This has been eating at me ever since Obama said it, back in October of 2012.
But before you watch it, do me a favor: don’t focus just on WHAT he says here, but also on HOW he says it. He is very deliberate. Haughty. Self-righteous. Barack was “in high dudgeon”, as a relative of mine used to say.
And despite all that, he was also lying through his expensively whitened teeth:
Posted in Benghazi, Obama, politics
Tagged Benghazi, Benghazigate, debate, election, Obama, President Obama, Presidential Debate
This has been eating at me ever since Obama said it, back in October of 2012.
But before you watch it, do me a favor: don’t focus just on WHAT he says here, but also on HOW he says it. He is very deliberate. Haughty. Self-righteous. Barack was “in high dudgeon”, as a relative of mine used to say.
And despite all that, he was also lying through his expensively whitened teeth:
Posted in Benghazi, Obama, politics
Tagged Benghazi, Benghazigate, debate, election, Obama, Presidential Debate
Gonna do a column/post/article/op-ed round-up today, ’cause there’s several good ones out there and it’s highly unlikely too many of you will have a chance to get to ALL of them.
I mean, let’s face it: that’s why you have us.
First up is Newt Gingrich writing on the debate performances for Obama and Romney. From Human Events:
After a disastrous performance in the first debate — the worst by an incumbent president in the 62 year history of presidential debates — Obama shifted to a much more aggressive and energetic style for the second and third debates.
Americans have been trained by American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and other TV shows to judge performances. They have also learned to distinguish important nuances.
In both the second and third debate Americans said Obama was a better ‘performer’. Yet in both debates people said they were more likely to vote for Romney as a result of the debate.
—–
Next is Allahpundit over at HotAir.com, who fired off this post late Tuesday night. It follows the most recent news on Benghazi and begins to tighten the snare around this Administration, as well as the consistent inconsistencies with which they’re trying to distract us:
If I understand the White House’s Benghazi narrative in its current form, it boils down to this. There was no protest, but the attack was still kinda sorta spontaneous insofar as it was inspired by what was happening at the embassy in Cairo. And it wasn’t an official Al Qaeda or Ansar al-Sharia operation, even though members of AQIM and Ansar al-Sharia — including the founder of the latter group — were on the scene and/or participating.
Essentially, the White House wants you to believe that members of two prominent jihadist paramilitary groups were kicking around on September 11 when one of them turned on the TV, heard about the Mohammed movie from coverage of the Egyptian embassy assault, and decided to quickly pull together a complex, heavily-armed attack on the local U.S. consulate involving 20 or so people. Never mind that there had been harassment of, and attacks on, western interests in the city for months; these guys apparently had no serious designs on Chris Stevens or his compatriots until they heard about the YouTube video and hulked-out in the form of an organized armed raid.
The only thing that makes this story plausible is that security for Stevens at the compound was so disgracefully poor that hardened jihadis probably could have drawn up a play in the dirt outside the building and gotten to the ambassador.
That’s Obama’s defense here, essentially — that the consulate was so easily breached thanks to threadbare protection for Stevens that it’s quite possible the whole thing was put together by amateurs, without planning.
—–
Bob Gorrell, a political cartoonist, had this over at Townhall.com. I, along with quite a few others, was happily sending it around the Twittersphere last night, since it is such an accurate portrayal:
—–
There was an excellent blog post on Obama’s “Horses and Bayonets” debate wisecrack that pretty much destroys any-and-all credence to which he was clinging. Written by retired US Naval intelligence officer J. E. Dyer, on her theoptimisticconservative blog:
The key question implied in all this is what kind of operation you envision, as you consider which military forces to develop and buy. (In August 2001, no one envisioned the US military needing horses for special operations in Afghanistan.)
The president’s statements about our inventory of naval combat ships imply much the same question. Obama’s statement suggests that aircraft carriers and submarines (“ships that go underwater”) have made the surface combatant – the cruiser, destroyer, and frigate – less necessary. If we have only as many of them as we had in 1916, that’s not a problem, in Obama’s formulation, because technology changes.
…
If you want to control the seas, you still need surface combatants. And since the seas are the pathway to most of what we do outside our borders, there is no such situation as one in which we will only need to do what aircraft carriers do, or only what submarines do, or only what minesweepers or oilers or merchant ships do. If we do not control the seas, we do not control our security conditions or our strategic options.
—–
Our fourth and final post concerns perhaps the most important choice we’re making this year: the choice between the ever-growing State and the individual. We’ve covered much of the same ground last week here, but leave it to John Hayward (aka ‘Doctor Zero’) to bring his inimitable flair to the topic:
But none of that “free market” stuff for America! On the really important issues – health care, energy production, televising billion-dollar puppet shows – only the judgment of the State can be trusted.
Obama sees the marketplace as a barren tundra prowled by predators, and equates freedom with abandonment. The public can only be allowed to frolic within carefully controlled spaces, where failure is not an option, and excessive success will be punished. Obama’s faith in the wisdom and intelligence of free people to increase the general wealth of the nation, by discovering and exploring opportunity on their own, is virtually undetectable.
To him, ensuring “access” to something means forcing other people to pay for it.
—–
Be sure to check out the entire posts with these, if you can. There’s obviously a lot more there than just what we included.
Posted in election, individual, Obama, politics, Townhall.com
Tagged debate, delusions, horses and bayonets, JE Dyer, navy, Newt Gingrich, Obama, Romney
A few things stood out from the 3rd Presidential debate Monday night:
First, let’s cover their behavior. Both men seemed a little keyed-up at the outset. Mitt almost seemed like he had too much info in his head, and he struggled to get it out for the first couple of topics. Reminded me of my oldest son when he’s really excited about something, and he can’t get his mouth to work as fast as his brain. Thankfully, Romney hit his stride after that.
In contrast, Obama was clenching his jaw so hard that he’s almost guaranteed to require emergency dental work by now. He also glowered and stared at Romney as if Mitt had just taken the last good tee time on Sunday. Do you remember Anakin’s face at the end of ‘Revenge of the Sith’? Obama didn’t appear even half that friendly.
Over the days that follow, the Lefty blogs will almost certainly be talking about a couple of lines that the President got off, with the one concerning the Auto Industry bailout likely leading the pack. That was a great sounding line, I agree.
If it had actually been true, it would have been even better.
From the American Thinker:
When Romney said, during the debate, that in 2008 he favored a managed bankruptcy for Detroit’s auto makers, with federal guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing, Obama directly claimed this was a falsehood, repeatedly saying, “Check the record.”
Here’s the record, via Mitt Romney’s New York Times op-ed from November 18, 2008. Allow me to quote one representative sentence from that op-ed:
“The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”
Romney was completely consistent with his 2008 position on this during the debate. Obama attempted to thwart him using the typical leftist method: lie through your teeth, and hope no one notices. Let’s hope enough people are noticing these days.
The entire 2008 New York Times op-ed can be found here, but the final two paragraphs summarize Romney’s view on Bailout:
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
Gee, that almost sounds like the sort of logical, measured suggestion which a businessman would prescribe. Fancy that.
—–
I said at the top that Romney had the best line of the night. That’s because even though Obama had a couple of zingers, they both were provably false (more on that later). In Mitt’s case, his best line was spot on:
“Mr President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators,” Romney said.
If Romney had that line in his hip pocket, good for him on playing it perfectly. If he came up with it on the spot, that’s just pure genius.
Obama was on the attack all night, a stance which went well with his “eyes-of-death” stare. However, as we’ve observed so often before, when pressured Obama simply lies. The following statement will cause some headaches for the Obama camp in the campaign’s final two weeks.
Courtesy of The Hill.com:
Romney accused Obama of allowing the military to be cut to historically low levels through $1 trillion in cuts set to occur over the next decade because of last year’s Budget Control Act and sequestration.
“Our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1916,” Romney said. “The Navy said it needed 313 ships, now it’s down to 285, and it’s headed down to the low 200’s if we go through sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me.”
Obama responded by saying:
“First of all, the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen,” Obama said.
Two things wrong with that. First, saying that “it will not happen” doesn’t allow for a whole lot of wiggle room in the future. Seeing as how we still have Congress’ lame duck session coming up, that one statement could severely weaken his bargaining power during the upcoming spending & tax discussions when Congress is back in town.
Second, it’s all well & good for Obama to blame the sequester on Congress (George W. Bush must have slipped his mind for the moment), but according to Bob “Watergate” Woodward’s new book, it was the President’s idea.
The book “The Price of Politics,” by Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward, makes it clear the idea for the draconian spending cuts originated in the White House – and not in Congress.
So, in one brief statement, he managed to create not one but two major problems for himself. Way to go, Sparky.
But the real question for the evening was: how did everybody ELSE react?
Over on MSNBC, they of course felt that President Perfect had done his normal dazzling job. We were also treated to the now clichéd explanation for what is behind the stupid, backwards Neanderthals (like me) who still steadfastly opposed their Hearthrob-In-Chief:
Chris Matthews: “I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred – hatred for Obama. We can go into that about the white working class in the south and looking at these numbers we’re getting about racial hatred in many cases. This isn’t about being a better president. They want to get rid of this president.”
So, just in case you forgot, opposing Obama equates to your being a racist. I know I occasionally forget that about myself, so I’m rather grateful for the reminder. Gracias, Chris!
Over on Twitter, the reaction was somewhat different:
https://twitter.com/Modern_Right/status/260562173212913667
And Charles Krauthammer had this, which I basically agree with:
—–
Oh, and here’s the full debate, as always:
—–
Once again, the networks gave the edge to Obama. And once again, I think that won’t make a scintilla of difference. When you’ve lost the momentum, you need a big play to get it back. Monday night’s affair didn’t have it, and may have easily caused more headaches than it solved for President Petulant’s camp.
However, now that the debates are finally (thankfully) over, it all comes down to us. WE are in charge of who wins & loses. WE have the power to either fight or roll over and play dead (& in the case of Obamacare, that may well be literal). WE will be pulling the voting lever and continuing over the cliff, or trying to begin the slow, agonizing crawl away from the edge.
Call. Donate time &/or $$. Knock on doors. Talk with neighbors. Put up a sign. Do something…
Time is short. Use it wisely.
It’s been a loooo-ooong week: Unemployment looking as dire as ever, …..and the general silliness to which the Obama campaign has reduced itself.
So let me distill it for you: the most important thing to remember out of the week is, …THIS:
—–
(video courtesy of HotAir & Stix Blog Backup)
Posted in Benghazi, Obama, politics
Tagged Benghazi, Benghazigate, debate, election, Obama, Presidential Debate
From Revealing Politics:
Last night, during the second Presidential debate, President Obama and Mitt Romney engaged in one of the most heated exchanges of the campaign yet. When asked by an audience member about the lack of enhanced security in Benghazi prior to the attack on the Libyan embassy, President Obama stammered through a lame response that ultimately failed to address the question.
When Romney attempted to address the President’s inconsistencies in his excuse making, the moderator managed to forget her position and came to the aid of the President.
(Video courtesy of AceOfSpadesHQ and RevealingPolitics.com)
—–
It’s not like this is a complicated question. Actually, if either of my two sons avoided a question to this degree, I’d automatically assume they were guilty of whatever I asked.
Now THERE’s a thought…
—–
UPDATE: Over at HotAir.com, Allahpundit weighs in on this:
The deep scandal is sending a U.S. ambassador into a jihadi hive protected by a skeleton crew of possibly treacherous locals supervised by a notably inexperienced contractor. Stevens was a sitting duck. And the next time the Unicorn Prince feigns outrage by claiming it’s “offensive” to accuse him of playing politics with what happened, Romney had very well better point that out.
On the offensiveness scale, leaving the U.S. ambassador to suffocate to death while jihadi degenerates overrun his threadbare security detail ranks a wee bit higher than accusing Barack Obama of — gasp — focusing unduly on his own reelection.
Read it all.
Posted in Benghazi, Obama, politics
Tagged Benghazi, Benghazigate, debate, Libya, negligence, Obama, Presidential Debate
Tuesday night’s 2nd Presidential debate was marked by some silly questions, and silly behavior. But after the dust settled, Romney walked away not only unscathed, but with a close & hard-fought win.
Oh, I’m sure the Obamacrats were all excited that their man Barack popped a couple 5-hour Energy drinks before he went onstage, and it’s true that he was better than his somnambulistic persona from 2 weeks ago. However, the President employed the Joe Biden “malarkey” method of debating, which means you repeatedly call your opponent a liar, facts-and-truth-be-damned. It also means that you constantly interrupt your opponent, which taken together makes it very hard for many viewers to tell what the heck is going on.
This strategy, however, doesn’t appear to be benefiting Obama. More on that at the end.
—–
The item which we’ll be talking about for days is the “terror” question as it relates to Benghazi. The President, assisted by moderator Candy Crowley, attempted to re-write history and basically insist he had said all along that it was a terrorist attack.
Which is great and all, ….except that he didn’t.
Obama didn’t call it a terrorist attack; he was speaking in relation to 9/11/01 and used the word “terror” in general. This isn’t opinion; it’s objective fact. Is it now a matter of semantics as to whether the Obama Administration did or did not recognize the attacks as terrorism?
Heck, in his Rose Garden speech, he also used the words “Walter Reed“. Based on his previous logic, should we then assume that Obama suspected the famous Army doctor had something to do with the Libya attacks, as well?
It’s almost as if the Administration WANTS me to keep replaying this video:
(The Entire timeline for what was said, and when, can be found HERE).
There are several places to view reports on this, including HotAir.com (with two posts now) as well as Human Events. I suggest you give BOTH sites a peek.
—–
I was actually flabbergasted at one point during the evening, when Obama tried to portray himself as pro-oil, -natural gas, & -coal…and then say that he is responsible for improved results in these areas! I’ll say this: Obama’s not a gifted liar in the mold of Bill Clinton, but he sure is a bold one.
“Pro-coal”? Really? You may wish to tell that to the Coal Industry; they somehow have missed that message. Of course, when your campaign maligns Ohio coal miners who attended a Romney rally as “being forced to attend by their union“, it should be pretty obvious who’s lying about being on the side of Coal in our country.
—–
Pro-OIL? Puh-leeeeaase…. I have two words for that laughable statement: KEYSTONE PIPELINE.
President “Yay, Oil!” Obama has been busy in other ways, too:
“The Obama administration also announced recently it would lock up nearly half of the 23 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska from energy production and instead set it aside for wildlife and species protection.”
And this from HotAir.com’s Erika Johnsen:
Obama tries to hit back on Romney’s accurate observations — “Very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration” — but again, Obama ignores the facts about the rates of leasing and permitting that disqualify his claims, and Romney doesn’t let him get away with it. (Also, Obama’s “use-it-or-lose-it,” “you can’t just choose to drill when it’s profitable for you” policy argument, demonstrates a devastatingly pathetic lack of understanding about the way the markets work to everyone’s best advantage.)
Maybe I’m just slow, but none of this strikes me as “pro-oil”.
—–
As always, we have the full debate video for you here:
—–
The bottom line from last night was that Obama spoke to his diminishing base of cultists followers, and they probably put up new posters of him on their wall. However, those folks are in the tank regardless what he does. Rather than building any sort of “O-mentum” from Tuesday among the electorate-at-large, Obama was slammed with the news that he’d lost the debate as measured by both CNN and CBS. Even the MSNBC focus group called it a tie.
And when your opponent’s trajectory is going up, and yours is going down, that means advantage: Romney.
Armed with that knowledge, faced with the inevitable discussions of Libya/”terror-or-not-terror”, and talks of dead ambassadors, one thing is certain: this is going to make a very tough week for the sitting president.
**sniff**
Posted in Benghazi, coal, election, politics
Tagged Benghazi, Candy Crowley, CNN, debate, election, fact-check, hotair.com, Libya, Obama, Romney
We’ve already done our breakdown on last week’s VP debate; 2 posts, in fact. However, there is still one aspect of that evening which bothered me greatly but I didn’t get into, since (A) I knew it would take way too long to address properly, and (B) the subject makes my skull hurt.
The part to which I refer is in the following clip. Jump to the 2:53 mark to hear Biden’s remark (text is below):
“My religion defines who I am, and I have been a practicing Catholic my whole life,” Biden said. “And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.
“With regard to abortion,” he said, “I accept my church’s position on abortion as a, what we call de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christian and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.
“I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that, women, that they can’t control their body,” said Biden. “It is a decision between them and their doctor, in my view, and the Supreme Court. I am not going to interfere with that.”
Oy, vey….
To use Biden’s favorite phrase from the other night (he said it twice): that’s a bunch of malarkey.
First of all, Twitter went insane about 5 seconds later:
Can’t argue with any of those sentiments.
Be real: if your faith “defines” who you are, then how exactly does it not color how you go about your day-to-day activities? I’m well aware that the act of deliberately failing to live one’s faith is popularly described in society today as being able to ‘compartmentalize’ your religious values.
Yeah, I’m calling ‘malarkey’ on that one, too.
If your faith, your belief system, defines who you are, then it necessarily defines what you do & how you do it. Otherwise, your alleged faith is nothing more than a hobby, like model building. Or, in Joe’s case, having his fake teeth whitened.
—–
After forcing myself to watch the debate a second time, I observed that Biden chose his words just a tad too carefully. Listen to his verbiage: his answer doesn’t include the word “belief”, nor does he state that he agrees with the Catholic Church’s view. He simply says he “accepts” it, which is barely more than a grudging acknowledgment.
Someone can accept any number of things:
In my opinion, Biden is an example of the classic ‘cafeteria’ Catholic: “I’m cool with some of the stuff the Church says, but not real hip with some other stuff, so I’ll just order from the doctrinal à la carte menu, and take only what I want“. Sorry, kids, Catholicism doesn’t work that way.
This isn’t some minor, inconsequential church belief, either: this is one of the big ones, falling under that “Thou shall not Kill” suggestion commandment. Even Joe may have heard mention of it over the years, …assuming he wasn’t too busy smirking, laughing, and interrupting the priest.
—–
Biden also must have been too occupied with Catholicism defining his life to have heard this statement from Pope John Paul II:
“Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good,” the pope said. “Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.
“Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize,” said the pope. “There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.”
“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it,'” declared the pope.
–from Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical letter, Evangelium Vitae.
Pope Benedict XVI, back in 2002 when he was still a Cardinal, also wrote of this, saying:
“Catholics, (…) have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. “John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a “grave and clear obligation to oppose“ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.”
I know Biden doesn’t exactly light up the heavens with his intellect, but that seems fairly clear, even to a simpleton like me.
—–
The other big Catholic whopper that St. Biden The Pious was selling last week was regarding the HHS mandate. We’ve covered (along with a host of other folks) the Obamacare contraception vs. religious freedom law ad nauseam, but Biden lied about it anyway.
“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide.
That is a fact. That, is a fact.”
Actually, Joe, it’s kinda the opposite of a fact. In reality it’s a non-fact, or what I like to call: a lie. Honestly, I do love it when Biden speaks that way to make an I’m-really-serious rhetorical point. His voice slows…down…and he repeats things….twice….for …effect.
It tells me when he’s lying.
It tells me…..when…. he’s….. lying.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) came out with a statement last week to refute this “fact” in no uncertain terms, part of which is below:
The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.
HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.
USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.
Again, that seems to be pretty easy to understand. Maybe we need to translate it into a picture book for Vice President My-Faith-Defines-Me.
I’ll give Biden this much: he’s in good company, as a plethora of Democrat politicians use the same convoluted, rationalized logic, including John Kerry and Nancy “I haven’t blinked in 20 years” Pelosi:
—–
Honestly, I couldn’t begin to care if Biden is Catholic, atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or if he pays homage to snails. I do, however, care a great deal when the Vice President in effect slanders my faith, repeatedly trying to pass off his idiotic blather as “fact”.
More to the point, if someone believes that abortion is fine-&-dandy, let’s have that discussion. Within my close circle of family/friends are people who disagree with me wholeheartedly on this subject. None of them, however, have the chutzpah to try passing themselves off as devout followers of any faith where they are 100% opposed to a belief so integral to that same church’s teachings.
Believe what you want; it’s a free country…for now. But for it to remain so, this pathetic excuse for a VP, along with his equally truth-challenged sidekick, need to be gone next month.
ADDENDUM from Godsbooklover for our non-Catholic readers: Of course you already know this, but it bears pointing out that the issue of abortion is NOT merely a “Catholic” issue, but one which should matter to all Christians, and all Jews. JTR mentioned that’s it’s a “Big One”…as in, one of the Big Ten, which are most certainly not suggestions.
Two Heads are Better Than One 