Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The state of America, and the state of the world, is in a violent, bloody shambles.

Whatever each of us feels about the intentions, or politics, or policies, or grand designs, of Barack Obama, the results are in as he approaches the end of his two terms in office.

These days we hardly need paragraphs to characterize those results. Instead, a mere cut-and-paste of some headlines from today and the recent past will do just fine.

  1. “Report: Virtually Every Remaining ObamaCare Exchange Is On The Verge Of Total Collapse” <link>
  2. “Baton Rouge: Three US police officers shot dead” <link>
  3. “Sheriff Clarke: Obama is the most anti-cop president” <link>
  4. “Nice attack: At least 84 dead as truck rams into Bastille Day crowd in terrorist assault in French Riviera city” <link>
  5. “Dallas Police ‘Ambush’: 12 Officers Shot, 5 Killed During Protest” <link>
  6. “Dallas Sniper Suspect ‘Wanted to Kill White People,’ Police Chief Says After 5 Officers Are Gunned Down” <link>
  7. “$20 trillion man: National debt nearly doubles during Obama presidency” <link>
  8. “Iran conducts 4th missile test since signing nuke deal” <link>
  9. “Record 94,031,000 Americans Not in Labor Force” <link>
  10. “US Military in Deep Decline as Threats Rise” <link>
  11. “Group of 7 seeks way forward for aging, faltering economies” <link>
  12. “Global central banks are running ‘out of ammo'” <link>

There are so many more available, of course, and all point towards the same colossal failures in nearly every area of our lives, at home and abroad.

On top of this partial list is the sustained weakening of our government institutions, including the State Department, which Hillary Clinton apparently used to curry favor with foreigners in exchange for cash donations to the Clinton Global Initiative, and the IRS, which the Obama administration used to harass political opponents, and other branches of government such as ICE, DHS, etc, which have been hamstrung or undermined.

Finally, there is the mockery by the Obama administration of the Rule of Law. A few years ago there was the Attorney General stonewalling Congress (successfully, as it turns out, despite being held in Contempt by Congress), and more recently there was his successor meeting with Bill Clinton just prior to the Hillary Clinton non-indictment, a sequence of events that even many Liberals see as the death knell of whatever shred of integrity our federal government had left under this president.

In summary, we are now living through the terrible results of bad and even destructive policies, yet also seeing our sacred institutions torn asunder, and the Rule of Law itself torn asunder.

The sad thing is that these things were all very easy to predict back in 2008, and again in 2012, and many people did make such predictions. And yet here we are.

Read Full Post »

It is always amusing when a Socialist objects to central control — a rare thing indeed.

And yet here is Bernie on the proposed Puerto Rico debt bailout bill currently up for a vote in Congress:

In a letter to Senate colleagues released Monday, Sanders rips the agreement to restructure the island’s $70 billion in debt…

In particular, Sanders takes issue with a new oversight board created under the legislation to oversee Puerto Rico’s finances because the majority of the seven-member panel…The board will have expansive power over Puerto Rico’s economy. <Politico.com, link>

And now for Bernie’s strong statement against central control:

In my view, we must never give an unelected control board the power to make life and death decisions for the people of Puerto Rico without any meaningful input from them at all.

That’s right, Bernie! Welcome to the side of liberty, where have you been?

It is refreshing to see a candidate for president vigorously opposing a powerful, unelected Board whose members are appointed by Washington officials (Democrats and Republicans each get Board seats that would control Puerto Rico).

But, Bernie, I ask you: did you oppose the IPAB inside of Obamacare?

Do you remember Barack Obama’s IPAB?

As I wrote in 2012, the Affordable Care Act includes something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, a 15-member board that is appointed by the president. Its stated goal is to control Medicare spending. How will it do that? From Cato.org, my emphasis added:

When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the Houseand the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court<Cato.org, link >

This is fascism (or socialism, if you prefer): a 15-member panel, unelected, makes decisions that automatically become law and control the amount of care Americans will receive.

IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB’s lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.

As of this writing, the IPAB remains a part of Obamacare. It’s still in there, though some Democrats have since come to their senses and urged for repeal of it (link).

So I ask you, Bern baby Bern, where do you stand on the draconian, Barack Obama IPAB?

IPAB-obamacare

 

Read Full Post »

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 »

Well now, if there was any doubt about Liberal disenchantment with Hillary Clinton, the following Susan Sarandon quotes will end it.

From an interview on MSNBC as quoted today by Yahoo News (link):

Sarandon, one of Sanders’ most visible surrogates, told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that she’s concerned that Clinton doesn’t represent the progressive values that the Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist preaches on the campaign trail.

She doesn’t. She’s accepted money from all those [Wall Street] people. She doesn’t even want to fight for a $15 minimum wage.

The 69-year-old Academy Award winner said her fellow Sanders supporters — many of them first-time voters — won’t turn out for Clinton in a general election.

They feel like she’s not authentic, that she’s a liar, that they don’t trust her, so what difference does it make?

Wow, thanks Susan for speaking the truth about Hillary. And I notice that your are quoting how others feel…perhaps you feel the same way too? I think so.

Sarandon

That Hillary Clinton scared off Joe Biden and other challengers is a disgrace for Democrats, but let’s all tip our caps to the indomitable Bernie Sanders!

 

 

Read Full Post »

So it turns out that Barack Obama just told some young people in Argentina that they should not get caught up in the difference between capitalism and communism/socialism <Washington Times, link>.

So often in the past there’s been a sharp division between left and right, between capitalist and communist or socialist. And especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate, right? Oh, you know, you’re a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you’re some crazy communist that’s going to take away everybody’s property.
And I mean, those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works.

So mr. Obama is promoting the notion that the differences between capitalism and communism are merely “intellectual” and not affecting the every day life of the average citizen?

But let’s not be surprised by this sophistry — this is a man, after all, who told Americans on many occasions that he would redistribute wealth and pursue an openly statist agenda.

The good news is that there is a great video on the difference between capitalism and communism / socialism — it’s fun, informative, and downright entertaining as it lays waste to the nonsense being spewed by so many Liberals and “Progressives” who “hate capitalism” and now say that we should all “resist capitalism”.

If you have friends who fail to understand what capitalism is and why it is better than socialism and communism, then try to get them to watch this entertaining discussion of it.

If they watch to the end, they just might start to understand.

 

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 Hussein 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 »

Older Posts »