A Black Talk Show Host Summarizes the Obamas

Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles... 

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture." 

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state. 

I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous. I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. 

I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. 

The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama's arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs? 

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility. 

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. 

Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same. I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. 

And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. 

He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare. 

I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority. 

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card. 

I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color. 

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood... 

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."

Definition of a Traitor

Liberalism: The Great Double Standard

Unbelievable: During #Shutdown, Government Union Officials Exempt From Furloughs

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  October 6th, 2013 at 10:00 PM  | 

 

One would think that during a government shutdown that has nearly shuttered many government agencies and caused thousands of “ordinary” government workers to be furloughed, union officials on the government dole would be among those sharing the pain of their constituents. However, that is apparently not the case in this shutdown.

As unbelievable as it may seem, Barack Obama has exempted government workers who are union officials from being furloughed. In fact, many of them may be collecting their full taxpayer-funded salaries while their constituents are sitting at home.

According to a story in the Washington Examiner, “government workers who are also union representatives could continue working on official time during a shutdown.”

 

Official time, according to the Office of Personnel Management “means all time, regardless of agency nomenclature, granted to an employee by the agency to perform representational functions under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 and by collective bargaining agreement when the employee would otherwise be in a duty status.”`

When government workers are working on “official time,” tax dollars are used to pay government workers to do union business, not the work of the government.

This makes the issue of government workers performing “union work” when said unionized government workers are furloughed all the more curious.

Nevertheless, according to the OPM’s Guidance for Shutdown Furloughs states on pages 26-27 [in PDF], government union officials will continue to be paid during the shutdown–although they may not have access to agency buildings.

Can union officials perform representational work on “official time” during a shutdown?
A. Exempted employees (i.e. paid by non-appropriated funds) serving as union officials may continue to be granted official time to the same extent and in the same manner as they would under non-shutdown conditions. Other employees serving as union officials may work on official time during a shutdown if such activities fall within the Anti-Deficiency Act’s exceptions. The exercise of a union’s statutory and/or contractual rights triggered by an excepted management action taken during a shutdown would constitute an excepted activity. Therefore, if an agency has determined that a management action taken during a shutdown is permissible because it is an excepted activity, and such action triggers union representational rights under the collective bargaining agreement or 5 USC chapter 71 (i.e. a formal discussion, a Weingarten interview, or the representation of an employee in connection with an adverse personnel action), official time should be granted to employees to perform representational duties related to that action. With this in mind, agency officials should consult with their General Counsel to evaluate whether contemplated management actions will trigger statutorily or contractually guaranteed representation rights.

5. Will union officials have access to their union offices if they are in furlough status?
A. Generally, access to facilities during a furlough may be restricted based on funding, security or other issues. Depending on agency operations, a particular facility, or portions of a facility, may be fully or partially operational. Access to a union office during a period of furlough should not be prevented solely on the basis that a union official seeking access is not in a duty status. Access for representational purposes would be subject to each facility’s requirements at the time, including provisions in collective bargaining agreements [Emphasis added.]

As the National Right to Work Committee noted earlier this year, “In many cases, ‘official time’ is no more than taxpayer-funded no-show jobs.”
During a government shutdown, with union members being furloughed and union officials being paid–in many cases, without access to the very members they purportedly represent, government union officials may very well be sitting at home while collecting their taxpayer-funded paychecks. Or, in some cases, they may actually be being paid to protest the government shutdown.

Remind You of Anyone?

Six Principles Of Propaganda Lenin Used To Consolidate Power  

By MONICA SHOWALTER
Posted 09/20/2013 07:12 PM ET  

Having attained power in late 1917 on a raft of promises — land to Russia's peasants, bread to Russia's starving cities and peace to Russia's World War I-weary soldiers — V.I. Lenin was able to dispense with every one of them by advancing civil war from 1918 to 1921 to justify his acts by crisis.

In place of promises of liberty and rights, Lenin gave Russians propaganda, empowering the Bolsheviks to govern through knoutish messages, if not the barrel of the gun. In so doing, he sought to undermine Russia's weak democracy and to transform society fundamentally.

"The Russian Revolution was permeated with propaganda of a forceful and brutal kind," wrote historian Dmitri Volkogonov in his 1995 "Lenin: Life and Legacy," based on materials briefly available from the Soviet archives.

