Archive for the ‘Inside the Liberal Mind’ Category

Certain news stories are guaranteed to appear in the Liberal mainstream media. One of those is the fiction that “…deficits have gone down during Obama’s tenure…”.

National Debt under Obama


Never mind that the national debt has increased from $10 trillion when George Bush left office to over $19.2 trillion right now — we are still subjected to this kind of blatant propaganda / Lies (emphasis added):

But Americans just don’t get his economic achievements, he [Obama] insisted to the New York Times Magazine last month.

“If you ask the average person on the streets, ‘Have deficits gone down or up under Obama?’ Probably 70% would say they’ve gone up,” Obama said “with some justifiable exasperation,” according to the magazine, because the deficit has declined during his presidency. <Los Angeles Times, link>

The deficit has declined? Obama wants credit for reducing the deficit?

I don’t see a year of decline in the above chart, do you?

Of course not, and Americans know this even in a general sense:

Polls show that a large majority of Americans believe the opposite to be true, setting up a challenge for the White House truth-squadding campaign.

Ha ha, “setting up a challenge for the White house….” What challenge is that, convincing people that Up is really Down?

Not only have we had huge deficits in each year, the total debt at this point is bigger than the entire U.S. economy.

Debt Clock 2016

For shame.



Read Full Post »

I was shocked, for just a brief moment, when I read that the Koch brothers were possibly intending to vote for Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, over Donald Trump, in the general election assuming both of them win the nomination of their respective parties.

Oil tycoon and conservative mega-donor Charles Koch had kind words for both Bill and Hillary Clinton in an interview Sunday, saying there was an outside chance he could support her in November. <CNN, link>

But then I quickly realized that mega-wealthy donors to national politicians need candidates whom they can influence, and Donald Trump does not fit the bill (nor does Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side).

Hillary Clinton, however, does fit the bill.  Oh, how she has been bought by powerful interests, hundreds of times over, and the Koch brothers prefer someone like her to Trump, who does not appear to be “Buy-able”.

First, there are Hillary’s Wall Street and other speaking fees, which total $153 million (emphasis added:)

Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks. <CNN, link>

When Bernie Sanders and his supporters call her out for being in the pocket of the big banks, he has good reason to do so.

She is owned by them, and everybody knows it.

Check out this amazing photo from 2014 of Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman, Sachs, and his candidate, Hillary Clinton.  I was going to add some fun labels to this photo, but then I thought “Why ruin such a perfect indictment of who Hillary Clinton is?”.

That smile. That smirk.

Blankfein and Hillary

Here is a nice quote from Bernie, who tells it like it is and is beloved my millions of Democrats as a result (CNN, link):

What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one’s life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests

Bernie knows what we all know — that Hillary Clinton is a big liar when she claims to be “fighting for the people”.Clintonocchio

Second, we have more millions — actually, BILLIONS, of dollars donated by foreigners to the Clinton Global Initiative, her private “good works” entity that cynics might say serves a dual purpose: it allows foreigners to contribute to a presidential candidate, something that is illegal in the United States.

The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001. <Washington Post, link>

How much was that?

Two Billion dollars.

Is Hillary above accepting millions from foreign governments while serving as Secretary of State — a clear conflict of interest?

No, not at all:

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

She is owned by them, and everybody knows it.

So the Koch brothers, those very same Republican rich guys whom Liberals love to hate, are now on record supporting Hillary Clinton, and why shouldn’t they when Donald Trump as president would scare them to their very bones by being a president who doesn’t need and doesn’t want their money.

Which is why many Bernie supporters will either sit out the election if Hillary gets the nomination, or will vote for Trump (and not tell anyone for fear of being shamed).

In either case, the Republican wins.

Read Full Post »

Evidence of Hillary Clinton’s trampling of the laws and of her oath as Secretary of State is becoming a mile high, and on at least two fronts — the failure to safeguard top secret information, and corruption of the State Department via the Clinton Foundation — it increasingly appears as though there is enough of it to secure an indictment of Hillary Clinton.

The FBI, an executive branch agency, is pursuing the multiple investigations, and many believe that its efforts will culminate in a recommendation to indict Hillary Clinton. However, the Justice Department is run by Barack Obama, and so he would have to bless the proceedings, making the will he / won’t he a very juicy question.

But let’s be clear: by the measure of how the Justice Department has prosecuted other government employees on matters relating to state secrets, she should be indicted.

The Obama Department of Justice prosecuted a young sailor for espionage for sending a selfie to his girlfriend, because in the background of the photo was a view of a sonar screen on a submarine. It prosecuted a heroic Marine for espionage for warning his superiors of the presence of an Al Qaeda operative in police garb inside an American encampment in Afghanistan, because he used a Gmail account to send the warning. <link>

When you read these examples, you have to conclude that Hillary will be indicted, or at least should be if there is any justice left in the nation under Barack Obama.

But we know that mr. Obama seeks to secure his legacy of central control of every citizen’s health care, a larger and more politicized IRS, the destruction of American military power, the diminution of American influence around the world, the rise of radical Islam, and the trampling of the American Constitution. This will make him reluctant to allow Hillary to be indicted by his Justice Department.

On the other hand, Vice President Joe Biden is a shoe-in for the nomination at this point, and would have far better chances in a general election of beating the Republican challenger, whoever that might be.

A particularly juicy scenario involves Obama indicting Hillary and ushering in Joe Biden, his loyal lieutenant of seven years. Obama is politically very savvy, and will want the strongest candidate he can get in November — Hillary, whether you love her or hate her, is a terribly flawed candidate.

Hillary gets reset by her party

The Republican party is in serious disarray (to put it politely), but the prospect of Hillary getting indicted, Bernie Sanders surging, and then Joe Biden stealing the nomination from him and his supporters at the last minute, is definitely a worthy spectacle all on its own.

Read Full Post »

Most of you have seen the 2006 clip of then-Senator Barack Obama speaking on the Senate floor about why it was the Senate’s duty to block George W. Bush’s supreme court nominee based on ideological grounds, but I couldn’t resist posting it.

In addition, here is a recent press conference during which Obama is asked about how his current position (‘Confirm my nominee even though I’m a lame duck’) squares with this 2006 obstructionist position.

His non-answer is hilarious, and disgusting.

Caught red-handed, mr. Obama.



Read Full Post »

I’m sure we all have noticed the forced expression that Hillary Clinton imposes on audiences everywhere.

Hillary weird open-mouth strategy

How creepy is this?

It’s just awful and weird, and inauthentic.

But I am absolutely sure this is election science behind it, because we all know that people who are as dour and angry as Hillary Clinton reportedly is don’t look like this unless they are putting on an act, and such an act can only have one goal: make voters imagine that she is a positive force in America.

As if. We all know she is not.

I did a little internet research and found an article entitled “Body Language — the Magic of Smiles and Laughter”, and would you believe there is a name for Hillary Clinton’s weird clown face?

Yes, on the list of smile types is the Drop Jaw Smile, and this is what the article says about it (please note, I did not make this up, it is on the website exactly as follows):

The Drop Jaw Smile

This is a practiced smile where the lower jaw is simply dropped down to give the impression that the person is laughing or playful. This is a favorite of people such as the Joker in Batman, Bill Clinton, and Hugh Grant, all of whom use it to engender happy reactions in their audiences or to win more votes.

Well now, that pretty much nails it, doesn’t it.

So after reading this blurb about “Drop Jaw Smile” I went online and looked for an image of the upcoming Joker character in the next Batman movie, and this is what I was presented with:

The Joker

I have to say, this expression looks awfully familiar…

Hillary and the Joker

Ok then, so I think we’ve identified pretty well this particular aspect of Hillary Clinton’s fake persona.

I am disheartened by the Liberal media and how they play along with this visual strategy, running photos of her with what is supposed to be the opposite of her true countenance. There are many photos available that are far more true to life, and yet the media are rooting for her and so they give us more of this one look.

But none of this propaganda can erase the trail of bad acts committed by Hillary Clinton over the last four decades, starting with failed savings and loans, continuing with four Americans dead in Benghazi, and ending with the selling of American influence in exchange for cash from foreigners while she “served” as Secretary of State.

I wish Joe Biden were running, and still can’t believe that a sitting Vice President who ran for the presidency several times before is sitting this one out.


Hillary as she is

Read Full Post »

I’m sad to say that I still keep up some mostly pointless arguments with some close friends about the toxicity of Barack Obama (or lack thereof in their opinions) and Hillary Clinton.

But I think I’ve broken through with a simple tool that makes it very hard for Obama defenders or Hillary Clinton supporters to hide behind weak arguments. The tool is a simple question:

Imagine you are an ISIS commander, whom do you prefer as the next president of the United States?

Even Liberals cannot answer with a Republican candidate’s name; it’s completely clear that Hillary Clinton represents the best hope for ISIS to continue imposing its caliphate on the world.

And therefore no one should vote for her.

And then the next uncomfortable question that Liberals must be confronted with:

Will ISIS thugs miss the Obama presidency?

Oh yes, you bet they will, and this makes the case against Obama and his would-be successor Hillary Clinton better than any other argument we can advance.

Read Full Post »

Go Bernie Go: the crazy Vermont senator with the New Yawk accent scored the same number of votes in Iowa last night, proving, if nothing else, that Hillary’s own party despises her and does not trust her.

I am heartened by the result because in this era of “King is wearing no clothing” UN-reality, a woman who trafficked in top secret government information on an insecure home computer that is believed to have been hacked by the Russians and Chinese should be disqualified to be president or even run for president.

The Obama administration announced Friday that 22 emails making up seven email chains that passed through Clinton’s private server had been classified “top secret” and would not be made public along with Clinton’s other emails. It was the first disclosure that top secret material had been on the unsecured server. <USA Today, link>

It’s not just her actions with the emails, it’s her wanton refusal to acknowledge what we all know, on both sides of the political aisle: her actions were reckless, and if she has no contrition, what crimes and errors in judgment might she commit — ON PURPOSE no less — while serving as president?

Barry and Hillary rules don't apply

She can’t be trusted to safeguard our nation and its laws, and Democratic voters know it just as much as Ms. Clinton’s ‘political enemies’.

Furthermore, Republicans seem to prefer indicting only Hillary in the court of public opinion for her devastating email scandal, but she worked at the State Department for Barack Hussein Obama, meaning that his administration is implicated in all of her security breaches.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »