January 24, 2013
Liberals contact me with some frequency complaining that when I write about our president I refer to him by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama. The liberals say this is unfair and I do it only to imply that he is a Muslim or a sympathizer with the Arabs over the Israelis.
This year, when Obama was sworn into office for this four-year term, he was sworn in – not as Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Obama or even Barack H. Obama – but as Barack Hussein Obama. So it is not only the name I use for our president, it is the name he uses for himself.
, , ,
By the way, Barack Hussein Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts got it right the first time on this go round in the private ceremony held Monday. The public ceremony, not quite.
The amount of protection that Obama gets from the media never ceases to amaze me. Now it is simply considered a fact that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts messed up when he swore Obama into office in 2009, and they had to have a private do-over to make sure the swearing-in stuck.
But if you check the video, you will find that what actually happened was Obama interrupted Roberts first. The way an oath works is the judge or official says what the person being sworn in is supposed to say and then that person repeats it. To do that you have to wait for the official to stop speaking, which Obama didn't do. After Obama interrupted Roberts then Roberts got "faithfully" in the wrong part of the next sentence, but Obama paused, Roberts corrected his mistake and Obama recited it wrong anyway.
You can certainly say that the two of them really fouled up the 2009 swearing-in, but to blame it all on Roberts is inaccurate. If Obama had not interrupted Roberts one would assume he would have sailed right through it. But being interrupted in midsentence in front of millions of people all over the world by a man who in a few seconds will be the most powerful man on earth can throw you off your game. Why wasn't it Obama's fault that they messed up the swearing-in? The obvious answer is because Obama according to the adoring mainstream media can do no wrong.
It is also interesting to note that during this inauguration Obama and Michelle did not stand on a box to lift them above the crowd, as they had in 2009.
Obama was sworn in on President Abraham Lincoln's Bible the first time, and his wife's family Bible the second time. But not during any of his four swearing-ins did he use a Bible from his own family. Maybe it's not that unusual, but it does seem strange.
The big question this time around is, after being sworn into office for the fourth time, why can't Obama get it right? This time during his public swearing-in, which was all for show and doesn't really count, the president of the United States of America evidently forgot what country he lives in. It is the United States of America, not the United Sts of America. There is no way they can blame that on Roberts, so the mainstream media simply ignored it. The liberal media was so giddy about being at Obama's inauguration they couldn't be bothered with little things like whether or not Obama got the country right or whether Beyonce actually sang or lip-synched. The kind of thing that the press is usually there to report.
I watched the swearing-in and Obama's speech and was surprised at the number of empty seats. There were empty seats on the podium, and it appeared that only about half the press they expected showed up. Maybe the flu struck a lot of political bigwigs, or the cold scared them off.
, , ,
It was interesting to see Secretary of State Hillary Clinton smiling and waving at the ceremony. She runs to the hospital when she is called to testify before the congressional committee about Benghazi, but she's fine to sit out in the cold for a couple of hours.
, , ,
If you listen to Democrats, and even some Republicans, for the federal government to balance its budget would require draconian cuts that would decimate the Defense Department and put major social welfare programs in bankruptcy. But the truth is that the federal government will take in $2.9 trillion in revenue this fiscal year. If the federal government would simply reduce spending to what it was a mere five years ago it would have a surplus instead of a trillion dollar deficit.
In 2007 the federal government spent $2.7 trillion. That was during the presidency of George Walker Bush and the budget deficit was about $200 billion, because the revenue that year was $2.56 trillion.
What Congress and President Obama have managed to do since then is increase spending astronomically. The projected spending for 2013 is $3.8 trillion. So even though revenue has increased to $2.9 trillion the deficit is still right around a trillion dollars.
It is an unbelievable increase in spending. The problem is not, as Obama continues to say, that the rich aren't paying their fair share. The problem is that Obama and Congress have increased spending by 40 percent in the past five years. This is during a period of almost no inflation.
Since 2007 the federal government has increased its spending by $1.1 trillion. It is an incredible amount of money and it would be nice to blame it all on Obama, but Obama is a co-conspirator. Spending bills have to originate in the House, which the Republicans have controlled since 2011. Obama in his first term had pretty much free rein in Congress. The Democrats controlled the House and for almost a year had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Spending skyrocketed and in Obama's first year in office, 2009, the budget deficit increased to $1.4 trillion.
What could only be done in Washington – where reality left the building decades ago – is that the budget deficit has remained over $1 trillion. The reason for the budget deficit in 2009 was the $1 trillion stimulus plan that Congress passed and Obama signed as soon as possible. That was supposed to spike up the spending, but then it was supposed to come back down.
It never has.
But the country ran pretty well in 2007. We were fighting the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, Social Security was being paid, as were Medicare and Medicaid. The federal government was throwing money at local governments, as it does, but evidently to go back to those years would be a tremendous hardship. It's hard to believe.
, , ,
This fact-checking racket by the mainstream media is just one more way for it to spread its liberal message that Republicans are always wrong.
You don't see Vice President Joe Biden getting fact checked when he says he was playing golf and heard the shots at the Amish school shooting in 2006. It's a good story, but like so much that Biden says, it has no basis in reality. Except that he may have been playing golf during the shooting. The closest golf course is a public course about five miles away and the pro says that Biden never played there. But even if he had, the course is too far away to hear gunshots. There is another golf course in the area, but it is 10 miles away and there is no way he could hear gunshots at that distance. ...continued on page 2