The Joyless Campaign.......

I saw this on one of the foreign newspapers that I read online.   I was kinda surprised to see this featured since the average European still likes President Obama.  There have been comments across the blogosphere that this is the nastiest campaign in modern history and seeing how the democrats are playing Chicago politics and we have the various talking heads trying to link the RNC in Tampa with the impending tropical storm that is supposed to hit the gulf coast, I have heard things about "Republicans are partying while people are suffering in New Orleans"  trying to tie the RNC to the Bush/Katrina back in 2005.    I have also heard that while in the past when one party has their convention, the other party would abstain from campaigning out of respect.   This year we have no slowdown of the DNC efforts...we even have Joe Biden in Tampa at the same time....that is kinda tacky.

Barack Obama was swept to the White House in 2008 by a wave of idealism and inspirational campaigning in which he encapsulated the mood of the nation with his slogans of ‘Hope’, ‘Change’ and ‘Yes we can’.
Then, his message was a fundamentally positive one. Americans wanted an end to the Bush era but that almost went without saying. Obama pointed to his own vision of the country; a post-partisan, post-racial America in which gridlock in Washington was ended and common-sense centrist solutions were adopted.
What a difference four years makes. Obama is campaigning ferociously for a second term – and he is a candidate who would have probably have been disdained by the Obama of 2008.

Four more years? President Obama, pictured left in March 2008, and right, at an event in Las Vegas earlier this week; the Commander-in-Chief is waging a relentlessly negative campaign for the White House

Drawing crowds: While many came to hear Obama speak Wednesday at Canyon Springs High School in Las Vegas, it's nowhere near the numbers he was reaching in 2008

Obama is waging a relentlessly negative campaign of changing the subject from the one that, overwhelmingly, most Americans care about – the economy. Every week there is a new issue his campaign seizes on, preferring to talk about something, anything other than jobs and 8.3 per cent unemployment.
While Obama is still drawing sizable crowds, they are nothing like the size of those who flocked to see him in 2008. In Las Vegas, Obama held a rally in a high school before more than 2,000 people but there was space for plenty more.
On the outskirts of Manchester, New Hampshire on Monday morning, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan attracted more than 3,000 people who patiently queued in lines across a field to be searched by the Secret Service.

 

More...

• Bad news Barack: Electoral College computer model that's correctly predicted presidential elections since 1980 shows big WIN for Romney

Crowd size is not everything – as Obama himself could attest after losing in the 2008 New Hampshire primary to Hillary Clinton even though he had attracted unprecedented numbers to his events, eclipsing the former First Lady by two or three to one.
But the difference between the numbers Obama is attracting now compared to four years ago should be a cause of deep concern to his campaign. 
More significantly, the mood of the crowds is different. There is a sullenness, even resentment, that was not present in 2008. Ask an Obama supporter about their man and as often as not you will get a few words about him and then a demeaning attack on Romney or Ryan.

Bright eyes: Then-senator Obama is pictured speaking during a town hall meeting in San Antonio, Texas in March of 2008

Popularity: The president's likability surged during his speech at the Victory Column in Berlin in 2008

They are taking their cue from the candidate himself. Obama used not to mention Romney by name. In Las Vegas, he did so nine times.
And while he was careful to call him ‘Governor Romney’ and not stoop to the kind of attacks he has left to his campaign and its allies (such as accusing him of being a felon or linking him to the death of a woman from cancer), the contempt he has for his opponent was almost visceral.

Significantly, the mood of the crowds is different. There is a sullenness, even resentment, that was not present in 2008. Ask an Obama supporter about their man and as often as not you will get a few words about him and then a demeaning attack on Romney or Ryan.

The crowd sensed it. When Obama mentioned ‘Republicans in Congress’, they began to boo loudly. Obama attempted to quiet them: ‘No, no, no, no, no, don’t boo – vote,’ he said. ‘That’s right. Vote.’
But the crowd had taken their cue from Obama – the booing reflected the tone he had adopted. It was clever politics – whip up the crowd, then make a high-minded appeal for civility while at the same time trying to turn their anger into action.
Obama has taken on Ryan by name – presidential candidates, never mind incumbent presidents, don’t normally stoop to mentioning the bottom half of the opposing ticket.
In 2008, the Obama campaign was full of endless possibilities and expectations of a bright new horizon. This time, it’s a joyless slog. And there’s something else: Obama now tends to look emptily past rather than at his audiences. It’s as if the light in his eyes has gone out.
Obama has seized on the bone-headed 'legitimate rape' remarks of Todd Akin, a previously obscure figure running for the US Senate in Missouri, to try to make them central to his campaign.
At a New York fundraiser on Wednesday, Obama joked about referred 'the Senator of Missouri, Mr Akin' (he's a congressman) who 'sits on the House Committee on Science and Technology but somehow missed science class'.

The Obama campaign appears intent on turning the Democratic convention into one long gloat about Akin's comments in the hope of driving women voters away from Romney. Obama advisers are even talking of Akin being "on the ticket" with Romney and Ryan.
In Las Vegas, a campaign event and a stridently partisan one at that, Obama’s lectern was decorated with the presidential seal. Back in 2010, Obama’s then press secretary Robert Gibbs said that ‘at strictly political events we would not use’ the seal, which is a symbol of the office of the presidency not of a political candidate.
Another remarkable thing is that many of those at Obama’s events – like many people across the country - are not listening to him. In Reno on Tuesday evening, it was at times hard to follow what Obama was saying because of the chatter.

Knowing smile: Then-presidential hopeful Obama attends a rally at the Community College of Beaver County in Pennsylvania in 2008

A number of those attending seemed only to want to get a picture of themselves with Obama speaking in the background. In 2008, audiences would be rapt, almost mesmerised, when Obama spoke. At Romney and Ryan events there is near silence and many an intent, furrowed brow as the case for change is made.
In Las Vegas, the crowd chanted ‘Yes We Can’ before Obama appeared but it sounded like a dirge rather than the perky, upbeat chant of 2008. It was so different that one local reporter even walked over to me to ask what they were chanting.
Behind Obama was emblazoned the word ‘Forward’, a slogan once used by Josef Stalin. But at the core of Obama’s case is the notion that President George W. Bush’s policies are responsible for the mess America is in. Listening to him at times it is as if the last four years never happened.
Obama’s campaign schedule reveals a lot about how he seeks victory in November. Last week, he spend three days in Iowa and held nine events. Iowa has six electoral college votes of the 270 Obama needs to win.

Easy does it: President Obama gestures as he is interrupted by a protester as he speaks at a campaign event at Canyon Springs High School in Nevada earlier this week

50 shades of grey: The president shows signs of wear and hair with white and grey strands

On Saturday, Obama held two events in New Hampshire, which has four Electoral College votes and on Tuesday and Wednesday he was in Nevada, which has six. Obama, moreover, won Nevada by more than 12 percentage points in 2008.
What does this tell is? That Obama is on the defensive and knows the only way he can win re-election is by the narrowest of margins, by ‘slicing and dicing’ – his own pejorative term – and eking out a 51 to 49 per cent victory, crawling across the line to 270 electoral college votes.
Perhaps the most striking thing of all is Obama’s demeanour. He has visibly greyed over the past four years but that happens to most world leaders. What is more noteworthy is his lugubrious expression and the fact that he grimaces much more often than he smiles

Read more: Here

Obama Scandal at Columbia

I have been hearing rumbling about this for a while in the blogosphere.  It seems that the mainstream media is garbage can surfing on Romney and again giving Obungler a pass.  The respected media should have vetted him back in 2008 but they were in "awe and he was godlike"  he was the 2nd coming,,the Chicago Messiah, and would be taking a step down to assume the presidency....After all he was "their guy" and we know that Reporters never make mistakes......

Obama’s College Classmate: ‘The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia’

Wayne Allyn Root

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee.

wayne@rootforamerica.com

Author's Website

I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia.
Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.
This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.

By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But the reason for this baseless attack is clear- make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal.
My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.
Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.
My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.
Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.
If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.
But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.
Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?
The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.
Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?
Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?
I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.
Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.
If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:
A)   He rarely ever attended class.
B)   His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.
C)   He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.
D)   He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.
If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?
If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses.
It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff.

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee and the author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian.” Read more at his website: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

email from Dad

I got another e-mail from my Dad, He usually sends me some pretty cool or informative e-mails.  If I think other people will like it, I will post it on my blog.

     This one is on obummer and 2012.   I hope it is incorrect but there is a part of me that believes that it will play out as stated in the e-mail.

DR. WALTER WILLIAMS predicts that Obama can not  lose the 2012 election.

 

IN ADDITION TO THE VOTING BLOCKS HE MENTIONS, THERE IS ANOTHER HUGE GROUP:  THE NEARLY ONE-HALF OF ALL ADULTS DO NOT PAY ANY TAXES AND, IN FACT, MOST OF THEM RECEIVE MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  THESE  PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO "SHAKE THE BOAT" TO DO ANYTHING TO STOP THE FLOW OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO THEMSELVES.

 

Perhaps you have read some newspaper articles written by Dr. Williams, a conservative economist who happens to be black.  He has taught at several Universities and is currently teaching at George Mason University .

 

 

No Matter What

By Dr. Walter Williams

 

Can President Obama be defeated in 2012?  No, he can't.  I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term.

 

The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.

 

But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012.  The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter.  Obama gets reelected.  Nine percent unemployment?  No problem.  Obama will win.  Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon?  He still wins.  The economy soars or goes into the gutter.  Obama wins.  War in the  Middle East ?  He wins a second term.

 

America's role as the leading Superpower disappears?  Hurrah for Barak Obama!  The U.S. Government rushes toward bankruptcy, the  dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending?  Obama wins handily.

 

You are crazy Williams.  Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world  conditions are declining?  Sure I do.

 

And that's why I know Obama will win.  The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics.  And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.

 

Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault.  After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.

 

Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem.  Consider the  following:

 

1)  Blacks will vote for Obama blindly.  Period.  Doesn't matter what he does.  It's a race thing.  He's one of us,

 

2)  College educated women will vote for Obama.  Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory.  It's really not more complex than that,

 

3)  Liberals will vote for Obama.  He is their great hope,

 

4)  Democrats will vote for Obama.  He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide,

 

5)  Hispanics will vote for Obama.  He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party,

 

6)  Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama.  He is their key to money and power in business, state and local  politics,

 

7)  Big Business will support Obama.  They already have.  He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday.  Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda,

 

8)  The media love him.  They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him.  After all, to not love him would be racist,

 

9)  Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him.  Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican.  American Indians will support him.  Obviously homosexuals tend to vote  Democratic.  And lastly,

 

10)  Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama.  And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned.  The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.

 

--  Dr.  Walter  Williams

 

 

 

Obituary

(Very Interesting)

 

Born 1776; Died 2008

 

It doesn't hurt to read this several times.

 

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline   University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

 

Number of States won by:  Obama:  19    McCain:  29

 

Square miles of land won by:  Obama:  580,000     McCain:  2,427,000

 

Population of counties won by:  Obama:  127million     McCain:  143 million

 

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:  Obama:  13.2    McCain:  2.1

 

Professor Olson adds:  "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the  country.  Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government  welfare..."

 

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

 

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's (and they vote) then we can say  goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Party loyalty and Obama?

I saw this on AmericanThinker

Party Loyalty and the Future of America

By Steve McCannDoes loyalty to a political party trump the well-being of a nation?  That question now confronts many Democratic Party activists, financial contributors, and elected politicians, particularly because Barack Obama has no loyalty to the party he leads.

In 2008, the Party went on a blind date with someone they did not know and made no effort to investigate.  Playing on his ethnicity, his ability to deliver a speech, and a manufactured image geared to appeal to a celebrity-obsessed populace, Barack Obama captured the hearts and minds of the Democratic Party movers and shakers.  Hillary Clinton, unable to counter this slick marketing campaign, was soon discarded for the new kid on the block.
It mattered little to the Democratic Party hierarchy who Obama was or what he had said or done in his past.  Winning the White House with a "transformative" candidate was the only objective. 
The mainstream media, the vast majority of whom historically vote Democrat, were overwhelmingly predisposed to swallow the composite image portrayed by the Obama team.  He accorded with and exceeded their superficial image of an ideal presidential candidate.  The major financial contributors to the Party, also susceptible to the new celebrity in their midst, were likewise mesmerized. 
To the Democratic Party office-holders, dependent on the largess of the Party hierarchy, it mattered little who was the Party nominee -- they would blindly support anyone chosen.  Party activists, many also dependent on the Party hierarchy, were willingly dispatched throughout the media to regurgitate talking points in furtherance of the false portrait painted by the Obama campaign.
Once in office, the real Barack Obama surfaced.  The blind date has turned out to be a disaster for the Party and the country.
Counting upon the fascination with him and unbridled loyalty to the Democratic Party, Barack Obama coerced the Congress, overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrats in 2009-2010, to take the lead and the arrows as they passed numerous bills transferring near-unlimited power to the executive branch.  Among these were the extremely unpopular and unconstitutional ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act. 
As all spending must be approved by Congress, a convenient scapegoat, Obama pushed a myriad of spending priorities while tacitly agreeing to spending demands, no matter how outrageous and detrimental to the long-term future of the country, if the right interests were served.  Further, the Congress raised no objections when extra-constitutional regulations were issued and appointments made.  Many dubious and potentially illegal actions by the administration (such as the Fast and Furious debacle) were ignored and swept under the rug in this Congress.
In the meantime, Barack Obama remained above the fray, ignoring Congress and its leaders as they myopically and slavishly did his bidding.  His rare meetings with them were condescending and reminiscent of a summons before the throne of a monarch. 
Unable to muster any self-respect, the Democratic members of Congress have continued to bow before the throne, even after a devastating defeat in the 2010 midterm elections (the Democrats lost 69 seats overall).  In that campaign, the titular leader of the Party, Barack Obama, did next to nothing to help those running for re-election.  In the current election cycle, he has completely ignored the financial and campaign needs of those running for Congress from the Democratic Party.
Barack Obama no longer needs the Congress.  They have already granted and allowed him to usurp sufficient power to unilaterally "transform America" in the next four years, regardless of who controls Congress.  
The bulk of the financial contributions to the Democratic Party and to the Obama campaign in 2008 came from the ranks of private industry, Wall Street, unions, and Hollywood -- all dependent on the free market working efficiently and creating individual wealth and income for the government.  Yet the president's extreme left-wing economic policies, demonization of capitalism, and class-warfare rhetoric are intended to transform the nation into another failed socialist state.  This was a goal clearly stated by Obama during the 2008 campaign but ignored by those who refused to listen or ask questions.
Did those who contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008 expect the United States within four years to accumulate a staggering $6.0 trillion in new debt?  A U-5 unemployment rate (those unemployed, discouraged, or marginally attached to the labor force) that has not fallen below 9.5% since Obama assumed office?  An average GDP growth over Obama's term to date of an anemic and historically woeful 1.50%?  Only 28% of populace believing that the country is moving in the right direction?  And with the global economy facing another potential and more severe financial crisis and recession that the United States, because of the profligate and radical policies of the Obama administration, would be in a near-untenable position to weather?
The answer to all the above is no, they did not, as they refused to believe that Obama was steeped in 1960s radicalism and that once in the White House, Obama would govern as a '60s radical.  The time has come for these blindly loyal financial supporters to understand that the policies and tactics of this administration are aimed at destroying their wealth and standing -- unless they are willing to compromise themselves and acquiesce to the cronyism expected by this regime and be foolish enough to believe they will then be exempt from anti-capitalist policies in another Obama term.
When are the majority of elected Democrat politicians going to admit that they are the battered victims of a man whose only interest is himself and his radical ideology?  That they and the Party they represent have been used to achieve Obama's ascendancy to the White House and putting in place not only unfettered executive power, but the appointment of extreme ideological leftists in the administration to carry out and enforce their vision of America?  Barack Obama has made clear by his disdain for elected Democrats everywhere that his is a dictatorial and narcissistic mindset.
At this juncture in the Obama presidency, surely many party activists must be tired of regurgitating inane talking points and unbelievable excuses for Obama's failures.  They are beginning to appear to the public as well-educated people incapable of generating an original thought not bought and paid for by the Obama machine.
Perhaps, among the rank and file of the Democratic Party, more are waking up to the reality of who Barack Obama is, particularly as the alternative media discovers more about his background, upbringing, and ideology.  It is becoming more difficult to maintain the veil of secrecy surrounding the Obama biography.  But more importantly, the failures of his administration speak for themselves.
Unfortunately, in America today, there are some Republicans and many Democrats who believe that party loyalty is more important than the well-being of the nation and its people.  It was this same selfish short-sightedness that brought to power many despots in the past century -- to the detriment of untold millions throughout the world.
The United States is hurtling toward a cliff.  If Barack Obama is re-elected, the nation will descend into economic and societal chaos.  There are, among elected Democrat politicians, financial contributors, and party activists, many who do understand what the future holds and whom they helped put into the Oval Office.  While a courageous few have begun to publically speak out, far too many are fearful.  This is not the time for cowardice.  If some do not have the intestinal fortitude to go public, then at least come November 6, 2012, in the privacy of the voting booth, may they set aside party loyalty and think of the country and the well-being of future generations

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/party_loyalty_and_the_future_of_america.html#ixzz1x1Lvhv7g

He really hates us....and he is punishing us....for being Americans..

 Shamelessly borrowed from www.barnhardt.biz   An awesome site

 

 

I have read with keen interest all of the attempts by various pundits and thinkers to rationalize and discern the motivations of Barack Obama. I have yet to hear anyone properly articulate the motivation behind Obama’s destructive actions. Most reasonable, clear-thinking people now fully understand that this country is being destroyed before our very eyes. The most solid proof of this came earlier this week with the release of the Obama regime’s 2012 budget which, if adopted, would incur $26.3 trillion in new debt over the next decade. There is only one possible way to spin this fact with any degree of positivity: the United States will not incur $26.3 trillion in new debt over the next decade because the economy will collapse, the government will default and the Republic will cease to exist long before we burn through another $26.3 trillion. So, we’ve got that going for us, which is nice - to paraphrase the great Carl Spackler.

Many theories have been put forth regarding Obama’s stunningly destructive policies. Some say that Obama’s actions are due to stupidity and a lack of understanding of basic economics. The more optimistic (and naïve) say that Obama’s intentions are good, and that Obama truly thinks that he is doing all the right things, and Obama honestly believes that if given enough time his policies will indeed bear fruit. Some say that Obama is a true believer in Marxist theory and is motivated by an altruistic desire to empower the poor by confiscating and redistributing the wealth of the middle and upper classes. All of these contentions are incorrect and merely serve to shield us from the terrifying reality. Barack Obama hates the United States of America and its people, and is on a single-minded quest to exact punishment upon us.

 

One of the most difficult things for a human mind to comprehend is being hated. Hatred is, at its core, the desire that someone or something not exist. Every human soul, even the most damaged and depraved, still revolves around a core that regards its own existence as a positive. Nearly all human actions have a root motivation, misguided though they may be, of either perpetuating or improving the individual’s existence. Thus, even a person who commits suicide does so with the misguided motivation of ending suffering, and thus improving their existence by “making the pain stop”. Because we are created to exist (as redundant as that might sound), we find it almost impossible to comprehend that anyone wishes that we didn’t exist. We find it almost impossible to comprehend that we are truly hated, and will thus jump through psychological hoops with the dexterity of a circus acrobat to deny that reality when we are confronted by it.

 

Barack Obama has spent his entire life, literally from the day he was born, surrounded by people who actively, viscerally hate the United States of America. The Dunham family were Communists. Lolo Soetoro was a Marxist and a nominal Muslim. Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist. Obama’s professors and social circle at Occidental College were Marxists by Obama’s own tacit admission in Bill Ayers’ book Dreams From My Father. Obama’s Chicago mentor and aforementioned ghostwriter, Bill Ayers, is an avowed Communist. Obama’s so-called “pastor”, Jeremiah Wright, is a Marxist and rabid anti-Semite. Since America is the diametrical opposite of the tyranny of Marxism and the tyranny of islam, hatred of America is the inevitable derivitive of Obama's Marxist-muslim life and upbringing. Naturally, all of these people share the common trait of a visceral, seething, and in the case of Ayers, a demonstrably violent hatred of the United States, her economy, her culture and her people. Obama has been indoctrinated since early childhood to believe that the United States is the enemy, the ultimate criminal enterprise, the source and foundation of every imaginable grievance – and not merely on an aggregate scale, but on a personal level. Barack Obama views the United States of America as his sworn personal enemy, and thus his entire life has had as its focus and goal ascending to positions of power that would allow him to do one thing: mete out punishment. And that is exactly what Obama is doing.

 

Obama is, in all likelihood, a sociopath. He does not empathize, or even possess the capacity to fake the appearance of empathy toward other human beings. Obama doesn’t care about the poor or the oppressed, and the horrific collateral damage already being caused by ObamaCare is but one example of this cold indifference. These groups are merely pawns that Obama uses to capture and increase his own power, and to falsely justify the punishments that he is meting out upon the entire country. The more power Obama acquires, the more severe the punishment he can inflict upon the country. The more punishment he inflicts, the more power he craves so that he may inflict even greater punishment. The more horrific the punishments become, the more power Obama can amass by offering waivers, exemptions and protection from his punishments in exchange for loyalty. This feedback cycle, if left unchecked will grow exponentially, and as we are now seeing in the Middle East, could grow beyond the United States and eventually encompass the entire world.

 

Eighty years ago a Marxist and rabidly anti-Semitic madman ascended to power in Europe, motivated by a drive to exact punishment upon Jews and upon his fellow Europeans who drafted and enjoined the Treaty of Versailles. This madman’s hatred and his desire to punish his enemies was intense and personal. He was permitted to amass unspeakable power and inflict some of the worst punishments ever seen in human history. His craving for more power and more punishment was never satisfied. By the time he committed suicide in a bunker in Berlin, he had destroyed his entire country, started a World War that claimed the lives of over 60 million human beings, and nearly exterminated an entire race of people. Unless and until we come to grips with the terrifying reality of Obama’s psychology and motivation, this scenario could unfold again. With a nuclear weaponized Muslim world, the potential death, destruction and dislocation that could result today would be many times larger than what was suffered during the Second World War. Congruently, that same race of people, the Jews, would once again face an attempted genocide. We cannot allow Barack Hussein Obama to continue to punish the United States and the world for crimes against him that were never committed.

The World According to Obama

By Lauri B. ReganPresident Obama recently toured the Korean demilitarized zone and, according to reports, stared disbelievingly into North Korea.  "It is like you are looking across 50 years into a country that has missed 40 years or 50 years of progress," he stated.  Well, yes, it is.  It is also what a country looks like when decades of communism, military dictatorship, human rights abuses, and nuclear obsession exist instead of democracy and freedom.  What did he think he was going to see?  Skyscrapers, green parks with children skipping through the daisies, and obesity due to too much fast food consumption (God forbid)

Alas, Barack Obama is living in an ivory tower in which he has absolutely no conception of what is taking place in so many parts of the world.  And that is not surprising based on the way he has governed over the past three years.  He has proven ignorant of history and world affairs, disinterested in what the majority of Americans want for the future of the country, and focused on himself and his own worldviews.  He is obsessed with diplomacy, the U.N., and leading from behind -- all of which have proven useless in dealing with the world's tyrannies and vitriolic regimes.  But so what?  If these things work inside the vacuum of an Ivy League classroom, they must lead to the idealism envisioned by Obama's indoctrinators, notwithstanding the lessons of history and present-day reality.
But Obama made another comment as he looked head-on into the face of communism.  In discussing the North Korean government's failures, he stated, "There are certain things that just don't work, and what they are doing doesn't work."  Instead of condemning communism itself, the ideology driving North Koreans into poverty and tyranny, Mr. Obama seemingly criticized the management of North Korea.  Communists worldwide have always complained that communism itself is workable, but that problems with the implementation of the ideology have prevented it from being successful.
North Korean communism has been working well for the family that has been suppressing freedom and human rights for decades while it pursues nuclear weapons with which it threatens the world.  What Obama's statement shows is a complete disconnect from the reality of communism, and an indifference to our values of self-determination and respect.
Obama carefully avoided calling a spade a spade and announcing that North Korea is yet one more example of the failures of an ideology that suppresses a society's development.  For in his world view, the bigger the government entitlement program, the more regulation controlling the populous, the better off the citizenry.  In other words, what is not working is not communism, but the government's improper application of communist principles.
This president views the world from his own prism.  In his mind, Muslims hate us because of George W. Bush, but a self-proclaimed grandiose speech in Cairo will turn things around.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs wish to build a nuclear weapon because of American aggression, but a sit-down with Barack Hussein Obama will put a quick end to that.  The Israelis and Palestinians have been incapable of reaching a peace agreement for the past sixty years, but not only will the mediator-in-chief make the rising oceans recede -- he will force an agreement down the Israelis' throats, notwithstanding Palestinian intransience and violence.
Obama frighteningly reminds me of Holocaust deniers who reject the very existence of those atrocities, notwithstanding the vast amount of evidence of the horrifying deeds of the Nazi regime.  In a speech before the U.N. General Assembly, Bibi Netanyahu felt compelled to take out a map of Auschwitz as proof of the Holocaust, notwithstanding the fact that more than enough evidence exists across Europe for anyone to view and stare in disbelief as Obama did in Korea this past week.  However, most people do not actually have to visit the concentration camps in order to recognize that they did exist, nor do they have to spy into North Korea to understand the dire nature of those poor people's lives.
And most people understand that the likes of Hitler, the dictators constituting the North Korean dynasty, and Islamic extremists all view the world quite differently from how individuals brought up in a free society and ingrained with centuries, if not millennia, of Judeo-Christian values do.  To date, in fact, outside Jimmy Carter, U.S. presidents have understood that the world's maniacal leaders require a different type of communication -- one that perhaps may involve not only speaking softly, but also carrying a big stick.
Further limiting Obama's worldview is his desire to restrict his continuing education -- something presumably required of world leaders on a daily basis.  Not only has Obama chosen to surround himself with like-minded individuals of similar backgrounds spent in academic isolation, but he has also opted to limit his sources of news and information.  It was reported several years ago that Obama "hardly ever watches news programs, preferring to 'read the news.'"  What news does he read?  Obama recently shared that he enjoys reading "African American publications" because "those stories of success and hope, that's what sustains us, that's what has driven us, that's what has given people a sense that no matter how tough things get sometimes, there's always a better day ahead."  Tell that to the North Koreans.  Obama is superficial and naive.
So Obama's reaction to the sights in North Korea through his binocular lenses was clearly revealing.  For it offers an explanation as to why he has spent the past three years helping to build fundamental Islamic dictatorships across the Middle East and Northern Africa, "reset" relations with Russia while undermining relations with Eastern European countries whom the U.S. had previously promised to protect, refused to threaten Iran with military action if it does not cease its march to nuclear capability, and required Israelis to search their souls and stop settlement expansion while the Palestinians -- well, the Palestinians don't have to do much of anything.  In a nutshell, Obama's recent statements explain why he continually reaches out to our enemies while bashing our allies.
In Obama's world, every past and present problem in the Mideast and North Africa is Bush's fault.  Only Obama was capable of killing Osama bin Laden, and the Bush policies to fight terrorism that led to that success were all problematic and unconstitutional.  The Iraq and Afghan Wars are successes because of Obama's policies to prematurely end the U.S. military presence in both countries (while simultaneously and hypocritically telling the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea that they are performing honored service at "freedom's frontier").  When those countries finally and completely fall apart, I wonder whose fault it will be.
Through Obama's rose-colored glasses, the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate; Tunisia and Morocco, Turkey and Egypt are all headed in the right direction due to U.S. foreign policy, notwithstanding their march to Islamic supremacy; Ahmadinejad can be reasoned with while Netanyahu must suffer the reprisals of protecting the Jewish democratic homeland; Turkey's Islamist prime minister is a terrific source of advice on how to raise your daughters; and getting caught whispering sweet nothings to the Russian president to subtly reassure Vladimir Putin that the administration will pass along U.S. missile defense secrets once unburdened with an upcoming election is simply a step toward resolving "incredibly complicated issues."
Were Obama a rational and well-educated individual rather than a narcissistic ideologue, one might suggest duplicating his experience in the DMZ, thinking that perhaps if he witnessed the atrocities committed in other areas of the world, he might alter course and actually invoke effective foreign policy in order to safeguard U.S. interests and human rights abroad.  But that has been tried and proven a failure.  For while President Obama has not seen fit to visit Israel, candidate Obama did find it politically expedient to tour America's strongest ally in the region.  And while in Sderot, where tens of thousands of missiles have landed since 2006, Obama's speechwriters did include all the right rhetoric, as he stated that "Israel has the right to defend itself, and peace should not undermine its security."  Sadly, however, Obama's reality revealing binoculars have apparently gone missing.  Since entering office, he has continually demonized Israel's prime minister and policies, discouraged Israel from defending itself against a potentially nuclear Iran, and ambushed Netanyahu with the pronouncement that Israel must return to the indefensible pre-'67 borders.
I am reminded of Sesame Street's Elmo and his cute little song, "Elmo's World":
La la la la, La la la la, Obama's world
La la la la, La la la la Obama's world
He wrote the music
He wrote the song
That's Obama's world.
In your own words Mr. President: "There are certain things that just don't work."  What you are doing does not work.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_world_according_to_obama.html#ixzz1qVkGdphH

It is all George Bush's fault.....

 I got this email from my Dad, so I figure I would post this.

Obama is victim of Bush's failed promises !


Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first term in office:


Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever!

Wow ! Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation's most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America's first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they don't see it as self-imposed. It's all George Bush's fault !

George Bush, who doesn't have a vote in congress and who no longer occupies The White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama's promise, to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama's promise, to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama's promise, to end earmarks.

He broke Obama's promise, to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama's promise, to close the detention center at Guantanamo

in the first year.

He broke Obama's promise, to make peace with direct, no precondition talks with America's most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama's promise, to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high

White House jobs.

He broke Obama's promise, to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama's promise, to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama's promise, for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama's promise, to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it's all George Bush's fault ! President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, all of President Obama's problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel. North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like, if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn't have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks? There would be no ear marks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).

If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, we'd have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama's fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It's all George Bush's fault !

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president's attorney general, to hold terrorists' trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush !

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won the election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing "The Ted Kennedy Seat", President Obama said, Brown's victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years. And they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts,

was George Bush's fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats. It is all George Bush's fault !


Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time

for hope and change ever arrive ???

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something / anything?

(Chuck Green is a veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief

of The Denver Post.)