Sorry, We’re not buying the Bush Excuse

Sorry, We’re not buying the Bush Excuse http://commonsenseinaradicalage.blogspot.com/2012/06/sorry-were-not-buying-bush-excuse.html http://commonsenseinaradicalage.blogspot.com/  Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:07:00 GMT  

You cannot blame Bush for Solyndra or the economy, simply because it sounds so much better, than “I, the most arrogant poc to ever enter the White House (and, there have been some real stinkers before you), have created an economy that would make dogs howl.” It’s not that simple. Worse than that, Obama—you pathetic loser—it’s a lie. Here’s the deal. You set out to “fundamentally change America,” in short, destroy her, and you’ve damn near accomplished your purpose. We’ve listened to you whine. We’ve heard you lie, and now; you're grasping at straws. You’re done. It’s over. The country you chose to change has more backbone and more ethics than you will ever know, and you’ve lost through simpering, whining, and lying.

George Bush started the bank bailouts, not the automobile industry bailouts, not the stimulus for shovel ready projects that were, by no man’s calculation save your own, shovel ready. He didn't transform health care into a Nanny state dream that no nation could support, monetarily. He didn’t stop the drilling of oil, but left behind policies making it possible for you take credit for the amount of oil being drilled today. He didn’t react to Katrina for two days. You didn’t react to the BP oil rig disaster for 45 days. He didn’t promise to pay for low-income folk’s gas, rent, mortgage, or groceries. You did, and you didn’t deliver because you cannot deliver without taking money from someone else’ pocket.

He didn’t promise to redistribute other people’s income. You did, and what most of us would like to know is, “Who the hell died and made you a god that can decide who gets to keep their income and who has to forfeit to accomplish your goals?”

The Main-Stream Media—not to be mistaken with legitimate news agencies—has declared your foreign policy “The Best that ever Was!” Yes, thanks a lot you stupid jerk, now the whole world knows we have a wimp in the oval office that is willing to bow down to thugs and hoods overseas. You’ve claimed—all by yourself to hear you tell it—that you killed a man who died in Tora Bora in 2002 from kidney failure…who you had those men kill, is beyond most of us; however, no blame goes to them. They were simply following orders. Yesterday, another one of your “sure kills” rose from the dead. Are we surprised? Not in the least.

Today, you believe that the American people have a short attention span, and that we will forget what you’ve done to our beautiful nation, but don’t count on it!! Your arrogance has you insisting that you be given the respect due to a president, but you have not earned it. The only thing you’ve truly earned is a one-way ticket home…and most of us, to this day, are really not sure where that home is, because you were given a free pass and have never had to prove anything.

We hear all the cries of “racism," and it falls on deaf ears. One, you’re half white, and two, your policies and not your skin color are what we abhor. Racism has nothing to do with what is wrong with this nation. Our country has been, and will be, the only country in the world that won’t judge a man’s actions by his color but simply by what he has chosen to do. Your actions speak volumes, while your words are hollow and without meaning. Your lies are another thing. Those may seal your fate, yet.

When will Obama crack in public?

At a time when many Americans can barely afford Burger King and a movie, Obama boasts of spending a billion dollars on his re-election campaign. Questioned at a recent appearance about the spiraling fuel costs, Obama said, “Get used to it” – and with an insouciant grin and chortle, he told another person at the event, who complained about the effect high fuel prices were having on his family, to “get a more fuel-efficient car.”

The Obamas behave as if they were sharecroppers living in a trailer and hit the Powerball, but instead of getting new tires for their trailer and a new pickup truck, they moved to Washington. And instead of making possum pie, with goats and chickens in the front yard, they’re spending and living large at taxpayer expense – opulent vacations, gala balls, resplendent dinners and exclusive command performances at the White House, grand date nights, golf, basketball, more golf, exclusive resorts and still more golf.

Expensive, ill-fitting and ill-chosen wigs and fashions hardly befit the first lady of the United States. The Obamas have behaved in every way but presidential – which is why it’s so offensive when we hear Obama say, in order “to restore fiscal responsibility, we all need to share in the sacrifice – but we don’t have to sacrifice the America we believe in.”

The American people have been sacrificing; it is he and his family who are behaving as if they’ve never had two nickels to rub together – and now, having hit the mother lode, they’re going to spend away their feelings of inadequacy at the taxpayers’ expense. Read full article: When will Obama crack in public?

Big Three Ignore Religious Freedom Rallies; CBS Played Up Dissenting Catholics' Protests

Big Three Ignore Religious Freedom Rallies; CBS Played Up Dissenting Catholics' Protests http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/06/11/big-three-ignore-religious-freedom-rallies-cbs-played-dissenting-cath http://newsbusters.org/  Mon, 11 Jun 2012 21:08:11 GMT  

ABC, CBS, and NBC stayed true to their liberal slant and ignored the 164 rallies across the United States on Friday against the federal government's abortifacient/birth control mandate under ObamaCare. Religious leaders and conservative politicians, like former GOP presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann, addressed the tens of thousands of pro-religious freedom activists who attended the rallies. But the Big Three apparently didn't think this was worthy of coverage on their morning and evening newscasts.

By contrast, CBS played up the supporters of a group of left-leaning Catholic nuns during four on-air segments between May 30 and June 1, 2012. Correspondent Wyatt Andrews hyped how "hundreds of Catholics have rallied behind the sisters," and that "protests in support of the nuns have been held in almost 50 cities."

The networks have been reluctant to cover the controversy since the Health and Human Services Administration announced the mandate on January 20, 2012. It took CBS ten days to cover the story on their morning show, CBS This Morning. ABC and NBC remained silent for two weeks.

By February 15, the Big Three had spun the story as political food fight between liberal and conservatives and downplayed the Catholic Church's objection to the regulation, along with freedom of religion aspect. A MRC study found that out of the 91 talking heads that appeared as part of their coverage of the mandate, politicians outnumbered Catholic Church officials by a margin of 60 to 9.

The broadcast networks' evening newscasts also punted when Catholic dioceses and organizations filed 12 lawsuits against the mandate in federal courts around the country on May 21, 2012. CBS did bring on New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan on the May 22 edition of CBS This Morning. Correspondent Norah O'Donnell followed up on this interview with a question to Jay Carney later that day, but her exchange with the White House press secretary didn't make it on the air.

---

Here's the next thing that the networks will brazenly ignore. The Catholic bishops of the United States recently called for a "great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty" between June 21 and July 4, 2012. Dioceses have organized "prayer and public action" events for this "Fortnight For Freedom." Between their track record so far on the mandate controversy, and their longer-term omission of the March for Life (attended by hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers each year), it's completely plausible that the Big Three will collectively yawn at that campaign as well.

Paul Krugman: Obama 'Screwed Up' 'Private Sector Is Doing Fine' Line

Paul Krugman: Obama 'Screwed Up' 'Private Sector Is Doing Fine' Line http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/11/paul-krugman-obama-screwed-private-sector-doing-fine-line http://newsbusters.org/  Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:54:06 GMT  

President Obama made quite a gaffe Friday when just one week after the Labor Department announced horrid jobs numbers for May, he claimed "the private sector is doing fine."

Appearing on CBS's This Morning Monday, New York Times columnist and unashamed Obama shill Paul Krugman covered for the current White House resident saying, "He screwed up the line" (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):

Co-host Charlie Rose asked his guest, “How do you define how well the private sector is doing?”

Krugman responded, “That was an unfortunate line. I mean, the President bungled the line. The truth is, the private sector is doing better than the public sector, which is not well enough.”

“The real story about this economy,” he continued, “is that the cut-backs at the public sector are what’s hurting the recovery.”

“By this point in Obama’s presidency, if we had normal public sector job growth, we’d have around 800,000 more people: firefighters, schoolteachers, police officers. Instead, we’ve got 600,000 fewer. So right there, it’s like 1.4 million jobs that we should have had in the public sector. And, of course, those would have translated into more private sector jobs, too. So that’s what he was trying to get at, and of course, he screwed up the line.”

Increased public sector jobs lead to increased private sector jobs? Actually, it's normally the other way around.

As the economy grows and businesses add to payrolls, tax revenues increase thereby giving federal, state, and local governments more money to add public employees.

Not surprising that a liberal economist wouldn't understand this, especially as he had been on This Morning a few weeks ago spouting the same nonsense.

So what's the truth about public sector job growth?

Well, at the federal level - which is really the only thing directly controlled by the White House and the United States Congress - there are currently 29,000 more employees than when Obama was inaugurated.

Attention liberal media members: that's an INCREASE!

At the state level, there are 125,000 fewer employees around the country than there were in January 2009, but that total is equal to what there were in July 2006 about a year and a half before the recession began.

The real decline in public sector employees since Obama's inauguration has been at the local level where there has been a 511,000 reduction back to the number in November 2005 two years before the recession started.

Why? Because local governments around the country have been increasing in size for decades at a rate that has been completely unsustainable.

---

Is it the federal government's responsibility to make up for this shortfall?

Liberal media members such as Krugman believe so. But should that be a permanent thing?

Let's assume more federal tax dollars are sent to local communities so that they can hire more teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Where does the money come from when those dollars are eliminated?

Have these communities been forced to address their budget problems by matching expenditures to tax receipts, or have they been given a lifeline by Washington to just keep spending more than they bring in?

Won't they just go right back into a deficit and have to lay these people off when those federal dollars are removed?

People like Krugman never have an answer for that.

Also of importance, do we know that these communities need more teachers, firefighters, and police officers? Has Krugman or anyone else advocating an increase in such hiring determined there's actually an inadequate number of these public employees in all localities around the country?

Let's understand that all because these numbers are down from shortly before the recession began, that doesn't mean they need be increased at this time. When it comes to public employees, hiring for hiring's sake just leads to budget deficits in the future.

But folks like Krugman don't care about that.

To them, debt isn't a problem, for we can always just print more money.

To receive my articles hot off the presses follow me on Twitter ow.ly/btalc and Facebook ow.ly/btald.

— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) June 9, 2012

Hey Obama, dude have you seen my job? - Tea Party Nation

It is a good thing the Obama Regime is not in the secret keeping business.  After all, secrets like the number of nuclear weapons we have, our interrogation techniques we us against terrorists or whether we were responsible for the computer viruses that attacked Iran’s nuclear program are not really important. 

Nor is it important that a secret meeting between Obama and a bunch of young actors in Hollywood slipped out.

Of course in Obama land, that meeting is the most important and as with all of the other leaks, it was done to help Obama politically.

The under thirty crowd in America must be ecstatic.  Obama met with Jessica Alba, Diana Agron and twenty other young celebrities in Hollywood. 

Of course many in the under thirty crowd have time to watch a lot of TV and see these celebrities because they are not employed.   They are not lazy.  The just simply cannot find work in the middle of the Great Obama Depression.

Obama is desperately trying to get the youth vote out for him again.  He and the left figure the youth vote is both idealistic and impressionable.  They went to bat for him big time in 2008 and he must have them if he is to have any chance at being reelected in 2012. 

Instead of worrying about what a lot of brain dead Hollywood types think, the under thirty crowd should be asking Obama, “Dude, where is my job?” Read full story: Hey Obama, dude have you seen my job? - Tea Party Nation