Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 658)

Obama-Gun-Control-Speech-Pete-Souza

President Barack Obama, joined by gun violence victims, speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2016. (Photo: White House/Pete Souza)

Watch the video. President Obama wasn’t crying during his announced executive actions on gun control – he was faking.

[brid video=”24538″ player=”2077″ title=”President Obama tears up during gun control speech BBC News”]

The production opens with Obama speaking of unalienable rights and the pursuit of happiness and how those high-schoolers at Columbine and first-graders at Newtown, Connecticut, were deprived, due to lost lives from gun violence. He pauses several seconds, stares, repeats the phrase, “first-graders.”

Obama then stares directly into the lens – right into the eyes of the American people – as the cameraman hones in slowly for a tight, cropped shot of his face.

“And from every family who never imagined their loved one would be taken from their lives by a bullet from a gun,” he continues, pausing once again.

Suddenly, Obama raises a hand, extends a finger, wipes his left eye, and the American public is transfixed at this sudden show of emotion. Is Obama crying? Is he shedding tears?

Stop video. Rewind. And look.

Obama doesn’t just flick his finger at his eye. He wipes downward, across the lid, and then runs his finger along the whole bottom rim, following the line of the lashes. Then he blinks eight or so times.

But here’s the part to notice at this point: His eye is dry. Completely devoid of tears; completely lacking dampness. Yet Obama’s supposedly wiping away tears.

Click play.

Obama then pauses, lowers his head, and with hand cupped, thumb and forefinger bent, partially covers his mouth, once, twice – classic tells of lies – then shakes his finger for emphasis and speaks again.

“Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad,” he says, reaching up and wiping the corner of his other eye, the right one, with a quick motion.

Finally, a tear drops out of that right eye and slides down his cheek. He turns his head slightly and viola, at last, his left eye is now wet all around.

Mission accomplished. Camera’s got the shot. Time to move on to policy. Almost as fast as the tears came, they disappear, and Obama’s next words – after a mention of violence in Chicago — are scolds for those in Congress and on the streets of America to support his agenda.

“So all of us need to demand a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobbies’ lies,” he says, wiping the dry space below his now-clear eyes again. “All of us need to stand up and protect our citizens. All of us need to demand governors and legislators and businesses do their part to make our communities safer … demand something better.”

He wraps with another wipe to the dry skin beneath his right eye.

Curtain fall. Exit, stage right. Bow and applause. So how’d he do it – how’d Obama manage the tearful performance?

The article “How to Cry – An Actor’s Guide to Crying and Tears” sheds some light, explaining some of the methods the professionals use to drop teardrops on demand, within 60 seconds or so. The first suggested method, tapping into “memory driven tears,” requires the actor to be “very in touch with his or her past” in order to select a prior experience that guarantees the waterworks. The second asks the actor to tap into personal fears, and dredge up tears that way.

“Both of [these] techniques … take a lot of imagination, emotional awareness and most of all, diligent practice,” the article states.

I think we can rule out those methods for Obama.

Next recommendation: “Be in the moment,” the article suggests. Given all the pauses for special effect, head dropping reflection and eye-blinking drama Obama underwent, no doubt he was feeling the moment – but was in the moment enough?

“Unfortunately,” the article goes on, “there is a problem with the ‘Be in the Moment’ technique. It does not work in every play. What if you have to cry, but you personally don’t ‘feel’ it?”

Given the American public has not seen Obama cry before – not after the Newtown shootings, or the Columbine murders, or the other gun-related acts of violence that he says makes him feel so despondent – it’s probably a safe bet Obama wasn’t feeling it as much as he humanly could. Not enough to drop real tears on demand, anyway. After all, he didn’t earn the label as a cold and detached leader for nothing. And he was making a pressure-filled nationally televised appeal to take unprecedented action for something he held dear to his legacy. So this brings up the tricks of the Hollywood trade.

“Although some movie stars utilize some of the techniques mentioned above, many actors opt for an easier solution: menthol,” the article concluded.

And that’s where my money rests – on a dab of Vicks vapor rub or similar menthol-laced product slid along the lid and bottom of an eye. The pungent fumes, combined with Obama’s practiced “Be in the Moment” rhetoric and reflections, jumpstarted the tear in his right eye; the tears from his left, fueled by the actual sting of the menthol, then fell fast and unfettered.

“A menthol tear stick and menthol tear producers are tools of the film and theater trade,” the article states. “The stick version requires a sparse application under the eyes … [and] produce[s] immediate results.”

Like I said, watch the video. Pause. Rewind and play again.

[mybooktable book=”police-state-usa-how-orwells-nightmare-is-becoming-our-reality” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Watch the video at the White House.

hillary-clinton-united-nations-march-10-2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the reporters at United Nations headquarters, Tuesday, March 10, 2015. Clinton conceded that she should have used a government email to conduct business as secretary of state, saying her decision was simply a matter of “convenience.” (Photo: AP/Seth Wenig)

DEVELOPING: PPD has confirmed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is expanding their investigation into Hillary Clinton to include “public corruption” with the Clinton Foundation during her tenure as secretary of state. The FBI had been previously investigating Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business, but now they have begun to scrutinize whether she inappropriately used her role to benefit the foundation.

Sources who were not authorized to speak on the record tell PPD the FBI investigation has begun to examine a potential quid pro quo, including but is not limited to using her influence at the State Department to garner speaking engagements for the former president and husband to the current Democratic frontrunner. The Bureau is also focused on donations to the foundation from foreign entities, temporarily assiging some 50 additional agents to the “A Team” to look into the potential connection.

While we could not confirm specific actors, we are told they include entities and countries widely believed to be hostile to the U.S. Quid pro quo questions began to surround the Clinton Foundation last year when journalist Peter Schweizer published Clinton Cash, which sought to reveal the connection between the Clinton’s personal fortune, the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and their various roles in government.

Until now, it was believed that the FBI was limiting the scope of the investigation to the email server that was turned over to the Bureau in August last year, after Mrs. Clinton was given what was characterized as a “soft ultimatum.” At that time, despite the narrative from the Clinton camp, a Justice Department source insisted the security investigation being conducted by the FBI was, in fact, a criminal investigation.

Now, the evidence is mounting and strong enough to spark a full-blown rebellion at the Bureau if Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Justice Department refuses to indict. The investigation is also targeting Clinton’s longtime aides who worked at the State Department, as well as the company that helped set up and maintain the server. While the development alludes to Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, PPD could not confirm whether one or both of Clinton’s aides were indeed the targets.

According to sources, there are roughly a thousand emails the FBI has identified as problematic. Two specific emails were deemed top secret classified “at birth,” by the originating agencies, including a satellite image showing the movement of North Korean missiles and a top secret U.S. drone strike. The sources said that the dispute over whether the two emails were classified at the highest level at birth–which is Mrs. Clinton’s political defense–is a “settled matter.” Further, those with knowledge of the investigation who spoke with PPD were quick to point out that a political defense is not a criminal defense.

The agencies that owned and originated the intelligence–the CIA and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or NGA–reviewed the emails in December to determine how they should be properly stored. The sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said that not only were the emails marked “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” even to this day.

Worth noting, the State Department continues to challenge the intelligence community’s conclusions, though they are aware of the review of all the emails. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, the State Department has no authority to change or challenge the classification because the emails and content in question did not originate at their agency.

PPD has confirmed the FBI is expanding

[brid video=”24535″ player=”2077″ title=”Donald Trump Hillary Clinton is Married to an Abuser”]

Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, told Chuck Todd Sunday on Meet the Press that he did meant to threaten Hillary Clinton over using the gender card, stating that “she’s married to an abuser” (Bill Clinton).

Bill Clinton and his many sexual exploits, including alleged rape, are usually off-limits to most Republican candidates. Not Donald Trump. Following an interview with the Des Moines Register, during which Hillary Clinton said Trump had sexist tendencies, Trump pounced. Consequently, his polling numbers have rebounded substantially against Mrs. Clinton in head-to-head matchup polling.

Trump now leads or his tied with Hillary in the last three out of four polls.

Donald Trump told Chuck Todd Sunday on

Chris-Christie-Concord-NH-Town-Hall

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, addresses a town hall in Concord, N.H., on Monday. (Photo Credit: Sarah McCammon/NPR)

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie defended Maine Gov. Paul LePage for recently saying drug dealers come into his state to sell drugs and impregnate young white girls. Christie said the comments don’t “change a bit for me my affection for him, as a leader and as a person, and he’s a good man.”

The New Jersey governor, who has made drug addiction a major issue in his campaign, recently campaigned with LePage in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire, where he has surged ahead of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and is all but tied with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Christie said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that LePage has apologized and that “we can’t judge people by one set of remarks they make.”

“We all know that he shoots from the hip, and when he does that there are going to be times when even he, in retrospect, thinks he shouldn’t have said,” Christie said in the interview, which will air on Monday.

LePage made the comments while discussing a very real drug epidemic that has been plaguing New England. He said out-of-state drug dealers “with the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty–these types of guys–they come from Connecticut and New York, they come up here, they sell their heroin, they go back home.”

