posted May 01, 2014 09:22 AM            

You were warned when O'Bomber was only candidate O'Bomber that he was just another Socialist empty suit who would do exactly what every Socialist does when they get control over an economy....destroy it in short order.

Even diehard Socialists in the American press now recognize the folly of having elected the O'Bomber empty suit.

Question, why are the usual suspects still swilling the O'Bomber Kool-Aid?

May 1, 2014
Maureen Dowd to Obama: Be more like Babe Ruth!
Silvio Canto, Jr.

You know that President Obama is in trouble when Maureen Dowd, the anti-Bush/Cheney columnist at The NY Times writes this:

“I empathize with you about being thin-skinned. When you hate being criticized, it’s hard to take a giant steaming plate of “you stink” every day, coming from all sides.

But you convey the sense that any difference on substance is lèse-majesté. You simply proclaim what you believe as though you know it to be absolutely true, hoping we recognize the truth of it, and, if we don't, then we've disappointed you again. Even some of the chatterers who used to be in your corner now make derogatory remarks about your manhood."

She goes on and on. At one point, Maureen calls on President Obama to be more like Babe Ruth:

"....we expect the president, especially one who ran as Babe Ruth, to hit home runs."

The fact is that the left is disgusted with President Obama. They think that he is hitting below "The Mendoza line"!

They voted for “change” and got Guantanamo and Bush-3 on anti-terror. It must be hard for leftists like Maureen to admit that their man is carrying out the Bush policies that they hated so much.

Reality is hard….isn't it?

They voted for “si se puede” and got “zero” effort to reform immigration when President Obama had 60 votes in the US Senate and large majorities in the House. They got “nada” after eating up all of the “guacamole speeches” at the “si se puede” rallies.

And now they have to hear that his foreign policy is in disarray! We are talking about the man who was greeted in Berlin by thousands chanting his name in another foolish display of "idolatry"!

I can't say that I'm sympathetic to people like Maureen “I’m mad in love with Obama” Dowd or all of the others who yelled "yes we can” at the rally.

This is what happens when you vote for the charmer who tells you what you want to hear! Incredibly, all they wanted to hear in 2008 was that everything was Bush’s fault. Everything was Bush’s fault! That was the depth of his message.

We warned you in 2008 that he was inexperienced, had never run anything and was making foolish statements like “we are the ones we've been waiting for”.

Even President Clinton warned you that it was a fairy tale that wouldn't play well once your prince met reality!

Then Professor Ajami warned them a month before the election:

"Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won't be solved by a leader's magic"

Sorry but he is your guy and you are stuck with him!

posted May 05, 2014 09:23 AM            

The purpose is to show the fact that even O'Bomber's most ardent supporters in the political activist press are fed up with him. Maureen Dowd over at the Treason Times certainly qualifies as one of O'Bomber's most ardent supporters...from day one...but now, disillusioned.

posted May 05, 2014 09:42 AM            

ABC News' Karl Clashes With Jay Carney Over Benghazi
Wednesday, 30 Apr 2014 06:52 PM

ABC News reporter Jon Karl tangled with White House press secretary Jay Carney Wednesday over a newly released White House email chain covering "talking points" given then-Ambassador Susan Rice after the deadly 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

Republicans charged Tuesday that a White House official's email advice to Rice to link the attack to an anti-Muslim video confirms the connection was fabricated to help President Barack Obama's re-election.

At the heart of Wednesday's 8-minute skirmish between Karl and Carney was Rice's appearance on five Sunday shows after the attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi – and where her information came from.

Carney was part of the email chain, the Daily Caller reports.

“You knew full well that these Sunday show appearances were going to be dominated by the attack on Benghazi, as they were,” Karl fumed after Carney insisted Rice’s talking points were geared toward addressing region-wide protests as well as the Benghazi attack.

Karl then hammered Carney on the sourcing for Rice's information, thundering:

"Ambassador Rice went on those shows, and she said that the attack in Benghazi was rooted in protests over an Internet video.

"We now know that that was not true, that, in fact, the CIA Director, [Michael] Morell, just — former Director Morell just testified last month that quote, 'when she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something the analysts have attributed this attack to.'

"It did not come from the CIA. You stood there at the podium time after time and said that she was referring to talking points created by the CIA. Now we see a document that comes from the White House, not from the CIA, attributing the protests to the video, and we have the former director of the CIA saying that that was not something that his analysts had attributed it to.".....
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/abc-news-jon-karl-jay-carney/2014/04/30/id/568767/

posted May 14, 2014 08:48 AM            

So I wasn’t surprised to see the Washington Post‘s Eugene Robinson offering the following advice for how Democrats should prepare for this November’s election.

“Happy” should be the Democratic Party’s theme song for the midterm election. Despite Republican claims to the contrary, things are definitely looking up. Democrats ought to be clicking their heels and spreading the good news.

Why? Because that’s what Reagan did! As Robinson explained on MSNBC:

At least give [the voters] positive vibes. That’s what Ronald Reagan always did. Ronald Reagan talked to the country at times when people were down or not feeling good about themselves and what was going on, and…he did have a way of transmitting a kind of optimism that led to confidence and to feeling good about him as a candidate.

Robinson appears to be confused. The president who tried to talk the country out of its “national malaise” was Jimmy Carter. It didn’t work. As for Reagan, he didn’t win re-election just by giving the voters positive vibes or transmitting optimism. He won it by giving them reasons for optimism.
Consider the things Robinson thinks Democrats should be boasting about, such as “Friday’s announcement that unemployment fell to 6.3 percent.”

Ronald Reagan’s “Morning Again in America” ad, the one that pretty much sealed Walter Mondale’s doom in 1984, led with this fact: “Today, more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country’s history.” Note that this does not refer to the unemployment rate. It refers to the total number of people working.

Today, the unemployment rate is down, but that rate is calculated based on the number of people who are unable to find jobs as a percentage of those who are still looking for work. So it can decrease, not because more people are working, but because more people drop out of the job market entirely. And that’s exactly what is happening.

The headline unemployment rate fell to 6.3% but that was only because the labor “participation rate” plummeted back to a modern-era low of 62.8%, last seen in 1978..(Carter) when there were far fewer women in the workforce. The rate for males is the lowest ever recorded at 69.1%.

So fewer men are going to work, relative to the country’s population, than ever before in our history. Hardly a cause to be happy.

But Robinson boasts that Democrats “guided the economy out of its worst slump since the Great Depression.” (You have to be insane to say something like this)

Really? Let’s look at what Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, Reagan’s economy had already racked up five straight quarters of economic growth rates above 7% as the economy rocketed out of the short, sharp recession of his first year in office. Those of us who are old enough to have actually experienced those years firsthand might be able to recall the electrifying impact of living in an country with this kind of growth, and the sense it gave us of facing endless possibilities for the future. To quote from a popular graduation anthem of the day, our future was so bright, we had to wear shades. Those were the “good vibes” we felt under Reagan.

We haven’t felt anything remotely like that under Obama.

Last quarter, the official growth rate was 0.1%. That’s one tenth of one percent, which is indistinguishable from a recession. Under Reagan, growth exceeded its historical post-war average of 3.3%, making up for the lost years in the 1970s. Under Obama, it has been limping along at half its historic average, and now it’s dipping down lower.

Oh, and did Robinson ask Democrats to boast about ObamaCare? Economic production would have contracted last quarter, if not for the boost it got from rapidly increasing spending on health care, which is precisely what ObamaCare was supposed to prevent.

The two things are connected. ObamaCare was meant to remake the American economy in the image of European welfare states—which are notorious for holding back their economies to permanent rates of low growth, precisely the “new normal” we’re living under Obama.
There’s one more thing. Eugene Robinson makes allowance for President Obama being distracted from a positive economic message because he was meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel about Russia and Ukraine. But isn’t that just another part of the picture?

By this point in Reagan’s presidency, the Soviet Union was clearly in retreat. Mikhail Gorbachev was taking a more tractable line in negotiations and had launched “Perestroika,” his last-ditch effort to save Communism by loosening the reins. Under Obama, by contrast, Russia is lurching back toward dictatorship and geopolitical aggression, and Obama doesn’t seem to have any idea how to deter Vladimir Putin, or much interest in doing so.

posted May 14, 2014 11:44 PM            

Just because some Marxists are disillusioned with O'Bomber because he didn't overtly declare the Marxist Revolution in America, that doesn't mean they don't agree with O'Bomber..."we are the ones we've been waiting for". They're the boneheads who don't understand the Marxist incremental approach to the overthrow of governments. Perhaps you know some of these morons.

The Marxist Roots of Obama’s War on the Middle Class
April 1, 2013
Mark Hendrickson

How many times have you heard President Obama express concern for the middle class? More than you can count, I’m sure. If you are in the middle class, Obama’s frequent mentions of you should make you very worried. A key part of Obama’s modus operandi is his habitual use of verbal misdirection—saying one thing and then doing the opposite.

This is a man who will affirm the truism, “none of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be,” and then, fifteen minutes later, propose increased federal spending in industries that he favors, such as green energy. (He did this in his 2011 State of the Union address.) He has earnestly told us that federal deficit spending is “not sustainable,” and then merrily continued with his budget-busting spending plans. Obama has promised “no more bailouts,” only to endorse (in the same speech—his 2012 SOTU address) the Dodd-Frankenstein monster known as “the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” that effectively guarantees future bailouts for big banks.

Obama pays lip service to the middle class because he needs their votes, but he is no friend of the middle class. Right from the start, he has favored big business at the expense of the middle class. (See, for example, Timothy P. Carney’s detailed account, Obamanomics.)

[b]It is well known that Obama is a disciple and practitioner of the strategy and tactics of the late revolutionary (Marxist} Saul Alinsky, who despised the middle class, denigrating them as “materialistic, decadent… degenerate… and corrupt.” (For a well-researched discussion of the Alinksy link, read Chapter 3 of James R. Keena’s excellent book, We’ve Been Had.)

Karl Marx was another writer whose influence on Obama is well known. Marx railed against the middle class, fulminating in The Communist Manifesto, “The middle class owner of property…must be swept out of the way and made impossible.” Elsewhere in the Manifesto, Marx called for “the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie.”

Building on Marx’s concepts, Lenin sought the destruction of the bourgeois class and its values, recommending, as the strategy for annihilating the middle class, “grind[ing] them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

Is Obama acting on the basis of this Marxist-Leninist animus against the middle class? Certainly, nobody can honestly argue that middle-class Americans as a whole have prospered under the Obama administration. The official unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high, while the percentage of adult Americans working has declined to historic lows. Meanwhile, during the Obama era, median family income has dropped several thousand dollars while the median net worth of Americans has dropped as much as 40%. Meanwhile, savers earn microscopic returns and effectively grant interest-free loans to the government as a result of the Federal Reserve’s zero-interest-rate policy.

Such dismal data should be of no surprise to anyone who understands economics. Obama’s ideology is plainly Marxian, shown in his antipathy for entrepreneurs (“you didn’t build that”). As I have argued elsewhere, Obama’s economic policies have been those of a dedicated Marxist-Leninist. He has worked to advance the implementation of all ten planks in Marx’s “Communist Manifesto,” outlining how to impose socialism incrementally.

As for Lenin’s fiendish plan to crush the middle class with taxes and inflation, Obama has increased taxes by over $6 trillion (I refer here to Obama’s deficits, which are taxes that will fall on future taxpayers) and the Federal Reserve inflationary dollar-creating policy (“quantitative easing”) that already is eating away at the purchasing power of the dollar while sowing the seeds of severe future inflation. Many Americans have been beguiled by Obama’s rhetoric about raising taxes on “the rich.” They overlook the mathematical fact that “the rich” (even as liberally defined by Obama) don’t have enough money to keep the Obama/progressive wealth redistribution game going, and that, sooner or later, the heaviest economic burden will have to fall on the middle class.

The American middle class should never underestimate an ambitious politician’s willingness to impose economic hardship on the country to achieve his political goals. Indeed, Obama is far from the first Democrat to take advantage of the “Curley effect,” but he may be the most zealous. Apparently influenced by the Cloward-Piven stragtegy of bringing about the financial collapse of the U.S. by overloading government transfer programs, Obama has presided over explosive growth in the number of Americans on the food stamps program and federal disability.

Large segments of the American middle class either do not understand what Obama is trying to do, or else they have been intellectually crippled by “higher education,” causing them to suffer from the delusion that Obama’s path is righteous and just. An earlier, non-Marxian commentator on the American scene, the acerbic H. L. Mencken, scornfully referred to the American middle class as “the booboisie,” and expressed his cynicism in the memorable and currently apropos aphorism, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

posted May 15, 2014 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

O'Bomber is the Marxist Messiah because he's the Marxist other Marxists revere.
Just because some Marxists are disillusioned with O'Bomber because he didn't overtly declare the Marxist Revolution in America, that doesn't mean they don't agree with O'Bomber..."we are the ones we've been waiting for". They're the boneheads who don't understand the Marxist incremental approach to the overthrow of governments. Perhaps you know some of these morons.

---

Mark Henrickson is not a Marxist. Liberals are disillusioned. The Marxists were anti Obama from the first election. Why would a Marxist support a corporate wh*re ?
http://www.marxist.com/barack-obama.htm
We (Marxists) maintain our confidence in the working class, especially in the difficult conditions that lie ahead. Every American worker who loses his or her job knows what this means, and we are sure that the workers will find the right road to solve their problems.

posted May 16, 2014 11:57 PM            

Please correct me if I've got it wrong but I don't recall Brazilian's..Marxists or otherwish having a say in American elections or American policy.

posted May 17, 2014 12:47 PM            

At the moment, among the US workers there is a feeling of shock, disbelief, anxiety, fear and depression. But that will not last forever. There is a profound questioning of the very system taking place, and eventually, fear and frustration will be transformed into anger and a desire to take action. Many have sincere illusions in Obama but for the US ruling class his real task is to preserve a rotting system whose historic task has been exhausted.

Many have sincere illusions in Obama. But ironically, things are set to get even worse under Obama than they were under Bush. Because it is not about this or that individual, but the system he or she defends. On all major policy issues, Obama is not much different than Bush. His foreign policy is a continuation of Bill Clinton’s; a more subtle approach that attempts more diplomacy before bringing out the “big stick.” It is no accident that Hillary Clinton was chosen as Secretary of State.

Marxists don't approve of Obama. Never have. They're Marxists, after all. You are familiar with Marxist thought regarding the ruling class, yes?

posted May 17, 2014 12:55 PM            

Obama's Foreign Policy Speech: Imperialism as Usual

Written by Shane Jones in the U.S. Wednesday, 18 March 2009
http://www.marxist.com/us-obama-foreign-policy-imperialism.htm