Opinion: Why Obama Could Still Win in 2012

You can't blame him for being smug.

Every four years we hear the same cliche... "this is the most important election of our lifetime." But the upcoming Presidential election next year might really be the "most important" in America's history.

I say this because there is so much on the line, that the future of our nation will be hanging in the balance.

For the past three years President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, has totally botched his job, making every problem he inherited much worse.

The only way you can debate this point is to completely ignore the facts. Our economy is in much worse shape today than it was when Obama first took office, and he had a clear field for the first two years with supermajoritites in both houses of Congress.

If there was something Obama wanted and didn't get from Pelosi and Reid, then it was simply because he failed to ask for it. The President might have "inherited a mess" but he completely owns it now. He got every bill he wanted passed into law, and every single one of his initiatives has failed miserably.

These are facts that only the most partisan left wing leg tingler could take issue with. Obama had his chance, and he blew it. He had a blank check, and he squandered his opportunity, so it is time for a real change back to competent, experienced, and more rational leadership.

I say that 2012 election could be the last hope for America because we are truly at the crossroads.

Even though this President has dug us into a deep hole it may not be too late to reverse the damage and bring our nation back to prosperity. It might take two more decades to undo the damage he did, and pay off some of the huge debt he has amassed for our children, but it still can be done if we get the right leadership next year. If the President gets four more years to continue his foolish "borrow, spend, and hope things get better" plan, then America is doomed.

You see, President Obama is not a very bright man. He is a leftwing ideologue, who is simply using Keynesian policies that he doesn't understand, and that are obsolete in today's economy. Somewhere in his college days he heard some professor say "Keynesian economics pulled us out of the Great Depression" and he took this to be an absolute truth that should still work 80 years later.

So his entire "plan" consists of borrowing huge sums of money and spending it as quickly as possible, hoping it will somehow create lots of new jobs. Unfortunately, this is 2011 and not 1931. This time, it's not working, and he refuses to change course. He wants to borrow even more and spend it. This is the typical leftwing response whenever one of their ideas fails... "the plan was good, we just failed to spend enough money on it."

Failed President Carter debating future President Reagan

Many people, myself included, developed a false sense of reassurance by making parallels between the upcoming election in 2012 and the election of 1980.

We reasoned that Obama was this generation's "Jimmy Carter" and the voters will simply recognize his complete failure and replace him with a real President in 2012.

Just like how the nation rejected Jimmy Carter in 1980 and replaced him with one of the finest Presidents in our history, Ronald Reagan.

That thinking doesn't apply this time because too much has changed in the past 32 years:

1. The voters have been considerably dumbed down by public schools, the media, and our changing culture. Facts don't matter as much today. They have been brainwashed into thinking our most urgent problems are global warming, having more diversity, recycling, and other progressive causes. It was no accident that our schools stopped emphasizing math. Without understanding math, you can't understand the danger of a growing national debt.
2. Almost HALF the voters who elected Ronald Reagan in two landslides are now dead. They have been replaced by younger voters who have gone through the process described above, and the net result is a societal change in values to the extreme left. You can see this in the leftward drift in polls taken about gay marriage rights, the death penalty and abortion rights. It would have been impossible for someone with a blank resume like Obama to win in 1980. In 2008, he won easily. In 2012, he might win again.
3. The media is now much more bitterly partisan, and they lean hard left. True, there are a very few exceptions, like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, but fully 98% of media will spin the news to help the liberal agenda. Unlike 1980, they will not report "both sides of the story" but rather they see themselves as shills for the Liberal Democrat Socialists. They make absolutely no attempt to even appear non partisan, as they see their role as crusaders for a more progressive society.
4. The Democrats have skillfully expanded the number of voters who don't pay taxes, and who are dependent on more government benefits. These are people whose own best interests lie in expanding government spending. So, while we see 9.2% unemployed as a terrible thing.... they see it as 9.2% who will always vote for anyone who promises another extension of unemployment benefits. This also explains why every liberal solution involves "taxing the rich." Most voters aren't rich.
5. Thanks to uncontrolled borders, our immigrant population is much larger today. Most of these people eventually become voters, and they tend to vote for Liberal Democrats. And every President in recent memory has advocated "speeding up" the naturalization process, even by means of amnesty, to move our electorate further leftwards.
6. Big business has "switched sides" and is now firmly in the camp of the radical left. President Obama accomplished this by giving them generous taxpayer funded bailouts, huge tax breaks and lots of new loopholes, and by relieving them of their biggest employment expense... the cost of healthcare benefits for their workers. Essentially, the President has taken this cost off the backs of huge corporations and placed it squarely on the backs of taxpayers. No wonder huge corporations love him. President Obama has made it possible for them to mismanage their businesses, and still get generous bonuses, which are often paid directly by the taxpayers!

I'm not saying this to be an alarmist, just to lay out the challenge facing us next year. Unseating President Obama will be much more difficult than unseating Jimmy Carter, because so much else has changed. Too many powerful forces want to keep his policies in effect.

And the GOP will not win unless they offer a CLEAR alternative. Serving up another RINO will only result in an Obama landslide.

In a very odd way, the Democrat Party moving to the hard left has created a vacuum, and has drawn the GOP into the "soft left." There are precious few conservatives left in American politics today, and those remaining ones are routinely demonized by the media and the entertainment industry.

The campaign is in full swing to make every conservative as unelectable as Barry Goldwater, Dan Quayle and Robert Bork. Do NOT underestimate this. They have done it before, and they can do it again. Even many in the mainstream GOP are prone to dismiss the Tea Party Movements as "kooks" and "extremists" while those might be the only people left getting it right.

Beyonce Knowles has enough money to want higher taxes

Don't be too encouraged by President Obama's recent slide in approval rating polls. The media will put him back on top. They have the power to influence election results, and they aren't shy about using it.

God help us.

I just hope we have the energy and the will to prevail, and to turn our nation back onto a sensible course.

Because, if the ship sinks, then all the passengers will drown. Even the liberals. They just aren't smart enough to understand this.

Profiles in Stupidity: Senator Patrick Leahy

This is the eight installment of "Profiles in Stupidity" in which we  highlight the dumbest politicians in America today.

Patrick Leahy is the senior United States Senator from Vermont and a member of the Democratic Party.

He is the first and only elected Democratic United States Senator in Vermont's history. He is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy is the second most senior U.S. Senator, and second longest-serving Democrat in the U.S. Senate having served since 1975.

Leahy was first elected to the Senate in 1974. then reelected in 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, 2004, and 2010.

Senator Patrick "Leaky Leahy" is probably best known for the time he leaked classified documents during the Iran-Contra hearings in Washington. Here are just a few highlights:

• Leaky Leahy actually threatened to sabotage classified strategies he didn't like.
• Leahy "inadvertently" disclosed top secret communications intercepts during a 1985 TV interview.
• That intercept made possible the capture of the terrorist who hijacked the cruise shop Achille Lauro.
• Leahy's leak cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation.
• In July 1987, Leahy leaked secret information about Reagan's plan to topple Mulhmar Gaddhafi.
• U.S. intelligence officials said Leahy sent a written threat to expose the operation. 
• Weeks later, news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted.
• A year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, Leahy had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter.

He should have been indicted, tried and sentenced.

Leahy's Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the Intelligence Committee's 10-year history.

Of course, the most famous Patrick Leahy quote wasn't said by him, but to him.

On June 22, 2004, Leahy and Vice President Dick Cheney participated in the US Senate class photo. After the vote, Cheney was only talking to Republicans. When Leahy asked him to come over and talk to the Democrats, Cheney upbraided Leahy for the Senator's recent excoriations of Halliburton's activities in Iraq.

At the end of the exchange, Cheney told Leahy, "Go fuck yourself."

President Obama smashes all previous spending records

Washington DC, Jul 29, 2011. When President Obama gets his debt ceiling deal, and he will eventually get some sort of deal from Congress, he will become the most free spending President in our nation's history.

The Spin Cycle criticized former President GW Bush for his reckless spending habits, but President Obama is making President Bush look like a miser by comparison.

Clinton was a tightwad

When President Obama took office in Jan 2009, our national debt was just over $10 trillion. Once he gets his third debt ceiling increase, he will very likely end up with a $16.7 trillion national debt by the end of his term, which means he added $6.8 trillion to the national debt in just 4 years. Or roughly.... $1.7 trillion per year!

In contrast, President GW Bush added $4.2 trillion to the national debt in his 8 years in office, or just over $0.5 trillion per year.

President Clinton added only $1.4 trillion in his 8 years, or just under $0.2 trillion per year, making him a real penny pincher!

Created 16 million jobs

President Reagan during his 8 years in office added just $1.6 trillion to the national debt. That works out to just $0.20 trillion per year, or roughly the same debt rate that Clinton had. And Reagan created 16 million jobs, won the Cold War, liberated Eastern Europe, and enabled the reunification of Germany!

If President Obama serves four full years in office, his impact on the national debt will be GREATER than the debt accumulated by the first 43 presidents from 1791 to 2003.

You read that correctly. It took 43 different Presidents 213 years to accumulate $6.7 trillion in debt, and President Obama will have exceeded that amount in just 4 years.

Now here's a real shocker.... in his 13 years in office from 1933 to 1945 President Franklin D. Roosevelt added just $.023 trillion to the national debt, or just $.0018 trillion per year! And he brought us through a Great Depression and won a World War, and built the Hoover Dam and the TVA!

And before you tell me that the dollar was worth a lot more back then, let me adjust it for inflation for you. If we convert FDR's $18 billion a year in added debt to today's dollars, then it means FDR added the "equivalent of $300 billion a year" in debt compared to Obama's $1.7 trillion per year... IN CONSTANT DOLLARS!

So President Obama is adding six times more each year to the national debt than President FDR did, and he still doesn't have a single shovel ready job to show for it.

FDR spent a lot less... and got a lot more done

Why does this make sense to anyone? Does any sensible person actually think we can go on borrowing and spending forever?

And why is it, that whenever anyone suggests "spending less" the president will demagogue  the issue by saying "they want us to cut off Social Security and Medicare?"

The truth is, most of President Obama's profligate spending is for political reasons. To reward his special interest groups, to buy votes from minorities, and to cover up his gross incompetence and prevent food riots.

The President is doing what serves his political interests, even if it will destroy the nation.

UK: National Healthcare Begins Rationing Treatments

London, Jul 28, 2011. In a shocking preview of what will happen in the USA, Britain has begun rationing healthcare in order to cut costs.

Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money.

Two-thirds of healthcare providers in England are rationing treatments for "non-urgent" conditions as part of the drive to reduce costs in the NHS by £20bn over the next four years.

One in three primary-care trusts (PCTs) has expanded the list of procedures it will restrict funding to in the past 12 months.

Examples of the rationing now being used include:

• Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.
• Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work.
• Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.
• Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.
• Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.
• Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS.

Doctors are known to be concerned about how the new rationing is working – and how it will affect their relationships with patients.

And this is precisely what will happen here in the USA once President Obama's Universal Healthcare law goes into effect in 2014.

The Obama health care law will limit what health care providers can do to save the lives of your family members. It does so by telling doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers just what diagnostic tests and medical care are considered to meet “quality and efficiency” standards.

This applies not only for federally funded programs like Medicare, but also for health care paid for by private citizens and their nongovernmental health insurance.

The Obama health care law can limit senior citizens’ right to use their own money to save their own life.

It does so by eliminating an option added to Medicare due to NRLC’s persistent efforts to assure that seniors could choose health insurance whose value was not limited by what the government might pay toward it.


State insurance exchanges will limit your right to use your own money to save your family members’ lives. It does so by denying consumers the right to choose plans offered by insurers who allow their customers to spend what state bureaucrats deem an “excessive or unjustified” amount for their health insurance.

New “Shared Decisionmaking Resource Centers” and “Patient decision Aids” may attempt to persuade patients they’re better off without treatment.

Although not named in the law, there is a pattern in the former state efforts to utilize group that discourage patients from choosing treatment that may be extensive or costly.

Democrat Congressman Resigns Due to Sex Scandal

"Rook at me! I big tiger!"

Washington DC, July 27, 2011. Once again another Democrat Congressman has been forced to resign due to their total inability to control their sexual urges. This time it was Oregon Congressman David Wu who has resigned.

David Wu was alleged to have had "unwanted sexual encounter" with the 18 year old daughter of one of his campaign donors, announced that he will soon resign from the House of Representatives.

This development comes hot on the heels of Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner resigning a few weeks ago for sending out inappropriate photos to women on Twitter.

And it wasn't too long ago that New York Democrat Governor Eliot Spitzer had to resign his office due to patronizing high priced call girls.

Precisely what is it that makes these liberal Democrats think they can get away with this sort of bad behavior? One theory is that they were encouraged by former President Bill Clinton's relative ease at "slipping the noose" when he got caught fooling around with a young White House intern.

President Clinton told his staff "we can win this thing" and he was right. After a protracted public relations campaign, Clinton actually ended up with higher approval ratings than he had before his sex scandal broke.

But Clinton had all the power of the Presidency plus all the media support he needed, which is something that neither Spitzer, Weiner nor Wu had going for them.

"This guy must have a screw loose"

The lesson here might be, that unless you can marshal powerful forces in your media war, you might as well pack it in now.

When reached for comment, former President Clinton told us: "This Wu guy must be nuts. I just can't understand how anyone can do something like this. He has caused so much pain for his wife and children. I'm just glad he resigned."

President Barack Hussein Obama will veto any budget deal unless it pushes the debt crisis past his reelection campaign

"Don't worry, the idiots will buy it"

Washington DC, Jul 27, 2011. On Monday night, President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, told the nation that he supported the Reid plan for raising the debt ceiling.

That plan called for what Obama said were spending cuts of about 2.5 trillion over ten years together with a rise to the debt ceiling sufficient to take the country until just after the 2012 election.

The House Republicans have an alternative bill that has a little over a trillion in spending cuts.

Neither bill has any tax increase of any sort. Of course, Obama spent most of his speech calling for tax increases that he has already abandoned by endorsing the Reid bill.

Now the President seems to have changed his mind.  President Obama has announced that he would veto the House GOP bill were it to reach his desk. That is really amazing. According to Obama himself, the difference between the two bills is that the Reid bill pushes the next debate about the debt ceiling out for longer. Indeed, the Reid bill conveniently pushes the issue out past the next election, while the GOP bill does not.

Both bills end the current "crisis" that Obama says will lead to a default by the USA. Both bills allow the government to get back to dealing with more usual matters. Both bills would restore the world's faith in the USA and its economy. But Obama is threatening to veto the GOP bill because it would force him to address the issue again in the middle of his election campaign.

"The important thing here is to push this out past the election"

It is hard to think of a more cynical and despicable exercise of presidential power. President Obama is putting his own well being ahead of that of the country.

This is shameful, but not completely unexpected from a President who is a narcissist and an egotist, and who puts his own political needs above the needs of the nation.

The President's "solution" for the debt crisis is simply to kick the can further down the road. At least until he can be reelected.

35 Dead; 210 Injured in Chinese High Speed Rail Crash

Beijing, Jul 24, 2011. At least 35 people died yesterday when a high-speed train smashed into a stalled train in China's eastern Zhejiang province Saturday.

An additional 210 people are injured, some very seriously.

The accident occurred on a bridge near the city of Wenzhou after the first train lost power due to a lightning strike and a bullet train following behind crashed into it, state television said.

The power failure disabled an electronic safety system that was designed to warn following trains of stalled trains on the tracks up ahead, and automatically halt them before a collision can occur.

It showed one or possibly two railcars on the ground under the bridge, with another hanging above it. Several other railcars derailed in the accident near Wenzhou, some 860 miles south of Beijing.
More than 210 people have been taken to hospitals, the official Xinhua news agency added.

Obama's Corporate Sponsor GE makes High Speed Trains

One train was heading from Beijing to the coastal city of Fuzhou, the other was running from Zhejiang provincial capital Hangzhou, also to Fuzhou.

"The train suddenly shook violently, casting luggage all around," Xinhua quoted survivor Liu Hongtao as saying.

These are exactly the same sort of trains that President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, says we need here in America.


In his State of the Union address last January, President Obama set a goal of giving 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years. Some high-speed routes in California and the Midwest are already under way, he said.

The President's proposed investment in a new high speed rail system would shovel tens of billions of dollars to his close friend and Corporate sponsor Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE. Hopefully GE would build these high speed trains right here in the USA, so a few jobs could be created, but there is no guarantee that they would do so.

Promised to buy trains from GE with borrowed mone

The entire rail project would be funded with money borrowed from China, and paid back by future generations of Americans.  

This means China could insist that the GE trains were built in China, as a condition of the loans.

The President admits that rail travel is the least preferable mode of transportation used  by Americans, but says "Once we outlaw gasoline powered cars, they won't have any choice."

CNN Poll: Is President Obama Losing Liberal Voter Base?

Washington DC, Jul 23, 2011. According to a CNN poll, President Barack Hussein Obama's, D-Kenya, approval rating is down to 45 percent, driven in part by growing dissatisfaction on the left with the president's track record in office, according to a new national survey.

The same CNN Poll also indicates that the Republicans also aren't doing much better.

The survey's Friday release comes as the Obama administration and top congressional officials continue talks on a potential deal tying roughly $3 trillion in new savings over the next decade to an increase in the nation's debt ceiling. If Congress and the President fail to raise the country's $14.3 trillion limit by August 2, Americans could face rising interest rates, a declining dollar and increasingly jittery financial markets, among other problems.

According to the poll, the president's 45 percent approval rating is down three points from June. Fifty-four percent of people questioned disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties, up six points from last month. His 54 percent disapproval rating ties the all-time high in CNN polling that the president initially reached just before last year's midterm elections.

"But drill down into that number and you'll see signs of a stirring discontent on the left," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

"Thirty-eight percent say they disapprove because President Obama has been too liberal, but 13 percent say they disapprove of Obama because he has not been liberal enough - nearly double what it was in May, when the question was last asked, and the first time that number has hit double digits in Obama's presidency."

Looking at that figure another way, roughly one in four Americans who disapprove of the president say they feel that way because he's not been liberal enough.

Obama's approval rating among liberals has dropped to 71 percent, the lowest point in his presidency. And the number of Democrats who want the party to renominate Obama next year, now at 77 percent, is relatively robust by historical standards but is also down a bit since June.

"It's likely that this is a reaction to some of Obama's recent actions, including his willingness to discuss major changes in Social Security and Medicare as part of the debt ceiling negotiations," adds Holland.

The President has been playing high stakes poker by threatening Senior Citizens with Medicare cuts in his attemp

t to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling again. Normally, the Democrats get a large portion of Senior Citizen votes, and these scare tactics could alienate them and cost him votes next November.

Similarly, the President is risking Jewish voter support by his rejection of Israel and strong tilt towards Hamas.

While these are normally very reliable Democrat voters he might not want to keep pushing the envelope to see exactly what it will take to lose their support.

Breaking News: Religion of Peace Kills Innocents Again?

Oslo, Norway, Jul 21, 2011. Once again Islamic fanatics have killed innocent people in the name of their false god prophet Mohammed.

This time they struck in Norway, a peaceful nation that is currently hosting over 150,000 Moslem immigrants, or roughly 3% of the their population. The number of Muslims in Norway has grown considerably, from when it was first counted at 1006 in official statistics in 1980.

Norway suffered two shocking attacks on Friday, when powerful explosions shook the government center in the capital and, shortly after, a gunman stalked youths on an island summer camp for children.

According to media sources, Police were treating the assaults, which together killed at least 90 people, as connected.

Conflicting reports centered on one group, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or the Helpers of the Global Jihad. According to Will McCants, a terrorism analyst at C.N.A., a research institute, the group issued a statement claiming responsibility, saying "the attack was a response to the presence of Norwegian forces in Afghanistan and to unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad."

But Norwegian television reports later suggested that the group had denied responsibility. In the immediate aftermath of recent terrorist attacks, jihadi forums are often filled with claims and counterclaims that are impossible to independently confirm.

While this attack may not be the work of Islamic terrorists, it certainly does mirror their tactics. And the fact that the initial reaction to any senseless slaughter of innocents is to suspect Moslems just tells us that it may be time for the Islamic World to consider precisely why people associate random acts of violence with Moslems.

The explosions, presumably from one or more bombs, turned the ordinarily placid Scandinavian capital into a scene reminiscent of terror attacks in Beirut or Baghdad, blowing out windows of several government buildings, including one housing the office of the Norwegian prime minister, who was unharmed. The state television broadcaster, citing the police, said seven people were killed and at least 15 injured in the explosions.

Even as police locked down a large area of the city, a man dressed as a police officer entered the camp on the island of Utoya, about 25 miles northwest of Oslo, a Norwegian security official said, and opened fire.

