By MacPundit

Today’s Democratic Party is not the party of JFK

There was a time not too long ago when President John F. Kennedy—JFK—was the Democrat’s King Arthur of Camelot. Like Barack Obama, he was idolized by the party devotees. Like Barack Obama, he knew how to deliver a speech well. But that is where the similarities end. In almost all other respects, these men could not be more different.

By even the most rigid standards John F. Kennedy was a legitimate American war hero, and while Mr. Obama’s lack of military service should not be held against him, JFK was also a self-avowed American patriot. His personal history, his grasp of American History, his love of country, were all apparent and, often, eloquently expressed in his speeches and his writings. Additionally, Kennedy always sought to unite us.

Barack Obama cannot make such claims. After almost six years into his presidency, his words, his actions, and his general behavior and demeanor, continue to cause millions of Americans to question his intentions as well as his belief in American Exceptionalism. By the same ageless standards we and other nations have always used, our current president does not appear to be a patriot. Instead, his motives are all too often, suspect. At the very least, he does not rally or inspire the people to be proud of their American heritage and their citizenship. Studies by many credible, non-partisan organizations have declared him to be one of the most polarizing presidents in US History—if not the most. Of course many of us did not need the studies to know that.

Have Democrats forgotten JFK? Yes, I think they have, conveniently. President Obama as well as other current Democrat leaders are far to the left of President Kennedy. When compared to Obama, Kennedy would be a Republican. Did I just hear an outcry from some of you Democrats? If so, I’ll bet it’s from the far-left radicals who have taken control of the Democratic Party—a party that JFK would not recognize were he here today. But don’t take my word for it, let’s look at some things that JFK himself said.

“We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms. Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security as well as our liberty.”

JFK welcomed and encouraged diverse views and debate. Obama seems to be forever annoyed by both. It has become a standard practice of his and his administration to denigrate and mock those with opposing views or anyone who criticizes Mr. Obama. Beyond public denigration and mocking, Mr. Obama regularly attempts to suppress media access to his administration. These practices have become so persistent that even left-leaning media outlets are now voicing their disapproval. Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter James Risen had this to say:

“A lot of people still think this is some kind of game or signal or spin,” he told [Maureen] Dowd. “They don’t want to believe that Obama wants to crack down on the press and whistle-blowers. But he does. He’s the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.”

As to the Bill of Rights, unlike JFK who confirmed and protected it, Obama seems to view it as an impediment to his audacious intention to “… fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Thankfully, the Supreme Court has done its job by at least preventing him from becoming an absolute dictator. The top court has ruled against President Obama, unanimously, 20 times during the five and a half years of his presidency.

His own court appointees ruled against him in many cases, as well as in some non-unanimous decisions.

“I believe in an America where the free enterprise system flourishes for all other systems to see and admire – where no businessman lacks either competition or credit – and where no monopoly, no racketeer, no government bureaucracy can put him out of a business that he built up with his own initiative.”

Kennedy was a strong advocate of the free enterprise system. While he believed in common sense government regulation, he opposed big government overregulation that would put a business owner “… out of a business that he built up with his own initiative.” What did Obama have to say about American business and its entrepreneurs? “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” (See more on that topic here.)

“Every dollar released from taxation that is spared or invested will help create a new job and a new salary.”

That was President Kennedy’s view on taxation and job creation, and his actions mirrored his rhetoric.

What about President Obama? Well on his very long list of broken promises is this rather infamous one:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Not only did he break that promise, he seems to have more new tax “tricks” up his sleeve than a professional magician has card tricks. Politicians are expert at disguising new taxes and Obama is a master at it. Kennedy’s tax cuts helped to create jobs and grow the economy; Obama’s tax increases and overbearing regulations on business have given us the slowest, weakest, and longest recovery from a recession in seventy years.

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”

JFK was an honest man and he saw the world as it was, not as he wished it to be. He once remarked that “I’m an idealist without illusions.” And unlike Obama, he didn’t con us. By now, it is well known by all objective and informed people that Barack Obama is a very dishonest man. The well-documented list of his false statements is rather astonishing as is the list of his broken promises. Call them misstatements if you are in denial, but I encourage you to visit PolitiFact.com as well as other non-partisan sources if you are actually unaware of the extent of Mr. Obama’s dishonesty. Only 22% of the Obama statements rated by PolitiFact are considered to be true. Even when we add the mostly true statements the total is still only 47%.

If you haven’t already, I also recommend that you read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Barack Obama once taught the “Rules” to eager young students and he is a master practitioner of them.

“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

Kennedy said that the rights of man come from the hand of God. He was echoing the words of our founders. Yet Obama clearly believes that they come from the government. Frankly, I find it hard to understand why any free citizen would choose to give their government the power to choose which rights will be given to which citizens. In fact, our founding documents made it quite clear that our rights were bestowed on us at birth and that it was the job of government to make sure they were not taken away from us. Yet Mr. Obama and our liberal Democrat leaders think that they—hence the government—should be the ones to decide who has a right to what.

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Need I even begin to comment on that one? The world has become exponentially more dangerous under Barack Obama. His stated foreign policy principle is “Don’t do stupid stuff.” Yet given the state of the world, he has done nothing but stupid stuff. Even Hillary Clinton, his former secretary of state, criticized him for this when she said that great nations need organizing principles and that “Don’t do stupid stuff.” is not an organizing principle. She also said that Obama’s failure to support the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. I rarely agree with Hillary Clinton, but I do this time. However, this is merely the tip of a very large and dangerous foreign-policy iceberg.

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”

Barack Obama’s beliefs and policies are antithetical to virtually everything that John F. Kennedy believed in and promoted. Obama is a hardcore, radical ideologue whose intention is to transform the United States of America into the kind of big government nation that our founders feared most. In little over five years, we have seen a massive transfer of power from the people to the federal government. It is no secret that Mr. Obama and his political machine buy votes through government handouts. As a result, he has successfully transformed America from a society based on individual self-reliance into an entitlement society. Instead of asking what they can do for their country, millions of Americans now ask what their country can do for them. In the process, Mr. Obama has added more debt in less than six years than all previous presidents combined. The results have been catastrophic.

Highly recommended: President Obama Tell All Videos.

By MacPundit

This article addresses liberal dishonesty. It is my response to the author of an email that circulated throughout the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It has never been posted here before. In light of what has happened since then, and considering the alarming state of our nation and the world at large, I think you will find it to be somewhat prophetic and, hopefully, instructive.

Please keep in mind that the original email did not have my comments in it. So as you read this, it will make more sense if you see it two ways: 1) With only the “Author” comments, and 2) with both “Author” and my (the “Me”) comments. For example, the first two paragraphs of the original email looked like this:

I’m a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight…..

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”

---

Author: I’m a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight…..

Note: When you get to the end of this you will see that the author was never confused. It is clear that the author knew exactly what he or she wanted to say, and said it.

Author: If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”

Me: Who described Obama as “exotic, different?” Not McCain, not Palin, so who? You didn’t say who because you wanted to imply or insinuate that McCain or Palin or some other Republican leader said these things, which of course they did not.

Author: Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.

Me: You did exactly what you accused others of doing to Obama. You made it sound like growing up in Alaska and eating moose burgers was weird or “out there” but to many Alaskans it is quite normal. Anyway, what is the difference between eating beef burgers or moose burgers? Meat eaters are meat eaters and most Americans are meat eaters.

Author: If your name is Barack you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

Me: Again, who described Obama as “a radical, unpatriotic Muslim”? Not McCain, not Palin, so who? You did what Obama himself did when he said his opponents would say he was different, that he didn’t look like the pictures on our paper money and that he was black. But once again, I don’t know of a single Republican leader or anyone in the McCain camp that ever said any of those things. It’s another old dirty trick: Accuse your opponents of saying things they never said or predict that they will, thus planting the idea in people’s minds.

Author: Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you’re a maverick.

Me: You’re still doing what you accuse others of doing. Here, you are sarcastically denigrating Sarah Palin for how she named her children. And, by the way, that is not why she has the reputation of being a maverick. She is a maverick because she cleaned up Alaskan politics by getting rid of corrupt politicians in both parties.

Author: Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

Me: That’s the first time I’ve heard that one! Apparently you just make this stuff up as you write. Again, you don’t name names. So who said this?

Author: Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded.

Me: Sarah Palin attended different colleges until she found what she wanted. As to being well grounded, I don’t think anyone who knows anything about her would question that.

Author: If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience.

Me:  You and your idol have a lot in common. You both say whatever you think is favorable whether or not it is true. I’ll tackle these one at a time.

1. Let’s start with your description of Obama as a “brilliant community organizer.” By any objective appraisal his record as a community organizer was not “brilliant.” In fact, after three years of less-than-satisfying results, he left his community organizer job to go to law school. During his three years in South Chicago, one project after another either faltered or failed. First, he got community members to demand a job center that would provide job referrals, but there were few jobs to distribute and so it did not work out. Then, he tried to create what he called a “second-level consumer economy.” This went nowhere. Finally, an associate advised him to move elsewhere and said that if he stayed there, he was bound to fail. So Obama took the advice and went to law school. Brilliant? Not even close. Was he sincere? Only Obama himself knows that because it is well known that virtually everything he did was calculated to advance his political ambitions.It should also be mentioned that Obama’s relationships during this time were and remain very troubling. I will list only a few here but it is a simple matter for anyone who cares enough (and you should) to do some research if you want to know more. You can start by reading a June 8, 2008 article in the Washington Times. Here’s the link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/08/obamas-associations-may-haunt-bid/. You will learn about his associations with Antoin Rezko, William Ayers, Emil Jones Jr., Rashid Khalidi, Rev. Michael Pfleger, and Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. You can find more Obama associations here.
2. That Barack Obama was the first black president of The Harvard Law Review is certainly to his credit. However, in no way is it a qualification for the presidency of the United States. Do you not know that?
3. He ran a voter registration drive that registered 150,000 new voters. You’re correct on this one but those voters were registered in order to increase the power of Chicago’s Democratic political machine—not for the benefit of our country as a whole. Further, the country is full of people who register new voters but that has never qualified a single one of them to be president of the United States!
4. You said that Obama spent 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor. Untrue. He was never a Constitutional Law professor. In fact, he was never a professor, ever, even though he and his supporters continue to refer to him as such. His official title was Senior Lecturer. But I’ll let Hillary Clinton deal with this one. Here is what her campaign released on March 27, 2008:
   

   ”Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as ‘a constitutional law professor’ out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

5. Obama’s 8 years as a state senator: Yes, but since when is that a qualification for president? Also, I urge you to check his attendance record and his voting record; they are both pathetic. He was notorious for simply not showing up and when he did, for voting “present” rather than committing himself to a yea or nay vote. Moreover, when he did vote, he took some very radical positions. For example, he voted against requiring medical care for fetuses (babies) who survived abortion procedures. Basically, he said “Let them die.” And he did that three times! The fact is that Barack Obama was and still is extreme-left politically. He has never represented mainstream Americans.
6. He spent 4 years in the United States Senate. Again, you are incorrect. He has not yet finished his first 4 years. He is a freshman senator and he has missed 314 votes! Why? Well, one reason is that he has spent most of that time running for president instead of proving himself in the senate before running for president.
7. You said that Obama sponsored 131 bills. Actually, he sponsored 5 more than that—136. Of course, 122 never made it out of committee and only 2 were successfully enacted. And, again, let’s not forget that he has missed 314 votes!
   
   From Jan 2005 to Oct 2008, Obama missed 314 of 1,300 roll call votes, which is 24.2%. This is far worse than the median of 2.2% among the lifetime records of senators serving in Oct 2008.It should also be noted that in this short period of time Senator Obama has managed to establish himself as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. (According to the non-partisan National Journal)On the other hand, John McCain has sponsored 537 bills of which 31 were successfully enacted. McCain has also co-sponsored 1,232 bills. In addition, McCain has authored many bills and has reached across the aisle to work with Democrats many times. You can view the official records here:  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629. Also, there is a big difference between sponsoring a bill, which means to simply sign-on to it, and authoring a bill, which means to actually be the author of it. Anyone can sponsor (sign-on) to a bill.
8. Finally, you keep comparing Obama to Palin. I realize that you want people to think that Obama is running against Sarah Palin. Sorry, he really is running against John McCain.

Author: If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.

Me: Tsk, tsk. So she was just a little old weather girl. I’m sure you endeared yourself to a lot of American women with that remark. So, one might ask, why is she the most popular governor in the U.S.A.? (Her approval rating hovers between 80 – 90%) Just ask the people of Alaska. They will be happy to tell you why. In fact, they love to talk about her. But I have a feeling you won’t bother to do that, so I’ll tell you.

First, Sarah Palin is all about integrity and reform. Her adherence to principle—especially to transparency and accountability in government is what has made her so politically successful. In one month alone, as governor, she vetoed 13 percent of the state’s proposed budget for capital projects. The Anchorage Daily News said these, “may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history.”

In January 2004 she resigned as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Somehow, you failed to mention that she even had that job.) after complaining to the office of Governor Frank Murkowski and to state Attorney General Gregg Renkes about ethical violations by another commissioner, Randy Ruedrich, who was also Republican state chairman.

But there is a lot more. Beginning with her tenure as mayor of Wasilla, then as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and then as Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin has done what no one else before her was able to do: Break up the “good old boys” political machines and clean up Alaskan politics. For anyone who is interested in a real-life story of a truly remarkable women then do some honest research into Sarah Palin’s life and accomplishments. Unlike Barack Obama, she has actually done what she promised to do. Barack Obama has no such history. He is all about making good speeches; even Hillary said so many times. But again, why do you constantly compare Palin to Obama? Palin is running for vice-president and Obama is running for president!

You say that Sarah Palin is governor of a state with only 650,000 citizens. Yes, that’s true. But the problem is that Obama has never governed anyone—not a town or a village or even the neighborhood he failed to organize. He hasn’t governed a single person, let alone 650,000 in the geographically largest and most complex state in the union. He has never had to make any of the decisions that mayors and governors make countless times every day. Obama is a blank slate. We don’t know if he can govern anything because he has no record of ever having done so. So why would you even mention that there are “only” 650,000 citizens of Alaska? All you proved is that Sarah Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama and she is running for vice-president!

Author: If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian.

Me: Who said he’s not a real Christian? Not John McCain. Not Sarah Palin. So why did you say it? Maybe to make people think they said it? No, you wouldn’t do such a thing.

Author: If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.

Me: That is just plain small, and nasty, and mean, and it tells more about you than John McCain. You should be ashamed of yourself. Listen, after 5½ years of unimaginable torture in a Vietnamese prison of war camp, John McCain came home a different man than when he left and to a different world and, frankly, people like you don’t have the credentials or the character to judge the likes of John McCain. Your remarks are deplorable.

Author: If you teach responsible, age-appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

Me: Once again, you are thoroughly misleading the reader. The objection to Obama’s support of “age-appropriate sex education” was that it included what many consider to be “age-inappropriate” sex education for kindergarten children. Well, at least you are consistently dishonest.

Author: If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state’s school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you’re very responsible.

Me: It is clear that you are either astonishingly ignorant or pathologically dishonest. I’m not sure which. First, while Governor Palin advocates abstinence, she did not (as you imply) mandate that it be the only option taught in Alaskan schools. As to “… while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you’re very responsible” remark, you once again reveal your meanness and your ignorance. Sarah Palin is no different than any other parent in the world. Nor is her family any different. All good parents try their best to instill good values in their children but there are never any guarantees. And while you come across as a highly judgmental person, Sarah Palin is about as non-judgmental as one can get. In fact, that is one of many reasons why the people of Alaska feel so much affection for her.

Author: If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don’t represent America’s.

Me: There you go again. Who said their values don’t represent America’s? Not John McCain. Not Sarah Palin.

Author: If you’re husband is nicknamed “First Dude,” has at least one DWI conviction and no college education, didn’t register to vote until age 25, and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

Me: So once more, it is you who are guilty of doing and saying what you accuse others of doing and saying. While I can’t think of a single Republican leader that has said any of the things you imply they said, not a day goes by that either the media or bloggers or people like you say all kinds of nasty things about Sarah Palin or completely distort the truth about her. Yes, Todd Palin had a DWI but you failed to mention that it was 22 years ago! So what? Barack Obama in his own words said that he used to do “a little blow” now and then. As to why Alaskans love their “First Family” and think they are so “admirable”, it is because they are caring and honest and loving people. What about that disturbs you so much? Why is that so threatening to you? Why do you have a compulsion to denigrate good people? Exactly what values do you hold over such values as theirs?

Author: OK, much clearer now.

Me: It was never unclear to you. You set out to write a sarcastic, nasty, dishonest trash-piece in order to turn people against Sarah Palin and John McCain. In short, you are as phony as the words in your email. On the other hand, what I wrote is as accurate as my research could possibly make it. But truth is not your thing. It means nothing to you, which tells me that this wonderful country of ours means nothing to you. If it did, you would never put your politics above the truth.

This, by the way, is what makes both John McCain and Sarah Palin so special: They have a long record of putting the welfare of the people above politics. Barack Obama’s record is one of narcissistic self-aggrandizement. He is the quintessential political ideologue—a Saul Alinsky far-left radical.

But why, throughout your whole piece, do you compare Barack Obama to Sarah Palin? Barack Obama is running against John McCain! Of course, I know why and so do you. John McCain is far more qualified to be president than is Barack Obama. But even worse, when there is an honest comparison of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, it becomes clear that even Sarah Palin, a vice-presidential nominee, is more qualified than Barack Obama, a presidential nominee!

As even many prominent Democrats have said, if Barack Obama were white, Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. Why? It is quite simple: A white man or woman as un-qualified as Obama is could not have won the nomination. It would never have happened—with or without the troubling associations attached to Obama. Even if a white candidate were as good a speaker as Obama, a lack of qualifications would have prevented his or her success. This is not a racist opinion. In fact, a truly non-racist society would not consider race at all when selecting political candidates. The point of course is that we should completely disregard race and judge the candidates on their track records and their proven ability to deliver over time. When viewed honestly and objectively, it is starkly clear that not only does Barack Obama have a very troubling political history but he has literally nothing in his record that demonstrates an ability to deliver on what he promises in his glowing speeches.

Listen, words are cheap, and it is beyond foolish to even vaguely consider electing a person to the presidency of the United States of America because he is an African American or because he delivers a good speech! This is not a Democrat or Republican matter. It is about the welfare and survival of our nation. It’s time to forget about race and who delivers the better speech and to act like responsible citizens. This is a very complex and dangerous world and if we are not careful, we will destroy all the special things that make America the greatest nation in the history of the world—those things for which generations of men and woman before us have fought and died to defend and protect.

Finally, to the younger generation: This is not an American Idol contest. This is the real thing and it is a very serious matter. Find an honest, unbiased American history book somewhere (if you can) and educate yourselves. Your future depends on it.

 

---

Again, this was written in 2008 and is posted here now for instructive reasons, which should be obvious. It was typical of hundreds or more likely thousands of untruthful, ignorant, nasty emails, books, and other written material that prevailed during the 2008 campaign. And the 2012 campaign was no better.

By MacPundit

Transforming America Obama Style

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” President Elect Barack Obama.

The Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, is designed to give our government control over one-sixth of our entire economy. It is the largest, most aggressive grasp for power in U.S. history. It is precisely the kind of big government-vested power that our founders feared most. It is because of this fear that they created a constitutional republic in which the power is vested in the people.

Vladimir Lenin, the father of Russian Communism, said:

“Socialized Medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State”

While Barack Obama’s ultimate goal is still not entirely clear, that he is a hardcore proponent of radical Liberal big government is perfectly clear. There should be no doubt that he advocates for a significant shift of power from the people to the government and that he has already made remarkable progress toward that goal.

Other big-government initiatives not withstanding, Obamacare alone is a huge step in that direction—both in its function to redistribute private sector wealth and its overbearing intrusion into our private lives. Obamacare restricts our freedom to make our own life choices and it punishes personal success through government-imposed redistribution of wealth. It is wholly un-American and if left in place it will destroy our great American economy, which has been the envy of the world for countless decades and which has fed, housed, clothed, and generally raised the quality of life for more people—here and abroad—than any other economy in world history.

A great and grotesque irony is that while Europe struggles to untangle itself from the failures of Socialism and other liberal big-government economies, President Obama and his cadre of Liberal Democrats in Congress, are relentlessly determined to transform the U.S. into the very same model of a European-style nanny state that has never been able to approach the success of our traditional U.S. model.

While this correspondent cannot know whether their intentions are good, I am reminded of the old saying that “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Then again, I honestly cannot be sure that Mr. Obama’s intentions were ever good.

After five years, the results of Mr. Obama’s purposes and policies have been abysmal. Our economy is in what appears to be a chronic state of non-growth. The so-called recovery is the worst in U.S. history. The real unemployment/under-employment rate has been stuck at about 14 percent for years. While he continues to claim that he is the savior of the middle class, his policies have caused a significant decline in annual middle class income. At the same time, taxes and the overall cost of living have risen sharply and remain high with no relief in sight. These core factors as well as an alarming increase in restrictive government regulations and massive and unsustainable debt have severely diminished the capacity of the private sector to expand and create new jobs. Hence, the quality of life for average American citizens is degraded. Additionally, our debt, which now exceeds $17 trillion, has imposed a literally unimaginable financial burden on our children and grandchildren! This alone is both deplorable and unconscionable.

Then there is the debacle of Obamacare. As noted earlier, Obamacare was designed to put the healthcare of U.S. citizens under the control of the government. If fully deployed, the government will control about 17 percent of our entire economy, or one-sixth. That is why Vladimir Lenin, the father of Russian Communism, identified healthcare as the key to gaining power over the people. But after three full years of preparation, the launch of Obamacare has been a monumental disaster—a government failure of unprecedented magnitude. It is just one more example of why big government is a fundamentally bad idea and why transforming America President Obama style is not and cannot be good for America.

By MacPundit

“Slick Willy” Clinton Has Obama’s Back

You lie and I’ll swear to it.

The Bill Clinton DNC speech was exactly what one would expect from Slick Willy. Until the election of Barack Obama, Slick Willy Clinton was perhaps the most dishonest president in U.S. History. But with less than four years in office, Obama has managed to make Clinton look like Honest Abe. Okay, not quite. The point is, Obama holds the title but I wouldn’t trust either one of them with a bowl of my favorite cereal. So who does Obama hire to tell the world that his failed presidency is an illusion, that he is really a great president and deserves to be reelected? – Slick Willy Clinton of course—biggest liar number two! These guys are serial liars. And yes, I would say the same thing if it were true of a Republican. I’ve said it many times, I call them like I see them.

Here’s the deal. At best, Obama’s radical Liberal policies have resulted in the worst and longest “recovery” from a recession since the Great Depression. That is not only a fact, it is being kind. So there was Obama, in deep trouble with the smart voters who actually know his record, the Democratic National Convention was around the corner, and he was desperately searching for a master political illusionist other than himself. He needed someone who could make the audience see success while they looked straight in the face of failure. He needed someone with no conscience who practiced the dark art of deceit as skillfully as he did. It was easy. So easy, I’d bet, that he had the answer before he had a chance to ask the question.

He gave Slick Willy a call and said something like, “Hey Bill, I know I lied a little about you and your wife Hillary during the ’08 campaign, but hey man, politics is a … well you know. Anyway, party comes first. Right? Oh, and I’m sorry I called you a racist, but you of all people know that winning is what it’s all about. Anything else is for the suckers. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Come on man, you’re King Truth Warper! Well, that is until I came along. Anyway, as you might have noticed, I kinda messed up the country a little bit and if that Romney guy gets elected he’ll fix everything and that won’t be good for either one of us. He’ll get elected to a second term and there goes Hillary’s shot at 2016. So what do you say? I’ll give you top billing at the convention. You know how our people are, they believe anything we say. In fact they believe it before we say it. They love you, man. Just go out there and tell everyone how smart I am and how important it is to give me some more time. It’s not for me, it’s for the party and Hillary.”

So Slick Willy did what Slick Willy does best. He stood up there in front of his loyal cult and tried to con the world into believing that Barack Obama was actually a pretty good president. Other than lying about Monica Lewinsky, it must have been his toughest con yet.

But just for the heck of it, let’s peek behind the curtain.

Slick Willy said: “… since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats, 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private sector jobs. So what’s the job score? Republicans, 24 million; Democrats, 42 (million). (Cheers, applause.)

The inconvenient truth: Over half of the total jobs created under Democrats were from Clinton’s own Presidency. They were produced during an internet dotcom boom that later collapsed. He also failed to mention that Republicans controlled Congress during 6 out of 8 years of his Presidency and that it was the Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich that basically forced Clinton into balancing the budgets and other policies that led to job creation.

Slick Willy said: “It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.”

The inconvenient truth: When Democrats use the word “investment” they are really talking about spending. They just don’t want to tell you what they are actually doing. Even so, the balanced budgets Clinton signed cut the very “investments” he was talking about. Another thing he didn’t mention was that he and the Republicans held spending down to about 18% of GDP, but under Obama it is now over 24% of GDP. That is a huge difference and a real problem for all of us.

Slick Willy said: “One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation.”

The inconvenient truth: WOW! I’m impressed! Even Slick Willy should have had a problem getting that one out. Maybe someone who had been on the planet for about five minutes could believe it, but certainly no one else. Any number of non-partisan studies have shown that Barack Obama is one of our most divisive presidents, ever. Not that anyone would need a study to know that. It’s his way or the highway. Every one of Obama’s major legislative initiatives passed on party lines. And even though he says he always sought Republican input, when he got it, he rejected it. Obamacare was shoved down our throats in one of the most politically corrupt displays of bullying in our history. Cooperation? Anything but. At one point he actually said this, “[Republicans] can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Slick Willy said: “… the Senate Republican leader said in a remarkable moment of candor two full years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work; it was to put the president out of work.”

The inconvenient truth: This is a classic lie-by-re-writing. He changed the meaning, which was that in order to get Americans back to work, we need to put President Obama out of work. But it gets worse: Obama himself had put many issues ahead of job creation. He spent his first two years jamming Obamacare through Congress while he should have been working to help Americans get back to work.

Slick Willy Said: “[Republicans] want to the same old policies that got us in trouble in the first place.”

The inconvenient Truth: Like Obama and the Democrats, Clinton just made that one up. They keep saying it because they know it sounds good and that most Americans don’t know the truth. But it is factually untrue. That is why they never back up the statement with examples. Romney’s plan, which is on his website, lists policies that have worked time and again. They worked for Kennedy and Reagan and they would work again now. It is the Liberal Obama policies—the very same ones that are in place right now—that never worked before and are not working now.

Slick Willy said: “They want to cut taxes for high-income Americans, even more than President Bush did.”

The inconvenient truth: First, Romney wants to get rid of many tax loopholes across the board, including those of high-income Americans and he wants to simplify the tax code and lower taxes on everyone.

Second, Democrats have been lying about the Bush tax cuts for years. Allow me to set the record straight: The Bush tax cuts helped virtually all Americans. In fact, to show how dishonest Clinton, Obama, and the Democrats are, think of this: When Bush was president they accused him of giving tax cuts to the wealthy only. They called them “The Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy.” They said they did not help the middle-class at all. But now that Obama is president and the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of the year, Obama says he wants to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for upper-income people and keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle-class. Really? I thought there were no Bush tax cuts for the middle-class. How can you keep something you said was not there? But hey, they lie so often, you can’t really expect them to remember them all.

Slick Willy said: “They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts.”

The inconvenient truth: I challenge Clinton or Obama to point to any regulations that Romney wants to get rid of that would “… prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts.” Again, Clinton and the others simply make things up that they know will sound good to Americans who don’t have the time to check on everything they say. Furthermore, it was a lack of regulations at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that triggered our financial crisis, and it was the Republicans that tried to get new regulations put in place to prevent a financial crisis. And it was the Democrats that blocked any new regulations. (See Bush Failed Economic Policies and Obama Blames Bush For Our Financial Crisis)

Slick Willy said: “When President Barack Obama took office, the economy was in free fall. It had just shrunk 9 full percent of GDP. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Are we doing better than that today? The answer is yes.”

The inconvenient truth: It would be real nice if Slick Willy had experienced some kind of spiritual epiphany by now, but one can only dream of such things. Here again, he spins the numbers to make them look like something other than what they are. He compares the worst part of the recession to today and asks if we are better off instead of asking how the Obama “recovery” compares to other recoveries. In other words, if we ask if we are doing better now than we were doing when Obama took office, the answer is a resounding NO.

Since January 2009 when Obama took over, unemployment is up, annual household income is down by more than $4000, the price of gas at the pump has more than doubled, food, clothing, etc. are more costly and still rising, the housing market it still in shambles, and Obama has added a frightening $5.4 trillion to the national debt. It is a fact that Obama’s so-called recovery is the worst recovery from a recession 83 years!

(I need a full-time fact-checker to keep up with Slick Willy and the Liar In Chief.)

Slick Willy said: “The president’s energy strategy, which he calls ‘all of the above,’ is helping too. The boom in oil and gas production, combined with greater energy efficiency, has driven oil imports to a near-20- year low and natural gas production to an all-time high. And renewable energy production has doubled.”

The inconvenient truth: Actually, Obama does not even have an “all of the above” energy strategy. It doesn’t exist! Slick Willy did the same sleight-of-hand trick that Obama does so often. (They’re both so darn good at it.)

Here’s how their trick works: First, they tell you there is a “ boom in oil and gas production” so now you have in your mind this wonderful vision of oil and gas flowing out of pipes all over the country. Then they imply that Obama has caused the industry to create new efficiencies, which with all the new oil and gas, have “… driven oil imports to a near-20- year low and natural gas production to an all-time high.” Finally, they tell us that “… renewable energy production has doubled.”

Here’s the problem: While oil production has increased, the increase is far from a “boom.” And then there is this: The increase in production is on private land where Obama can’t stop it. They don’t mention that, nor do they mention that we could actually have a real boom but for the fact that Obama and his regulatory bullies have restricted production on public lands. In other words, the increase in oil and gas production that Obama and Slick Willy brag about is happening in spite of Obama, not because of him. As though that is not bad enough, Obama will not approve the construction of the Keystone Pipeline from Canada, which would increase the flow of friendly foreign oil, decrease our dependency on unfriendly foreign oil, and create tens of thousands of new jobs in the U.S. Finally, Obama by his own admission is literally destroying the U.S. coal industry.

Oh, and about the “… renewable energy production has doubled.” thing? It’s kind of doubled from miniscule to twice miniscule. It not only remains a very small part of our energy production, the Obama renewable energy program is riddled with cronyism and corruption and countless millions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered on failed projects that put a lot of money in the pockets of Obama supporters. That is how your president redistributes your money. Think Solyndra.

Slick Willy said: “Even more important, after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the dropout rate so much that the percentage of our young people with four-year college degrees has gone down so much that we have dropped to 16th in the world in the percentage of young people with college degrees.

So the president’s student loan is more important than ever. Here’s what it does — (cheers, applause) — here’s what it does. You need to tell every voter where you live about this. It lowers the cost of federal student loans. And even more important, it give students the right to repay those loans as a clear, fixed, low percentage of their income for up to 20 years. (Cheers, applause.)

Now what does this mean? What does this mean? Think of it. It means no one will ever have to drop out of college again for fear they can’t repay their debt.”

The inconvenient truth: So first he implies that student loans are hard to get even though they may actually be too easy to get. They are so readily available that many studies claim that this contributes to the sky-rocketing cost of tuition. They say that the Obama policies make it too easy for students to take out ever more and bigger loans, which in turn encourages schools to raise their tuition. The result is that students end up with more debt and less relative value from their degrees. It’s a vicious cycle and one more example of unintended consequences from vote-getting, specious liberal policies.

A Moody’s analysis warned:

[u]nless students limit their debt burdens, choose fields of study that are in demand, and successfully complete their degrees on time, they will find themselves in worse financial positions and unable to earn the projected income that justified taking out their loans in the first place.”

So do you think for a minute that Obama or for that matter, Slick Willy, really care about what happens to these students later? I do not think so. It’s all about power—getting the votes and winning an election. They are demagogues.

That’s enough. I’ll just wrap it up with one last big Slick Willy lie.

Out of all the incredibly dishonest claims made by Slick Willy at the Democratic National Convention, the one that seems to have stuck in the minds of the American people more than all the others was this: “No president could have “magically” fixed the economy in one term”. When I heard those words flow out Slick Willy’s lying mouth, I thought “Oh boy, that’s going to mean a lot to people who don’t know any better.”

So if some of you who thought that might convince you to stick with Obama for another four years, listen to what I have to tell you. Not only could someone else fix the economy in four years, someone did. As Slick Willy would say, “Now listen to me.” Ronald Reagan faced a deep recession left over from Jimmy Carter. It was the worst recession since the Great Depression of the thirties. In many ways it was worse than Obama’s. I remember it very clearly. Interest rates were sky high, people were literally fighting at gas stations because there was a shortage of gasoline, and—thanks to the policies of Jimmy Carter, which are eerily being mirrored by Obama—overall all, the economy was a monumental mess and Carter had lost control of the problems in the Middle East. Sound familiar?

But the policies Reagan implemented were very different than Obama’s—and so were the results. Reagan claimed that fifty years of misguided liberal policies had over burdened the free market with taxes and regulations and that, along with government over spending, it had drained the free market of its natural vitality. (Exactly what Romney is saying now.) Reagan’s plan: Get “the government off the backs of the American people” by cutting taxes, slashing spending, and cutting back on counter productive regulations. Again, does this sound familiar? It should because that is where we are now.

Did Reagan’s plan work?

Real per capita GDP increased by nearly 23% and the stock market more than tripled in value. The Reagan recovery created almost 25 million net new jobs, or about 344,900 jobs per month. His policies ushered in the the longest peacetime period of unbroken economic expansion ever seen in American history. Remember, Mitt Romney is proposing the same kinds of Reagan policies. You know, the ones that work. On the other hand, President Obama is asking us to let him try his policies for another four years. You know, the ones that haven’t worked for him or anyone else who has tried them. So the choice should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

Really, this is not complicated

You don’t hire a college professor to fix your plumbing and you don’t hire a neighborhood organizer who has literally never managed or run anything to govern a nation—especially the most powerful and influential nation in the world. You don’t believe the words of the two most dishonest presidents in U.S. history. You just don’t.

Finally, you don’t hang on to ideas about someone that are factually untrue. Barack Obama’s record as president—as compared to all our other presidents—is at the very least one of the worst and is probably the worst. He may also be the most dishonest president in our history. To think otherwise is delusional because all of what I just said is well documented. It’s not personal. It’s not about race or anything other than what is real and true. I have fought against bigotry throughout my entire life. I despise it. So when I write these things I write them with a clear mind and heart. This is about the survival and future of our country.

We are being asked to give up what has made us great.

This is very serious because this is one of the most important elections in history. We are being asked to choose between our traditional form of government and economic system—the one that has made us the most powerful, successful country in world history for a much different big government, nanny-state system, which has been tried without success many times before. Personally, I cannot think of one single sane reason to do that.

More than ever before, we need to be mature and wise when we go into the polling booth to choose who will lead us for the next four years. If you are not taking this seriously or you are not well informed, do yourself and your country a favor and please don’t vote. You see, a dumb vote cancels out a smart vote and we need all the smart votes we can get right now.