In light of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s indications that President Obama is completely aloof about everything that goes on in his government (“He doesn’t know anything about Benghazi,” “He knew nothing about collecting the phone records of AP journalists,” “He knew nothing about the IRS intimidating conservative and Catholic groups”), I feel it’s time to ask Obama voters, Where’s your god now?
Either Obama is a man whose competence and benevolence rival only that of Abraham Lincoln, or he’s a bumbling, out-of-touch screw-up with no control over his own administration, the goings-on of which he is completely ignorant.
The realization that it must be one or the other might be what is driving some Democrats to actually begin criticizing these scandals, as opposed to their usual habit of criticizing the whistleblowers of the scandals; they would rather Obama be looked upon as ineffectual than a Nixonian crook. “Obama didn’t know anything about anything, but he does need to fire some people” seems to be the general consensus among Democrats.
There’s a large part of me that hopes we don’t anytime soon get to the bottom of these three scandals, however; I get so much entertainment from watching the different members of this administration squirm and flounder uncomfortably now that some in the media have begun doing their primary function of asking questions.
The denials, deliciously pathetic, reveal an arrogance the level of which we haven’t yet witnessed in Obama, which is saying something. Of course, the press is to blame for Obama’s over-confidence in his ability to get away with corruption, but now that one of their own has been the target of spying by the Justice Department—Obama’s Justice Department—some journalists are dusting off their journalism degrees and finally putting them to use, the temerity of which resulted in White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeating ad nauseum, in an effort to sound convincing, the uncomfortably disingenuous statement that Obama is a “firm believer in the need for the press to be unfettered.”
But of course Obama knew about the IRS and the Justice Department; what transpired there was classic Chicago politics. Obama is from Chicago; he knows how to play politics, as he has proudly stated in the past. And it was Obama, Commander in Chief, who (fine, “allegedly”) told American troops stationed just outside Benghazi to stand down and not to try to help the four diplomats being tortured and killed by Islamic savages, a non-story in Obama’s eyes (“There’s no ‘there’ there,” he said).
The head of the IRS may have been appointed by President George W. Bush, but, like Bush, he is obviously no conservative. The IRS has already admitted that they did exactly what they are being accused of having done, but Obama still felt confident to deny this reality, calling it outrageous only “if” it were true. (If it’s true that the IRS engaged in the criminal activity they already admitted they engaged in….)
If Obama is comfortable living in that reality, can we please let him live there just a little while longer, if only for the enjoyment of seeing him twist and turn? It lends legitimacy to mascot of the Democratic Party.
…either he’s being a chicken that’s afraid to answer questions or he’s reminding the media that he’s the boss and they’ll dance only when he says they will.
Obama’s always late for these things. Always. So disrespectful.
Like most pragmatic conservatives, I have been dreading a 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential run. She, and her supporters, would slaughter her opponent with the most slanderous accusations and political ads since, well, since President Obama took the crown for Most Negative Campaigner during the 2012 elections. Clinton has had the highest favorability rating among all other potential 2016 candidates, and has been more popular in Obama’s second term than even Obama was this past Election Day.
Since the second election of Obama, it has been “Hillary’s turn” in Democrats’ eyes. Their illusions about Obama have been, if not shattered, cracked. They want a redo. Clinton will be the savior that Obama failed to be. Instead of learning from Obama that liberalism doesn’t work, leftists feel that Obama just didn’t do it right. But liberal voters have been born again and found the faith that Clinton will do what Obama could not.
I no longer fear, but actually hope, that Clinton does have the gall to run in 2016. To the extent that the press and the President currently talk about Benghazi at all, it is only to dismiss it as nothing more than a conspiracy to corrupt the legacy of our benevolent leader. They have not reported the simple fact that Hillary Clinton’s signature is scrawled on the denial of a request for security that she told Congress she never received, which denial resulted in four American diplomats’ death.
The media doesn’t report this because they don’t have to. But during the campaign heat of 2016, whoever Clinton’s opponent is will surely talk about Benghazi during the presidential debates, which are watched by tens of millions of Americans, who right now probably think that “Ben Gauzy” is some crazy Republican congressman whom Democrats like to make fun of. Once they hear the truth and the details, the idea of a President Clinton will be unpalatable.
Benghazi was a topic only briefly touched upon in only one of the presidential debates between Obama and challenger Mitt Romney last year. Romney dropped the ball on that one a bit, but, in his defense, the details of Benghazi were still shamefully unclear at that time. Moreover, Clinton’s lies were not proven, as they are now. In 2016, the media will be unable to keep Benghazi from the public, who will be devouring the debates in which Benghazi will be a persistent topic.
And Benghazi will not be the only story discrediting to Clinton. There is also the issue of Watergate, the media’s favorite scandal that they can never really seem to quite explain their disproportionate outrage over. “Some people broke into somebody’s office and listened to some conversations when they weren’t supposed to, or…something? Anyway, President Nixon committed an atrocious crime against humanity and why he never served the rest of his life in prison is beyond us.” So villainous has Nixon been portrayed for the past forty years, one would think his signature had been found on a denial of a request for security that he had told Congress he had never received, which denial resulted in four American diplomats’ deaths.
So how does Hillary Clinton fit into Watergate? I’ll allow this excerpt from an article at Digital Journal to explain that:
“A lifelong Democrat, Mr. [Jerry] Zeifman supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee [investigating the Watergate scandal]. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation—one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.”
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview….“She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Basically, Hillary Clinton was as corrupt in the ’70s as she is today.
So I dare Clinton to run for president. And if the public doesn’t care about Benghazi or myriad other cases of Clinton corruption and they vote her into the Oval Office, it will not be for lack of being informed, but for America’s utter abandonment of integrity, good judgment, and morality. We can weep for the country if that time ever comes.
— Liars Never Win (@liars_never_win)
Why did Obama preface all his IRS remarks with “if” when the IRS already confessed???— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen)
Friday: IRS apologizes for targeting conservatives.Monday: Obama says “if” they targeted conservatives, that’s bad.— L K (@OrwellForce)
Obama: I found out about the IRS audits by watching news Friday, and said NOT A DAMN WORD until directly asked about it. Uh-huh.— John Hayward (@Doc_0)
[I forgot to queue this up the other day, so, surprise, a post on a Sunday.]
Sixty-one percent of college kids want the government out of their lives, according to a poll conducted by Young America’s Foundation (YAF), an organization for young conservative activists. Adam Tragone, on CNSNews.com, one of the more dependable news sources online, directs us to this poll evidently to gin up conservatives’ enthusiasm for America’s future.
It is because I’m alert to the mindset of America’s undergraduates, who elected as the leader of their country one of its most pro-government candidates in history, that I can confidently proclaim this poll to be flagrantly inaccurate. College kids do not want government out of their lives. This demographic goosesteps with the agenda of Democrats. Any poll that shows them to want to be free from government intervention into their lives is an inaccurate one.
Even the self-described anarchists are usually, and ironically, far left-wing, their primary qualm with the government being that it has a military, and their secondary being that it does not subsidize marijuana. Outside those two issues, young “anarchists” want more government in the hopes that it will solve their problems for them. Like college students, these “anarchists” would probably say they want the government out of their lives as well; but, also like college students, they seem not to understand what that means.
Without the vote of these undergrads that this poll claims want less government, President Obama would right now be former President Obama.
It is imperative for conservatives to stop paying attention to polls, let alone producing them, that provide them with a false sense of optimism. Conservatives, including this one, paid daily attention to Gallup to see how badly Governor Mitt Romney would wallop Obama in last year’s election. Because of the increasingly optimistic numbers coming from Gallup and other right-leaning pollsters, conservatives were no longer looking to see if Romney would defeat Obama, but by how much he would defeat him. We hurt ourselves.
Conservative radio host Mark Levin, nationally syndicated, often gave his audience that same sense of optimism every time he declared that defeating Obama should be a piece of cake, the media’s efforts to protect him notwithstanding. Obama is so bad a president, the argument went, and unemployment so historically high, that it’d be a miracle if Obama came out victorious.
Miracles do happen, but Obama’s victory was not one of them. It was more akin, rather, to a bad omen. It was not females’ desire to be taken care of by the government that alone won Obama’s re-election; it was not blacks’ sense of racial pride and low standards for a role model that alone won Obama’s re-election; and it was not the media’s tireless cheerleading an Obama victory that alone won Obama’s re-election. It was these factors in combination with our youth’s laziness and their desire to have somebody else, anybody else, be responsible for their life decisions, that won Obama’s re-election. Were only one of these not the case, the torch likely would have passed to Romney. But to ignore the affection college kids have for the government and to put any value into polls that contradict what we can see with our own eyes is going to get us nowhere but nowhere.
Ron Paul has his merits, and Obama…well, Obama always has his creepiness.
Basically, “There is no reason to be wary of government because it is a benevolent force that you’d all do well to trust unquestionably and let into your lives.”
What a creeeeeep.
Ted Cruz, the freshman senator from Texas and the newest Tea Party favorite, is leaving open the possibility of a run for the White House in 2016. Were he to win election, he will by that time have had fairly little experience in Washington, and yet more than double the experience, in terms of years, that then-Senator Barack Obama had when he determined to plague the nation by becoming the 44th president.
I very much respect and admire Sen. Cruz for what the media, were the man a Democrat, would call fearless conviction, but because he is not a member of the political party they so venerate, they call abrasive McCarthyism—a compliment, in my mind, as I view Senator Joe McCarthy to have been one of the most important and beneficently influential senators in American history.
For all my approval of Cruz as a Senator, I am unable to support his current evident ambition to run for president; Cruz, having been born a Canadian, does not meet the Constitutional requirement that our presidents, save those in America’s early history who were born in England, be “natural born citizens,” a term that has traditionally and continually, until recently, been interpreted as meaning America-born.
“Until recently” because, at least according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, “The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as native-born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”
Cruz also attempted to mitigate any concern we Cruz “birthers” have by saying recently in an interview with Fox News, “My mom was a U.S. citizen, so I am a citizen by birth.”
That he was a citizen at birth may be the case, but it is also irrelevant in my mind, regardless of what the CRS says; Cruz was not born on American soil. This concern still is only half of the problem I have had and still have with a certain other person’s natural-born status, and I must remain consistent and not play party politics by giving Cruz a pass on my misgivings.
Still, it is a possibility that I could be persuaded to abandon this belief I have and eventually come to accept Cruz’s natural-born status and, adhering to a single standard, also accept that other person’s natural-born status. In that event, however, the additional fact would remain that that other person was born with dual citizenship, which, in accordance with court precedent, nullifies natural-born status.
Isn’t it odd, though, that calling into question the elective eligibility of one man designates me in the eyes of the left as a crazy racist, but doing the same for another man who shares my political persuasion, and who, by the way, is also only 50-percent white, designates me as simply silly?
The April unemployment numbers came out yesterday—7.5 percent, the lowest in President Obama’s entire presidency—and because it’s probably all you will have read about since then, on that topic I will only say that despite the official unemployment rate being lower than when Obama took office, more people are now without a job. This is the grand, ironic illusion we’re being sold as a recovery.
Getting that out of the way, onward to more pressing matters: Jason Collins, the “heroic” NBA player who couldn’t keep it in the bedroom and announced that he liked to have sex with men. Much has been made about Obama’s public pronouncement of pride in Collins, but I haven’t read any analysis on one of Obama’s remarks in particular.
Speaking before the press, Obama said, in part, “The LGBT community deserves full equality, not just partial equality; not just tolerance, but a recognition that they are fully a part of the American family.”
Not just tolerance? Thirteen months ago, Obama himself was merely tolerant of homosexuals. He did not recognize that their disposition to sodomy granted them any right to what for centuries on this continent and millennia on others has traditionally been called marriage.
Then, a month later, almost a year ago to this day, an observant adviser made the timely realization that some of Obama’s biggest donations to his last election effort were from homosexuals and LGBT groups. And thus he decided it was time for his evolution, willing himself into Super Barack, the next step in his evolutionary process, coming to full bloom to stand on equal ground with the other loyally left-wing.
What is good for Obama is good for the rest of us. When he was merely tolerant of homosexuals, he did not insist the rest of us be anything more than tolerant. Now that he apparently has unwavering support for those in the LGBT community, he requires the rest of us also support them. We must be like him. It is no longer enough to tolerate homosexuality; we must now recognize and accept it as familial. We must allow them into our lives and be their friends.
Methinks Obama has inadvertently revealed himself to have once been a kindergarten teacher.
Report: Obama Spent Twice as Much Time on Vacation/Golf as Economy:
According to a new report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Institute (GAI), President Barack Obama has spent over twice as many hours on vacation and golf (976 hours) as he has in economic meetings of any kind (474.4 hours).
Paul Ryan Now Supports Gay Adoption
No, I’m serious. Go.
As far as I’m concerned,...
Leftybegone is wicked smart.
BOMBSHELL: Mayor Sarah Palin Denied Police Protection to Family, Resulting in Their Murder
[Posting this earlier than...
so i googled gangster goose and let me tell you that i was not disappointed
Mi papá tiene 47 años= my dad is 47 years old
Mi papa tiene 47 anos= my potato has 47 assholes
I love spanish