Obama Calls Black People a “Mixed Up” Bunch of “Mongrels”

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/07/29/obama-calls-black-people-a-%e2%80%9cmixed-up-bunch-of-mongrels%e2%80%9d/

Republicans Won’t Let the Super Messiah Save America!

Obama was supposed to collectively save America; instead, he allowed Republicans to nail his plans to the cross, crucifying them and preventing him from performing his progressive miracles.

The Messiah can’t do his job, because pro-job-creation Senate Republicans lack hearts.  Americans should have socialist bills extending unemployment benefits for life, instead of jobs, nasty Republicans insist Americans really need.

According to Salon.com’s Alex Pareene, Senate Minority Republicans, or as Pareene refers to them, “A—holes,” have purposely hurt the nation and unemployed Americans by refusing to pass an extension on unemployment benefits:

Thanks to Ben Nelson…and a perverse system that gives the Senate minority both the incentive and the ability to hurt the nation prior to midterm elections, the Senate has been unable to pass an extension of unemployment benefits for two months…Obama…called on Congress to fix this [in a speech held in the Rose Garden on July 19, 2010].  All it took for Obama to act was for a successful vote to already be a foregone conclusion!

The Left never blames Obama’s hyper-inflated stimulus bills for job-loss. Leftist are angry he did not ram deficit-hiking bills through the Senate sooner.  He allowed a perverse Constitutional system of laws, that grants “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” to vote NO!

Dean Baker of the Huffington Post blames both parties, (mostly Republicans) for high unemployment:

The unemployed have the skills, the ability, and the desire to work: they had been working until the economy collapsed.  They are unemployed because the people who were running the economy— including…Republican senators with oversight responsibilities—were incompetent…telling…unemployed workers who were victims of their incompetence, that they can’t get $300 a week in benefits…This is Washington at its best.

Both sides over-spent, Bush over-spent, but Obama is a hyper-stimulus-spending president, who would rather place Americans on unemployment lines, collecting government benefits, than create jobs.

Joe Sudbay of Americablog insists Obama tries to put politics aside, but:

Unfortunately, the current crop of Republican Senators, led by Mitch McConnell, never put politics aside.  They’ll sacrifice American workers who have lost their jobs, and, then totally disrespect the unemployed by claiming they don’t want to work.  The President needs to keep hammering the GOPers for what they did to the economy and what they’re doing now to hurt those most affected by the economic crisis.

Obama’s deficit-hiking perversion created nearly 10% unemployment in less than two years.  The most progressive president in this country’s history created a $3 trillion deficit; unemployment among African Americans has risen significantly under Obama, and now, a Gulf oil rig has left for Egypt, sacrificing more American jobs.

Obama does a bang-up job creating trade for foreign nations.

According to Pareene, Obama hasn’t pushed progressivism hard enough. Oh no, he just should have thrust unemployment benefits through the Senate sooner, ignored Republican nays, and signed every bill he promised his left-wing flock!

But did the White House do anything to help Reid get anything passed before Byrd replacement Carte Goodwin showed up?  Obama probably couldn’t have shamed Ben Nelson into supporting an extension of benefits.  But he could’ve tried!  Obama couldn’t have forced any Republicans not from Maine to vote for an extension of benefits.  But he could’ve used his bully pulpit to make it known, repeatedly and forcefully, that Republicans were blocking it!  Instead the president waited until the Democrats had a 60th vote, which took, again, two months, before he said anything, so that the White House will look very powerful and forceful once the Senate votes tomorrow, which they would’ve done anyway.

The left feels Obama’s failure to push progressive policies is the fault of Republicans controlling his actions, preventing him from moving quicker. The president could have demanded votes sooner, but without Senator Byrd, the Left’s Super Messiah is powerless to stand up against those bullying Republicans who him nailed to his cross.

Now, Americans are jobless, poor, and on the verge of dying from lack of government healthcare, because Republicans won’t allow Obama to give into any Democrat demands?

The left praised their Messiah as the Savior, he was going to resurrect a hammer-and-sickle Utopian haze of hope in America, now the left is disappointed; socialism is not fully implemented, November is nearing, and America is still a free-market, capitalist hell-hole.

Allowing Republicans to continuously vote NO means Obama lacks guts, he can’t stand up to nervy “a—holes” who may win the Majority in November.  Pareene asks, “Does the White House actually want to maintain majorities in Congress?”

Republican-blocked bills are not what Democrats and the left should worry about.  Unemployed voters view Obama’s socialist bills, and Democrats, as the enemy they no longer wish to keep in power.

Obama nailed himself to the cross; his collective plans are crucifying him, not Republicans.  Ironically, it appears his progressive plans may have miraculously crucified the Super Messiah and the Democrats.

Let’s Bring Kindergarteners to Abortion Clinics for Sex-Ed Consequences Classes

 

 

Some left-wingers see nothing wrong with teaching kindergarteners about sex, so why not give them a real live performance on the consequences of sex: bring them to abortion clinics to watch woman having abortions because of unwanted pregnancies resulting from sex.

How many on the left would jump for joy over that idea? 

The mid-West state of Montana has no problem with peanut butter-and-jelly eaters learning how to get it on.  According to the Helena, Montana public school curriculum, kindergarteners, normally taught how to color, say their ABC’s, count to ten, will learn about penises, nipples, breasts, scrotum and uteruses, advancing onto learning what sexual intercourse is and how it is performed by the time the child reaches first grade. 

Click here to view the proposed curriculum.

Fear not, the above curriculum specifically states the children will not be instructed on how to actually perform sexual intercourse until they reach age 10.

“MSNBC’s  Molly Masland looked at both sides of the Helena Vagina Monologue, arguing that “…young people face a barrage of confusing messages.  

Along with titillating images from the media, some kids are told to ‘just say no’ to sex.  In school, others are taught how to put condoms on bananas in preparation for the real thing, and still other children receive no information whatsoever…Kids are becoming more sexually active at an earlier age.  Sixty-six percent of American high school students have had sex by their senior year.  And these same teens are paying the price by contracting dangerous—and sometimes deadly—sexually transmitted diseases.

 

Avoiding sex before one enters puberty may help one avoid disease and mental dysfunction.

Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, opposes the sex Ed classes, stating:  

Parents in Helena are right to be upset about these proposed sex courses in their schools.  Sex education is a value-laden subject, and information must be conveyed to each child at a level consistent with his or her mental maturity.  Supporters of such classroom programs typically talk about presenting material that is ‘age-appropriate.

 

The progressive left believes that children can truly express their creativity through sexual performance before they learn how to properly brush their teeth.  But hey, penis perochial schools are a sure way to get a scholarship into Harvard!

Lori Cole, executive director of the Eagle Forum, told MSNBC’s Masland:

We believe it’s [sex Ed to young kids] is an inconsistent message.  If you say, ‘don’t do it, it’s not healthy for you, but if you’re going to do it, do it this way,’ that sends mixed signals to kids, [teaching them about sex and sexually transmitted diseases so young] will only proved  “a means for them to live an unhealthy lifestyle.

 

Masland disagrees, stating that

 The opposing side pushes for an abstinence-only message that advises teens to wait until marriage…abstinence-only groups…argue there is a fundamental flaw in giving kids more information about risky behaviors that they should simply be taught to avoid.

 

Telling your children about sex before they are age appropriate is risky.  Young children understand too much as it is due to the fact television indoctrinates pre-K kids with everything age inappropriate.

Sedlak points out that children vary in mentality and understanding of all things, including and sex:

Because children mature at widely differing rates, one child may be ready for a great deal of information at 11 years of age or earlier, while another child, even in the same family, might not be ready for the same information until he or she is 14-years-old…the consequences of teaching sex education in elementary school are harmful and far-ranging.  By introducing the subject of sex during this period of a child’s maturity process, we interfere with his natural learning abilities and his development of social qualities such as compassion.  The children who are unfortunate enough to be thrust into this kind of curriculum will suffer in countless ways, both academically and socially.

Helena, Montana parents are outraged over the fact schools have introduced this insane curriculum.   Unfortunately, most American schools have already introduced classes discussing homosexuality to pre-teen children with the insistence that they need to understand homosexuals and same sex parent households.

Try introducing abstinence classes and ACLU would find a way to bring on a lawsuit, claiming intolerance, bigotry, aserting some wacky notion that not teaching children how to perform sex is harming their artistic abilities, while claiming they are being denied their civil rights to acquire STD and AIDs.

If left-wing radicals believe children, who can barely wipe their behinds without help from mommy are old enough to know how to achieve an erection, they would probably be open to their very young daughters watching a gratifying, liberating abortion of an unwanted hindrance being ripped from mother’s wombs.

Lisa Richards Copyright©™ July 14, 2010 All Rights Reserved

Eric Holder: Racial Profile Racist

 

Attorney General Eric Holder is playing the race card against whites.  Holder forbids the law to question undocumented Democrats (illegal aliens) in Arizona, becaue he considers that racial intimidation, yet, Holder is perfectly fine with voter intimidation by Black Panthers toward those nasty cracker people, who think they have some bizarre Constitutional right to vote while feeling secure in their persons.

Holder, who refused to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for the 2008 voter intimidation at Philadelphia polls, demanding the Department of Justice (DOJ) throw the case out of court, has filed a lawsuit against Governor Jan Brewer for upholding the Arizona Immigration Law, he considers unlawful and intimidating to those illegally entering U.S. borders.

Holder has no problem with terrorists threatening innocent white Americans; he does, however, have a problem with Americans who uphold laws he refuses to enforce.

Maybe Brewer should stand on the Arizona capitol steps and scream get out of Arizona wetbacks!  After all, Holder seems to consider racist actions appropriate, lawful behavior: he is ignoring the violent threats from Black Panther leader King Samir Shabazz, who is calling for the killing of white “crackers” and their children.

Those threats don’t concern Eric Holder, who is worried Arizona Governor Jan Brewer may racially profile 500,000 illegals, despite the law’s requirement that all citizens and non-citizens carry and present documentation to law enforcement when asked.  Federal law states illicit behavior gives police the right to question any person no matter their status.

If one is a Billy Club-carrying Black Panther who threatens to kill whites, no explanation is required.

Holder, who ignores Black Panther violence, intends to keep an eye on Brewer, making sure she does not violate federal civil rights:

I think the potential for racial profiling can certainly increase by a passage of such laws…we [the Obama Administration] feel it is being profiled, it is being singled out… [and this makes people] less like to serve appropriately…we’re going to look at the law…to see whether or not it has a negative impact…on the federal civil rights laws.

The potential for racial violence is being incited by the New Black Panthers, yet Holder refuses to observe the law, refusing to prosecute and stop the violation of federal civil rights toward whites.  The threat of violent crime by undocumented Democrats is menacing, but Holder ignores this as well.

If Tea Partiers stood in the streets shouting racial slurs, while blocking blacks and Hispanics entrance to voting polls, would Holder demand the DOJ ignore that intimidation; would he consider it terrorizing and prosecute and imprison?

Holder is using the DOJ to play the race card, showing he prefers one race over another by not prosecuting Black Panthers making violent threats to white Americans, ignoring illegals breaking federal law, all the while condemning Jan Brewer for upholding federal immigration laws, specifically stating all entering the U.S., no matter their skin color, nationality, or race, must have legal documentation.

Holder considers federal law racial profiling, because Arizona’s undocumented Democrats are not white, but Hispanic.  There’s a crack in Holder’s moral thinking.  If anyone is racially profiling, it is Eric Holder.

Paul Krugman’s Big Government Spending Pity-Party

 

Paul Krugman, the left’s lovable pro-inflation, big government-spending, conscientious liberal, is promoting Barry Obama’s inflationary spending yet again.

Krugman insists it’s not Obama’s fault America’s economy is down, business crumbled, and Americans lost homes and jobs, it’s those nasty right-wing economists and conservatives telling Americans that Obama is “anti-business.”

According to Krugman, “In a rational universe, American business would be very happy with Mr. Obama.”  In a rational universe, Obama would not be president, Democrats would be out of jobs, and leftists would be sucking on socks.

Krugman’s latest New York Times idiocy “Pity the Poor C.E.O.’s” insists all those “…widespread claims that fears about taxes, regulation and budget deficits are holding down business spending and blocking economic recovery,” is simply not real.  These are scare tactics used by the right to make America believe Obama hates business when the truth is, consumers are not spending enough: “Business spending is indeed low, but no lower than one would have expected given widespread overcapacity and weak consumer spending…”

Americans are scared.  They’ve lost jobs, because Washington threw businesses under the Stimulus Bill bus.  How can consumers expend when they’re broke?

Krugman insists that belief is false, claiming America is doing just fine:

So where’s the evidence that an anti-business climate is depressing spending…when you talk to business people they complain about taxes, regulations and the deficit; they always do.  But the Obama’s-socialist-policies-are-wrecking-the-economy chorus isn’t coming from businesses; it’s coming from business lobbyists…peddling scare stories about what Democrats are up to is a large part of what organizations like the [C]hamber [of Commerce] do for a living.

Salon.com’s Andrew Leonard agrees with Krugman: the economy is not as bad as conservative economists contend; asserting conservative economists love to blame Obama because he’s a Democrat.

Obama’s socialist policies are Democrat policies.  Those policies caused the economic downturn.

Not according to Krugman, who argues that it is not Congress, but business lobbyists “…trying to bully Washington into cutting taxes and dismantling regulations, while extracting bigger fees from their clients along the way,” who are to blame for the anti-Obama rhetoric.

The pro-Obama chorus is whining like dying fat ladies.

Krugman, the brilliant Nobel economist, who insists the best way to create economic growth is to spend America’s way out of debt, insists inflation creates economic growth and more government is the answer:

If we want stronger business spending, we need to give businesses a reason to spend.  And to do that, the government needs to start doing more, not less, to promote overall economic recovery.

I can’t think of a better way to drive American business through the roof than to shove it into the government grave of bankruptcy and depression.  Government spending is what drove the economy into a downturn.

The Nobel brain contradicted his spend-your-way-out debt claims by saying just that:

What [conservatives] don’t mention is the fact that business investment always falls sharply when the economy is depressed… [therefore] why should businesses expand their production capacity when they’re not selling enough to use the capacity they already have?  And in case you haven’t noticed, we still have a deeply depressed economy.

That is exactly what Conservatives have been saying for years and leftist like Krugman constantlyrefute as anti-Obama rhetoric.

I’m surprised Democrats haven’t choked on their absurd ambiguities.

Krugman went on to claim: “If anything, it’s surprising how well business investment has been holding up,” only to turn around and hurl the “scare tactics” he accuses conservatives of using: “And in case you haven’t noticed, we still have a deeply depressed economy.”

Apparently all one needs to win the Nobel Prize is universal irrationality.

Krugman says conservatives are anti-Obama for disagreeing with his socialist policies, insisting the failing economy is not Obama’s fault, but that of conservative bullies who use scare tactics to prevent government spending.

It is Obama who bullied America into an economic recession by pushing enormous stimulus bills and taking control of corporations.  Government spending and regulation is the problem, not trade and industry.

Conscientious liberal Democrats always demand more spending and less free markets.  Despite Krugman’s crazy idea that Obama’s spending is great for America, most Americans disagree and want Obama’s socialist policies thrown under the bus.

Americans do blame Obama and the Democrats for the economic collapse.  If calling Obama a socialist, because his anti-capitalist policies are bad for America, then Krugman is right; conservatives are anti-Obama, because conservatives prefer the free-market universe rather than the rationing universe of Democratic poverty.