Virginia M. emails, stating that we should have noted another HUGE lie told during the State-of-the-Union address last evening. (We point out this was more of a deflection than an outright lie, although one could argue it’s a difference without a distinction.)

His statement was that “…Congress passed a law…” which is true enough, but is also an attempt to imply the idea of a sequestration was Congress’s, when it was Obama’s.

(The linked Washington Post article reveals it originated out of the White House, even as the Post et al makes a pathetic effort to paint Republicans as just as much to blame.)

We thank Virginia for her vigilance, while gently reminding her that’s why we used the word ‘deceptions’ in our previous blog post.

Reading the prepared State of the Union that Obama gave last night is a challenge.

So many deceptions, so little fact.

(“…businesses have created 6 million new jobs…”) Unhh, what about the 8.5 million lost? (we’ve “…cleared away the rubble of crisis…the state of our union is stronger…”) Only in Obama-land does adding over 11,200 food stamp recipients per day make a ‘union’ stronger. Since he took office, food stamp enrollment has increased 50%!

The real corker was close to the end though. “As long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, we will do whatever we must to protect those who serve their country abroad…” (Yeah, tell that to the 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, fatal beneficiaries of that empty promise.)

In Obama’s mind, ‘…whatever we must…’ amounted to 1) refusing to beef up security before the attack, 2) leaving Americans stranded without backup during the attack, and 3) lying about what occurred after the attack…and continue lying to the present day.

How does he sell such a pack of blatant State-of-the-Union lies to Americans…?

By oftentimes hiding behind the petticoats of administration lackeys sent out to take flak (including Leon Panetta and Jay Carney – which explains ‘crossdresser’ rumors), and enlisting the eager shills of the mainstream media to do the dirty work of selling lies.

It’s a filthy job…but you know CBS and the New York Times are up to the challenge…

They must be so proud…

Question – for the media, when is a cop-killer really just a ‘whistle-blower’…?

Answer – when he supports gun-control, Obama, and liberal causes.

(Because, don’t you know, it’s the only response when you get fired summarily. Doesn’t everyone who’s lost their job kill the daughters of retired police Captains?)

Word has it that a certain ‘Lincoln’ movie director and his screenwriter are already being lined up to create this present-day historical drama…with of course, the usual ‘liberties‘ taken to clarify historical reality. (No big deal, really, happens all the time…)

(You know, the usual ‘widely accepted standards’…Hollywood style.)

We’re expecting the Spielberg-Kushner ‘re-creation’ to depict this poor unemployed guy as relentlessly hunted by an implacably evil police force, intent on his destruction.

And, naturally, the Hollywood types will shift blame for the acts of violence (the usual trail of dead and wounded victims) onto that evil police force. (Changing names of course, “…so as not to ascribe actions to real people who did not perform them…”)

No doubt, in the spirit of clarifying historical reality…

…to portray the true nature of injustice…as only Hollywood can!

We suggest for a movie title…’Misunderstood’.

Mr. Spielberg, call your screenwriter…

Defense Secretary Panetta testified under oath Thursday that “…Obama was absent the night 4 Americans died…” in the Benghazi attack that went on for over 7 hours.

Panetta has a degree in law…we assume he understands what ‘under oath’ entails.

As noted in the earlier blog on this issue, in late October Obama asserted he was issuing directives the night of the attack, implying constant involvement.

Barack Obama has a degree in law…but he also knew he wasn’t under oath.

Obama’s senior campaign advisor (Axelrod) was on Fox with Chris Wallace, and stated during that Nov 04 interview  “…immediately when word of the attack came, (Obama) was meeting with his top national security folks. He was talking to them well into the night…everything that could be put in motion, he put in motion…every conversation that needed to be had was being had between him and his top national security officials.”

As the senior campaign advisor, one would have to believe that Axelrod was intimately aware of Obama’s involvement, especially considering Obama was bragging at every campaign stop that “…bin Laden’s dead…and al Qaida is on its heels…”

Not to mention that Obama went back on the campaign trail, heading for Vegas the very next day after our 4 Americans were killed. Given that, his senior campaign advisor had to be somewhere close by him the night before…and, knowing the impact of Obama’s anti-terror-success campaign rhetoric, the Benghazi event screamed for attention.

So, shades of Liar, Liar…whether perjury before Congress, or less formally before the American public writ large…which lawyer is lying…?

Because at least one of them must be…

‘Yeah, we lied…it’s a widely accepted standard…to clarify the historical reality…?’

Only a Hollywood screenwriter could make such an assertion with a straight face.

The movie “Lincoln” portrays that president’s struggle to abolish slavery. And, in order to more accurately clarify the 13th amendment passing ‘by a very narrow margin’, the screenwriter decided he had to LIE about how many in Congress voted against it.

Got that? Accurately Clarifying historical reality justifies…lying about historical reality…!

Anyone who reads this linked Washington Times article would do well to pay special attention to the 10th and 11th words in the first sentence: The screenwriter “…conceded taking some liberties in…portrayal of a 19th century vote on slavery…”

Then ask yourself…some liberties? Could Mr. Spielberg’s screenwriter…clarify…?

Or is that just asking for more of his version of what constitutes… Historical Reality…?

Is he serious…or simply channeling Michael Moore…?

(Or, does he mean ‘hysterical reality’…? Too cynical? Consider this…)

Americans are being bombarded daily with accusations of racism and inequality. What purpose does screenwriter Kushner then serve, lying to make 1865-era Connecticut politicians seem more racist, when historical fact proves they were LESS so?

(Full Disclosure – BlueCollar admits choosing not to view this particular movie. We’re inclined to be suspicious of agenda-driven subtleties when Liberal agents of Hollywood come together to bring ‘historical’ dramas to the big screen, and especially when such a respected figure as Republican Abraham Lincoln is the subject. This article justifies our skepticism, revealing once more the lengths some will go to push their views.)

And it’s not a question of seeing the movie before passing judgment. As soon as you’ve bought the ticket, a Liberal bent on ‘taking some liberties’ could care less about your opinion…because he already has your money, and YOU CAN’T GET IT BACK!

(You can take a book back to the store, but try getting a refund on a just-viewed movie.)

Would it have been too much to ask that the ‘liberties’ taken be reserved for imaginary smoke-filled, back-room machinations, rather than lying about actual vote counts?

And, of course, there’s every possibility Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Kushner made great effort and ‘took some liberties’ in strongly emphasizing the fact that a newly-formed Republican Party came into being in that era for the express purpose of abolishing slavery!

But we doubt it.

Some ‘liberties’ just always seem to be a higher priority…for Hollywood types.

We would be thrilled to know we’re wrong…did this ‘historical drama’ make special efforts (‘take some liberties’, if you will) to glorify the Republican Party’s efforts to abolish slavery…are we in fact doing an injustice to Messrs Spielberg and Kushner?

Or were the movie’s special liberties reserved for emotional hysterics, stoking the embers of long-smoldering resentments, anger, inequality, and racism…?

Just asking…in the name of civility…

…anyone…anyone…?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified today that “…Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.”

Really, Leon? Funny…

On Oct 28, the Blaze reported that a retired DIA senior intel officer was told by his sources that Obama was in the White House Situation Room, watching in real-time.

Also Oct 28, Breitbart.com quotes (ret.) Lt. Col. Tony Schafer telling Fox News that only Obama could order backup for the besieged consulate…so, he had to know, real-time.

And former Asst Defense Secretary Bing West noted on Oct 29 that Obama’s story had changed on the campaign trail a few days earlier, when O’ implied real-time orders were given to do ‘whatever was necessary’ to help assist the consulate and personnel.

Additionally, on Oct 29th National Review Online noted, given Libya’s shaky, insecure government, only National Command Authority could allow use of U.S. military to help.

CNS News reported 25 minutes after the attack started, an email was sent to two White House (undisclosed) recipients, and 80 minutes after it began, Obama met with Panetta and Biden. But we’re led to believe it was so unimportant Obama, what, went to sleep?

So, inside-intel officials say Obama was in the Situation Room, Obama himself says he was issuing directives (3?) during the attack, and only a president can authorize military force in a country we’re not at war with…but Leon now claims Barry was A-W-O-L?

Looks like Panetta has invoked the fruit-of-the-loom Protocol…

What else can you call his efforts to cover Obama’s rear?

They should both be impeached.

Actor and comedian Chris Rock demonstrates the typical Hollywood Liberal mindset, unable (or unwilling) to parse the difference between a ‘boss’ and a leader.

And always ready to fall back on feel-good emotional buzzwords and cotton-candy platitudes, when unable to rebut common-sense logic on issues (like gun-ownership).

On Capitol Hill in support of Obama’s gun control agenda Wednesday, at the press conference he explained why we must obey: Obama’s our ‘boss’, & the country’s ‘dad’.

Sorry Chris, Obama serves the people…we don’t serve him (yet). And those of us with Dads who abused their wives and kids would take exception to a ‘dad’ analogy as well.

Some dads are just sperm donors; those who beat wives and kids are evil ones at that. And though the ‘boss’ you support may act dictatorial, you weren’t in Cuba yesterday…

(Though since Obama says he can now kill Americans with impunity, Rock’s not far off!)

America to Chris…Obama & Democrats haven’t burned our Constitution – yet.

As an actor and comedian, you’re talented, entertaining…a pretty funny guy.

As a thoughtful civic leader, sadly, you’re a joke.

Your comments are a very clear example of when Laughter isn’t the best medicine…

Or were you just trying to be funny…and had an off day?

…why has the Democrat-controlled Senate hidden their spending details?

By not passing a budget for 3 years in a row, they’ve managed to keep a large amount of information out of view from the general population… breaking the law in the process.

It’s federal law – the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 mandates that Congress present a budget every year. Got that? A Democrat Senate is breaking their own law. (House Republicans, since taking the majority, followed the law in 2011 and 2012, and their new No Budget, No Pay Act may finally force Senate Democrats to do their job.)

So, next time your Liberal buddies claim government spending is good, ask them…

…if that’s true…why are Democrat Senators hiding those ‘great’ spending details?

And, why have they been willing to break federal law to do it?

You can’t make this stuff up.

In an orgy of acronyms…courtesy of the Anointed One…Barack Obama’s blaming the latest bad round of economic news on House Republicans.

(After all, there’s only 40 House GOP bills festering in the Democrat Senate…)

Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) wrote an article that explains why he felt compelled to vote against the House Republicans’ common sense ‘No Budget, No Pay Act’.

The bill simply stated that – until Senate Democrats passed a budget (required by law to be done every year, but not done for the past 3 years) – they wouldn’t get paid.

Rep. King argues the Act contravened the 27th amendment of the Constitution: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened”.

He thinks the ‘intervening election’ requirement is the deal-breaker.

With all due respect to Representative King, it might behoove him to note that the amendment doesn’t read “…varying the compensation for the NON-services…”

We’re not legal scholars at BlueCollar, but it’s our opinion that, until congressional members actually perform ‘the Service’ deserving of compensation, logically, those Democrat Senators aren’t protected by the Constitution they’ve trampled…

…unless of course, there’s some hidden amendment we’re not aware of that states trampling the Constitution is what their ‘Service’ now entails…?

Common sense dictates not doing their sworn job (in this case, not passing a lawfully required budget) can be defined as ‘non-service’…wouldn’t that justify non-payment?

But Democrat Senators can relax…our decision isn’t legally binding…

(Besides, what self-respecting American would want to withhold something you Congressional types believe you’re entitled to…?)