There’s rumbling in Arlington. Go dress shopping with Michelle. And win wampum with Princess Lieawatha. All this — plus — TWINKIES! Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
There’s rumbling in Arlington. Go dress shopping with Michelle. And win wampum with Princess Lieawatha. All this — plus — TWINKIES! Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
I wrote a different column at first. It was reasonably lighthearted, as I wanted to avoid being excessively morose following President Barack Obama’s re-election. It had some cute little one-off gags about the Senate win by Elizabeth Warren and her fake Cherokee cheekbones and Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. winning a landslide in his Illinois Congressional race despite making his father look like a Franciscan monk while Junior hides from investigators in a Minnesota hospital room.
But I don’t have it in me to be my usual sunny self. I am morose. I’m as sad as a homeless guy who just found out the Democrats pay only for votes; and that, tomorrow, he’ll be back to counting cans for the recycling deposits. I am so confused by my country from time to time. I understand the allure of the Obama life. Food, clothing, money, healthcare, Jay-Z tickets and cellphones are all free. Work is a thing of the past, as is responsibility. It’s always someone else’s job to make sure you’re covered. The politics of ease are a powerful drug.
But I like being free. I love it. I love that I can point out that the leader of the country is a profligate liar without being shot, beaten or sent to the gulag for it. I love that I can discuss the crimes he has committed and will commit in his insatiable quest for power without black helicopters descending on my house. I even enjoy the fact that Democratic sock puppets can party themselves into an even deeper stupor than usual after their icon’s victory, despite the fact that they’ve sold their country into slavery in doing so. And if I have to pay for creature comforts with my own cash, then so be it. It sure beats living in one of those sad, gray little dictatorships like North Korea.
And I’m not fleeing the country. I’m not one of those uber-wealthy Hollywood clowns who promises emigration to the nearest convenient tax shelter in the Caribbean every time my guy takes one on the chin. Even if I end up being the last man standing in a country overrun by liberal filth and their idiot minions, I’ll be damned if they’re going to run me off. I survived eight years of Bill Clinton’s dough-faced dishonesty; I can survive eight years of Obama’s mealy-mouthed mendacity.
Clinton was a liar and a reprobate, but at least he was fun about it. I never got the sense from Clinton that he hated me (though I did from his wife). Obama hates me. He also hates most of you. Close to 50 percent of the Nation no-voted Obama, and he despises them for it. He despises their God and their guns. He reviles their refusal to knuckle under to socialist nightmares like Obamacare. Clinton may have been a screwball, but at least you knew he could hold his liquor and might be fun to party with. Obama is a living, breathing archetype of the effete elitism that has turned the Democratic Party into the national disgrace it has become. Democrats aren’t better than we are, but they think they are and they act accordingly. Witness Obama’s casual mendacity on Benghazi, Libya, and Operation Fast and Furious. Furthermore, witness his comfort in skirting the law with “executive orders.” He rules by fiat — like some kind of sideshow emperor.
Obama’s re-election is bad news for America. But we’ve received bad news before, and we will again. As the returns rolled toward Obama last night, I comforted a pal by suggesting that while Obama’s re-election may be a hurricane of horror for liberty, the storm surge might help to wash the shore clean for 2014’s House and Senate elections. We made it to 2012; we can survive to 2016. When my friend suggested I was trying to put lipstick on the proverbial pig, I offered another outcome:
It’s 2012. If the Mayans were right, then none of this matters much.
Acrimony, slander and rage led us inevitably to Election Day 2012. Droning campaign ads begged for our votes, bellowing promises as believable as a children’s magic show (re-electing President Barack Obama will improve our standing in the world) or charges as honest as, well, a politician (electing Governor Mitt Romney will result in the outsourcing of every job beyond caddy at the local golf club).
Mindless speeches demanded our support with vague promises of everything short of the kind of future that exists only in the final chapters of Ayn Rand novels. Campaign mouthpieces on both sides hurled accusations and counteraccusations ranging from honest (Obama fiddled while Benghazi burned) to ludicrous (Romney plans to murder black people).
The corporate media offered their level best effort to push Obama over the top, repeating tropes that ranged from stupid (Obama has shown true Presidential leadership) to ludicrous (pretty much everything that has fallen out of Chris Matthews’ face-hole). Although, cracks in the media wall have appeared: Dozens of newspapers have leapt off the port-listing ship of fools in likely response to the increasing disgust displayed by their readership.
Even Mother Nature weighed in, delivering Hurricane Sandy and subsequently exposing Obama’s ineptitude at a depth previously un-plumbed. But I would be remiss in my duties were I to omit the fact that Obama’s response to the storm’s devastation makes former Federal Emergency Management Director Michael Brown look like Mother Theresa and the Democrat-authored horror of New Orleans look like a mild delay on the way to work.
It’s highly unlikely that most of you who peruse Personal Liberty Digest remain uncommitted to a vote for the candidate of your choosing. Many of you likely have cast your ballots already. A few of you — who are inexplicably hostile to that which we colleagues of Bob Livingston proffer — have even stood behind the criminals, cretins and cronies who operate against our best interests in the shadowy folds of the White House. Nonetheless, allow me to share some thoughts as a gift to take with you on your way to the polls.
The shining city upon a hill has lit the darkest corners of the world for generations; now, the light glows through peril. So get out and vote. As I’ve warned you before, the Democrats are planning to do so twice.
Obama is ready for his closeup. Playing pretend President. And the Democrats’ creepiest campaign yet. All this, plus, Halloween, jihadi-style! Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
Mormonism doesn’t work for me. I just wanted to get that straight, right off the bat. I have serious doubts about the timeline of events proffered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I just can’t swallow the idea that the Son of Man rolled away the rock and then ascended into heaven, only to make a pit stop on the other side of the planet. It’s not that I doubt that Jesus could have dropped in on the loincloth-and-human-sacrifice set; but if He did, His lessons clearly didn’t take — until Hernán Cortés and his Spanish legions reinforced it at the end of a musket. I likewise find the details of golden plates and seer stones pretty dubious.
But here’s the really cool part: I don’t spend time thinking about LDS doctrine, nor do I have to. Mormons are welcome to believe whatever the heck they want; the last time I checked, that’s the American (not to mention Constitutional) way. And I would have guessed that the Democrats would move to the front of line to join me in dismissing attempts to criticize any candidate based on his religious beliefs. After all, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) shares the Mormon faith espoused by Governor Mitt Romney; and I have heard no howls of derision pouring forth from the left regarding Reid donning any “magic underwear,” promoting polygamy or otherwise planning to impose his faith on those of us who prefer the booze to contain actual alcohol.
To be completely honest, with Congressmen like Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim, keeping company with Islamofascist-linked hate groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations while the Democrats accuse his detractors of religious bigotry and intolerance, it ought to follow that the LDS church, which has no ties to suicide bombers or their financiers, is free of the fickle finger of fatuousness.
It ought to follow, but it doesn’t. As I perused media and social networking sites, I caught a recurring theme of liberals launching venom at Romney and his faith. From Daily Beast Brit and Obama cheerleader Andrew Sullivan’s statement that “Mitt Romney belonged to a white supremacist church for 31 years of his life” to “Doonesbury” (yes Virginia, it does still exist) cartoonist Garry Trudeau’s crude attacks in a series of comic strips, there was nary a shred of religious acceptance to be found.
That sort of mouth-breathing, ignorant hate represents the worst kind of mindless political assault. And it is hardly isolated. The same Democrats who find Ellison’s pals such fun at a party have no room in their hearts for a guy who thinks of Utah as the Promised Land. The same liberals who cheered the idea of a mosque within AK-47 range of Ground Zero can’t abide the idea of a teetotaler in the Oval Office. The same Obama backers who slander anyone who opposes Obama with the rhetorical brush of racism just can’t imagine a Mormon in the White House.
If the Democrats really do want Americans to look past those matters of faith that separate us, then perhaps Romney’s religion ought not be a sticking point in 2012. There is no shortage of reasons to object to Romney, and he’s eminently preferable to the abominable Obama. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints causes me no great consternation. It’s not as if the Mormon clergy espouse a doctrine of hatred, racism and “God damn America.” Now that would be wrong, wouldn’t it?
We’re almost done with the endless parade of stupidity that has been the 2012 electoral season. We’re almost done listening to Mitt Romney try very hard to establish the conservative credentials he avoided until sometime in March. We’re almost through with enduring President Barack Obama’s daily litany of disgraceful lying. We’re almost finished watching party flacks wail, corporate media trash spin and self-appointed experts bloviate.
On Tuesday, those of us who have yet to cast our ballots (that’s most of us) will step into polling places nationwide and partake of our still Constitutionally protected right to select the man who, right or wrong, will then become the single most important human being on the planet. In some heavily Democratic districts and selected cemeteries, some of us will partake of that right more than once. Afterward, those ballots will be counted — again, some more than once. The totals will be checked, the absentee and provisional ballot numbers (except for the ones the Democrats have thrown into the nearest convenient storm drain, Great Lake or community activist’s basement) will be tallied, and Ann Romney will begin selecting new drapes for the White House residency.
What I’ve described represents the most likely scenario to unfold over the next 10 days. However, thanks to the magic of the U.S. Constitution, the possibility exists that Election 2012 may well make the George Bush-Al Gore battle of 2000 look like a disputed ballot for homecoming queen.
As of this moment, polling indicates Romney holds a slight lead in the popular vote, but he and Obama are running neck and neck for the Electoral College vote. Although a disparity in the popular and Electoral College results is highly unlikely (such an outcome has occurred only twice), lurking in the ballot booth is an even less common — but even more potentially catastrophic — finale. Romney and Obama could tie.
As is the norm for Presidential elections (they can’t all be Ronald Reagan v. Walter Mondale), neither of the major party candidates is likely to steamroll the other. However, should a couple of swing States fall in a certain way, Romney and Obama actually could wind up with 269 Electoral College votes apiece. For the victims of teachers’ unions, that’s one short of the number needed to forward your mail to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Indeed, the website 270towin.com offers different scenarios, some of which don’t stretch credulity particularly far, in which the swing States from Nevada to New Hampshire split between Romney and Obama and create the worst Constitutional crisis since Obamacare.
Just imagine the fun we would all have. With Romney and Obama splitting the Electoral College down the middle (presuming some elector doesn’t bolt his party, itself the political equivalent of a hand grenade in the proverbial potato salad), the responsibility for electing the next President would immediately fall to the 435 passengers in the Capitol Clown Car: the U.S. House of Representatives.
If one believes the Democrats’ overt threats of murder, rioting and other behavior currently spreading across Twitter and social media outlets like a scorching case of something carried by Lady Gaga and reminiscent of the so-called “Occupiers” (or of Detroit when the Pistons win the NBA title), then the House will convene while the Nation burns. Given the current makeup of the House and the fact that even the most extreme liberal outlets like The New York Times and Dailykos agree that the GOP will keep control of the body through the elections, the House subsequently will proclaim Romney the new President. Following that announcement, the aforementioned Motor City and a host of America’s other garden spots and States will fall into the sort of chaos that normally accompanies a pack of Skittles and what the media calls a “white Hispanic.”
Presuming said unrest doesn’t make the rest of the country look like East St. Louis, Ill., after a Louis Farrakhan speech, we’ll all get to enjoy the second act: the election of the Vice President. That’s right, kids. The House elects the President, and the Senate elects the guy (or gal; we’ll get back to that) who stands next to the Commander in Chief and gazes longingly at “the button.” And the Senate is projected to remain under the thumb of reprobate liar and accused serial farm-animal abuser (that’s what I heard, anyway) Senator Harry Reid and his Democratic do-nothings. Therefore, President Romney would be joined by Vice President Joe Biden. Even the gridlock of the 2006-2008 House under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi would seem like a meeting of the ladies’ sewing circle compared to the legislative pileup that would ensue.
In actuality, the real outcome of an Electoral College split actually would send us even farther off the deep end. Instead of staying in the Naval Observatory, Biden would join his boss, Obama, at the Michael Dukakis Home for Formerly Relevant Politicians. Biden is a national embarrassment whose invitation to all the cool parties at the White House depends entirely on Obama’s largesse. Once Obama hits the unemployment line, the Senate Democrats would experience no qualms about placing someone less likely to make racist comments about the guys behind the counter at the 7-Eleven, someone more likely to set the stage for a resurgence of Democratic power in Washington, someone like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
With Romney in the Oval Office, Clinton just down the hall, the House controlled by the GOP and the Senate controlled by the Democrats, the pace of business in Washington would likely roll to a pace slower than Al Sharpton running uphill in a hurricane. Scandals would follow scandals with even more frequency than they do currently. Voters nationwide would unite in ubiquitous disgust at the stupendous incompetence of and hyper-partisan quibbling by the people charged with the day-to-day operation of everything from the military to the Federal prison system.
The above scenario is hardly the most likely outcome of next week’s festivities. But it is a possibility — a worst-case result that could plunge the Nation into absolute disarray. However, the long-term blowback from an Electoral College tie between Romney and Obama actually offers a real light at the end of the tunnel. Despite the failure of the two major parties to reach meaningful accord, there was no realistic chance for a third party candidate to legitimately challenge them for the Presidency in 2012.
Four years of a Romney/Clinton “Administration” would not only break the stranglehold in which the current two-party system holds our future, it could even force the Republicans and Democrats to meet in a new battle: the fight to determine who gets to remain one of the two “major” parties and who gets to hang out with the lunatics from the Green Party at the also-rans convention in 2016.
Oh, my! The kiddies do seem riled up about the newest video sensation that’s confusing the Nation. As the clock ticks down on President Barack Obama’s chances to avoid being a Presidential footnote, Obama turned in an unusual — and not just a little bit creepy — direction to rally what he seems to think is some vast reservoir of untapped teenage voting muscle. And when I say “creepy,” I really mean “unmarked panel truck parked across from the elementary school for three straight days” creepy.
As last week drew to a close, a new viral ad hit the Web. In it, a young woman named Lena Durham — otherwise noteworthy for acting in, writing, directing and producing some witless, juvenile shlock named “Girls” for HBO (It’s not TV; it’s HBObama!) — describes voting for Obama in tones that I might use to describe Rebecca De Mornay showing up at my door with a bottle of The Black Grouse and a winning Powerball ticket. Actually, the “My First Time” ad is worse than my idea — if only because I’m not using sex to sell the most duplicitous President in history to children.
Here’s the ad.
Yikes. Now, don’t lump me in with the puritanical types who are screaming bloody murder about the unbelievably inappropriate tone of “My First Time.” Pointing out that this unsettling little bit of pro-Obama hype represents the sort of thing that makes my older brother consider sending my niece to a convent in the Yukon Territory is as obvious as suggesting Obama occasionally struggles with the truth. But I learned back when I was a kid that harping on overtly sexualized entertainment is a fool’s errand. Democrats responded to criticism of the spot by claiming that only “old white guys” criticized the ad. They might be right. By the standards of the audience at whom apparently everything produced by young Durham is aimed, I’m an old white guy; and I thought the project needed crampons and a pickaxe to reach insipid.
But being old and white doesn’t make me wrong. “My First Time” is supposed to inspire kids to cast their ballots for Obama. It inspires me to wonder if we should reexamine the 26th Amendment. Of course, I don’t really think we should raise the voting age. Nearly 70 million Americans voted for Obama in 2008. The overwhelming majority of them were well past their 18th birthday. Given the Democrats’ predilection for — ahem — electoral mischief, some were likely well past their final birthday. But I would suggest that the Nation is in dire need of serious civics tutoring; and I don’t just mean the kiddies.
Perhaps I’d be better served by addressing the kids directly.
Hey, kids. Forget about Obama’s unprecedented failure as a diplomat, an economist and a man. This guy is right in the middle of record National debt; record underemployment; record loss of wealth; record numbers of Americans requiring government assistance to survive; record job losses; the cover-ups of Operation Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the murders (which could have been prevented) of at least five Americans; the most arrogantly corrupt Federal government since the Warren Harding Administration; and the most divided populace in 150 years.
But ignore all of that. Instead, consider this: If you think that casting a ballot for some jug-eared, mom-jeans-wearing blowhard who lies as easily as you breathe and who runs and hides in the girls’ locker room whenever he gets caught is anything like doing “it,” then you’re doing “it” wrong.
Phone call for you, Mr. President. And Allred the ambulance-chaser is off the case. All this, plus: Time to move on, Ted. Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
All right, the “horses and bayonets” meme sweeping the Internet like one of those cat-doing-something-adorable pictures actually made me laugh. And the “ships that go underwater” Facebook fad is pretty damned funny, as well. Hell, I even considered the “binders full of” meme that dogged Mitt Romney last week worth at least a grin. Hey, I joke as much as the next pundit. Actually, the next pundit is Bob Livingston; so I joke a great deal more than the next pundit. But I don’t let the laughter distract me from the bigger picture.
I’m well aware that Barack Obama knows what a submarine is. Well, I’m fairly sure. Come to think of it, perhaps we should move along. But lost in the snickering was the fact that Obama was trying to belittle Romney’s expertise in the foreign-affairs arena. And, in doing so, Obama was also trying a little too hard to distract us from the very real failures that have defined his own tenure.
To quote the cool kids: “You got jokes, Mr. President?” I’m not really laughing. Obama’s attempts to change the narrative on what happened in Benghazi, Libya, feature more plot twists than a M. Night Shyamalan film festival. I’ve noticed Chris Matthews at the Democrat Channel is back to claiming a crappy YouTube video is responsible for the brutal murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his three fellow innocent victims. How many versions have they offered? Seven? I’m just waiting for the Huffington Post inevitable banner headline:
NEW DETAILS EMERGE ON BENGHAZI — COLONEL MUSTARD SOUGHT FOR QUESTIONING
Retired officer rumored Romney bundler; Authorities claim he did it in the conservatory with a B-40
During Monday’s debate, Romney stated: “Is al-Qaida on the run? No.” Liberals lit up the blogosphere with outrage over what they characterized as Romney’s complete lack of awareness. Most took to chest-thumping over the execution of Osama bin Laden by SEAL Team 6. And perhaps Romney is mistaken; al-Qaida is indeed on the run. Unfortunately, it’s running directly toward and over our people.
Obama is currently running an ad that claims he dropped the curtain on “a decade of war which has cost us dearly.” Of course, he’s referring to our exit from the Iraqi theater. But while he conjures up images of himself surrounded by olive branch-toting doves, our servicemen and servicewomen continue to face ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan. And the enemy there has become even less predictable and more sinister than ever, likely in response to perceived weakness. To paint himself as worthy of that Nobel Peace Prize wasted on him a few years back, Obama is not only brushing aside the fires of Benghazi, he’s turning his back on the thousands of flag-draped coffins he claims to meet at airports in between fundraisers and golf outings.