“The situation’s gone from bad to worse,” said Runar Kvernen, spokesman for the National Police Directorate under the Ministry of Justice and Police, adding that most of the children at the camp were 15 and 16 years old.

Panicked youths jumped in to the water to escape or went into hiding on the island, which has no bridge to the mainland, a witness said. Many could not flee in time.
 
Oslo police said that 9 or 10 people were killed at the camp, according to The Associated Press. A witness on the island told the state broadcaster that he saw between 20 and 25 bodies on the island, The A.P. reported; the full extent of the carnage remained to be learned.

A suspect was eventually apprehended and was being questuioned by police on Friday. The acting chief of police, Sveinung Sponheim, said the suspect had been seen in Oslo before the explosions there, but they stressed that the investigation was just beginning and that they could not yet say whether the attacks were terrorism-related.

Norway is a member of the NATO alliance and has a small fighting contingent in Afghanistan. It was named by Ayman al-Zawahri, the leader of Al Qaeda, as a potential target for attack.

In 2006, Norwegian newspapers reprinted Danish cartoons that angered Muslims by lampooning Muhammad.

Norway has also historically been a frequent participant in peacekeeping missions and a host for diplomatic talks, including the 1993 Oslo Accords.

South American Leaders scold Barack Obama for debt woes

Brazillian President Rousseff's message for Obama

Sao Paulo, Jul 20 2011. In a stunning show of role reversal, many South American leaders are now openly gloating about President Barack Hussein Obama's, D-Kenya, debt crisis.

After battling their own debt crises and getting constantly lectured about them by the USA, many South Americans are now turning the tables on Washington.

For everybody from presidents on down to street vendors, seeing U.S. politicians argue over where to make painful budget cuts has also been a reminder that those days are over in Latin America.

For now, at least, as most of the region enjoys an era of economic prosperity and comparatively tiny deficits. In Washington, lawmakers were working feverishly to combine elements of a plan to raise the U.S. debt ceiling with market-pleasing proposals to cut spending.

Congress must approve an increase in the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling by Aug. 2 or the government will run out of money to pay its bills.

"When did the American dream become a nightmare?" gloated Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez, whose own country defaulted on about $100 billion in debt a decade ago.

In a speech at the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange on Monday, she contended that Argentina had prospered since then by focusing on exports and controlling financial speculation, a lesson that Washington has yet to learn, she said.

The Americans "thought that money just reproduces by itself, and only in the financial sector, without having to produce any goods or services," Fernandez said.

Washington's biggest critics in the region, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales, have also portrayed the crisis as an inevitable outcome for a country that failed to follow its own financial advice and overextended itself militarily, in Latin America, and elsewhere.

"If they didn't spend money on military bases and keeping troops in other parts of the world, I think the United States could easily resolve its financial crisis," Morales said last week, according to state news agency ABI.

Payback for Paul O'Neill

Memories are still fresh of the self-righteous tone that U.S. officials sometimes seemed to take when the shoe was on the other foot.

One infamous example: As Argentina spiraled into crisis in 2001, then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill mocked the country for its debt struggles and said: "They like it that way. Nobody forced them to be what they are."

These days, Latin America's economy as a whole is expected to expand about 4.7 percent in 2011, which is almost twice the expected rate in the United States

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has met with her team of economic advisers at least four times in the past week, primarily to discuss what a default in the United States or Europe might mean for Brazil, an official told Reuters.

"(Rousseff) starts every day reading the news out of Washington," the official said. "She's fascinated by it."

Chavez and Morales celebrate America's economic collapse

Even if President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress manage a last-minute deal to avert a default, as most expect, the role reversal has left many rubbing their eyes in disbelief.

"If you're a survivor of the crises of the 80s and 90s, (this crisis) is unthinkable," wrote Miriam Leitao, one of Brazil's leading columnists, noting that Obama must now confront the kind of issues "that would have seemed like lunacy to us back in the days when they had a monopoly on power."

Democrats demand deep defense cuts to trim deficit

Barney Frank mulls over how much to cut

Washington DC, Jul 19, 2011. If Democrats think "more government spending" is a sure way to create new jobs and end the Obama Recession, then why are they so anxious to slash our Defense Budget?

After all, virtualy all that Defense spending is spent right here in the USA, creating jobs for Americans.

According to a report from the Washington Times, the political left (i.e. "the Democrats")  are pressing the White House and Congress to inflict a wave of Pentagon budget cuts not seen since the post-Cold War 1990s.

The last time we made drastic cuts, it was at the cost of reducing our intelligence and information gathering, which led directly to being blind sided by the 911 attack.

Liberals are citing the debt crisis and troop drawdowns from Iraq and Afghanistan to argue that now is the time for the Defense Department to shed people, missions and weapons after a decade of doubling arms spending after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The proposals, including one from the Center for America Progress, go well beyond President Obama’s call in April for $400 billion in defense cuts over 12 years.

The center, run by John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to President Clinton, wants that much in reductions over the next three years and $1 trillion from what had been projected increases over the next decade.

Plans for our next bombers will be scrapped

Some House Democrats, led by Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, also have called for $1 trillion in cuts.

“I think this is the time because of a combination of the deficit and the changing way in which we’re going to deal with threats from groups like al Qaeda,” said American Progress’ Lawrence Korb, a longtime defense analyst in Washington.

Mr. Korb said the Obama administration has dumped President George W. Bush’s overall war strategy of preemptive attacks against terrorist states, and he cited just-retired Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ warning against any future land wars in the Middle East.

The bottom line is that the center wants projected increases ended and the overall arms budget reduced to $500 billion by 2016, which would be $111 billion below the Pentagon’s already pared-down projection.

“Gates said we don’t have to go back to Cold War levels,” Mr. Korb said. “Well, we’re above Cold War levels. And that’s part of the problem.”

Gordon Adams, a defense budget official in the Clinton White House, told the House Budget Committee this month that Mr. Obama’s $400 billion number “is a very small step.” He endorsed more than doubling that figure.

The Pentagon has not heard such rhetoric since the Berlin Wall fell and Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush squeezed as much as 35 percent out of intelligence and defense spending.

After al Qaeda’s attack on the United States, defense proponents said such a deep downturn had been a mistake, leaving intelligence agencies and some aspects of the military not ready to fight a global war against terrorists.

The Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle will be cut

 Now, they say, America is about to repeat the mistake, as China and Iran flex their muscles and radical Islam remains a global threat.

Daniel Goure, an analyst at the pro-business Lexington Institute, said the left has it all wrong.

The Pentagon needs more money, unless it abandons or curtails its presence in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, he said.

“If you do what we did the last time, which is essentially salami slice, take bits and pieces from everything and everybody, then you are essentially going to back where you were after Vietnam and at the end of the Cold War drawdown.

Too many missions. Too many deployments. Not enough stuff. Not enough people.”

Clinton Praises Greek Austerity Plan, but Not for USA

Athens, Greece, Jul 17, 2011. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday the United States "strongly supports" the austerity measures that Greece has taken to try to avert potential financial disaster.

"We stand by the people and government of Greece as you put your country back on a path to economic stability and prosperity," Clinton said during a visit to the country. 

Clinton spoke to reporters along with Stavros Lambrinidis, who serves as minister of foreign affairs under Prime Minister George Papandreou.

"Americans know these are difficult days," Clinton said. "The United States strongly supports the Papandreou government's determination to make the necessary reforms, to put Greece back on sound financial footing, and to make Greece more competitive economically."

At the end of June, the Greek parliament voted to implement another round of austerity measures in hopes of avoiding defaulting on the government's debt.

Greeks rioting over austerity plan

The decision came amid a new round of large-scale protests in the streets, with riot police firing tear gas.

Demonstrators rejected measures including reductions in the pay of public workers and social security funding and an increase in the attrition of public jobs.

Last year an austerity package included pension cuts, higher taxes, and a hike in retirement age to 65 from as low as 61.

Many of the protesters were young people who have been particularly hard-hit by high unemployment and blame rich tax-dodgers for the nation's fiscal woes.

Clinton said the measures the government took "were vital first steps. We know these were not easy decisions. They were acts of leadership. And those acts of leadership will help to build a better economic future."

She said that "while the payoff for these sacrifices may not come quickly, it will come. We know that."

"And we also know," Clinton added, "that the price of inaction would have been far higher now and far into the future." 

However, Secretary Clinton doesn't see any need for an austerity budget here in the USA.

Recently Mrs. Clinton said that foreign affairs budget cuts being proposed by Republican members of Congress would be "devastating" to U.S. national security interests. 

"We need to just follow President Obama's Recovery Plan and borrow as much as we can and spend it as quickly as possible. This will somehow create a lot of jobs. At least that's what the president thinks."

Obama Voted Against Raising the Debt Ceiling in 2006

Washington DC Jul 16, 2011. President Obama’s economic advisor Austin Goolsbee said last week that a refusal by the Senate to increase the government’s debt ceiling (currently $14.3 trillion) would be “catastrophic” and a sign of “insanity.”

And that isn't the position the president has held in the past. When President Obama was in the Senate, he thought raising the debt ceiling was a bad idea.

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

President Obama was right when he said that in 2006. Borrowing more money to pay your routine bills is a sure sign you are spending too much.  The President voted against raising the debt ceiling when GW Bush was President, but now that he holds that job he has had second thoughts.

 White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president now views that vote as a "mistake."

"He now believes it was a mistake," Carney said. He said Obama understands that senators want to make it clear when they disagree with the administration but that there are other ways to go about doing it.

He said the debt ceiling vote is not something Washington "can play around with," warning that a failure to lift the cap would be "Armageddon-like" for the economy.

Anthony Weiner Wins Spin Cycle Straw Poll

NYC, Jul 15, 2011. Former Congressman  Anthony Weiner, D-NY, has won the latest Spin Cyle Poll as the popular choice to be President Barack Hussein Obama's running mate in next year's election.

He was the overwelming favorite of those who voted in the poll, easily beating eight other candidates.

Hugo Chavez, D-Venezuela finished in second place, and Cynthia McKinney, D-CA, and Paris "Fufu" Anderson (a virtually unknown former actor) tied for third place.

Ironically, the current Vice President, Joe Biden, D-DE, did not get any votes in this straw poll, which is probably a bad sign for his chances of staying on the ticket.

In addition to Joe Biden, Fidel Castro, D-Cuba, Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Chuck Schumer, D-NY,also got not votes. This poll could also signal the end of Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions. If she can't get a single vote in a Vice Presidential poll, then it is unlikely she could ever get her party's nomination for President next year.

An Obama/Weiner ticket would have strong appeal for white liberals, minorities, and people who send out naughty photos on Twitter.

Possible Democrat ticket in 2012?

Also, since Anthony Weiner is from NY, it would balance the ticket well, since Barack Obama is either from Kenya, Indonesia or Hawaii, based on which documents you choose to believe.

Anthony Weiner is a strong supporter of all of President Obama's policies to increase public debt, and install socialism in America.

This means that this potential match up could work well for the Democrat Party's chances of reelecting President Obama.

Congress Got Rich While the American Economy Tanked

This four minute video should be required viewing for all Americans. If you watch no other video this year, then you should watch this one, and learn about how your Congress is cashing in on insider trading to enrich themselves.

Both political parties do it, although the Democrats seem to be having much more success with their investments than the Republicans are.

This is probably just due to the fact that the party that occupies the White House gets the best insider information. Or perhaps the Democrats just have no restraint, and grab all they can get.

This isn't illegal. Congress has EXEMPTED themselves from insider trading laws! That's right, if a stockbroker tried to do this, he or she would end up in prison. But members of Congress can do it with full immunity.

We all heard about Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, making a 62% return on her investments last year, while everyone else was making very little. She is actually a relatively small player. One Democrat Congressman made over 13,000% profit on his portfolio last year! 

During the period from 2004 to 2008, the S&P 500 dropped 25%, yet 39 Republicans in Congress made over 168% on their investments. If you think that's a nice return... then get this... 41 Democrats averaged a 752% return on their investments during the same period.

Those 100 Congressmen and women earned $152,000,000 during those four years, and in the two years following Barack Hussein Obama's election, they added another $140,000,000 more!

"If these people are so good at managing their own finances, then why are they so bad at managing our nation's finances?"

Visit their website to find out more. In fact, that website should be bookmarked by everyone who is reading this.

President Obama's "Jobless Recovery" marks 14th Straight Week with New Unemployment Claims over 400,000

Today the unemployment rate is much higher that when this headline was published

Washington DC, July 14, 2011. For the fourteenth straight week, we have had over 400,000 new claims for unemployment insurance as the Great Recession continues unabated.

Last week 405,000 workers lost their jobs, joining the ranks of over 13,000,000 others who have paid a dear price for the President's experiment in socialism.

President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, has even referred to this as a "jobless recovery" which can only mean he is applying a new definition to the word "recovery."

Previously, it meant when the economy improved and more people found jobs. But for the president it seems to mean "when Goldman Sachs and GE make tons of money."

GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt: "Do as I say, not as I do"

NYC, Jul 12, 2011. In what must be described as the "height of hypocrisy" the head of General Electric told a jobs summit at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Monday that businesses needed to take the lead on job creation.

At a conference where many of the comments were focused on government barriers to hiring, GE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt acknowledged there needed to be some policy changes by Congress and the Obama administration.

But Immelt said that "the responsibility for hiring lay with businesses."

Essentially, Immelt scolded his peers, telling them to stop whining and start creating some jobs. And this is despite GE reducing their own workforce around 14% since President Obama took over in 2009.

Immelt said: "The people who are part of the business sector, the people in this room, have got to stop complaining about government and get some action underway," he told the group. "There's no excuse today for lack of leadership. The truth is we all need to be part of the solution."

What Immelt didn't say was that GE has been shedding jobs ever since President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, was sworn into office. From 323,000 in 2009 to 287,000 in 2010. That's 39,000 jobs lost!

And it even gets worse... not only has GE shed 39,000 jobs, they also moved 25,000 of the remaining jobs off shore! As the administration struggles to prod businesses to create jobs at home, GE has been busy sending them abroad. If every large company followed GE's example we might have a 20% unemployment rate today here in the USA.

And here is the irony of all this. Immelt was appointed by President Obama's to chair his "Council on Jobs and Competitiveness." 

He said the group has made a number of recommendations for changes in government policies that should be able to help job creation, such as the executive order announced Monday asking independent agencies to rid their books of old and outdated regulations.

Immelt said he is committed to working with Obama on other moves that can help hiring, and that he expects to have proposals by the end of the year that should help to create up to 1 million jobs.

President Flip-Flops again on Tax Hikes

The President announcing his extending the Bush tax cuts

Washington DC, Jul 11, 2011. First he was against the Bush tax cuts. Then he was for them. And now he is against them again.

President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, keeps changing his mind on whether you should get a big tax increase.

When he was campaigning back in 2008, Mr. Obama promised "a tax cut for 95% of you."

Of course, this never happened, despite him having super majorities in both houses of congress for his first two year in office. Odds are that was just a hollow campaign promise designed to dupe a few voters.

Once he was elected and sworn in, Mr. Obama began to blame all his economic problems on "the Bush tax cuts" and vowed to repeal them. However, when the unemployment rate kept growing, and there were no new jobs created by all his stimulus spending, he again changed his view.

Just seven months ago, when the Bush tax cuts were about to expire, the President worked out a deal with congress to extend them for two more years.

Back then, Mr. Obama said the bill would create jobs and boost the still-struggling U.S. economy.

He called it a "substantial victory for middle class families" who would otherwise have seen a tax increase.

"In fact, not only will middle class Americans avoid a tax increase, but tens of millions of Americans will start the new year off right by opening their first paycheck to see that it's larger than the one they get right now," he said.

The President told us that had Congress not acted to address the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, all Americans would have seen a tax increase on January 1st. (The average tax increase per family, the White House said, would have been $3,000.)

Mr. Obama, who had long opposed extending the Bush tax cuts for America's highest-earners, has argued he had no choice but to agree to GOP demands to do so in order to avoid a tax increase on the middle class. 

He further added that failing to extend those tax cuts would result in the loss of "another million jobs!"

The flip-flopping record of Barack Hussein Obama

Well, that was seven months ago.

Today, the President has flipped back to his previous position and now wants a $2 trillion tax hike! Does anyone think a big tax hike will help the nation recover from The Great Recession?

If he believed what he said last December, then this means President Obama now wants our economy to lose another million jobs. And this isn't good news for American workers.

Texas Executes Killer Despite Obama's Plea for Mercy

Humberto Leal

Huntsville, TX, Jul 7, 2011.  Texas executed a Mexican citizen Thursday for the raping and killing a 16 year old girl, even though the White House plead in vain for a Supreme Court stay,.

In his last minutes, Humberto Leal repeatedly said he was sorry and accepted responsibility. "I have hurt a lot of people. ... I take full blame for everything. I am sorry for what I did," he said in the death chamber.

"One more thing," he said as the drugs began taking effect. Then he shouted twice, "Viva Mexico!"

"Ready warden," he said. "Let's get this show on the road."

He grunted, snored several times and appeared to go to sleep, then stopped all breathing movement. The 38-year-old mechanic was pronounced dead at 6:21 p.m., 10 minutes after the lethal drugs began flowing into his arms.

Mexicans burning an American flag

After his execution, relatives of Leal who had gathered in Guadalupe, Mexico, burned a T-shirt with an image of the American flag in protest.

Leal's uncle Alberto Rodriguez criticized the U.S. justice system and the Mexican government and said, "There is a God who makes us all pay."

Leal was sentenced to death for the 1994 murder of 16-year-old Adria Sauceda, whose brutalized nude body was found hours after he left a San Antonio street party with her.

She was bludgeoned with a piece of 30- to 40-pound chunk of asphalt.

The court rejected the request 5-4. Its five more conservative justices doubted that executing Leal would cause grave international consequences, and doubted "that it is ever appropriate to stay a lower court judgment in light of unenacted legislation."

"Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be," the majority said. The court's four liberal-leaning justices said they would have granted the stay.

The Obama administration took the unusual step of intervening in a state murder case last week when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. joined Leal's appeal, asking the high court to halt the execution and give Congress at least six months to consider Leahy's bill.

President Obama appeals for mercy for Mexican killers

The Mexican government and other diplomats also contended that the execution should be delayed so Leal's case could be thoroughly reviewed.

Some also warned his execution would violate the treaty provision and could endanger Americans in countries that deny them consular help.

Measures similar to Leahy's have failed at least twice in recent congressional sessions. The Texas Attorney General's office, opposing the appeals, pointed to those failures in its Supreme Court arguments and said "legislative relief was not likely to be forthcoming."

Communist Party-USA Endorses Barack Obama Again

Washington DC, Jul 6, 2011. For the second time in two consequetive elections the Communist Party USA has decided to support Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, and to not run a candidate of their own.

CPUSA leader, Sam Webb, says he will continue to support Obama and Democrats in 2012.

The Communist Party USA has consistently supported and infiltrated the Democratic Party. The CPUSA has not run their own candidate for President since 1984.

That was the year they felt their ticket of Gus Hall and Angela Davis took votes away from Walter Mondale, and might have helped Ronald Reagan win. Ever since then, they have simply endorsed the Democrat, saying "he is close enough to what we want, an he has a real chance to win."

Sam Webb, the leader of the party, called Obama a friend back in 2008. 

"The left can and should advance its own views and disagree with the Obama administration without being disagreeable. Its tone should be respectful. We are speaking to a friend."

To be fair about it, the Communist Party does have some very minor differences with the Democrat Party. But these are generally differences on very insignificant issues, and they feel they are better off endorsing a Democrat who has a real chance to win, rather than running their own candidate who will always lose.

On the important issues, like socializing American industry, weakening our military,  and expanding the role of government in our lives, the Communists and the Democrats are in lockstep agreement.
 
In fact, the Democrats have swung so far to the left in recent times, that the CPUSA has become largely redundant and unnecessary. This is a common occurrence in American history.

Third parties rarely win elections, but their platforms are frequently adopted by one of the major two parties instead.

And this is precisely what has happened here. This is why we have so many third parties running in elections where they have absolutely no hope to win. They want their policies adopted by one of the major parties.

The main question from a strategic point of view for the Communists is this: Does it make any difference, from the standpoint of the class and democratic struggles, which party gains political ascendency? As long as they get the policies they want enacted into law, then it really doesn't matter who wins an election.

Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren’t identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. But despite their minor differences with the Democrats over past three years, the CPUSA is genuinely thrilled about the hard left direction President Obama has taken the nation in.

Sam Webb wants Barack Obama reelected in 2012

CPUSA Leader Sam Webb tells us:

"We are keenly aware of the fact that the agenda of the far right is to bring this administration and country to its knees, with a heavy dose of racism"

The CPUSA is just doing whatever it can pragmatically do to defeat Republicans and advance their radical left agenda. And for them this usually means "endorsing the Democrat candidates."