Sequestration - Whose Idea Was It?

Barack Obama has the capacity to adjust some, although certainly not all, of the ways in which the sequester is applied. That means the president could reduce spending that is nonessential and administrative in nature rather than cutting services or other more significant government functions. Congress has given federal agencies the ability to transfer appropriated money between accounts, which offers the administration yet another way to ensure that cuts are applied more thoughtfully.

Barack Obama will in ALL probability choose to hurt the American Citizenry and cause as much damage as possible. Thousands of illegal immigrants have already been released from jail.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

The Obama Hypocrisy - Junk Food for ME - but None for THEE

First Lady Michelle Obama appears to have abandoned, at least for now, her oft-criticized “Let’s Move” initiative to promote exercise and healthy eating among the nation’s youth, halting public appearances and statements related to the program.

Michelle’s food strictures promoted a “Nanny State” that intruded on free choice and personal responsibility.

First Lady Kicks Off Back to School

A parody on the national school lunch policy mandated by The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

President Obama made a surprise visit to the historic Varsity diner in Georgia treating his staff to chili dogs for lunch

Romero's Mexican restaurant

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Imperial Barack Obama and His Elitist Cohorts

Why is President Obama so skeptical about putting armed security in our schools? It's okay for his kids, but not ours? We want our fair share of security, too. NRA Stand And Fight.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - Are the lives of children the ‘price of our freedom?’

The other night Barack Obama came to Newtown, Connecticut to attend the Sandy Hook Prayer Vigil. He was there to offer condolences to the grieving and to honor the memory to the individuals killed in the massacre, whom he described as “twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults.”

Of the six women who died, Obama conceded that “they responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances — with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.” Right from the start, women being praised for laying down their lives for a child provided a stark contrast to the Sandra Fluke culture Obama usually promotes, where selfishness trumps the sanctity of life.

Nonetheless, the man who warned against tying politics to tragedy segued smoothly from grief and prayerfulness into using a catastrophe for his own political purposes.

Oblivious to the contradiction posed when a person who believes that a fetus is not a human and that medical care should not be given to infants born alive in botched abortions speaks touchingly of newborn babes, Obama said “With their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves — our child — is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice.”

The President, who in the past has likened unwanted pregnancy to punishment, then shared that “every parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm.”

After discussing parents protecting their children, Obama entered African proverb “it takes a village to raise a child” territory. The President suggested that parents are shocked when they realize that “loving your children isn’t enough to keep them safe.” According to Obama, “teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community” – and most importantly, “with the help of a nation,” otherwise known as a liberal-ideology-pushing entity called the U.S. government.

The Collectivist-in-Chief then proceeded to shepherd America’s children into the village with the following pronouncement: “And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.”

Then, he said “This is our first task — caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.” Amen to that one Mr. President, because right about now it’s good to know that caring for all our children is what could stem the tide of judgment.

From there, the Planned Parenthood cheerleader with the 100% NARAL voting record asked a question that he should pose to himself:

And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

America’s most famous feticide and infanticide crusader, answered himself correctly when he then stated, “[i]f we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no… And we will have to change.”

He then recounted the grim fact that “Since [he’s] been President, this is the fourth time [America] came together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting.” What Obama failed, or chose not to point out, was that since 1966 there have been 16 mass shootings in America, eight of which – 50 percent – took place on his watch.

In response to a 953% increase in the annual mass-shooting rate in the last four years as compared to the previous 42 years, what did the President propose? More change, of course!

Therefore, in anticipation of the forthcoming arguments that are bound to arise in response to the sort of ‘change’ he plans to implement, the President took preliminary steps to defuse predictable resistance. Obama’s vigil visit lay the groundwork for the “meaningful action” he promised on the night of the shootings, by jumping in front of the debate.

The President argued that “We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true.” However, in anticipation of enacting new laws, he then said “No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.” Using that kind reasoning, the truth should not be an “excuse for inaction.”

From the sound of things, it seems America’s most ardent advocate for choice is about to circumvent the opposition to address gun laws, because “what other choice do we have” besides his choice? During a prayer service, America’s Executive Power addict inappropriately flexed his sovereign muscle when he said that “in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this” he would, once again, use “whatever power this office holds.”

Liberals believe 60 million dead babies and counting is a price worth paying for the right to choose. Now it sounds like the Second Amendment might be the price America is about to pay to ensure the safety of the same children who, were they inside a womb instead of a classroom, Obama would have zero problem aborting.

Signaling that freedom is about to be targeted and after expressing unwillingness to “accept events like this as routine,” Obama then posed an unsettling question: “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?”

Let’s remember – for community organizer types, random carnage is not only a crisis, it’s an opportunity that cries out for a remedy, especially when the death of innocent children provide the motivation to guilt the resistant into submission. Therefore, the tone and direction of the President’s remarks seemed to suggest that disagreeable Constitutionalists had better get out of the way.

Then, exploiting a grieving community, the President probed further, “Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” That statement should incite terror in every American who cherishes liberty.

And so Barack Obama offered Sandy Hook his presidential condolences, tearless weeping, and poignant personal anecdotes on parenting. However, after the statement that indicated he plans to place the unpredictable security of a few above the established freedom of many, “the price of our freedom” was truly a chilling choice of words.

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Barack Obama NEVER lets a Crisis go to Waste

Gun Control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

Gun Control laws will NOT work for two primary reasons:
1) Criminals Do NOT obey laws - Studies show that most criminals acquire guns through friends or through theft, which means they’re able to bypass background checks and other well-meaning restrictions. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, stole the guns he used from his mother.

2) There are close to 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States. Even if Congress passed a law banning the sale of firearms tomorrow — which would violate the Second Amendment — it would be decades before the supply of guns decreased significantly, especially considering that many guns are operational 100 years or more after they’re manufactured. The government wouldn’t be able to eliminate this enormous stock of guns — buy-back programs would only go so far and straight-up confiscation would violate the Fourth Amendment. Meanwhile, illegal guns would flood into the U.S. from other countries.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michelle Malkin - Sean Hannity - Height of Progressive Hypocrisy

"This has been a culture of corruption, a culture of darkness, and a culture of feted willful disregard for the rule of law and deliberative process" says Syndicated Columnist, Best Selling Author, and President of 'Twitchy.com', Michelle Malkin as she defines in detail the total hypocrisy of President Obama and this administration.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Pat Caddell names Tom Donilon as Obama's leaker

Thomas E. "Tom" Donilon is the National Security Advisor in the Obama Administration, and has had a career as a U.S. political advisor, government official and lawyer.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - Pie and the Obama World View

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

---

Once again Michelle Obama has managed to exempt herself from her own rules and regulations in a very public way. Swinging through Virginia, talking up her husband’s many outstanding accomplishments such as recently insisting that the economy isn’t doing ‘fine’ less than one day after he emphatically insisted the private sector was doing ‘fine,’ Michelle stopped for pie.

The Obamas love pie because pie perfectly symbolizes their world view. Reportedly the family keeps Bill Yosses, the pie-making pastry chef in the White House whom the President has nicknamed “The Crustmaker,” very busy. Pie is so much a part of Obama life and philosophy that the first lady included four pie recipes in her book, American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America.

Michelle Obama not only loves pie, she loves to use pie in object lessons, especially when prodding the herd toward socialist thinking. Remember when Michelle Obama informed Americans how much of the pie we want and how much of the pie we’d have to give up so other people could have pie?

The difference is that Mrs. Obama also wants pie — the whole pie. And in case you haven’t noticed, what Michelle wants, Michelle gets, and contrary to what she preaches, she doesn’t share her pie with anyone.

Twenty-three miles southwest of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the aroma of buttery crust and warm pie filling must have been wafting through the air in Occoquan, Virginia because the smell drew Michelle Obama in like a moth to a flame to Mom’s Apple Pie Co.

Michelle’s campaign “eat n’ greet” entourage arrived at the family-owned bakery and waited while the excited pie gourmand “perused the shop’s offerings of fresh fruit pies and jams, as well as old-fashioned candies and a collection of wines and beers.”

Gleefully stalking the establishment’s shelves, “Let’s Move” Michelle exclaimed, “Oh there’s wine! No one told me there was wine!” Making her way to the display case filled with homemade pies, Mrs. Obama passed the blame for buying pies on a missing mystery person, saying “I will be killed if I don’t come out of here with pie,” and left with two double-crust, apple and sour cherry “man-sized” pies.

According to David Axelrod, Michelle is not alone in her affinity for pie; President Obama is also a big fan. Apparently, President Obama really, really loves sweet potato pie, which means that when the apple and sour cherry pies show up, he might be the one doing the killing.

The pie model is so ingrained in the Obamas that the President also likes to reference pie in speeches. In fact, recently when referring to Mitt Romney’s warning about the nation’s “prairie fire of debt,” the President called Romney’s assessment “a cow pie of distortion.”

Which brings us back to the first lady descending on Mom’s Apple Pie Co. to scoop up fruity confections as a six-year-old girl serenaded her with “Ode to Joy” on the violin. The prospect of tart Montmorency cherry pie must have been so prominent in Michelle Obama’s mind that she responded to the recital by saying something the Obama-pie-eaters seldom say to successful, hardworking Americans: “You’ve earned your pie.”

So here we are again, being lectured to by a woman toting around double-crust pies while deciding who gets pie and who should give up some of their pie, based on who she feels ”earned” pie. Meanwhile, both Michelle and Barack have access to all the pie they want, but remain unwilling to agree that Americans who actually earn their pie should get to keep it.

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - ‘Savage Love’ and the Anti-Bullying Bully

Prior to hearing anti-bullying ‘It Gets Better’ founder/“Savage Love” sex advice columnist/gay activist/guest of Barack Obama Dan Savage ridicule Christian students and demean the Bible, I had no idea that bullying is perfectly acceptable as long as you’re bullying Christian kids.

Guest speaker Dan Savage was supposed to be sharing an anti-bullying message at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association (JEA) and the National Scholastic Press Association. Instead, he used the opportunity to exercise his civic duty and bully the kids who came to the conference from Christian schools in the area.

Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School, said “I thought this would be about anti-bullying.” Well, that it was! In this case harassment fits the criteria for “anti-bullying,” because according to Mr. Savage, the God of the Bible is one big bully and He and His ignorant followers need to be exposed. Therefore, it was only natural and fitting that a high school journalism conference would turn “into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.

After Savage, Bible scholar and “Evolve Already” promoter of marriage equality for gays, attempted to savage Leviticus, Romans and the Apostle Paul, 100 offended high school students stood up and slowly filed out of the conference.

As a result, feeling bullied by students turning their back on him and refusing to listen to his biased tirade, the anti-bullying speaker “began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”

In other words, for lack of a coliseum filled with hungry lions, the sensitive, accepting, anti-bullying advocate Dan the savage all but attempted to drag100 kids out onto the schoolyard, clobber them with a baseball bat and then, when they raised their hands to thwart the attack, to further the cause of acceptance and love he called them “pansy asses.”

Rick Tuttle described the incident this way: “It became hostile. It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.” According to the journalism advisor, the ‘anti-bullying’ speech was “laced with vulgarities and ‘sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.’”

At one point, Tuttle said, Savage described for the teenagers about how “good his male partner looked in a Speedo.” No problem! Every anti-bullying advocate is well aware that shocking and making kids squirm awkwardly in their seats is key when addressing the issue of bullying.

Moreover, one can’t help but wonder if Savage shared with others his appreciation for his ‘husband’s’ physique in swimming attire when he and his spouse Terry Miller were part of the festivities at President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception.

According to one 17-year-old girl in attendance, some of “Savage Love’s” journalism advice included telling the kiddies that “I hope you’re all using birth control…[that]… there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong,” and that they can “ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”

Without personally knowing any of the children who excused themselves, apparently Savage felt justified berating them as non-bullying students in attendance “hollered and cheered” in approval. Smarmily and sarcastically, after he was done “beating up the Bible” and beating up Bible-believing kids, he said:

"You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back."

Reverting back to compassionate liberalism as most liberals do, Savage did eventually say he was sorry “if [he] hurt anyone’s feelings.” Obviously feeling threatened in a room full of teenagers, after apologizing Savage did justify his actions by pointing out that “I have a right to defend myself and to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the Bible and insisting we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue and no other.”

What was the National Scholastic Press Association’s (NSPA) response to Savage singling out Christianity, the Bible, and Christian children who thought they were going to a journalism conference?

"We appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and deliberation regarding Dan Savage’s keynote address. Some audience members who felt hurt by his words and tone decided to leave in the middle of his speech, and to this, we want to make our point very clear: While as a journalist it’s important to be able to listen to speech that offends you, these students and advisers had simply reached their tolerance level for what they were willing to hear."

How open-minded of the NSPA. Maybe next year, in the interest of fairness, they can have a Christian journalist come to the conference and single out a few gay students. With strict instructions to rebuke them freely but only to increase “their tolerance for what they are willing to hear,” he or she can then seat them in the front of the auditorium and force them to have Scripture “thoughtfully and deliberately” read to them from the book of Leviticus and Paul’s letter to the Romans.

In the end, this was yet just another example of liberal hypocrisy and bias, and above all a perfect illustration of jugular-vein justice by those who deem themselves accepting and intelligent.

Nonetheless, one question does come to mind here: Will Mr. Obama be phoning the children who were called “pansy-asses” by his White House guest a la Sandra Fluke, and then mention later at a press conference how terribly his Christian daughters Sasha and Malia would feel being singled out and insulted in such a public way?

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Barack Obama's Deceit, Lies and Obfuscations Coming Back to Haunt Him

It is a tad unfortunate that just days after the White House embraced the term "Obamacare" - previously regarded on the Left as a pejorative label - a majority of the nine Supreme Court justices have given strong indications they will rule it unconstitutional.

Even more ironic is that the justices, or five of them at least, look like they might force President Barack Obama back to the drawing board partly on the basis of the argument one Senator Obama made against then Senator Hillary Clinton in 2008.

At issue today was the so-called 'individual mandate" - the federal government's act of compelling Americans to buy health insurance. It is the centrepiece of the Affordable Health Care Act - aka Obamacare - which is the signature achievement of Obama's presidency thus far.

But back during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: "A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. ... But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can't afford it. And that's why my plan emphasises lowering costs."

In February 2008, he said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home:

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Kevin McCullough - 'Street-Walkin' For Obama

Since President Obama attributed his reasons for calling Sandra Fluke last week as pertaining to his desire to see his own daughters Sasha and Malia follow in her footsteps, you have to wonder if he hates his daughters.

Honestly!

Sandra Fluke researched Georgetown's policies, targeted them for attendance, ignored the three Planned Parenthood clinics within walking distance of the campus, and boldy lied before Congress about the financial burden her sex life had become. If that's what he wishes for his daughters, heaven help them.

Of course he also has hoped they would never know the "burden" of pregnancy too. Wow... no kids for life, just angry dishonest activism before the people's body, while talking up your sex life. Some dream for your kids huh?

All sarcasm aside, I don't believe that's what he wants for his daughters, but when it has to do with getting elected saying things that might imply as much is within the field of play huh?

Evidently it is.

You know what else is in play? Sending your campaign manager (who at one point was your White House Senior Advisor) to be on a television show that degrades women. Who'd a thought it?

Nevertheless that's the plan...

David Axelrod, one of the President's most trusted advisors, will be going on the show hosted by million-dollar-donor to the Obama SuperPAC Bill Maher sometime within the next few weeks.

Of course the left will somehow attempt to argue that while the icon of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, had earned every ounce of scorn the left could pronounce, Maher doesn't deserve the same merit because he's... (**shrugs**) While the left argues that Rush's advertisers (who are now flocking back to the largest media platform in America) were dropping him for trumped up non-sense about being disrespectful to women, Obama's advisor going on a show that has in recent months referred to women as dumb "tw*ts," and "c*nts" is just fine by him and everyone on Obama's team.

Evidently an advertiser supporting Rush Limbaugh is to be held accountable (and ruin their stock prices in the process), and disassociate themselves, but people who go on Maher's hate-fest can gain access to the ear of the leader of the free world without so much as a "should we think about the optics of this first" crossing somebody's brain.

Perhaps the former MSNBC washout Keith Olbermann was supposed to settle the matter only a couple of evenings back on his Countdown broadcast on CurrentTV (no, it's a real network, look it up), as he explained that misogyny only occurs when conservative men go on offense against liberal women. Strangely Olbermann then attempted to apologize to Michelle Malkin and S.E. Cupp--both delightful human beings--while simultaneously claiming he wasn't misogynistic.

From Hot Air's Tina Korbe (who know doubt will be on Olbermann's list soon.):

In October 2009, Olbermann called Hot Air founder Michelle Malkin, “a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” Then, in April of last year, Olbermann tweeted about conservative commentator S.E. Cupp, “On so many levels she’s a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does.”

His odd insult which was to be disguised as an apology was roundly unaccepted by both ladies. (Hmmm when was that word last used in connection to any of these topics?)

Long story short, Olbermann is still spewing bile and venom all over the names of women he merely politically disagrees with, Maher is still referring to women as insulting synonyms of genitalia, and President Obama wants his daughters to grow up emulating Sandra Fluke, the woman who needed $3000 to be reimbursed for contraception that cost normal people about $180 for the same time period. (Not drawing any judgement but... Man that's a lot of sex!)

Add to that the willingness to send his political surrogates, voices, campaign spokespersons, and senior advisors to go beg for the airtime of such types is... to be honest... making me sick as I type this.

Additionally, David Axelrod, the pillar of purity himself, publicly called for Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (the only two viable candidates the Republicans have left) to publicly denounce Rush Limbaugh and be unwavering in their criticism of his comments. (Comments that my own Lovely Bride, her best friend, and several of their other friends--who all happen to be 20-30 somethings in the prime of life, and a wee bit more informed about what real female role models look like than President Obama does--seemed to agree with. In fact that entire cadre of ladies--wow twice in one column--were more than a bit irritated when Rush apologized.)

All in all President Obama, the Shrews...er the females(<--note usage) on The View, Bill Maher, David Axelrod, and even Gloria Steinem (who is rumored to have been present on at least one occasion when Maher dropped a vaginal reference to a woman) may all be willing to denounce references to loose women who pretend to have their virtue still intact as "street walkers." This is true however only if the reference originates from someone who holds a politically opposing position. Not dissimilar to use of the "N" word in certain ethnic circles. So set the DVR friends, because those who seek to demean women in most every imaginable way are coming to an HBO late night near you. In the mean time, I'd like to see if I could use the word "lady" three times in a column. Oh wait, I just did!

Kevin McCullough

---

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Doug Giles - Obama Calls It Fairness. Who Would Jesus Tax?

This past Thursday (2/2/2012) at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama said that his Christian faith crafts his domestic policies—particularly his desire to rob from the rich and give to the poor. In my humble opinion, I think the president is getting Jesus and His disciples confused with Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

I don’t know which White House wizard crafted that speech for him, but the verse he or she gave to our Spender in Chief to back his socialism was more twisted out of joint than a Gumby doll being worked over by a frustrated Gary Busey.

I can’t believe that hot coffee didn’t spew from hundreds of Christians’ mouths when Obama took a text that refers directly to believers’ judgment and contorted it to be interpreted as a ratcheted-up government imposed higher tax rate upon those who already bear the brunt of the tax burden.

From a theological standpoint it appears as if the president takes more of an eisegetical approach to Luke 12:48 than and exegetical one—which is convenient. But who are we to judge? Judge not.

Now … before I plow on with the topic of Obama’s Christian faith influencing his policies, I thought that in our current culture of sassy secularism elected officials, especially the president, are forbidden to merge biblical beliefs and public policy. Hell, GW couldn’t even tell Cheney “God bless ya” after Dick phlegmed his tie without Media Matters, Maddow and Matthews calling him a theocratic dominionist Nazi who was violating the Establishment Clause and who, left to his own devices, would be hanging homosexuals and burning Harry Potter books. Does Obama get a pass when he parlays his faith-based policies? Shucks … that ain’t fair, is it MSNBC?

I wish Christianity did influence Obama’s politics; if it truly did then there would be an end to abortion, bearing false witness, and obtrusive government and would allow for more liberty than ever before. In addition:

• The entitlement mentality would be history;
• We’d yield up a solid Protestant work ethic;
• We’d enforce a tougher immigration policy;
• Our military would be stronger;
• We’d have a balanced budget;
• We’d see a decrease in national debt and an end to prodigal spending;
• We’d have a defense of traditional marriage;
• And we’d revisit worshipping God rather than feckless humans and their stilted and stymied worldviews.

Lastly, with just a cursory glance at the gospels, the honest reader will note that Christ Jesus never commanded Caesar or Herod to collect taxes in order to take care of the poor. He told his disciples to give to the needy, of their own volition, as worship to God and in service to mankind, and only—only—when it’s done by these means and motivations is it deemed virtuous and Christian.

Oh, and by the way, the Scripture has a lot to say about taxes. Progressives might want to put on a cup before they click this hyperlink to see what “God” thinks about Obama’s tax plan.

Amen.

Doug Giles

---

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Bill Whittle - Render Unto Obama? Are the President's Polices Really Guided by the Gospels?

Barack Obama claimed at a recent prayer breakfast that the teachings of Jesus Christ guided policies like health care and Dodd-Frank. Citing the Bible, Obama argued that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." Can we take Obama's word at face value? Is he guided by scripture, or by old fashioned liberal politics? Find out.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Jeannie DeAngelis - Barack Obama Using Scripture

Originally posted at American Thinker 

---

In America today there is a new fad called Designer Christianity. Cherry-picked Christian ideology has zero to do with God's Word and everything to do with the moral relativism that now pervades modern philosophy. It is a pick-and-choose brand of religion where a person selects exactly what they want to believe, misinterprets and takes Scripture out of context, and then labels those who object to that sacrilege as mean-spirited, un-Jesus-like, and anti-Christian.

It's a mentality that says a personal interpretation of Scripture trumps the canon of God's Word and anything can be justified because God is much bigger than small-minded, fundamentalist-style thinking. Rather than align with truth, designer Christians mistakenly believe that God is eager to conform to public opinion and expectations.

Using Scripture to justify one's own desires or beliefs is the highest form of opportunism. The truth is that when it comes to misusing Christianity, Barack "Audacity" Obama issues edicts against religious organizations one day and then quotes Scripture to justify forcing Christians to support abortion the next.

This year at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama spoke on Jesus' behalf and claimed "support from on high to defend two of his most controversial legislative achievements" - one being healthcare reform, an aspect of which includes funding abortion on demand.

Good Samaritan Barack Obama must believe Christian charity includes supplying free abortions and contraceptives to everyone in America, because just as he said, God knows "far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years." Over breakfast, President Obama shared the importance of obeying God's commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself." What he didn't mention was that he makes an exception to that rule for women seeking an abortion, because "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply when the victim is in utero.

The President even provided the National Prayer Breakfast attendees with mental imagery of himself as Jacob wrestling with God and prevailing when he reportedly said that he often "falls to his knees in prayer," and where he "emphasized the role of his religious values in determining where to lead the country." One wonders whether it was during one of those prayer sessions the President managed to convince the Lord to change His mind and give dispensation to government to force Catholic institutions, against their beliefs, to provide coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and ultimately abortion.

We'll never know, but nonetheless, while speaking
to the prayer breakfast crowd the President, in the name of God, also maintained that he is "call[ing] for the wealthiest to give up their tax breaks...out of economic necessity, but also in line with biblical teachings." Could it be that Barack Obama is suggesting mixing church and state together? After all, Jesus did say to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's." Is Barack Obama now suggesting that paying taxes to the government fulfills our responsibility to both Caesar and God?

Waxing homiletic, Obama invited America into the solitude of his prayer closet when he said, "And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense."

Then, pulling a pick-and-choose maneuver, the President followed that up by saying, "But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'"

The Obama doctrine is such that, to the President - to whom we all know 'much has been given' - caring for the poor in the name of Jesus Christ includes monetary extortion. Furthermore, Barack's dogma obviously adheres to the heretical belief that neither he nor his congregants will be required to explain exactly how caring for the least among us includes supporting abortion.

In "defense" of the innocent, the President defends either himself, or a policy that further enhances his largely government-driven religious convictions. In a stunning example of his typical cluelessness, Obama "defended foreign aid from assault, noting that it not just enhances the nation's security," - and here's where it gets really good - "but fulfills the biblical requirement to look out for those who cannot speak for themselves."

When referencing foreign aid, Uganda, and human trafficking, the President said, "It's also about the biblical call to care for the least of these - for the poor; for those at the margins of our society. To answer the responsibility we're given in Proverbs to 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.'" Interestingly enough, another translation of that Proverb reads: "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed."

But never mind all that "justice for those being crushed" talk, because once again at yet another National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama attempted to maintain his religious credibility while employing a pick-and-choose form of Christianity. He shared with the faithful that he gains spiritual insight and values through a unique interpretation of the Bible and "private moments of prayer." In other words, the President seeks divine approval to administer policy for the common good and to do 'God's work' in the form of providing unlimited funding and unfettered access to abort those Americans "who cannot speak for themselves."

Jeannie DeAngelis

---

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Bill Whittle - The Coin of the Realm

What is the coin of the realm in a country filled with sanctimonious liberals like Michael Moore, Matt Damon and Jay Z? Find out as Bill Whittle talks about the unearned moral superiority of American liberals, and their demands to redistribute American wealth.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Jeannie DeAngelis - Obama's Success in a Failed Country

Originally posted at American Thinker

---

Great patriot President Ronald Reagan once said: "Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation." At the time he spoke those words, Reagan assured Americans that "[y]ou will have opportunities beyond anything we've ever known."

Conservative Ronald Reagan promoted optimistic prospects for the future, and it appears as if liberal ideologue Barack Obama looks for every opportunity to suppress them. Thus, Reagan's impression of America as a land where exponential growth in opportunity would be passed down from generation to generation is quite different from the cataclysmic future Barack Obama's policies are presently cultivating. Of course, Barack's not worried about his own kids, because "they're on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful."

Clearly, for political expediency, the president of the United States has no qualms about boasting of personal wealth and success if doing so instills the type of envy and fear in the American voter that foster further dependency and discourage autonomy.

Not only is Obama's elitist prediction telling, but it's prophetic. Tucked within the obvious anti-American sentiment is a qualifier that exempts his family from a dire future that he believes, without liberal intervention, the rest of the nation's children are destined to endure.

Rather than sharing a vision of America as a "shining city on a hill," Reagan's arrogant antithesis, Barack Obama, campaigns on the taxpayer's dime and insists that if Republicans are in power, a dismal future awaits America.

The basis of Obama's prediction is that if the Republican leadership gets its way, the United States is ruined and will no longer be a land of opportunity. What Barack conveniently fails to mention is that he is the harbinger of the endemic entitlement mentality and unmanageable debt the next generation will be forced to face in place of the unlimited personal advancement President Reagan promoted.

Instead of proclaiming the greatness of America, while wife Michelle dines at trendy D.C. restaurants, Barack Obama cooks up huge cauldrons of class warfare on the campaign trail. The president stokes the fire of support with words of societal and economic division when he boasts that "[o]ur kids are going to be fine. And I always tell Malia and Sasha, look, you guys, I don't worry about you ... they're on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful."

Such absurd statements are not out of character. Why shouldn't the Obama daughters rest in the knowledge that the same opportunities their father's policies deny the rest of the country will be a privilege they'll enjoy, regardless of who suffers? Meanwhile, Mrs. Obama eats chunks of chocolate sculpture for dessert while lecturing the rest of the nation about staying away from sweets.

Both the president and his wife have been afforded every opportunity this nation could provide and then some. Now, the thank-you America gets is the president of the United States telling a crowd of "supporters" that there is a good possibility that the country he claims to lead has the potential to not be successful "as a whole"?

