Posts Tagged ‘George H.W. Bush’

Since 1976, Democrat Presidents Have A 2-1 ‘Lead’ Invoking Executive Privilege

June 21, 2012

How many times have presidents asserted executive privilege?

Here’s your list:

Jimmy Carter: 4 times
Ronald Reagan: 3 times
George H.W. Bush: 1 time
Bill Clinton: 14 times
George W. Bush 2: 6 times
Barack Obama: 2 times

For the record, Obama invoked executive privilege to prevent Desiree Rogers from testifying.  So this is at least the second time.  It’s hard to find out if he did it more; the mainstream media suffers from collectivist (which is very much like “collective,” only for Marxist propagandists) amnesia whenever it comes to Obama.

So I – being a mathematician with skills that dwarf any liberal who clearly can’t count or they’d know how wrong they are about Obama’s job numbers and his debt numbers and his deficit numbers and ObamaCare numbers and his budget numbers – took the complicated step of doing the math.

Democrats easily win the cover-up game, 20 to 10.  In sports parlance, that’s a blowout.  When it comes to lying and cover-ups, Democrats are the Harlem Globetrotters to the Republican Party’s Washington Generals.  Only in this game, the Harlem Globetrotters cheat like absolute fiends while angrily and self-righteously denouncing the Washington Generals for cheating.

So it again proves my constant statement of fact that to be a Democrat is to be a massive abject hypocrite.  Here’s Harry Reid saying that when Bush used executive privilege it was like saying, “I’m KING”:

And then there’s “King” Obama – who was mysteriously once a “harsh critic” of executive privilege:

This was back when Democrats ran Congress and therefore, in Obama’s words, it was “very appropriate” to investigate the president. Back then, in the soon-to-be “King” Obama’s demagoguery, if Bush cited privilege he was “trying to hide behind executive privilege every time something shaky is taking place.”

Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, and the Hypocrite-in-Chief is revealed for what he truly is (hint: four letter words work best).

And, for the record, you aint seen nothin’ yet on “King Obama” and executive privilege.  Obama will be using that sucker many more times, I assure you.  Because coming up is the fact that the Obama White House repeatedly leaked incredibly damaging secrets to favorable press such as the New York Times in order to bolster his image as a “strong leader” no matter how much it damaged American national security.  He’ll have to protect his lies on that one in order to avoid impeachment, too.

The only possible way to keep Obama from breaking Bill Clinton’s previously believed un-breakable record of fourteen will be if “King Obama” is a one-term president.  Because it’s usually in that second term that – in Obama’s “reverend’s” and “spiritual mentor’s” words – “the chickens come home to roost.”

Just imagine “King” Obama actually demonizing George Bush for something that Bill Clinton had just done more than twice as many times (that’s 133.33% more often for you sports fans who appreciate your statistics) as Bush did.  When I say “Democrats are cockroaches,” I know it’s wrong, and I sincerely apologize to all members belonging to the class periplaneta americana for such a harsh comparison.

Think of that: Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times.  That’s like Wilt Chamberlain’s rebounding record, only for cheating lying dirtbag slimeball weasel presidents.  But while Chamberlain’s records will likely never be broken, simply because nobody will ever physically dominate the way Wilt did, Barry Hussein is up to the challenge when it comes to pathological dishonesty.  “Hope and change” means believing Obama can dive deeper into that giant manure pile than Bill Clinton believed was even humanly possible.  I never dreamed that anyone could lie like Bill Clinton … until this turd squirted out onto the national scene.

Update, 6/24/12: Obama just “unofficially” invoked executive privilege for the third time.  After using it to keep Congress from seeing documents exposing his crimes, he just invoked it again to keep Congress from listening to the testimony of an ex-staff member.

Advertisements

Thin-Skinned Obama Who Walked Out On Gov. Jan Brewer Walks Out On Jeb Bush In Presence Of His President Father George H.W.

February 7, 2012

This is a turd who sinks to a deeper level of the toilet bowl of his presidency every single day:

Obama criticized for walking out on Jeb Bush
By BYRON TAU |
2/6/12 10:10 AM EST

Bloomberg’s Al Hunt has a long list of examples of what he calls the Obama team’s ‘hubris’ — including a recent anecdote where Obama left a fancy black tie dinner before former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush spoke:

Another illustration of presidential hubris involved the Bush family. The White House put out a picture of a private meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 27 that included former President George H.W. Bush and his son, Jeb, the former governor of Florida.

The Bushes were in town for the annual black tie dinner the next night at the Alfalfa Club, a gathering of business and political elites. The two featured speakers, both intended to be brief and humorous, were Obama and Jeb Bush. The president spoke to good reviews. He left before Bush spoke.

Obama hates such dinners. Some of his aides, in particular his political adviser David Plouffe, urged him not to spend an evening mingling with the 1 percent. Yet he chose to go, and attendees said it was the first time they could recall a speaker leaving before the other side had its fun. In addition, Obama’s 87-year-old predecessor was present.

Imagine the criticism five years ago if President George W. Bush had walked out on a dinner before Hillary Clinton spoke, with Bill Clinton in the audience.

Jan Brewer saw right through you, you pompous arrogant little weasel.

Hey, Obama, the next time you’ve got some self-righteous hypocrite speech about the need for Americans to be more “civil,” why don’t you just take your pair of teleprompters and shove them right up your piehole instead?

Don’t Trust Democrats On Debt Negotiations; And Trust Proven Liar Obama EVEN LESS Than Democrats

July 13, 2011

Barack Hussein Obama is a profoundly dishonest and evil man.  That is going to be a major obstacle to debt-ceiling negotiations.  Keep in mind, Democrats have ALREADY lied to Republicans in the past, promising Ronald Regan they would cut spending by $3 for every $1 dollar in tax hikes.  Democrats got their taxes, but then they immediately welched on their committment to reduce spending.  Reagan later said trusting Democrats was the biggest mistake he ever made.

Democrats proceeded to demonstrate that they are dishonest liars again prior to the 1992 elections that saw the end to George H.W. Bush.  Democrats promised that George Bush that they would not make the tax hikes they had coerced from him an election issue if we went along with them; but lo and behold Bush I was brought down by an avalanche of “Read my lips, no new taxes” ads.

Don’t trust Democrats.  They are bad people.  They are dishonest.  They can’t be trusted.  They lie.  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  And this would be the THIRD time (at least).

This is the kind of cynical, pathologically dishonest man Republicans are dealing with:

“President Obama had promised that he would not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000.  When asked whether the penalty attached to the individual mandate was a tax, President Obama said it was “absolutely not a
tax.” He also said “[n]obody considers [it] a tax increase.” Nevertheless, in an attempt to prevent the court from ruling on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the Obama Justice Department argued that the penalty was in fact a tax. The Justice Department argument failed because the individual mandate provision was written in a way clearly to avoid using the word “tax.”

An ObamaCare item is absolutely not a tax in any way, shape or form until Obama gets it passed.  Then it becomes a tax.  Because he is a liar and an evil man who cannot possibly be trusted upon to negotiate anything.

Let’s also not forget that ObamaCare already added $500 BILLION in new taxes.  And now Obama wants to add a TRILLION DOLLARS more.

When it comes to the debt celing negotiations, Obama said of raising the debt ceiling as a Democrat Senator with a Republican President:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Barack Obama is a dishonest demagogue who doesn’t give a damn about the American people.  And that’s putting it politely.  Only a fool would trust him about anything, let alone a deal involving trillions of dollars in new debt and new taxes.

Barack Obama is talking vaguely about being willing to offer $4 trillion in spending cuts as part of a deal.  But at no time has he ever produced anything even close to resembling a specific concrete proposal.  It’s just a bunch of words from a documented liar.  Where is the Liar-in-Chief’s plan?  If there’s going to be any meaningful negotiation, the least Obama can do is bother to put out a plan on the table.

And when you’re negotiating with Barack Obama, just remember that he’s a liar and a weasel from a party of liars and weasels.

Health Care: Democrats Upset That Republicans Would Hold Them Responsible For Their False Promises On Taxes

October 3, 2009

Not raising taxes on the middle class was one of Obama’s signature pledges.  In fact, let’s go back and review it:

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

And Obama repeatedly claimed to the cheering crowds that if he was elected their taxes wouldn’t go up a single dime.

In point of fact, during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting the same sort of mandates he wants to impose on the American people now.  He even ran a huge ad campaign demonizing her for doing the very thing he is now doing.

Remember George H.W. Bush’s now famous pledge, “Read my lips, no new taxes?”  Congressional Democrats who controlled the House and Senate forced Bush the elder to raise taxes – and then demagogued him for having raised them.  In the case of Barack Obama, no rival party is manipulating him; he’s breaking his promises all on his own.

Senate Republicans pointed out yesterday that Democrat health plans would make Obama’s promise to the American people a cynically deceptive and incredibly manipulative lie:

John ensign (R-NV), Senate Finance Committee:  “[Obama] said, ‘But let me be perfectly clear: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime.'”

Mike Crapo (R-ID), Senate Finance Committee:  “If we can’t do health care reform without taxing people in the middle class – and the lower income categories – then we’ve got the wrong plan in front of us.

Republicans pointed to several tax provisions – one clearly labeled an ‘excise tax’ in Sen. Baucus’ plan – would fine a family as much as $1,900 if it didn’t buy health insurance.  And if one failed to pay the tax, the IRS would take more even more drastic action:

Sen. Ensign:  “We heard that the other day.  The effect is, up to a $25,000 fine and one year in jail.”

One blogger backs up the tax increases in the Democrats’ plan by citing their own bill:

All the Democrat bills include tax penalties, administered through the Internal Revenue Service, for individuals and families who do not purchase “government-approved” coverage. Page 29 of the Baucus bill would subject families with incomes higher than three times poverty to an “excise tax” of up to $3,800 per year. Likewise, page 167 of the introduced version of House Democrats’ government takeover of care (H.R. 3200) includes the following language:“There is hereby imposed a tax” on individuals who do not purchase “government-approved” insurance-and neither the House nor the Senate bills exempt those with incomes under $250,000 from the penalties. How is what the legislation plainly calls a new tax on all Americans not purchasing “government-approved” insurance not a tax increase on the middle class?

So Republicans, serving as the guardians of the president’s pledge on taxes (and who ELSE is serving as guardians of the presidents’ pledges on anything?), offered amendments to exempt most taxpayers.

Sen. Crapo:  “It will remove all taxes,fees, and penalties from the bill that apply to families earning less than $250,000 per year.”

The Democrats have chosen to embark upon an incredibly deceitful and false assertion that what is clearly a tax someone isn’t a tax.  Give it up; it’s a TAX (see this also).  And in fact it is a tax with penalties imposed by the iron-gloved hand of your ever-friendly and compassionate Internal Revenue Service.  BECAUSE IT’S A DAMN TAX.

And in point of fact both taxes that the Senate Finance Committee is debating would fall heavily on those who make less than that magical $250,000 a year. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for instance, 71% of those families facing the tax for refusing to buy health insurance make less than $110,000 a year. The change in deductibility would hit most heavily at even lower incomes.

Democrats didn’t dispute the impact of the taxes, but rather – and amazingly – simply accused Republicans of simply making political points:

Sen Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman, Senate Finance Committee:  “Basically what you’re saying is you want to, you want to gut the president’s program.  More than that, you want to gut health reform.”

It’s an interesting – and yet all too typical – tactic from the Democrats.  They’re liars.  They have broken their word to the American people.  They got themselves elected by making one false promise on top of another.  But Republicans are the ones to blame, because Democrats have put on their “Carnac the Magnificent” hats and read the hearts and minds of Republicans’ motives in exposing the Democrats’ lies.

The fact is, the Democrat’s reform efforts depend on getting more healthier young people, for instance, to buy insurance and spread the risk.  And Sen. Baucus didn’t apologize for forcing them to do so:

“If we’re serious about making sure that Americans have health insurance, we have to have shared responsibility.  We all have to participate.”

And outside the committee, Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) suggested there is very likely no way around higher taxes:

“I’m prepared to go to my constituents and tell them there are tough choices to be made.”

Maybe Ron Wyden is prepared to force millions of people to pay high taxes that Barack Obama promised them that they would never have to pay, but what about the people who are going to now have to pay those taxes?

This is a question of lack of honesty, or lack of competence: were Democrats so clearly incompetent that they truly didn’t know that they wouldn’t be able to cover 45 million more people for less money?  Did they truly believe that their promises not to raise taxes on the middle class could even possibly be fulfilled given their massive government spending?

But that’s okay.  Because they’re going to make you pay for their broken promises.

The amendments to halt any tax increase failed by only one vote – with, of course, only Democrats voting against it.  Their vote is a cynical admission that the Democrats are dishonest thieves who will lie to your face about being on your side even as they prepare to rob you blind.  Just the two provisions debated yesterday would raise taxes by over $35 billion over ten years.  And yes, people making under $250,000 would be forced to pay higher taxes – in spite of President Obama’s word to the American people.

If you thought Republicans were bad, Democrats are proving that they are the worst kind of dishonest, arrogant, and cynical hypocrites imaginable.  The Party that self-righteously proclaimed its “transparency” have voted against amendments that required them to read the bills they pass – and even mocked bothering to read such bills, and then said there’s no point to bothering to read the bills they vote on.  If it’s bad enough that Democrats won’t bother to read their own damn bills, they now refuse to allow YOU a chance to read them either, essentially claiming that you are too stupid to understand them.  Moreover, Democrats have ave voted against even bothering to require that bills even be written before they are voted upon.

It’s long past  (and I mean two years of false campaign promises in addition to the last nine months past) holding Democrats accountable to their past promises and demanding that they live up to their rhetoric.  And if they can’t pass their legislation without breaking their campaign promises, then they are offering false and depraved legislation that should never be allowed to pass.

Democrats Turned 1991 George H.W. Bush Speech To Schoolchildren Into Spanish Inquisition

September 8, 2009

I got attacked by the Village Voice today for expressing my rather nasty response to the ObamaDay speech to schoolchildren and the accompanying ideological White House-dictated Department of Education lesson plans for kids (e.g., “Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals“).

I don’t particularly mind being attacked by the Village Voice.  I mean, at least they spelled my name right, as they say.

If anything, what bothers me is the smarmy, “They’re unhinged and we’re not”) tone of the article.

When Democrats act as if they aren’t the ones who are unhinged, just recognize that Democrats have a terrible addiction to “being unhinged,” and that a big part of any addiction is denial.

First, yes, Reagan and Bush 1 gave speeches to students.  But unless you can show that their speeches were accompanied by having children engage in scripted White House campaigns to create posters and write themselves letters asking,“What can I do to help the president?” it is anything but the same thing.  Rather, Presidents Reagan and Bush managed to give speeches to kids about school without lowering themselves into self-serving propaganda, as the Obama administration clearly tried to do.

[Update: it has since been brought to my attention that Reagan’s and Bush’s speeches did in fact contain certain political statements.  Barack Obama’s own speech has a fair amount of political ideology expressed in the form of rather transparent innuendo.]

Discussion questions that the White House provided to the Department of Education to pass on to public teachers included the following: “What is President Obama asking me to do?”, “What is President Obama challenging me to do today?” “What did President Obama attempt to inspire me to do?”, “What are the three most important words in today’s speech?”  How does that NOT sound like propaganda?

Second, I would point out that my article – “unhinged” as it might be – nonetheless documented repeated instances of liberals using children for political purposes including this shocking video that simply don’t have any parallels with Reagan or Bush unless you can document otherwise.

Third, I document a teacher in a public school browbeating a child to support Barack Obama and renounce his support for John McCain.  Please watch it before you ridicule the prospect over worrying about the Obama-dictated Dept of Education agenda.

I made the point in my article, “If Obama just wanted to do a brief public service announcement and call upon kids to stay in school and study harder, nobody would have a problem with it.”   And that’s exactly correct.   The problem is that a LOT more was clearly going on.   Even the Obama White House was forced to admit that there was something wrong with the appearance of the proposal they crafted for the Dept of Education to provide to teachers.

When I can document government teachers trying to brainwash public school children, I think I have a right to wonder about what teachers who will be all alone with children will do in the hour following the Obama speech.

As I say in my article, “The Obama speech to the children will very likely sound innocent and innocuous. But in the liberal public schools – which are and have been laboratories for leftist activism, it won’t be innocent or innocuous at all. Unionized Government Teachers will be free to spin their own agendas onto Obama’s speech.”

If you think that is so impossible, Please watch the video I cite above to see otherwise.

Now, having brought out those little factoids, it turns out that there is more to say: namely, when George H.W. Bush gave his speech in 1991, Democrats turned their ideological reaction to it into the Spanish Inquisition, Part Deux.

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/08/09 7:11 AM EDT

The controversy over President Obama’s speech to the nation’s schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginningDemocrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech — they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president’s school appearance.  The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president’s political benefit.  “The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.'”

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush’s appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. “The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC,” Ford began. “As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event.”

Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. “The speech itself and the use of the department’s funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal,” the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. “The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda.”

That didn’t stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it “cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers’ money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. — while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters.”

Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush’s speech itself, like Obama’s today, was entirely unremarkable. “Block out the kids who think it’s not cool to be smart,” the president told students. “If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they’re stuck in a dead end job. Don’t let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.

So thanks for reminding us of when George Herbert Walker gave a speech to schoolchildren, Democrats.  It’s a reminder of what loathsome hypocrites you truly are.

Bush 1 gave an innocuous speech to schoolchildren that was utterly bereft of the Obama-style propaganda utilizing the Department of Education to coerce teachers into brainwashing the little darlings under their charge immediately after the speech.  Yet the Democrats came completely unglued anyway.

And yet, how the liberals roll their eyes when Republicans offer up what amounts to a FAR tamer response.

Gephardt’s replacement for Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is hardly out there demanding an answer to the question, “Who’s Paying For Obama’s Education Speech?”  And given that Obama’s speech is far more grandiose, and going out to far more schools than Bush’s ever did, you can bet that TAXPAYERS will be forking out a whole lot more than Bush’s $26,000.  Not that these Democrats will care.

So when you reflect on how the mainstream media reported on how unhinged conservatives are over a “similar” event to what George Bush 1 did, just realize that – like the propagandists they are – they aren’t giving you any of the context that lets you know the truth.

Not only did Democrats react to the Republican President’s speech, but they reacted far more savagely.

It helps to know the truth.

It also helps to know that you will rarely ever get the truth from the mainstream media.