The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Monday, November 5, 2012

The Closing Argument, Part II: Bull____

This is Part II in a series.  Part I is here.

The title comes from Obama’s rich accusation about a week ago, that Mitt Romney was a bull____ter, only with the blank filled in.  That came in an article in Rolling Stone, where he had this exchange:

I was reminded of this incident when our interview with the president ended. As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. After a thoughtful pause, she said, “Tell him: You can do it.”
Obama grinned. “That’s the only advice I need,” he said. “I do very well, by the way, in that demographic. Ages six to 12? I’m a killer.”
“Thought about lowering the voting age?” Bates joked.
“You know, kids have good instincts,” Obama offered. “They look at the other guy and say, ‘Well, that’s a bull_____ter, I can tell.’“

(Censorship added.)

Now first, there is the sheer crassness of the comment.  Look, I am not personally overly offended by cursing in and of itself.  And if this was just one of those “hot mike moments” I consider it to be no big deal.  But the fact is hundreds of schoolchildren across the country keep track of the campaign and thus candidates for President (and Presidents themselves), need to keep it clean.  And the president failed to do that.

Look it’s not the worst thing in the world, but it was wrong of him to do it.  He shouldn’t make excuses, he should just apologize for not behaving in a Presidential manner.

But the bizarre thing is just how easily you can make the charge against Obama, that he is a bull____ter.  It’s projection (oh, where have I heard that before?).  I mean let’s run down the list.

Obama Called Bush Unpatriotic For Raising the Debt... Before Raising it Even More And in Less Time

Let’s start with the most egregious example, the national debt.  Here is Senator Obama denouncing Bush as unpatriotic for having added $5 Trillion to the national debt, that is $5,000,000,000,000.00 to the national debt.

And here is that chart showing the trajectory the deficits, not the debt, over the last few years.

As I said before, for all practical purposes, the deficit in this point in time can be defined as the amount of additional debt we have taken on in a given year.

And here is the debt itself, over time.


Let’s break this down.  There are only two possibilities here.  Either Obama was telling the truth in that video clip, or he was lying.  If he was telling the truth, then he is confessing that he himself has acted unpatriotically, that he has deliberately and willfully acted to harm this country.  Indeed he did so at a greater rate than Bush.  It is borderline treason.

And if he is lying—if he thinks increasing the debt is patriotic and a good thing—he is a bull____ter.

And that is far from the only example.

Obama Was Opposed to Raising the Debt Ceiling Before He Was For It

Years ago we had a vote on raising the debt ceiling and a senator spoke up to denounce the idea of raising the debt ceiling in the harshest of terms.  Let me quote this senator at length:

I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending.

As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.

Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.

You certainly figured out by the end of reading that, that this was not in relation to the debt ceiling crisis in Obama’s presidency.  Rather it was a denunciation of Bush’s comparatively slight deficit spending.

Who was the speaker?  A first-term Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama, who then went on to vote against the same debt limit increase.

But as you all remember a few years later President Obama urged that we increase the debt limit on the absurd argument that if the only way to pay back the money we borrowed, is to borrow even more.  As I wrote at the time:

Try this sometime.  Go to your local bank.  Tell them that you need a loan.  They will ask why, in one way or another.  When they ask why, explain to them that you already have a massive loan to someone else that you will not be able to repay unless you get this loan from them.  When they ask how you got that loan in the first place, then explain to them that this loan was taken out because otherwise you couldn’t have paid a previous loan.

And when they ask how you plan to pay off this loan, explain to them that surely someone else will loan you that money.

Then, let me know in the comments when they stop laughing at you.

And logically speaking it meant that either Senator Obama was full of it when he voted against raising the debt ceiling, or President Obama was full of it when he said we needed to do so.  And in all frankness, I tended to think President Obama was the one full of it, that Senator Obama was for the most part talking sense.

But not true.  Both official Presidential Spokesmodel Robert Gibbs and Obama himself assured us that Senator Obama was full of it when he voted against raising the debt lit.  Here’s what Gibbs said on the subject:

Asked about that quote – and vote — today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that it was important that “based on the outcome of that vote…the full faith and credit was not in doubt.”

Then-Sen. Obama used the vote “to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline….His vote was not necessarily needed on that.”

As I wrote at the time:

In other words, according to official spokesmodel Robert Gibbs, the only reason why Obama voted against raising the debt limit was because he knew it would happen anyway.  He wasn’t really opposed to it.  He just wanted to pretend he was, because he wanted to fool people into thinking he is some kind of fiscal conservative.

Now I will say for the record that I don’t generally credit what the official White House spokesmodel says anyway.  But, um, well, what do you expect Obama himself to say?  “No, actually I am full of shit now”?  Besides we have about two years worth of evidence establishing that he fundamentally doesn’t care about the debt.

George Stephanopoulos: You’ve got to extend the debt limit by May.  And it seems like you made up the job– your job is a lot tougher because of your vote in the Senate against extending the debt limit…When did you realize that vote was a mistake?

President Obama: I think that it’s important to understand the vantage point of a Senator versus the vantage point of a…President.  When you’re a Senator, traditionally what’s happened is this is always a lousy vote.  Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit for the United States by a trillion dollars… As President, you start realizing, “You know what?  We– we can’t play around with this stuff.  This is the full faith in credit of the United States.”  And so that was just a example of a new Senator,  you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country.  And I’m the first one to acknowledge it.

So there you go, from President Obama’s own mouth: he was a bull____ter.

Obama was For Gay Marriage, Before He Was Against it... Before He was For it again

So a while back we watched as Obama “evolved” on the issue of gay marriage.  By evolved, they mean he flip-flopped.  But the cravenness of the decision ran deeper than that, because apparently before that he was for it:

In a 1996 questionnaire filled out for a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper, then called Outlines, Obama came out clearly in favor of same-sex marriage, which he has opposed on the public record throughout his short career in national politics.

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” Obama wrote in the typed, signed, statement.

There was no use of “civil unions,” and “no compromise whatsoever,” the Windy City Times story today notes.

On another questionnaire the same year, Obama said he would support a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

Of course the Politico article that comes from bizarrely states that this here suggests that Obama was in favor of gay marriage before he was against it, and then for it again.  But in fact the documents don’t suggest anything: it says it outright.

Candidate Obama Promised to Take Early Action to Close Gitmo

Not much to say on this point, but to quote this ABC news article:

It might be President Obama’s biggest broken promise: closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

As a candidate, Obama vowed so many times that he would shutter the prison he called a recruitment tool for terrorists that he himself even noted how often he’s promised to do so, in an interview with Steve Kroft shortly after he was elected.

In that interview in November 2008, Kroft asked Obama if he planned to “take early action” to shut down Guantanamo. Obama replied, “Yes.”

“I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that,” he said.

After three and a half years as president, Obama has not done so.

And he still hasn’t.

The issue isn’t whether one policy or another is a good one.  I am glad he hasn’t closed it.  The issue is his character and honesty, and plainly that is lacking.  He is a bull____ter.

Obama Said He Opposed the Mandate... Before He Passed One

Lost in all the controversy over the mandate, was the fact that it represented a broken promise.  As this American Crossroads ad points out, Senator Obama was opposed the mandate and even ran against Hillary on this point.  But President Obama passed one:

Obama Said He Would Not Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than $250,000 a year... Before He Did

This is actually a two-fer, at least in part.  Since the Obama administration successfully argued before the Supreme Court that the mandate was a tax and not a penalty, it means that the mandate—which applies to everyone—taxes people who made less than $250,000 a year.

I mean that is Obama’s lawyer’s own arguments, which was accepted by a bare majority of the Supreme Court: it was a tax.

Nor was this the only tax hike they imposed on people making less than $250,000 a year.  He also raised taxes on cigarettes, for instance.  And Reason points out more examples of Obama raising taxes, here.

Oh, liberals say, but Obama only meant income taxes.  Yeah, so let’s hear him explain it:

Yeah, that argument is bull, too.

Obama Promised Not to Start a War Without Congressional Approval... And Then Started a War With Libya Without Congressional Approval

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

But then as President, Obama began a war with Libya, without even bothering to seek Congress’ consent.  The issue is not whether it is a good idea for us to have gone to war with Libya.  The issue is whether the Constitution had been followed—and it had not.  As such it represents a “willful” violation of the Constitution, as that term is typically meant in federal law: an illegal act done with full knowledge of its illegality.

Nor can he be saved by the War Powers Act.  Contrary to popular myth, the War Powers Act doesn’t give the president the right to engage in military action for sixty days without congressional consent.  In fact what it actually says is that you can engage in military action for 60 days if 1) congress consents or 2) we are attacked.  Neither condition was satisfied.

The shallow parry to that thrust is to say, “the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.”  And perhaps it is, but that doesn’t help the President, because then the only thing the President would be able to rely on to justify it is the Constitution itself.  And as I outlined here, the Constitution doesn’t allow the President to start a war either.  The President can fight back when we are attacked, maybe even attack preemptively when there is an imminent threat (something Bush was not actually claiming to do in Iraq), but even stretching the constitution as far as it could go, it doesn’t give Obama the right to start a war.  And Obama knows it.  He told us as a candidate it was unlawful.

And even if you did buy the War Powers Act myth, he didn’t even stick to the 60 day limitation.

And finally...

When the Attack on Benghazi Happened, All Evidence Pointed Toward This Being a Coordinates Terrorist Attack, But Obama Falsely Claimed it was Just a Spontaneous Protest of a Movie and Attacked Freedom of Speech Itself in an Effort to Find a Scapegoat

I wrote about that in detail, here.  But I cannot stress how scandalous this was.  Our troops behaved admirably.  Our SEALs were killing our enemies hand over fist.  With a little support they might have survived.  And to distract us from that shameful failure, Obama scapegoated a film maker and has put him in jail for having said something he didn’t like, resulting in this scene.

In a perfect world, this would result in an instant impeachment.  But I think it is going to fall on "We the People" to do the work, by removing him tomorrow.

And that ain’t no bull.


My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.



I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.

No comments:

Post a Comment