Stupid is.. as Stupid does: Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma

[Warph]

             Blame It on the American People


By Andrew B. Wilson on 11.16.12 @ 6:09AM


They screwed up in re-electing Obama, America's new Samson.

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal have added their voices to the swelling chorus of second-guessers saying the Mitt Romney ran the race badly and therefore "deserved to lose" to Barack Obama on Nov. 6.

But here's a simpler and, I think, better explanation. There is no magic that dictates that the American people in their infinite wisdom will always make the right choice, and in this instance they 'doubled down' (to use one of the president's favorite expressions) in returning a very bad president to the White House -- one who had already shown himself to be incapable of providing competent (let alone inspiring) leadership in domestic and foreign affairs.

This happened despite the fact that Mitt Romney ran an exceptionally decent (as opposed to nasty) campaign, while President Obama ran an exceptionally nasty (as opposed to decent) campaign.

In his speeches and ads, Obama assaulted Romney's record as a businessman -- accusing him of everything from lying under oath, to being unpatriotic (lacking in "economic patriotism"), to causing to the death of laid-off steel worker's wife.

Obama made his primary theme one of envy, resentment, and class warfare. In one speech after another, he ignored the central truth that the American free enterprise system is based on voluntary exchange for mutual benefit, and he claimed instead that it is based on the rich exploiting the poor... and on profit-seeking businesses looking for every opportunity to cheat their customers on the far side, and their employees on the near side.

More than a triumph of hope over experience, Obama's victory was a triumph of spite over experience; and of government-favored plunder over earned success and achievement. This is an abhorrent (let's hope fleeting) perversion of the American dream.

None of this is not to deny mistakes and mishaps on Romney's part in the long slog from the Republican primaries through to the general election. But it is, I think, very much to his credit that many and perhaps most conservatives came to like him a great deal more at the end of that journey than they did at the outset. He stopped looking and sounding like a robot and -- wonder of wonders -- began to look like "fully-formed adult," as one of my friends put it.

The same cannot be said of petulant and strident Obama, or the mocking and clownish Biden. Both got away from with telling outrageous falsehoods during the debates -- knowing that they could count on the mainstream media to divert or suppress any real criticism. In fact, they could even count on the support of supposedly neutral "moderators" from the fourth estate.

In affirming rather than contradicting one of Obama's falsehoods, CNN's Candy Crowley kept him from being hoist on his own petard in open debate. She jumped in to save the hapless president when he claimed that he had unequivocally called the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi a terrorist attack the very day after it happened. In fact, he did not do so until weeks later.

To this day, Obama has refused to give any detailed account of what he knew and did during the seven-hour siege at the consulate and the annex. And he has never given any satisfactory explanation of why he and others in the administration continued to spin the story of a spontaneous demonstration long after all of the facts pointed to a well-planned terrorist attack.

Among the whopping falsehoods told by Joe Biden in his debate with Paul was the claim:

Let me make it absolutely clearly, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, or any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.

Except that it is most certainly not a fact. As the Heritage Foundation pointed out, "The real 'fact' about the (HHS edict requiring employers to provide insurance that pays for contraception, abortion drugs, and sterilization) is that it applies to almost all employers -- including many religious organizations such as hospitals and social service providers."

One may argue that President Obama benefited from the good publicity that grew out of his response to Hurricane Sandy.

But that only begs the question: Why would anyone give the president high marks in that emergency-- which did not require any hard decision-making on his part -- while giving him a pass on Benghazi, which did put him to the test and expose grave misjudgment and serious weakness?

This brings us back to the main question -- of where to look first in pointing the finger of blame.

I believe it must be pointed at the American people.

People will believe what they want to believe. And in this case more people than not were inclined to focus on a meaningless positive indicator while averting their eyes from a damning negative indicator.

They had two examples of presidential leadership to choose from: the one frivolous and the other serious. And they chose to go with frivolous example.

Now if you accept the premise that the American people made a big mistake in re-electing a very bad president to a second term, there are other conclusions that flow from that regarding the lessons to be learned for the Republican Party.

One of those lessons is not to try to fight the last war by feeling a great need to do more to seek out the youth vote, and the women's vote, and the Hispanic, Asian, or Black votes -- through headlong competition with the Democrats/demagogues in offering special-interest favors to each and all groups.

Obama and the Democrats campaigned on wedge issues -- and on making promises to others that the government will be in no position to honor in driving the nation toward bankruptcy. Obama is physically miscast for the part of Samson, but it seems that he will be happy if he is able to impose a massive tax increase on the "rich" -- the misnamed rich, I might add -- which will pull down the proverbial temple upon all of our heads. His panoply of heavier tax levies on capital gains, estate, and earned income would provide a comprehensive and disastrous set of disincentives for millions of small business owners and entrepreneurs who struggle to send their own sons and daughters to college and who are collectively responsible for an outsized proportion of the nation's total workforce.

Let him (the skinniest of Samson's) do his damnedest: Even if he succeeds, most will probably crawl out from under the rubble. Maybe it's better to have a sudden and violent shock than a slow descent into greater and greater government aggrandizement and greater and greater government failure.

Far better, I say, for the Republicans to stick to principle -- rather than to imitate the Democrats in their slavish pandering to different groups and their insolent disregard for economic reality.

The bedrock principles for conservatives ought to be liberty, open markets, freedom of choice, and limited as opposed to limitless government.

If those are the abiding principles, there will be room enough for everyone to flourish -- including all of the groups and sub-groups mentioned above.

If we re-awaken the real American spirit, there will be less of the useless fretting over wedge issues that assumed such outsized importance among some groups during the 2012 election.

[Warph]

How's That Obamacare Waiver Workin' Out for Ya?

By Michelle Malkin 11/16/2012

Exactly two years ago this week, the Obama administration announced it had issued more than 100 waivers en masse to a select group of companies, unions and other health insurance providers seeking relief from the onerous federal health care law. The Obamacare waiver winner's club now totals 2,000. Where are they now?

Answer: In the same miserable boat as every other unlucky business struggling with the crushing costs and burdens of the mandate.

Among the first and most prominent recipients of the Obamacare waivers for favors were large restaurant chains that provide low-wage, seasonal and part-time workers with low-cost health insurance plans called "mini-med" plans. An estimated 1.7 million workers benefit from such plans. Obamacare forced companies carrying such coverage to raise their minimum limits on coverage to no less than $750,000 annually. Another Obamacare provision forces all employers to spend at least 80 percent to 85 percent of their premium revenue on medical care.

The social justice Democrats' goal was to dictate insurance provider spending not just on coverage amounts, but also on executive salaries, marketing and other costs. The regulation punished companies with mini-med plans whose high administrative costs were due to frequent worker turnover and relatively low spending on claims -- not "greed." Complying with the provision would have meant tens of thousands of low-income workers would lose their benefits altogether.

Darden Restaurants, the Florida-based parent company of Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Red Lobster and other chains, was a member of the Obamacare waiver early bird special. Their get-out-of-Obamacare card helped spare the company's health insurance benefits for nearly 34,000 employees. Breathing a sigh of relief that it would allow chains to continue offering all employees access to affordable health insurance, Darden said in a statement in the fall of 2010 that "the waiver allows us to continue to do that as the various phases of the health care law are implemented."

Fast-forward to 2012. Darden announced last month that it would begin shifting full-time workers to part-time status to save money, cut health costs and circumvent Obamacare's coverage mandate scheduled for full implementation in 2014. The move would reduce full-time employees' hours to less than 30 hours a week; part-time workers are exempt from the insurance mandate. McDonald's, another big Obamacare waiver recipient, is considering the same move.

