Don’t tell the Occupy Wall Street Marxist loons… They won’t know who to push down the cement stairs.
Here are a few facts for the stinky Obama-endorsed #OWS squatters:
The Rich Got Richer under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (especially their rich buddies!)
And, the inequality keeps expanding.
Investors Business Daily reported, via Instapundit:
it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.
What’s more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.
The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush’s eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.
In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama’s first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it’s climbed 5.7% since he took office.
Meanwhile, during Clinton’s eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980.
Also, the Wealth Gap Between Young and Old Is Widest Ever under Barack Obama.
The AP reported:
The wealth gap between younger and older Americans has stretched to the widest on record, worsened by a prolonged economic downturn that has wiped out job opportunities for young adults and saddled them with housing and college debt.
The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.
While people typically accumulate assets as they age, this wealth gap is now more than double what it was in 2005 and nearly five times the 10-to-1 disparity a quarter-century ago, after adjusting for inflation.
The analysis reflects the impact of the economic downturn, which has hit young adults particularly hard. More are pursuing college or advanced degrees, taking on debt as they wait for the job market to recover. Others are struggling to pay mortgage costs on homes now worth less than when they were bought in the housing boom.
If Obama’s #OWS minions were the least bit informed they’d be protesting at the White House, not at an Americans for Prosperity Dinner.
Get your ice skates out, folks, Hell has just frozen over, starting with NPR: In Egypt, More Proof That George W. Bush Was Right
Two weeks of massive street protests have given Egyptians their voice and today Hosni Mubarak has heard them. If the events that led to Mubarak’s resignation after 30 years as president came as a surprise to many longtime observers of the Middle East, there’s one former US policymaker who has some reason to boast that he saw it coming.
President George W. Bush’s Freedom Agenda was based on the notion that around the world all men share the desire for liberty. It was our founding fathers who put forth the idea that this was not merely a human aspiration but a natural right, and it was the many generations of our forefathers who fought for that right, both at home and abroad. The Arabs had not been born with that privilege.
In the wake of Sept. 11, Bush believed that freedom was not only best for the Arabs, but also a vital national interest that would keep Americans, U.S. allies and interests around the world safe from terrorism. The Freedom Agenda became the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy.
OK, OK, the writer, Lee Smith, is Senior Editor at The Weekly Standard, but, who would have believed that NPR and their far left agenda would allow such an article. But then we get to the NY Times, and Peter Baker is no Conservative: The Return of Pushing Democracy
The cheers of Tahrir Square were heard around the world. But if you listened carefully, you might have heard cheering from another quarter 7,000 miles from Cairo as well, in Dallas.
The revolution in Egypt has reopened a long-simmering debate about the “freedom agenda” that animated George W. Bush’s presidency. Was he right after all, as his supporters have argued? Are they claiming credit he does not deserve? And has President Obama picked up the mantle of democracy and made it his own?
Peter attempts to sidestep the issue regarding Bush’s push for democracy and freedom around the world, particularly in the Middle East, yet, the more he performs a soft shoe, the more he shows that Bush was right, and Obama had been wrong, vis a vis Obama’s “smart power” and “nuanced view” (Peter fails to mention that that view included diminishing America as an exceptional country, kowtowing to foreign dictators, and bowing to foreign leaders, among others.) He also calls Obama’s response to the Iranian uprising “muted.” That’s like referring to an aircraft carrier as a dingy.
Of course, Bush wasn’t the only president who pushed freedom and democracy. The article points out that most presidents before him did the same. Not mentioned is that Jimmy Carter was a failure at it, and Clinton was rather tepid. You know, something links those two to Obama, can’t figure out what. Help me out, OK? Anyhow, Peter points out that somehow, pushing democracy and freedom became a “polarizing concept.” In other words, the Left was against it, because Bush was for it.
Not everyone sees it that way, especially in the Obama White House, where the assertion rankles deeply. “Was Bush right?” scoffed one Obama adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Give me a break. How many democratic transformations like this took place when he was in office?”
Interesting. In Liberal circles, intentions typically rank higher than actual actions and/or outcomes, yet, they have a problem with the concept of pushing freedom around the world. But, then, so many of them have taken the side of dictators and brutal thugs, typically aligned with socialism (and countries like the USSR, communist China, North Vietnam, and Venezuela. Remember, these are the same caring Liberals who looked the other way during the genocide in Rwanda.)
So, too, is Mr. Obama’s destination. Aides said he has been focused on the issue of democracy abroad since the beginning of his tenure. Last fall, they compiled a 17-page, single-spaced compendium of speech excerpts to show it. But he seems to have found more of a voice in the last six months.
Oh, good, he gave speeches. And did next to nothing. Perhaps now, though, Obama has had finally received his on the job training, after failing Iranian Uprising 101, and getting a D+ in Egyptian Uprising 102, and will be on the forefront as other nations see uprisings, and will follow in the footsteps of Bush and other presidents in pushing freedom and democracy.
-By Warner Todd Huston
Remember those hoary days of raucous protest when anti-war protesters sent thousands of people into the streets sometimes with only a days notice? Now consider this: have you seen any of these giant protests since 2008 presidential election?
Yeah, no one else has, either. Do you wonder why that is? Well, it’s because the anti-war movement was nothing else but a hypocritical proxy issue used solely to get rid of President Bush and the Republicans. It was never about war at all. At this point this is an indisputable fact.
These days the anti-war movement cannot put more than a few dozen people in the street for its cause — which itself is little else but a proxy issue for the implementation of a worldwide socialist state.
Obviously it was never about “war.” It was just about Bush. After all, from the perspective of the issues and claims made against the Bush war policies by the anti-war left, Obama is not doing a whole lot differently in his foreign policy than did Bush.
The left wanted us to shut down Gitmo. Not only are we still there but Obama signed an Executive Order to close Gitmo then just simply ignored his own one-year deadline to do so. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.
We are still in Iraq despite Obama’s promises to be completely out six months after he became president. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.
We’ve actually increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.
Obama has even wildly increased the number of predator drone attacks in a wide “death from the skies” policy. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.
The so-called anti-war movement is filled with partisan hypocrites. There is no other conclusion that can be reached on the subject.
Lastly, where is the focus on the anti-war left that the Old Media constantly indulged during Bush’s years in office? The media was so exercised about the anti-war left that it was even claimed that the anti-war movement was the “third world power” it was so powerful. This was obvious, wild-eyed hyperbole, we know now and knew then. But the fact is that the media was desperate to help get rid of Bush and the Republicans and the so-called power of the anti-war left was merely a vehicle to do so. Now that Bush is gone and quite despite the fact that none of the issues, policies, or facts on the ground have changed in any of the wars we are involved in the media is completely quiet about the anti-war movement.
Simple hypocrisy. That is all it is.
Reason TV has a great video: What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?
-By Warner Todd Huston
Remember those hoary days of raucous protest when anti-war protesters sent thousands of people into the streets sometimes with only a days notice? Now consider this: have you seen any of these giant protests since 2008 presidential election?
Yeah, no one else has, either. Do you wonder why that is? Well, it’s because the anti-war movement was nothing else but a hypocritical proxy issue used solely to get rid of President Bush and the Republicans. It was never about war at all. At this point this is an indisputable fact.
These days the anti-war movement cannot put more than a few dozen people in the street for its cause — which itself is little else but a proxy issue for the implementation of a worldwide socialist state.
Obviously it was never about “war.” It was just about Bush. After all, from the perspective of the issues and claims made against the Bush war policies by the anti-war left, Obama is not doing a whole lot differently in his foreign policy than did Bush.
The left wanted us to shut down Gitmo. Not only are we still there but Obama signed an Executive Order to close Gitmo then just simply ignored his own one-year deadline to do so. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.
We are still in Iraq despite Obama’s promises to be completely out six months after he became president. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.
We’ve actually increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.
Obama has even wildly increased the number of predator drone attacks in a wide “death from the skies” policy. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.
The so-called anti-war movement is filled with partisan hypocrites. There is no other conclusion that can be reached on the subject.
Lastly, where is the focus on the anti-war left that the Old Media constantly indulged during Bush’s years in office? The media was so exercised about the anti-war left that it was even claimed that the anti-war movement was the “third world power” it was so powerful. This was obvious, wild-eyed hyperbole, we know now and knew then. But the fact is that the media was desperate to help get rid of Bush and the Republicans and the so-called power of the anti-war left was merely a vehicle to do so. Now that Bush is gone and quite despite the fact that none of the issues, policies, or facts on the ground have changed in any of the wars we are involved in the media is completely quiet about the anti-war movement.
Simple hypocrisy. That is all it is.
Reason TV has a great video: What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?
Kayne West is still a dirtbag, but if nothing less I’d like to see GWB gain some closure on what still deeply bothers him to this day…
(E! Online)- Knowing what it feels like to have his approval ratings plummet, Kanye West says that he now understands what George W. Bush was going through when he was accused of botching the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina.
Please, please tell us more, Kanye…
“I definitely can understand the way he feels, to be accused of being a racist in any way, because the same thing happened to me, where I got accused of being a racist,” West told Houston station KBXX-FM today when asked about Bush’s interview in which he called West’s “Bush doesn’t care about black people” comment one of the low points of his presidency.
“It was a disgusting moment, pure and simple,” Bush told Matt Lauer.
But West totally understands Bush’s pain now, because just as Obama’s predecessor was raked across the political coals for Katrina, West was criticized for…interrupting Taylor Swift.
Sure, we see the parallels.
“For both situations, it was basically a lack of compassion that America felt in that situation,” West said, referring to the Swift episode.
“With him, it was a lack of compassion of him not rushing, him not taking the time to rush down to New Orleans. For me, it was a lack of compassion of cutting someone off in their moment. But nonetheless, I think we’re all quick to pull a race card in America. And now I’m more open, and the poetic justice that I feel, to have went through the same thing that he went [through]—and now I really more connect with him on just a humanitarian level.”
West’s comment in 2005 apparently really scarred the president, however, prompting him to cite it in his memoir, Decision Points: “Five years later I can barely write those words without feeling disgust.”
H/T:Meredith Jessup
CNN recently published a poll that posed the question: Bush versus Obama: Who was the better president?
(CNN) – Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House, according to a new national poll.
And a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday also indicates in the battle for Congress, Republicans hold large advantages over the Democrats among independents, men and blue-collar whites. The poll also indicates that Republicans are much more enthusiastic than Democrats to vote.
By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.
“Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush’s name while campaigning this year.” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
Perhaps we are polling the wrong question. A better question might be: Bush versus Obama: Who is the better person?
The Bush haters have been relentless, both while he was in office and the nearly two years since he left office. He has never once responded in kind. He has remained above the fray even though his successor continues to blame him for every problem he faces today. However, based upon the CNN poll results it appears Americans are beginning to appreciate President Bush’s achievements and qualities. Apparently, even in the face of blistering and relentless attacks from the current White House occupants and the sycophant MSM, President Bush has risen 21 points from a similar poll from last year. Obviously the “Blame Bush” campaign isn’t working.
I want to share a story I read about at HillBuzz.
On Tuesday, I was in Georgia for a panel discussion on Islamonazism when Michael Medved told the audience about a meeting he and other conservative radio hosts had with President George W. Bush on the last Wednesday he was in the White House.
The President summoned Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and a bunch of others to the Oval Office where he sat them down on the couches, pulled up a chair, looked them all in the eyes and told them “to go easy on the new guy and let him grow into the job because it’s harder than any of you could imagine”.
Bush, the villain…Bush, the terrible…Bush, the demented cowboy riding nightmare through the imaginations of the Left even to this day…summoned conservative radio hosts with great sway and influence to the White House so that he could sit them down and make them promise to go easy on Obama after his inauguration.
Bush told these radio hosts that, for the good of the country, they needed to allow Obama the chance to prove himself. Though they were conservative and he was a Democrat, Bush told these men that as Americans they needed to root for him to succeed and to give him the chance to grow into the role that he won in the election and to prove he was up to the job and capable of leading the nation.
Bush was the captain of a ship preparing to turn the wheel of state over to his successor, and he actually took steps to make sure Republicans did not initiate a groundless partisan war from Day One, just because this president was from the other side of the aisle.
Bush demanded Obama be given his chance to succeed before criticism was automatically flung at him.
Amazing, isn’t it?
HillBuzz titled the story “Another awesome George W. Bush story you probably have never heard that makes me hate myself for ever saying anything bad about this man.”
Many Americans seem to be reevaluating their opinion of President Bush. I’m glad. He is a fine man. He was a good President. I felt safe while he was in office. I never doubted his sincerity. I might not have agreed with him in every instance but I never questioned his love for America. And I believe history will affirm that he was right a lot more than wrong.
I hope that you take this opportunity to remember President Bush’s contributions to this country and the world.
May God bless you President Bush and thank you for your service.
