Recognizing Fascism

"And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day." I Samuel 8:18

It is fashionable to associate fascism with the political right. Like most popular conceptions, it is also erroneous to do so.

As a history teacher in the early 1990s, I began to be fascinated by Bill Clinton's seeming use of fascistic tactics and philosophy in first advancing, and then preserving, his administration. This led me to purchase and then read Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 (Payne is a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, hardly an outpost of conservatism). Payne surveyed the entire fascist landscape - there were fascist movements throughout both Europe and Asia (and to a lesser extent in the Americas) throughout the time period covered by his book - and arrived at a "definition" of fascism that was both striking and chilling.

The faux intelligentsia of liberal Western culture often pretends that fascism can be boiled down to two basic propositions: Nationalism and Racism. As with all of the left's conclusions, this conclusion is arrived at more out of an attempt to bolster their own self-conception than out of dealing fairly with history. Since, publicly (though on the race front, ONLY publicly), the modern left finds nationalism, racism, and the political right all objectionable, it makes sense to simply assign nationalism and racism to the political right and thereby conclude that fascism is an extreme movement emanating from the right wing.

Where evidence exists, it all points to the opposite conclusion. The first tip-off, which most eighth graders would recognize (but since the left's understanding of social sciences is mired in a kindergartner's view of the world, an eighth-grade understanding is far too advanced for the left), is that the word Nazi, the title of the most well-known of the fascist movements, is an anglicized shortening of the words "National Socialism," or in the original German Nationalsozialismus. While it is commonly held that Nazism was opposed in principle to communism, it is important to note that its opposition was national (i.e., a preference for Germany over the Soviets) and political (i.e., political power is viewed by fascists as a zero-sum game so that, even within Germany, the Nazis were compelled to destroy Germany's communists and socialists so that they themselves could wield power without restraint), not ideological. In fact, the full title of the Nazi party was the "National Socialists German Workers Party," a titular formula that has been mimicked time and again by both socialist and communist organizations worldwide.

Secondly, however, note that the goals of fascism have always been the same as those of communism and socialism: the concentration of political power in a party bureaucratic structure rather than in the hands of private citizens, the state control of capital with varying degrees of redistribution, the use of Keynesian spending strategies as a means of consolidating political power, attempts at mass mind control and brainwashing, and the transformation of the citizenry from a free people into subjects - wards of the state. For this reason, there has never been a fascist movement that did not have as its goal the founding of a socialist structure in which capital was controlled, to one extent or another, by government. Fascism, then, in its effect, is to always have economic aims that are more compatible with the left than the right.

Payne, in A History of Fascism, determined that attempts to define the ideology of fascism essentially missed the point - fascism is not so much an ideology as it is a methodology. In fact, he stated that one of the universal signs of fascism was the fact that it tended to exist within an ideological vacuum: other than the tendency toward a socialistic tyranny, the ideology of fascism tended to be different in every state in which it existed.

That fascism lacks a coherent and stable ideology makes sense when one understands Payne's definition of fascism, which has nothing to do with right-wing politics, nationalism, or racism. Rather, fascism, according to Payne, is an ideologically vacant grab for raw power at any cost with a consequent concentration of governmental power in a socialist bureaucracy and the subjugation of the people of a nation.

So fascism is not an attempt to support an ideological viewpoint, it is an attempt to seize power and subjugate nations minus any coherent ideology. Fascism is not about beliefs, but rather about the pure, naked exercise of raw power.

One can see that, in fact, strongly-held beliefs would tend to get in the way of the exercise of raw power. If one's goal is power, strongly-held beliefs merely complicates matters: what if the population I am trying to subjugate doesn't share my beliefs? So the defining element of fascism was its ability to adopt whatever belief system aids it in its pursuit of raw power.

The vagaries of history made Germans susceptible to a myth grounded in national expansion for economic purposes and in blaming national and economic troubles on Jews. But note that the same was NOT found in the Japanese form of fascism, where the cultural climate rather lent itself to a positive mythology of supernatural destiny without an accompanying negative mythology of blame (i.e., the Japanese did not hold the Koreans or Chinese accountable for any specific set of problems in Japan, they merely saw them as population groups that were destined to be conquered). In Italy, fascism was much more practical, restrained, and opportunistic, without a coherent metanarrative to match that of the Germans or Japanese. Three fascist regimes begat three types of ideology, but they were all the same in one way: their thirst to consolidate all power within a single political party and use such consolidation to subjugate the population to governmental control.

Bill Clinton was the first fascist president of the United States. That he was a master of using the big lie (and thousands of smaller ones) for the manipulation of the population, as were the Nazis, Italian Fascists, and Japanese under Tojo. He had a nebulous, undefined platform defined more by unjustified and unprovable complaints ("the worst economy in 50 years") and sloganeering ("the man from Hope") than by specific policy statements. Further, he was so unattached to any ideas at all that once the Republicans captured the Congress in 1994, he was able to contort himself from a social liberal par excellence to a Republican lite, championing hundreds of small, insignificant "initiatives" (which nevertheless had the effect of consolidating power, both economic and political, in a left-leaning bureaucracy) and "ending welfare as we know it" to the horror of his liberal base.

Clinton displayed fascistic tendencies in his lack of attachment to a coherent ideology, in his incremental consolidation of large chunks of political power in deceptively arcane or benevolent-sounding legislation (his changes to the Violence Against Women Act, which likely permanently destroyed the stable nuclear family as an institution, for example), and his willingness to gain, maintain, and increase power at any cost (including treason, as he sold forbidden technology secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions, admitting as much in his "Republican Juggernaut" complaint).

Barack Obama, however, does not display fascistic tendencies. He is a full-bore, spot-on, absolute fascist. From the use of propaganda posters modeled on Soviet and Nazi propaganda to his scorched-earth policies regarding his political enemies, in many ways he out-Hitlers Hitler. While nobody who lived through the Clinton administration ever thought they would see a liar to match his output of lies (if not skill in lying), Barack Obama uses the lie in the very same way as the Nazis and Soviets did: by never telling the truth, he builds a cultural numbness to the fact that he is a liar and he also overwhelms, undermines, and exhausts all community morality by encouraging a culture in which the significance between lying and telling the truth is forgotten. It is important that the culture be morally exhausted, because it takes the strength of character and moral conviction to withstand tyranny.

He is, of course, like all fascists before him, ideologically vacuous, lacking a coherent ideology except for the obvious hatred of American ideals and his intent to destroy everything that has made the United States an exceptional country among the nations ("hope and change"). Barack Obama, like Clinton before him, and like Hitler and every other fascist, sees the written law of the land and the expressed will of the people only as obstacles to the fulfillment of his utopian plans, as the recent health care debacle has illustrated. He is a lawless gangster, in the same mold as Hitler. And while he is still perceived by the most intellectually vacant and politically ignorant of our populace as a savior, it is very obvious that his agenda has far more to do with concentrating power in government and subjugating the population than it does with "health care" or "saving the planet" or "rescuing the economy."

(The government takeover of health care, of course, gives no benefits until 2014, while demanding that payment begin immediately. Would you purchase a car under a similar plan? "Cap and Trade" has, by all admission, no chance of significantly reducing CO2 emissions because the nations who are the worst offenders will not adopt similar legislation - "Cap and Trade" is merely a way to apply a brake to the U.S. economy, removing entrepreneurship and investment as income options and causing millions to become dependent on government consequent to the loss of private sector jobs. And the woeful stimuli plans have had no positive effect on the economy whatsoever, but have incurred large debts that will result in the bankrupting of the nation when coupled with Obama's other expenditures, likely within the next ten years.)

Fascism is here. And its ravages are not complete. Following the government takeover of health care, Congress and its fascist leader, Barack Obama, are now turning their sights to schemes to naturalize millions of illegal aliens and to passing "Cap and Trade" prior to the 2010 elections. Again, their intent is to consolidate as much power as possible in an unaccountable, socialist bureaucracy in as little time as possible so that, even if there is an election reversal in 2010 and 2012, it would be impossible for the nation to ever recover. Given the superstructure of unconstitutional legislation that would need to be repealed, the bureaucracy that would need to be rooted out, and the debt that would need to be paid, the damage could well be done by the next presidential election.

If the United States does not resist, it will have been transformed into a fully fascist state by the time of Barack Obama's reelection, should there be one, in 2012.

It is now necessary to ask, "How did we get here?"

Department of Justice Admits: Dems are TOO STUPID to Vote!

Kinston, NC (my own hometown!) recently voted to make their municipal elections nonpartisan.

The Obama Administration, in its great wisdom, has decided that the democratic process is heinously flawed in this case, and will not allow the town of 23,000 to implement the decision of the electorate.  Instead, the Wise and Good Obama Administration has demanded that in all future municipal elections in Kinston still have D and R and I and L and God-knows-what-all on the ballot.

Why?

Because, according to the Obama/Democratic Department of Justice, Democratic voters - particularly blacks - NEED to have the (D) on the ballot so they know whom to properly vote for!

Yes.  Democrats are TOO STUPID to know who to vote for without the (D) on the ballot.

While the Racist Obama Administration notes that, in its opinion, blacks are too dumb to vote, I would say that this is a symptom of the innate racism of the Democratic Party in the USA - revealed elsewhere in its penchant for affirmative action, where Democrats demonstrate openly their opinion that blacks and women cannot get jobs or advance in their careers without governmental coercion.

I don't think that blacks are too dumb to vote.  If Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams and Alan Keyes were the only folks voting, we'd have a pretty good government.

Rather, I am glad that a Democratic Department of Justice has finally admitted what I have been saying for years: DEMOCRATS are too stupid to vote!

Moral Courage and National Security

On 9/11 it is impossible to not stop and meditate on the images, both terrifying and heartrending, of people who woke up on a morning just like any other, trundled off to work convinced that their most crucial decision that day would be to either buy or sell, or perhaps where to have lunch, and wound up having to decide whether to die in flames or jump out of a window, or to decide whether to risk one's own life while rushing up a set of stairs in a blind hope of saving someone else, or to decide whether, and how, to rush the terrorists attempting to run an airplane into a target unknown.

John O'Sullivan recently wrote in National Review:

There are such creatures as heroes of prudence. In general, the prudential hero is someone in a position of power or authority. His courage consists of making the right decisions in difficult circumstances and sometimes against fierce opposition or in contrast to his interests and alliances. This is known as moral courage, and though it ought to be easier to summon up than physical courage, it has often been in very short supply. As Charles Peguy once said, "It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of looking insufficiently progressive."

Statists, socialists, progressives, liberals, or Democrats - whatever moniker you affix to them, they are all, in fact, the same (and add fascist to the list), are certainly not people of moral courage. In an eternal quest to expand power, they find the vulnerable underside of the opinion of the uneducated masses and simply appeal to it, telling them, as it may suit their purpose, that "all will be just fine if you trust me" or "things are really going to explode unless you trust me." Appealing to the irrational fears of the intellectual cripples that constitute their constituency, the statist alternately stokes those irrational fears or soothes them with a Marxist tonic guaranteed only to irritate the problem and lead to governmental expansion, once again, in the indefinite future.

Whether the statist is a feminist, pacifist, or communist (or some other -ist) - ultimately he cares nothing about truth or his own constituency. The feminist destroys women by convincing them that they are enslaved to their husbands, convinces her to destroy her own family, and then weds her in eternal slavery to a new husband: a Fascist government. The Communist, of course, tells us of a new world coming in which social distinctions caused by wealth will be erased, but fails to tell us that his juvenile understanding of economics cannot ensure widespread wealth, but rather that all will be equalized in poverty.

Nowhere is the populist snake oil salesman more dangerous than in the field of foreign policy, however. The pacifist convinces the cowards among us that hate-filled, violent demagogues motivated by warlike ideologies can be convinced, through "dialogue," to make peace with all nations. Outrageously encouraging his cowardly constituents to trust such warmongers as Hitler and a succession of Soviet leaders or to reason with such lunatics as Kim Jong Il or Sadaam Hussein, he defunds the military, promises to use the "peace dividend" to ensure a chicken in every pot, tells us that warlike actions are best handled in the criminal courts, and leaves those with even moderate levels of understanding to await the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

Barack Obama is a fool. Everyone in his administration is a fool. All of his supporters are fools. Nothing is more certain than that Barack Obama is in over his head. He promises that, if only we give him his desires, unemployment will not exceed 8%. It is currently tracking 10%, unless you believe those who assert that it is in excess of 20%. His court jester, Joe Biden, comes along with a heavily-salted crow and slightly grimaces before swallowing it whole and, beaming, telling us, "Oops! We guessed wrong!"

Guessed? The most powerful economy in the world and the grandest political experiment in human history is now at the mercy of those whose solution to solving massive, life-changing problems is to flip a coin? Dear foolish Obama supporter, if these paragons of buffoonery can muster no better solutions than a healthy guess about the issues that you, their supporters, actually care about - the economy - what makes you think that they have a better response planned for the issue that you ignored when you voted for him? You remember? National security?

This same team of empty suits will warble on about a "national day of service" today - giving the impression that all is well. It is fine to come out of your bunker now. There is no threat. After all, why would our primary focus be encouraging the marginal development of volunteerism if, in fact, there was still the danger of vicious attack by Islamofascists?

Barack Obama is an empty suit, an illusion (if a striking one) from beginning to end. Like all successful Democratic politicians, he is more effective running for office - a position that merely requires the painting of a picture, not the skill to actually fix a problem - than he is in actually governing. This is because the modern Democratic party is completely divorced from reality. The neurosis that causes Democrats to be able to paint such pretty castles in the air also impedes them from actually picking up necessary tools and using workable blueprints to build something stable on the ground. Their political philosophy has devolved from the various mental illnesses contrived during the 60s in America: either they are engaged in the eternal wishing of juveniles who are first beginning to notice the world around them and hope for a change in its imperfections, but who correspondingly lack the worldly wisdom to think concretely enough to actually solve the problems, or their minds really were blown by all those drugs and, in addition to seeing pink elephants walking on the wall, they really do think that disarming the nation is a certain way to attain peace and that crazed Islamofascists who have nothing to gain on earth and nothing to lose in Paradise can be convinced through simpering, pedantic "dialogue" to lay down their arms and be nice boys.

I was no fan of George W. Bush. As a domestic president, he was far too comfortable with the expansion of governmental power for someone whose libertarian stripe runs as deeply and as widely as mine. But every 9/11, I thank my blessed Lord that George W. Bush was the president when the United States of America came under attack by the politico-religious philosophy of Islamofascism. For all of his weaknesses in the domestic arena, his presence as the leader of this country was an act of divine mercy not to be overlooked. He was a man - something very much lacking in the Obama administration, the Democratic party, and the nation today. He was a man of moral courage, whose compass pointed constantly toward that great north star of preventing further attacks against innocent people on American soil. And because he was willing to refuse to compromise with the neurotic left, the United States has stayed safe, and avoided attacks on our own soil, for eight years.

Because Barack Obama is in over his head and is a coward, the same will not remain true through the entirety of his administration. Because Barack Obama is a fool, the United States is no longer safe. Because Barack Obama's administration has replaced the wise decision with the haphazard guess, Americans are in danger of terrorism on their own soil once again.

To all those who died on 9/11, 2001, I apologize on behalf of this country that your blood will not be the last, because so many of your countrymen are fools.

ACORN on Tax Evasion, Prostitution, Pimping, and Running for Congress (All Undoubtedly Related)

Well, at least the ACORN employee shows some insight when she says "anything the government ain't getting money from is illegal."

See the videos as ACORN employees, funded with taxpayer money and supported by Barack Hussein Hoover Muhammad bin Obama, encourage tax evasion, prostitution, child sex slavery, and even telling a self-proclaimed prostitute who claims to make $8,000 per month that, with expenses written off, she shouldn't have to pay any self-employment tax! One ACORN worker is so helpful as to advise the supposed pimp on how to instruct the underage Salvadoran children being imported for prostitution purposes on how to teach them to behave so as to avoid detection by the cops.

Most importantly, of course, is that the pimp remember to keep the child sex slaves in school! Way to show that civic-mindedness, ACORN! We wouldn't want our child sex slaves growing up illiterate, would we (else they might become supporters of Barack Obama!)? And lest our faux hooker become too uncomfortable with all of this intrigue and lying (after all, folks have been known to go to jail for this kinda stuff!), our imperious ACORN worker leans forward in a sympathetic manner and says, "Don't worry -you're fine." Now that's what the world needs more of - compassionate, sympathetic co-conspirators!

Perhaps the height of insanity is when the counselor encourages the pimp to claim a child tax credit for each of the 13 Salvadoran underage girls who will be held as sex slaves. But then, not to be outdone, these "community organizers" offer to give a 67% discount on tax preparation for the pimp! Good folks, these. I am gonna let them do my taxes.

Only in Barack's America....

Your tax money at work. Barack Obama's friends in their element.

How's that whole hopey-changey thingy workin' for ya'll these days?

The ONE Thing Edward Kennedy Got Right.

"The problems of our economy have occurred not as an outgrowth of laissez-faire, unbridled competition. They have occurred under the guidance of federal agencies, and under the umbrella of federal regulations."

Democrats Incapable of Fixing Economy

Seeing the pirouetting of the Obama Administration while the American people scratch their collective noggin and ask, "Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?", it is compelling to think of a time when a modern member of the Democrat party has made reasonable adjustments that led to long-term economic prosperity.

Well, besides when Kennedy acted like a Republican and slashed taxes, that is.

And one engaged in such an intellectual mission is simply bound to come up dry.

"But wait!" gasps the fair reader, who believes that truth sometimes, somehow emanates from the CBS Evening News, Oprah, and The Daily Show, "what about the highly-vaunted Clinton economy?"

Ah, yes, the myth of the Clinton economy. But one who accepted the belief system of The Daily Show would believe in such tales, which inevitably involve princesses, dragons, and begin with "Once upon a time in a land far away..." wouldn't one?

Futures Magazine first made the point in early 2001 (by my recollection) that the "Clinton economy" was a myth of the same magnitude as the much-harassed Yeti and alien abductions, though thankfully without the latter's uncomfortable probes (the myth, not the economy!). I still have in my files the magazine's chart showing the buildup of the stock market throughout the Clinton years. The below is a reasonable reproduction of that chart, for the sake of argument.



And the discerning reader will of course, note that in the initial years of the Clinton administration the economy was less than robust. In fact, let's be clear, there were times it was in slight decline, and at best it was barely holding its own until....

Until what? Well, look at the chart! Elections take place in November, do they not? And those elected are installed in office in the following January, are they not?

And you will note that the steep run-up in the Dow Jones Industrial Average took place following the 1994 election, which replaced a decrepit, corrupt, and high-taxing band of liberals with tax-slashing, welfare-busting, and otherwise swashbuckling Republicans who had vowed to push a pre-defined "Contract with America."

The increase in economic health during the Clinton administration was, of course, due to the fact that Clinton wasn't getting his way for the last six years of it! His strategy of "triangulation," recommended by Republican strategist Dick Morris (brought in expressly to breathe fresh life into his faltering administration, if condom-covered Christmas trees and otherwise juicy Gap dresses and cigars can be dignified with the term administration). whereby Clinton agreed to do his best impression of Republicans (remember "the era of big government is over" and "the end of welfare as we know it"?) while cooperating - but to a lesser degree - with the GOP, leaves us with the lesson: when Democrats have free rein (reign?), prepare for misery.

Which is precisely the finding of Yale economist Ray Fair. Fair, in attempting to discern the relative effectiveness of the two American parties' general economic policies (and eschewing the Democratic penchant for determining said effect by examining the entrails of a chicken or by happily guessing, as Joe Biden recently confessed was the Obama administration's [sic] strategy, but I digress....), he found that the more reliably and long-term a state votes Democratic, the higher was their unemployment rate in this most recent April.




Where a state has reliably voted for a Democratic candidate since the 1980s (and one assumes, where the socialist policies of the Democratic party find most general acceptance at state and local levels as well) are now experiencing unemployment levels approaching double digits. States that have been solidly Democratic since the 1990s are slightly lower, and states which turned "blue" since 2000 slightly exceed 8 per cent. States that have been GOP strongholds since 2000 have the next highest unemployment, followed by states that are reliably GOP since the 1990s. Of course, that group of states which are most solidly GOP, and which have voted for Republican candidates most reliably since the 1980s, have the lowest unemployment levels of all.

Moral of the Story One: Voting has very real consequences.

Moral of the Story Two: Obama's high-tax, increasing-regulation, spend-like-flowing-water, fascistic-takeover-of-business, let's nationalize the whole country approach is not likely to make things better.

But, like Clinton, he has to face midterm elections.

The solution will be to vote a straight Republican ticket come 2010.

These Trillions are Starting to Add Up!

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) yesterday released its initial evaluation of the Democrat-sponsored "Affordable Health Choices Act." This analysis did not factor in the entire cost of the legislation, a point that the CBO director is at pains to make, as only the major provisions of the bill were evaluated.



As if the trillions of dollars already introduced into the federal deficit by Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama were not enough, the initial, and incomplete estimate of the CBO for this preliminary Democrat-Socialist health care legislation confirms two major points that skeptics of Obama's fantasyland health plans have been making.

* The U.S. cannot afford a major restructuring of the health care system, as the (again, preliminary) estimate is that the cost of the Democrat plan would add more than $1 trillion to existing deficits.

* That any plan such as the nationalization of health care favored by Democrats and Obama would effectively function as a disincentive for private insurance.

In other words, those who now are paying for private insurance would drop their own coverage in preference for the subsidized or free health care offered by the government. This last point undeniably indicates that the socialization of health care has very little to do with the uninsured, and rather has to do with inflicting a command-and-control economy on the United States.

The CBO director wrote on the CBO blog:

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

In addition, the CBO frets that the total cost for social welfare/socialized health care spending is not likely encompassed even by the outrageous Democrat proposal at issue, since Democrats are also proposing an expansion of Medicaid, the fiscal consequences of which will not be known until the extent of the expansion is decided.

Arlen Specter, No Longer a RINO

Following an apparent recruitment in which Joe Biden, Barack Obama and other Democrats were involved, Arlen Specter today abruptly switched to the Democratic party, actualizing what Republicans have said about him all along.

"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," said Specter in a statement.

Unfortunately, that is all that is left for you, Arlen.

Specter became well-known for his defense of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the hearings dominated by the false allegations of Anita Hill. However, his voting record on both fiscal and social issues has always been far more Democratic than Republican.

Specter was one of the original members of Congress to earn the moniker of "RINO," a Republican In Name Only. Does his defection make him a "DIRA," a Democrat In Reality, Actually?

With Al Franken apparently leading in the Minnesota Senate race, still not decided as of this date, Specter's defection (or, admission?) would give the Democrats enough senators to overcome a filibuster.

Interestingly enough, Arlen Specter attempted to have a rule passed in Congress to prohibit inter-term party defections when Jim Jeffords had his Benedict Arnold moment in 2001.

The 100 Day Verdict: Obama Sucks!

If one listens to MSNBC or CBS, one gets the impression that, not only is Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama the greatest president in American history (and perhaps the most wonderful divine gift to mankind since fire), but that the American public is squarely behind his socialist machinations - given the exception of a few fringe lunatics and the KKK.

The evidence, as always, is completely different from what the media is telling us.

There are a half dozen ways to measure the "verdict" on Obama prior to the 100-day mark of his administration, and all of them agree: Obama Sucks!

First, Obama, we think, was largely elected on a two-pronged theory, partly subjective and partly objective. Of course, most of the votes that flew Obama's way were from those who were grossly misinformed; people who are so utterly ignorant that they ought not only be allowed to vote, but they ought not be allowed to drive! Typical of this group (certainly 70% of Obama voters) are those who voted for him because he would be the nation's first black president, those who voted for him because of Oprah's endorsement, and those, like the now-famous YouTube video of the young black lady who supported The One because now she would never have to worry about paying her mortgage or for gas again.





These people are too ignorant and morally perverted to ever come to know the truth. They won't be convinced that their subjective fantasies have the reality quotient of "Once upon a time in a land far away...." even if they someday receive orders from Obama to come to the county square for a free Kool-Aid treat.

For those few who actually had an objective reason for supporting Obama, it was likely because of the sorry shape of the economy at election time. A strange congruence of forces which came together merely months before the election coupled with the simplistic thinking of Americans (i.e., "if it happened under Bush, Bush caused it" when in fact the forces that caused the economic meltdown were entirely the brainchild of Bill Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus) basically ensured Obama's election as Americans searched for someone to fix the economy. In a strange twist of fate, the candidate representing the Democratic party (who caused the economic meltdown) was viewed as being more capable of repairing the crashing economy than the candidate of the Republican party (who had personally warned that Democratic policies would bring this meltdown to pass).

So, what has Obama done for the economy? This will be our first objective measure of the Obama administration.

On the morning of the 2008 election the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened at 9326. On the evening of the next day, the first full day of trading with the certainty that Barack Obama would be president, the market had taken a nearly-200 point nose dive to 9139. Not bad... (sic). Between the election and the inauguration, the market continued to decline to the tune of 1100+ points.

On February 17, Obama signed his first major piece of legislation into law - the multi-trillion dollar stimulus package. The stock market on that day dropped from 7845 to 7502. On February 27, Obama announed his budget proposal. The Dow Jones responded by dropping from 7181 to 6763.

Between January 2009 and March 2009, the DJIA lost 28%, nearly a third of its value, its worst performance for the same time period for any U.S. president in history.

While it is true that capital markets are forward-looking, the Dow Jones largely reflects the so-called "Large Cap" stocks which tend to reflect the current condition of the market, especially in difficult times. It is the NASDAQ that tends to reflect stocks that are growth-oriented, and therefore that index tends to be more forward looking. Surely, if the capital markets believed that the future looked rosy with Obama, the NASDAQ would reflect that hope for growth?

Between November 3, 2008, and April 28, 2009, the NASDAQ has declined from 1726 to 1694.

Not as precipitous a drop, but the NASDAQ has been down as much as 450 points during the Obama tenure. The objective economic results thus far are decidedly mixed to negative.

Secondly, Obama has proposed spending at a level, during his first 100 days, to send the U.S. careening into bankruptcy, proposing almost $10 trillion in spending in 100 days for a country that had already amassed $11 trillion in debt in its 200+-year history! Doesn't "fiscal responsiblity" feel good?

Thirdly, the tea-parties which have met the Obama administrations proposals and performance are nearly unprecedented in America's history. Outside of the Civil War, is is hard to imagine a more negative greeting to any president upon his election. While there is a lobotomized and ignorant plurality of the nation that is easily led by Oprah's pallid imitations of papal bulls, those who are most informed and most engaged in the political process are horrified by Obama, his incompetence, and his proposals.

Finally, the polls themselves present a decidedly mixed picture of the nation's "approval" of Obama and his administration. Despite the natural tendency of Americans to support the nation's leadership and the understandable desire to give each new president a chance to enact his own agenda, Obama's strident socialism and evident incompetence has already placed him in a highly unusual position - he is one of the few presidents to have lost significant support during his first 100 days.

Obama's current "approval ratings" stand at 56%. This is a paltry figure, given that he was elected with 53% of the vote and that his approval rating in February was 65%. Even so, his 56% approval rating places him SEVENTH out of the last nine presidents for approval ratings at the 100-day mark. George W. Bush actually had a higher approval rating at the 100-day mark, exceeding Obama's by six points.

Further, as I have previously noted, a non-scientific poll conducted by MSNBC in fact had nearly forty percent of all respondents giving Obama an "F" for his performance for his first 100 days.

The orgiastic writhings (and writings) of the mainstream media notwithstanding, the objective measures of Obama's competence to this point are unencouraging to say the least. To say the most? Obama sucks!

Poll on Obama's First 100 Days

MSNBC.com is hosting an unscientific poll as to how Americans think that Obama's first 100 days have gone.

As of 8:30 a.m. on 4/24/2009, 36% give him an "A" and 39% give him an "F." That is with nearly 3 million responses thus far. Approximately 12% give him either a "B" or a "C" while 13% give him a "D."

It is interesting that a majority of Americans give him a grade of below average. Yet a Politico.com story from 4/23/2009 uses such superlatives as promise-keeper, game changer, FDR, and one cool cucumber to sum up his first 100 days. This article's purpose was to survey the attitudes of the press regarding Obama, and examine the story that is being pushed by insiders in the Obama administration.

The disjuncture between the common man and the chattering class has perhaps never been wider.

See the MSNBC poll here. The MSNBC page carries a disclaimer that it is an ongoing, unscientific poll. However, even a Gallup poll found decidedly mixed results, as 43% of Americans gave Obama a rating for his first 100 days as Just OK, Poor, or Terrible.

Bush, McCain Warned of Economic Crisis; Obama Ignored

Be sure to watch this video before YouTube pulls it!





As far back as the Clinton administration, Republicans, particularly John McCain, and later officials of the George W. Bush administration, warned Democrats of an impending housing market problem due to the politicalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Beginning in April 2001, the Bush administration complained that the size of the two quasi-governmental entities, coupled with a troublesome regulatory environment inherited from the Clinton administration (i.e., the subprime loan initiatives rammed through Congress by Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus), portended a "potential problem" which could lead to "strong repercussions in financial markets" if not immediately addressed.

In 2003, the Bush administration upgraded its warning concerning the two housing giants to the status of "systemic risk," indicating that problems with the two would likely extend beyond the housing market itself and have a detrimental effect upon the entire American economy. That year, Treasury Secretary John Snow was pushing Congress to more actively exercise its regulatory powers over both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, asking for a regulatory agency that would focus on "the safety and soundness of their activities."

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank (MA), however, who had already placed one of his homosexual lovers, Herb Moses, in a leadership position at Fannie Mae, oddly enough as Assistant Director of Product Initiatives (a position that had direct oversight of subprime lending programs), indignantly insisted to Snow that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are NOT in a crisis." In fact, Frank insisted that the role of the federal government was to encourage more subprime lending to minority and low-income homebuyers.

Frank said, "The more people... exaggerate the [lack of] safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see... we see entities [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] which are fundamentally sound financially... and even if there were a problem the federal government doesn't bail them out [HUH?!?!?!?, ed.], ... then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing." Emphasis added.

In 2005, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warned, "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." Greenspan specifically tied the potential insolvency of Fannie and Freddie, and consequent meltdown of the financial system, to the lack of a responsible regulatory regime.

John McCain, in a Senate speech in 2006, stated, "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these GSEs [Government-Sponsored Entities] and the role that they play in the housing market.... [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] need to be reformed without delay."

Once again, the incompetent Marxist social engineering of Democrats has backfired. The housing market crisis that precipitated the wider financial meltdown was wholly the product of the Maoist thinking of Bill Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus, and was roundly defended by such liberal blunt objects as Barney Frank and Charles Schumer.

Who saw clearly what was happening? Why, of course, those whom the Democrats ignored at the time of their warnings but find the cojones to blame now! George W. Bush, John McCain, Alan Greenspan.... Note, however, that almost as an afterthought, the reporter announces that, on what could have been the most significant legislation on the issue, Obama "did not weigh in."

What are the odds that Obama and his bunkies are going to solve the problem that they were not wise enough to see in the first place, in spite of all the warnings and signs to the contrary?

Not likely.

Turkish Reporter Mocks Obama in Blackface

Apparently traveling overseas with one's hat in one's hand and insulting your own country in a misguided attempt to curry favor with the subjects of a foreign land, is not a very effective way of gaining respect. Appeasement has a bad historical record, according to some guy named Neville Chamberlain....

This Turkish reporter mocks Barack Obama by delivering the news in blackface.




Where are all the American Poverty Pimps and Race Whores complaining about this one?

Lesson: If you engage in principled opposition to a black liberal in America, you are a racist, though your disagreements center only on ideas and have nothing to do with skin color. But if you are a foreigner (especially a Muslim!) who paints his face in mockery of a black US president, liberals will be glad to overlook it.

After all, to criticize their actions would be so Eurocentric and would demonstrate a lack of tolerance. We need to learn to appreciate the expression of thought from other nations, don't we, O ye liberals? Multiculturalism, man!

Barack Obama: Too Much Spending for Democrats!

Now the Obama administration is stacking chits and keeping score against DEMOCRATIC opposition to his spending-free-as-water ways.

Apparently, Billy Bob Barry Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama is too radical a socialist even for DEMOCRATS at this point.

[The Obama Administration's} targets were initially Republicans, as team Obama ran ads depicting the GOP as the "party of no." But now the fire is being trained on Democrats worried about runaway spending.

Americans United is going after Democrats who are skeptical of Mr. Obama's plans to double the national debt in five years and nearly triple it in 10. The White House is taking aim at lawmakers in 12 states, including Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. MoveOn.Org is running ads aimed at 10 moderate Senate and House Democrats. And robocalls are urging voters in key districts to pressure their congressman to get in line.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123862834153780427.html

Barack Obama: Ghetto Fabulous

There is a type of populism that is admirable. Think of Thomas Jefferson answering the door of the White House himself. And in his bathrobe.

But then there is a type of cluelessness born of being firmly rooted in the lower classes, no matter how much wealth and power one may amass.

And Barack Obama is one of the most classless individuals on the planet, for shizzle.

When the leaders of two countries meet for the first time, it is customary for them to exchange gifts with one another. Generally, the gifts are simple, classy, and unique expressions of some aspect of the home country's culture or history. Think of a bottle of wine from France, or something containing a small diamond from South Africa.

When Barack Obama met English Prime Minister Gordon Brown for the first time in the White House, Brown brought him an exquisite carved ornamental pen holder from the planks of the English anti-slavery ship, HMS Gannet. Simple. Exquisite. Unique. Meaningful. Reservedly English.