In fact, a survey of members of the Chain Restaurant Compensation Association (CRCA) conducted last year by Hay Group reported that a whopping 77 percent of "quick serve" restaurant operators said they were considering reducing employee hours to change their status from full-time to part-time. At least one Denny's restaurant franchise owner in Florida is cutting hours and has openly contemplated an Obamacare surcharge. Jimmy John's and Papa John's are also slashing work hours. Applebee's is mulling a freeze on both hiring and expansion.

"There's no such thing as a free lunch" is a race-neutral truth. But economically illiterate Obama supporters have now called for boycotts of these businesses and accused them of vengeful "racism" against the president. Instead of sympathy and gratitude for private businesses trying to do right by their workers, customers and shareholders, the corporate-bashers inundated Twitter this week with profanity-laced condemnations of the restaurant service industry. One protester tweeted: "@Applebees Your CEO is a racist piece of (redacted), he not hiring because Obama was elected...U WILL LOSE CUSTOMERS."

"Red Lobster, Olive Garden (are) using Obama re-election as an excuse to deny employees benefits and living wages," Jon Marquis fumed.

Twitter user Daphine Walker sent unhinged, ungrammatical messages to Red Lobster and Olive Garden in all-caps: "I WILL NEVER SPEND ANOTHER CENT ON THIS RACIST COMPANY WHO DOESNT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYEES."

The CEO of Red Lobster and Olive Garden is black. But no matter. Regardless of the actual facts, economic realities and entirely predictable and inevitable consequences of command-and-control government mandates, it's always about identity politics for the Obama grievance mob. In good times and bad, the left never grants waivers from the race card.

[Warph]

         In Four More Years We'll Be Detroit

By John Ransom
11/17/2012


From one moment to the next the city of Detroit doesn't know where its next bailout is coming from. Chronically unable to pay its bills, the city looks to the state for cash gifts to stave off default. Operating under the terms of a consent agreement hammered out with the state, Detroit faces fiscal uncertainty largely because it has failed to get adequate concessions from public employee unions that are unsustainable. And those concessions that they have wrested from unions, politicians in Detroit have been unwilling to enforce.

One prominent Detroit attorney, however, is facing the future of the Motor City with a bit more certainty.

He's calling upon the city to declare bankruptcy.

"Detroit should go bankrupt," says Douglas Bernstein, according to the Detroit News. Bernstein is a partner in the law firm of Plunkett Cooney who specializes in bankruptcies. "It would be a recognition that they've hit bottom, and it's a chance to go on the upswing. I don't think they're going to be stigmatized as much as people think.... Otherwise, you're going to go down the path and be in one crisis after another. Yes, it's expensive and it should be a last resort. But at some point, you've had enough."

The bankruptcy would be the largest municipal bankruptcy in the history of the US.

While we are not at the point yet for the federal government to declare bankruptcy, you may rest assured that that day is coming, because the same forces that are driving Detroit to bankruptcy are driving the US as well.

There are fewer people building things and more people demanding things they didn't build.

Whatever else one may say about it, if Obama meant to throw Detroit a fiscal lifeline with the auto bailout, it hasn't worked. It demonstrates the futility and danger of the federal government commanding and controlling the recovery of any industry- or even the county.

It's just not going to work out for most of us, but only for a favored few.

After $85 billion in federal bailout funds for the automakers headquartered in Detroit, there are no fiscal answers to what ails the city and the surrounding areas.

To demonstrate most clearly why the auto bailout should be considered such a tremendous failure, you only have to consult the numbers.

$80 billion is more money than 14 states annually produce in GDP. Detroit has a population of 700,000. On per capital basis, that means the bailout cost about $112,000 per Detroit resident. Delaware has the greatest per capita annual GDP of any state at $70,000 per resident- only Washington, DC- which is NOT a state, Mr. Obama- at $175,000 in per capita GDP beats the Detroit auto bailout.

Yet, still by most measurements, Detroit is imploding. By June of 2013 it is expected that the city will be short $47 million according to the Detroit Free Press.

And surrounding communities are also suffering. BusinessWeek reports that "five cities and three school districts [in the Detroit area] have emergency managers, including Flint and Pontiac," in order to manage the fiscal crisis. The law allowing "emergency managers" with broad authority over fiscal matters, including modifying employee contracts, however, was recently repealed after unions campaigned to protect existing contracts.

So now Detroit will be short of cash by mid-December and the only way to fix the crisis is by voiding public union contracts, not just modifying them as an emergency manager was able to do.

That means bankruptcy.

"The state's democratic process succeeded in overturning an emergency manager law whose powers threatened the financial gains of public-sector unions and the political prerogatives of elected officials," writes Daniel Howes, a columnist for the Detroit News. "But democracy is failing in Detroit, as its metastasizing crisis and the feckless response to it amply demonstrates."

If at a time when automakers are trumpeting record-setting sales, record profits, record bonuses for their employees, how is it possible that the community at-large is not reaping any of the benefit?

Stimulus anyone?

Because while the auto bailout was a bad idea in any event, one should at least expect that the community as a whole should benefit from the application of community funds to a private venture rather than just benefit a small fraction of say...I don't know... one percent? There is no other morally defensible reason to bailout out the auto industry unless it was going to benefit the community as a whole.

"We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity," said the president while making his pitch for reelection, "and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

For whomis it paying off, Mr. President?

Because it's not paying off for Detroit.

And it won't pay off for the United States of America.

[Warph]

                 

[Warph]

       

      Soaring Toward Totalitarianism

By Mike Adams
11/19/2012


(Some time in the not-too-distant future at a public university near you).

Good morning, everyone. My name is Dean Crawler and I would like to welcome everyone to new staff training here in the Dean of Student's Office at the University of Neo-Communism in Wonderland, or UNCW. I wish to welcome all returning Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, and Adjunct Deans as well. They say it takes a village to raise a child. One could say that it takes a fiefdom to raise a generation. Of course, we prefer to avoid references to Western civilization here at UNCW. We are soaring to greatness. And that means leaving past traditions behind. Even an Adjunct Dean of Diversity knows that. No offense or disrespect intended.

Our training today will focus on four new programs that will help us gain control over student dissidents in an effort to assure the smooth operation of the university. Diversity and tolerance are very complex concepts. And sometimes rigid conformity is needed to ensure their full realization. I would appreciate it if everyone would give her, his, its, or undecided's full attention while I explain these new programs:

1. No administrator left behind. We have decided to add a few new positions to help with our ever increasing workload. We will add a new Dean of Noise Complaints this semester. As you know, students often have parties off campus that result in noise complaints. We have partnered with local police to set up a system whereby all noise complaints received by police are channeled into the university administrative structure. When police answer a noise complaint off campus, we soon find out. Then we will call the student into the Dean's Office and interrogate him, her, it, or undecided concerning the alleged violation. Each violation will be recorded by the Dean's Office and will be placed in the student's permanent record. If the student complains loudly in response to interrogation, the Dean of Noise Complaints will then file a separate noise complaint with the UNCW police. This will result in the student being brought back in for further interrogation by the Dean of Noise Complaints.

2. Two strikes and you're out. All infractions will require recidivism before students can be expelled from UNCW. However, our previous policy of allowing three strikes has been modified. Now, only two strikes will be needed for expulsion. For example, an off campus noise complaint resulting in interrogation to which a student noisily complains will be sufficient for expulsion. Students will forfeit all tuition and fees paid for the duration of the semester, regardless of whether expulsion occurs before or after the official drop date for regular courses.

3. The Universal Administrative Trial Program. To date, we have employed a two-tier system for dealing with student non-conformity issues. Criminal hearings have been used as a means of dealing with criminal conduct. Administrative hearings have been used for dealing with non-criminal violations. In the latter type of hearing, students have been stripped of all needlessly cumbersome due process rights. In our collective view, the system has proved to be unworkable. Therefore, we have decided that all hearings will be classified as administrative in nature. All rights will be suspended except for cases involving sexual assault and sexual harassment. In such cases, students bringing charges will be granted a right to counsel and a right to full appellate review. Student plaintiffs will be able to appeal adverse rulings. The accused will receive no corresponding benefit. All attempts on behalf of the accused to either a) retain counsel or b) appeal an adverse ruling will be subject to the noise complaint policy. The Dean of Noise Complaints will preside over all such hearings.

4. Our New Government Respect Compact. Our Student Respect Compact was originally designed to preserve the rights of students to work in an environment free from the following: incivility, discomfort, disrespect, unwarranted intellectual challenge, and unwanted solicitation of ideas and opinions.

The policy has been modified to include the protection of administrators from all of the same invasions. For example, student complaints concerning "administrative waste" and control over "private" or "non-academic matters" are often distressing to the administration. The complaints are rarely solicited and often result in administrative discomfort. We now consider them to be uniformly disrespectful and uncivil. Any conflict between Our New Government Respect Compact and state "whistleblower" laws or the "constitution" will be resolved in the favor of Our New Government Respect Compact. Any resistance will be referred to the Dean of Noise Complaints and subject to the aforementioned policies.
The Obama administration has done a lot to move us forward. The Obama Department of Education told us that we must reduce the burden of proof in sexual assault cases to a mere preponderance of evidence. They told us we would receive no federal funds if we did not conform. We based all of our other sexual assault and sexual harassment policies on the model in place at Stanford University. We call them our Cardinal rules of sexual conformity. That great institution believes that the new Obama policies were a mere starting point - a minimum list of expectations. We agree with that philosophy.

When it comes to implementing policies that ensure administrative victory over student dissidents, we want to do more than just the minimum required by Washington. We want to stay one step ahead of the federal authorities. Not everything we do may be "constitutional" as they say. But our constitution is a living, breathing document. We are confident that the federal judiciary will share and affirm our grander vision by the time any disagreements reach that level. You all are a part of that grand vision. For those of you who are new, I welcome you into our community. For those returning, I welcome you back. And I welcome you all to move with us. Forward.

In closing, I would remind you that extremism in the defense of conformity is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of civility is no virtue.

[Warph]

Obama Administration Misleads the Country on Tax "Cuts"

By Katie Pavlich
11/19/2012

The White House is promoting the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for the middle class (which should really be called the Obama-Bush Tax cuts, since Obama extended them in 2010) as exactly that, tax cuts. But the truth is, an extension of the tax cuts wouldn't be a cut at all, but would keep tax rates at the current rate. The Obama admnistration is implying on the official WhiteHouse.gov website that a tax cut is coming for the middle class when in reality if a deal is made by January 1, middle class families won't see a tax cut but will keep the rates they currently pay.

The President said there's one thing we can do right now to provide a foundation for a solution that helps the economy and gives middle-class families more certainty in the coming weeks. And it's something that everyone agrees on: pass a law that would prevent any tax hike whatsoever on the first $250,000 of everybody's income.

"That means every American, including the wealthiest Americans, get a tax cut," he said. "It means that 98 percent of all Americans, and 97 percent of all small businesses won't see their taxes go up a single dime."

President Obama isn't giving a tax cut to anyone, but instead wants tax hikes for those making more than $250,000 per year.

[Warph]

              

Black Friday Walmart Protests Reek of Obama White House
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, November 20, 2012, 9:01 PM

Obama met with union leaders and MoveOn.org last week at the White House.

Evidently, Obama felt it was important to include the radical leftist group at the meeting.

Last Tuesday Barack (Insane Hussein) Obama met with national union leaders and the leaders of (the communist groups) MoveOn.org and Center for American Progress at the White House.

Less than a week later these same groups have joined together to organize Black Friday Walmart protests.

What a coincidence?

The Daily Caller reported:
MoveOn.org has jumped into the fight for a unionized Wal-Mart workforce.

The liberal group has sent emails to its list nationwide, urging a mass-protest outside Wal-Mart stores on Black Friday. The organization is encouraging people to strike against management even if they aren't Wal-Mart employees themselves.

"Instead of listening to and learning from its workers, Wal-Mart has sought to silence us and retaliate against those who dare to speak up," MoveOn.org said in its email to supporters. "Warehouse workers who work for Wal-Mart contractors have also experienced retaliation for speaking out. Now, Wal-Mart workers have had enough."

Black Friday is traditionally the busiest shopping day of the year.

"On Black Friday, and throughout the Holiday Season, we're standing up for an end to the retaliation against workers who speak out for what's right for our families, our communities, and our country," the left-wing organization continued. "Will you show your support?"

Liberal union groups OUR Wal-Mart and Making Change at Wal-Mart, which are working to organize the planned strike, are aggressively trying to harness dues from Wal-Mart's massive workforce.

Gee, do you think the Walmart protests came up during the White House meetings with Obama?

(What a Crock of Crap).

[Warph]

Pravda , the Russian News agency has an editorial declaring that the illiterates of America have put a Communist back in office despite his being a failure.

Note that Russia acknowledges that Obama is a Communist.  The author calls liberalism a psychosis and nicknames Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma  as O'Bomber.  Very apt, wouldn't you say?


Pravda on Obama:

President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents

Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.

After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.

Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.


Rest of story at:  http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/

[Warph]

This was Socialist Sen. Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma's Record BEFORE the Democratic National Convention gave him their approval to run for President:

[Warph]

                             

Democrats Vote the Mentally Disabled

November 23, 2012 By David Horowitz

I am incredibly steamed this Thanksgiving Holiday over what the Democrats are doing to my country.

Everybody by now knows – or should know – how readily Democrats conduct election fraud, and how determined they are to defend it.

James O'Keefe and others have taken videos of paid Democratic operatives encouraging citizens to vote twice. O'Keefe was even able to claim Attorney General Eric Holder's own ballot at a district polling place by claiming to be him, and then to vote in his place.

Democrats have promoted Motor Voter laws and same day registration, and month-long election days to help them mobilize the votes of people who are so unconnected to the political process and so uninterested in the country's future, and perhaps so incompetent to understand what voting entails that they require keepers to see that they get to the polls and then vote the "right" way.  In the election that put Al Franken in the Senate by a few hundred votes, more than a thousand felons voted illegally because of the loose laws that govern the polling booth – laws the Democrats want to make even looser. It is in fact the number one civil rights issue of the NAACP this year to give felons the right to vote. So we know that Democrats have little respect for the election process, and we should assume they will attempt to pursue their victories by any means necessary.

But even knowing this, I was not prepared for a conversation I had at Thanksgiving dinner today with my brother-in-law, Henry, who has lived most of his life in a home for the mentally disabled, and though now in his forties has the intelligence level of a six-year-old.

"Obama saved me," he said to me out of the blue.

"What do you mean?"

"I voted for him for president and now he's saving me."

I was taken aback by these words, since Henry had no idea who Obama was, or what a president might be, and would be unable to fill out a registration form let alone get to the polling place by himself.

So I asked him how he knew that and how he had registered and cast his vote. In halting, impeded speech he told me that the people who take care of him at the home filled out "the papers" to register him to vote, told him how Obama cared for him, even taught him the Obama chants, and then took him to the polling place to vote. They did the same for all of the mentally disabled patients in their care, approximately sixty in all.

This is so appalling in its contempt for the voting process, which is the very foundation of our democracy, and in its cynical exploitation of my brother-in-law and the other patients in the home, many of whose mental capacities are even more limited than his that I am at a loss for words to express it. I hope poll-watching groups like "True the Vote" will comb the rolls of residents at other homes for the mentally disabled, and attempt to stop this particular abuse. I hope that people who care about our country will make electoral fraud a focus of their political efforts, and work to protect the integrity of the voting process.