Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Sorry, are you being truthful?

This picture allegedly captures the moment, President Obama heard the news of the recent school shootings.

Well call me sceptical, and it could of course be true, but really?

The Prez walks around in his jacket all day indoors does he?  If so, he is the only person I have ever know do so.  Then we have the perfectly lit photo, the passionate, caring moment of sadness, could all be true I suppose.

Maybe a photographer stalks Obama in his every move and is present regardless of whatever briefing is going ahead.

Or maybe not.  Maybe it’s a nasty, staged attempt to capitalise on the death of kids to push an anti-gun, anti-freedom agenda?

No, he would never do that, right?  That would be simply outrageous and the Obama Whitehouse doesn’t do that sort of thing.


  1. John Galt says:

    That photo gave me the exact same reaction…

    Now to give credit where credit is due, there are lots of visitors that go to see the president (regardless of who’s in the chair) and the vast majority of them will be mid-level state legislators / administrators there for a once-every-four-years ego boost, “Make sure you follow the party line” speech and presidential photo hug.

    So in fairness, the chances of the presidents photographer being in the Oval Office when the dreadful news came in about Sandy Hook are pretty good.

    The question then becomes what would motivate the photographer to take the photo at that moment in time:

    A. Photographer was unaware of the news, but just happened to catch a photo-op of the POTUS looking presidential when the news was delivered?

    B. Photographer overheard the news that was being delivered and decided to give Obama his 9/11 moment?

    C. Photographer was told to take the photograph by someone else (Obama?, White House Chief of Staff, Obama’s PR guy)?

    D. Photograph was staged at some point afterwards to improve Obama’s ratings / likelihood of gun controls / some other bullshit reason only the politico’s understand

    I suspect that which of these you suspect speaks loudly about your own personal view of Obama’s beneficence / malevolence.

    Me? I’m going with D.

    I think that slimy Marxist mole draped in the US flag is just exploiting the situation for his own ends and that this is a careful staged piece of Washington artifice designed to deceive the eye and dull the wits.

    America – You are being mocked!

  2. RAB says:

    In a word, YES.

    Legs crossed, arms folded, arse on the back of the Oval Office sofa? Way too relaxed. My head would have been in my hands and I’d have been barfing into the goddam sofa. Frankly it looks like another moment in time altogether to me, like Barry being told they’ve put his Golf Handicap up to 14 cos he’s been cheating again.

    Contrast with the sheer disbelief of Bush when informed of 9/11…

  3. John Galt says:


    Contrast with the sheer disbelief of Bush when informed of 9/11…

    Exactly. If there did exist a photo of Obama REALLY being told about the deaths of 20+ toddlers in a school shooting then it would have had the same expression as George Bush did on 9/11, that same look of WTF?

    I also remember that speech he did afterwards with its length pauses. Next time he should just go the whole hog and have someone slice onions under the tele-prompter while he reads his soliloquy.

    Everything about Obama’s photograph screams FAKE! FAKE! FAKE!, but no doubt it will be up on placards everywhere held up by the true believers to show that the POTUS is one of the people.

  4. John Galt says:

    To fill in a bit more detail as to the reason I think this is staged is that Obama is adopting exactly the same pose in the “Sandy Hook” photo as his hero John Fitzgerald Kennedy does in his Official Portrait (requested by Jackie after her husbands assassination).

  5. Julie near Chicago says:

    JG: Everything ABOUT that slimy good-for-nothing screeches “FAKE”!!!

    If the pic was posed, they need to get a new photographer. Everything in it looks cattywampus, except the POS’s shoes. Thank goodness for the closely-striped wallpaper–I had to match up the frame around George’s portrait before I was convinced it wasn’t really hung unevenly.

  6. John Galt says:

    “Everything in it looks cattywampus

    Well done Julie, I even had to look that word up.

    In fairness to the White House decorators and conservators (it being an “Historical Monument”), I suspect that it is a bit difficult to keep things aligned straight in an oval shaped room. Plays havoc with all your lines of perspective.

    As the joke goes “See my birth certificate? Just as fake as me” (no I’m not a birther and to me Donald Trump is just a rich ass-hole in denial about his bad fake hair).

  7. Julie near Chicago says:

    LOL!! My goodness, we on this side of the Water have been using that word since forever, or at least since I arrived on the scene.

    It did seem to me that I found the vertical where the slant shifted to its mirror-image.

    The Donald is a bad joke, just like his hair. As for the Sith, I have no idea where It was born and at this point I doubt if anybody else does either. But I do know that I hold with the understanding that the President is supposed to have been the blood offspring of parents who were already citizens when he was born. If by any chance he WERE the illegitimate results of a liaison with with Frank Marshall Davis (or, to my eye more likely) Malcolm X, he would actually meet that criterion. If Obama Sr. is really the Proud Papa, though, then I say he’s ineligible in the first place.

    Chester A. Arthur really was ineligible, Marco Rubio is ineligible and nobody cares, and I saw a claim that there’s evidence that in fact Mittens’ papa George had lost his U.S. citizenship, so that Mittens wasn’t eligible either. And nobody cares…but they shriek bloody blue blazes over various other Constitutional shreddings…as if they hadn’t already done their own share of shredding….

    Grumble. :>))

  8. John Galt says:

    Interesting that you mention Frank Marshall Davis, I was reading through some of that and Obama’s mysterious Hawaiian mentor “Frank”.

    My first instinct was “bullshit” – some crank just finds the most prominent black communist in Hawaii during the period Obama was living there and BAM! – They are bosom buddies reading arguing Marxist dialects at the lū’au. Nope, calling that “double-bullshit” and raise you a “coincidence”.

    But then there is Obama’s Grammy award winning audio tape of “My Old Man’s a Dustman”….sorry “Dreams of My Father” having all references to “Frank” removed and it got me thinking…

    My current state of thinking is….Rule #32, “Pics or Didn’t Happen”.

    Do You Know More????

    It’s all irrelevant anyway, because in his every action and to the very core of his being his is overtly Marxist, even if he’s never picked up a copy of “Das Kapital”.

    As Dirk Gently once said “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands”.

  9. JuliaM says:

    “The Prez walks around in his jacket all day indoors does he?”

    President Bartlett would never countenance that!

  10. John Galt says:

    President Bartlett would never countenance that!

    @JuliaM counters Fake President Obama with Fake President Bartlett

    BAM! – It’s Super Effective!

  11. aeg says:

    Look, I can’t answer why a photographer was present at that particular moment in time – maybe there is something fishy going on, maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, draw your own conclusions – but the fact that he’s wearing a jacket does nothing! If anything, it just shows the Obama is dressed correctly, whilst the man on his right is dressed like a slob. He may be a isle president / individual, but we can hardly criticise him for dressing well.

  12. Mr Ed says:

    Mass shootings are generally a State matter, no Federal jurisdiction appears to be relevant, so why should the President have been ‘told’ at all.

    The President has no rôle in amending the Constitution either, which is a matter for the Congress and the States, or a conference of the States.

    Gun control is none of the President’s business, but how many know or care?

  13. John Galt says:

    I would go further and argue that since the Presidents oath is to “…protect and defend the constitution of the United States…” then any move to modify / restrict / revoke the second amendment would be a violation of his oath of office.

    Impeach Obama!

    Never happen though. The vast majority of Washington DC’s political elite have been shitting on the US Constitution for decades with nothing significant being done about it from the main Republican or Democrat camps.

  14. Sam Duncan says:

    I have to agree with aeg: the jacket’s the only part I’m buying. The rest of it’s as fake as a nine bob note.

    (Decimalization was four months before I was born. I’m turning into an older git than I really am.)

  15. Mr Ecks says:

    A very strange reaction for Obama to have, considering the number of kids droned to death in Afghanistan/Pakistan on his orders each week (ok he may not have said “Kill their Kids ” but he obviously doesn’t give a shit either).

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: