how many desperate arguments loons use to defend their precious Islamophobia."

To which I replied (this was posted):

"Good analogy, Nassir. Breivik has much in common with jihdists who kill fellow Moslems because they are perceived, in the Prophet’s words, as “hypocrites” or insufficiently Islamic. In fact, most if not all jihadists consider such Moslems as the enemy within far more dangerous to Islam than infidel enemies. But where do Spencer and Geller call for the death of the enemy within? Those who are insufficiently Jewish or Christian? Those who are weak in the defense of liberty, American values, principles or Western ideals?"

This ended my argument with Nassir as he had nothing more to say. But that wasn't the end of it. Other Loonwatchers who disagreed with me were as follows:

Rob Says:

"Apollo writes:

“A man driven to mass murdering his fellow citizens because he refuses any longer to be ignored, and wants their full undivided attention and that of the world. That I believe sums up this psycho. NO?”

If the rabid anti-muslim ideology shared by yourself, Breivik, Spencer etc are merely delusions, then yes he is psychotic. He just finally acted on those delusions. Only a matter of time before other “anti-jihad freedom fighters” will."

To this I repiled:

"So you think that Breivik is the beginning of an international trend? That we can now expect “anti-Moslem” Brits to mass murder Brits; “anti-Moslem” French to mass murder French; “anti-Moslem” Americans to mass murder Americans all because they're not sufficiently “anti-Moslem” and don’t see the peril? If this should occur Islamists can take a holiday from jihad."

Rob had nothing further to say. But Safak posted the folowing:

"Apollo

Fine, so let Spencer and Geller stop blaming Imams in mosques who incite hatred against the West. Hey, they’re not saying “Kill all Westerners”, they’re perfectly civilized people who simply point out the issues in the West. It’s not their fault if someone blows himself up somewhere, right?"

Its a very simple logic: if you paint a bull’s eye on someone’s back, eventually somebody else will take the shot. Spencer and co. have been painting that bull’s eye on the Muslims back for almost a decade, and recently on the left’s back. It may have been Breivik who pulled the trigger, but clearly it was Spencer and co. who aimed it."

To which I replied (this was posted):

"Where in the writings of Spencer and Geller does it say that anti-Jihadists like themselves should kill non-Moslems or leftists who are soft on violent or non-violent jihadists? Or who are simply asleep to the threat of political Islam in their own countries? Where is this written? Where was this said?"

Safak fell silent but Corey added this:

"Apollo

spencer and geller peaceful? I call bullsh*t. on that what part of “nuke mecca” is peaceful, or is promoting a video of a girl calling for pakistan to be wiped off the map what you were talking about when you said peaceful please tell me because I don’t remember promoting nuclear annihilations of entire cities part of being promoting world peace."

In a similar vein Jack Cope wrote the following:

"Apollo I feel you sum your self up perfectly in the following:

“No doubt that Breivik reads Spencer and Geller. No doubt bin Ladin read the Koran and Hadith. No doubt that Breivik’s world view is influenced by Spencer and Geller as is mine. But whereas bin Ladin was acting on the violent words, deeds, and predatory principles of the Prophet Spencer and Geller are civilized people (both religious humanists) with a peaceful liberal democratic outlook who’ve neither killed nor harmed anyone to advance their cause. To be sure some of Breivik’s thinking can be traced back to them, but not his murderous rage. The divide between them is so great you could drive Obama’s budget through it.”

Let’s do an autopsy…

Apart from the funny bit about Spencer and Geller being civilized people this is odd. First of all, you are quite right to say that Spencer and Geller are very similar to Bin Ladan; Bin Ladan never killed anyone that he bragged about, he was merely a spokesman and source of material, just like Spencer and Geller can safely sit there and preach, just as Bin Ladan safely sat in a house for years. Sir David likens them to Lady Macbeth; they can wash their hands as much as they like but that spot is still there.

