Obama warns: dangers of social media

Oh, it’s another little helpful warning from Obama’s bully police. Something to take very seriously, har har.

Washington Examiner

Obama, who was interviewed by Prince Harry for the BBC, did not mention Trump by name, though his comments appeared to be directed at Trump who frequently takes to Twitter to express himself.

“One of the dangers of the Internet is that people can have entirely different realities,” Obama said. “They can be cocooned in information that reinforces their current biases.”

“The question has to do with how do we harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices, allows a diversity of views, but doesn’t lead to a Balkanization of society and allows ways of finding common ground.”

Mr. Irresponsibility himself lectures us. I don’t know about everybody else, but I’m sick of his lectures.

From the guy who it turns out did absolutely nothing in response to all the dangers on social media and threats he was supposedly seeing.

A serious WaPo story had the rundown of the timeline where Obama didn’t seem to care much about any of that.

Closer to home for Americans, Russian government trolls in 2012 went after a U.S. ambassador for the first time on social media, inundating his Twitter account with threats.

But for U.S. officials, the real wake-up call came in early 2014 when the Russians annexed Crimea and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. An intercepted Russian military intelligence report dated February 2014 documented how Moscow created fake personas to spread disinformation on social media to buttress its broader military campaign.

Imagine this lecture coming from the guy who never got any real opposition on anything? The guy who used social media as his personal playground for all his drooling sycophants to dominate the airwaves. The Obama that couldn’t get him enough FB attention — with his hordes of fake followers on social media. Sickening to listen to this crap he spews.

What about the dangers from what he did? The danger of his 20 trillion dollar debt? The danger of ignoring the largest crime-terrorist organization to get some phony deal with Iran? His web of deceit really has no ends.

We had 8 years of this threat-in-chief in the White House undermining government, weaponizing information and their politicization of every department. Now, he is worried about social media — very dangerous. Balkanization? Surely you are joking. That’s why he came out talking about dangers of our social media, to divert from his record.

And, by the way, all of those things well before Donald Trump ever appeared on the scene. Now all their fingers point to Trump. What hubris, deflection and deception. Now they need to have an investigation into Trump! Really, absurd.

The Central Factor is Time

Looking across the spectrum of all these problems today, the one common denominator and leading factor in all of our issues or problems seems to be time.

How many songs have been written about time? It’s the one known factor and one thing we have no control over. And time is pressing.

Plug time into anything and it gives you the known variables. How much time do we have? How much time does it take to fix it? How much time is necessary to get the desired results? How much time is being wasted by ignoring the problems? How much time is wasted for all sorts of reasons? In the end, does the clock have enough time available to turn the situation(s) around?

So many people may be looking for a new clock by now. Some may be resigned that it is not even possible anymore. Some are just complacent that it even matters — with so many other concerns upon them. But then, time alone will not fix things either. It can only make the problems a little older.

Just a few general thoughts about the general factor in all our issues, time. We don’t have much left in this election.

Yet there is one other thing that I noticed, politically. Democrats have this habit of overreaching. Of course that is only a byproduct of their politics. They are constantly trying to push the outer limits on everything — whatever it is — as far as they can go. So the natural extension of that is to overreach.

The problem is that it does not seem to bite them more often, if at all. They are now floating the idea of not just beating Trump and getting the White House, but that this could even be a wave election for them in Congress. See what I mean about overreaching? It never ends with Libs, progressives, socialists, whatever they call themselves.

RightRing | Bullright

Thugs to Saints

We saw firsthand in the last 8 years how Thugocracy really works, in real time. Examples too countless to mention but it demonstrated how much like street thugs the government has become. We can’t trust anything it does or says. Of course it was nothing new, not like we didn’t know evolution of government had a mutated gene. And then we elected Barack Obama to the White House to kick it up a couple notches.

We knew in 08 what to expect and somehow our worst expectations were not horrific enough. We assumed, incorrectly, that we the people, with the help of some Congress critters, could hold down the fort. After all, he could only be allowed to go so far, we thought. Some conservatives even laughed at the onset that this change for the worst would be the best thing for conservatives. They rationalized that it would rally conservatives and lead us to victory down the road. That was wishful thinking.

There was no will to stop the president from doing whatever he pleased. Actually, many Republicans bent over backward to give him what he wanted. He never had to pass a real budget in his first term. It was pie in the sky.And Obama went on a shopping spree to make any big spender proud. Oh, and while he did it he told us he was actually saving us money and reducing the deficit. People did not really believe it but they let him have his way. He was, after all, the nation’s first black President. What that had to do with any of it I’ll never know or understand.

Then came the end of his first term and the 2012 election. Surely, he could not win considering the cluster f&&#@ he created. We were wrong about that too. The only way he could win, as David Plouffe put it, was to run as an insurgent candidate — with the plan of fixing the problems. So the incumbent ran like an insurgent and ran against himself.

After all, he was not responsible for any of the problems, including the dragging economy. He was never held accountable for one thing.Then we had the Benghazi attack that put the lie to his chief narrative about terrorism. If the economy was that bad, at least he could claim terrorism was on the run.It was all lies after four years of failure, but what difference at that point did it make?

The thugs reigned in government and they were not going to let it slip from their hands if they could stop it. They just lied and when that failed they lied some more. Getting Candice Crowley to lie for Obama at the debate was an added bonus.

The Art of Revision

Fast forward, one campaign and election later. Now we are treated to all the revision they can muster on how great things are. Obama and Hillary deserve the ‘credit’ for this great progress. Rome is in flames but “have no fear.” Hearing them rave about how good the economy and everything is takes some chutzpah. They got plenty of that. Then came the Democrat convention. I was curious how they’d frame Hillary especially with Obama’s dismal record.

Well, the wait was over after the first few speeches. I saw how they were turning her into Mother Teresa right in front of my eyes. Was this the same failed Sec of State and part of the scandalous Clinton duo we all know? Sure it was, but now she is a saint. Was this that scandal queen we all knew? Seems she could do no wrong and leading a party as the first Nanny in Chief. Bill Clinton declared the era of big government was over, Hillary declares it has only just begun. She promises to continue Obama’s abysmal legacy of failure and even crank up the speed.

Since the convention she has gone to ground, in deep hiding. She comes out to give a very controlled speech every so often then disappears to raise money from all her Wall Street pals and celebrity liberals. But Mother Teresa would have had a hard time living that life. But no matter, she has the integrity and honor of Mother Teresa. No matter how many lies, her web of supporters claims to stand on principle, and her vast experience.

Now comes the Clinton ad that hearkens back to the 3 am phone call ad against Obama. It claims safety or national security is her main qualification. Stay safe and elect Hillary. The entire Mid East is ablaze, while she is holding the matches, and says trust me I’ll keep you safe. Have no fear with Hillary is the subtext. As Tim Kaine puts it: it’s too risky to pick an amateur — mostly because of the danger Hillary-Obama put us in. I’ve never seen such a string of reversed lies. We find out that No lies matter. Hashtag that.

“All it would take is just ‘one wrong move'” in these dangerous times, the ad says.

Just one? So she’s the only one we can trust at this dangerous time. Mother Teresa might say you cannot get away with it. Hillary’s long train of abuse has a halo, satan smiles.

RightRing | Bullright

Turncoats, losers, useful idiots are played

As far as I’m concerned, the Hillary campaign might as well be recruiting for the KGB if they are flipping people for Clinton.

From NYT “Hillary’s Summer of Love”

” Dozens of prominent Republicans have come out and said that they’ll vote for her or consider it, including, just last week, the Silicon Valley titan Meg Whitman, the Jeb Bush confidante Sally Bradshaw, and Maria Comella, a former spokeswoman for two of Trump’s most pugnacious promoters, Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani.

You can expect that list to grow. The Clinton campaign clearly does. As Bloomberg Politics and The Washington Post reported last week, Clinton’s aides have gone so far as to set up something of a special operation — a defection watch — to monitor news accounts and any other public hints that a Republican leader is thinking of renouncing Trump, so that someone on Team Clinton can reach out and ask him or her to take the next step. The Times’s Jonathan Martin revealed that Clinton herself called Whitman a month ago. “

The breadth of G.O.P. affection for Clinton shouldn’t be overstated.” — More>

Sorry, but I think you just did overstate it and that is your whole point.

First of all, always beware of the hype especially when the left has a political objective. They paint a popular picture. We’ve all seen the video using statements of well-known Republicans through the primaries. I hope all those Republicans are proud to be used in this, her campaign.

With the Supreme Court at stake, national security, a swiss cheese border with sanctuary cities, establishment corruption woes and a 20 trillion dollar debt bomb at stake, they make it sound like “what’s the big deal?” That’s some powerful deception. So Hillary disinformation pros can talk them through the process. (brainwashing) What’s not to like? How can a rational person support that candidate from hell?

“She’s gone from Republican voodoo doll to Post-Partisan Barbie.” — Ouch

Really, PPB? I got a better Hillary doll in mind, right here.

ObamaCare enrollment pitch

Here’s a stunning revelation from the Obama administration. Attention G-Mart shoppers!

In a country with 325 million people, the word most is a big number.
I guess you get those subsidies while paying your subsidues.
I’ll try hashtag get smothered by big-gov now.

Trump the Metaphor

Donald Trump has become the metaphorical candidate, at least for the right. I would say ultimate, but that’s another story.

I was thinking of the debate and what would happen. I pictured Trump standing up there center stage, like he always does. looking back and forth nodding or gesturing. Actually, like a big metaphor. Face it, most of the attention has been on him like it or not.

So what I mean is he has become a symbol or a metaphor of a candidate. He has given voice to opinions and concerns of people. He has taken on the persona of an outsider, non-politician, not the faux outsiders who ran before. Obama tried to run as an outsider pretender. Even as an incumbent in his reelection, the campaign strategized it as an insurgency campaign — a huge stretch. But this is about Trump and the right.

Trump is a branding genius too. Where others play politics, his expertise is in branding and he knows how to make that work to his favor. So he’s given voice and a shelf life to these positions that politicos don’t want to hear. Concerns people have about the country.

0cde1ae3-acb8-459b-b357-ccab97903610But taking on those positions is one thing, he hasn’t really backed off or changed his mind in the face of critics. Whether right or wrong, he stays with it.

He also hasn’t taken just the easy popular opinion but the difficult non-politically correct ones. And he has appeared to be a flame thrower. He has media and pundits alike at a loss to how to deal with him. Yet at the same time he does plenty of interviews and answers questions, something even career politicians shy off on at times. (like when they go into lock down mode) We haven’t seen Donald in the lock down mode yet. Even Obama and Hillary have had those in their campaigns.

Now you see what I mean, he has become a metaphor even more than an actual candidate. He is a symbol for conservatives and a fly in the ointment all at the same time. He is not dependent on or looking for money because he is self-funding. That irritates insiders and outsiders alike. It’s the worst thing that could happen from the estabos’ point of view and the best for many conservatives because he gives voice to off-the-table issues. One you cannot ignore. We were always told if you do not like something, wait till the election and we’ll have that conversation. This is the metaphor election for all those “next election” lectures. Trump became a metaphor for what is wrong with our country and system.

Yet all he has to do is stand there, and by doing so he represents all those concerns and issues along with being a representation of many popular sentiments in the nation. Like him or hate him. And Obama is a backdrop reminder of what’s wrong. Trump is a giant symbol, whether you agree with his positions or not. He claimed the turf.

So what has the media done? They have made him the poster child for these so-called radical positions. And then they parlayed that over the entire conservative, right-wing Republican Party.(Bernie Sanders eat your heart out) But that has not hurt Trump, in fact he embraces it. As do his supporters. (as if you can ‘out-brand’ a brand master)

Of course that infuriates the GOP establishment, because they don’t want to be tainted(branded) with all his statements and positions. Tsk, tsk, but that is the establishment Donald s running against and at odds with, the establishment people are so infuriated with. Media sort of does his work for him. You know the drill: one Republican says some inflammatory thing and media goes person by person to ask if you condemn these remarks? If not, then one is condemned for the same statement.It’s the outrage game. He’s branded Republicans against the will of the elites and establishment.

Trump is a metaphor for what is wrong, a metaphor for what people want, a metaphor for how people feel, a metaphor for the voiceless public. He’s a metaphor for our anger about it all. He’s a metaphor for the furor about fixing it. He also branded the establishment.

 

Judge Judy:

“I think that if he wants to be considered as a real candidate, he has to start to temper some of that rhetoric because… while the truthfulness , the candor and the directness of his speeches was appealing for a period of time… in order to be considered, to me — and I’m crazy about Donald – presidential timbre, there has to be a measure in the way you present your argument. They were hungry for plainspeak and Donald is plainspeaking. “

So, give up and tone down on everything that has worked for him, so far.

RightRing | Bullright

Debate theatrics? Live or Memorex

I held off and thought about the last debate and let it soak in, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

Now I still wonder if maybe that performance by CNBC may have been planned that way? I mean it is sort of odd that it was supposed to be on the economy, which happens to be Republicans strong suit. Taxation and budget as well. I can almost hear someone say “we don’t want to make them look good.”

It was on the heels of the Benghazi hearing with Hillary. Paybacks you know. Then I wonder if they’d stoop that low to create an ordeal over it and have theatrics so they could blame it all on Republicans? Well, I never put anything past the Left or the media.

Would they think it through to consider hurting themselves and counting it worth it just to attack the Republicans? They still got the ad revenue, either way. Is it possible this thing was planned? Maybe not our whole reaction it got but in a way I am starting to think there was some premeditation there. No candidate in particular, but toward Republicans generally to set them back.

They knew there would be another NBC debate, and this could have been a setup for that? I can’t say for sure but it is a question I consider. A hit job or a mishap? Either one take your pick, same result.

War on Trump — spoiler alert

The establishment has declared war on Trump, after coming to terms that he actually could win the nomination. No word yet how Democrats feel about this declaration.

US Presidential Election News

Imagine the race on the Republican side is frozen in the polls from now until January with Donald Trump on top and Ben Carson a close second. Down the list is the establishment favorites including Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, unable to gain any traction or land serious punches against the frontrunners. That is the very scenario which several conservative and Republican-aligned political groups are planning for should the need arise. The crux of such a plan would include wall-to-wall negative advertising against Trump in the early primary states.

More: 2016 Election Central

Washington Examiner

“The Republican establishment, for the first time, is saying, off the record, this guy can win,” noted Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Monday morning. “I’ve heard that from everybody. I don’t hear anybody saying he can’t win the nomination anymore.” …/

Which could lead to an extraordinary scenario in which GOP stalwarts go to war to destroy their own party’s likely nominee.

That’s right, take Joe Scarborough’s word for Republican establishment.

Prepare for the 10,000 points of light offensive, to co-opt a GHW Bush phrase:

I don’t think Trump can withstand 10,000 points of smart negative in Iowa and New Hampshire,” says one veteran Republican strategist who is not affiliated with any campaign. “It would force him to spend money. That’s when this starts to get real for him.” (“Points” refers to gross ratings points, a way of measuring TV ad buys; 10,000 points would be a really big buy, meaning the average viewer would see an anti-Trump ad many, many times.)

says [Club for Growth] McIntosh. “There are a large number of donors and political activists who want to do it.”

So someone has to do the dirty work. And someone has been planning — and no doubt creating — ads for their eventual onslaught. Translation, this could get real ugly, real fast. But ugly for the most part on the establishment side.

Indeed, other sources inside the RNC say chairman Reince Priebus has stressed to staff that they must stay out of candidate fights.

More: Washington Examiner

So then, let the bombardment begin. Well, since I wrote my main objection to Trump here before, it is now a moving target. On one hand there is Trump, on the other there is the establishment status quo. (the guys who blew almost every opportunity over ten years.) All bets are off. Want to consolidate Trump support?

Now if/when that onslaught starts, like others, I’ll oppose establishment RNC elites, which surely they must have factored into their calculated battle plans. This means that all their negative ads they run just could cause more negative scrutiny of the establishment.

Funny how these guys weren’t prepared to go to battle over the debt or over Planned Parenthood funding, or the Iran nuclear festival. But dammit they must take a no-holds-barred stand against Trump. Now he’s just a bridge too far. It’s almost comical.

However, when they force the criticism toward the estabo elitists, well it will only help Trump. So if that is the case, score one for the Donald once again. I guess that will make me a de facto defender of Trump. Cheers GOP. Watch your own Party torpedo itself.

(I don’t think you declare war without really going to war…but that’s just MHO)

Obama meets Obama …calls him unpatriotic

Sort of. I love it when a plan comes together.

Flashback: “pay as you go” candidate Obama:

Dems are in a big tizzy over Giuliani’s statement that Obama doesn’t love America.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani is quoted as saying. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

Obama slammed George Bush as unpatriotic for spending 4 trillion dollars. Now is there any doubt about Obama’s huge appetite for spending? (Or buying votes as some call it)

And he said this the day before the 4h of July – probably unaware of what the 4th is.

Now Giuliani says Obama doesn’t love America and you’d think the world came to a screeching halt.Debbie Schultz is outraged. But he qualified his remarks by saying

“He’s a patriot, I’m sure. What I’m saying is that, in his rhetoric, I very rarely hear him say the things that I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things I used to hear Bill Clinton say, about how much he loves America. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents.”

In 2009, after election, VP Joe lectured on the wisdom of spending money.

Patriotism is now big-spending and fashionable. Love for America takes a backseat to that spending …and political ideology… every time.

Evidently, times have really changed since 2008. If Biden was right, then thanks to Obama this country will never go bankrupt. Giuliani might have hit more than one nerve in the Obama camp.Finally, someone says publicly what Americans are thinking.

Obama debt, disaster and deceit … are always looming

Professor of fiscal irresponsibility, Obama, enlightened us in his press conference:

    “So let me explain this. If Congress refuses to raise what’s called the debt ceiling, America would not be able to meet all of our financial obligations for the first time in 225 years.
    And because it's called raising the debt ceiling, I think a lot of Americans think it's raising our debt. It is not raising our debt. This does not add a dime to our debt.
    It simply says you pay for what Congress has already authorized America to purchase, whether that’s the greatest military in the world or veterans’ benefits or Social Security. Whatever it is that Congress has already authorized, what this does is make sure that we can pay those bills.
    Now the last time that the tea party Republicans flirted with the idea of default, two years ago, markets plunged, business and consumer confidence plunged, America’s credit rating was downgraded for the first time, and a decision to actually go through with it, to actually permit default, according to many CEOs and economists, would be — and I’m quoting here — “insane, catastrophic, chaos” — these are some of the more polite words.
    Warren Buffett likened default to a nuclear bomb, a weapon too horrible to use. It would disrupt markets, it would undermine the world’s confidence in America as the bedrock of the global economy, and it might permanently increase our borrowing costs which, of course, ironically would mean that it would be more expensive for us to service what debt we do have and it would add to our deficits and our debt, not decrease them.
    There’s nothing fiscally responsible about that. Preventing this should be simple. As I said, raising the debt ceiling is a lousy name, which is why members of Congress in both parties don’t like to vote on it, because it makes you vulnerable in political campaigns. But it does not increase our debt. It does not grow our deficit, it does not allow for a single dime of increased spending. All it does is allow the Treasury Department to pay for what Congress has already spent.”
More Washington Post

So let’s review. Raising the debt ceiling does not add a dime to the debt, but not raising it adds to the deficit and debt. Got it? He can see how increased borrowing costs add to our debt; but raising the debt ceiling — because we are right up against it — does not add anything to debt. Nope.

Gross
Federal Debt
Debt Held
by Public
Debt Held by
Federal Reserve
FY 2014* $18.2 trillion $11.6 trillion $1.6 trillion
FY 2013* $17.2 trillion $10.7 trillion $1.6 trillion
FY 2012 $16.1 trillion $9.6 trillion $1.6 trillion
FY 2011 $14.8 trillion $8.5 trillion $1.7 trillion
FY 2010 $13.5 trillion $8.2 trillion $0.8 trillion
FY 2009 $11.9 trillion $6.8 trillion $0.8 trillion

How many times have we increased the debt ceiling under Obama? A few now. Why? I suggest the debt ceiling has been raised many times, over time, which allowed the debt to rise. How else could the debt have risen above the ceiling ? So why, then, do they always link hitting the debt ceiling with default — if they are not going to add to the debt?

    Government debt in the United States has steadily increased from $2 trillion in the mid 1980s to over $17 trillion today. But as a percent of GDP it has grown from 55 percent to over 100 percent of GDP today.
    In the Crash of 2008 government debt increased sharply to bail out the banks and to provide “stimulus” to the economy. Debt reached 104 percent of GDP in 2009. But debt is expected to plateau at about 122 percent of GDP in the next few years.

But maybe in Obama’s world the GDP could be just shrinking that much.

 
Then he closed his box of tricks with this:

Now, the good news is… Our housing market is healing; we’ve cut the deficit in half. Since I took office, the deficit is coming down faster than any time in the last 50 years.

He has some real sophistry working there. Note he is talking about the “deficit” now. So if the budget deficit beginning in his first term was running all time highs, then he has decreased it from that level. Gee, see isn’t that great?

If its so great then why do we have to keep raising the debt ceiling again and again?(and probably again in the near future.) Could it be that we were so far beyond budget limits that anything short of that looks like a big improvement?

Source: http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/ 

Right speech wrong words

There is hardly anyone reading this that doesn’t see the sickness in Obama. But it is not just him. How about his speech writers? I can’t imagine how they can write anything they want while it contrasts with reality. Even the lies are scripted so there is a bigger problem. People actually write his speeches, and he delivers them, and they stand truth on its head. But they don’t care because they are writing whatever Obama wants, which does not align with the truth. It is completely disconnected from reality. It doesn’t seem to matter.

Now he says “what I have said” is he will not negotiate over “the good faith and credit of the US”. But what he actually said before is that he would not negotiate with Congress. That’s what he said and everyone heard him, numerous times. Now he tries to revise it or move the goal post. Even Carney said Obama would not negotiate with Congress over the debt ceiling. But our ears must be faulty.

He goes out and personalzes one self-defense shooting in speeches and then ignores gang shootings and violence. He talks about proposing laws, yet gangs by their nature operate outside the law. (sort of like his administration operates above the law.)

Obama was back in Missouri once again, after his speech in July blocked campus Republicans from attending. Then the rodeo clown was barred at the State Fair for poking fun at Obama.

Obama tells them that Republicans just threaten to “blow things up” if they cannot defund Obamacare . Its just not true. That doesn’t stop Obama from making the charge. In fact, it is he who is threatening to shut down government, just like he did before. It is he who wants it completely his way. Yet the purse belongs to Congress. He really has a problem with the Constitution he has sworn to defend and uphold to the best of his ability.

“Be the guy who’s doing your job. No obstruction. No games. No holding the economy hostage if you don’t get 100 percent of what you want,” he said.

Holding America hostage to his agenda is his agenda. And he always demands 100% of it, and refuses to negotiate. He insisted Republicans are just “trying to mess with him”.

He went on to say that Congress should do a budget on time and said he would work with the Senate toward a budget. Is he so disconnected from reality? He doesn’t care. He just continues to say whatever he wants, ignoring the truth. His speech writers do exactly the same thing. So he stands there accusing others of doing exactly what he is engaged in. “Just do your job,” he lectured Congress and Republicans.

“This is not a deadbeat nation. We don’t run out on our tab,” said Obama, vowing he would not negotiate over the “full faith and credit of the United States.”

But the tab belongs to Obama not congressional Republicans. It was his spendathon.

But it is this process of going out there to say anything he wants, with no regard for reality, that gets me. And wahtever Congress says he doesn’t address. He simply changes what they said to suit his purposes, then proceeds to argue against it. He walks out, speaks and stands reality on its head. But someone is actually writing this stuff.

What he could have said, but never would, is to begin with saying: by the way, I’m sorry that there were apparently some college Republicans that were blocked from my speech out here in July. And I regret that a rodeo clown, doing his job and poking fun at me at the State Fair, was fired and banned. That was over the top. Please accept my apologies for that Missouri, on behalf of others.

But no, that wouldn’t happen. In fact, the rhetoric from the Left has even escalated, if that’s possible. Schumer talks about holding a gun to America’s head. Pelosi talks about “legislative arson”. Obama talks about “holding the economy hostage”. I’m starting to think of how much Libs have in common with the gangs like the Bloods and Crypts. The language and threats are on the same level.

Then he labeled his big-government schemes a “better bargain for the middle class.” The ones who he’s been stepping on and killing with his war on energy. Holding the economy hostage? Don’t make me laugh. This is the gang-banger Obama, Chicago style. Welcome to the ‘hood.

Ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/20/us-usa-fiscal-obama-idUSBRE98J0C520130920

The official Obama “care” policy = Don’t.

Alternatives and the reinvestment act

The $139 million Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt modernization was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, with all the trimmings. I wonder if they sent a thank you note?

Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Modernization Project

An American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project

The Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building in the heart of Portland, Oregon, is an 18-story, 525,000 square foot facility that is home to more than 16 federal agencies and 1,200 federal employees.

The building was originally constructed in 1974 and underwent a major renovation between 2009 and 2013. Today the building is a cornerstone of GSA’s green building portfolio with all new mechanical, electrical, plumbing and data systems designed to make it one of the most energy efficient office buildings in the country. The work was completed by a team of SERA Architects and Howard S. Wright Construction who were awarded the contract in 2010.

The newly-renovated Federal Building includes a number of efficient, sustainable and innovative technologies including:

  • solar thermal panels that will provide for 30% of the building’s domestic hot water
  • a 13,000 square foot solar roof that will produce 3% of the building’s electrical energy requirements annually
  • modernized elevators that generate power as they descend
  • unique shading devices on the south, west and east facades designed to respond to the sun conditions, maximize daylight and minimize solar heat gain during the summer
  • energy efficient electric lighting systems with advanced controls that will reduce light energy usage by 40% compared to Oregon code
  • a 165,000 gallon cistern used to flush low-flow toilets and irrigate native landscaping
  • energy efficient water fixtures, which in addition to rainwater reuse, will reduce overall water consumption by 60% compared to typical office buildings
  • a dedicated outside air system that provides 100% fresh air

The operationally and economically efficient high-performance building is expected to achieve a 50 percent reduction in energy use compared to the old building and a 60 percent water reduction compared to Oregon code. The facility is designed to meet the Federal Guiding Principles for High Performing Green Buildings and the Obama Administration’s directives for agencies to lead by example in environmental, energy, and economic performance. Through these directives agencies are required to meet a range of energy, water, pollution, and waste reduction targets. Additionally, the facility is expected to achieve LEED Platinum certification from the U.S. Green Building Council for its use of cutting-edge sustainable design and technology.

GSA was appropriated more than $5.5 billion under the Recovery Act to convert federal facilities into high-performance green buildings and construct energy-efficient federal buildings, courthouses, and land ports of entry.[snip]

The building “is one of 600 that the GSA owns or operates in the Pacific Northwest.”

More: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/252613

Well there is a lot you can do with 139 million dollars. But here is the GSA which manages or owns how many properties around the country, getting the benefits of tax dollars for the project. Large enough to have its own scandal.

Why does GSA have to be a great beneficiary of the spendathon? Surely it has assets of its own. Must have ‘mo money’ They have vacant properties sitting. And then they flaunt it as a great achievement. Still when the work stops those extra jobs are gone.

So they couldn’t have done this without the stimulus? It just pisses me off. Is GSA the sustainable ferry now, blessing all the people with their spending? Who will pay in the end? And they’re on the road to save resources.

Why couldn’t they prove “sustainability” and find the means to do it? That’s what anyone else would have to do. The irony that GSA is preaching sustainability. I guess Portland is now Porkland.

Missing links in Obama’s war speech

This may turn into just a partial post after Obama’s speech on Syria. Rather than being the usual critique, I was struck by what I did not see, what seemed to be glaringly absent.

I watched it twice thinking I missed something but I didn’t. Of course, I don’t know what was on the cutting room floor. I didn’t see the usual level of partisan attacks. Now he always has them in there as standard fare, so I must assume they had to work to keep them out. (…why I’d love to see the cuts) He referred to the other side negatively but not as usual, there seemed to be a shortage of straw men from his usual rhetoric. That might have some strategic political reason for it.

But better or worse than that, he talked about the nasty effects of these weapons with his supposed outrage. Fine. Yet what he did not say was anything too critical, or personal about the man who supposedly used them. Now everyone knows Obama’s capability of personal attacks, how he can demonize his opponents, and surprisingly left it out.

If you have outrage against these chemical weapon, WMD, attacks then you must hold that and more venom for those who would use them. It was an opportunity. But I didn’t see it. Looking, I scratched my head. Obama never misses an opportunity for personal attacks of his opponents. He even made an off-handed slap at Putin just weeks ago on Leno. (hoping the press would run with that message, I’m sure.)

Noticeably missing. Does anyone stop short of calling Hitler evil for what he did? Or is this a man who has problems confronting obvious evil?

So he came out and took aim and swung against chemicals not the person who employed them. But the chemicals did not assemble themselves.

Obama’s phony falling deficit claim

Deficits Falling (From Way Up)

Factcheck -Robert Farley- Posted on August 1, 2013

In recent speeches, President Obama has repeatedly claimed that “our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.” The White House says he’s referring to the decline in the deficit as a percentage of the nation’s economy from 2009 to 2012. But that’s not the “fastest rate” of deficit reduction in 60 years. It fell at a faster rate from 2004 to 2007.

Obama has dropped the talking point into no fewer than five speeches focused on “Jobs for the Middle Class” during the course of a week.

July 30 in Tennessee: Our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.
July 24, in Illinois: And our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.
July 25, in Missouri: And our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.
July 25, in Florida: And our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.
July 27, weekly address: Our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.

It sounds like an impressive accomplishment to bolster the president’s case that the economy is getting better. And if the official White House transcripts are any indication, it is a reliable applause line.

To back it up, the White House press office points to historical data showing that deficits, as a percentage of gross domestic product, fell from 10.1 percent in 2009 to 7 percent in 2012. (See Table 1.2.) That’s a 3.1 percentage point drop, and the last time the U.S. saw a larger drop over an equivalent period of time was 1946 to 1949, when the deficit went from 7.2 percent of GDP to a surplus of 0.2 percent of GDP (a change of 7.4 percentage points), White House spokesman Bobby Whithorne wrote to us in an email.

To be sure, that is a marked drop in the deficit. But it’s not the “fastest rate” of deficit reduction — which speaks to relative speed.  That may sound like a mathematical technicality, but it reveals a large contextual difference.

Due to the recession, the deficit as a percentage of GDP spiked in 2009 to a level not seen since the mid-1940s. So it had further to fall than usual.

When Obama took office in 2009, he inherited a projected deficit of $1.2 trillion. He added another $200 billion in deficit spending to that. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit in fiscal year 2009 came to 10.1 percent. That’s by far the highest percentage over the last 60 years (you have to go back to the World War II years between 1942 to 1945 to see higher figures). Over the last 60 years, deficits as a percentage of the GDP have averaged 2.4 percent. The deficit was 3.2 percent in 2008, the year before Obama took office; and it was 1.2 percent the year before that. In other words, it had a long way to drop from 2009.

“Think about it this way,” Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense wrote to us in an email. “I like to compare budget numbers to diets. Bob weighs 400 pounds and loses 60 pounds in a year. Ralph is 210 pounds and loses 40 pounds in a year. Bob has lost more weight than Ralph, but Ralph is losing it faster, at a 19% rate versus a 15% rate.”

Ellis noted, correctly, that the deficit as a percentage of GDP fell 31 percent from fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012. But he pointed to two other four-year periods when the deficit fell at a faster rate — in fact, more than twice as fast:

  • The rate of deficit reduction was 64 percent from fiscal 1993 to fiscal 1996, when the deficit fell from 3.9 percent of GDP to 1.4 percent.
  • Similarly, the rate dropped 66 percent from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2007, when the deficit went from 3.5 percent of GDP to 1.2 percent.

“So anyone can play with the numbers,” Ellis said. “Obviously, it’s a significant reduction. But let’s face it there was a lot to reduce. The deficit was morbidly obese.”

Indeed, the numbers can be sliced many different ways. The White House chose a four-year window for its comparison, but the deficit as a percentage of GDP has fallen more over shorter periods of time. For example, it fell 3.2 percentage points in 1969 (from a deficit of 2.9 percent in 1968 to a surplus of 0.3 percent of GDP in 1969).

[…] – More at: Factcheck.org

– Robert Farley

Made in America move on over

Communist Much? Rep. Keith Ellison’s shocking statements

| August 3, 2013 |  Tavern Keepers

The 25th Progressive Democrats of America roundtable was recently held in Washington, DC. As happens when progressives are among their peers, Rep. Keith Ellison …made the following statements:

More: http://tavernkeepers.com/communist-much-rep-keith-ellisons-shocking-statements/

Yes, as often happens. Transaction tax? I’m sure that could be only the beginning of a slew of purpose-driven taxes, maybe a communication tax? How about a great big too big to fail tax, or a getting rich while being in congress tax, or a “spreading the wealth in DC tax”? Or an “at some point I think you have made enough money” tax? But they’re on the trail.

Economically-challenged Obama gets ‘stable’ voucher

[H/T and cred to Dave]

Former GOP Senator Judd Gregg to Moneynews: US Debt-to-GDP Ratio Is Exploding

Monday, 10 Jun 2013 07:04 AM
By Glenn J. Kalinoski and David Nelson

The debt-to-GDP ratio in the U.S. is moving to dangerous levels seen in Europe, said former Republican Senator Judd Gregg.

“We know that once a country’s cost is at 60 percent debt-to-GDP level they’re in trouble,” he told Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview.

“Historically our debt-to-GDP level is 35 percent up until three, four years ago. Then it’s bounced,” said the veteran politician, who also was governor of New Hampshire and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Now it’s up to around 70 percent. It’s headed toward over 100 percent. You look at Greece, you look at Spain, you look at Italy, you look at France. Their debt-to-GDP ratios exceed 100 percent and they’re essentially in bankruptcy or headed in that direction. Unfortunately, our debt-to-GDP ratio is heading in that direction, too.”

The Republican discussed his service on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which he said came to the conclusion that “we could stabilize [at] 70 percent and we’d be doing a good job.” Gregg said that would require a reduction in spending by, “at that time, that was two years ago,” $4 trillion over 10 years.

“Now we need to reduce spending by approximately $5 trillion over 10 years in order to hit that same number.” Gregg said.

Putting politics before people was another topic Gregg covered when discussing his time on Capitol Hill.

“There’s a natural tendency in Congress to want to get re-elected first and not worry too much about anything else,” he said. “It’s a difficult issue because these are complex questions. They involve very important issues that affect all Americans — Medicare, Social Security, tax reform,” he said.

“When you step on to that ground, you’re stepping on to a very volatile area of politics. But at its core is a question of whether or not we have a solid country, and if you don’t have a solid country, then you’re not doing your job as a member of government.”

/… see more:

http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Judd-Gregg-Debt-GDP-Economy/2013/06/10/id/508927?s=al&promo_code=13C77-1

Sort of has a sense of urgency to it, doesn’t it? IF it were an emergency room they’d call it trauma. Well, to everyone but Obama.

Now for the real puzzler….

S&P revises U.S. credit outlook to ‘stable’

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s on Monday upgraded its credit outlook for the United States government to “stable” from “negative,” saying the chances of a downgrade of the country’s rating is “less than one in three.”

In August 2011, S&P became the first credit rating agency to downgrade the sovereign U.S. credit rating from top-rated “AAA” to “AA+,” the second highest rating, and had left the U.S. credit outlook at “negative” at that time.

S&P said in a release that the recent improvements in tax receipts and steps taken to address longer-term budget issues improved the outlook for the United States. The agency raised concerns about the ability of policymakers to tackle long-standing issues due to a deepening of a partisan divide in Washington in the last decade, however.

“We believe that our current ‘AA+’ rating already factors in a lesser ability of U.S. elected officials to react swiftly and effectively to public finance pressures over the longer term in comparison with officials of some more highly rated sovereigns and we expect repeated divisive debates over raising the debt ceiling,” the agency said in a statement.

Rival agencies Moody’s and Fitch currently both hold triple-A ratings on the United States.

(Reporting by Dan Burns; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and W Simon)

http://www.insightbb.com/reuters/default.aspx?doc=2013-06-10T132742Z_2_BRE9590K8_RTROPTT_0_NEWS-US-USA-RATING-SP.XML

Thanks to Dave for the articles.

Anyone have a clue about the soundness, reasoning, or sheer “politics” of this S&P revision?  And the funniest part is here is the pretender prez-I-dent declaring how bad the sequestration is going to be for the economy and demonizing fiscal politics.  Then comes this.

And the fed has been flooding us with money and monetizing our debt….which incidentally is only going up(drastically) with this meathead, tone deaf, economics-challenged prez.  Of course, that is to presume he even cares!

I’m only grateful the S&P does not install  road signs in America. Remember irrational exuberance? Welcome to Obama’s economy of rational fear. Then again, I guess even S&P doesn’t believe what Obama says.

“Executive Cleanup in Isle One”

Never let a good title go to waste, so I won’t. Not to worry because we do have a mess of presidential proportion. You know it is bad when O’Reilly scolds people about using the word scandal because we just don’t have enough information or know, presumably, “IF” it is a scandal.

By coincidence, at MSNBC Lawrence O’Donnell said the same thing on the same night. Wow, everyone cautioning not to label the presscapade thing a scandal. We have to wait and see. And the IRS thing, at least now they have the report. Barry was saying before its release that “if this happened” (big if, they admitted it) “then there has to be accountability”. Where did I see this movie before? I’m sure I have, several times.

Then over on CNN, Wolf asks congressman Chaffetz if he thinks Benghazigate is an impeachable ordeal that the congressman seemed to be calling for it? Chaffetz corrected Wolf saying we cannot take it off the table. He added that impeachment was not their motivation or immediate objective. Of course that is lost on mainstream media.

To paraphrase them: ‘you mean the door is wide open to impeachment? – Wow!‘ Sure, it always is unless they forgot about our Constitution — that irrelevant ancient relic. For Bush, it was always an option, wasn’t it?

Now the Obama regime has its share of messes. Its like being at the grocery store seeing a couple of separate kids drop a jar on the floor. Whether it was intentional or not does not change the size of the mess. Someone has to clean it up. They may quickly run to the next isle but the mess remains. Hence, the “cleanup” reference.

So the AP story hits them where they live and breathe: in the back channels of the media — where stories are born and die. Having a grand inquisition into their phone records does not thrill them. But its okay when all the questions and heavy-handed government measures are used against the right, say snooping into their tax records, or detailed information about gun owners, or posting addresses of handgun permit holders. Then they overlook the dictocrat measures.

But sum it up, there is a heck of a mess, through how many departments and government? It’s a walking talking scandal from one end to the other. And some hesitate to overuse the word scandal. I will use it liberally. Sure some of it may not be a full-fledged scandal, but so much of it is. Taken together it paints the picture of a government out of touch with the realities around it. In fact, all that seems to matter to this government is politics and the regime’s Alinsky-style tactics, and their appetite to use them to their advantage.

All part of the same strategy, whether it be never let a crisis go to waste, Benghazi, terrorism, the energy problems, the war on terror, or its own duties that people rely on. And along with politicizing all parts of government, he has also scandalized much of it. Now we are cautioned about overusing the word scandal. But isn’t it just Scandalicious?

It is one big mess, and it all summons the president and his spokespeople, frequently, to the podium to make a non-statement about it trying to explain it away. Then, on top of it, we the people always get lectured. (funny how that works)

How many scandals or messes are there? I’ll try making a partial list. I don’t care if some say they aren’t all scandals, they are all symptoms at least of an out of control government that cannot be accountable for its own laundry. They usually have the nerve to turn the blame on the people, or others, as if that solves the problems messes. The word scandal is not an issue with this overwhelming mess.

There is fast and furious – dead officers and dead Mexicans
Gun-running here and in M/E
There is Benghazi
There is the IRS scandal
There is the phone records of AP reporters
There is the justice department — Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia.
There are the green scandals.
There is Solyndra and countless others, daily
there is the GM deal
there is the bailout fallout.
there is the stimulus — or is it stimulae or stim-u-lie
there is the EPA
there is the State Department and its handling of Benghazi
Don’t forget the labeling of the Fort Hood attack workplace violence.
There are his statements like “you didn’t build that” — some might argue they aren’t really scandals, but its all in his presidential excuses or fallout of such statements. And there are a slew of them.
There was the secret service one – pretty amusing one
there were the innuendo investigations of Petraeus and other military officials.
there were the Hagel problems and the Brennan appointment problems.
there is the drone campaign
There is the overall lack of accountability for anything he has done. (a big and important one)
There is the old racism canard… always sprouting new chutes.
There is ObamaCare and ‘pay to play’ (several others nested under the main one)
There is the birth control and contraceptive one — with lawsuits.
There is the “death panel” one and the denial. “”There are no death panels in ObamaCare…”
There is the main argument (and court battle) over ObamaCare “mandates”- states and otherwise
There is the battle over whether ObamaCare uses a tax or penalty
There are his many too radical for prime time appointments.
Selling F-16’s and tanks to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhoods running Egypt.
Involvement in Arab Spring from beginning
Libya intervention from the beginning
The entire department of energy under Chu (the man is a walking scandal himself)
The Van Jones connection appointment
The statements to Russian Prez to be more flexible after election
The Keystone Pipeline – ongoing
The moratorium and battle of drilling
The sequester concocted by the president. (scandal and micro-scandal)
Telling governmental bodies to make the sequester cuts obvious to people.
The release of prisoners and blaming the sequester
Threatening cuts to border enforcement
The blaming of the sequester for TSA and every other governmental failure:
i.e. “Its the sequester, stupid!”
Fort Hood – workplace violence
Labor department and Boeing
Military pay and benefit cuts
His military cutting agenda
Spending and priorities
War on terror and Afghanistan become overseas contingency operations
Gun Control, handling the shootings in Newtown.
Fiscal Cliff — coming soon to a theatre near you.

Do I think I overused the word scandal, not a chance. The guy scandalizes his own proposals. Obama is one big radical scandal, and the more people that see him and his administration as such, the better for we the people. But don’t lecture US on using the word scandal or pointing out his failures.

Or… maybe its just time to replace the word scandal with the word Impeachment?

Sequester Knot Tightens on Terorrism Plot

Allow me to first restate some obvious facts. Obama and his regime of bureaucrats have been talking about the effects of sequester ever since he signed it into law. The sequester was also his idea. He rebuffed all legislative efforts to minimize the small cuts. Instead, he opted for the most bang for the buck.

The Dep of Homeland Insecurity is telling us the air traffic controller and sequester cuts are now causing flight and travel delays. This week they are screaming and delays are mounting.

Last week we had a major terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon. Within a day, Obama and his administration had labeled it terrorism — as unlikely from him as that was. Still he called it terrorism, as well as press secretary Carney. Good, we’re making progress since Benghazi. But then he also did that early before knowing who was behind it, while media and Liberal operatives pushed it as a homegrown, anti-tax, tea party member terrorism. They used dates, including tax and Patriots’ Day as well as other dates, for their rationale. (psst: could it be someone wanted to bomb the Boston Marathon?)

They pushed the idea, and even libs did not disagree using the term “terrorism”. Of, course that was before we knew who did it. That made it a lot more inconvenient when the facts came out. But Obama could not change his tune on “terrorism”, even Bostonians would attack him for that. Best to leave the term alone, and also take credit for the feds nabbing their men.

But along the way he said the bombing classified as terrorism. And terrorism, you will remember from your indoctrination lessons, means it has a political motivation to it. Anybody see where this leads directly? It really is not difficult: the conventional definition of terrorism is attack with a political motive.

Back up to the sequester, with a little review of his tactics in ObamaCare as well, which leads to Obama’s intentional infliction of pain and inconvenience on the public. Possibly even shortages of law enforcement, as he threatened earlier. Now we are seeing their plans roll out, from the White House tours, to air travel risks, to national security and defense, to problems enforcing the border. (etc, etc) He has been telling us how bad it will be, Janet Napoleanito already threatened us. Now the effects of their plans are bearing fruit.

As a memo said, they are not to spare the public from the harmful effects of Sequester.

Now you do not have to compare the bombing to what he is doing, just apply the term terrorism — inflicting intentional fear, damage or violence on people (or opponents) for political purposes. Obama is conducting a terror operation by their own terms.

He has plenty of political motivation, and he wants the effects to be as bad as possible to achieve his political ends. Just one more thing to add to the file on one Barack Hussein Obama. Hey, that would make him the Terrorist-in-Chief now, wouldn’t it?

Merriam Webster defines terrorism:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Dictionary.com

noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Update: today Biden gave a speech in Boston on the bombing:

“So why, whether it’s al-Qaeda Central out in the FATA or two twisted, perverted, cowardly, knock-off jihadis here in Boston — why do they do what they do?”… “They do it to instill fear, to have us, in the name of our safety and security, jettison what we value most and the world most values about us. … Our transparency: that’s their target.”

Sound familiar?

Picture of the two “suyspects” standing before the bombing in Boston


So which are the bigger terrorists?

Egocentric Obama and Chicago

Nevermind that the war room and world headquarters of this regime are really in Chicago.
So is the basis of practically everything, especially style. DC is just the satelite office. The bigest import under Obama is Chicago politics.

March 11, 2013 – American Thinker

The Chicago Roots of President Obama’s Leadership Style

By Michael Bargo Jr.

Speaker Boehner and the Republican House are frustrated that they can’t get President Obama or Senate leader Reid to compromise with them.

The regular rules of order in Congress are that the committees hold hearings, both parties have input into the writing of legislation, and eventually the Senate and House leaders have a conference to come to mutually agreeable terms. This conference report results in a bill that is submitted to the president for signing.

But the president doesn’t seem to follow the old established rules. He wants the speaker to visit the White House, meet with him and his inner circle, and, particularly with regard to issues of spending, sign an unconditional surrender.

Analysts have seen this as proof of Obama’s totalitarian ambitions or an inflated political ego. Others characterize it as a sure sign that he is pursuing socialism.

While the president’s behavior can be used to support all of these descriptions, the real answer may be none of these. Those who seek to understand President Obama may benefit from studying the governing tactics of Chicago’s Mayor Daley I. These have been thoroughly described in biographies of Daley. //…

Once these recommendations “arranged” by Mayor Daley became law, the City Council then became “little more than an advisory body.

The fawning news media have not discussed this power-grab. Budgets reveal “who gets what,”vi and Obama doesn’t want the public to know the details.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_chicago_roots_of_president_obamas_leadership_style.html#ixzz2NFDc3c8x

American Pharaoh is a good name for it. ‘Chicago does DC’; it is like Daley on steroids.

Wiki-Bio:
“[Valerie Jarrett] was Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley, during which time (1991) she hired Michelle Robinson, then engaged to Barack Obama, away from a private law firm.” And Obama even had Bill Daley as chief of staff for a stint.

It is nothing short of Chicago expanding its operations to Washington. Remember the guy who was going to cleanup Washington politics and bring transparency? “Give us that good ol’ Chicago transparency.” Now we got the rebooted campaign rerouted through Chicago’s outfit, and the brownshirt network coming to a street corner near you.