Seven New Lies From The Obama Administration

July 15, 2011


Yeah, me neither.

In fact, I believe each household’s personal obligation towards the national debt is somewhat more than $500,000. But don’t worry, folks. It’s not going to stay that high… it’s getting higher by the second.  And according to Lord Obama, we’re in recovery.

It astounds me, then, that so many of the people voted for Obama are still willing to defend their support even after witnessing his abysmal failure (or “success” if his goal is to bankrupt the country before leaving office).

And they attempt to validate his performance, not by being able to point to any actual positive accomplishment, but rather reminding us how bad George W. Bush was. Or how bad off we would be if Sarah Palin were to become President.  It’s like having a drunken pilot taxi one $100 million jumbo jet into another, only to have the passengers defend the drunken pilot by saying, “Think how much worse it would have been the pilot had been Foster Brooks!”

But now, in the midst of his manufactured financial crisis, once again, Barack Hussein Obama resorts to lies, deception, and sleight of hand to misdirect the attention of as many of his blind faith followers as possible… apparently still unaware that the vast majority of Americans have caught on to his tactics.

So it’s “Damn the torpedoes, Constitution and Democracy, full speed ahead!” by introducing seven new (or tried and true) lies in his arrogant hope to pin the blame for his broken campaign promise about “halving the debt” on the Republicans if possible, or all of Congress if it comes to that. The one person blameless for our situation? Why that would be Barack Obama, of course (just ask him).

Here are the new lies and deceptions, according to John Lott of Fox News (and why YOU should be aware of them):

Read the rest of this entry »


Financial Reform: The Good, The Bad and The Butt-Ugly.

July 16, 2010

You probably heard that the Financial Reform Bill just passed the Senate and is on it’s way to being signed into law by Emp-error Obama, probably some time next week.

“Yes,” you ask, gritting your teeth. “But how, exactly, does it affect me?”

Well, just the fact that it was written by Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, and Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank should have you running, screaming towards the Canadian border.  I find the irony rather horrific: one of the chief proponents of Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac (the two programs that are chiefly responsible for the economic mess we’re in regards to banking) is one of the architects of the legislation to get us OUT of the trouble he caused. Think about that: If you had to trade your car in because the mechanic at your dealer ruined your engine, would you turn to that same mechanic to write the service manual for your new car?

As to the impact, in some minor areas, we gain, but as is always the case when government gets involved, it’s gonna cost you at the other end… Translation: Break out the KY Jelly, folks. Try to minimize the pain.

The legislation took well over a year to develop, and it wound up taking slightly over 2,300 pages to contain it. But NOT TO WORRY!  I’m sure His Sly-ness, the Omnipotent Lord Obama will give us 72 hours to look at it on-line before signing it into law, just like he did with the stimul… uh, woops. Never mind… “Nothing to see here, folks. Just keep moving, please.”

Better yet: If you are into Masochism, download it yourself here and enjoy your week-end: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (as a public service announcement, I recommend using a condom while reading it).

If I may, here’s a highly condensed version of some of what you’ll find buried in this legislation:

1.) The legislation creates an agency that can seize and liquidate any bank (including those considered “too big to fail”).

The Good News: We shouldn’t get stuck paying to bail out banks for their failures as George Bush had us do.
The Bad News: It does NOT, however, control just how big a bank can grow. Recipe for disaster? Guess we’ll have to wait to find out. You know, like Nancy Pelosi’s take on health care: “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it!”
The REALLY Bad News: Hello? The government now has permission to seize any bank (and its assets) at any time, based on the whim of… the government. Translation: More power taken away from the people and given to the government (who wrote this legislation again? Hugo Chavez?)

2.) A new federal agency (under the banner of the Federal Reserve) that will impose more regulatory control over credit card companies, payday advance companies and mortgage companies.

The Good News: Perhaps more restrictions on the types and amounts of fees they can gouge customers with. Pre-payment penalties will likely be eliminated or greatly reduced on certain types of loans and mortgages.

The Bad News: Those fees are where these institutions make much of their profit. While the government presents these regulations as “consumer protection, ” that translates into “less profit” for these entities which, ultimately, means more restrictions on their service to you. Look for new fees on other services to make up the difference, harder to obtain credit cards, harder to qualify for mortgages and more restrictions on availability of payday advances…  Yeah, that ought to help the economy recover. If you’re in the construction industry, plan on selling a lot fewer houses. A LOT fewer.

The REALLY Bad News: With new regulations on mortgage companies, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize mortgage money will be much harder to qualify for. With a plethora of unsold homes in foreclosure already flooding the market, that could keep the housing market depressed for years.  Couple this with an economy that’s already on life-support and a job market that is – well, for lack of a better term – flat-lining, in most parts of the country, and we could actually see a society where we could have millions of homeless people living on the streets and hundreds of thousands of empty homes sitting in foreclosure. If and when that happens, how long before the government will write (and pass) legislation allowing the government to seize homes that are sitting empty and redistribute the right to live there.

Who would have thought the pompous idiots  who helped the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle trash our economy could come up with something even more foreboding for the future? Way to go Barney and Chris! Would you like to inject us directly with poison next?

3.) The new legislation requires more transparency in the derivatives market.

The Good News: None we can actually measure. Not until the “bad” news is resolved (which the government has absolutely no incentive to do)..

The Bad News: Fill in your own sarcastic comment here about “transparency,” especially if it’s going to work the same way it has with the Obama administration.  And it probably will, because they have apparently left it up to Bill Clinton to ask for the definition of “transparency.”


4.) New limits on how much Banks  can charge retail businesses when customers use debit cards for purchases and how much they can charge for overdrafts.

The Good News: If you’re a business owner, this means less cost to you when a customer swipes a debit card to make a purchase. So this means the businesses will pass those savings on to us, right?  Nope. Not necessarily.  Nothing requires businesses to do so.

For those of us who live paycheck to paycheck and occasionally overdraft our account, banks will be forced to reduce the penalty for doing so, meaning they would be limited to how much they can gouge you when they (as comedian Gallagher would say), “charge you more of what they already know you don’t have any of.”

The Bad News: Under the old laws, businesses were required to allow you to use your debit card for ALL purchases, no matter how small. Under the Financial Reform legislation, that restriction is lifted. Look for retailers to jump on the bandwagon of having minimum amounts for purchases using debit cards. You may have to forget about buying that McDouble using the debit card. The consumer’s new credo: “Cash: Don’t leave home without it.” Look for armed robberies to increase as a result.

Even MORE Bad News: With banks making less money per transaction with retailers, reduced fees for overdrafts and other fees, look for them to make it up elsewhere. This could mean buh-bye to that free-checking or, perhaps, more or higher fees for using that debit card to obtain cash at the ATM. Where banks are concerned, you may want to keep that KY Jelly handy. If they can’t screw you one way, they’ll screw you another. And, from what I’ve seen, this 2,319 page legislation isn’t going to do a thing to end that.

Here’s a couple of videos that show various aspects of the legislation:
A) The Good

B) The Bad

C) The Ugly: A Paul Shanklin tribute to the man who helped create the banking debacle, and then in true “End of days” fashion, has co-authored the legislation that’s supposed to resolve the very problem he helped create.

Enjoy your week-end, folks. Good news: Stoutcat returns from vacation next week.

H/T Michelle Malkin

Gerry Ashley


Remember In November: Take 1

July 10, 2010

In my previous post, I featured a billboard that someone with a keen sense of satire in Marshall, Texas put up, skewering “Ayatollah Barack Obama.”

After posting, I thought to myself, “What a great way to get the truth out before the mid-term elections. The President hasn’t yet signed an executive order to ban political billboards. And it doesn’t even have to be sponsored by an opposing candidate. It could just as easily be done by the general public, sick and tired of the current Congress rubber-stamping  the Obama administration’s efforts to “Fundamentally Change America” as we have known (and loved) it. 

The November mid-term elections are just over 3 months away. Now is the time for all good political pundits to come to the aid of their country.

Toward that end, I’m going to do my part and come up with some billboard designs. If anyone would like to “steal” my idea and implement it, please do so with my blessings. Seriously. There is no copyright on my ideas. If you can improve upon it,  so much the better. You get the idea. And if this inspires someone to come up with even better one as well, these will have served my purpose.

Feel free to forward these to your friends to get the message(s) out. We need to build the “resistance” as large as possible and that can only be done by getting the word out: It’s NOW (November) or, quite possibly, NEVER.

That said, here’s my first installment of my “Remember In November” billboard campaign suggestions.  Click on the image to see it full-size.

Gerry Ashley


Dueling Billboards – Two Can Play At This Game

July 8, 2010

Stoutcat’s post yesterday included a photo of a Billboard taken by one of our readers that featured former President Bush waving (with his all too common “Deer-In-The-Headlights” expression) with the caption, “Miss Me Yet?”

As humorous as it was, it struck me that with the upcoming mid-term elections, the Democrats are about to unleash a barrage of Billboard Ads in an attempt to salvage their careers while helping Barack Oh-Bummer destroy what’s left of our economy. And if you think they don’t have enough money to mount their campaigns, no doubt Uncle Barack will find extra money lying around (remember only about 1/3 of the stimulus package has actually been spent).

With that in mind, it looks like some enterprising (and wealthy) person has decided to get a jump on the election season with this billboard seen in Marshall Texas:

Something tells me this is going to be an ugly campaign season.  But that doesn’t mean it won’t be interesting.  Stay tuned.

Gerry Ashley


Time To Add “Recall” Provision To Constitution!

May 17, 2010

“Where’s Your Shame? You’ve left us up to our necks in it…”
                                                “Changes” as sung by David Bowie

It’s a process normally found in Parliamentary governments such as England, Canada or Australia. But given the actions of the Obama administration over the past year and a half (as well as some of the decisions made in previous administrations), one could make a good argument that it’s time we modify our Constitution to add a Recall provision or “Vote of No Confidence.”

Sure, our democracy has the rules of impeachment. But, as we’ve seen, a sitting President can take sexual liberties with a female intern young enough to be his daughter and still walk away holding onto his Presidency simply by smiling and winking at the cameras as he says, “Ah did not have sexual relations with that woman…”

Another sitting President surrounds himself with radicals – including some who are self-avowed communists – for the sole purpose of “fundamentally changing America.”

In the past, when we have elected politicians only to discover some of their biggest campaign promises were lies (surprise, surprise!), it meant an elongated period of war (Nixon’s 1968 campaign promise that he had a plan to end the war within 6 months), new and higher taxes (Bush 41’s “Read My Lips” pledge), or any number of promises of job creations and/or economic upturns.

But when Barack Obama began his Presidential campaign (which is now seemingly in it’s 4th year – and continuing), he promised “Hope and Change”… just the words an America weary with war in the middle-east wanted to hear. 

Obama’s finely tuned campaign sailed through the campaign waters creating a wake the Republicans couldn’t respond to and robbing their sails of enough wind to prevent them from mounting much of a response.

As a result, a majority of Americans, who had sub-contracted thought, reason and any vetting of political candidates to the mainstream media saw and heard only the Obama spin from the likes of commentators who stumbled all over their own metaphors in an attempt to anoint “The One.” In short, it was nothing less than the biggest packaging and selling of media hype since four young men named John, Paul, George and Ringo landed on our shores in 1964. As Limbaugh would say, “For those of you in Rio Linda, that would be The Beatles…”

So like Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43, what’s the worst that could happen under Obama? Wait 4 years and if he turns out to be a loser, we can vote him out, right? Uh…

 Let’s review just some of the damage Obama has managed to accomplish over the past 18 months:

  • The biggest pork-filled bill voted on by a Democratic Congress and quickly signed by the President without the promised “72 hours for the American People to review it.”  It has since been discovered that much of that funding was earmarked for special interest projects and very little of it has actually had any positive impact on the economy… but added nearly a trillion dollars to our debt.
  • Obama has increased our nation’s deficit many times more than the size of the one passed on to him by the previous administration… 
  • While spending non-existent government funds at the fastest rate of any President in history (with the least amount to show for it) Obama has done so while blaming the Bush administration for fiscal irresponsibility (and any other problem we’re facing).
  • Nationalized auto makers with principal ownership going to the government and the unions, totally screwing stockholders in the process.
  • Nationalized banks 
  • An unsustainable Healthcare Reform system that the CBO is only now coming forward with the real costs (over $1 Trillion) which will, if fully enacted, probably bankrupt the United States, throwing us into a Greece-like scenario of strikes and riots (if we can hold out that long from his other spending).
  • Thoroughly embarrassed us around the world, sucking up to people like Hugo Chavez (who openly mocks Obama) and alternating between kissing the ass of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and criticizing him.
  • Grabbing White House control of the US Census in a failed attempt to allow ACORN to handle the resulting redistricting of representation. Only ACORN’s self-destruction from corruption prevented the plan from moving forward (but who knows WHO is handling this now?)
  • A long list of Czars (over 30 of them) who have been empowered by Obama although only 6 of them went through any Congressional approval process. These include “Czars” who will be deciding what kind of pay we should receive for our jobs, how much energy we will be allowed to have (IF we can still afford to have it), WHAT we can eat, what kind of sexual educational materials our children will be exposed to in school… for a complete list of them and what they do, click here
  • Coming soon… A Value Added Tax (VAT) similar to what European countries use in lieu of an income tax. One difference here in America: It will be IN ADDITION to our Federal, State and local taxes. Still believe Obama won’t tax the middle class, folks? Oh, and then there’s a little thing coming up called
  • CAP AND TRADE. Definition: TAXES on energy use by ANYONE using energy. That would cover just about all of us, wouldn’t it?

And, I wouldn’t limit the recall vote to just the Presidency.  Here’s a few others I think deserve to be recalled:

  • Nancy Pelosi  (Speaker of the House) – “We’re going to pass healthcare whether they like it or not.” Oh, and “We’ve got to pass healthcare to see what’s in it.”
  • Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader) is there any explanation really needed here? Shouldn’t we be able to fix it so he doesn’t have to “smell the tourists” any more?
  • Barney Frank – “”These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis.”

The point is, why should we have to wait to see how much more damage these arrogant and incompetent individuals can do in their full terms?

It’s time that a RECALL provision and Vote of No Confidence be added to our Constitution. One problem: Guess who we would have to turn to in order to get it implemented?

Oh, goody.

Gerry Ashley


The Abject Failure Of The Obama Presidency – Part 8

April 28, 2010

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”   
– White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel  

Note to our readers: This the 8th installment of a series called “The Abject Failure Of The Obama Presidency.” Intended to illustrate just how Obama’s policies fail us, and the Constitution he swore to uphold, it is based on The 10 tenets for establishing and maintaining democracy, written by William J. H. Boetcker and originally published in 1942. To read previous installments, just type or copy “The Abject Failure” into the search box to the right of this article, then click “Search.”  

The more research I did to support this particular tenet, the more I realized that this tenet is, perhaps, the most complex to explain and properly cover:  

8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.  

Photoshop by Josh Johnson

 Let me be clear about this: The United States is teetering on the edge of financial oblivion and it would be both factually incorrect and misleading to suggest the blame for this lies at the feet of the Obama administration.    

Neither the mainstream media nor Congress, nor most of the Presidential administrations over the past 40-50 years have been totally honest with the American public about this. But the numbers don’t lie, even if the politicians do: The amount of money the United States is committed to in either social programs or entitlements over the next decade is well over $100 Trillion (yes, with a “T”). Our own Alan Speakman of Grand Rants has written about this on a number of occasions. For a harsh look at the truth, read these pieces by Alan:   

This debt is principally the result of entitlements funded by Congress while you and I were not paying attention.  “Who’s going to win the playoffs?” became more of a concern to us than “What is Congress doing with our tax dollars?”  “What’s the number one song on the hit parade this week?” surpassed “Can we, as a nation, afford to do this now?” in importance. So, in a way, if you want to know who is most directly responsible for the economic crisis, we can all start by looking into a mirror.  

Even in years when administrations claimed to have a balanced budget, the deficit was, in fact, building in the background. Both political parties share the blame for this.  

In order to fully understand the nature of the beast preparing to devour our entire economy, here is a “quick-start” video to help get you up to speed. I urge you to watch it in its entirety.  When the video has finished, then please click on the link to read the rest of this installment to see how the Obama administration is heading in exactly the wrong direction… and why they are doing so intentionally.  

Read the rest of this entry »


The Abject Failure of the Obama Presidency – Part 6

April 14, 2010

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; it’s inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”   Winston Churchill 

To understand the above quote from Sir Winston Churchill is to understand how Barack Obama rose to power without actually having accomplished anything of substance beyond the spoken word. It also explains why his Presidency is doomed to failure. Indeed, his very political philosophy (and, to a similar extent, the entire philosophy of far left-wing democrats) is the antithesis of tenet #6 in the series of tenets by William J. H. Boetcker, defining democracy and how to perpetuate it:    

#6. “You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.”  

No small man’s lot in life has ever been improved by tearing down someone of greater success without serious cost to both. All that has ever been accomplished by doing so is to serve the envy of the lesser man at the cost of punishing that man who has worked hard to accomplish his success. It also destroys the incentive of both men. 

Envy is a powerful political narcotic, one that has been used throughout history by political opportunists like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Mao Tse Tung, Karl Marx … and Barack Hussein Obama. Any society that has a lower class is ripe for socialist attempts to “level the playing field” through the application of Karl Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Program” where he espouses, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is the vision of Barack Obama, exposed when he told Joe the Plumber how “spreading the wealth around is a good thing.” 

Indeed, it often appears that Obama gets his marching orders from that “Critique.” He’s used the “Spread the wealth around” promise in his campaign as a lure to attract votes among the poorer communities. His message, however, only spotlights the part where the riches should be taken away from the “haves” and redistributed amongst the “have nots.” 

In the two years of campaigning for the Presidency, and now going on a year and a half as President, I have neither seen, read, nor heard of one speech or any action taken by Barack Obama stressing the responsibility of the have-nots who are capable of doing so to lift themselves by their bootstraps (as many of their neighbors have done). There has been no focus on becoming contributors to the common pool of wealth to be distributed, merely promises to take from the “haves” — obfuscation and pandering to the masses, especially those who have made entitlements their way of life.  

Bill Gates

What has always set America apart from other nations has been that form of government which gives opportunity to anyone willing to put in the effort. Not happy with what your lot in life? Your only limitation in America is your willingness to roll up your sleeves.

How else does a college drop out like Bill Gates go on to become one of the richest people in America, founding a company (Microsoft) that changed the way the entire world thinks about (and utilizes) computers?  How does someone from the poor neighborhoods of Philadelphia go from his humble beginnings to become one of the nation’s most beloved entertainers? Ask Bill Cosby and he’ll tell you: A good, solid work ethic and commitment to your dream.

 But that’s only part of what the two Bills have accomplished.  While they both enjoy lives of luxury and privilege, both are philanthropists who give back to the community that gave them opportunity to achieve. Not because it was legislated, not because they had to; but because that’s what Americans do. And there are countless thousands whose lives are better now, having benefitted from the generosity of those two who have shared their success so that others might achieve through their own efforts.

Unlike entitlement programs, the kinds of assistance provided by philanthropists like Gates and Cosby usually requires a measure of effort on the part of the beneficiary. The same cannot be said for the Obama message of simply spreading the wealth of others around. It’s as simple as the age-old metaphor from Lao Tzu, (the founder of taoism): “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day;  teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” Obama, doesn’t wish to teach anyone  how to fish. He merely wants to punish the successful fisherman by giving away his catch.

Entitlements may calm the hunger of the belly, but it’s that hunger for more in life that drives the incentive to succeed. Take away that hunger by entitlement without responsibility and you end up with an ever-growing segment of the population with an entitlement mind-set, demanding their share in return for simply existing. In the end, socialism yields to that demand, but it strips away incentive from both ends of the social spectrum.

Ultimately, under Obama’s vision, there would be no incentive to strive for excellence if you know the government will seize the fruits of your labor.  Eventually, there will be fewer and fewer to take from which means less to give to those demanding. Or, as former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, so eloquently,

“The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

  Gerry Ashley