In return, Barack Obama offered to Prime Minister Brown a sack of 25 DVDs. Now wait - good DVDs. Psycho was one of them. Star Wars.

As of today, more than 2,000 letters of apology from U.S. citizens have been received by the English government.

Brown's gift? Exquisite. Meaningful. Obama's gift? Wal-Mart. Trailer park. Ghetto.

To make matters worse, Obama seems blissfully ignorant that DVDs are regionally coded, to make it impossible for new DVD releases to be mass-released overseas while the movies themselves are still in theaters in foreign countries. So the DVDs given by Obama are not even capable of being played in England.

Ghetto fabulous.

See the article in the Christian Science Monitor here: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/03/31/obama-in-europe-more-dvds-for-gordon-brown/ .

So this week Obama meets the Queen of England for the first time. Again, a traditional gift is presented to her. She is, after all, the Queen.

Obama's gift? An ipod.

An ipod filled with his own speeches. Yes, Barack Obama's speeches.

I'm not kidding

See it here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/what-does-one-g.html .

And to make matters worse, the Queen already owned an ipod.

So I think I can anticipate Billy Bob Barry Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama's re-election slogan: VOTE FOR ME. I'M GHETTO FABULOUS.

Is there any place to hide from this lower class buffoon?

Promises, Promises

That Democrats have their own, unique (read: "special") definition of what "keeping one's campaign promises" means is obvious. Who can forget George Stephanopoulis' statement that Billy Bob "Floral Oral" Clinton "kept all of his promises that he intended to keep"?

Billy Bob Barry Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama seems to be of the same philosophy on campaign promises. Let's see - I promise to close Gitmo, NOT! I promise to bring the troops home, NOT! And now, I promise to not raise taxes on the middle class., PSYCH!

From an AP wire report:

WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.

The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1 )

Somebody wanna start explaining to me the concept of the "Lyin' Messiah" now?

So Now We Know What Hope and Change Means!

What happens when you take a committed socialist with no experience in governance, who has never so much as held a legitimate adult job (and yes, I know he taught law, and having graduated from law school, I utterly deny that being a law professor is an adult job), who is full of style and resentment but utterly lacks substance and wisdom, and make him president?

In March, nearly 750,000 jobs were lost and the government "rescue" of the economy is almost equivalent to the yearly Gross Domestic Product at $12.8 trillion (see http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5303F820090401 and http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4&refer=worldwide ).




















Welcome to the nightmare.

Barack Obama is dishonest and incompetent at best. At worst, those folks who maintain that he actually has a strategy to run the nation into the ground in order to do away with Constitutional government may actually be on to something.

During the campaign, it was a cute (though legitimate) recurring theme for those of us who knew Obama wasn't quite up to the job to ask his brain-dead cultlike following, "What does Hope and/or Change mean exactly?" One may look back in my own blogs here on thoughts and note that numerous times I referenced this question. Of course, no genuine answer ever came. Variations on this theme included asking the zombie left, between the gutteral moans accompanying their Obamagasms, "Exactly which position of Obama's do you agree with?" Well, of course, since Obama never actually took a position (other than the fifth-grade essay variety: "War bad, Peace good!"), no answers were ever forthcoming on that question either.

Well, now we know.

The Change promised by Obama includes the surrender of all fiscal responsiblity. Obama has increased the public debt of the United States by more in his first less-than-hundred-days than any other president in the history of the United States - and more than all of them combined. The cumulative federal deficit for the United States, as accumulated over more than 200 years of history, was $4.4 trillion when Obama took office. In less than 100 days in office, Obama has already proposed $4.8 trillion in deficit spending. Yet he continues to promise that the federal budget deficit will be halved by the end of his first term. Yeah, right. And Gitmo is closing and the soldiers in Iraq are coming home, right?

The Hope promised by Obama, then, certainly involves the ethereal hope that somebody, someday, may be able to pay all this fiat money back.

The Change promised by Obama includes the end of American leadership in the world economy. Again, before Obama's first 100 days had ended, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was reduced to panhandling on the streets of Beijing - showing up at an economic meeting in China and, with hat in hand and trained monkey dancing, begging the Chinese not to stop investing in American government paper. "After all," she crooned, "we really need your money, and if we go down, you guys will lose everything you have already invested!" A stunning argument, sure to go down in the annals of rhetoric as one of the great appeals in all of human history.

The Chinese responded by proposing a new worldwide currency administered by the International Monetary Fund that would relieve them of the need of the American greenback entirely.

So the Hope promised by Obama likely involves the ephemeral wish that perhaps somebody other than the Chinese will start lending us money so that we can fund Obama's federal shopping spree.

The Change promised by Obama includes the end of the private sector's freedom from governmental intervention. Yes, the federal government, the same people who brought you such marvels of efficiency and service as the Post Office, is now going to make the rules for private businesses.

Remember that the very mortgage schemes that firms such as Countrywide mastered to their own detriment were originally dreamed up by Democrats and the Clinton administration in an attempt to get people into houses who could not afford the mortgages for those houses. Who saw a mortgage problem coming when you lent mortgage money to people who could not repay it? (Hint: Democrats) Now, dressed in his Super Socialist red cape, Obama rushes in and says, "The pound of flesh that I exact from the firms who did exactly what we Democrats demanded that they do, and now need governmental rescuing because of it, is that I, Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama, the Super Socialist, will now be making decisions on how to run these private companies. I will be making decisions on wage issues (so you guys over there give back those contractual bonuses!) and I will be making hiring decisions (so the head of GM is now summarily fired without Due Process of law).

So apparently the Hope promised by Obama involves the wispy notion that the federal government, who cannot adequately deliver mail or make laws without melting down the mortgage industry, is going to be able to directly run multinational organizations like AIG and GM better than people who actually have money to make or lose based on performance.

And this is killer: because Obama has so royally screwed matters up in less than 100 days in office, now the government has a hyperfemme help-me-emote website that will, I suppose, offer governmental subsidies for facial tissues since I can't stop crying as I look at the whole world collapsing under Obama's gentle and incompetent tutelage. The essence of Obamazombie hope is crystallized in the new Nanny State website, "Getting Through Tough Economic Times" at http://www.samhsa.gov/economy/. Note to self: there is a better way to get through tough economic times, and it is a proven success - ELECT REAGAN.

Finally, the Change promised by Obama includes such a headlong, trainwreck, rush into socialism that even Eurosocialists are frightened by America's descent into Marxism. Who ever thought we would see the day when the Swedes and the French would helpfully offer advice to America: "Perhaps you need to slow down on your socialist scheming?" Who ever thought that the economy of the United States could be so poorly managed - in a mere 100 days or less at that! - that the Chinese Communists would begin to lecture us on fiscal responsibility?

The real Hope? I hope the next two years goes quickly.... Vote Republican in 2010.

And I hope that a law will soon be passed taking the privilege of voting away from the brain-dead buffoons who voted for Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama. They've done enough damage already.

Obama: A Lying Liberal of Clintonesque Proportions

Of course, people in the know warned that Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama was the most liberal member of the senate when he was running for office. Unfortunately, the folks who voted for him don't understand reality enough to differentiate between "tax and spend" and "rock star," so it really didn't matter.

* After the banks have twice been bailed out, Obama's proposed budget contains nearly $750 billion to bail them out once again (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aY8vuevw1NKs ).

* Obama is proposing nearly $1 trillion dollars in NEW taxes beginning in 2011, with almost $650 BILLION of that falling on individuals, not the hated "corporations" that liberals aspire to destroy (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html ).

*Obama ADMITS that his budget would cause a spike in the single-year deficit to unheard-of proportions, escalating the deficit nearly $2 trillion dollars to almost $4 trillion dollars (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96JCFLG1&show_article=1 ).

* Spending for Fiscal Year 2009 under Obama will be approximately $12,000 for EVERY AMERICAN - not every family - but EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.

And like all Democrats, Obama, following in the path blazed by convicted perjurer Bill('sAFool) Clinton, is an inveterate liar.

* After "promising" to withdraw troops from Iraq, The Liar now requests almost $76 billion to extend operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aN3Z5Oo3eStg&refer=worldwide ).

* After flooding radio airwaves during his presidential campaign stating the absurdity that both he and McCain would equally preserve and protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans, The Liar now threatens a (so-called) "assault weapons ban" - realizing full well that "assault weapons" are not "assault weapons" at all, but rather are "scary looking" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 ).

* While admitting that his ridiculous budget proposals will produce increasing deficits for as far as the eye can see, The Liar titles his budget "A NEW ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf ).

* After promising to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, upon his election, The Liar issued an executive order closing it, EXCEPT that it could be kept open for high-value prisoners "temporarily," and EXCEPT that it might be left open indefinitely (http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_guantanamo_bay/2009/01/27/175694.html ).

Hey, you jackasses who voted for this loser. Maybe read a newspaper before voting next time, huh?

Change You Can Believe In

If you spent one million dollars a day, every single day since Jesus Christ was born, you would have spent less money than Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama has spent since coming into office one month ago.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19055.html

The End....

The American experiment is now officially ending... not over, but ending.

The inmates are running the asylum. The imbeciles are teaching the class.

Given the Obama administration, emphasis is on "imbeciles."

Hillary Clinton, obeying that centuries-old maxim of diplomatic practice called "keeping your cards close to your vest," did everything short of falling to her knees and offering to shine the shoes of our enemies (rumor has it that she also contemplated offering sexual favors - but get real, we are talking Hillary Clinton here - exactly how does a woman's ankles get that thick anyway?) in begging them to continue to bless us with investment in our fine nation.

From Breitbart -

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Sunday urged China to keep buying US debt as she wrapped up her first overseas trip, during which she agreed to work closely with Beijing on the financial crisis.

Clinton made the plea shortly before leaving China, the final stop on a four-nation Asian tour that also took her to Japan, Indonesia and South Korea, where she worked the crowds to try to restore America's standing abroad.

In Beijing, she called on authorities in Beijing to continue buying US Treasuries, saying it would help jumpstart the flagging US economy and stimulate imports of Chinese goods.

"By continuing to support American Treasury instruments the Chinese are recognising our interconnection. We are truly going to rise or fall together," Clinton said at the US embassy here.

Translation for those of you who do not comprehend diplo-speak: "RAH- RAH, REE-REE, YOU CAN STILL INVEST WITH ME! PLEASE?"

(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.42a44b0f5d9cf5c9762e80574e79a3d5.831&show_article=1 )

Well, all of you jackasses who wanted change - you got it. The United States is now reduced to standing on a street corner, hat in hand, doing a fairly passable blind guy imitation (or alternately, holding a sign that reads: "Will work for treasury investments"), and dependent upon the charity of whomever may walk by.

Yes, the United States is now dependent upon the good will of the CHINESE COMMUNISTS to stay afloat. And notice that Hillary did not offer - "Investment in the U.S. is safe, as in the past, and you can trust us," but rather she abjectly prostrates herself before the sworn enemies of freedom and of good in the world and begs, "If you don't invest in us, we might sink!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!"

The only bigger imbeciles than those in the Obama administration - whose head imbecile is certainly Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama himself - are those imbeciles ignorant and morally warped enough to have believed that he might have the answer. Heck, you are a fool if you think the likes of Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama even understood the question....

Take comfort! This is not the end - it is only the beginning of the end.