I think we all owe Bill Clinton an apology

To think we Conservatives considered Bill Clinton the most shameless liar once. Then, we were introduced to President Barack Obama. If Clinton was Pinocchio then Obama is Mega-Pinocchio. Bob Owens has the presidents latest batch of whoppers

There is a special sort of loathing that Barack Obama has for the United States that seems to manifest itself seemingly every time he steps foot on foreign soil. Speaking in front of an audience in Mexico, he blamed the United States for supplying Mexicowith the guns used in cartel drug violence that has terrorized much of that country:

“Most of the guns used to commit violence here inMexico come from the United States,” President Obama said during a speech at Mexico’s Anthropology Museum. “I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will.”

“But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and backhome in the United States. It’s the right thing to do,” Obama added.

Obama has blamed the American people numerous times for gun violence in Mexico. In 2009, the President, Attorney General Eric Holder,  and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly claimed that “90-percent” of guns recovered from cartel crime scenes were traced to the United States.

The “90-percent lie” was conclusively debunked by Obama’s own Department of Justice in sworn testimony before Congress, as an ATF official was forced to admit that just 8% of firearms recovered from the scenes of gun crimes in Mexico came from the United States.

Of the 8% of American “civilian” guns recovered at crime scenes, 302 murders of those murders were traced directly to guns smuggled to the Sinaloa cartel via Operation Fast and Furious, a weapons smuggling plot that transferred 2,500 guns to narco-terrorists that the Obama Administration wants to ban.

Via Operation Fast and Furious and up to nine other gun smuggling operations, the Obama Adminstration provided potentially tens of thousand of “civilian” guns to different cartels. Put bluntly, the Obama Administration is likely the greatest supplier of American“civilian” firearms to the Mexican cartels.

The Obama Administration also definitively the top supplier of military weapons to the cartels, via massive arms shipments to the Mexican government, despite the fact that significant amounts of military arms shipped to the Mexican government winds up in cartel hands via corruption. At least 10,30 Ar-15s were known diverted to drug cartels… and yet, the Obama Administration kept supplying them with massive amounts of weapons, nearly 10 times what was sold during the Bush Administration

Also remember that one of the goals of Fast and Furious was to use it to push for more gun control here in America. Lies, lies, and still more lies from the Democrats. They have proven themselves to be willing to say anything to further their agenda. Remember something else too. Remember that the lap dog media makes it possible for the Democrats to lie about Fast and Furious, Obama’s past and radical ties, and about the events in Benghazi. Odd that one of the biggest problems in this nation is a media that refuses to use their right to uncover the truth.

 

 

All you really need to know about Leftism in 13 simple rules

I decided earlier today to do a post outlining the Rules of Leftism so everyone could come to grips with the undeniable truth about the evil I call Leftism.

1- When a Leftist says “by any means…” BELIEVE them! They have a moral compass guided by one thing. If it helps them win, it is moral.

2- Leftism is an ideology of convenience. A Leftist, or a Liberal (a Leftist in training) can change their stance on an issue depending on what party is in power. Just because Leftists wanted to kick Clarence Thomas to the curb over accusations of sexual harassment, did not mean far more serious allegations about Bill Clinton mattered to them.

3- Leftism is just another bastard child of Marxism. Leftists never wish to be called out for what they really are, which is Communists. Everything Marx believed in, they believe in. Never be fooled by their rhetoric.

4- Leftism is about one thing, control! Control of you, your earnings, your property, your kids, your  rights, and certainly your thinking!

5- Leftists often use the term “power to the people”. Yet, everything they strive for seeks to dis-empower people. As Dennis Prager says the bigger the state, the smaller the individual, and the Left has yet to meet a state that is too big or an individual that is powerless enough,

6- The Left HATES your gun more than anything else. Why? Well because Leftism is all about Collectivism, and the ultimate enemy of Collectivists is Individualism. And nothing promotes Individualism more than the right to keep and bear arms. There can never be the Leftist Utopia as long as the right to keep and bear arms is in place. That right, given by the Creator, and protected by the Constitution our Founders gave us is the one liberty that all other’s hang on. The Left knows this, which is why they seek to destroy that liberty.

7- Leftists do not believe in God-given, or natural rights. They believe all right  MUST come from, and be controlled by big government. God-given rights cannot be touched by government. They are as inherent to us as is our soul. The Founders listed such rights, and constrained the government from restricting those rights. The Left has been trying to undo that ever since the birth of America.

8- Leftists seek to allow government to control individual liberty for the “common good”. To the Left, individual liberty, be it free speech, self-defense, freedom of religion, is to be trampled when it becomes a detriment to that common good. And, of course, only a Leftist government can “properly” judge what the common good is.

9- Leftists love freedom of speech, as long it they approve of it!

10- Leftists are not racists, or sexists, they are Marxists. Yes a Leftist will use racist, and sexist attacks on women and minorities when it suits them, But their motivation is not to discriminate, it is to USE those minorities to gain electoral power. And that electoral power can then be used to “fundamentally change” America.

11- The Left divides, then labels people, so as to control them. The Left uses this tactic with great effect. They have used it with women, Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, Asians, the old, the young. First they convince people in a certain group that EVERYTHING in their life revolves around their sexuality, or gender or race. This allows the Left to convince any group that they must THINK as a group, or they are a traitor to that group. Next, the Left convinces these groups that Conservatives hate them, and that the only hope for their gender, sexuality, or race is to vote against the Conservatives.

12- Ignorance is the fertilizer that fuels Leftism. Leftism thrives on the uneducated. And as well on those that have been indoctrinated rather than educated. This is why Leftists always want more focus, and money for education, mandatory pre-school, and for everyone to go to college.

13- Leftists hate powerful corporations, and powerful groups like the NRA, but worship at the altar of all-powerful government. It is horrible to the Left when a health insurance company will not cover you. But, if the government dictates who gets care, and what type of care, well that is Utopia. The Left hates it when gas prices are high, and the people suffer as long as “big oil” is profiting. But if the oil industry were nationalized, and the government made all the money, and gas prices were even higher? Yes, Utopia!

Take these rules, pass them around, and never ever forget them!

And we thought Bill Clinton was a masterful liar

Of all the headlines that came out about Obama’s gun control Kabuki Theater today, THIS is the one that might make my skull collapse. Via Steve at MCT

Leader of Fast and Furious wants to study how guns get into hands of criminals

And he said it with a straight face folks! Of course, the media has pretty much blacked out Fast and Furious, like they blacked out Benghazi. And Obama’s radical ties, and his radical church, and so on and so on. They make such useful idiots for Obama!

Oh no! Ed Schultz stricken with Truth Deficit Disorder!

The Sad Face of TDD!

Another day, another Leftist ass hat contracts one of the many Liberal Maladies I have diagnosed mover the years. The ass hat, in this case, is Ed Schultz, the malady? Truth Deficit Disorder or TDD!

Via Newsbusters: 

The hits keep coming from libtalker Ed Schultz, who’s kicking off the new year on a roll.

First week into 2013, Schultz insisted that Bill Clinton was never tried in the Senate after he was impeached by the House. Schultz followed with the laughable claim that gun laws in Chicago, a city with some of the nation’s toughest restrictions on firearms, “don’t even exist.

Schultz is tripling down on his ignorance, making an egregiously false claim on his radio show yesterday while talking about whether schools should allow teachers to arm themselves (h/t for embedded audio clip, Brian Maloney at mrctv.org) –

“Would it be a deterrent if, you know, say perpetrators know that there’s guns in the schools? How do we know they wouldn’t view that as a challenge? I mean, we got a goofy world out there. I’m just not convinced that packing a small firearm is the best defense or certainly not the best defense. You know, you want to make the best defense? Make the school a damn fortress. I mean, you could do that, I mean but, is that reasonable? Is that the right thing to do? Is it necessary? And so I’m just, is it nec-, haven’t we had enough school shootings where this is necessary?We’ve never had a civilian stop a shooting.”

Never? Really Ed? REALLY?? Well, folks, this has to be TDD. Poor Ed, you gotta feel for the blathering buffoon. He wants so badly for his numerous falsehoods to be true that he has developed an inability to grasp what everyone else sees, that he is, in fact, a lying bag of baboon dung! Mark Hemingway has some facts that lay waste to Ed’s delusional rantings

In response to last week’s massacre in Connecticut, Mother Jones has put together a “study” on mass shootings that makes a pretty bold claim:

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. 

There are a couple of major problems here with arguing that armed civilians don’t stop mass shootings. One is that when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings. One of the criteria Mother Jones used to define mass shootings is that “the shooter took the lives of at least four people.” So then, consider the following:

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented. I’m sure there are many more that meet this criteria. But, as you can see, in every incident, the would-be shooters were stopped short of killing four people because an armed civilian—or in some cases, an off duty cop—was present.

Newsbusters (link above) also points out that the Oregon mall shooting was stopped, likely in great part by an armed civilian

Back on Dec. 11, a gunman shot two people to death at a mall in Clackamas, Ore., then took his own life when he saw a 22-year-old patron with a concealed carry permit draw his weapon.

“He was working his own gun,” Nick Meli told KGW Channel 8, describing how he positioned himself behind a pillar when he heard gunfire. “He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”

The Channel 8 report continues –

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

“As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

“I’m not beating myself up ’cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli. “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

See how TDD can ravage people ability to be honest? Please help stamp out TDD in our times. You can help by exposing Liberal lies, and yes, by reading this blog. PLEASE do not let THIS happen to you!

Michael Moore stricken with Consistent Inconsistenitis

Of the many maladies that afflict Liberals, maladies I have diagnosed in an effort to cure the Left and bring Liberals into the light of the founding principles, Consistent Inconsistentitis is especially troubling. This malady seems to rob those it attacks of the ability to stand on any belief for long. Typical cases include Liberals who are vehemently anti-war when a Republican is in the White House, but suddenly soften that opposition to the war when a Democrat assumes the office of  president. I could name many more examples, but I want to get to Michael Moore here. Moore is one of the most bitterly anti-second amendment Leftists out there. Every school shooting Moore resurfaces from his donuts to viciously berate gun owners, the NRA, and so on. One of the ideas that many on the Right, and some on the Left have put forward to hopefully prevent school shootings is to place armed guards in schools.

Several versions of the plan are out there, including mine. Some, like me, advocate for retired police/military to be hired to be in schools as a deterrent and as a first line of defense. Others have advocated active duty police, others have advocated allowing teachers with concealed carry permits to arm themselves in schools. The NRA on Friday issued a plan for police officers to be in schools, and the Left went ballistic, ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton placed police in schools during his presidency. Some on the Left mocked the idea of “part-timers” patrolling schools. Some feared that armed teachers would suddenly snap,  because liberals actually believe guns can hypnotize people and turn them into killers apparently. Moore of course, was among those outraged that anyone would dare suggest armed security for students. After all, clearly there is no place for armed security in Moore’s perfect Marxist Utopia.

Mocking the idea of self-defense is not new for Moore though, as is mocking the notion that armed security might actually deter or stop an evil person intent on murder. That is why Moore has armed security guards. Wait, what? Yes, here is where Moore’s inconsistencies catch up to him. Matt at Conservative Hideout clues us in on one of Moore’s security guys being busted for a, wait for it, gun violation. HE is important enough to have armed protection, but school children? Average Americans? They are not elites like Moore, or Rosie O’Donnell, who thinks gun owners ought to be imprisoned, but has no problem with armed security for her kids.

Hmmm, it is odd, Liberals freak whenever anyone suggests that guns can make us safer in any way, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, yet rely on ARMED security to make them safer. Michael Moore where IS your consistency? Of course, Moore’s first answer would likely be that his security is “trained”. Trained, it seems, well enough NOT to be familiar with gun laws. Of course, the Left does not stop at not wanting armed teachers, they do not want armed police either. So it is not the “trained”  part of the equation that they dislike. It seems that it is the idea of guns they find so troubling. Any gun, wielded by anyone, even law enforcement, in schools is simply unthinkable to Liberals. So why do Liberals not berate Moore who preach that guns are bad while being surrounded by armed security? Two words, Consistent Inconsistentitis.

NRA calls for armed guards in schools, causing outbreak of Selective Outrage Syndrome among Liberals

The Lonely Conservative notes that the Left is going bat shit crazy over the NRA suggestion that we actually use armed police/guards/teachers to protect our kids in school, yet when Bill Clinton PUT armed guards in schools, there was no outrage at all. A classic case of Selective Outrage Syndrome

The other day Senator Barbara Boxer proposed turning our schools into mini police states patrolled by the National Guard. There was no outrage by the progressives or the media that I found. I also don’t recall much media outrage when former President Bill Clinton not only proposed, but also implemented putting armed guards in our schools. The internet and blogs were in their infancy at the time, so it’s possible that most progressives weren’t even aware of the policy, a policy thatPresident Obama cut funding for, by the way.

But when a similar proposal was made by the NRA outrage erupted immediately. My goodness, they’re suddenly concerned about what things cost! As if giving public workers rich benefit packages is more important than keeping our children safe. If only they had this much outrage over the budgets of our state and local governments.

Now, there are some who say that at Columbine there were armed guards, but lives were still lost. On the other hand, think of how many lives may have been saved.

Let’s get even more confusing. Clinton proposed more security for schools in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shooting. It turns out that Columbine High School did have an armed sheriff’s deputy on the scene the day of its tragic shooting spree. That deputy exchanged fire with one of the killers twice, drawing their attention away from killing unarmed teenagers. The deputy and his backup also helped organize the evacuation of students from the school. Though the deputy’s presence obviously did not stop the attack from happening, it likely did save many lives.

Let’s pile on even more confusion. The NRA today proposed protecting our children to a level similar to the way we protect our banks and many public buildings: With armed security. As we’ve established, this idea has been around for more than 12 years and was once proposed by a Democratic president. Many on the anti-gun left responded to today’s proposal not with a thoughtful rejoinder, but with calls to shoot Wayne LaPierre.

And yes, Columbine, and several other school shooting did happen while the assault weapons ban the Left wishes to bring back was in place, but the Left ignores that fact too. Why do I call Liberalism an ideology of convenience? This is why. They need no facts, just emotions to “know” something. They say a horrible event could have been stopped by a law. Yet when you point out that such a law did exist, and did not prevent such horrible events, they just repeat their disproved mantra. It is convenient to be able to “take a stand” and speak “truth to power” when you can use emotion, rather than reason. And it is convenient to say that to do something, anything is better than doing nothing. It is convenient because when that “something” fails, or even makes things worse through unintended consequences, think gun free zones here, you can feel better because you meant well. How convenient indeed!

 

President Obama at Daniel Innouye’s funeral: But enough about the dead guy, let’s talk about me

When I first heard accusation that Obama talked all about himself during the memorial service I thought perhaps some folks were just looking for something  to criticize. Well after watching this clip, I can say they were NOT wrong!

 

The video cuts off before Obama got to the girl he had a crush on in sixth grade. Good grief, it almost looked like he had no clue what to say

 

Should we be surprised that Democrats define higher taxes as patriotic?

 

In a word, NO! The Democratic Party has slipped into Neo-Marxism. They worship big government, and thoroughly believe that you should only be allowed to keep what the government allows you to keep. So this is not a surprise

See, paying your “fair share” is patriotic! And who will decide what is fair? Government of course! No wonder the Democrats always garner the support of these folks

 

Shocking! MSNBS Chris Crazy Legs Matthews condemns Obama for calling Romney a felon

 

Actually, no, Matthews and his guests on Hardball completely ignore Obama’s Chicago style thuggery. But, they flip out any time a Conservative criticizes Obama

“This guy has done everything right, he’s raised his kids right, he fought his way all the way to the top of the Harvard Law Review, blind test becomes head of the Review, everything he’s done is clean as a whistle, he’s never broken any law, he’s never done anything wrong, he’s the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect American and all they do is trash the guy. It’s impossible for me to believe they would have said the same things about Walter Mondale or Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, there’s an ethnic piece to this but it’s hard to nail it down because they cover it in ideology.”

Of course, Matthews and his guests blame RAAAAACISM. But not just RAAAAACISM, but RAAAAACISM disguised as ideology. these folks are loons, 100% crazy! They blast Romney for saying that Obama’s ideology is foreign to American principles, which it is, yet, they ignore Team Obama calling Romney a felon! MSNBS has no value now, well except for  a good laugh. You can watch the full clip here, since Lockerz worthless “Grab it” button is not working AGAIN! 

 

Your DaleyGator Blog Headline of the Day goes to

Chris Wysocki for this gem Hope And Choom: You don’t have to be stoned to vote for Obama, but it helps! 

Dude, I could much some Doritos right now

The president who opposes legalizing marijuana pioneered new ways to smoke it.

Now a soon-to-be published biography by David Maraniss entitled “Barack Obama: The Story” gives more detail on Obama’s pot-smoking days, complete with testimonials from young Barry Obama’s high school buddies, a group that went by the name “the Choom Gang.” Choom was slang for smoking marijuana.

Maraniss portrays the teenage Obama as not just a pot smoker, but a pot-smoking innovator.

“As a member of the Choom Gang,” Maraniss writes, “Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.”

The first Obama-inspired trend: “Total Absorption” or “TA.”

“TA was the opposite of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled,” explains Maraniss. Here’s how it worked: If you exhaled prematurely when you were with the Choom Gang, “you were assessed a penalty and and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around.”

As one of Obama’s old high school buddies tells Maraniss: “Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated.”

The Lonely Conservative snarks:

If only he had the same philosophy about taxpayer money that he used to have about weed, we’d be in much better shape.

Question: What is the sound of David Axelrod’s weekend getting ruined?

Perhaps we now know what Michelle is really growing in the White House garden, eh?

Total Absorption, man. It puts you into the right frame of mind to vote for Obama. That Romney dude is such a downer, always tellin’ us to work and stuff. Who wants that?

 

One difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?

Clinton was doing the “magic cigar” with interns. Obama’s imaginary girlfriend was banging some guy in Barack’s neighborhood!

This is just so utterly pathetic on so many different levels that I almost feel sorry for the impotent “O”.

He is a two time loser here. If it is not sad enough to be so dumb that he had to have someone else write his “autobiography”, now we learn that the man who wrote it was actually sliding it to his fictitious girlfriend.

OUCH!

Mitt Romney on Obamneycare “It’s not worth getting angry about”

Via Milton Wolf who thinks it worth getting very upset about!

Mitt Romney himself has said he will keep parts ObamaCare. Mitt Romney advisor Norm Coleman doubled down: “We’re not going to do repeal,“ but would instead pull a page out of Bill Clinton’s play book: Mend it don’t end it. Team Romney is surrendering the single largest vulnerability of Barack Obama. Barack’s top advisor David Axelrod thanks Mitt Romney for defending ObamaCare.

It gets worse. Mitt Romney on ObamneyCare: “It’s not worth getting angry about.”

Read the whole thing, Milton lays out what Mitt will not admit, how big a failure Romneycare has been.

Why is America broke?

Why do Democrats keep pushing for more “revenues”? Well, like a crack addict, they have to have a fix. Except Democrats, and yes, to be fair some Republicans are addicted to pork, earmarks, and wasting the tax payers money. Their addiction stems from the fact that they basically buy re-election and political power through all that pork, and spending. In some cases our money is pissed away to radical groups that loathe everything about America. As a result, we get screwed, in this case by the E.P.A.

Via Daily Caller:

In 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency provided $1 million in grants to 46 different non-profit and tribal organizations to promote what it called “environmental justice.” Since 1994, a little-noticed EPA program has handed out a total of $23 million in such grants to 1,253 organizations, for stated purposes that observers are questioning.

President Bill Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) were responsible for implementing “environmental justice” as part of the EPA’s mission. In early 1990, following a lobbying push by the CBC, the EPA established the Environmental Equity Workgroup. In 1994 it was renamed the Office of Environmental Justice. [...]

West Harlem Environmental Action received taxpayer dollars to educate New Yorkers about the “local challenges posed by climate change (i.e., sea-level rise and extreme weather events).”

Federal dollars also paid a Utah dance company to teach children in 10 elementary schools how to dance for environmental justice. “Kinesthetic learning,” the EPA reports, “will be used to examine air quality issues and encourage youth and their families to adopt healthy living practices.”

The EPA funds “green jobs” projects in Hawaii, summer initiatives to teach middle-schoolers about global warming, and at least one push to create an “urban wetland” on Florida’s Gulf Coast.

Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, a community organizing non-profit, received federal money to push for “anti-idling” policies affecting diesel truck drivers.

Like several other grant recipients identified on the EPA’s website, Greenaction subscribes to a 1991 “Principles of Environmental Justice” manifesto that affirms “the sacredness of our Mother Earth” and the “political, economic and cultural liberation that has been denied for over 500 years of colonization and oppression, resulting in the poisoning of our communities and land and the genocide of our peoples.”

See, OUR money, that WE earn, pissed away on Leftist claptrap like environmental justice! E.J., is just another bastard child of Marxism, and is not just at all. Like Social Justice, or Economic Justice, it is about redistributing wealth, and eventually crushing individual liberties.

So, basically, we are having money taken from our labors to fund those that seek America’s destruction. I think my head is about to explode!

Donald Douglas: Obama calling 38.5 billion ‘The Largest Annual Spending Cut in Our History’ is like Harry Reid calling himself macho

Your blog of the day-American Power! Donald Douglas does a wonderful job over there, it is a MUST READ!

I read Spree’s post earlier, “Note To The Far Right : CUT. IT. OUT… Pretty Please.” She’s arguing for pragmatism regarding the GOP’s compromise on the Obama budget, but she’s got another post where I’m linked and I’m reminded that I promised to fact-check Barack Pinocchio’s claim that the deal included the “largest annual spending cut in our history.” I didn’t believe when I heard it, and turns out I’m not the only one. See David Boaz, “Not the Biggest Cut in History. Not by a Long Shot“ (via Instapundit):

The president might be technically correct in this sense: In none of those years did federal spending fall by as much as $38 billion in nominal dollars. But any real comparison would use inflation-adjusted dollars or percentage of the budget, and by those standards there are no “big, big cuts” here. (Boehner specifically called it the “largest real [that is, inflation-adjusted] dollar spending cut in American history,” which is so clearly wrong that it must surely have been a misstatement.)

The fundamental point here is that federal spending rose by more than a trillion dollars during Bush’s first seven years, and then by almost another trillion in barely three fiscal years. And then we had a titanic battle over whether to trim $38 billion.

The idea that the Democrats “have shown that they heard the message that government spends too much” or that the Republicans—the party that increased federal spending by a trillion dollars while nobody was looking during the Bush years—have “imposed a small-government agenda on Washington” is ludicrous. After these meager cuts, the federal government will spend more than twice as much as it did when Bill Clinton left the White House.

See? Obama’s a liar. But progressives are liars, so it shouldn’t be surprising. What is surprising is that Speaker Boehner was going along with the lie, as Boaz points out. Progressives are calling him a “hostage taker” and a “street hoodlum” who will “kill your kid.” These are hardly the kind of folks to whom you want to give in.

Government shut down postponed

Politico reports that House Speaker John Boehner has struck a deal, that will keep government offices open and start cutting spending

Threats of a government shutdown next week had all but disappeared by late Friday as Democrats reacted favorably to a Republican plan that would keep agencies operating past Mar. 4 while making a first down payment toward a larger budget deal.

The two-week peace is only temporary but gives House and Senate leaders through Mar 18 to try to resolve conservative demands for more than $60 billion in spending cuts, all concentrated in the second half of this fiscal year.

A first installment of $4 billion in savings would be part of the deal now and Republicans have said they will insist on $2 billion more in cuts for each additional week the talks continue past the new deadline. The novel approach is one devised by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), trying to keep pace with his large freshman class while avoiding the same sort of shutdown that so hurt Republicans in the 1990’s when they confronted then President Bill Clinton.

Senate Democrats bitterly resent Boehner’s approach, saying he is holding the government hostage, nibbling away with weekly ransom demands to placate his tea party supporters. But the speaker carefully confined his first demands to the least painful cuts, and in an amusing turnabout, Democrats rushed to take credit for an idea they had seemed ready to go to war over days before.

“The plan Republicans are floating today sounds like a modified version of what Democrats were talking about,” said a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “We’re glad they think it’s a good idea.”

Well, it is a start I suppose, a little cut here, a little cut there and soon they might start to add up. Plus, this is a big strategic win for the Republicans. If the Democrats do not go along with the p;an, then they bear the brunt of the blame for the government shut down, and as Gabriel Marlor at ACE points out

And finally, this sets an excellent precedent going forward. If they approved $2 billion in cuts last week, why not another $2 billion this week? And next week? It gets harder to say, “well, the last $2 billion was reasonable, but this next $2 billion is just impossible.” Democrats just lost the budget fight.

Nice job, Speaker.

Nice job indeed! Let the Democrats whine about these cuts, let the American people see, once more, that the Democrats are serious about one thing only, spending, spending, and, oh yes, more spending!

Another gigantic waste of time from the minds of Liberals!

The National Institute for Civil Discourse? Good freaking grief!

The National Institute for Civil Discourse opened yesterday at the University of Arizona. The institute is described as such:

a nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy about civility in public discourse.

Read more at the link if you like, but frankly, why waste the time?

Doug Powers: So I guess we can call Bill Clinton the Blow Job Guy then?

Hey I see his point, I mean if Clinton can call Christine O’Donnell “The Witchcraft Lady”………..

Too funny — Former President Clinton, the impeached serial philanderer and perjurer who treated the Oval Office like a sperm bank and cigars as tampons, is mocking somebody else for their past comparatively innocuous dalliances:

Will Obama overdo cap and trade?

We knew that when Obama and Speaker Face Lift placed men like Henry Waxman and Edward Markey in charge of climate change legislation, that those two would be likely to go for the gusto so to speak. They are, after all, radicals where climate change is concerned. And the ideas they have proposed show that side of them with startling clerity. Kimberly Strassel wonders if Waxman and Markey will overreach so that their fellow Democrats might sink their battleship.

To listen to Congressman Jim Matheson is something else. During opening statements, the Utah Democrat detailed 14 big problems he had with the bill, and told me later that if he hadn’t been limited to five minutes, “I might have had more.” Mr. Matheson is one of about 10 moderate committee Democrats who are less than thrilled with the Waxman climate extravaganza, and who may yet stymie one of Barack Obama’s signature issues. If so, the president can thank Democratic liberals, who are engaging in one of their first big cases of overreach.

Not that you couldn’t see this coming even last year, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi engineered her coup against former Energy chairman John Dingell. House greens had been boiling over the Michigan veteran’s cautious approach to climate-legislation. Mr. Dingell’s mistake was understanding that when it comes to energy legislation, the divides aren’t among parties, but among regions. Design a bill that socks it to all those manufacturing, oil-producing, coal-producing, coal-using states, and say goodbye to the very Democrats necessary to pass that bill.

Such sense didn’t deter Mrs. Pelosi, who first tried an end-run around Mr. Dingell in 2007 by putting Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey in charge of a new global-warming committee. When that didn’t get her a bill, she helped her fellow Californian, Mr. Waxman, unseat Mr. Dingell. Environmentalists threw a party, and the Waxman-Markey duo got busy on legislation to please their coastal crowds.

Cap and trade was already going to be a brawl, but the two upped the ante by including tougher targets and restrictions. If that weren’t enough, they rolled in every other item on the green wish list: a renewable electricity standard; a low-carbon fuel standard; a broader renewable fuels policy; new efficiency standards. Any one of these is a monumental fight on its own. Put together they risk an intra-party committee mutiny.

 

So, the basic question is how far will they try to go. Certainly, Democrats from those areas that would be hurt by cap and trade and other “green utopian” ideals are not going to slit their own political throats. I would also doubt that the Democratic Party wishes to risk losing those House and Senate seats either.

So, how much of the Waxman/Markey nonsense will be left behind? How far will the Democrats try to go. The balance they strike will be tough to get right. A little too much and they pay heavy prices, both in 2010 and 2012. If they do not go far enough, how will their Green base react?

Personally, I doubt Obama will risk political power, even with his new boy toy Specter in tow. He wants to win in 2012. Yes, he has gone too far, on spending, which will only get less popular, and his tax increases, will not help his approval rating either and that leaves a door open to the GOP. Is it a 1994-sized door? Will the GOP exploit it? Will Obama learn from his mistake, as BillClinton did? Recall Clinton used the 1994 Republican Revolution to solidify HIS legacy by co-opting Republican ideals and programs. He was smart enough to put political success above ideology. Is Obama that bright?

H/T Hot Air

Dick Morris thinks Obama has already hamstrung himself, and raises some of the same points I do.

By 42-8, the Fox News poll (conducted on April 22-23) found that voters felt Obama had expanded government rather than contracted it (42 percent said it was the same size) and, by 46-30, reported believing that big government was more of a danger to the nation than big business. (By 50-23, they said Obama felt big business was more dangerous.)

By 62-20, they said government spending, under Obama, was “out of control.”

So if voters differ so fundamentally with the president on the very essence of his program, why do they accord him high ratings? They are like the recently married bride who took her vows 100 days ago. It would be a disaster for her life if she decides that she really doesn’t like her husband. But she keeps noticing things about him that she can’t stand. It will be a while before she walks out the door or even comes to terms with her own doubts, but it is probably inevitable that she will.

For Americans to conclude that they disapprove of their president in the midst of an earth-shaking crisis is very difficult. But as Obama’s daily line moves from “I inherited this mess” to “There are faint signs of light,” the clock starts ticking. If there is no recovery for the next six months — and I don’t think there will be — Obama will inevitably become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

And then will come his heavy lifting. He has yet to raise taxes, regiment healthcare or provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. He hasn’t closed down the car companies he now runs and he has not yet forced a 50 percent hike in utility bills with his cap-and-trade legislation. These are all the goodies he has in store for us all.