Obama Has Saved America!

by nancyvideo | August 10, 2009 at 08:48 am

320 views | 22 Recommendations | 15 comments

Thank God! Oops, I mean, thank Obama. The economic crisis is almost over, the 'war on terror' is a thing of the past and, by his own words, Obama and his administration have saved America from catastrophe. President Obama used the occasion of a 1/10 of 1% drop in the nation's unemployment rate to claim both success and validation for his economic policies. He has valiantly brought America back from the brink of the economic chaos that was caused by his predecessor. But as is often the case with Obama, the devil is in the details. In July, 247,000 jobs were lost. Inquiring minds question how the unemployment rate could experience even a slight drop when the stats show Americans are still losing their jobs. John Lott gives us the answer: "The reason is simple -- the number of people who stopped looking for work rose dramatically. 637,000 additional people no longer consider themselves looking for work. This is by far the largest drop in the number of people who consider themselves in the labor force during the last year - almost twice the 358,000 increase in the people who left the labor force during June."
Using Lott's calculations, our actual unemployment rate stands at 16.3%, not the trumpeted 9.4%. Obama would have us believe this is good news. Our president would also have us believe his claim that the $1.2 trillion health care reform proposal is just the ticket to jump start the economy. (Hey, didn''t he just say he already jump started the economy?) I digress...
Now I'm not an expert, but I question how adding unsustainable debt to a record deficit to supposedly fix a non-problem is going to deliver us from financial Armageddon. But Obama says he can add 12 million illegal aliens and app. 25 million uninsured Americans to government health care rolls and this will somehow result in cost savings.
Oh, and despite his own words to the contrary in 2007, Obama now assures us that the public option proposal most assuredly won't put private insurers out of business. Whew.
Since we all know Obama doesn't lie, Americans will, once again, just have to accept the word of our Organizer in Chief. Hey, he's entitled to some slack. After all, he just ended the war on terror.

That's right. A mere six months after taking office, Obama has officially ended the war on terror. From now on, Obama has decreed that we're only at war with Al Qaeda. All our brave warriors in Afghanistan can relax now that global jihad has been vanquished. How did Obama accomplish this amazing feat? He did it in the Democrat's time honored way. He merely redefined the terms. 'Jihad', 'war on terror' and 'global war' are no longer acceptable terms. They have been banished from the polite society the liberals, oops progressives have claimed as their own exclusive province. Case closed.

When I look back at all of Obama's accomplishments of the last six months, I feel pretty stupid for not voting for him. Had I know he had the unique ability to actually redefine reality to his own specifications, I wouldn't have spent so much time dwelling on his criminal cohorts, his socialist buddies and his terrorist 'acquaintances'. I would have had blind faith in him and not pointed out his utter lack of any real accomplishments, experience or character. Boy, do I feel silly. I've decided that I'm finally going to jump on the Obama bandwagon - right after I check out the pig that just flew right by my window.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Karen Hatter

at 09:49 on August 10th, 2009

Additional information on health care can be found at ....

Whitehouse.gov/RealityCheck

.... as well as other issues here.

Barry Artiste

at 11:49 on August 10th, 2009

Great Links KH, Obama certainly has a lot of challenges ahead, and as they say, you cannot satisfy all the people all of the time. Course that trillions of dollars spent on troops overseas would go a long way in using that money for healthcare, not to be a Finger pointer, but Canada major budget is for health care, though no perfect it is the only one that seems to satisfy the majority of the Canadian people most of the time.

Karen Hatter

at 12:07 on August 10th, 2009

Thanks, Barry.

Satisfying the majority of Canadians most of the time is a pretty good record.

gooddod (not verified)

at 10:03 on August 10th, 2009

Other than your normal bitchfest - do you actually have any positive suggestions? America is in crisis - not new news - we are looking for a way out so if the Republicans have any clues please get back to us

Roy C

at 12:28 on August 10th, 2009

Gee, when someone on the right writes an article that sounds like the left's articles on Bush, suddenly we discover that "dissent is patriotic" is out, and we learn further that comparisons of the president of the US to the failed "furher" (leader) of a European fascist movement that took place in Germany are simply unacceptable.

I know, God, or Obama, help me, that I am slow, but I am so slow that changes in the rules are just so much more obvious to me than to my superior colleagues, if I may dare to call them that, on the left, that I cannot but help notice them as they obligate me to an inventory of my behavior in the political realm.

Or maybe I should just say, "Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nya." See, what goes around comes around does hold even for the left.

The first rule of the Hippocratic oath is "Do no harm", and that is not what this version of "Hope and Change Reform of the Medical System" will do.

It is not the German system, nor is it the Canadian system, as Obama explained today in a news conference.

In fact, with four different bills in the US Senate, we are not sure what Obama wants, what his principles are and on what information and understanding his bill in the House is based.

Yes, costs keep going up, but they keep going up because an aging, ever fatter population of Boomers wants the latest in high-tech medicine to stay alive.

I actually agree with Obama that end of life heroic medicine is not justified and that instead of spending 300,000 dollars on someone destined to live no more than three to six months, we should spend the money on prevention.

But, he refuses to argue the case in specifics.

So, he invites rage by refusing to act democratically and use his community organizing skills to come up with a bill the people want, not a bill that the ideologues of the left and the SEIU want nor a bill the "free marketers" of the right and the medical establishment want.

Both sides can be out of line, but the ball is in the Obama court, and his plan will not lower costs because his plan does not address the reasons for the rise in the first place.

So, let's get Obama and the rest of them on the opposition to specify the real reasons for a need to reform, and demonstrate in argument how those problems will be solved.

Nancy's point would be that the Walk-on-Water prez had just taken in some water in his Hope and Change Brand galoshes, and that would be because he has forgotten, rather than remembered, what community organizing is all about.

Yes, and Nancy's mockery of Obama is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook of isolating and mocking political opponents. Play by the Alinsky sword and die by it.

Barry Artiste

at 11:45 on August 10th, 2009

Quite the story and controversy Nancy, as for that Pig you speak of? Is it BBQ or Fried with all the fixins. Cause I think the fix is in,

MMMM pork!!!!!! droool!

Roy C

at 12:15 on August 10th, 2009

Here's a question: Does Congress have any legal authority under Art. 1, Sec. 8, in the U.S. Constitution to legislate health care or treatment within the states of the Union? No.

The only system we could adopt would, in fact, be a Canadian-type system based in each state, by each state, for each state.

Roy C

at 12:18 on August 10th, 2009

I don't see the power to run the medical system here anymore than I see the power to regulate light drugs here.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

rng

at 12:52 on August 10th, 2009

Interesting question. I profess no expertise on this matter, but woudln't "...general Welfare of the United States" cover it, even if you define welfare as per the link as 'health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being'?

I am sure there are those here better qualified than I to comment

Roy C

at 13:02 on August 10th, 2009

Well, in the beginning there was no way to collect income tax. We had to have an amendment to do that and to ban alcohol.

Would they all fall under "general welfare"?

There was no way to regulate marijuana and so the fed government invented tax stamps you had to buy, but you had to have the marijuana before you could buy the stamps at which point you had committed the crime of having marijuana without stamps.

Timothy Leary brought suit against the government on that and won on the issue of self-incrimination.

Personally, we need the states to run this Leviathan, not Washington, whether it is constitutional or not.

rng

at 13:08 on August 10th, 2009

Allegedly, some would say smoking marijuana produces a sense of "general welfare" :)

Soyunangel

at 18:45 on August 10th, 2009

So, in other words, Sen. McCain suggestion that "the fundamentals of the economy [were] strong" during the Presidential Campaign were correct, no? ;-)

bettermakings (not verified)

at 10:34 on August 11th, 2009

I'm convinced that a politician must be in some way evil to get ahead. McCain was one of the only Republicans to vote FOR "cap & trade" . . . not arguing whether it's good or bad, but McCain sold-out his own party, and he was 2nd in-line to be president. I don't trust any of them anymore . . . none!

Rory Cripps

at 15:59 on August 13th, 2009

Bettermakings: BRAVO! I agree, but with this qualification: I think that most American politicians are sociopaths and wannabe actors (and actresses). Only an extreme ideologue, or one that's on the payroll, would trust a politician.

Hugh Askew

at 03:51 on September 26th, 2009

Had an Civics teacher, back in Hi Skool daze, that taught - rather emphatically, i might add - that a politician's first duty to his electorate was to get elected.

Sans election, a politician is simply another guy with an opinion.