Quotes of the day
posted at 8:01 pm on July 8, 2012 by Allahpundit
President Obama’s bus tour through Ohio and Pennsylvania late last week offered a striking look at the evolution of a president. In 2008, Obama used soaring rhetoric and personal biography to talk about binding together a red-blue nation. His message today is about the urgent need to defeat a stubborn opposition party in order to move the country forward…
That is a change from the way he talked as a candidate in 2008. His message then was not so much about either-or choices. That was not the message he delivered when he first appeared on the national stage at the 2004 Democratic convention, nor was it the message he offered the night he scored his breakthrough victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses that launched him toward the White House. He did not talk about elections as tiebreakers between two sides but of a country hungering for a new model for its politics…
Many Democrats say it’s about time that the president got tough, that he spent too much time trying to negotiate with Republicans who weren’t interested in negotiating with him.
It’s nothing like the first campaign, the former Illinois state legislator and U.S. senator said — when he and his wife circulated fliers printed at Kinko’s.
It sure isn’t…
Off the 68,443 ads that Obama has run on TV (local broadcast, national network & national cable) in the 30-day period ended July 2, 52,016 had an “anti-Romney message” — 76 percent of the total, according to New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which monitors campaign advertising.
Obama’s negative ads have overtaken his positive ads. Since April 10, when Republican Rick Santorum’s exit essentially made Romney his party’s presumptive nominee, Obama has run 112,202 ads, of which 58,151 were anti-Romney and 54,051 positive.
Of the 17 TV advertisements Obama has aired here [in Iowa], eight have pummeled Romney’s resume as a governor of Massachusetts and founder of a large private equity firm. Increasingly, the ads have pressed the outsourcing hot button, although independent fact checkers have dressed down that attack as using false or thinly supported claims.
Republicans call it a smear campaign, arguing Romney was not responsible for what companies did after he left Bain Capital. Indeed, they point to Obama as an outsourcer, citing him as responsible for jobs sent overseas by companies who received federal stimulus money.
Top Democrats repeatedly slammed Mitt Romney on Sunday for his foreign wheelings and dealings, as President Obama’s campaign continues to make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee doesn’t understand the concerns of the middle class…
“He is the first and only candidate for President of the United States with a Swiss bank account, with tax shelters, with tax avoidance schemes that involve so many foreign countries,” Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
“When it comes down to his Swiss bank account, there is just no way to explain it,” Durbin added. “You either get a Swiss bank account to conceal what you are doing or you believe the Swiss franc is stronger than the American dollar.”
Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley (Md.) hammered Mitt Romney on Sunday over a report detailing his use of offshore accounts, saying the presumptive GOP nominee had “bet against America.”…
“He bet against America when he put his money in Swiss bank accounts and tax havens and shelters and also set up a secret company, the shell company in Bermuda, which, by the way, in order to avoid disclosure, he put in his wife’s name right before he became governor of Massachusetts,” O’Malley charged.
His comments come after a Vanity Fair report released last week said Romney’s financial advisers formed a corporation in Bermuda and the GOP candidate maintained holdings in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.
“Being rich is not a problem,” said Bob Shrum, a Democratic consultant who helped Senator Edward M. Kennedy defeat Mr. Romney in their 1994 Senate race in Massachusetts. “Being rich and out of touch is a problem.”
Mr. Romney’s campaign has pushed back hard against some of the wealth-themed attacks, which have included assertions that at Bain he enriched himself by promoting the outsourcing of American jobs. Increasingly the Romney campaign is turning Mr. Obama’s attacks back on him by suggesting that the president is in denial about his record and is out of touch with the economic strains felt by most Americans.
“They just can’t come to grips with the reality of what’s happening out there and the president’s responsibility for it,” said [Stuart] Stevens, [a Romney] campaign strategist.
Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs said Sunday that Americans simply don’t know enough about Mitt Romney’s finances to determine if he’s doing anything illegal.
“We don’t know. Nobody knows,” the former White House press secretary said on CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked if the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was skirting tax law.
“The one thing he can do, Candy, to clear up whether or not he’s done anything illegally, whether he’s shielding his income from taxes in Bermuda or Switzerland, is to do what ever other presidential candidate is done and that’s to release a series of years of their own tax returns,” Gibbs told host Candy Crowley.
This president has already shown that he’s not who he said he was. He claimed he was going to bring everyone together, he was going to be this uniter. He’s been the most divisive, nasty, negative campaigner this country’s ever seen without running any positive ads.
Skip to 4:45.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Someone at HA fix your clock. It’s 5 or 6 minutes fast for many posts and screwing things up.
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM
The pResident LIED. Four people died.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM
He’s being honest, telling the socialists, “You’re messiah is going down.”
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM
woodward continues his desperate quest for relevance.
sesquipedalian on May 17, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Woodward looking for relevance.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM
The GOP will betray you
True_King on May 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM
nonsense.
sesquipedalian on May 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Two entire days worth of information missing.
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Why did Killary continue the Youtube talking point two weeks later at the dead American’s funerals?
Bishop on May 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Media will sweep this under the rug
Gop over reached according to them
Case closed
cmsinaz on May 17, 2013 at 10:08 AM
…and Fast & Furious?
KOOLAID2 on May 17, 2013 at 10:08 AM
I just posted that after oldroy and True_King posted. I’m not first, and I’m not Bishop!
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Woodward doesn’t need a “quest for relevance”. He brought down a sitting US President. In the journalism world and on the political scene, he will always be relevant.
Boudica on May 17, 2013 at 10:10 AM
…and you continue your desperate quest… to untie your testicles!
KOOLAID2 on May 17, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Why did State and the WH lie about Benghazi being a terrorist attack?
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Woodward also accurately wrote the sequester was allllll Zero’s idea… Oooooooh that had to burn Zero’s azz.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Only one person could have given the stand down order, the Commander-in-Chief. If anyone other than Obama gave that stand down order on their own, then Obama could very easily fire that person and put that aspect of the scandal to rest. He hasn’t fired anyone because Obama himself gave the stand down order.
MPan on May 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Why did State and the White Hose lie about Benghazi being the result of a YouTube video?
And, don’t tell me that they didn’t because I will inundate you with quotes.
Resist We Much on May 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM
So the emails are all fakes?
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM
And all the testimonial evidence are lies.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Obama, so the Libyan weapons could be transferred by the Turks to the “Rebels” in Syria.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM
if you were capable of exercising independent judgment instead of relying on ed’s propaganda, you’d realize that the emails disprove the idea that there was a cover up.
btw, ed, that awful sound you hear is your fingers scraping the bottom of the barrel.
sesquipedalian on May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM
When the cost of social justice, is social justice, the mooring is untethered.
Republican Yogi on May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Old lib talking point: “Woody took down Nixon, he was brave.”
New lib talking point: “Ancient fool should shut up.”
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Bishop on May 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Nope.
Gatsu on May 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM
You managed to respond to a comment before that comment was even posted. I wish I had a super power, like Xray vision or something.
Bishop on May 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM
This s**t is still going?
MadisonConservative on May 17, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Squiddie is spinning furiously this morning for his sweetie.
slickwillie2001 on May 17, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Paging Jon Stewart.
Aitch748 on May 17, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Looks like you and oldroy got your talking points memo at about the same time this morning. ‘woodward looking for relevance’ is this morning’s line of defense, is it?
Midas on May 17, 2013 at 10:18 AM
You Obama fellator. There’s no question you thought Woodward was a hero 5 years ago, criticizing Bush, you pathetic hypocrite.
MadisonConservative on May 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Looks like you have your head up your Azz backwards this morning. Merely trying to point out that Woodward has come late to the party, again. If he was really on the ball, he’d be comparing the body count, the weapons transfer, the fact that this is 10x the importance that Watergate was. But no. Just Woodward as always, tagging along at the end hoping to get lucky again and get one small bit of a story that has already broke so he can once again claim his god-like status.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Why was the ambassador in an unprotected consulate on the anniversary of the worst terrorist strike on the US?
Is this an example of smart power, leading from behind or some other politically correct concept of the P.O.S. libs in charge of this once great country?
Gotcha on May 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Ah, I see. In total denial despite the truth staring you in the face. Any other trolls willing to try a little harder or are all of you burying your heads in the sand like sequesteredbrain ? I know verbalidiocy is just like sequesteredbrain on this topic already, so your denials of truth will be snickered at and forgotten.
Opinion of those who aren’t leftists shills. Was the video lie created because:
a) A stand-down order was given.
b) The upcoming presidential election.
c) Both.
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM
As long as there really are more whistleblowers to go forward with future House hearings, the Benghazi scandal still has legs. Though if you’re Team Clinton, you really want the media not to follow the Woodward route but to parrot Carl Bernstein in claiming this is the least of the scandals, and eavesdropping on the AP is the most serious.
jon1979 on May 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM
You know, except for the document trail and video evidence from days worth of speeches, interviews, and more, where they, you know, *did* unquestionably lie about it.
Good point.
/
Midas on May 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM
That too.
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:24 AM
LOL!
Resist We Much on May 17, 2013 at 10:24 AM
The emails show that State was embarrassed by the incident and afraid it would make them look bad so they directed CIA to redact them to the point of nonsense make them look better.
Who determined the video was to blame? No one has said, have they?
alwaysfiredup on May 17, 2013 at 10:25 AM
As Steve Hayes pointed out, where the hell was any mention of this YouTube video in any of these emails since they claimed that’s what started this whole thing?
crrr6 on May 17, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Sesqui apparently missed this part, I can see how considering the font is set at about 28 these days.
Bishop on May 17, 2013 at 10:28 AM
um, wut? Did you get a different set of emails? Where is there any mention of this YouTube bullchyt – the very thing they said started this supposed spontaneous movie riot?
crrr6 on May 17, 2013 at 10:29 AM
“Hydraulic pressure in the system not to tell the truth?” What they heck is that supposed to mean? Woodward rivals Alexander Haig when it comes to coining malapropisms.
potkas7 on May 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM
The liberal water-carriers are starting to look like a legion of Black Knights from Monty Python.
Or a brigade of Baghdad Bobs.
Aitch748 on May 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM
LOL, wow. Through-the-looking-glass moment.
Midas on May 17, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Well dismissal of the Benghazi scandal is exactly what’s going on. GOP Ways and Means chairman says IRS stuff does not rise to level of special prosecutor. Both sides will maintain the status quo and sweep all of it under the rug while we the people get played once again.
bgibbs1000 on May 17, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Hey, I’m not the one posting the same things, using largely the same words, at the same time, as sequipiddlesitself. If you’re not working from the same talking points, then you ought to be questioning your own sanity. It would certainly make *me* a bit nervous if I suddenly and accidentally found myself agreeing with a sub-moronic Obama lickspittle troll.
Just saying.
Midas on May 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Too many here have fallen for the Preezy’s enemies list. Woodward is one that is telling it like it is.
NotEasilyFooled on May 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Yeah, the timestamps are hosed up.
Midas on May 17, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Racist!
ronsfi on May 17, 2013 at 10:34 AM
LOL! Woody is a hero to the leftards when he is useful and gets thrown under the bus when he is objective. How convenient! No wonder you all love Obama. Shifty, unprincipled, sees people as disposable just like you.
JAM on May 17, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Maybe “Toria” leaned across her keyboard and accidentaly deleted the 9/11 & 9/12 emails with her boobs, like Nixon’s secretary did with the tapes?
Boudica on May 17, 2013 at 10:36 AM
These emails do not indicate a coverup. These emails start to show the WH and Hillary’s State Department changed and manipulated our intelligence from basic facts to something that would help them politically.
