BluegrassBulletin.com

Obama's Delusional Jobs Picture Shattered

Barack Obama continues to travel the nation preaching to idiots adoring fans that he has created SOOOOOOO many jobs.  Well, as it turns out he is right, except that for every job he created, he also created 10 people on unemployment.  It felt that way, and according to Jeff Sessions, now we know why.

Obama vs. Facts

From CNS news:

President Barack Obama said on Thursday that “we got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the government will lose about $24 billion on the bailout.

“We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system, but we also passed a historic law to end taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts for good,” Obama said in Miami Thursday.

The Congressional Budget Office--based on figures from Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget---gives a different assessment.

“The cost to the federal government of the TARP’s transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, will amount to $24 billion,” said the CBO report, which was released on the same day Obama spoke.

The Debate: My Take

I chose to listen to the debate on the radio first and watch the replay after hearing the spin. You might be surprised how hearing but not seeing the debate affected the listeners perception.

Biden sounded more confident, more in command and frustrated by what the listener would have concluded was a weak attempt by Ryan to show loyalty to Romney despite his changing narrative on many issues. In my opinion, Ryan had a better grasp of the facts but Biden blew him off as lacking any practical experience which would justify his criticism of Obama's handling of various issues during his first term. W.C. Field's famous line "Go away son, you bother me" came to mind.

But Biden's defense of Obama got out of hand. His zeal as usual sent him spinning off into his own world where the consequences of what he was saying seemed to completely escape him.

It is as if this buffoon and his boss just can't pull their big boy pants on and govern without blaming everybody else for anything that doesn't work out as they dreamed it would. He blamed his own Intelligence services for mis-informing them about Benghazi. He blamed the Joint Chiefs for decisions which have cost lives in Iraq. He blamed President Bush for the last four years of failed economic decisions made by the Obama administration. And he blamed Ryan for showing up at a debate armed with facts rather than coming prepared to play politics.

Like it or not, it is my humble opinion that Biden fired up his base last night by being smug, self-righteous and condescending. He assumed the haughty attitude of John Kerry, the cocky "smart-ass" attitude of Obama and the "you dumb, white hick" attitude universal among the far left which has taken over control of what used to be a solidly patriotic (though misguided) democratic party.

When I later watched the split screen debate my opinion changed little except that I thought Ryan looked timid. No, his words were not timid but don't forget that I have spent over 30 years studying body language, what people are saying with their eyes and judging faces for signs of deception and worry. Ryan showed a smidgin of timidity, as if he was out gunned in the format.

In my opinion Biden did what he was supposed to do, Ryan held his own and I score it a draw except that Romney/Ryan is the team of challengers and in a championship fight the challenger has to win decisively because the holder of the crown gets to keep it unless it is forcibly taken away. Ryan didn't take the crown.

Now, add the spin. Yes Biden was rude. So what? His base is rude and would have expected no less. What was the complaint about Obama's performance against Romney? That he didn't go after him hard enough. To the left we conservatives are dumbass dolts who need to be put in our place. They have no desire to do that with facts but rather by being dismissive and treating us as if we are too stupid to grasp the complexities of their world view. Biden delivered on that score and for that reason scored a tie.

Did he make a bunch of gaffes? Of course he did, but it's Biden and since when has that ever hurt him?

Did Ryan have a perfect night? No. The story of Ryan asking for stimulus money for his state coming on the heels of his complaint about Obama borrowing from China to pay for the stimulus made him look like just the kind of hypocrite that the TEA party types have come to hate. That hurt his ticket among the conservatives who are breaking ranks these days under the stoned out misapprehension that letting Obama win is somehow a victory for their revolution.

But in the final analysis this debate won't make any difference in the outcome of the election any more than the Reds loss in the divisional playoffs makes in the pennant race. The big game is coming still coming up. And what everybody needs to remember is this one thing: We only have two choices, " Obama" or" Not Obama".

Get it?

Posted with Blogsy

Settle Down, I'm Just Reporting What's Out There

Have you heard all the hubbub about Obama's ring?  Well as the story goes he is wearing a ring on his "wedding finger" which contains an arabic inscription which says "There is no God but Allah".  Reports say he has been wearing it since college.  And not all of the reports are from complete crackpots.  Here goes.

Arabic-language and Islamic experts claim the gold band Obama has been wearing on his wedding-ring finger for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith naturally was met with skepticism in some circles, but Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze.com news service published a report citing a Duke professor who confirmed the WND experts’ assessment.

Earlier today, before it published the report, four members of The Blaze editorial team, including Editor-in-Chief Scott Baker, cautiously discussed the Obama ring story in their “Blazecast Rewind” Internet broadcast, without mentioning WND.

TheBlaze.com reporter Billy Hallowell told Baker he spoke with a professor from Duke who read the article, examined the photos and affirmed the conclusion of the WND experts.

“Based on what he saw, he said that this is, essentially, Arabic script on the ring and that it is the first part of the Shahada,” Hollowell said.[WND]

We return you now to your regularly scheduled Idiocracy.

Worst Cover-Up In History

So says Liz Cheney:

 

Moderator Of VP Debate Caught In Conflict With Obama

Let's go back to 1991.  Who was Barack Obama then?  He was not President (2009), he was not a US Senator (2005-2008), he was  not a state legislator (1997-2004), he was not a community organizer (1985-1988).  He was a senior at Harvard Law, and got a cushy job in Chicago where he got paid to write his book.

So why was he a guest at the wedding of Martha Radditz who is scheduled to moderate tomorrow's Vice Presidential debate?  Because he was a friend of the groom, the moderator's husband until 1997.  The Daily Caller has the story about all of that AND the cover up by the left stream media.

President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily Caller has learned. Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.

After TheDC made preliminary inquiries Monday to confirm Obama’s attendance at the wedding, ABC leaked a pre-emptive statement to liberal-leaning news outlets including Politico and The Daily Beast Tuesday, revealing what may have been internal network pressure felt just days before Raddatz was scheduled to moderate the one and only vice-presidential debate Thursday night.

Both Politico and The Daily Beast jumped to ABC and Raddatz’s defense. The Huffington Post, another liberal news outlet, joined them shortly thereafter, while calling “unusual” ABC’s attempt to kill the story before it gained wide circulation.

Obama "Disdainful" Of Romney

From the Free Online Dictionary:

disdainful adjective contemptuous, scornful, arrogant, superior, proud, sneering, aloof, haughty, derisive, supercilious, high and mighty (informal), hoity-toity (informal), turning up your nose (at), on your high horse (informal), looking down your nose (at)

Now from a report at Hot Air:

When President Barack Obama stepped off the stage in Denver last week the 60 million Americans watching the debate against Mitt Romney already knew it had been a disaster for him.

But what nobody knew, until now, was that Obama believed he had actually won.

In an extraordinary insight into the events leading up to the 90 minute showdown which changed the face of the election, a Democrat close to the Obama campaign today reveals that the President also did not take his debate preparation seriously, ignored the advice of senior aides and ignored one-liners that had been prepared to wound Romney.

The Democrat said that Obama’s inner circle was dismayed at the ‘disaster’ and that he believed the central problem was that the President was so disdainful of Romney that he didn’t believe he needed to engage with him.

So if Obama's people are saying that he is "disdainful" of Romney, in context what does this mean?  Let me save about a thousand words.

And Now For A Little Good News

Since the debate all of the news for Romney has been getting better.  I still think it could be a set up for the press to ram Obama down our throats non-stop after the next debates, but....in the meantime how about a little good news from the Romney/Ryan campaign?

Obama doesn't send me his stuff, but according to my tracking software, I know he has someone at the DOJ reading my blog.

Two Paths: Making The Case To Retire Obama

Found this video today.  I suggest that you share it with as many people in Ohio as possible.

 

Officials Accuse Obama Of Cover-Up Over Libyan Attacks

Intellilgence officials are reported to now be accusing President Obama's administration of an orchestrated cover-up over the attacks in Libya which left our Ambassador dead.

Officials said that the administration appeared to engage in a disinformation campaign aimed at distancing the president personally during the peak of the presidential election campaign from the disaster in Benghazi, where numerous warning of an attack were ignored, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other officials.

The first part of the apparent campaign, officials said, was the false information provided to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on Sunday television shows after the attack to say the event was a “spontaneous” response to an anti-Muslim video trailer posted online.

Officials said Rice was given the false information to use in media appearances in order to promote the excuse that the obscure video was the cause of the attack, and not the Islamic concept of jihad.

Rice’s claims provoked concern inside the U.S. intelligence community that intelligence about what was going on in Libya and the region was being suppressed, and led to a series of news disclosures about what would later be confirmed as an al Qaeda attack using the group Ansar al Sharia.

After Rice’s incorrect statements, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated the false assessment of the Benghazi attack.

The final element of the campaign involved comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was the first to give a partial explanation of the intelligence when she said al Qaeda terrorists operating from Mali were possible culprits in the Benghazi attack.

“What she failed to mention was the cooperation of Iran and Egypt in supporting jihadists in Libya,” the official said, who added the events would be investigated in an apparent effort to stave off internal critics in government.

That has led to delays in getting FBI and other U.S. investigators into Benghazi, raising concerns that some in the White House wanted to delay the FBI’s efforts to uncover evidence about the attack.

The FBI did not reach Benghazi until Thursday, ostensibly over concerns about the lack of security to protect them.

“The Obama Administration is afraid to admit al Qaeda is running rampant throughout the region because it would expose the truth instead of what President Obama so pompously spouted during the Democratic Convention” said the official. [Washington Free Beacon]

Now just what might they be trying to cover up?  I made a suggestion right after word of the attacks broke.  That level of involvement would certainly be motive for a cover-up wouldn't you think?