Once again Democrats sticking their nose in where it does not belong

Via Weasel Zippers

Via WaPo:

A D.C. Council member is preparing to introduce a resolution calling on the Washington Redskins to change its name, perhaps to the Washington Redtails.

Council member David Grosso, an independent elected last year, said he plans to pursue his non-binding resolution because the current name is “a derogatory, racist name.”

“It’s been a long time that we’ve had this name associated with Washington, and I think its time we take a stand and change it,” Grosso said.

Grosso is circulating his resolution to other council members to try to get co-sponsors. So far, he said, council members Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4) and Kenyan McDuffie (D-Ward 5) have agreed to sign on to it.

Just think how much better we would all be if busy body legislators kept their focus on important mattes rather than trying to dictate every move we make.

 

Possibly the most inane, rambling, incoherent piece of writing I have ever suffered through

Charlotte and Harriet Childress have penned an article for the Washington Post that is so bad, so devoid of anything even approaching intelligent, that it makes columns by David Frum and David Brooks seem worthwhile. This screed is so bad that Meghan McCain would mock it. Here are some lowlights, as in very dim bulbs

White men have much to discuss about mass shootings

Imagine if African-American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that African-Americans be “held accountable.”

Have these two ladies ever heard of Chicago? Black men and boys are slaughtering people, mainly other Black men and boys in Chicago. NO, most of the shootings are not “mass shootings” but the death toll is in the “mass” hundreds annually. And, the politicians, which these two nimrods think would be demanding accountability are silent. In fact most of the blame for “gun deaths” because being shot is somehow worse than being strangled or stabbed to death from politicians and the media is on law-abiding gun owners. Good grief, these two numb skulls disprove their entire theory in the first paragraph! No wonder the Washington Post could not wait to run it!

Oh and it gets worser and worser as these two buffoons keep digging in the Eternal Pit of Liberal Stupidity

If life were equitable, white male gun-rights advocates would face some serious questions to assess their degree of credibility and objectivity. We would expect them to explain:

What facets of white male culture create so many mass shootings?

So many? Seriously? There very, very few mass shootings in America. Of course the media sensationalizes them, and they are horrific but very rare. Far more common are Americans defending themselves with firearms, sorry I do not know the breakdown along racial lines, skin color is unimportant to me

Why are so many white men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent video games and other media?

Why do so many White men play violent video games? Well, because they are fun, certainly more fun than sloshing our way through the incoherent ramblings of the Childress sisters. Of course, to be fair, sawing your own thumbs off is likely more fun than reading what these two write.

Why do white men buy, sell and manufacture guns for profit; attend gun shows; and demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races?

Because there is a long tradition of gun ownership and self-defense here in America. Of course many women and many minorities also honor these traditions, and many White men oppose them, but the Childress Sisters of the Traveling Stupidity are too obsessed with skin color to note that obvious fact. Just yesterday, at the gun range, I was shooting next to two folks qualifying for the CHL’s. One was a young Black woman. Being a man, and therefore a sexist, just ask any Feminut, I noted that she was quite pretty. Two things stopped me from asking her out. First was that she is likely 15- 2o years younger than me. The second thing was that she is a better shot than me. And at some point I would likely make her angry, so….. I kid of course. I never feel threatened at the range. The young woman was entirely comfortable as well.  Imagine that, a White man A.K.A. The Source of All Evil according to the Childress sisters, flirting with a black woman at a gun range! I am sure the Childress sisters’ heads would explode!

Why are white male congressmen leading the fight against gun control?

Hmmm, Like Ted Cruz? Tim Scott? Marsha Blackburn? You can bet that Allen West would be fighting against this too, as would Mia Love, if they had been elected last November. The glaring fact is that MOST of Congress are White men, and MOST of those  fighting FOR gun control are White men too!

I guess that escaped the minds of the sisters too? Well of course

it did they are college faculty!

Harriet and Charlotte are consultants, authors, and college faculty who have researched, written, and spoken about issues related to social and political change for more than two decades. They have presented their work in person to thousands of people through more than fifty seminars or speeches in ten states. Charlotte and Harriet have published two books and eighteen articles.

Collectively, Charlotte and Harriet have:
• Earned eight college degrees, including one Ph.D. and four master’s degrees.
• Taught college for forty years: pharmacy, engineering, math, physics, chemistry.
• Received close to a million dollars in grants from the National Science Foundation to research math, science, 
   technology, and engineering education.
• Worked eleven years in R&D and manufacturing in Fortune 500 companies and NASA.

Charlotte and Harriet are identical twins who live near each other in Oregon. They are active in their communities, serving on boards of public and historic parks, schools, and neighborhood and community organizations. They enjoy long walks, camping, commuting by bicycle/walking/bus, organic gardening, cycling, dancing, reading, needlework, backpacking, and cuddling with beloved cats and dogs.

And, as children they fell out of the Stupid Tree, hitting every branch on the way down apparently! These two women are obviously highly educated, yet seem to be completely devoid of any common sense. Their “expertise” seems to be in engineering, math, physics, and chemistry. It certainly is not in the subject they are writing about here. Instead they feel, rather than think their way through what they write in the Post. It is like I say, they are educated beyond their hat size

Bob Woodward: Obama lied about the sequester

He seems to be able to lie with impunity and get a pass. He is slicker than Slick Willie

President Barack Obama and former White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew repeatedly lied by last year by claiming congressional Republicans were responsible for the looming $85 billion cut in the federal budget through sequestration, according to The Washington Post editor Bob Woodward.

Based on interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved in budget planning, Obama personally approved Lew’s plan to propose the mandatory trigger to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in July 2011.

A majority of Republicans ultimately voted for the Budget Control Act, which included the sequester.

Obama wanted this so he could play politics and further blame Republicans

 

Just call him the Executive Order President

Maybe President E.O. for short? Clearly, President Obama has no regard for the separation of powers, or the will of the people. It is the Legislative Branch that is supposed to write laws, clearly, this president prefers to rule by executive orders

Via WaPo:

President Obama is considering a series of new executive actions aimed at working around a recalcitrant Congress, including policies that could allow struggling homeowners to refinance their mortgages, provide new protections for gays and lesbians, make buildings more energy-efficient and toughen regulations for coal-fired power plants, according to people outside the White House involved in discussions on the issues.

One of the first orders is expected this week, when the Obama administration will call for the creation of new standards on what critical private-sector companies should do to protect their computer systems from hackers.

The moves underscore Obama’s increasingly aggressive use of executive authority, including 23 administrative actions on gun violence last month and previous orders that delayed deportations of young illegal immigrants and will lower student loan payments.

I have never been a fan of executive orders, and I never will.they place far too much power in the hands of one man. It seems that James Madison had similar concerns when he wrote this. ”The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
–James Madison, Federalist 46

I am sure there is a valid place for such orders, but, those should be very specific and in my view rare.

What could be worse than Hillary 2016?

Smitty suggest Janet Napolitano might run if………

Via Drudge:

So, what happens if Hillary Clinton doesn’t run in 2016?
It is hard to imagine the presidential field without a woman contender, and here’s one to keep your eye on: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Napolitano is quietly making it known that she is considering the race, and there is reason to take her seriously.

Yeah, I can see the GOP, Tea Partiers, and basically anybody else with a functioning brain being more than a little motivated to work against Big Sis if she’s on the ticket.

Now, if she brings on Bill Maher as VP, would the double negative somehow work?

Napolitano/Maher 2016? Or maybe I should say Dumber than a Tree Stump/Ultimate Douche Nozzle 2o16? And the campaign slogan would have to be If you See Something Say Something

Hillary to testify on Benghazi

Zip of Weasel Zippers fame assumes, correctly I would think, that she does not want the issue hanging over the soon coming Hillary 2016 campaign. So, she will get the lying and denying over with now

Via Daily Mail:

Hillary Clinton will testify in front of Congress about the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya – despite receiving a concussion and being hospitalized for a blood clot, it was revealed on Thursday.

The Secretary of State cancelled appearances before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee after she fainted and hit her head on December 9.

She sent two aides to testify in her place.

Some conservatives initially claimed she was using the health issue to dodge testifying on the contentious issue.

The Washington Post reports that Clinton ‘remains committed’ to appearing in front of the Congressional committees, though no date has been set.

Of course, perhaps this is just a tactic to stall, hoping the issue goes away. 

 

Even after obama victory, MSNBS is still a Proctologists dream

MSNBS has become more of a comedy network than anything else. All a rational person can do is laugh at the bare naked bias. Newsbusters has the latest, this journey into bias provided by Martin Bashir

 

While speaking about the election with GQ’s Ana Marie Cox and the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, Bashir asked, “Do Republicans understand what has happened? Let’s listen to the great Charles Krauthammer.”

This evoked laughter from Cox and Capehart.

After playing a Fox News video clip of Krauthammer commenting about the election results Tuesday, Bashir said, “Now I need to apologize to any young viewers who may have been frightened by that face.”

This again evoked laughter from Cox.

Honestly, is this what MSNBC considers journalism today?

Pathetic, just what you would expect from the children at MSNBS. You know, I would love to watch Bashir debate Krauthammer, I would just love that epic smack down

And the Planned Parenthood provides mammograms lie rolls on

First, here is the lie, told by the Liar-in-Chief

Now the truth, from Planned Parenthood

The Planned Parenthood abortion business put out a statement in response to this week’s pushback against President Barack Obama for his misleading statement in the Tuesday night debate claiming it does mammograms.

“There are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings,” Obama claimed during the debate.

The statement goes on at length to talk about the referrals Planned Parenthood makes for women — referrals that women can obtain at any legitimate medical health provider that does not also destroy lives in abortions.

“In short, Planned Parenthood helps women nationwide get access to mammograms, as part of the range of health care Planned Parenthood health centers provide to nearly three million people a year. Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses do this like any other primary care provider or ob-gyn does,” it admits.

“Women rely on Planned Parenthood for referrals,” the abortion business admits. “Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses refer patients to other facilities for mammograms.”

Meanwhile, Factcheck.org confirms Planned Parenthood does not actually do mammograms.

At the second presidential debate, President Obama said that women “rely on” Planned Parenthood for mammograms. Actually, mammograms are not performed at the clinics; Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses conduct breast exams and refer patients to other facilities for mammograms.

Obama said: “When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care. They rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings.”

Obama used a similar line again on Oct. 18, telling a Manchester, N.H., crowd: “Governor Romney said he’d end funding for Planned Parenthood, despite all the work it does to provide women with mammograms and breast cancer screenings.”

Women can’t walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and get a mammogram on the spot. The clinics don’t have mammography equipment.

Yet the lie continues to be told, as if no woman could even get a mammogram unless hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars were funneled to Planned Parenthood. Weasel Zippers notes that even the Washington Post calls out Obama for this oft-repeated lie

via WaPo:

“You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings, mammograms, all kinds of basic health care.”

— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012

President Obama appeared on “The Tonight Show” Wednesday, arguing his case for what’s at stake for women in the 2012 election after host Jay Leno prompted him to talk about a recent comment from Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock that pregnancies caused by rape are “something God intended.”

Obama suggested that Mitt Romney’s pledge to cut Planned Parenthood funding would deny women health services provided by the organization. But the incumbent’s reference to mammography prompted the Susan B. Anthony List antiabortion group to release a statement saying, “This oft-repeated myth has been repeatedly debunked, and it’s time the President stop misleading the American people in an effort to buoy his top political ally.”

We decided to investigate this issue to determine whether the president really stretched the truth about Planned Parenthood services.

Skipping to the conclusion:

The Pinocchio Test

The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammograms, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests an intentional attempt to mislead voters about all the services that are at stake with decisions regarding federal funding for the controversial group.

Obama’s campaign points out that the incumbent was referring in each case to Planned Parenthood’s broader role as a health-care provider. But that doesn’t make his remarks any less inaccurate.

This is all about using multiple lies to convince voters that without Government funding, Planned Parenthood could not survive, and without Planned Parenthood, millions of women could not get mammograms, and so on. The fact is Planned Parenthood does not need federal funds to survive, further access to mammograms would not be restricted if the tax dollars given to Planned Parenthood were cut off, this is simply untrue

Your post-post debate wrap up! UPDATED! Obama camp worried about Ohio?

Here is my take, Obama was rude, condescending, looked petty, and rude with his consistent interruptions. Romney looked, and certainly acted far more presidential than Obama did. The best line Obama had, apparently was attacking Romney, and playing that tired class warfare card. To me, it is simple, Romney won, on both style and substance. The president glared at Romney, trying his angry face out I suppose. The most troubling aspect of the night was how brazenly Obama lied, flat out lied about Romney, it is truly pathetic, but this is the state of your modern Democratic Party. Others, of course weighed in, and here is a round up of what others are saying…….

Nice Deb, has a great round up herself, and a video of Krauthammer calling the debate decisively for Romney

The Lonely Conservative agrees with me that Obama got a whoopin she also saw the anger in Obama

I think Mitt Romney won tonight’s foreign policy debate. President Obama looked peeved and angry when he wasn’t laughing. He interrupted Romney numerous times. Romney seemed calm, cool and unflappable. He certainly didn’t come off as some sort of warmonger the Democrats want you to believe he is.

I was tweeting during the entire debate. You can read the tweets here, at least for a while. I also did a few posts on Sulia.

The Split Screen Was Not Obama’s Friend Tonight

Is Obama This Condescending To Foreign Leaders?

Obama Keeps Interrupting

Romney: Attacking Me Is Not Foreign Policy

Romney has momentum at this point, and I doubt tonight’s debate did anything to change that. I don’t care what theWashington Post says about Obama putting Romney on his heels. All anyone had to do was look at the split screen to see who was on his heels. It certainly wasn’t Romney, if it was he might have been the one doing all of the interrupting.

Weasel Zippers has a great line from Romney that made my ears perk up. Dennis Prager also mentioned this on his show today, although, I am not sure how many Americans will get the context

Despite what they say, Leftists think Romney won too, Twitchy has some of the death threats the tolerant Leftists Tweeted last night. And yes, some of the miscreants are still talking riots!

If those threatened riots happen, maybe we should blame Ohio, which Ace says is a state that Team Obama is fretting over

Via Instapundit, Obama’s firewall may be on fire.

[E]ven if Obama loses Ohio, his campaign sees another pathway to the presidency by nailing New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada and Colorado.

The first rule of Losing Ohio Club is you don’t talk about Losing Ohio Club.

By the way, it will be very hard for Obama to win three of those states (NH, IA, and CO). Colorado, especially, leans to Romney now.

The others are tossups… for now.

Why would Obama be talking about alternate routes to victory not including Ohio?

Obviously, I think, they don’t think Ohio is safe. And to talk about losing it… I think they think they’re behind.

And then there is North Carolina, which Team Obama might have given up on already

No debate coverage would be complete without checking in with The Other McCain who sums up how we all feel

Thank God, tonight’s debate is the last of this presidential campaign. Republicans endured 20 debates during the primary campaign, and we’re ready to stop debating and start stabbing out Chris Matthews’ eyeballs with sharp sticks voting.

Any way you slice it, Team Obama is deeply worried, and it is showing. Donald Douglas makes an important point about that here

That’s why Mitt Romney killed this debate. He’s optimistic and looking toward the future. He affirms America’s greatness, with no apologies. He’s hopeful and not stuck on bemoaning the “policies that got us into to this mess in the first place,” like a bleedin’ crybaby, unable to lead. Romney’s championing the policies that will get us out of it. The election can’t come to soon. The American people are going to send O on a long golfing retirement.

I have made the point in the past that Conservatives are far more optimistic than Liberals. And it shows on Obama’s face and rings out in his rhetoric, oh, yes, it shows in polls too and face it, when Obama loses Rob Schneider….. And Obama makes gaffes about bayonets… You see Mr. President, there these soldiers called Marines, and they use these things called bayonets

Last night Barack Obama mocked the use of horses and bayonets in the military.

Today Bayonet Inc. told Obama to “get educated.”
TMZ reported:

TMZ spoke with multiple people in the bayonet industry who tell us they were shocked and even offended when Obama brought up the weapon during last night’s debate.

According to the official U.S. Marine Corps website, every Marine is STILL required to complete a bayonet training program … because “the weapon becomes just as effective [as a rifle] in close combat situations.”

We spoke with Dan Riker from Bayonet Inc. — a leading military surplus outlet that specializes in bayonets — who tells us he believes Obama’s comment was “ignorant … because our soldiers still use bayonets.”

He adds, “[Bayonets] are still distributed to the military all the time — he should get educated on it.”

OUCH! The biggest problem for Obama? He lies I will give Chris at Wyblog the last word

 

Halfway through last night’s debate I thought to myself, “I’m missing Monday Night Football for this?“

 

Is free speech doomed?

Political correctness has been used for decades now to silence the Right. The Left does not believe in freedom, unless it is closely regulated by the State. Donald Douglas has a link to a piece on the possible death of freedom of speech

From Jonathan Turley, at the Washington Post, “Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech” (viaInstapundit):

Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.

In the face of the violence that frequently results from anti-religious expression, some world leaders seem to be losing their patience with free speech. After a video called “Innocence of Muslims” appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in several Muslim nations last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”

It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, “Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.”

A willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government. In February, for instance, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin heard a case in which a Muslim man was charged with attacking an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as a “zombie Muhammed.” Martin castigated not the defendant but the victim, Ernie Perce, lecturing him that “our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures — which is what you did.”

Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values.

This was evident in recent days when courts in Washington and New York ruled that transit authorities could not prevent or delay the posting of a controversial ad that says: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”

When U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the government could not bar the ad simply because it could upset some Metro riders, the ruling prompted calls for new limits on such speech. And in New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority responded by unanimously passing a new regulation banning any message that it considers likely to “incite” others or cause some “other immediate breach of the peace.”

The Left, and Islamists, in fact all dictatorial mindsets seek to control freedom, starting with freedom of expression. They will use intimidation, threats, and yes, they will cloak their desire to subjugate in nice words like sensitivity, inclusion, or tolerance, but their end goal is control. Those of us who love, and practice freedom of speech have the ultimate stake in never allowing our freedom to be curtailed.

 

Barack Obama running for president, truth hardest hit

 

Even the Washington Post is sick of Obama’s lies

Via WaPo:

Now Governor Romney believes that with even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy, and fewer regulations on Wall Street, all of us will prosper. In other words, he’d double down on the same trickle-down policies that led to the crisis in the first place.”

— President Obama, in a new two-minute television ad released Sept. 27, 2012 [...]

The Pinocchio Test

It is time for the Obama campaign to retire this talking point, no matter how much it seems to resonate with voters. The financial crisis of 2008 stemmed from a variety of complex factors, in particular the bubble in housing prices and the rise of exotic financial instruments. Deregulation was certainly an important factor, but as the government commission concluded, the blame for that lies across administrations, not just in the last Republican one.

In any case, the Bush tax cuts belong at the bottom of the list — if at all. Moreover, it is rather strange for the campaign to cite as its source an article that, according to the author, does not support this assertion.

We nearly made this Four Pinocchios but ultimately decided that citing deregulation in conjunction with tax cuts kept this line out of the “whopper” category. Still, in his effort to portray Romney as an echo of Bush, the president really stretches the limits here.

As any honest person knows, revenue to the Treasury rose, increased, went up, after the evil Bush tax cuts. Those cuts were NEVER the problem, TOO MUCH SPENDING WAS, and IS, the reason for our huge deficit. Yet, lying weasels er Democrats NEVER EVER seriously talk about cutting spending, they only cry for more revenues. Not that Republicans have been much better mind you. But our deficit is caused by overspending, PERIOD!

 

New Study: No Proof of a link between Climate Change and Severe Weather

 

Alternate headline? Severe weather not caused by climate change, Al Gore hardest hit. William Teach has the scoop

(Washington Post) The study (abstract): “Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of Knowledge”, to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, states its objective plainly:

Due to the intense media coverage of and great public interest in the 2011 disasters, we suspect that many [meteorologists] have received inquiries or have a personal interest about the nature of these events in the context of long-term trends and potential climate change. This paper is meant to present a clear record that can be used by meteorological professionals about what is known and unknown and why.

What’d they find out?Summary: Good long-term records of thunderstorms don’t exist and there’s no clear physical reason why to expect they would have changed.

Summary: Records of past tropical storm and hurricane activity are likely incomplete. While the frequency of Atlantic storms has increased since 1970 when observations have been more reliable, the cause of this uptick is not agreed upon.

Summary: There’s indication big snowstorms have increased over the last 60 years but no clear explanation for the change. The increase in big snowstorms has occurred even while the number of years with very little snow has stayed the same or increased. And there’s no evidence of meaningful changes in ice storms.

Summary: Reliable data indicate heavy precipitation events are increasing and rising amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to human-caused warming offer a good, but not necessarily complete, explanation.

But, the Warmists will still tell us that the science is settled

 

When President Obama loses the Washington Post…..

You know it is bad. BC has details

It looks like even the liberal press has discovered that manchurian moron is a slow-witted teleprompter reading embarrassment.

They even bother lipsticking up their title.

The Washington Post) If you are president of the United States and you don’t have anything to say, don’t have a press conference to say it. If you’re the president of the United States and by Thursday it’s widely believed you’ve had one of the worst weeks of your presidency, take Friday off, and specifically avoid having a press conference.

Anytime you are president and you’re speaking in public at an ill-timed press conference after a bad week, try to have something to say, and do a good job in saying it. I watched the whole thing, but it’s not easy to think of one useful thing that he had to say. And what he said, he said very poorly. Was it just me, or did the president seem a little dazed and confused? He should have had a cup of coffee before the press conference.

And one more thing that’s a pet peeve. The president says “uhhh” too much. When I was a cable television news extra during the ‘90s and early 2000s, you learn early to purge your presentation of “uhhh.” Saying “uhhh” suggests uncertainty and is distracting. (And in my case, when it was accompanied by a Southern accent, it was even worse.) I don’t know what the president had in mind, but his own meandering, stuttering performance could not have done him any good with any audience. What was he, uhhh, thinking?

Read the rest here

Washington Post and their RAAAAACIST fact-checking RAAAAACISM

Via Weasel Zippers To be clear, I have not heard anyone accuse WaPo of racism, yet, but, if they keep challenging the president, well, you know………..

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama — WaPo 

I am sooo tired of lying for a living

“I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out; do not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness.” — White House spokesman Jay Carney,remarks to the press gaggle, May 23, 2012

The spokesman’s words caught our attention because here at The Fact Checker we try to root out “BS” wherever it occurs.

Carney made his comments while berating reporters for not realizing that “the rate of spending — federal spending — increase is lower under President Obama than all of his predecessors since Dwight Eisenhower, including all of his Republican predecessors.” He cited as his source an article by Rex Nutting, of MarketWatch, titled, “Obama spending binge never happened,” which has been the subject of lots of buzz in the liberal blogosphere.

But we are talking about the federal budget here. That means lots of numbers — numbers that are easily manipulated. Let’s take a look.

The Facts
First of all, there are a few methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis — especially the beginning and the end point.

Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

Carney suggested the media were guilty of “sloth and laziness,” but he might do better next time than cite an article he plucked off the Web, no matter how much it might advance his political interests. The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House.

The fact is that the Post did their job here, and proved that Obama IS spending more, and has proposed even more spending than he is getting

The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.

 So this is what we end up with:

2008:  $2.98 trillion

2009:  $3.27 trillion

2010:  $3.46 trillion

2011: $3.60 trillion

2012: $3.65 trillion

2013:  $3.72 trillion

 Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent.  Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)

Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:

2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)

2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)

2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

 So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.

I found it tough to believe that this president would even attempt to make the case that he is cutting spending. Of course, considering how he has claimed to be creating jobs, well, let’s just say President Obama must have a bad case of TDD (Truth Deficit Disorder)

How bad is Obama’s record on job creation?

It is so bad that the Washington Post says it is awful! Via William Teach

Someone at the Washington Post will surely have received a phone call from the White House today to have a conversation with Josh Hicks, who compares and contrasts the economic records of George Bush and Barack H. Obama (I added the H because it’s raaaaacist): Obama’s remarks on worst job growth: Did he end it or should he own it?. Josh spends quite a bit of time going through numbers and such, and finally concludes

There’s no doubt that Bush owns an unimpressive record on job creation. But Obama comes in either last, second-to-last or in the bottom half among presidents since the Great Depression, depending on which way you look at the numbers.

The president said that policies from 2000 through 2008 produced the “most sluggish job growth we’ve ever seen.” Perhaps so, but the worst numbers on record occurred under his watch.

Obama chose a poor metric for measuring past administrations. To make his point with jobs data, he has to point to his own numbers and completely disavow much of them, or else ignore public-sector losses. We came close to thinking this was worth Three Pinocchios, but ultimately decided he was not necessarily including his record in the statement. Still, it’s a very fine line. The president should be much more careful about making such a sweeping claim.

This is, of course why Team Obama is focusing on anything except the economy. Oh, and about those lobbyists President Obama vowed NOT TO HAVE in the White House….

The Washington Post calls our attention to the number of lobbyists who visit the White House, despite the promise of President Obama to reduced the influence of lobbyists on his administration. In all fairness, it’s mostly Democrat lobbyists and those with close ties to Obama and his buddies that are granted access, so not all lobbyists have influence.

Before 9 a.m., a group of lobbyists began showing up at the White House security gates with the chief executives of their companies, all of whom serve on President Obama’s jobs council, to be checked in for a roundtable with the president.

At 1 p.m., a dozen representatives from the meat industry arrived for a briefing in the New Executive Office Building. At 3 p.m., a handful of lobbyists were lining up for a ceremony honoring the 2011 World Series champions, the St. Louis Cardinals.

And at 4 p.m., a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs arrived in the Old Executive Office Building for a meeting with Alan B. Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

It was an unremarkable January day, with a steady stream of lobbyists among the thousands of daily visitors to the White House and the surrounding executive office buildings, according to a Washington Post analysis of visitor logs released by the administration. The Post matched visits with lobbying registrations and connected records in the visitor database to show who participated in the meetings, information now available in a search engine on the Post’s web site.

The visitor logs for Jan. 17 — one of the most recent days available — show that the lobbying industry Obama has vowed to constrain is a regular presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The records also suggest that lobbyists with personal connections to the White House enjoy the easiest access. (Read More

Darn, this seems to be politics as usual, another thing Obama vowed to end

What is the difference between Swiss Cheese and the Washington Post 5,000 word hit piece on Mitt Romney?

Lots more holes in the Post piece! Stacy McCain has LOTS more. Some GREAT aggregating going on at The Other McCain

Three recent headlines in the URGENT BREAKING SCANDAL:

Source for WaPo’s Romney hit piece:
Actually, I wasn’t present during the prank
– Hot Air

Sister of Alleged Romney Target Has
‘No Knowledge’ of Any Bullying Incident
– ABC News

A question emerges in reading
the Washington Post piece … 
– Daily Caller

Of course, this URGENT BREAKING SCANDAL involves incidents that allegedly happened nearly half a century ago, so those sneaky Republicans have a had a long time to cover it up.

Certainly the latter-day Woodwards and Bernsteins at the Washington Post will have their work cut out for them.

UPDATE: When I say they “have their work cut out for them,” I mean they’re already trying to change their story as it falls apart.

The changes have been noted by so-called “bloggers” like Brian Cates:

Washington Post Caught
Making Sh!t Up Again

Of course, there are no so-called “bloggers” on the Pulitzer Prize committee, which is composed entirely of respected professional journalists like Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Dan Rather . . .

UPDATE II: Dana Loesch wonders why the Washington Post didn’t alert its readers to the changes in its 5,000-word investigative report.Probably because of budget constraints:

The Washington Post Co. reported its first-quarter earnings on Friday, and the news coming out of the newspaper division was mostly grim. The unit lost $22.6 million in the quarter, with revenue down 8% and revenue from print advertising specifically falling 17%.  . . .
[T]he paper has lost top talent lately, including James Grimaldi, who took a buyout and is heading to The Wall Street Journal. With his departure, the Post will have lost all three reporters who won its 2006 Pulitzer for their coverage of the Jack Abramoff scandal. The paper also shut out of the 2012 Pulitzers and weathered a blogger embarrassment that revealed its BlogPost operation to be a mini sweatshop.

The Washington Post can afford to assign a reporter to do a 5,000-word investigative report on a Republican’s high-school activities, but they can’t afford to let their readers know that they’re “making sh!t up” again. Because credibility is kinda expensive . . .

UPDATE III: Reading Ben Shapiro’s examination of the Washington Post story, my brain exploded when this part sunk in:

Sometime in the mid-1990s, David Seed noticed a familiar face at the end of a bar at Chicago O’Hare International Airport.
“Hey, you’re John Lauber,” Seed recalled saying at the start of a brief conversation. Seed, also among those who witnessed the Romney-led incident, had gone on to a career as a teacher and principal. Now he had something to get off his chest.
“I’m sorry that I didn’t do more to help in the situation,” he said.
Lauber paused, then responded, “It was horrible.” He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, “It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”
Lauber died in 2004, according to his three sisters.

FIRING OFFENSE, period.

By God, you can’t do that in journalism: You cannot base a key element of a story — in this case, the claim that Romney’s bullying left Lauber emotionally traumatized for life — on a quote from the deceased “victim” attributed to him based on an (alleged) private conversation. Lauber isn’t around to verify or dispute the accuracy of Seed’s account, and therefore it is unethical to include the “quotes” that Seed attributes to Lauber.

LOTS, LOTS, LOTS more on this over at Mr. McCain’s blog. Apparently even Morning Joe is skeptical over the timing of this hatchet job, and Jason Horowitz unemployment is paging you

• Pirate’s Cove: Family Of Romney Prank Target Not Real Happy With Washington Post
• The Rio Norte Line: Confirmation – The Washington Post Has No Shame
• Andrew J. Patrick: Mitt Romney’s Bully Story Comes Apart Like Cheap Taffy

Da Tech Guy senses a purposeful distraction. Bryan Preston at PJMediadoesn’t believe the timing of the WaPo article was entirely coincidental:

Horowitz has some explaining to do, and so do his editors. Did he fabricate any part of the story and implant it with Mitt’s school friends? Did he work on the timing of the story’s release with anyone in the Obama campaign?

You can also read what I wrote yesterday

Now, I have no idea as to the veracity of these “witnesses” nor do I have any what actually happened. What I do know, however, is that you have a media that is in the tank for Obama, running a story of massive size, over a high school prank? And one, it must be noted again, that fits in absolutely perfectly with the bullying/Gay marriage stories currently making headlines.

Not to be brash, but it seems pretty obvious that the Post ran this story when they did to hurt Romney, and help Obama. They were sitting on this, until the “right time”.

Ed had more today on the non-story story

Just think what The Washington Post could find if they actually vetted Obama’s past?

Of course, that would be silly. Why would a newspaper ever take a good long look at a president, or a presidential candidate anyway? Unless that candidate was Mitt Romney of course. And what dirt has the post dug up? What heinous crimes did Mitt commit? Did he attend a radical, racist church with a crackpot reverend for nearly 20 years? Did he have close ties with unrepentent terrorists? No, nothing unimportant like that. No, according to Stacy McCain, Romney might have been involved in some really dire stuff. Something like Watergate, but more hairy . We will call this scissorgate!

John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

If this did happen, like it was described, then it was not a nice thing to do, but, something stinks here, and Stacy McCain, who knows the newspaper business sheds some light on this.

UPDATE: Question the timing, you say?

Funny how this appears one day after Obama’s forced-by-my-daughters’-emotions evolutionary announcement of support for same-sex “marriage.”

A Shermanesque statement from Professor Jacobson:

I once participated in a group which gave someone a wedgie when I was at summer camp in the 1960s. That’s why I’ll never run for President, my record is stained.

Dang it — another possible GOP contender fails the media vetting. At this rate, I’ll never get that ambassadorship to Vanuatu.

UPDATE II: These paranoid conspiracy theorists are everywhere!

Some critics saw the timing as evidence of media bias, suggesting that the motive had to do with making Romney look intolerant just as Obama had voiced his support for same-sex marriage.
Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, interviewing Romney on his radio show a few hours after the story landed online, said that since “everyone’s talking about same-sex marriage and tolerance and unions and what do you stand for, it’s amazing the timing of this Washington Post story … would seem to me it was somewhere shrink-wrapped, waiting to be unwrapped at the right time and this was the right time.”

Indeed. To report a story like that — to track down and interview somebody’s high-school classmates from a half-century ago — must have taken many weeks, if not months. The writing and editing of a 5,000-word story is not easy work. If you cranked out a thousand words a day (quite a rigorous pace, for original reporting), that’s a full week just to write the story, once you’d done all the interviews.

