Video: Krauthammer Calls Obama’s Speech “A Disgrace – Shallow, Hyperpartisan, and Intellectually Dishonest”

Krauthammer really unloads, here.

He notes that in a speech that was supposed to be about policy,  Obama spent most of his time attacking the right flank. It was “quite remarkable in how demagogic it was”, (and he said that with all due respect):

Video via Newsbusters.


Audio: Hannity Interviews John Boehner: “I Fought Like A Dog Until 10:00 Friday Night”(UPDATED)

For a measly $352 million:

The deal does eliminate $38 billion in “new spending authority,” but as we learned yesterday in agonizing detail, spending “authority” and actual spending are two very different things. So to sum up: In less than a week, we’ve gone from $61 billion in cuts to $38 billion in cuts to $15 billion in real cuts to $352 million in deficit reduction this year, which is less than one percent of the number agreed to in the budget deal. I can’t help but suspect that tea partiers might feel a tad … antsy about that trend.

$352 million. I can’t even wrap my head around how epic a fail this is… That’s  about 6  Bill Clinton speeches… or 30 Madison school bus driver salaries for one year…or 2 union bosses’ salaries for one year….That’s all that was “doable”?


NRO was initially on-board with the 38 billion spending cut deal, calling it a modest win for Boehner, but now as more facts emerge are saying:  Strike One, Speaker.

As they push a bargain that is still not fully understood, Boehner and the leadership have put their members in an awful fix with another deadline to keep the government open fast approaching. We’d vote “no,” even if we understand the impulse to move on to more important matters and to avoid a leap into the dark that might include a politically damaging shutdown. At the very least, freshmen and other conservatives should be frank about the deal’s shortcomings, refusing to exaggerate its merits as their leadership often has. The episode is strike one against the speakership of John Boehner.

Credit where it’s due: Mark Levin wasn’t fooled by the budget scam  for one second. He  was on a tear last night when he thought it was $15 billion that was cut.

“The Marxist In The White House Has A New Catch Phase, Tax Expenditure”:


More on the weak looking budget cuts…

The WaPo With Bloomberg Business reports:

At issue is a concept in budgeting that is often difficult to grasp. Appropriations bills like the pending measure give agencies the authority to spend taxpayers’ money. But such authority typically takes months or years to actually leave the federal Treasury, so cuts made in the middle of the budget year often have little immediate impact.


The CBO study confirms that the measure trims $38 billion in new spending authority relative to current levels, but many of the cuts come in slow-spending accounts like water-and-sewer grants that don’t have an immediate deficit impact.

Like Ace, I won’t even pretend to know how these things work. I tend to rely on other wonkier types to help me form my opinion on  budget numbers.  But I was one of the last bloggers to jump on the WTF bandwagon because I just wasn’t predisposed to distrust our guys to that extent.

My instincts were to believe Boehner when he said he fought hard for all the cuts he could get. That’s why I was so nonplussed to hear reports that we were being scammed, (which you can see from my thoughts in the comment section). I truly believe that Boehner’s an honorable man — he’s  one of the good guys.  I’m still bothered by the fact that we didn’t start from a bargaining point of $100 billion like they promised us in 2010, and I wish he hadn’t taken shutting down the government off the table, but now I’m back to my Friday night position — I think he did a decent job, considering who he was negotiating with.


Reactions To Obama’s “Tax The Rich” Speech

Hey, it’s not often that I do two blog round-ups in one day, but I love reading what other people have to say, and I know you do, too.If you missed Obama’s speech, earlier today, you missed a doozy.

As I mentioned in the last post:

On Twitter, stephenfhayes called Obama’s tax the rich budget speech One of the phoniest, most demagogic speeches from a sitting US president in recent memory. This after punting on his own budget. A disgrace”.

ThadMcCotter said, “Note to POTUS: When you punish productivity, you produce poverty”.

I listened to his speech on our kitchen radio while sitting in my sunroom.  That’s about the only way I can handle it. No TV, and if I must listen, the radio needs to be in another room.

I always like the way Ace puts things: Obama’s Remarks: I Am Boldly Authorizing The Next President To Deal With This Problem, And In Futherance of This Daring Strategy, I Am Also Punting To a New Commission To Be Named Later

I seem to notice him saying that if his proposed order to reduce Medicare costs does not reduce costs (which it won’t, same as it didn’t with ObamaCare — premiums are going up, not down) by the year 2023, then, get this, he will authorize “the Commission” (I think the Medicare trustees or something) to propose further means of reducing costs.

Get that? If, in 12 years, his plan hasn’t worked yet, he’ll actually call for a third-party blue-ribbon commission to propose some more changes.

Oh, and guess what? His big idea for closing the deficit is 1 cutting defense spending and 2 increasing taxes.

Bonus: He also says that if, in 2014, two years after the next election, the CBO’s projection doesn’t show “the share of the deficit as a fraction of GDP” falling (note that is a lenient way to view it), he is willing to go so far as authorizing the President and Congress to consider further “spending cuts” and “spending reductions.”


Get that? If what he’s doing (which is nothing) doesn’t work, he will reconvene two years post-election to kick it around some more.

I should note that the New Democratic Style Guide is to refer to any typical tax deductions as “tax expenditures” and hence, eliminating those (and thereby increasing taxes) is no longer a “tax increase,” but a “spending reduction.”

That’s the new speak, man. Better get used to it.

I love it when I see people spend time fisking something they know to be a dishonest scam to begin with. Bless their hearts. They have much more patience than I have.

Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air: Obama’s solution to deficit: spending, ObamaCare, and tax hikes:

If it was possible to fail to meet the already-low expectations set for this speech beforehand, Obama managed to do it.  Not only did Obama fail to resurrect his own deficit commission’s plan, he offered nothing specific in response to the specifics Paul Ryan and the GOP have already laid on the table.  It’s almost impossible to present a substantive criticism of the proposal because it contains nothing substantive, an impression that more and more people have of this White House.

Gateway Pundit: 65% of American Voters Don’t Believe For a Second That Obama Will Cut Spending

Only that many?

The Right Sphere has Our Official Response To Obama’s Budget Speech (in video format).

Dan Mitchell: Obama’s Tax Increase Trigger: Punishing Taxpayers with Automatic Tax Hikes When Politicians Overspend.

Finally, this one’s gotta hurt:

JWF: Biden Dozes Off During Obama Speech

Moe Lane says: I am *done* with President Obama: (You weren’t already???)

My recommendation, going forward?  Democrats: cut the President out of the loop.  His presence in this discussion insults both parties at this point.  Send him off to a permanent round of golf games and trips to various parts of the country: Obama hates his job anyway, so letting him know that from now on all he has to do is sign papers on cue will probably relieve him somewhat.  In the meantime… well, God help us, there’s always Joe Biden* for domestic policy.  I am disgusted that we are now in a situation where going with Joe Biden looks good as a strategy in comparison, but this is where we are now…

J.E. Dyer in a similar vein in The Greenroom: Obama Doubling Down:

Perhaps this is what America needed: to see an ideologue take the insistent positions of the collectivist left to their natural conclusions.  For Obama, the virtually unmanageable size of the federal debt is not an issue that should make us change policies.  The main issue for him is preventing a reduction in the reach of government.  He is impervious to the demands of reality, and will apparently stay his ideological course.

Even many Democrats must recognize now that they will have to work without Obama until the end of this Congress.  He has reduced himself to a veto threat – and that may well be the best alternative for the country between now and 20 January, 2013.

I’m afraid that the Democrat party is now too populated with people who share the same goals as Obama.

It’s up to the Republicans.

Hot Air video -Paul Ryan weighs in: Paul Ryan rips Obama’s speech: “Rather than building bridges, he’s poisoning wells”:

Some vintage Allahpundit:

Via Mediaite, three minutes of righteous rage. It’s all here: Obama’s gutless insistence on farming this issue out to commissions to spare himself the political risks of leadership; his betrayal of his sunny 2008 campaign message, swapping the post-partisan Hopenchange problem-solver crap for a double-barreled attack on the GOP; and of course, the horribly cynical electoral calculus in all this, which earns a sneering reference from Ryan to the “Campaigner-in-Chief.” It’s that last bit that bothers him the most, I think. Taking the lead on Social Security and Medicare might make him a rock star to movement conservatives, but there’s a real chance that the backlash will destroy his political career (and the GOP’s House majority). Already, at least one poll has *51 percent saying that Ryan’s 2012 budget cuts too much. He knows the danger perfectly well, in other words, but he’s stepping up because it’s that important. And meanwhile the country’s nominal leader, ostensibly heaven-sent by the Democratic gods to rescue America from its troubles perhis own campaign mythology, is taking a pass. It’s a good thing Ryan hates your grandma so damned much or else he’d have to be wondering at this point why he bothered.

*Allah updated with a correction:

51 percent say Ryan’s budget’s doesn’t cut too much; 47 percent say that it does.

Ace: Obama: Hey, I’ve Got a Great Idea. How About Automatic Tax Hikes That Pass Into Law Without A Vote If We Spend Too Much?

Ah, I didn’t catch this. His idea about the automatic “spending cuts” was coupled with the automatic “spending reductions,” which is his new code for tax hikes.

He says that if his plan, which doesn’t exist, fails to cut spending, which it isn’t actually designed to do, some sort of mechanism of automatic “spending reductions” will go into effect.

How is the MSM reporting the speech, you ask: (It is to laugh) –

Newsbusters: SF Chronicle Hails ‘Obama’s Centrist Approach’ to Budget

Also approving of “their leader’s” speech is CPUSA’s People’s World: Obama calls for tax hike for the rich

Paul Ryan Responds to President’s Disappointing, Partisan Speech:

WASHINGTON – House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan made the following statement after listening to the President’s speech on deficit reduction:

“When the President reached out to ask us to attend his speech, we were expecting an olive branch. Instead, his speech was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to address our fiscal crisis. What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief; we heard a political broadside from our campaigner-in-chief.

“Last year, in the absence of a serious budget, the President created a Fiscal Commission. He then ignored its recommendations and omitted any of its major proposals from his budget, and now he wants to delegate leadership to yet another commission to solve a problem he refuses to confront.

“We need leadership, not a doubling down on the politics of the past.  By failing to seriously confront the most predictable economic crisis in our history, this President’s policies are committing our children to a diminished future. We are looking for bipartisan solutions, not partisan rhetoric. When the President is ready to get serious about confronting this challenge, we’ll be here.”


Key Facts About the President’s Speech

Keep reading as Ryan wades through the b.s.

Peter Wehner at Contentions:

…precisely because the president’s speech was so intellectually weak and transparently brutish, I rather doubt it will be effective. If anyone had any doubts what we’re dealing with when it comes to Obama, those have been allayed. He is a deeply irresponsible and arrogant man whose thirst for political power is overriding virtually every good and decent instinct he might have.

Linked by The Other McCain, thanks!

An Obama Ally Weighs In On America’s Journey To A “Democratic, Economically Just, Egalitarian, Ecological, and Peaceful” Society

stephenfhayes called Obama’s tax the rich budget speech One of the phoniest, most demagogic speeches from a sitting US president in recent memory. This after punting on his own budget. A disgrace”, on Twitter.

ThadMcCotter said, “Note to POTUS: When you punish productivity, you produce poverty”.

It was a grotesque and dishonest speech.

And I kept hearing themes that sounded vaguely familiar…so I did some googling. Here’s what I found:

The journey to socialism – and it is a journey – will also take a laser like focus on issues that are agitating tens of millions, and none loom larger than the economic rights and livelihood of our multi-racial, multi-ethnic working class.

It is hard to imagine how the necessary forces can be assembled and unified at each stage of struggle including the socialist stage if the working class and peoples movements are not fully engaged in such struggles.

It will take a big tent strategy as well. Such a strategy will welcome allies, combine radical and gradual change, avoid unnecessary fights, and operate on the assumption that “only a movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority” has the power capacity to turn socialism from a dream to a reality.

It will also attach special importance to the struggle for racial and gender equality. Both are of strategic importance insofar as working class and people’s unity is concerned. No advance in radical and socialist terms is possible without a sustained struggle against racism and sexism.

Anyone who devalues the struggle for racial and gender equality limits the sweep of any victory at best; at worst, it provides an opening to the most backward sections of our ruling class and their constituency to gain ascendancy ideologically and politically.

A movement for socialism will place a high priority on independent political action and the formation of a party independent of corporate capital too. Currently, the main social forces and organizations of political independence work within the Democratic Party.

No less importantly, any transition to socialism will require a far bigger left and Communist Party. We don’t yet cause a “big wave in the big pond.” But for socialism to become a reality, our ripple has to turn into a wave that has the strength to lead the people to a better future.

Finally, it will take a modern vision of socialism that is at once deeply democratic, economically just, egalitarian, ecological, and peaceful as well as organically embedded in the American experience.

Our main objective must be to lead all the stragglers loitering around the outskirts of “the Big Tent” provided by the Democratic Party into the tent so Barack can lay out our plans for socialism in the 22nd Century.

Excerpted from: All aboard the Obama express. Next stop socialism.

by: Sam Webb

Official Site of the National Board of the Communist Party, USA

A comment about my speech from a friend:

Sam Sez: ‘Currently, the main social forces and organizations of political independence work within the Democratic Party.’

That’s true, fortunately or unfortunately, for the leadership and institutions of labor, civil rights and so on.

But what about the ‘critical force’ of young people under 30? The critical force can overlap with the main force, but they are not the same.

All revolutions and even major structural reforms are made by the young of various classes, and especially the working classes. Lenin was 29 when he wrote ‘One Step Forward…’ The average age of the Cuban CC was 26 on their victory, with Fidel the old man of 35. The average age of China’s PLA was 19. We know that the youth were dynamic in our civil rights movement and in the early IWW and other labor forces in their first upsurge.

Today I’d guess most young progressive, radical and socialist-minded youth do NOT see themselves as part of the Democratic Party, and the youth who worked for Obama are rather alienated from the White House today.

In short, this position is a little one-sided, and need to more seriously engage a critical inter-generational problem we face.

Posted by Carl Davidson, 03/28/2011

My response: Ah, yes; the youth. The alienated youth. What a pathetic lot they are. We can’t depend on them to rally around our leader, President Obama. The youth are obsessed with peace. They don’t understand the need for humanitarian wars. They lack patience and civility while unemployed. They fret over being marched off to war. We might better forget about the youth, they just want to protest.

A post speech thought: I have been explaining the need for us to get involved in the Democratic Party for about 15 years. I’m thinking of getting involved myself in the Democratic Party very soon.

They’re doing fine without his help.

Carl Davidson, you may remember is one of Obama’s Communist associations from Chicago:

In 1992 Davidson became a leader of the newly formed Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members. The organization has since changed its name to the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, where Davidson remains a prominent figure.

In the mid-1990s Davidson was a major player in the Chicago branch of the New Party, a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials. Most New Party members hailed from the Committees of Correspondence (the Marxist coalition cited in the preceding paragraph), the Democratic Socialists of America, and the militant leftist organization ACORN. Davidson first met Barack Obama through the New Party, which endorsed the latter in his run for the Illinois state senate in 1996. Obama had actively sought this endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers.

Davidson quickly became one of Obama’s most ardent political supporters. He helped organize a large 2002 rally where Obama first established himself as an eloquent anti-war spokesman.

Somebody wake me up from this nightmare.


Trevor Loudon: Socialist Opinion Shapers 2, Harold Meyerson, Propagandist and Obama Enabler:

I have contended for some time that President Barack Obama owes his political career to three Marxist organizations, Communist Party USA, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and Democratic Socialists of America.

Of the three, Obama’s decades old ties to Democratic Socialists of America are most easily documentable.

Harold Meyerson

It should come as no surprise to learn that Washington Post columnist and D.S.A. member Harold Meyerson was the one of the first, if not THE FIRST ,  journalist to promote Barack Obama outside his his adopted state of Illinois.

The Globalists’ Takeover of America: Part 1 – Collapse the Economy:

Obama, George Soros, the United Nations (UN) and the global elites (Democrats, Union leaders and some Republicans) are accelerating their plan to bring America into their Global Governance scheme which will usher in the New World Order (their term, not mine).

Financially, they need to collapse America’s economy to establish a new global structure. Within that structure will be an independent funding source for the UN as well as a system to transfer America’s wealth into the hands of the elites and the governments of other countries.

Linked by Bits Blog, thanks!

Hump-Day Link-Around

Ramirez Cartoon via Townhall.

Pundette is sounding a bit depressed about the budget battles: It’s all a sham.

I spoke too soon about who lost the budget battle. We wuz robbed. The budget deal includes “cuts” of billions of dollars that weren’t going to be spent anyway. The jury is out on whether this sham deal will actually pass. John Podhoretz has his doubts.

The politics here are very complicated now. On the one hand, polls suggest the public is overwhelmingly in favor of there having been a deal, around 60 percent or so. On the other, politically engaged people on both the Right and the Left are profoundly upset by what they take to be unprincipled caving on the part of the leaders of the two parties.

That profound concern is likely to spur a populist revolt this week, over the next 72 hours, before the vote is taken. Already there are indications that a great many House members are going to vote against the deal. What we don’t know, or can’t know, is whether grass-roots velocity has sped up to such a degree over the past several years that we could be looking at a major meltdown of support when the votes are cast, as Republican members honestly balk at the clear deceit of the negotiators in making non-existent cuts in federal spending—and as they fear the wrath of the voters (particularly tea partiers).

Ace is despairing:

Oh: By the way, the deficit shot up almost 16% (15.7%) the first six months of this year alone and due to the magic of compounding interest it only gets worse from here.

Oh: And the Republicans are no better, because they won’t cut spending or tell the public the truth.

My position on taxes and spending is evolving, I have to admit. If the Republicans won’t cut spending, as they apparently will not, always promising to get serious on cuts after the next election cycle (and then, when that cycle has passed, declaring the next cycle is even more important so we mustn’t cut until after that one, too), then I have no choice but to support broad-based, significant tax increases.

Since I don’t want the country to be destroyed.

If we have two parties which are determined to spend this much money, then there is no alternative than to bring “revenues” (as I guess I’m supposed to call them) to match this level of “investment.”

And maybe when the public actually gets a big tax hike they’ll start to reconsider whether subsidizing themselves is a smart idea.

Gabe at AoSHQ: Compare and Contrast on the Debt Ceiling

Republicans are well-positioned to take major concessions over the debt limit (assuming they actually want some, I’m looking at you Speaker Boehner, dammit). The public is on our side. More importantly, the Democrats are pursuing the same strategy they always do.

Compare and contrast:

“I will not support an increase in the debt ceiling without real and meaningful changes in spending in the short-term and in the long-term. We’ve got to change the way we spend the people’s money. … The President sends the budget to Capitol Hill that will double the national debt in the next 10 years. And simply expanding the credit card is not the right answer.”

“”It will be hugely dangerous for the Republican colleagues to play a game of chicken on the debt ceiling. You would see an economic catastrophe if the United States defaulted on its debt.”

The first is GOP Rep. Mike Pence, who offers a cogent explanation for what it will take to increase the debt ceiling. The second is Dem Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who simply pushes the panic button.

The Democrats are hoping that they can make enough people afraid that the Republicans will feel pressured. But there’s no reason to believe that will happen.

I’m not sure I agree with that after the way Boehner caved on the FY2011 budget in order to avoid a government shutdown. Boehner and McConnell are  already out there saying that not raising the debt ceiling would be a huge mistake.

Michelle Malkin says it’s time to: Make 70 the new 65:

Raising the traditional and early retirement ages will mean extending workers’ taxable earning years, fueling economic growth, and putting a dent in our unfunded liabilities crisis by delaying payouts. Some senior citizens’ lobbying groups fret that today’s workforce wouldn’t be able to handle longer careers. Tell that to Betty White or Joan Rivers or Helen Mirren. More to the point, as domestic policy analyst Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute observes, “Perhaps the best evidence that future Americans can work longer is that past Americans did: Despite poorer health, shorter lives and more strenuous jobs, in 1950 the typical individual did not claim Social Security until age 68.5. In 1950, more than 20% of Americans worked in physically demanding jobs; today only about 8% do. While today’s technology-driven service economy places demands on older workers, it is hard to imagine that things were easier when Americans typically worked on farms or in factories.”

And while cowardly politicians pull their hair out over which policies to adopt and which wasteful and bloated government programs to cut…

Weasel Zippers: IMF Says Obama Regime Lacks “Credible Strategy” to Stop Mounting Public Debt, Risks Triggering New Global Economic Crisis…

(FT) — The US lacks a “credible strategy” to stabilise its mounting public debt posing a small but significant risk of a new global economic crisis, says the International Monetary Fund.

In an unusually stern rebuke to its largest shareholder, the IMF said the US was the only advanced economy to be increasing its underlying budget deficit in 2011 at a time when its economy was growing fast enough to reduce borrowing.

With all the bad economic news out there, it sure is good to know that there’s an honest and impartial media out there to sort it all out:

Gateway Pundit: Oops… NY Times Admits That Obama’s Economic Policies Have Failed – Then Quickly Scrubs the Line

Peter Fererra at The American Spectator says the Democrat party’s huge lurch to the left will be rejected in even huger numbers at the polls in November, 2012: Death Trap Democrats:

The Bell Actually Tolls for Thee Democrat Party

With Pelosi, Schultz, and Obama in control, today’s Democrat party is transforming itself into an outright socialist party. The die is now being cast to go into next year’s elections with the issues framed around the Republicans calling for taxes and spending to be limited to their historical, postwar levels, as Ryan proposes, and the Democrats calling for higher taxes to finance higher spending.


Steve Foley at The Minority Report: TMR Exclusive: 10 Questions with NYT Bestseller David Freddoso Author of Gangster Government

A sample:

1) Do you think Obama’s OJT (on the Job Training) is working?

If the yardstick is his ability to prostrate himself and grovel before union bosses, puff up and persecute political bogey men, and denigrate even average voters who disagree with him, Obama didn’t really need any on-the-job training. He comes from Chicago, where these things are built into the job description of every office-holder. The readers of Gangster Government should not be surprised, especially if they read my 2008 biography of Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama.

But one area where Obama really seems to have a slow learning curve is foreign policy. They could give him ten Nobel Prizes and he still wouldn’t have a clue about current events in the Arab world. The Wikileaks cables on Yemen bolster this, as does the additional war into which he has plunged us. We don’t know what we’re doing in Libya, or why or whether or how we should be supporting the rebels, in part because Obama acted alone. There was no debate. Typical Chicago, where politicians believe themselves to be above the law.

Jay Cost offered this stinging appraisal of Obama at The Weekly Standard:  Obama Is Just Plain Bad at Politics:

2. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This was a total political disaster. The grotesque spectacle of passing this bill completely undermined Obama’s pledge to change the way Washington works. The policy substance was just as bad; most Americans want it repealed even a year on. And, to top it all off, it might just be unconstitutional!

3. The war on terror. As the president would say, “let me be clear:” we’re closing Guantanamo Bay and we’re trying KSM in New York City. Oh…wait!

4. The deficit. Today, President Obama is scheduled to give a major speech that will outline a new vision for cutting the deficit. Never mind that his budget, unveiled in February, was supposed to do precisely that. The fact that he’s trying again to get a handle on the deficit issue means that the White House is tacitly admitting that his original budget was a complete and total political disaster.

And then of course, we have the regular verbal gaffes. The Cambridge police acted “stupidly.” Hispanic voters need to “punish [their] enemies.” Doctors are taking out children’s tonsils for profit. People who own gas guzzlers (like for instance, the Cadillac Escalade from government-backed GM!) should trade them in if they don’t like the price of fuel today.

Keep reading…

Sometimes I wonder what his approval numbers would look like if he didn’t have a complicit media carrying his water.

Of course, if you look at Obama’s agenda in terms of  irreversibly transforming the nation into a Socialist state, the personal politics are secondary. He may be bad at politics, but he was very, very good at grabbing the steering wheel of the Dem Socialist ship in the midst of the perfect budget-busting, spending storm. That’s the main thing. And he know how to squeeze in time for golf, vacations, and campaigning for 2012, too. Then again, it’s hard to pinpoint just when the 2008 campaign ended and the 2012 campaign started. He’s always been in campaign mode.


Megan Fox at NewsReal Blog has The 10 Best Conservative Replacements For Glenn Beck’s Fox News Slot

The thing I’ll miss most about Beck being gone is the reaction from all the statist twerps who hate him with a frenzy that can only be compared to neurotic miniature poodles who pee on the carpet when overexcited. Ailes should focus like a laser on replacing Beck with only the most hated personality he can find. Not only will it keep the ratings up, but it will provide sane people with fantastic entertainment. The following are 10 suggestions for conservative hosts sure to make the Left angrier (and funnier) than they already are.

Love her suggestions.

Obama’s timely tax the rich speech (two days before April 15) is going over like a lead balloon over at Ace o Spades HQ: Rhymin’ & Stealin’: Obama to Give Address On Raising Taxes For 40th Time

Obama’s game is to appear mature and serious, in as much as he talking about these things, while reassuring older votes (and liberal Democrats who just want everyone on as much welfare as possible) that it’s entirely talk.

It costs you nothing to just talk around a thing, particularly when you keep insisting that you just mean to talk. And that’s the way Obama will play it, as he always has.

Oh, I forgot, he’ll call for raising taxes on the rich which will cut our ten year deficit all the way down from $20 trillion to $19 trillion.

Republicans say this is a “reactionary” move and Obama’s just doing as I suggested, talking and talking to sound as if he’s doing something. Which he is — he’s running for re-election.

Soothsayer sums up the speech, well: “It’s not me; it’s you.”

Moby Teams with To Protest ‘Un-American’ Budget

Gad. MoveOn is still doing the oft spoofed and ridiculed – *sad-looking drones holding hand-written messages* thing, only with a brand new twist — instead of lined paper, they’re wasting paper plates.

What would Gaia say?

For some reason, (never having seen him or listened to his music) I was under the impression that Moby was a black rapper.

Boy, was I wrong. Turns out he’s a white “sensitive, conscious male” type – a “New Castratti”, as Rush would say.

He’s also the guy who inspired the internet term, “Moby”, to describe a certain type of internet troll:

moby – An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question. The term is derived from the name of the liberal musician Moby, who famously suggested in February of 2004 that left-wing activists engage in this type of subterfuge: “For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you’re an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion. Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, ‘What’s all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?'”

Mobies are also known as “concern trolls”, and are more common than people may think.  Unfortunately for Moby, and like minded leftists, the strategy hasn’t worked as well as they might have hoped. Their clownish false flag operations have  backfired, badly, because conservatives websites no longer  take anything left-wing commenters say at face value. If the idea was to expose your movement as the essentially dishonest,  ends justify the means, morally bankrupt operation it is — mission accomplished.

Filed under “moonbattery”.

Via Breitbart TV.

Cross-posted at Left-Wing Institute For Civil Discourse.