Previous post:

Next post:

Live Stream || Obama Speech in Newtown, Connecticut

by Keith Koffler on December 16, 2012, 4:47 pm

The speech has concluded. Here’s a video of the remarks.

Leave a Comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }

Joe Hilger December 16, 2012 at 5:06 pm

IF the Cowardly Fraud Obama attempts to LieCry, it is sincerely hoped someone in the audience tosses a pair of shoes at him ! ! !

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 16, 2012 at 5:34 pm

You mean he’s going on TV? How exploitative can he get? To paraphrase the comment someone made on the thread below, he’s politicking on the graves of little children.

Reply

cindylou December 16, 2012 at 6:09 pm

How can he be spending 5 hours in newtown when he is getting there at 7pm? is that including travel time?

Reply

cindylou December 16, 2012 at 6:10 pm

yep it sure does include travel time on the ‘ground’ in CT per keith’s post

“Obama will spend a total of five hours on the ground in Connecticut and will make remarks at Newtown High School.”

Reply

Girly1 December 16, 2012 at 6:12 pm

Just caught a glimpse of the phony comfortor-in-chief boarding AF1 on his way to Newtown. What I didn’t see was the fat ass of his wife boarding the plane with him. Sorry to be so explicit, but where is the bitch? Stuffing her face with steak and lobster on the beach in Oahu? Her husband says he is ‘speaking as a father’ when he addresses the families of Newton….where is the ‘mother’ of the children he speaks of? She needs to be held accountable for this egregious breach of protocol! There is no excuse!

Reply

cindylou December 16, 2012 at 6:13 pm

I KNEW she wouldn’t go! I said that a few stories back

what a B!

Reply

Lizzy December 16, 2012 at 6:20 pm

I cannot believe these two get away with the deplorable behavior they
consistently inflict on America. She only likes the perks of being First Lady clothes, jewelry and trips. Even though it was too soon this was a
time for the First Lady to show an ounce of compassion but the self
serving woman couldn’t be bothered. I can’t think of any First Lady
who has behaved so badly she should be ashamed I guess her trip is
more important

Reply

cindylou December 16, 2012 at 9:38 pm

she took the time to get to the interview with barbara walters

Reply

Girly1 December 16, 2012 at 6:29 pm

If Obama had any cajones whatsoever he would have told her to get her royal posterior off the couch and on that plane to Newtown STAT! If he can’t or won’t control his wife, God help this country!

Reply

Lizzy December 16, 2012 at 6:47 pm

Truly pathetic and no other First a lady would behave so badly and get away with it I guess she’s busy packing her new vacation wardrobe or planning her next speech bemoaning the voter suppression!

Reply

ImNoDhimmi December 17, 2012 at 9:17 am

Control the Mooch? Are you kidding? She’d probably rip his arm off and beat him to death with it.

Reply

Darkangel December 16, 2012 at 6:31 pm

Let’s make a drinking game out of this.

Whenever Obama says “Sensible gun laws”, “put politics aside,” or “safety of our children,” bottoms up.

Those three phrases by themselves should be enough to get most readers here suitably sloshed, but I’m open to suggestions for more phrases on which to take a swig.

Reply

Keith Koffler December 16, 2012 at 6:54 pm

On put politics aside or the equivalent, I say at least twice.

Reply

RickW December 16, 2012 at 7:09 pm

Darkangel, a friend and I tried this using Obama’s “Let me be clear” phrase and a bottle of Cuevo Gold sometime in mid Term One……..My head still hurts

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 16, 2012 at 8:51 pm

OK, try this: every time he says I, me, as a father. That would be lethal.

Reply

Darkangel December 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm

One other thing: We’re going to see where CBS’s priorities lie. The Steelers-Cowboys game has about 5 minutes left in the 3rd as I type this at 6:35. That game probably won’t be finished before Obama goes on the air. Let’s see how CBS plays it.

Reply

Keith Koffler December 16, 2012 at 6:53 pm

Good question.

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 16, 2012 at 8:05 pm

Well, it appears that Obama came on after the one game was decided, and he’ll probably go off before the next game starts.

Reply

SWFL December 16, 2012 at 7:56 pm

As he was escorted to his seat the Jerk-in-Chief’s jaw was going a mile a minute — CHEWING GUM! No Class! Not one ounce of class. Makes me ashamed for my country.

Reply

Wigglesworth December 16, 2012 at 8:17 pm

Get the video clip for that and send it to Drudge. He will definitely link to it.

Reply

Wigglesworth December 16, 2012 at 8:29 pm

They are going to stop the football broadcast on NBC and show Obama’s speech. You can continue to watch the game on one of NBC’s cable channels.

Reply

jmk December 16, 2012 at 8:32 pm

How in the utter awfulness of this moment do you still find the energy for such, in the end, meaningless vitriol. Aren’t your emotions the least bit spent? How can you not at least wonder if there’s anything that can be done to keep guns out the hands of madmen? I understand the point of this blog but it is amazing to me that in last several posts there has not been one real thought or comment on how we might respond to this mind boggling tragedy.

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 16, 2012 at 9:33 pm

Maybe there isn’t a quick answer. Do you have a scoop?

Reply

jmk December 16, 2012 at 9:45 pm

yes I have a scoop. You’re a wanker.

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 17, 2012 at 12:36 am

And I can tell that you are from Huffington Post.

Reply

Not Nabob December 16, 2012 at 9:42 pm

I’ll give you two ways to stop this madness. Hold Hollywood glorifiers responsible. And put prayer and belief in God back in schools.

Reply

Darkangel December 16, 2012 at 10:14 pm

Except that the gun control argument that he’s trying to push does not, and cannot, work in a free society. Why not?

First, look at it from a criminal’s standpoint. If you wanted to do a home invasion, would you rather try it in New Mexico, where there’s no Castle Doctrine? Or would you rather try it in Texas, where deadly force to protect your property is just fine, thank you very much? Not wanting to risk life and limb, you’d go to New Mexico, wouldn’t you?

The logical end point of gun control laws is that only the government, or those the government approves, should ever own guns. But there’s one tiny little problem with that: any government which controls all of a society’s armaments would inevitably devolve to despotism. Once the People are disarmed, government can do anything it pleases, because it has all the weapons on its side.

Yes, Fedzilla does own a whole lot of big boys’ toys that go bang bang bang. But against a theoretical armed uprising, they’d have to use very heavy weapons to stamp it out. Against a mob armed with nothing but bottles and rocks, a couple of machine guns would put the proles in their place very quickly.

Disarming the citizenry has been one of the first priorities of every despotic regime in the history of mankind. Tell me I’m wrong, with examples.

There’s a REASON that Switzerland is one of the richest nations in the world: it is most armed, and arguably most free. Switzerland is neutral in world affairs, to be sure, but only because it is essentially armed to the teeth. You do not mess with the Swiss: they don’t HAVE an army, they ARE an army. And in 2009, they had a grand total of 84 homicides nationwide, in a nation of about 7.5 million people (New York City, with a similar population, had 471 the same year.)

A citizenry that can easily defend itself will ultimately have less to defend itself against. A citizenry that cannot defend itself will eventually be overrun, be it by criminals, corrupt politicians, or other nations.

Reply

nellyq December 16, 2012 at 10:57 pm

and you’ll notice that when one of these wackjobs goes off, where does he choose to shoot up the place? a “gun free zone” where he is certain that there is going to be nobody shooting back at him for a time–long enough for him to inflict the damage he is seeking. . .

Reply

srdem65 December 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm

What is he trying to do. instigate mass hysteria?
Telling these people how horrible everything is that happened isn’t helping.
I hear wailing in the background.
I can’t watch any more of this.

Reply

Melvin December 16, 2012 at 9:12 pm

I wanted Romney to win in a big way.

But, I will say that Obama gave a caring and effective speech tonight. He is right. We can and must do better for our kids.

Reply

Radegunda December 16, 2012 at 10:40 pm

Do you think his staged wiping away of nonexistent tears was “caring”? Somebody wrote a speech in which he could pretend to care, while subtly pressing forward his agenda to disarm the citizenry

I think he cared about as much as he did when he was supposedly giving condolences to Tyrone Woods’ father, but acted like a “cold fish.” He only play-acts at compassion when it serves him.

Reply

nellyq December 16, 2012 at 11:00 pm

and, of course, whatever he does will be “for the children!!” sniffle, sniffle as he wipes away a few onion tears. . .

Reply

ImNoDhimmi December 17, 2012 at 9:33 am

“Caring and effective”?

Did anyone else feel offended and disgusted by this most godless of Presidents calling on God to keep the dead and comfort the living?

Reply

StomachFull December 17, 2012 at 8:10 am

All of the children who die daily as a result of inner city violence, especially in Chicago, yet not a word from the administration. Think I know the reason why. The mindset of people in Aurora and Ct and the other instances of gun violence that this administration has politicized DO care
Although people in Chicago care, because of the frequency of the deaths, they appear to be much more insulated. To address the problem in the inner city, Obama would have to address the real problems there as well. It is much easier and more to his political agenda to address any Caucasion who inflicts this damage.
Call whatever name you wish, it is the truth — pure and unvarnished.

Reply