The LIE That President Obama Was Stifled by GOP Opposition

In his first two years Barack Obama had a Democratic House and Senate (http://wiredpen.com/resources/political-commentary-and-analysis/a-visual-guide-balance-of-power-congress-presidency/)...and all he got done was ramming through a very flawed healthcare Bill (the ACA).

Likewise, from 2003 to 2007, G W Bush had a Republican House and Senate...and got little done. He did hang Sarbanes-Oxley a ham-handed response to the 2001 financial scandals (Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, Arthur Andersen, etc. which resulted in the vaunted "Jobless Recovery."

Now, Trump will have at least 2 years with both Houses of Congress in GOP hands. Unfortunately for him, the establishment GOP reviles Trump even more than most Democrats...and for better reasons.

Arizona and South Carolina SHOULD do the rest of the nation a favor and get rid of John McCain, who disgraced himself and his Party in the 2008 election and Lindsay Graham, respectively. THAT would be a nice start.

Jon Stewart – Yet Another Liberal/Progressive With a Sad, Tragic Upbringing

Jon Stewart

On CBS’ Sunday Morning (August 9^th, 2015), Mo Rocca asked Jon Stewart (Anthony Wiener’s College roommate) about his Dad (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jon-stewart-i-despise-interviewing-politicians/).

“When asked what he would be like if he hadn't married Tracey, Stewart replied, "I'd be much unhappier. She has the capacity for real warmth and love. She's able to help me experience that. I'm an individual that's much more removed. Like, I like bartending because it's sort of like being out, but you don't actually have to be out."

"And you're on the other side of the bar?"

"Correct."

"Is being a father what you expected it would be?"

"No. It's much better than what I thought," he laughed, "'cause the experience that I had growing up was very different."

“When Stewart was nine years old, his father, a physicist, left the family. From that point on Stewart saw his father (now deceased) only sporadically.

Rocca asked, "What did your father think about what you do for a living? Did heget it? Did he enjoy it? Did he think, 'What a strange choice,' or, 'Wow, that's really cool'?"

"He was not a man prone to taking chances, or smiling, or enjoying food or music or color," Stewart laughed. "Yeah, you know, he wasn't the happiest, you know ... My mom ultimately probably is much more, because she is an educator, she's someone that believes in taking chances, she has an incredible work ethic. She believes that no matter what happens to you, if you work hard enough, if you fight hard enough, you will turn it around. That's where all that comes from.

"She's a spitfire, man. She's 81. She'll knock you out!"

This is such a common theme among avowed Leftists. New York’s current Mayor, Bill DeBlasio’s father committed suicide when DeBlasio was a child (“De Blasio stated that when he was 7 years old, his father left home; his parents divorced shortly after that. In a 2012 interview, de Blasio described his upbringing: "[My dad] was an officer in the Pacific in the army, [and fought] in an extraordinary number of very, very difficult, horrible battles, including Okinawa.... And I think honestly, as we now know about veterans who return, [he] was going through physically and mentally a lot.... He was an alcoholic, and my mother and father broke up very early on in the time I came along, and I was brought up by my mother's family — that's the bottom line — the de Blasio family." In September 2013, de Blasio revealed that his father had committed suicide in 1979 while suffering from incurable lung cancer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_de_Blasio), Barack Obama was abandoned by his father and all of the subsequent male figures in his life (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512970/Barack-Obama-How-I-haunted-father.html), George Soros was helped through the Holocaust by an uncle who was a Capo (a German collaborator) who helped loot the possessions of Jews marked for death (http://itmakessenseblog.com/2011/01/28/george-soros-says-he-feels-no-remorse-for-collaborating-with-nazis-during-wwii-to-send-his-fellow-jews-to-the-death-camps-steal-their-property/ and http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/11/jewish-people-vs-george-soros.html).

This kind of early childhood trauma is so virtually universal among Leftists that it’s impossible to overstate the very real probability that Leftism is some kind of emotional or psychological disorder.

The Crusades?...Who is Responsible for the President’s Talking Points???

"Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."  (Barack Obama, February 5^th, 2015)

Wha-wha-wha WHAT?!

Some other PLACE?

How about some other TIME?

About 1,000 years ago to be precise!

Funny story...OK, maybe not so funny; You know how those truly opposed to Islamic jihadism often say, “These radical jihadists have a Medieval mindset?”

Yeah, they’re talking about the prevailing mindset of 1,000 fucking years ago!

Europe apparently has evolved. No Crusades, no Inquisitions in nearly a Millennium. Sadly, the same CANNOT be said for Islam.

But somehow, at least in Obama’s speech writer’s mind, 1096 is yesterday and the Inquisition, which targeted primarily European “heretics,” the Knights Templar were among the most prominent of the Inquisition’s victims, was somehow “the same as” today’s ISIS inspired atrocities.

In other words, “Don’t worry about it. It ain’t that bad. After all we did the same sort of things ourselves just a short while ago.”

Some have tried to be kind and chalk this up to Barack Obama’s “need to lecture,” BUT if you’re going to lecture folks, at least have a few points that at least...make some sense.

This inane search for some modern moral equivalency to Muslim jihadist state sponsored terrorism only serves to make fools of those who engage in it. Recently WCBS Radio News aired an editorial that compared Islamic jihadists to American Mafioso who were devout Church-going Catholics even as they engaged in their gangsterism.

Here’s the rub there, NONE of those mobsters committed their mayhem in the name of their religion, or with the sanction of the Catholic Church! Weird huh! Moreover, these gangsters seemed completely motivated by profit and not at all by religious ideology.

It’s kind of strange huh. I mean the closer you look, the LESS such moral equivalencies seem to make sense!

What’s the genesis of this idiocy?

Does it spring from the same culture in which everybody gets a trophy and nobody ever loses...everyone’s “right” in their own way?

If so, there’s all the proof we need of how degenerate that idea really is.

That degenerate idea has tragically spawned a malignant culture that sees “ALL humans as more or less, the SAME,” even as history, anthropology and biology scream to us that NONE of that is so. In fact, the various cultures of the earth differ widely on almost every level and across all units of measure.

Fact is, European morality IS superior to the Sharia morality that condones (even encourages) Honor Killings, prescribes amputations and public executions for various “crimes,” including adultery (mostly for female adulterers) and homosexuality. Those who can’t see that don’t deserve to be a part of Western society, simple as that.

Barack Obama’s Odd Easter Service.....

The First family attended Easter Services at the Shiloh Baptist Church (pictured above) in D.C. on Easter Sunday, but the Reverend Dr. Wallace Smith came off sounding strangely reminiscent of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

“[Pastor Smith] talked about how his baby grandson’s gurgling is actually “talking” because he is saying ‘I am here...they tried to write me off as 3/5 a person in the Constitution, but I am here right now...”

Oh boy!

Where to begin?

Is it really possible that there are people so STUPID (and stupidity - the inability to comprehend properly - differs greatly from ignorance - the lack of information) that they don’t know that the “3/5^th’s compromise” was an ANTI-SLAVERY resolution?!

Apparently so.

First, a little history about the “3/5^th’s compromise” – It was proposed by two northern delegates James Wilson (PA) and Roger Sherman (CT) so that Southerners couldn’t use slaves to increase their representation in Congress.

As you might expect, the delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state, while the delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers, since those increased numbers (of non-voting slaves) would deliver the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College.

The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals.

So NO, “they didn’t try to write off Reverend Wallace or any free blacks (ironically enough there were many freed blacks who WERE counted as whole citizens even back then) as 3/5^ths of a person.” Abolitionists from the north forced a compromise on the south that decreased southern representation, WITHOUT WHICH, the slavery debate would’ve been greatly delayed in America and given that chattel slavery STILL exists in much of the world even today (in the Arab Mid-East, in large tracts of Asia and ironically enough, in sub-Saharan Africa), that delay could’ve been a long one indeed!

Apparently a lot of people who SHOULD “know better,” simply DON’T.

And that’s called STUPIDITY.

Since it can’t possibly be argued that people like Reverend Wallace Smith “don’t have access to that information” (which would be mere IGNORANCE), the only possible conclusion one can reach is that such people are “too stupid to actually understand the facts and use them correctly.”

More troubling still is Barack Obama’s penchant for seeking out these kinds of radical and rabidly anti-American “Reverends.”

That doesn't seem to be a very promising way to kick off the 2012 re-election campaign.

He Said WHAT?!...

Perhaps he didn’t see this recent Rasmussen Poll...

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill

...Because today, in Iowa, President Obama said of the GOP’s plan to run in November on repealing the recent Health-Care overhaul, "Go For It."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/25/obama_on_gops_attempt_to_repeal_bill_go_for_it.html

OK...But 55 – 46 looks pretty good!

Sometimes Pesident Obama Gets It Right...

I’ve said this from way back before the 2008 election – Barack Obama, like G W Bush was going to be a “mixed bag.”

Both men seem like personable and charming enough guys – affable and easy-going, even moderate in their approaches to most issues. Just as more liberal/left-leaning people had some issues with G W Bush's affiliations, like Bob Jones University, more Conservative and Libertarian people tend to have some serious issues with Barack Obama's ties to radical bigots, from Reverend Wright to the odious Van Jones and even more radical groups like the "Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now" - ACORN.

.

Both men have gotten some things right and some things wrong. G W Bush got the war on terror right (the most momentous issue in the last fifty years...and President Obama's continuing the bulk of the "Bush Doctrine" proves that out) and he got the tax cut issue right too – Bush’s Cap Gains cut (from 20% to 15%) had Capital Gains revenues skyrocketing in its wake. Likewise, his across-the-board income tax rate cuts also saw income tax revenues skyrocket.

Unfortunately, President Bush used those revenues NOT to pay down the already ponderous U.S. Debt, but to keep on spending (he spent MORE, even adjusted for inflation, on reckless, wasteful social spending than even, LBJ did), while conducting two massively expensive wars. He also joined with the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in expanding mortgages for “lower income” people (read “deadbeats). Bush signed the 0% down FHA mortgage that triggered the frenzy of subprime lending that Congress pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to GUARANTEE/”buy” and package as triple A rated “mortgage-backed securities” on an unsuspecting world market, ultimately resulting in a banking implosion here, that spread rapidly around the world.

For his part, Barack Obama, has looked at the Bush mistakes and come to a completely illogical and almost certainly disastrous conclusion, buying into the absurd meme that “Bush’s tax cuts and deregulation led to the financial meltdown and that MORE government intervention was necessary," President Obama has embarked on a massive spending program that has quadrupled the Deficit in just 8 months AND increased the Debt burden from 64% of GDP to nearly 75% of GDP virtually overnight.

Of course, MORE government intervention for a problem CAUSED BY government intervention is as foolish as believing that a problem (the exploding U.S. debt ratio) caused by excessive government spending could be cured by even MORE government spending!

But along the way, Obama’s also gotten some vital things right, and that’s why I’m often just as shocked and saddened by some Conservatives looking to fight Obama on EVERYTHING, as I am that Liberals who railed against things like the rendition program and the NSA Surveillance program, seem to have lost their principles, as well as their voices, in the face of Barack Obama continuing the bulk of the Bush anti-terror policies.

NO ONE gets it ALL wrong, ALL the time and both Barack Obama and G W Bush are no exceptions.

Barack Obama has NOT moved us out of Iraq. The last troop reduction happened over a year ago! He has NOT abandoned the NSA Surveillance program the nutty Left once claimed was “shredding the Constitution,” he’s even defended it in court and continued it, cloaked in secrecy, as it should be. Obama has also called for about $500 BILLION in cuts from Medicaid and Medicare and is proposing what would ultimately be a bare-bones tightly rationed and strictly restricted government healthcare option that would have to be supplemented with private insurance, if one were to avoid the rationing and restrictions. Bottom-line, it would actually end a “free” entitlement (employer-driven health insurance) and replace it with a bare-bones public option, complete with rationing of care and restrictions, that would ultimately deliver LESS care to those less able to pay!

Over the last two days President Obama has sought to ratchet up the war in Afghanistan, looking to deploy MORE U.S. troops there, in the face of strong Liberal opposition AND the Obama administration, just yesterday (Tuesday, 9/15/09) sought to extend three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year. Those key provisions would preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.

ALL three had been vehemently opposed by the far-Left...expect nothing but silence NOW.

Any time you get that silence from the far-Left, that’s proof that Obama got one right.

New Administration Seeks to Rein in Expectations Via Contradictory Assessments...

Here’s an irony, sort of dualing headlines; UPI: Volcker: U.S. 'addicted to spending' (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/08/Volcker_US_addicted_to_spending/UPI-45251228775537/) and Obama Warns of Tough Times Ahead, Need for Action (SPENDING) (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-stimulusjan17,0,3737175.story)

Volcker’s right, SPENDING, both individual and government, but especially government spending is THE problem.

The last Congress, sad to say, that actually reduced the federal budget was the Gingrich Congress. Unfortunately post-Gingrich, every subsequent Congress has reverted to Keynesianism (more big government, more social spending). Those Gingrichian federal budget cuts were solely responsible for both the surpluses of the late 1990s and some of the lowest Misery Indexes (the inflation and unemployment rates combined) in nearly half a century!

Since last Spring, we’ve had a Pelosi-Reid engineered (and Bush approved) unstimulating “stimulus package,” the Pelosi-Reid bank bailout Bill of this past September – the Democrats wrote that Bill, refused Conservative attempts to make the monies available ONLY for lending. Since then the Democratic Congress has passed an auto bailout package and now wants another $850 BILLION “stimulus package” on top of last year’s failed package.

Who’s fault is it if all this spending fails to correct the problems caused by government regulation mandating banks to offer more subprime loans to “lower income Americans?”

The answer to that is a Liberal Congress coupled with a Liberal administration!

Conservatives rightly let G W Bush take the blame for the things that happened on his watch (his SEC failed in its oversight duties to protect us from the subprime mortgage mess that mushroomed into a global credit crisis when Fannie and Freddie were saddled with backing/guaranteeing hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in bad loans) and his cooperating with two Keynesian Congresses, the spendthrift Hastert Congress and the even more recklessly Keynesian Pelosi-Reid Congress.

Now we MUST make sure that the current administration is held to account for making a bad situation WORSE by attempting to correct a crisis born of government overspending with MORE government overspending, and while we’re at it, we MUST ultimately make sure that the Pelosi-Reid Congress in general and Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd are held to account for pushing what then HUD Secretary, Andrew Cuomo advanced as “affirmative action in lending.”

THAT is the Liberal Democrats’ legacy and they have to ultimately own that.

.

.

THANKS to P-Mac for some crucial heads ups.

OMG! Obama is Spying on Americans...

Is this just the GREATEST or what?!

First, Obama switches sides in the Senate vote over the NSA surveillance program AND the telecom company’s immunity (which SHOULD HAVE come as an IMPLIED IMMUNITY) and NOW he’s doubling down and urging a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched eavesdropping case that is weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.

The case involves Justice Walker's (of the 9th Circuit Court) decision to admit as evidence a classified document allegedly showing that two American lawyers for a now-defunct Saudi charity were electronically eavesdropped on without warrants by the Bush administration in 2004.

"The Government's position remains that this case should be stayed," the Obama administration wrote in a filing that for the first time made clear the new president was on board with the Bush administration's reasoning in this case.

So Obama really is continuing most of the Bush anti-terror policies!

Still, I think liberals will just grin and bear it, just as they did an earlier “UN-opposed and unprovoked military action against another sovereign nation (Bosnia), when a Democrat was in the White House.

H/T to Barry over at Cynical Nation; http://www.cynicalnation.com/

Politics and Ideology....

In America, one of the interesting aspects of politics is how divorced from ideology it so often is.

Throughout most of the country, political affiliation, like religion is inherited. It often takes on the aspects of team sports, sort of athletics for non-athletes - the Red team versus the Blue team.

On Staten Island, where I grew up, politics is largely ethnic. The two major groups are Irish and Italian – the Irish are largely Democrats and the Italians mostly Republicans.

With an Italian mother and an Irish father, the ethnic team sports aspects of Staten Island politics has always been a little dicey for me.

Moreover, for any number of reasons, ideology has always been more vital to me than politics.

At an early age I was inculcated with an almost Catechismal adherence to individual liberty, private property rights and the ONLY economic system those things are most respected in – the market-based economy.

That has been the basis for my voting my entire life. I tend to oppose both fiscal and social Liberals and support Conservatives on most issues.

When polled most Americans tend to support most of the same positions that I do, four of five Americans want a smaller, less intrusive government and lower taxes, almost 2/3s (64%) support the NSA surveillance program, I’m even with the majority of Americans on the abortion issue – I’m WITH the 65% who support first trimester abortion and I’m also with the 65% of Americans who oppose late term abortion.

In a sense, I’m the quintessential “Center-Right American.”

It is that kind of electorate that had the Gingrich Congress assume control of Congress in January of 1995, with a very clear mandate from the American people. That mandate was outlined in Gingrich’s Contract With America.

That Congress shut down the federal government back in 1995 to force Bill Clinton to accept massive federal budget cuts and a Cap Gains rate cut...those things are what brought about some of the lowest Misery Indexes in history AND those significant budget surpluses of the late 1990s. The DeLay and Hastert Congresses abandoned Gingrich's principles and sullied the GOP in the process. They became just another set of pigs at the trough. As a result the neutered, pro-government GOP ceded Congress to the Democrats in the elections of 2006 , allowing the nation to lurch back onto a Keynesian course.

Since 2007 the economy has only gotten worse, which opened the door in 2008 for a Democratic take-back of the White House..

Interestingly enough, Barack Obama won election on November 4th, 2008 by running in favor of gun rights (the script of one famous Obama commercial went, “Barack Obama supports gun rights, our right to defend ourselves, the Second Amendment," the narrator says. "That's the truth."), tax cuts, the NSA surveillance program, pay-go to restore balanced budgets and a military surge in Afghanistan...on many issues, he was able to not only run to the Right of McCain, he made a better case for those things than McCain did.

In fact, Joe "the plumber" Wurzelbach made McCain's economic arguments better than McCain did...and THAT is the sorry state of affairs facing the Moderate (northeaster) wing of the Republican Party. They have the money, but few ideas and they resent the Conservative (Gingrich) wing that Party and have consistently and all too often, successfully been able to silence that wing.

.

How the relatively blank slate Obama will govern is anyone's guess, but his pick of a former Israeli Army member and Conservative Democrat, Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff is interesting, to say the least. I'm willing to hope that President-elect Barack Obama will govern as he ran, as a Center-Right candidate and I'll let both our national security and the Misery Index tell the tale on that score.

Team Obama Embracing Supply-Side Policies???

Turns out, at least according to Larry Kudlow, that Barack Obama may be moving back to the center to embrace Supply Side policies!

Kudlow claims that "Team Obama is moving toward the supply-side and pivoting toward the political center on key aspects of its tax policy. Writing in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Obama advisors Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee outlined a plan that would only raise tax rates on capital-gains and dividends from 15 percent to 20 percent for individuals making more than $200,000 and on family incomes above $250,000. Prior to this, investors worried that Obama would double the 15 percent tax rate on cap-gains and bring the 15 percent rate on dividends back to 40 percent."

Of course, Kudlow rightly isn’t thrilled about the Capital gains hike at all, as he notes, “Obama’s 20 percent rate on investment, investors would suffer a 6 percent incentive loss on their cap-gain incomes and another 5.5 percent incentive drop on dividends. The cost of capital would rise under Obama and investment returns would decline by more than 11 percent. Uncle Sam will keep more and investors will retain less, all while the economy is languishing.”

Kudlow also notes that “the Obama people acknowledge at least some effects from supply-side incentives. And perhaps they are implicitly recognizing the likelihood that higher tax rates on cap-gains and dividends will generate lower revenues and a higher budget deficit.

"It also seems clear that the Obama tax plan is not a growth policy, but a social policy that uses tax fairness as a means of redistributing income. There’s a long history of failed redistributionism, and this is where the Obama plan falls apart.”

.

Adding, “Plus, the world’s changed since the 1990s. The flat-tax revolution coming out of Eastern Europe has slashed marginal rates on individuals and corporations, resulting in strong growth and big revenue gains that keep budget deficits down."

.

Still, as Larry Kudlow says, “Team Obama’s small shift toward the supply-side remains a positive development.”

It's Sort of Heads WE WIN....Tails They LOSE!

And by “WE,” of course I mean those who support Supply-Side, market-based policies, low tax and low government positions.

For small government Conservatives and Libertarians of all stripes, this is a year of relatively slim pickings.

There really isn’t a small government candidate in the field, although McCain is far closer than either of the Democrats running.

With Mrs. Clinton’s decided lack of charm, it’s looking more and more certain of an Obama-McCain contest in the Fall.

While polls show that Conservatives, largely due to the specter of either Obama or Clinton winning, have rallied around McCain, more than a few have wondered aloud whether a “Carter-Redux” mightn’t be just what a complacent America needs right now.

Sure, if Obama embarked on what he’s promised, the largest tax hike in U.S. history (yes, allowing the Bush cuts to expire is a DIRECT tax hike), then it is almost certain that;

(1) government revenues will fall, as higher income Americans place more of their disposable income in tax deferred vehicles, like 457s, 401-Ks, IRAs, etc. While lower income Americas, with LESS disposable income to defer, will be bitten by the tax hikes, that won’t offset the drop in tax revenues coming from the more affluent due to their deferring more of their incomes. Consider that the top 10% of Americans now pay over 70% of all income taxes, their deferring more of their disposable income (tax deferred) not only makes perfect economic sense, but the revenues won’t be made up by higher payments from lower income Americans! The result of falling revenues will be the government (at every level) unable to hire more workers...which is ALWAYS a good thing!

(2) Investors, faced with higher Capital Gains rates and a return to Dividend taxes will retrench on investment, ESPECIALLY Venture Capital investment, leading to fewer new ideas coming to market, fewer new companies and fewer new jobs being created!

(3) Companies, faced with a higher Corporate Tax (Obama wants to raise that to the individual income level) will lay workers off in order to maintain their profitability.

(4) All this would lead to a perfect storm that could easily make the Carter years look positively halcyon by comparison!

Imagine this scenario, sky high interest rates, double digit unemployment, coupled with double digit inflation AND with not only a Democrat in the White House, MORE IMPORTANTLY a Democrat controlled Congress!

It wouldn’t matter if “all” the malaise were the fault of Obama’s policies or not. The delicious thing is that he’d take the blame and “liberal tax and spend” would become the pariah it had long been and richly deserves to be!

An Obama-led economic meltdown might just eradicate the American Left as a political force once and for all, which would be the best thing that could happen to America!

Now, there are going to be some misguided, Leftist dolts who’ll regard such prognostications as “wishing ill for America.”

Believing that “socialism has some good points” is “wishing ill for America!

I’m merely wishing ill for more Keynesian/socialistic policies. Yes, I WANT them to fail, no matter what the cost, no matter how deep the pain.

If we must be taught the painful lessons of WHY socialism CANNOT work, let us hasten to them and profit by them!

Obama’s First Real Policy Statements?...

.

Until recently Barack Obama has managed to maintain being the most nebulous of candidates, very looooong on verbiage (yes, “just words”) and very short on substance.

He’s worked hard to resist revealing either his core beliefs OR his policy positions.

That’s why what much of the MSM is now dismissing as a mere “verbal gaffe,” is so revealing. It gives an insight into BOTH Obama’s core beliefs, while showing how little substance his core beliefs hold.

Last week in San Francisco, Obama was taped saying, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The firestorm was instantaneous and inopportune, given that both the Pennsylvania and North Carolina Primaries are upcoming. In both states, bumper stickers with “I’m not bitter,” have been circulated.

But the real problem isn’t merely the words Obama chose, but the sentiments that he still stands by – that those who don’t embrace the inane, cock-eyed liberalism that he does are motivated by frustration and take those frustrations out by supporting , in his view, "misguided' things like gun rights (the basic right to SELF-defense), the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion) and anti-immigrant sentiments. In short, he pretty much called Red State Americans, “A collection of gun toting, religious zealots and racial bigots.” Hmmmm, not exactly the best tack on which to cull their votes, now is it?

Again, it’s NOT the “words,” it’s the sentiments that Obama admits to still clinging to that ARE the problem!

In those 34 words he expressed a deep-seated revulsion for America’s Constitution. How else can one explain an attack on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, like that? How many other parts of our Bill of Rights does Obama revile?

So the 1st Amendment’s protection of Freedom OF religion is dismissed by Barack Obama as a mere boon to religious zealots and an impediment to everyone else. The Second Amendment that merely affirms the INNATE or Natural Right of ALL free individuals to violent self-defense, when THEY deem necessary, is also superfluous, at least in the eyes of Barack Obama!

But there’s more...MUCH MORE!

He appears to assail all those opposed to open borders and ILLEGAL immigration as “anti-immigrant, when all legitimate opinion polls show that over 80% of those folks (which comprise over 75% of Americans) are motivated by a support for “the rule of law.”

So, any American who supports border enforcement and enforcing even our existing immigration laws, is in the eyes of the Obama’s, “vile racial bigots.”

And what’s with the “anti-trade sentiments,” crack?

That, in fact, is the most quizzical of the Obama policy statements. After all, a misguided liberal who reviles both the First and Second Amendments (and perhaps much of the rest of the Bill of Rights) and supports open borders isn’t all that rare, nor surprising, BUT one who campaigns AGAINST Free Trade, while pandering to Left-wing anti-trade kooks, excoriating that viewpoint, in an apparent throw-away line, certainly is food for thought.

It certainly puts the reports of Obama aide, Austan Goosbee reassuring the Canadian government, back in February, that Obama’s current NAFTA position was just talk, in a much clearer light.

So is Obama merely telling Left-wing anti-Free Traders what they want to hear (LYING) just to get their votes. Why else would he seek to demonize that long-held Leftist viewpoint by attaching to those they revile on the Right?

Is it possible that he really reviles naïve Left-wing Americans as much, if not more than he does all those “gun-toting, religious zealots” on the Right?

That last portion of those 34 words certainly seems to indicate that that is the case!