Election 2008 Was A Serious Mistake. We Must Not Repeat It!

By MacPundit

Electing Barack Obama Was A Serious MistakeFour more years of Obama could destroy America beyond repair.

The fact that Election 2008 was a serious mistake is clear to all honestly informed observers. What is important is that we do not repeat it.

By now the same honestly informed observers at least suspect that President Obama is the most dishonest president in U.S. history. This website alone has documented more than 160 untruthful statements made by Mr. Obama. You can also find 80 solidly documented broken promises here, which may be a record. Add incompetence and radicalism to his dishonesty and we can easily see why his presidency has been such a disaster. But we elected the most unqualified candidate in U.S. history. So what did we expect?

The election of Barack Obama was a fluke.

I believe that honest historians will view the election of Barack Obama as an aberration, a fluke. They will describe a time in which many Americans—especially the youth and the ideologues—had become so politically ignorant, so socially shallow, or so politically rigid that they were unable to grasp the seriousness of a presidential election. Instead they were enticed by the notion of electing our first Black president and by the seductive rhetorical skills of Barack Obama. It was a popularity contest, an exercise in superficiality—a perfect environment for an accomplished demagogue.

Of course what is done is done and it will take many years to reverse the damage that has been inflicted upon us by Mr. Obama’s radicalism and mismanagement. As a result of the unprecedented amount of debt he has placed on us, we are now facing economic Armageddon. Our standing in the world has suffered as well. Simply put: We are no longer viewed as Great America. In fact, more than one world leader has referred to President Obama as being an amateur or naïve, among other unflattering descriptors.

No more mistakes please!

We simply cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama. If anyone reading this does not fully understand the seriousness of our current situation then please spend some time on this website. The facts are here. This is not a Republican or Democratic problem. It is a national problem and in five short days we absolutely must get it right. It is not an exaggeration to say that our nation is in deep trouble and we are running out of time.

A Time For Wisdom

Regardless of what Barack Obama tells us, the truth is that all things considered, we are far worse off than we were four years ago. And as someone correctly said, “To re-elect Barack Obama would be like the Titanic intentionally backing up to hit another iceburg.”




Obama’s Biggest Lie

Obama WinkingIt’s Bush’s Fault

Why do President Obama and the Democrats continue to blame “Bush’s failed economic policies” for the financial crisis even though it is not true? Because they can. You see, they know it is a complex subject and they know that the media have so far been unwilling to explain what really happened during Bush’s time in office. They also know that as long as most of the media remain in their camp, they will continue to protect the president. Yet, considering its reach and importance to the 2012 campaign, this may very well be Obama’s biggest lie.

A quick review

  1. Did the Bush tax cuts cause the Recession? No, and if Obama really thought so, why does he want to keep most of them?
  2. Did financial deregulation under Bush cause the Recession? No. Countless studies failed to find any evidence to support the charge that rule changes by the Bush SEC contributed to the financial crisis.
  3. Did the Bush deficits cause the Recession? Obama can’t possibly support that idea. After all, Obama has already added almost $6 trillion to the national debt in just 3

    A note about the recovery before we get into the weeds

    • Obama and his economists predicted that the stimulus would create a recovery rate of 4%+ annual growth. It has averaged a pathetically weak half that, and 2013 promises to be no better.
    • They also predicted unemployment would be under 6%. It has been 8% or higher for 42 straight months. It now stands at 8.3% and shows no signs of moving down.

First, let’s understand the back story

Bush inherited a recession from Clinton

Let’s begin at the beginning of Bush’s first term. As I said, it is relatively complex, so bear with me while I explain it to you. Within a couple of months of Bush taking office, the country went into a recession. The causes of the recession occurred during Clinton’s tenure, and since there is a cause-and-effect lag, Bush inherited it from Clinton whose booming “Dotcom” economy had, predictably, collapsed. The collapse was predictable because the success of the dotcoms was to a great extent an illusion. These companies had no “brick-and-mortar” foundations. They were built in and they ran in cyberspace and it was clear to experienced business professionals that the market could not continue to support most of them. Of course they were correct and most of them failed. So Bush began his first term with a recession not of his making.

The Terrorist Attacks of 9/11

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out by psychopathic, religious fanatics—cold-blooded murderers. For thousands of our fellow Americans, the personal loss of family members and friends created a void that will never be filled. We cannot begin to measure that kind of loss. What we can measure is the economic cost, which translates into a continuing burden, directly or indirectly, on all of us.

This brief review of 9/11 economic costs does not consider countless other costs, such as government settlements to first responders, security and legal costs for terror trials, increased energy costs, time lost due to airport security, and much more. For example, it is hard to imagine the extent of “opportunity loss” — costs of things we were not able to spend money on because it was spent on 9/11-related items instead.

Finally, it is practically impossible to calculate a final, total cost of the economic impact of 9/11, but it is certainly in the trillions of dollars.

Considering the depth and pervasiveness the detrimental effects of the 9/11 attacks had on our economy, not only are Obama’s criticisms of the Bush economy grossly dishonest on their face, they are even more misleading when we consider that the post 9/11 economy rebounded amazingly quickly due to the Bush fiscal and monetary policies, which were put in place in response to the attacks. So instead of being responsible for destroying our economy, I predict that honest historians will praise President Bush for his insightful and decisive leadership during and after the attacks.

President Clinton weakened our intelligence and military capabilities

Why did the CIA fail to anticipate the 9/11 attacks?

Bill Clinton is scheduled to make a key address at the Democratic National Convention. If you watch his speech, please keep in mind what I am about to tell you.

When George W. Bush took office in January 2001, he not only inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, he also inherited a dangerously weakened CIA. It seems that Clinton’s CIA Director, James Woolsey, didn’t have much time to keep track of Osama bin Laden because he was too busy fighting Clinton and other Democrats over cuts in CIA funding and resources. For example, the agency was in great need of translators who spoke Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, and other languages spoken in the broiling “terrorist belt.”

But Clinton and congressional Democrats made it impossible for Director Woolsey to hire and train the people he needed. As a result, the CIA was functionally blind, deaf, and dumb in the world’s most terror-prone region. To quote The Washington Times, “So, a bureaucratic feud and President Clinton’s indifference kept America blind and deaf as bin Laden plotted.” You can read the full story here: The Washington Times–Bill Clinton’s Indifference. Overall, our intelligence capabilities were significantly weakened during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

But it got worse: Our military readiness was also dramatically reduced. Both President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore often bragged that they had reduced the size of the federal government. “The era of big government is over”, they said. But what they failed to mention was that 286,000 (90%) of the 305,000 federal employees removed from the payroll, were military jobs. The statistics for America’s defense sector during the Clinton years confirms the deep-seated animosity held by the Clinton administration toward the military. Clinton eliminated 6 entire divisions from the Army—from 18 to 12. He removed 166 ships from our Naval fleet—from 546 to 380. And he stripped 26 squadrons from our Air Force—from 76 to 50. So the idea that Clinton and Gore were big reformers because they had ended the era of big government, was nothing more than a con job. What they really did was to dramatically weaken our intelligence and military capabilities while the federal bureaucracy, essentially, remained intact.

There is also a great deal of evidence to support the claim that President Clinton failed more than once to take bin Laden when the Sudanese offered to turn him over. Clinton says he didn’t take him because he did not have enough evidence against bin Laden. But that is highly debatable.

What else could happen?

President Bush must have wondered what else could possibly go wrong when he considered the hand he had been dealt. He had inherited a recession and a weakened intelligence and military capability and we had been hit by the most devastating attack on our homeland, ever. It was rather amazing that he had been able to steer us through it all and had still managed to get our economy back on track.

And then Katrina—the most destructive natural disaster in our history!

On August 29, 2005, the worst natural disaster in U.S. History hit our Gulf Coast. It was Hurricane Katrina and it was a massive Category 5 monster before it even made landfall. The cost of damage was between $96-$125 billion, including $40-$66 billion in insured losses. Approximately 300,000 homes were either completely destroyed or made uninhabitable. About 118 million cubic yards of debris and devastation was left behind. The job of clean up was mind-boggling.

Reasonable estimates of the total economic loss from Katrina were as high as $250 billion. The storm disrupted gas production and had a general negative effect on national economic growth. In 2005, economic growth as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was at 3.8% in the third quarter, but it dropped to 1.3% in the fourth quarter due to the loss of gas production caused by Katrina.

So once again, President Bush was faced with another crisis not of his own doing. However, his political opponents on the left were not about to miss an opportunity to dishonestly place blame where it did not belong.

Bush, himself, said later that he made mistakes. But what he did not say was that a lot of people made a lot of mistakes. For example, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin failed to implement his evacuation plan and ordered residents to a shelter without any provisions for food, water, security, or sanitary conditions. He also delayed his emergency evacuation order until less than a day before landfall, which led to hundreds of deaths because people could no longer find any way out of the city. And we all remember the pictures of school bus parking lots full of yellow school buses, which Mayor Nagin refused to use in the evacuation. Why? He said they weren’t covered with insurance liability and there was a shortage of bus drivers. Governor Blanco also was to blame for her mistakes. But in fairness to all, we must keep in mind that this was the worst natural disaster in U.S. History. It was also the first time in such a huge disaster that FEMA was operating under the newly created Department of Homeland Security.

And there was this: When Katrina hit, New Orleans was one of the poorest metropolitan areas in the United States. 27% of New Orleans households, about 120,000 people, were without private mobility. Yet despite the fact that so many people were not able to evacuate on their own, the mandatory evacuation called on August 28 by local authorities, made no provisions to evacuate homeless, low-income, car-less individuals, the sick, or the city’s elderly or infirm. As a result, most of the stranded were the poor, the elderly, and the sick. As I said, a lot of people made a lot of mistakes.

But this article is about the claim by President Obama and the Democrats that Bush caused the financial crisis. Hence, Hurricane Katrina must be included because of its huge negative impact on our economy and the unassailable fact that, as with the other items discussed here, Bush did not cause Hurricane Katrina.

But Bush did not have time to linger on what was because he saw ominous, dark clouds forming on the national horizon. In fact, he had seen those clouds for awhile.

The Housing Market Collapse

Our financial crisis was triggered by one monster of a problem with many tentacles—the housing collapse. So how did it happen? For that answer, we need to know something about home ownership and mortgages. Most people can’t afford to buy a house outright for cash. They need to borrow most of the purchase price. When they do this, they sign a legal document that spells out their responsibility to repay the loan as well as other information. This document is called a “mortgage.” For years, the primary source of home-purchase loans was a local savings and loan bank. These local banks knew the neighborhoods and the local house values. They also had certain credit requirements that a prospective home purchaser had to meet in order to get a loan. These requirements helped to protect the bank from loss and also helped purchasers from making a loan they might not be able to repay. It was a good system that served us well for over a hundred years.

But then some politicians decided that the system was unfair. They said that everyone should be able to own their own home—that it was their right. Of course they also knew that if they could put millions of people into their own homes, whether they could afford it or not, those people would surely vote for them. Yes, the politicians absolutely knew that. So these politicians, who were almost all Liberal Democrats, effectively, tempted and coerced banks to make loans to virtually anyone—whether they could afford it or not. Thus, the seeds of a financial crisis were planted.

The following is an excerpt from an AIE.org article

Bush warned of financial collapse

President George W. Bush and members of his administration are on record warning, repeatedly, that if significant, meaningful reforms were not implemented at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we were headed for a serious financial crisis. But congressional Democrats did not want to hear it. They blocked all attempts by the Bush administration and congressional Republicans to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the key players in the housing market collapse. To be sure, many large banks and Wall Street firms were also guilty, but it is unlikely that they would have been as active as they were without political pressure from the left to “put everyone in home” and the millions of mortgage loan guarantees provided by Fannie and Freddie.

Was the housing market collapse Bush’s fault? Hardly. He tried to prevent it but the Democrats blocked him every time. (See Bush Warned of A Potential Financial Crisis)

So those were the cards Bush was dealt. Now, let’s consider …

Bush’s economic policies

Obama Claim: The Bush Tax Cuts didn’t work.

The Truth: Oh yes they did. They did exactly what they were meant to do. They stimulated the economy and led to millions of new jobs—over 8 million to be exact. Furthermore, unlike the failed Obama stimulus, which cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, instead of taking money from hard-working Americans, the Bush tax cuts put more money in their pockets.

Read more: Why President Obama despises the Bush tax cuts | Washington Times Communities

This is not even a Republican or Democrat issue. Democrat, President Kennedy enacted the same supply-side tax cuts that were later implemented by Ronald Reagan and then by George W. Bush—and they worked every time. Under Reagan, over 20 million new jobs were created and it started the longest peace-time continuous period of economic growth in U.S. History.

Obama’s Class Warfare

So what’s the deal? It’s simple: Obama’s presidency is collapsing and he is trying to save it by pitting one group of Americans against another. It is called “Class Warfare” and it’s right out of tired, old Marxist strategy manuals. Obama and the Democrats demonize the “rich” by saying they should pay their fair share. But what he, purposely, does not tell you is that the top 10% of earners pay over 71% of all federal income taxes while nearly half of all Americans do not pay any federal income taxes at all!

Obama brags that his economy has added jobs for 29 consecutive months.

It’s true. But once again, he is misleading us. He doesn’t tell the whole story, and to be sure, a lie is not necessarily in the words, it’s in the intent. In this case, he failed to include the job losses during his time in office. The number of jobs created under Obama have not even kept up with population growth. (See Obama Economic Record)

George W. Bush holds the record for consecutive months of positive GDP growth—52 months. The Democrat housing collapse triggered our financial crisis, not Bush’s economic policies.

Bush’s policies ended the recession, not Obama’s.

You heard it right. You see, the recession officially ended in June, 2009—before the Obama stimulus had time to fully kick in. But by then, policies put in place by Bush began to have an effect. Furthermore, large portions of the Obama stimulus bill were squandered on non-stimulative items. For example, millions were used to prop up liberal Democrat local and state governments that had been mismanaged for decades. Failed liberal policies similar to the ones Obama continues to use on a national level, had wreaked havoc on those local and state governments and Obama bailed them out, temporarily, with stimulus money. Then, of course, millions more were wasted on Obama’s pet projects like Solyndra, which not only failed to create jobs, but went bankrupt a year after Obama touted it as the wave of the future. That foolish project alone wasted half a billion dollars of taxpayer’s money.

Yet Obama still continues to take credit for “turning our economy around.” It is truly astonishing. (See The Bush Failed Economic Policies)




A Letter To President Obama

Dear Mr. President,

You are my 13th president and even though too many of them turned out to be less than advertised, for the first time in my life, I am genuinely concerned for the future of our great country. You see, even our worst presidents did not divide our people as you do every day in speeches full of dishonest remarks about your opponents. Here are a few examples:

You said Republicans “… believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth.” Let’s break it down:

  1. Republicans do not believe that prosperity comes from the top down. You simply made that up. In fact, they always say that our wealth comes from a strong, working middle class.
  2. When you accused them of wanting to “… spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans,” you knew they never asked for tax cuts—that they actually oppose tax increases on anyone. You also know that to oppose a tax increase is not the same as giving someone a tax cut. You wanted to raise taxes and when you did not get your tax raise, you called it a tax cut. So if you don’t raise my taxes, I am getting a tax cut? That’s flimflam stuff and it only works on people who don’t know any better. Of course you know that and, apparently, you don’t want them to know any better.
  3. But it gets worse. In the phrase, “… spend trillions more on tax cuts” you are saying that when the government actually does give someone a tax cut, the government is spending money. You used the word “spend” to describe a tax cut. How can the government spend money it never got in the first place? Or do you think the money people earn through their hard work really doesn’t belong to them—that it all belongs to the government from the moment they get their paycheck? So any money Americans earn and don’t hand over to the government, is a tax cut? You are confusing America with Communist China, Mr. President.

Remarkably, it gets even worse. When you actually do spend hard-working taxpayer’s money to the benefit of your political supporters—like teacher’s unions—you don’t call it spending, you call it an “investment.” To quote the great economist Thomas Sowell, “You can say anything if you have your own private language.”

And you don’t stop there. Another sleight-of-hand of yours is how you intentionally try to confuse us even further. I’ll let Thomas Sowell explain this part:

“… let’s go back to the notion of “spending” money on ‘the wealthiest Americans.’ The people he is talking about are not the wealthiest Americans. Income is not wealth — and the whole tax controversy is about income taxes. Wealth is what you have accumulated, and wealth is not taxed, except when you die and the government collects an inheritance tax from your heirs.

“People over 65 years of age have far more wealth than people in their thirties and forties — but lower incomes. If Obama wants to talk about raising income taxes, let him talk about it, but claiming that he wants to tax “the wealthiest Americans” is a lie and an emotional distraction for propaganda purposes.”

Your supporters like to tell us how smart you are. I agree with them; I think you were given a pretty good brain. But I have also noticed that they never try to tell us that you are an honest person—a man of high character. Yet I have no doubt they would tell us those things if they were true. After all, they tell us so many things that are not true. As Martin Luther King often said, character really does matter. Sadly, Mr. President, you don’t seem to agree.

Respectfully,

MacPundit
www.barackobamafile.com

P.S. Due to the division in our country and the angry and vile speech coming from the Left, I feel it wise to use my pen name instead of my actual name. Sadly, you, our president, are responsible for much of that.

(emailed to the President on September 3, 2012)




Obama Lied About Romney And Bain Capital

The serial lying continues

Obama Lie: Romney destroyed companies

The Truth: Romney’s record at Bain is one of remarkable success. (Ask Bill Clinton, he’ll vouch for it.)

Obama WinkingDespite investments in many companies that were failing, eighty percent of the companies Bain Capital invested in grew revenues. This meant they were able to hire more workers and that our economy grew as a result. It was common for Bain to hold companies for many years while investing a large amount of human and financial capital in order to improve operations and revive struggling companies.

Obama attacks what has made us great

Obama attacks on Romney and Bain are attacks on the private sector of our economy—the only sector able to create jobs and wealth for our citizens. Government does not create wealth. In fact, it is solely dependent on the private sector for its income. Without a healthy, wealth-producing private sector, the government would have no income at all. Our private sector—our free enterprise system—is what has made our nation the most successful in human history. So when President Obama attacks a company like Bain Capital, he attacks the very thing that has fed, clothed, housed, and cared for generations of Americans, plus millions of people in other countries for decades.

Obama Lie: Bain Capital only profited rich businessmen.

The Truth: Bain investors include pension funds, charities, and universities.

Over half the money invested in private equity firms like Bain Capital comes from pension funds, charitable foundations, and universities. Successful investments made by these entities provides secure retirements for seniors, money for charities so they can better serve their communities, and money for resources universities need to educate our youth.

Obama attacks on Bain can actually hurt taxpayers!

State and local governments actually depend on returns from private equity investments to fund employee retirements without having to cut into their operating budgets. For example, if an investment in a Bain project doesn’t perform well, state and local governments must offset that by using tax dollars that could have been spent on local programs. So once again, when Obama attacks Bain, he is attacking an investment strategy that actually helps to reduce the burden on American taxpayers.

So when Bain and other private equity firms succeed, retirees, charities, local communities, and universities benefit the most. (That’s a good thing, Mr. President.)

Obama Lie: Bain intentionally bankrupted a successful steel mill

The Truth: Obama intentionally mischaracterized the real story

Even though it was already scheduled to close, Mitt Romney and Bain Capital bought the GS Technologies steel plant and tried to help turn it around. Bain’s investment plus $170 million in upgrades managed to keep the plant competitive in a bad international market and saved the steel workers’ jobs for eight years.

Despite a valiant effort by Bain to save the company, two years after Romney left Bain, the plant was closed due to foreign steel dumping into the U.S. market. Of course Obama conveniently failed to mention that thirty-one other steel companies declared bankruptcy during the same period. Yet without Bain’s intervention, the steel workers at GS Technologies would have lost their jobs eight years earlier.

President Obama perpetuates the problem

After three and a half years in office, President Obama has still not taken the steps necessary to protect American manufacturing from unfairly-subsidized Chinese imports. If elected, President Romney will on day one designate China a currency manipulator and do what is necessary to make American manufacturing competitive again.

Obama Lie: Romney is a “corporate raider.”

The Truth: Even Obama’s supporters say this is not true!

Far from tearing down companies, Romney has a successful history of building up companies like Staples, Sports Authority, Steel Dynamics, and Bright Horizons, among others. Yet Obama continues to revert to dirty Chicago-style slash-and-burn politics in order to dishonestly destroy the character of Mitt Romney in an effort to persuade his uninformed followers to vote for him. In the process, he disgraces and diminishes the Office of the Presidency.

Obama Lie: Romney is responsible for sending millions of jobs overseas.

The Truth: Obama’s accusations involved events that happened well after Romney left Bain Capital.

Bain Capital invested in over 100 companies. Of those, President Obama’s campaign has accused three of shipping jobs overseas. In two of these cases, the accusations are related to events that occurred in 2000 and 2001, well after Governor Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to lead the Winter Olympics. In the third case, the share of domestic production actually increased, not decreased, during the time the Obama campaign points to. This attack is merely an attempt to distract voters from President Obama’s failed economic record and his refusal to stand up to China’s unfair trade practices.

Obama Lie: Romney closed stores and laid off employees at Stage Stores.

The Truth: Under Bain Capital’s ownership, Stage Stores doubled the number of employees and doubled the number of stores.

During this time, Stage Stores added locations in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Bain Capital sold its controlling interest in the company in 1997. Years later, Stage Stores filed for bankruptcy, but today it is a healthy business with 14,000 employees and hundreds of new stores nationwide.

Dirty Chicago politics and Saul Alinsky

So it is clear that Obama lied about Romney and Bain Capital. But don’t simply chalk this off and  expect President Obama to have a conversion and stop lying. It is what he does—who he is. He has been doing it for many years. Ask his opponents in Illinois. Ask Bill and Hillary Clinton. Well, you might have to look for videos from the 2008 Democrat primary race to hear them renounce Obama. They are loyal Democrats after all and would probably avoid the truth if you asked them now. But they were both quite upset with Obama back then. Barack Obama practices Chicago-style and Saul Alinsky politics. He used to teach Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals and he follows those rules every day.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Barack Obama is the most radical and the most dishonest president in U.S. History.