Candidate Obama vs. President Obama.

More News In The IRS Scandal.

The hits just keep piling up in this mess.

The Daily Caller analyzed the data in the number of public visits former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman had to the White House. The numbers are not pretty.


Publicly released records show that embattled former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times during the Obama administration, more recorded visits than even the most trusted members of the president’s Cabinet.

Shulman’s extensive access to the White House first came to light during his testimony last week before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Shulman gave assorted answers when asked why he had visited the White House 118 times during the period that the IRS was targeting tea party and conservative nonprofits for extra scrutiny and delays on their tax-exempt applications.

By contrast, Shulman’s predecessor Mark Everson only visited the White House once during four years of service in the George W. Bush administration and compared the IRS’s remoteness from the president to “Siberia.” But the scope of Shulman’s White House visits — which strongly suggests coordination by White House officials in the campaign against the president’s political opponents — is even more striking in comparison to the publicly recorded access of Cabinet members.

To be fair, there are visits to the White House by Cabinet members that the logs do not record. Yet it is the sheer number of visits as compared to previous IRS heads that is troubling. Why would the head of a government agency that is supposed to be non-political be visiting the White House that much?

It is a question that is being asked, and as usual, the White House is not answering.

In addition, one of those “rogue” agents in the Cincinnati IRS office has been promoted.



Try Again.

There is an article making the rounds written by Dr. Russell D. Moore who is Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Moore’s article is entitled “Christians, Let’s Honor the President,” in which Moore makes the argument that as Christians we have a duty and responsibility to honor and respect President Obama and submit without question to the his civilian authority.

To which we say, “heifer hockey.”

Dr. Moore writes:

We are going to disagree with the President on some (important) things; there will be other areas where we can work with the President. But whether in agreement or disagreement, we can honor.

Before we “honor” someone, it would be good to know what the word “honor” means. After all, how can we “honor” someone if we don’t know what “honor” entails?

As we are dealing with the Bible, the best place to look for the definition may be in Strong’s which defines “honor” as:

honour which belongs or is shown to one
a) of the honour which one has by reason of rank and state of office which he holds

It is here that the first chink in Dr. Moore’s argument begins to show. It is not to Barack Obama we should show honor, but rather to the Office of the President. It doesn’t matter what person fills the position, our duty is to honor the position, but not necessarily the person in that position. This means we have a duty to honor the office of the President but have no duty to honor Barack Obama the man.

National Election Results.

We’ll have more on the local elections and all that entails later. For now, this best describes our feeling on the Presidential Election.

Vote To Outlaw Coal!

(The headline is, of course, sarcasm.)

America isn’t the Saudi Arabia of coal; it’s the OPEC of coal. The U.S. has about 237 billion tons of coal reserves—about 28 percent of the world’s known deposits. America’s coal deposits contain 900 billion barrels of oil equivalent, that’s nearly as much as the 1 trillion barrels of proved oil reserves held by OPEC. At current rates of consumption, the United States has about 241 years of coal supply.

You would think we would want to reduce dependency on foreign imports of energy and use what is found here in the US. Of course, in 2008 candidate Obama promised that if someone wanted to build a new coal fired power plant, it would “bankrupt them.”

So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Now as the election is near, the EPA is rushing to push out new regulations on coal in case Obama loses:

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.

More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion. (emphasis ours)

So in a time when the American economy needs businesses and energy, the EPA under Obama is looking to end energy from coal.

Think about that when you head to the polls. Think about what a vote for Obama means to the economy and the energy industry (which will affect your power bill, your food bill, and almost every aspect of your life.)

If you still can pull the lever for Obama, you simply don’t have a clue.

The Economy.

All it takes is a comparison.

We’ll let Obama explain that in his own words:

‘Nuff said.

Hat tip to The Pirate’s Cove and The Lonely Conservative.

The Case For A Second Term.

via William Warren at

« Previous Entries Next Entries »