Obama shoots himself in the foot with disputed claim of skeet-shooting – Tea Party Nation

Obama shoots himself in the foot with disputed claim of skeet-shooting – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Victoria Knox

After President Barack Hussein Obama told The New Republic that “up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,” everyone across the political spectrum did a double-take. Even the normally incurious Washington press corps pressed White House spokesman Jay Carney for details. When Carney had none (“I’m not sure how often he’s done that. … “There may be (a photo), but I haven’t seen it.”), even CNN was openly skeptical.

Media skepticism deepened into something appropriate to the level of suspicion usually triggered by stonewalling about a cover-up  involving gun-running to insurgents in Syria via Turkey Iran-Contra, say, FOX News interviewed a source who had been at the presidential retreat with Obama on six occasions:

“The only time he shot skeet was for President’s Cup,” said the source, referring to a shooting competition tradition involving the presidential Marine guards. “I was there. He stayed for about five minutes, and couldn’t leave fast enough.”

Skeet shooting “is very hard,” said the source. “Especially for someone not used to guns … He couldn’t have been more uncomfortable.”

 

And then, the unthinkable: Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler felt the need to look into “the White House’s curious silence about Obama’s claim of skeet shooting” and found that during the 2008 campaign, Obama never mentioned shooting any type of firearm, and that was a no-show at a campaign event featuring skeet-shooting. Further, the president made no reference to skeet-shooting at Camp David when he hosted Olympic skeet-shooting champions Kim Rhode and Army Sgt. Vincent Hancock But at the White House in September – though one article quotes a member of the Texas Christian University‘s national championship rifle team saying that Obama claimed to practice shooting a rifle with the Secret Service when they were greeted by him at the White House. Finally, there were no press reports of skeet-shooting being a recreational activity that Obama engaged in at Camp David.

 

Kessler’s verdict: “The evidence suggests that until Obama had access to a shooting range as president, he never went skeet shooting. He certainly did not speak like a politician who had once used a firearm.” In response, the White House released this photo purporting to show Obama skeet-shooting:


The WaPo reports that the photo was disseminated because “White House aides were trying to end a growing distraction just as the president plans to make a fresh push to rally public support behind his ambitious agenda to tighten gun laws,” and adds these details about the provenance of the image:

On his 51st birthday last August, President Obama hit the links with a group of buddies and then flew by helicopter to Camp David. There, he changed into jeans and picked up a shotgun. And then, before it got too dark, he started a round of clay target shooting.

The photo, taken by White House photographer Pete Souza, depicts a sunglasses-wearing Obama firing what appears to be a Browning Citori 725, the shotgun wedged against his left shoulder, a pillow of white smoke emerging from the barrel. …

The “over and under” design [of the shotgun] features two barrels, one on top of the other, allowing the gun to hold and fire two shotgun shells.

The smoke in the photo is emanating from air vents in the barrel, a feature known as “porting” that reduces recoil shock and allows for steadier aim. …

According to the Browning Web site, some of the Citori models are made in a left-handed version, with a slight bend near the butt – though it was not apparent from the photo whether the left-handed president was using one of those.

As the WaPo predicted, “the release of the photo seemed more likely to inflame passions around the issue than douse them.” For one thing, in the photo Obama is pointing the gun straight ahead, as though aiming at a stationary target, rather than towards the sky where the skeet would be sailing overhead. Adding more fuel to the social media firestorm, when the White House released the photo, it included the standard admonition that it is not to be used for commercial or political purposes and “may not be manipulated in any way.” All fine and proper, and normal procedure. But then Obama adviser David Plouffe tweeted an invitation – some say a dare – to manipulate the image using Photoshop.

The Blaze includes a selection of doctored photos, including two depicting Obama shooting the U.S. flag and Constitution. A Facebook page was also created to collect Photoshopped images of Obama’s skeet-shooting prowess that put him next to former presidential candidate Mike Dukakis in a tank, outside Usama bin Laden’s compound alongside members of Seal Team Six who killed the terrorist and riding along with the Beverly Hillbillies in their jalopy. The page includes a greenscreen shot that masks the background in the White House photo so other people can make their own visual puns. For its part, Before It’s News published a photo of Obama shooting White House Press Secretary Jay Carney for not diffusing the “distraction” before it got out of hand.

But as funny as these images of Obama are – in an LOL sort of way – the media’s ignorance about guns is equally funny – in a farcical sort of way, considering that the most powerful news organizations in the nation are simultaneously inveighing against “assault weapons” and pushing draconian NYC-style gun control laws from coast to coast. Both liberal news outlets (The New York Times and Gawker, among them) and conservative ones (notably, New York Post and FOX News) referred to the gun Obama was holding as a “rifle,” and The Associated Press described the protective gear the president wore as “headphones” and “sunglasses.” Journalists’  command of firearms is as questionable as Obama’s. 

As The Stiletto noted on Facebook, it’s galling that people who don’t know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun presume to weigh in on gun control without having the expertise to differentiate  between military assault rifles and civilian sport rifles cosmetically altered with various accessories that make them look like a military weapon without affecting function or caliber. This is analogous to a journalist who covers automobile racing looking under the hood and mistaking the performance-enhancing tweaks to the cylinder heads, camshafts and valve train of the street legal production version of the 2013 Chevy SS with the highly modified small block V-8 engine that powers its NASCAR counterpart.

 

CNN Anchor: It Doesn’t Matter That Gun Violence is Down – Katie Pavlich

CNN Anchor: It Doesn’t Matter That Gun Violence is Down – Katie Pavlich.

afreepeopleIf you weren’t quite sure what the “unbiased” opinion about gun control from so-called objective journalists was, you’ll know now. This morning on CNN, anchor Don Lemon said it doesn’t matter that gun crime has been consistently going down since the 1990s as gun control has decreased. FBI crime statistics prove this fact year after year. 

It doesn’t matter if gun violence is down. 20 children are dead here and 6 adults are dead, and the mother of a person who was not mentally — who is mentally challenged in some way is dead. so to say that gun violence is down — we need to talk about mental health, yes. mental health is a secondary issue. We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets. They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt children.

Lemon is correct, 20 children are dead and their parents have been living a nightmare since they were killed last week, however, the way to react to the situation is not by turning sane gun owners, including semi-automatic gun owners, into criminals. There are about 60 million gun owners in the United States, many of them own semi-automatic handguns and rifles and have zero interest in hunting children as Lemon suggested. Also, automatic weapons are already off the streets.

upyoursAfter the Giffords shooting, a Pew poll showed 58 percent of Americans said the horrific incident was carried out by a troubled indiviual. This case is no different.

In the wake of the Tucson shooting in January 2011, there was no significant change in public views on the issue of gun control and gun rights.

Currently, 49% of Americans say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership. In September 2010, 50% prioritized gun control, 46% gun rights. In this regard, there is no sign that the longer trend toward an emphasis on gun owners’ rights has abated.

Perhaps one reason that attitudes remained stable was how few saw the events in Tucson as a sign of broader social problems. Most (58%) Americans say things like this are just the isolated acts of troubled individuals. Only about half as many (31%) saw the shooting in Tucson as a reflection of broader problems in American society.

1in2Once again we’re seeing how out of touch the media is with the rest of America and not surprisingly, they’re wearing their agenda right on their sleeve.

What was Romney’s best moment in Europe? – Tea Party Nation

 

Mitt and Ann Romney on December 22, 2007, at a...

Mitt and Ann Romney on December 22, 2007, at a campaign event in Londonderry, New Hampshire. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

What was Romney’s best moment in Europe? – Tea Party Nation.

 

Posted by Judson Phillips

 

Mitt Romney’s trip to Europe was criticized not only by the Obama campaign but the drive by media as well.  Wait, aren’t those two the same thing?

 

 There was one great moment during the Europe trip.

 

 What was it?

 

 It was a great moment and Romney actually had nothing to do with it.

 

 His aide and sometimes spokesman Rick Gorka cut loose on the media, telling them to “kiss my ass,” and “shove it.”

 

 Regrettably Gorka is taking a week off from the campaign.

 

 Why was this the best moment of the trip?

 

 Because at least one person in the Romney campaign seems to get it.

 

The drive by media is Romney’s enemy.  When people refer to the drive by media as the media arm for the Obama campaign that is pretty accurate. 

 

 Unfortunately the GOP Establishment believes they have to be nice to the media in the non-existent hope that the left wing media will be nice to them.

 

 What are they thinking?

 

 Here is some news for both the Romney campaign and for the Republican Establishment.  There is a conservative media.  We are the underground media.  We are the insurgent media.  We are the media that is destroying the drive by media. 

 

 Five years from now, the drive by media, as we know it, will be gone.  It is the conservative new media that will replace them.

 

 So why is the Romney campaign playing to the drive bys?

 

 Memo to Mitt:  Ignore them.

 

 The conservative new media is your friend.  More people are paying attention to the conservative new media than they are the old drive by media.

 

 There is a reason why Drudge is the number one rated news website in the world.  That title does not belong to CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters or MSNBC, the network with three viewers. 

 

 We are seeing a communications revolution.  The conservative new media includes all types of communicators from talk show hosts, to major news sites like WND and Breitbart to small one-man blogging sites. 

 

 Unlike the members of the drive by media, the new media is not trying to hide the truth or carry the water for a corrupt government.

 

 These are the people Mitt Romney needs to pay attention to.  These are the people that his communications team needs to be reaching out to.

 

 Mitt, forget the drive by media.  You don’t need them.  If you want to know what the conservative new media can do for you, just ask Ted Cruz.

 

 

Getting it right! – Tea Party Nation

Getting it right! – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Sometimes even liberals get it right.

 

John Hickenlooper is the liberal Democrat Governor of Colorado.  As you might guess, he was booked on the news shows today to talk about the massacre in Aurora Colorado.

 

The question was raised, how do you prevent tragedies like the Aurora massacre from happening.

 

You would expect a liberal like Hickenlooper to come back with the standard politically correct answer that more gun control laws were needed.

 

Instead, he surprised everyone.

 

From Newsmax:

 

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said no law could have prevented suspect James Holmes from carrying out the act of terror that rocked an Aurora movie theater early Friday morning and left 12 dead.

 

“This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy’s going to find something. Right? He’s going to know how to create a bomb. Who knows where his mind would have gone. Clearly a very intelligent individual however twisted. That’s the problem, this is a human issue in some profound way,” Hickenlooper said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

 

“The people around him had no idea that this was something he was capable of,” said Hickenlooper.

 

“How do you prevent this?” Hickenlooper asked host Candy Crowley.” “How do we preserve our freedoms…and all those things that define this country, and yet try to prevent something like this [from] happening? Let me tell you, there’s no easy answer. There isn’t.”

 

The governor described the suspect as a “deeply troubled, twisted, delusional person.”

 

“I am speechless,” he said. “I can’t conceive of a motive. In a funny way, this guy is a terrorist, right? For whatever twisted reasons that we can barely even imagine, he wanted to create terror. He wanted to put fear in people’s lives.

 

 

Hickenlooper is absolutely right about that.  Aurora Colorado has very restrictive gun laws.  That did not stop the shooter.  The movie theater had a no guns policy.  That did not stop the shooter.

 

What if Aurora Colorado had the most draconian gun control laws in America?  That still would not have stopped this guy. 

 

What would have happened if you could have actually kept guns out of this guys hands?  The tragedy still would have happened.  He just would have chosen a different method.

 

Look at his apartment.  According to the police it was very thoroughly booby trapped.  He had created explosive devices and managed to do so without raising any red flags. 

 

Think about this for a second.  Here we are in the post 9/11 world, with the Department of Homeland Security and this guy is able to build some pretty sophisticated bombs and he does not even show up on the radar?

 

If some how we could have denied him access to guns, he would have used another weapon, such as an explosive device.

 

Hickenlooper is correct.  No laws would have stopped this guy.

 

EDITORIAL NOTE:  I still refuse to identify the shooter in Aurora by his name.  The people who should be remembered by name are his victims, not that sick freak.

I’ll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For a Tax Increase Today – Ann Coulter – Townhall Conservative

 

Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan

Image via Wikipedia

I’ll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For a Tax Increase Today – Ann Coulter – Townhall Conservative.

Bored with the Penn State scandal because it didn’t implicate any prominent Republicans, the mainstream media have suddenly become obsessed with Grover Norquist‘s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” They are monomaniacally fixated on luring Republicans into raising taxes.

If Democrats could balance the budget tomorrow and quadruple government spending, they’d refuse the deal unless they could also make Republicans break their tax pledge. That is their single-minded goal.

But the media are trying to turn it around and say that it’s Republicans who are crazy for refusing to consider raising taxes no matter how much they get in spending cuts.

At Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.

Terrorism can wait — first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.

Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan’s statement in his autobiography, “An American Life,” that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted — implying that today’s Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they’d refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.

Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes “in return for (the Democrats’) agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but, Reagan continues, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.”

Maybe that’s why Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats’ history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans’ opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That’s why Republicans need to remind them.

From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 — which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats’ subsequent caterwauling — he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.

You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.

So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes — though not income taxes — in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: “The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts.”

But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion — only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.

Meanwhile, Reagan’s tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years — as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.

If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)

But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.

Even the gusher of revenue brought in by Reagan’s tax cuts couldn’t pay for all the additional spending piled up by double-crossing Democrats — more than twice as much as Reagan’s spending on defense.

Reagan’s defense spending crushed the Soviet war machine. What did Tip O’Neill’s domestic spending accomplish? (I mean, besides destroying the black family, increasing single motherhood and creating government bureaucracies that can never be eliminated.)

Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later.

Pretending to care about the deficit — created exclusively by their own profligate spending — Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a “balanced budget” package with both spending cuts and tax increases.

In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his “read-my-lips, no-new-taxes” campaign pledge.

Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.

The Democrats didn’t care: All that mattered was that they had tricked Bush into breaking his tax pledge, which they celebrated all the way to Bush’s defeat in the next election.

On CNN’s “Crossfire,” then-congressman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., gloated: “All the spin control in the world can’t undo the fact that the president is moving away from (no new) taxes.”

An article on the front page of The New York Times proclaimed that “with his three words, (‘tax revenue increases’) Mr. Bush had broken the central promise of his 1988 campaign.”

As the next presidential campaign got under way, CNN interviewed a “Reagan Democrat,” who said: “Bush says, ‘Read my lips.’ Remember when he said that? We got taxes anyway. Clinton says, I will raise your taxes because we have to do something about that national debt.”

Democrats had effectively taken away the Republican Party’s central defining issue — low taxes — and the Republicans got nothing in return.

(I take that back: We got a stained blue dress for the Smithsonian. So, an OK trade.)

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton taunted Bush for breaking his tax pledge, saying, “He promised 15 million new jobs, no new taxes, the environmental president, an education presidency. It was a wonderful speech. But now we don’t have to read his lips; we can read his record.”

Apparently, Republicans can read the Democrats’ record, too. They know that Democrats will promise to cut spending in exchange for tax increases and then screw Republicans on the spending cuts.

It’s been 20 years since they pulled that scam, so Democrats figure it’s time to make Republicans break a tax pledge again. As long as no one knows the history of these “deals,” the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule.

MILLER: Supercommittee a super dud – Washington Times

MILLER: Supercommittee a super dud – Washington Times.

Smoke-and-mirrors deal means higher taxes

By Emily Miller – The Washington Times

The congressional supercommittee was supposed to make all of the hard budgetary choices that representatives couldn’t be trusted to make on their own. As the final deadline looms, it’s looking like the end result will be the imposition of fake spending cuts and real tax hikes.

The debt-ceiling deal struck earlier this year gave this extraordinary panel until Nov. 23 to submit its decisions to the Congressional Budget Office and avoid triggering $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts – half from defense. The committee is supposed to find that amount in deficit reduction over 10 years in order to compensate for the next bump up in the debt ceiling.

A meeting of the minds isn’t likely because, even behind closed doors, Democrats refuse to address the real drivers of our debt: Medicare and Medicaid. Republican Medicare reform proposals include the Ryan plan and the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici plan. The supercommittee gave both sides bipartisan cover to implement the necessary but politically difficult changes such as means testing and increasing the eligibility age.

Real discretionary spending cuts are just as unlikely. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the supercommittee co-chairman, told CNN this isn’t likely to change. “Frankly, there are no real spending cuts on the table,” the Texas Republican said. “All we are talking about here is slowing the rate of growth. All of these programs, by and large, are going to continue to grow, but at a pace that would become more sustainable.” With no real cuts in any government programs, the only way to make up the difference is revenue.

Democrats are counting on being able to tell their liberal base that they’re sticking it to “the rich” and making corporate America pay more. Republicans have shown some willingness to go along with about $500 million in tax hikes, half from taking away some deductions on higher-income filers, in exchange for lowering marginal rates.

The tax code is so complex that it isn’t possible to make quick changes. So members are considering writing modifications to the system broadly and pushing off the specifics as something to be done through regular legislative business. This two-stage process gives the advantage to Democratic tax hikes as marginal-rate changes get pushed off and bogged down.

Both sides will be saying the sky is falling if the supercommittee doesn’t reach a deal, but the drama is contrived. The supercommittee will come to an agreement in time, with smoke-and-mirror spending “cuts” in the out years. There will be no change to entitlement programs. Republicans will fall for empty promises and trade tax hikes for future tax reform that will never happen.

It’s business as usual in Washington, and that’s why our $15 trillion national debt continues to grow.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

NUGENT: Morgan Freeman reads from the wrong script – Washington Times

Morgan Freeman, Academy Award-winning American...

Image via Wikipedia

NUGENT: Morgan Freeman reads from the wrong script – Washington Times.

Actor charging Tea Party with racism is out of character

By Ted Nugent – The Washington Times

The ugliest form of racism is accusing others of racism when there is none. Throwing around the terms “racist” and “racism” has been a tactic of the left for decades. Surely we can all agree that Martin Luther King Jr. would not endorse such an ugly tactic, as he wanted us to judge each other on the content of our character rather than our skin color.

While falsely accusing others of racism for years, the left has ratcheted up its vitriolic and false claims now that President Obama is in office.

The actor Morgan Freeman, who obviously leans way to the left, is the most recent, egregious example of someone willing to claim racism where there is none.

In a disjointed rant on CNN’s Piers Morgan’s program, Mr. Freeman accused the Tea Party members of racism because of their opposition to Mr. Obama.

The real racist is not the Tea Party but the Oscar-winning actor.

Racists often are not well informed or choose to be intellectually isolated because of deep-seated prejudice and hate. Had Mr. Freeman removed his racist blinders and analyzed the Tea Party closely and honestly, he would have found an organization ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama’s policies and not his skin color.

He wouldn’t even have had to do that. A quick review of the GOP contenders for president would have enabled him to see that Herman Cain, a black contender, enjoys substantial support by the very Tea Party that Mr. Freeman claims is racist. Mr. Cain just recently won a straw poll in Florida.

Had Mr. Freeman chosen to analyze the plight of black Americans under Mr. Obama’s tenure, he would have found a dismal and bleak state of affairs. The unemployment rate of black Americans has skyrocketed to almost 17 percent during Mr. Obama’s short tenure. Maybe Mr. Freeman would contend that is George W. Bush’s fault or blame the Tea Party for a sinister, racist plan to destroy black America. He would be dead wrong again.

Because of high unemployment rates, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, recently stated that caucus members would “probably be marching on the White House” if President Obama were not the president. One has to wonder if Mr. Freeman read that.

Regarding the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Allen B. West, Florida Republican, is also a member of the Tea Party and enjoys wide appeal because of his limited-government policies. Of the Tea Party members to whom I have spoken, many hope Mr. West will one day run for president.

If Mr. Freeman could further remove his racist blinders and study the historical condition of black America, he would find the black community was vibrant and strong 60 years ago. This is not the case today. Instead of leaping to ugly and unfounded charges of racism, Mr. Freeman should ask some fundamental questions about what has happened to black America and who is responsible for the destruction.

The real architects of the destruction of black America are Democratic Party members who have lied to and manipulated black Americans into believing that the federal government is the answer to improving their condition when, in reality, it is the destroyer of black America. One has to wonder if Mr. Freeman could admit this obvious conclusion.

America faces a steep uphill challenge. The Tea Party thinks the way ahead for all Americans is a reduced federal government that employs fiscal sanity. This is not a racist political ideology but rather an ideology that champions turning away from the expansive growth of government that has occurred in the past 50 years. Staying on the current course will lead to the destruction of America.

How about it, Mr. Freeman? We are all getting rather bored with the knee-jerk-fits-all racist accusations. Surely you can do better than that. You are a great actor. Find a better script.

Ted Nugent is an American rock ‘n’ roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is the author of “Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto” and “God, Guns & Rock ‘N’ Roll” (Regnery Publishing).

UPDATED 9/2/11: Obama’s not so Fast and Furious Scandal: ObamaGate (via Village of the Banned)

UPDATED 9/2/11: Obama's not so Fast and Furious Scandal: ObamaGate Obama/Holder:  Gun Runner Inc. UPDATED FOR SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 Demand for More Answers in Fast and Furious Scandal Just hours after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, federal officials tried to cover up evidence that the gun that killed Terry, was one the government intentionally helped sell to the Mexican cartels in a weapons trafficking program known as Operation Fast and Furious. The revelation comes just days after a huge shake-up of … Read More

via Village of the Banned

The Dept Man’s Magical Tax Payer Funded Campaign Bus Tour (via Village of the Banned)

The Dept Man's Magical Tax Payer Funded Campaign Bus Tour Obama‘s Magical Misery Dept End Bus Tour H/T to Keith Koffler If Obama’s Not Campaigning, Why is He Campaigning? by Keith Koffler on August 16, 2011, 12:18 pm White House officials have been insisting for a couple of weeks that Obama’s bus tour through the Midwest has nothing to do with campaigning. It’s just a way to get the president among the people, especially, um, the people in presidentia … Read More

via Village of the Banned

Here we go again! – Tea Party Nation

Here we go again! – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips on August 14, 2011 at 6:43pm in Tea Party Nation Forum

There is nothing like fear in the air and the Democrats and the liberals have a lot of fear.  In the past few weeks, they have been saying the Tea Party are terrorists, have held the budget and congress hostage and now the latest talking point, we are fading away.

 First, from the Chief Thief of the Senate, in the Las Vegas Journal Review:

 “The Tea Party was the result of a terrible economy,” he (Harry Reid) said. “I’ve said that many times, and I believe that.”

“That (the Tea Party) will pass. They will lose a number of seats next year.”

Reid has amassed his considerable power by never underestimating his adversaries. And he has been known to throw out strategic fibs to create misdirection.

However, Reid left the indelible impression Friday that as long as he’s leading the Senate Democrats, the Tea Party agenda is dead on arrival in his chamber. In exchange for a modicum of reduced growth in federal spending, Reid said someone will have to pay more. There will be reductions and entitlement reforms without tax increases. He singled out the rich and oil companies as especially deserving of punishment.

 http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/reid-expects-tea-party-to-fade-away-127…

 Then from the Hill: 

 The reign of the Tea Party may be coming to an end in Washington, according to academic political experts who say polls show a backlash against the conservative movement.

Two national polls released this month by CNN and The New York Times in conjunction with CBS News showed the Tea Party’s unfavorable rating at an all-time high.

 Political scientists say the data shows a backlash of independent voters against conservative lawmakers who have taken a hard line against bipartisan compromise in Washington.

 These experts say independent voters who make up the swing bloc of the electorate typically pay less attention to politics than staunch Republican and Democratic voters.

The contentious debate in Congress over the debt limit gave the Tea Party new prominence to many of these casual observers of Washington.

 And many independents were not happy with what they saw over the last several weeks: a contentious debate in which conservatives threatened to force a national default; the failure of President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to reach a grand bargain to reduce the deficit; a sharp rebuke of the political system by Standard & Poor’s causing havoc on Wall Street.

 http://thehill.com/homenews/news/176799-tea-partys-heyday-may-be-co…

 Where have we heard this one before?

 Oh wait, it was 2010 before the Tea Party kicked Nancy Pelosi out of the Speaker’s chair.  We have liberal CNN and the liberal New York Times and the liberal Hill all saying the Tea Party is fading.  This is the messaging the Party of Treason and the left wants us to hear.

 The Tea Party has a message for the far left.  We aren’t going anywhere.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,554 other followers