LAST NIGHT DONALD TRUMP DEFEATED CHRIS WALLACE IN A DEBATE

Last night Donald Trump defeated Chris Wallace in a debate. The other person on the stage who refused a drug test and refused to have his ear checked for an electronic device feeding him answers (probably with good reason) was extraneous.

When Donald Trump realized that he was facing two debate opponents—one of whom had snuck in as the moderator—he rightfully pivoted to being combative.

Was Trump rude and impolite to his opponents? Give me a break. It was not a fair fight! It was one and a half against one.

This was a set up—a trap, and Trump sprung the trap himself, so it would misfire. Trump was repeatedly scolded for interrupting, but Wallace allowed his assistant (Biden) to interrupt Trump repeatedly. Trump tried again and again to speak, but was talked-over by both of his opponents. Chris Wallace let Biden speak for well over his allotted time, but would not allow Trump any time for rebuttal to the lies.

The morning of the debate I wrote you that Wallace would be biased, since he has always opposed President Trump, and even his colleagues at Fox agree that he was biased last night.

Why do I believe Trump won the debate? Because his “rudeness” forced the truth to come out.  During the debate America got to see Trump Derangement Syndrome in full bloom. America got to see—for the first time—insane accusations being confronted in real time. Let me list but a few.

Biden accused Trump of killing 200,000 Americans by not acting quickly to stem the virus. Trump destroyed it by reminding us all how Democrats accused Trump of racism for shutting down flights from China—a move that saved thousands of lives.

Trump was accused of causing the fires in California because he didn’t stop global warming. Trump cited other nations that manage their forests with few, if any, fires. How then can it be global warming?

Trump was blamed for a spike in violent crime in cities. Trump rightly said that these are cities controlled by Democrats, so, how could he be responsible? He reminded Biden that these cities had refused his offer of federal help in stopping the riots.

The moderator, mind you, not the other opponent, argued that Tulsa, OK and Fort Worth, TX, which are conservative cities, also had spikes. This, gentle reader, only made the argument even stupider. Out of the scores and scores of hellholes controlled by Democrats, two cities that were nowhere near the level of out-of-control of Portland or Seattle. That is the best they could come up with?

Trump “wrecked the economy.” (The half-opponent, Chris Wallace, introduced this lie.) How devoid of logic and honesty do you have to be to ignore the best economic growth in American history that was only stopped by the China Plague, and the still ongoing shutdown by Democrat Governors and Mayors?

A specious story was dredged up that has been debunked, again and again, by those who were there. Trump “disrespected the military.” Here’s the fake quote, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump supposedly referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers,” for getting killed. No record of any kind exists that this ever happened.  Trump countered this false story with a documented one, wherein Biden called soldiers he was addressing, “Stupid bastards.” Which Biden immediately denied. Watch it here, he says it quite clearly at minute 1:50 seconds: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/joe-biden-troops-stupid-bastards-video

Biden used the debate as a vehicle to make personal attacks on the President, calling Trump a “liar” several times; a “clown;” the “worst President in history”; “this guy,” “he’s done nothing,” he is “Putin’s puppet;” and “he’s a racist,” among others. Yet Biden never cited a single bit of evidence.

Trump won because, yet again, he exposed the insanity. Trump won because he would have none of it. Trump showed us why he must be reelected. Last night proved that America is under a fake news censorship that can only be broken, if necessary, by a rude righteousness.

 

 

 

 

 

Dear reader,
This is a message to those who support Mario Murillo’s message to America.
As you know, the lockdown stopped our tent crusades and we are locked in a battle to restart them in Fresno on October 11th. Our major support came from tent outreaches. Prayerfully, Mario decided he would stop raising outreach money, but still keep his outreach team on full salary.
God gave Mario an idea that is win-win. Take our 3 bestselling books, make them a collection and offer them for just $27.
This collection includes a signed copy of Mario’s latest book Vessels of Fire and GloryCritical Mass the classic on revival—Edgewise a guide to living in the last days. We call it the War Chest Collection.
When you get the War Chest Collection you not only get three amazing books—books that can change your life—you are keeping Mario’s voice strong, and you are keeping us ready to invade.  Order your War Chest Collection now.   

Use this link to order right now  https://mariomurillo.org/product/war-chest-collection/

 

 

 

 

CNN caught rigging poll to claim Hillary won debate

Also, See video of CNN coaching focus group on what to say after the debate.  This immediately gave the impression that Hillary trounced Trump in the debate, and set the standard for the media narrative that it was a bad night for the Republican candidate.

CNN FRAUD: Poll Claiming Hillary Won Debate Sampled 41% Democrats and 26% Republicans

This isn’t bias — This is FRAUD!Paul Joseph Watson at Infowars reported:

A CNN/ORC poll released shortly after last night’s debate found that Hillary Clinton scored a clear victory over her rival Donald Trump. One problem – the survey sample included 41% Democrats compared to just 26% Republicans.

Asked, “Who do you think did the best job in the debate – Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?”, 62% of respondents said Hillary while 27% said Trump.

This immediately gave the impression that Hillary trounced Trump in the debate, and set the standard for the media narrative that it was a bad night for the Republican candidate.

However, 33% of the people surveyed in the poll identified as Independents, 41% identified as Democrats, while just 26% identified as Republicans.

cnn

You better be praying because tonight’s debate is totally rigged

Mario wrote this before the debate. Everything he said happened the way he said it would.   If you haven’t read it read it now.  If you have read it—read it again…the most widely shared blog in our history.

You better be praying because tonight’s debate is totally rigged

There will be no fairness tonight.  There will be no balance.  You are about to witness a kangaroo court.  Hillary will get zero tough questions.  Trump will get only loaded questions.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that a plurality (46%) of Likely U.S. Voters believes most moderators will try to help Clinton in the upcoming debates. Only six percent (6%) think they will try to help Trump instead. Just 32% say most of the moderators will try to be unbiased, while 15% are undecided.

The entire night will be an infomercial for Hillary.  She will be declared the most experienced person ever to run for president. Trump will be portrayed a virtual Adolf Hitler.

Nothing will be said about Benghazi, Emails, Whitewater, The Clinton Foundation, and the 20 other scandals she has created.  You will only hear remarks about Trump that “prove” he is hateful to women, racist and lacks the temperament to be president.

The goal of tonight’s debate is to rescue Hillary and to repudiate Trump.

Here—by the numbers—is why I am right about tonight:

1. Lester Holt will go Candy Crowley.  Remember the 2012 debate? Candy Crowley repeatedly interrupted Mitt Romney and gave Obama much more time to speak.  When Romney raised a killer point about Obama, Crowley literally shut him down and went to a commercial.

Lester Holt has already signaled that he will do what Candy Crowley did.   CNN’s Brian Stelter says Lester Holt is signaling to his NBC colleagues that he may enter the fray in Monday night’s presidential debate as a participant rather than a moderator — thanks to intense left-wing backlash over Matt Lauer’s performance at the “Commander in Chief Forum” weeks ago.

lester-holt-candy-crowley-640x4802.  The left will destroy moderators who are fair to Trump.  Matt Lauer was eviscerated by the left for being fair to Trump in the Commander in Chief forum. All of the moderators are under intense pressure to see Hillary win the debate.  They know they it could be a career ender to let Trump win.

3. Obama. He ordered the FBI not to recommend an indictment against Hillary. He ordered the Justice Department to stone wall congress and refuse to release evidence that would incriminate her.  Obama has protected her every step of the way.  He has—without a doubt—exerted extreme pressure on the moderators to let her win.

4. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, You Tube, Twitter, USA Today, The New York Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN and PBS are all firmly in Hillary’s camp. They will take tonight’s debate and spin it into a fair fight that Hillary won fair and square. Any reporting to the contrary will censored.

5. Total desperation: All of the people and media outlets I have named are now totally desperate.  They realize that Hillary is a terrible candidate.  They will gladly risk the appearance of bias if it is only the only way to save her.  It is now a no-holds-barred smack down of Trump by a band of bloodthirsty leftists who will stop at nothing to get her elected.

For his part Trump only has to do three things to win tonight and to become president.

  1. He has to remind America that her treatment of women is a basket of deplorables.  She—rather than blame her husband—has worked to ruin women that her husband raped.  I do not know any way to treat women worse.
2. He has to show that she will not keep America safe.  She has promised to make the Supreme Court a leftist activist arm of government. She will increase the number of Muslim immigrants from Syria by 500%.  She has promised to continue the failure of Obama in dealing with ISIS. She has sided with rioters against the police.  She will not hear America’s cry for help any more than she heard the cries of the 4 Americans who died in Benghazi.
3. He must expose the lie of her experience. The very experience she touts as qualifying her for the White House is—in fact—the very reason to reject her. She has been in government for 30 years and cannot point to one accomplishment.  Her record is a blank slate.  Now she says she is going to do all of these things if she is elected.  Why would anyone believe that?
In my opinion these are killer points that will destroy her candidacy.   If Donald Trump calmly makes these points, it is over for her.  It’s just too bad that he will not be allowed to make them…unless of course, there’s a miracle.  Pray.

Obamacare’s Tax Hike Train Wreck Just around the bend.

train tax insert

Obamacare’s Tax Hike Train Wreck Just Around the Bend.

The most destructive Obamacare tax increases are just around the bend

Asked about Senator Max Baucus’s (D-Mont.) recent “train wreck” comments, President Obama today said, “A huge chunk of it [Obamacare] has already been implemented.” Unmentioned was the wave of destructive Obamacare tax increases that will begin to hit Americans during the next tax filing season and beyond:

Starting in tax year 2013:

Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income:  A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This tax hike results in the following top tax rates on investment income:

Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2013+ 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)

Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Increase:

First $200,000($250,000 Married)Employer/Employee All Remaining WagesEmployer/Employee
Pre-Obamacare 1.45%/1.45%2.9% self-employed 1.45%/1.45%2.9% self employed
Obamacare 1.45%/1.45%2.9% self-employed 1.45%/2.35%3.8% self-employed

(Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2,000-2,003; 87-93)

Obamacare Medical Device Tax:  Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year.  In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will make everything from pacemakers to artificial hips more expensive. (Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986)

Obamacare High Medical Bills Tax: Before Obamacare, Americans facing high medical expenses were allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceeded 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  Obamacare now imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI.  Therefore, Obamacare not only makes it more difficult to claim this deduction, it widens the net of taxable income. According to the IRS, 10 million families took advantage of this tax deduction in 2009, the latest year of available data. Almost all are middle class. The average taxpayer claiming this deduction earned just over $53,000 annually. ATR estimates that the average income tax increase for the average family claiming this tax benefit will be $200 – $400 per year. To learn more about this tax, click here.  (Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995)

Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Tax:  The 30 – 35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs face a new Obamacare cap of $2,500. This will squeeze $13 billion of tax money from Americans over the next ten years. (Before Obamacare, the accounts were unlimited under federal law, though employers were allowed to set a cap.) Now, a parent looking to sock away extra money to pay for braces will find themselves quickly hitting this new cap, meaning they would have to pony up some or all of the cost with after-tax dollars

Needless to say, this tax will especially impact middle class families.

train tax copy

There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. Nationwide there are several million families with special needs children and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families. (Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389)

Starting in tax year 2014:

Obamacare Individual Mandate Non-Compliance Tax:  Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services — must pay an income surtax to the IRS. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that six million American families will be liable for the tax, and as pointed out by the Associated Press:  “Most would be in the middle class.”

In addition, 100 percent of Americans filing a tax return (140 million filers) will be forced to submit paperwork to the IRS showing they either had “qualifying” health insurance for every month of the tax year or they obtained an exemption to the mandate.

Americans liable for the surtax will pay according to the following schedule

1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1%AGI/$95 1%AGI/$190 1%AGI/$285
2015 2%AGI/$325 2%AGI/$650 2%AGI/$975
2016 2.5%AGI/$695 2.5%AGI/$1390 2.5%AGI/$2085

(Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337)

Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax:  If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2,000 for all full-time employees.  This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3,000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). (Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346)

Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers:  Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.  The tax phases in gradually until 2018.  Fully imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. (Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993)

Starting in tax year 2018:

Obamacare Tax on Union Member and Early Retiree Health Insurance Plans:  Obamacare imposes a new 40 percent excise tax on high cost or “Cadillac” health insurance plans, effective in 2018. This tax increase will most directly affect union families and early retirees, who are likely to be covered by such plans. This Obamacare tax will be levied on insurance policies whose premiums exceed $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family.  Middle class union members tend to be covered by such plans in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. (Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956)

A Jury has found that fraud put Obama on 2008 ballot meaning that he likely did not qualify.

bo shhh don't tell anybody_thumb[1]

Jury: Fraud put Obama on ’08 ballot

Democrat officials convicted of making up names for qualifying petition

Two Democrats in Indiana have been found guilty of submitting unauthorized names on the petition that placed then-Sen. Barack Obama on the 2008 presidential election primary ballot, meaning he likely did not qualify.

Fox News reports the jury in South Bend found guilty on all counts former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic Party chairman Butch Morgan Jr. and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe.

Ads by Google

Asian Production CostsChina Cost Advantage Is Diminishing While Other Asian Markets Grow. http://www.ftijournal.com

Do You Hate Democrats?Find out what the democrats don’t want you to know. Read this now. OnePoliticalPlaza.com

The two faced accusations of petition fraud and forgery, as well as falsely making a petition.

The verdicts raise anew questions about election fraud by Democrats, a subject that was analyzed after the 2012 election.

The report found vote fraud occurred in the 2012 presidential election and cumulatively was likely enough to decide the outcome.

“In reality, although no single instance or aspect of vote fraud was likely enough to tip the election for Obama, the aggregate of their [Democrats] corrupt activities – including illegal campaign donations, taking advantage of states without voter ID requirements, military ballots delivered too late … may well have been,” the analysis said.

 

Fox News reported that two former Indiana elections board officials who pleaded guilty said Morgan told Democrat officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Hillary Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race.

Prosecutor Stan Levco told Fox, “I think this helped uphold the integrity of the electoral system. Their verdict of guilt is not a verdict against Democrats, but for honest and fair elections.”

Affidavits citing the testimony of former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett said the scheme was created in January 2008. Burkett reportedly was aboard the plan at first but later dropped out. Fox News reported he waited three years to reveal the scheme.

Fox News notes that if revelations about any forgeries were raised during the election, the petitions could have been challenged at that time.

A candidate who did not qualify with enough legitimate signatures at the time could have been removed from the ballot.

State law in Indiana requires candidates to have 500 signatures from each of the nine congressional districts to qualify. But in St. Joseph County, Obama qualified with only 534.

Prosecutors alleged that nine of the Obama petition pages apparently were forged, and each contained up to 10 names, bringing doubt on up to 90 names.

“If faked, [they] could have brought the Obama total below the legal limit required to qualify,” Fox News reported.

Fox reported it was told by “numerous voters” they did not sign their names, nor did they authorize their names to be used.

“That’s not my signature,” said Charity Rorie, a mother of four. “It’s scary, it’s shocking. It definitely is illegal.”

Added Robert Hunter Jr., “I did not sign for Barack Obama.”

WND’s extensive report on fraud in the 2012 race looked at claims that Obama, in some districts, got 100 percent of the vote, questions about absentee ballots and efforts by Democrats to prevent poll watchers from observing the election.

Some of the issues that were uncovered:

Seventy-five GOP vote inspectors were ordered to leave Philadelphia poll locations by Democrat poll judges. One judge was caught on audio. A court order sent them back but it’s unknown what happened when they were gone. These poll locations were all within the 59 precincts where Romney received no votes.

In Philadelphia, the Community Voters Project, an ACORN clone that employs some former ACORN workers, shredded Republican voter registrations. It’s not the first time they have been in trouble.

The Florida AFL-CIO threatened True the Vote and Tampa Fair Vote with legal action for submitting voter registration challenges.

Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings issued a highly publicized threat against True the Vote and Election Integrity Maryland just for checking voter rolls. EIM found 11,000 questionable registrations, including 1,566 dead voters. The Maryland Board of Elections took no action.

Cummings also attacked the Ohio Voter Integrity Project with the same baseless claims.

Think Progress falsely claimed True the Vote was “under investigation” by Rep. Cummings, when in fact he has no legal authority to do so.

Despite overwhelming nonpartisan public support for voter ID laws, Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department and liberal jurists have delayed, emasculated or defeated ID laws in Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Arizona and Pennsylvania.

Holder has vowed to fight voter ID laws as restricting voters’ rights.

The Obama administration “spiked investigations” of eight states that had major voter roll problems.

The Holder Justice Department conspired with Project Vote on National Voter Registration Act (aka Motor Voter) enforcement lawsuits, which force state and local agencies to become, essentially, low income voter registration drives.

In 2009 DOJ announced to its attorneys that it would not enforce voter roll maintenance laws because it wouldn’t increase voter turnout.

The report also found the election rolls nationwide in shambles. Pew Research Center published a report revealing election rolls in a shambles nationwide. It found:

24 million invalid or inaccurate voter registrations

1.8 million deceased voters

2.75 million registered in multiple states.

The WND report also focused on the mechanics of the election: voting machines.

There were a number of complaints about electronic voting machines that tallied votes for Democrats despite a Republican vote and a few instances of the opposite case.

Voters in Pueblo County, Colo., complained that their votes were being changed to Obama, reported local NBC affiliate KOAA.

Maryland congressional candidate and veteran investigative journalist Ken Timmerman reported many voters claiming this happened to them, lodging complaints with vote judges. Timmerman has requested to see voting machine records.

Maryland Delegate Kathy Afzali and Carroll County Commissioner Richard Rothschild have requested the FBI impound two electronic voting machines suspected of switching votes based on complaints from other voters, including a state official.

Robert Ashcroft, a Republican poll watcher in Allentown, Pa., reported that about 5 to 10 percent of electronic votes would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”

EVM problems were also reported to have occurred in Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina and Texas.

A 2008 Fox News report showed how electronic voting machines can be infected with a computer virus to change votes. A Princeton University study in 2006 found the same thing.

And the fraud didn’t go unnoticed. A few of the higher-profile cases:

Patrick Moran, son of longtime U.S. Rep. Jim Moran, was caught on video by James O’Keefe’s Veritas Project, telling an undercover journalist how to commit vote fraud.

Other Veritas videos showed Obama campaign officials in Texas, New Jersey and New York providing multiple forms to journalists posing as voters so that they could vote in two or more states.

On Election Day, Veritas reporters recorded poll officials on camera telling voters not to vote for Romney.

The Obama campaign continues to accept illegal donations from other countries. WND’s Aaron Klein proved it by donating to the Obama campaign twice under the name “Osama bin Laden” using a Pakistani web address.

WND has filed a complaint with the FEC demanding an investigation of overseas donations to the Obama campaign.

In 2008, the Obama campaign accepted almost $30,000 from Palestinian donors.

A Korean interpreter in Flushing, N.Y., directed Korean voters to vote Democrat. He was expelled from the poll.

Two cases of forged votes were reported in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., by Republicans who discovered their votes had already been made.

Non-citizens were charged with voting illegally in Austin, Minn.

Cases of double voting in Ohio are being investigated.

Non-citizen allegedly voted in Iowa

Double voting is being investigated in North Carolina

NBC reported dead voters voting in California

Mentally disabled were coaxed to vote for Obama in North Carolina

Widespread absentee vote fraud is being investigated in South Texas

A non-English-speaking, under-18 youth reported he was “told he can vote.”

Many other cases.

Mario’s note:

Once again a well-meaning but uninformed believer asks why I am speaking out in these blogs.  I believe Obama is deliberately trying to dismantle America and pull our nation under the thumb of government.  

It is the height of naivete to ignore the signs of a national take over.  The steps have been clearly outlined for years by experts and Obama is going by the book. Here are the official rules.

1. Seize control of healthcare and you will control the economy.

2. Bring division and distraction and demonize your opposition by creating false crisis and the people will blindly give you more power.

3. Undermine core values and discredit constitutional laws that block your takeover.

4. Disarm law abiding citizens.

Should a man of God involve himself in these matters?  Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

As a man of God I must warn those entrusted to me about anything that will harm them or bring disaster.  I must do this especially if I see that there is still hope to avert the danger. However, my greatest motivation is that I will stand before God to answer for what I did in this moment in history.

I would that my brethren who remain silent would see that last part.  To be sure there is a short term benefit to silence.  The masses may still like you, your tithers may not leave you but in the end you will be listed among those who abandoned their post in America’s darkest hour.  You will stand before God and He will ask you why you buried your prophetic gift when it was so desperately needed.

It is possible to tell the truth without love but it is impossible to love without telling the truth.

Given life under Obama, more Americans already feeling better about Bush

Given life under Obama, more Americans already feeling better about Bush

By Andrew Malcolm

Freddy Ford / AP (Bush autographs his personal pickup which he donated for charity auction. It brought $300,000 for military families.)
Freddy Ford / AP (Bush autographs his personal pickup which he donated for charity auction. It brought $300,000 for military families.)

Fifty-one months of an Obama presidency seem like an eternity of speeches, photo ops, fundraisers, soaring debt, stagnant job growth, blame games and did we mention speeches?

In historical context, however, it’s the snap of a finger. Which makes it somewhat surprising that already Americans are quietly rehabilitating President George W. Bush’s image in their own minds. This despite Bush’s virtual disappearance from the political scene since Jan. 20, 2009, save for a brief promotion tour for his book, “Decision Points.”

You’re about to hear a whole lot more about Bush, at least briefly, with Thursday’s dedication of his presidential library at Laura Bush’s alma mater, Southern Methodist University in Dallas. By custom, all former presidents will attend.

President Obama will also be there, although he’s blamed Republican Bush for just about everything that’s gone wrong during these long 1,554 days, except Obama’s miserable NCAA tournament brackets. First, of course, to make the trip worthwhile, Democrat Obama will do another political fundraiser in Dallas.

Remember those iconic billboards that went up during the great ObamaCare legislative con? A smiling Bush waving with the caption, “Miss Me Yet?” Well, apparently more people do. ABC News and the Washington Post came out early this morning with a new poll timed to the library dedication.

When Bush left office after eight tumultuous years, including 9/11 and the Iraq War, 66% of adult Americans disapproved of him, twice as many as approved. The new findings: His disapproval has dropped to just half, while his approval has increased to almost half (47%).

This essentially ties the Texan with the Chicagoan, whose public approval has plummeted from 67% on Day One, when he had yet to break a single promise. Remember Obama’s first day, the big ceremonial Executive Order signing to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center within 365 days? Well, never mind.

As Gary Langer points out, poll improvements four to five years after leaving the White House are not unprecedented. Bush’s father improved 18 points, but Bill Clinton dropped four points.

The public still thinks negatively about Bush 43 in two major areas: the economy and Iraq War. Although even there, feelings have mellowed. It’s now 53% disapproval-43% approval on the economy, versus 73% disapproval-24% approval way back when.

On the war, Bush was 65% disapproval-33% approval in 2008. Now, that’s improved to 57% disapproval-40% approval.

The poll finds Bush’s approval has gained across a broad ideological front of Americans–up 11 points among independents, 16 points among Republicans and 19 points among Democrats. That’s right, up 19 points among Obama’s Democrats.

Now, what could possibly explain that, do you suppose?

Why it’s become clear that Obama’s White House is open to the rich and closed to the poor

Why it’s become clear that Obama’s White House is open to the rich and closed to the poor

President Obama’s pledges to open up the White House are going in reverse, says Mark McKinnon

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about the sequester after a meeting with congressional leaders at the White House in Washington March 1, 2013

Access for the few – Obama’s White House Photo: REUTERS

American Way: Mark McKinnon

12:30PM GMT 16 Mar 2013

Once, only nobles were granted an audience with the King.

In America, we’ve prided ourselves on abandoning those privileges of class some 237 years ago, following that little uprising in the 13 colonies.

And we again congratulated ourselves at 12:01 pm Eastern Time on January 20, 2009, just moments after Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States and as he committed to making his administration the most transparent and open in history.

But more than four years later it is time to ask questions. The most transparent administration ever? The most transparently political, yes. The most open government? If you have the money to buy access, yes.

Since last weekend, Mr and Mrs Regular Citizen have been denied the access people used to be granted to tour the White House, purportedly because of the clampdown on federal spending since the “sequester” that imposed cuts across the board.

And their cancellation is an austerity measure that saves a pittance, while more frivolous taxpayer funding for items like the White House dog walker continues.

Meanwhile, noble Americans can buy time with the president for a suggested donation of $500,000 to his new campaign group, Organising for Action.

Yes, the announcement offering access to the president for cold, hard cash was made openly and with total transparency. But it was also made without shame.

It’s the third version of Obama’s original monster campaign machine, Obama for America, which then morphed into a re-election campaign machine, Organising for America, on the third day of his first term.

It has now re-launched again as Organising for Action (OFA) – a non-profit, tax-exempt group headed by his former campaign advisers. Apparently no longer “for America”, the group might just as well be called Organising for Obama’s Agenda.

Its mission: to support the president in his attempt to achieve enactment of gun control, environmental policies and immigration reform.

At the two-day kick-off event last week for the new OFA’s founding summit, attended by 75 folks for the “bargain” rate of just $50,000, Obama at least acknowledged the concerns raised by others about the funding, purpose and influence of the organisation.

However, he brushed them aside. With greater humility than new Pope Francis, Obama said he prided himself on feeling no obligation in the past to the interests of the generous donors who made his election and re-election possible. Though paradoxically he also said he wanted “to make sure the voices of the people are actually heard in the debates that are going to be taking place”. So, he’ll take money to listen to the voices of the privileged, but not do their bidding?

May I humbly suggest he could hear more voices, more clearly if he mingled with the public he serves? Perhaps the White House could hold open tours for the public! Why has no one in his administration thought of that? And volunteers could manage those tours, to keep costs down!

But, of course, those are what have just been cancelled. Meanwhile, three calligraphers reportedly remain on staff. I suppose their services are needed for the special hand-lettered, gold-foiled invitations sent to the nobles who are willing to pay for an audience with the King.

OFA is a legal, tax-exempt advocacy organisation, established as a social welfare group under the rules of both the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Elections Commission. It can accept unlimited contributions, so long as it promotes the common good and does not primarily engage in electoral politics.

As it is not required to publicly disclose donors, OFA is actually one of those “shadowy” organisations Obama railed against as a candidate when he supported campaign finance reform.

In 2010 the Supreme Court made a controversial ruling known as Citizens United that allowed unlimited corporate and individual donations to so-called “super political action committees”, which at least have to disclose their donors, and to social welfare organisations, which do not.

At the time, Obama loudly criticised the decision, saying: “That’s one of the reasons I ran for president: because I believe so strongly that the voices of ordinary Americans were being drowned out by the clamour of a privileged few in Washington.”

But then he reversed course, giving his blessing to a super PAC supporting his 2012 re-election, and now to OFA. What has changed?

Obama is looking to his legacy. And his eye is on the 2014 Congressional elections. If he can maintain his appeal among the masses and help Democrats win back a majority in the House of Representatives, while maintaining control of the Senate, there will be no stopping his agenda.

He explained the “grassroots” purpose of OFA like this: “If you have a senator or a congressman in a swing district who is prepared to take a tough vote… I want to make sure they feel supported and they know there are constituencies of theirs that agree with them, even if they may be getting a lot of pushback in that district.”

Engaging voters is always a good thing. But the president should not charge for the privilege. If he will look out the Oval Office window beyond his own reflection, King Barack I will see the public he is meant to serve. He ought to invite them in.

Mark McKinnon, a former Republican strategist who worked on the campaigns of George W Bush and John McCain, is cofounder of No Labels, a non-profit organisation dedicated to bipartisanship, civil discourse and problem solving in politics

OBAMA’S GREATEST LEGACY MIGHT BE DESTROYING THE MEDIA

OBAMA’S GREATEST LEGACY MIGHT BE DESTROYING THE MEDIA


By John Nolte

On Thursday, while looking wistfully back at Obama’s first four years, NBC News accidentally did some actual reporting. In a First Read article that opened with the question, “Is the nation better off than it was four years ago,” senior political director, Mark Murray, did something that neither he, nor NBC News, nor the mainstream media was willing to do during this last presidential campaign: report on Obama’s record.

But there it finally was: The Truth — and from NBC News, no less. Poverty’s up (from 43.6 million to 46.2 million), middle class incomes are down ($50k compared to $52k), the deficit’s exploded (from $10 trillion to $16 trillion), food stamp recipients have skyrocketed (33.5 million to 46.6 million), unemployment hasn’t budged, and the same number of people are without health insurance today as there were in 2009.

Still, NBC News couldn’t even bring itself to report the most damning Obamanomics numbers: a population so despondent by a lack of jobs that enough people have dropped out to shrink the labor market to levels unseen since the 1980s. A chronic long-term unemployment problem unseen in this country since World War II. An unemployment rate disproportionately savaging blacks and Hispanics.

Where was all this news during the 2012 campaign when Obama was applying for a promotion and Romney was applying to replace him?

We know the answer. Rather than report Truth, the media locked arms and circled Obama’s palace in order to protect him from the mindless hordes of racist, sexist Neanderthals who dared criticize The Lightbringer. The media’s weapons of choice were distraction and lies:

Did you hear what this Republican no one ever heard of said about rape? Did you know Mitt Romney’s a Republican?

He said 47%. Buuurn the Bitter Clinger!

This male, rich, white, freaky Mormon LIAR is telling you there’s an al Qaeda problem in Mali and that Jeep’s moving to China.

Alakazam, bippity boo, this economy’s good for you.

Abacadabra, sima sala bim, job growth not keeping with population growth is a win.

Meeska Mooska Mickey Mouse, two-percent GDP growth has you aroused.

And on and on like that. In order to pretend Obama’s policies worked and to win him reelection, the media completely rewrote and redefined what a successful economic recovery is. Then, before anyone could notice the sleight of hand, the media would quickly change the subject. In order to ensure Obama was protected from numbers NBC News would only put together after he was safely reelected, anything and everything was hurled at The Narrative

Yes, the media won. It still pains me to say so, but the most dishonest, self-serving, narcissistic, un-American people in the world won. By picking up and running with Obama’s cynically divisive and intellectually dishonest campaign culture weapons, the media successfully pushed a failed president over the second term finish line.

But at what cost?

The cost to America isn’t small, but might work itself out over a couple of generations. The cost to the media, though, might (hopefully) be fatal.

In the long game of history (that will eventually be won by Christ) there are skirmishes, fights, battles, wars, and existential wars. What the media is winning are nothing more than a series of high-profile battles, but it is doing so in a way that represents an existential threat to themselves.

By every measure — economic, credibility — the media is dying a slow death from a poison it must ingest in order to win these battles, but a poison nonetheless. This poison has cost the media almost all of its credibility with the public, a problem that grows by the year. This, naturally, delivers economic consequences.

Recently, The New York Times, Reuters, and Time Magazine reported massive layoffs. CNN is collapsing and its so-called savior has already embraced the network’s most cancerous tumor. The broadcast networks are losing viewers by the day. Newsweek is no more. For years now, major newspapers have been shrinking in staff size while the daily product shrinks to the size of a Dennys’ menu. Everywhere the word “bankruptcy” swirls.

And it is mostly due to the poison of bias the media gulps by the bucket in order to push its agenda — and that amount of poison has only increased with the arrival of Lightbringer. Which means that the media’s unswerving sycophancy for this man is nothing more than a faster form of suicide.

Part of this self-inflicted death spiral is as simple as 2 + 2. It’s not just the media’s sycophancy and subsequent credibility loss that’s speeding up its demise. It’s also Obama’s awful economic policies.

The media successfully fooled enough people into believing Obama’s policies roared us back into a recovery to win Obama the chance to do four more years of damage. But no one’s fooled to the point where they’re buying newspaper subscriptions or advertisements. The result has been a series of high-profile media layoffs announced even before Obama’s second term became official. All due to an economy the media assured us was humming and did not need new management.

And then there’s the issue of the overall economy, stupid.

Since Obama’s reelection, the presidential campaign hasn’t stopped. The president and the media have once again locked arms in the hopes of dividing and permanently clobbering the Republican party. We had a Fiscal Cliff followed by gun control, and now we’re entering debt ceiling negotiations. After that will be immigration and after that anything that damages the GOP and tries to distract from the poor getting poorer and job creation barely treading water.

And yes, once again, Obama and the media are winning this series of bruising, high-profile political battles.

But in the process, deficit spending is only getting more out of control and vital monies required for job creation are being taken out of the private economy — you know, because of “fair share.” And someday — maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not until after Obama’s left office in a media orgasm so intense Chuck Todd and Ben Smith are made permanently glassy-eyed — but someday, people are going to wake up, walk out of their homes in a daze, and realize the “prosperity” the media sold them is nothing of the sort.

You see, permanent campaigns and the waging of divisive cultural issues might increase poll numbers and win a few elections, but they can’t fix the economy. They also can’t distract forever from an economy delivering only suffering to so many.

Until then, take heart in the fact that a dismal economy the media alchemized into something Roaring has already and will only further damage these lying liars. And remember that when people do wake up, that consciousness will only further damage the media’s credibility. All of this, of course, further saps the media’s strength and influence.

The media might think they are partners with Barack Obama, but in reality they’re his cannon fodder. Obama uses, lies to, dismisses, and openly mocks the media. Still, like bug-eating Renfelds diseased by The Master’s influence, they live only to serve. To nudge this metaphor further than I probably should, these media Renfelds also feed off the grotesque: lies, deception, shilling, the use of others, and a total indifference to truth and the suffering of others.

The Master can’t save them, and his open contempt for them means he won’t even try.

It’s all a house of cards built on dishonesty, which only works for so long. Reality and truth will someday intrude, and when the music stops, Obama will be off somewhere surrounded by an entirely new group of international sycophants, while his discarded media is left without a chair.

This will happen. It always does.

My only fear is that when it does, I’m so old that prostrate problems make it difficult to do what needs to be done to the media’s final resting place.

The most disgraceful hour on television: 60 minutes.

What President Obama really said in that ’60 Minutes’ interview about Benghazi

by Bret Baier | November 05, 2012

ANALYSIS: Two days before the election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 “60 Minutes” interview where President Obama seems to contradict himself on the Benghazi attack. As the Benghazi investigation gets more attention and focus, CBS is once again adding to the Benghazi timeline.

In the interview, according to the latest portions, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror.

That moment was one of the most intense exchanges in the second presidential debate.  Romney was on the offensive on what conservatives believed was a serious vulnerability of Obama — the handling of the Benghazi attack and what he called it from the beginning.

The town hall questioner asked, “Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?”

Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: “When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.”

Romney pounced, saying, “There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people.”

On rebuttal, Obama seemed rehearsed, but indignant. “The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror… And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.”

Governor Romney walked forward and started questioning …

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.

OBAMA: Please proceed.

ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: They did.

ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and — and to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the — your — your secretary or —

Obama — who had clearly won the moment (largely thanks to Candy Crowley) — clearly wanted to move on from that victorious moment — and quickly.

   OBAMA: Candy —

   ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and — and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.

   OBAMA: Candy, I’m — I’m happy to —

   CROWLEY: President, let me — I —

   OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.

   CROWLEY: I know you — absolutely. But I want — I want to move you on.

   OBAMA: OK, I’m happy to do that too.

   CROWLEY: And also, people can go to the transcripts and —

   OBAMA:I just want to make sure that —

   CROWLEY: — figure out what was said and when.

   OBAMA:– you know, all these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some — their questions answered.

Now, we may know why.  Soon after that debate exchange, CBS released a previously unseen clip of an interview “60 Minutes‘” Steve Kroft did with Obama on Sept. 12 — the day after the Benghazi attack.

The clip added to the previous sound that had been released and seemed to back up the president’s claim that he was referring to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist act in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12. Here’s what CBS put out Oct. 19, five weeks after the attack.

KROFT: But there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA:  As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this.   But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.   And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start.  So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.”

After the second debate back and forth, this seemed to back up the president’s stance. The only problem? Kroft started his question with “but.”

I always thought, it seems that he’s following up on a question — I wonder if there was a question before that question?

This week, we got the CIA timeline of events in which they detail all of the response of the CIA and what they put up the chain of command in the minutes and hours after the attack began.  Of all the details of the specific times the CIA contractors respond to the fight, I found this one most interesting:

“1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel who are on loan to the agency. They don’t leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.”

So the U.S. Ambassador to Libya is at the Benghazi hospital and suspected dead. The CIA contractors know that, but they can’t get there because the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked group Ansar al Shariah, the “militia that mounted the consulate attack.”

This goes up the chain communication at 1:15 a.m. on Sept. 12.  The White House, the Situation Room, and all of those paying attention to intel channels know that the guys on the ground have determined the group that’s behind this. It’s the Al Qaeda-linked militia that are still fighting and have the hospital surrounded.

About 12 hours later — before heading to Las Vegas for a campaign event — Obama sits down for that “60 Minutes” interview with Steve Kroft.

And Sunday night, 54 days after the attack and almost two weeks after putting out the first additional clip that appeared to back up the president after the second debate, CBS without fanfare posted the rest of the Benghazi question online — the question before the question.

Remember this is from a president who has been saying he was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack from the very first moment in the Rose Garden. Also, remember what he said in the debate and notice the new part — underlined in bold.

Click here to see the “60 Minutes” interview. 

   KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

   OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.  

KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA:  As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this.   But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.  And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start.  So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.

KROFT: There have been reports, obviously this isn’t the first time…there have been attacks on the consulate before. There was an attack against the British ambassador. Do you…this occurred on Sept. 11. Can you tell me why the ambassador was in Benghazi yesterday? Was it to evaluate security at the consulate?

OBAMA: Well keep in mind Chris Stevens is somebody that was one of the first Americans on the ground when we were in the process of saving Benghazi and providing the opportunity for Libyans to create their own democracy. So this is somebody who had been courageous, had been on the ground, had helped to advise me and Secretary Clinton when we were taking our actions against Muammar Qaddafi. And is somebody who is very familiar with the train. He was doing the work that he does as a diplomat helping to shape our policies in the region at a time when things are still fairly fragile. But I think it’s important to note that we have a Libyan government in place that is fully cooperative, that sees the United States as a friend that recognizes we played an important role in liberating Libya and providing the Libyan people an opportunity to forge their own destiny. And in fact we had Libyans who helped protect our diplomats when they were under attack. But this is a country that is still rebuilding in the aftermath of Qaddafi. They don’t necessarily always have the same capabilities that countries with more established governments might have in helping to provide protection to our folks. But beyond that, what I want to do is make sure that we know exactly what happened, how it happened, who perpetrated this action, then we’ll act accordingly.”

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.

How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?

There are many questions, and here are a few more.

Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?  

Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional “60 Minutes” interview material from Sept. 12?

Why wasn’t it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that “60 Minutes” tape — why didn’t they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?  

Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don’t add up.

That’s what reporters should live for, but this time they’re not.  We will.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/11/05/what-president-obama-really-said-60-minutes-interview-about-benghazi/#ixzz2BNy7GtQq

The Astonishing Flip Flops of Barrack Obama.

 

 

 

“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program”—Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama, June 2003.

“I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter”—President Obama, August 2009.

***

“Leadership means that the buck stops here. . . . I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit”—Sen. Barack Obama, March 2006.

“It is not acceptable for us not to raise the debt ceiling and to allow the U.S. government to default”—President Obama, July 2011.

***

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages”—Obama questionnaire response, 1996, while running for Illinois state Senate.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage”—Sen. Obama, November 2008, while running for president.

“It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married”—President Obama, May 2012.

***

“We have an idea for the trigger. . . . Sequestration”—Obama Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew in 2011, as reported in Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics.”

“First of all, the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed”—President Obama, October 2012.

***

“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election”—Sen. Obama, 2007.

“We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election”—Sen. Obama, June 2008.

***

“I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign”—Sen. Obama, June 2008.

“The way Bush has done it over the last eight years is . . . [he] added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. . . . That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic”—Sen. Obama, July 2008.

“I don’t remember what the number was precisely. . . . We don’t have to worry about it short term”—President Obama, September 2012, on the debt figure when he took office ($10 trillion) and whether to worry about today’s $16 trillion figure.

***

“[Sen. Hillary Clinton believes] that . . . if the government does not force taxpayers to buy health care, that we will penalize them in some fashion. I disagree with that”—Sen. Obama, Jan 2008, opposing the individual mandate for health insurance.

“I’m open to a system where every American bears responsibility for owning health insurance”—President Obama, June 2009, supporting the individual mandate.

***

“Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times when America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive”—President Obama, April 2009, in France.

“We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms”—President Obama, April 2009, in Trinidad and Tobago.

“Nothing Governor Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing”—Barack Obama, October 2012, on whether he went on a global apology tour.

***

“The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel”—Sen. Obama, September 2008.

“Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years”—President Obama, January 2010.

***

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them”—Sen. Obama, January 2008, on his plans to financially penalize coal plants.

“Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution”—Sen. Obama, August 2008.

“Here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment”—President Obama, October 2012.

***

“If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition”—President Obama, 2009.

“We’ve got a long way to go but . . . we’ve come too far to turn back now. . . . And that’s why I’m running for a second term”—President Obama, October 2012.