Famous "Liberal" Pictures

Pictures That Change Elections? | Power Line

One can only hope.

Why is it that when a Republican is in the WH there is no end to the weeping and gnashing of teeth about "fascism",  "chilling constitutional rights abuses" and other sundry overblown concerns.

But when there is a "liberal" in the WH, the Jackbooted Thugs actually start showing up at people's homes.

Blood-let Till It Works!

Fed Pledges Action Until Economy Shows Gains - NYTimes.com:

Wow, this is GREAT news! I'm thinking, why would they ever stop??? I mean, if this works (and so far, it completely hasn't), then why not just keep doing it?

Hell, the economy can always be better, right? Just do it FOREVER!!

I mean, no way they would just do this for an attempted quick spiff prior the elections, right? I mean, that would be "political", and we know that the Fed is NOT a political.

So why is it important to let the opposition know of a data certain when we will be done with a military surge in troops, but it is important to tell the markets that we are "in it till it works"??

I guess I'm just not as brilliant as the BO administration!


'via Blog this'

Criticize BO Foreign Policy Bad?

Update on the Murder of Ambassador Stevens | Power Line

Oh yea, I SURELY remember the MSM becoming enraged when W was criticized! ... and of course HIS policies where the same when initiated as 90% of the Democrats, voted on through both houses with wide margins, and agreed to by 80% of the US population going in!

Not that we ought focus on that, "Bush Lied!!".

BO OTOH went in alone (oh, wait, he had the FRENCH with him), no congress, no big public support -- he was COURAGEOUS! So it would be COMPLETELY WRONG to criticize him or for him to take responsibility!!

FURTHER UPDATE: This is just about beyond belief. We have a failed policy in the Middle East, an American embassy and consulate attacked by Islamic radicals in two countries whose regimes the Obama administration participated in overthrowing, a murdered ambassador–the first in 33 years–and the burning question in the media-formerly-known-as-meanstream is whether Mitt Romney was wrong to criticize the Obama administration’s response to the attacks.

Of course, reporters are entirely consistent. Remember when things weren’t going well in Iraq–weapons of mass destruction weren’t found, al Qaeda stimulated sectarian violence, military casualties were rising–how the media became enraged every time a Democrat criticized George W. Bush’s Iraq policies? Yeah, that’s what dominated the news back in 2005 and 2006–reporters saying to Democrats, how dare you try to politicize foreign policy? Don’t you know that politics stops at the water’s edge? That’s how I remember it!

Is this 1979?

Is this 1979? « Hot Air

If you were of memorable age in '79 (unfortunately I was already working at IBM), this article is truth in the extreme.

The left, and even some of the right seem to pine away for Saddam in Iraq, but have no such sentiment for the Shah in Iran,  Q-Daffy in Libya, or Mubarak in Egypt.

Why??

I can think of only a couple of reasons:

1). They just don't study this kind of thing much, and slip into MSM la la sometimes. (I really hope that is the "standard")

2). In their hearts, they feel the US is wrong. A generalization of "The 1%". If you hate the 1%, then by extension, you must hate America, because pretty much all Americans are "The 1%" on a global basis. If it is evil to be on top, then the OWS folks are showing the world that THEY and their country are in the evil column.

Guess what? There are a whole lot of folks around the world that are very willing to remove us from this position.  By death is just fine in their book!!

Libyan Ambassador Killed : BO Built This!

Obama condemns killing of U.S. ambassador to Libya - CNN.com

OK, BO Went into Libya without the support of congress. I wonder if he is going to take responsibility for this one, ir try to blame W?

Is it possible to get any more like Jimmy Carter??? It is positively spooky.

Are We Already Beyond Repair??

Double-Minded Republicans - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

Conservatives have failed to stem the tide of "progressive" indoctrination and a full 1/3 of the country is ideologically lost. It will take a shock ... famine, loss of the electrical and internet grid, riots in the streets, attack with WMD or some other such catastrphe  before they arise from their indoctrination and look at reality rather than gauzy "Hopes" or "Caring".

Here is the blunt explanation: We have lost a third of the country and, as if that weren’t bad enough, Republicans act as if it were two-thirds. 

The lost third cannot be recovered overnight. For now, it is gone. You cannot cede the campus and the culture to the progressive, post-American Left for two generations and expect a different outcome. So even if Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter — and he has actually been much more effective, and therefore much worse — it is unreasonable to expect a Reagan-style landslide, and would be even if we had Reagan. 

The people coming of age in our country today have been reared very differently from those who were just beginning to take the wheel in the early 1980s. They have marinated in an unapologetically progressive system that prizes group discipline and narrative over free will and critical thought.

McCarthy would argue that Republicans with more backbone could still potentially talk and walk in ways that true Americans would rally around. I hope so. 

The point he doesn't touch on here and I fear invalidates his optimism is that we are at 49.1 of the population significantly dependent on the government already ... AND I suspect while there is some intersection between the lost third and the dependent 49.1, it is way less than enough to keep the combination from going way over 50%. 

A lot of the 1/3 are HS and University graduates and relatively young. Much of the 49.1 are dropouts and elderly. 

Not a hopeful picture, but an excellent article. 

Paul Ryan Marathon "Lie"

Key Part of JFK-Obama Myth Not True - ABC News

Obama claimed that his father was airlifted to Hawaii by the Kennedys, and that the Selma marches were the catalyst.

Couple small problems. The Selma marches were in '65, Barack Sr came to Hawaii in '59, and Obama was born in '61.

"Lie"? Ever hear about it???

Remember Hillary Clinton being named after Sir Edmund Hillary???  http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hillary.asp ... who didn't become famous for 6 years after she was born???

You probably don't remember either of those because the MSM wasn't very excited about reporting them. Suppose they are going to have a different attitude on Paul Ryan's "lie"??

I'll wager they will. For Ryan, it will be a "character issue" ... unlike of course Bill Clinton saying "I never had sex with that woman" ... which was "personal" even though he was under oath and any sexual relations with a subordinate would dismiss anyone from the military or a US corporation, consensual or not.  Never mind, one of their own.

Other than the Bill Clinton case, I'd be inclined to be forgiving of Obama, Hillary and Ryan ... because if all of us would be FORCED to be "honest"  (because someone researched all the "facts") we would find that parts of our "history" are fabrications. We don't REALIZE they are, but we ALL look at our past very selectively and through very rose colored glasses.  These items are factually incorrect, but to call them "lies" is to completely not understand what it is to be human.

The kinds of folks that go into politics are "worse" ... meaning they see themselves in a more "fake positive" light than the rest of us.  But we ALL do it!!

What sucks is that Conservatives are big believers in "the higher standard", AND in  "consistency". Both traits which I wholly agree with, but which can very quickly become totally unrealistic, meaning that no human  can actually be a "conservative politician",  which actually does come perilously close to being an oxymoron.

Couple this with the MSM tendency to pile on anybody on the right with a vengeance, but to wink-wink-nod-nod to to those on the left, and a recipe for having the deck stacked woefully against one side is great. It is almost as if someone would risk their job using possibly fake documents on one hand to ferret out a possible 30 year old poor evaluation, but be completely incurious over sealed records of  a candidate from the other party's entire history at Columbia.

Oh, but I'd be crazy to think that kind of double standard could exist!!

Do I wish that Ryan hadn't said something so obviously stupid??? Certainly. Am I going to hold him to a standard higher than BO or Hillary???  Yes, but not an impossible standard.

God and Jerusalem, 50/50 at DNC

DNC Almighty Nightmare In Charlotte: Now Dems Put God And Jerusalem Language Back Into The Platform

Watch the video and make your own  determination. First we have a BO "oops" on  approval of the platform,  and then we have the "fix",  with the chair having to fudge the 2/3 approval.

Note, BO couldn't do a review of his own platform, and when  it hat to be updated, he couldn't get an honest 2/3 vote from his own delegates!

This guy thinks he deserves ANOTHER term??

Blessings, Blame, American Economy

Why Blame Obama?

The linked article makes the case pretty clear that Obama has a very large share of the blame for the current state of the American economy. The cornerstones that blame rests on:

• Understanding that CONGRESS sets the budget of the US. Slick Willie deserves credit for signing the budgets of the '90s that led to a surplus (under duress), but the Republican congress set them and took the blame for the reduction in the rate of growth of spending that led to the surplus (along with the Internet Bubble). 
• Understanding the difference between TARP and the Stimulus -- W helped engineer and signed off on TARP (which I also didn't like), but BO did the Stimulus with his Democrat congress cronies. 
• Understanding the history of US debt and the truly horrific effect that ONE term by ONE US president ( BO ) has had. 
• Understanding the destruction of the rule of law and it's replacement with crony capitalism and the effect that has on business investment. 

But there is still some mass confusion about "How do we get out of this?".

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/opinion/henry-ford-when-capitalists-cared.html

While liberals scream of the Republicans holding a convention that was supposed to be a huge lie about an America that never was by a bunch of evil folks out to hurt anyone less that super wealthy, the left wants to return to Henry Ford and 1914. Well, that's a start.

In 1914, US spending was 2.76% of GDP ...  21% LESS!! than government spending today. No doubt corporate leaders and wealthy people "cared" (as measured in $$$) much more in 1914 than they do today. They could AFFORD TO!!  The US Government forced them to outsource all that "caring" to Washington at the point of a gun and now complains that "Corporations don't care enough"!

Worse, America was highly competitive then. Today we are over regulated, over taxed, federally mismanaged, and our work ethic has been converted to "gimme" ... out of somebody else's pocket, ASAP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/opinion/sunday/friedman-its-still-halftime-in-america.html?_r=1&hp&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Friedman is pining away for the 60's and like the entire left, he is forced to completely forget the '80s. Yes, JFK set a great goal with going to the moon, and NASA cashed the check. While fondly remembered by Friedman however, we also had a number of assassinations, civil unrest, a losing war in Vietnam, an acceleration in entitlements we couldn't pay for and the beginnings of the end of our economic world dominance.

By the '80s, the left had decided that "America's best years were behind her", and then came Ronald Reagan saying it was "Morning in America" and that the USSR (our competition for Superpower at that point) would be assigned to "The Ash Heap of History". And lo, it came to pass that the USSR was so consigned and the US set off on an economic odyssey that lasted right up through '07.

Perhaps we need to figure out what the game is again until we declare it "Halftime".  America used to be proudly pro-business and business used to be proudly pro-profit. Now what are we?? Pro-entitlement?? But what kind of a game is that?? The winners are the takers rather than the makers?

I'd say we already see how well that works. We have been sliding since 1914 or before and the '07 Democrat congress and BO just kicked in the solid fuel boosters in the wrong direction as we already hung at the edge.

There is STILL no free lunch! Figure that out, realize that competition is like gravity -- it is ALWAYS there, you just get to decide if it is to your benefit or your peril!

Let's get this country up off the mat and get back in the right game ... and then maybe we can talk about "halftime" after a couple decades of defending against the opposition and scoring some solid points!

LBJ, Reagan, BO, "Progress"

Election a stark choice on America's future - CNN.com

The second "choice" election came in 1980, when, after a decade of failed leadership, a man came galloping out of the West who seemed the most improbable of figures to get the country going again. And he was carrying with him many of Goldwater's ideas. But Ronald Regan turned out to be a strong leader with a million-dollar smile; Jimmy Carter, a man better suited to be a saint than a politician, went down decisively. Score one for smaller government.

I might actually do the list as "FDR, LBJ, Carter and BO" --- the merchants of ruin. In reality, each election once the anti-american virus of "Progressivism" entered the politics of the US in roughly 1900 has just been the "choice" between letting the disease run at the same rate or trying to speed it up.

If anything, this year's choice is starker than in 1980: Reagan had a pragmatic streak, so he was willing to compromise to get a deal done and keep moving forward (Tip O'Neill used to say that the Gipper would win more than half a loaf and come back for the rest later). Romney and Ryan, however, reinforced by the tea party, show no inclination to compromise. On the Democratic side, aides to President Obama are spreading the word that, if he wins, he has had enough of trying to accommodate the Republicans and will also be more confrontational

Ah yes, "pragmatism", it was even around in 1980. The left in no way shape or form found Reagan to be "pragmatic". He was a harsh ideologue that was itching to go to war with the USSR, hurt the poor and benefit ONLY the "rich". For the left, the Reagan administration was an unremitting disaster -- both in their minds and in reality. In their minds, because they hated the man to the core and totally believed that the USSR was  "as good as we were, and probably better". In reality, because he proved that America was far from dead while communism was on life support at best, and mostly because he allowed Americans willing to keep their eyes and ears open to see that the basic ideas embodied in the Constitution -- individual freedom, small government, free enterprise, WORK!

What is different is that since Reagan we have had ONLY progressive presidents -- HWB, Slick, W and BO ... and had we elected McCain he would have also been on that list. In my book, so is Romney -- but I suspect that the real danger the left sees is Ryan. Ryan has the potential to be as beneficial to America and as dangerous for the left has Reagan was.

I do agree with their assessment on the gravity of the election, only more so.

But there should be no doubt that the two tickets stand behind radically different visions of the role of government and individuals. Under President Obama, federal spending is now 24% of GDP, far higher than in recent decades. While Obama talks of trimming, his most thoughtful advisers think the government is likely to grow in coming years no matter who wins (see Larry Summers's provocative column in the Financial Times this week).

Of course these guys are pretty far left. The entire US Gov spending -- Federal, State and Local is about 50% of GDP, 9% of which is borrowed. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp

Like a lot of things in government though, it's worse than that http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The bottom 50% of US earners pay only 2% of taxes while the top 25% pays 87% and the top 1% pays 37%.

One might say that the class war is over and the productive class LOST! When 50% of the country essentially pays no income tax, and 75% pays very little, it is easy to see why "make the rich pay more" seems like such a great idea to over 50% of the people. We hear a lot about Romney "only" paying 14% and hear very little about that coming to $6.2 M. They also hear very little about the $7 M he gave away.

So we come to an election where although there are many unemployed, the vast vast majority of Americans are really hurting very little, while the top 25% shoulders nearly 90% of the cost of the "progressives" massive government.  Even worse, 49.1% of US citizens receive some level of assistance from the government http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/26/number-of-the-week-half-of-u-s-lives-in-household-getting-benefits/.  No wonder our politics are polarized!! 25% of the people are not only paying the freight, 50% of the people are RIDING THE TRAIN!!

The "progressive" progrom is much the same as the communist one. In communism, you "win" when there are no other alternatives available and each tiny ember of hope that arises gets snuffed in the Gulag.

With "progressivism", you "win" when you put over 50% of the population in the non-productive / dependent class to continue to vote you into power so you can extract even more from the productive.

BO managed to bump the dependents by 4% in 4 short years -- putting him right at the cusp of the 50% needed. A quick look at these numbers tells you how vulnerable we are to getting close to 75% of the population firmly on the dependency side of the equation ... "make the top 25% pay!".

It really comes down to Paul Ryan being the last best hope -- by some miracle Romney-Ryan wins, 8 years of at best holding ground, and then MAYBE we start the long slog back to a nation of 80-90% productivity that can compete in the real world.

Republican Women for Obama

Republican Women For Obama? [UPDATED: Another Fake "Republican" Exposed] | Power Line

Yea, right. Good takedown. 95% of the time the "long time Republicans" that call in to shows and rant about the current crop of Republican candidates either never were Republican at all, but rather quite left-wing Democrats,

In a few cases they were  such RINOs that they apparently staggered into the "R" label like a college freshman into the next kegger ... totally unaware what the heck the "R" even meant.

"Hh my God, those people believe making money is good, the government ought to live within it's means,  and that people bear some individual responsibility for their actions! Wow, I never realized people could be so misinformed -- no wonder they are so partisan. When I saw Mitt Romney, I realized how scary the R's really are and came to my senses!"

BO's Silent 2nd Term Agenda

Strassel: The Silent Second-Term Agenda - WSJ.com

"DestrOY America!" ... with the BO O in the Destroy would be my pick for the BO campaign motto, but as this article explains, "FOward" isn't bad.

America will keep getting what it has the last 4, only deeper, harder and faster.

New Issue in 2012: Money In Politics

Will money buy the White House? - CNN.com

I'm sure this fine reporter just forgot about 2008, or didn't have the 2 sec it took to google up a number.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=anLDS9WWPQW8

Conservatively, BO spent $740 M, although many place the number closer to $1B because of many of the loopholes he used (eg. not reporting contributions of <$50).

This is a CNN HEADLINE article, and the previous presidential election bears no mention?

Oh, and:

Since 1976, the presidential public financing system included matching funds for small contributions in primaries and equal grants for the two general election nominees. Beginning with George W. Bush rejecting public matching funds in the 2000 primary campaign (and the spending limits that went with them), that system was diminished incrementally until 2008 when Obama's rejection of general election funding spelled its final demise.

Uh, lets "blame Bush". He didm't accept funds for the PRIMARY??? Does CNN even care which Republican gets selected?? Oh, I suppose they DO want to make sure it is the weakest one, and since fundraising is clearly important, I guess W bypassing the primary rule WAS painful for them. 

BO spening a Billion??? Not a problem in '08 ... at least we had ONE election in which money in politics was just fine!

BO Fails to Spell Ohio

Oiho?? I’m Sure It’s One of the 57 States | Power Line

Never mind, he is a brilliant man. Ohio is much harder to spell than "potato".!

Praise to Thee Oh Newspeak!! BO Has Gotta Go!!

Niall Ferguson on Why Barack Obama Needs to Go - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Hats off to NewsWeek! I had written this publication off as sunk permanently in the leftmost ditch, but here they come with a great cover and a SUPERB article by one of my most admired historians! Wow!

Just read it. If you can honestly read this an believe that BO deserves another shot, then you can write yourself up as a solid lefty ideologue, and say goodbye to reason and reality.