“Half the time they impregnate a young white girl before they leave,” he added. “Then we have a whole other situation.”

Of course, the basic narrative that LePage was trying to explain–albeit very, very poorly–is accurate. The firebrand governor was reelected in the 2014 midterm elections and has been no stranger to controversy.

[brid video=”24279″ player=”2077″ title=”Gov. Paul LePage “DMoney” Comes to Maine to Sell Drugs Impregnate White Girls”]

NJ Gov. Chris Christie defended Maine Gov.

David-Bowie

FILE – In this June 7, 2010 file photo, David Bowie attends the 2010 CFDA Fashion Awards in New York. Bowie, the innovative and iconic singer whose illustrious career lasted five decades, died Monday, Jan. 11, 2016, after battling cancer for 18 months. He was 69. (AP Photo/Peter Kramer, File)

David Bowie, who rose to fame in the early 1970s with his “glam rock” alter ego Ziggy Stardust, and sustained a chart-topping career over four decades, has died after an 18-month battle against cancer, his family confirmed Monday.

Spokesman Steve Martin said in a statement early Monday that the “Ashes to Ashes” singer had died peacefully surrounded by his family after an 18-month battle against cancer.

“While many of you will share in this loss, we ask that you respect the family’s privacy during their time of grief,” Martin’s statement concluded. No further details were provided.

Bowie’s death comes just three days after the release of his 29th album “Blackstar”, which had been timed to coincide with his birthday.Tributes poured in on social media from, among others, British Prime Minister David Cameron and comedian Ricky Gervais, who had hosted Sunday night’s Golden Globe Awards show in Los Angeles.

Bowie is survived by his second wife, the fashion model Iman, whom he married in 1992, as well as son Duncan and daughter Alexandria.

David Bowie, who rose to fame in

national-debt-capitol-hill

US national debt piles up next to the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., where no one has the political courage to rise to the challenge of staving off the coming crisis.

I’ve written about how statist policies help the rich and hurt the poor. And I’ve also pontificated on the destructive and foolish subsidies dispensed by the execrable Department of Agriculture.

Now, let’s mix those two issues, though I hasten to add that this isn’t like math; two negatives don’t make a positive. Here’s an infographic from the American Enterprise Institute showing how farm programs are–yet another–perverse example of poor-to-rich redistribution.

I particularly like the part about 42 cents of administrative cost to give away 90 cents of other people’s money.

Actually, let me rephrase. I’m horrified and upset that we have this horrible system, so I only “like” that part of the infographic in the sense that it’s an effective way of showing the inefficiency, venality, and stupidity of government redistribution programs.

And don’t forget that if it’s bad to redistribute from rich to poor, it’s downright evil and despicable to redistribute from poor to rich.

P.S. On a different topic, I can’t resist sharing a few excerpts from a story out of Missouri.

Lobbyists who have sex with a Missouri lawmaker or a member of a lawmaker’s staff would have to disclose it to the Missouri Ethics Commission under a bill introduced Wednesday in the Missouri House. …sexual relations would have to be included on monthly lobbyist gift disclosure forms.

And you thought this cartoon was merely satirical.

lobbyist whipping politician political cartoon

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

An infographic can be effective at showing

Getty-Bill-Clinton-Barack-Obama

Barack Obama, left, with Bill Clinton, right, at the Clinton Global Initiative. (Peter Foley/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

I wouldn’t be completely distraught to have Clinton in the White House in 2017. But before concluding that I’ve lost my mind, I’m thinking of Bill Clinton, not hisfar more statist (though similarly dodgy) spouse.

You’ll see what I mean below.

In a column for National Review, Deroy Murdock has some fun by pointing out that Bill Clinton just unintentionally attacked Barack Obama.

Bill Clinton…unsealed an indictment against Obama’s economy. …Hillary’s “secret weapon” told Granite State voters Monday, “I think this election is about restoring broadly shared prosperity, rebuilding the middle class, giving kids the American Dream back.”

Why is this an attack against Obama?

For the simple reason that we haven’t had “broadly shared prosperity” during the Obama years.

…a far-left Democrat has been president for the past seven years. The economic stagnation that Clinton critiqued is Obama’s. In Obama’s first or second year, Clinton might have managed to blame Baby Bush’s massive spending, red tape, and nationalizations for America’s economic woes and middle-class anxieties. But in Obama’s seventh year, this excuse has rusted. Obamanomics has narrowed prosperity, dismantled the middle class, and snatched the American Dream from America’s kids.

Deroy then compared the economic recovery America enjoyed under Reagan with the far-less-robust recovery taking place today.

In the 25 quarters since the Great Recession, Obama’s average, inflation-adjusted annual Gross Domestic Product growth has limped ahead at 2.2 percent. During Ronald Reagan’s equivalent interval, which began in the fourth quarter of 1982, such GDP growth galloped at 4.8 percent. …The total-output gap between Reagan and Obama is a whopping $10.6 trillion. …Under Reagan, private-sector jobs expanded 23.6 percent, versus the average recovery’s 17.0 percent, and 11.6 percent under Obama — less than half of Reagan’s performance. If Obama had equaled Reagan, America would enjoy some 12.9 million additional private-sector jobs. …Under Reagan, real after-tax income per person grew 3.1 percent, compared with 2.5 percent growth in an average recovery, and 1.2 percent under Obama. Had Obama delivered like Reagan, every American would have accumulated an extra $21,306 since June 2009.

All of this analysis is music to my ears and echoes some of the points I’ve made when comparing Reagan and Obama.

But I want to augment this analysis by adding Bill Clinton to the mix.

And I want to make this addition because there’s a very strong case to be made that we actually had fairly good policy during his tenure. Economic freedom increased because the one significantly bad piece of policy–the failed 1993 tax hike–was more than offset by lots of good policy.

Here’s a chart I put together showing the pro-market policies that were adopted during the Clinton years along with the one bad policy. Seems like a slam dunk.

At this point, I should acknowledge that none of this means that Bill Clinton deserves credit for the good policies. Most of the good reforms – such as 1990s spending restraint – were adopted in spite of what he wanted.

But at least he allowed those policies to go through. Unlike Obama, he was willing to be practical.

In any event, what matters is that we had better policy under Clinton than under Obama. And that’s why it’s useful to compare economic performance during those periods.

The Minneapolis Federal Reserve has a very interesting and useful webpage (at least to wonks) that allows users to compare various recoveries on the basis of GDP growth and job creation.

I’ve used this data to compare Reagan and Obama, so now let’s add the Clinton years to the mix. The following two charts from the Minneapolis Fed show the post-1981 recovery in blue, the post-1990 recovery in yellow, and the post-2007 recovery in red.

These numbers don’t match up exactly with when presidents took office, but it’s nonetheless apparent that we got the best performance under Reagan, and also that Clinton was much better than Obama.

Here’s the chart with the job numbers.

And here are the numbers for gross domestic product.

Here’s the bottom line.

Party labels don’t matter. Policy is what counts.

When the burden of government expands, like we saw with Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama on the Democrat side, but also with Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush on the Republican side, the economy under-performs.

Similarly, when the burden of government is reduced, like we saw under Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, the economy enjoys relative prosperity.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

CATO economist and PPD contributor Dan Mitchell

Anything Can Happen, But Trump Remains Dominant in Latest Polls

Donald-Trump-Ted-Cruz

Donald Trump, right, during a campaign stop in Burlington, Vt., on Thursday, Jan. 7, 2016. (Photo: AP) Sen. Ted Cruz, right, speaks in Johnston, Iowa, December 4, 2015. (Photo: Reuters/Brian C. Frank)

Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lead the Republican field in the latest polls and averages in early voting states for the week ending January 9, 2015. Trump, the billionaire real estate mogul, remains the national frontrunner and leads in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

Sen. Cruz, who made the largest ever recorded one-time gain in Iowa, leads The Donald on the PPD aggregate average by 4.2%, or 30.0% to 26.1%. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is trying to straddle his role as the Establishment replacement to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and a bonafide conservative, trails behind the two top candidates with 12% of the primary vote. Former frontrunners Dr. Ben Carson and Bush follow behind Rubio in the Hawkeye State with 9.4% and 5.3%, respectively.

In New Hampshire, there has been some interesting movement. Still, with exactly one month before the votes are counted, Trump without a doubt remains the clear favorite, a position he has held unprecedentedly since August. Trump (30%) holds a double-digit lead over Rubio, or 30% to 13.8%, respectively.

Cruz, the Iowa frontrunner in polls and organization, has made considerable progress in the Granite State, yet still remains in third place behind Rubio with 12%. However, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has surged ahead of Bush (8.0%) and Kasich (8.7%) to take fourth place right behind Cruz with 9.5%.

Make no mistake, the first in the nation primary has far more predictive value historically than the Iowa caucus, and at least four candidates must either win, post a reasonably respectable showing or outperform expectations. While most other pundits are focused on whether Cruz will beat Trump in Iowa, the PPD Election Projection Model has long-expected Cruz or someone else to do so.

The 55%-plus share of the caucus that evangelicals will represent makes it a difficult state for The Donald, but history shows his lead in New Hampshire and beyond is not likely to be greatly impacted by Iowa, alone.

In South Carolina, where more recent polling would serve to gauge the state more accurately, Trump still holds a 14.4% lead over Cruz, his closest rival with 19.3%. The Palmetto State is not as deeply conservative and evangelical as most pundits incorrectly assume. Rubio, who still holds on to third with 12.7%, sucked up all the big name organizers months ago, including several that were loyal to Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Bottom Line

If Donald Trump can either win or beat expectations in Iowa, which will hinge on whether he can convert independents over to caucus-goers, then he will likely go on to win New Hampshire barring any unforeseen circumstances. As of now, this would greatly increase the likelihood that he will be the Republican nomination. If, however, Cruz beats Trump badly in Iowa and goes on to take second in New Hampshire, he might be able to convert that momentum into South Carolina.

Historically, that would be a very heavy lift for the Texas senator. By a 2 to 1 margin, Republican primary voters believe Trump will be the Republican nominee, and say he is best equipped to handle the major voting issues this cycle. There is something to say for having the air of inevitability on your side, historically speaking.

But, then again, modern American political history hasn’t been that great a guide for other pundits this cycle, and we aren’t racing to fall into the same trap. Let’s wait and see.

Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz

[brid video=”24363″ player=”2077″ title=”Joe Walsh I Will Ignore Obama’s New Gun Executive Orders”]

Former Illios Congressman-turn-radio host Joe Walsh said on his broadcast that he would “ignore Obama’s new gun executive orders,” and encouraged others to do the same. Walsh also taunted Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who said she will hunt down those who do not obey Obama’s new executive decree on guns.

Three weeks ago, Loretta Lynch said she’d jail Americans who exercised their 1st Amendment rights. Today, she said she’d jail Americans who exercised their 2nd Amendment rights. No! Enough! I will say what I want about Islam and I will ignore & defy Obama’s new gun laws. I will encourage other Americans to evade Obama’s new gun laws as well.It’s time for civil disobedience. We have a right to do what Americans have done since 1791 – buy and sell guns privately. Come and get us Loretta Lynch. We will evade Obama’s gun laws. We will sell our guns privately without registering them. We have a God given right to do so. Come and get us.

Last month, following the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Walsh went on an epic rant against Lynch for saying she would prosecute Americans for “anti-Muslim” rhetoric at the 10th Anniversary Dinner of Muslim Advocates.

“When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted,” Lynch said at a banquette for same group that lobbied the Obama administration to scrub all references to Islam and jihad in training manuals and courses used to train agents in intelligence agencies.. “My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.”

Lynch has also called on Muslim parents to contact her if their children are bullied in school, which was one of many comments that didn’t sit well with detractors, i.e. those who value the First Amendment. She also said the San Bernardino jihadist attack gave her a “wonderful opportunity.”

Former Ill. Congressman Joe Walsh said on

Capitol-w-flag-money

Okay, the title for today’s column is a bit grandiose. It implies weighty and ponderous analysis of America’s ever-growing entitlement state and potentially dour predictions about when we reach a tipping point of too much dependency.

But let’s focus on the short run, which isn’t quite so depressing. I was one of John Stossel’s guests as we looked at what happened in 2015 and gave a sober assessment of whether the United States is moving in the right direction or wrong direction.

If you don’t want to watch 30-plus minutes, here are the highlights.

[brid video=”24359″ player=”2077″ title=”Dan Mitchell on the Battle between Liberty and Big Government”]

I’ll start with what has me worried and/or glum.

According to the political betting markets (which I feel are more accurate than polls), Donald Trump’s chances keep increasing. I don’t feel confident, however, that he would shrink the size and scope of government if he made it to the White House. And he’s using up the oxygen of candidates who (while imperfect) seem more sincerely interested in advancing economic liberty.

I see little hope of fixing a refugee program that lures newcomers into welfare dependency (and may breed terrorism by creating a dispiriting environment of helplessness).

Speaking of which, as government gets bigger and bigger, it becomes even less competent about fulfilling legitimate responsibilities such as thwarting people who want to kill us.

Here’s what I’m happy and/or optimistic about.

People are displeased about what’s happening in Washington, and it’s healthy for there to be hostility and distrust toward government.

There’s a real opportunity for genuine entitlement reform in 2017.

American society is becoming more tolerant. As I argued on the program, I don’t care whether people approve of gays or pot smoking, but I do want to be part of a society that (unlike Iran!) doesn’t persecute or harass people for behaviors or beliefs that don’t harm others.

So some good things are happening. Though I reserve the right to be really depressed later this year.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

While the short-term situation isn't as depressing

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial