RealDealPolitics.com

RDP looks at America’s tax problem, the TEA Party, who pays taxes, and reform steps toward solving it, including flat income tax, sales tax, repeal of 16th amendment.

Real Deal Politics first looks at why people voted for Obama, his qualifications as executive leader of the free world, and how he has delivered on his promises, the accomplisments of his administration, and how Obamanomics works.

today

In case you haven’t heard, and most haven’t because the media doesn’t bother to report news that they don’t want us to hear.  Obama has directed billions of taxpayer dollars to Brazil for an oil exploration that is also financed by George Soros, who stands to reap a huge profit in the deal.

Obama must feel sorry for George, his principal campaign financier, because poor George doesn’t have enough money.  This is another middle finger to the American people given by the Soros/Obama/Reid oligarchy.

If they’re for oil drilling, why won’t they let US companies drill for oil on our soil? Because that would be good for our country. It would create jobs and boost the economy, and give us oil independence from the terrorist-sponsoring foreign countries that we get oil from now.

You see, people like Obama and Soros are never happy.  They are miserable creatures that thrive on bringing as much misery as possible to the masses.

Soros is a sick freak that thinks billions of dollars will bring him happiness, if he can only make sure that few other people around him can even make ends meet. He is an evil, diabolical, disgusting excuse for a human being.  You can tell him I said that. The only reason I can bear seeing of saying his name is because I know he’ll spend eternity in hell, and he’s not exactly a young man, if you know what I mean.

How long will you let Soros destroy our country?  Will you stand up against him and his puppets in the White House, Congress, and the media?  Will you fight against the demise against the country that you know and used to love?  If so, stay tuned. The revolution is beginning.

Backup:

Wall Street Journal article on this travesty.

GOP Takes Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat

Republican Scott Brown has just defeated Massachusetts state Attorney General Martha Coakley in the race for the vacant US Senate seat left by Ted Kennedy. In an upset of monumental proportions, Brown is the first Republican to win a Senate seat in the heavily Democratic state in 30 years.

Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1 in the state — 37 percent of registered voters are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 51 percent are unaffiliated. Obama won the state by 26 percentage points in the 2008 presidential election, which gives you a clue how the “unaffiliated” usually vote.

Just one month ago, Brown trailed in the polls by 30 points, which he cut in half to 15 points two weeks ago, indicating that he had “a steep hill to climb.” Then, several days before the election, he suddenly had a slim lead in the polls.

Today, in what is being called “the Scott heard around the world,” Brown has won the Senate seat with 53% of the vote to his opponent’s 46%.

Five years ago the late Ted Kennedy successfully lobbied for a bill that enabled the state to call for a special election if a US Senate seat in Massachusetts was abandoned, in case fellow senator John Kerry won the presidential election.

At the time, Republican Mitt Romney was the governor of Mass., and would have certainly appointed a senator from the GOP, as was his right to do so as a special appointment. Needless to say, Kerry did not win and the law was unnecessary.

Ironically, the law came back to haunt Kennedy in his last days. Realizing his terminal cancer, he pled last year for the state to revert the law to call for a governor’s appointment, since the governor is now of the Democrat party.

Had old Ted left it alone to begin with, the special election would have never happened, and his seat would almost certainly have been given to a Democrat of his approval.

Democrats are now scrambling to point fingers and trivialize the election, but this is a state that has voted solid blue for decades in all national elections, for president and congress. All of the state’s other congressional representatives are Democrats, as they have been for decades.

First of all, Coakley ran a poor campaign. She had an air of arrogance, refusing to stand outside Fenway stadium and shake hands because it was “too cold,” misspelling her state’s name in a campaign ad, and assuming she would win just because she’s a Democrat in perhaps the most Democratic state. She also made fun of Scott Brown’s truck, and called Curt Schilling a Yankees fan.

Since their coup in 2008, the Democrats have lost major elections for governor positions in Virginia and New Jersey, both of which have gone blue in recent elections. Their only victory since then was a House position in New York’s heavily Democratic and liberal 23^rd district.

In that race, liberal Republican candidate Scozzafava, who agreed to support the Democratic agenda in Congress, failed to gain GOP support for obvious reasons. Doug Hoffman entered the race as a third party conservative, losing by only 2% of the vote to Democrat Bill Owens. Had the RINO candidate withdrawn as she should have, instead of taking 5% of the vote, Hoffman would have won.

But Democrat Nanny State Pelosi recognized that as a huge victory, while ignoring the reality that the Democrats were losing much larger elections in other states.

If a Republican can win a US Senate seat in Massachusetts, he can win anywhere. If the Democrats don’t change their tune soon, they will continue to lose major elections.

Democrats may lose as many seats as they lost in 1994, when the arrogance of the Clinton administration and his congress caused over 50 congressional seats to change parties.

If you will recall, Newt Gingrich took the nation back and put us on the right track. It was after that Republican revolution that congress introduced welfare reform, huge spending cuts, and balanced the federal budget.

Keep in mind that the Clinton administration and his congress were not nearly as arrogant, condescending, and defiant as the current administration, although Hillary did also want to pass universal health care.

The arrogance today is off the charts, along with the blatant lies. The “transparent government” hasn’t happened, spending hasn’t decreased, but rather increased by $1 trillion in Obama’s first year, and universal health care promises only a larger federal budget.

The promise of tax cuts for all wasn’t kept either, but a tax hike in the form of letting Bush tax cuts expire, is definitely on the board.

They promised more jobs, but despite major increases in spending and pork in the form of the Stimulus Bill, we only have increased unemployment.

The Democrats and media have ignored repeated calls directly by the people in the form of Tea Parties and other peaceful rallies, and polls showing that they are in disagreement with the people.

If 58% of the people are against the health care plan, and only 37% are in favor of it, then why do they continue to try to push it through? Arrogance.

Obama’s approval numbers continue to go down, now below 50%, and Congress can’t even muster half of that. Yet they continue, defiantly on their socialist course, spitting in the face of the American people.

Democrats have only themselves to blame. You reap what you sow. The Americans are now rebelling against the government. We don’t want more socialized health care, more taxes, and more spending.

The people are speaking. If the government still doesn’t hear us now, they surely will in November.

Updated: December 8, 2009

In light of new uninhibited and reckless federal spending by the Obama administration and his pet commies in Congress, I figured it was time to update this page.

The actual budget for this year is $3,997,800,000,000, but for the sake of this discussion we will round up to an even $4 trillion. I feel confident that those in the White House and Congress will find a way to spend another $2 billion even if it is not officially designated yet.

First, what does the government spend per average working days and hours of government employees, assuming they actually work their full hours, which they don’t. Here are the statistics:

Total this year	$4,000,000,000,000	4 TRILLION!!
Per month	$333,333,333,333	$300 Billion!
Per work day	$20,000,000,000		20 Billion!
Per work hour	$2,500,000,000		2.5 Billion!
Per work minute	$41,666,667		41 Million
Per work second	$694,444		2/3 of a Million!

It has been proven, by the way, that light can not travel faster than $100,000 per second…

Just to be fair, let’s see what it looks like for a 365/7/24

Per actual day		$10,958,904,110	$11 billion!
Per actual hour		$456,621,005	450 million
Per actual minute	$7,610,350	7 million
Per actual second	$126,839	more than avg salary

As an added bonus, what is the federal government spending per person?

Per person	$13,072	Population 306 million
Per taxpayer	$74,074	Approx 54 million liable

Now, before you get on my case about these figures, there were about 90 million individual tax filers last year, and it is estimated that 40% of them have zero tax liability. So per actual taxpayer, they are spending $74,000 per year.

This raises another question entirely. You then realize that those actually paying taxes are averaging $74k in their donations to the US government, while the rest pay nothing.

Perhaps if everyone paid taxes, i.e. fair tax or flat sales tax, this scenario would be a little more fair for everyone.

Another question might be: WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GETTING FOR THE $13,000 THEY’RE SPENDING ON EACH PERSON? Personally I’m not getting anything back…

Prior version: February 5, 2008

Now someone sent me the following today, and I checked out the math, it works. However, given that the federal government does not work 365/7/24 (trust me I’ve worked in govt for a while), let’s calculate how much only during working days/hours. The spending rate is astronomical. This doesn’t even count state/local govt…

Per Year $3,100,000,000,000
Per Working Day $15,500,000,000
Per Work Hour $1,937,500,000
Per Work Minute $32,291,667
Per Work Second $538,194

Half a million per second? I’m not sure but I don’t think light can move that fast. Hillary, Obama, and Mccain think our taxes aren’t high enough. OK well. Agree to disagree.

Original email:

Know what the federal Government spends:

per second? A: $ 98,300
per minute? A: $ 5,898,021
per hour? A: $ 353,881,279
per day? A: $ 8,493,150,685

per year . . . $ 3,100,000,000,000 (George Bush’s 3.1 Trillion!!)
(Anyone complete their Federal Form 1040 return yet?)

The stock market is up this year? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Early last year, I saw the writing on the wall. The economy was starting to dive, which is never good for the incumbent party in the White House. Many voters would soon turn to democrats to solve the economic problems, which is never a good plan. These were the same democrats that caused most of the economic problems, by the way.

I knew intuitively that Hillary or Obama would be the next president, and it didn’t much matter. With control of both the White House and Congress, it wouldn’t take them long to tax and spend as much as possible, both of which do nothing but harm to the economy.

In January 2008, I pulled 75% of my retirement account out of the mutual fund market and placed it into a fixed income fund. In March, the unwinnable candidate Mccain had locked up the GOP nomination. By June, I had it all in fixed income, while most others continued to hold out some irrational hope that the stock market would suddenly get better.

The result: I protected about 90% of my retirement account, while others were only able to maintain only 50-70% of their funds. I was right about it last year, and I’m right about it now.

It’s hard to believe that history is already repeating a year later. The stock market is now being driven by false hope and empty promises, and has actually rebounded to where it was at the beginning of the year. But this market can not possibly sustain growth for an entire year.

Look at the major economic indicators:

Unemployment rate: up to 9.6% from 6% a year ago. Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost every month

GDP: dove -4% last quarter and has been in negative territory all year, after years of positive growth

Wealth: Personal family wealth decreased by $16 trillion from June 2007 to March 2009

Housing: Foreclosure rates have doubled over the past year, despite the bailout plans

Credit cards: Defaults have also doubled over the past year

Alright, so more people are losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their businesses, defaulting on loans, and in general losing their money. How is the stock market increasing?

Look around your hometown. Have you ever seen more houses for sale as there are now? How many small businesses have closed their doors? I’ve been traveling, and I see them in every town, door after door of long time mom-and-pop shops, closed.

Perhaps the people that still have some money are putting it into stocks hoping some kind of get-rich-quick scheme will get them out of their current debt. The ultra-rich and criminal fund managers are happily taking people’s money and pocketing lots of it while allocating investments in stocks that will certainly take a nose-dive any day now. They’re not getting my money, that’s for sure.

Another idea is the counterintuitive: Warren Buffett and other uber-rich investors have made their money off buying when everyone else is selling. Perhaps this small percentage of investors that have a large percentage of the wealth are driving the bubble right now. Fine, let them win or lose their own money. They don’t need yours.

The United States economy is in dire straits right now. Keep in mind that the Obama administration has increased the deficit by over a trillion dollars during his first 6 months in office. They are also on record to “let the Bush tax cuts expire.” This means that in 2010, they will raise taxes on people that pay them. 2010 is not far off.

If all the major economic indicators are pointing in the same direction except for one, which do you believe? Clearly, the stock market is not following the rest of the economy right now. Therefore, it must be an aberration.

The important aspect to remember about the stock market is that it is heavily dependent on the economy as a whole. Growth of business, jobs, wages, and housing is what causes real growth of the stock market. If the other growth factors are not present, then the stock market can not sustain growth.

In fact, what we have now is the opposite: destruction of businesses, jobs, wages, and housing. Therefore the stock market can not possibly continue on an upward trend for very long. It may take the official announcement of increased income taxes next year for the bubble to pop, or it may be before then.

If you were one of those hopeful investors that kept your money in the market, figuring you couldn’t sell low, and you were getting a good bargain, get it out now while you have recovered what you had at the beginning of the year. It’s all downhill from here.

The economy will continue to tank until the communists running the government are out of office. It could be during next year’s election that we eradicate most of these big-government fascists in Congress, which will help. In mid 2011, real economic growth may be possible again, but more likely it won’t be until late 2012 when the chief executive communist is voted out of the White House.

Communists have one major purpose: to destroy the wealth of the working and business classes, and keep that wealth for themselves. They are doing a damn good job of it. But we will survive Obama’s communist agenda, if we manage our money wisely.

Bottom line: this stock market is doomed for the near term. But the good news is that you got some of your money back if you kept it in the markets last year. If you did, take your money and run, and hide it somewhere that the commies can’t get at it. Plan on reinvesting once capitalists run the country again.

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi: Weathering the Storm

Whilst the presidential election results are parsed and explained elsewhere in this site, we still need to interpret their meaning.  Allow me to shed some light on the issue.

The election of Obama may seem to indicate a mandate of change, but what change is that? As explained in other articles on this site, the Obama administration has a radical far-left socialist agenda that includes the following:

• Higher taxes for businesses, businesspeople, and most people that pay taxes
• Increased handouts to those who don’t pay the income tax and don’t work
• FOCA: Freedom of choice act to allow abortions without question in all situations
• An act to overturn DOMA: the defense of marriage act requiring 1 man, 1 woman
• Overturning the 2^nd amendment right to bear arms for individuals
• Appointing only radical unconstitutional judges with litmus test of pro-abortion
• Preventing new oil drilling and nuclear plants to ensure foreign energy dependence
• Leaving Iraq a quagmire by taking our troops out before it is resolved
• Expand government provided social welfare to new heights
• Create a massive income redistribution program run by the bureaucrats in DC
• Increase federal government spending for all social programs
• Decrease defense spending
• Appease enemies by having friendly talks and letting them do whatever
• Get rid of all our nuclear weapons

That’s a very frightening agenda by most standards. Next, we have to look at what the people actually voted for on specific issues:

• Lower taxes (many believe in the 95% tax cut impossibility)
• AGAINST homosexual marriage acts in all states, including CA who elected Obama
• To protect our borders against illegal foreign invaders

Other than the vote for Obama, it doesn’t look to me like people voted for a radical communist, leftist, or socialist agenda. It looks like people voted for lower taxes, less corporate welfare, and an end to the Iraq war, and they thought Obama could provide that.  

So the question remains, will President Obama attempt to implement his radical far left agenda, or will he govern from the center as the people have voted?  So far all signs are in favor of the radical agenda. Obama may have run as a populist, but he is so far to the left that he must be classified as a communist.

Senator Reid and Rep Nancy Pelosi are far left individuals too. Note how all the leaders of the Democrat Party are. This is why they failed to win the Presidency in 2000, despite a strong economy and incumbent VP, and in 2004 despite an unpopular incumbent President whose position on the global war on terror baffled most people who have forgotten 9/11 already and were brainwashed by the media.

They thought they had won out with Bill Clinton, telling him to run as a moderate and then unleash the far left socialist agenda.  However President Clinton, always putting his own popularity first, didn’t want to push any unpopular measures and continued to govern as a populist, enraging the leftists, including his wife, but keeping him in good standing with moderates, Democrats, and even many Republicans.

Alas, the Democrats have their radical president. They dressed him up, gave him some talking points and told him to run as a populist who will protect the little guy. He even stole the tax cut issue from the GOP!  The only thing stopping him from enacting the left’s communist agenda will be his own ego. There will be a backlash against raising taxes on anyone making under $250k, most of which are middle class.

If Obama is to enact the radical socialism, he will have to deal with a middle class revolt and increasing unpopularity, just like Jimmy Carter faced. If he continues with his appeasement policy towards our enemies and they begin attacking our people on our soil, people will become disgruntled and eager to show him the door, similar to President Carter. If our economy continues to tank like it did under Carter, the Misery Index will encourage people to fire him at the earliest possible time.

President Obama now faces the most serious decision of his life, and has two choices:

1. Stand up for the communist principles he has been taught and espoused his entire life, and enact a radical socialist agenda, raising taxes on businesses and working people, and increasing social welfare via wealth distribution; appeasing our enemies and show weakness in foreign policy.

2. Work towards his own popularity, govern from the center, and try to find common grounds between the left and right, and work to bring them together and try to make the ends meet. Continue the strong measures on foreign policy and the national security that we have had since the fateful terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Choice 1 would results in the most failed and unpopular presidency since Carter, which will result in a single term administration that will go down in history as a political and economic disaster of Carter proportions, that will take years to recover from. Remember, it took the economy four years just to recover from President Carter, and more to start improving again.

Choice 2 would result in a steady increase in Obama’s popularity, and ensure at least some success of his administration. It might even get him re-elected once he has the faith from people on both sides, that the radical agenda is not being pursued. This would also increase the respect that other counties have for our country and its President.

What will it be, President Obama? Fame or Infamy.

Many people are still dumbfounded and looking for answers on how their fellow voters could elect a half-term senator who’s never held a real job, and thinks that 95% of voters pay income taxes, as president. Let me shed some light on the situation.

The margin of Senator Obama’s victory in the Presidential Election (52.6% vs. McCain 46.1%) would seem to give him a mandate for his agenda of “change” in government, particularly when you add the fact that his Democrat party gained even more seats in Congress.

But what exactly is that agenda? Is it one of “tax cuts for all” or is it a massive redistribution of income via the highly inefficient bureaucracy of the federal government?

First, put aside the fact that there were more votes cast in some areas than there were registered voters, the thousands if not more of fraudulent voters registered by ACORN, and the fact that this will go down in history as the most fraudulent presidential election since 1960, if not in history.

Next, let’s take the most obvious and iterative point he made during his campaign: the 95% “everyone except the rich” tax cut.  Now, many of us, I would hope, probably know that this is impossible, since approximately 35% of adult citizens do not pay the income tax. But apparently, most do not know this.

A Rasmussen poll going into the election reported that 31% of voters thought Obama would cut their taxes, whereas only 11% expected a tax cut from McCain. So, Mr. Obama stole the tax-cut issue from the Republicans somehow.

But this goes against all knowledge. The Democrat Party has not supported tax cuts for a long time, and the facts are that the last Democrat president to cut taxes was JFK, and most Democrats in Congress, including Obama, have always voted against tax cuts, for anyone.

It probably didn’t help McCain that he voted against the Bush tax cuts, despite his excuse that he wanted spending cuts and no earmarks with it. But regardless, they pork-barreled the tax cuts through Congress, and everyone who paid taxes got a tax cut. Further, it was a regressive cut. Those that had paid more taxes got the same amount returned as everyone else.

What am I missing here? Nothing. I’m seeing the whole picture, whereas the approximate half (we’ll give him credit for that even though only 90% of the votes at maximum were legitimate) of people that voted for him, either don’t see that, or agree with his wealth redistribution policy.

Let’s break it down.  As aforementioned, about 35% of adults don’t pay the income tax. I think it’s safe to say they understand what a 95% tax cut is more than anyone: it’s a free handout for them!  I would imagine that it’s difficult for them to turn down a handout, regardless of their principles. So let’s say 30% of voters voted themselves a redistributive handout.

Next, we’re left with about 20% of voters who actually pay taxes, voting for Obama. Of these people, probably many of them believe they will actually get a tax cut, and others were just voting for “change” because they hate Bush, etc.

After all, the media has disseminated nothing but hatred for the Bush administration for the past 8 years, and many people want a candidate that the media approves of.  The understanding for some is that he will give them a tax cut, but even the poll above rates it as unlikely, with only 31% believing Obama will deliver on that promise.

McCain didn’t run on tax cuts for people, but rather making the Bush tax cuts permanent and lowering some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. To people that understand economics like me, this was the win-win plan that we were looking for. However, this message was not well received by some of the tax-cut voters.

What was not mentioned about the Obama plan was that he lets the “Bush tax cuts expire” in two years, meaning everyone’s taxes get hiked again. So he starts by raising taxes on the “rich” meaning people or businesses with income over $250k, which then reduced to $200k, then $150k, and then $100k, and only Obama himself knows how low that threshold will go. My guess is it will be everyone that pays income.

Then, in 2010, he lets the tax cuts expire, meaning he raises taxes again. This is the absolute worst approach you can take to an economy that is having major problems right now. There are two ways that the wage-payers, including “rich” people and businessmen, can deal with higher taxes:
            1. Pass on higher prices to the consumer, if they can, preserving their infrastructure
            2. Cut jobs and/or cut wages

In other words, they can stick it to the consumer, or stick it to the employees. In reality, yes they could cut their own wages, but do you really expect them to?

About 48% of voters obviously understood that the McCain plan was better for the economy, regardless of whether they would be the individual recipient of a tax cut. Almost half of voters understood that redistributing income and raising taxes on wage-payers can not help us out of a recession.

That’s a decent number, but in order to increase it to a proper level of over 60%, you need to get that message out better. Ronald Reagan, otherwise known as Ronaldus Magnus, understood the value of cutting taxes and was able to get his message across to the people effectively. McCain was not.

Let’s break down the total election numbers in terms of who voted for what.

Obama voters:

·        25%     voted themselves a redistributive handout from the government but said “change”

·        10%     because he is black and can dance

·        10%     voted for “change”

·        5%       voted for a tax cut for the little guy, which is them

·        2.6%    fraudulent votes by ACORN, double voters, etc

McCain voters:

·        20%     keep taxes low and decrease taxes for business

·        10%     someone that loves his country rather than one who doesn’t

·        10%     someone with the experience to run a country

·        1.1%    because he is old and white

Other:

·        1%       voted for impossible candidates so they can’t be held liable for results

In one way or another, most people voted with their pocketbook. They voted for some form of a tax cut or redistribution to themselves. So, American’s greed has come full circle, and we’re left with a communist for president. Good job, congrats all around.

The real policy of change espoused by Obama and his current allies Reid and Pelosi in congress is a massive redistribution policy of social welfare that will increase the amount of Americans that are either dependent on government or controlled by government.

One glaringly obvious indicator that most people seemed to miss was Obama’s promise to raise taxes on oil companies. So, gas prices will go up basically. Just when Americans were getting tired of high gas prices, Obama guarantees an increase. That’s great.

So what can we count on if he follows through? Higher prices for goods and services (yes this includes food, clothing, and gas).  Lost jobs and lower wages for people employed by businesses that will have their taxes raised for being evil.

I wonder what the elections would have been like if they had let me get up on stage during the debates and explain the ramifications of each candidates tax policies. But then again, if the candidate can’t get it across himself, then he’s not that great a candidate.

Let’s just hope we can weather this economic storm that Obama has promised to turn into a hurricane.

Now that the presidential election of 2008 is apparently over, I’m hearing calls from the media, and Obama supporters, all across the fruited plain, about how we all need to unite and support our new President-elect.

These are the same people who have constantly bashed and berated President Bush for eight years, preaching hate and divisiveness every day, until they successfully turned the majority of public opinion against Bush.

The liberals, democrats, socialists, and communists (but then I just repeated myself several times) have done nothing but hate and disparage the President and his supporters for eight years.

The liberals have totally invested themselves to failure in Iraq. They actually want American troops to get killed, and fail, with the remainder coming home with their tails between their legs, waving the white flag of surrender. They want this all so that it will make Bush look bad, and make the liberals look like they were right about something, which they never are.

This is the same anti-American movement that halted all progress when they took over Congress two years ago.  The Democrats in Congress did nothing but bash President Bush and complain about all things Republican, while letting the housing and mortgage crisis spiral out of control.

They did nothing but preach divisiveness and partisanship.  The approval ratings of Congress reached an all-time low of around 10% this year, precisely because of this behavior.  Then they gained more seats in Congress? That’s really just difficult to believe.

Their President, Obama, has done nothing but complain about Bush, Mccain, and “eight years of failed Republican policies.” He has not offered any solutions to anything, besides surrender in Iraq and a tax cut to people who don’t pay taxes.

Let’s look at Obama’s bipartisan record.  When did he ever even attempt to unify Republicans, Democrats, and anyone in between? He staunchly toed the party platform of abortion, higher taxes, and higher government spending at every turn. He never participated in any attempt for bipartisanship or unity, much less led such an effort.

Obama preached communism as a community organizer in Chicago for several years, teaching that white people are evil and it’s time for lower class black people to participate in a communist revolution that would get even with the evil white man. Then he became a senator and backed the same causes.

“White folks greed runs a world in need.”  Wow, that’s a real unifying statement there. Yet, many white people apparently voted for the man as well. Obama happily went to a church espousing Black Liberation Theology for 20 years, a religion which teaches hatred and revenge against the White Man. That is the sign of a great unifier.

In case you’re still confused about the issue, read the full report on Barack Obama’s radical communist upbringing and connections, or watch the TV show. You just may learn something.

In the meantime, spare me the bullshit of calling us to unity, when we, meaning White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, have been the subjects of hatred, blame, and revenge for Senator Obama his entire life.

Obama and his communist buddies can get my support and unity when they espouse unifying conservative ideals, those which made this country great and expand opportunity and freedom. But what are the chances that he will suddenly wake up to reality and ditch his communist ideals? None, which is the same support he’ll get from me.

In the immortal words of Senator Hillary Clinton, “We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!” As difficult as it is to listen to the Shrillary shriek that phrase, truer words have never been spoken. Just remember, that applies to the Obama administration as well.

People are now searching for answers on what in blazes just happened in the 2008 elections. Let me give you a brief timeline of the last eight years, so we can put this all in perspective.

2000/11/07: Bush elected president of US (heretofore POTUS, get with the terminology people) amid a slight economic recession. The very fact that he was elected turned the markets back around (basically the opposite of what’s happening now)

2001: Bush tax cuts succeed in getting the economy back on track. Democrat and media hatred for Bush increases.

2001/09/11:  We all know what happened, and it didn’t help the economy or anything else for that matter.

2001/10/07:  After what seemed like an eternity for those of us desiring revenge, aerial bombardment of Afghanistan by US military begins.

2002: Democrat and media hatred for Bush increases to new levels as his popularity soars in the wake of dealing with the terror crisis and economy. Some mention that he “got lucky” that it didn’t happen under Clinton. Sick but true.

2003/03/19:  US war against Iraq begins, with almost unanimous support of US Congress

2004:  Democrats in Congress flip flop all over the place in light of the fact that no nuclear weapons were found in Iraq, even though all intelligence agencies in the free world said there were.  The media is now complicit in labeling Bush as a liar.

2004: Democrats and media now claim there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, even though it is a well known fact that he used biological and chemical WMD against his own people, and the Kurds. The real question, “where did the WMD go?” was not asked by the media, nor was the answer desired.

2004/11/02: Senator John Kerry, running on an anti-war platform that he previously espoused during the Vietnam War, fails in his bid to unseat Bush despite the President’s declining popularity.

2005:  Disputes over the Iraq war and WMD continue as the war drags out and Potus popularity declines.

2006/11/05: Saddam Hussein hanged after being sentenced to death by a jury of his own people, most of which hated him for his crimes against them and humanity.

2006/11/07:  The GOP took a large loss in House and Senate on election day for basically doing nothing useful in Congress besides supporting the unpopular Iraq War.

2007: Barney Frank takes over the House Finance Committee, and resists efforts by Bush, Mccain, and others to have more oversight of the risky lending processes being espoused by Fannie and Freddie.

2007: Senator Obama’s popularity soars as he begins considering a campaign which would unseat the Democrat heir Hillary Clinton, whose popularity remains mixed.

2008: The housing and mortgage crisis caused by faulty lending practices, greed, and lack of appropriate oversight of Freddie and Fannie by Congress (Barney Frank), has now reached critical mass and is affecting the global economy.

2008: Democrats and the media blame everything on Bush and the GOP,  which has not had control of Congress for two years.

2008: Democrat voters cross over the aisle to vote for Mccain in GOP primaries, fearing any true conservative.

2008: Congress, run by Democrats, sinks to record low approval ratings around 10-12%.

2008/11/04:  Senator Obama is elected Potus and GOP loses more seats in Congress.

Here’s the short version. The economy was doing fine until the lending crisis caused by greed and lack of regulation by Democrats controlling Congress. (What’s the role of Congress again?)

The Democrats, with full complicity of the media, somehow blame the economic problems  problems on Republicans, who tried to persuade Congress into more oversight into the faulty lending problems. But the public, none the wiser, believe the lies of the leftist media.

Then we had the bailouts, which at that point had to happen to stave off a global economic collapse. Like it or not, we had to take our medicine.

It’s hard to tell whether the Democrats had planned to sabotage the economy in time for the election, or it just somehow happened at the right time for them. Perhaps it was a perfect economic storm that somehow gave them a crisis to blame on Republicans right before the election.  A crisis they could address by raising taxes and increasing social programs.

At any rate, the crisis happened. Without it, there would be nothing to blame on “8 years of failed Bush and Republican economic policies,” a phrase that was heard so often that it became as meaningless as it was in the first place.

The people voted for Democrats to run Congress in 2006, and they got exactly what Democrats will give them: nothing except failure to manage anything in government correctly, and more blaming of Bush for anything that goes wrong.

The unpopularity of the Iraq War certainly weighed into the decision of voters in both 2006 and 2008,  but with the “surge” and the MRAP vehicles and the recent elevated success of the US in Iraq and declining deaths of soldiers, the issue was losing steam.

The Democrats needed a  new issue that they could blame on the Republicans, and they got one just in time, in the form of an economic crisis, the year of the election. It’s almost unbelievable that it happened at the exact time they needed it, that’s why it reeks of deliberate sabotage. But that would be giving too much credit to the intelligence of Democrats.

The other part of the storm came in the form of Democrats fixing the GOP primaries by crossing over to vote for Mccain.  These voters knew they would get a socialist either way in their party, so they focused their attention on ousting any true conservative from the GOP primaries.

The majority of Republicans as the race narrowed down to three, supported Gov. Mitt Romney, the only true conservative candidate.  However, he fell under attack by Gov. Huckabee and the media for being a Mormon. Combine that with the crossover voters and he could not get over the hump to get the GOP nomination.

Can you imagine the media questioning a Muslim on their religion? Why, they would never dare, but a Mormon, well that’s fair game for them. After all, wasn’t it Mormon terrorists that attacked  us on 2001/9/11? Oh, no it wasn’t. But it will probably say so in history books being written by communists in the media.

Mitt Romney, the man who should have represented the GOP, and would have without Democrat intervention, would have laid waste to the idiot Obama in any debates. It wouldn’t have even been close. He has more intelligence, more knowledge, knows the issues better, and can make a point. Mccain, not so much.

Senator Obama is a man of very low intelligence, less than President Bush. Obama is borderline retarded, we’re talking single digit IQ.  The only thing he says is regurgitation of the communist brainwashing that he suffered for years at the hands of the public schools, Ivy league, the media, and the communists that he hung out with like Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis.

Barack Obama is the most ignorant, naive, unintelligent person to ever be a major party nominee, much less Potus.  He  knows little about the issues. All he knows is, raise taxes and redistribute income, and then everything will be fine in his communist utopia.

Reality will set in soon enough, and it will be a harsh transition, when he and the country realize that the policies of socialism, communism, and appeasement don’t work. If he bothered to look at the real history of the Western World, he would see that these have been tried and untrue.

But we will have to go through it the hard way again, and find out again that it doesn’t work. In the meantime, our economy will get worse, like it did under Carter, terrorists and rogue dictators will be more emboldened to attack us, and quality of life will go down.

Mentioning President Carter is quite appropriate here. He is the closest Potus to Obama in terms of policies.  Carter was the biggest failure of any US Potus ever.  During his administration, the Misery Index reached an all-time high.

This is what miserable people like Carter do; they spread the misery.  That’s what communism is all about. If one person is miserable because of low income or no job, then everyone should share that misery. Carter did such a great job at spreading misery that he had the lowest vote percentage of any incumbent Potus in history.

This can be summed up in a quote from the great Winston Churchill: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socalism is the equal sharing of misery.”

Obama says that capitialists have tried to make a virtue out of selfishness. That about sums up his stance. Anyone who wants to keep more of their income rather than letting goverment confiscate it and redistribute it in a highly inefficient bureaucratic manner, is selfish according to him and his communist buddies.

Barack Hussein Obama is a communist that is ignorant and naive beyond all stretches of the imagination. He has learned nothing from the failed communist policies of the past, both in this country and others.  If he had learned, then he is downright evil to try to implement such policies on this country. That is also a possibility, but then we’d have to give him credit for having intelligence, which is highly unlikely.

Whatever the case, the people have supposedly elected him as Potus.  This shows that either the majority of people are communists, or they are ignorant. We know the former can’t be true, therefore we have to assume the latter.

Ignorance in this country is at an all time high.  Maybe it’s time to start the Ignorance Index.  We will definitely have to start tracking the Misery Index as well, because the next 2-4 years, Misery is going to reach new levels, thanks to the Ignorance that got us here.