Albert Hunt at Bloomberg Smears Mitt Romney and Fabricates an American Barack Hussein Obama

……and fabricates a Barack Hussein Obama that doesn’t exist……one experienced in management, one with an IQ off the charts but won’t divulge the names of his Harvard, Columbie, and Occidental ‘learnings’ and the grades therefrom…..the Barack Hussein Obama

 ”One”….this mental ‘drunk’ Hunt writes….” is a 50-year-old African-American from a broken family, a community organizer who spent a dozen years in the state legislature and Senate, and a moderately liberal Democrat. The other is a 64-year-old Mormon, born to a family of financial and political means, a successful businessman with only four years of government experience, and a moderately conservative Republican,” or perhaps Hunt, like Obama lies so often he cannot tell the difference between truth and fiction. 

Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts.    Somehow, the Mormon Republican Conservative got elected in  screwball leftwing Massachusetts heavily weighted with Democrat Party and organized labor  one party system of graft,  Ted Kennedy,  Saudi supported Harvard ‘college’,  and everything else that accompanies plantation culture entitlements.   Loner, Barack Hussein was educated a Marxist, and hung around the halls of government in Illinois like a cockroach, comming out of the dark to announce “here’ once in a while.

What ‘cathedral of religion’ did Mitt Romney ever attend for one month, much less for twenty two years, which preached racism and “Goddamn America” theology where Barack Hussein not only sat with approval, but cavorted around  with the chief racist of the instituion and embraced him as a  ”member” of the Obama family? ……and then pretended he didn’t have a clue of what was going on…….and Albert Hunt claims ObAma has a HIGH IQ!

Maybe this Barack Hussein simply cannot tell right from wrong.

“Wicked Smart”, he describes Mitt Romney, quoting someone from MIT.   The nation is familiar with Obamawickedness, his deceit, disingenuousness, deviousness, and othe Marxist tendencies, but where is the wicked Mitt?…..that he visited homes of members of the opposing Party when he was Governor.   Wow, how wicked can a governor get?

Albert has counted the number of times, the exact number of time the president has golfed.    How college-graduate of him.

Then Albert writes:         ”Obama, despite criticism from Republicans and some business circles that he’s a left-winger, consistently has shown a willingness to move to the middle: On health care, he turned down a government-run option; on financial regulation reform, he rejected proposals to nationalize the banks and crack down harder on Wall Street; in the current deficit-reduction struggles, the president has, to the dismay of some of his party’s base, been willing to consider cutting spending on Medicare and Social Security.”……………..Is Albert himself physically as well as mentally drunk, an in- the-pay Obama Democrat, or slightly worse a leftover from Stalinist marxism where up means down, and good means bad?

I happen to think that Americans who are as dishonest and devious as Barack Hussein are evil….sorry, good Dennis.   The damage he is perpetrating on Americana from his sleezy mouth is a cancer upon all that is good.

It is essential in a free society that citizens, especially citizens who are elected to serve free peoples, honestly present their case openly  for public scrutiny so the people can make the best choices when electing their representatives.   That is the ideal.

Mr. Obama is not an American on such matters.   He disdains honesty for the sake of “Wicked Smart” politics, which disqualifies Mitt Romney from any comparison with this oily, repulsive man running for reelection as president of the United States….at least he is not Caligula, I’ll grant that.

Now read this preposterous article….appropriately leaked to the public through  Bloomberg, a name which is becoming a  supreme insult to  honest people everywhere.

      from Bloomberg:       “OBAMA WOULD FACE FAMILIAR OPPONENT IN ROMNEY” -  by Albert R. Hunt

If Barack Obama and Mitt Romney face each other in the 2012 U.S. election, they might bring the highest combined IQ of any presidential race.

They are super smart men, who quickly absorb data, policy wonks able to analyze complicated choices.

Also, in a business that places a premium on personal and political relations, neither relishes that sort of camaraderie or cajoling; they both appear aloof and spend little quality time with fellow politicians.

There are profound differences between these two likely 2012 nominees. One is a 50-year-old African-American from a broken family, a community organizer who spent a dozen years in the state legislature and Senate, and a moderately liberal Democrat. The other is a 64-year-old Mormon, born to a family of financial and political means, a successful businessman with only four years of government experience, and a moderately conservative Republican.

Yet in style and brain power there are surprising similarities. They both are graduates of Harvard Law School; Obama was the editor of the law review; Romney simultaneously got an MBA from Harvard Business School.

On their signature health-care measures — Romney’s passed in Massachusetts in 2006, and Obama’s national plan passed in 2010 — their approaches were alike substantively and politically. Each mastered the details of the problem and the proposals.

‘Wicked Smart’

They both are “wicked smart” says Jonathan Gruber, a health-care economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who advised on both measures, meeting with Romney once and Obama twice.

Each showed a willingness to take a risk, telling their political advisers that if the policy is right, the politics would take care of itself.

And they worked the political channels assiduously. Governor Romney visited the Democratic legislative leaders Robert Travaglini, president of the Massachusetts Senate, and Salvatore DiMasi, speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, at their homes on a Sunday afternoon to make a personal appeal. The president canceled a foreign trip and helped tip the balance for a narrow congressional victory on his health-care proposal.

Both are capable of old-fashioned political schmoozing. Obama hosts a bipartisan group of lawmakers at the White House residence to watch the Super Bowl each year. The teetotaling Romney took staffers, and a couple of Democratic supporters, to a South Boston bar to celebrate his health-care victory.

However, that isn’t their forte. Obama, unlike some of his predecessors, almost never uses the presidential retreat at Camp David to court other politicians. And the White House acknowledges that he rarely has members of Congress to the second floor residence of the White House.

The president has played golf in Washington 44 times, almost always with a small group of Chicago friends or staff loyalists. The only members of Congress he has invited to join him are the Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner of Ohio, for a politically motivated game last July, and the assistant House minority leader, Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat.

Romney also rarely spends weekends or social occasions with other politicians or top supporters. He prefers family and friends, often connected to the Mormon Church.

Some presidents, such as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan felt comfortable with diverse constituencies. One of the reasons Obama and Clinton, despite their public professions of admiration, feel so coolly about each other is this difference in demeanor.

Political Peers

While Obama and Romney command fierce loyalty from longtime aides, neither much connects with political peers. In the last presidential run, both Senator John McCain and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee took a dislike to Romney, finding him cold and calculating. More than a few Democratic politicians use the term cool or cold to describe the president.

These attitudes are more likely to surface with certain constituencies. Obama often seems less than comfortable when meeting with business executives, causing some of them to privately speculate he doesn’t think their profession is a noble one.

The president sometimes has difficulty conveying empathy for people who are struggling, although he’s better than the Republican frontrunner on this score. On the campaign trail recently, the press captured an encounter between Romney and a woman with disabilities in which he seemed unable to appreciate her aspirations.

The two probable 2012 rivals each bring impressive discipline to their work and a capacity for political growth. Over the course of the 2008 contest, Obama went from struggling novice to polished performer; as a candidate, Romney today is far surer than the version of four years ago.

Rhetoric aside, both are more comfortable with compromise and consensus than confrontation.

Obama, despite criticism from Republicans and some business circles that he’s a left-winger, consistently has shown a willingness to move to the middle: On health care, he turned down a government-run option; on financial regulation reform, he rejected proposals to nationalize the banks and crack down harder on Wall Street; in the current deficit-reduction struggles, the president has, to the dismay of some of his party’s base, been willing to consider cutting spending on Medicare and Social Security.

As governor, Romney displayed some of the same tendencies when working with a Democratic state legislature. As president, he’d be more likely to look for deals than accept a stalemate when it comes to addressing the deficit.

These two have been circling each other for a while. Seven years ago, they were the featured speakers at the winter Gridiron dinner, a forum of Washington journalists. Romney was in the middle of his gubernatorial term and Obama had just been elected to the Senate.

Both speeches, intended to be politically humorous, were smashes. Romney closed his with a song. Obama was so impressed he could pull that off that 15 months later, at the Gridiron spring dinner, he also delivered a song, telling associates his inspiration was Romney’s earlier performance.

(Albert R. Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Albert Hunt in Washington at ahunt1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Max Berley at mberley@bloomberg.net.

Want to save this for later? Add it to your Queue!

As Obama Must Know, The World’s Leftwing Has Always Relied on the Power of Mobs and Mob Rule

If American youth since the sex and drug , racistand  terrorist violence of the American ‘cultural revolution’ of the 1960s and 1970s had studied history and economics rather than Women Studies, Black Studies and Gay and Lesbian Studies at university, the nation would have become healthier, wealthier and wiser.   Instead, college produced masses of the ignorant of yesterday continue their vacuousness of today and tomorrow.

 

The Occupational movements are only this and last months’ versions of America’s right to be ignorant and violent.   They celebrate chaos.   More will come, and what should worry every American, is when democratically elected leaders, such as Barack Hussein Obama begin to use them and their violence as part of a political strategy to ‘conquer’  people by force and intimidation….as Mr. Obama surely learned when he studied  ‘community organizing’  techniques designed by  Marxist, Saul Alinsky.

 

Please read the following article by Scott W. Johnson at Powerline regarding this recent Occupation wart so recently appearing on the American cultural and political body:

 

 

Posted  at PowerLine  by Scott Johnson in The sick left

Occupational hazards

The reawakening of interest in the principles of limited constitutional government represented by the Tea Party movement has been the most hopeful political event in the United States since the election of President Reagan in 1980. We have no need to sort out or rehearse the causes of the the rising of the Tea Party. Given the Obama project and the huge Democratic congressional majorities of 2009, the impetus for the emergence of the Tea Party movement was overdetermined.

Harking back to the the verities embedded in the founding of the United States, the movement was peaceful, law abiding, biting, funny, and smart. And the Democratic Party along with its media adjunct were of course dedicated to its defamation and destruction.

Occupy Wall Street and the related Occupations around the country have presented a stark contrast with the Tea Party movement. Listening to just about any one of the videos made featuring conversations with the OWS crowd, it’s hard to miss the crowd’s incoherence and, shall we say, ignorance. Reason’s production of Peter Schiff at OWS, for example, is comedy gold.

The OWS phenomenon has also given rise to an impressive crime wave. The OWS crowd is now liberally associated with various illegalities including rape, murder, assault, drug dealing, drug-related death, arson and other property destruction, and attacks on police officers. John Nolte has compiled the long OWS rap sheet so far, but it was obsolete roughly from the moment it was posted. As we have repeatedly noted, it is almost impossible to keep up.

In addition to the crime wave the OWS movement has created a public health hazard. The encampments are filthy. The New York Post took note of the Panic in Zuccotti Park. Watch out: You might contract Zuccotti lung. Personal hygiene is not these folks’ strong point, but then again, what is?

In each of these respects the OWS crowd contrasts with the Tea Party movement. It has accordingly enlisted the support of the Democratic Party establishment, right up to and including President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, as well as the mainstream media, whose excitement over it as palpable.

With a view to the OWS crowd and its fans, what can we learn about the state of the left from it? The phenomenon has yet to run its course, so I offer the following as preliminary observations.

Among the leading features of the left represented by the OWS crowd are the following. It is parasitic. It is sick. It is not smart; it is lacking in reason and argument. But it is long on the will to power.

Obama: “The Nation has become Lazy” …….(YES, It Has!…….It elected “Nanny-State” Obama president!

“We’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted, well, people will want to come here and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America,” so analyzes Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama, the greatest enemy of  American free enterprise and the democracy it ensures, pontificates about American energy in the following RealClearPolitics video of  the Marxist speechifying:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/13/obama_us_has_been_lazy_about_attracting_new_business.html

Comment:   Yes, I do believe Americans have become lazy, particularly lazy of mind.   We educaste our young to know nothing before yesterday, and understand nothing today, except Marxist religion, its entitlements,  and Obama politics about tomorrow……the ideal to convert a once-independent population to return to childhood under ‘Obamacare’.

A population deserves the government which governs the population.   Our laziness of mind elected Barack Hussein Obama.   Now enjoy the fruit of his Marxist tree.

Unemployment taxes……another reason The Nation is Going Broke

Unemployment Insurance Taxes

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

“Record high levels of unemployment and record low reserve funds have placed great pressure on the federal-state unemployment insurance (UI) tax and benefit system.  Indeed, many states have been forced to borrow from an already cash-strapped federal government.  Because it does not appear that these funds are likely to be repaid any time soon, corporations must look down the road at the potential consequences of this shortfall, focusing on the probable tax increases that will be necessary to cover the difference, says Joseph D. Henchman, the vice president of legal and state projects at the Tax Foundation.

• Between 2008 and 2011, $174 billion was paid in unemployment taxes while $450 billion was paid out in benefits, a gap of $276 billion.
• In 2011 alone, employers and employees are projected to pay $51.8 billion in taxes, while $131.4 billion is projected to be paid out in benefits for workers recently unemployed.
• Over the past two years, 34 states exhausted their unemployment insurance trust funds and have had to borrow from the federal government, with only seven having repaid those funds to date.
• The current outstanding balance of loans is $37.3 billion, which will result in approximately $1.3 billion in interest payments starting in October 2011.

One of the primary concerns about UI insurance going forward is that those 27 states that are now in the red will be forced to implement new UI taxes to cover their shortfalls.  UI taxes are paid by employers and employees within each respective state, meaning that increased taxes will hit businesses when so many are already hesitant to hire; this could negatively affect job growth, thereby having the exact opposite of the countercyclical effect that UI was intended to have.

Reforms should be considered to the UI program. 

• First, those who have been unemployed for atypically long periods should be offered bonuses for obtaining part-time work while they search for a full-time position.
• Second, bonuses should be offered to those recipients of UI benefits who find new work quickly.
• Third, states should conduct mandatory job-search seminars and ramp up fraud prevention efforts.”

Source: Joseph D. Henchman, “Unemployment Insurance Taxes: Options for Program Design and Insolvent Trust Funds,” Tax Foundation, October 2011.

For text:

http://taxfoundation.org/files/bp61.pdf

For more on Tax and Spending Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=25

 

Obama Rewards His “Donors” Graftily

                                   Obama Campaign Backers and Bundlers

                                  Rewarded With Green Grants and Loans

                                          by Peter Schweizer    at   the Daily Beast

“When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy. He wanted billions of dollars spent on “shovel-ready projects” to build roads; billions more for developing alternative-energy projects; and additional billions for expanding broadband Internet access and creating a “smart grid” for energy consumption. After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends. “Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits,” he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”

Really?

It would take an entire book to analyze every single grant and government-backed loan doled out since Barack Obama became president. But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects, so it would not be a surprise to learn that those industries were led by liberals. Furthermore, these were highly competitive grant and loan programs—not usually a hallmark of cronyism. Often fewer than 10 percent of applicants were deemed worthy.

Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers … a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

These government grants and loan guarantees not only provided access to taxpayer capital. They also served as a seal of approval from the federal government. Taxpayer money creates what investors call a “halo effect,” in which a young, unprofitable company is suddenly seen to have a glowing future. The plan is simple. Invest some money, secure taxpayer grants and loans, go public, and then cash out. In just one small example, a company called Amyris Biotechnologies received a $24 million DOE grant to build a pilot plant to use altered yeast to turn sugar into hydrocarbons. The investors included several Obama bundlers and fundraisers. With federal money in hand, Amyris went public with an IPO the following year, raising $85 million. Kleiner Perkins, a firm that boasts Obama financier John Doerr and former vice president Al Gore as partners, found its $16 million investment was now worth $69 million. It’s not clear how the other investors did. Amyris continues to lose money. Meanwhile, the $24 million grant created 40 jobs, according to the government website recovery.gov.

One might think that the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office, which has doled out billions in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, would be directed by a dedicated scientist or engineer. Or perhaps a civil servant with considerable financial knowledge. Instead, the department’s loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants. Steve Spinner, who served on the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee and was a bundler himself, was the campaign’s “liaison to Silicon Valley.” His responsibilities included fundraising, recruiting more bundlers, and managing Obama’s relationship with a cadre of very wealthy donors. After the 2008 campaign, Spinner joined the Department of Energy as the “chief strategic operations officer” for the loan programs. A lot of the money he helped hand out went to that same cadre of wealthy Silicon Valley campaign donors. He also sat on the White House Business Council, which is made up of Obama-supporting corporate executives.

Another Obama fundraiser positioned to lead the allocation of taxpayer money to Obama contributors was Sanjay Wagle, who served as the managing co-chairman of Cleantech & Green Business Leaders for Obama. Wagle’s day job was as a principal at VantagePoint Venture Partners. After the 2008 election, Wagle joined the Obama administration as a “renewable energy grants adviser” at the Department of Energy. VantagePoint owned firms that would later see federal loan guarantees roll in.

Jonathan Silver, who would serve as director of the loan programs, had worked in the Clinton administration, first as counselor to the secretary of the interior and later as assistant deputy secretary in the Department of Commerce. Silver’s wife has served as financial director of the Democratic Leadership Council. His business partner, Tom Wheeler, was an Obama bundler, and Wheeler’s wife was an outreach coordinator for the campaign. Silver’s “strategic adviser” was Steve Spinner.

The grants themselves originated in the office of Cathy Zoi, who served as the assistant secretary of energy for efficiency and renewable energy. (Wagle was her adviser.) Zoi had previously worked in the Clinton White House as the chief of staff on environmental policy, then as the CEO of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. You may be thinking, “So what? Why would we expect anything less of political appointees?” But the numbers don’t lie: the recipients of loans and grants were, overwhelmingly, Obama cronies.

The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy, complaining that the process appears “arbitrary” and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented. It also noted that officials “did not always record the results of analysis” of these applications. A loan program for electric cars, for example, “lacks performance measures.” No notes were kept during the review process, so it is difficult to determine how loan decisions were made. The GAO further declared that the Department of Energy “had treated applicants inconsistently in the application review process, favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others.” The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of “sufficient transparency and accountability.” He has testified that contracts have been steered to “friends and family.”

Friends indeed. These programs might be the greatest—and most expensive—example of crony capitalism in American history. Tens of billions of dollars went to firms controlled or owned by fundraisers, bundlers, and political allies, many of whom—surprise!—are now raising money for Obama again.”