Obama’s reaction to increasing hot air from the Islamofascists who own Iran — including both their bellicosity toward Israel and their brazen attempts at loading their missiles with “the good stuff” — is about as funny as a Bill Maher therapy session, albeit with less rancor toward the ladies. As Romney pointed out during the debate, “Iran is four years closer to a nuclear bomb.” Nuclear bombs are seldom funny. Nuclear bombs wielded by guys whose idea of kicking back involves a nice brick of C-4 and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” on Blu-ray Disc are scarier than a night with that thing the TV tells me used to be Cher.
I’m not suggesting we start kicking in doors worldwide, looking to aerate the cranium of every two-bit jihadi, narcoterrorist and/or tin-pot dictator; although, I wouldn’t mind if they all simultaneously contracted terminal cases of lead poisoning. But as much as Obama seems to want to make jokes when he’s not out on his worldwide “apology tour” and as much as I enjoy making jokes about his endless parade of disgraces, Obama’s term has been less “funny ha-ha” and more “funny pile of corpses.”
We are the United States of America. We get to deal from a position of strength. We don’t forget the names of our soldiers, sailors and Marines — or those of our border agents and ambassadors. And that’s no joke, Mr. President.
As I write this, the hours tick inexorably toward the final Presidential debate of the 2012 electoral season. Millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people the world over will sit in rapt attention as Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama tear into each other for our ballots like crackheads fighting over the wallet they just grabbed from the mugging victim. Candidates will bloviate; the moderator, CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer, will try to steer the forum to port while pretending to appear impartial; pundits will mock the participants; “fact-checkers” will eviscerate the candidates’ remarks in an effort to promote the agenda they swear they’re not promoting; and MSNBC hosts will suffer various degrees of mental breakdown — again.
Since the debate is supposed to focus on foreign affairs, Obama will point to our exit from Iraq combat operations as an accomplishment worthy of re-election. Romney will respond that Iraq is still a hellhole and has been reformulated with even more Islamofascist terrorism. Obama will claim to have delivered the promise of Nobel-worthy peace to the world. Romney will retort that the promise of peace carries about the same worth as all of Obama’s other promises and his Nobel Prize combined and that the situation in the Mideast is every bit the powder keg it was 40 years ago. Obama will then suggest that Romney lacks the experience to step into the Presidency. And Romney will say something like: “If I do the opposite of what you’ve done over the past four years, that’s probably a good start.”
Obama will note that “I” got Osama bin Laden. Romney will note that SEAL Team 6 “got” bin Laden and then Obama took credit for it — even forcing active duty personnel to sit for interviews with Hollywood vultures for some movie that will probably enrage Muslims. Obama will state that, under his watch, terrorism is on the run globally. Romney will state that terrorism may be on the run, but under Obama’s watch, it’s running at a dead sprint. Romney will express his revulsion at Obama’s mishandling of Benghazi, Libya; Obama will tell either the fifth or sixth version (I’ve lost count) of that sad story.
Obama will point to Romney’s finances in the Caymans and business interests in China. Romney will point to Obama’s finances in the Caymans and business interests in China. Obama will blame Romney for “outsourcing jobs to China.” Romney will blame Obama for forcing businesses to outsource jobs in order to stay in business despite union thugs, regulatory storm troopers and Obamacare costs.
On immigration, Romney will promise to enact stringent enforcement of illegal alien laws and increase border security. Obama will say he’s already done that. Romney will ask how Operation Fast and Furious fits into that claim. Obama will ask if “that’s the one with both Vin Diesel and ‘The Rock.’”
They’ll hem; they’ll haw; they’ll push and pull, accuse and counter-accuse, flex and bow, and try desperately to paint the other as grossly unqualified to lead America, much less the world, into the future. Their respective supporters will crow over their candidates’ victorious performance as their detractors shriek of lies and failings. It ought to be some spectacle.
Someone tell me how it turns out. I’m tired of these debate dog and pony shows and have the same respect for them that I reserve for “The Real Housewives of the Jerry Springer Shore” or whatever. I’m going to be watching the Bears-Lions Monday night football game. It’s not that I’m a big fan of either team; it’s just that I can always tell the two teams apart.
Nice costumes, ladies. Barack blames it on the girl. And: the ever-changing Benghazi bologna. All this—plus—mom jeans! Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
I wasn’t expecting much Tuesday night. I knew President Barack Obama would be declared a winner by the effete elite if he managed to show up and not vomit on himself.
Since Vice President Joe Biden’s smirkfest last week against Congressman Paul Ryan— which looked very much like a cry for either help or a Thorazine prescription— Obama has been granted amnesty for everything from faked jobs reports to wildly divergent tales about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. The Democrats have backed him through the endless stream of scandals, assaults on individual freedoms and even murders which have defined Obama’s tenure. At this point, I think he could stomp on a box of puppies and/or murder a Border Agent (heaven forbid!) and the Democrats would still snuggle up with him in the morning.
I would be remiss if I failed to note that these guys went after each other like fat guys fighting over the last piece of real cake at a vegan birthday party. Any voters who place “likeability” at or near the top of their list of criteria about which they give a damn will probably be writing in their own names come election day.
Both candidates behaved like slightly less-creepy versions of Biden from last week; although Obama appears to have missed a few days of rehearsal. If American politics had a live soundtrack, this debate would have been accompanied by one of those sad trombones they use in cartoons.
I originally intended to present a condensed version of the running commentary I maintained throughout the night’s festivities; but then something occurred to me: None of it really matters.
Obama and Romney are in a true horse race; and though Romney has nosed ahead in recent days, the question is still very much in doubt. As evidenced by the desperate enthusiasm feigned by liberal mouthpieces following Obama’s even-weirder-than-Biden’s-performance, Obama can’t really lose these dog-and-pony shows we call debates.
He double-, triple- and even quadruple-talked virtually every answer he proffered; most notably his tortured and twisted response to the aftermath of the Benghazi nightmare; and the Democrats cheered him for it. His answers on gas prices and so-called “green” energy boondoggles not only failed to meet the stink test (he claimed they would lower gas prices; when might those lower prices be kicking in?), they didn’t really even make sense. He presented himself as a friend of the coal industry; which might actually have been the biggest howler of the night; although none of his supporters even noticed, much less cared.
Romney and Obama will go toe-to-toe once more next Monday night. Obama will either go back to the cowering passivity which marked his disastrous debut debate, or he’ll come out swinging— and missing— wildly like he did in Hempstead, N.Y. Either way, his supporters will cheer his rudeness, ignore his mendacity and shriek at the opposition; just like every other day during the long national nightmare which has been his Presidency.
The debate ended with a member of the audience asking both candidates to describe their best features; essentially: “So, tell us why you’re awesome.” The question was silly; but Obama then made it sillier by using the time to attack Romney… again.
Look, people; Obama’s effort to reshape himself as an assertive executive has produced a twitchy, unlikeable liar with all the warmth of a teenaged prom queen. Perhaps, like Biden, Obama just doesn’t take to confrontation particularly well— although he doesn’t seem to struggle with behaving like an unruly child who feels slighted when mommy pays too much attention to the other kids. While Romney clearly stuck to his strategy of keeping Obama on defense; Obama— despite not-inconsequential help from hapless “moderator” Candy Crowley— shifted away from the cool, detached demeanor which he has cultivated throughout his term and toward a short-tempered, snide and juvenile attitude which might work on MSNBC but has no place in the Oval Office.
I understand that the true believers of the left will continue their blind support of Obama. But it strikes me that the most important lesson the Democrats SHOULD have learned during Obama’s latest public face plant missed them completely: The person for whom they should be rooting wasn’t even in the country during the debate; she was down in Peru.
It’s probably worth noting that a Vice Presidential debate exerts the approximate impact on a Presidential election as a preseason game featuring a pair of backup quarterbacks does on the Super Bowl. However, following the drubbing former Governor Mitt Romney dropped on President Barack Obama two weeks ago, the proxy match which was the meeting between Congressman Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden offered much more excitement than any early-August NFL tilt — albeit not for the reasons Obama was hoping.
Biden’s bizarre behavior can likely be attributed to the Democratic desperation to regain momentum following Obama’s cowering performance against Romney. However, instead of bringing to mind Lloyd Bentsen making Dan Quayle look like a naughty schoolboy; Biden came off like a creepy old guy with either a serious drinking problem or a manic behavior disorder.
But Biden’s buffoonery paled in comparison to the deliberate dishonesty with which he responded to one of the defining disasters of Obama’s lamentable occupation of the Oval Office. Asked by moderator Martha Raddatz to explain the Obama Administration’s double- and even triple-talk about the circumstances surrounding the murders by terrorists of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three Americans in Benghazi, Libya, Biden didn’t even blink as he proclaimed himself and Obama merely misinformed bystanders: “Because that’s exactly what we were told by the intelligence community.”
Either Biden — and, by extension, Obama — lied through his hair plugs, or he didn’t. If he didn’t lie, then he and Obama are so insulated from the daily disgraces of their own underlings that they’re little more than figureheads. It is possible that Obama and Biden managed to avoid the facts regarding the Islamofascists’ murders of Stevens and three others; but if they did, they did so willfully.
The intelligence community passed along word of an organized terrorist action in Benghazi within hours of the attack. Even Democratic mouthpiece Newsweek reported the terrorist angle before the day was out. By the next day, members of Congress knew the score, including House Armed Services Committee member Adam Smith (D-Washington), who said as much: “This was not just a mob that got out of hand. … it was preplanned.” For Obama to enjoy a little bromance with sycophant David Letterman seven days later without accurate details required either breathtaking dishonesty or virtually complete isolation from his own duties.
Meanwhile, if Biden’s attempt to pin the blame on some phantom failure of the intelligence community stemmed from the same casual disregard for the truth that brought us other Obama achievements such as the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, then Obama’s desperate attempt to avoid responsibility for his own failures includes a willingness to throw intelligence service officers under the proverbial bus. That comes as no surprise, considering extreme disloyalty is a mere stones’ throw from extreme duplicity.
The morning following Biden’s fumble, Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney told reporters that Biden “was speaking directly for himself and for the president.” At least we can rest assured that the Vice President speaks only for himself and his boss and not someone particularly important. Actually, considering both Carney and the corporate media’s failure to acknowledge Biden’s obscene dishonesty in denying his own pro-war voting record, it’s possible that Crazy Joe speaks only to the voices in his head.
Steph and Debbie take two for the team. Another weird (and racist) moment in the Democrats’ War on Women. And Crazy Joe sweats to the oldies! All this, plus, “lady parts!” Presented in 1080 hi-def, for FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
Mitt Romney never said he wants to kill, maim, fricassee or deep-fat fry Big Bird. In fact, quite the opposite is true. During a debate in which he reminded nearly 70 million Americans that President Barack Obama needs some time in remedial academic instruction, Romney said: “I like PBS. I love Big Bird. … But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.” That’s a far cry from forcing poor Elmo to get tickled for change on a subway platform.
But the Democratic panic over Romney’s nefarious plans for the “Sesame Street” gang is about winning an election, not telling the truth. And, as we’ve learned during Obama’s almost unprecedented Presidential mendacity, when it comes to electoral politics, the Democrats and the truth seldom meet in the same sentence. And when a beloved icon that is more a nostalgic reminder of the past than a real part of the future of television is forced to confront life off the public dole, the liberal fearmongers take center stage.
While Obama tries to deploy Bert, Ernie and the gang to make America forget not only about his debate disaster but also his bald-faced lying to the Nation about the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the other victims, Accomplice General Eric Holder and the Operation Fast and Furious cover-up, record gas prices and record national debt, he’s unwittingly reintroduced a fair question to the National debate: Does taxpayer-funded public broadcasting even deserve, much less need, our dough?
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting rakes in close to $500 million per year from you and me. PBS has been swallowing our cash for generations. And of the most compelling characters who ever called “Sesame Street” a home, one still lives in a garbage can and another is a vampire who struggles with counting to 10. Kidding aside, “Sesame Street” pulled down more than $120 million in revenue last year alone. That means Oscar may live in a garbage can, but it’s one of the really nice ones next to Mr. Hooper’s old store (now a Dean & Deluca’s, I believe).
And once we leave the serene surroundings of “Sesame Street,” we find ourselves in a public wasteland of liberal bloviating. In return for our investment, we get:
“Car Talk” is probably the only worthwhile radio program on the public airwaves. And Tom and Ray Magliozzi’s program is the kind that makes radio account executives want to — ahem — tickle Elmo. They could sell out their entire commercial inventory in about 10 minutes; 20 if they stop to figure out what’s causing that rattle under the dashboard.
Are there greater wastes of our tax dollars than PBS? Of course, there are. Hell, cutting off Michelle Obama’s clothing budget ought to save us more than a few nickels. But when the PBS CEO Paula Kerger knocks down $632,000 per year (more than the President of the United States), the CPB mission of providing free, quality entertainment has already gone off the rails. CPB likes to point out that around 85 percent of its funding comes from member donations, corporate grants and member stations. If its programming is the public boon it says it is, then that number should be 100 percent.
Just about 36 hours after Governor Mitt Romney debated President Barack Obama the way Godzilla debated Tokyo, the Department of Labor released the September jobs report. To say Obama needed a win after face-planting in Denver while nearly 70 million Americans stifled a giggle is an understatement on par with “Chris Matthews might want to lay off the pipe.” And the boys at the Bureau of Labor Statistics delivered for their boss — big time. As of Friday morning, the Nation’s unemployment rate had dropped to 7.9 percent (the lowest at any point during Obama’s tenure).
But there are wins, and then there are Doug Flutie-as-time-expires miracles. Friday morning’s rather — ahem — timely jobs report is the latter. Just as Obama headed into the final month of campaign season seriously exposed, along came employment numbers Democrats can point to with a modicum of pride. Except, at second glance, the jobs numbers look less fortuitous and more like fantasy.
The magic September jobs report might indeed be a political Hail Mary completion in the end zone, or it might not. There are only two possible scenarios.
Scenario 1: The numbers are bogus.
Scenario 2: The numbers are real.
It’s not as if any of the casual liars in the Obama Administration will acknowledge that their man got Mitt-rolled. Nor are they likely to admit that Obama lost because he’s really a marionette whose appeal is thinner than an anorexic socialite with a coke habit. Obama’s whole campaign is the Memorex version of his 2008 campaign, itself nothing but a compilation of the race-baiting, finger-pointing and class-envy drivel that cost the Democrats control of the House in 2010.
They might as well stick with phony jobs reports and other flimsy excuses for achievement. The people whose jobs flew the coop with Obama’s promises of “change” know the difference, and they’ll remember come Election Day.
Um…THAT did NOT go well. Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s the Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
As you read my musings from Outside The Asylum today, keep in mind my deadline was Wednesday morning. I actually typed hours before Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama were to meet in their first face-to-face gabfest of the 2012 Presidential election cycle. Therefore, I can’t wax rhapsodic about what (barring a spectacular flub by Romney or spectacularly honest remark by Obama) will probably be a Presidential debate that relates to the real troubles of the Nation about as well as first lady Michelle Obama does to people who work for a living.
So, I’ll guess instead. After all, if I’m miles off the mark, I can just do what Obama does and claim my perspective has “evolved.” Reality dictates that neither candidate will stride confidently into the hearts and minds of the 5 percent to 10 percent of eligible voters who have yet to make up their minds. Romney will mouth platitudes intended to assuage conservatives that he doesn’t represent a continuation of the super-statist policies that have turned the Obama Administration into the biggest electoral disaster since President Jimmy Carter lost the Battle of the Chattahoochee Bunny. Meanwhile, Obama will do what he always does: lie.
In a debate scheduled to focus primarily on domestic affairs (sorry, kids, we’ll have to wait until next time to hear Obama explain why he lied to the Nation and the world about the murders of four Americans in Libya), Obama will make a number of ridiculous claims that prove only that the best prevaricators really believe their lines.
• He’ll claim he’s a “job creator.” Nothing says “friend of the working man” like a record-breaking stretch of unemployment numbers on the north side of 8 percent (with real unemployment well into the double figures). He’ll also attack Romney and Bain Capital while carefully ignoring the fact that Bain saved hundreds of thousands of jobs by rescuing ailing corporations, including Obama’s own beloved Baskin-Robbins.
• He’ll claim to have “rescued” the American auto industry. As I was driving the other day, I passed by the vacant lot that used to house the local Cadillac dealership. I remember thinking “Good thing Obama saved… er… someone.” So what if the government takeover of General Motors became an 11-figure boondoggle? For just less than $100,000, you too can have the all-new Chevy Volt! At prices this good, how can you pass up the chance to be the first on your block to own an exploding golf cart? Actually, if you’re not one of the 47 percenters, you’ve already paid for one.
• He’ll crow about Obamacare. Now, instead of seeing a doctor, I might get to see someone who has watched all eight seasons of “House.” But I do enjoy knowing my tax dollars funded abortions and Sandra Fluke’s rather impressive birth control needs. Also: Death panels and rationed care! I’m thrilled.
• He’ll claim that he’s introduced meaningful immigration reform. He says “reform;” I say “bypassing the Constitutional Separation of Powers in order to grant amnesty to criminals through executive order.” That’s a long way from “potato/pot-ah-to.” We all know why Democrats want to grant free passes to illegals, and not it’s not just “because Paco does such a great job weatherproofing the teak on Senator Kerry’s yacht.” To be fair, Obama’s grant of amnesty might just have been his way of rescuing Mexicans from the narcoterrorists who wantonly murder people with guns they bought from… Obama (er… this is just awkward).
• And he’ll claim his has been the most transparent, least corrupt Administration in history. As long as you ignore “we’ll have to pass the bill so you can find out, uh, what is in it,” repeated violations of the Hatch Act, collusion between the White House and hate groups like the National Action Network and Media Matters, and pretty much every statement Accomplice General Eric Holder has made, it has been the least corrupt Administration in history.
Come to think of it, Romney doesn’t even need to show up. Democrats will listen to Obama do things to the truth that would cause the hearts of the most diabolical flimflam artists to flutter like teenage girls. And the “undecideds?” They still won’t have an opinion, because they missed the whole thing to watch reruns of “CSI.”
As I have shuffled through my mortal coil, I have had the privilege of building friendships with a wide variety of folks. Admittedly, most of them share my view of the world; but some not only don’t share my starboard lean, they list quite sharply to port. Among them is a fellow who is not only most decidedly not a conservative, he’s not even an American. (He wears his maple leaf with marked pride.) Yet he’s one of the wiser and more impressively politically thoughtful human beings I have ever known.
During one of our regular discussions on the Cirque Du Crazy that has replaced the traditional American electoral process, he posited that Mitt Romney’s failure to truly inspire conservatives precludes a victory in November. Given the slavish devotion Democrats offer to current President Barack Obama, it’s easy to dismiss Romney for the lack of similar zeal he elicits from the right side of the spectrum.
Romney doesn’t inspire conservatives to shout their assent because Romney isn’t a conservative. Thus, while Democrats ignore the crimes and misdemeanors that define Obama’s occupation of our Oval Office and shriek their support for Obama (and against God) across the slums, cemeteries and shuttered coal mines created by their idol’s incompetence, the noise from the other side is decidedly muted. Yet it doesn’t really matter. Obama will lose in November, and his coming Waterloo connects to Romney only because Romney will be the most recognizable beneficiary of Obama’s self-immolation.
In defense of my friend’s assessment, what was once a peaceful transfer of power admired the world over — especially with Obama ascending as the first “celebrity” President — is now an anti-intellectual beauty pageant. Think of it:
My name’s Barry. My turn-ons include golf, hanging with Jay-Z and mom jeans. My turn-offs include the Bill of Rights and Bibi Netanyahu. If I’m elected, I promise to lie to Congress (Accomplice General Eric Holder makes that look so easy!), wipe out the middle class and party like a rock star on your nickel.
Throw in an awkwardly performed dance routine and Honey Boo Boo might have a shot at the White House. She’s easily as qualified as Obama.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m hardly an ardent admirer of Romney. However, with the departure of Ron Paul from the Presidential stage and the reality (go easy, Libertarian Party; I’m just being honest) that Gary Johnson is as likely to win this fall as an unborn baby is to escape a Planned Parenthood “clinic” unharmed, I find myself east of the intellectual rock and west of the electoral hard place. And I’m hardly the only resident of God’s Little Political Acre.
Romney isn’t going to win in November because Republicans unified behind him in a manner similar to the Democratic phalanx that guards Obama. The membership of the modern Republican Party, unconstrained by the infantile intellectual deficiencies of liberalism and spread across a much more diverse ideological plane, lacks the guilelessness required to worship at the altar of some mere politician. Liberals will ignore failure to vote for the guy with the “D” after his name; most of them — proud members of the 47 percent — don’t and won’t know better.
I and my fellow wanderers in the desert of Presidential disappointment may not share the blindly religious fervor of Obama’s average supporters, but we do possess the unshakeable will to see an end to the four years of shame Obama has delivered to us all. Indeed, as I told my Canadian pal, Obama is going to be the first President since Herbert Hoover to lose an election via what amounts to a nullification vote. Millions of Americans who lack confidence in Romney will vote for him anyway, simply because he isn’t Obama. And in an America torn virtually asunder by Obama’s failures foreign and domestic, that may well be good enough.
It’s all the same to Obama. Hillary: the right man for the job. And: look who’s back! All this, plus, George Costanza to the rescue! Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
Earlier this week, between refusing to meet with his world leadership colleagues and bringing his Presidential acumen to bear on the geopolitically destabilizing NFL officials’ strike, President Barack Obama dropped by the set of Barbara Walters’ henhouse cluckfest “The View.” During the course of his interaction with such notable thinkers as stand-up comedienne Whoopi Goldberg and junior varsity liberal shill Joy Behar, Obama once again blamed the catastrophic violence overtaking the Mideast on the so-called “movie” “Innocence of Muslims.” After watching a few moments of that schlock-fest, I can promise you that calling it a “movie” is nearly as big a stretch as calling Obama “Presidential,” or Valerie Jarrett’s face “natural-looking.” But I digress.
During his sit-down with the gals, Obama — who presumably brought along the Mrs. in order to appeal to the all-important Neiman Marcus demographic — abruptly reversed course from his previous declarations regarding the Islamofascist murders of four Americans in Libya two weeks ago. He said:
There’s no doubt that… it wasn’t just a mob action. What’s clear is that, around the world, there are still a lot of threats out there.
Obama taped the appearance in Walters’ chicken coop on Monday. And then, in that grand tradition of Democratic aspirants to the Presidency, he flip-flopped again. Addressing the mewling appeasers and parking ticket scofflaws at the United Nations, Obama returned to his blame-the-crappy-video narrative:
I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.
That’s a none-too-subtle return to the “it’s the movie’s fault” talking point which made Obama a national laughingstock last week. In addition to being demonstrably wrong (crappy movies don’t kill people; psychotic Muslim fanatics do), Obama’s statement marks what has to be a new record for Democratic duplicity. Obama — who took nearly 10 days to acknowledge that terrorists just might have been involved in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya — managed to pronounce diametrically opposed reasons for the same event in less than 24 hours. Furthermore, the idea that the President — even one as mortifying as Obama — would apologize to terrorists and their appeasers for a poor exercise in free speech is nearly as appalling as dismissing the rumored rape and the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans as “bumps in the road.”
How far into the clown car has this buffoon climbed if his latest pronouncement manages to be less offensive than his description of the victims of the Islamofascists’ rape-and-murder-a-thon as “bumps in the road?” Forget about the fact that Obama’s own minions are now openly acknowledging that the Libyan massacre was an act of terrorism (as is Obama himself, depending on the audience). Focus instead on the fact that the re-election of Obama not only guarantees a continuation of the death spiral down which he has driven us, but it also sends a message to the rest of the world that we’re perfectly willing to go along for the ride.
Dear Democratic Party,
I wish it didn’t have to be this way, but you just haven’t left me with any other choice. We’ve been together for decades now — since the days of President Roosevelt (the “New Deal” one, not the “Man in the Arena” one), if not earlier. I’ve put up with your madness because I wanted to make it work. After all, we do share a home. But this just isn’t working out anymore. And I just wanted to let you know why.
The money is a real problem. I work hard to keep us afloat; yet I can’t seem to make enough to satisfy you. And the things on which you spend my hard-earned dough really don’t work for me. It’s bad enough that you spend my cash like a high-school girl who got ahold of Daddy’s American Express Gold Card, but your spending habits don’t even make sense. Obamacare? So now, not only do I have to cover your doctor’s bills, but the IRS is going to break down the front door if I refuse? And after all that, some stuffed suit from the Department of Health and Human Services is going to means-test my viability? I’m sorry, honey; that doesn’t work for me.
And your pal Bernanke and his “quantitative easing” are making the cash I do earn worth less than the commemorative copies of those Michael Moore DVDs you keep buying. Also: Have you ever considered staying at a regular hotel? You know the Holiday Inn Express may not offer the same high-thread-count sheets as the Four Seasons, but it does have a nice breakfast buffet — and there’s a rumor that staying there can boost your brainpower a bit. You should consider that. And there are perfectly fashionable clothes out there that don’t cost as much as the rest of us make in a month. Some of them even fit — a tip you should share with your BFF, Michelle Obama.
I’m also not comfortable with some of the people with whom you hang out. That Barry Obama guy is a perfect example. He’s never held down a real job in his life, and you think he’s the guy to lead private enterprise back to prosperity? Have you even listened to this guy read a teleprompter? I’ve heard more sense on “The View.” He actually believes in something he calls “redistribution” and the rest of us call “theft.” I can dig your affinity for the whole “retro” thing, but why can’t you just hearken back to the 1980s instead of the 1880s? For someone who pretends to call herself “progressive,” you’re about as forward-looking as the AFL-CIO.
And we need to talk about those clowns, too. Union thugs are not simply bad news, doll. They’re bad guys. I know they seem like fun, but people who cross them have a tendency to meet severe fates. Look at what happened to those old folks who protested Obamacare. For that matter, look at what happened to General Motors. For that matter, look at what happened to Jimmy Hoffa — and he was one of their guys.
The union thugs aren’t even the heaviest hitters around. I know none of your little pals like to talk about it, but that Eric Holder is some piece of work. He’s the top law enforcement official in the United States, and he perjured himself in front of Congress as easily as Obama skips national security briefings to play 18 at Congressional. You really ought to think about the effect an association with a man who thinks engineering and then covering up the murder a Federal agent can have on your reputation.
Then, there are those gals from Planned Parenthood. As I told you before, if you want to vacuum babies out of your uterus, you’re welcome to it. But I can’t be a part of that. I don’t glean any joy from upsetting you; but I’d rather risk your wrath than His, if you get my drift.
And, baby, the fact that you’ll let someone like Joe Biden anywhere near you freaks me out. This is the guy you’re comfortable allowing within one heartbeat of “The Button,” and I’m not convinced he can spell either “heartbeat” or “button.” I’m actually not even convinced he can spell “the.” I’m willing to admit he can be somewhat entertaining, but so can the better Vegas floor shows. And no one thinks the girls with the small clothing and the fans should be one office down from nuclear Armageddon.
I won’t even get into those sock puppets at the Democrat Channel (MSNBC) and the rest of the corporate media flunkies you listen to. The right has some borderline personalities of their own, but your “news” sources are about as informative as those late-night infomercials. Honey, Chris Matthews is absolutely certifiable. Between Chrissie and the rest of the Obama Protection League claiming everything anyone says is racist, we’re all going to end up with a smaller vocabulary than one of those so-called “Occupy” fleabags after a turn in the “hemp tent.”
You also really don’t do well with our neighbors. If someone tries to burn down the house, you don’t give him my money and hope that encourages him to find a new hobby. And you certainly don’t blame me for his lack of compunction. Likewise, blaming our friendlier neighbors because the hoodlums down the street can’t behave themselves is poor form.
We’ve had some good times, baby. But we’ve clearly grown apart. I believe in freedom, justice and American exceptionalism; and you’re a Democrat. It’s time we see other people. I’m going to stay here, since I paid for the place. You should check out some places where the folks share your interests. I’m thinking North Korea. I wish I could say “it’s not you; it’s me;” but I really can’t. It isn’t me; it’s really you.
While President Barack Obama and his corporate media minions have tried desperately to dodge the heat they deserve for the Pandora’s box of ills currently dominating the headlines, one of Obama’s lowlights has surfaced; and it literally defines Obama then and Obama now.
Speaking to an audience at Loyola University Chicago in 1998, then-State Senator Obama stated:
I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution — because I actually believe in some redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.
Although the video doesn’t show it, methinks the erstwhile community organizer must have had a copy of Das Kapital open in his lap, because nothing else could even approach explaining a philosophy so diametrically opposed to everything that makes the American system so much better than the late and unlamented efforts to impose Karl Marx’s ideology on the planet. And though 15 years have passed since young Legislator Obama showed his cards to everyone at the table, older President Obama is still playing the same hand.
Think of it this way: Let’s say someone bakes cookies. I then eat the lion’s share of the cookies, though others hoped for a bite. According to Obama circa-1998 through 2012, the only way to give everyone a cookie is to take some from me — by force, if necessary (and if the cookies are chocolate chip, then force will absolutely be required). It never occurs to liberals like Obama that they could simply bake more cookies. In an ever-diversifying global economy, there are always more cookies. Just because I gorge myself doesn’t mean everyone else has to go hungry. They do have to get in the kitchen, however.
Of course, that would require actual work, which would in turn take time away from standing around in Zuccotti Park demanding I hand over the snickerdoodles. People who work and buy their own dessert quickly learn that once they’ve earned a cookie, they’ll be damned if they’ll hand it over to the deadbeats who join Obama in accusing them of hoarding Mrs. Fields® treats.
The Democrats attempted to dismiss Obama’s remarks as somehow out of date or unimportant by deploying the corporate media’s self-proclaimed “fact checkers,” which is the political equivalent of assigning Marion Barry to lead an anti-drug task force. The same guys who thought vaguely sourced tales of Mitt Romney’s five-decades-old amateur hairstyling were worth a mention have decided that Obama’s statement in support of what amounts to Marxism isn’t relevant because he said it way back in the 1990s.
Herr Marx said essentially the same things way back in the 1890s. His ideas led to the deaths of uncountable millions, oppression on a global scale, two world wars and nearly a century of proxy conflicts. Should Obama succeed in his clearly stated plan to impose the same “redistribution” on the rest of us, no one outside his select group of hypocrites will get any cookies at all.