The incessant lies about their horrific incompetence in defending our ambassador, horrific incompetence in preparing for 9/11, and the political distortions made to the talking points covering up their incompetence is what the cover up actually is.
Lies covering up lies covering up incompetence.
GardenGnome on May 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Everytime the Benghazi scandal is mentioned, we should also bring up that the whole point of the dishonest narrative that Susan Rice told was to start a campaign to undermine the First Amendment. We were to no longer have our freedom of speech if we wished to criticize Islam. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is still in a United States jail for expressing his opinion on Islam.
thuja on May 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Here’s a funny thing. Even if we give the administration the benefit of the doubt Benghazi was a big enough thing that they felt they couldn’t just say “In the interest of national security, we can’t expose the data that has been gathered on this so far. The investigations are ongoing and all the facts will be brought out in the end.” So they made up a story–perhaps even to lull AQ into thinking that they weren’t even on their trail.
However, unfortunately, I have a memory. Reagan was directly implicated for “disinformation” by the media when some of our disinformation content abroad was brought back as “news” to America and the administration didn’t directly disavow it. The press treated it as the same thing as Reagan lying directly to America. So disinformation, itself, was a big thing for Reagan.
However, now the libs can claim that neither disinformation directly to the American people, nor the events for which the administration couldn’t simply give an answer of National Security are not important enough to warrant further interest.
Is it any wonder that I wouldn’t want to trust their judgment about what is “newsworthy”!
Axeman on May 17, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Remember, lies of omission are still lies.
alwaysfiredup on May 17, 2013 at 10:46 AM
It is a coverup.
The whole, entire goal has been to distract people as to what the protests in Cairo were really about.
As everyone in Cario knows, it had nothing to do with the video.
It was AQ-backed, via two proxy groups who have been applying pressure to Morsi since he took over. He did one thing they wanted – freed the “political prisoners”, which are jihadi’s. The have one other thing they wanted, which hasn’t happened yet because it’s dependent on Obama and State.
At this point, it can’t happen. But, it has a chance after the mid-terms.
budfox on May 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM
The possibilities vary from the stupid, through the ignorant, to the sinister, to the downright crazy. As follows;
Stupid; The One & Co. may have honestly believed that there was no more al-Qaeda. And that sending arms to the Syrian “resistance”, run by that oh-so-secular Muslim Brotherhood, would make everyone in the Arab Crescent love them even more. I buy this, because I believe they really are that f’ing stupid.
Ignorant; Roughly the same as above, except that add in their total ignorance of the actual structure of groups like al-Qaeda, which is cellular in nature. Meaning, killing one leader, or even several, doesn’t kill the group.
As Wretchard relates in his Three Conjectures, it may be impossible for any Islamist group to “surrender”, because by their decentralized nature there is no one authority who can order everyone to lay down their arms. In Libya, we saw what may be an object lesson in that- which The One & Friends reject, because it clashes with their worldview.
Sinister; Ambassador Stevens was the point man for what everyone up the rat line knew was a illegal operation (being eerily like Iran-Contra, much as Fast & Furious was), and as such he was deliberately “hung out” to silence him so he could never testify in front of a Congressional committee under oath.
Note that I’m not saying that he ever intimated that he might; but this crew is paranoid enough that given the chance, they would very probably allow him to be killed to forestall the possibility. After all, they come from the far left, where the motto has always been, “Sacrifices must be made in the name of the Cause”.
Downright Crazy; There may have been some personal animus involved. That is, somebody at top level may simply have not liked Chris Stevens. Keep in mind that in those circles, when somebody proclaims that you’re his or her BFF, you never let them clap you on the back, because there will almost certainly be a dagger in their hand aimed right between your shoulderblades.
In these circles, simply getting somebody s**tcanned is often not enough from a visceral, personal standpoint. They crave vengeance for real or imagined wrongs, and they yearn for blood on the floor as a catharsis. And yes, this can make them do things that are, by any objective judgment, utterly idiotic. In such a state, the concept of “blowback” simply isn’t part of their “reasoning”. This is doubly so for those who believe that their dogmas make them immune to the press.
If I had to vote for who was most likely to want Stevens erased for personal reasons, I’d have to say Hillary. She seems to have a habit of leaving dead guys in her wake. In this case, the reason, if it is ever discovered, may not necessarily make sense in an objective way. Well, unless there’s money involved. (Money has motivated at least as many murders as unrequited or jilted love; ask any prosecuting attorney.)
Please note that these re not mutually exclusive; more than one, or two or more, or all of the above may have been in play with different individuals.
What patently was not in play, was anything even remotely resembling common sense.
clear ether
eon
eon on May 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Too funny. If you read the emails, and ignore the fact that they are all about deleting information so the public doesn’t find out about it, you’ll find that there is no cover up!
And you think you have independent thought? please.
Monkeytoe on May 17, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Lesson for Obama: Don’t piss off Bob Woodward.
lea on May 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM
I agree with you about Benghazi. The IRS scandal might be the one the one that sticks. However, if Hillary runs in 2016, Benghazi will never go away.
lea on May 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Which leads to one very unpleasant conclusion for what is required to stop these savages. We have historical precedent in the cult of the Thuggees who were also more or less cellular in nature. … and no, nobody thought that they had a legitimate claim to be practicing their religion.
AZfederalist on May 17, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Very nice analysis
AZfederalist on May 17, 2013 at 11:41 AM
So the CIA and the FBI knew from the get-go that these were terrorist attacks and that al-qaeda or an affiliated terrorist group was involved and the State Department and WH have the CIA delete all references to al-qaeda and terrorism and substitute an obscure YouTube video, and this isn’t a scandal.
Actually, it isn’t a scandal. The definition of a scandal is: “public embarrassment”. It goes beyond that. But I don’t know what’s the name of a situation that worse than a scandal. Criminal behavior? Treasonous behavior?
GAlpha10 on May 17, 2013 at 11:51 AM
I posted this in the wrong thread, so re-posting it here:
I’m really curious as to why the White House is so frightened of the truth on this one.
The truth appears to be that it was a terrorist attack, and that the administration was naive, negligent, and incompetent in the days leading up to the attack, and during it.
Yes, that’s an ugly sentence. But there’s nothing in it that’s impeachable that I see, or that would likely even damage the President’s approval number long term.
Frankly, I don’t even see that it’s all that damaging to Hillary’s Presidential prospects. In 2016, people really will be saying “oh, that was so long ago.”
And yet, the White House seems absolutely terrified of the truth of this getting out.
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but does that mean that there’s more to this than my summary? Something that would be far more damaging to this administration or to Hillary?
And it would have to be the former, right? Does anyone really believe that Obama would go through such machinations to protect Hillary? No, it’s gotta be himself.
And I see that eon has sort of an answer to my questions…
Chris of Rights on May 17, 2013 at 12:10 PM
This is a great time to have a national debate on gay marriage I think.
NoDonkey on May 17, 2013 at 12:11 PM
The conference I just attended the last couple days had the absolute luck of having Bob Woodward as speaker on Wednesday. It was scary, but all too believable, even Barack Obama knew he did not know how to lead back in 2007. He saw the opportunity for power even though he knew he was not qualified to exercise it.
WashJeff on May 17, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Obviously, someone must have brainwashed you into writing this.
How are you not embarrassed to make this claim?
blink on May 17, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Quite the opposite, it puts the lie to a number of statements (1) the entire youtube video narrative, (2) the “CIA gave us bogus information” line, and (3) the “talking points didn’t undergo revision, or only underwent stylistic changes, or only changed consulate to diplomatic facility”.
And this is with 2 days prior missing, and no indication of what was said at the deputys’ meeting, where the final and heaviest edit was made, which is shown in the emails.
You did read the emails didn’t you?
rightmind on May 17, 2013 at 1:01 PM
Thanks.
I might add to your insightful comparison, that according to Colin Wilson in The History of Murder, there is strong evidence to indicate that the Thuggee were originally an offshoot of the Hashasin in Persia, the cult of Islamist killers run by Hasan ibn-Sabah. When their stronghold at Alamut was destroyed by the Mongols in 1267, substantial numbers of them who were elsewhere escaped. Apparently, at least some migrated to India and were soon “back in business at the same old stand” as Madonna sang in Dick Tracy. Over the generations, they moved away from Islam and embraced the worship of Kali.
Showing once more that killing a hydra is probably easier than destroying a cult which is itself devoted to destruction.
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2013 at 1:20 PM
Out of curiosity, I wondered, do trolls sometimes post something of substance?
None there. Just an insult.
Nope. Unsupported assertion of irrelevance.
Can’t find any there. Just another unsupported assertion and some insults.
That’s it for this thread. The troll didn’t even bother to respond to all of the replies it got.
farsighted on May 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM
Thanks to you, too.
A lot of people think that The One & Co. are trying to get “out in front” of this all now, to clear the decks for the midterms next year.
I believe just the opposite. I think they were sure that none of this would ever come out. The IRS crew would keep their mouths shut, the MSM would help them cover up Benghazi, and nobody would find out about their antics with AP.
Unfortunately, such maneuverings leave victims, ranging from the Tea Party groups to the State Department officials who were left twisting in the breeze in Libya. Ad all of the above got fed up enough that they complained.
Even then the MSM wasn’t going to listen to the people from State; Our Messiah could never do anything like that!
And they weren’t about to listen to all those right-wing reactionaries in the Tea Parties; Never mind being interrogated, if we had our way you’d all be eviscerated, castrated, blinded, pithed, stumped, impaled, stuffed with razor blades, and buried alive!!
But then the AP material came to light.
That was what turned this “phoney scandal” into a Perfect Storm. When the MSM realized that their Messiah might not hate them as he (and they) hate everyone who is not exactly like them, but neither does he trust them. And that he was quite capable of breaking the law to get what he wants, even from them.
To the MSM, that was simply intolerable. Even from their Messiah.
As the old saying goes, there is no honor among thieves. And payback’s a b***h.
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2013 at 1:35 PM
It’s not a superpower, and it’s not Hot Gas being buggy with the timestamps again. Some posters really are just that predictable.
(Did they ever fix it? I’m curious… 2:42 PM)
Gingotts on May 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM
What the F is the CIA doing by letting State write their intelligence reports?
The CIA should have let Hillary make any changes she wanted to — but under HER OWN signature!
I guess CIA hires stenographers, not agents nor analysts, these days.
What an abominination if we can’t trust the CIA lapdogs to stand on their own back legs.
Heads should roll at the CIA, but I haven’t heard many complaints about the CIA doing this.
fred5678 on May 17, 2013 at 3:59 PM
Ah, the man with the nose of a bloodhound that could scent any minute whiff of anti-American behavior by our leaders-a man who has sat quietly in the face of obvious agenda’s to take apart the gem of western civilization– a man who long ago has sold his flexible soul to the political left, awakens. Yes Rip Van Woodward, things are much different when the enemies of America, God, family, and freedom are in charge. Rub your eyes and pretend to have been sleeping all these years.
Don L on May 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Goodness, the boss signs their paychecks–hence their new motto, “submission before honor”
Don L on May 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM
I love your devious use of the decent idea of “independent judgment” when you leftists have as the goal of your soulless agenda to control every single free citizen, that they may never are use independent judgment. Sort of like Satan quoting scripture to Christ?
Don L on May 17, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Wow, how did I do that?
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 5:57 PM
That would be a cool one to have. Then I could deal with the trolls up front and then the rest of us could discuss the matter.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM
Even better, -an ignore button.
slickwillie2001 on May 17, 2013 at 7:03 PM
Always relevant, not always lauded for it.
(Like your handle, BTW)
AesopFan on May 17, 2013 at 10:25 PM