Biden 2016!

So, Joe is toying with the idea of running for President in 2016. If he really wants to run, he should think about 2012 - Obama is the easiest opponent he'll ever face. Of course, knowing Joe, he probably meant to say 2012.

OWS - Obama's useful idiots

It's abundantly clear - even to the most diehard liberal - that Obama can't run on his record. No president in recent history (or perhaps any history) has managed to fail more spectacularly on more fronts than Obama has. So he has only one hope left if he wants a second term (and believe me, Mr. Ego wants a second term): demonize the Republicans. He won't run on his record. He won't run on any specific plans for fixing anything. All he will do is stoke the class warfare as much as he can in the hopes that he can anger enough ignorant people to tip the scales in his favour.

This is an utter betrayal of black America. Obama (and his toadies in the MSM) is going to undo decades of racial progress by deceitfully claiming that the Republicans are racist. Moreover, he will fan the flames of discontent and envy by repeating (ad nauseum) the lying narrative that the rich are abusing the poor. He will divide America as much as possible. He doesn't care what damage he does. He doesn't care how many lies he tells. All he cares about is getting re-elected.

To this end, he has decided to use the OWS crowd as unwitting pawns. Now, it goes without saying that they're unwitting. But it's still surprising to see just how gullible they are.

First, we note that Obama has received more campaign money from Wall Street than any other presidential candidate in history.

Second, we note that Obama repaid those favours by bailing out his Wall Street buddies with taxpayer dollars.

Third, we note that as the 2012 election approaches, Obama is going back to his Wall Street buddies for more money.

So there has never been a presidential candidate who has been more in the pocket of Wall Street than Barack Obama. And it is this very man who is now pretending to side with the anti-Wall Street mob in a desperate effort to get re-elected.

Regrettably, they're just dumb enough to fall for it. Remember ... these are the clowns who use their iPhones to tweet about how evil corporations are.

Thankfully, there aren't enough of them to matter ... it's hard to find very many Americans with their aversion to soap.

Terrorists, Commies, Nazis, and Obama

We already noted that terrorists (in this case, Iran) have endorsed OWS. Well, so have the Communists and Nazis. And Obama, THE SMARTEST MAN ALIVE!!!, showing his impeccable sense of timing, waited for all of them to jump on board before he did, too.

Ah, yes. That's what you want: a President who sides with terrorists, Commies, and Nazis.

Is terrorism good or bad? I forget.

One of the great things about being a conservative is that you never end up on the wrong side of the most basic moral debates. For instance, when forced to choose which it's better to kill: serial rapists or babies, conservatives say serial rapists and liberals say babies.

Similarly, if you knew nothing else, you could choose which party to vote for by finding out who terrorists support and then voting for the other guy. Is it a coincidence that in every U.S. presidential election in recent memory, the world's various terrorist organizations have railed against the Republican candidate and sided with the Democrat candidate? As soon as you hear Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. singing the praises of one party, shouldn't that be sufficient evidence that the other party is to be preferred? For conservatives, it is. For liberals, well, not so much. After all, if you voted for the Republican, you'd be tacitly supporting Israel, and that's another area where liberals and terrorists are all too similar.

Anyway, this came to mind today when I read of Iran's crazy leader's (I know, I know ... that doesn't narrow it down enough) sympathy with the Occupy Wall Street crowd. I understand that they both have a shared aversion to bathing. But still. When a terrorism-supporting regime opts to side with your little group, don't you think that reveals the true nature of the group?

Conservatives don't have to apologize for why terrorist regimes support the Tea Party, because they don't. (Also, people in the Tea Party bathe regularly.)

Of course, I don't write this in an effort to convert liberals: if liberals were rational, they wouldn't be liberals. I just point out that conservatives enjoy the benefit of being on side with the salt of the earth while liberals keep finding themselves shacked up with terrorists, etc. (Insert your own Obama-Bill Ayers reference here.)

Undeniable proof that Democrats can't govern

It's been almost 900 days since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a budget. For most of that time, the House was also controlled by Democrats. So, even when they are in complete control of the Senate, House, and White House, the Dems are unable to pass a budget. (And remember ... during that time Obama presented his own budget which the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected 97-0. You can't make this stuff up. The Dems have their messianic president and yet not a single one of them will vote for his budget.)

And, of course, just because Democrats are not only incompetent but then have to lie and attempt to pass the buck, the one and only thing they all agree on is that it's supposedly the Republicans who are standing in the way. (Although they're a little vague on exactly how the Republicans could have stood in their way for the first two years of Obama's presidency.)

Which reminds me ... Obama has been running around the country urging that Congress pass his jobs bill (i.e. stimulus package) NOW. So, yesterday, the Republicans tried to get a vote on it in the Senate. And Harry Reid refused to allow the vote because there aren't enough Dem votes to pass it. Apart from this being yet one more example of how Obama's ideas are so foolish that not even Senate Dems will vote for them, this is also another example of how deceitful the Dems are. Because 10 minutes after Reid refused to allow a vote, the Obama campaign sent out email accusing the Republicans of stalling!

The Soviet Union had its useful idiots in the West. We're stuck with these lying bunglers. Of course, they're the same crowd.

Promises, promises

Way back in February 2009, Obama said on the Today Show that he'd have the economy fixed in three years or he was going to be a one-term president. (Advance to the 4:25 mark.) Looks like he might finally keep his word on something. Well, not exactly keep is word. "Be made to keep his word" is more like it. And he'll fight it every step of the way. And then he'll spend the rest of his life claiming that it was racisim (or Bush or the tsunamis or ATM's or Europe or the phase of the moon) that denied him a second term.

I wish someone would set up a website listing Obama's lies. Is daysnotweeks.com taken?

"Don't blame me ... blame yourselves"

I know that about three years ago Obama promised us we could blame him if the economy wasn't great in three years, but we should have guess that under no circumstances would he ever accept responsibility for anything. After spending most of the last several years blaming Bush for the economy (boy, that Bush sure is powerful ... he's been relaxing on his ranch for three years and Obama and the entire Democratic party still can't overcome him), this year has seen him widen his accusations to include the Japanese tsunami, the Arab Spring, earthquakes, ATM's, climate change, congress (including the Democrats!), the Tea Party, the Energizer bunny, cursive writing, etc.

He's getting desperate. It seems his current idea is to blame everything and everyone on earth in turn until some excuse finds traction with the public. (This week, he and Timmy tried blaming Europe, which was immediately met by about every second German citizen schooling Obama on finances.)

But, if your goal is to get the American people to vote for you, do you know who you might want to avoid blaming for their current hardships? All of them en masse. Yet, so desperate is Obama to avoid responsibility for his horrifically failed policies that tonight he did just that:

"The way I think about it is, you know, this is a great, great country
that had gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn't have that same
competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need
to get back on track."

The problem with being the SMARTEST MAN ALIVE is that you think all of your ideas are excellent and discount anyone - even those closest to you - when they question whether or not your latest scheme is Nobel Prize worthy. That's pretty much the only explanation I can come up with for why Obama tried out excuse #718 tonight. Surely there's at least one person in the White House who could have said, "Say, you know what won't really endear you to the public? Blaming them for all their woes."

(Of course, trust Biden to go off script.)

As annoying as hubris is, at least it can occasionally have some good results. If Obama were to have any humility, he might actually learn something or at least be able to say something (however insincerely) that resonates with voters. But his arrogance won't allow him to even partially accept the responsibility for his policies. So he'll blame everyone else. And he honestly seems to think that people are going to think, "You know, now that the MOST POWERFUL ORATOR IN THE HISTORY OF SPEECH has pointed it out, I realize that that all of his brilliant plans have been derailed by my weakness. I'm just going to go out and be more competitive and then the recession will end. Thank you, Obama. I can't wait to vote for you next year."

(Incidentally, this is why Dick Morris' speculation that Obama might not seek re-election is mistaken. Sure, sure ... a savvy politician with the best interests of his party (or even his country) at heart might very well adopt such a course of action. But Obama cares for one person and one person only. The idea that he might lay aside personal glory and advancement for the good of the Democrats is simply something that would never seriously cross his mind. I doubt he even understands the concept.)

Obamanomics and Obamacare: the fruit of socialism

Milton Wolf (Obama's cousin, by the way) writes:

Obamanomics has become its own parody, a disastrous amalgam of wildly increased deficit spending, central planning, bailouts, takeovers, unconstitutional mandates, overregulation, crony favoritism, debased currency and increased taxes. The “smartest guy ever to become president,” as pundits used to call him, knows only one solution to every problem: Grow the government. Now his proverbial chickens have come home to roost and the landscape is littered with the results: Unemployment. High gas prices. Deficits. Food stamps. Poverty. Uninsured people. Foreclosures. Bankruptcies. Layoffs. Phony green jobs. Downgraded America. This is Obamanomics.

Obamacare has become emblematic of big government’s arrogant incompetence. It’s a 2,700-page monstrosity whose rules are still being written more than a year after its passage. Its supporters could not be bothered to read it before forcing it upon us, even as one of their own called it “a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.” The landscape is littered with Obamacare’s broken promises: Keep your doctor. Keep your insurance. Cut the deficit. Reduce premiums. Create 4 million new jobs. All lies. Instead, connected friends got Obamacare waivers while the rest of America has seen an increase in premiums and the roles of the uninsured actually have increased. This is Obamacare.

Read the whole column here.

Israel and peace

I've read this sentiment a number of times now, but it concisely describes the situation in the Middle East:

If the Arabs that surround Israel laid down their weapons and recognized Israel's right to exist, there would be peace.

If the Israelis laid down their weapons, the Jews would be slaughtered to the very last man, woman, and child.

Obama vs. Netanyahu

Pat Dooley writes:

Every time I see Netanyahu give a speech, I see a great leader and
statesman. Every time I see Obama read a speech from his Teleprompter, I
see a petulant, ignorant weakling.

Which reminds me...

What about Canada?

So, when I read the news that the U.S. and 30-some other countries walked out of Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN yesterday, I quickly scanned the list of countries that walked out. I was pretty shocked to not find Canada on the list. Really? France walked out but not Canada?! But do you know what other country wasn't on the list? Israel. Because only Israel and Canada had the sense to boycott the speech from the start.

As a Canadian, I have to say that it's fabulous to be able to be consistently proud of our Prime Minister and his steadfast support of Israel instead of terrorists. Which is why Stephen Harper tops the list of non-Jews positively influencing Jewish future.

(It's worth noting that even when Obama is going out of his way to shore up the Jewish vote after stabbing Israel in the back for almost three years, he still can't bring himself to support Israel whole-heartedly.)

Typical liberal hypocrisy

Ah, yes. When Bush wanted the government to be able to more easily tap the phones of those communicating with known terrorists, Democrats went into a frenzy about civil rights and how he was "shredding the Constitution". But when Obama wants the government to have access to the health records of every American, that's just fine.

Why Sarah Palin eclipses Obama

To be fair, one short post can never do this title justice. Any of the following points could be expanded on and far more could be added. Still, it's worth considering...

1. Obama is good at only one thing: self-promotion. Sarah Palin has a solid history of actual accomplishments. In the last few months, even liberals have come to admit what conservatives have been pointing out for years: Obama has no accomplishments. A law professor without any publications; a senator without any legislation; a community organizer who never organized anything for the community; etc.

2. A fawning media keeps telling us that Obama is an orator par excellence. Have they ever truly listened to him? His delivery is wooden. His speeches are tedious. And his favourite topic, bar none, is himself. Yawn. Plus, he's incapable of speaking even to grade 2 students without a couple teleprompters. Palin, on the other hand, needs no teleprompters. Furthermore, her speeches are electrifying. Pick any speech - whether planned or impromptu - in any setting and it has ten times the life of Obama's "best" performance.

3. The only way Obama has ever generated any excitement is with the help of a sycophantic media that grovels at his feet and keeps telling us about his "soaring oratory". (They have to tell us because, otherwise, none of us would come to that conclusion.) And even then, the excitement was shallow and short-lived. In stark contrast, even though the media has waged an all-out war on Sarah Palin telling us how dumb and unsophisticated she is, she singlehandedly generates more excitement just by walking into a room than Obama can with millions of dollars of props, rock bands, movie stars, etc.

4. In keeping with the last point, what must really burn Obama is that Sarah Palin dwarfs him in substance and in style.

5. Sarah Palin, with no official office and having never been elected to any national post has revolutionized the Republican party and even the entire country. And she has done this even though the media and the Republican establishment loathe her. The media's all-out-war against her has exposed them to be the cheap, liberal shills they are and has done nothing to dampen the enthusiasm she generates or the power she wields.

6. Again, it's worth repeating that not only does she wield tremendous power, but it's all personal power. None of it is official or bequeathed to her. It is 100% hers - the power of her character, her ideas, and her skill.

7. She shows up in Iowa and people cheer; Obama shows up in Iowa and people boo.

8. She paid for her own bus rather than forcing the taxpayers to pay for it under the deceit that this isn't a campaign trip.

9. She is a moral giant; Obama is a moral pigmy. She has integrity; Obama will tell any lie, twist any arm, bribe any weak-souled man.

10. She holds to honourable, time-tested, conservative truth. Obama is a slave of liberal dreams that have failed miserably in every instance that they have ever been tried.

We could go on. But you get the idea.

Don't get me wrong ... the MSM still wields enormous power. But that, and that alone, is Obama's only hope of not getting crushed by Sarah Palin in November 2012.

Okay, you've convinced me

Well, well. I used to be skeptical about global warming and the need for the West to commit financial and industrial suicide and transfer untold trillions to corrupt governments. But that was before I read this overwhelmingly compelling argument for us to prostrate ourselves on the altar of environmentalism:

If we don't do something about SUV's soon, aliens will kill us all!!

Now, I know that the environmentalist movement has had a rough road in recent years - what with the revelations of how they intentionally misled the public, persecuted scientists who disagreed with them, tampered with their data, invented stories, etc. But they have now managed to put all of that in the past and, in one spectacular burst of rock-solid scientific glory, they've redeemed themselves and brought respectability and honour back to the environmentalist movement.

You can't make this stuff up.

Obama the oh-so-humble

On Obama’s bus tour, he told a crowd that, “I make no apologies for being reasonable.”

That’s like how I make no apologies for being Latino. For one thing,
being Latino is nothing anyone should apologize for. But, more
importantly, I’m not Latino so the apology would make absolutely no
sense. So, in that sense, I fully support Obama not apologizing for
being reasonable.

- Frank J.

2012 Republican campaign idea

Someone really should run with the campaign theme: Change

Michael Gove schools Harriet Harperson on the London riots

Harriet Harperson vs Michael Gove on rioting and looting (08Aug11) - YouTube

Haperson keeps insinuating that the riots are the result of conservative policies and then denying that she's insinuating any such thing. She's indignant that anyone would suggest that the sentences coming out of her mouth are related to the topic at hand. Apparently, she wants us to believe that she has some sort of mental condition that causes her to veer wildly off topic at random. Gove doesn't let her away with it.

What Obama inherited (part 2)

From Redstate:

Rick Perry and Barack Obama both inherited credit ratings from George W. Bush. Perry raised his inherited credit rating to AA+ from AA and Barack Obama lowered his inherited credit rating from AAA to AA+.

Yes, Democrats, I think from now on it is worth Republicans pointing out frequently that while Barack Obama may have inherited a bad economy from George W. Bush, he also inherited a AAA rated credit rating. And yes, George Bush, like Barack Obama, had two years with Democrats controlling Congress and still managed to not lose our AAA credit rating. Barack Obama failed to do the same with the GOP only controlling one house of Congress.

What Obama inherited (part 1)

I've seen this a few places online now:

AAA Rating:
Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921, Democrat
Warren G. Harding, 1921-1923, Republican
Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929, Republican
Herbert Hoover, 1929-1933, Republican
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933-1945, Democrat
Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953, Democrat
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-1961, Republican
John F. Kennedy, 1961-1963, Democrat
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1969, Democrat
Richard M. Nixon, 1969-1974, Republican
Gerald R. Ford, 1974-1977, Republican
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1981, Democrat
Ronald Reagan, 1981-1989, Republican
George Bush, 1989-1993, Republican
Bill Clinton, 1993-2001, Democrat
George W. Bush, 2001-2009, Republican

AA+ Rating:
Barack H. Obama, 2009-, Socialist

I bet she has a corporate jet! Or maybe two.

Breitbart.tv » Small Businesswoman’s Epic Rant Against Obama’s Disastrous Economic Policies

Gutsy Rambobama!

Wendy Chamberlain – Obama was just as courageous as the SEALs « The Greenroom

Okay, so this is a little late, but it's still entertaining. Plus, starting any month now, we're going to have to hear the Dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) prattle on endlessly about how Rambobama singlehandedly took down Osama.

Israel and Obama

Once again, Obama is scolding Israel. He bows to dictators but incessantly betrays America's only real ally in the Middle East. Israel is also the only country in the entire Middle East that respects human rights. So, of course, Obama maligns them and panders to countries that have brutalized their own people for generations.

Thankfully, Israel has a simple way to cope with the Obama problem: ignore him. Although he will continue to be an annoyance throughout the remainder of his one-term presidency, he has virtually no power to trouble Israel. Having proven to be an abject failure at every aspect of the presidency (other than getting elected in the first place ... and he couldn't even have done that without a complicit media who ignored his many failings and exaggerated (or invented) his few strengths), Obama commands very little respect or power. Having lost the House of Representatives, Obama has no chance of implementing any significant policies against Israel, no matter how much he longs to do so. But the situation is even worse than that (for him) because not even the Democrat-controlled Senate sides with him on Israel. Just look at the repeated standing ovations Bibi received as he addressed a joint session of Congress and respectfully schooled Obama as one might school an ignorant child.

So Obama will no doubt bluster a fair bit about Israel throughout the waning days of his failed presidency, but that's all it will be: bluster. Besides, he will have very little time or thought for Israel in these last few months. He's going to be far more concerned with the only thing he really cares about: himself.

Hammer home the obvious

The problem with dealing with Obama in good faith is that he never returns the favour. Republicans act like grown-ups and treat him with respect and, in return, he has tantrums and tells outrageous lies.

True, this is standard fare for Democrats, but Obama takes it to a new level by his staggering hypocrisy. For instance:

1. He prattles on about how we need cooperation and mutual respect, but he's the most partisan president in recent memory.

2. He claims that the Republicans' budget ideas will cut money to soldiers while the Biden plan would cut $1 trillion in defense spending.

3. He claims that the Republicans' budget ideas will cut money from seniors and then turns around and says that if the Republicans don't raise the debt limit, he'll withhold cheques to senior citizens. Such a move would be 100% Obama's choice. But rather than cut spending on liberal causes, Obama will cut off seniors. This is how little he (and the Democratic leadership) care about seniors: they're willing to sacrifice them for political advantage.

In light of this, there's no sense attempting to deal with Obama as if he were a responsible, honest adult. Instead, Republicans need to state the truth clearly, simply, and repeatedly. Hammer it home.

For instance, we should be hearing all Repbulicans making the following points every day:

1. Obama and the Democrats passed a $1 trillion stimulus package promising us it would solve the unemployment problem. At the time, all conservatives insisted it would be a failure. We no longer have to guess. It was an unmitigated disaster. They wasted $1 trillion. Conservatives don't have to theorize about whether or not a stimulus package will work. It's been tried. It didn't.

2. Why would we ever agree to another stimulus package (i.e. a spending bonanza for Democrats to throw cash at all their favourite liberal causes) when the mother of all stimulus packages has been such a nightmare?

3. The Democrats are so fiscally inept that even when they controlled both houses of congress and the White House, they were unable to pass a budget.

4. Obama has no plan, other than the standard hard-left plan of spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax. He makes vague claims about being willing to explore various options, but talk is cheap. If he were either serious or honest, he would have a written proposal that Americans could examine. But he has no such proposal because he is neither. His plan is spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax. But you can't get elected if you're honest about that so he simply claims to have a plan and then whines about every actual proposal the Republicans advance.

5. Obama is playing politics instead of trying to help the country.

Hold your ground

As long as Republicans hold their ground on the current budget debate, they can't lose. Consider the options:

1. Republicans hold their ground, the Democrats refuse to yield, and the U.S. defaults. To be sure, this is a bad scenario for the U.S. But it's hard to see where it hurts the Republicans - as long as they stay on message. Last November, the American people overwhelmingly voted in favour of the Republican plan for the budget. Not only is the Republican base fired up about this, but millions of people who voted for Obama in 2008 voted against his policies in 2010. If Obama refuses to acknowledge their will and plunges the U.S. into a deeper financial crisis, do you think that makes them more or less likely to support him in 2012?

2. Republicans hold their ground and the Democrats cave. Not only would this be a huge political victory for the Republicans (and proof that they already have significant power in Washington - even before thrashing the Democrats in 2012), but the country would be on the road to recovery.

3. Republicans hold their ground and Obama invokes some mangled interpretation of the 14th Amendment in order to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. This is easily the best outcome (politically) for the Republicans even though it would be horrific for the country. Under this scenario, there is no fall-out for the Republicans at all. When Obama's insane spending binge continues unabated, plunging the country further into financial doom, the Republicans can keep reminding the public that they tried to stop him and it was only Obama's Chicago-style thuggery that allowed him to push America further down the road to ruin. Moreover, Obama will be giving Republicans a huge weapon to use against him: they can keep pointing that, as with Obamacare, Obama's socialist agenda always - ALWAYS - takes precedence over the will of the American people.

The only way Republicans lose is if:

4. Republicans cave to Obama, showing that they are too weak to deal with a tyrant and that they, like Obama, are not concerned with the express will of the American people.

"Stop a massacre? Nah! I'm too busy."

Obama is too busy to bother commenting on Lybia. It's not that he doesn't have something to say, of course. It's just that he's a little tied up at the moment.

Right.

Sorry he hasn't been able to make any time in the last week to comment on innocent people being slaughtered for the cause of freedom. Of course, he has time to condemn the democratically-elected governor of Wisconsin. Because that's a fight Obama cares about: defending labour unions. Murder innocent civilians by strafing them from helicopter gunships and Obama is too busy to comment. But threaten the obscenely large pensions of labour unions and Obama has a cause he's passionate about.

The problem with Obama's lies

Of course, lying is a problem in and of itself. The extra problem with Obama's lies is that they're so obvious that they're insulting.

For instance, Obama claims to be "grappling" with the issue of gay marriage. Does anyone believe this? Obama, like all good liberals, is pro-gay marriage. He's also pro-abortion, pro-higher taxes, pro-big government, pro-global warming alarmism, etc. Everyone knows this. But Obama, lacking the spine required to say what he actually believes and knowing that he's out of touch with the average American, refuses to actually say what he believes. Hence, the lies.

In a surprise to no one, Obama's claim to be "grappling" with the issue of gay marriage comes at a time when he has decided to drop supporting the section of the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Ah, yes. There's a shocker.

To recap: You had to be unspeakably naive to not know Obama was pro-gay marriage before he dropped support of DOMA. How clueless do you have to be to not realize it after he dropped support?

Yet Obama boldly tells this lie knowing that there are a few people dumb enough to believe it. But, more importantly, because he knows that there's a massive number of liberals (including the MSM) who, although they know he's lying, are delighted to join the lie because it advances one of their favourite causes.

Is anything NOT a Martin Luther King moment?

Jesse Jackson has declared the current showdown in Wisconsin to be a "real Martin Luther King moment". He then goes on to whine that democracy is at stake.

The first problem with this is that, if Jesse is to be taken seriously, pretty much everything is a Martin Luther King moment. He's a man who cheapens both MLK and what he stood for by likening his every weekly cause to MLK's.

The second problem is that democracy IS under attack here. Democratically elected officials desire to vote to implement policies consistent with everything they campaigned for and the Democrats, rather than accepting the will of the people, run away to a resort. Obama (of course) says he hasn't been following the Wisconsin situation too closely but, never one to let ignorance keep him from taking a stand, declares this exercise of democracy to be a travesty. Although, this is to be expected ... the majority of Americans opposed (and continue to oppose) Obamacare and he rammed it down everyone's throats anyway.

A sampling of Obama's failures

Since I have a job, I don't have time to compile anything close to a complete list. But, in no significant order, here are some of Obama's major failures:

1. Repeatedly stabbing Israel in the back in order to appease terrorists and dictators. Quite apart from the moral bankruptcy of this practice, such appeasement has a 100% failure rate, so it makes it imbecilic as well as immoral.
   
   
2. Wasting trillions of dollars in order to lose jobs.
   
   
3. While spending trillions of dollars on garbage, slashing NASA's budget.
   
   
4. His World Humiliation Tour where he played the sycophant to thugs and dictators, exaggerating or fabricating America's failures in a futile attempt to gain the approval of leaders and regimes whose daily activity is worse than America's worst lapses.
   
   
5. Related to the last point, weakening America in the eyes of the world to the degree that Americans abroad are exponentially less safe because psychos the world over know that Obama is too weak and foolish to respond.
   
   
6. Habitually lying about all of his policies (Obamacare, his budgets, etc.), thinking that everyone is too dumb to do anything other than accept any fanciful claim he makes.
   
   
7. Betraying America's other allies (e.g. Poland and the Czech Republic) in yet another vain attempt to curry favour with yet another corrupt regime (in this case, Russia).
   
   
8. Caving in to the Russians in the New START treaty which they've already said they don't feel the need to abide by even though they expect the U.S. to.
   
   
9. Increasing both oil prices and America's dependence on terrorist regimes by undermining the U.S. oil industry at every opportunity. Thus, in order to cater to the environmentalist lobby, he has penalized every American by raising energy costs. Not only does this directly increase their cost of living (re: gasoline and heating prices), but it also indirectly increases the cost of living by forcing companies to raise prices on all products in order to offset higher energy costs. Moreover, he is undermining U.S. national security by forcing the U.S. to be increasingly dependent on unstable regimes for oil.
   
   
10. Revealing his utter ignorance and disdain for all things military by not knowing how to pronounce corpseman.

Tip. Of. The. Iceberg.

Obama really IS a genius!

The liberals and the MSM (but I repeat myself) keep telling us how brilliant Obama is. Now, I know what you're thinking: only a left-wing shill could make that claim without laughing. I once thought so, too. But I've just realized that he really must be a genius. After all, could you spend $2 trillion and not create even one job? I know I couldn't. Even if I spent $2 trillion on Helen Thomas Barbies, someone would have to make them!