Secondly, the stuff about the Prophet; sure someone can take violent stuff from it and in fact Breivik goes *at length* in his writing to ‘prove’ that what he does is in line with Christian principles. All it proves is that you can get nutters anywhere and from anything; I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again but I could probably draw some hate stuff out of Harry Potter and start a cult on it. If the job fails I might just do that…

Thirdly, Breivik was very much acting on the words of people like Spencer and Geller (who as has been shown calls for the nuking of Mecca for example). They call for things like the expulsion of Muslims (one of his main goals), they pardon mass murderers in Serbia, they preach hate… anyone reading the comments section of these peoples sites can see what sort of thing this produces. Don’t BS me. Going back to Bin Laden; Bin Laden was never there directing people, he just provided material.

Also, I think that both Spencer and Geller will love that you called them liberals…"

My replies to Corey and Cope were as follows (these were posted):

"COREY

The issue is whether Spencer or Geller are somehow responsible for Breivik’s rampage in Norway. Not their alleged responsibility for an outraged Hindu girl calling for nuclear revenge against Pakistan for sponsoring Islamic terrorism in her country. Where in the books, blogs, speeches and interviews of Spencer and Geller could the maniac Breivik find justification for his bloody deeds? Cite chapter and verse please."

"JACK COPE

Spencer and Geller are similar to bin Laden? So where are their military camps training anti-jihadists to kill America’s Moslem foes? Where are their plans to hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers in Moslem capitals? Or bomb bridges, jetliners and train stations?

As for “nuking Mecca” Geller was speaking in terms of Mutually Assured Destruction in the defense of Israel against the nuclear threat coming from Tehran. It puts Tehran on notice that the holy places of Islam are under Israel’s nuclear guns; and that if the mullahs should dare launch a first strike against Israel Mecca and Medina (as well as Teharn) would be incinerated in minutes.

The unwashable blood on S & G’s hands is a thing of your mind.

BTW, S & G are “liberals” in the classical sense of the term."

That concluded my debate on LoonWatch as my opponents had nothing more to say.

Wikipedia.com
Civilizational savior in his own sick mind from the threat of Islam and Marxism Breivik's hatred takes aim at sleeping Norwegians.This evil, cold calculating killer probably chose the date July 22nd to commit his horrendous crime because it was the anniversary of the King David Hotel bombing in Jerusalem -as if the bombing of a military target in a war of independence was the equivalent of bombing a government building and shooting up a kids' camp to shock Norway out of its slumber.

BREIVIK'S MESSIAH COMPLEX

Summing up the above these are my thoughts about Breivik, Spencer and Geller:

Breivik is a lunatic with a messiah complex. He believes that he's the heaven sent savior of Norway and European civilization from Islamic political and cultural subversion, which is very real and growing. After many years of trying to awaken Norway to no avail Breivik completely lost his mind and humanity and came to insanely resent and hate his socialist country and people. In a fit of psychotic rage he decided that Norway would ignore his message and mission no more. So on July 22nd he struck his blow slaughtering 76 Norwegians as a blood sacrifice to his cause. As much as he hated Moslems he hated his people more. Breivik has made his mark on history and has entered the annals of infamy. In the end this mass murdering terrorist thug has more in common with the murdering, bloodthirsty prophet Mohammed than with the non-violent, world renouncing, ascetic Jesus Christ; more in common with Islamic jihadists like bin Laden than with peaceful, civilized, virtuous Americans like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller. Bash Spencer and Geller all you want it won't stop the counter-jihadist movement. The jihadists will see to that.
 
What do you think?
 
