Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Liberal Fantasies’ 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.

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The Iranian treatment of our U.S. navy sailors in recent days is a new low in the ongoing destruction, by Barack Obama, of our military credibility around the world.

The most powerful military in the world is being allowed by Obama to look like this:

US Navy Sailors on their knees in the age of Obama

John McCain, showing some fire that he never showed in 2008 when he should have easily defeated Barack Obama, raised in Indonesia and promoting anti-American views, had some very appropriate things to say about it.

From an article in Politico, transcribing McCain’s appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s program <link>, emphasis added by me:

This is desperation not to offend the Iranians because the Iranian deal has to be kept intact. It’s now made the United States of America be the subject of absolute humiliation.

Unbelievably, Biden said this was just standard nautical practice, Kerry said all indications show the sailors were taken care of, Earnest — that idiot — said the proper courtesy…Iran gave our sailors the proper courtesy you’d expect. And Kerry, to top it all off, expressed his gratitude.  If a ship comes into your waters, first thing you do is contact them on the radio, then you send the coast guard out and say hey, if you got a problem here and you know you’re in our international waters, then turn them away and we’ll help you out. You don’t have … American sailors with their hands clasped behind their heads, and of course they said there was no apology. The Iranians just put up on the Internet one of our sailors apologizing. This is one, a propaganda coup, and if this is international law that any boat that strays into another nation’s international waters then we’ll incarcerate them for the night and put guns to their heads, this is an outrage.

The article points out that White House press secretary Joshua

…Earnest said the sailors were “being sort of afforded the proper courtesy that you would expect.”

That’s where we are in 2016, folks: the Obama administration considers abject humiliation of American military forces to be “…the courtesy that you would expect”.

And let’s not forget that as this latest blow to American military influence is taking place, Iran is being given a path to the development of nuclear weapons and the missiles that will be able to deliver those weapons to distant shores.

Our enemies are growing ever stronger, and they are being enabled, directly and indirectly, by Barack Obama and the “idiots” (in McCain’s words) who support him and work for him.

 

Read Full Post »

Senate Democrats just blocked a proposed bill that would deny so-called “sanctuary cities” federal funding to the extent such cities openly undermine federal laws regarding our nation’s borders (emphasis added below).

The legislation blocked in the Senate stems from the July 1 shooting of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. The man accused of killing her, Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, was in the country illegally despite a long criminal record and five prior deportations.

Because San Francisco is a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, local police released Sanchez despite a request from federal immigration authorities to keep him behind bars. A short time later, Kate Steinle was dead. <cnsnews.com, link>

Sanctuary city death of Kate Steinle

Harry Reid, who possesses none of Mitt Romney’s genteel ways (that’s why he wins policy battles, Mitt), had this to say:

Republicans are wasting the American people’s time with a partisan vote on the Donald Trump Act. That’s what we’re going to vote on at 2:15. That’s what the House members have called it, and I think it’s a pretty good description of what we’re doing out there.

I admire Harry’s willingness to go for the jugular against political opponents, and what a terrible shame it is that he is always on the wrong side of issues.

What prompted me to write about this particular Democrat party act of elevating illegal and criminal illegal aliens above ordinary American citizens is a comment that Reid made about sanctuary cities:

In a speech on the Senate floor before the vote, Reid defended states’ and communities’ right to “do the things they think are appropriate.”

HARRY REID IS SUDDENLY A BELIEVER IN STATES’ RIGHTS?

What we have here is a great opportunity to revisit a fundamental principle of American government, which is to apportion power across LOCAL, STATE, and NATIONAL (federal) governmental bodies, each of which has its own legislated and established case law that addresses the functioning of society.

What issues belong to the Federal Government as opposed to the State and Local governments?

Harry Reid, in the case of cities choosing to openly reject federal laws regarding the sovereignty of our country’s borders, supports the rights of local and state governments to give the middle finger to the federal government.

But as usual, he has it backwards and is on the wrong side of an issue.

I am a huge believer in federalism (states’ rights); in fact it is part of the bedrock of my political philosophy. At the same time, the federal government SHOULD be more involved in issues in which coordination across state lines is essential, and illegal immigration is a perfect example of this.

National defense is another: if a foreign power attached Louisiana, should Louisiana have to raise its own army and then coordinate with the armies of Mississippi and Texas (neighboring states)? Of course not: the nation as a whole must have a military organization that transcends each of the 50 states.

This concept is so simple a child can understand it, and we can all be sure that Harry Reid and Manchurian Obama understand it very well.

But they have an agenda, which involves ruthless central control of our lives and bodies, and they will trample the states in a million ways on their way to a full-blown Orwellian regime. If illegal immigration means a faster path to their dream of a New Feudalism in which we are mere subjects and they are the kings and queens who lord over us, then by all means, be a sanctuary city.

Read Full Post »

I have written a few times that the United States does not deserve the strength of its currency or its ability to borrow more money to fund more reckless deficit spending if looked at in pure economic terms:

  • Our balance sheet is a disaster, thanks to Barack Obama, with now more than $18.3 trillion in debt in an economy that is about $17.4 trillion in size.
  • The Federal Reserve has kept interest rates near zero for over SIX YEARS, fueling a stock market bubble and robbing itself of any power to influence the economy if it slips back into recession (the Fed cannot drive interest rates below zero).
  • Meanwhile, the current and future costs of entitlements, which now include the monstrosity known as Obamacare, are skyrocketing, leaving over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for the nation to default on as we all grow older.

And yet our massive federal deficits each year continue to be financed in large part by foreign nations….their willingness to hold dollars defies the fundamentals of our situation.

And at the same time the Federal Reserve can print dollars 24/7 without fear of trashing the currency in world foreign currency markets, as would happen to any other nation that flooded its economy with so much paper currency.

And So not only can the USA print its own money, even wildly, with no consequences, it can also borrow itself blind, with no apparent consequences.

How can this be?

There is only one reason, and it is not a reason that you’ll see in economics text books: The United States can get away with this reckless conduct because it is the dominant global superpower, possessing large military forces enabled by the most advanced military technology.

Yes, The American fighting man is the reason that politicians can continue to throw orgies of runaway spending and flood the economy with dollars without consequences.

Marines raising the stars and stripes on the battlefield

Now, do we like to borrow money and then thumb our nose at the lenders of that money, because we are a superpower?

Stephen Colbert apparently does.

He said this to Donald Trump last night:

At a certain point, does it even matter how much we owe, because it’s like trillion, quadrillion what does it matter? Come and get us, we’ve got the armies, right? What are they going to do?

Yes, he actually said the phrase “what does it matter” about the serious issue of our national debt, and touted the great American military as the ultimate backstop against accountability.

Let’s recall who else used a similar phrase, “what difference does it make”:

Hillary what difference does it make on Benghazi

Here’s the thing, Stephen: our federal debt, now heading towards $20 trillion and bigger than our entire annual economic output since the early years of Obama’s first term, DOES matter, and to say it doesn’t undermines the notion that you are somehow a savvy commentator.

Or maybe no one believes you are a savvy commentator, I don’t really know.

But you have a voice being heard in the media, and need to own when you take a shameful Hillary Clinton “what does it matter” stance on things that do matter.

So if you are a Liberal, and you are proud of Obama’s latest infamy — accepting thousands of Syrian refugees — just know that (a) we cannot afford to take them, we are bankrupt, and (b) the only reason there is the illusion of wealth in this country is because of that thing you probably hate: the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

But you owe it all to them, and never forget that.

Read Full Post »

Those interested in history know that newspapers used to be openly, heavily partisan (particularly in the 19th century); the appealing notion of there being a moral imperative to be objective when reporting is a relatively modern concept (here is an interesting link on this subject: The Fall and Rise of Partisan Journalism).

We all know the reality in today’s times: supposedly objective media are most certainly slanted to the Left or Right.

What amuses me this morning is the dueling coverage of Donald Trump’s appearance last night on the Stephen Colbert show.

Trump Colbert

YahooTVHere is a headline from Yahoo TV:

UNSTOPPABLE: DONALD TRUMP STEAMROLLED OVER COLBERT <link>

PoliticoHere is a headline on the same topic, from Politico.com:

COLBERT BESTS TRUMP <link>

So which is it?

As I read the transcript of the back and forth, what jumped out at me is how reserved Trump was — a stark contrast to his bombastic style — and how this allowed him to avoid the many traps Colbert had set for him. Trump fell into exactly zero of those traps, and came off looking strong and yet more diplomatic than he generally has been able to conduct himself.

Here is one example of Colbert’s attempt at provocation and outright mockery, in which Colbert:

…suggested an addition to Trump’s famous wall to separate the U.S. and Mexico: adding “a moat filled with fire.”

To which Trump replied that:

…he wants it to also have “a big fat door,” so that immigrants “can come into the country — legally.” 

Note that Trump’s measured response brushes off the incendiary nature of the question / accusation.

Keep it unlocked for anyone who wants to enter, if believe in open borders.

Keep it unlocked for anyone who wants to enter, if believe in open borders.

What’s clear to me is that Trump has been working on modulating himself and his messages, and is succeeding in doing so. This simple reference to a “big fat door” in the border wall that would allow legal immigration while keeping out illegal immigration is exactly the right policy any sane nation should have. Such a policy is sound and impossible to oppose, unless you believe in open borders — come one come all, with no papers and no accountability. (And if you are one of those people, please send me your home address because I’d like to come over and help myself to all the food in your refrigerator once a week, thank you very much. Make sure to keep the door unlocked at all times, because in your mind, barriers should not exists between us, right?).

Let’s see what Politico.com meant by saying that Colbert “bested” Trump. Here is a recounting of the back and forth at one point:

Colbert then went on offense on the subject of money, one of Trump’s fortes.

“The Republican Party has been a big pusher of the idea that money is speech, and you’re a $10 billion mouth,” jabbed the host.

“That’s another way of looking at it,” Trump responded diplomatically.

“The other people out there want some of your money. Ted Cruz was on last night. He asked me to ask you if you’d give him a billion dollars,” said Colbert, referencing a Monday night interview with the Texas senator.

“Sounds good. Sounds good. He’s a good man, actually,” said Trump of his Republican rival, who has publicly aligned himself with the frontrunner even as most of the rest of the field has condemned him.

Trump sounds presidential during this exchange — measured yet brutally effective in letting Colbert’s cutting comments go off a cliff into nowhere.

The appearance was a home run for Trump in my opinion. He expended little energy while neutralizing a bombastic opponent.

And so the Politico.com headline is garbage, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Read Full Post »

Oh that Garrison Keillor of Prairie Home Companion fame.

He opened last evening’s show with a comment that so distorts history I can barely believe an otherwise intelligent man would utter it.

After running through a list of mr. Obama’s recent “victories” (Supreme Court rulings and such), he added a final laugh-line saying that “…and Republicans have decided after 150 years that they are finally against the Confederacy…”, or words to that effect.

Yeah, I know — it appears Mr. Keillor forgot that the Republican Party as led by Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) fought against the Confederacy (and mostly Democrats) in a Civil War to end slavery and save the Union.

Republicans then went on to pass several Amendments to the Constitution that clarified the status of blacks who were previously slaves.

Before an amendment can go to the states it must be passed by both houses of Congress, and on June 13, 1866, the House of Representatives voted in favor of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. <Wikipedia, link>

Okay, and so are you ready, Garrison Keillor, for the vote tally on H.R. 127, a bill in favor of making former slaves full citizens of the United States?

I don’t think you are, but here is your medicine anyway <govtrack.us, link>:

Not a single Democrat voted in favor of making former slaves full citizens of the United States.

Not a single Democrat voted in favor of making former slaves full citizens of the United States.

That’s right, Garrison Keillor, 130 Republicans voted in favor of the 14th Amendment while NO DEMOCRATS — NONE — ZERO — voted in favor of it.

Before leaving this remedial education moment for Garrison, let’s also look at the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What’s that Garrison, you’re tired of this subject? Oh but wait, there is more pain for you, the pain of reality and of learning.

When Congress voted on the Civil Rights Act, fully 79% of Republicans voted in favor of it, while only 62% of Democrats voted in favor. That’s right, 95 Democrats voted AGAINST the Act (38%), versus only 37 on the Republican side (21%) <govtrack.us, link).

So Garrison: which is the party on the side of rights for African Americans?

How dare you distort history on your show, for shame.

And now the bonus round….

Garrison Keillor, WHICH PRESIDENT PASSED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, WHICH DEFINED MARRIAGE AS THE UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN?

Clinton passed the DOMA and also repealed Glass Steagall

BONUS Bonus Round:

Garrison Keillor, WHICH PRESIDENT REPEALED THE GLASS STEAGALL BANKING LAW THAT HAD PROTECTED THE UNITED STATES FINANCIAL SYSTEM FOR OVER 60 YEARS AND THAT, ONCE GONE, PAVED THE WAY FOR THE 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS?

Clinton passed the DOMA and also repealed Glass Steagall

Oh how the truth hurts when you are Garrison Keillor.

Read Full Post »

Let’s laugh together this morning at two shining examples of “When Liberals Tell The Truth but run afoul of their corrupt bosses and then tell a Big Fat Lie to Erase Their Original Truth”.

Let’s start off with Jonathan Gruber, architect of Obamacare.

First he told the truth, in this case about how Obamacare subsidies are in fact limited to citizens of states that have set up a health care exchange (excluding citizens of states that have failed to set up an exchange). Barack Obama and Democrats are lately pretending that this is not how they wrote the law, but of course it is, and Gruber was honest about it in a video of him speaking at a conference — he’s on tape, folks — and available to us all <Fox News, link>.

if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at state here in setting up these Exchanges.

Well we know how Barack Obama feels about the truth, and so does Gruber, so what happened when Gruber’s comments came to light?

Gruber next had this to say, as told to Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic <link>:

I honestly don’t remember why I said that…It was just a mistake.  

Hilarious!

He doesn’t “remember why” he said it!

But of course he does — he said it because it was the truth about a law he designed with Barack Obama. But when the truth becomes inconvenient, he develops amnesia and disavows it.

Next we have my all time favorite Liberal Lie designed to Retract a Previously Truthful Statement. Indeed, this lie shall never be beaten for the sheer nonsense and shame of it.

Joshua Steiner testified that he lied to his own diary...

Joshua Steiner testified that he lied to his own diary…

Joshua Steiner, of the Clinton Administration (Chief of Staff to Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen), famously kept a diary of events during his White House tenure, and this diary was introduced into evidence in the Whitewater criminal investigation of the Clintons. Mr. Steiner’s diary was very damaging to key Clinton allies, whom Steiner had observed in person and up close:

He wrote how the White House put “intense pressure” on Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman to remain in a position that could protect the White House. Then he wrote how Altman “gracefully ducked” Senate questioning on the matter, even though Altman was under oath. <Baltimore Sun, link>

Oh, Joshua, I imagine Bill and Hillary Clinton were very upset with you.

What to do, what to do…

So Mr. Steiner actually testified UNDER OATH that he effectively lied to his own diary…<Associated Press, link>

I wish that my diary was more accurate…

Other testimony that day included this whopper:

He said that at times he wrote entries in his diary about meetings he did not attend and that he did not check their accuracy.

In reviewing this terrible but funny tale, I again wonder (as I did back then) how no one goes to jail for committing perjury.

And did you know that Mr. Steiner is a Yale graduate and Rhodes scholar?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »