Aren't You Sick?

Aren’t you sick?

Aren’t you sick and tired of those on the liberal left who can’t debate the facts, but they can:

1)      Slander.  “They’re all RAAAAACIST!”  Don’t like Mr Obama’s policies?  “RAAAAAACIST!” 

2)      Demagogue.  Apparently, our hearts are “full of hate.”

3)      Call names & belittle.  “R U insane?  Methinks so.”

4)      Pull out the “emotional” card.  “Don’t you care?!?”  Or, “But what about me?”

I’ll be the first to admit that there are also those on the right who cannot or will not listen to other viewpoints.  We’re “wrong” if we disagree with them.  Point out the facts and you’re “looking for trouble.”  It is these people … on both sides of the aisle ... that are part of the problem.

If you wish to debate me, that’s great!  I welcome debate.  Notice please that I said “debate.”  The instant either one of us picks up any of those cards, we’ll have shown ourselves to be part of the problem.  And if you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you’ll know that I pride myself on being part of the solution.

It’s actually quite sad in that in only fifty short years we’ve gone from “Ask not what your Country can do for you; ask what you can do for your Country,” to ObamaPhone Woman.  And it’s not just her.  Several investigative reports by several local affiliates suggests that 10% (1 out of every 10) of people with these “free” phones have not just one such device.  And not just two … but three such devices.  One woman had six … in her purse. (*4)  The FCC found that as of the production of the article, it was 250,000 people who had more than one such phone.

Guess who’s paying for those “free” phones?  You ask those that have them and you’ll be told “the government” is paying for them or that Obama is.  But where do they get the money? (*4)  Take a look at your cell bill and you’ll find the “Universal Service Fund,” and/or the “Universal Access Fee.”  That’s right … you are.

A quick note here;  these monies were originally levied by President Clinton.  The idea was that the funds were to be used for landlines and for 911 systems.  President Bush (the younger … Shrub) expanded the program to cell phones and the amount of people receiving them increased.  But it has exploded under Obama.  Feel free to look it up … Google really is your friend.  (At least for this … please don’t get me started about some of their very public snafus.)

These, of course, are the same people who can’t be bothered to read any opposing viewpoint.  Try to tell them that the Federal government is considering taking all monies out of individual 401(k) and replacing them with annuities … and they’ll say that’s not true.  Tell them it is true and point them to the articles about it, and they don’t want to see it.  (*1)

Forgive me for being dense, but part of being informed means being willing to listen to both sides of the debate.  And this is where the utter hypocrisy of the left reeks.  Try to point out the numerous things we’ve said about the healthcare law and … boy, do they have lots to say about that!

Most of them are wrong, but they still have lots to say about it!  Remember when Ms Palin was excoriated for saying that there would be “death panels?”  Well … there’s a New York Times Op-Ed that says we need such panels! (*2)

Remember when some were saying that such panels could be coming for infants?  Well … (*3)  Those are the facts.  Care to dispute them?

I was part of the problem … and I freely admit it. (*5)   I’m not proud that I was once part of the problem.  But I have since worked to become part of the solution. 

(*1) -  http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm

(*2) - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0

(*3) - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

(*4) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAjAvxDkfk

(*5) - http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2012/06/i-was-part-of-problem.html

Arpaio: "It's A Fake!"

The link(s) : http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/

- and - http://news.yahoo.com/arpaio-obama-birth-record-definitely-fraudulent-010211250.html?_esi=1

" Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent' " (emphasis, bold, and colour added.)

Now to my sister, this is "RAAAAAAACIST."  But I would remind her that there is currently a $50,000 'prize' to anybody who can provide absolute proof that Obama was definitely born in the US.  The "long form" birth certificate was just shown, according to Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse, to be "definitely fraudulent." 

And I've always loved that line since I saw in in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.  It was when the Romulan Senator Vreenak held up that data rod in his right hand.  "It's a Fake!"  I've always wanted to use that line. :)

But it's too bad that it had to be used here. 

So, to my sister and all the liberals who are shouting "no," I have a very simple question.  PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:  It is just barely possible that Sheriff Arpaio is right and that Mr Obama is not a natural-born Citizen?  Is it just barely possible?

Be very careful with your answer, and consider carefully the evidence.  You and I both know that had there been this many questions and this much evidence about a Republican Presidential hopeful, the mainstream media would be all over it (and RIGHTLY SO!) and demanding answers.

Now how about it?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio To Hold News Conference.17-JUL

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the "America's toughest sheriff," will be holding a news conference on 17-JUL-2012 at 14:30hrs (2:30pm) MOUNTAIN TIME (16:30hrs or 4:30pm Eastern.)

The Sheriff will be discussing information his cold-case posse gathered. 

I wonder if it's going to discuss the CT person's Social Security Number that Obama's supposedly been using.

MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN of course, all can't wait to miss it.

Paid to Protest? Paid to Heckle? Apparently.

Paid to Protest?  Paid to Heckle?  Apparently.

The link:  http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/anti-romney-protesters-say-theyre-paid-to-heckle

“ DeWitt, Mich. — The protesters popping up at Mitt Romney's rallies throughout Michigan Tuesday look like run-of-the-mill grassroots liberals — they wave signs about "the 99 percent," they chant about the Republican's greed, and they describe themselves as a loosely organized coalition of "concerned citizens."

“ They're also getting paid, two of the protesters and an Obama campaign official told BuzzFeed. “

Yes, those Democrats who consistently accused the Tea Party Protests as being “astroturfed” are very oddly mute right now. 

To be fair, the Obama campaign has quickly distanced itself from this event.  But in my opinion, they need to denounce it.  Here we have a clear example of astroturfing … yet another example of hypocrisy … as if we needed it.  These are the same people who remained silent when “Ellie Light” was running around and praising Obama. 

We don’t need astroturfing … on either side of the aisle.

Obama Plays Golf for 100th Time, but Isn't "Out of Touch?"

The link:  http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/13/flashback-axelrod-called-bush-%E2%80%98out-of-touch%E2%80%99-for-playing-golf-in-bad-economy/

" Video from 1994 has surfaced of David Axelrod, President Obama’s chief campaign strategist, calling former President George H.W. Bush “out of touch” for “tastelessly” playing golf while trying to convince voters that the economy is improving.

“Bush tastelessly did it, often from the ninth hole, and from the cigar boat and other places,” Axelrod said.

" Added the adviser: “The impression you got was that he was out of touch.” "

But Obama apparently isn't?  Obama's played more golf in not yet 4 years than Shrub played in his entire 8. 

Yet another 'do as I say, not as I do.'  Tell me libs, how many more examples of hypocrisy is it going to take before you get your heads out of Obama's a$$? 

The Constitution exists for a reason.  Our Founding Fathers wrote it the way they did (checks & balances, three separate but equal branches of government) for a reason, so that no one person (or branch of government) could usurp power over the others.

Apparently, Obama bin Largess has decided that the Constitution doesn't apply to him.  Apparently, he doesn't give a damn about what the Constitution says and apparently, he's going to decide what laws to enforce and which ones to throw out.  But that is not what the Constitution says!  As President, Mr Largess took an oath to 'preserve, protect, and defend' the Constitution.  He didn't take an oath to 'enforce only those laws that I agree with or those that will get me votes.' 

If Obama bin Largess had any sense of honour, he would immediately resign the office of President (and take that perjurer Eric Holder with him) OR commit seppuku. 

Of course, Mr Obama doesn't have any honour.  And that's sad.

An Inconvenient Truth (with apologies to the Goracle)

An Inconvenient Truth (with apologies to the Goracle)

Until the death of Edward Moore “Ted” Kennedy on 25-AUG-2009 (may he rest in peace) the Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority.  They had both houses of Congress, the House and the Senate.  They had the Executive branch as well (ie; the President who has campaigned, played golf, took vacations, played more golf, took more vacations, squandered our money on ‘green energy’ fiascos such as Solyndra(*) (and, as it turns out 11 others!!!) (oh, and Standard and Poors gave Beacon Power (another green energy company) a CCC+ rating, which is a bad junk bond that has a 70% chance of failure.))

But the point is that during the time that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority they could have pushed this amnesty through with no Republican ‘obstruction.’  They had the votes to push through anything they wanted and the Republicans couldn’t have stopped them. 

So why wait till now if it was so important that it couldn’t wait?

VOTES.  President Obama knows that this election is going to be very very difficult.  He can’t run on his record, so he needs to buy every vote he can … just like he bought ObamaCare(*2).  You only have to look at the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and Handout Montana.  Take your ObamaGlasses off and you’ll see much better. 

Rush Limbaugh called it "Catch, Release, Vote."  And it's what it is.

(*) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_bQgFBDZjo (This is a link to a CBS News video)

(*2) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bSXXPtCEL4&feature=related

Article: "President Obama's top 10 Constitutional Violations"

The link:  http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/

A quick caveat:  This was written in 2011 and does not include Mr Obama's recent amnesty announcement.

Obama Violates Constitution: Does End-Run Around Congress

The link:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/15/msnbc_guest_would_a_white_president_get_heckled.html

Yes, have you forgotten Mr Bush (the Elder) and Mr Bush (Shrub) getting heckled?!?  Just how damned delusional are you people?  Here’s the ‘heckling’:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/15/reporter_shouts_at_obama_during_immigration_speech.html

Didn’t Obama say just last year that he didn’t have the authority to do what he just did?!? 

This was done for political purposes, make no mistake about it.  He needs those votes, and he doesn't give a damn about anything else.

This isn’t about not caring, it’s about the law.  It’s about the three separate but equal branches of government. 

The President, no matter which colour, MSNBC, does not have the legal right under the Constitution to do what Mr Obama just did. 

Mr Obama knows what the Constitution says; he just doesn’t give a damn.

I Was Part of the Problem

Part of the problem.

For a long time, I was part of the problem.  I was willing to trust our government, no matter what.  I would not criticize Republicans, no matter what.  That began to change during the years of the older President Bush because I saw some things that he was doing that I wasn’t happy about.  Although, to be honest, I did vote for him when he lost to President Clinton.  I had to hold my nose to do it, but I did vote for him over Mr Clinton. 

Then we got a choice between Bob Dole(?!?) and Bill Clinton.  Because I knew what Clinton was, I held my nose (and put on nose plugs) and voted for Dole.  But Dole?!?  Whose brilliant idea was he?!?  It’s since been confirmed that it was “his turn.”  Isn’t that nice.  It’s not what’s best for the Country, it’s about whose turn it is. 

Then it was Mr Bush (the younger, aka “shrub”) against Al Gore in the first race (and contrary to what many Democrats believe, he did not invent the Internet,) and then John “F-cking” Kerry in the second race.  (And while the Democrats excoriate Mr Romney for building his own wealth, Mr Kerry married into his.)  Again, I held my nose and voted for Shrub.

And then I saw what he was doing and then spoke out against him, vocally.  That completed my transformation from part of the problem to part of the solution.  Yes, I did vote for Shrub twice, and I regretted it the second time around.  But I did something that far too many people, on both sides of the aisle, have been unwilling to do:  I spoke out against him.

Enter the 2008 election, where it was Mr Obama against Mr McCain (or as I referred to him, Juan McAmnesty.)  Although I did speak out against Mr Obama far more than Mr McAmnesty, I also spoke out against him.  That particular election was, for me, about the lesser of two evils.  The main stream media, in my opinion, bent over backwards to get Mr Obama elected.  The media and Mr Obama’s handlers crafted this image of a super-human coming to save us from the evils of Shrub. 

Don’t get me wrong; although I did vote for him the second time around I regretted it.  But in the 2008 election it really was the lesser of two evils.  Mr Obama is, I believe, a socialist.  Mr McCain was an open-borders zealot.  Never the less, I knew what would happen if Mr Obama got into office. 

During his time in office, I’ve been writing to politicians of both sides of the aisle, criticizing them both for things I believe them to be doing wrong.

I took issue with the Republican National Committee, I took issue with Speaker Boehner, I took issue with Kris Jordan, whom I wrote about favourably on my blog.  Mr Jordan, in his personal email to me, corrected a mistake I had made.  I haven’t heard back from the Speaker or from the RNC.  Although, I’ve no doubt I’ve made numerous enemies. 

That, however, isn’t the point.  The point is that I’m willing to criticize my own party for things I believe them to be doing wrong.

There are far too many people, on both sides of the aisle, who are unwilling to criticize their own party or their own candidate. 

Many Democrats will vote for Mr Obama this coming election no matter what.  He could rip off a human disguise and show himself to be a space alien, and they’d still vote for him. 

Many of his policies are running our Republic into the ground and they’re still going to vote for him.  The main stream media (see my previous posting) are again going to bend over backwards and insist that GOP Governors give Mr Obama credit, even when it might not be due. 

But that also brings up another part of the problem; the main stream media.

Many people, myself included, laughed at Shrub’s inability to say ‘nuclear.’  I myself laughed when he walked into the wall in China.  It really wasn’t a shining moment for him!  His stumbles and gaffes have become the butt of numerous jokes.  And, he deserved them. 

But let’s contrast that with Mr Obama’s saying that the March to Selma in 1965 was responsible for his parents getting together?!?(*) There’s just one slight problem; the March was in 1965.  Barack Obama, by all accounts, was born in 1961. 

Let’s remember that he himself said he’d campaigned in 57 states, and then identified the city of Eau Claire as the “state of” Eau Claire.(*2)  Had it been an African-American Republican saying that, the press would be all over it.  For Obama, yet another pass?

Then it was Abraham Lincoln who built the intercontinental railroad, according to Mr Obama.(*3)  Again, there’s just one slight problem.  An intercontinental railroad goes between continents.  Mayhaps he meant the trans-continental railroad?

That is the point:  Part of the problem, or part of the solution?

If you’re going to mention the gaffes on the right, you’ve also got to mention those on the left.

(*) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KC7CF5B9E

(*2) – http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2012/04/credit-where-its-due-obama-was-right.html

(*3) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYdqIQqU7Fc

OUCH! Juan Williams mocks Obama ad!

The link:  http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/06/lol-juan-williams-amused-by-anna-wintours-come-to-dinner-ad/

(H/T:  Michelle Malkin)

Opinion: President Obama is part of the problem.

You read (or heard) it here first!  At least, I hope. 
But remember when Mr Obama said he wasn't going to spike the football and show photos of the corpse (Not Corpseman, Mr Obama - corpse.  ) of bin Laden? 

And then he politicized it - you could say he spiked the football.  Even Arianna Huffington (yes, that one) was none too pleased with Mr Obama about it! 

The link:  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/democratic-columnist-discusses-report-of-desperate-obamas-enemy-list-of-wealthy-romney-donors/

There's a reason I chose that link:  it also contains the link to Mr Obama's "enemies" list a la Richard "I am NOT a crook" Nixon.

You can imagine the reason that I've bound three different things together here.  First, consider each of these items on its own merits and consider it from a liberal viewpoint.

First, we've known for some time (and I've written about it before) that Mr Obama's campaign has put out a list of people whose only 'crime' was to donate money to Mr Romney's campaign coffers.  Let's play pretend and pretend for the moment that it was Mr Romney's campaign doing this classless and dishonourable thing.  The liberal media and the liberals themselves would (rightly!) be all over it.  Why?  Because it would be classless, dishonorable and borderline defamatory.  You simply need to view Mr Obama's "enemies list" to see some of the borderline defamatory statements.  But this is Obama bin Largess 'the Obamessiah,' or 'the anointed one' doing all these things. 

No matter who does it, it's wrong.  But if you're willing to say it's not a problem because it's Obama doing it, you seriously need to realize that you've just shown yourself to be part of the problem.  To get out of this mess, we don't need people to prove that they're part of the problem, they need to be ready to act as (and be!) part of the solution.  And that means willing to criticize both sides of the aisle when they deserve it!

So now we come to Mr Bush's being unable to say "nuclear."  I myself laughed at it.  Why?  Because here's the President of the United States being unable to say a simple word such as "nuclear" correctly!  (As an aside, could you imagine him trying to say 'bovine spongiform encephalopathy?' )  I don't want to be anywhere near President TelePrompTer were he to try to say it!

Mr Obama, however, says (twice) " ... Navy Corpsman ... " with "Corpsman" being pronounced "corpse-man."    Get the idea yet?  Those who were so willing to nail Mr Bush to the wall for his inability to say "nuclear" are oddly mute on Mr Obama's flub of "corpse-man."  Part of the solution or part of the problem?

Thirdly, Obama bin Largess' double-standard and spiking the football by politicizing his decision to get Osama bin Laden.  Even Arianna Huffington is NOT happy about that.  Which, to me, is shocking.  She's a big-time liberal and she's gone off the reservation and is willing to criticize 'the one.'

His making it political is wrong - no matter how you slice it.  Had it been Mr Bush, the liberal media would be all over it.

They too are part of the problem.

And I'm going to add one thing because this too is part of the problem. 

Political author S.E. Cupp wrote a book in 2010 named "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal's Attack on Christianity," and people out there immediately took it to mean that since Ms Cupp is a Conservative author, she was therefore also a Christian.

The liberals, again, have their facts wrong.  According to her Wikipedia article and she herself, she is an atheist.  Although, to be honest and in the interest of full disclosure, she is an atheist who "really aspires to be a person of faith someday."
I would be honoured to be the father of any future children she might wish to have. 

Obama REALLY Needs to Come Clean!

The link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

" In addition, Obama and his handlers have a history of redefining his identity when expedient. In March 2008, for example, he famously declared: "I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother."

" Several weeks later, Obama left Wright's church--and, according to Edward Klein's new biography, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, allegedly attempted to persuade Wright not to "do any more public speaking until after the November [2008] election" (51).

" Obama has been known frequently to fictionalize aspects of his own life. During his 2008 campaign, for instance, Obama claimed that his dying mother had fought with insurance companies over coverage for her cancer treatments. 

" That turned out to be untrue,but Obama has repeated the story--which even the Washington Post called "misleading"--in a campaign video for the 2012 election. " (Bold and colour added.  Links are Breitbart.com's and are left intact.)

So which is it, Mr O Bow Ma?  If you had any honour at all, you'd beg forgiveness from the American Public and then quietly retire from public life, never to be seen in public again (a la Johnny Carson virtually disappearing from public life after leaving The Tonight Show.) 

Of course, the mainstream media won't have a thing to say about this.  I can hear the crickets lining up to chirp now ... and for my sister to say (again) that my heart is filled with hate.

Simply because I question. 

Opinion: A few words for thought...

The link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Nlq80DVpo

Does anybody remember back on 9-NOV-2008, when Valerie Jarrett the Co-Chair of the Obama-Biden transition team said this?

“ However, given the really daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really, ah, take power and begin to rule day one.”

“ … begin to rule … “ ?!? 

Perhaps I’m just dense about this, as the liberals keep telling me, but an elected President does not ‘rule,’ he governs.  There’s an important distinction to be drawn here.  A dictator rules, but somebody who is elected governs.  Back I went to dictionary.com to see what their definition of ‘rule’ is.  And I’ll quote the 5^th definition that they have:  “tenure or conduct of reign or office:  during the rule of George III.” (italicized in article.) 

However, it could be argued that Ms Jarrett meant ‘rule’ as in ‘govern.’

But let’s go further.  Here’s another link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8&feature=related

There’s a lot going on in this clip, so let’s distill it down.  First we learn that, according to the moderator, every time the capital gains tax was increased, revenues from the tax dropped.  While it sounds counter-intuitive, it really isn’t.  It is, however, an ‘inconvenient truth’ that the liberals love to forget.  Every time the capital gains tax was increased, revenues from the tax fell.  Conversely, every time the capital gains tax was lowered, revenues from the tax increased!

But there’s also this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ

And then this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ

" If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to - this is the last stand on Earth. "

And then Mr Reagan said something prophetic.  It was almost as if he were aware of the situation that now faces us.  He said:

" This is the issue of this election; whether we believe in our capacity for self-government, or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. "

And then, most dammingly for Mr Obama and his supporters:  " And among themselves and all of the things I will now quote have appeared in print:  these are not Republican accusations.

" For example, they have voices that say 'The Cold War will end with our acceptance of a not-undemocratic Socialism.'

" Another voice said the profit motive has become out-moded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the Welfare State.

" Or 'Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th Century.

" Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is out-moded.  He referred to the President as our 'moral teacher' and 'our leader.'  And he says he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.  He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best.

" And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as 'meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government. "

When did President Reagan say these things?  27-OCT-1964.

It certainly fits today, doesn't it?

Article: "Commencementgate: Liberals outnumber conservatives 7-1"

The link:  http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/05/commencementgate-liberals-outnumber-conservatives-7-1/613681

FIRST, an important caveat:  the numbers I'm going to be citing came from Young America's Foundation.  Having said that, read on:

" The liberal tilt of America’s top colleges and universities has gone off the charts with the ratio of liberal-to-conservative commencement speakers reaching 7-1, an all-time high, according to a new survey of graduation ceremonies at the top 100 schools. "

Um.  Are you sure there's no liberal bias in the schools, including universities?

" While it’s no surprise that colleges and universities tilt liberal, the numbers have never been so weighted to the left, according to YAF. Their survey reinforces an earlier report which found that liberal professors outnumber conservatives three-to-one, and professors that supported the administration outnumbered foes by a nine-to-one ratio. "

All of these figures should be quite telling. 

Are you sure there's no liberal indoctrination going on?

Opinion: "Obama vandalizes WH presidential biographies"

The link:  http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-vandalizes-wh-presidential-biographies/543386

" Conservatives are having a laugh after it surfaced that the official presidential biographies on the White House website have been updated to inject President Obama into history. But kidding aside, this is a truly disgraceful behavior. " (emphasis added)

But the writer wasn't done!  I'm actually in shock about this.  It's been my opinion that Obama is a megalomaniac, but to see this clear of an example.  I'm actually floored!

" Obama should get beyond his own narcissism and realize that, win or lose in November, he's just a temporary part of something that's bigger than himself. "

Wow.  DHS and Ms Clownitano (and you Mr Holder) obviously need to investigate the writer.  He's saying bad things about 'the one.'

Obama Reverses Stance on Same-Sex Marriage

Well.  President Obama has reversed his former stance on same-sex marriage.  If you remember, in 2008 he said that he thought marriage should be between one man and one woman.  NOW, he’s endorsed same-sex marriage. 

To the press, this isn’t a flip-flop.  Although the WH has admitted that it was gaffe-tastic Joe Biden who basically made them admit this now.  They’d hoped to do it after the election. 

But let’s pretend that this had been a Republican President.  Here’s how (I think) the press would have handled it.

Q:  Mr President, you used to believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

R:  That’s correct.  But after talking with people in the gay and lesbian community, my position has changed.  It’s evolved.

Q:  But don’t you think others will see this as yet another flip-flop? I mean, after all, it was only four years ago that you stated otherwise.

R:  Well, as I said, my stance has evolved over the years.

Q:  But don’t you see this as a flip-flop?  Isn’t this really just to get the gay and lesbian community aboard your campaign for re-election?  After all, you’ve changed your stance on a number of important issues so far.  It seems …

A:  As I said, my stance has evolved over the years.  It’s not a flip-flop.

Q:  But it was only four years ago, and I have the transcript here, that you stated that a marriage was between one man and one woman.

A:

And it would go from there.  The press would pound our hypothetical Republican President for a flip-flop.  For the Obamessiah, yet another pass.

Nothing new here.

Students Forced to do Opposition Research on Republicans

The link: http://www.examiner.com/article/va-students-ordered-to-do-opposition-research-on-gop-presidential-candidates

" The Daily Caller reported Thursday that 8th-grade students at Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County, Virginia, were forced to "support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign by conducting opposition research in class against the Republican presidential candidates."

According to the Daily Caller, students in Michael Denman's class were given the assignment in mid-January. He reportedly broke the Civics Honor's class into four groups - one for each of the GOP Presidential candidates.

They were then told to research each of the candidate's backgrounds and positions, looking for weaknesses.

"From there," Kalyn McMackin wrote, "students were to prepare a strategy paper to exploit those weaknesses and then to send their suggestions to the Obama campaign."

“This assignment was just creepy beyond belief — like something out of East Germany during the Cold War,” one father told the Daily Caller. "

Yet another reason for those who home school their children to keep doing so.

Are you sure there's no liberal indoctrination in schools these days?

Opinion: We're Losing Our Republic

Opinion.

I’m glad that there are hearings now into the growing GSA scandal. And the GSA director, an Obama appointee, was forced to resign.

Having said that, and granted that the hearings are happening; I honestly don’t think that any lasting change is going to happen.

Sure, there have been brave words about the need for reform. And I think reform is needed. But first, the exact scope of the problem needs to be identified. Is it systemic, or just a few bad apples in an agency that does good, cost-effective work? In all honesty, I don’t know. And that’s just about the GSA.

Is there similar money-wasting going on in other agencies? We all know it’s happened in other administrations, but that doesn’t excuse it. We all know that it’s happened in other agencies, but that doesn’t excuse it either.

In my opinion, it is deeper than just this one agency. The government takes in vast amounts of money from us tax-payers, and the agency tasked with ensuring it’s not wasted … wastes it.

During the Tea Party protests, those of us calling for smaller government and for fiscal reform were called a variety of names, including “potential domestic extremists.”

In my opinion, this scandal simply makes our point for us. This shameful waste of tax-payer dollars should have been caught much earlier than it was.

The Republicans, hoping to score political points, have taken the ball and run with it. Granted, these hearings need to be held, those responsible need to be brought to justice, and steps taken to ensure that this shameful episode is not repeated.

But the tepid response from the Democrats simply goes to help make my next point for me: and that is that many in government, on both sides of the aisle, have forgotten where the money comes from. Indeed, former Congressman Joe Knollenberg said “It is not your money.” (*)

In my opinion, these hearings are going to be nothing but a dog-and-pony show. And that’s sad. Many of us believe that the federal government is hopelessly bloated. Those talking about fiscal reform are derided by the liberals and by those self-serving politicians who are too blind to see that we are only a few steps away from losing our Republic.

(*) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZyAd_rJAx4