The propaganda was used not so much to win people over with ideas but by bludgeoning them with coercion, repression and making examples. "The type of propaganda that the Bolsheviks carried out is absolutely central to our understanding of the regime they created," wrote Peter Kenez in "The Birth of the Propaganda State: Soviet Methods of Mass Mobilization, 1917-1929."

A number of patterns emerged:

1. Ends Justify The Means

The broken promises that Lenin's regime started delivered just the opposite. He guaranteed a free press, but in his first two days of communist rule he halted it, ordering opposition newspapers shut down and censorship re-instituted. He called it temporary, but it wasn't.

Lenin also won power with promises to broaden land ownership, but immediately issued 60 decrees to end private property, including a secret directive to destroy state archives of land, factory and building title deeds before anyone could protest. To war-weary soldiers, Lenin promised peace. But he immediately impressed them into the new Red Army, holding their families hostage to ensure their loyalty.

All this was justified in his mind by one idea: consolidating power. In setting off civil war, Lenin put Russia on a war footing that justified any atrocity, broken promise or use of propaganda that served to establish communism.

2. Firstest With The Mostest

Besides implementing a strategy of lies, Lenin also was quick to seize the semantic high ground in the same way his military commander, Leon Trotsky, was swift to seize territory.

Like Nathan Bedford Forrest, the "firstest with the mostest" general in the Confederate Army during the American Civil War, Lenin swiftly altered and manipulated the meanings of words, intellectually disarming opponents.

As early as 1903, at a party congress, Lenin won a membership issue by a single vote. But from then on he called his faction "the Bolsheviks," or majoritarians, and his opponents "Mensheviks," or minoritarians. It didn't matter that the Bolsheviks never were a true majority among Russia's revolutionaries; what mattered was the perception of power.

Lenin repeated the tactic by dubbing Bolsheviks "Reds" to signal an affinity with the bloody violence of the French Revolution, while their battlefield opponents were saddled with "Whites" to link them with the discredited French Bourbon dynasty. Lenin also took title to the word "democracy," disarming opponents who were then unable to project a coherent message. By controlling words, Lenin controlled perceptions of reality.

3. Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

As propagandists, however, the Bolsheviks were not especially persuasive. "The Russian socialists have contributed nothing to the theoretical discussion of the techniques of mass persuasion," wrote Kenez. They "never looked for and did not find devilishly clever methods to influence people's minds, to brainwash them."

Their newspapers were notoriously gray, mechanically spouting simple, choppy messages such as "All Power to the Soviets!" "Create a New Socialist Man!" and "Bread! Peace! Land!"

What they were expert at was making these gray organs into monopolies. Instead of persuading with words, Lenin simply closed other papers, leaving only the Bolshevik publications. The resultant monopoly intensified the impact of his Bolshevik message, according to historian Robert Service.

4. Demonization

In denouncing opponents, Lenin was obsessive, virulent and personal, calling them "bloodsuckers," "insects," "spiders," "leeches" and "vampires." The bourgeois were "ex-people." The murder of Czar Nicholas II and his family was termed "a humane act."

Then there were "hoarders," "wreckers," "saboteurs" and, worst of all, "Kulaks" — the prosperous and industrious peasants of whom Lenin spoke only "with the most seething hatred," as Volkogonov put it.

But Lenin rarely made such statements in public. Volkogonov discovered most of these characterizations secretly hidden in Soviet archives. In public, Lenin wanted to be pictured as a jolly apostle of Marxism.

5. Propaganda of Example

Perhaps the most disturbing means of propaganda against Russia's mostly illiterate population was the use of example as part of a reign of terror. Public hangings and shootings served as well as any written material to force Russians into submission. "These swine have to be dealt with so that everyone will remember it for years," Lenin wrote.

Terror wasn't confined to those who defied Lenin. "We must execute not only the guilty. Execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more," wrote Lenin's commissar for justice, according to historian Brian Crozier in his 1999 "The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire."

To reinforce the Bolsheviks' monopoly of ideas, churches were targeted for destruction because Russian peasants believed what they heard there. Sacred objects were looted and saints' relics tossed into the dirt as priests were shot. Only hollow husks remained as reminders that the old faith was now dead.

According to Volkogonov, Lenin ordered the use of poison gas on at least one village before it was leveled. "The dictatorship means — take note of this once and for all — unrestrained power based on force, not law," wrote Lenin.

6. Blame Your Predecessor

As happened anytime socialism ever had been tried, it was a failure. Lenin's much-desired civil war cost 13 million lives and his ruinous economic policies triggered the famine of 1921-1922. YouTube has many videos of Lenin speaking, with the salient feature being his propensity to blame his predecessor, the Czar, for the economic havoc.

Eventually, he would have to backtrack on communism to hold on to power. But error was never admitted and his New Economic Plan proved just a breather ahead of  even worse horrors to come under Joseph Stalin.

We Tried to Warn You Liberal Morons This Would Happen

Here’s a post from the Daily Kos by one of the now shocked “useful idiots” who made Obamacare possible…

Obamacare will double my monthly premium (according to Kaiser)

by Tirge Caps

Daily Kos

·         221 Comments / 221 New

My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.

Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is going to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.

I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any fucking penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?

Oh, ok, if we qualify, we can get some government assistance. Great. So now I have to jump through another hoop to just chisel some of this off. And we don't qualify, anyway, so what's the point?

I never felt too good about how this was passed and what it entailed, but I figured if it saved Americans money, I could go along with it.

I don't know what to think now. This appears, in my experience, to not be a reform for the people.

What am I missing?

I realize I will probably get screamed at for posting this, but I can't imagine I am the only Californian who just received a rate increase from Kaiser based on these new laws.

UPDATE: Updated the title per some requests. I appreciate all the helpful comments. I am   now on baby duty but will go through these later for more information. I can't keep up with all the comments right now.

I really do appreciate the helpful comments. Peace all. Peace out.

*********

Until we have millions of Obama supporters experiencing the sticker shock of Obamacare, nothing will change in this country. It is our only hope so roll it out!

And for a true view into the minds of the lunatic left, click on the Comments link at the top and have a read.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium

 

GLOBAL WARMING! GLOBAL WARMING!

Oh, wait, never mind… 

’2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’ 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/18/new-study-2013-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-extreme-us-weather-years-ever-many-bad-weather-events-at-historically-low-levels/

All Great Democracies

All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. 

The reason? 

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money  from the treasury by electing people who promised to give  them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them. 

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776 , 236 years ago.  

The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. 

Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

 

The Big Lie, cont'd...

Here’s the truth… 

“Though Obama famously promised that those who liked their health care coverage could keep it under his program, in reality, the health care law imposes a raft of new regulations on insurance policies starting Jan. 1 that are forcing insurers across the country to terminate existing plans.” 

Here’s the rest of the sickening story… 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/carefirst-says-76000-customers-will-lose-current-coverage-due-to-obamacare/article/2537782

 

 

Can This Man Save Healthcare?

OCTOBER 21, 2013 by JORDAN BRUNEAU

While the country focuses its attention on the sputtering implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), one man is quietly revolutionizing American medicine. Dr. Keith Smith, founder of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (SCO) in Oklahoma City, is bringing market forces to healthcare by posting his prices online.

Healthcare costs in the United States have increased at an average rate of 7.7 percent per year since 1980 compared to 4.6 percent for the consumer price index. Smith believes price wars and other market mechanisms, not increased government control, are the best way to stem and reverse this inflation. With the ACA’s imminent implementation, the prospects for formal healthcare policy changes are limited. Smith hopes, however, that he and a handful of other transparent fee-for-service providers will be the vanguard of a free-market movement that runs parallel to the ACA. “The price transparency and price deflation,” Smith says, “aims at the soft underbelly of the beast.”

First Came the Canadians

Smith knew that putting his prices online had been a great idea when Canadians began flying down to the SCO for treatment: “The first thing that happened once we started posting our prices online was the Canadians started showing up. They could pay $3,200 from Vancouver for a hernia operation to step out of line.” The line Smith refers to is Canada’s single-payer, government-run healthcare system, which boasts some of the longest wait times for surgical care in the OECD. Smith contracts with a Canadian health broker specializing in finding wait-listed Canadians access to care and describes the high number of Canadians he sees as “fascinating because that’s the healthcare system that everybody in this town thinks we need.”

