BBHQ Boomer Essays:
So, here we are... five years into it.
How’s it working out so far?
Sooooo... the A&E channel is so appalled by the comments of “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson that they suspended him “indefintely.”
How dare he say those hateful things... even if he did not say them on A&E?
Why, they are so outraged at A&E that they are... airing a “Duck Dynasty” marathon, starring Phil Robertson, during Christmas week.
The veteran journalist reveals what “we thought” Barack Obama was going to be:
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when the Indians were poised to attack, “What mean ’we,’ white man?”
The great misconception here is that Ms. Walters believes that “we” — the American people — thought that Barack Obama was going to be “the next messiah.”
Ms. Walters, like most of the mainstream media, has completely lost touch
with the sense of the American people.
Politifact, and the media at large, have agreed that the biggest lie of the year is, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”
Fine. But... of the year?
Barack Obama began using that line in 2009, and used it dozens of times since!
So, he has been spouting this line for the better part of five years. And Politifact (and the world) has just recognized it now?
So.... it took five years for the American public to realize that “If you like your doctor/health care plan, you can keep your doctor/health care plan” was a fraud. Better late than never.
I wonder how long it will take the public to realize that Obamacare is not about health care at all.
It is about, as Deomcratic Congressman Dingel put it, “controlling the people.” It is about wealth redistribution: taking money from people who have it, and giving it to people who do not.
“Health care” — universal, less expensive, more inclusive, better... is the fake window dressing... the charade... merely the vehicle to accomplish the left’s objective of controlling the people and buying people's votes — because they think they know what’s best for us.
Just wait till that fraud dawns on the people!
“On what authority does a cabinet secretary tell private companies to pay for services not in their plans and cover people not on their rolls? Where in Obamacare’s 2,500 pages are such high-handed dictates authorized? Does anyone even ask? The bill itself is simply taken as a kind of blanket warrant for HHS to run, regulate and control the whole insurance system.”
— Charles Krauthammer
A pentecostal pastor interviewed on television says that private donations provide only 10% of “what we would need to make sure everyone has food in their stomach.”
Why is is my responsibility to make certain that “everyone has food in their stomach”? Why isn't it their responsibility?
And if it is my responsibility, shouldn’t I have the authority to control their lives to ensure that they do not waste the charity that I provide to them?
The president has accused the Republicans of playing politics in oder to to obstruct his signature piece of legislation.
Today we learned that the president has arbitrarily changed the enrollment deadline for signing up for Obamacare. Oh, not for this year. No; for people who will be dumped from employer-provided health insurance. He had already posponed the deadline for that from the end of October, 2013 to the end of October, 2014. But now he has delayed it until the end of November, 2014.
Never mind today's mess. This president always thinks way ahead of us mortals, his sycophants claim. Well, here is the evidence.
So, why postpone a deadline that is 11 months away? Does he know something that we don't?
Or, could it be that there is a critical national election in early November, 2014. And the president does not want any "glitches" of an October deadline to stain the minds of voters a week before the election in early November?
No... no... it could not possibly be politics. Republicans are the only ones who play politics with important policy decisions.
Can't be. No.
In a recent interview with the BBC, Oprah claimed that much of the opposition to the administration of Barack Obama stems for racism.
Oprah Winfrey has earned over a billion dollars in this country. Imagine how much she would have earned had it not been racist!
Charlie Rangel (Democrat, New York) displays his understanding of history:
Little wonder, then, why Charlie Rangel has such disdain for Republicans.
The problem, however, is that Charlie Rangel is factually wrong. His disdain is based on his own false understanding of history.
“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the
American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your
doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to
keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away, no matter
“50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance
individually can expect to receive a ‘cancellation’ letter or the
equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don't meet
the standards mandated by the new health care law.”
So, the president and HHS Secretary Sebelius have called in “the best and the brightest” to fix the healthcare web site.
Fine. But why were “the best and the brightest” not hired in the first place? Developing a most critical feature of a terribly complex government program that is the hallmark of the president... and what did the administration do, hire the worst and the dullest?
This says far more about the weakness of the Obama administration than it does about whoever botched the failed web site.
Part of President Obama’s defense against changes to Obamacare proposed by Republicans is his claim that Obamacare is “settled law,” passsed by Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court.
But that claim ignores the fact that it is within the purview of the Congress to approve or disapprove funding for those laws which have been passed. That is its responsibility. The president knows this. But that does not stop him from shouting “foul.”
Congress often has failed to fund projects which it deems unworthy. This is nothing new. What is new is the failure of this spoiled brat of a president to get his own way.
Furthermore, the president has, on his own – without congressional approval, changed several specific, written provisions in the law. According to the Constitution, the president cannot do that. Barack Obama knows that, too. But that, of course, has not stopped him.
So, his iron-clad position that Obamacare is “settled law” and this cannot be changed is both fallacious and vacuous.
Even while the government was still "shut down," Congress voted to reimburse, in full, the salaries paid to government employees who had been furloughed. In other words, they enjoyed a 16-day, paid vacation.
