Friday, February 10, 2012

Look! Up In Disguise!

This week, Barack Obama, after tortured months of soul-searching and with great heaviness of heart, decided very, very, very, very reluctantly to allow liberal millionaires and billionaires to pay for campaign ads to destroy the character of anyone who opposes him in the November elections.

Basically, campaign laws forbid insanely huge contributions from an individual to a candidate's campaign because of the possibility it could be seen as an attempt to buy influence or change the course of elections...subverting the will of the noble, threadbare, peasant-class voters on election day.

But a Super PAC (political action committee) sidesteps this by raising money to spend which just happens to benefit their chosen candidate, without the candidate's control or input (wink-wink, nudge-nudge). And such groups of evil, scheming, capitalist, influence-buying bastards are considered a "threat to our democracy" by such Constitutional experts Barack Obama. At least before he decided to embrace Super PAC contributors with open arms.

In fact, in attacking Super PACs in 2007, he said "You can’t say yesterday you don’t believe in them and today, you are having three-quarters of a million dollars being spent for you. You can’t just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time. Everybody talks about change during election time. You have got to look at how they will act when it’s not convenient, when it’s hard. And the one thing I’m proud of is my track record is strong on this and I’ve walked the walk."

Only it turns out that he hasn't "walked the walk." He "talked the talk" and then grabbed the cash and ran like a crack-addicted bank robber.

Presidential spokesliar and campaign strategist David Axelrod was quick to defend the president's decision to throw out his alleged principles, pointing out that evil Republicans had already enlisted their own evil Rich Guys for Super PACs, and so it was necessary for Barack Obama to reluctantly say "screw the $3 donations from the rabble and the dinner raffles" because he's only managed to cobble together $139,000,000 in campaign funds so far.

And he's going to need a lot more than that to make people forget about his record by November.

Soros's Man! Able to leap tall campaign finance rules in a single bound!

SPECIAL NOTE TO READERS: Just for the fun and mischief of it, I'm planning a little something special for the president on Valentine's Day and I'm going to need your help. I'll give you all the details right here on Monday! -Stilt


Angry Hoosier Dad said...

It's hard to concentrate with the noisy chorus of slurping sounds coming from his fellating media. They spent eight years passing judgment on every act or utterance of GW and the best they can manage with Turdboy is to be scorekeeper, cheerleader and, well...fluffer.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

Unsurprised. This man's hypocrisy has demonstrated no bounds over the last three years, so why should this even raise an eyebrow?

Colby said...

Today's title is Super Punny! Disguise indeed!

When will the 99 percenters realize that their super hero is one of the 1 percent?

Hey! And how about our hero deciding to exempt 10 states from the no child left behind law? Why do we even HAVE a congress and Supreme Court?! Nicolae Carpathia is running the show now.

Slurping sounds? Fellating?
Gross but so true!

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

@ Colby:
As intentionally disgusting as my reference was, it's still nothing compared to the actions of Obama's stenographers and lackeys in the "fourth estate". Their complicity in the destruction of this nation will never be judged or punished but it should be.

Coon Tasty said...

@SJ - "Presidential spokesliar and campaign strategist David Axelrod..."


@Colby - Well, it's better than Bawney Fwank's "No Child's Behind Left" policy.

Chuck said...

Not at all surprising. He never really had any principles, anyway. He has always “believed” what is convenient at the time, like marriage being between one man and one woman; like you can keep you current health plan if you like it; like amassing trillions of dollars in debt is unpatriotic. Sorry, but there isn’t a truthful bone in his body. His machine will destroy whoever runs against him … watch and see. The problem is it doesn’t have to be true; it just has to be believed by enough sheeple.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Angry Hoosier Dad- You certainly paint a vivid picture. And one which is entirely accurate in my mind.

@Emmentaler- The Bamster's hypocrisy won't raise an eyebrow. As we've seen on a host of other issues, including wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay, and recess appointments, Obama's supporters always excuse (or even applaud) behaviors which they'd previously found apocalyptically unacceptable.

@Colby- "When will the 99 percenters realize that their super hero is one of the 1 percent?" The answer is probably "never," but they sure should. This past week, Obama met with Wall Street types to explain to them that while he intends to attack Mitt Romney as an evil guy because of his association with investments and venture capitalism, he doesn't mean it and the mud he throws their way will just be incidental. In fact, he told these big money Wall Street tycoons that he was their protector. Presumably from the 99 percenters.

Regarding "No Child Left Behind," it's a helluva thing that the media is cheering Obama for "freeing" schools from the onerous dictates of actually meeting education goals and standards (which they were, and are, failing to do). "No Child Left Behind" was not good law, but the fix that Obama has just instrumented requires greater standardization of school systems under federal rules - thereby negating input from local school boards and state educational systems. But where is the outrage?

@Angry Hoosier Dad- Complete agreement.

@Coon Tasty- Surprisingly enough, that's really Axelrod's official title. I think I've got it on his business card here somewhere...

@Chuck- A lot of painful truth in what you're saying. Today's cartoon and commentary aren't actually about Super PACs - they're about hypocrisy. About the fact that it is easy to talk about Change in an election year, but hard to really "walk the walk." But Obama hasn't even tried. Bipartisanship? Transparency? Hope? Post-Racial? Fiscal Responsibility? Give me a freaking break. The man lies as easily (and frequently) as he breathes.

And sadly, you're right that lies work for him, thanks to the support of the media and the increasing stupidity and passivity of the general populace. I doubt that there is any level his campaign won't stoop to in order to destroy (not just beat) his eventual GOP opponent. In fact, that's one of the really important and scary meanings of his Super PAC decision: he's giving the go ahead for ads that will be so vile and offensive that there would be blowback on him...if he didn't have the convenient plausible deniability that "I have nothing to do with what the Super PACs say."

John the Econ said...

The irony of the Progressive elites has always been that they are the living reality of what they portray "evil" conservatives of being.

For example, why is it the establishment liberals always propose raising "income" taxes instead of implementing a "wealth" tax? Simple. They already made their money. They don't pay income taxes because they don't really create income. However, a "wealth" tax would be at least as devastating to them as it would be to the rest of America.

As for Obama's campaign cash flip-flop, is anyone really surprised? Sure, it will come up in the campaign, but the media will cover for him. And instead they'll focus on squishy-elect Romney, who's flip-flops they will be relishing in. Obama will slide by without serious examination or judgment just like last time.

Doc - Northern Nevada said...

Does anyone remember when the Obummer ran around the country saying he was ONLY going to use the allotted money from Congress for his 2008 campaign ... then right before the election, he "change"d his mind and grabbed the big bucks with little or no rules attached? He will do whatever he can to convince everyone he 'feels for them'(first saying he isn't doing whatever he is against) until the last minute, then switch to get all the bucks. He rode the 'scurilous super pacs are BAD for America' schtick right up until he saw the kind of cash he was going to have to fight, and of course he hasn't yet officially declared the 1 Billion he (and the MSM) told everyone he got "from the citizens" who mandated his re-election! Funny how we have heard on the MSM for more than a few months now how the Obummer has a 1 BILLION DOLLAR campaign war chest - now we see it is in reality less than 200 million ... he could not scare the opponents away with his billion dollar lie, so now he actually has to raise it, and the "public in servitude" (read brain dead Dems and Libtards) who worship him just aren't digging down deep enough! Poor Obummer, my advice? Take your B-ball and go home - preferably back to Kenya, not the home you have been lying about!

Pete(Detroit) said...

How big of a D-Bag do you have to be if it takes $1B to convince people that you're NOT a D-Bag (or, at least, that the OTHER guy is worse)?
R's need to start focusing on positive messages and promoting plans of action pretty quickly as opposed just flinging mud at each other like poo-addled monkeys..

Focus - "It's the SPENDING, Stupid!"

Mike Porter said...

Stilton: "The man lies as easily (and frequently) as he breathes."

So the only way to stop the lies is to... just a moment, the Secret Service is at the door.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- Nope, none of this is surprising. And Yep, he'll get away with it.

@Doc Northern Nevada- After Obama and McCain basically shook hands on using only election funds provided by Congress, the Bamster rammed up an unprecedented drive for private money, said "never mind" about the previous agreement, and left John McCain (of McCain-Feingold infamy) twisting in the wind and severely underfunded.

You can take it as gospel that any dirty trick or lie which has worked for Barack Obama in the past will be used again in the future.

@Pete(Detroit)- If Obama personally gave me the entire billion, I'd still think he was a d-bag. Though it would make him my favorite d-bag.

And boy do I hear you about wishing the GOP candidates would turn their fire on the president instead of each other. The candidate I want is the one who can best take the fight to Barack Hussein Obama.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Mike Porter- Assuming you're not now wrapped in white linen aboard an aircraft carrier, I'll suggest that our immediate goal is not to stop his lies, but stop his ability to damage us with them.

John the Econ said...

Somewhat off-topic, but "Arrrrrgh!"

Just listened to the Marxist-in-Chief give a speech re the Catholic/Birth Control issue.

Completely lost in the debate over "religious freedom" (which is a legitimate topic, BTW) is the idea that "birth control" provided by someone else, is somehow "free". It's not. It's just cost-shifting. At the end of the day, it all ultimately costs the employee. The only difference now is that someone who might be spending $X on birth control will now be paying $X plus administrative costs to be buried in what they are paying for their "insurance". (What most people call "health insurance" isn't insurance at all, but in-fact a "payment plan") Worse than that, those of us who are beyond the need for it and who have paid for their own for their entire adult life will get to see their rates go up another 20% this year to for everyone else's. Joy.

So if I understand him correctly, he's now saying that the Catholic hospitals will no longer be required to provide "free" birth control to their employees. But their insurance companies will be required to pay for it, which, of course, is paid for by the hospital. So basically, the mandate stays; we just bury the financial responsibility. Basically, nothing's really changed.

Again, it's not "free"! The more liberals through around "free", the more slave-like we become!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- Hey, "ARGH!" is always on topic around here.

I don't know what frustrates me more: Obama's clearly non-Constitutional demand that private entities (insurance companies) need to give anything "free" to anyone (by raising fees on everyone), or the mainstream media reporting that this represents some kind of compromise or cave in by Obama.

As ALWAYS, the goal of the Whitehouse is to make private insurance unsustainable - for individuals and corporations - in order to create a state in which only the government can control your health...and life.

Colby said...

Coon Tasty,
The Bawney Fwank thing was too funny! Too bad Congressman Fudge Packer is retiring; he is always good for a laugh.

When, oh when is SOMBODY in Congress going to call Obama out on all of this mandate bullshit? There has to be somebody in Washington with gonads. I mean c'mon guys! The next executive order might be the one where he declares himself Grand Poobah of the Universe, and makes us buy him a hollowed out volcano and sharks with "lasers" on their heads. How ourageous will this have to get before the other two branches of government step it up?

Bacon said...

The news that hundreds of Catholic hospitals are threatening to close their doors rather than comply with the abortion mandates is nothing but music to the ears of Obama and his minions. That's their goal anyway, get the private hospitals and healthcare out of the way so government can fill the void. Just stating the obvious.

pryorguy said...

Ya know, I have tried, and tried to tell everyone who cares to chat about it, just what obama is all about, how he is taking us down a path to ruin as a nation, all the dangerous policies he has come up with from 'stimulus' packages, to paybacks for favors in the billions of dollars,OUR DOLLARS I say, his unbelievable concious flip-flopping from campaigns past, you know what I mean...and, after all that, all I get is a glazed-over look from the eyes of those I have tried to inform.

They do not care I tell you. Usually their cell phone interrupts our conversation and that is the end of that. Women will still vote for him, many blacks will, all Hollywood will, all union folks will, young people will, the rest will because they are just too busy with life to bother with the truth.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Colby- I was pleased to hear Rush Limbaugh blowing a gasket about this anti-Constitutional mandate crap... but as you say, we need people with gonads in Washington who'll actually do something about it. To be coarse, if the GOP isn't stopping Obama from pissing on the Constitution, then they're basically holding his weiner while trying to look the other way.

@Bacon- Obamacare has two purposes only. The first is to eliminate private medicine/care in any form so that only the government controls it. The second is the redistribution of wealth, through determing who pays for that healthcare. It's the ultimate power grab.

@Pryorguy- You're attempting to sway liberals using logic. Noble, but almost certainly useless. And I think you've nailed it that many people are "too busy with life to bother with the truth." Which is why the truth will smack them so hard when it becomes impossible to ignore. Any moment now.

Coon Tasty said...

@Colby - Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week...

(I try to amuse but the competition here is fierce.)

drjim said...

Let us know what you need for help, Stilt!

Philip said...

Breitbart tells CPAC: I have videos of Obama in college and they’ll come out during the election

John the Econ said...

Now, Marxist-in-Chief is working to get the mis-named "Payroll Tax Cut" extended indefinitely. Says making people pay their full share of their Social Security contribution will threaten the economic recovery.

Um, and doubling taxes on "the rich" won't?

And accelerating the bankruptcy of Social Security won't either?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@drjim- Thanks! The mischief I have in mind for Valentine's Day is fun and easy. Details soon...

@Philip- Oh PLEASE let the video of Obama be terribly, terribly damning and able to stand up to scrutiny. Images of him burning an American flag would show that he was the same guy then as he is now.

@John the Econ- I'm trying to think of a definition of "redistribution of wealth" that does NOT involve taking more from the wealthy and giving it to the less wealthy - which is exactly what Obama is proposing.

And underfunding Social Security is a neat tie-in: the more money that's needed, the more "fairness" demands of the evil rich who have won life's lottery.

Or as a wise man once said: "Arrrrgh!"

John the Econ said...

Another complete fraud:

More of the same BS.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- Thanks for the link, I guess. I was afraid I might not have a reason to drink whiskey tonight, but the problem is now solved.