Friday, May 31, 2013


QUESTION: Did Barack Obama say, “If somebody has insurance they  like, they should be able to keep that insurance. If they have a doctor that they like, they should be able to keep their doctor. They should just pay less for the care that they receive. ”?

QUESTION: Did Barack Obama say, “If you like your health care plan,  you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. So, don’t let people scare you. If you like what you've got, we’re not gonna make you change.

QUESTION: Did Barack Obama say, “And no matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise. If you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. So don’t let people scare you. If you like what you've got, We’re not gonn make you change. “?

QUESTION:  Did Barack Obama say, “ Reform will keep the government out of your health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your coverage if you’re happy with it.”?

QUESTION: Did Barack Obama say, “For the hundreds of millions of Americans who have health insurance, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Nothing will change for you if you have insurance. Nothing in the plan will require any changes.”?

QUESTION: Did Barack Obama say, “If you are happy with the insurance plan that you have right now, if the cost you’re paying and the benefits you’re getting are what you want, them to be, then you can keep offering that same plan. Nobody will make you change it.”?

QUESTION: Did Barack Obama say, “If Americans like their doctor, they’ll be keeping their doctor. If you like your plan, you’ll be keeping your plan. No one’s taking that away from you.”?

Click the play button to find out:

If it were just once, it would be easy to claim that the clip was taken "out of context." As you will note from the changing audio quality, He said these things over and over again.

QUESTION: Was he telling the truth or not?

Tuesday, May 28, 2013



For those of you who have listened to too much loud music and can no longer hear clearly, I now provide this transcript of this video.

( Aside) “I can never think in advance what to say. Correct.

“And I listen to what other people say, and I think I want to address what Ms Weinberg said about this being personal. This is personal. This is personal to me. And I take it personally because I took an oath when I joined the military in 1970 to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

“Another thing people say all the time is, 'Let’s respect the other guy’s opinion.' 

“I cannot respect oath-breakers. Anybody who’s holding a public office has taken the oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. That does not mean you put how you feel first…how you emotionally react to a tragedy first. Because you think it’s better…that I would be safer, you abrogate my Constitutional rights. That’s breaking you oath and I have no respect for that. 


“I am a mom, and there’s only one thing that I’m afraid of: and that’s the people in elected office taking away my rights. I’m not afraid of the crook who’s going to come to my door because if my dogs don’t get him I will. That’s my defend myself. It’s not your job to protect me, it’s not your job to defend me. It’s your job to protect the Constitution and protect my rights to defend myself. 

“We've all gone through tragedies, particularly people like me who’s family goes back generations in the military. We've got a lot of caskets in the ground, dead by gun bullets. 

“But…the whole thing about gun laws is synonymous with drunken drivers in cars. Drunken drivers misuse cars and kill people. They've killed thousands of children, a lot of our teenagers. Do we ban cars?  No, we don’t. We’re not trying to get rid of cars with a bigger engine, alright, or car that can go faster than the other one. This is utterly and completely ridiculous. Thank you.”

Monday, May 27, 2013

Saturday, May 25, 2013


Here are some of their latest issues.

'Soldier beheadedin Woolwich machete attack

Police deal with what is believed to be two shootings and a machete attack in Woolwich, south east London.

Woolwich terror suspect revealed as Muslim convert 

The Ministry of Defense said: “As a result of the incident in Woolwich, a number of additional security measures have been put in place. As you would expect, we would not talk about the details of these measures.”

Troops in London were advised in the immediate aftermath of yesterday’s attack not to wear their uniforms outside their bases.

But at Cobra this morning, it was agreed that issuing orders against wearing military uniforms in public would not be the right response to the outrage.

MI5 admit they KNEW about fanatics who 'slaughtered soldier':

Two men who allegedly slaughtered a soldier in a Woolwich street were known to security services, it emerged today.

David Cameron revealed that authorities were looking into what was already known about  Drummer Lee Rigby's alleged killers,  but it is not thought they were considered to be an immediate threat.

Remember: There is no death penalty in England.

They shouted 'Allah Akbar' attack and told witnesses to film them.

Clutching a bloodied meat cleaver, the man suspected of executing a soldier on a crowded street declared: 'you and your kids will be next'.

Man talks brazenly with a London accent to the shocked onlooker who filmed the knifeman making a series of twisted rants after the terrorist attack.

Mum talked down Woolwich terrorists who told her: 'We want to start a war in London tonight'

A cub scout leader confronted terrorists just seconds after they had beheaded a soldier asking them to hand over their weapons.

Radical Preacher Anjem Choudary Blames 'Murdering' British Troops

Radical preacher Anjem Choudary has blamed the terrorist murder in Woolwich on David Cameron and Britain's actions in Afghanistan.

Friday, May 24, 2013

Ah, the 5th Amendment!

 The one that protects against SELF INCRIMINATION. It reads:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Lois Lerner likes the part about: “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,…”

One might be tempted to think she had been involved in something criminal.

When testifying before Congress on Wednesday, May 22nd, 2913, Lois invoked her "5th amendment rights." (These rights are much more "rights" than the right to bear arms, of course.)

She told Congress that accusations that she had misled Congress in previous testimony were false.

“I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws,” said Ms. Lerner, who leads the IRS’s division on tax-exempt organizations. Then she invoked the 5th.

The IRS’s division on tax-exempt organizations office formerly held by Sarah Hall Ingram, commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations from 2009 to 2012. The division included the group that targeted Tea Partiers and other conservative individuals and organizations. Ingram has since left to serve as director of the IRS' Affordable Care Act division. You know, the unit responsible for enforcing parts of the health care law, including the fines associated with the so-called individual mandate. Really?

Among other things, we can see what an administrative mess the IRS is by how it organizes to get its work done.

“I have not violated any I.R.S. rules and regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other Congressional committee,” proclaimed Lerner.

If she had done nothing wrong, how could she possibly witness against herself?

Nevertheless, she must feel as though there is enough in her closet to hide that she didn't want Congress to know about it.

I remember during the Watergate hearings, when I was in college and watched them every day, how many witnesses invoked the 5th. I remember how they were castigated for doing so. “They must be guilty if they have something to hide,” was the press’ mantra.

What is their mantra about this invocation?

They don’t have one. They tried to ignore it, then tried to push it under the rug, but the truth came out and they were forced to cover it.

In the mean time, Ms. Lerner has sent the following in an email to her employees in the exempt-organizations division she oversees stating, “Due to the events of recent days, I am on administrative leave starting today. An announcement will be made shortly informing you who will be acting while I am on administrative leave.”

(Actually, she was placed on administrative leave.)

So, the woman who headed one of the most ruthless departments in the country, who is innocent of any wrong-doing and who apparently thinks Congress is a bunch of bullies, has been pushed out of the way
to avoid the pressures of the fray?

That’s an interesting tactic, don’t you think?

Thursday, May 23, 2013


Knowing what is going on is sort of what administrators, leaders and people in charge are supposed to do. It is their job to see that the rank-and-file “underlings” are fulfilling the objectives, goals and action plans of the entity they serve.

President BO (the amateur president)’s job is to be Administrator In Chief. That’s what presidents do…or at least they are supposed to.

When push comes to shove, though, the President’s strategy seems to be to deny having any idea what is going on under his leadership.

Benghazi…I didn't know. I thought it was a video.

IRS…I didn't know. I thought the IRS was treating people equally.

AP news…I didn't know. I thought we were supporting freedom of the press.

Fast and Furious…I didn't know. We thought DOJ was acting in our interests.

ObamaCare…I didn't know. I thought it was a fee/penalty before I argued that it was a tax.

One thing is clear from this pattern: President BO (the amateur president) either does not know or cannot be trusted with the basics of governance: national security (Benghazi and Fast and Furious); taxation (IRS scandals and ObamaCare) and/or law enforcement (surveillance of reporters at AP News).

Notice that he does not tell us what should have been done to prevent Benghazi/Fast and Furious, nor did he admit any wrongdoing. He didn't apologize either. He just said that he will find out for us what happened and see that is doesn't happen again.

So, if he can figure out how to keep it from happening again, why didn't he keep it from happening in the first place. He’s the Commander in Chief. He should have known what was going on and should have provided preventive action.

Then, Hillary Clinton (U.S. Secretary of State...remember?), testifying under oath before Congress said, " I have said many times since September 11th, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure." What in the world did she have to do with September 11th, anyway? How does that even relate to her job with regard to Benghazi?

Yet she took no responsibility at all. She just said the words. If she had taken responsibility there would have been a price to pay. She paid none.

With regard to the IRS and ObamaCare, he does not tell us what should have been done to prevent IRS from focusing on a particular politically oriented group or groups. (And now the woman in charge of the IRS Department of Tax Exempt Organizations refused to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee). He didn't tell us that he was going to fight to get ObamaCare's fee for non-compliance declared a tax after telling us it was a fee/penalty. Nor did he admit any wrongdoing. He didn't apologize for misleading us, either.

As far as the unlawful, unconstitutional surveillance of AP News reporters and sources, he does not tell us what should have been done to prevent it, nor did he admit any wrongdoing. He didn't apologize either. He just said that he will find out for us what happened and see that is doesn't happen again.

Did you not elect him to know what’s going on and to execute the office of President with great leadership and skill? Did you just vote for him because he would be the historical “first black president?” If so, you are a racist.

At the close of every workday I have to file a review of my day and 4 reports to my superiors. They, in turn, file reports to their superiors who report to the head office. It’s a simple process and takes me about three or four minutes.

Why can’t President BO (the amateur president) use a similar (albeit somewhat more extensive) process to finish his day? Can’t there be a chain of oversight in the government that would let him know what’s going on? Aren't Cabinet members able, based on their extensive, successful experience, to anticipate what might go wrong in a given situation and take steps to prevent it through effective communication and oversight? Isn't that what his Cabinet is supposed to be a part of?

Are we supposed to trust the administration in other areas (such as immigration and the economy) when we can’t trust it in these areas?


Monday, May 20, 2013

Saturday, May 18, 2013


Is Hilary laughing over liberals' latest
ploy to deflect questions about

Every liberal knows that Benghazi is just some sort of smoke screen fabricated by Republicans to get even with President BO (the amateur president).

Why, no lesser characters on the political scene than straight thinking Barbara Boxer and even President BO (the amateur president), himself now are trying to throw the blame for something they have tried to convince us never happened on Republicans.

After the now famous 94 emails have been read, studied and shown to have altered the story line at least 12 times, over a period of weeks, even months, they have spoken out.

Now the emails themselves teach us that what the White House and the State Department have been saying about Benghazi was a pure, unadulterated lie…that is to say: it was not true.

Having been caught in a series of deliberated lies that went on well past the time when the Administration and his political flunkies knew exactly what had happened, they now try to blame Republicans for “budget cuts” that kept them from doing what they wanted to do…save those at the Consulate.

Barbara Boxer, appearing before the Senate, forcefully asked, “Who cut the funds from Embassy security?” Then, throwing her hand in the air to look authoritative, she said, “The republicans in the House, that’s who. Hundreds of millions of dollars." She went on, this time throwing her other hand out for emphasis, “So I think that Benghazi scandal, in quotes (I think she meant, “quote: scandal, close quote), starts with the Republicans looking in the mirror," (whatever that means). Then she asked, incomprehensibly, “Mirror, mirror who’s the fairest of them all?”

What? “Who’s the fairest of them all?” What does that even mean. I've watched Snow White a dozen or more times (the Disney version, of course) and ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall” has absolutely nothing to do with spending money.

“They ought to ask,” she continued, “Mirror, mirror, who cut the funding?”

Huh? Talk about your malapropisms!

Then President BO (the amateur president) weighed in.

“I’m intent on making sure that we do everything we can, uh, to prevent another tragedy like this from happening.”

Why? It wasn’t that big of a deal (or so say the liberal commenters on this blog). If it was no big deal, why try to keep it from happening?

“But,” said he, “We’re not gonna be able to do this alone. We’re gonna need Congress as a partner. I’m calling on Congress to work with us to support and fully fund our budget request to improve the security of our embassies (his word, not mine) around the world.”

So, since the rest of their deflections didn't work, they now try to blame lack of funding.

One of the talking points from the liberals after the Benghazi attack persistently blamed an obscure, seldom watched video for the attack. They wouldn't let it rest. They even apologized for it, for Pete’s sake! They really, really wanted us to think the video was the culprit here.

So, the item conveniently NOT answered in the emails was, “Who pushed the videos?” Who thought Americans were so stupid that they would accept on its face the claim that that poorly made, meaningless video caused the death of four Americans because Islam was so offended?

Susan Rice certainly pushed that idea, over and over again. Why? Who told her to do that? Do you think she did it on her own? If you do, I have a proverbial bridge…oh, never mind. You liberals are incapable of learning, anyway. You’ll just keep on saying that the whole Benghazi thing is a tempest in a teapot.

There is another question that is not cleared up by the emails. Who made the decision to order the troops to stand down and not go to Benghazi? Who did that? Did they do it without consulting with their Commander in Chief? Well, did they?

If they did not, then the Commander in Chief is culpable. If they did, then heads should roll.

So, what WILL ACTUALLY happen?

The liberal Democrats have already signaled what will happen: They will NOT accept responsibility (Hilary Clinton’s proclamation to the contrary notwithstanding), but will gladly push the blame on Republicans.

Interestingly, that was not their first response. They chose to blame a video first. Not until now did it occur to them that they might be able to use the fiscal approach.

Either this is disingenuous, or it is a desperate attempt to change the subject.

I suspect both, don’t you?

Friday, May 17, 2013


Last week, the military announced a survey in which it estimated there were 26,000 instances of unwanted sexual contact, ranging from groping to rape, among troops in 2012, a 35% increase over 2010.

President BO (the amateur president) is going to meet with military leaders about the issue today.

Of course, as Commander in Chief, he has absolutely no responsibility in these matters.

The very person in charge of preventing sexual harassment in the military has been accused of running a prostitution ring!

Well! We certainly didn't see THIS coming!

Who would have imagined that when men and women are in close proximity in a military setting that this could happen?

There was, of course, no possible way that anyone could have predicted this type of thing.

How could anyone have known that placing men and women in the same Company, Battalion, Battle Group, Unit or any other close quarters would result in sexual harassment?

No one...I mean absolutely NO ONE would ever have had even an inkling that this stuff might go on. NO ONE!

Oh, sure. There were a few radical, right-wing Christian groups who made statements about these possibilities, but, come on! What do THEY know? They're just a bunch of judgmental moralists who don't know how far we've evolved as a species.

They couldn't possibly have been right. NO! NEVER!

The best course of action right now is to simply change the definition of harassment. I know...we can make death a requisite for sexual harassment. If nobody died, nobody was raped or harassed.

There. That will fix it!

Now let's go back and see how many military women were killed as a result of harassment or during a rape. 

Oh, good. That did the trick. The stats are much better now.

(But you still can't tell a co-worker that she looks nice today. That's the equivalent of rape.)

What a logical world we live in!

Thursday, May 16, 2013


Only the cover up ended up having holes in it and was discovered.

 Now the left has to scramble to reinvent terms so they no longer mean what they mean, but now mean what they want them to mean.

Try answering each of Judge Jeanine Pirro's questions as if YOU were the president. How would you respond when whatever you say now will bury you?

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The Most Honest, Open, Transparent, Upstanding, Moral Bureaucracies in Government:


You can trust these people with your money.

You can trust that they will apply revenue collection laws to the "T."

You can trust that they will never deliberately target any specific group for flagging, but will treat all Americans equally.

You can trust that if "low-level" workers in the IRS get some stupid idea to target a group, their superiors will know what's going on because they've earned their positions in the IRS hierarchy.

You can trust that nobody in the Administration has any idea what's going on in the IRS because...because...well, because if they know what's going on somebody might accuse them of leadership competence.

You can trust that tax dodgers will never be harassed by IRS while law-abiding businesses and citizens will be.

we can trust the the Determinations Unit of the IRS will always do what they are supposed to do, and their determination to focus on  the right things can be counted on.


You can trust the Department of State to be organized in such a way that communications between "low-level" leaders and "upper-level" leaders is always clear and succinct.

You can trust the Department of State to really, really care about its Consulates and provide them with.whatever resources they need to function in an atmosphere of confidence safety and protection.

We can trust the Department of State to respond, when a Consulate is attacked, to knowingly put out a story about an obscure, virtually unwatched video causing the attack and to continue insisting that the video is to blame for at least 3-5 weeks.

We can trust the Department of State to react to the killing of Americans by shrieking, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" That's because we all know that the killing of Americans by radical Islamic groups just really doesn't matter.

We can trust the Department of State to remain uninformed about what happened when our Consulate was attacked, even though any regular citizen who watched the "alternative" news organizations knew almost immediately what had happened.

We can trust the Department of State to stonewall and cover up whatever might cause its leadership embarrassment or might shine the light of day on its lack of competence.

We can trust the Department of State's leadership to "take full responsibility" for what happened, even though "full responsibility" carries with it no suggestion of retribution or cost to the one responsible.

We can trust the Department of State to provide a springboard to higher office, despite the evidence that its leader is corrupt, incapable of rational thought, junkets around looking important while accomplishing nothing of note except leaving a trail of suspicion and contempt for our country.

It is the trustworthiness of the Department of State that cause our pride to rise and our confidence to be enhanced.

Oh how fortunate we are to have two such trustworthy bureaucracies to administer these important facets of American polity.

Monday, May 13, 2013


In anticipation of another 12 hour work day, this blog will be closed until Tuesday night. 4:00 AM comes early and 7:30 PM comes late, so I doubt that I will feel very much like writing 'till then.

Y'all have fun and don't eat each other up until I get back.


Sunday, May 12, 2013

Friday, May 10, 2013


In 2010, the Justice Department, at the behest of the Obama Administration, filed an action against the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church, claiming it had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it fired a female employee for violating a "religious principle." (Imprimus, April 2013, Volume 42, Number 4)

The brief brought by the Administration argued that the religion clauses of the First Amendment don't protect the right of religious groups to select ministers.

The Justice Department also argued that employment discrimination laws trumped the First Amendment's religious freedom protections-even concerning the choice of ministers.

The school held that it was drawing on a legal doctrine known as "ministerial exception," which allows religious institution wide latitude in hiring and firing their religious leaders.

The Administration's lawyers argued that there should be no ministerial exceptions.

They essentially wanted to eliminate this exception, stating: "Government needs to have broad powers to address the problem of discrimination - in this case 'disability - as well as other injustices. Conceding too much to religious institutions limits those powers. Why should the theological doctrines of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, or of any other church, trump the legal doctrines of the United States when the important principle of non-discrimination is at stake?"

What this all means is that the Obama Administration thought the powers of the government should be far greater than the Constitution, convention and history had provided.

The case went to the Supreme Court which held, in a 9-0, ruling that the Administration was wrong.

Did you get that? The Administration wanted the power to decide matters of church polity, matters of church authority and matters of church employment rights. They also wanted to do away with a centuries old manifestation of First Amendment rights for religious organizations for "social" purposes as they saw them.

They thought they were right about their right to power.

They were wrong.

This "Constitutional scholar" [which President BO (the amateur president) is NOT], has been wrong far more than he has been right about Constitutional freedom in America.

He is not capable of understanding or of learning what America is really all about.

Thursday, May 9, 2013


It's not always easy to follow the liberals line of thinking. It can get a bit confusing. Here are just a few examples/reasons.

Freedom of speech means you can say what you want, when you want, where you want as long as it is inoffensive, uses the name of the Lord in vain, is ugly and vulgar, and follows the liberal agenda.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can stand on the street corner, in a stadium or in another public or government controlled space and use the word "Jesus" or some related thought.

But it's still freedom.

Freedom of speech means you can mention Jesus as much as you want, anywhere you want, so long as it is used to swear and/or curse.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can use the name, "Jesus" in a reverent, considerate, compassionate way.

Freedom of speech means you can talk about political things in a public forum, on the street corner, in the courthouse or at a stadium.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can talk about politics from the pulpit of a church.

But it is still freedom.

Freedom of speech means you can study all sorts of things in universities, such as how to have sex, the artistic value of a painting showing Jesus being urinated on, the wonders of Socialism and Communism as opposed to the evil of Capitalism.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can freely support the concepts of Capitalism, Constitutional republics (the United States), nor can you denigrate Socialism or Communism for fear of failing the course.

But it's still freedom.

Freedom of speech means you can desecrate the flag of the United States in any way you wish.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can proudly stand and revere the flag of the United States lest you be accused of nationalism and "unique-ism."

But it is still freedom.

Freedom of speech means you can yell and scream, call women female dogs, "HOs," and other bleepable names on Maury.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can refer to women as "buffaloes,"  sluts and the like if you are not a liberal. You cannot even complement them at work.

But it is still freedom.

Freedom of speech means what a liberal wants it to mean, when a liberal wants it to mean what he wants it to mean, where a liberal wants it to mean what he wants it to mean, how a liberal wants it to mean what he wants it to mean.

Conservatives are not allowed to ascribe traditional meanings to words.

But it is still Freedom.

Can you say, "Inconsistent?"

Monday, May 6, 2013

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Saturday, May 4, 2013



"...people purchasing new insurance policies for themselves this fall could see premiums rise because of requirements in the health-care law," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters Tuesday.

Ms. Sebelius’s remarks come weeks before insurers are expected to begin releasing rates for plans that start on Jan. 1, 2014, when key provisions of the health law kick in. Premiums have been a sensitive subject for the Obama administration, which is counting on elements in the health law designed to increase competition among insurers to keep rates in check. The administration has pointed to subsidies that will be available for many lower-income Americans to help them with the cost of coverage.

The secretary’s remarks are among the first direct statements from federal officials that people who have skimpy health plans right now could face higher premiums for plans that are more generous. …

“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” she said. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

Thursday, May 2, 2013