Freudian Fox Faux Pas?

Dana Perino this AM, was discussing how the Bangladeshi pipe bomb terrorist got into the country. This was the graphic Fox put up instead. Freudian?

As always, demands for "common sense" bomb control must continue!

Thinking About Their Ad Rates?

Reporting in front of Minute Maid Park.

Is Fox Down on its "Heels"?

Another way to put that is, "Why does Fox suffer fools so gladly?"

According to Wikipedia:

(Spoiler alert! Pro wrestling may be...less than, shall we say, purely...random?)

Professional wrestling... is a form of performance art which combines athletics with theatrical performance...The matches have predetermined outcomes to heighten entertainment value...

Say it ain't so!!! And further, according to the Oracle of Wiki, wrestlers are divided unto two groups: The "Babyfaces" or "Faces" (the good guys) whom the audience is supposed to cheer and the "Heels" (bad guys), who are the "villains", as it were, whom the audience is supposed to boo and jeer.
Mission accomplished!

I started to notice the similarities between pro wrestling and Fox News after Fox hired Marie Harf. Marie was a State Department Spokesperson for the Obama administration, where she was, frankly, kind of an airhead and said some incredibly stupid things. In other words,  a complete joke.

But, a joke with blonde hair, a nice smile and now, a job on Fox News, to be a 'Heel' for the audience to jeer, along with fellow heels, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Richard Fowler and others.

Why does Fox tolerate liberals who, if brains were dynamite, couldn't blow their own noses? Aside from being "Fair and balanced", I believe it's performance art. Liberal contortionists  jump through hoops of illogical rhetoric, to act as foils, and receive the occasional body slam from conservatives, primarily for the sake of ratings.

Fox's Heels are typically pleasant, friendly people who more often than not, are merely regurgitating the talking points of the Left, whose attempts at original thought more closely resemble a dumpster fire.

It's a lot easier to tolerate Fox News since I caught onto the act. The Heels don't have to be all that insightful or bright to bring in an audience.

Don't take them too seriously, and be sure to bring the popcorn!

Reasons Hillary Lost...

...and counting!

Fair and Balanced

In order not to mock the hypocrisy and demagoguery of Democrats in their grandstanding, sit in, fundraising sideshow, and in an attempt to portray this as bi-partisan, Fox News has graciously made John Lewis a Republican...

No comment on how many lemons it is required to suck to look like his companion.

Unfamiliar With the Vernacular? Or Too Familiar With Trump?

I hear a lot of people say they are going to boycott Fox News because they are supposedly in the tank for Trump. But are they? Consider the following graphic put up by Fox News on a statement from Donald Trump:


Was this a Freudian slip by some intern unfamiliar with the vernacular? Or just someone too familiar with Trump?

Either way, it's funny!

Of Shoes and Ships and Sealing Wax, of Sausages and Swirlies!

Fox News Announces Debate Line Up

The Prime Time line up:

Donald Trump
Jeb Bush
Scott Walker
Mike Huckabee
Ben Carson
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Rand Paul
Chris Christie
John Kasich

The "Kiddie Table" (which may be the far more interesting debate)

Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
Bobby Jindal
Carly Fiorina
Lindsey Graham
George Pataki
Jim Gilmore

I'd like to see at least 50% of both the first and second tier candidates gone before Thanksgiving.

Which GOP Presidential Candidate Would You Never Vote For?

If by "never" you mean, in the primary, I agree 100%. If by never you mean in the general election if by some tragic misfortune this bozo was the last line of defense against another four years of Democrat disaster, then, we'll talk!

Excuses-R-Us : Expect 2014 to be a Vintage Year for Presidential Whine

Over at the Political Clown Parade, The Insufferable Airhorn And His Insufferable Hubris, I took a closer look at some of the remarks President Selfie has made of late. Whine-a-palooza! Some examples from the New Yorker:

“There have been times where I’ve been constrained by the fact that I had two young daughters who I wanted to spend time with, and that I wasn’t in a position to work the social scene in Washington."

