Putin the Conservative Superstar

This is an older article but so relevant. See previous post on Putin’s address.

The conservative right sees areas to praise Putin. If I told you a few years ago this would be the case, would you have  believed me?

Now he’s riding high on conservative steam.

 

Why Are American Conservatives Praising Putin?

Russia’s anti-gay policies deserve the scorn of U.S. conservatives.
Cathy Young | August 22, 2013 | Reason.com

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, the career KGB officer who has presided over the rollback of his country’s post-Communist freedoms and revived Cold War-style anti-Americanism, is an unlikely hero for American conservatives. Yet the Kremlin strongman has lately found some fans on the right who see him as a defender of Christian values — most recently, in the imbroglio over Russia’s new legal ban on gay “propaganda.” It is a sad misjudgment that does a disservice to the causes of conservatism, freedom, and religion alike.

Take a minute to inhale that. Its a good article too, aside from the subheading. But there is a point many miss. Sure, I have praised some of his moves myself. Does it make him a stalwart conservative? Put in relative terms, is he more conservative than Obama? Without doubt. I don’t think Putin is worried about his approvals either.

What amazes me is Putin’s theatrical disagreements with Obama on several fronts. He could be accused of hypocrisy too, but why bother when Vlad says stuff which makes sense to conservatives? That’s the point.

Putin can be crude and slick at times, and ruthless at others. He can rally the support of his people. Obama could take a lesson on that. Putin can appear conservative on fiscal and cultural issues. In other words, in areas Obama would never dare to venture.

It might demonstrate that the new American Left is more openly Marxist than Putin. If it were a political campaign, in many ways it is, Putin can run to the right of the progressive Left. But that is not hard to do. Hillary ran to the right of Obama – while darling Edwards ran to the Left — creating an illusion Obama was in the middle.

Consider that for decades  cultural Marxists were natural allies to ‘mother Russia’. Visions of Ted Kennedy and Andropov come to mind. They stuck it in our faces when they could. This is a different twist. Moscow knows the American Left’s record. So should conservatives. It was conservatives who actively opposed communism. (it was even popular to some Dems in the JFK era) Today is different. The mask is off for the Left.

On to Putin. He has made inroads with the people who historically were the most opposed to Russia. Just how could he do that? This article like others points it out. When he bagged the big Pike in the summer, fish was not the only thing biting. If conservatives are comparing his policies to ours, he’s come a long way. He knows it. Meanwhile, he appears less like the new Democrats, despite former alliance.

Spokesmen for several right-wing groups including the American Family Association have praised the Russian law, which prohibits any pro-gay speech or expression that could be accessible to minors. Veteran columnist Pat Buchanan has joined the Putin cheerleading squad. And, shockingly, the usually thoughtful author Rod Dreher, who blogs for The American Conservative, has added his own “1.5 Cheers for Putin.”
While condemning anti-gay violence and authoritarianism in Russia, Dreher praises Putin’s willingness to speak up for Christianity and laments that “post-Soviet Russia, for all its grievous flaws, is . . . more conscious of its Christian history and character than the United States.”
This is a truly grievous misunderstanding of the reality of religion and politics in 21st Century Russia. Russia today is outwardly far more religious than most of Western Europe, but it’s a religion of state more than church: Orthodox Christianity has taken Communism’s place as the new official ideology, with church membership an official badge of patriotism and loyalty.

More at Reason.com

It’s good politics for Putin. His staunchest chief enemy, conservatives, have suddenly been smitten by his moves. Who changed Putin or conservatives? We know Putin hasn’t changed his stripes, he changed the rules to allow him to regain power. (something some of us are leery of Obama doing) So he’s no hero for the rule of law. Yet he has won over some conservatives with his gimmickry.(and politics) He’s still that same Putin Obama promised more flexibility to. Now Putin seems to flirt with American conservatives. Age-old enemies. Like people play the dating game: present yourself as a noble partner while courting, then after the commitment the truth comes out.

Don’t be fooled, Putin is still the Russian bear. I think its dangerous to draw too many parallels. Pat Buchanan should know better than making very cordial comparisons to Russia and Putin. It’s too easy to take a few positions for common sense agreement with Putin. And still as easy to disagree on his traditional values and anti-gay stance we are supposed to condemn. But there is more lurking beneath the skin, just like Obama.

It is a fascinating change though. I leave you with Putin recently sounding more FDR:

Vladimir Putin pointed out the well-known attempts in recent years to impose an allegedly more progressive development model on other countries. But the result was invariably retrogression, barbarity and a high price in blood. On the other hand, the situation around Syria and now around Iran, too, proves that any international problem can and must be settled exclusively through political means, without ever resorting to the use of force, which, the Russian leader is certain, has no future and provokes rejection in a majority of world nations.

Recent address

Related https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/new-bear-is-the-traditional-bear/

RightRing | Bullright

Filthy “Pool” for O-regime, what do you expect?

The column did not need a subtitle, but the author supplied one anyway.
Dirty “pool”(report) in China? Big surprise.

Dirty Pool

Column: The rise of secretarial journalism

BY: Matthew Continetti | Free Beacon
December 6, 2013 5:00 am

It was a sunny day in Beijing on Thursday—refreshingly sunny, to be more precise—when Vice President Joe Biden met Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. I know this because I have read the pool report of the occasion, a pithy and practically content-free piece of journalism that is nevertheless one of the more entertaining things to enter my inbox in recent days. The pool report confirms the lingering suspicion—if it hasn’t been confirmed a million times already—that the line between journalism and Democratic Party cheerleading has more than faded. It has become invisible.

Pool reports are summaries of official events distributed to reporters, who then use the information to write articles or produce news packages. The building blocks of journalism, involving basic details such as names, places, and local color, pool reports are typically written by members of the periodical press. But the Internet has thrown open the question of what the periodical press is. And in the case of Vice President Biden’s visit with the Chinese collective oligarchy at the Zhongnanhai Leadership Compound, the pool report was composed and issued by someone who is not a member of the periodical press, someone who is not really “a journalist,” as the term is broadly understood, at all. His name is Steve Clemons.

Clemons is a Washington hand and bon vivant who has spent a long career working for a Democratic senator, working for think tanks, and working in the interstices of online journalism, event programming, and D.C. social climbing. For some time he has been parked at the New American Foundation—a center-left think tank that recently hosted an event for an anti-Israel screed written by the son of a top Clinton confidante—and at the Atlantic Monthly, where he is “Washington editor at large.” Politico has described him as a “foreign policy ‘super-agent,’” and the foreign policy for which he flacks lines up remarkably closely with the “realist” policy of the Obama administration: eager to negotiate with traditional adversaries, convinced that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the cause of Middle East turmoil, and determined to prevent neoconservatives and the dastardly Israel Lobby from committing America to foreign entanglements. Clemons was a key player in the campaign to install as America’s secretary of defense the embarrassingly stupid Chuck Hagel. He is not, let us be clear, a “disinterested observer.” I look forward to Sean Hannity’s pool reports from President Ted Cruz’s state visit to France.

Clemons’s prose is clichéd. “Good morning from refreshingly sunny Beijing where the skies are robin egg blue,” began his first report. Biden did not just greet his Chinese counterpart, Clemons said. Biden “warmly greeted” him. After an exchange of pleasantries, “your pool was then escorted out to brisk air, sunny skies, and a momentary look at the gardens and other pavilions of the exclusive Zhongnanhao Compound.” I hope your pool made the moment count, since he got closer to the center of Chinese authoritarian decision-making than most Chinese ever will. Dan Balz can rest easy: Clemons is not coming for his job anytime soon. Biden Deputy Chief of Staff Shailagh Murray, on the other hand, who used to be a “journalist” herself—well, Shailagh, you better watch out.

“An awkward thing happened in which your pool inadvertently became part of the story,” Clemons reported. The awkward thing was this: The vice president, in conversation with Chinese Vice President Li Yuanchao, began gesturing at Clemons and saying, “He is a very important man. Seriously he is important.”

Your pool demurred as best he could”—I’m sure he did—but Biden continued, telling Li that he should bypass the diplomatic niceties and talk directly with Clemons. “He is the one you really want to speak to. Seriously.” Later Biden bought Clemons a Magnum ice cream bar. But do not assume that the gift of delicious ice cream from a powerful admirer would affect our correspondent’s reportage. “Your pool decided to find out how much the Magnum bar cost and return that amount of yuan to Vice President Biden.” And the First Amendment endured.

Remarkably, no one in the traveling press corps seems to have thought it weird, much less wrong, to assign pool reports to a Beltway player so in sync with the administration’s foreign policy, so beloved by the vice president. “Thanks again to @SCClemons of @The Atlantic for a colorful pool report from the Biden trip,” tweeted CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller. “Colorful” is one word for it. “Useless” and “self-indulgent” are others. The vice president himself, by continually referring to “your pool,” seems to have understood better than the traveling press the conflict of interest presented by Clemons. Or perhaps the press, in giving Clemons the pool assignment, sought to show to the world, in a passive-aggressive way, just how phony and strained the coverage of this White House is. Whatever their reasons, neither Clemons nor anyone else in the press corps traveling with Biden seems to have asked what the vice president’s son Hunter, a former lobbyist with manifold business interests, was up to while accompanying dad on his East Asian tour. Or would asking that question hurt one’s future job prospects?

Adversarial journalism has been replaced by secretarial journalism. Obamacare’s glitches have not slowed the trend. While Robert Pear of the New York Times has been skeptical and critical of the Obamacare rollout, his colleagues on the paper’s political team are eager to return to boosting the program’s namesake. “Democrats’ Latest Campaign for Health Care Law Begins,” read the front-page headline on Thursday’s paper. “Seizing on the good news of an improving health care website and rising enrollments,” write Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear, President Obama and his allies on Wednesday “highlighted parts of the law that are popular with the public and reminded Americans, and the law’s opponents, of what would be lost if the Affordable Care Act were repealed.” […/]

Continue reading more> http://freebeacon.com/dirty-pool/

Leave it to Biden to perfectly demonstrate the purpose of a free press, especially in China. (Not) Well, go Joe, show ’em just how it’s done! What better place to roll out your expertise in pool reporting control? The other non-surprise is how all this seems to go over rather well with the press “corpse” in general — alas, the errant word fits here.

All this irony is lost on Biden and, naturally, on Clemons. Both he and Biden continually refer to “your pool”, like some British Lord. “Lord of Pressland” maybe?

Compare the salutation to “your honor” — “your pool”. Or maybe he could be dubded “your Pookie“, since Obama is fond of the name — like a composite reporter?

RightRing | Bullright

Wheels of the bus go round ‘n round

Fired D.C. insurance commissioner tried to apologize for criticizing Obamacare fix

JFK: a big-spending big-government liberal- not.

JFK Museum Updates Exhibit Following Complaints by Conservative Author

Author: JFK was ‘tax-cutting, pro-growth politician’

BY: Alana Goodman | Free Beacon | October 18, 2013

The John F. Kennedy museum in Dallas told the Washington Free Beacon that it is planning to “completely update and revise” its permanent exhibit after a historian accused it of falsely depicting the 35th president as a big-government liberal.
Ira Stoll, author of JFK, Conservative, called on the Sixth Floor Museum last month to revise alleged “inaccuracies” in its exhibit regarding Kennedy’s views on social programs, the federal deficit, and tax policy.
The Sixth Floor Museum chronicles Kennedy’s legacy and his assassination in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.
Nicola Longford, executive director of the Sixth Floor Museum, said the permanent exhibit is 25 years old and in need of updating. She said the institution is planning a major overhaul after the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s assassination next month.
“While Mr. Stoll has taken issues with the content of a few exhibit text panels, and encouraged priority attention for substantial updating and revision, it bears stating that this exhibit text is almost 25 years old,” said Longford. “Clearly the world has changed dramatically during this quarter century and now half century since the assassination.”
She added that the museum’s “intent has always been to completely update and revise our core exhibit post fiftieth anniversary (November 2013) and it is at this time that we will carefully review and consider all comments and recommendations.”
Stoll wrote in a letter to Longford that he was “troubled by some passages of the permanent exhibit text about Kennedy and his administration that struck me as inaccurate or misleading.”
He disputed the exhibit’s claim that “massive new social programs were central to Kennedy’s New Frontier philosophy,” calling it “just not true.”
“Kennedy was against ‘massive new social programs,’” wrote Stoll. “Kennedy described his own Medicare plan, accurately, not as ‘massive’ but rather as ‘a very modest proposal.’ And, as [Arthur] Schlesinger [Jr.] noted, he chose not to fight for even that.”
Stoll also took issue with a passage that refers to Kennedy’s “philosophy of using induced deficits to encourage domestic fiscal growth became a mainstay of American government under later administrations, both Democratic and Republican.”
According to Stoll, “Kennedy’s recipe for growth was not a deficit; it was a tax cut that, both by changing incentives and by putting more money in the hands of the private sector, would yield growth that would ultimately narrow the deficit by increasing federal revenues.”
Additionally, the exhibit discusses the positions of one of Kennedy’s liberal economic advisors, Walter Heller, without mentioning the views of Kennedy’s “more conservative Treasury Secretary, Douglas Dillon,” wrote Stoll.
He said Kennedy’s own statements and actual policies hewed closer to the conservative view.
“As for the idea that Kennedy’s deficits were a ‘radical departure’ from [President Dwight] Eisenhower’s balanced budgets, that is not supported by the evidence,” wrote Stoll. “Kennedy’s annual deficits—$3.3 billion in 1961, $7.1 billion in 1962, and $4.8 billion in 1963—were modest by modern standards and as a percentage of GDP.”
When contacted by the Free Beacon on Friday, Stoll praised the museum’s response to his letter.
“I’m thrilled to learn that, after receiving my letter based on the research in my book, JFK, Conservative, calling inaccuracies to their attention, the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas has announced plans to revise its exhibit text panels,” he said. “I hope the new exhibit text portrays JFK as closer to the real JFK I describe in my book—a tax-cutting, pro-growth politician who favored welfare reform, free trade, domestic spending restraint, and a balanced budget over the course of the business cycle.”
Stoll’s book, JFK, Conservative, was released on Oct. 15. It argues that the 35th president, idolized by liberal Democrats, was actually a conservative on economic and national security issues.

Shocked that they were caught revising and distorting JFK. But they are now going to remodel the exhibit. Revisionists caught again. The truth is the enemy of the left.

Obama debt, disaster and deceit … are always looming

Professor of fiscal irresponsibility, Obama, enlightened us in his press conference:

    “So let me explain this. If Congress refuses to raise what’s called the debt ceiling, America would not be able to meet all of our financial obligations for the first time in 225 years.
    And because it's called raising the debt ceiling, I think a lot of Americans think it's raising our debt. It is not raising our debt. This does not add a dime to our debt.
    It simply says you pay for what Congress has already authorized America to purchase, whether that’s the greatest military in the world or veterans’ benefits or Social Security. Whatever it is that Congress has already authorized, what this does is make sure that we can pay those bills.
    Now the last time that the tea party Republicans flirted with the idea of default, two years ago, markets plunged, business and consumer confidence plunged, America’s credit rating was downgraded for the first time, and a decision to actually go through with it, to actually permit default, according to many CEOs and economists, would be — and I’m quoting here — “insane, catastrophic, chaos” — these are some of the more polite words.
    Warren Buffett likened default to a nuclear bomb, a weapon too horrible to use. It would disrupt markets, it would undermine the world’s confidence in America as the bedrock of the global economy, and it might permanently increase our borrowing costs which, of course, ironically would mean that it would be more expensive for us to service what debt we do have and it would add to our deficits and our debt, not decrease them.
    There’s nothing fiscally responsible about that. Preventing this should be simple. As I said, raising the debt ceiling is a lousy name, which is why members of Congress in both parties don’t like to vote on it, because it makes you vulnerable in political campaigns. But it does not increase our debt. It does not grow our deficit, it does not allow for a single dime of increased spending. All it does is allow the Treasury Department to pay for what Congress has already spent.”
More Washington Post

So let’s review. Raising the debt ceiling does not add a dime to the debt, but not raising it adds to the deficit and debt. Got it? He can see how increased borrowing costs add to our debt; but raising the debt ceiling — because we are right up against it — does not add anything to debt. Nope.

Gross
Federal Debt
Debt Held
by Public
Debt Held by
Federal Reserve
FY 2014* $18.2 trillion $11.6 trillion $1.6 trillion
FY 2013* $17.2 trillion $10.7 trillion $1.6 trillion
FY 2012 $16.1 trillion $9.6 trillion $1.6 trillion
FY 2011 $14.8 trillion $8.5 trillion $1.7 trillion
FY 2010 $13.5 trillion $8.2 trillion $0.8 trillion
FY 2009 $11.9 trillion $6.8 trillion $0.8 trillion

How many times have we increased the debt ceiling under Obama? A few now. Why? I suggest the debt ceiling has been raised many times, over time, which allowed the debt to rise. How else could the debt have risen above the ceiling ? So why, then, do they always link hitting the debt ceiling with default — if they are not going to add to the debt?

    Government debt in the United States has steadily increased from $2 trillion in the mid 1980s to over $17 trillion today. But as a percent of GDP it has grown from 55 percent to over 100 percent of GDP today.
    In the Crash of 2008 government debt increased sharply to bail out the banks and to provide “stimulus” to the economy. Debt reached 104 percent of GDP in 2009. But debt is expected to plateau at about 122 percent of GDP in the next few years.

But maybe in Obama’s world the GDP could be just shrinking that much.

 
Then he closed his box of tricks with this:

Now, the good news is… Our housing market is healing; we’ve cut the deficit in half. Since I took office, the deficit is coming down faster than any time in the last 50 years.

He has some real sophistry working there. Note he is talking about the “deficit” now. So if the budget deficit beginning in his first term was running all time highs, then he has decreased it from that level. Gee, see isn’t that great?

If its so great then why do we have to keep raising the debt ceiling again and again?(and probably again in the near future.) Could it be that we were so far beyond budget limits that anything short of that looks like a big improvement?

Source: http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/ 

Obama’s bad analogies

We’ve seen about every strategy Obama can use, Constitutional or not, to preserve his namesake program and its governmental force. Yesterday he gave a speech to draw a comparison of Apple’s I-Phone to his program. One with the force of government to buy it, and the other can never meet demand — one makes money the other continually spends or loses it.

Whoopee, Obama makes another nonsensical comparison. What else is new? He likes making comparisons, like going to a dinner with Republicans who walk out on the bill. That one was as corrupted as his policies. He likes to compare Republicans or their plans to anything.

Remember the car in the ditch? Yeah, he proceeded to take the car, stick the gas to the floor and head straight off the fiscal cliff. He blamed Republicans for not stopping him. Then he complains about the damage to the car and the consequences. Not to forget all his terrorism comparisons, hostage taking … from a guy who never wanted to use the word terrorism, even for Benghazi.

It’s funny he is so creative. How come he never compares anything to golf, since that is where he spends so much time? He avoids golf analogies. Meanwhile, he sure has been given enough “mulligans”. But he hasn’t managed any “hole in ones”.

Even to a possibly staged photo.

Obama hates Tea Parties but loves him some “Tee time”.

Putin’s world

 

The Long, Withdrawing Roar

Column: It’s Putin’s world now. America is just living in it.

BY:
September 13, 2013 4:59 am

“The Sea of Faith / Was once, too, at the full,” Matthew Arnold wrote in “Dover Beach“ (1867), “… But now I only hear / its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar / Retreating, to the breath / Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear / And naked shingles of the world.”
The roar Arnold had in mind was the sound of Christianity’s withdrawal from Western Europe. But his words describe equally well what is happening in the Greater Middle East. President Obama put it this way during his speech to the nation Tuesday evening: “For nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security,” including in this geographically central, resource-rich, and conflict-ridden region. But now we are weary of the burden. “A veteran put it more bluntly,” the president said. “‘This nation is sick and tired of war.’”
America has left Iraq. America is leaving Afghanistan. America was so reluctant to participate in the NATO war that toppled Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, and so passive and hesitant in playing a role in Libyan reconstruction, development, and security, that our ambassador and three other Americans were killed in an assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound a year ago. The chief suspects in that attack remain at large. For over two years, America has watched confusedly as Egypt whipsaws between Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood, and General Sisi.
And for over two years America has done its best not to become involved in the Syrian Civil War. Even now, as President Obama says America must act in response to Bashar al-Assad’s latest use of chemical weapons, he also says there will be no boots on the ground, while his secretary of State describes any attack as “unbelievably small” and an unnamed official says that after a strike Assad “will still be able to eat Cheerios.” To delay the use of American force, to forestall America’s reentry into the region, President Obama stunned the world in asking for a congressional authorization no one expects him to win, and by embracing a farcical Russian proposal to secure Syrian WMD that no one expects to work.
What happens when the sea recedes? The shoreline is exposed. Sand crabs and sea gulls and seaweed appear on the beach: Iranians and Saudis, Russians and Taliban. They come to fill the void left by the vacating American tide. The lower the tide becomes, the more daring the actions of the creatures liberated by its wake.
For several years now Americans have been comfortable in the delusion that the benefits, such as they are, of a global economy and of a world where war is a rarity can be enjoyed without cost. We can look inward, slash defense spending, gut the Navy, pull out from theaters of combat and from strategic bases, ignore the political character of Islamism, and otherwise pretend that at heart all human beings share the same feelings and want the same things, and life will go on as usual. And perhaps life will go on as usual, for most people, in most places in the country. After all: America is huge, protected by two oceans, and at peace with its neighbors.
But inevitably there will come a time when a lack of maintenance causes the international structure that America has built over decades to fall apart; when inwardness and self-preoccupation and “nation building here at home” exacts a cost of its own; when the flotsam and jetsam left behind by the receding tide, the sand crabs and seagulls and seaweed, begin to take over the shore. That time may have begun this week.
MORE http://freebeacon.com/the-long-withdrawing-roar/

Pretty good description but I would instinctively suggest it began before this week. In the last 15-20 years it is hard to say exactly where it began, and/or accelerated. I remember a pillar engrained in Bush’s first campaign against nation building, and meddling foreign entanglements. I do think, at the time, he was being sincere.

Commies and their Marxist agenda don’t add up to Bush

First off, I have to say enough of the Bush and Obama comparisons. It doesn’t work. Sure Bush made a lot of mistakes, and the right took issue with things he did shortly after his first inaugural. But the left painted him a swashbuckling cowboy,(no offense to cowboys) with few intellectual credentials. The real brain trust behind him was evil Dick Cheney pulling the strings. This was the characterization the left created. We all know the narrative so well because they were so good at drumming it into us. So good, many accepted it.

Now they are quiet as church mice about Obama’s conniving adventures. The man can do nothing to earn the wrath of the Left. How come? That is a story in itself.

But for a moment think about the Bush years, the left painted him a dummy while crediting him with some of the worst evil this country has seen. Oops, don’t think they are both true. And they assert that Obama is just following those footsteps, much as he’d like to break the pattern.

obama photo: happy obama danceyobama.gif Even though Obama controlled all branches of the government for a stint, and still controls the Senate. Their narrative continues that Obama is a victim of circumstances — even if he victimized the entire country. However, you won’t get the Left to admit to playing the race or victim cards at every opportunity to defend him.

(Happy O photo)

Actually, Bush and Obama are very different. Bush could have been a lot of things but Obama is a radical Leftist weened on Communism. See there is a difference. What would you expect from a commie, or a radical Leftist these days? Well, they’re pretty much the same thing now. If they aren’t overt Marxists, and I don’ know that percentage, then they are useful idiots who pretty much go along with those who are. They are not the same.

Their beloved Obama studied at the feet of card carrying commies, and actively sought them out. He worked for them, even his doctor is a communist. Does that sound like a victim of circumstances…. beyond his control? Hardly. Say what you will about Bush, that was not one of his attributes. And he didn’t have media and people eating out of his hand no matter what he did.

Maybe we should dispense with another creative notion. The left declares themselves the champions of civil rights and the watchdog for the little guy, the defender of gays or any fashionable group that pops up, including radical Islamists. But that’s only part of their program, it’s the sales brochure to bring them on board. Then, no one leaves the plantation. It isn’t them or their issues they care about but their support. The kicker is many of those “groups” don’t even know or understand what they are supporting.

I can’t forget to mention the liberal Christians and clergy co-opted by commies over the years. (Remember Hill and Obama courted Christians) Even some of them don’t know what agenda they are really supporting. Leftist leaders and pols tell Christians its about their issues and agenda but nothing could be further from reality. It has always been about the commies’ agenda. Not seeing that seems ignorantly naive to us, but just the way it is.

Chock them up to useful idiots.(useful idiots know more about truth than they do) My patience has expired for these people. Their ignorance is not for a lack of being told. So if they were duped it was by their own free will. For Christians, it has been decades in the making. As Hillary said, that “requires their willing suspension of disbelief” — which they quite willingly provide. So we are dealing with Marxist communists, nothing less.

Shortest rise to power since the phone booth.

Photo: Coincidence ; (Happy O photo); Wanted ; Bush Pre-release ; CPUSA

S-O’l Obama Hypocrite – 3

The dancing hypocrite takes his show to the stage – part 3 [See Part 1]

Obama did Jay Leno to roll out his thoughts on national security, Benghazi, and embassy closings. Did someone move the press room to NBC studios?…

In this episode, we find Hypobama deeply engrossed in the NSA which has grown into a dragnet.

Recap: After explaining in the last episode how we had the proper reactions to terrorism like the Boston bombing, with our super-resilience abilities, and how we do not let a little terrorism shut us down, he now explains why we are wrong about NSA and our concerns about the increasing dragnet of phone records and FISA courts vacuuming up our information. But yet we’re right, somehow, for having concerns about them, even if our concerns are not substantiated — if that makes any sense.

Q: It’s safe to say that we learned about these threats through the NSA intelligence program? Is that a fair assessment?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this intelligence-gathering that we do is a critical component of counterterrorism. And obviously, with Mr. Snowden and the disclosures of classified information, this raised a lot of questions for people. But what I said as soon as it happened I continue to believe in, which is a lot of these programs were put in place before I came in. I had some skepticism, and I think we should have a healthy skepticism about what government is doing. I had the programs reviewed. We put in some additional safeguards to make sure that there’s federal court oversight as well as congressional oversight, that there is no spying on Americans.
We don’t have a domestic spying program. What we do have are some mechanisms where we can track a phone number or an email address that we know is connected to some sort of terrorist threat. And that information is useful. But what I’ve said before I want to make sure I repeat, and that is we should be skeptical about the potential encroachments on privacy. None of the revelations show that government has actually abused these powers, but they’re pretty significant powers.
And I’ve been talking to Congress and civil libertarians and others about are there additional ways that we can make sure that people know nobody is listening to your phone call, but we do want to make sure that after a Boston bombing, for example, we’ve got the phone numbers of those two brothers — we want to be able to make sure did they call anybody else? Are there networks in New York, are there networks elsewhere that we have to roll up? And if we can make sure that there’s confidence on the part of the American people that there’s oversight, then I think we can make sure that we’re properly balancing our liberty and our security.

Oh, he’s been talking to civil libertarians? I bet their phones are ringing off the hook.(pardon the pun) He mentioned that again in his speech days later. Who is he talking to? He hasn’t offered one name. He can’t.

If the NSA techniques are so instrumental, how did it fail on the Boston bombers? Now he wants to use the very attacks that happened on his watch, and that sordid course of events, from Benghazi to the Boston bombing, to justify the program.

“…put in place before I came in. I had some skepticism.” (as he rings the Bush bell)
Its amazing that he has critics all over the place and how he tries to run out in front of the parade of criticism against him. What hypocrisy. He’s taken these policies to new heights, as a dragnet. Sometimes you cannot be on both sides. Oh, now that he has no criticism of NSA no one else should? (and his credibility is excellent)

If we can make sure there’s confidence on the part of the American people that there’s oversight” ? Well, having results to justify it would help. Did it really help? I’m not even sure the legitimate, inter-government phone calls from Benghazi were responded to correctly. But they did get all those calls.

Please, do tell us about the need for congressional oversight. I’ll be waiting.
Make the case and make my day!

The real point is how this government responds or doesn’t to threats, namely to terrorism in general. So the problem is not that they don’t have access to enough information. Benghazi showed that. It’s not just what they have access to but what they do with it.

We do not know if they are going to abuse or extort the information against us, or only apply it to pursue terrorists. Pandora’s box is opened. Look what they did at IRS.

I don’t know of a department of the federal government Obama has not politicized. What information do they not have access to? Companies are turning over passwords and user names. Is he making the case for that?

Let’s summarize: If he can only convince us to have “confidence”, then we “properly balanced our liberty and our security”. That is his basic message. We just need to be convinced to have confidence. Remember that hope theme?

S-Ol’ Obama Hypocrite – 2

The dancing hypocrite takes his show to the stage – part 2

Obama did Jay Leno to roll out his thoughts on national security, Benghazi, and embassy closings. Did someone move the press room to NBC studios?…

In this episode, we find Hypobama grappling with heavy issues and scandals, which he and his administration created. But the fearless deceiver that he is opted for a high-profile visit, seeking low-info ears to reduce his increasing disapproval and criticism. Not to provide Jay with “the Beast” replica.

Q What do you say to those cynics who go, oh, this is an overreaction to Benghazi — how do you respond to that?
Hypobama: One thing I’ve tried to do as President is not over react, but make sure that as much as possible the American people understand that there are genuine risks out there. What’s great about what we’ve seen with America over the last several years is how resilient we are. So after the Boston bombing, for example, the next day folks were out there, they’re going to ball games. They are making sure that we’re not reacting in a way that somehow shuts us down.
And that’s the right reaction. Terrorists depend on the idea that we’re going to be terrorized. And we’re going to live our lives. And the odds of people dying in a terrorist attack obviously are still a lot lower than in a car accident, unfortunately. But there are things that we can do to make sure that we’re keeping the pressure on these networks that would try to injure Americans. And the first thing I think about when I wake up and the last thing I think about when I go to bed is making sure that I’m doing everything I can to keep Americans safe.

Fine, if by genuine risks out there he meant internet videos, which they blamed for the terrorist attack. They’re on the trail of those anyway.

What’s great is our resilience. Yea, we’ve shown the ability to bounce back from 9/11, the Boston bombings, or his blunders like putting politics ahead of national security over the Benghazi attack, right?  Resilience was not the word I would use for that. Or how about our resilience over how Obama went to Libya in the first place — acting unilaterally without Congress. Or his strong support for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Actually, Mr. Obama, we don’t have that kind of resilience over those like you hoped.  So when the administration says Benghazi happened a long time ago, as old news, we don’t have the resilience to get past that messaging. It’s hard to bounce back, when a video was blamed for Benghazi our resilience comes up short.

When we question the chain of events that led to the attack, our resilience does not connect those dots, it needs some help. When the WH approved talking points do not match the events, we should be resilient. When the Sec. of State tells grieving family members that they’ll get the man who made the video, what resilience is needed to get over that?

Not reacting in such a way that shuts us down“.  No one was trying to shut down our security or defenses in Benghazi… except maybe the administration. Obama politicized our security and boasted al Qaeda was “on the run”. It was an integral part of his campaign message everywhere.  Then came Benghazi and, 11 months later, we don’t even know Obama’s whereabouts or what he did that night.

But I think the way we reacted with outrage in questioning it — determined to find out the truth — was the “right reaction”, contrary to his desire. I’m proud of that reaction. After Obama’s administration seeded our skepticism by telling us a false narrative, most of us reacted the way we should.(…despite media) Obama, however, reacted by criticizing us, changing his story and called it a phony scandal. Shall we compare proper reactions?

The last thing he thought about when he went to bed, after the attack, was “doing everything I can do to keep Americans safe” — after hardly paying attention to it, according to Leon Panetta. And the next morning he went to Vegas as planned.

Then, having had another terror attack on his watch in Boston, Obama compliments our reactions? In case he missed the immediate reaction to Boston, people wondered how the bombers slipped through the ever-watchful eyes of feds, not once but repeatedly?

Sure we reacted, in identifying the bombers because feds could not. And people reacted with bewilderment that Russia had warned us about Tamerlan Tsarnev, but feds pretty much cleared him. But thanks, Hypobama, for complimenting the vigilant reactions of people. Oh, people also reacted over trying 9/11 terrorists in NYC– another overlooked, prudent reaction.

But maybe it is really Obama’s reactions that are the problem?

Selling Clergy to Sell Gun Control

Biden Wants Pastors, Rabbis and Nuns to Tell Their Flocks: Enacting More Gun Control Is the Moral Thing to Do

May. 7, 2013 2:21pm Billy Hallowell — The Blaze

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Vice President Joe Biden has a commandment for pastors, rabbis and nuns: He wants them to tell their flocks that enacting gun control is the moral thing to do. But another vote may have to wait until Congress wraps up work on an immigration overhaul.

Biden met for two-and-a-half hours Monday with more than a dozen leaders from various faith communities – Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh, to name a few. Both Biden and the faith leaders encouraged each other not to give up on what has been an arduous and thus far fruitless effort by Biden and President Barack Obama to pass new gun laws in the wake of December’s schoolhouse shooting in Connecticut.

Around a large, circular table in a conference room on the White House grounds, Biden waxed optimistic about prospects for passing a bill, according to four participants who spoke to The Associated Press after the meeting. Biden’s chief of staff, Bruce Reed, joined the group, as did a handful of Obama aides who work on faith-based outreach. The meeting closed with a meditation and a prayer for action.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/07/biden-wants-pastors-rabbis-and-nuns-to-tell-their-flocks-enacting-more-gun-control-is-the-moral-thing-to-do/

Marriage…or whatever

The problem is very simple. I know, most people here know this but I’ll say it anyway. The word that is all the rage and the crux of Leftists’ argument is “marriage equality” But is that true?

That is a subjective term.(for their purposes) It means whatever the user wants it to mean. Marriage equality is defined by the user. Marriage equality for the bigamist is marrying a harem. Marriage for someone else is something else. Do I see them define what “marriage equality” means? Of course not, it is as intentionally vague as most language the left uses.

So it will be up to the person to claim what “marriage” or “marriage equality” is to them. A person wants marriage equality, which to him/her means marrying whatever they want or choose to. Then to deny them that is to deny them equality. But the minute anyone draws a line that it (equality) applies to gays but not others, then they will no longer be standing for “equality” will they? They will be denying someone else their right to “equality”. Get it? When society tries to say it can not apply here or there, then bye-bye equality.

The people who adopted that term as their political lingo will have to apply it to wherever someone demands their “marriage equality” — whatever that means to them. Therefore, there cannot be any laws against the outliers, because that would not be equality and be denying someone equality. So there cannot ever be equality until everyone gets what he/she/it demands. (which by my calculation is the second Tuesday of never) — unless you think it is possible to grant every possibility.

Noun

1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (

The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. I couldn’t marry another man. My wife couldn’t marry another woman. Nor could I marry a cow either. See that is the thing, we are under the same rules.

On the other hand, what they want is to expand the definition of marriage. And yes, it does affect us all, since we are all afforded equal protection of the law. So in effect, they are changing the definition for everyone. It shall mean whatever you want it to mean.

However, no one was denying them the right(s) of marriage, same as the rest of us have. We have that equality now. They are about changing the definition not about “equality”.

But under their newfound definition of equality, no one could be denied the institution of marriage — however one wants to apply it or interpret it. That is what they are asking. It is not about “equality”, it is about ever-expanding definitions of what marriage IS. Remember Bill Clinton: “it depends what the definition of “is” is“. That’s what they are saying.

So all the talk about equality is just that, talk. But no one bugs them about the specious arguments, though they will attack Christians for making a case for the conventional marriage definition. Doing that is supposedly taboo.

Under their ever-expansive definition(s), there are no parameters. It shall mean whatever a particular person wants it to mean. We don’t offer that option in other places either. Remember, they say it is only about equality.

Digging deeper

Now people can say why does this matter because “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”, as Jefferson said? It could be more relevant now than you thought.

This week the NYT took it on itself again to be the teller of all things and frame the political debate. But they framed it using the Methodist Church in their cross hairs. Why this is a central issue at all is because of a prominent retired Methodist pastor who performed a same-sex wedding for his son in NY, back in October 2012. Now the Times zeros in on him.

He happens to be the former Dean of Yale and Drew Universities, and presently professor emeritus of theological ethics at Yale. So they found a pastor with plenty of credentials and bona-fides to press the issue of same-sex marriage. That is what this is about, not just allowing same-sex marriage but having it approved by clergy and institutions of the church.

For long the general conference of the Methodist Church did not permit pastors to perform such weddings. They still don’t. But that did not stop this activist, academic, pastor from acting on his own. It gets worse though, because of his explanations. He said he wanted to perform the wedding because it is his son, and he said he had no intention of acting in civil disobedience by doing it. And he said that when there is a rule that is not right, and you cannot change it, then you break it. All this rationale flowed from him as his reasoning for doing it. Then there was the quiet reprimand he received which asked him to apologize and promise not to perform them again. He rebuffed that offer. Now he is in clear defiance.

The problem is that all those reasons don’t jive. He was not doing it for civil disobedience, then pretty much admits he was. As well as saying if you don’t like the rule then you break it.(is that what we are taught) I can’t imagine this flying in either Yale or Drew for professors underneath him. Does he tell them to ignore what rules they don’t like? No, of course not. But for him this is his reasoning. Defy the authority of the church which ordains him as a minister.

As bad as that is, I can’t say that the UM Church position and reaction was much better. Though they gave him the opportunity to say he would not do it again and he wouldn’t. But he is not doing it for civil disobedience? Oh really! That means he is not in compliance with that rule and who knows what other rules he cares to take issue with? Must be this is what theological ethics teaches?

So anyone can see this is not just about gay-marriage etc. It is about a whole lot more.
referrence article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/nyregion/caught-in-methodisms-split-over-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

 

These are pertinent excerpts from the piece.
Sometimes, when what is officially the law is wrong, you try to get the law changed,” Dr. Ogletree, a native of Birmingham, Ala., said in a courtly Southern drawl over a recent lunch at Yale, where he remains an emeritus professor of theological ethics. “But if you can’t, you break it.
“I was inspired,” Dr. Ogletree said. “I actually wasn’t thinking of this as an act of civil disobedience or church disobedience. I was thinking of it as a response to my son.”
In late January, Mr. Paige and Dr. Ogletree, accuser and accused, met face-to-face in an effort to resolve the dispute without a church trial. Mr. Paige, who declined to be interviewed for this article, citing the confidentiality of the proceedings, asked that Dr. Ogletree apologize and promise never to perform such a ceremony again. He refused.
“I said, this is an unjust law,” he recalled telling Mr. Paige.

He siad he did it in response to his son, but refusses to say he would not do it again? And he claimed he wasn’t thinking of civil disobedience when doing it, but that is exactly how he rationalizes it.  Are all those reasons hard to accept?

“Dearly beloveds, we are gathered here together to join the church to same-sex marriage. Any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace.”

Sequester Knot Tightens on Terorrism Plot

Allow me to first restate some obvious facts. Obama and his regime of bureaucrats have been talking about the effects of sequester ever since he signed it into law. The sequester was also his idea. He rebuffed all legislative efforts to minimize the small cuts. Instead, he opted for the most bang for the buck.

The Dep of Homeland Insecurity is telling us the air traffic controller and sequester cuts are now causing flight and travel delays. This week they are screaming and delays are mounting.

Last week we had a major terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon. Within a day, Obama and his administration had labeled it terrorism — as unlikely from him as that was. Still he called it terrorism, as well as press secretary Carney. Good, we’re making progress since Benghazi. But then he also did that early before knowing who was behind it, while media and Liberal operatives pushed it as a homegrown, anti-tax, tea party member terrorism. They used dates, including tax and Patriots’ Day as well as other dates, for their rationale. (psst: could it be someone wanted to bomb the Boston Marathon?)

They pushed the idea, and even libs did not disagree using the term “terrorism”. Of, course that was before we knew who did it. That made it a lot more inconvenient when the facts came out. But Obama could not change his tune on “terrorism”, even Bostonians would attack him for that. Best to leave the term alone, and also take credit for the feds nabbing their men.

But along the way he said the bombing classified as terrorism. And terrorism, you will remember from your indoctrination lessons, means it has a political motivation to it. Anybody see where this leads directly? It really is not difficult: the conventional definition of terrorism is attack with a political motive.

Back up to the sequester, with a little review of his tactics in ObamaCare as well, which leads to Obama’s intentional infliction of pain and inconvenience on the public. Possibly even shortages of law enforcement, as he threatened earlier. Now we are seeing their plans roll out, from the White House tours, to air travel risks, to national security and defense, to problems enforcing the border. (etc, etc) He has been telling us how bad it will be, Janet Napoleanito already threatened us. Now the effects of their plans are bearing fruit.

As a memo said, they are not to spare the public from the harmful effects of Sequester.

Now you do not have to compare the bombing to what he is doing, just apply the term terrorism — inflicting intentional fear, damage or violence on people (or opponents) for political purposes. Obama is conducting a terror operation by their own terms.

He has plenty of political motivation, and he wants the effects to be as bad as possible to achieve his political ends. Just one more thing to add to the file on one Barack Hussein Obama. Hey, that would make him the Terrorist-in-Chief now, wouldn’t it?

Merriam Webster defines terrorism:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Dictionary.com

noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Update: today Biden gave a speech in Boston on the bombing:

“So why, whether it’s al-Qaeda Central out in the FATA or two twisted, perverted, cowardly, knock-off jihadis here in Boston — why do they do what they do?”… “They do it to instill fear, to have us, in the name of our safety and security, jettison what we value most and the world most values about us. … Our transparency: that’s their target.”

Sound familiar?

Picture of the two “suyspects” standing before the bombing in Boston


So which are the bigger terrorists?

Boston 101

What have we learned about the bombing other than ingredients for these devices of havoc are common materials and there are manuals to create them on the internet? How many times have we heard that this week?

It’s not about the chemistry of making these devices, as they’d have us believe, it’s much more about the motive and rationale for what these people do.

Yea, something else is very common.

It won’t take long for media to get up to speed on the same mantra we usually hear. So here is a look at the favorite defense the Islamic defenders use whenever the opportunity presents itself. Which seems to be quite often.

Take a look at this video highlighting what is going on in the guise of the dialogue we always hear about:

[description] http://www.answeringmuslims.com
Muslim brothers Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev bombed the Boston Marathon. Yet the media are once again assuring us that such attacks have nothing to do with Islam. Does the Qur’an agree?

Whenever they tell us all is at peace and there is no basis for this terrorism, remember that part when they’re busy making excuses for the very terrorism we are facing.

The week in news

This isn’t a list of the events this week, you can get that elswhere.

I saw some media coverage at the end of the week saying how media did not cover other important stories, as they were continuously covering the Boston bombing. (was that an apology?…nah) Let their navel gazing begin.

Now I’m not complaining about the coverage given Boston. That was deserved. But they hardly gave even a mention of other news, specifically the explosion in Texas. Actually the death count was higher in Texas than Boston but that is beside the point.

The real point is that they virtually locked out everything else. At a time when the Dep of Defense is expected to handle two wars simultaneously, MSM cannot get past a single story. Then they did something sort of even more hypocritical, they complained at the end of the week that media didn’t cover or mention these other stories,  which weren’t small potatoes.   Then they mention them.  I’m not going to list them.

They were obsessed by the one Boston story and nothing moved them off of it. Half the time there was nothing more to do than speculate, and they did, but they still stuck to it.

The shocker to me was that they complained that these other stories got ignored or cheated. I guess when Obama is their idol, we should expect that sort of thing. He does that self-contradicting, blatant hypocrisy constantly. Who were they complaining to, viewers? That was not clear. Was it a slip of conscience that they mentioned it? I don’t know.

If in a 24-hour news cycle, with this many competing networks, they cannot handle more than one story… well, the press is toast. Stick a fork in it. Of course, we already knew the press was dead or at least on life support since Obama. But I’m willing to bet they aren’t finished making excuses for it though. They usually say they just cover what the people care about, and they are serving the needs of the people. They were serving the needs of the people when they campaigned for Obama too.

It takes me back to an experience with media years ago. A reporter told me “on a given night, we have 6 million people watching and we get to decide what they are going to see.” Oh, how true and boldly arrogant.

Speaking of the bombastic hypocrisy of Obama, he  mentioned the Texas explosion in his Boston Bombing victory speech, which he had dismissed up to then.

He did issue a statement to Texas on the 18th:

“Today our prayers go out to the people of West, Texas in the aftermath of last night’s deadly explosion at a fertilizer plant. A tight-knit community has been shaken, and good, hard-working people have lost their lives. I want to thank the first responders who worked tirelessly through the night to contain the situation and treat the wounded.

My Administration, through FEMA and other agencies, is in close contact with our state and local partners on the ground to make sure there are no unmet needs as search and rescue and response operations continue. West is a town that many Texans hold near and dear to their hearts, and as residents continue to respond to this tragedy, they will have the support of the American people.”

Then in his speech at the conclusion of the Boston bombing, as if by afterthought, he added the following spoken words:

… Finally, let me say that even as so much attention has been focused on the tragic events in Boston, understandably, we’ve also seen a tight-knit community in Texas devastated by a terrible explosion. And I want them to know that they are not forgotten. Our thoughts, our prayers are with the people of West, Texas, where so many good people lost their lives; some lost their homes; many are injured; many are still missing.

I’ve talked to Governor Perry and Mayor Muska and I’ve pledged that the people of West will have the resources that they need to recover and rebuild. And I want everybody in Texas to know that we will follow through with those commitments.

All in all, this has been a tough week. But we’ve seen the character of our country once more.

And that is just the way it was in the news. Or as Texas Rep Ted Poe always says:
And that’s just the way it is.”

Update on Gosnell trial

Curtain call…Where is justice for the countless victims, or human interest reporting?

Where are all the media  talking heads, and rag-tag pundits with talking points in tow? Gone, only crickets. There has been a professional hitman butcher taken off the streets of Philadelphia, and a total lack of outcry from media. The “collective conscience” sighs.

The Washington Examiner had a good article on just that subject. Some media claimed it is a local issue, which they don’t cover. Huh? They are kidding, aren’t they? The list goes on.

“This fact points us to the most likely reason the mainstream media ignored the story as long as possible: The Gosnell story has an inherent pro-life bias, because the Gosnell story leads us to discussing abortion procedures.

When you discuss the act of aborting — even perfectly legal abortions — you have to discuss the blood, the scalpels, the scissors. You might use terms like “dilation and extraction” or “dilation and curettage.” Think through those terms (“curettage” is defined as “a surgical scraping or cleaning”) and recall that what is being extracted or scraped has a beating heart.

Discussing Gosnell threatens to start a discussion on abortion procedures — and that’s not good for anyone in the abortion industry.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-abortionists-case-raises-troubling-questions/article/2527117

What did they do so far? Well they ignored the details and the entire case against the Butcher of Philadelphia — the most important part. No mention from politicians, or speeches on the floor, or feigned outrage from the Chameleon-in-Chief. The entire case against him has been practically erased from public dialogue.

Even the conservative media is fairly quiet. So, no play-by-play of the daily events in MSM from the court room. What about the bloody knife in OJ’s case? This doctor’s instruments are stained in thirty years of bloody murder. What a record. We don’t know how many innocent babes died at his hands. But babies’ feet adorned his office like souvenirs.

Did media care whether all those others were “local” incidents? Treyvon Martin — the name that echoes from the Capitol?

Where is the outrage? Searching for the next politically correct event, that’s where. Spoiling for another fight over gun-control, that’s where. Looking for an “immigration bill”. Demanding action for same-sex marriage, that’s where.

So the prosecution rests its case.(sigh of relief from MSM) Next is the defense. Now, if they cover it at all, they could splash some of the defense’s case in the news — just to fill that news cycle. They might play up his defense. They can try to revise facts after the trial. But so far, no grandiose presidential statements about Gosnell. No sympathy for victims.

Whatever the Reason, There’s No Excuse for Media Ignoring Kermit Gosnell Trial

“Under pressure from pro-life websites and writers, several national news outlets have reluctantly began covering the trial of ghastly abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Beyond that, a handful of liberal media figures are finally beginning to ask the important question of why such a sensational trial–if it bleeds, it supposedly leads–received almost no attention whatsoever in the national press.”

They can try to cover some of the defense portion, until inconvenient anyway. That is if there is anything to mitigate the Butcher of Phily…. you know, the “local” non-story.

What are they afraid of, the truth?

CITY PROSECUTORS rested their case against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell on Thursday after calling to the witness stand a former employee who said she saw the doctor and his employees kill babies that were born alive.Kareema Cross, 28, said she was so appalled by Gosnell’s ghoulish practices and the rundown condition of his West Philadelphia clinic that she began taking pictures of the facility and eventually reported him to the federal authorities.
/….
In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to abort a fetus after the 24th week of pregnancy.
/…
Cross conceded that Gosnell often yelled at her as if he were her father, told her to get an abortion when she became pregnant and tried to prevent her from getting unemployment benefits when she went on maternity leave.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130419_Prosecution_rest_in_Kermit_Gosnell_murder_trial.html
Related: https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/gosnell-the-gory-butcher-on-trial/

UN sees abortion restrictions as torture

U.N. report: Bans on abortion are ‘torture’

Warns women, drug users, transgender men vulnerable to ‘health-care abuse’

WND
Denying a woman access to an otherwise legal abortion is “tantamount to torture,” claims a designated United Nations expert in an official report to the international body.

What’s more, the expert asserts, banning all abortions – including in the case of rape – may be “torture” too, whether the bans are legally passed or not.
/…

Mendez lists as health-care “tortures” a host of “reproductive rights violations,” including forced sterilization, female genital mutilation and “denial of legally available health services such as abortion and post-abortion care.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/u-n-report-bans-on-abortion-are-torture/#KvqkktQx3pGdyoJZ.99

This really defies reason. To not do abortions is torture. Yes they said it. And not doing abortions is equivalent to other torture, including genital mutilations and sterilization. But why don’t they just say child bearing or having a baby is torture?

Egocentric Obama and Chicago

Nevermind that the war room and world headquarters of this regime are really in Chicago.
So is the basis of practically everything, especially style. DC is just the satelite office. The bigest import under Obama is Chicago politics.

March 11, 2013 – American Thinker

The Chicago Roots of President Obama’s Leadership Style

By Michael Bargo Jr.

Speaker Boehner and the Republican House are frustrated that they can’t get President Obama or Senate leader Reid to compromise with them.

The regular rules of order in Congress are that the committees hold hearings, both parties have input into the writing of legislation, and eventually the Senate and House leaders have a conference to come to mutually agreeable terms. This conference report results in a bill that is submitted to the president for signing.

But the president doesn’t seem to follow the old established rules. He wants the speaker to visit the White House, meet with him and his inner circle, and, particularly with regard to issues of spending, sign an unconditional surrender.

Analysts have seen this as proof of Obama’s totalitarian ambitions or an inflated political ego. Others characterize it as a sure sign that he is pursuing socialism.

While the president’s behavior can be used to support all of these descriptions, the real answer may be none of these. Those who seek to understand President Obama may benefit from studying the governing tactics of Chicago’s Mayor Daley I. These have been thoroughly described in biographies of Daley. //…

Once these recommendations “arranged” by Mayor Daley became law, the City Council then became “little more than an advisory body.

The fawning news media have not discussed this power-grab. Budgets reveal “who gets what,”vi and Obama doesn’t want the public to know the details.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_chicago_roots_of_president_obamas_leadership_style.html#ixzz2NFDc3c8x

American Pharaoh is a good name for it. ‘Chicago does DC’; it is like Daley on steroids.

Wiki-Bio:
“[Valerie Jarrett] was Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley, during which time (1991) she hired Michelle Robinson, then engaged to Barack Obama, away from a private law firm.” And Obama even had Bill Daley as chief of staff for a stint.

It is nothing short of Chicago expanding its operations to Washington. Remember the guy who was going to cleanup Washington politics and bring transparency? “Give us that good ol’ Chicago transparency.” Now we got the rebooted campaign rerouted through Chicago’s outfit, and the brownshirt network coming to a street corner near you.

The Game Show President

Obama stood on a ship in Virginia and said “this is not a game”, this is serious. No, that is exactly what this reminds me of, a game show. He ran his campaign based on the Price is Right model. No matter which door you picked it was not going to be right. We could have called it “The Price is Wrong”.

Like the “to tell the truth” show, in 08 Obama did everything to convince you he was a certain person he clearly wasn’t. Everyone should have caught on the way he was talking, but no, they lapped it up. Maybe they could call it “The 16 Trillion Dollar Pyramid”.

Businessinsider.com

President Barack Obama gave a stark warning to a shipyard crowd in Newport News, Va., telling them that the coming cuts known as the sequester are a “dumb way to do things.”

“This work, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs, are currently in jeopardy because of politics in Washington,” Obama said.

The cuts, which will total $1.2 trillion over a 10-year period, are set to begin kicking in on Friday. Obama’s speech in Newport News comes in an area that will be disproportionately affected by the defense cuts of the sequester.
–//

Obama called the sequester a “pretty bad name” for the amount of harm they could inflict, warning that their effects could be “even worse” than the name.

I’m not interested in spin. I’m not interested in playing a blame game,” Obama said. “At this point, all I’m interested in is solving problems.”
–/

“There’s a sensible way of doing things, and there’s a dumb way of doing things,” Obama said, adding that he’s willing to negotiate and compromise on programs that include Medicare.

(More from his attack speech— his fire-breathing teleprompter)

That’s all I want. I want us to be able to look back five years from now, 10 years from now, and say we took care of our business and we put an end to some of these games that maybe, I guess, are entertaining for some but are hurting too many people.

But in order for us to make that happen I’m going to need you. The one thing about being President is, after four years you get pretty humble. (Laughter.) You’d think maybe you wouldn’t, but actually you become more humble. You realize what you don’t know. You realize all the mistakes you’ve made. But you also realize you can’t do things by yourself. That’s not how our system works. You’ve got to have the help and the goodwill of Congress, and what that means is you’ve got to make sure that constituents of members of Congress are putting some pressure on them, making sure they’re doing the right thing, putting an end to some of these political games.

Of all the adjectives to describe Obama, the last thing anyone can use is “humble” or humility. The narcissist in chief is humility and truth-challenged. “Humble” should be exhibit A. So he’s out grandstanding as the dictator instead of in the office working on real problems.

The lyrics for the “to tell the truth” game show: (circa 1969)

 It’s a lie, lie
You’re telling a lie
I never know why you don’t know how
To tell the truth, truth, truth, truth
You don’t know how to tell the truth, yeah!
I’m a fool, fool
I’ve been such a fool
I’m blowing my cool for you right now
To tell the truth, truth, truth, truth…

I just wish it were more like “The Gong Show”.

Executive flu over sequestration

Freshly back from his golf vacation, Obama developed symptoms of what appears to be a nasty flu virus. And he just vomited and had  diarrhea right in front of the American people.  He made a heck of a mess.

 How embarrassing? I forgot, he has no shame or conscience anyway. No cure found yet.

“THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. (Applause.) Please have a seat. Well, welcome to the White House.”

As I said in my State of the Union address last week, our top priority must be to do everything we can to grow the economy and create good, middle-class jobs. That’s our top priority. That’s our North Star. That drives every decision we make. And it has to drive every decision that Congress and everybody in Washington makes over the next several years.

First lie. North Star? Excellent synonym for it.

And that’s why it’s so troubling that just 10 days from now, Congress might allow a series of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place that will do the exact opposite. It won’t help the economy, won’t create jobs, will visit hardship on a whole lot of people.

It does what it’s designed to do….it was your idea, remember?

Here’s what’s at stake. Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce our deficits by more than $2.5 trillion. More than two-thirds of that was through some pretty tough spending cuts. The rest of it was through raising taxes — tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. And together, when you take the spending cuts and the increased tax rates on the top 1 percent, it puts us more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances.

I see now where your problem is, we could never raise taxes fast enough to keep up with your spending.

Now, Congress, back in 2011, also passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t agree on a plan to reach that $4 trillion goal, about a trillion dollars of additional, arbitrary budget cuts would start to take effect this year. And by the way, the whole design of these arbitrary cuts was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that Democrats and Republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth. And so this was all designed to say we can’t do these bad cuts; let’s do something smarter. That was the whole point of this so-called sequestration.

We’re making a tiny bit of progress here, Barry: “the whole design of these arbitrary cuts was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that Democrats and Republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth.” — By design, now you are catching on. But you refused to even negotiate and then said you had no interest in talking about spending cuts. Now you want more revenue after what you got last month.

Unfortunately, Congress didn’t compromise. They haven’t come together and done their jobs, and so as a consequence, we’ve got these automatic, brutal spending cuts that are poised to happen next Friday.

You would not compromise or even talk remember when you said I get the tax hikes for nothing in return? Your alternative reality is even worse than your budget, which isn’t done either. You’re the first one who is not doing your job.

Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research. It won’t consider whether we’re cutting some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or a vital service that Americans depend on every single day. It doesn’t make those distinctions.

You mean if your “meat cleaver approach” is allowed to go into effect.

Emergency responders like the ones who are here today — their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.

Have you taken a look at the economy and the private sector lately? Probably not. But you would see all the sacrifices Americans have been forced to make while all you worry about is government jobs … and spending more borrowed money. And then you can’t even get a budget enacted, which all these companies in the private sector must do, along with the CEO’s being held accountable. But you said the private sector is doing fine and that government jobs were the real concern. Now you aim more torpedos at the economy while it has already begun contracting.

And already, the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf. And as our military leaders have made clear, changes like this — not well thought through, not phased in properly — changes like this affect our ability to respond to threats in unstable parts of the world.

Who’s fault is that? Who has been ramming the military cuts through? …even trying to cut troops medical benefits? You could not be bothered by a response to Benghazi.

So these cuts are not smart. They are not fair. They will hurt our economy. They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls. This is not an abstraction — people will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again.

Tell me what is fair? While Americans are hurting, the economy contracting, unemployment at record highs, gas and fuel at record highs; not only don’t you mention that but you galavant around on luxury vacations even as you ignore your job and constitutional duties. And you told Americans you would not negotiate, again. (several times)

And that’s why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists, they’ve already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as sequestration, are a bad idea. They’re not good for our economy. They’re not how we should run our government.

If they are bad for the country, how could you, the executive, have let it come to this without working to avoid them?

And here’s the thing: They don’t have to happen. There is a smarter way to do this –- to reduce our deficits without harming our economy. But Congress has to act in order for that to happen.

That’s what you have been saying they don’t have to happen and they aren’t going to happen. But you’ve done nothing to avoid them. Your only concern is raising taxes on certain targeted people. (maybe you are getting it confused with your drone operation)

Now, for two years, I’ve offered a balanced approach to deficit reduction that would prevent these harmful cuts. I outlined it again last week at the State of the Union. I am willing to cut more spending that we don’t need, get rid of programs that aren’t working. I’ve laid out specific reforms to our entitlement programs that can achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms that were proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission. I’m willing to save hundreds of billions of dollars by enacting comprehensive tax reform that gets rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well off and well-connected, without raising tax rates.

Hogwash, Lie #____ (I lost count) Your “will” lacks any credibility at all. You wanted the tax hikes without negotiating spending cuts. Now you say you are willing? The Simpson Bowles you keep talking about you totally ignored. Once again, back to the tax hikes, closing loopholes mantra. We cannot balance the budget or decrease the deficit by raising taxes. You cannot get there.

I believe such a balanced approach that combines tax reform with some additional spending reforms, done in a smart, thoughtful way is the best way to finish the job of deficit reduction and avoid these cuts once and for all that could hurt our economy, slow our recovery, put people out of work. And most Americans agree with me.

A balanced approach to Obama is raising taxes while raising taxes.

The House and the Senate are working on budgets that I hope reflect this approach. But if they can’t get such a budget agreement done by next Friday — the day these harmful cuts begin to take effect — then at minimum, Congress should pass a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would prevent these harmful cuts — not to kick the can down the road, but to give them time to work together on a plan that finishes the job of deficit reduction in a sensible way.

At least maybe someone is working on a budget. However, we haven’t had one yet under your first term. And it doesn’t look any more promising now.

I know Democrats in the House and in the Senate have proposed such a plan — a balanced plan, one that pairs more spending cuts with tax reform that closes special interest loopholes and makes sure that billionaires can’t pay a lower tax rate than their salary — their secretaries.

Democrats in the Senate have stubbornly stood in the way of any budget attempts.

And I know that Republicans have proposed some ideas, too. I have to say, though, that so far at least the ideas that the Republicans have proposed ask nothing of the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations, so the burden is all on first responders or seniors or middle-class families. They double down, in fact, on the harsh, harmful cuts that I’ve outlined. They slash Medicare and investments that create good, middle-class jobs. And so far at least what they’ve expressed is a preference where they’d rather have these cuts go into effect than close a single tax loophole for the wealthiest Americans. Not one.

Straw man alert! Republicans have proposed ideas and a BUDGET. While all you want to talk about is those wealthiest Americans who, by the way, cannot solve your budget crisis. All you DO want to talk about is their taxes…and those evil loopholes.

Well, that’s not balanced. That would be like Democrats saying we have to close our deficits without any spending cuts whatsoever. It’s all taxes. That’s not the position Democrats have taken. That’s certainly not the position I’ve taken. It’s wrong to ask the middle class to bear the full burden of deficit reduction. And that’s why I will not sign a plan that harms the middle class.

What is not balanced here is you, Barack Obama. You and Democrats have said almost exactly that, no spending cuts whatsoever.

So now Republicans in Congress face a simple choice: Are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and health care and national security and all the jobs that depend on them? Or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations? That’s the choice.

Mr. President, you face a choice. If you are not willing to work, then there is nothing stopping these drastic cuts as you call them. But you’ve done nothing.

Are you willing to see a bunch of first responders lose their job because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole? Are you willing to have teachers laid off, or kids not have access to Head Start, or deeper cuts in student loan programs just because you want to protect a special tax interest loophole that the vast majority of Americans don’t benefit from? That’s the choice. That’s the question.

Now you want to threaten Americans with first responder cuts. You, however, have not been a first responder – now or in the past. Then your threaten us with air traffic controllers, or inspectors, or teachers, and on and on. Don’t you ever change your script? They should be asking you what you are doing about it, other than campaigning and playing politics?

And this is not an abstraction. There are people whose livelihoods are at stake. There are communities that are going to be impacted in a negative way. And I know that sometimes all this squabbling in Washington seems very abstract, and in the abstract, people like the idea, there must be some spending we can cut, there must be some waste out there. There absolutely is. But this isn’t the right way to do it.

It’s always for real with you, not an abstraction. You always want to hold Americans hostage to your plans and ideas, as bad as they are. But doing nothing to fix it has been your record.

So my door is open. I’ve put tough cuts and reforms on the table. I am willing to work with anybody to get this job done. None of us will get 100 percent of what we want. But nobody should want these cuts to go through, because the last thing our families can afford right now is pain imposed unnecessarily by partisan recklessness and ideological rigidity here in Washington.

So, your door is open…now?! After telling America you would not negotiate, again?

As I said at the State of the Union, the American people have worked too hard, too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause yet another one. And it seems like every three months around here there’s some manufactured crisis. We’ve got more work to do than to just try to dig ourselves out of these self-inflicted wounds

We’ve gone from one self-inflicted crisis to another that you’ve waged on America and the economy. Now you hold it hostage to your failing agenda.

And while a plan to reduce our deficit has to be part of our agenda, we also have to remember deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan.

5-alarm straw man alert. But a spending plan is our entire agenda, along with tax hikes? Even when it is well known that you cannot get there.

We learned in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was President, nothing shrinks the deficit faster than a growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs. That should be our driving focus — making America a magnet for good jobs. Equipping our people with the skills required to fill those jobs. Making sure their hard work leads to a decent living. Those are the things we should be pushing ourselves to think about and work on every single day. That’s what the American people expect. That’s what I’m going to work on every single day to help deliver.

You seem to think by recreating some tax policies and rates of Bill Clinton’s term that the economy, budget and deficit will miraculously heal itself. The economy is nowhere near what it was then. On one hand you want to criticize the boom type bubble economy, on the other hand you want one of your own. Which is it?

So I need everybody who’s watching today to understand we’ve got a few days. Congress can do the right thing. We can avert just one more Washington-manufactured problem that slows our recovery, and bring down our deficits in a balanced, responsible way. That’s my goal. That’s what would do right by these first responders. That’s what would do right by America’s middle class. That’s what I’m going to be working on and fighting for not just over the next few weeks, but over the next few years.

This is your presidential manufactured problem, and your timetable. To project anything else is LIE #… someone count, please. These trillions of dollars you’ve blown are sucking all the oxygen out of the room. And I know, you aren’t done yet.

Thanks very much, everybody. Thank you, guys, for your service. (Applause.)

Thanks for nothing, Mr. Obama, nothing but yet another crisis…made to order and aimed at America. (at least you are good at something)

So its the “meat cleaver” vs. Obama’s invisible scalpel.
I was hoping for the best for that virus, but the prognosis is really not good.