As the President and the Speaker gave competing pitches on prime time, they were aiming at different audiences.

Barack Obama was urging millions of indifferent Americans to pressure Congress against taking the economy over a cliff, while John Boehner was trying to keep a handful of his Tea Party mavericks in line for the same purpose.

The chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee had already announced opposition to the Speaker’s two-step plan to raise the debt ceiling, with some members vowing to vote against it on the grounds of ideological impurity.

The President himself slyly pointed up this conflict by praising “the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

“The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach–a cuts-only approach-–an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about–-cuts that place a greater burden on working families.”

In this odd conflict, Boehner has Tea Party terriers tugging at his leg while he tries to wrestle Democrats for political advantage in averting a disaster for the economy.

Early reactions are promising for Obama as websites of conservative Republicans were crashing under heavy traffic after the President’s address.

MORE.

ROBERT STEIN
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 The Moderate Voice
  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    We are currently very focused on this debt ceiling debate but I think we, much as the GOP members that created it, are missing the forest for the trees.

    We should probably lose our credit rating regardless of whether or not a deal is struck. Where as I understand the horror of that statement what we all must understand is that the debt ceiling debate has opened the debt ceiling as a valid political tool. No matter what happens this time sooner or later it will be used again for cuts under a Dem POTUS AND in the category of unintended consequences it will also be used by Dems against a GOP POTUS to raise taxes. We can scream hypocrisy but it will be just as ineffective as it is now against House TP members, they dont care its the politics stupid!

    If you look back any political tactic used if it finds any form of success is re-used and though it starts on one side it then shifts to both sides using it. It becomes a partisan club to beat your opponents with. Of course we are so focused on this debacle that we are ignoring the precedent it sets and the likely use of the tactic in the future.

    Dem POTUS’s in the future will be forced to cut spending, regardless of optics, by waves of GOP pols holding the ceiling hostage. In turn GOP POTUS’s will be forced to raise taxes when Dems hold it hostage. Both sides will tell us it is for our own good and to stabilize our fiscal house and both sides will have a small valid point that misses the overall problem.

    The House GOP has opened Pandora’s box now and the only way I see it ever getting closed is for a party to be horribly punished for doing so. The only way I see a party being so viciously punished is actually defaulting and dealing with the fallout. Any ratings agency worth its salt has to see this problem. This is akin to a borrower losing their job. Sure they may pay for a while and they may pay without incident but the chances are going down in large ways.

    The debt ceiling is now a political football and this is merely the first play of the game.

  • DLS

    The ratings agencies are being very responsible when they say they may still downgrade our credit rating if the debt ceiling is lifted but there is no serious long-term budget and fiscal reform plan made.

    Sky, the Dems are as bad if not worse than the GOP. The GOP-is-at-fault-alone myth has been shattered numerous times and it is dishonest to continue to make that false claim.

    What are liberals going to do when the money has run out? This current scramble is just the prelude.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    DLS-What makes the GOP worse is purely that they decided to pick this fight at an ill advised time, meaning in relation to the debt limit as opposed to during budget negotiations where it belongs.

    It was a tactical error of monumental proportions that will have lasting and damaging effects on the republic itself in the long run. Some so believed that Obama was a far left liberal that they projected this onto him which is equivalent to judging Nixon by the legend and not even the reality of Reagan. Like Nixon Obama is a deal maker and also like Nixon the opposition party is stacking him with shame to their own detriment that will come back to haunt them later. Many GOP voters were raised angry at the treatment of Nixon and the same will be true in regards to Obama and how Dems will be viewed in the future.

    This is how they were outflanked and why they are in a corner now. If their projection had been valid he would have refused to make deals involving cuts or at best would have offered 1:1 spending cuts for taxes. Instead he moved for a bigger package involving more cuts and a 3:1 deal. The result as we can see is that the GOP has to now fight for a smaller package or hand him a political victory. They had designed a well planned political tactic against the wrong POTUS. Oddly this makes the likelihood of a far left liberal in the future becoming POTUS, much like Reagan owes his win to Nixon.

    Now even if we do not default and even if they get some cuts they can be roundly mocked since their cuts will look small in comparison. Worse yet they have turned the debt limit into a political football which will be used again in the future by both sides. This is the damage to the republic I was speaking of. We may continue to have wealth as a nation but our trustworthiness on our debt will be in question and likely continue to deteriorate every time the football is picked up.

    It will be used to cut spending, raise taxes, end wars and in general shame and embarrass POTUS’s of both parties.

    As it stands whether Boehner can get his new package passed in the House at all is greatly in question. If so it will be viewed as a partisan vote and if not it will validate what Obama said that they cant say yes to anything. If not that will mean he will need to rely on Dems to do it and if that is the case it will move greatly leftward harming GOP cred in TP circles and possibly intensifying the internal GOP power struggle. Boehner knows the spot he is in which is why he made the comment about not taking the job to go toe to toe with the POTUS, it is a spot he has been forced into by his own party.

    You ask what the liberals will do when the money runs out but what will conservatives do DLS? What happens when empire America falls and we have to pawn off the military and all our trinkets? What happens when US corps can no longer count on us to “open new markets” and when SS and medicare/caid go belly up which many conservative voters count on for survival? What happens when our federal law enforcement agencies start shuttering their doors due to lack of funds? What about all of the states that need fed dollars that are primarily in red country since the blue states tend to pay out more than they get back?

    You seem to think this hurts the left when in reality both sides equally benefit from the fed though purely in their own ways. Both extremes will get precisely what they want by sacrificing all that they adore, a Pyrrhic victory of monumental proportions.

    Why dont we just end Medicare part D and let people get meds where they desire? That alone would cut 15t off of future spending, of course that would make them touch entitlements and one that benefits drug corps AND one that was created 100% on the GOP’s watch. Many ways exist to resolve the problem of spending and revenue. The only truly bad route is to tie it to the debt ceiling which sets a precedent that investors and pols will be thinking of in the future and should be.

  • DLS

    Well, as of the latest now, the Democrats may be better, assuming Reid’s plan (which doesn’t have tax-increase gimmicks in it) is what the Dems do, nut cases on such matters like Bernie Sanders be damned.

    I’ve written elsewhere that it’s going to look bad for the House GOP if they become the final killer of any deal that’s reasonable. I’m still questioning if I heard that the House GOP actually will resist true tax reform that ends “loopholes” and gimmicks, just because it ends up raising revenue (which would be anticipated).

    (Tax increases would be reasonable if they were sensible, like raising the FICA taxes rather than keeping them lowered so as to improve rather than continue to make worse Social Security’s and Medicare’s finances.)

    Note that I haven’t commented much on the GOP spokespeople’s statements other than to write them off largely as “prattling” or “stupid” or “tiresome.” Now, the Dems ought to know better. As in 2005 with Social Security, now this year, this rushed (it’s not needed) Big Budget Agreement is the Dems’ chance to structure entitlement reform to their preference, but they refuse to take the initiative again, and the insane Dems resist all entitlement reform, which is the essence of any serious budget agreement. (The problem is excessive and loose spending, and entitlements are the principal spending item. Reform now or more harshly later.)

    If the Dems ultimately can be sane (no stupid harmful tax increases), then it puts responsibility and blame on the House GOP.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/deanzerbe/2011/07/25/the-debt-ceiling-tax-increases-off-the-table/

    Note once more that a budget agreement is impossible, a plain debt limit increase is possible in one day. The increase should not necessary extend through 2012 into 2013, as Obama wants.

  • Allen

    Democrats don’t necessarily want to raise taxes. They want to balance the over burdened budget that the Republicans created and create a surplus as soon as possible. It worked well under Clinton.

    Democrats simply want to share the load rather than place the burden directly on the American elderly. Which is what the republicans want to do in the name of “job creation”.

    But as we saw under Clinton, job creation does not necessarily come from lower taxes nor does the economy necessarily grow with lower taxes. Taxes, by the most part, is irrelevant.

    What really matters is if business lending institutions are willing to lend to businesses and that has nothing to do with tax.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    If it is a clean debt ceiling raise even over a short period that would be acceptable but I dont think Boehner can pass that. Spending cuts come with either tax increases OR a long extension which are currently both a problem in the GOP House. Sadly the best version that raises and deals with the debt is the debt commission and a single extension. I say that though I utterly despise the concept of our elected Reps shirking any responsibility and passing it off to another commission. Bowles Simpson major flaw is it didnt gather enough votes to make it out of the commission. If the next one used a majority only method then it would be better.

    Of course the GOP has a warped memory of Obama rejecting it and the Dems have the same warped memory that he tried to force it on them. In reality Bowles Simpson was despised by both parties for different reasons and was dead on arrival, Obama just failed to try to force the issue(much like Clinton did not force them to vote for openly gay members of the military, it was an act of cowardice maybe but it was also all that was possible at the time). If he had done so the result would have been worse than this. Some in the GOP House hate him, or their voters do, to such a degree that they cant sign on to ANYTHING with his fingerprints on it. This would have left it in the Dems court to support major cuts and changes to entitlements solo which is akin to the GOP supporting major tax increases solo, not gonna happen. For something like Bowles Simpson to work it has to force the House and Senate to vote on it, that is the one advantage of the simple majority method. Of course the obvious downside is the constitutional shredding this all entails in my view.

    Of course the optics will hurt, without getting a pound of flesh the GOP will look bad to their base. By getting one using bad methods they look bad to everyone else. The frustrating part is that I actually like Boehner in many ways AND think we need cuts. As if by magic they have chosen the one path I find most offensive AND some of the few methods I cant support(not compromising).

  • DLS

    Sky —

    What makes the GOP worse is purely that they decided to pick this fight at an ill advised time, meaning in relation to the debt limit as opposed to during budget negotiations where it belongs.

    It was a tactical error of monumental proportions that will have lasting and damaging effects on the republic itself in the long run.

    It’s slowly materializing — will become substantial when they truly do block any reasonable budget agreement.

    You’re right about the original tactic, holding the debt limit hostage. The GOP is right to say “If not then, then when, or how?” but it’s still wrong. Don’t forget that I’m still confident that if a budget agreement is impossible, in one day they can raise the debt limit. (If the House GOP blocks the debt limit alone, it really is being stupid as well as harmful or destructive.) Please don’t also forget that what we see here is a good deal of partisan sparring of which most of them are the only real fans, while I’m also still suspicious and believe they are testing various stances on the public prior to the 2010 elections.

    Some so believed that Obama was a far left liberal that they projected this onto him which is equivalent to judging Nixon by the legend and not even the reality of Reagan. Like Nixon Obama is a deal maker and also like Nixon the opposition party is stacking him with shame to their own detriment that will come back to haunt them later. Many GOP voters were raised angry at the treatment of Nixon and the same will be true in regards to Obama and how Dems will be viewed in the future. [,,,]

    Well, Obama did side with the liberal Democrats in 2009 and in 2010, while angering the far Left by flubbing health care “reform” at the same time. Engaging in his unseemly, demagogic loser-appeal campaign behavior to try to rush legislation through such as “climate” [sic] legislation was an example of what repelled the public.

    Certainly he has shown willingness to concede to reality (as Bill Clinton did after 1994) and moderate his positions to the extent the far Left has all but disowned him now.

    The thing is, if he makes a decent deal with the Republicans to get any sensible first stab at budget reform, that’s a miracle from the Democrats. The House GOP is stupid to wreck it (and worse with our debt limit ceiling, potentially, of course).

    Oddly this makes the likelihood of a far left liberal in the future becoming POTUS, much like Reagan owes his win to Nixon.

    Isn’t that assuming something unusual by the public? I can see a contemporary McGovern, Mondale, Kerry (reputationally), etc., get nominated as the Dem candidate, then slaughtered in the general election.

    Reagan owing his win to Nixon? I don’t see how. Carter, perhaps.

    [The House Republicans] have turned the debt limit into a political football which will be used again in the future by both sides. This is the damage to the republic I was speaking of. We may continue to have wealth as a nation but our trustworthiness on our debt will be in question and likely continue to deteriorate every time the football is picked up.

    Well, it’s bad, certainly, and whatever happened to the ordinary appropriations process? Now, don’t you believe liberals would have the same complaints if the GOP tried to hold up all kinds of appropriations, or reduce or end them, albeit with less possible concern than with the debt limit?

    (Note that Congress has made many appropriations “mandatory” — recall I have said that sleazier Dems would make all of the entitlements fully “mandatory” out of general revenues, and claim that act alone — without raising taxes to pay fully for them — had “saved” entitlements. It’s not too early or late to witness that!)

    As it stands whether Boehner can get his new package passed in the House at all is greatly in question. […]

    Boehner knows the spot he is in which is why he made the comment about not taking the job to go toe to toe with the POTUS, it is a spot he has been forced into by his own party.

    You ask what the liberals will do when the money runs out but what will conservatives do DLS? What happens when empire America falls and we have to pawn off the military and all our trinkets? What happens when US corps can no longer count on us to “open new markets” and when SS and medicare/caid go belly up which many conservative voters count on for survival? What happens when our federal law enforcement agencies start shuttering their doors due to lack of funds? What about all of the states that need fed dollars that are primarily in red country since the blue states tend to pay out more than they get back?

    It’s the Left rather than the Right that will be struck at the deepest psychological (or philosophical) level. No doubt the Right in theory can represent the increasingly “oppressed” taxpayers, who will be a smaller fraction of the population while retirees will grow substantially. (Think “dependency ratio,” now and future; you might also review fertility and immigration, though problems we will face here are much less than Europe will experience, where “replacement migration” to boost the labor force really isn’t politically possible.)

    To the extent that so many people are demanding and stupid and both Left and Right politicians fear loss of re-election, I’ve already said the bad news: Entitlement reform (the key to spending, the problem of the federal government along with overreach) will be delayed until it cannot be any longer (same with right-sizing the federal, state, and local governments) and at that time, politicians will likely retire because it won’t be fun any more — can’t buy votes easily any longer, plus power and influence in Washington will finally wane somewhat, at least.

    You seem to think this hurts the left when in reality both sides equally benefit from the fed though purely in their own ways. Both extremes will get precisely what they want by sacrificing all that they adore, a Pyrrhic victory of monumental proportions.

    There are “big government Republicans” and of course the military is a GOP sacred cow (and a huge, bloated bureaucracy as well as money hog with procurement, notably, something I’ve long advocated be reformed), but we’ll downsize the military eventually (and hopefully end many overseas commitments).

    To the extent that Northeastern liberal Republicans will suffer more than other Republicans, I can’t quantify though expect it.

    Why dont we just end Medicare part D and let people get meds where they desire? That alone would cut 15t off of future spending, of course that would make them touch entitlements and one that benefits drug corps AND one that was created 100% on the GOP’s watch. Many ways exist to resolve the problem of spending and revenue. The only truly bad route is to tie it to the debt ceiling which sets a precedent that investors and pols will be thinking of in the future and should be.

    Don’t worry — I believe the debt ceiling if need be can be raised all by itself in the end. The House GOP is unlikely to obstruct that, and if it does, they’re going to get a lot of ill will accompanying the blame.

    As to your rhetorical remark, I don’t advocate huge chops in Medicare. My quip outdid yours, in fact — I said that of course we can save money by not paying for this, or for that, and why not reduce the cost to zero by ending Medicare? (How’s that?)

    I believe we’ll have entitlements continue, albeit in revised form, and I’ve said more than once that more people will be dependent on Social Security than they now think, and there really will be a concern about Social Security benefits being adequate.

    (Extra for experts: The big bear market when retirees sell assets to finance their retirements is widely anticipated, and there will be tough times for governments, which must pare down, reforming government retirement pensions and benefits, and a struggling smaller work force proportionally to pay for many more retirees; add to that the prospect of many becoming dependent later on Social Security, often unexpectedly, and struggling with benefits that don’t permit much discretionary spending.)

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    DLS-Of course I did speak a bit wrong. The only real “winners” I see are Paleocons and possibly even New Deal type Dems.

    The Paleocons will finally get their country back. The New Deal Dems will finally have a purpose again.

    Though I like and respect those groups far more than their most recent party members it is a high price that I hope you are in the end correct on, that we dont need to pay it and just pass a clean bill.

    I still argue we need a party that is working to resolve old issues, like SS and healthcare, but using new tech methods and by thinking outside of the box and for gods sake outside of the markets that created it and nurtured them into the monstrosities that they are(both big gov and big Wall Street). We need programs that no pols job counts on and no corp profits off of since both of those motives are what got us here.

  • DLS

    Sky — don’t you mean “neo-cons” in the broad, big government friendly sense? (also called in the past, Rockefeller Republicans, which invokes gross excess by government — Brasilia on the Hudson — the penultimate US-statist world view expression)

    http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200305.html

    http://www.lofaber.com/albany/essaymaking.html

    http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=760

    We see a similar mindset out of Northeastern Republicans and some other Republicans (all of whom should be Democrats) today.

  • DLS

    Incidentally, Sky, while current people (mainly liberals) are overreacting to what they (mainly liberals) refer to as “extremism” by those they (mainly liberals) don’t agree with (Republicans in the House of Representatives and in some state governments, namely), it is some source of amusement, particularly with the politics that are being expressed in the states. (Ron Beasley would like this, too.) Gay marriage vs. abortion restrictions…

    http://nationaljournal.com/politics/disunited-are-our-states-moving-in-separate-directions–20110722

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    DLS-A short explanation of the Nixon laid the groundwork for Reagan goes like this.

    Prior to Nixon we were still very much a Dem nation. The GOP was the rich mans party. Eisenhower as an outsider was never really considered a Republican by those in or out of the party but instead a “me to Republican.” He is comparable to Clinton. Clinton was a “me to Democrat” and like Eisenhower did not fully reform his party in the nations eyes but did soften their views.

    Nixon on the other hand was a deal maker and even with his scandals and horrible left wing policies(price caps and the like) reformed the GOP in many voters eyes. The added bonus was that unknown to many Dems at the time, that helped this shift by acting like nutters, their railing against him resulted in many kids that grew up in the era feeling bad for Nixon. A phenomenon I really never knew existed until I was around enough people of that age group (usually in the 8-20 age or so range while he was in office).

    Though they didnt like some things about him they pitied him because he was so horribly maligned (and he was, like Obama he was treated horribly by the opposition). Reagan ran as a real conservative as opposed to a “me to” which is what Bush Sr ran as in the primary. The GOP was tired of being afraid of real cons and were somewhat bitter about what happened to Nixon and thought the GOP was now reformed in the publics mind if they had a clean candidate. This all proved to be correct and those bitter kids became solid GOP supporters. The main difference is only the optics since many kids will likely believe that the reason Obama is unfairly maligned is race (which has some merit but not much since that is far from the driving force) and regardless of truth this will be part of his legend that in my view will fuel their leftward track.

    Nixon was very disappointing for Cons, Obama is very disappointing to Libs but I think they will constantly get the same treatment of “yes but he also did some great things.” Also people are stupid both men are tracking as far to their side as the nation was prepared for without spooking them.

    Some truth exists to all politics being local but I would also argue all politics are generational. Each POTUS builds on those before and especially those in the same party. Now that the GOP is acting like nutters I think we have reached a very scary time for the GOP in the generational political math.

    Nixon and Obama being deal makers broke the caricature that their opposition painted to remain the dominant party. After Nixon the “they will gut social programs and hurt the safety net” argument became easier to ignore. After Obama the fear of high taxes and gov just for the purpose of gov will also be easier to ignore. This lays the groundwork for someone that will steer the nation on a slow boil toward actually doing those things like Reagan did with his rightward shift not because the nation wants it more or less but because they no longer fear it or at least believe it.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    DLS-Actually I meant Paleocons since we will actually be able to have a much smaller gov than we have had available in nearly a century. Neo-cons in my view will lose big since they cant afford the foreign adventures anymore and progressives will lose since the New Deal types will be addressing re-weaving the safety net as opposed to the progressives that are more akin to social liberals with a deep desire to tax those at the top. I know progressives are more complex but if taken to far down in funding we will not be about building on the past which is what they do but instead re-building from the ground up which is more New Deal era.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    DLS-To be specific the GOP could run on “helpful liberty” if you will. Like ceasing helping people with water bills and instead buying them a watermaker once(cost around 500 or so). Or helping people with power/heat could easily be cheaper helping them or buying them solar or wind power units. Yes this has problems but then when they discuss the need to be rugged it would mean more than sheer destitution. Soup kitchens instead of food stamps, all of these things and more in trade for SS.

    All of this would save money BUT it would cost companies real money that goes from the gov to recipients and directly into companies profits.

  • DLS

    The Magical Sky Father wrote:

    We were a Dem nation through the 1970s, all the way to the 1980 elections.

    The good times lasted through 1973, then as of the oil embargo and the inability to hide inflation from being tangible, it became not-so-good. All the fruits bad as well as good of liberalism had materialized. The apex of liberalism, New York City, bankrupted itself from liberalism. Many grandiose ideas and ambitions, as well as plans, for (the federal) government proved to be much different and worse than hoped or expected. The economy suffered badly. Inflation increased, and so did unemployment (the Phillips curve and the the ideas driving it were demolished). The idea of spending ever more, having government do ever more, to buy ever more votes and control ever more in the economy and society, was shown to be a failure. (It was even worse in, e.g., the United Kingdom, which had nationalized industries.) People finally had enough. There was a tax revolt in California in 1978, and foreign as well as domestic policy injuries got Reagan elected.

  • DLS

    The Magical Sky Father wrote:

    Nixon on the other hand was a deal maker and even with his scandals and horrible left wing policies(price caps and the like) reformed the GOP in many voters eyes.

    It has been my impression that liberals loathed the GOP more than ever since Nixon was in office. (Of course, they’ve loathed the GOP more than ever once the public repudiated liberalism in 1980 and elected Reagan. Reagan and Bush (Dubya) probably have been hated more than any other people in US politics.

    many kids will likely believe that the reason Obama is unfairly maligned is race (which has some merit but not much since that is far from the driving force) and regardless of truth this will be part of his legend that in my view will fuel their leftward track.

    Kids of all ages, even when told the truth, instead, time after time.

    Nixon and Obama being deal makers broke the caricature that their opposition painted to remain the dominant party.

    In Obama I see a repetition of Clinton after 1994, being forced to concede somewhat to reality and make compromises with reality (and Republicans sometimes) in order to get re-elected in 2012.

    Actually I meant Paleocons since we will actually be able to have a much smaller gov than we have had available in nearly a century.

    We will have to have a much small government (federal, especially, but state and local, too) because of demographic and economic changes that are coming.

    Neo-cons in my view will lose big since they cant afford the foreign adventures anymore and progressives will lose since the New Deal types will be addressing re-weaving the safety net as opposed to the progressives that are more akin to social liberals with a deep desire to tax those at the top. I know progressives are more complex but if taken to far down in funding we will not be about building on the past which is what they do but instead re-building from the ground up which is more New Deal era.

    Yes, neo-cons favoring a large military and aggressive (extensive) foreign policy. Everything is going to have to be pared down.

    Building from the ground up, but not in the New Deal sense, but rather the introduction of reason into deciding what governments should do, and which governments, and how much they should do, in the context of an Era of Limits.

    To be specific the GOP could run on “helpful liberty” if you will.

    Not the federal government. State and local government only.

  • stallaris

    HOW MUCH FURTHER ARE WE WILLING TO GO IN ORDER TO PLEASE THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO DENY US EVEN THE RIGHT TO EXISTENCE(what is to you country without laws or lawless country in respect to your personal rights, but the one that in contrast to your denied basic human rights recognizes you extremely liable when payments are due) !!?

    IS IT INDEPENDENCE THAT WE CELEBRATE OR DEPENDENCE (what are your credit card bills or alimony saying about it) !!? HOW IS YOUR DIABETES AND LOST MARRIAGES !!? FORECLOSURES AND JOB SEARCH !!? THAT IS THE QUESTION TO BE OR NOT TO BE !!!!!! IS IT LAND OF THE FREE OR STATE OF TERROR AGAINST OWN POPULATION !!? IT IS TIME TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT COLOR ARE THE STRIPES ON OUR STAR SPANGLED BANNER !!!

    VISIT(google text if links don’t work) “DICTATOR OBAMA = STALIN = BUSH or USA = SOVIET UNION” http://avsecbostjan.blogspot.com/ or http://avsecbostjan.wordpress.com/ …TO LEARN WHO, HOW, AND WHY RUINED YOU…FROM 911 TO EXILED WHITE AMERICAN REFUGEES SEEKING ASYLUM RIGHT NOW !!! TIME TO DETERMINE WHOSE INDEPENDENCE/AMERICA, WE CELEBRATE TODAY(who want to erase us and denies us the right to exist) !!! IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHOM WE ADDRESS WITH “PRESIDENT”(STOP HUMILIATING YOURSELF) !!!!