Wasn't it Michelle, recently seen dining at the oh-so-chic co co. sala lounge and boutique, who realigned Americans' lofty aspirations by saying, "They don't want the whole pie. There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit...someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more"?

Now Barack Obama claims that he fears an "America where [his] kids are living behind walls and gates, and can't feel a part of a country that is giving everybody a shot." Seems the president forgot that his brand of liberal ideology discourages exactly what he's claiming Republican policies deny. Barack is the one pushing "thrive a little bit" policies while crowing about how, unlike other children, his two girls will be among the favored few who succeed.

Instead of bolstering generational success, the president is burdening rather than buoying future generations. Sadly but truly, Obama is right -- if he has anything to say about it, his privileged daughters will certainly do well, but if his share-the-wealth/tax-and-spend governing remains in place, the nation "as a whole" will ultimately fail.

Rather than standing tall, if Barack Obama's "fundamental transformation" continues, the country is destined to be flaccid and weighed down, a bankrupt wilderness with insurmountable debt accrued by a president whose vision of government "giving everybody a shot" is the real reason why -- unlike Sasha and Malia -- most American children could face a future without a strong set of shoulders to stand upon.

Jeannie DeAngelis

---

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Jeannie DeAngelis - A ‘Windshield Rancher’ and the Nouveau Riche

Originally posted at Big Government

---

In reaction to the criticism over the Obama family heading to Martha’s Vineyard amidst gargantuan economic woes and unemployment rates so high even the dead are disturbed, liberals have taken to defending Obama’s vacation time (transportation compliments of two tax-payer funded jets) by portraying George W. Bush as a man who never worked.

According to Obama’s defenders, Bush vacation days were disproportionately greater when compared to Barack “nose-to-the-grindstone” Obama’s. The left argues that Obama has earned 10 days in a haven for multimillionaires because Bush spent eight years in perpetual party mode.

Mr. Bush did spend time on “vacation.” But Obama and Michelle closing down Bar Harbor, Maine to dine in upscale restaurants with a “Latin flair” is quite different from G.W. fishing on his family’s estate in Kennebunkport prior to hosting a “Lobster Summit” for Vladimir Putin.

According to CBS reporter Mark Knoller, a vacationing President Bush would go into town for an annual cheeseburger. On the other hand, every chance he gets, Barack relaxes seaside, sipping sunset cocktails and eating lobster while the Secret Service keep peons at bay.

Maybe scorekeepers could refresh America’s memory and cite the instance when Mr. and Mrs. Bush nearly brought the Big Apple to a halt while they leisurely took in dinner and a show.

Intermittently, George W. did head home to conduct business from the “Western White House” in Crawford, Texas. For fun, Mr. Bush would be seen with a “power saw in his hand going after brush and dead trees.” President Obama has got to know that no one would condemn a decision to head home to his Tony Rezko-acquired property on South Greenwood Avenue in Chicago, instead of his $4,000 a night “Winter White House” in Hawaii.

Moreover, is there a liberal apologist honest enough to calculate the difference between Bush floating around in his father’s row boat in Maine and the untold millions Obama spent, mixing business with pleasure, on a 250-person, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt-enhanced traveling entourage that reserved 500 rooms in the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai?

During his tenure, Bush was regularly criticized for making 77 visits to Prairie Chapel Ranch. What detractors rarely mention is the former president voluntarily doing double-duty by entertaining 19 world leaders in his home. For those keeping track, that averages to be 2.375 working vacations a year.

When not gathering cedar wood, Bush spent many a vacation day serving “Southern-inspired” meals to dignitaries like China’s former leader Jiāng Zémín.

Some other notables feted at Mr. Bush’s heartland ranch were: Tony Blair; Putin and his pectorals; King Abdullah; Australian and Italian Prime Ministers John Howard and Silvio “Bunga Bunga” Berlusconi; Vicente Fox; Hosni Mubarak; Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía of Spain; German Chancellor Andrea Merkel; and Israel’s Ariel Sharon.

On the other hand, Barack prefers to reserve fine dining for family getaways. Unlike his predecessor, Obama’s unique down-home style includes treating Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to greasy spoon at Ray’s Hell Burger, a hamburger joint in downtown DC that Obama frequents with trusty sidekick Joe Biden.

Listening to liberals justify the President spending more time in a golf cart than with his feet up on the Resolute Desk, one would think Barry needs to be pried from the Oval Office and convinced to take a few days off against his will.

What is never mentioned is that the Obamas get a reprieve every time they’re visited at the White House by Motown stars, ex-Beatles, “Desperate Housewives”/Border security advisors, and Super Bowl party guests like the ex-Mrs. Marc Anthony, JLo. Moreover, the Obamas regularly blow off steam with at-home Latina cultural events and on Wagyu beef, cocktail parties, and Conga lines.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama also shuffle together official business with throwing back pints of Guinness and Diwali dancing. Makes one wonder how liberals, who define Bush entertaining world leaders in Crawford as a vacation, can consider Obama touring Rio with Michelle, Sasha and Malia official business.

However, had George W. Bush not boycotted the Earth Summit in 2002, there’s a good chance he too could have delighted poor Brazilian kids with his adroit soccer ball dexterity.

Bush aside, the Queen of R and R is Michelle. In between vacations, Mrs. Obama manages to sandwich in NYC tasting tours, BBQ eating romance, jaunts to Oregon, “whirlwind” shopping in Paris, ancho-chile short ribs and skiing in Vail, and miniature golf sessions in Panama City Beach. After tuckering herself out on a $375,000 Spanish pre-vacation/vacation and a fried fat-cake-eating African safari, the woman deserves two-weeks off in August.

Nevertheless, the debate isn’t about Michelle; it’s about Barry and George. The question is how Barack Obama body surfing in the cool waves of the Atlantic while the economy tanks and desperate Americans stand in line at job fairs baking in the hot summer sun compares with Bush holding official meetings at Camp David and choosing to spend time in Crawford brandishing a chain saw and a cheeseburger in a strong economy.

The truth is, despite 9-11, while Bush was president and until the Pelosi Democrats took over Congress, both the stock market, and nation’s employment rate remained relatively healthy. Yet Bush, who quit playing golf during the Iraqi war because he felt it sent the “wrong signal,” still maintained a low vacation profile.

For Barack Obama, whose horrendous fiscal policies are responsible for much of America’s misery, to take a highbrow vacation during a double-dip recession reveals a lot about his character. Although George W. defines himself as a “windshield rancher,” it’s Obama who clearly lacks class, because his habitual insensitivity and self-indulgence proves he cares for no one but himself.

The President’s defenders should quit comparing the arriviste-nouveau riche-Obama side show with the restraint and discretion Bush exhibited throughout his presidency. George W’s vacation days were just another excuse for him to extend a unique brand of “ranch diplomacy,” as opposed to the frivolous opulence that, despite America’s ongoing economic despair, a shameless Barack Obama continues to enjoy.

Jeannie DeAngelis

---

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

---

Related Post: Wild Bill for America - Secret Service Secrets
Related Post: Jeannie DeAngelis - The Obamas: Chilidogs and Couture
Related Post: Jeannie DeAngelis - The Tamale Tells All
Related Post: Jeannie DeAngelis - Cause Couture
Related Post: ‘Better things to do’ Obama goes to NY to fundraise

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Jeannie DeAngelis - Obama's Undignified Transparency

Originally posted at American Thinker

---

If the American people were doubtful about the manipulative nature of Barack Obama, his undignified behavior at the "dignified transfer" of the remains of 30 American troops killed by Taliban insurgents in the worst single loss of life in 10 years of the Afghan war should extinguish any remaining doubt. It's confirmed -- Barack Obama is willing to disrespect the families of dead war heroes if doing so assists in his desperate bid for reelection.

After the tragedy in the "forested peaks" of Wardak Province, 60 miles southwest of Kabul, Pentagon officials had said that because 19 families of the deceased 30 soldiers objected to media coverage of the remains coming off a plane at Dover Air Force Base, no images would be taken. The Pentagon was so emphatic about the sensitive nature of the event, they even "rejected media requests to take photos that showed officials at the ceremony but did not depict caskets."

Doug Wilson, head of public affairs at the Pentagon, said that not even the photographers who generally accompany the Defense Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were permitted to attend. The Pentagon was committed to fully respecting the wishes of the fallen soldiers' families; they deferred to the bereaved and refrained from chronicling the event with official photos of the solemn occasion.

Ordinarily, if 11 out of 30 families didn't mind having the flag-draped caskets photographed, they could be, after which they'd be "ushered away" before the remains of any troops whose families were too devastated to want to be a public spectacle were unloaded from the plane.

The difference in this case was that when the nearly three dozen soldiers, 21 of whom were DevGru SEAL members, arrived from overseas, prior to being formally identified by Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations, "any given case could contain the remains of troops whose families did not want coverage." So taking pictures was strictly prohibited.

What the Pentagon didn't anticipate was the President's falling poll numbers putting him in dire need of a good saluting-dead-soldiers photo op.

Unbeknownst to those caught up in that heartrending moment, a White House photographer accompanied the President to the ceremony -- incognito. By that night, "an official White House photo of a saluting Obama was distributed to news media and published widely. It also was posted on the White House website as the 'Photo of the Day."

Don Wilson said he "did not know the White House photographer was present and had no idea a photo of the event was being released until it became public."

The snapshot portrayed "Obama and other officials in silhouette and did not depict [the] caskets." In an attempt to give Barack Obama the stature he lacks as a leader, the photo was shot against a gray sky, under the wing of an aircraft, outlining a saluting President from behind, standing ramrod straight, two heads above four other men whose hands were over their hearts.

The issue here is not whether Obama was saluting or not; it's that the President's unrelenting quest for attention was the sole reason that the crushed parents, brokenhearted wives, and confused children whose loved ones' bodies were rolled off a cargo plane into a concrete hanger were denied the simple request for a private moment of grief.

After the Navy SEALS successfully carried out Operation Neptune Spear and sent Osama bin Laden on a one-way journey to 72 Virginsville, the soldiers were uneasy about confidentiality and the details that were slowly leaked. The concern was how exposing the identities of the covert team could potentially impact the safety of the SEALs' families.

Now, upon the deaths of 21 of those Seal Team Six members, the President's narcissistic self-absorption has usurped honoring the express wishes of men lying silent within metal tombs who asked nothing from the country they died defending except that above all, family comes first.

Ironically, in March 2009, the Obama administration chose to reverse an 18-year-old moratorium, renewed by George W. Bush, that banned photographing the caskets of US soldiers returning home from war. The newly-enacted Pentagon policy specified that, upon notification of a loved one's death, the "primary next of kin" has the right to make the "family decision regarding media access to dignified transfers at Dover."

By toting along a photojournalist to an event that banned photographs, Barack Obama, the man who approved the "primary next of kin" policy, decided once again to exempt himself from a rule he made for others. The President chose to disregard the wishes of 19 military families and violated a stipulation that was included with his authorization.

When asked about the picture, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that it was "carefully taken so that it did not show the cases containing remains." Which really means: We knew the families were against media coverage but the President made an executive decision to secretly attempt a tactful photo op.

Carney should have stopped there, but he kept on explaining - "In this case, the White House released the photo, in the interests of transparency, so that the American people could have as much insight as possible into this historic and sobering event." The President is so wary that he didn't even invite the press to his transparency award ceremony. The most opaque, non-transparent presidency in the history of the nation decided to be transparent on the one occasion when total discretion was of the essence.

If President Barack Obama wants to be transparent, maybe instead of invading the homecoming of dead war heroes with a hidden camera he could start with a more benign effort like releasing his college transcripts and following his own rules.

Jeannie DeAngelis

---

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

---

Related Post: America Loses Some of Its Bravest and Best Trained Warriors
Related Post: The United States Loses American Warriors
Related Post: United States Navy Seals - Memorial Day

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Jeannie DeAngelis - Obama’s Ocular Redwood

Whenever Barack Obama strides up that long red rug and approaches the presidential podium to deliver a statement to the nation, two sentences after he opens his mouth, idioms having to with planks and splinters; glass houses and stones; and pots calling kettles black immediately come to mind.

Another example of “One donkey calls the other one long ears” was Obama’s most recent prime time outburst to address the debt issue. Determined to not be blamed for the debt ceiling impasse, in accusatory mode a petulant President cited the usual suspects: villainous corporate jet owners; wealthy Americans; corporate tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires; special deductions; hedge fund managers; oil companies; and of course the accusation that the right stacks the deck “against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few.”

Other than rehearsing a campaign speech and chiding Republicans, the President offered not one substantive solution to the debt crisis. However, he did cover the usual Republican-induced debt threats that included the standard fare of fewer college graduates, public servant layoffs, broken roads and collapsing bridges, e coli-ridden uninspected food, homeless veterans lying along the side of the road, Medicare and Medicaid recipients sitting in broken-down wheelchairs, dying for lack of adequate health care, and medical research going the way of NASA.

Although he’s been back in Texas for over three years now, even GW Bush was called on to make a perfunctory appearance in absentia. In the oddest moment of the entire evening, Obama intimated that former President Bush was responsible for the debt crisis, and then while lobbying for raising the debt ceiling he praised Bush for raising it seven times, even though Obama had voted against it as Senator. Within the context of his remarks, the first negative comment was so far from the second laudatory statement that the President must not have even noticed the obvious contradiction, proving once again that befuddled people should avoid being haughty.

A presidential aide should have slipped him a reminder note: Mr. President, if you’re going to blame Republicans, whatever you do, don’t accuse Bush of leaving you a dire economic situation and then praise him for an economic fix that you voted against as Senator, but that you now want to implement.

So caught up in relinquishing personal responsibility for the impasse, the President failed to realize that he was boasting to 9.2% of the struggling unemployed population and those “bone-tired” Americans “scraping by, just to put food on the table,” that his being wildly successful makes him unlike the rest of America.

For the third time in three weeks, the President mentioned how unreasonable it is to “ask people like [himself] to give up tax breaks [he didn’t] need and didn’t ask for” – but has yet to reject. The “I’m really rich, you’re really poor” message was surpassed only by a didactic-style insult that implied most Americans are too dense to understand what the term “debt ceiling” means.

After bringing up every President short of George Washington to support his raise-the-debt-ceiling/ continue-spending/more-entitlements/non-plan plan, the President had the gall to place himself in the economic company of Ronald Reagan. Sorry, but Barack Obama comparing his fiscal philosophy with Ronald Reagan’s is on par with formerly bankrupt Donald Trump thinking he has the investment savvy of Warren Buffett.

Obama implied that America is ‘offended’ by everyone other than himself, never once accepting responsibility for how offensive he’s been on issues such as health care reform, immigration, the border, the economy, Israel, and the basic foundational tenets of freedom.

Always arrogant, cheeky, and overconfident, the President cited “dysfunctional government.” But, based on his comments he didn’t seem to recognize his own face looming high above the rabble of dysfunction. Moreover, while polls continue to indicate that most Americans are “fed up” with Obama, the President apparently doesn’t think America relegates him to the same category as they do the rest of Washington DC.

With each passing primetime pity party, it becomes clearer to anyone with eyes to see that unbeknownst to only himself, by blaming others for things he’s far more guilty of the President of the United States exemplifies what the Arabs mean when they say, “The camel cannot see the crookedness of its own neck.”

President Barack Obama said, “This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth,” and it sure as heck isn’t. Defiant and exempt from blame, Obama maintained that Republicans’ refusal to act in accordance with his treacherous approach to economics places the future of the nation at risk. According to the President, the “dangerous game” America is playing hinges squarely on Congress’s failure to comply with – you guessed it – his wishes.

Barack Obama was correct when he said that “American history remembers the ones who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good,” but he does neither of those. Furthermore, he was also accurate when he said: “Our nation remembers the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union” – which again is something rock-throwing, sulky child Barack Obama, living inside his glass house, has yet to do.

By refusing to acknowledge the massive collateral damage he has caused in three short years, Barack Obama, the guy with the 360-foot Sequoia stuck in his eye, has spent the greater part of his tenure attempting to pick at the splinters of those doing everything they can to save the nation.

Regardless of his monotonous, repetitive rhetoric, “rigid ideologue” Barack Obama has proven time and again that he lacks the self-control to resist having “I want my way” temper tantrums in primetime and the honesty to assume culpability for the results of the poor policy decisions to which he has subjected the nation. Moreover, publicly rebuking his adversaries by exploiting Thomas Jefferson’s words that “Every man cannot have his way in all things” indicates that Obama is a man stricken with a mind-numbing lack of self-awareness that rears its ugly head every time he approaches the podium.

Jeannie DeAngelis

---

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

---

Related Post: Barack Obama Wants to Spend More Money
Related Post: A 'Shrink' Asks What is Wrong With Barack Obama
Related Post: The Obama Legacy

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---