Major Website linking this piece are as follows (click and see):
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (39) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ALAN SIMPSON, REAGAN'S TAX HIKES AND HERBERT HOOVER'S FOLLY

   

It's time to clear up the confusion and angst caused by Alan Simpson on Ronald Reagan's tax hikes, which Obama and the left are using with glee to bash, trash and belittle John Boehner and Republicans on the debt ceiling conflict. Simpson, who co-chaired Obama's laughably unserious Debt and Deficit Commission (a failed political ploy for the 2010 election) rightly said that there were seven (some say 11) Reagan tax hikes during the Gipper's two term presidency. "Reagan," said Simpson, "was a realist when it came to taxes;" and that while, on the one hand, he enacted a massive tax cut at the start of his presidency, on the other, when taxes needed to be raised for revenue Reagan put aside his supply-side ideology and did the right thing. This was the "real Ronald Reagan," claims Simpson. The forgotten, practical, down to earth Reagan; the great compromiser who today's Republicans do well to study and follow in their conflict with Obama and his party over deficits, debt and taxes. But what Simpson said was only a half truth.
 
But before I explain this a word about Simpson: former US Repubican Senator and majority whip Alan Koos Simpson from Wyoming was born September 2, 1931 during the distastrous administration of Republican Herbert Hoover. In fact he was born exactly 2 years, 5 months and 29 days into Hoover's presidency. This translates into 912 days oddly, strangely and perhaps significantly one day short of Obama's 913th day in office. This was last Friday July 22nd, the day of the great debt talk collapse between Obama and John Boehner where Obama demanded $400 billion in class warfare tax hikes, an utterly astonishing "coincidence*." Hoover, the progressive, Teddy Roosevelt, big government liberal-the man Woodrow Wilson (backed by FDR) wanted as his successor-called for massive tax hikes in 1931 (the year of Simpson's birth) to raise enough revenues to pay for his stimulus programs (public works, loans (bailouts) to distressed banks and businesses, etc.). Hoover's runaway spending blew a hole in the budget turning an $800 million surplus inherited from Coolidge into a multi-billion dollar deficit by the time he left office. The tax increase, the largest ever in US history (more than doubling the rate on the rich from 25% to 63%) was enacted into law in June 1932 with catastrophic consequences to the economy and deficit. Not only did government revenues dramatically decline but unemployment shot through the roof rising from 15.8% in 1931 to 23.5% in 1932, then topping off at 25% in 1933 (the year of Hoover's last budget). This, I believe, is an unmistakable and ominous warning that Alan Simpson is greatly mistaken and should be ignored when he advises that Republicans compromise with Dems on tax hikes. Hoover massively raised taxes on a depressed economy and made it far, far worst not even getting the revenues that were projected.
 
*March 4, 1928 (Hoover's inaugural) to September 2, 1931 (Simpson's birth)=912 days.
 
January 20, 2009 (Obama's inaugural) to July 22, 20011 (breakdown on debt talks)=913 days
 
Obama Simpson
 
Now as for Reagan's tax hikes these are the facts:
 
When Reagan left office in 1989 the top marginal tax rate was 28%, down from 70% when he began his presidency. Reagan's tax increases in between were not big enough to negate the stimulative effect of his massive tax cut. In fact, Simpson says that these taxes cannibalized roughly one third of Reagan's cut shrinking a 32 point spread to a little over 20 points. In other words, top earners were left with a tax cut equaling the Kennedy-Johnson cut of 1965* which sent the economy soaring and revenues flowing as did Reagan's in the 1980s. That's the part Simpson leaves out.
 
*Kennedy-Johnson lowered the top marginal rate from 90% to 70%.
 
Indeed, without the jolt of Reagan's huge supply side cut the economy would not have recovered remaining in a deep malaise that started during the Ford years and was worsened by the incompetent Carter. In fact, if Reagan had raised taxes without the supply side cut it could have plunged the economy into a depression-as would likely happen today if Republicans follow the Depression-born Simpson's advice.
 
http://democracy-project.com/?p=3278
             READ MY FIST, NO NEW TAXES!
 
See
 
 
 
Major websites linking this piece are as follows (click and see):
 

National Public Radio


WELT ONLINE.com

NewsDay.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE GREECING OF AMERICA, OR KISS OUR TRIPLE A RATING GOODBYE

 
http://pics.livejournal.com/druzifer/pic/004k6ryq/
Texas Governor Rick Perry kissing our AAA credit rating goodbye after Obama's news conference Friday.

After his miserable news conference Friday do we need anymore proof of Obama's lack of interest in avoiding the loss of our nation's triple A credit rating? What additional proof do we need that Obama prefers losing it to making spending cuts in 2012 stupidly fearing it'll hurt the "recovery" and his chances for reelection?  In his whining, lying, conniving speech history's most reckless spending machine said that he offered House Speaker Boehner and the GOP an "extraordinarily fair deal" of $1 trillion in discretionary spending cuts, and another $650 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security over a ten year period-conditional, of course, on soaking the rich with new job killing, recovery hurting tax hikes (the wet blanket on the economy isn't wet enough).
 
However, for Moody's, Fitch and S&P this $1.65 trillion package is extraordinarily meager and unacceptable, falling $2.3 trillion short of the $4 trillion in cuts needed to keep our gold platted rating. As the world's three rating agencies see Obama as being unserious about making deep enough cuts (starting in 2012) to put our finances on a sustainable course-Cut, Cap and Balance requires $5.8 trillion in cuts beginning next year (see)-a credit downgrade may be imminent. That could mean higher interest on debt for the government on down. It could mean consumers using more of their money to service their debts and less spending on goods and services. It could mean a downturn in consumption and demand causing more belt tightening, unemployment and small business failures. It could mean a double dip recession, "THE GREECING OF AMERICA", and the end of Obama's bankrupting regime.
 
http://imageDetails?s_it=imageDetails&q=image+of+obama+RIP&img=http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/561/slide_561_12114_large.jpg&v_t=keyword_rollover&host=http://www.jamiiforums.com/international-forum/20095-obama-grandmother-has-died-of-cancer.html&width=133&height=97&thumbUrl=http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQLkmEua0RSGOLTeUbXt85UXEtwDMzJkmzjzw_hPic3ImWUl9GgYVNYeYvb:images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/561/slide_561_12114_large.jpg&b=image?imgc=&page=3&v_t=keyword_rollover&q=image+of+obama+RIP&count_override=20&s_it=topsearchbox.imageDetails&imgtype=&oreq=b68c1127c3e74a69867eb4b6731d529a&imgsz=&oreq=bcf1b2abca744859a1bd298939f0ea65&imgHeight=400&imgWidth=550&imgTitle=pole+sana+obama,+rip+bibi+yetu&imgSize=20927&hostName=www.jamiiforums.com 
Obama weeping after polls close on Election Day.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (56) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY OBAMA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT A US CREDIT DOWNGRADE

 

              aoldb://mail/write/imageDetails?s_it=imageDetails&q=image+of+obama+wearing+helmet&img=http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/59000/Barack-Obama-Wearing-a-Helmet-59217.jpg&v_t=keyword_rollover&host=http://www.freakingnews.com/Barack-Obama-Wearing-a-Helmet-Pics-67675.asp&width=150&height=115&thumbUrl=http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBJRZzKApwWyGLbD5nYQO113pP4wbNqdTfKLH676-r9BF02A:www.freakingnews.com/pictures/59000/Barack-Obama-Wearing-a-Helmet-59217.jpg&b=image?s_it=topsearchbox.image&v_t=keyword_rollover&imgsz=&imgtype=&imgc=&q=image+of+obama+wearing+helmet&oreq=9c894bd7d5a24d24ba2c1ff51c67783e&imgHeight=872&imgWidth=1134&imgTitle=Barack+obama+wearing+a+helmet&imgSize=240227&hostName=www.freakingnews.com 

http://www.darwinsmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/wrecking-ball.jpg
Win the future and stimulate economic growth. Vote the Great Wrecker and Depressor out of office.

Never in the history of this country has our proud and well earned AAA credit rating been threatened with downgrading. Never, that is, until Barack Obama, the man with a ruinous vision for remaking America into a social justice welfare state, became president and blew up the deficit and debt to serve his misguided ideological ends. For on the infamous day of March 15, 2010, 13 months into the Obama Administration (an ominous sign for our Statist, counter-revolutionary, anti-free market president) Moody's issued the first of many warnings that our exploding deficits and $14 trillion debt were threatening our top notch rating and low borrowing rates (see).
 
Now at this point with our financial standing imperiled any leader with a grain of sense would have heeded this warning, and reversing the treacherous course on the deficit and debt proposed measures to scale them back to sustainable levels. But not Barack Hussein Obama. Carried away and blinded by his transformational dreams what does he do instead?  Eight days later he puts the pedal to the metal and signaling to the world that America cares little about solving its economic and financial mess he signs into law Obamacare, a new, unpopular multi-trillion dollar entitlement program when three are going broke and spending us to death. This was not the change America hoped for when it made this recklessly deceitful man president.
 


But it gets worse. On the 13th of January (the 13th day of this year) S&P joining Moody's issued warnings about a likely credit downgrade unless the US gets its fiscal and financial house in order (see
). And again what does our heedless, headless, imbecile of a president do? Does he offer plans to cut our deficit and debt to sustainable levels? No. 32 days later he submits a whopping $3.7 trillion budget plan to Congress which expands the size, scope and cost of government; a budget that Paul Ryan said, "accelerates our country down the path of bankruptcy." This budget was so bad and potentially ruinous that the Senate voted it down 97-0.
 

http://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/03125408_400.jpg

It should be obvious by now that Obama isn't fazed by the numerous warnings from Moody's and S&P. It's not that Obama believes that they're bluffing and the warnings lack credibility. On the contrary, he understands from the examples of Japan, Portugal and Greece* that the rating agencies mean business and that a downgrade is imminent. It's just that Obama sees a credit downgrade and the raising of US interest rates as the lesser and preferable of two evils that he's facing-the other evil being drastic, "counter-stimulative" spending cuts to the deficit completely killing the recovery and causing a double dip recession (see).
 
*Moody's Fitch and S&P downgraded the credit ratings of these high debt, spendthrift countries even though they've been making the interest payments on their loans.
 
Staying the course on spending is Obama's unspoken policy; and if a smoke and mirrors deal isn't struck with Republicans which calls for spending cuts offset by tax hikes on the rich (allowing him to continue his spending spree) he will likely raise the debt ceiling unilaterally by evoking the 14th Amendment and take his chances on a Constitutional battle in the Courts.
 
In short, Obama cares no more about a credit downgrade than he does about cutting the deficit and debt for 2012. He's a man on his way to a one term presidency and post-presidential hell.
 
 
and
 
 
http://imageDetails?s_it=imageDetails&q=image+of+balance&img=http://www.berkeleyrunningcompany.com/Portals/3/Images/balance2.gif&v_t=keyword_rollover&host=http://www.berkeleyrunningcompany.com/Tips/NutritionConcepts/tabid/2242/Default.aspx&width=137&height=100&thumbUrl=http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvRd1B_5uboAmoBW-W3-vH2A-0RIDIdP8O7Yg0Ca2YGC_jSgyJZ1OrjQk:www.berkeleyrunningcompany.com/Portals/3/Images/balance2.gif&b=image?s_it=topsearchbox.imageDetails&v_t=keyword_rollover&imgsz=&imgtype=&imgc=&q=image+of+balance&oreq=15688811233e44869474cce848f4d900&imgHeight=468&imgWidth=640&imgTitle=of+energy+balance,&imgSize=5155&hostName=www.berkeleyrunningcompany.com 

Postscript: Clinton's Balanced Budget Bull (slightly revised)
 
The next time someone tells you that the last time the federal budget was balanced with a surplus was under the Democrat Bill Clinton ask them to name the years when this happened along with the exact documented amount of surpluses. They won't be able to do so. Why? Because it never happened. Because it's bull. In fact, the closest the budget came to being balanced under Clinton was in 2000 when there was a shortfall of just under $18 billion. By the end of Clinton's last budget in September 2001 the shortfall grew by $115 billion to $133 billion. Don't take my word for it. Read about it here.
 
Major websites linking this piece are as follows (click and see):
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (21) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BILL MAHER MAKES FOOL OF HIMSELF IN LIKENING REPUBLICANS TO ARAFAT

  
        THE WORLD'S UGLIEST LIBERAL

http://ferrellgummit.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/billmaher.jpg 
Leftist HBO clown thinks with both middle fingers up his rear.
 
Uncouth, unfunny, untruthful Bill Maher, who thinks with both middle fingers up his rear, scornfully attacked Republicans on his show recently for claiming that Obama has no real plan for reducing our crushing deficit and debt when in fact he said (in recent interviews and news conferences) he'd do so in the trillions. Said Maher, to the laugher of his Mickey Mouse
crowd, that in asking for a written detailed plan on deficit and debt reduction Republicans were like PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat rejecting Israel's offer to give up 97% of the West Bank (see). Repubicans, in other words, in rejecting Obama's offer to make trillions in spending cuts are no better than intransigent Arab terrorists refusing a good offer to make peace with Israelis because they are Jews.
 
As the old saying goes "there's a sucker born every minute," and Maher, who should know better, is one of them. Indeed, after two and a half years of broken promises, deceptions and smoke and mirror lies on a range of issues from the phony stimulus to healthcare reform (which was really a revolution) my question to Maher is this: whatever became of Obama's pledge not to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich? And whatever happened to the closing of Gitmo which Obama made a priority during the campaign? Whatever happened to Obama's executive order (signed on the second day of his presidency) to close Gitmo by early 2010 (see)? 29 months later Gitmo remains open. So after throwing the Left under the bus and continuing the policies of George Bush on tax cuts and Gitmo why would Maher or any lefty trust that Obama is now a deficit hawk serious about spending cuts in the trillions? How could he sanely fault Republicans for questioning Obama's veracity and asking for a written plan when he himself says he's been deceived about his politics (see)? 
 
Indeed, why would anyone Left or Right believe Obama on this issue after complaining that his $860 billion stimulus was undersized? Why would anyone believe him after submitting to Congress a $3.8 trillion budget with no spending cuts? Or after asking Congress for a clean bill on lifting the debt ceiling by $2 trillion without so much as cutting a dime? Why are Republicans no better than murdering terrorists for refusing to be fooled by a compulsive dirt bag liar? The most slippery and deceitful President since Richard Nixon?
 
Not only is Bill Maher Barack Obama's leftist sucker, using an obvious lie to shame Republicans for being reasonable, but he's an historical illiterate who overlooked the fact that Israeli PM Ehud Barak issued a written, detailed map to Yasser Arafat on Israel's withdrawal from most of the West Bank before their meeting at Camp David (see). If Obama is like Ehud Barak then where's his written plan? Where's his road map to fiscal solvency and keeping our financial world standing and triple A rating? In likening Obama to Ehud Barak and Republicans to Arafat Maher has made a complete a$$ of himself.
 
Postscript: Obama The Total Idiot (slightly revised) 
 
In September 2009 Maher insulted the American people by calling them mostly "dumb and uneducated (see)." And that electing a smart president like Barack Obama doesn't make them a smart people. Now he's gone to the opposite extreme. Now he says that despite their being "dumb and uneducated" the American people are smarter, wiser and more "liberal" than Obama. That if Obama were more like the American people he'd make a good president (see). Meaning that Obama in Maher's mind has collapsed intellectually into total idiocy outdoing the mindlessness of the American people. Maher is a complete mental mess and makes Colbert and Stewart look like Plato and Aristotle.
 
Major websites linking this piece are as follows (click and see):
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (47) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA REVIVES DESTRUCTIVE SUBPRIME LOAN PROGRAM


matson
 
Subprime loans are springing back to life. In what appears to be a desperate reelection move by Barack Obama to stimulate the sluggish economy and collapsing housing market Eric Holder (under the guise of racial justice, civil rights and fairness) is forcing community banks to lower their lending standards and make bad loans available to uncreditworthy minorities wanting homes-you know the one's being exploited by the greedy rich and deserve large portions of their wealth. It's Bill Clinton's reckless and destructive subprime loan program (aka National Homeownership Strategy) all over again. You know the program that generated 18 million government required HUD mortgages to people who couldn't afford them (see), and underlied the financial/housing crash that clinched the 08 election for Obama (a dark day in US history).
 

Given Obama's lust for power and invincible narcissism winning reelection takes precedence over everything-even if that means setting in motion another housing crash down the road costing billions and hurting millions including the poor. The end not only justifies but excuses the means for this despicable, shameless, irresponsible man who clings to his un-American vision of Europeanizing this country into a super entitlement state whatever the cost. If a phony housing boom can get him reelected, so he can continue his freedom destroying agenda, Obama cares squat about the consequences however far reaching and catastrophic. Crises and catastrophies mean more government spending, intervention and dependenecy, a good thing in Obama's collectivist ideology. As the last crash occurred under a Republican President (seven years after Clinton retired) the next one could strike Obama's successor once he's left office. The next President, Wall Street, the banks, capitalism, everyone but Obama would get the blame. What a sick, twisted, wicked game this unconscionable man is playing with his power. Clinton at least believed he was doing good and benefiting the poor by getting them loans; he had no inkling about the disaster he was starting. Obama and Holder know better and don't give a damn. It makes me want to scream.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (21) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE GREAT OBAMA BLUFF

 

NewImage

Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama threatening to blow up the US economy if Republicans don't surrender to him.

The gist of what Obama said at the press conference yesterday was this:
 
"If you Republicans continue to childishly oppose me and don't agree to do the unpopular thing and raise taxes on a weak economy (soaking the rich like Hoover did in the 1930s) then I'll be forced to do the unthinkable: I'LL OPT FOR ARMAGEDDON and blow up everything. I warn you GOP if I don't get my way on tax hikes to cut the huge deficit (caused by my reckless spending) I'll default on the debt and plunge the nation into a second Great Depression (the one I saved you from with my stimulus); and it will be on your heads."
 
This was the message of a president who said in the same breath that his "50th birthday was next week" when it's three weeks away*; and that 80% of Americans (including most Republicans) support his "balanced" approach to solving the debt crisis (though he's against balancing the budget). Should we fear what Obama said and take him seriously? HELL NO! What we saw was empty fearmongering by a weak man ready to cave. It's like the Freudian Slip that he made to Eric Cantor when he walked out on him Wednesday, "Don't call my bluff.....," he said. Because that's what he's doing, HE'S BLUFFING**.
 
*Hat tip Greek Fire.
 
**Hat tip Right On Ruddy.
 
Postscript I: What "Ought" and "Should" Be
 
When Obama says that 80% of the American people (and most Republicans) support his tax hikes and balanced approach to solving the debt crisis, once again his childish idealism is getting the better of his immature judgement. What he means is that most Americans and Repubs "ought to" and "should" support him. That if they were rational they'd rally to his flag and carry him to victory over Boehner and Cantor and the reactionary GOP. Indeed, in the best of all possible worlds Obama would have no opposition. In such a world he'd have absolute power; he'd be king; he'd have no one to stop him from completely wrecking things. Thank God for the anti-radical, conservative Constitution (what's left of it) and the separation of powers. In 2013 we'll be rid of this freak.
 
Postscript II: Soak The Rich Tax Hikes
 
If you ask the American people under any president in good or bad times whether the rich should pay more in taxes, most will say yes. But when they're asked how to fix Obama's exploding, reckless, bankrupting deficits overwhelmingly they choose spending cuts over soak the rich tax hikes. Unfortunately for Obama and the Dems the public can't be fooled or deceived on this one. They are too well informed. Obama has made sure of this with his bailouts, failed stimulus spending and Bernanke's overworked printing press (Obama reappointed Bernanke Fed Chief and owns him and all his failed QEs). As with healthcare reform so too with taxing the rich to bring down the deficit "Obama," as Dan Rather said, "can't sell watermelons."
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (49) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive