Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘lies’

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

No Worries

Posted on October 8, 2014

Obama Lies And Americans Die

Written by Pat Henry on October 5, 2014

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/obama-lies-americans-die/

Those of you who have not been asleep for the past six years are painfully familiar with the never ending stream of lies that emanate from this president. It would take an entire column to even begin to scratch the surface, but I will mention a few to jog your memories:

“You can keep your current health insurance plan”

“The AHCA will reduce premiums by $2500”

“Not even a smidgeon of corruption” – to Bill O’Reilly when asked about the IRS scandal

Benghazi violence was caused by an internet video & demonstrations – maintained despite the fact that the White House knew, and had been warned, that it was a terrorist attack, and in fact had a live TV feed from a drone during the attack.

“My budget will cut the deficit by $4 Trillion over 10 years”

I could go on forever, but you get the point. More recently he has been endangering the security of our nation with his lies. A current one is that ISIS/ISIL/IS/Khorosan Group or whatever Obama is calling them this week is a “JV” group that poses no threat to the Middle East, let alone America.

He famously told us in his second year of office that a fence on our Southern boarder was “nearly complete”. His own Department of Homeland Security, however, said it was only 5% completed. Recently we have seen illegals pouring into the country, and instead of turning them back, he is actually resettling them all over the country, making them somehow the financial responsibility of the US.

Reports from some of these sites confirm that these illegal aliens are bringing disease and pestilence with them. Naturally, as a human being, one has sympathy for these people and for the suffering peoples of nations all over the world, but where does it say that they have a “right” to come to this country and live off the few people who are still working?

Now, however, the illnesses and crime that are coming in with the illegals pales when compared with that of the ebola virus. Just weeks ago, Obama visited the CDC and assured us that the chance of ebola coming to this country was remote at best. He assured us that all precautions were being taken to ensure that the virus was contained in Africa, and that we would send a team of soldiers (?) over there to eradicate it. I guess they were going to shoot those pesky viruses. Well Pinocchio, ebola is here.

But what about all the measures we were taking? Turns out that the “measures” was a questionnaire at the airport. What happened was that a man who was completely knowledgeable of the fact that he had the disease, since everyone he lived with was sick or had died from it, decided to be less than candid on his questionnaire. He then took a plane, exposed the passengers, exposed people where he laid over in Brussels and at Dulles here in D.C., and then in Dallas.

He went to the hospital in Dallas, told them he was from Nigeria, told them he had been exposed to ebola, and that he had ebola-like symptoms, and they concluded that he had a simple case of the flu. They sent him home to infect his girlfriend and four children, who in turn very likely passed it on to their contacts.

He had such a fever that he literally soaked the bed, and such vomiting and bleeding that he couldn’t walk, necessitating calling 911 and exposing those people as well.

This man was the opposite of a hero. He knew he was sick, he knew that the virus had a huge mortality rate, and decided in an attempt to save himself that he would risk and probably kill untold numbers of people, perhaps beginning an epidemic or pandemic himself. He is laughingly being sought by the Liberian government for lying on his questionnaire, and will face prosecution if he lives that long.

Still, one can understand that a person who knows he will die if he doesn’t receive treatment (albeit there is none of the experimental drug remaining) can become desperate and do morally reprehensible things. What we cannot understand is how President Obama, ostensibly charged with the protection of the people of the United States, does nothing to stop the spread of this disease.

In an interview this morning on FOX News (which you can read here), Obama lackey CDC Director Tom Frieden told Brian Kilmeade, “I wish we could get to zero risk by sealing off the border. But we can’t.

The only way we are going to get to zero risk in this country is by controlling it in Africa. Until that happens, Americans may come back with Ebola. Other people who have a right to return or a visa to enter may come back. People will go to third countries and come from there. Sealing them off – first off won’t work.

Second off, it will backfire. Because if we can’t get help in there, then we’re not going to be able to stop the outbreak and ultimately we will end up at higher risk, not lower risk.”

I have heard some dumb statements from this administration, but this one has to top the list, and have the potential for killing the most people. Any soldier knows that in the case of a biological attack you identify the soldiers by their symptoms and then you isolate them.

This is a basic tenet of public health. In this case, the West African nations know that quarantine (isolation) is necessary to prevent the spread of disease and untold sickness and death, and are doing it themselves.

For us, the first thing we should have done, and should belatedly do, is to close the borders. Nobody to or from West Africa. Would that absolutely prevent ebola from arriving here? Probably not, but it would sure go a long way. Frieden, however, is saying, “It won’t absolutely stop it, so we are not going to even try.”

Huh? That reminds me of abstinence education used to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions. Abstinence works 100% of the time, whereas other methods of birth control for multiple reasons do not. Some 56 million aborted babies would attest to that if they could. But abstinence education is not a part of the administration’s plan for this problem, because controlling people’s sexual drives is not part of the liberal agenda. It is, in fact, anathema to it. So they don’t try it.

Obama will not stop flights to and from West Africa, and will not close the borders, because like abstinence education, it is not part of the liberal agenda. Open borders and free influx of anyone who decides they want to come to America is a keynote of the Obama presidency, from which he has backed off only slightly recently, temporarily pocketing his pen and phone until after the November elections.

Any idea the public might get that something could be accomplished by closing the borders would jeopardize his amnesty plans, and that cannot be allowed to happen. So, as with the problem with illegal immigration, he will not try closing the borders.

The lack of a plan to combat ebola is as striking as his lack of a plan to combat militant jihadi Islam. The only existing plan, it would appear, is to pretend that the threat does not exist. These responses, or lack of responses, are simply a part of the political correctness that enshrouds liberals, with Obama as their poster boy.

Their response to anything depends entirely on how that response fits into their agenda and how they think it will affect the welfare of the democrat party. For this administration, open borders for more democrat voters trumps public health and possible the worst pandemic in history.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/29/Report-Obama-Has-Missed-Over-Half-His-Second-Term-Daily-Intel-Briefings?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+September+30%2C+2014&utm_campaign=20140930_m122377691_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+September+30%2C+2014&utm_term=More

A new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) report reveals that President Barack Obama has attended only 42.1% of his daily intelligence briefings (known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) in the 2,079 days of his presidency through September 29, 2014.

The GAI report also included a breakdown of Obama’s PDB attendance record between terms; he attended 42.4% of his PDBs in his first term and 41.3% in his second.

The GAI’s alarming findings come on the heels of Obama’s 60 Minutes comments on Sunday, wherein the president laid the blame for the Islamic State’s (ISIS) rapid rise squarely at the feet of his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

“I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” said Obama.

According to Daily Beast reporter Eli Lake, members of the Defense establishment were “flabbergasted” by Obama’s attempt to shift blame.

“Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” a former senior Pentagon official “who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq” told the Daily Beast.On Monday, others in the intelligence community similarly blasted Obama and said he’s shown longstanding disinterest in receiving live, in-person PDBs that allow the Commander-in-Chief the chance for critical followup, feedback, questions, and the challenging of flawed intelligence assumptions.

“It’s pretty well-known that the president hasn’t taken in-person intelligence briefings with any regularity since the early days of 2009,” an Obama national security staffer told the Daily Mail on Monday. “He gets them in writing.”

The Obama security staffer said the president’s PDBs have contained detailed threat warnings about the Islamic State dating back to before the 2012 presidential election.

“Unless someone very senior has been shredding the president’s daily briefings and telling him that the dog ate them, highly accurate predictions about ISIL have been showing up in the Oval Office since before the 2012 election,” the Obama security staffer told the Daily Mail.This is not the first time questions have been raised about Obama’s lack of engagement and interest in receiving in-person daily intelligence briefings. On September 10, 2012, the GAI released a similar report showing that Obama had attended less than half (43.8%) of his daily intelligence briefings up to that point. When Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen mentioned the GAI’s findings in his column, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dubbed the findings “hilarious.” The very next day, U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American staff members were murdered in Benghazi. As Breitbart News reported at the time, the White House’s very own presidential calendar revealed Obama had not received his daily intel briefing in the five consecutive days leading up to the Benghazi attacks.

Ultimately, as ABC News reported, the White House did not directly dispute the GAI’s numbers but instead said Obama prefers to read his PDB on his iPad instead of receiving the all-important live, in-person briefings.

Now, with ISIS controlling over 35,000 square miles of territory in its widening caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and with Obama pointing fingers at his own Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for the rise of ISIS, the question remains whether a 42% attendance record on daily intelligence briefings is good enough for most Americans.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

ISIS Baghdad March: Islamic State 1 Mile Away From Iraqi Capital

By

Howard oplowitz @howardkoplowitzh.koplowitz@ibtimes.com

on September 29 2014

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-baghdad-march-islamic-state-1-mile-away-iraqi-capital-1696256

456313666

ISIS tank

Militant Islamist fighters on a tank take part in a military parade along the streets of northern Raqqa province in Syria, June 30, 2014. Reuters

456313666

ISIS tank

The Islamic State group is allegedly closing in on Baghdad, according to a report from a vicar at Iraq’s only Anglican church that claims the jihadists formerly known as ISIS are roughly one mile away from the Iraqi capital. Airstrikes against ISIS targets were supposed to stop the group from taking Baghdad.

“The Islamic State are now less than 2km (1.2 miles) away from entering Baghdad. They said it could never happen and now it almost has,” Canon Andrew White of the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East, a British-based charity that supports Iraq’s only Anglican church in Baghdad, said on his Facebook page early Monday morning. “Obama says he overestimated what the Iraqi Army could do. Well, you only need to be here a very short while to know they can do very, very little.”

The Christian aid group was referring to the U.S. president’s interview Sunday night on “60 Minutes,” the CBS news magazine show, where Obama conceded that his administration underestimated the ascendancy of ISIS. More than 1,000 Iraqi troops were reportedly killed Sunday in clashes with ISIS about 10 miles outside of Baghdad.

The advance by ISIS toward Baghdad shows that the group isn’t weakening despite U.S.-led airstrikes in Iraq. ISIS executed 300 Iraqi soldiers last week during their march toward the Iraqi capital and attempted to break into a prison in northern Baghdad.

“This attack is very significant. It is the first infantry-like, complex, and penetrating attack in Baghdad city by ISIS since the fall of Mosul in June of this year,” the Washington-based nonprofit Institute for the Study of War wrote on its website, referring to Iraq’s second-largest city, which is in the Islamic State’s hands. “ISIS likely carried out the attack to release some of the pressure it is facing as a result of the recent U.S. air campaign targeting its positions. The attack also signifies that, despite the heightened defenses of Baghdad in the aftermath of the fall of Mosul, ISIS is still able to carry out attacks in an area where it is unlikely to have active sleeper cells.”

U.S.-led airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria have come under criticism over their effectiveness. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry defended the military action last week in a CNN interview. Kerry claimed “Baghdad could have fallen” if it weren’t for the airstrikes, which have predominantly been launched in the northern part of Iraq.

Category:

International Politics

Tagged with:

MORE LETHAL THAN ISLAM: Barack Obama’s Cowardice and Lies

http://clashdaily.com/2014/09/lethal-islam-barack-obamas-cowardice-lies/

Written by Pete Parker on September 22, 2014

Obama delivers statement on Ukraine from the White House

Image; http://www.blacklistednews.com/Obama_praises_%E2%80%98very_severe%E2%80%99_gun_ confiscation_program_of_Australia/35877/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Barack Obama’s incessant lies and cowardice make him more lethal than the world’s most barbaric ideology–Islam.

That’s correct: More lethal than Islam.

From Obama’s steadfast public denial (lie) that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS–to his whiny and cowardly, ad nauseam political decrees that he will not put “boots on the ground” in Iraq–he is making America (on the world stage) look like a nation without ~~balls~~ courage.

Though ISIS is following in the exact footsteps of its Prophet Mohammed (rape, beheadings and sundry other atrocities)–our president is busy holding press conferences to lecture his subjects on Islam’s “boundless peace and tolerance.”

As I have mentioned in my previous articles–Mohammed was a serial decapitator and rapist. His penchant for violence and mayhem was second to none. And for that reason–historians have recognized him as one of the most bloodthirsty figures of the 7th century.

Yet, Obama’s continuous lies that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS only serves to further embolden the enemy simply because it views said lies as a sign of profound weakness. That’s correct: A sign of profound weakness.

Why? Because only a weak and cowardly leader resorts to lies in a time of crises. After all, ISIS knows it represents Islam. And why is that? Because its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, holds a PhD in Islamic Studies.

Moreover–Obama’s stated decision not to put boots on the ground is purely political. By making this decree–he demonstrates to his rabid, left-wing base that he is the anti-Bush.

But, by engaging in this brand of political expediency (after telling the world that ISIS possess a direct threat to America)–he is letting our enemy know that he doesn’t have the will, nor the spine to confront it on the battlefield.

(Just a side note: Most military and foreign policy experts–including Allen West and John Bolton–have publicly stated that “boots on the ground” is the only way to defeat ISIS.)

