Readers of my scribblings know that yesterday I ripped the mask off the supposedly “tough” questioning of Barack Hussein Obama in Wednesday night’s ABC debate, by pointing out that even though George Stephanopoulous and Charles Gibson did ask him about those “manufactured issues” like his friendship with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, his mentoring by a racist raving lunatic named Jeremiah Wright and his disdain for wearing an American flag pin, they never held his feet to the fire when he didn’t answer. As usual, I’m out of step with my friends in the MSM. Check out the WaPo TV critic Tom Shales foaming at the mouth. They are apoplectic because Barry was even asked the questions. My lefty friends, you guys don’t know what tough questions are. If I could ask Barry a few questions, you’d see this TelePrompTer-dependent empty suit stammering like Ralph Kramden, which come to think of it, was pretty close to what happened Wednesday night. Even more hilarious, even though he’s been an “objective journalist” for several years, suddenly the left-wing moonbats are concerned that George might not be objective because he helped Bill Clinton get elected. When was the last time you heard the phrase “conflict of interest” describing any of these fugitives from the democrat party (Tim Russert, who used to work for Mario Cuomo, Chris “the Screamer” Matthews, who, God help him, used to write speeches for the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter and others)? We’re hearing it now applied to George S, who probably is going to have to eat lunch by himself for a while.

I think I realize the real reason that they are so upset. Yes, they didn’t like the questions about Obama’s radical pals or his embrace of the liberal idea that “patriotism” means the ability to point out all the bad things about America you, Hugo Chavez or Ahmanidenijad can dream up, which is why last October Obama said, as opposed to what he said Wednesday night, that he wouldn’t wear a flag pin. No, George and Charlie didn’t point that flip-flp out. No matter. The Obamaniacs are still seething with rage. The following video snippet illustrates it:

Barack Obama Admits He\'s a Socialist

In this clip, BHO demonstrates that when in comes to economics, he’s a blithering idiot.

Barack Obama Couldn\'t Pass Econ 101 at Gunpoint
If I, then a wet-behind-the-ears, fairly clueless undergraduate, had turned in this answer in my Econ 101 class, I would have received the “F” it deserves, but then my professor wasn’t a brainless left-winger who responds to the endless repetition of meaningless buzzwords (“Wall Street” “Halliburton” “neocon”) like my dogs respond to Beggin’ Strips. “Bush lied people died.” A+!

What do you suppose got into Charlie? He stated the fact that when you reduce taxes, revenues go up, and he got Barack Hussein Obama to admit that in his view tax policy is less about revenue and more about “fairness,” so even if you collect less money for all those beneficent government programs, it’s better to punish the evil “rich” (anyone with a job basically under liberals’ definition) than to let people enjoy the fruits of their labor. Maybe one of you libs can do me favor and answer the following questions: (1) where does the government get the moral authority to take the fruits of one person’s labor and give them to another? In 1850, we had a system like that in the southern states. We called it slavery. (2) Why is letting someone keep the money he or she earns “giving” them something, as in the hackneyed and idiotic liberal mantra “tax cuts for the rich?”

I know that the barking moonbats are upset that ABC pulled back the curtain a bit, fearing that the public may finally learn who Barack Obama really is, but I think this tax question really sent them over the edge. If people understand that liberals are lying when they claim that raising taxes is “for the children,” and realize that it’s really about their belief that it’s their role in life to make everyone equal in their happy socialist utopia, they aren’t going to compliantly submit and pay.

Trackback URL