In addition to targeting the uninsured and Canadians, Smith has also had success in appealing to people with high deductibles and mid-sized companies in Oklahoma and North Texas. He has directly courted companies that feel that they are overpaying for their HMOs, asking CEOs, “Why would you be OK with paying $14,000 for a tonsillectomy across town for one of your employee’s children when we’ll do it for $2,900?” In response, many companies have moved their health plans to the SCO, offering to eliminate employee copayments for treatment on the condition that surgeries are performed at the SCO. As a result, one medium-sized bank in the region was able to drop its premiums by 10 percent. Smith’s corporate accounts have significantly improved his profitability: “In the last year, as a result of our outreach to CEOs of big companies, we are 40 percent busier than we were a year ago, and it’s primarily due to us posting these prices.”

Healthcare Doesn’t Cost That Much

According to Smith, “Healthcare doesn’t cost that much, but what healthcare professionals charge is another matter.” By cutting out hospital administrators and the bureaucracy involved with third-party payers, the SCO is able to offer healthcare services at deep discounts. For example, for a patient with a bad back, the SCO was able to perform a two-level disc decompression for $8,500. That paid for the surgeon, anesthesia, and supply costs as well as an overnight stay. The patient’s next closest bid was $60,000, saving his company’s health plan $51,500. While few would argue that high four- to low five-figure treatment costs are cheap in absolute terms, in relative terms they are. For major spine surgery, the SCO charges $16,500, which Smith admits “is a lot of money, but people are flying here from Alaska and Massachusetts to get this price because in their home states it’s not uncommon for this surgery to cost $175,000.”

Comparing the SCO’s prices with national average prices backs up Smith’s claims, though it’s tricky: Estimates from different sources vary widely, which is a symptom of an inefficiently functioning market. That said, the SCO comes in under the lower end of national average estimates. The table below lists several surgeries that the SCO does for a fraction of the national estimates compiled by howmuchisit.org.

Price Comparison Between Surgery Center of Oklahoma and National Average ($)

     

Source: Surgery Center of Oklahoma Pricing, www.surgerycenterok.com/pricing/ (accessed  09/13/13); HowMuchIsIt.org, www.howmuchisit.org/surgery-costs/ (accessed 09/13/13).

Put the Patient in the Canoe Where the Money Is

So if the SCO is able to offer care at mere fractions of national average prices, why is healthcare so expensive? A big reason is that consumers and providers are shielded from price signals by insurance companies or government. The healthcare industry consists of a triumvirate of consumers, providers, and payers; neither the consumer nor the provider has an incentive to economize because the former is not directly paying and the latter is not directly charging. Hoover Institution economist Russ Roberts sums up this phenomenon pithily with the statement, “If you’re paying, I’ll have top sirloin.” Without incentives to economize, costs spiral out of control to such a ridiculous degree that providers can charge $100 for an aspirin and consumers can order a bevy of lab tests for a common cold.

Smith believes that the ACA, which further shields the consumer and provider from the cost of healthcare, will only exacerbate this problem. The best solution is to cut out the third-party payers and let consumers and producers negotiate directly, thereby allowing market forces to do for the healthcare sector what they have done for virtually every other sector of the economy: bring down prices and improve quality. Smith says, “Ultimately, the only way to control cost is put the patient in the canoe where the money is, they’ve got to feel like they have some accountability or they’re going to want it all.”

The Silicon Valley of Healthcare

Smith’s transparent pricing has already had a significant impact on the healthcare market in Oklahoma City. Smith says, “What we’ve done by putting these prices online is created a price war, and it’s really going on in Oklahoma City.” With the SCO as an option for residents, the big nonprofit hospitals in the city are having difficulty continuing to charge their inflated rates. “The big hospitals,” Smith says, “have been thrust into a market economy whether they like it or not.” Consumers finally have the option to shop around for the best medical care.

The effects have been felt throughout the region. The Oklahoma Heart Hospital and the nearby McBride Orthopedic Hospital have both followed the SCO’s lead in publishing their prices in an effort to attract consumers. Worried that they were losing heart patients to the Oklahoma Heart Hospital, Galichia Heart Hospital in nearby Wichita has also published its rates, creating the first semblance of the price war Smith has been trying to start.

As a result, Oklahoma and Kansas boast some of the cheapest open-heart surgery rates in the nation, at around $30,000. The procedure costs $106,000 at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “In Oklahoma City,” Smith says, “we’re dragging people along because there is work out there for them if they adopt this strategy.” Even outside the region, the SCO is helping people save on their medical bills; patients from around the country are demanding that their hospitals match the SCO’s prices. Many relent. Smith says that he receives several letters each week detailing variants of this story: “I like to think of what is done with all those dollars that are not spent on giant hospital bills.”

Big Hospital’s Nightmare

It remains to be seen whether Dr. Smith’s business model can have a big enough impact to ameliorate some of the negative distortionary effects of the ACA. In the meantime, Smith seems to relish his role as a David figure fighting the entrenched and moneyed industry Goliaths. He believes that his model can cut into the profits of big healthcare: “The big hospital’s nightmare has arrived.”

Smith admits that his strategy hasn’t won him any friends in the healthcare establishment or, as he refers to it, the healthcare cartel: “I don’t get invited to any big hospital garden parties.” In fact, he claims that “giant hospital chains and insurance companies were lined up arm-in-arm” to prevent the SCO from succeeding. Following its opening, business suffered for several years because it was locked out of insurance plans that would rather pay the higher in-network amounts at the bigger hospitals across town. The SCO only became profitable when it went over insurers’ heads and pursued corporate clients directly. “The big hospitals and insurance companies hurt us for a while,” Smith says, “but we stayed with it; now they’re sucking wind.”

Guns Don't Keep Us Safe??

Crony Capitalism at the Center of ObamaCare Contract

She’s not only a college pal of Michelle Obama, she’s black. The naked favoritism and blatant racism of this regime is stupefying, and this crony capitalism scandal may be the most stupefying of all… 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/michelle-obamas-princeton-classmate-is-executive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/ 

America, when are you going to get over your “white guilt” and call bullshit on these incompetent frauds?   

ENOUGH, AMERICA!  

ENOUGH!!

Company behind Obamacare website in charge of nearly $2 billion in Sandy relief

“The Associated Press revealed Tuesday that a mere $700 million of the $60 billion federal aid package – 1.2 percent of the total funds – has been given to victims of super storm Sandy.”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/26/company-behind-obamacare-website-in-charge-of-nearly-2-billion-in-sandy-relief/

 

Liberalism

"Ideas so good they have to be mandatory"  - Andrew Wilkow

33 Shocking Facts Which Show How Badly The Economy Has Tanked Under Obama

Read ‘em and weep….

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

Barack Obama has been running around the country taking credit for an "economic recovery", but the truth is that things have not gotten better under Obama.  Compared to when he first took office, a smaller percentage of the working age population is employed, the quality of our jobs has declined substantially and the middle class has been absolutely shredded.  If we are really in the middle of an "economic recovery", why is the homeownership rate the lowest that it has been in 18 years?  Why has the number of Americans on food stamps increased by nearly 50 percent while Obama has been in the White House?  Why has the national debt gotten more than 6 trillion dollars larger during the Obama era?  Obama should not be "taking credit" for anything when it comes to the economy.  In fact, he should be deeply apologizing to the American people.

And of course Obama is being delusional if he thinks that he is actually "running the economy".  The Federal Reserve has far more power over the U.S. economy and the U.S. financial system than he does.  But the mainstream media loves to fixate on the presidency, so presidents always get far too much credit or far too much blame for economic conditions.

But if you do want to focus on "the change" that has taken place since Barack Obama entered the White House, there is no way in the world that you can claim that things have actually gotten better during that time frame.  The cold, hard reality of the matter is that the U.S. economy has been steadily declining for over a decade, and this decline has continued while Obama has been living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It is getting very tiring listening to Obama supporters try to claim that Obama has improved the economy.  That is a false claim that is not even remotely close to reality.  The following are 33 shocking facts which show how badly the U.S. economy has tanked since Obama became president...

#1 When Barack Obama entered the White House, 60.6 percent of working age Americans had a job.  Today, only 58.7 percent of working age Americans have a job.

#2 Since Obama has been president, seven out of every eight jobs that have been "created" in the U.S. economy have been part-time jobs.

#3 The number of full-time workers in the United States is still nearly 6 million below the old record that was set back in 2007.

#4 It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers now make less than $30,000 a year.

#5 40 percent of all workers in the United States actually make less than what a full-time minimum wage worker made back in 1968.

#6 When the Obama era began, the average duration of unemployment in this country was 19.8 weeks.  Today, it is 36.6 weeks.

#7 During the first four years of Obama, the number of Americans "not in the labor force" soared by an astounding 8,332,000.  That far exceeds any previous four year total.

#8 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the middle class is taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.

#9 When Obama was elected, the homeownership rate in the United States was 67.5 percent.  Today, it is 65.0 percent.  That is the lowest that it has been in 18 years.

#10 When Obama entered the White House, the mortgage delinquency rate was 7.85 percent.  Today, it is 9.72 percent.

#11 In 2008, the U.S. trade deficit with China was 268 billion dollars.  Last year, it was 315 billion dollars.

#12 When Obama first became president, 12.5 million Americans had manufacturing jobs.  Today, only 11.9 million Americans have manufacturing jobs.

#13 Median household income in America has fallen for four consecutive years.  Overall, it has declined by over $4000 during that time span.

#14 The poverty rate has shot up to 16.1 percent.  That is actually higher than when the War on Poverty began in 1965.

#15 During Obama's first term, the number of Americans on food stamps increased by an average of about 11,000 per day.

#16 When Barack Obama entered the White House, there were about 32 million Americans on food stamps.  Today, there are more than 47 million Americans on food stamps.

#17 At this point, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless.  This is the first time that has ever happened in our history.  That number has risen by 57 percent since the 2006-2007 school year.

#18 When Barack Obama took office, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $1.85.  Today, it is $3.53.

#19 Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.

#20 Health insurance costs have risen by 29 percent since Barack Obama became president, and Obamacare is going to make things far worse.

#21 The United States has fallen in the global economic competitiveness rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.

#22 According to economist Tim Kane, the following is how the number of startup jobs per 1000 Americans breaks down by presidential administration...

Bush Sr.: 11.3

Clinton: 11.2

Bush Jr.: 10.8

Obama: 7.8

#23 In 2008, that total amount of student loan debt in this country was 440 billion dollars.  At this point, it has shot up to about a trillion dollars.

#24 According to one recent survey, 76 percent of all Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

#25 During Obama's first term, the number of Americans collecting federal disability insurance rose by more than 18 percent.

#26 The total amount of money that the federal government gives directly to the American people has grown by 32 percent since Barack Obama became president.

#27 According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government.

#28 As I wrote about the other day, American households are now receiving more money directly from the federal government than they are paying to the government in taxes.

#29 Under Barack Obama, the velocity of money (a very important indicator of economic health) has plunged to a post-World War II low.

#30 At the end of 2008, the Federal Reserve held $475.9 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds.  Today, Fed holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds have skyrocketed past the 2 trillion dollar mark.

#31 When Barack Obama was first elected, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio was under 70 percent.  Today, it is up to 101 percent.

#32 During Obama's first term, the federal government accumulated more new debt than it did under the first 42 U.S presidents combined.

#33 When you break it down, the amount of new debt accumulated by the U.S. government during Obama's first term comes to approximately $50,521 for every single household in the United States.  Are you able to pay your share?

 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-21/33-shocking-facts-which-show-how-badly-economy-has-tanked-under-obama

 

Sorry, Ladies, It's True

“It is not really surprising that this welfare state should breed a politics not of “justice” or “fairness” but of “compassion,” which contemporary liberalism has elevated into the most important civic virtue. Women tend to be more sentimental, more risk-averse and less competitive than men—yes, it’s Mars vs. Venus—and therefore are less inclined to be appreciative of free-market economics, in which there are losers as well as winners. College-educated women—the kind who attend Democratic conventions—are also more “permissive” and less “judgmental” on such issues as homosexuality, capital punishment, even pornography.”              - Irving Kristol, “The Feminization of the Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal (September 9, 1996): p. A16 

“Citing marriage as ‘a very important financial divider,’ the American Enterprise Institute's Doug Besharov suggests more married women did not vote for Dole because of a widespread sense of societal insecurity: ‘It is not that they distrust their husband, but they have seen divorce all around them and know they could be next.’ The Polling Company's Kellyanne Fitzpatrick is categorical: ‘Women see government as their insurance.’ (Perhaps significantly, of the 24 million individuals working in government and in semi-governmental non-profit jobs, 14 million—58 percent—are women.)”  -The Richmond Times Dispatch, December 5, 1996 

“Federal Government expenditures remained remarkably constant until the 1920’s. In fact, as has been widely noted by public choice scholars, World War I was the first war after which per capita government expenditures did not return back to their pre-war levels and by the end of the 1920’s the growth trend that we are so familiar with today had begun. To explain this timing, some point to the effect that the seemingly successful economy wide regulations during the war had on people’s beliefs about the role of government (Higgs, 1987). 

We propose that giving women the right to vote changed the size of government. We examine several indicators of the size and scope of government, from state government expenditures and revenues to voting index scores for Federal House and Senate members from 1870 to 1940.” 

“How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?” – Scientific Research Paper by John R. Lott Jr. and Larry Kenny, September 1998 

(Click on this link to download a copy of the 75 page research paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=160530)

Linus Gets It

 

 

"Take Your Medicine!"

“Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.” 

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area

 

Why We Hate The Government

“Even though isolated barricades with "closed" signs remained on the National Mall on Tuesday, the setup for the immigration reform rally said otherwise. A giant stage with lights and an "Immigration Reform Now" banner was set up in the center of the mall, along with three large portable screens. On one side of the mall, more than 100 porta potties were set up for protesters who will attend the rally today.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/signs-say-national-mall-closed-but-immigration-reform-rally-is-a-go/article/2536957

 

The Problem with Government Programs

The exact cost to build Healthcare.gov, according to U.S. government records, appears to have been $634,320,919, which we paid to a company you probably never heard of: CGI Federal.  The company originally won the contract back in 2011, but at that time, the cost was expected to run “up to” $93.7 million – still a chunk of change, but nothing near where it ended up. 

And you’re wondering why federal government spending is out of control? 

Any private company that had these kinds of cost overruns would be driven out of business for any number of reasons. The client would refuse to pay the cost overruns, the stock would tank, private investors would pull their funding, no potential client with half a brain would ever hire them in the future, and there would be no money to pay the employees.  

With the federal government, however, they just keep throwing OUR money at the failed project until it fails spectacularly.  But this time we’re not just talking about wasted money. This is a MANDATORY federal government program that fines every single American if they don’t go to the website and sign up…and the damn thing doesn’t work. 

Now what, you dimwits?

Thought for the Day

We are always hearing about how Social Security is going to run out of money.

How come we never hear about Welfare running out of money?

Republicans Don't Know How to Sell

Here’s how to sell… 

”The only reason the government is shut down right now is that Democrats refuse to fund the government if they are required to live under Obamacare.”

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-10-09.html

Here’s how not to sell…

“Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, epitomized what has been wrong with the Republicans for decades when he emerged from a White House meeting last Wednesday, went over to the assembled microphones, briefly expressed his disgust with the Democrats' intransigence and walked on away.”

http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/inarticulate-republicans.html

Bottom line: Republicans couldn’t sell you a glass of ice cold lemonade in the middle of the Mojave Desert in the middle of August. Democrats know how to sell, even when they’re selling pure, unadulterated bullshit. How do you think they got Obama elected?

Republicans care about substance and assume that the average American has the time and desire to pay attention to substance.  That's not reality.  It takes too long and requires thought. 

Democrats care about message and target the average and below average American with messages that drive emotion because they know a sound bite can sell a concept and communicate emotion.  

Obama is a Criminal

 

“Embattled IRS official Sarah Hall Ingram made 155 visits to the White House to meet with a top Obama White House official with whom she exchanged confidential taxpayer information over email.”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/10/irs-white-house-officials-that-shared-confidential-taxpayer-info-had-155-white-house-meetings/

Now, what the hell are we going to do about it?

October 11, 2013

'I Am The Guilty Man'

American Thinker

By Charles E. Moore

 

I am the reason liberals believe their policies and ideas will work in the real world. I am the driven American entrepreneur.

Every time an entrepreneur accepts a directive from the government that will harm his chance of earning a profit; every time a roadblock is put up and the entrepreneur finds a way to adapt and keep moving on; every time a conservative curses the policy of the liberal but still keeps running his business and paying taxes... he confirms the liberal policy as a logical reality.

Why wouldn't liberals keep pushing their agenda? Why wouldn't they believe their policies could work? We make their irrational ideas work for them. We prove them right. Every time we open our doors in the morning and go to work on the day's business, no matter what the obstacle... we make their policies rational. Every day I press on with my small business and eight employees. If my cash flow shrinks... I work harder. If regulations make my job more difficult... I work longer hours. No liberal policy is rational. No liberal proposition ever makes logical sense. Yet we press on despite smaller margins, higher regulations, higher taxes, and further vilification by the American Left.