So, yeah, maybe they had it “shrink-wrapped,” ready to go.

Yes, McCain points out how much work goes into a 5,000 word report like this one. And look how it does tie in just perfectly with Obama’s “evolution”. Ah, but, 5,000 words is a lot to commit to a story that happened nearly 50 years ago. And perhaps the Post made some factual errors?

In a feature article published this morning, theWashington Post wrote the following about Stu White, a high school friend and classmate of Mitt Romney’s, in reference to an alleged 1965 bullying incident involving of a fellow classmate: [emphasis added]

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and has long been bothered by the Lauber incident.

Today, however, in an interview with ABC News, the same Stu White completely contradicts the Washington Post story:

While the Post reports White as having “long been bothered” by the haircutting incident,” he told ABC News he was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.

Because Mr. White had not been aware of the incident until this year, it was inaccurate and misleading for the Washington Post to report he had “long been bothered” by the incident

Now, I have no idea as to the veracity of these “witnesses” nor do I have any what actually happened. What I do know, however, is that you have a media that is in the tank for Obama, running a story of massive size, over a high school prank? And one, it must be noted again, that fits in absolutely perfectly with the bullying/Gay marriage stories currently making headlines.

Is Barack Obama related to Neville Chamberlain?

William Teach wants to know, because it does seem that Obama is setting up a “peace in our time” moment!

The man is desperate to get some sort of political win in Afghanistan. Either that or he simply doesn’t understand, or care, that the Taliban is a hard core Islamist group bent on killing the infidel.

(Washington Post) The United States has for several years been secretly releasing high-level detainees from a military prison in Afghanistan as part of negotiations with insurgent groups, a bold effort to quell violence but one that U.S. officials acknowledge poses substantial risks.

No, the Obama admin has been releasing these people who are pretty anti-women.

But the releases are an inherent gamble: The freed detainees are often notorious fighters who would not be released under the traditional legal system for military prisoners in Afghanistan. They must promise to give up violence —and U.S. officials warn them that if they are caught attacking American troops, they will be detained once again.

Egads! How can he be this naive? And what type of warning is that? Teach gives us a great analogy

That reminds me of an old Robin Williams joke about British police carrying no guns, just nightsticks “Stop! Or I’ll yell stop again.” But, I’m sure the little Taliban darlings will simply give up there life of violence in the name of Allah and Mohammed and play with pretty unicorns they were given on release.

Oh but of course they will. Obama will just fill them up with Hope and Change………Good Freaking Grief!

I think we have another Marxist Moron on our hands

Via Weasel Zippers comes the story of Gary Trudeau, a man so stupid, that he cannot tell the difference between a sonogram, and rape! Via Weasel Zippers

(CNSNews.com) — In an interview published by The Washington Post on Friday, cartoonist Garry Trudeau, creator of “Doonesbury,” likened the pre-abortion sonogram required by a new Texas law to rape.

“You tell me the difference,” Trudeau said.

The Texas law, signed by Gov. Rick Perry, requires that abortionists administer a sonogram to a pregnant woman 24 hours before aborting her baby.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the law in January, describing its requirements as follows: “The amendments require the physician ‘who is to perform an abortion’ to perform and display a sonogram of the fetus, make audible the heart auscultation of the fetus for the woman to hear, and explain to her the results of each procedure and to wait 24 hours, in most cases, between these disclosures and performing the abortion. A woman may decline to view the images or hear the heartbeat, but she may decline to receive an explanation of the sonogram images only on certification that her pregnancy falls into one of three statutory exceptions.”

The court said that under the law “the physician’s unconditional obligations are merely to display images so they may be viewed, to provide an understandable explanation, and to make audible the auscultation.” The law, the court said, “specifically does not require the physician to ensure the woman views the images, that she understands the explanation, or that she listens to the auscultation.”

This is what happens when the weak-minded listen to Leftist rhetoric. The Left has been comparing this law, and the sonograms it mandates, to rape. It, of course, an argument so inane and devoid of any reason that anyone who has a brain, and uses it, would be stunned that Democrats would stoop so low. Trudeau, obviously, uses his emotions rather than his brain.

He hears an allegation. An allegation that is ludicrous, and that should set off the BS meter. But his emotions take over, causing his brain to shut down anything even approaching critical thought. Sadly many people “think” like Trudeau does. In other words they go not think, they react.

If you think you are getting a Green screwing at the gas pumps…………

Just wait til you see where the CommGreenunists plan on putting the new $50 light bulbs! Just try to relax now

…so-called “green” light bulbs cost $50 each… And they’re government subsidized!
The Washington Post reported:

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award…for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs…at prices “affordable for American families.”…

Now the winning bulb is on the market.

The price is $50.

Well, I think that the sale of Obamaline is going to go up!

Use Liberally to ease the pain of Obamanomics!