In the final analysis–Barack Obama’s lies and cowardice might very well usher in America’s demise. And thus, my friends–the end of Western Civilization.

And that makes him more lethal than Islam.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Obama Promises

Posted on September 22, 2014

‘Dereliction of duty’: Obama’s worst scandal

Andrew McCarthy reveals which presidential outrage tops them all

Published: 1 day ago

author-image Garth Kant is WND Washington news editor. Previously, he spent five years writing, copy-editing and producing at “CNN Headline News,” three years writing, copy-editing and training writers at MSNBC, and also served several local TV newsrooms as producer, executive producer and assistant news director. He is the author of the McGraw-Hill textbook, “How to Write Television News.”

WASHINGTON – For a highly accomplished lawyer, one who notched significant victories in the war on terror as a federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy can make a compelling case in plain English without resorting to legalese.

And when it comes to Benghazi, his case against the Obama administration boils down to this: It is the president’s worst scandal because it was a dereliction of duty, one that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

McCarthy is not alone in his assessment of the gravity of the scandal.

On the two-year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told an Oklahoma radio station he believed the Obama administration’s Benghazi cover-up would become the biggest scandal in U.S. history.

McCarthy is a New York Times bestselling author, Fox News analyst, contributing editor at National Review and a former adviser to the deputy secretary of defense. As chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, he successfully prosecuted the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing.

He put the case against the administration’s handling of Benghazi in terms that are clear and simple but also comprehensive, and in a way the jury in the court of public opinion may find compelling.

: Former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York Andrew C. McCarthy

He told WND, “To me, the most offensive of the president’s derelictions involves Benghazi,” which, he said, goes back to the war on Libya when, “the president really initiated, unprovoked, a war on a regime that was then being represented by our government as a key American counter-terrorism ally.”

That error was compounded, McCarthy stated, because the administration “switched sides” in a way that inevitably empowered the jihadis in Eastern Libya, about whom Gadhafi was actually giving the U.S. intelligence.

“They follow up that with a really shocking failure to provide security for Americans who, for some reason, still not explained, are assigned to Benghazi, which is one of the most dangerous places on the planet for Americans,” he observed.

Following that, McCarthy noted, as the jihadis continued to hit Western targets and other countries removed their diplomatic personnel, “we not only leave our people in, but we reduce security. That, inevitably, leads to the September 11, 2012, attack, which is an act of war in which our ambassador is killed. ”

“The enemy, who we are at war with already, attacks an American installation and the administration responds to that with this ridiculous story about how it was generated by an anti-Muslim video under circumstances where it’s clear that they knew it was a terrorist attack.”

: Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla

Inhofe emphatically drove that point home, saying four key members of the administration – former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director John Brennan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and National Intelligence Director James Clapper – had said the proof that the attack on the consulate was a planned, terrorist operation was “unequivocal.”

“All four of them used the word ‘unequivocal,’” the senator insisted. “It was unequivocal, on that day we knew that it was an organized, terrorist attack.”

“The president,” insisted the senator, “had all of that knowledge and deliberately lied to the American people for one reason: It was right before his re-election. He wanted the American people to think there was not organized activity in the Middle East.”

“So I’m glad that they’re finally having the hearings,” he said, referring to the Select Committee on Benghazi chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., due to begin Wednesday.

WND asked McCarthy if a dereliction of duty that caused the loss of life would be considered an impeachable offense.

“Yes, dereliction of duty is one of the more profound impeachable offenses,” he succinctly replied.

The former federal prosecutor used both his legal acumen and knowledge of history to explain why that was the case.

“There’s a common misconception that ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ means criminal offenses like we find in the penal code, like I used to have to try to enforce when I was a federal prosecutor,” he said.

“But, what the framers meant by high crimes and misdemeanors, which was a British term of art, was gross maladministration of the government. And it entails not only things which would be indictable offenses, but a broad range of things.

“It’s actually much more like military justice concept where dereliction of duty, failure to follow an oath, and the like, are pretty straight-forward impeachable offenses. I think it’s unfortunate that people think a president has to be indictable before he is removable.”

McCarthy detailed that contention in his recent book, “Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.”

: President Obama blames the Benghazi attack on an anti-Muslim video while addressing the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2012

In an interview last week, he told WND there is no question about Obama’ lawlessness. But, as he outlines in the book, it is not feasible to impeach the president without public support.

That public support might grow with an increasing stream of new revelations about Benghazi, as, even two years after the attack, evidence is quickly mounting to support McCarthy’s assertion there was a dereliction of duty.

Just last week, three survivors of the Benghazi attack, members of a security team at the secret CIA annex, told Fox News a top CIA official prevented them from responding to the attack at the compound, a mile away, even though they were getting calls from State Department employees begging for help.

Thirty minutes later, the team defied orders and went to the compound, but it was too late.

They believed the delay cost the lives of Ambassador Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service officer Sean Smith.

The team members said they also requested air support, but it never arrived.

Additionally, the government watchdog group Judicial Watch has just revealed it has obtained documents it said show the State Department was warned nearly three months before the attack the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi was not only unsafe, it was likely a death trap.

Using a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, lawsuit to obtain the documents, Judicial Watch said it found top State Department officials were explicitly warned that security guards were abandoning their posts “out of fear of their safety.”

Furthermore, the groups said the documents also warned that an explosion outside the compound wall had “created a fear factor when it came to working the night shift.”

The documents showed Department of State Contract Specialist Neal Kern was warned that the number of local security guards leaving their posts had put the U.S. Benghazi Mission at risk.

: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, killed in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012

Judicial Watch noted that two months before the attack Ambassador Stevens himself requested more help but the request was refused by both the Departments of State and Defense.

The group also pointed out how Chris Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, told the Wall Street Journal almost two years ago how security personnel had dropped from 30 in July 2012 to only 11 diplomatic security agents under Steven’s authority on the night of the attack.

Judicial Watch also said “additional emails confirmed that in the months leading up to the terrorist attack, State Department officials were repeatedly informed of the Benghazi security staffing problems.”

It also found “the State Department’s local militia ‘security’ feared for their own safety and wouldn’t even show up to provide necessary protection.”

: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replying “What difference does it make?” when asked by a Senate committee on Jan. 23, 2013 what caused the attack on Benghazi

Accusations of State Department responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi, and dereliction of duty on the part of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were detailed last week with the release of investigative journalist Aaron Klein’s new work from WND Books, “The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House Doesn’t Want You to Know.”

Klein said Clinton misled the public about her role in helping to secure the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi and may have even deceived lawmakers during her public testimony probing the attacks.

The author asked: “[By signing the waivers,] did Clinton know she was approving a woefully unprotected compound? If not then at the very least she is guilty of dereliction of duty and the diplomatic equivalent of criminal negligence.”

Also said to be revealed in the book:

Clinton, together with then-CIA Director David H. Petraeus, were the architects of a plan to arm the Libyan and Syrian rebels.

Public sources in a systematic connect-the-dots exercise indicate both the U.S. mission and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi were involved in coordinating U.S. aid transfers to rebels in the Middle East, with particular emphasis on shipping weapons to jihadis fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

The compound itself was deliberately set up with minimal security so as not to attract attention to what the author reports were secretive activities taking place inside the mission, activities for which Clinton herself was a central player.

Clinton’s claim that the intelligence community believed the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video” is called into question by numerous revelations.

Clinton placed the blame for the controversial talking points squarely with the CIA without mentioning the State Department contributed to the manufacturing of the points.

Clinton wrongly wrote that the closest U.S. Special Forces that could have responded to the attacks were “standing by in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, but they would take several hours to muster and were more than five thousand miles away.”

Klein notes it has been confirmed Special Forces known as C-110, or the EUCOM CIF, were on a training mission in Croatia the night of the attack. The distance between Croatia’s capital, Zagreb, and Benghazi is about 925 miles. The C-110 is a rapid-response team that exists for emergencies like terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies abroad.

Clinton’s assertion “no one in the State Department, the intelligence community, any other agency, ever recommended that we close Benghazi. We were clear-eyed about the threats and the dangers as they were developing in eastern Libya and in Benghazi” was contradicted by her top deputies, including officials known to be close to her who were responsible for some major denials of security at the compound, such as Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, who cancelled the use in Tripoli of a DC-3 aircraft that could have aided in the evacuation of the Benghazi victims.

Kennedy also denied permission to build guard towers at the Benghazi mission and approved the withdrawal of a security support team, or SST, that special U.S. forces specifically maintained for counter-attacks on U.S. embassies or threats against diplomatic personnel.

Clinton’s contention she was not informed of the general nature of security at the Benghazi facility, even though she was known to have taken a particular interest in the compound.

Clinton reportedly called for the compound to be converted into a permanent mission before a scheduled trip to Libya in December 2012 that eventually was canceled. Clinton failed to mention Stevens may have gone to Benghazi for a project that she specifically requested, what Hicks called Clinton’s wish to convert the shanty complex into a permanent mission in a symbol of the new Libya, so she could announce the establishment of a permanent U.S. State Department facility during her planned visit there in December 2012.

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Don’t Call It a War? Administration hit for refusing to use ‘w’ word for ISIS mission

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/12/dont-call-it-war-administration-hit-for-refusing-to-use-w-word-for-isis-mission/

Published September 12, 2014

FoxNews.com

The Obama administration is refusing to describe the expanded military campaign against the Islamic State as a war — despite plans to launch airstrikes across two tumultuous Middle East countries, dispatch hundreds more U.S. military personnel and build a coalition of nations to ultimately “destroy” the growing terror network.

The reluctance to use that label has generated confusion on Capitol Hill, particularly in light of new intelligence estimates that the Islamic State has as many as 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria. That’s the size of a small army – and close to the estimated size of the Taliban force in 2001.

Yet in television interviews on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly avoided the term “war” to describe the mission, instead calling it a “major counterterrorism operation” that could last a long time.

“It’s hard to find a response to that,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News, when asked about Kerry’s comments. “Then what was the president talking about [Wednesday] night?”

McCain and other lawmaker suggest Kerry’s comments do not square with President Obama’s stated goal of defeating the Islamic State, or ISIS.

“This is John Kerry, vintage,” McCain said.

Other members of the administration besides Kerry appeared to be struggling to both define the conflict and the terms of victory, as the U.S. enters a new and potentially risky phase of its operation against the terror group.

Asked Thursday what would constitute “destroying” ISIS, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said: “I didn’t bring my Webster’s Dictionary with me up here.”

Earnest tried to explain the operation as falling under the umbrella of the 2001 authorization to use military force – the measure that provided the legal basis to go into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. (Kerry also compared the operation to strikes against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen.)

The administration is using this argument in order to avoid seeking new congressional authorization for the fight against ISIS.

But the Islamic State was not originally linked to the Sept. 11 attacks and has since split from the perpetrator of those attacks, Al Qaeda.

Some lawmakers say the administration is on shaky legal ground by treating this as a mere continuation of the counterterrorism missions in other countries, and is effectively downplaying the entire challenge ahead.

McCain said that if the president doesn’t understand the difference between the Islamic State and terror networks in places like Yemen, “then … he is oblivious to the size, shape, strength and ability of ISIS. It’s like comparing a little league team to the New York Yankees.”

A CIA spokesperson confirmed to Fox News on Thursday that the ISIS fighting force has sharply increased from the original estimate of at least 10,000 fighters.

“CIA assesses the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria, based on a new review of all-source intelligence reports from May to August,” the spokesperson said. “This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence.”

Asked Thursday whether the government still views these operations as part of the “war on terrorism,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said: “It’s certainly not how I would refer to our efforts.”

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said the semantics over what to call the operation “weakens the mission.”

“Words matter,” McCaul said Friday.

McCaul praised the president for moving to expand the mission into Syria, where the “head of the snake” of ISIS is located. But he said the administration is being careful with its language because the terror group defies Obama’s “campaign narrative” about ending the war on terrorism and putting Al Qaeda on the run.

“ISIL clearly hasn’t gotten the memo that I think John Kerry did,” McCaul said.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama Claims ISIS Is Not Islamic

Posted on September 11, 2014 by

“I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.” – P.D. James

Political correctness is like the toxoplasma gondii parasite; it infects its host and dangerously alters its behavior. In the case of political correctness, a rational—and more importantly, realistic—worldview is changed for the benefit of another’s feelings. Political correctness tells us that the truth is too offensive, or cruel to speak, and that we must be sensitive. But sometimes sensitivity blinds us to the reality of our cultural experience, which directly or indirectly endangers us.

In his speech yesterday regarding the radical Islamic terrorist organization ISIS, president Obama said many things, but one thing in particular left me stunned.

“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic…No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”

According to the president, ISIS is not Islamic. Doesn’t that sound so warm, culturally sensitive, and nuanced? What an urbane, and prudent man, Obama is. His rationale? The fact that ISIS condones murder, but also the fact that many of ISIS’ victims have been fellow Muslims. You read that correctly. Because ISIS kills Muslims, they cannot possibly be truly Islamic. Let’s talk about that.

ISISis made up of Sunni Muslims, and many of the Muslims they are killing are Shiite. To the Sunnis, Shiite Muslims are infidels, and aretherefore a target. According to Alissa J. Rubin of The New York Times:
- “ISIS believes that the Shiites are apostates and must die in order to forge a pure form of Islam…In a chilling video that appeared to have been made more than a year ago in the Anbar Province of Iraq, ISIS fighters stopped three truck drivers in the desert and asked them whether they were Sunnis or Shiites. All three claimed to be Sunni. Then the questions got harder. They were asked how they performed each of the prayers: morning, midday and evening. The truck drivers disagreed on their methods, and all were shot.”
- Regardless of what you believe about Islam in general, the fact that Muslims are murdering other Muslims does not preclude those doing the killing from being Muslim. And Obama is a moron for saying so and thinking the public will believe him.
Next, let’s talk about the whole “no religion condones the killing of innocents” thing. Obama is either deliberately spreading misinformation, or he is bafflingly stupid. The Quran is filled with passages which command the execution of infidels (otherwise known as non-Muslims).
- Quran 5:33 “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.”
- Quran 8:12 “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Those are just two of dozens, and dozens of versus in the Quran advocating the killing of infidels. There are peaceful Muslims in the world, certainly, but there are those who take the Quran quite literally, and they are the ones fighting this war. Radical Muslims are no less Muslim because they practice violence. In fact, one could argue that they are more devout, because they follow more closely to the Quran.

Additionally, Obama shows his foolishness when he describes the victims of ISIS as “innocents.” To ISIS, non-Sunni Muslims are not innocents, they are infidels, and enemies of Allah. The radicals in ISIS are not killing innocents; they are killing their enemies, whom they believe to be apostates, and evil doers.

Since the beginning of his presidency, when he gave his we’re-all-in-this-together speech in Cairo, Barack Obama has been terrified of labeling radical Islamic terrorism. As his presidency has progressed (I hesitate to use that word), he has evolved, entering into even more treacherous territory. Remember when Obama “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” during his speech to the UN? Now, with his latest denial of the linkage between Islam, and terror, he has taken political correctness to a frightening level.

The longer Obama denies that radical Islam is the root of modern terrorism, the more power we give to radical Islam. Not only is it a disservice to those who have fought, and died to say that the terror we face isn’t based in radical Islam, it’s a denial that leads us away from fighting the root of the problem. If we don’t recognize the intent of the radical Islamists, which is to wipe us out, and create a modern caliphate, we won’t be able to defeat them. Instead, we will try to negotiate our way out of the problem. But you cannot negotiate with someone who has no intent to cooperate.

Obama’s denial that ISIS is inherently Islamic is not only completely untrue, but hazardous to our safety as a nation. Given the absolute stupidity of Obama’s statement, it’s safe to say that he is either stunningly incompetent, or just a flat out liar. Either way, he is doing the United States quite a bit of harm.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Just Wrong

Posted on August 9, 2014

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Rep. Van Hollen: Legalizing Illegals Will ‘Reduce the Deficit’

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/abigail-wilkinson/rep-van-hollen-legalizing-illegals-will-reduce-deficit

July 18, 2014 – 10:23 AM

By Abigail Wilkinson

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D.-Md.)

(CNSNews.com)– When asked whether legalizing illegal immigrants would help unemployed Americans, Rep. Chris VanHollen (D.-Md.) responded by pointing to testimony from the director of the Congressional Budget Office that VanHollen said indicated enactment of the Senate immigration bill (which gave illegal aliens a “path to citizenship’) would “reduce the deficit and increase long-term economic growth.”CNSNews.com asked: “Do you think that allowing illegal aliens to stay in the United States and putting them on a path to citizenship will help unemployed Americans?”

Van Hollen responded: “I think what we need to do is pass comprehensive immigration reform, and I just came from a hearing with the non-partisan director of the Congressional Budget Office, who testified that if you passed the Senate bipartisan bill, you will reduce the deficit and increase long-term economic growth in the United States,” Van Hollen replied.

CNSNews.com asked Van Hollen the question at the “Witness Wednesdays: Voices of the Unemployed” event on Capitol Hill. The same question was also put to Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), who objected that the question implied “that we want to encourage illegal immigration.”

Kildee responded: “I think we need to have an immigration policy that is welcoming and open. If we’re talking about specifically the children who are fleeing their countries because of the risk that they’re facing, I think it’s a false dichotomy. I think we can be a welcoming nation and also support the people who live here and are struggling.”

When CNSNews.com repeated the question, Kildee replied: “Which illegal aliens are you speaking of? The question implies that we want to encourage illegal immigration, and we should not do that. But what we should have is immigration policy that fits the needs of the current, of the 21st century.”

“So I don’t believe that the question before Congress is whether or not we should allow illegal aliens here, but whether we should deal with the fact that there are 11 million people in this country that are undocumented, and that they are here and should have a pathway to legitimacy,” he told CNSNews.com.

“They’ve been contributing to the economy, and I think it’s a false choice to say that in order to take care of the people who are unemployed, we can no longer be a nation that is welcoming to immigration.”

Kildee is cosponsoring a bill that would extend unemployment benefits. “Since this vital lifeline lapsed, millions of families have struggled to put food on the table, keep a roof over their head and pay their bills,” he said in a statement.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June, there are 9.5 million unemployed Americans.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

TRUSTING HARRY? Senator Reid on Border Security

Written by Steve Bowers on July 24, 2014

Sen. Harry Reid insists the border is safe. So, is his word enough?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Liar’s Den

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Posted on June 26, 2014

THE NEW “LIE OF THE YEAR” From the Obama Administration

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/stunning_dhs_solicited_bids_for_vendor_to_handle_65000_unaccompanied_minors__in_january.html

June 20, 2014

Stunning: DHS solicited bids for vendor to handle 65,000 unaccompanied minors — IN JANUARY!

By Thomas Lifson

The Obama administration’s claim to have been surprised by the wave of children flooding

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

over out borders may turn out to be another political lie of the year. Sundance of Conservative Treehouse noticed a very peculiar advertisement:

On January 29th of this year, the federal government posted an advertisement seeking bids for a vendor contract to handle “Unaccompanied Alien Children“.

Not just any contract mind you, but a very specific contract – for a very specific number of unaccompanied minors: 65,000.

• Why would DHS and ICE be claiming “surprise” by the current influx of unaccompanied minors on the border in June, when they were taking bids for an exact contract to handle the exact situation in January?

• Secondly, how could they possibly anticipate 65,000 unaccompanied minors would be showing up at the border, when the most ever encountered in a previous year was 5,000 total ?

The bid specifics are even more suspicious:

[…] The Contractor shall provide unarmed escort staff, including management, supervision, manpower, training, certifications, licenses, drug testing, equipment, and supplies necessary to provide on-demand escort services for non-criminal/non-delinquent unaccompanied alien children ages infant to 17 years of age, seven (7) days a week, 365 days a year. Transport will be required for either category of UAC or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25% local ground transport, 25% via ICE charter and 50% via commercial air.

[…] In addition, the Contractor shall have personnel who are able to communicate with juveniles in their own designated language(s).

Link to the ad here.

This stinks to high heaven. It is time to subpoena the people who placed the ad to give testimony in Congress. We may have a Cloward-Piven strategy on illegal immigration underway.

Hat tip: Lucianne Goldberg

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

‘We did not know’: 9 times the Obama administration was blindsided

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/20/obama-administration-caught-by-surprise/

Published June 19, 2014

FoxNews.com

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

The unfolding sectarian violence in Iraq is just the latest crisis where the Obama administration seemingly has been caught off guard. From the Veterans Affairs scandal to Russia’s swift annexation of Crimea, news of the world somehow keeps taking the commander-in-chief and his team by surprise.

The following is a refresher of major domestic and foreign policy developments that, apparently, were news to the White House.

1. Islamist militants gaining in Iraq

AP

The New Yorker (1/27/2014): “In the 2012 campaign, Obama spoke not only of killing Osama bin Laden; he also said that Al Qaeda had been ‘decimated.’ I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Fallujah, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.

‘The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,’ Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. ‘I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.'”

The Wall Street Journal (6/11/2014): Iraq Drama Catches US Off Guard
2. Russia’s intervention in Ukraine

AP

Politico.com (3/4/14): “A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on whether Obama was satisfied with the intelligence he received on Russian intentions in Ukraine. But spokesmen for the U.S. intelligence community defended its work.

The Central Intelligence Agency says it’s always noted the possibility of aggressive military action.

‘Prior to and throughout the situation in Ukraine, the intelligence community has provided timely and valuable information that has helped policy makers understand the situation on the ground and make informed decisions. That continues to be the case today,’ said Shawn Turner, a spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. ‘Any suggestion that there were intelligence shortcomings related to the situation in Ukraine are uninformed and misleading.’

… While officials appear to disagree about the insights offered by U.S. intelligence, it’s beyond dispute that a lot of public commentary pundits offered as the Ukraine crisis unfolded was less than clairvoyant.”
3. NSA spying on foreign leaders

AP

Wall Street Journal (10/28/2013): “Obama was unaware for the last 5 years, the NSA had been spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other members of world leaders. Only after an internal Obama administration review in 2013 did the White House know of the spying.”

President Obama news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan (5/16/2013): “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the I.G. report before the I.G. report had been leaked through press — through the press.”
4. VA waiting list scandal

AP

Jay Carney during a White House press briefing (5/19/2014):

JIM ACOSTA, CNN: “When was the president first made aware of these problems? Of these fraudulent lists that were being kept to hide the wait times, when was he first made aware of those problems? And when did other White House officials, top White House officials, become aware of these problems?”

JAY CARNEY: “When you say these problems, the fact that there have been bureaucracies –”

ACOSTA: “The delays have been known for some time.”

CARNEY: “You mean the specific allegations that I think were reported first by your news network out of Phoenix, I believe. We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them and that is when I understand Secretary Shinseki learned about them, and he immediately took the action that he has taken.”
5. IRS targeting scandal

AP

President Obama in a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Cameron (May 13, 2013): “Well, let me take the IRS situation first. I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.”
6. HealthCare.gov failing

Reuters

Remarks by President Obama on HealthCare.gov (10/21/2013): “Of course, you’ve probably heard that HealthCare.gov — the new website where people can apply for health insurance and browse and buy affordable plans in most states — hasn’t worked as smoothly as it was supposed to work. And the number of people who visit the site has been overwhelming which has aggravated some of these underlying problems.”

Jay Carney during a White House press briefing (10/23/2013): “While we knew that there would be some glitches and actually said publicly that we expected some problems, we did not know until the problems manifested themselves after the launch that they would be as significant as they have turned out to be.”
7. DOJ obtaining AP phone records

AP

Jay Carney during a White House press briefing (5/14/2013):

QUESTION: “When did the president find out about the Department of Justice’s subpoenas for the Associated Press?”

CARNEY: “Yesterday. Let me just be clear. We don’t have any independent knowledge of that. He found out about the news reports yesterday on the road.”

QUESTION: “What was his reaction to that? Does he believe that this was an overreach?”

CARNEY: “All I can tell you is that I cannot and he cannot comment specifically on an ongoing criminal investigation or actions that investigators at the Department of Justice may or may not have taken. It would be wholly inappropriate. And if we did comment on it, or if we did have insight into it, you would appropriately ask why and is that correct procedure, because it would not be.”
8. Fast and Furious scandal

AP

Jay Carney during a White House press briefing (6/27/2012): “The president did not know about this tactic until he heard about it through the media; the attorney general did not know about it.”
9. Air Force One flyover in Manhattan

Reuters

President Obama during media availability on arrival at FBI headquarters (4/28/2009):

QUESTION: “Sir, what do think of the Air Force One incident –”

THE PRESIDENT: “No — no questions –”

QUESTION: “– over New York City yesterday, sir?”

QUESTION: “Are you concerned about New York City yesterday, sir, with the Air Force plane?”

THE PRESIDENT: “It was a mistake, as was — as was stated. It was something we found out about along with all of you and it will not happen again. Thank you

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Lerner’s Best Friend

Posted on June 17, 2014

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/06/lerners-best-friend/#AQJZtFmhIOl0bEyJ.99

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon – Yet Poignant

Poignant = poign·ant [ póynyənt ]

causing sadness or pity: causing a sharp sense of sadness, pity, or regret
sharply perceptive: particularly penetrating and effective or relevant
sharply painful: causing acute physical pain

“Still” Held

Posted on June 16, 2014

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/06/still-held/#IZzmooxP0kJjB1s9.99

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Hillary Clinton: Obama and I Restored America’s Leadership in the World

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/06/10/Hillary-Clinton-Obama-and-I-Restored-Americas-Leadership-in-the-World

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that although she had disagreements with President Obama during her time at the State Department, she was largely proud of her career.

“[I]n many areas he and I worked together and I think we saw positive results, I’m very proud of what we did during the time I was there,” she said. “I think we restored America;s leadership at a time when it was in quite dire straights.”

In her new book Hard Choices, Clinton expresses disagreements with Obama on some of his less successful foreign policy endeavors, especially some of his choices in Syria and Egypt.

But the disagreements she had with Obama are not emphasized.

Clinton shared a draft of her book’s manuscript with the White House before it was sent to publishers, according to a Politico report.

Former National Security Council and Obama adviser Tommy Vietor has also joined Clinton’s team to promote the book.

“Her record is our record,” he said to Democrats while discussing the book.

Clinton also praised Obama for his actions in the raid to kill Osama bin Laden.

“I looked at the president. He was calm. Rarely have I been prouder to serve by his side as I was that day,” she writes.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Momma Michelle Wages Her Finger At Barack’s Dissenters

Michelle Obama Lectures Dems About Separation of Powers

by Tony Lee 4 Jun 2014

A day before the White House apologized to the Senate Intelligence Committee for not alerting Congress before trading five high-level terrorists for a captured American soldier, first lady Michelle Obama lectured donors about the separation of powers.

“Too often, we forget what we learned in civics class back in middle school, about how we have a separation of powers between three branches of government,” she said on Monday at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser in Boston.

The first lady claimed that, whenever people ask her why her husband cannot just “pass health care” or “get immigration reform done” or “hasn’t just fixed infrastructure yet,” she tells them, “you all know who has the final say on all of that, don’t you? Who? Congress. You guys remember civics. It’s Congress.”

She may have to remind her husband, a former constitutional law lecturer, about that.

As Breitbart News reported, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the Ranking Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, blasted Obama over the weekend for “clearly” violating “laws which require him to notify Congress thirty days before any transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and to explain how the threat posed by such terrorists has been substantially mitigated.”

“Our joy at Sergeant Berghdal’s release is tempered by the fact that President Obama chose to ignore the law, not to mention sound policy, to achieve it,” they said. “Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Berghdal’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk.”

The White House cited “unique and exigent circumstances” for not notifying Congress, but this is nowhere near the first time the White House has acted alone with complete disregard for Congress.

On immigration, the Obama administration has indicated it will act to unilaterally change immigration laws after already having done so in 2012 with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Obama instructed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to delay the administration’s deportation review, but Democrats have indicated that the Obama administration will act alone to ease deportations if amnesty legislation is not passed in six weeks. Last week, the Pentagon said it would allow some DREAMers to enroll in the military before announcing they would delay the implementation of the policy change.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

The Cost

Posted on June 4, 2014

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/06/cost/#gUVKU0g77UBFwCrq.99

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Lord Of The Lies

ComicallyIncorrect.com

http://libertyalliance.com/2014/05/lord-lies/#h5Xv9ysZfXKhR0DD.99

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

New Emails Reveal Obama White House Worked on Concocting Benghazi Lie DURING the Attacks

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/23/new-emails-reveal-obama-white-house-worked-on-concocting-benghazi-lie-during-the-attacks/

May 23, 2014 By Matthew Burke

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said on Thursday that the Obama White House was contacting YouTube owner Google during the Benghazi terrorist attacks, working on the false narrative even before Americans were out of harm’s way and before the intelligence community examined available evidence.

The still classified Obama State Department email, according to Issa, shows that the Obama White House rushed to settle on the false narrative of the anti-Islamic YouTube video instigating the attacks, which was completely at odds with the conclusions reached by reports from the ground.

This new evidence destroys the Obama White House claims, communicated by Obama spokesman Jay Carney, that the White House obtained the false narrative from CIA talking points, since, according to Congressman Issa, the communication with YouTube was conducted by the Obama White House before any CIA talking points were concocted.

The subject line of the email, ironically sent at 9:11 p.m. (the attacks took place on 9/11/12) on the night of the attack, was “Update on Response to actions – Libya,” hours before the attack had ended.

“The e-mail shows the White House had hurried to settle on a false narrative — one at odds with the conclusions reached by those on the ground — before Americans were even out of harm’s way or the intelligence community had made an impartial examination of available evidence,” Issa said.

Issa has called for the Obama White House to declassify the email.

According to Issa, one of the items noted in the email stated, “White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advise ramifications of the posting of the Pastor Jon video.”

Issa scolded current Secretary of State, Democrat John Kerry, for just now turning over a classified version of the email, some 20 months after the attack, while calling on the regime to release a unclassified copy.

“Unfortunately, Secretary Kerry and the State Department continue to try to keep this information from the public, only turning this document over to Congress last month. While the information I have cited from this email is clearly unclassified, the State Department has attempted to obstruct its disclosure by not providing Congress with an unclassified copy of this document that redacted only classified portions outlining what the Department of Defense and the Secretary of State were doing in response to the attack in Benghazi that night.”

“This tactic prevents the release of the email itself,” said Issa.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

“Lady” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

If you don’t already know, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has announced that she has decided to put five Democrats on the Benghazi investigative panel. She repeated that she still believes that this is a waste of time, and claims that “…the family members” asked why all this was being “dragged up again.

Let’s get this straight. The only thing Pelosi wants to to obstruct the investigation and protect her precious President Obama and Hillary Clinton. She is NOT interested in any of the truth to be published. She want the American people to just believe what the Leftist want them to believe and that’s it. They care nothing for the truth, because the truth will set the record straight and further anger the American people about what “knot-heads” the Leftist really are.

Let’s also get some language definitions because we keep hearing the same lame phrases andf talking points coming out of the Left;

(1) “The Benghazi incident has already been investigated by several entities and all the answer have been determined.

ANOTHER LEFTIST LIE. The information given each of the investigations are so redacted making them unusable. Giving investigators boxes full of papers does not mean they have complied with legal orders to provide specific evidence. Not all papers are created equal. I’m confident the Leftist could fill the Capital building with boxes of paper, but that does not mean they are the correct papers need to complete the investigation.

(2) Each and every investigation has not turned up any wrong doing by the Obama Whitehouse or the Hillary Clinton State Department.”

ANOTHER LEFTIST LIE. It has been determined that there are multiple people that were NOT deposed making any investigation incomplete. Several of these people have come forward, who have first hand knowledge of what happened in Benghazi September 11 2012. They also have much information about what happened leading up to the attacks.

(3) “This is just a conspiracy effort of the Republicans to embarrass President Obama.” “The Republicans are doing this because they are afraid of losing control of the Congress after the mid term elections.” “The Republicans are doing this because they are racist and hate President Obama because he is Black.”

MORE LEFTIST LIES. Conservatives want the truth to come out. Their efforts are no more motivated than the Leftist had when they made the same big deal over “Watergate”. Big difference; FOUR PATRIOTS DID NOT DIE DURING “WATERGATE”.

There are more, but you get the point.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

First they came for the Veterans . . .

http://joeforamerica.com/2014/05/first-came-veterans/

Posted by Molli Nickell, Granny Guerrilla on May 16, 2014

First they came for the Veterans’ benefits.

They said, “Because you no longer protect or serve, we’re cutting your pensions, your benefits, and closing your commissaries.”

The Veterans asked, “What about the promises you made?”

They were told, “Your country is running out of money.

The Veterans said, “If that is true, why do illegals receive welfare and food stamps?”

They were told. “That’s not your concern. Just trust us. We’ll do the right thing. Your government will take care of you.”

They lied.

Americans (who were not Veterans) didn’t stand up and speak out and so . . .

THEY CAME FOR the medical care of sick and wounded Veterans.

They said, “Take a number and wait.”

The Veterans asked, “What about the promises you made?”

They were told. “Your country is running out of money.

The Veterans said, “If that is true, why do VA administrators receive bonuses while we wait and die without receiving medical care?”

They were told, “That’s not your concern. Be patient. Fill out the forms. Just trust us. We’ll do the right thing. Your government will take care of you.”

They lied.

Americans (who were not Veterans in need of medical care) didn’t stand up and speak out and so . . .

THEY CAME FOR Social Security benefits.

They said to the Senior Citizens, “Because you no longer contribute to the greater good, you will not receive a cost of living increase.”

The Senior Citizens replied, “But, we worked, followed the rules, and placed our money into the Social Security Fund lockbox. You agreed to guard our contributions. Instead, you “borrowed” our money and never repaid it.”

They were told, “Your country is running out of money.”

The senior citizens asked, “If that is true, why do able-bodied adults, who chose not to work, receive increased entitlements?”

They said. “That’s not your concern. Just trust us. We’ll do the right thing. Your government will take care of you.”

They lied.

Americans (who were not Senior Citizens) didn’t stand up and speak out and so . . .

THEY CAME FOR everyone’s healthcare.

What were the promises made?

The promised broken?

When will we-the-people stand up and speak out against the massive dishonesty

being perpetrated against us by our own government?

Read the rest of this story at TheBlaze.

P.S. Additional political stories are available in my FREE book download “Uncle SCAM Wants Your Money and Your Country.”Use these stories to help you begin conversations with the less-aware people in your universe. An effective tool of political information sharing is to “entertain first, enlighten second.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Economic Vortex

Posted on May 16, 2014

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/05/economic-vortex/#XSLGftsvf1bSug6X.99

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

#SaveOurVets

Posted on May 14, 2014

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/05/saveourvets/

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Why Democrats Are So Scared of Benghazi

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/08/why-democrats-are-so-scared-of-benghazi.html

They insist we don’t need another committee to investigate the attack—but they’re really afraid of the incompetence the truth will reveal.

I read with interest my Daily Beast colleague Michael Tomasky’s column Wednesday, in which he asserted that the establishment of a Special Select Committee to investigate Benghazi is nothing more than bulls**t. Putting aside that disrespectful characterization of a search for truth and accountability for an attack in which four Americans lost their lives, I’m troubled by the motivation of many on the left, who have sought to demonize anyone who questions the narrative the Obama administration has spun for nearly two years.

I concur with our colleague Kirsten Powers, who writes that the glib, evasive, and arrogant posture of the White House and the president’s supporters has brought about the present Benghazi inquiry. The American people were told repeatedly in the days and weeks following the attack that it was the result of an offensive video‚ an assessment the president and secretary of state surely knew within hours was far from the truth.

Rather than level with the American people and admit what senior administration officials knew—as well as taking steps to protect our diplomatic assets abroad—the Obama administration stuck with the line that GM was alive, Osama bin Laden was dead, and al Qaeda was on the run. It was hard to square that circle when the Libyan prime minister and our deputy chief of mission in Libya immediately asserted that Benghazi was a preplanned terrorist attack.

Returning to Tomasky’s piece, I was incredulous at his view of the Benghazi attacks and the prism through which he sees the world. First he tells us:

“Benghazi is and has been for some time a witch hunt that perverts all notions of democratic accountability and that obviously carries one purpose and one purpose only—the humiliation or worse of as many Democrats as possible, preferably the big cheeses (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton).”

Let’s start with the notion that this is a witch hunt with the sole purpose of humiliating as many Democrats as possible.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was a political appointee of President Obama and worked under the immediate supervision of Secretary State Hillary Clinton. Democrats, both. Neither Obama nor Clinton have explained why their political appointee’s requests to get security in Benghazi increased were denied. The American people deserve to know the truth. That is hardly a partisan question, but it could expose incompetence once the real answers are uncovered.

Next Tomasky tells us that the Benghazi attack has been probed with two Senate reports and eight House reports. Case closed, right? What he doesn’t tell us is that Secretary of State Clinton has not been interviewed directly under oath. He mentions the investigation chaired by Admiral Mike Mullen and Thomas Pickering but fails to note that the secretary did not make herself available for questioning. Surely one cannot have a comprehensive review of the actions and activities undertaken by the State Department when the secretary is not part of the review process. For that matter, isn’t it odd that none of the personnel from the diplomatic compound in Benghazi have been interviewed on the record? What was their experience that evening, and did they witness a protest sparked by a video? A Select Committee on Benghazi will certainly provide these answers.

Tomasky tells us that Susan Rice, then U.N. ambassador to the United Nations, merely told the American people what the CIA told her to say about Benghazi. I’m sorry to say that’s not true. The truth, sadly, is that the Obama White House misled the American people when it redacted a lawfully subpoenaed document that was disclosed only after a lawsuit by Judicial Watch. In that document, White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes pushed the notion that the attack was triggered by a spontaneous demonstration, not a breakdown in policy. The first three goals in the document, which was withheld from Congress, were:

“To convey that the United States is doing everything we can to protect our people and our facilities abroad;

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;

“To show we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast during these protests.”

Perhaps Tomasky can tell us how the United States has done everything to protect our people and our facilities abroad when our own State Department denied the ambassador’s requests for additional security. Perhaps he can show us how the protests were rooted in an Internet video, a claim our intelligence services and military officials immediately knew to be false. Or perhaps he can explain how the Obama administration has brought “people who harm Americans to justice” when The New York Times was able to interview a terrorist ringleader about the attack as he sipped a strawberry frappe barely a month after the attack. The grand total of those apprehended or held responsible to date has been zero.

I’ll tell you what’s BS: The Obama administration has misled, dissembled, and otherwise given the finger to the families of those who lost their lives that night.

Finally, despite all the congressional Democrats’ snickering and posturing this week, a Select Committee on Benghazi can answer one question that remains unanswered: Where was the president of the United States the evening of September 11, 2012, and what steps did he take that evening?

We know from former National Security Council spokesman Tommy “Dude, That Was Two Years Ago” Vietor that the president was in the Executive Mansion but not in the Situation Room on the evening in question. Did he monitor the events unfolding overseas? Was he briefed throughout the evening? Why didn’t he order a military rescue mission? Only after the attack occurred did we find out it spanned nearly eight hours. Surely military assets could have been sent to Libya from Italy or elsewhere. Did the commander in chief ask military assets to stand down?

I’ll tell you what’s BS, Mr. Tomasky: The Obama administration has misled, dissembled, and otherwise given the finger to the families of those who lost their lives that night in service to their country. I’m willing to believe that the personnel on the ground in Benghazi were terrified, confused, and hoping the cavalry was on its way to save them from terrorists seeking to kill them. We need a Special Select Committee on Benghazi to ascertain these facts and ensure that such a disaster never occurs again. We need truth, not bullsh*t, from the president and his administration, but so far, that’s all they’ve been shoveling.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

More Blatant Lies From “Common Core” Material.

Fifth grade worksheet: Founders wanted government to have ‘power over the states’

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/05/01/fifth-grade-worksheet-founders-wanted-government-to-have-power-over-the-states/#xutkDMLbaG15Lmj8.99

By Renee Nal on May 1, 2014 at 12:12 am

A fifth grade worksheet in Florida declares that the Federalists were different than the anti-federalists because they “believed in a strong national government that would have power over the states.” The Federalists believed in a central government, but it was to be a “limited government.” The anti-federalists believed that there should be no central government, and pushed for full sovereignty of the states.

The Federalists, according to the worksheet, included “John Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.” While it is true that the Federalists wanted a central, or a “general,” government, the worksheet does not stress how important it was to the Federalists to ensure that the government did not become too powerful.

In fact, the worksheet explains,

“The purpose of the convention was to discuss how to make the national government stronger.”

Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were dedicated to a system where government would not become tyrannical. This is evident to anyone who reads the words of the founding fathers. But in the worksheet, the phrases “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” are forgotten.

An attachment to the worksheet titled, “Federalist and Anti-Federalist Quotes,” quotes James Madison as saying,

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary… You must first enable the government to control the governed..” – James Madison, Federalist Papers “Number 51”

The actual quote:

“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

The meaning is much different when the full quote is revealed.

Perhaps an even more egregious example is a quote from Benjamin Franklin. The worksheet quotes him as saying,

“I agree to this Constitution, because I think a general government is necessary for us…. . . I hope … we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this constitution . . .”
– Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention, 1787

The actual quote is much different,

“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

Although Franklin indeed went on to endorse the Constitution, it is clear that he was well aware of the potential for tyranny in the government.

The worksheet is a part of Florida’s “sunshine standards,” which were established after Common Core state standards became politically toxic.

The anti-Federalists eventually came around to the idea of a general government, and their input was pivotal in establishing the Bill of Rights. But it seems that some educators and others attempt to portray the Federalists as big government and the anti-Federalists as “anti-government,” which is grossly inaccurate, as both groups agonized about how America could prevent the inevitable tyranny that eventually occurs in all governments, everywhere.

This truth is evident to anyone who reads the Federalist papers.

As James Madison wrote,

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. –James Madison, Federalist 45, 1788

The Federalist papers can be found here. The anti-Federalist papers can be found here.

Renee Nal is a co-founder of TavernKeepers.com, a news and political commentary site founded by former Glenn Beck interns. She is also the National Conservative Examiner and a contributor for the Brenner Brief.
Read more at http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/05/01/fifth-grade-worksheet-founders-wanted-government-to-have-power-over-the-states/#xutkDMLbaG15Lmj8.99

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Drums of “Civil War” Are Growing Louder.

50,000 Strong – Oklahoma Militia Pledges to Support Cliven Bundy

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/oklahoma-militia-pledges-50000-troops-support-cliven-bundy/#tHJ4qZ0FpwwgrDW2.99

Reported by Dean Garrison 11 hours ago

“You’ve got a bunch of people there trying to take the law into their own hands and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Bureau of Land Management is not government-owned, it’s publicly owned. There’s a big difference there. I blame both sides. “-Jim Inhofe, Republican U.S. Senator from Oklahoma

I’m not even sure what Jim Inhofe is talking about. The Bureau of Land Management has a government website (www.BLM.gov) and is part of the Department of Interior. As far as being publicly owned, if he is trying to say that the BLM answers to the public then that is supposed to be the case with our entire federal government, of which he is part. I am unsure what “government-owned” is supposed to mean, quite frankly, because “We the People” own this government.

They work for us.

Period.

On Easter Sunday, a story broke from the “Sooner State” that the main stream media was, as usual, not quick to cover. It seems that the Oklahoma Milita has pledged their support to Cliven Bundy and vows to take up arms against the BLM if needed. Several members of the Oklahoma Militia are already in Nevada and the members at home are seeing a similar BLM land grab developing along the Red River.

News Channel 4-Tulsa reports:

OKLAHOMA CITY – A land dispute in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government began decades ago.

The Bureau of Land Management says Bundy was allowing his cattle to graze illegally which triggered a round-up of about 400 head of cattle last week.

Bundy claims his family’s cattle have grazed on the land since 1870 without interference from the government.

However, the Bureau of Land Management says Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993.

Over time, officials say those fees have amounted to more than $1 million.

As authorities herded the cattle, a standoff was sparked with members of the militia.

Organizers with the Oklahoma Militia say they have members in Nevada who claim Bundy’s cattle were unlawfully herded by the bureau.

The Oklahoma Militia says it is made up of nearly 50,000 volunteers.

Members say they are taking Bundy’s side and fear this practice could spread to the Sooner State.

Scott Shaw said, “Evidently in America we don’t actually own the property anymore if you ever did.”

Shaw says Oklahoma Militia members are ready to take up armsagainst the federal government if needed.

Nearly 50,000 members? That’s a lot ofrifles.

There are a lot of elected servants out there who are not understanding the seriousness of this situation. This is not about stuffy meetings and government red tape. We are not operating by the rules of bureaucrats anymore. The American people have seen another case of lawlessness and intimidation, and they have reacted.

I guess Harry Reid can add 50,000 new domestic terrorists to his growing list.

The federal government needs to be extremely thoughtful of how they might proceed with the Bundy situation because things could explode with the slightest misstep.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Increasing Desperation of Democrats

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376128/increasing-desperation-democrats-john-fund

April 20, 2014 7:00 PM

Slanders and lies may be part of a deliberate strategy to drive up turnout in November.

By John Fund

Senate majority leader Harry Reid

John Fund

Harry Reid isn’t backing down from his claim that rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters are “domestic terrorists.”

It’s astonishing rhetoric given the White House’s characterization of the mass shooting by a genuine terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 Americans at the Fort Hood Army base after yelling “Allahu Akbar!” (God is great.) Rather than labeling Hasan’s actions “domestic terrorism,” the Obama administration is prosecuting him for having committed “workplace violence.”

Democratic rhetoric is become ever more desperate and overheated as we approach the November midterm elections. Last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that GOP positions on immigration were motivated by racism. She was followed by Representative Steve Israel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who said, “To a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements animated by racism.” Even some leftists, such as Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, have rebuked the excess of these attacks. Referring to Democrats’ use of the “equal pay” issue to buttress claims that Republicans are waging “a war on women,” Marcus wrote, “The level of hyperbole — actually of demagoguery — that Democrats have engaged in here is revolting.” What is going on? Increasingly, journalists who cover the White House are concluding that the smears are part of a conscious strategy to distract voters from Obamacare, the sluggish economy, and foreign-policy reverses; the attacks are intended, the thinking goes, to drive up resentment and hence turnout among the Democratic base.

Major Garrett, the CBS White House correspondent, has talked with White House aides who confirm that the administration is working from the theory of “stray voltage,” as developed by former White House senior adviser David Plouffe. “The theory goes like this,” Garrett wrote. “Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness,”

Deliberately misstating information about key issues in order to keep certain issues before the public is often a premeditated strategy. “The tactic represents one more step in the embrace of cynicism that has characterized President Obama’s journey in office,” John Dickerson wrote at Slate. “Facts, schmacts. As long as people are talking about an issue where my party has an advantage with voters, it’s good.”

Frank James of NPR is another mainstream journalist who has concluded that the use of incendiary rhetoric is part of an electoral strategy. “Social scientists who have studied voters have found that voter participation rises when voters are emotionally engaged,” he noted. “For some voters, suggestions that some of the opposition to Obama and his policies is more than just honest disagreement — and is indeed racially based — could help do the trick.”

I’m not so sure. Democratic consultants may not care in the short term that such tactics diminish the office of the president and undermine trust among the American people. But Dickerson suggests that presidents are right to “worry that people won’t think they aren’t honest or trustworthy if they keep using facts that don’t pan out.” A new Fox poll finds that 61 percent of Americans now believe that President Obama lies some or all of the time on “important matters,” while only 15 percent say Obama never lies. But among his base voters, 37 percent of African Americans and 31 percent of Democrats say he never lies: These are the people Democrats hope can be brought to the polls with overheated rhetoric.

The White House, of course, denies that deliberate deception is its strategy. But they’ve been caught too often in the web of their own cynicism. Recall President Obama’s statement “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan. Period.” The White House tried to blame insurers, even though it was Obamacare that had forced them to end their policies, and it kept up that fiction even after it was revealed that the Department of Health and Human Services had predicted plans would be canceled within weeks of Obamacare’s passage. The Obama administration was left with the lame claim that, in effect, its left hand hadn’t known what its extreme left hand had decided were the facts.

Some political scientists think the White House is playing a clever game, but not necessarily a successful one. Michael McDonald, an expert at George Mason University on voter turnout, is dubious that Democrats can successfully drive base voters to the polls by cherry-picking Dem-friendly issues. “They’re basically trying to reengineer the electorate,” McDonald said last week. “History is not on their side.” Indeed, in special election after special election this year, Democratic turnout has been down and Republicans have won surprising victories — from San Diego to Connecticut to Arlington, Va. As Abraham Lincoln is credited (probably erroneously) with saying: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Democrats may not be able to fool enough of the people this time — we’ll find out in November.

— John Fund is national-affairs columnist at National Review Online.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Reid knows Terrorist

Posted on April 19, 2014

Commander n’ Chef

Posted on April 18, 2014

Titanic “Obamacare”

Posted on April 7, 2014

http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/lie-obama-lying-teeth-obamacare-sign-numbers/

By Marc Schenker / 3 April 2014

Back in 2009, the intrepid Joe Wilson—Republican representative for South Carolina’s 2nd congressional district—was way ahead of his time by laudably interrupting President Barack Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress with his awesome “You lie!” exclamation. Since 2009, all that Obama’s done for the most part has been to pathologically lie to the American people, so Wilson was right on the money. The only thing he did wrong was to apologize to Obama for that outburst, of course.

Now, in 2014, we have more outrageously strong suspicions of yet another Obama lie, this time concerning the questionable Obamacare sign-up numbers. Earlier this week, Obama and White House spokesbrat Jay Carney were rubbing it in everyone’s faces that about seven million Americans did sign up for the widely disapproved train wreck called Obamacare.

“See…see!” they shouted. “We told ya that we would meet the enrollment numbers, so shut the hell up.

Republicans and conservatives!” Naturally, they didn’t phrase it quite like that, but you can bet your last bill of Obama money that that’s exactly what they were thinking. The only problem with this insultingly ludicrous claim and Obama’s and Carney’s audacious bragging is that they’re absolutely full of BS.

Only a few days before April 1, the sign-up numbers were destined to fall WAY below the seven million mark, and then, as if by pure magic, the numbers are suddenly met in a way that completely defies all the laws of probability. So what happened? Did Obama and company actually “Galifianakis” (however you pronounce that train wreck of a name) their way to meeting the mark? Did a bunch of millennials suddenly believe that paying for older, unhealthier Americans was a good deal for them?

No one knows for sure, but you can take an educated guess that Obama and company lied yet again as part of a propaganda campaign to shore up desperately needed support for a piece-of-crap law that has widespread condemnation. Here’s what we do know:

–Just a paltry 23% of those who signed up were uninsured before signing up, according to RAND
–Many who signed up already were insured, but had their policies tyrannically canceled due to the insanely oppressive requirements of Obamacare
–Only about half of those newly insured Americans actually paid their premiums for the first month

What this all means is clearly that an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT number of Americans has legitimately signed up for Obamacare if we hold Obama to his own deceptive standards that some 32 million Americans out of 48 million uninsured Americans would be covered because of Obamacare.

Further, Obama has absolutely no credibility to claim victory when we consider that he has a notorious track record of lie after lie after lie that would actually make a carnival barker seem way more credible. Some of the biggest Obama lies up to this point have been:

–Pledging to halve the U.S. deficit by the end of his first term
–Shutting down Gitmo
–Lowering the costs of healthcare premiums
–Refusing to use national security as an excuse to spy on fellow Americans
–Promising not to hire lobbyists at the White House
–Promising Americans can keep their healthcare plans if they like them
–Promising to defend the U.S. Constitution

This is only a partial list; if I were to list all of the president’s lies, I’d get carpal tunnel syndrome from having to endlessly type all of his lies. The gist is, obviously, that Obama has lied more than any politician ever, which is really saying something since politicians are already synonymous with dishonesty!

So when you take the fact that evidence establishes that the seven million sign-up numbers are, at best, untrustworthy, with the fact that Obama has a track record of pathological lying, you can pretty safely conclude that this seven million number is an utter fraud.

Image: Courtesy of: http://ttoes.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/i-think-jimmy-hoffa-is-a-liar

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

What A Sham

Posted on April 3, 2014

freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/tolerate-lying-politicians-violate-oath-office/#ypQHWj6wE7kqtISC.99

Richard Anthony March 23, 2014

Every single politician who has ever held public office has lied at one time or another, but now lying, it seems, is a given. Laws against false campaign advertising raise other issues. “What sort of mechanism do you set up?” asked Brooks Jackson, director of Factcheck.org, a website that monitors the accuracy of politicians’ claims. “I don’t know how you pass a law making it a crime to utter a falsehood in a political debate without giving some government official the power to decide what’s false and what’s not.”

To the rest of us peons, when we tell a lie, there are usually severe consequences. For instance, if we tell a lie to our spouse, we can expect a problem with our relationship, or even the end of it. If we lie under oath in a court of law, we can expect to be charged, fined, or also imprisoned.

But what about politicians who look right in our eyes and lie to us? Why in God’s name do we not punish them? Why are they allowed to get away with it?

For instance – “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, if you like your current insurance plan you can keep it”; that whopper came from the lips of our current president, not once, not twice, but several times. We have irrefutable evidence to that fact. What about Harry Reid? He lies almost every time he opens his mouth. And yet, NOTHING is done to punish him. Have we as a society and a people fallen so far that this is acceptable? If my son were to lie to me, there would be consequences and some form of punishment, as I’m sure most parents would agree with me when I make that statement.

We are taught from an early age not to lie. Political candidates are not held to the same standard, and the reason is simple: their statements and advertisements are considered “political speech,” which falls under the protection of the First Amendment. The noble idea undergirding what otherwise seems like a political loophole is the belief that voters have a right to uncensored information on which to base their decisions. Too often, however, the result is a system in which the most distorted information comes from the campaigns themselves.

But it’s not just that candidates are allowed to launch unfounded attacks against their opponents or make false claims about their own records. Broadcasters are actually obligated to run their ads, even those known to be false. Under the Federal Communications Act, a station can have a blanket policy of refusing all ads from all candidates, but they cannot single out and decline to air a particular commercial whose content they know to be a lie.

So is a “lie” protected under the 1st Amendment or not?

But what about a politician who violates their oath of office? Surely THAT is a crime….or IS it? Apparently, if you are the current president, it isn’t. And to be fair, I’m also talking about every single politician who is currently in office right now, Democrat AND Republican. So what can we do? Arrest every member of congress and charge them with violation of oath of office? That would be rather difficult.

The Ten Commandments are very clear:

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

“Long Way”

Posted on March 18, 2014

‘I heard her with my own ears’

Published: 21 hours ago

About Garth Kant

Garth Kant is WND Washington news editor. Previously, he spent five years writing, copy-editing and producing at “CNN Headline News,” three years writing, copy-editing and training writers at MSNBC, and also served several local TV newsrooms as producer, executive producer and assistant news director. He is the author of the McGraw-Hill textbook, “How to Write Television News.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before he Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 23, 2013

WASHINGTON — President Obama has problems with credibility, as the world well knows after he disingenuously insisted, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan” about two dozen times in public.

Now, it turns out, the Democrat most political observers believe will try to replace Obama as president apparently also has problems telling the truth.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about Benghazi, a congressman who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Libya told WND.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa

He said she also lied to Congress.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was unequivocal when WND asked him, “What makes you so certain that Hillary Clinton lied?”

“Because,” King replied, “I heard her with my own ears.”

And, what contradicted her?

“The facts.”

King also had a blistering response to a famous question posed by Clinton.

During a Senate committee hearing Jan. 23, 2013, when asked what caused the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Clinton responded indignantly, “At this point, what difference does it make?”

WND asked King if he had an answer for her.

“The reason it makes a difference, Hillary Clinton, is because this administration lied to the American people. Her voice was one of those voices that lied to the American people.”

The congressman related how Clinton and other administration officials were dishonest when they briefed Congress within a week of the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith and CIA security contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.

King said he could not divulge what was said during a classified briefing he attended, but, “I will just tell you that the administration’s officials told the same lies to members of Congress in a classified setting that they told the public five times on Sunday.”

He was referring to appearances on five political talk shows by then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Sept. 16, 2012, during which she claimed the attack was a spontaneous protest inspired by anger over an obscure anti-Muslim video on the Internet.

“We know that’s false,” King told WND. “On top of that, we know they knew it was false. They knew within three hours that it was a calculated, strategized attack by an organized enemy on that compound and that annex in Benghazi.”

Strong confirmation of King’s version of events has just come to light, as newly declassified documents show top defense officials briefed Obama that a terrorist attack was underway in Benghazi not long after it began.

During a classified, closed-door hearing last year, Gen. Carter Ham, who was responsible for U.S. forces in North Africa, testified that he very quickly got to the point and told then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that it was a terrorist attack and not a protest.

Panetta and Dempsey then met immediately with Obama.

Last February, Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he told Obama “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.”

Panetta said, “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack.”

And yet, for the next few weeks, as the 2012 presidential election reached the crucial home stretch, a number of aides to both Clinton and Obama repeatedly insisted there was no evidence the attack on Benghazi was planned, but it appeared to be protest that turned violent.

That was contradicted by testimony on May 8, 2013, by U.S. diplomat Gregory Hicks, who was in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

He, and two other key witnesses agreed, there was no basis for Rice to claim the attack began as a protest of an anti-Islamic film. And yet, Obama and Clinton repeatedly made that claim in the hours and days after the incident.

Hicks pointedly said he was “stunned” by Rice’s response to the Benghazi attack.

“My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.

Hicks was asked if there was any indication of a protest in Benghazi in response to the Internet video.

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he said.

“We know from the testimony,” King told WND. “We know it wasn’t the movie. It is a fact that it wasn’t the movie.”

He also pointed out that people who worked in the intelligence community as well as the State Department have testified under oath that they knew the movie did not trigger the attack.

“And they (administration officials) have not retracted them. They were dishonest,” King flatly stated.

The congressman made the blunt assertions to WND in his first published remarks following a recent trip he organized to hotspots in North Africa and the Middle East, with Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

The Iowan had more answers to Clinton’s question, “What difference does it make?”

He said, of course, the loss of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans “who stood there bravely to defend that compound” was a “significant tragedy.”

But, he called the truth an even bigger casualty.

“[T]he biggest tragedy of this is this administration came forward within days and began to misinform the American people on what took place in Benghazi.”

That’s because, King insisted, “It’s a tragedy when the integrity of the presidency and the administration of President Obama, or any president of the United States, can be sacrificed for a political agenda.”

The congressman noted that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates described in his new book how then-senator and presidential candidate Clinton took a position against the surge in Iraq in the presidential primary contests in 2008 for political reasons.

“If political decisions are made on war policy in Iraq when you’re campaigning for office, and if political conditions were part of the decision as to whether there would be a surge in Afghanistan, that’s also part of Gate’s book, then those two things all but confirm that the story that the administration promoted coming out of Benghazi was a political story, designed to cover,” charged King.

And why did they need cover? Because they were in the peak of the president’s re-election campaign, said the congressman.

He said the administration “should have told the American people the straight-up truth as soon as they knew it,” but instead, “they continue to cover-up Benghazi and the only reason they’ve been allowed to do it is a media that is, for a large part, complicit.”

Conceivably, that could derail presidential ambitions Clinton might harbor.

Judge Andrew Napolitano says the former secretary of state could be prosecuted if she did, in fact, lie.

“Lying to Congress carries the same criminal liability and the same punishment as lying under oath to Congress. I’m not suggesting that Mrs. Clinton lied, but I’m saying that a case could be made out, either legally in a courtroom if a prosecutor wanted to, and certainly politically in a public sphere should she decide to seek higher office,” Napolitano said, the day after Hicks testified to Congress that the video played absolutely no role in the Benghazi attack.

When WND asked King if those he spoke with in Libya share his observations about the attack on Benghazi, he said it depends on who you talk to.

He had nothing but praise for U.S. Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones, calling her “excellent” and “terrific.”

“She’s in a very dangerous place, and she has a very difficult task. She’s upbeat, she’s knowledgeable,” and King said all of their discussions encouraged him that “we’ve got a good State Department operating in Libya.”

Follow Garth Kant on Twitter @DCgarth

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

CNN Calls the Obama Administration LIARS

You know we’re in trouble as a nation when catching a politician in lies produces no shock. MrB

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

http://eaglerising.com/4136/cnn-calls-obama-administration-liars/#MssWwAbpJfDdb6ET.99

By Onan Coca / 15 January 2014

In an article titled “The Truth Behind Obamacare 6 Million Figure,” CNN takes the administration to task for touting information that is, at the very least “misleading.”

The Obama administration been advertising that 6 Million people have healthcare because of Obamacare.

“Now more than 6 million Americans have been enrolled in Marketplace or Medicaid coverage and are getting peace of mind, knowing that they can get the care they need without losing everything they’ve worked and saved for,” wrote Phil Schiliro, who returned to the White House last month to oversee health care policy initiatives.

Gene Sperling, the director of the National Economic Council, went on “Meet the Press” recently, he simply cited the 6 million figure without further explanation.

Sadly, while both Mr. Sperling and Mr. Schiliro would like everyone to believe that through the magic of Obamacare some 6 million people who were previously uninsured now have health insurance… the number is simply a mirage.

— 2.1 million Americans signed up for private health insurance through the federal and state exchanges through the end of December.

— 3.9 million people learned they’re eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in October and November.

The squishiness lies in the Medicaid number. The 3.9 million figure includes people who were already on Medicaid and are just renewing…

While CNN sees “squishiness” in the Medicaid number, I think there is worse here.

Let’s start with the 2.1 million Americans who signed up for private insurance through the exchanges.

Since October 1, 2013 almost 5 million people have lost their coverage due to Obamacare. Doesn’t it stand to reason that many of these people are the ones who have signed up through the private exchanges?

Similarly, where CNN sees “squishiness” because many of the Medicaid and CHIP enrollees are actually re-enrollees, some of the new Medicaid members are there because they were forced off of their own insurance.

If you add all of this together, the Obamacare “successes” are all self-made. They destroyed 5 million people’s healthcare coverage, forced them into Obamacare and then pretended that they somehow accomplished something. It’s sick. It’s twisted. It’s the Obama Administration handling business as usual.

About the author: Onan Coca

&lt;img alt=” src=’http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/067e140671164d7ce10eea5e42f2e3b6?s=80&amp;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&amp;r=G’ class=’avatar avatar-80 photo’ height=’80’ width=’80’ />

Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in the Atlanta area with his wife, Leah. They have three children and enjoy the hectic pace of life in a young family. Onan and Leah are members of the Journey Church in Hiram, GA.

Website: http://www.eaglerising.com

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Image

Enough Said?

Written

on December 23, 2013

Famous Presidential Lies

LBJ: “We were attacked.”

Nixon: “I am not a crook.”

Clinton: “I did not have sex with that woman,,,,,, Ms. Lewinski.”

Bush – 41: “Read my lips – No new taxes.”

Obama: Does he ever tell the truth?????

“I will have the most transparent administration in history.”
“TARP is to fund Shovel-ready jobs.”
“I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.”
“The IRS is not targeting anyone.”
“It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.”
“I will put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division, conflict and cynicism”.
“You didn’t build that!”
“I will restore trust in Government.”
“The Cambridge cops acted stupidly,”
“The Public Will Have 5 Days To Look At Every Bill That Lands On My Desk.”
“It’s not my red line – it is the world’s red line.”
“Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.”
“We got back Every Dime we Used to Rescue the Banks, with interest. Same for the Auto Companies.”
“I will close Gitmo.”
“I am not spying on American citizens.”
“ObamaCare will be good for America .. “
- “You can keep your family doctor, period.”
- “Premiums will be lowered by $2500.”
- “If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan, Period.”
- “It’s just like shopping at Amazon.”
- And the biggest one of all:
  - “I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America”.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

lies

Obama’s Back Dated & Forged Selective Service Form Hits Washington Times in Full Page Ad

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/obamas-back-dated-forged-selective-service-form-hits-washington-times-full-page-ad/#ctclKVfMEbUw4PWK.99

Posted By Tim Brown on Dec 10, 2013

m05-wtnw12092013-obamadraftcardforged-withhdr

Someone has finally decided to put out Barack Obama’s forged documents in some mainstream papers. On Monday, CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired) took out a full page ad in the Washington Time to make people aware of the fraudulent documents of Barack Hussein Obama, specifically his back dated and forged selective service form.

Kerchner’s ad appeared on page 5 of the Washington Times National Weekly and included a large copy of Barack Obama’s Selective Service form, along with various URLs to other pertinent information on the various forgeries of Obama’s documents.

If you thought Kerchner was done with only one ad dealing with Obama’s Selective Service form, you would be mistaken. He also dealt with John Boehner.

Kerchner blasted House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who apparently has taken a similar stand to that of Markwayne Mullins, who said he believes that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud, but doesn’t “give a sh*t.”

Mr. Kerchner wrote:

To House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner – We the People Have Been Repeatedly Asked You To Act: Are you living up to your oath to support and defend the Constitution from domestic enemies? Are you doing your job as the leader of the People’s House and protecting We the People from a fraud in the White House? It is time for you to launch congressional investigations into Obama’s forged ID documents or at least get out of the way and stopping blocking those in Congress who wish to do that. You’ve office was been given a Sheriff’s Kit by Mike Volin and his team during their visit to Washington DC last week which presents the evidence compiled from a two year investigation by the Sheriff’s Department of Maricopa County AZ (which includes Phoenix). The evidence proves federal felony document crimes have been committed! Speaker Boehner, are you living up to your solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution from domestic enemies? Are you the leader of the People’s House and protecting We the People from a national fraud being perpetrated on the nation? It is time for you to do your duty and launch a Select Committee to publicly in open hearing in Congress investigate the ongoing fraud and the crimes being perpetrated by Barack Obama. If you will not do that, then step down and get out of the way. We the People demand it!

He then included another full page ad in which he wrote a “Dear John” letter that he believed Lady Liberty would pen if she was able, calling him on the very things he wrote above.

Herchner included links to Arizona Chief Investigator Michael Zullo’s sworn affidavit attesting to the fact that Obama’s documents have been forged, as well as documentation provided by Debbie Schlussel that Obama’s Selective Service registration is a fraud.

The pressure continues to build, however, don’t expect establishment Republicans to get on board. After all, they this is really no big deal and they are ready to roll over in bed with the Democrats as they have already shown. However, there is hope that some Tea Party representatives, like Steve Stockman, who do believe there is validity to the information and want to see a serious inquiry for the public’s best interest. Stockman even passed out copies of Articles of Impeachment to every House member earlier this year.

Contact your representative or senator today and let them know you want this issue investigated and resolved, including impeachment and removal from office of Barack Hussein Obama if necessary.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Google Plus

Author: Tim Brown

Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty. Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Follow Tim on Twitter.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

President Obama accused of LYING about intelligence which he said proved Assad was behind sarin gas attacks in Syria

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520555/President-Obama-accused-lying-Syrian-intelligence-sarin-gas-attack-award-winning-journalist-Seymour-Hersh.html#ixzz2n742WjZl

The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist claims the Obama Administration ‘cherry-picked intelligence’ on Syria
Hersh, 76, cited conversations with military officials who spoke of their ‘immense frustration’ with the President
Previously he had claimed that the official account of the 2011 raid which killed Osama Bin Laden as ‘one big lie’
He says the US media is too ‘afraid’ to pick on Obama

By Marie-louise Olson and David Mccormack

PUBLISHED:22:14 EST, 8 December 2013| UPDATED:01:59 EST, 9 December 2013

A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist has accused President Obama of lying to the American people earlier this year when he blamed President Bashar al-Assad for a sarin-gas attack that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians in August.

Seymour Hersh, 76, who had previously described the official account of the 2011 raid which killed Osama Bin Laden as ‘one big lie,’ claims the current administration ‘cherry-picked intelligence’ on Syria.

Hersh first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has accused President Obama of lying to the American people earlier this year when he blamed President Bashar al-Assad for a sarin-gas attack that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians in August

'We are not going to lose this vote': Obama has asked Congress to vote to authorize a strike against Syria and Kerry now says the case for an attack has only gotten stronger

Hersh, 76, cited conversations with military officials who spoke of their ‘immense frustration’ with the President

In early September, Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had proof that the nerve-gas attack in Syria was made on Assad’s orders.

‘We know the Assad regime was responsible,’ President Obama told the nation in an address days after this revelation, when he said he had been pushed over the ‘red line’ to consider military intervention.

In Sunday’s London Review of Book, Hersh accused the administration of ‘cherry-picked intelligence,’ citing conversations with intelligence and military officials.

‘A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analyzed in real time, as the attack was happening,’ he wrote.

Some 355 people showing 'neurotoxic symptoms' died August 21 after an attack with what the U.S. now says was likely deadly sarin gas

Some 355 people showing ‘neurotoxic symptoms’ died August 21 after the deadly sarin gas attack which U.S. authorities accused forces loyal to President Assad of carrying out

On an account dubbed 'the official Twitter account for the Presidency of the Syrian,' a picture was posted early Sunday of Assad meeting with the Iranian national security committee

President Bashar al-Assad repeatedly denied that his soldiers carried out the sarin-gas attack that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians in August

According to Hersh, the situation reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when President Johnson’s administration had reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of their early bombings of North Vietnam.

Hersh also said that his contacts spoke of ‘immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy’ regarding the current President.

‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy [Obama] when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’

Hersh also claims that the administration buried intelligence on the fundamentalist group/rebel group al-Nusra related to the sarin attacks, plus he repeated his accusation that the U.S. media fails to properly question what information is given to them by the government.

A United Nations resolution ultimately prevented American military intervention, but Hersh believes that the information he has unveiled is similar to when President George W. Bush justified his invasion of Iraq with evidence concerning nuclear weapons which later turned out not to be true.

Deadly nerve agent: John Kerry announced Sunday morning that the U.S. now has evidence that Syria's government used the deadly nerve agent sarin in the August 21 chemical weapon attach outside Damascus

In early September, Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had proof that the nerve-gas attack in Syria was made on Assad’s orders

Journalist Seymour Hersh attends Al Jazeera Forum

Dead or alive? The Saudi-born militant, Osama Bin Laden, was allegedly killed in a raid on his compound in Pakistan

‘Lying’: Hersh says ‘not one word’ of the Obama administration’s account of the raid that supposedly killed Osama Bin Laden is true. The government has never released pictures of Bin Laden’s dead body to the public

‘The cherry-picking was similar to the process used to justify the Iraq war,’ wrote Hersh.

This isn’t the first time he has accused President Obama of lying. In September he said that ‘not one word’ of the administration’s narrative on the killing of Osama Binladen was true.

At that time Hersh also savaged the U.S. media for failing to challenge the White House on a whole host of issues, from NSA spying, to drone attacks, to aggression against Syria.

He said the Navy Seal raid that supposedly resulted in the death of the Al-Qaeda terror leader, Hersh said, ‘not one word of it is true’.

According to Hersh the problem is that the U.S. media is allowing the Obama administration to get away with lying.

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the national security team watch the raid live from the White House's Situation Room on May 1, 2011

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the national security team watch the raid live from the White House’s Situation Room on May 1, 2011

The compound: The Pakistan home of the al Qaeda leader was in flames after it was attacked by Navy Seals

‘It’s pathetic. They are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama].’

Hersh said the American press spends ‘so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would’.

In his opinion, the solution would be to shut down news networks like NBC and ABC and fire 90 per cent of mainstream editors and replace them with ‘real’ journalists who are not afraid to speak truth to power.

‘The republic’s in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple,’ he said.

LRB · Seymour M. Hersh · Whose sarin?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Barack Obama Wants His Name Off of Obamacare

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/barack-obama-wants-name-obamacare/#ixzz2lJbaJBZH

by Suzanne Hamner

Anyone who has ever bought a car knows about “sticker shock.” You’ve eyed that car on the dealership lot from afar. Finally, the time is right to take a test drive then seal the deal to make that purchase. However, the price on the sticker is more than enough to send you into hyperventilation fits as you try to convince yourself the sticker price is wrong. Well, Mr. Obama and his band of merry Democrats are currently suffering “Obamacare shock.” Yes, they knew millions of Americans would lose their healthcare insurance and many would not be able to keep their doctor. It was obvious to those who analyzed the effects of Obamacare that healthcare insurance premiums would increase on most Americans who would be forced into the exchanges, along with other abominations that have yet to gain the attention of the public. So, why are Mr. Obama and his Democrats experiencing “Obamacare shock?”

The law’s namesake and Democrats in Congress are shocked at the reaction of Americans to Obamacare after its implementation. Just as the Congress passed this law so they could find out what’s in it, many Americans reserved their judgment of the government healthcare insurance law until after its roll-out. Millions of Americans received cancellation notices from their healthcare insurance providers while the government website for enrollment into Obamacare was, in the most pleasant of terms, inoperative. Those who were able to access the new Obamacare exchanges were hit with higher premiums, deductibles, and some discovered they were ineligible to receive a subsidy to offset the increased cost. The result is Americans who originally supported Obamacare have now jumped ship, previously insured Americans will now be uninsured, and those Americans the law targeted will continue to be uninsured. Add to this equation the dismal numbers of Americans who have actually accessed the exchanges and the emerging picture of “failure” becomes clear.

Now, some Democrats, who previously supported this monstrosity, have begun to distance themselves from the disaster using many different tactics ranging from blaming the Republicans, dropping the affectionate designation “Obamacare,” to calling for complete repeal. Obama has entered damage control mode, but his goal of a single payer system is still the brass ring he strives to reach. In his latest attempt to soothe the masses, Obama has indicated his signature healthcare law needs “a full-blown rebranding effort.” Once again, Obama hits the campaign trail in public relations gear attempting to remarket a product that is more than defective – it’s totally broken.

At a meeting in Washington, hosted by the Wall Street Journal, Obama told attendees, “I am confident that the model we’ve built, which works off the existing private insurance system, is one that will succeed. We’re going to have to, A., fix the website so everybody feels confident about that. We’re obviously going to have to remarket and rebrand and that will be challenging in this political environment.”

Translation: “What we have is causing me grief; it’s not working so I want my name off of it.”

(added by me, Jerry Broussard)

Rebranding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Rebranding is a marketing strategy in which a new name, term, symbol, design, or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, and competitors.^[1]^[2] Often, this involves radical changes to a brand’s logo, name, image, marketing strategy, and advertising themes. Such changes typically aim to reposition the brand/company, occasionally to distance itself from negative connotations of the previous branding, or to move the brand upmarket; they may also communicate a new message a new board of directors wishes to communicate.

Rebranding can be applied to new products, mature products, or even products still in development. The process can occur intentionally through a deliberate change in strategy or occur unintentionally from unplanned, emergent situations, such as a “Chapter 11 corporate restructuring,” “union busting,” or “bankruptcy.”

Obama and a Democratic majority Senate and House decided that 30 million uninsured Americans needed to purchase healthcare insurance. They declared our healthcare system “broken” and passed Obamacare. These same politicians modeled Obamacare “off the existing private insurance system.” Now, due to the negative backlash, Obama has decided that a new marketing campaign and rebranding this atrocity is the solution.

One question that should be asked of Obama is: If our system was “broken,” why was the existing private insurance system used as a model to build the current one?

The 30 million Americans who are uninsured is not because of a “broken” system. Those uninsured are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. Private individual healthcare insurance policy premiums are out of reach for some based on their income and/or numerous economic difficulties. Then, there are those Americans who choose not to purchase healthcare insurance policies for reasons that are not income or economic based.

The premise made by Obama and his idolatrous worshiping Democrats was individuals without healthcare insurance coverage did not have access to healthcare or “good” healthcare services. Access to healthcare is very different from the ability to pay for those services. Having healthcare insurance does not guarantee the receipt of healthcare services nor does it guarantee payment for those services. Healthcare insurance coverage is designed to offset the cost of medical services thereby reducing out of pocket expenses to the individual.

An individual may not be able to “access” healthcare services when needed because of logistics. In very rural areas, healthcare facilities are not as prevalent or varied as in cities. It may be inconvenient for individuals to travel long distances to receive services. And, the healthcare industry is suffering from lack of doctors and support personnel, such as nurses, to adequately expand services in needed areas. Depending on the need for specialty services, individuals may wait months to see an orthopedist, neurologist or rheumatologist, to name a few. Mandating individuals to purchase healthcare insurance does not solve the problem of logistics.

During the Washington gathering, Obama did acknowledge problems with the Obamacare website stating, “There is a larger problem … the way the federal government does procurement and does IT is, just generally, not very efficient. In fact, there’s probably no bigger gap between the private and public sector than IT.”

Translation: “I know we gave a no-bid contract to Michelle’s friend’s company but Congress allows it. The company is the one who defaulted, so it’s not my fault.”

The company selected to build the federal website for access to the exchanges was awarded to the company where Michelle Obama’s friend held a high position. According to one source, the company responsible for the failed website was paid $394 million – four times the original quoted cost of $94 million. Facebook and Twitter were created for less. When procurement of a company to do business with the federal government is based on cronyism, one can almost predict there will be problems. So, the problem is not a big IT gap between the public and private sector nor is it inefficiency with procurement. The problem is politicians and presidents rewarding friends and monetary contributors with government contracts or positions instead of basing procurement and employment on qualifications. That is not inefficiency.

During one of my second year nursing classes, a guest speaker stated “no matter how many times you kiss a frog, it’s still a frog.” It’s the same with Obamacare. No matter how Obama and the Democrats try to dress it up, change its name, change its website or flip-flop the disaster that it is, it is still an unconstitutional law that forces Americans into a system that ultimately removes individual choices regarding healthcare in favor of government dictates in an area the government has no business.

So, keep kissing that frog, Nancy.

Obamacare shock among its namesake and Democrats is already having its effects. Obama is being derelict in his duty to make sure the law is faithfully executed by legislating changes in the mandate deadlines through executive order. Democrats and RINOs in Congress are swiftly attempting to pass legislation so those millions who have received cancellation letters from their carrier can keep their policy, for only a year. They are having a knee-jerk reaction to problems they knew would occur when the law was passed three years ago. Ego and desperation are the driving actions, nothing more.

Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling, the government mandating individuals purchase healthcare insurance or the government providing socialized medicine is not an enumerated power of Congress per our Constitution. All branches of our government ignored this stipulation regardless of whether it is described as a “tax” or not. Instead of adhering to the Constitution, the egos of Obama and the Democrats chase after this pig of a piece of legislation that’s covered in lard.

Americans are saddled with this unconstitutional law and are, basically, being forced to obtain a healthcare insurance plan or face a penalty (tax) imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Obama and his donkeys continue to kiss the frog in hopes of a prince or continue to put lipstick on the pig in an attempt to disguise the “pork.” Either way, the American public can expect more posturing, more lying, more deception and more unlawful behavior from our elected officials as more information is revealed about this law.

More Obamacare shock is on the horizon for Americans as well. Congress can repeal this nightmare of an abominable, unconstitutional law or states can nullify it. Until then, the only recourse Americans have against this shock is to walk off the dealership lot.

About the Authior, Suzanne Hamner

Suzanne Hamner (pen name) is a registered nurse, grandmother of 4, and a political independent residing in the state of Georgia, who is trying to mobilize the Christian community in her area to stand up and speak out against tyrannical government, invasion by totalitarian political systems masquerading as religion and get back to the basics of education.

View all posts by Suzanne Hamner →

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama Lies Because He Thinks the American People are Stupid Enough to Believe Him

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/obama-lies-thinks-american-people-stupid-enough-believe/#ixzz2jjC2vhQi

Posted by The Liberated Conservative

We have all heard the old joke, how can you tell when a Politician is lying? Their mouth is moving. Funny right? Not so much anymore. It’s not funny when your government and president continue to boldly lie to your face time after time after time, and no one is responsible for anything. I, for one, am just about at my breaking point, and I think many other Americans feel the same way.

Benghazi, LIE! Hillary Clinton said, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” AMERICANS DIED!

NSA Spying, LIE! Not just spying on foreign communications but spying on you and me, AMERICANS. Collecting our emails, social media activities, phone calls and keeping the information on file WITH NO INTENTION OF STOPPING!

IRS Targeting, LIE! Suppressing any individual or Organization that opposes the Administration.

Fast and Furious, LIE! Illegal gun running program that provided weapons to Drug Cartels & Terrorists but no big deal. AMERICANS DIED!

Obamacare, LIE! LIE! LIE! Even though Obama’s entire campaign was based on his promise, “You can keep your current plan” repeated over and over again. See for yourself.

Are you starting to see a pattern here?

But now that Millions of Americans are having their Insurance Plans canceled, they had to come up with a new LIE to try to make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy but this one doesn’t make you all warm and fuzzy, at least it shouldn’t, and almost instantaneously every Lefty in Washington started reciting it. So what are they saying? The ground work for this LIE was laid by Obama himself at a talk he gave yesterday, 10/30/13, in Boston.

So what did he, and now all the rest, say? With no apology or no “I was wrong” he just stepped up and basically said you can keep your plan as long as it meets the requirements and if your plans are being canceled it’s not because of Obamacare but rather because the plan you had was lousy. Your insurance company was charging you for a lousy plan and now they have to cancel it and offer you a better plan at a lower rate. He went on to say that the reason those plans were not available in the new Healthcare Marketplace is because “no one was going to buy those lousy plans”, even though Millions of people already have.

Here is the way I see this. What he is really saying is this is not our fault, it is the fault of the Insurance companies for selling you a lousy plan in the first place and you are too stupid to even know you had a lousy plan, and we know better than you do what is best for you, so when you get canceled, now you will have to go to the Healthcare Marketplace and buy a new, more expensive, higher deductible plan because I need at least 2 Million people to sign up for my monstrosity of an attempt to Socialize Healthcare for it to work and if it’s going to take me getting your insurance canceled, so you have no insurance at all, to force you to do that, I am ok with that.

This, my friends, just flat pisses me off and it should absolutely piss you off too. Who the hell does he think he is? If you continue to support such actions and believe that what he and his Administration is doing is being done with your best interests at heart because they care about you, then do me favor. Call Santa Claus for me and tell him I want a new Government for Christmas because you must have Santa’s cell phone number on your speed dial.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Image

In Charge

Written

on May 17, 2013

Remember the Propaganda Machine of the NOW DE-FUNKED U.S.S.R?

http://freedomoutpost.com

February 25, 2013 by Tim Brown

Congressman Blasts Obama For Using Fake Twitter Messages To Fight Gun Control

Rep Steve Stockman (R-TX) made accusations against Barack Obama on Monday over his gun control campaign claiming that is it fraud based with fake messages over Twitter. Stockman claims that Obama is seeking to give the appearance of support greater than what he has for gun control legislation by flooding Twitter with messages from people that don’t exist.

“Obama’s anti-gun campaign is a fraud,” Stockman said. “Obama’s supporters are panicking and willing to do anything to create the appearance of popular support, even if it means trying to defraud Congress,” he added. “I call upon the president to denounce this phony spam campaign.”

When Obama called for people to tweet their congressmen in support of more gun control legislation, Stockman said he received a mere 16 tweets. However, he notes that upon closer examination, only six of the tweets were from six actual people and that the messages were all identical.

“The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots,” his office said.

Then, in a press release issued by Stockman, he writes, “The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots.”

• They all use the default “egg” avatar.
• They have account names resembling names automatically suggested by Twitter.
• They have engaged in no human interaction.
• They have tweeted almost nothing promotional, sponsored messages pushing real estates websites and other liberal “grassroots” campaigns.
• They follow mostly MSNBC anchors or media outlets, not actual people.

His press release went on to point out, “Reporter Robert Stacy McCain’s investigation of the fraudulent Obama campaign, available at www.theothermccain.com, finds the majority of the Obama-supporting accounts were created in less than 48 hours before contacting members of Congress.”

“Even more interesting, Stockman staff find two accounts happened to tweet Stockman back-to-back,” the press release continued. “Both have only one follower, former Obama digital strategist Brad Schenck. Schenck somehow found and followed them before they ever tweeted anything, followed anyone or followed any real people. Of the six real people who contacted Stockman only one can be verified as a constituent. One lives outside the district and the remaining four do not list where they live.”

“If you are a real person who contacted us about your support for the President’s anti-gun campaign, we are listening. We do not agree with you, but we appreciate your sincere opinions and encourage you to continue to contact us,” said Stockman. “But the vast majority of the President’s supporters have no feelings because they fake profiles from spammers.”

“The White House has some explaining to do. My own staff, and others looking into Obama’s Twitter campaign, find the vast majority of messages are coming from fraudulent accounts. Some of these accounts are linked directly to a former Obama staffer. To what extent is the White House involved in this attempt to defraud Congress,” said Stockman.

Stockman ultimately said that the Obama anti-gun campaign was “using the same scam techniques that sell male enhancement pills.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘lies’

No Worries

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/10/worries-1/#xk67h7S8JWvmGZZa.99

Share this:

Written by Pat Henry on October 5, 2014

“You can keep your current health insurance plan”

“The AHCA will reduce premiums by $2500”

“Not even a smidgeon of corruption” – to Bill O’Reilly when asked about the IRS scandal

Benghazi violence was caused by an internet video & demonstrations – maintained despite the fact that the White House knew, and had been warned, that it was a terrorist attack, and in fact had a live TV feed from a drone during the attack.

“My budget will cut the deficit by $4 Trillion over 10 years”

This is a basic tenet of public health. In this case, the West African nations know that quarantine (isolation) is necessary to prevent the spread of disease and untold sickness and death, and are doing it themselves.

Their response to anything depends entirely on how that response fits into their agenda and how they think it will affect the welfare of the democrat party. For this administration, open borders for more democrat voters trumps public health and possible the worst pandemic in history.

Share this:

by Wynton Hall 29 Sep 2014

A new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) report reveals that President Barack Obama has attended only 42.1% of his daily intelligence briefings (known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) in the 2,079 days of his presidency through September 29, 2014.

Share this:

By

Howard oplowitz@howardkoplowitzh.koplowitz@ibtimes.com

on September 29 2014

Share this:

Written by Pete Parker on September 22, 2014

And that makes him more lethal than Islam.

Share this:

Obama Promises

Posted on September 22, 2014

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/09/obama-promises/#DGXEFAJOvHe4kmBS.99

Share this:

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/dereliction-of-duty-obamas-worst-scandal/#RqgKduCfwQvQp0Qw.99

Andrew McCarthy reveals which presidential outrage tops them all

“Yes, dereliction of duty is one of the more profound impeachable offenses,” he succinctly replied.

It also found “the State Department’s local militia ‘security’ feared for their own safety and wouldn’t even show up to provide necessary protection.”

Clinton, together with then-CIA Director David H. Petraeus, were the architects of a plan to arm the Libyan and Syrian rebels.

The compound itself was deliberately set up with minimal security so as not to attract attention to what the author reports were secretive activities taking place inside the mission, activities for which Clinton herself was a central player.

Clinton’s claim that the intelligence community believed the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video” is called into question by numerous revelations.

Clinton placed the blame for the controversial talking points squarely with the CIA without mentioning the State Department contributed to the manufacturing of the points.

Clinton wrongly wrote that the closest U.S. Special Forces that could have responded to the attacks were “standing by in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, but they would take several hours to muster and were more than five thousand miles away.”

Kennedy also denied permission to build guard towers at the Benghazi mission and approved the withdrawal of a security support team, or SST, that special U.S. forces specifically maintained for counter-attacks on U.S. embassies or threats against diplomatic personnel.

Clinton’s contention she was not informed of the general nature of security at the Benghazi facility, even though she was known to have taken a particular interest in the compound.

Share this:

Published September 12, 2014

Share this:

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/7235/obama-claims-isis-is-not-islamic/#WUzUejcqgBxKhuYP.99

Posted on September 11, 2014 by

“I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.” – P.D. James

Share this:

Just Wrong

Share this:

July 18, 2014 – 10:23 AM

By Abigail Wilkinson

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June, there are 9.5 million unemployed Americans.

Share this:

Written by Steve Bowers on July 24, 2014

Sen. Harry Reid insists the border is safe. So, is his word enough?

Share this:

Liar’s Den

Posted on June 26, 2014

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/06/liars-den/#i8VJ2CEQMcqhMDed.99

Share this:

Stunning: DHS solicited bids for vendor to handle 65,000 unaccompanied minors — IN JANUARY!

By Thomas Lifson

Not just any contract mind you, but a very specific contract – for a very specific number of unaccompanied minors: 65,000.

Link to the ad here.

Share this:

Published June 19, 2014

1. Islamist militants gaining in Iraq

2. Russia’s intervention in Ukraine

3. NSA spying on foreign leaders

4. VA waiting list scandal

5. IRS targeting scandal

6. HealthCare.gov failing

7. DOJ obtaining AP phone records

8. Fast and Furious scandal

9. Air Force One flyover in Manhattan

Share this:

Lerner’s Best Friend

Share this:

Poignant = poign·ant [ póynyənt ]

causing sadness or pity: causing a sharp sense of sadness, pity, or regret

sharply perceptive: particularly penetrating and effective or relevant

Howard oplowitz @howardkoplowitzh.koplowitz@ibtimes.com