First of all, given the one hundred and fifty plus golf outings, and pictures of him playing golf on "vacation with his family", with his family nowhere in sight, make it hard for me to believe that President Selfie ever pines for moments alone with his daughters. "If you like your picture of strong fatherhood and domestic bliss, you can keep it," intones the president. Second, when has "working the social scene" ever been a prerequisite for presidential leadership? Shouldn't at least a small portion of that take place in the Oval Office? (If we could ever get him there??) Somehow Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and a few others all managed to be effective leaders without smoozing the capitol's "social scene" or being on CNN.

Or this gem?

"...the issue has been the inability of my message to penetrate the Republican base so that they feel persuaded that I’m not the caricature that you see on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but I’m somebody who is interested in solving problems and is pretty practical, and that, actually, a lot of the things that we’ve put in place worked better than people might think. "

This, too, is laughable. President Selfie, your message has penetrated to the Republican base ever since you told "Joe the plumber" that you intended to "spread the wealth". Your problem with the Republican base is not that your "message hasn't penetrated", but precisely because it has. You have been governing against the will of the people ever since you took office. There has never been a majority of people in this country who wanted Obamacare, yet you and your fellow Democrats shoved it down our throats in an obscenely partisan manner, much to the detriment of our country. We got your message loud and clear. And we opposed it, not because you were some caricature foisted upon us by Fox News, but because we knew that the government take over of the health industry would lead to misery and a loss of freedom for millions. Millions have already lost their current insurance because of Obamacare, with millions more to come. And millions will be paying more for coverage they don't need, because your law takes away their choice.

And if the only roadblocks to your success are Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, how do you explain your failures of foreign policy? Do Putin and Assad (and Merkel, and Ahmadinejad, and Mubarak, and Morsi, and Karzai, and...) watch Fox News, too? Or does the weakness you project, in withdrawing from military conflict, the vain saber rattling about imaginary red lines you warn our enemies not to cross, that either you have not thought through the consequences or have no spine to enforce, the petulant begging from world leaders, like Putin, to give Snowden back, or the lifting of embargoes against Iran, with no concessions from them in return, make you ineffectual, and not Fox News?

"I’m somebody who is... pretty practical..." When it comes to rewarding political cronies and contributors. If you have a failing solar company like Solyndra, that cannot manufacture solar panels for less than what they sell for, give money to Barrack, there's millions in it for you! Same for electric car companies and people who build websites! Anyone want to guess what the primary qualification for building healthcare.gov was? Follow the money! And if you want to see bumbling fools in action, who have no qualifications to become a US ambassador, other than the amount of money they donated, go here.

According to White House sources and others, the Bush recession ended in June of 2009. That was the start of the 'Obama Recovery'. How's that working out for you, Mr. President? The problem isn't that your message "hasn't penetrated", Mr. Obama, it's that it doesn't work. But, then, apparently, neither do you. Have fun on the 18th green! Spend a little quality time with your caddy!



Cross posted at LCR, Political Clown Parade

Nancy Pelosi: "It is Almost a False Argument to Say We Have a Spending Problem"

Is Nancy Pelosi the dimmest bulb to ever serve in Congress? The most dishonest?? Or both??? In less than fifteen minutes on Fox News Sunday, former Speaker of the House Pelosi said almost more stupid and dishonest things than Joe Biden has hair plugs. But, to preface Ms. Pelosi's lies, prevarications and outright whoppers, we have the dishonest statement from the White House that (federal) budget cuts will result in the "damaging layoffs" of teachers, law enforcement officers and food inspectors.

Really? How many teachers in your public schools are employees of the federal government as opposed to being funded by the cities and communities that their schools are in? And why, you might ask yourself, out of the hundred of thousands of government bureaucracies, departments, employees and expenditures, why it is that every time the public demands a little more financial responsibility from their city, state and federal politicians, that the first thing that happens in return, is a threat to cut police, schools and safety, such as fire, or in this case, food inspection? Let's see a show of hands of all you who think that unnecessary expenditures and waste have been eliminated at every level of government and the only places left to cut are those which affect you most personally? Anyone?? Anyone at all???

The US Department of Education, for example, "currently administers a budget of $68.1 billion in discretionary appropriations" alone. This is in addition to the mandatory budget, which in 2006 was $56 Billion. And to think that for hundreds of years, we educated our kids without sending a single dime to Washington to educate them or expecting Washington to send back a single for it either.

Since Jimmy Carter created the cabinet level Department of Education in 1980, have the nation's test scores improved or continued to slide? Thirty three years of ineffective bureaucratic spending, regulations and pork, with nothing to show for it, except more government intrusion, hundreds of billions of dollars later, and the federal government cannot find any place to cut the budget except food inspectors and the military?

And still, the gems of wisdom have not even begun to fall from Ms. Pelosi's lips! Put on your hip waders, folks, and let us begin!

The first thing I want to point out is the same phony claim that Obama made during the last campaign, that he and the Democrats had "cut $1.6 Trillion" from the budget. Ms. Pelosi repeats the talking point/lie:

"We've had plenty of spending cuts. $1.6 Trillion..."

There is one question that I have been dying to hear anyone in the MSM, or now Fox News, ask of Mr. Obama or Ms. Pelosi:

"You say you've cut the federal budget by $1.6 Trillion dollars. So, in real terms, how many fewer dollars will the federal government spend next year than it did this year?"

If these cuts were more substantive than Monopoly money, then cutting the budget by X amount of dollars should result in spending X amount less than the year before. Right? But all of Obama's budgets and projected budgets increase spending year after year after year. To paraphrase Ms. Pelosi, what she said is not the "gospel truth"*. And speaking of phony, Obama ran all through 2012 claiming we needed a "balanced" approach to the economy, with both spending cuts and tax increases. As soon as he was re-elected, he forgot all about "balance" and pushed for higher taxes, without even any lip service to specific cuts that could or should be made. Need I remind you that in 2008, candidate Obama promised to go through the budget "line by line"** to eliminate waste and unnecessary spending. San Fran Nan used the word "balance" over and over again (it must focus group nicely!), but shied away from actual spending cuts like Dracula from holy water.

Most of us who have or ever had a credit card or loan, know that the only way to decrease the amount of interest we pay is to reduce the balance. We certainly do not decrease interest by increasing spending. But, Ms. Pelosi doesn't think (you could just go with the bold part of this sentence) that we have a "spending problem". Her exact words:

"It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem"

This is despite Chris Wallace pointing out, that you could confiscate all the wealth of all the wealthy and still not cover our current rate of spending, which would at least imply, to most sane people, that when your spending exceeds your wildest expectations for income, that you have a "spending problem". Ms. Pelosi, despite all your phony budget "cuts", spending continues to increase, making this next statement you made (also without bursting into flames) that much more of a lie:

"We're sick and tired of paying interest on the national debt."

If you were truly sick of it, San Fran Nan, wouldn't you make genuine budget cuts that actually reduce the amount of federal spending, rather than increase it, so that we might some day have the money to pay off the principle, or at least not have to continue to borrow money every day to cover our current spending?

You pretend that all of the problems were inherited from Bush, despite the fact that the really profligate spending started when you became Speaker of the House, which grew exponentially during Obama's first term. You cite pretend jobs that were created by the stimulus spending, when the truth is the US has steadily lost more jobs than were "created" under Obama. And your only solution is to throw even more money at the same failed policies of the past and insanely hope for a different outcome this time? Or do you merely line the pockets of yourself, your family and your cronies, knowing that none of your "solutions" will work, but at least "you've got yours"?

Oh, and one more thing, Nanny Nancy: You claim that monies spent for education are "investments made for the future". We started making "investments" by the billions in 1980 for the Department of Education. We've been making billions of dollars of "investment" in the future for thirty three years. At what point in your personal portfolio do you stop wasting money on investments with no return? Any of them for 33 years? Why don't you accord middle class taxpayers the same courtesy?







*To be honest, I did not catch this the first time I heard the interview. When I did catch it the second time, I was quite frankly surprised that she did not immediately burst into flame.

**"Line by line": Code words for "Somewhere between the first tee and the eighteenth hole"

Cross posted at LCR. The video from the Fox interview posted at LCR, but not here.

Gun Control Idiocy From Those Wacky Folks Over at ...Fox News

Here, I thought I had flown into Ohio, turns out, I overshot Ohio and ended up on the Bizarro planet. A little jet lagged and behind in my blogdasarian duties, I brought dinner back to the hotel and passed on an HBO movie where absolutely no one in the cast wore any clothes (okay, they were animated birds!), after having been assailed by a promo for Real Time with Bill Maher. (The primary problem being that Real Time isn't Real Funny!) Notice how many shows on HBO tout themselves as "Real"? Real Time, Real Sports, Real Sex. Reminds me of the lady who said, "Honey, if you have to hang a sign around your neck saying you is, then you ain't!" But, I digress...

So I watched a little bit of Special Report with Bret Baier, without Bret Baier. Charles Krauthammer was on the panel, so I thought it might not be too bad. I couldn't tell you of anything spectacular ventured on the program until this blonde, whom I surmise to be A. J. Stoddard, said something spectacularly ill informed.

Speaking of the Colorado theater shooting, she said of the ammunition he purchased, and I speak from memory, that "none of this ammunition is used for self defense."

Fancy that! I have a Glock .40 that I have personally used for self defense, which uses, wait for it, .40 cal ammunition. He carried an 870 Remington shotgun, which is an excellent home defense weapon, and an AR-15, chambered in .223. Some of you might be old enough to remember the LA riots, where Korean shopkeepers climbed up to the roofs of their shops, armed with guns very similar to the AR-15, to defend their property against looters and arsonists. I don't know if they ever had to fire a single shot, but their presence served as a deterrent.

Let's recap: All three varieties of ammunition have been used or could certainly be used for self defense. If you want to argue about the quantities of ammunition he ordered, that's another story. But, if you don't know what you're talking about, please educate yourself before you enter the adult world of discussions on firearms laws and regulations.

Which brings us to Bill O'Reilly. He hit the trifecta tonight. I almost never watch Mr. O, but after yet another lap of the channels available, I saw he was going to have Bernard Goldberg on, so I thought, Aha! Another bright spot.

So I turned it on in the background and looked up as Bill was launching into a rant. First, he made some crack about buying bazookas without the Federal government knowing about it*. This, of course, is patently absurd, particularly if you are speaking of a functional bazooka with ammunition. These are highly regulated devises that are not commonly available to civilians.

I thought it was just part of his "Shtick", that he was saying something so hyperbolic for comic effect. He followed that up with a statement that one can buy machine guns without the feds knowing about it. He generated quite a bit of faux outrage at this! Unfortunately for Bill, it isn't true. The only people who can purchase machine guns are those who have Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL).

These weapons are tightly regulated and FFLs are not easy, or inexpensive to obtain. I cannot explain why, buy Mr. O'Reilly was getting quite incensed over something that simply is not true.

He compounded the idiocy with a parting remark about how it is "irresponsible to take a six year old to a midnight showing of a movie to be killed", as if it were somehow responsible to take a six year old to a movie matinee to be killed.

Hindsight is 20/20 Bill. Except for one deranged person, taking a six year old to the movies is hardly the act of an irresponsible parent. Bad judgment? Maybe. I wouldn't have done it, but like your rhetoric about bazookas and machine guns, your use of the word "irresponsible" was, well, irresponsible.

* I heard the quote a second time. It was more like "terrorists can buy bazookas without the FBI knowiung about it. Sheesh!

Jack Lew, Obama's Chief of Flack, on Obamacare

Jack Lew, Chief of Flack for the Obama Administration was on Fox News Sunday this AM. He's a smooth talker, all right, but what he had to say had as much familiarity with the truth as Michael Jordan had with being chosen last for a pick up basketball game.

"One thing that's great about our system, is that we the Supreme Court rules, we have a final answer."

Really, Mr. Lew? Because the final answer from the Supreme Court was that Obamacare is a tax. Why do you keep denying this if the Supreme Court affirmed it in their "final answer"?

"We sent Congress plans, which if they were enacted, would have create a million new jobs: policemen, firemen, teachers..."

Noble professions, to be sure, but all on the government payroll. All of them funded by the private sector and all of them contributing to public sector unions, which contribute heavily (Read: almost exclusively) to Democrats. Since the federal government and many of the states , cities and counties are broke, the money to pay these employees and their benefits would have to be borrowed, and add to the National debt, or printed by the government, which leads to inflation. This president's plan, his "focus" if you will, is to spend more money from Washington to stimulate the economy and end the recession.

But, that's exactly what he's been promising and doing for the last almost four years. How would the next four years of doing the exact same thing be any different? Other than to perhaps, take America's credit rating down another notch?

"...the American people want the divisive debate on Healthcare to stop."

Stop??? It never even got good started before Congress by the barest of majorities and not in any way a bi-partisan bill, passed a 2000+ page bill that most of them had never read and the people they supposedly represent didn't have the time to read, or reflect on or give any feedback to their elected representatives.

A majority of the American public, when asked, say they not only don't like Obamacare, but want to see it repealed. Of course, you would prefer that the matter be settled, Mr. Lew. Obamacare and the economy, the crowning jewel of his first (and hopefully only) term and his primary responsibility after securing the national defense, are both colossal failures. (I was going to say national "borders", but we all know what a miserable job he's done at that, too!)

Jack Lew, like the Moooove-on people, wants us to "move on" from a discussion of Obamacare to its implementation. He even used those exact words: move on. That way, the Bamboozler-in-Chief could natter on about his "vision" for what he wants America to look like. And his "vision" is very flowery and full of high sounding words. Just words, as someone might say.

He wants to run on his "vision" because he cannot run on his record. His primary achievement has been to push a phony "healthcare" reform down the throats of the American people instead of addressing any of the problems with the cost of healthcare. Like tort reform, for example. Tort reform is opposed by the Democrat Party, which is a subsidiary of the Trial Lawyers Association, which doesn't want tort reform. (See: How John Edwards became a millionaire.)

During the interview, Jack Lew spoke of how much President Obama had lowered people's taxes. Lowering your income will certainly do that to you!

If you listen to the whole interview, you can here him lie about how Obama wants to "reach across the aisle" to work with Republicans (like he did when he rejected all their input and amendments to Obamacare) and the lie ( around 13:21)that "Fast and Furious" started in the Bush administration, when in fact the Bush program Wide Receiver had been shut down for two years before Obama, Holder and Co. ever started Fast and Furious.

I don't know about you, but whenever I catch someone in an obvious lie, I have a hard time believing anything that person says.

Now, I'm wondering...is his name really Jack Lew???


Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Xavier Becerra and the Talking Points of Doom™

Xavier Becerra (D-CA) was on Fox News Sunday a week ago Sunday. It is instructive to watch.

At :54 in..."when you don't pay for two wars...you're going to have to pay for that at some point"

He's got the talking point down pat, doesn't he? Bush's "two unpaid for wars" got us into this recession and Obama adding a third and possibly a few more "kinetic military actions" never enters into the equation!

Here's where it really gets good, at around 2:04, he is asked about the pile of IOUs in the Social Security "trust fund" (stop laughing!). To illustrate it, he pulls out a five dollar bill and a treasury bond and then compares them both to the S.S. IOUs, because they are all backed by the full faith and credit of the US.

If they are all backed by the "full faith and credit of the US", then why scare seniors about the possibility of not getting their checks? Just pay them all out of the IOUs, which I'm certain they can take to the grocery store and gas station to buy whatever they need, right? Or was it just a little verbal sleight of hand, where you make a false equivalence, because a dollar bill is not a bond is not an IOU?

Xavier should run as Obama's veep in 2012. He's very slick verbally, his words mean nothing and his demonstrated knowledge of the economy and monetary policy is next to zero. Or else, he's lying, and either way would make a perfect fit with the current resident of the Oval Office.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Hackers Post False Obama Assassination on Fox's Twitter

My first impression, when I first heard this story, after getting through the sense of revulsion that anyone would pull such a sick, despicable hoax, was that it was probably a bunch of liberals who did the hacking, seeing as how they targeted Fox News and not, say, the Huffington Post.

"Fox News was selected because we figured their security would be just as much of a joke as their reporting,” said the Script Kiddies representative.

Sounds mighty like a liberal to me!

Update: The Secret Service is taking names!

WASHINGTON — The Secret Service said Monday it will investigate the hacking of Fox's political Twitter account over updates claiming that President Barack Obama had been assassinated. Secret Service spokesman George Ogilvie says the law enforcement agency whose job it is to protect the president will conduct a probe of the false postings and that "we will conduct the appropriate follow up."

Hackers broke into the FoxNewsPolitics account early Monday, leaving a series of six tweets reporting that Obama had been shot to death in Iowa and the shooter was unknown. In a statement posted on its website, Fox News called the tweets "malicious" and "false."

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

"WTF": Obama's 2012 Campaign

David Plouffe has taken over David Axelrod's (Captain Combover) old position as campaign strategist. The interview with David Plouffe starts about three minutes in. His use of the phrase "Win the Future" (WTF) occurs at 3:23 (roughly twenty seconds into the interview) and 16:44 (roughly twenty seconds before the interview ends ). Any idea which talking point David Plouffe might want you to remember?

Plouffe's insistence that Obama was the driving force behind budget cuts is mildly comical, since the administration's position at the beginning of negotiations was no cuts whatsoever. The description offered by another, that Obama was "dragged kicking and screaming" to the budget cuts is quite apt.

Plouffe's world is spin. The fact that the Obama administration is trying to co-opt the popular American idea of smaller government is merely them tacking to the center to see if they can fool the American voters into re-electing them in 2012. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

We shall see just how successful they are.

Tolerance, Liberal Style

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

-------------------------------

On his radio program Wednesday morning, Mike Gallagher spent a few minutes talking about something that caught his attention while heading for the airport in Dallas – something that had me laughing out loud on the New York subway listening to the podcast. 

Gallagher saw a vehicle sporting two bumper stickers with seemingly conflicting messages.

The first sticker read: “Turn Off Fox: Bad News For America.”

The other sticker had the word “Coexist” on it, with each letter of the word representing something different (e.g., the “C” as a crescent moon of Islam, the “O” as a peace sign, the lower-case “e” as a symbol of both sexes, and so on). 

It’s hard to overstate how damn funny that really is. Hysterical, really.

As someone doomed to believe that words actually have meanings, I'm wondering ... Do none of the symbols on the "coexist" bumper sticker serve to represent the Fox News Channel? It's employees? The children of their employees who depend on mom and dad for food and shoes? Or is the driver's plea for cultural and religious harmony not inclusive of Fox News and the all the "coexisting" human beings who work there?

And what about the viewers who enjoy Fox? Are they not invited to coexist either?

I am going to step out on a limb and guess that the person responsible for decorating the vehicle with these bumper stickers is not a conservative.

If ever there was a better example of what modern liberal "tolerance" is all about, I’m not cognizant of it.

Ask a tolerant liberal waving one of those rainbow flags in support of same-sex marriage, “Which of these colors represents me, the supporter of traditional marriage?”

The answer will be as enlightened as the one you will get if you ask a global-warming wacko, "What temperature should it be right now?"

Remember, coexistence - like calls for "unity" and "bi-partisanship" - is, and always will be, on their terms only. A politician who seeks "unity" is really asking the electorate to think like he or she does.

It begs the question: Why are liberal “prejudices” more valid than conservative ones?

Because liberal bigotry fosters unity and understanding, of course.

Remember that.

-

Update: John Brasher, one of our sharp eyed readers sent in this coexist sticker:

John: I like yours better! -Proof

Quote of the Day: Senator Jay Rockefeller

by the Left Coast Rebel

What is inside the cranial-wiring of a member of the ruling class of the United States that creates an insatiable appetite to control the lives, diets, incomes, futures and even what is seen and heard on the airwaves?

An honest moment from a United States Senator, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia:

"There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye.' It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future."

No joke. The nonsense before this quote that Rockefeller babbles on about is the height of Orwellian, as well. Watch it:



Imagine if Jim DeMint had said this? X-posted to LCR.

Fox News Offers $2 Million Contract to Juan Williams?

NPR's hissy fit may turn profitable for Mr. Williams after all!


If this is true, it would be quite a coup for Fox News, since Mr. Williams is the embodiment of liberalism:

If you've seen Juan, you've seen them all!

Karl Rove on Obama's "Baseless Lie" -Video

Karl Rove was fired up this AM on Fox News Sunday. I saw this live (well, time delay for the Left Coast) and Gateway Pundit had the video.

“Have these people no shame? Does the president of the United States have such little regard for the office that he holds that he goes out there and makes these kind of baseless charges against his political enemies?”

The charge made by Obama is doubly hypocritical when you consider how the Obama campaign went out of their way NOT to verify the sources of their overseas funding in 2008 in their Internet fund raising.


Update: Just found the offending video in question over at Say Anything


More at Gateway Pundit

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything