Archive for Barack Pinocchio Obama

Taking it up the Anecdote

ObamaCare’s broken promises and deliberate lies are not news, not after three years of relentless repetition and reiteration. [Link fixed]

But stories of individuals shafted by the “Affordable” (ha!) “Care” (ha-ha!) [Lewd] Act never get old:

ObamaCare has hit people like me the hardest. I left a desk job at The Post to dedicate my time to teaching yoga and developing a career in health and wellness (the irony of sacrificing my health insurance for this is not lost on me).

I’m teaching on a freelance basis. My husband is also a full-time freelancer, or a “perma-lance,” if you will. Our household income puts us just barely in the lower-middle-class bracket.

And we will end up paying top dollar to have any type of insurance.

So we’ve decided we’re just going to pay the Affordable Care Act’s individual-mandate penalty: 2 percent of household income or $325 per person, whichever is more (of course).

Paying this and paying cash individually for whatever services we require is still far cheaper than buying a health-insurance plan.

But Nancy Pelosi said:

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or, eh, a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance, or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risk but not [be] job-locked because a child has asthma or someone in the family is bipolar. You name it. Any condition is job-blocking.

Is our yoga instructor bipolar? No? How about an asthmatic kid? Too bad.

We don’t have to imagine such an “economy”, Nancy—we’ve got it, good and hard:

I explained all this to the kind and concerned doctor, and worried that he would judge me for making such a careless decision.

Instead, with an air of frustrated resignation, he responded, “I wish I could record your story and play it for people who think that ObamaCare is the answer.”

He knows that many people like me are, for lack of a better word, getting screwed, and he’s been forced to watch the landscape change, powerless against the burdensome new rules and regulations driving his patients away from health insurance.

Some people will read this and say I’ve gotten into this situation because I chose to live this way, and I left my full-time corporate job when I didn’t really need to. I wasn’t fired or laid off.

But that misses the point. I’m unwilling to sacrifice my passion for a benefits package.

I refuse to let the government stand between myself and my goals. Ideally, they’d support my freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness — instead of penalizing me for it, which is what they’re doing instead.

Poetry. Pure poetry. Thanks for sharing. I only want to ask if she and her husband voted of Obama—but as she’s a freelance yoga instructor living in Brooklyn, I think I have my answer.

PS: If you’ll permit me, here’s the latest ObamaCare lie:

They are only four words in a 900-page law: “established by the state.”

But it is in the ambiguity of those four words in the Affordable Care Act that opponents found a path to challenge the law, all the way to the Supreme Court.

How those words became the most contentious part of President Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment has been a mystery. Who wrote them, and why?

Some described the words as “inadvertent,” “inartful” or “a drafting error.”

“I don’t ever recall any distinction between federal and state exchanges in terms of the availability of subsidies,” said Olympia J. Snowe, a former Republican senator from Maine who helped write the Finance Committee version of the bill.

“It was never part of our conversations at any point,” said Ms. Snowe, who voted against the final version of the Senate bill. “Why would we have wanted to deny people subsidies? It was not their fault if their state did not set up an exchange.” The four words, she said, were perhaps “inadvertent language,” adding, “I don’t know how else to explain it.”

Former Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said there may have been “some sloppiness in the drafting” of the bill. Mr. Bingaman, who was a member of both committees that developed the measure, said he was surprised that the lawsuit had reached the Supreme Court because the words in dispute appeared to be a “drafting error.”

“As far as I know, it escaped everyone’s attention, or it would have been deleted, because it clearly contradicted the main purpose of the legislation,” Mr. Bingaman said. He added, “In all the discussion in the committees and on the floor, I didn’t ever hear anybody suggest that this kind of distinction between federal and state exchanges was in the bill.”

Oh, what a tangled web we weave:

Was I living in an alternate reality when multiple videos surfaced of ObamaCare architect Jon Gruber arguing several years ago that, in fact, the drafters always intended to limit subsidies to state-exchange consumers? Gruber, a guy who’s boasted about having helped to write ObamaCare, was himself under the impression that federal exchange consumers wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies by design, in order to put pressure on holdout states to build their own exchanges.

There are lies, damned lies, and ObamaCare. And there’s a sucker born in Brooklyn every minute.

Comments

Where’s My $2,500?

He promised me if we passed Obamacare, we’d save $2,500. He prom…oh right.

Fool me twice, shame on me:

Major insurers in some states are proposing hefty rate boosts for plans sold under the federal health law, setting the stage for an intense debate this summer over the law’s impact.

In New Mexico, market leader Health Care Service Corp. is asking for an average jump of 51.6% in premiums for 2016. The biggest insurer in Tennessee, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, has requested an average 36.3% increase. In Maryland, market leader CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to raise rates 30.4% across its products. Moda Health, the largest insurer on the Oregon health exchange, seeks an average boost of around 25%.

All of them cite high medical costs incurred by people newly enrolled under the Affordable Care Act.

Imagine that. Adding sick people to the rolls of the insured costs healthy people money. Just the opposite of what he promised. If Obama didn’t have bad luck, he’d have no luck at all.

Say, shouldn’t they try to cover up this unfortunate turn of events with a bogus story to distract us?

Now you’re thinking like a Democrat:

Democrats call it “underinsurance.”

After paying premiums, many low- and middle-income patients still face high costs when trying to use their coverage. There’s growing concern that the value of a health insurance card is being eaten away by rising deductibles, the amount of actual medical costs that patients pay each year before coverage kicks in.

“I think it’s going to be the next big problem,” said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., a congressional leader on health care.

“We’ve got some 17 million more people covered … but they can’t access the care they seem to be entitled to,” McDermott said. “It costs too much to use the care. That’s the deceptive part about it.”

ObamaCare, deceptive? Hush yo’ mouth! Just because it’s driving up prices insanely, in direct contradiction of his repeated promises, is no reason to call the man a two-faced, forked tongue liar.

Democrats need an election-year health care narrative about how to improve Obama’s law, said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

That’s more like it. Democrats need “narratives”.

Comments

You Lie!

Wow. How’d I miss this?

A federal judge sharply scolded a Justice Department attorney at a hearing on President Obama’s immigration executive actions, suggesting that the administration misled him on a key part of the program — and that he fell for it, “like an idiot.”

The testy court hearing was held Thursday in Texas by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. The judge suggested he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds they indeed misrepresented the facts.

Hanen chided Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to one key part of Obama’s actions, an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, until Feb. 18.

“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted.

“We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.

Hartnett continued to insist that the 108,081 reprieves had been granted under 2012 guidelines, which were not stopped by the injunction, and that government attorneys hadn’t properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action.

But Hanen pointed out that the 2012 guidelines only granted two-year reprieves and that three-year reprieves are being proposed under the program now on hold.

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

Yes it is. It’s one we’ve all been asking lately.

The states asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions because Justice Department attorneys had made “representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming,” said Angela Colmenero, a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General’s Office, the lead attorney for the states.

Colmenero said the three-year reprieves that were granted might have caused the states economic harm as the states may have already issued various benefits, including driver’s licenses, to immigrants who received a reprieve.

“There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here,” Hartnett said. “The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing.”

Hanen said he would issue a ruling “promptly” on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

Squeeze ’em till they squeal, your Honor!

Comments

Must-See TV

This will take an excruciaitng 1:04 of your life, but the last :08 will make it all worthwhile. I promise.

See?

Comments

Thirstradamus Strikes Again

BTL’s Obama: “I found out when you did.”

Obama’s Obama:

President Barack Obama said he first learned through news reports that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a personal e-mail account for official business.

This doesn’t exactly make me Kreskin-on-Charles. It’s the same lame-ass excuse he always uses. And he will continue to use it—scandal after scandal—until the media won’t buy it anymore. Which is to say, it’s still got legs.

You’d almost believe his presidency is happening to someone else. He just keeps finding out about these things—the IRS, the VA, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Hillary—like we do, on the evening news.

Pity he never noticed the return address on Hillary’s emails. That might have been a clue.

Comments (1)

So Gay

I’ve often boasted that I “evolved” on gay marriage long before Obama did.

But you know what? He was lying.

“We news this all along,” Savage, a well-known columnist on gay issues, said. “We joked — I wrote at the time when the president was opposed to marriage equality during the campaign, and in his first term, that he was going to pretend to oppose marriage equality and we would pretend to believe him, those of us who are activists, and we would hold his feet to the fire.”

Savage said “nobody” in the gay community believed Obama when he went from being in favor of gay marriage early in his political career to opposing it during the 2008 election and then being pro gay marriage again prior to the 2012 election.

“Nobody I think in the LGBT civil rights movement believed him when he went from being pro marriage equality in 1996 to oppose to for it again,” Savage said.

John Kerry, yes; Barack Obama, no.

But you know what else? They’re cool with being lied to:

“It was useful political theater,” Savage said. “I agree with David Axelrod and the president that the country wasn’t ready in 2008 for a ticket of a national candidate who supported marriage equality. And by pragmatically making this choice to jettison his support for marriage equality the president managed to bring the country along by making his discomfort with the political calculation he clearly made part of the drama and part of the performance of his office and it benefited LGBT people in this country tremendously.”

Who hasn’t lied for sex? And by extension, who hasn’t lied about sex for votes?

I just didn’t realize gays were so easy. If I had known in college…well, never mind. Too late now.

So, when he said in 2008:

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”

Was he referring to the Second Amendment? I’ve heard of gay-dar, but do they also hear frequencies we breeders don’t hear? And why were you so cool with him lying to you year after year?

Until he needed your votes in 2012?

Obama, a consistent supporter of civil rights for gay couples, nevertheless said as early as 2004 and through 2008 that he didn’t support same-sex marriage. He had written that he believed “that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman.” In 2010, he said he wasn’t prepared to reverse himself. This week, the president said he thinks same-sex couples should be able to get married. On the Flip-O-Meter, he earns a Full Flop.

I support gay marriage, and have as long as I knew gay people wanted to marry. But no one’s going to marry someone who gives it away for free. Why buy the cow when you get the milk for nothing? Think, sluts!

Comments

You Lie!

Yesterday, we defended Mitt Romney from disgraceful charges of racism in his concession call to Obama in 2012.

We shouldn’t have bothered:

Garrett Jackson, the Romney aide whose phone Romney actually used to call the president that night, exclusively told The Daily Caller that “I know it didn’t happen because I was right next to him there.”

The New York Daily News reported Wednesday on a shocking claim in Axelrod’s new book. According to Axelrod, Obama told Axelrod after the call that Romney said, “You really did a great job of getting the vote out in places like Cleveland and Milwaukee.” Obama, allegedly angry, thought that Romney was referring to “black people.”

But Axelrod’s claim is nonsense.

“I just got pissed off. It was infuriating,” Jackson told The Daily Caller. “It was totally absurd. I know it didn’t happen because I was right next to him there. Hell, I was the one who called the president on my phone.”

“I was with the [Romney] family all night. We were looking at state results. We never got down to the nitty-gritty of cities, so for Mitt to bring that up when talking to the president is absurd and not who he is.”

“I’m just hopeful that this lie was concocted by Axelrod and not the president,” Jackson said. “Axelrod, the guy is obviously just trying to make some money on his book.”

“We walk with Mitt into the side room off the suite. I called Marvin and said is his boss available? I hand the phone to Mitt. It was a quick call. He said, ‘Congratulations to you Mr. President and your team on a hard-fought victory.’ There was a pause. Mitt didn’t have him on speaker phone. It was brief whatever [Obama] told him. Mitt responded, ‘I know there are some hard decisions ahead and some tough issues facing the country. I’m here to help in any way because it’s very important.’ The president had a quick response to that. Mitt said, ‘Ann and I are praying for you and the First Lady daily.’”

“I remember it so vividly,” Jackson said. “I knew I was witnessing a historic moment.”

“I guess we shouldn’t expect anything less from David Axelrod,” Jackson added. “The obsession that Barack Obama and his team have with Mitt Romney just fascinates me. Here we are two years away from the campaign and Axelrod is still coming out with lies that distort who Mitt Romney is? It’s sad in my opinion.”

Even if Romney had said what Axelrod (or Obama) dishonestly claimed, so what? He credited his opponent for getting out the vote in two close swing states. He didn’t say “black people”; that’s Obama’s (or Axelrod’s) interpolation.

But it’s all a lie. Another in a long, long line.

Comments

A Mole at the SOTU

Did you hear about the Republican operative who crashed the SOTU?

It’s true:

Seven years ago, Rebekah and Ben Erler of Minneapolis were newlyweds. (Laughter.) She waited tables. He worked construction. Their first child, Jack, was on the way. They were young and in love in America. And it doesn’t get much better than that. “If only we had known,” Rebekah wrote to me last spring, “what was about to happen to the housing and construction market.”

As the crisis worsened, Ben’s business dried up, so he took what jobs he could find, even if they kept him on the road for long stretches of time. Rebekah took out student loans and enrolled in community college, and retrained for a new career. They sacrificed for each other. And slowly, it paid off. They bought their first home. They had a second son, Henry. Rebekah got a better job and then a raise. Ben is back in construction — and home for dinner every night.

“It is amazing,” Rebekah wrote, “what you can bounce back from when you have to…we are a strong, tight-knit family who has made it through some very, very hard times.” We are a strong, tight-knit family who has made it through some very, very hard times.

A mom (female) and a dad (male), both working and successful, without benefit of government handouts. Who wrote that, Dan Quayle? It sure as hell wasn’t Obama’s composite perfect woman, Julia. I don’t know if Rebekah Erler is rock-ribbed or not, but she’s a Republican.

Except she’s not:

The woman whose story of economic recovery was showcased by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address is a former Democratic campaign staffer and has been used by Obama for political events in the past.

Unmentioned in the White House bio of Erler is that she is a former Democratic campaign operative, working as a field organizer for Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.).

This also wasn’t the first time the White House used the former Democratic campaign staffer as a political prop. Obama spent a “day in the life” of Erler in June so that he could have “an opportunity to communicate directly with the people he’s working for every day.”

Reuters revealed Erler’s Democratic affiliations following that June event, and the Minnesota Republican Party attacked Obama for being “so out of touch with reality that he thinks a former Democrat campaign staffer speaks for every Minnesotan.”

Shame on Patty Murray paying slave wages to her female employees. I hope little Jack and Henry never went to bed hungry because Murray (D., WA) chintzed out on paying Rebekah a decent wage. If that experience wasn’t enough to turn her into a Republican, nothing will.

Even Michelle seemed pretty annoyed at the whole charade:

Comments

With a Friend Like Him, Who Needs an Enemy?

As part of his pandering to “the middle class”, Obama touted the “success” of his “health care” plan (odd, then, that it is administered by the IRS):

[I]n the past year alone, about 10 million uninsured Americans finally gained the security of health coverage. (Applause.)

At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious; that we would crush jobs and explode deficits. Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health care inflation at its lowest rate in 50 years. (Applause.) This is good news, people. (Laughter and applause.)

Lying sack of s**t (Laughter, applause, thunderous ovation, tears of joy, rending of garments):

At first glance, Colorado would seem to be one of the federal health law’s clearest success stories, offering nearly 200 plans and average premiums nearly unchanged in the coming year.

But zoom in closer, and it is clear that a kind of pricing pandemonium is underway, one that offers a case study of the ambitions and limits of the Affordable Care Act during this second year of enrollment.

An analysis by The New York Times shows, for example, that the cost of one midlevel silver plan in Colorado rose 36 percent west of the Rocky Mountains this year, while another dropped nearly 40 percent in the northeastern plains.

The wild disparity in prices results from many insurers trying to attract more customers by pricing plans as low as they can. But it is not at all clear that the low prices will be sustainable, so prices may well swing sharply upward as time goes on. Nationwide, some of the plans that offered the least expensive prices for 2014 raised premiums sharply for coverage this year. One insurer, CoOportunity Health, has been taken over by state regulators because of losses.

Shouldn’t that be called “predatory insuring”? Offering a deal to lure a customer in and then whack up the rates the next year when they can’t get out? Where’s Lizbeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Bureau?

And while she uses her advanced Native American tracking skills, maybe she can follow this trail:

When you apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, dozens of data companies may be able to tell that you are on the site. Some can even glean details such as your age, income, ZIP code, whether you smoke or if you are pregnant.

The data firms have embedded connections on the government site. Ever-evolving technology allows for individual Internet users to be tracked, building profiles that are a vital tool for advertisers.

Connections to multiple third-party tech firms were documented by technology experts who analyzed HealthCare.gov, and confirmed by The Associated Press.

“As I look at vendors on a website…they could be another potential point of failure,” said corporate cybersecurity consultant Theresa Payton. “Vendor management can often be the weakest link in your privacy and security chain.”

Where’s the “health care” in an act that exposes your personal information, may bankrupt you, and is enforced by the T-men from the IRS? Not only can you not keep your doctor, you can’t keep your Social Security number!

Comments

Diego Rivera Could Not Be Reached for Comment

About a year and a half ago, President Obama went to Mexico and blasted the US media for printing unflattering “sensational headlines” about such an advanced and civilized country (hence my tiresome series on the pervasive and persistent violence in Mexican society, “Sensational Headline Watch”).

I guess whatever he was smoking then, the Mexican president did not see fit to bring to the White House yesterday:

While critics protested outside the White House, President Barack Obama pledged to help Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto “eliminate the scourge and violence of drug cartels” like that suspected in the disappearance of 43 Mexican students.

Peña Nieto made his first visit to Washington Tuesday, accompanied by several Cabinet members, to tout his economic reforms such as the opening of the its oil and gas industry to private investment.

But his legislative feats have been overshadowed by the violence against 43 students, some whose bodies were said to have been later incinerated, and criticism of how his administration has handled the investigation of the students’ disappearance.

Mexican federal agents have arrested dozens of people, including the mayor of Iguala, Mexico, his wife and police. Detainees confessed they murdered the 43 kidnapped students and burned their bodies. But, the victims’ families have demanded more evidence, and that the students be found.

Yeah, they’ll find ’em right after they bring back the Chibok girls. Don’t you worry about that.

Want to see a scourge or two?

New recruits to a vicious Mexican drug cartel were forced to eat the hearts of murder victims in a twisted scheme to prove their loyalty, officials said.

Hopefuls who wanted to join La Familia Michoacana were reportedly fed the internal organs during gruesome initiation ceremonies designed to roof out infiltrators or other disloyal elements.

Witnesses told government security bosses how La Familia, and offshoot an offshoot group called the Knights Templar, would also sometimes force potential cartel members to dismember victims while they were still alive.

Whoa. What would Octavio Paz say about that?

I’ll tell you what Frida Kahlo would say: string ’em up.

An accused thief was beaten to death by a mob in central Mexico after the furious crowd caught him and three accomplices, including a pregnant woman and a teenager, robbing a home.

A crowd of some 100 people discovered the four allegedly robbing electronics at a home in the town of Tehuacan, in the state of Puebla.

The residents seized the four — two men, a male teenager one woman said to be pregnant — and stripped them.

The woman, who said she was pregnant, was ‘struck in the face’ while the teenager was tied by his hands and feet and beat up, local reports say.

He suffered wounds to his abdomen, legs, back and head.

‘We warned them of what would happen if they returned to rob from us,’ local neighbors, who said they were tired of thieves after a recent string of robberies, told local newspaper Excelsior.

Naturally, I deplore this behavior. It will only drive the robbers to jump the border and come here, where we reward them with driver’s licenses. I don’t care how badly run most DMVs and RMVs are: they beat a lynching.

Some of them.

Comments

Amnesty National

As we noted yesterday, Obama wants to forgive the trespassers of yesteryear—all five million of them—for breaking various laws (immigration/visa violations, forgery/ID fraud, tax evasion, etc.) in favor of going after the lawbreakers of today.

Go get ’em, tiger!

After six months of requests, Local 2 Investigates received information regarding the status of thousands of unaccompanied children and families caught illegally crossing the southern border over the summer and fall.

Total numbers are not yet available. The information provided to Local 2 by officials with the Executive Office of Immigration Review deal with those caught crossing the border between July 18 and Oct. 28 of this year.

Thousands of families from Central America caught crossing the border had to be released on their own recognizance because there wasn’t enough detention space. All were ordered to appear before an immigration judge at a later date.

According to the EOIR, of the 30,467 families and unaccompanied children caught crossing the border between July and October, only 22 percent have received a final disposition as to whether they will be allowed to stay in the U.S. or be deported.

Of the 15,614 families caught crossing the border, but not detained, 4,197 have been ordered removed from the U.S. However, 96 percent of those removal orders were done “in absentia.”

The EOIR states an “in absentia” order is done when a person fails to show in immigration court.

If I have this right, the courts ordered the deportation of 4,197 families, but only 167 families actually showed up to hear their fates decided. The other 4,030 vamoosed. Took a powder. Went on the lam. Perhaps they were busy “worship[ing] at our churches”, as Obama claimed they do. Whatever they were doing, they weren’t “get[ting] right with the law”.

Obama also said, “And let’s be honest -– tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic. Anyone who suggests otherwise isn’t being straight with you.”

And thousands? Are thousands possible? Hundreds? Scores? Dozens? A few? One?

He also said this:

[W]e’ll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings, and speed the return of those who do cross over.

This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future.

If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.

Will Obama wield his phone or pen—even just flap his gums in “executive action”—to enforce the law on just one of these border jumpers? Rhetorical question, of course. I have the unfriendly habit of actually quoting Obama’s insincere palaver back to him. Maybe it’ll be my New Year’s resolution to stop. Right after I learn Albanian.

Comments

Lying Cuz He Feels Like It

President Obama thinks Sony “acted stupidly” in pulling The Interview from distribution.

Wonder where they got the idea?

[Sony Pictures CEO Michael] Lynton reacted to Obama’s comment that he wished Sony had reached out to them. “We definitely spoke to a senior advisor in the White House to talk about the situation. The fact is, did we talk to the president himself? … The White House was certainly aware of the situation.”

A simple misunderstanding, I’m sure. Perhaps a follow-up question to clear things up, Mr. President?

Sir?

Sir?!!

Vacationing in Hawaii, where the president was born and spent much of his childhood, has been a tradition every year that Obama has been in the White House. This year, the trip comes as Obama closes out a chaotic sixth year in office on something of a high note.

Lofty aspirations to overhaul immigration laws, early childhood education and U.S. wages were scuttled by stubborn opposition to Obama’s agenda in Congress, and on his watch, Democrats took a drubbing in the midterm elections that will relegate them to the minority in Congress for Obama’s last two years. Crises erupted in Ukraine, the Middle East and West Africa, diverting Obama’s attention time and again.

Yet as Obama packed his bags for Hawaii, he appeared buoyed by what he had managed to accomplish on other fronts, including the resumption of relations with Cuba last week after a half-century of antagonism. In his year-end news conference Friday, Obama said he felt energized, citing signs of major progress in the economic recovery and his recent executive actions on immigration and climate change.

A high note? An unlawful amnesty and a fraudulent “climate” “treaty” are hardly high notes. Discordant more like. A pity about those pesky crises diverting Obama’s attention time and again. You try sinking a six-foot, right-to-left breaking putt with the Crimea under the Russian boot.

As for Cuba, I’m pleased Alan Gross is a free man, but at the cost of several prisoners of our own and diplomatic recognition, just don’t tell me we don’t negotiate with terrorists when we just did. And lost the deal.

That would just be another in a long, long, long line of lies from this most corrupt of administrations (see above).

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »