Eat Your Peas, Chuckie!

The ad begins, "You never know when a stubborn streak will show up..."

GOP Supporters Wanted: At Least Six...

Obama, King of the Strawmen

Strawmen, Behold Your King!

“In strawmanese, you never specify who ‘those who’ are. They are the hollow scarecrows you set up to knock down.” -William Safire

I'm going to channel my inner Andy Rooney here: Didja ever wonder who in the bloody blue blazes Barack Obama is talking about when he builds his little straw man arguments? You know? The kind that usually starts with something like "Some people say that...", before he proceeds to tear apart an argument that absolutely no one is making. Or, "Some of my opponents have actually thanked me for..., confided to me that..., agree with me that...", but he never quite gets around to mentioning the names of any of his imaginary friends. I believe we can add his references to "Republicans who want the country to default" to that list. It's always far easier to distort the argument of your opponents, if not make them up out of whole cloth, than to honestly, squarely face the truth..

How about some 'golden oldie' strawmen from the 2009 New York Times?

“Some people say that maybe I’m being too idealistic. I made a speech in Prague about reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons, and some people said, ah, that will never happen. And some people have said, why are you discussing the Middle East when it’s not going to be possible for the Israelis and the Palestinians to come together? Or why are you reaching out to the Iranians, because the U.S. and Iran can never agree on anything?”

Again, in 2009, in the WSJ:

On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.

Put up a flimsy argument that absolutely no one is making and then definitively knock it over. No one says government has no role. A Constitutional Republic is government constrained and ordered by the Constitution. Liberals who bleat that conservatives are 'anarchists' are either delusional, or simply unable to counter any argument that anyone is actually making.

William Jacobson noted in 2010, Obama's bogus attempt to portray himself as one who champions tax cuts. How? By making up a phony argument and wrestling it to the ground with his bare hands!

“Just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I’ve championed and that they’ve opposed.”

What?? Republicans never "fought to end" anybody's tax cut. Republicans fought to keep the across the board tax cuts from the Bush administration intact. It was Obama and the Democrats who engaged in brinksmanship before they finally backed down and didn't raise taxes the way Obama wanted to. And Obama never advocated any "middle class tax cut". The middle class tax rate would have simply stayed at the old rates. On what planet is not raising your taxes considered a "tax cut"? Can you say "blatantly dishonest"?

The Blaze counted nine strawmen in his second inaugural speech.

Again this year, when the NSA scandal was breaking, Mr. Obama and his strawmen took to the podium:

“Nobody is listening to your telephone calls...You can’t have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,”

No one made the argument that anyone was listening to phone calls. The charge was that the calls and their data was being recorded and stored, of every single person in America. And who ever made the argument that "You can’t have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience". No one said that either. He just makes stuff up, and then uses indignant and condescending tones to reply to accusations and arguments that no one has ever made.

Mark Levin, the other day, went so far as to say that Obama was a pathological liar. Now, I'm not comfortable saying that. Not because it isn't true, because it is, I'm just uncomfortable saying it. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the so called 'leader of the free world' is a habitual liar.

Don't believe me? Obama has repeated a number of times in the last week how he "cut the deficit in half", appealing to the math impaired, low information voters who make up the Democrat base. 'In half' compared to what?? Most reasonable people would assume that he was referring to what it was when he took office. But no. Compared to the Bush deficits, which conservatives admit were too high, Obama has done nothing but multiply and increase them. It is the height of dishonesty for him to imply anything else. Remember! There's a good reason why Obama is so fond of the word "bamboozler".

And you remember the "brinksmanship" of extending the Bush tax cuts that Obama wanted to eliminate, we mentioned earlier? Apparently, according to Obama, Obama doesn't approve of "brinksmanship", either:

Whether it's the work of creating jobs, growing the economy, or getting our fiscal house in order for the long haul, we've got a lot of work to do and constant brinksmanship doesn't let us do it.

-Barack Obama, Weekly Radio address, 10/12/13

According to Barack Obama, "constant brinksmanship" interferes with "creating jobs, growing the economy, and getting our fiscal house in order". Could that be the constant brinksmanship of dealing with a multitude of Continuing Resolutions to fund the government, perhaps? Because Harry Reid's Senate hasn't passed a budget since 2009?? So, the person most responsible for "constant brinksmanship" that Obama dislikes so much, is Harry Reid! Funny how Obama has never criticized Reid for not passing a budget in the Senate, as the Constitution requires every year. The last budget passed in 2009. Could Obama's cockamamie claim that he "cut the deficit in half" have anything to with the fact that since we still don't have a current federal budget, he can compare his massive overspending to the Continuing Resolutions, contributing to the brinksmanship he claims to detest?


Remember the old Twilight Zone? The was one episode where this used car dealer bought a car, and whoever owned that car could not tell a lie. I'd love to sign the pink slip on that baby over to B.H. Obama for 24 hours and watch the fireworks fly! Instead, We're stuck in a Twilight Zone, where, because we have no money to keep the government open 100%, we pay even more money to barricade our open air parks and memorials to keep out the people we were trying to honor.

Rod Serling would have had a field day!



Original art work created for Proof Positive by John Cox
Cross posted at LCR

Judge Jeanine on the Disgraceful Treatment of Our Veterans

If Bill Clinton Had Been President on 9-11-2001

Our Hero at Ground Zero: Couldn't find a bullhorn ??
Some years back, there were stories floating around, that either Bill Clinton, or some person or persons in his administration were jealous of George Bush, for the admiration and adulation garnered, for his leadership during and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Well, they couldn't go that far, so they hinted that they were "disappointed" that nothing like 9/11 happened to Bill Clinton while he was in office, as if the only difference between Clinton and Bush was which years they served. A person might rush into a burning building to save a child, while others might only stand by and stare in horror. It is not the situation that creates a hero, the situation reveals them.

Aside from the mildly ghoulish and creepy idea that anyone would want three thousand people to die so that someone could demonstrate what a great and competent leader Clinton was, I figured at the time, that this was probably just a clumsy and backhanded way to assert that Clinton was every bit the leader that W was, and more, only he did not have a similar circumstance to demonstrate it.

Let me make it clear, that I am not saying that Clinton ever said or asserted this himself. Certainly not publicly. He might have shared some small regret with a friend or staffer, who may have taken a chance or offhanded remark out of context, and a rumor was born. Maybe not. Either way, no one paid it that much attention at the time, because a) it sounded vaguely like sour grapes, and b) no one seriously would wish a catastrophe and tragedy of this magnitude would occur, simply so that a politician could showcase his marvelous leadership skills. In other words, no one in their right mind would have "9/11 envy". But, in light of recent events, and the actions of our current president, a slightly different perspective and interpretation of that rumored envy occurred to me.

Many people rightly mark 9/11 as taking a significant role in the erosion of liberties we took very much for granted in the country on 9/10. The creation of the TSA, with its invasive searches and scans, with the possible extension and expansion to rail and highway travel, the NSA recording cell phone data and scanning your emails without warrants or even suspicions, the proliferation of security cameras, the roving and stationary scanning by law enforcement of hundreds of thousands of license plates, with the data all being stored for future reference, all ostensibly to protect us from terrorists.

Since 9/11 we have seen more and more government intrusion into our lives. But, what if someone of the "Never let a good crisis go to waste" mentality, was of the opinion that government did not go far enough in intruding upon the lives of its citizens (and a Clinton administration might have done more)? Witness the control freak mentality associated with the current (and partial) government shut down. An attempt to control each and every person, and every activity that takes place on every federal property, large and small, without exception. (Perhaps "AR stands for "Anal Retentive", and the "AR-15" that everyone fears so much is merely Obama, his Attorney General and twelve assorted cabinet members, Supreme Court justices and czars?)

Consider:

* Attempts to keep people from open air memorials

* Shutting down restaurants, inns and other businesses not supported by government funds.

* Removing handles to water fountains adjacent to running trails

* Coning off scenic overlooks to try to keep people from even gazing upon federal lands

* Closing access to cemeteries both at home and abroad

The list goes on and on. The amount of control that the government is trying to exercise over it's citizens on public lands is unprecedented. Clinton never tried to ban visits from the Lincoln Memorial just because there was a squabble over government funding. (Another reason to believe it was someone in his administration and not Clinton himself with 9/11 envy). Clinton, by the way, for all his flaws, is starting to look more like a 'philosopher king' by comparison to Barack Obama, even to Republicans.

"Never let a crisis go to waste". Did the clean water crisis allow the government to seize control of how large your toilet tank is? Did the "global warming" hoax determine whether the government could ban the ubiquitous Edison incandescent bulb in favor of some mercury filled haz-mat opportunities? There's talk of letting utility companies control your thermostats through Smart Meter networks, (once Obama's EPA has shuttered enough coal fired plants). Name me a single item in your home that is not regulated by the federal government? I understand that there is even a regulation as to the size of the holes in your Swiss cheese, and that, if those standards are not met, the producer cannot call it Swiss cheese, even though all the ingredients are identical. (Of course, the holes are produced by C02, so the EPA would have gained control of your cheese one way or another!)

If Bill Clinton had been president when 9/11 happened, would he have been as good or better than Bush? There's no evidence of that that I have seen. Bill handled the first World Trade Center bombing as a criminal matter and, via the court system, our intelligence gathering capabilities were damaged. There's no evidence that he would not have taken the same approach to the 9/11 bombing. The same goes for his globally baked acolyte Al Gore.

If the apocryphal story of Clinton administration's 9/11 envy is true, it may have come from sour grapes, or a misguided pride in their boss and an attempt to inflate his ego and legacy. But, it could also have come from a "crisis gone to waste" devotee, bemoaning the lost opportunity to wield ever increasing control of American citizens. Food for thought. (Hold the Swiss!)

Original art work created for Proof Positive by John Cox
Cross posted at LCR

Breaking News: Obama Finds Reason To Fund New Moon Shot

No positive ID on the astronaut yet.

Cross posted at LCR

"We Have Nothing to Fear, But Incompetence and Venality in Government"

Obama as FDR: "We have Nothing to Offer But Fear Itself!"
The recent, partial shutdown of the federal government is focusing the nation's attention on a number of things. First, is the petty, vindictive and unnecessary closing of every open air memorial, roadside scenic overlook and even parking lots and roads to private businesses doing business on or nearby federal lands.

This is unprecedented. During the government shutdown of the 1990's, Bill Clinton did not find it necessary to make draconian closures of monuments and scenic turnouts. The Obama administration is barring people from merely driving by the Marine memorial, with its statue of Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima, or stopping to look at Mt. Rushmore. Behind the slender fig leaf that the government is prohibited by law from spending money on keeping these sites open, the Obama administration is spending money we don't have to actively close them.

The good news is, is that while the government is at least partially shut down, people are getting sticker shock from Obamacare (those who actually manage to get through for a quote), the traditional 40 hour work week has been reduced to 29 for far too many people, who are unable to support themselves on one job, attempts are being made to turn elderly WWII veterans away from the nation's memorials, in Obama's name, and the President has managed to break away from his golf game long enough to weigh in on the most earth shaking threat to our nation, namely, whether the Washington Redskins should change their name! (No word yet on whether or not he will intervene in having the 'panda cam' turned back on at the National Zoo...)


The second thing, perhaps, is of even greater importance than the pettiness or vindictiveness of Obama in trying to maximize pain with the shutdown, and that is the process of how our government recklessly and carelessly spends our money. The current government impasse is over the funding of one and only one program: Obamacare. The Republicans are willing to fund every program in the "budget"*, save one. This in itself constitutes compromise with the Democrats over countless agencies and programs. Obama, Reid and Pelosi, on the other hand, want an all or nothing package, and refuse to negotiate, no matter what hardships might naturally be inflicted on the health or financial well being of the American public, plus whatever novel, petty and vindictive means they can come up with to further punish anyone who stands in their way. And blame Republicans, of course. It is almost comical the lengths that Obama will go to to negotiate with dictators and tinhorn rulers of third world nations who mean the US nothing but harm, but cannot find it in himself to negotiate with fellow Americans over differences in policy.

The President and his lackeys have all re-bleated the argument that the budget cannot be passed piecemeal, despite the fact that The President himself has signed at least one "piecemeal" budgetary measure protecting the paychecks of military personnel, and then... bragged about it! What's wrong with an up or down vote on each and every federal agency or program worthy of funding, or receiving the amount of funds it does in times of hardship and deficit?

Dim Bulb Nancy Pelosi is of the opinion, stated publicly, that there is absolutely nothing left to cut in the federal budget. "There are no more cuts to make", she bleats. Really, Nancy?? No duplicate programs, no waste, no fraud...My! The US government must have become a virtual Utopia under Barack Hussein Obama. Hardly! And is Obamacare, with its thousands of pages of law and thousands of pages of regulations, so perfect that no detail or aspect can be brought under scrutiny? Every tax in the act, like those on medical devices, and every provision, like forcing Americans abroad to buy insurance that will do them no good in the country in which they live, are now sacrosanct, because they were passed in the dead of night, by a single party and is now "the law of the land"? I don't know about you, but nearly in nearly every election, on every ballot I receive, there is a measure on it, changing, modifying or replacing some "law of the land". Was Obamacare given to us on 20,000 stone tablets at Mt. Sinai that is should be eternally unchanged?

Candidate Obama, in 2008, promised that he would go through the budget line by line to eliminate waste, fraud and unnecessary expenses. Can you name any one program, other than the military, that Obama has cut in the last five years? Any program at all??? Do you expect any sane person to believe that Obama recognized areas to cut in 2008, but not one of them was cut and yet somehow Nancy Pelosi announces in 2013 that they don't exist? Are these people lying or delusional (or both)??

If it's good enough for Senator Obama, it should be good enough for the country: Why not go through the budget line by line? Make every department justify their existence before they receive another dime in federal money. Isn't that the job of government? To determine the wise and just use of federal funds? Simply throwing all of the nation's spending eggs in one basket, allows for bills laden with pork, rewarding special interests at the expense of the American taxpayer, passing budgets laden with fraud and waste, which, as Obama likes to say, hold the taxpayer and the nation hostage, if they are not passed in their entirety. What's wrong with spending taxpayer money in a careful, prudent and responsible manner? Have these people got someplace more important they need to be, other than doing the people's business?

Here's an idea. Since the American people aren't even allowed to look at our national parks and monuments while they drive by, (God forbid they should actually pull off to the side of the road a gawk for a minute), how about we zero out any line items for presidential vacations...and golf games...and fundraisers...and concerts and galas at the White House, until America is back at work and the budget is balanced? Let's ask Barry Beach House to forgo his next trip to Martha's Vineyard, or Vegas, or Hawaii, or his next couple hundred golf outings, and attempt to lead America by example for a change?

I know. I have a dream!



*Actually, a "continuing resolution". Congress hasn't passed an actual budget since 2009. Every time Obama wags his tongue or finger at "Congress" for not "doing their job", or uses the word "budget", you might remind yourself exactly how many times he has admonished Harry Reid for not bringing up any budget passed by the House, for a vote in the Senate? (Zero) Passing a budget, of course, would illustrate just how much more Obama wants to spend, than expected revenues, and exactly where the money would be spent.

Original art work created for Proof Positive by John Cox
Cross posted at LCR

Those Who Fail To Learn From History Get Barack Obama

I heard that CNN put up a story about 200 kids with cancer, turned away from the National Institute of Health because of the government shutdown. What wasn't mentioned, was that Republicans had specifically offered to fund NIH in a separate bill, which the Democrats rejected. (see video below)

And as I was angered over the thought of Obama and the Left playing politics with the lives of sick kids, I got a small sense of déjà vu...when was the last time something like this had happened? And it came to me...Saddam Hussein.


Saddam Hussein Obama
Let's take a little trip in the Way Back machine. Uncle Saddam had millions to build palaces while he told the world that the US oil embargo was preventing him from buying food and medicine, and that it was our fault that children were sick and dying. Filmmakers and reporters were invited to tour hospitals (accompanied by a government "Minder", to accompany them, and intimidate whomever was interviewed or filmed.) After the invasion, we found medicine moldering in barracks of his Republican guard. Baby formula provided to Iraq under the Food for Oil program was found throughout the gulf after it had been resold for cash. Illegal oil sales reaped millions more for Saddam, which he refused to use to feed and care for his own children, when it was in his power to do so, because children were nothing but political pawns to Uncle Saddam. Means to an end, to tug on the heartstrings of the West, so that they would lift the sanctions and he could continue to increase his wealth and power unabated.

I approached John about doing the caricature of Obama as Saddam with some trepidation. In most cases, this would be hyperbole. Sadly, here, it is not. There is a direct analogy between the actions of Uncle Saddam and Barry Hussein.

In the case of cancer, the earlier it can be diagnosed and treated, the better the outcome. By turning down the offer to take kids dying with cancer off the table in the fight over Obamacare is heartless. And it is spawned in the heart of the Democrat party.

On the evening news last night, there was a story of a local woman, up in the Auburn, California area, whose cancer treatments were being put on hold because of the government shutdown. My heart went out to her. Then, I thought of the misery that Obamacare style healthcare causes all by itself. I recently did a post on the healthcare system in Canada, "Obamacare Previewed in the Frozen North", which noted that under "free" government health care, there is a nine month waiting period for an MRI scan. Additionally, there was ire and calls to make it illegal to purchase the services privately.

Now let's take our sick Auburn lady and those 200 sick children and lets move them across the northern border (or into a similar healthcare system): Would they even have been diagnosed yet, much less their treatment started? As bad as it is (and avoidable) for their treatment to be delayed even for a few days or weeks while our government dithers, the real question is, would Obamacare delay those treatments for months, with no other recourse?

Democrats say they won't approve parts of the budget "piecemeal"...except, they already have! By passing a special provision, that the president has bragged about signing, to make sure that our servicemen get paid on time, Obama tacitly acknowledges that a piecemeal approach can be desirable when taken on matters of urgency.

Obama and Reid, and those who support them, are willing to let children and adults alike be denied cancer treatments in order to bolster the "optic" that Republicans are mean spirited and uncaring. It is partisan politics, pure and simple, and despite what the administration and their fellow travelers are trying to sell, it is Obama who is unwilling to ease the suffering of sick children...just like the other Hussein.

Original art work created for Proof Positive by John Cox


Cross posted at LCR

Obama Draws a Red Line Around the WWII Veterans Memorial

Obama's shameful actions in regards to barring veterans from the WWII memorial is a play in three acts, with a prologue and an epilogue. In a series of moves that can only be characterized as petty and vindictive, his administration demonstrates that they are far more interested in inflicting maximum pain and scoring cheap political points, rather than serving the people they were elected to serve.



A charitable organization, Honor Flight, raises money and recruits volunteers to assist elderly veterans from the Second World War to visit the WWII veterans' memorial in Washington D.C.

The Mississippi Gulf Coast Honor Flight began organizing Tuesday's visit, their sixth trip, in May. Spokesman Wayne Lennep, a volunteer whose regular job is designing electrical systems for Arleigh Burke class destroyers at Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., said it cost $90,000 and hundreds of hours of planning to get the 91 vets, ages 84 to 99, to Washington.

They planned to eat a picnic lunch at the Air Force Memorial, because they heard the restrooms remained open there, and finish their day by laying a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery.

The WWII Memorial, if you're unfamiliar with it, is on the opposite side of the reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial. You don't need a key to get in, or a ticket, or a turnstile, because it's outside, in a park-like setting. The park police set up barricades around the memorial to keep people out, because the "government was shut down". Apparently, the only requirement to work in Obama's Interior department or White House is to have all the common sense found in a comatose gerbil. Shutting down the government, especially with a partial shutdown like this one, doesn't mean shutting down the country. (You did get your mail today, didn't you?) These barricades were put up, even though the administration had been informed that 91 elderly WWII vets were flying up from Mississippi to visit the memorial. The amount of Federal money required to make this visit happen, was to have the park police merely step to one side and let them in. In other words, virtually nothing.

And it wasn't just a matter of poor timing on the veterans' part. The prologue to this play, according to Rep. Steven Palazzo, was a request made to both the Department of the Interior and the White House to allow the veterans in. The first act of our play, gives us men who took the beaches at Normandy, who risked their lives far from hearth and home to defeat the Nazi threat, being undeterred by a few sawhorses and barricades. After their perfectly reasonable request had been denied, some principled representatives of the people, Palazzo, Steve King, and others, committed an act of civil disobedience to provide access to the Honor Flight vets.

The Obama administration drew a red line in the sand, not because it was going to cost any money, but because petty, vindictive, and small minded politicians would rather punish people for some perceived political gain than to honor those who risked their lives defending freedom, and some of those brave men don't have that many seasons left to see how their country has seen fit to honor them. The administration spent more money putting up barricades than they would have spent allowing four score and eleven veterans, elderly, some in failing health, to walk around the memorial.

Remember it was Obama who closed the White House to tours of school children, supposedly because of the sequester that he himself authored. Now he tries to deny our elderly and infirm veterans access to an open air memorial. Those who managed to make it there only through the generosity and kindness of strangers. The veterans "stormed" the park in their wheelchairs and walkers, and the park police took no action to eject them, as common sense and common decency would dictate.

Palazzo, a Gulf War Marine veteran who has participated in all five of the Honor Flights, blames the White House for making it harder on veterans and playing politics. “At first I thought it was a huge bureaucratic oversight,” Palazzo told The Daily Caller, “but having talked with the officials I can’t help but think this was politically motivated. Honor Flights, which bring WWII veterans to the nation’s memorials, are planned a year in advance and cost anywhere between $80,000 to $100,000. How low can you get with playing politics over our nation’s veterans?”

But, the story doesn't end there. This morning, Park police on horseback, the kind used for crowd control, showed up at the memorial. For an administration that doesn't have the money to keep an open air park open, they seem to have even more money for mounted patrols! Since then, I'm told, the Park Service has relented and will allow Honor Flights to visit the memorial. I think that the administration calculated that the sight of men on horseback trying to intimidate frail and elderly vets, would not provide the "optic" that Obama desires in his attempts to blame everything on the Republicans.

So we have yet another small victory for America's vets in the twilight of their years. But, what of the rest of America? Those same schoolchildren being banned from White House tours are now being forbidden to stroll through a park and catch a glimpse of what their grandfathers may have fought and died for. Does the lack of a budget mean that barricades must go up around all of America's treasures? Bill Clinton didn't think so! Over at Legal Insurrection, it is noted that during the government shutdown of 1995, Bill Clinton did not barricade the Lincoln Memorial, as B. Hussein Obama has chosen to do.

So why is he doing it? There is a concerted effort by the left, in order to preserve that precursor of Single Payer socialist medicine, Obamacare, at all costs. The Republicans have offered to pay for every other area of government, individually or collectively, only to be rebuffed by the ideologues who refuse to allow Obamacare to even come up for debate, even though Obama himself has changed the law repeatedly (and without Constitutional authority) to try to make it work. Obama likes to sneer at Congress for not doing their job, (well, he sneers at the Republicans. Harry Reid, whose Senate has not passed a budget in five years gets an exemption), but it is the job of Congress to amend the laws, not the president's.

The epilogue will be the backlash and the anger of all those who see through Obama's phony blame game and see just how vindictive he is toward those he himself is holding hostage, attempting to inflict the maximum amount of pain, in order to achieve political gains.

Palazzo asked, "How low can you get with playing politics over our nation’s veterans?" How low? Obama and his cohorts are lower than whale snot. (And twice as slippery!) But, in order to be fair and balanced, I will devote my next post to all of the principled things Obama has done for the good of our country...just as soon as he manages to do one.



Original art work by John Cox
Cross posted at LCR