Quoting RS McCain, who said it best: Obama’s Festival of Lies:
The final press conference of Obama’s first term was a masterpiece of mendacity, a Mardi Gras parade of deliberate dishonesty. Liberals are still trying to catch their breath after the excitement of it all.
What the press corps loves about President Obama is the astonishing audacity of his lies. He doesn’t bother with tiny fibs or slight misrepresentations.
Everyone knows by now, I hope, that The One himself voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, back when he was eyeing a presidential run and realized he couldn’t get elected without pretending to be a dovish, pro-gun, fiscally responsible opponent of gay marriage. Not until Guy Benson tweeted about it today, though, did I realize how sharply his rhetoric at the time conflicted with today’s Democratic talking point du jour. Obama then, in “get our house in order” mode:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Jim DeMint couldn’t have said it any better. Seven years later, here’s the state of Hopenchange:
Obama said Congress would be “irresponsible” if it does not act quickly to raise the debt celing, putting the country back into another crisis. “Time is running short,” he said.
“While I’m willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficit, America cannot afford another debate with this Congress over how to pay the bills they’ve already racked up,” Obama said. “To even entertain the idea of this happening, of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It’s absurd.”
Keep reading at the link.
Daniel Greenfield, FrontPageMagazine: “We Are Not a Deadbeat Nation”, Obama Says, Then Misses Deadline for Sending Budget to Congress:
Obama assures that he will be happy to take control of the purse strings and shred the Constitution some more.
“If the House and the Senate wants to give me the authority so they don’t have to take these tough votes… I’m happy to take it,” he said. But, Obama added: “There are no magic tricks here, no loopholes. There’s no easy way out.”
That’s actually really hilarious coming from a guy who is just printing money at this point and whose economic adviser proposed minting a trillion dollar coin.
But Obama is no believer in magic tricks and shortcuts. He just believes we have to raise the debt limit, borrow more money and then never pay it back… like a responsible adult.
And like a responsible adult, Obama will be missing a budget deadline because not being a deadbeat, means pretending not to be one on camera in front of your press corps. It doesn’t mean actual responsibility.
MARK LEVIN: I’m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there’s a Constitution. Yes, he keeps telling us he won reelection. Congratulations, but guess what? The Constitution wasn’t up for election, it’s not up for a referendum. He has to comply with it, too.
He was sent back to Washington, but he’s got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president. When he gets up there and starts saying, if Congress doesn’t do this, I’m going to do this unilaterally, it violates separation of power a lot of the times. And this is a man pushing the edge of the envelope as far as i’m concerned, whether it’s the appointment clause, whether it’s his unilateral action on immigration, whether it’s trashing the commerce clause and the tax clauses under Obamacare. Now they’re talking about executive orders on the Second Amendment. They’ve issued regulations on First Amendment attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the Fourteenth Amendment.
What the hell is this? He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president, he sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and I’m furious about this and I’m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We don’t need to be turned upside down. We don’t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He’s bankrupting this country.
Watch video at the link….
Lou Dobbs appeared on Megyn Kelly’s Fox show to discuss the irony of Obama’s debt ceiling stance….
During his press conference today Barack Obama played the socialist card,
“When I’m over here at the Congressional picnic folks are coming up and taking pictures with their family. I promise you, Michelle and I are very nice to them and we have a wonderful time. But it doesn’t prevent them from going on the floor of the House and blast me for being a big spending socialist.”
Maybe he should stop being a big spending Socialist if he doesn’t like being called a big spending Socialist? Just a thought…
Here’s what Kirsten Powers had to say about those comments on Twitter….
Wow that was quite of a stream of consciousness on why the president thinks he's a social person. Painful.—
kirsten powers (@kirstenpowers10) January 14, 2013
And check it out. Obama thinks it’s the gun lobby who is “ginning up” the fear of gun bans – not he and Biden and Diane Feinstein.
“As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns, I think that we´ve seen for some time now that those who oppose any common sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners, that somehow the federal government´s about to take all your guns away. And there´s probably an economic element to that. It is obviously is good for business. But I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship — they don’t have anything to worry about. The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment.”
So was I imagining all that talk about banning semi-automatic weapons? Obama was asked several times about what he would be willing to do if Congress wouldn’t act on his proposals….
“My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence,” said Obama. “Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then i want to go ahead and take it.”
President Obama said Monday he would outline his plan to reduce gun violence by the end of the week, but he declined to say whether an assault weapons ban would be central to that effort.
“My starting point is not to worry about the politics,” Obama said when asked about congressional opposition to an assault weapons ban during a press conference at the White House.
But while he encouraged members of Congress to “vote their conscience,” the president refused to say whether he viewed an assault weapons ban as essential.
“I’ll give a fuller presentation later in the week,” Obama said.
It seems as though MSNBC’s Ed Schultz has taken Rahm Emanuel’s belief that, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste” to heart. Speaking on Monday prior to President Obama’s final press conference of his first term, Schultz disgustingly suggested that the tragedy at Sandy Hook could be “the 9/11 of gun violence.”
What a jackass. Video at link.
Ben Howe, Red State: Gun Control: WWJD?
As the gun control debate rages in America following the abominable events in Newtown, eventually, perhaps inevitably, the media will ask itself, “What would Jesus do?”
They’ve done it for years as it relates to wealth redistribution and Obamacare. Obama gave an entire speech about taxes in which he used Jesus for his justification. I’d wager that the tactic is designed to hit God fearing southerners where, in keeping with the caricature that the media has created of them, they are most likely to submit without question and accept the answer given to them by their betters.
Of course this vastly underestimates the target, but putting that aside, is there any truth to the idea that Jesus would deplore a concealed carry license or a mom defending her children from an intruder? After all, Jesus has some pretty radically pacifist quotes that need only be lifted from the Bible without context to sound convincing.
Such has been the case on Twitter where I’ve already more than once been the victim of “well meaning” gun control advocates who simply want me to be as “peaceful as Jesus.”
Virtually without fail, they point to Matthew 5:39:
But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
“Jesus’ statement here has to do with vengeance and retribution, not with self-defense,” says Dr. Thomas Howe, Professor of Bible & Biblical Languages at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC. “You should defend yourself, but you should not attempt to exact retribution upon those who do evil against you,” Howe says.
Catholic Vote.org: Jesus Supports Concealed Carry, Settles Gun Debate:
Did Jesus really support concealed carry? Absolutely he did.
Look no further than the Bible. All four gospels report the violent episode that takes place when Judas and the soldiers come to seize Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus of course is prepared to go along peacefully. Peter, meaning well but unclear on the concept, draws his sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave.
Okay, uncalled for – nobody’s disputing that. And of course, after putting the ear back where it goes, Jesus reprimands Peter, telling him, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?”
I’m not what you would call a Bible scholar in the strict sense (or really, any sense), but I think a few things jump out right away. First, Jesus expresses no surprise of disapproval that Peter has a sword. Second, he does not tell Peter to get rid of the sword or to hand it over to the soldiers. Third, he tells Peter to keep his sword, albeit with the admonishment to be less hasty in its use – “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.” Sound advice, no doubt. If you go around cutting off ears or holding up gas stations, your chances of arriving in the hereafter with a couple extra holes in your own hide increase dramatically. And this is what Jesus seems to say to Peter: Keep your weapon, carry it around even, but be judicious in how you use it.
Doug Powers, Michelle Malkin: Bill Clinton claim about assault weapons ban earns 3 Pinocchios — 4th Pinocchio AWOL:
“What the American people have got to decide is whether they believe people like me.” – Bill Clinton, October 2012
Former president, Golden Globe Award presenter and newest Father of the Year honoree Bill Clinton was up to his old tricks the other day — this time concerning data surrounding the assault weapons ban.
At a speech before the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas on January 9, Bill Clinton stated: “Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapon ban expired in 2005, half in the history of the country.” But that statement is untrue, as Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post demonstrates.
Asked by Kessler about his statement, Clinton’s spokesman declined to comment or to say where Clinton got his numbers. As Kessler, a professional fact-checker, says, “this always makes us suspicious.”
Keep reading at the link.
On January 14, Martin Bashir, who previously compared Rick Santorum to Joe Stalin, compared the NRA to Hitler.
Via The Hill:
The White House has informed House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that it will miss the legal deadline for sending a budget to Congress.
Acting Budget Director Jeff Zients told Ryan (R-Wis.) late Friday that the budget will not be delivered by Feb. 4, as required by law, a House aide said.
“Late Friday evening, Deputy Director Zients confirmed that for the fourth time in five years, the president’s budget will not be submitted in compliance with the law,” the aide said.
The Washington Times: KUHNER: Obama’s real problem:
It’s time Mr. Boehner and congressional Republicans waged a frontal assault on Mr. Obama’s welfare liberalism. The country’s very prosperity is at stake. The House speaker should hold a press conference, surrounded by fellow Republicans, and challenge Mr. Obama to publicly state what he says in private: America does not have a spending problem. If the president genuinely believes this, then voters have a right to know.
Mr. Obama’s comments open a window into his anti-American, socialist worldview. Either he is a brazen liar who knows we are living beyond our means, or he is a delusional, self-absorbed academic leftist who is so obsessed with transformational change that he cannot see that we are sliding off a real fiscal cliff. Whatever the reason, his presidency poses a mortal threat to the republic’s long-term survival.
We are becoming the United States of Argentina — an economic basket case with Third World debt levels. Mr. Obama’s tax-spend-and-borrow policy is stifling growth, sparking inflation, fostering private-sector sclerosis and eroding the middle class. Beyond out-of-control spending, America has a deeper problem: a president who does not care — or understand — that his nation is committing economic suicide.
In 1973, the infamous Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade legalized the crime that would take the lives of over 50 million innocent unborn humans, who were made in the image and likeness of God. As a result of this unspeakable decision and its aftermath, the United States of America has plunged into a moral chasm that no longer respects the dignity of the human person from conception until a natural death. In my opinion, this will inevitably destroy our country, unless America returns to its Christian roots in recognizing the natural law written in our hearts as children of God.
However, there is always hope.
Part of the hope is the story and witness of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, whom I came to know well during our many years of friendship. Nathanson was the co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL, later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League), and former director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, then the largest abortion clinic in the world. In the late 1970′s he turned against abortion to become a prominent pro-life advocate.
I played a small part in bringing him into the Catholic Church where he found peace and happiness. Nathanson served as a prophet for life, as he engaged in a heroic worldwide effort through tireless travel to deliver pro-life speeches in foreign countries. He continued his work through his writings and video productions until his death in 2011.
When the heinous decision of the Supreme Court is overturned and the Holy Innocents are saved again from the atheistic American Herods, Dr. Nathanson’ conversion to life and to the Catholic faith will be seen as a very important part of the possible resurgence of respect for life at all stages.***
It’s Death of Little Nell time again in the field of climate “science.” The New York Times – aka Pravda – has announced the closure of its Environment Desk. Rumours that the entire environment team, headed by Andy Revkin, have volunteered to be recycled into compost and spread on the lawn of the new billion dollar home Al Gore bought with the proceeds of his sale of Current TV to Middle Eastern oil interests are as yet unconfirmed. What we do know is that it’s very, very sad and that all over the Arctic baby polar bears are weeping bitter tears of regret.
A spokesman for the New York Times, quoted in the Guardian, has reaffirmed the paper’s commitment to environmental issues.
“We devote a lot of resources to it, now more than ever. We have not lost any desire for environmental coverage. This is purely a structural matter.”
Absolutely. It’s what newspapers always do when they’re committed to a particular field: close down the entire department responsible for covering it.
Aaron Goldstein, The American Spectator: A Cheap Shot From Sotomayor:
Towards the end of the interview, Sotomayor again made reference to the school nurse. “And the memory of it has never really left me. Because it is the look that so many people give you. It’s the look I was still receiving when I was nominated to the Supreme Court,” said Sotomayor.
Absolutely cheap. The opposition Sotomayor received on Capitol Hill was on account of her judicial philosophy and her rulings, not because of her Latina heritage, and she knows it. And who exactly gave Sotomayor that “look”? It certainly wasn’t Lindsey Graham who told her “you’re gonna get confirmed” during her confirmation hearings.
In any case, for Sotomayor to suggest that Republicans opposed her nomination because of her racial heritage is beneath her and beyond contempt.
But sadly, not in the least bit unexpected from one of this President’s allies.
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: Meet the softball: David Gregory and Colin Powell:
“Meet the Press” isn’t what it used to be. After a remarkably softball interview with President Obama on New Year’s Day, moderator David Gregory on Sunday let former secretary of state Colin Powell filibuster through one question after another, never following up or, as they used to do in the good old days, confronting the interviewee with statements that directly contradict his spin. Several examples suffice to show that Gregory is ill-prepared, doesn’t listen to the answers or has no interest in conducting tough interviews of the Obama administration’s surrogates. (Maybe it is all three.)
More on Powell from Quin Hillyer in the American Spectator”: The Increasingly Execrable Colin Powell:
Thus says the back-stabbing lout who deliberately let the innocent Scooter Libby twist in the wind, and then get convicted, when one word from Powell would have ended the investigation. Thus says the man who was afforded credit he didn’t deserve for conduct of a Gulf War (1991) he more or less opposed, the man who denounced his own testimony to the United Nations while blaming others for its substance, the man who claimed to be a Republican moderate but who endorsed the most radical leftist Democrat ever to serve in the presidency over a Republican moderate (John McCain) who had repeatedly befriended him and praised him throughout his career.
Chicks on the Right: This Won’t Come As Any Sort Of Surprise, But…
…there’s a whole bunch of abuse happening in “entitlement” programs.
I know. SHOCKING.
But check out this recent write up from John Stossel on Section 8 Housing. Apparently, Obama wants to give MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to renew Section 8 Housing vouchers that help poor people pay their rent. Except the problem is that Section 8 Housing is often better than housing that WORKING PEOPLE can get with their own money.
And that, you guys, is TOTAL CRAP.
The original intent behind Section 8 was to fix the problem of crime-infested public housing by moving tenants into areas where regular rent-paying people live, so that they could learn from those people how to live like responsible middle-classers.
Yeah. FAIL. Instead, the program makes people reeeeeeeally comfortable with getting near-free housing, while their struggling neighbors who are paying their own way simply get resentful. AS THEY SHOULD.
There’s no time limit on the vouchers, and there’s no work requirement, so what incentive would anyone have to start paying for their own housing?
Jack Cashill, The American Thinker: The Best Conservative Movies of 2012:
I admit to using the word “conservative” loosely — we are talking about Hollywood, after all. It here refers to those films that are at least respectful of the American experience and generally supportive of faith, family, and/or country. A film can score as much as 50 on the quality scale and 50 on the conservative scale, the latter graded on a Hollywood curve. The two values are equally weighted. Although it may not seem obvious, 2012 was a better year than most.