Obama: Liar Or Just Schizophrenic?

So if you've caught Obama's speech on Tuesday night you might've heard something that sounded odd, to say the least, coming from the President (and if you're anything like me, you probably rolled your eyes).

He said, "... I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't."

Check out the Illinois Review's take on all of this.

So our President says that he doesn't believe in big government, but he's been key to producing the largest government (with the largest debt) in American History, and basically campaigned on it.

The only way this makes sense is you agree to one of two things; Obama is either lying (and with a smile on his face no less) or he's borderline schizophrenic.

Now if our President isn't schizophrenic and is indeed lying to us, we shouldn't be surprised. After all, it's not shocking when you think about the countless numbers of scoundrels we've all helped to put in government.

In fact, Congressmen Ron Paul remarked that Barack Obama actually endorsed his support of big government during his inauguration speech,

“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”

We should've expected it, I did anyway, but what's more shocking is that if the President is indeed lying to himself and the American public about his unshaking belief in the Omnipotence of Government to fix any problem whatsoever he does it so flippantly that it seems as if it's second nature. The narcissistic ability to lie as if you actually wholeheartedly believe your own lie is a very desirious trait for a career politician (or lawyer) I should add.

The other option is that Obama is schizophrenic. He suffers from a disorder that disconnects him from reality and may even allow him to believe both in the Supremacy of Government and also believe that government doesn't need to grow. While this option isn't very entertaining--It's not like President Obama's running around like the Mad Hatter cutting cups of tea in half and serving his Chief of Staff today's security briefing slathered in raspberry preserves all the while singing "A Very Merry Unbirthday, To Us!"--it would explain his seemingly dual personality. His seemingly natural ability to speak out of both sides of his mouth as if it's second nature.

It would explain how he can promise that he has "...no intention of taking away folks’ guns." and yet act in a manner completely contradictory to his previous statement. You can see it with his lack of support for Heller in DC v. Heller; his support of IL's Handgun Ban; and his support for a NEW ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN (this one is WILL BE more invasive and WILL BAN a much greater number of firearms, and is expected to have no expiration date unlike President Clinton's Ban).

I'll end by just humbly asking you all to join me in prayer for mercy towards our country and our leader because we are in desperate need of both. This is not the land our founders killed and died to create and protect, and the only way we'll become a great free nation is with God's help.

NYT Editor Lies about Interior Comments

It seems like just when the New York Times has reached the lowest of the low, they seem to sink deeper into the mire as they fully demonstrate their character.

Is it any wonder why the dinosaur media is dying off? People are becoming more informed and less likely to fall for the yellow journalism of yesteryear of which the NY Times excels.

Editorial: We Don't Feel Safer

Anticipating what Barack Obama has called “common-sense gun safety laws,” the Bush administration has rushed through a last-minute gun rule that is the antithesis of common sense. The Interior Department published a rule last week that will allow loaded, concealed weapons in nearly all of this country’s national parks.

The rule, which will take effect next month, will apply to national parks in every state that has a concealed carry law, even if guns are prohibited in state parks. The administration — again — also has ignored the point of a public comment period. It received 140,000 comments on this proposed rule change, the vast majority opposing it, and still went ahead.

So this is the lie, the mystical 140,000 comments on the proposed rule change with the "vast majority" being opposed to the change in the rule.

Maybe, just maybe, there were 140,000 comments received and the Interior or some obscure rule or technological limitations limited the comments to 100,000 which happens to be the number of comments the Interior lists on the website.

Don't believe me? Look for yourself.
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=FWS-R9-NSR-2008-0062

I've scanned through a fair number of comments at random. I first read the last 10 or so, and then jumped around to a few comments on each page and I've yet to find the majority of dissenting opinions that the NYT Editor claims. So far in the more than 50 comments I've read, I've found about less than 5 opinions that support keeping the regulations as they are.

It's time we call the NYT Editor out on this...

S/he is just lucky s/he didn't try this 200 years ago. I'd wager deliberately misleading your readers in an article is something somebody might get tarred and feathered for.