You see, liberals are not guilty for destroying this country. I am guilty for accepting their agenda and pushing forward even in the face of more people that choose to produce nothing... yet consume everything.

You cannot eat your cake before you take the time to make it or earn the money to buy it. To eat your cake first, you must become a leech and steal from the efforts of others... producing nothing yet expecting everything. Society cannot prosper within this context. Yet, I press on. I produce and I allow the looters to steal from me.

These looters complain that the doors before them are locked and because of this, need help from a central governing body to steal from me and give to them. Those that throw away the key should not complain that the doors before them are locked. Many decades ago, the body parasite was born in the liberal mindset. slowly but surely dumbing down education and passing regulations to make it legal to steal from the producers and give to the leeches. Understand that "the key" is education and hard work. If you are not smart enough to open the door before you, you are destined to keep running into it, repeatedly, until the government shows up to give you an easier way. There is no logic in this. All the same I continue, pressing on, producing for others... proving that  liberal policies work.

"This country, this product of reason, cannot survive based on the morality of sacrifice," Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged) said. "America was not built by men who sought self-immolation or by men who sought hand outs." People who gave up everything and gave of themselves to create a new beginning built America. It was a chance for all men to produce and reap the rewards of their production. Yet American liberals for decades have acted as the apologists to the world for our success. Never acting proudly, but rather disabled by some disease that overwhelmed them with guilt. But the producers accepted the New Deal, we accepted welfare, we accepted environmental regulations, we accepted greater and more abusive taxes. We pushed on, keeping a smaller piece of the pie for ourselves but we continued because we did not know any other way.

In the book Atlas Shrugged, a comment is made by one of the lead characters: "When those that produce must ask permission from those that produce nothing, you will know that your society is doomed."

In President Obama's first term, a total of $70 billion in new regulation costs were added to American business. Every business owner faces challenges not thought of 100 years ago. For example, The Rough and Ready Sawmill, a 91-year-old timber business in Oregon, recently closed its doors forever. Due to the crippling effects of the Endangered Species Act, the business could no longer survive

Furthermore, new entrepreneurs face greater challenges not heard of in the past. Barriers to entry used to mean items such as finances, experience, product knowledge, cost of goods, etc. Now you have to include regulatory rules and procedures from central-planning bodies that think they know your industry better than you. Capitalism used to take care of bad businesses all on its own through competition, a defining attribute of this great nation. Those establishments that were inept went out of business to be replaced by a better version. Now, government tries to protect us from those less-than-mediocre establishments through the rule of law... capitalism at its least efficient.

So, why do we push on? Because, the central power has us trapped like a hamster in a wheel. Running as fast as we can until our hearts give out and we die in that wheel. We run because we want to keep our homes and our cars. We want to keep our children in dance school and Little League. We run, keeping a smaller piece of the pie with every step we take. We run and make the liberal agenda seem practical and rational to the left. Why would they change their thinking? We have never given them reason to. Why would they accept that they are wrong? We prove them right. They have built the perfect trap. They allowed us to gain wealth by our production. More importantly, they allowed our families, the ones we love, to get used to the comfort of our wealth. I could not imagine telling my daughter that she can no longer go to dance school because daddy quit his business to prove a point. Though, in the beginning, this is exactly what we should have done. Instead of capitulating to the whims of governing bodies, we should have resisted as a unified front. Government relies 100 percent on the success of business to survive. The inverse is not true. It was our ball, our playground, but we tried to play nice with a vampire... in the end, our lifeblood is/was drained. Once we were used to the spoils of success, the trap was sprung. They started taking it away, our reward for hard work and self-sacrifice, little by little, making it harder to keep up our standards. But yet we continue running.

This is why, as I initially stated, I accept the blame for the downfall of America. I am the American Entrepreneur, the guilty one. I make the left... right.

Charles Moore runs Triangle Benefit Services and Triangle Payroll Services with his wife Deana Moore. Triangle has been in business since 1995, employs eight people and is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/10/i_am_the_guilty_man.html at October 11, 2013 - 10:44:07 AM CDT