Lies, Liars & Libs

Read Full Post »

Why Obama Sent No Rescue: Benghazi Lasted ‘8 Hours’ But Was ‘Over in … 30 Minutes’

None of the Team Obama’s stories add up because they’re lying to us.

(CNSNews.com) – The chairman and the vice chairman of the State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, made dramatically different statements on Wednesday about the duration of those attacks that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

The relevant duration of the event shrunk from “almost eight hours” to “only about 20 or 30 minutes” when a reporter asked this “accountability” team why the U.S. military had not been sent to Benghazi to help that night.

During his opening statement at a State Department briefing, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who chaired the ARB, said the terrorist attacks occurred over a span of almost eight hours.

“What happened on September 11th and 12th in Benghazi was a series of attacks in multiple locations by unknown assailants that ebbed and flowed over a period of almost eight hours,” Pickering volunteered.

About 20 minutes later in the same briefing, as Ambassador Pickering nodded his head in agreement, retired Admiral Michael Mullen, the vice chairman of the ARB, put the Benghazi terror event in a very different timeframe. He said it lasted only about 20 or 30 minutes.

Mullen, who formerly served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was responding to a reporter who had asked why the U.S. military never became involved.

“Why such a passing reference to military involvement?” the reporter asked. “Can you explain why they couldn’t have done more?”

“We looked at the force posture very specifically, and while we had a lot of forces in Europe both at sea and on land, it is not reasonable that they could have responded … in any kind of timely way,” said Mullen. “This was over in a matter of about 20 or 30 minutes with respect to the Special Mission specifically. And we had no forces ready or tethered, if you will, focused on that mission so that they could respond, nor would I expect we would have.”

Mullen not only narrowed the length of the terror attack to 20 or 30 minutes, but also defined it as only those events at the “Special Mission” compound, which was the State Department’s facility in Benghazi.

However, a CIA timeline of the Sept. 11 events, which was provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official, and which generally comports with the description of events in the ARB’s own report, shows that about one hour and fifty minutes elapsed between the time the State Department’s “Special Mission” compound first came under attack and the moment when a rescue team from the nearby CIA “Annex” was able to extract the surviving U.S. personnel from that mission.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Gallup: Liberal Media Distrust Hits Record High

Think lying about what’s really happening has anything to do with it?

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.

 

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Robert Gibbs Gets Lit Up Over The Administration’s Stance On Taxes At Today’s WH Press Briefing (Video)

Read Full Post »

Progressive Pundits Opine “Primary Results Prove No Rise in Conservatism.”

Snidely Whiplash

Yesterday’s primary elections in a few states results are in. And along with the electoral results we get the inevitable – mainstream media rushing from their lairs to assure we citizens that “all is well; Republican’s nut busted, nothing to see here.” (paraphrased) For the sake of this article I will not quote any specific source – there are way too many of them to bother. Rest assured the talking points follow a predictable pattern.

Every newsroom in the lower 48 is busy as little bees – gee, I so admire hard work and stick-to-it-ness, and by golly if them mainstream media types aren’t trying their best to carry the partisan water. This effort by MSM is not an honest one – not by a long shot.

Personally I never put any stock in primary elections anyway. Reality is many folks voting in a primary are voting as much against an unattractive candidate as voting for an attractive one. The Sestak beating of Arlen Specter is a bell weather though, and clearly the Obama endorsed Specter was completely rejected, ya know, like in VA and NJ governor races as well as the Mass. special election for Kennedy’s seat – ya know, the one won by REPUBLICANS, despite that it had been a Democrat seat since Christ was last here?

Remember them? The specific Obama endorsed candidate was spanked every time. Are progressives grasping this? You betcha they are, hence the MSM and their “Yeah, nothing to see here folks,” mantra coming from them.

Every MSM source is wall-to-wall “The Murtha seat was kept by a Democrat and a Murtha confidant, so clearly the Democrats are fine.” Ahhhh, not so much. For the facts, the Murtha seat was indeed kept by a Murtha confidant, a Democrat for sure. So what does that mean?

To continue reading Shidely’s article, please click the link here.

Read Full Post »

Democrats using Revisionist History in comparing Arizona’s Illegal Immigration bill to Jim Crow and Apartheid

Racism is the claim when winning a debate against a Liberal/Progressive

Leave it up to Democrats to use revisionist history in attempts to tie Arizona’s anti-Illegal Immigration law to Jim Crow laws and Apartheid. Democrats have used this type of history for years to trick those who are to lazy to research true history themselves.

Jim Crow laws and Apartheid have nothing to do with the Illegal Immigration issues at all. It’s like comparing night and day and saying both are the same. They’re not.

Jim Crow laws were used to segregate Whites from Blacks in many areas of life. What party was founded on a pro-slavery platform? Who was the party that supported and enforced these laws from 1876 to 1965? What party voted against the passing of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, not to mention voting against every single piece of civil rights legislation up until 1965? The Democratic Party!

Now we have Black Democrats trying to link the Civil Rights movement to Illegal Immigration. Let’s break this nonsense down. Black Americans were denied civil rights based on their skin color. They are Americans and I don’t recall history telling us that they jumped the border to enter the US ILLEGALLY.

Politico reports:

Black lawmakers are comparing Arizona’s tough immigration law to Jim Crow laws and apartheid South Africa, arguing that the federal government needs to step in with comprehensive immigration reform.

 The law raises “many of the issues we had to deal with during the civil rights struggle,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. “It harkens back to the era of Jim Crow or apartheid in South Africa,” she said.

 “It is akin to apartheid,” said Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), who is black. “We’re going to fight to bring comprehensive immigration legislation up for debate on the floor as soon as we can. … This is not just a Latino issue.”

The Arizona law allows law enforcement to ask ILLEGALS IMMIGRANTS for documentation (like a driver’s license, passport or…GREEN CARD) that shows their proof of citizenship… only if they have reasonable suspicion. The law, which I’m sure these Democrats read (because they read all laws…even the ones they pass) prohibits the use of racial profiling and the Police do not walk up to someone crossing the street to get Ice Cream (as our feckless President claims) and demand to see their ‘papers.’

Just another example of Democrats using two things they love. Revisionist history and the race card. Claiming the issue of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is in the same breath like the Civil Rights movement is shameful and a weak attempt to use identity politics.

Identity politics is another firebrand Democrats are prone to use.

Revisionist history scholar

Read Full Post »

Pelosi: ‘A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes’

Progressive nitwits!

Hey Nancy, the village called and they want you to return. The idiot savant of the House informed people that Botox can severely damage brain cells. Pelosi said a bill can be “bipartisan without bipartisan votes.” Hello, village idiot, if nobody from the other party votes on your bill…it has no bipartisan support.

The Hill reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that Republicans have left their mark on the healthcare bill and should accept that the bill will go forward.

“They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”

Pelosi has lied as much as Obama about ObamaCare. Now the Botox-bitch lies about the definition of bipartisan. These are the some folks who want to take control of the US health care system, which makes up 1/6th of our economy. How is the economy looking these days? Imagine these progressive liars in charge of your personal health care.

Read Full Post »

Dems Reject Abortion Ban Legislation

Democrats are pro-slavery and pro-abortion. Nothing ever changes

Obama knew from the get-go that abortion coverage would be included in “his” health care takeover scheme. I know, Obama promised that abortions would not be funded under “his” plan. If this was the truth, why did the Democratic Party, which he leads, reject the abortion ban legislation?

The Hill reports:

Senators voted to table a measure from Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Pa.) that would have banned the government from offering insurance plans in a national healthcare exchange that cover abortion.

The amendment, which needed 60 votes to pass and was not expected to be adopted, was tabled in a 54-45 vote.

The provision, which mirrored restrictions in the House’s healthcare bill authored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Neb.), had been offered in part to win over Nelson, who’d previously warned he’d join a filibuster of the healthcare bill if it didn’t contain sufficient protections against federal support for abortion.

The Dems lost 7 of their own members, who tend to be more pro-life, and conservative, on the abortion issue. Democrats tend to believe abortion is a right and want others to pay for their “mistakes.” Listen to Obama’s own words in this video:

A baby is “punishment” in the eyes of Liberals/Progressives. They enjoy having fun making these “mistakes” but then want taxpayers to pay for their abortions. That’s why we are having these heated health care debates. Democrats want the taxpayers to pay for the mistakes made by those who are like them…the unresponsible. Why should they be forced to be responsible for their decisions and actions? In their liberal minds, they want it all for free at the expense of the responsible.

No matter how you spin it, Democrats love to kill babies. The unborn are nothing more than mistakes in a liberal’s eyes. Another responsibility dodged while expecting the productive taxpayers to fund their abortions. We all should hope that this crashes Obama’s health care takeover.

The Democrats are already breaking the law with the inclusion of abortions in the health care bill. The Hyde Amendment bars the use of federal funds for abortions. But then again, Democrats can’t read and do not care for the U.S. Constitution.

Read Full Post »

Cato Admits: ObamaCare Really Costs $6.25 Trillion (or somewhere in that neighborhood)

Democrats= "The Party of Liars"

Either Obama and the Democrats are lying or it simply must be everyone else. Even Democrat Howard Dean has admitted that ObamaCare will cost several trillions of dollars and the Dems are not being honest. Want better news?

Well, the libertarian think-tank, Cato, went through the ObamaCare bill and said the Dems are using gimmicks to keep the cost below the magic threshold of $900 billion…

One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019).  Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.”

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance.  When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax.  When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending.  But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending.  That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan.  And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs.  When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4). …

When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion.  That’s not a precise estimate.  It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be.

If this bill passes, the bill will be pushed down to the generations under us. The Democrats, lead by the proven liars like Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, know that this bill will cost more than the $849 billion price tag that was put on it. The purpose of this bill is to extend Medicaid, which just happens to be another multi-trillion dollar, unfunded, government-run program.

Libertarians, Republicans and Independents are all lying of course. The Democrats will say that everyone is racist, wants people to die in the streets and loves the insurance companies. They tend to say this often so they can continue telling their lies. We should call them the “Party of Liars,” because this is the only thing they have successfully accomplished since 2007.

Read Full Post »

Report: Pelosi’s Bill Would Reduce Senior Care

Trust me...I can read a teleprompter

Another report, from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, exposed more lies from Obama, Pelosi and Reid. When will this make Obama followers wake up and realize that he is nothing more than the typical, lying politician who speaks out of both sides of his mouth? Each and every claim these liberal/progressives have made are proven, time and time again, to be bold-faced lies.

The Washington Post reports:

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

The report also questions if the health care system could handle these new health care reform while adding an additional 30 million insured. Most of these new insured individuals would be in the Medicaid program. Something Obama, Pelosi and Reid failed to take into account while ramming this bill through at break-neck speeds is: “Where are we going to get enough doctors to cover all these new insured individuals?” The results are simple to figure out. Less doctors + more patients = rationed care.

This was a concern at the beginning of Obama’s health care takeover. After all the debates and town halls, we are still learing that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are flat-out liars. Time after time, these progressive libtards have had their claims shot down by the CBO and other independent reports.  

Will Obama call himself out? He made a promise to America that he would call out anyone who “misrepresent this plan.” Time to call yourself out, Obama. Be a man and stay true to your promise.

 

Read Full Post »