What about the vendors, non-government store owners, gift shop operators and employees, private visitors' centers that were forced to close because their non-givernment businesses are located on federal property. How do they get reimbursed for the income and salaries that they lost?
I'm confused... when members of Congress try to change Obamacare through the standard, legal process, they are considered traitors, anarchists, bomb-throwers, suicide bombers, a-yada, yada, yada.
But when Barack Obama unilaterally, arbitrarily and illegally changes specific provisions written into the law, nobody says a thing.
Can someone please explain this to me?
So, with Russia now "leading from the front" in the Middle East, how long do you suppose it will be before the U.N. votes to remove the economic sanctions placed on Iran, and the U.S. chooses not to veto the removal?
I'm guessing that it will be before the end of the year.
HHS Secretary Sebelius has allocated 30,000 taxpayer dollars for a contest to produce a video promoting Obamacare. Whew! Talk about unprecedented!
Well, the folks at Reason.TV took the challenge and created a delightful video. We added the lyrics, and enhanced it a bit. It's just over a minute and a half.
While its flavor may not appeal to everyone, the last five seconds will
have you rolling on the floor.
Well, it took several weeks of whining, but the Wahsington establishment finally got their Obamacare carve-out. Unlike the rest of us, DC lawmakers and their staffs will get taxpayer-financed subsidies that, under the law, are supposed to go only to the poorest Americans.
With an average salary into the 6-figure range (over $100,000), these folks can hardly be considered poor. But hey; this is Obama's "fundamental change" at work.
So, it is reasonable to surmise that, sooner or later, union members, who hold far more votes that DC insiders, will get their special carve-out.
It's just matter of time. So, when do you think? I'll bet it will be somewhere around mid-December.
Merry Christmas, Jimmy Hoffa!
Despite the claims by the Obama administration that it would not bail out Detroit, our federal government will throw 100 million taxpayer dollars to the Motor City.
Sha-zaaaaam! From out of nowhere, the geniuses at the Obama administration somehow found $100 million in the budget!
The city mis-managers spent half a century destroying their once-vibrant, productive city. No matter, the taxpayers will bail them out and let them continue the destruction.
The lesson to other failing cities is clear.
The media is once again working the American people into a frenzy over the possibility of a shutdown of the federal government. "Everything will grind to a halt. Old ladies will be thrown out on the street. Children will starve."
Well, I remember the shurdowns of days past. As I recall, none of that happened.
Am I the only one who thinks that a shutdown of the federal government for 3-4 months might actually be a wonderful thing?
Recently, President Obama said this: “We must make this country a place where anyone who works hard can earn their way into the middle class.”
Where has this man been for the last 150 years... other than sitting in the church pew of the not-so-reverend Wright?
So... a deadly nut with a high-powered weapon shot and killed a dozen people at the U.S. Naval Shipyard in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Naval Shipyard — it's a military installation.
And who was armed, and who was not?
The nut had the weaponry; the sane military people on the base are not allowed to carry weapons.
Does this make sense.... to anyone?
Only those on the left.
President Barack Obama: Actively involved in the Syria crisis:
Would your parents allow you to put your foot on the furniture like that?
It's another Obama "poke in the eye" of the American people.
It's called ‘The ’Affordable’ Health Care Act” – you know, everyone can “afford” to pay for it.
OK, it it is so affordable, why is it, then, that Congress had to pass a special law that provides members of Congress and their staffs with a 75% supplement (paid for by the taxpayers) in order to afford the health care insurance?
Am I missing something, or is that astonishingly phony?
The administration claimed that the terrorist attack in Benghazi was caused by a YouTube video for three weeks after it knew that was false.
The administration has claimed for months that the IRS profiling conservative groups was limited and isolated when it knew that it was not.
The justice department improperly obtained telephone records of numerous journalists and referred to one an unindicted co-conspirator as the basis for a witch hunt to identify leaks.
The president's the director of National Intelligence admitted that he lied to Congress. The attorney general lied to Congress. Neither appointed official has been held accountable for his actions.
The president blames conservatives for harping on these gross failures, calling them "phony scandals."
So, Anthony Weiner's wife was a fulltime employee of the state department, working for Hillary Clinton, at an annual salary of about $150,000. Now, I don't know what she was doing, but she was arm-im-arm with the secretary almost all the time.
Well, at the same time, Huma Abedin was getting paid as an advisor by a consulting firm that has close ties to the Clinton family... at a salary of $350,000 a year.
Which leads to this question (which, of course, will never be asked or addressed by the media): How could Anthony Weiner's wife be providing services worth $350,000 a year, while at the same time, doing apparently demanding work for the state department?
Nice to have friends in high places, isn't it?
So, a rodeo clown wearing an Obama mask is abhorrent.
He's a racist! (Couldn't be anything else, He must be a racist.) Ban him for life!
But, a movie explicitly depicting the assassination of George Bush – that is artistically creative. First amendment; perfectly acceptable; even laudable.
Tolerance of the left on display.
An evacuation is not an evacuation; it is an ordered departure.
The mass killing of soldiers at Ft. Hood by an acknowledged Muslim in the name og jihad is not an act of terror; it is "workplace violence." A coup in Egypt is not a coup; it is a change in government.
The war in Afghanistan is not a war; it is an overseas contingency operation.
The terrorist attack in Benghazi was not a terrorist attack; it was a spontaneous riot.
This administration has declared a lexicological war on the enemy.
They've thrown the book at them - the dictionary!
— Charles Krauthammer
Why is it called "compassionate" when our government tries to do for people what they could do for themselves?
And why does the government want to do more of those things when the things they do they do so poorly?
In May, President Obama called the IRS scandal a "serious problem."
The president said, "I have got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it, and we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this.
Since then, the Obama administration has not resolved the issues related to the scandal. Onlt the acting IRS cmmissioner has been removed. Nobody has been charged with a crime. Lois Lerner, who was in charge of the mess, has collected over $30,000 while on paid leave.
In late July, the president referred to the IRS scandal as a “phony scandal.”
How did the "serious problem" devolve into a "phony scandal"?
U.S. federal law... you know, the strict rules, passed by the Congress and enforced by the president, to which we all must adhere... federal law says specifically that the United States government may not provide financial (or other) support to a government that came into power as a result of a coup. (Coup d'tat; coup: the sudden deposition of a government, done typically by the military, to depose the existing government and replace it with another body).
Recently, the Egyptian government, elected by the people, was overthrown by the military and replaced by the military. In other words... a coup.
But the Obama administration wants to continue U.S. financial support to the military government of Egypt.
Rather than proposing that the Congress change the law, or obeying the existing law, the Obama administration has just decided that the coup was not a coup.
Problem solved... in the same way so many issues have been resolted by this administration.
It's the Chicago way.
The Hillary expressed, in her words, her "deep, painful heartache" upon hearing the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.
Do you suppose she felt the same "deep, painful heartache" upon hearing of the four Americans killed in Benghazi last September?
The repercussions of the dreaded and dreadful sequester have finally hit where it hurts. The military began forced furloughs last week. Certain civilian employees of the defense department were forced to take a 3-day weekend. No paid vacation day; they were allegedly not paid for the day off.
But that did not stop the government from spending $81,000 reportedly for television sets for Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo). Eighty-one thousand dollars.
The last time I checked, you (not the government, under its special contracts) could buy a very fine flat-screen TV for about $250. At that price, for $81,000, they could have lassoed 324 TV sets. Even if they selected the mammoth, big-screen flat-screen TVs at $750 each, they could have bought 108 of them.
Like they did not already have cable TV down there?
As of March, 2013, there were 166 detainees held at Gitmo. Come on; you can do the math; even rounded off to the nearest multiple of 10.
One hundred sixty-six detainees; $81,000 for 108 to 324 television sets.
Oh, curses on the sequester!
President Obama extolled the benefits of Obamacare:
By law, the rebate checks from health insurance companies that are mandated by Obamacare go to the insurance company's customers... which, in most cases, are employers, not employees. Employers do not have to forward the money to their employees.
Feel better now?
In case you had any question about the intelligence, profesionalism, and competence of journalists, especially those in local markets, this should leave no doubt:
This is not a joke. The NTSB, which normally does not release names of pilots involved in incidents, released this information to a local news television station. That fact, alone, should have raised suspicions in the news room. Apparently, it did not. This collosal blunder made it to a graphic, to a news script, past an editor, and straight to the on-air news anchor, who read it as it was written.
All hope for reliable news reporting is now lost.
Officials in Sanford, Florida have the jitters about reaction to the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial. They believe that if Zimmeran is found guilty, people will rally in the streets, but that if he is acquitted, there will be rioting in the streets.
Why do you suppose they came to that conclusion?
The ill-named Accordable Care Act — Obamacare — contains, explicitly, a provision requiring employers with 50 full-time workers or more to offer them health-care coverage or pay fines... begining in January, 2014. Those are the terms written into the law. It is the law of the land.
But last week, the Obama administration said, of the 2014 date: "Never mind." The Obama administration said that the provision will not be effective until 2015.
Now... here is the dangerous part. If the Obama administration can, unilaterally, change provisions explicitly written in this law and passed by the Congress, can they then, unilaterally, change any provisions they deem desirable witten into any law passed by Congress?
Barack Obama does not like America... at least most traditonal values and practices of America.
So, he uses "the Chicago way" to exact revenge. He bleeds us dry.
The country is $17 trillion in debt. Yet the president spends $100 million taxpayer dollars on a meaningless trip to Africa. The cost; the debt? He could care less.
$100 million would have funded the White House tours for a decade. Don't tell me Barack Obama cares about White House tours... or the debt.
It's a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
So, Google says they'll be able to upload your mind to a computer by 2045:
Thank you.... NO!
Leave my mind alone!
As I see it, the vast majority of the beltway insiders, both Democrats and Republicans, are OK with the massave data mining done by the NSA.
The vast majority of the American people, on the other hand, see it as dangerous and excessive invasion of our privacy.
Is that difference because we the people are so stupid that we do not see what our leaders are doing on our behalf? Or is it because the data mining serves their purposes, but is harmful to ours?
Here is a lesson from a seasoned professional on how to handle a scandal crisis:
Background: Darrell Issa was an extremely successful businessman, and is now a Republican Congressman heading a House of Representatives committee investigating the IRS scandal. Last week Congressman Issa expressed some strong thoughts about those people who he thinks are covering up the scandal.
There are two, very different, opposing approaches that the White House could have taken to respond to these charges:
1. Provide specific evidence that there was no attempt to cover up the activities of the IRS.
2. Attack the character of the accuser, Darrell Issa.
Which do you suppose that Barack Obama's White House chose?
On June 2, Democratic operative David Plouffe made his play, on behalf of the White House:
"Mr. Grand Theft Auto and suspected asronist/insurance swindler."
So, there ya' go. Plouffe dug up 30-40 year-old trivial accusations, devoid of any substance and having absolutely nothing to do with the issue, and used that to try to smear Congressman Issa.
It's the Chicago way, folks.
“I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.” - President Obama.
"Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a 'possible co-conspirator' in violation of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private email," a law enforcement official told NBC News.
The Justice Department declared Rosen to be a "possible co-conspirator" so that they would not be obligated to inform him that they were seizing his private records. Eric Holder's Justice Department never had any intention of indicting Mr. Rosen.
"The IRS scandal is different because it speaks of the political corruption of a major and crucial governmental agency to whose rules and regulations every American—everyone who has a job or a bank account, or who engages in a financial transaction—is subject."
— Peggy Noonan
So, the president is furious over the targeting of conservatives by the IRS. He would take immediate, serious action!
Mr. Obama asked for (and received) the resignation of the acting head of the IRS.
No. The acting head will remain in his position, at full salary, for at least the next several days. After that... no promises.
We all know what happened. Yuk, yuk; wink, wink. The firing of a person who was scheduled to leave his position in a few weeks was pure theatre — and nothing else.
Like other federal bureaucrats whose corrupt conduct made it to the media, he will likely remain on the taxpayer's tab in a different, less public position, and then retire, with full benefits.
You remember the war on women. During the presidential campaign, you know, Democrats claimed that Republicans were waging a vicious war on women!
Beat up on women! Down with women! War on women. Whew... those cutthroat scoundrels!
But what about since the election? Does anybody recall any mention of the despicable, vicious war on women!
What happened? Who won? Was there a victory party?
How come nobody... nobody is talking about the war on women?
The rate of gun crime — crimes committed by people with guns — is way down.
Gun ownership: way up.
Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano has admonished us with this warning: "See something; say something."
Apparently one of the three foreign national friends of the Boston terrorists, who were recently arrested in connection to the bombing, requested and received a Massachusetts vanity license plate which read, "TERRORISTA#1."
And this did not raise the slightest suspicion of the Massachusetts DMV.
Your public servants at work on your behalf, folks. Always on the lookout.
For as long as I can remember, we have heard Democrats decry the "salary gap": The difference between those earning the most and those earning the least amount of money.
If we exclude the few extremes (those earning... say, more than a million dollars a year, and those earning the least... say, less than $10,000 a year) — and those extremes are indeed relatively small in number — is there that large a gap? What are the numbers? Why has no one addressed this?
Is there a justifiable explanation for the gap? Could it be that the demand and the skills required for some jobs are infinitely greater than those for others?
If there is, indeed a large gap, should that gap be reduced? If so, why?
And why is the gap, however large it may be, the responsibility of the government to rectify, if indeed, it needs rectifying? Do those making the claims provide any evidence that a group of people earning a small amount do not have a reasonable chance to earn more? (Are those who earn a large amount of money doing to illegally? If so, let's just prosecute them. Problem solved.)
And finally, if those earning a small amount have been deprived the opportunity to earn more, and even if it is the government's responsibility to rectify that, how good has the government been a fixing such things in the past? And is there any evidence that the government would be better at solving problems now?
One thing for certain: you cannot make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. The rich are richer for a reason; the poor are poorer for a reason. Simply evening the pot for each is not a solution.
Let me see if I have this right. Despite what you have heard about the "catastrophic" sequestration, the federal government will spend MORE money this year than it did last year. More money, not less. More.
Yet, somehow, spending more money means that the government must cancel the self-guided citizen White House tours, furlough border patrol agents, close airport control towers, and do a thousand other things detrimental to its citizens.
Can someone explain to me how spending more money means that we have less money to spend.
The USDA has estimated that the fraud rate in the food stamp program is approximately 1% — $750 million per year, in an annual $75 billion program.
So what, then, will be the fraud rate in ObamaCare, which will cost at least $2,000,000,000,000 in its first ten years? One percent would amount to $20,000,000,000 — $20 billion, in its first decade.
Is anybody other than I disturbed by this?
VP Biden, to gun owners:
"I am going to say something outrageous: You’ve had no better friend over the last 35 years than me.”
In Washington, to support the president on tighter gun control, 86 year-old singer Tony Bennett said, "It's the kind of turn that happened to the great country of Germany, when Nazis came over and created tragic things, and they had to be told off. And if we continue this kind of violence and accept it in our country, the rest of the world's going to really take care of us, in a very bad way."
We know that Tony Bennett left his heart in San Francisco. Apparently, he left his brain there, too.
Topping that, entertainer Chris Rock added, "The President of the United States is, you know, our boss. But he is also, you know, the president and the first lady are kinda like the Mom and Dad of the country, Rock said. And when your Dad says something, you listen. And when you dont, it will usually bite you in the ass later on. So, I'm here to support the president."
There is some talk on the left of discarding the Constitution. Certainly Chris Rock disgarded it long ago.
During the first two years of his first administration, Barack Obama blamed the poor economic growth rate (GDP) on president Bush. It was the president's fault. "The buck stops here."
The growth rate in the last quarter of 2012 was -0.1%. So, who's to blame for this? According to the White House, it's the Republicans in the House, of course.
A couple years ago, when he was touting the taxpayers' investment in General Motors, President Obama said that consumers would buy a million electric cars by 2015. As of January, 2013, total sales amounted to about 70,000. Boy! If you have some spare change to invest, do so now! Imagine the prosperity of the sale of 930,000 electric cars in the next three years!
During his inaugural speech, President Obama promised that, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”
So, failure to do something about "climate change" (no matter how ineffectual it may be) would be a betrayal. But saddling the next 10 generation of children with a debt they will have to pay for their entire lives... that's perfectly fine.
Here we go again:
So, President Obama has tackled the "gun problem" head-on, in direct response to the shootings in Newtown. Last week, he announces 23 new executive orders.
Yep; that does it! Obama to the rescue.
Problem is... none of the 23 executive orders would have done anything to prevent the shootings in Newtown.
There is no conclusive evidence that any of the 23 executive orders would do anything to prevent such shootings in the future.
So, it is all about perception; it has nothing to do with substance.
"Never let a crisis go to waste."
There are more children killed by accidental drowning in a bathtub than there are by accidental shootings.
How long will it be, then, before Congress outlaws bathtubs?
In the fall of 2005, the media and the Democrats concluded that the government's failure to act effectively after Hurricane Katrina was all President Bush's fault. The buck stops there; Bush was in charge.
Seven years later, the media and the Democrats concluded that the government's failure to act effectively after tropical storm Sandy was the fault of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. Yeah; that's the ticket!
I heard one of the "talking heads" on television bemoaning the approach of "giving money back to the rich with tax cuts."
Well, I am surely not one of the rich. But tax cuts do not represent "giving money back to the rich." That's the problem with the left. They believe that government deserves all the money that people earn, and they generously "give" some of it back to the people.
It is that dangerous mindset that has corrupted this country.
The truth is that people earn money... yes, they earn it. And the government takes it. Period.
The California Federation of Teachers unites its members by fostering hatred of the rich. This is a stillshot from a 7-minute video on their web site:
Five days after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the White House sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to appear on all of the Sunday morning telvision talk shows, with the explanation that the terrorist attack, which killed four Americans, was likely due to a spontaneous protest over a video on Youtube. Even at the time, the administration knew that was not the case.
Many Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, have criticized both Ambassador Rice and the Obama administration for such blatant deceit.
TheGrio, an NBC News website aimed at blacks, ran a story which included this: "The Republicans really need to lay off U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. The image of a party of angry old white dudes going after an accomplished black woman will not give them the image makeover they need."
The Washington Post went even further, with an editorial that read in part: "Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African-American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can't know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy."
"Could it be?"
The editors at the Washington Post are sending a clear message: Don't criticize Susan Rice; in fact, don't criticize any black Democrat. And if you're from the south, shut the hell up! If you are white, if you represent a state that supported slavery 150 years ago (never mind that every state supported slavery 225 years ago), anything you say about a black Democrat subjects you to claims and criticism of racism.
Just shut up!
It took the Obama administration 2 1/2 months to admit what they knew within minutes after the terrorist attack in Banghazi took place: this was no "spontaneous protest." It had absolutely nothing to do with a video clip on YouTube. It was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack.
Fine. But the question that few people are willing to ask, and the White House is totally unwilling to answer, is who came up with the phony "spontaneous protest" story? Obviously it was used to eliminate any criticism of the administrations recent claim that "Al Qaeda was decimated." Obviously it was a political decision.
But who, in the Obama re-election campaign, came up with the idea? And who approved it?
Seems very important to me. But apparently not so to the mainstream media.
Five days after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the White House sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to appear on all of the Sunday morning talk shows, with the explanation that the terrorist attack, which killed four Americans, was likely due to a spontaneous protest over a video posted on YouTube. Even at the time, the administration knew that was not the case.
Why did the administration choose Ambassador Rice as their mouthpiece for this event? Why not Secratray of State Clinton? Why not CIA Director Petraeus? Why not National Security Advisor Tom Donilon? Why not Press Secretary Jay Carney?
They chose Rice because, of all the possible players, she knew the least about what actually happened. It would be easier for her to peddle a story that they knew was false. And, unlike any of the other potential spokesmen, as a black woman, they could claim that any criticism of her was racist.
Which is exactly what they did.
So, the FBI has known about General Petreaus'... indiscretion for several weeks. But they chose to withhold this information from the administration until 5 pm on election day.
Timing is everything!
So... the president has proposed a new cabinet position: Department of Business.
Hmmmmm.... has the president not heard of the Department of Commerce?
So, General Petraeus, the director of the CIA, has resigned... because of an extramarital affair. Two things strike mas as odd abourt this:
1. If every high-ranking official in Washington resigned because of an extra-marital affair, the city would be a ghost town.
2. The sudden, unexpected, and unusual announcement and resignation came less than a week before the CIA director was scheduled to testify before Congress regarding the bungled response the recent terrorist attack in Libya. Am I the only one who finds the timing of this to be more than a little bit strange?
In his victory speech, President Obama said, "I'm looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties."
Isn't that what he promised four years ago? Hasn't he already had four years to do that? Why is he only now promising to do so?
So, as we approach the end of the campaign, let's look over the scene. President Obama has spent nearly a billion dollars to convince voters that he should remain president. Has he spent most of this money defending his first term and laying out a clear and compellig agenda for a second term? Or has he spent most of this money demonizing his opponent with false and phony accusations?
Says a lot, huh?
So, President Obama has now concluded that "You cannot change Washington from the inside."
Why, then, does he wish to remain in office?
So, I guess that that "hope and change" he proclaimed in 2008 was really nothing more than a hope for change... not an actual plan.
During a recent interview, President Obama opined that "the debt is not a problem... yet," implying that it might be, sometime in the future.
Indeed, with the current low interest rates, our annual payment on the $16 trillion debt is "only" about $250 billion dollars a year. (Imagine what we could do productively with that $25o billion!) But with the president's own plan, the debt will rise to over $22 trillion by 2022. If interest rates rise, even slightly, the annual payment on the debt will explode.
So, president Obama is content with saddling our children, and our children's children, and our children's children's children with an enormous debt that they will have to pay for our foolish excesses of today.
Indeed, that is exactly what he has done.
Recall, dear friends, that in early 2009, the Nobel prize people bestowed its noble Nobel Peace Prize on Barack Obama. Note, please, that this was BEFORE Mr. Obama became president. The committee took that unprecedended step because of what they thought Obama would do. Peace... based on wishful thinking and supposed good intentions.
So... September, 2012 — three and a half years later, how does the world look? More peaceful because of the heroic actions of the second black president? (Bill Clinton, you know, was the first.) Has Barack Obama lived up to the lofty expectations?
What can you conclude from this?
So, the Democrats are trashing Paul Ryan, saying that his plan will will end Medicare as we know it.
Well, I hope so!
Friends, nobody... NOBODY disputes the reality that Medicare cannot continue as it is currently structured. NOBODY!
VP candidate Paul Ryan as procsribed not a temporary bandaid to "kick the can" down the road for a few years, but a permanent solution that will keep Medicare from bankrupting the country.
Paul Ryan as the guts to face the problem head-on.
The Democrats, on the other hand... have nothning. Absolutely nothing!
So, who is the leader here, and who are the gutless cowards?
So, let me get this straight:
So... what could possibly go wrong?
Dr. Barbara Bellar, candidate for Illinois state senate, August, 2012
Three years ago, Democrats predicted that President Obama's health care bill would be the primary issue -- the crowning achievement of his first term -- the biggest issue of the 2012 campaign.
How much have you heard President Obama, or Joe Biden... or ANY Democrat refer to the health care act, which passed in 2010?
In the first decade of the 21st century, all the violence in the middle east was George Bush's fault. Everything. He was a criminal... a war criminal. Every act of violence perpetrated by Muslim extremists... George W. Bush's fault.
So, the violence in Lybia, Yemen, and Egypt this week... September, 2012, is that still Geporge Bush's fault? And if so, can you explain why?
And if not, whose fault is it? Is it President Obama's fault? And if not, why not?
It is a tradition, and a matter of courtesy, that the American president meet with the Israeli prime minister when he comes to the U.S. Prime Minister Netanyahu requested a meeting with President Obama dring his visit in late September. The White House declined.
Oh, the president's schedule is full, so we were told. He may be campaigning in Ohio that week.
The president does not have time for Israel. But he has time to campaign and to meet with Jay-Z and Beyonce.
This, from a president who claims to be the best friend Israel has ever had.
So... who is the biggest loser as a result of the selection of Raul Ryan?
Marco Rubio? Chris Christie? Rob Portman?
Nope; the biggest loser is Joe Biden.
The walking, talking, makes no sense gaffe machine will have to debate the man who is perhaps the most articulate, informed politician in the country.
That debate is gonna' be fun!
Barack Obama's political action committee is running an ad in which a man claims that Mitt Romney closed the plant at which he was employed; he thus lost his health insurance; and his wife died of cancer 4 years later. The man believes that Mitt Romney did not care about his wife.
Never mind the details of the case, which show that Bain Capital tried to save the company. There is a bigger issue in play.
Whose responsibility was it to ensure that this family had health insurance? Was it his employer's? Was it his former employer's. Was it Mitt Romney's? Whose responsibility was it?
Mitt Romney's, of course.
THIS exemplifies the perversion of the left.
The left does not like the idea that management of Chick-Fil-A supports solely traditional marriage -- the same position that every president in history has held... until a few months ago.
So, the reaction of Democrat mayors in Boston and Chicago has been to declare that they will no longer allow Chick-Ail-A to open new restaurants in their cities.
Residents of these cities will not have the freedom to choose Chick-Fil-A... because Democrat mayors do not like Chick-Fil-A's position on a social issue.
Tolerance of the left... on display for all to see.
Have you ever heard anybody.... ANYbody on the right claim that Ben & Jerry's should nt be allowed to conduct business because of their stand on political issues? ANYBODY?
Tolerance of the left.
So... Mitt Romney has a lot of money. Apparently, he has stored some of it in banks in the Bahamas, or the Caymans, or somewhere offshore. Oh, my!
Why on earth should I, or anyone, care where Mitt Romney stores his money, or what he does with his money? Why? It is none of my business!
What I care about is what Barack Obama has done with my money! And yes, that is my business!
Why is the Obama campaign crying about where Mitt Romney keeps his money? 'Cause they can't campaign on anything that Barack Obama has done or will do, that's why. And that's what matters.
President Obama boldly proclaimed that Mitt Romney and the Republicans are "not serious" about deficit reduction.
Say again? Obama claims that his opponents are not serious about deficit reduction. Huh?
This comes from a president who has racked up more deficits than all of his predecessors combines; whose own budget projections show near-trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see; who promised to cut the deficit in half in his first term, and missed the mark about about half a trillion dollars; whose staff has admitted that they have no plan for long-term deficit reduction.
It's a gutsy claim, especially considering how utterly stupid it is.
This is how the Obama administration deals with the American people.
Whew! And they say that Republicans are out of touch!
So, Democratic spokeswoman Hillary Rosen believes that Mitt Romney's wife "has never worked a day in her life."
Let's see now... Ann Romney is a cancer survivor; she suffers from multiple sclerosis. She has raised five sons. And yet, in the mind of Hilary Rosen and many Democrat leaders, she "has never worked a day in her life."
This terribly insults stay-at-home mothers who work hard every day to raise their kids... as if that should not be considered "work."
This clearly demonstrates two things. 1: It is the Democrats who disparage women, not the Republicans. 2: leading Democrats place no significant value on what is perhaps the most important job in the world: raising children properly.
What else do you need to know to understand the hypocrisy and depravity of the left?
President Obama warns the Supreme Court not to overturn a law that he says was passed by "a strong majority" in Congress.
A "strong majority" - ??? The vote on Obamacare received not a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate. The president calls this a "strong majority" - ???
The president said that overturning the law would be unprecedented. But the fact is that the Supreme Court has overturned laws that it determined to be unconstitutional over 150 times.
Hollywood actor/director Spike Lee has apologized for tweeting the wrong address. Someone had sent Lee the supposed home address of the Sanford, Florida target of the left, George Zimmerman. Lee re-tweeted the address to all of his followers. The secondary problem was that it was the wrong address. And thus, a totally uninvolved family was besieged by members of the left.
Opps! Lee said he was sorry. A wrong was righted. End of story.
Or is it? If Spike Lee had gotten the address correct, would it have been OK?
The primary issue is that what Spike Lee did was grossly irresponsible. Why did he tweet the address in the first place? What did he intend to accomplish by that? Surely he knew what would happen.
If ever there were such a thing as a "hate crime," surely this is an example.
Forget the apology. Shame on him!
How come we never saw this coming? The IRS intends to hire 4,000 agents... just to enforce tax implications of Obamacare. Four thousand! Oh, and they also need office space for these eager-beavers. Thus, they'll need a new building: cost $300 million.
Though that's yet another burden for taxpayers, it is a wonderful opportunity for construction workers in the DC area and will-be agents ready to pounce.
For the past 2 years, the Democrats have been shouting, "It's constitutional! It's constitutional! It's constitutional!" But now that the lights have dimmed on Obamacare's constitutionality (if only temporarily), they're screaming, "It's a good thing!"
Kinda' reminds me of the 90s: "He didn't do it! He didn't do it! He didn't do it!"
And then... "It's just sex; it's just sex; it does not matter!"
Why do they do that? Because it's all they've got, that's why.
Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel prize-winner, the White House notes, is the secretary of the Energy Department. Regarding the ban on 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, Chu said, "We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money."
In 2008, Dr. Chu said, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Though more recently, for some reason, Chu said that he no longer shares that view.
Dr. Chu fervently supported his department's backing of Solyndra, a move which cost taxpayers half a billion dollars.
Nonethless, recently Dr. Chu testified before Congress, and when asked, said he would give himself a A+ on his performance.
Oh, that's not unusual; it is a clear example of "grading on the curve" in DC -- more evidence that the pinheads in Washington have no concept of reality.
What grade would you give him?
Tim Tebow is the most exciting thing to hit Denver since John Elway. Still a young quarterback, he has tremendous potential. Last week, some Bronco bigwigs (including VP John Elway) flew to North Carolina to watch Payton Manning throw the football.
Did they really need to fly across country to see if Manning still has an arm?
What message does that send to the current Denver first-string QB? How's that for a sign of confidence?
Loyalty up; loyalty down.
What kind of loyalty should the Broncos' management expect from Tim Tebow?
The top brass at Denver are a bunch of boneheads... disrespecful, tasteless boneheads.
When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. Most people nodded their head in agreement, and smiled.
Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. And for that, the liberal press skewers him.
"It's arguably the most glaring double standard in American life today."
Before Congress crammed the health care bill into law, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
Well, we're learning. Former Democratic congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper said she would not have voted for the bill if she had known that it authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to require all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, to cover the cost in full for contraception, sterilization procedures, and the "week-after" pill "ella" that can induce early abortions.
Too late now, Kathy. Your mistake, our misfortune.
It's been three years since the newly sworn-in President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to boost international diplomacy."
So, remind me, what "extraordinary efforts" had Mr. Obama done to boost international diplomacy? And, how has that international diplomacy thing worked out since?
In his State of Union speech, President Obama said, "We need to change our tax code so that people like me and an awful lot of members of the Congress pay our fair share of taxes."
The assumption there is that the president and people like him and an awful lot of members of the Congress are not currently paying their fair share of taxes. I reject that assumption.
Aside from that, I don't understand. What is keeping people like the president and an awful lof of members of the Congress from paying more?
So we're all hot and bothered about Mitt Romney's income and his taxes. He paid "only" 15% of his income on federal taxes. He held money in off-short accounts. Why, the greedy, immoral pig! He does not deserve to be president!!!
Except that Romney followed the law, to the letter. Here's what we would say about someone who foolishly paid more than he had to? "If he wastes his own money that way, imagine what he will do with the taxpayer money!!"
Oh, and as for his income... truly despicable... makes him undeserving to be president, huh?
How come we had no similar concern about John Kerry? He married two rich women and lives off their money. Does that make him more moral and qualified than Mitt Romney? And the Kennedys -- John, Bobby, Teddy. Did any of them ever have jobs in the real world or earn so much as a penny doing real work? Where did they get their money, then? Well, from daddy Joe, who amassed his fortune partly from bootlegging booze during prohibition. How come the press never questioned the finances of the Kennedys? How come they were all most highly qualified to be president, and Mitt Romney is not?
What's the difference between Mitt Romney and Kerry and the Kennedys... oh, other than party affiliation?
The immoral, despicable pig here is not the candidate, but the media!
Newt Gingrich cheated on his first wife with his second wife. And he cheated on his second wife with his third wife. Why that immoral pig! He should not even be let in the front door of the White House, much less live in it!
Justifying the tawdry interview with Gingrich's second wife, ABC correspondent Brian Ross said that character deals with how you treat the people around you.
How come, then, does the press fail to mention that the liberals' hero, Lyndon Johnson, had at least two mitresses, and had an illegitimate son with one of them? The press ignores that.
And JFK... we adore John Kennedy, who had a virtual revolving door at the White House while he was president? And Bill Clinton... he is god-like... one of the most admired men in America, even though he marched his cabinet members in front of TV cameras to tell what he knew was a lie? How come we sigh with unlimited adoration at Bill Clinton, who had sex with an subordinate in the Oval Office, and forced himself on at least two women, and lied about it to a federal jury? How's that for treating the people around you?
So, who is the despicable one here?
Please help us by buying stuff through our link to Amazon.com:
|The BBHQ Feature Album is "Old Friends Live on Stage (Deluxe Edition) (2 CD/1 DVD)," by Simon & Garfunkel. If you were fortunate enough to see them in concert in 2003, I do not have to sell you. The concert was terrific! This album collection includes 55 songs, plus their new recording, "Citizen of the Planet," and one of the songs sung by the Everly Brothers during the concert. The DVD was recorded during their concert in Madison Square Garden in 2003. For any S&G fan, this is a must have! But then, you knew that already, didn't you?|
|The BBHQ Feature Book is “Bobby Rydell – Teen Idol on the Rocks.” This is a “behind the scenes” story of one of the boomers’ first rock n’ roll stars. Told in the first person, Bobby chronicles his short ride to the pinnacle of fame and fortune, his glide through the 70s and 80s, and how he nearly lost it all. Relax; it has a happy ending. Bobby was (and is) a “normal” Philly guy... with an absolute love of music and an amazing gift. For any fan of early rock n’ roll, it’s a wonderful story. And yes, Bobby Rydell is still on tour, playing to boomer fans all over the world. Click here for a closer look at the book.|