Archive for Liar

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

American Hero

Someone who read the bill.

“Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.”

And with the debate just getting underway, author Steven Brill, who has spent the past two years immersing himself in the subject, has come out with a new book, “America’s Bitter Pill,” that takes a comprehensive look at what the new law does and doesn’t do. Brill argues that Obamacare is the product of what he calls an “orgy of lobbying” and backroom deals in which just about everyone with a stake in the $3-trillion-a-year health industry came out ahead – except the taxpayers.

Steven Brill: Good news: More people are gonna get health care. Bad news: We have no way in the world that we’re gonna be able to pay for it.

Steven Brill says that the outrage is what the Affordable Care Act doesn’t do.

Steven Brill: It doesn’t do anything on medical malpractice reform. It doesn’t do anything to control drug prices. It doesn’t do anything to control hospital profits.

Lesley Stahl: So all the cost controlling side of this just went by the wayside?

Steven Brill: 99 percent of it.

Steven Brill: If you go after costs, you’re never going to get anything passed because the lobbyists will just not allow it to be passed.

But I thought lobbyists had no place in this administration. With only 65 exceptions:

There are, according to Post analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics, 65 current members of the Obama administration who at one point lobbied the federal government. Combined, they worked for over 500 years for firms that lobby the government — compared to the little over 320 years they have spent with the Obama administration.

If you do the math, the 65 lobbyists working for Obama have been doing so for an average of five years each. Which is nearly the entire duration of his administration at the time this article was published (August 2014). The lie was essentially a lie as he was saying it.

Which comes as no surprise, I’m sure.

None of this does. Jon Gruber already told us what a sham this was. And even he told us only what we already knew, what many had been saying (and we had been repeating) for years.

At least it finally made 60 Minutes. Mr. and Mrs. Low Information Voter might now have a clue why they’re so scrrewed.

Comments

Dying for One’s Art

Nothing will match the piping hot schadenfreude we enjoy at the affected outrage (“I say!”) of the Harvard professors, the crimson crackpots, faced with the reality of the ObamaCare they supported—still support—now that it’s taking a bite out of their spotty white behinds. (Can you tell how much we enjoy it?)

But this runs a close second:

Many in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it.

They are part of an unusual, informal health insurance system that has developed in New York, in which independent practitioners were able to get lower insurance rates through group plans, typically set up by their professional associations or chambers of commerce. That allowed them to avoid the sky-high rates in New York’s individual insurance market, historically among the most expensive in the country.

But under the Affordable Care Act, they will be treated as individuals, responsible for their own insurance policies. For many of them, that is likely to mean they will no longer have access to a wide network of doctors and a range of plans tailored to their needs. And many of them are finding that if they want to keep their premiums from rising, they will have to accept higher deductible and co-pay costs or inferior coverage.

Wait, what?

We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.

That was Nancy Pelosi almost five years ago. The Speaker of the House promised—she promised!—that you could sing Traviata and still have that bunion on your big toe looked at. But now, the “cultural elite” find “to their surprise” that she’s as much a liar as the Messiah is.

I’ve already written about karma this morning (see below), and I’m becoming a big fan.

It is an uncomfortable position for many members of the creative classes to be in.

“We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild. Her insurance is being canceled, and she is dismayed that neither her pediatrician nor her general practitioner appears to be on the exchange plans. What to do has become a hot topic on Facebook and at dinner parties frequented by her fellow writers and artists.

“I’m for it,” she said. “But what is the reality of it?”

The Buddha couldn’t have said it better himself.

PS: Oh, to have been a fly on the wall of those “dinner parties”! However did they digest their quinoa?

Comments (1)

¡Cuba Libre!

Well, ¡Cuba!, anyway:

Who and where are the 53 Cuban political prisoners that President Obama promised would be freed by Havana as part of a deal to liberate three convicted Cuban spies serving lengthy sentences in the U.S.?

I asked the State Department this last week. State referred me to the White House. White House officials declined to provide the list of names citing “concern that publicizing it would make it more difficult to ensure that Cuba follows through, and continues with further steps in the future.”

Bottom line: The U.S. government cannot confirm that they have been released and is not certain they’re going to be released, even though the three Cuban spies have already been returned.

A government official told me that keeping the names of the 53 quiet will give Cuba the opportunity to release them as a sovereign measure, rather than at the behest of the U.S., and that this could allow for additional releases.

In other words, the Castros are sensitive boys who throw despotic tantrums when their absolute power is questioned. Asking them to keep their word is apparently a trigger.

In other other words, the Castros have learned from the Iranian hermanos that you can string along this wet-behind-the-ears (and that’s some wet!) nincompoop for as long as you like, and he won’t mind. He seems to like it, in fact.

In the weeks since Mr. Obama’s rapprochement with Cuba, reports from the island say that more than 50 dissidents have been arrested, including the husband of the dissident blogger Yoani Sánchez. Most have been released but some remain in prison.

Don’t expect much outrage from Washington. Mr. Obama wouldn’t want to damage his newly reconciled relationship with the police state.

That’s a nice ending, but my favorite part was this, which is yet another example of Obama lying for the sake of lying:

[Obama’s] promise to review Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terror sounded like he had already made up his mind. “At a time when we are focused on threats from al Qaeda to ISIL, a nation that meets our conditions and renounces the use of terrorism should not face this sanction,” Mr. Obama said.

That would complete the concession trifecta. Cuba still supports the FARC, the Colombian terrorist group, it got caught in 2013 trying to smuggle weapons through the Panama Canal to North Korea, and credible intelligence analysts say Cuba has provided Venezuela the technology it needs to falsify identities for Middle East terrorists.

And Mexico is a sleepy little land of happy peasants and stubborn burros. Why peddle such obvious lies? Does he believe everything that comes out of his own mouth? That his saying it makes it so? What an odd, odd man.

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

#i’lllietoyou

We were among many who reported on the big-hearted, soft-headed response to Muslim terrorism in Sydney, Australia, under the hashtag illridewithyou.

As with “hands up, don’t shoot” and “I can’t breathe”, it either didn’t happen at all, or not as portrayed:

As news of the siege unfolded, I scrolled through updates on my phone, searching for the latest information. My brother works in the city of Sydney. My husband’s office is a government building near Martin Place. I knew all were safe and sound, but I wanted to know more.

At this point I saw a woman on the train start to fiddle with her headscarf.

Confession time. In my Facebook status, I editorialised. She wasn’t sitting next to me. She was a bit away, towards the other end of the carriage. Like most people she had been looking at her phone, then slowly started to unpin her scarf.

Tears sprang to my eyes and I was struck by feelings of anger, sadness and bitterness. It was in this mindset that I punched the first status update into my phone, hoping my friends would take a moment to think about the victims of the siege who were not in the cafe.

I spent the rest of the journey staring – rudely – at the back of her uncovered head. I wanted to talk to her, but had no idea what to say. Anything that came to mind seemed tokenistic and patronising. She might not even be Muslim or she could have just been warm! Besides, I was in the “quiet carriage” where even conversation is banned.

By sheer fluke, we got off at the same station, and some part of me decided saying something would be a good thing. Rather than quiz her about her choice of clothing, I thought if I simply offered to walk her to her destination, it might help.

It’s hard to describe the moment when humans, and complete strangers, have a conversation with no words. I wanted to tell her I was sorry for so many things – for overstepping the mark, for making assumptions about a complete stranger and for belonging to a culture where racism was part of her everyday experience.

But none of those words came out, and our near silent encounter was over in a moment.

My second status was written as a heartbreaking postscript to my first. While the woman appeared to appreciate my gesture, we had both left defeated and deflated. What good is one small action against an avalanche of ignorance?

What ignorance? She just finished telling us that she barely spoke to the woman, and didn’t even know if she was Muslim. She made everything up.

I wanted to tell her I was sorry for so many things – for overstepping the mark, for making assumptions about a complete stranger and for belonging to a culture where racism was part of her everyday experience.

WTF? Fellow Australians were being held hostage, some ultimately to die, and she’s apologizing (wordlessly) to a woman who might have been Hispanic, South Asian, Buddhist, or just cold, for a “culture where racism was part of her everyday experience”? Had I been that anonymous woman, I might have let her walk with me, but only out of fear what such a psycho would do if I refused.

Lesson No. 6,348 that liberalism is based on unreality and lies.

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

Lie of the Year

Politifact said it was Ebola panic. But that was hardly a lie (just ask Sierra Leone), but a series of fortunate events.

I think Glenn Kessler nails it:

“I didn’t call the Islamic State a ‘JV’ team”

President Obama repeated a claim, crafted by the White House communications team, that he was not “specifically” referring to the Islamic State terror group when he dismissed the militants who had taken over Fallujah as a “JV squad.” But The Fact Checker had obtained the previously unreleased transcript of the president’s interview with The New Yorker, and it’s clear that’s who the president was referencing.

Obama’s lies are like Lays potato chips: who can have just one?

“Republicans have filibustered 500 pieces of legislation”

President Obama, a former senator, got quite a few things wrong here. He spoke of legislation that would help the middle class, but he was counting cloture votes that mostly involved judicial and executive branch nominations. Moreover, he counted all the way back to 2007, meaning he even included votes in which he, as senator, voted against ending debate — the very thing he decried in his remarks. At best, he could claim the Republicans had blocked about 50 bills, meaning he was off by a factor of ten.

“We’ve got close to 7 million Americans who have access to health care for the first time because of Medicaid expansion.”

– President Obama, Feb. 20

Nope. Depending on the estimate, Obama was either six times too high or just double. Either way, he was way off.

There are more, from the Left and the Right, but Obama’s the only multiple winner.

PS: Remember when Politifact had a spine?

Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’

Comments

A Real American Hero

Not the guy who got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to sing like a canary with a ewer of water—though he and his colleagues deserve Congressional Medals of Honor.

I salute that other Great American who served his country honorably by taking a disgraceful and unfair PR hit: Jonathan Gruber.

Jon Gruber told the truth. He told the truth over and over, on video and audio, to anyone who would listen. The truth was there for anyone to see (we critics saw it), but he alone among the proponents of CrapolaCare called out the shameful dishonesty of the bill and its passage. He was as brave as any dissident, honest as any whistleblower.

I’m not kidding when I say I was a little disappointed in the Republicans on the committee for their one-note response. Their outrage at Gruber’s arrogance was perhaps justifiable, but someone should have taken a breath from nonstop indignation to thank him for his candor. Next time I bump into him in Emma’s Pizza by MIT (which will be the first time), I swear to you I will thank him from an ungrateful nation.

Comments (1)

Democrats Behaving Badly

Talk about a standing headline, you can think the Democrats were motivated to release their so-called terror report out of moral indignation.

Or you can face the truth:

JOSE RODRIGUEZ, FORMER CIA OFFICIAL: Yes. I mean, I think it’s a very dark day for the CIA. I think the CIA’s been thrown under the bus.

SEAN HANNITY: Let’s go to Dianne Feinstein back in 2002 when she said the following, this was quoted in New York Times, where she said, you know, it took that real attack, I think, to kind of shiver our timbers enough to let is know that the threat is profound and that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.

You were there. You knew these senators, these lawmakers. Do you remember any specific meetings? Was Dianne Feinstein told specifically what the CIA was doing in terms of enhanced interrogation?

JOSE RODRIGUEZ: There are about 40 instances where we briefed the Senate and the House intelligence committees over the life of the program from 2002 to 2009. And we briefed Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi and Rockefeller and many others all the time. And we at the outset, at the beginning, back in 2001, I remember very clearly them telling me, you know, the problem that you guys have is that you are risk adverse. You need to use the authorities that we have given you to go out there and destroy this organization and to kill bin Laden. So we feel that we briefed them and briefed them thoroughly, and they are, you know, hypocritical.

We waterboarded three people during the life of the program. That’s it. Three persons. I don’t know where they get the other numbers.

SEAN HANNITY: Would we have gotten bin Laden without the intelligence that KSM during the waterboarding released to you guys? Didn’t he open the door to the courier which led us to bin Laden, is that true, sir?

JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Actually, the initial information came from a facilitator called Hassan Ghoul going back to 2002 and 2003, he actually told us about the courier. That’s when we first heard about the courier.

Abu Faraj Al-Libi told us that he knew about the appointment to become the chief of operations through the courier, and then KSM, of course, we intercepted a message that he sent to his fellow prisoners in which he says do not say a word about the courier. So we gained a lot of insight from our prisoners at the black sides about the importance of the courier, which eventually led to the takedown of bin Laden.

SEAN HANNITY: So in other words, you’re saying that the accusation that these enhanced interrogation techniques were used beyond what we had already been disclosed you’re saying is false, number one, and that, in spite of their suggestion that they were not successful, you’re saying that, in fact, that’s not true. You were there, it was successful?

JOSE RODRIGUEZ: It was a very successful, and for those of us who were there, it’s just amazing that they could have come to this conclusion. Those of us who read the intelligence coming out to the black sites every morning and acted on that intelligence know the value and basically it led to the destruction of the organization. In terms of whether we exceeded the authorities that we had, this program actually has been subjected to very intense investigations by Justice Department and, in fact, from 2009 to 2012, John Durham, the special investigator, conducted a thorough investigation and he basically found no prosecutable charges to be made for anyone.

Obama says “when we make mistakes, we admit them”. Like this:

SEAN HANNITY: You know, I talk a lot on this program about selective moral outrage, Jose. Let me give you an example. We have, under President Obama and his drone program, we have the estimated death toll at 2400. In Pakistan alone, the death toll is estimated between 450 — I’m sorry 400 and 950 civilians including 168 to 200 children. Can you explain to me how the drone program under Obama is not far more morally problematic that enhanced interrogation. What do you make of Dianne Feinstein’s silence on that issue in comparison?

JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, it’s very interesting because, you know, this administration actually does not take any prisoners. They prefer to kill them from afar using drones. And somehow they feel that because they kill from a distance somehow it’s more ethical. More ethical than the difficult and messy and unpleasant task and mission of actually interrogating a prisoners. I think it’s a distortion of what our values are. You know what our values are —

SEAN HANNITY: I’ll give you a choice, get waterboarded or get drilled with a drone strike. I think I’ll take the waterboarding.

JOSE RODRIGUEZ: I think I’ll take the waterboarding, too.

Make sure you read this report too:

The report, issued by the committee’s outgoing senior Republican, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, stands in stark contrast to Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) highly critical findings asserting that the CIA misled the public, Congress and the White House about its enhanced interrogation program.

“We have no doubt that the CIA’s detention program saved lives and played a vital role in weakening Al Qaeda while the program was in operation,” the Republican senators concluded.

The GOP report decried the Feinstein study, arguing that it contained “faulty analysis, serious inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fact” to create a series of false conclusions about the counterterrorism program’s effectiveness and the CIA’s interactions with Congress and the White House.

The authors accused Democrats of failing to be objective when compiling their findings and for harboring “political motivations” in their review, criticisms they said some intelligence officials have also leveled. The Republicans also lamented that the report’s commission cost U.S. taxpayers $40 million.

The minority report largely serves as a point-by-point rebuttal to Feinstein’s, particularly the conclusion that enhanced interrogation techniques were not effective in collecting useful intelligence for threats against the U.S.

Most political of all, the Dems timed their report to swamp any mention of Gruber’s appearance before the House Oversight Committee yesterday. Mission Accomplished.

Comments

So He Was a Composite Rapist!

Just like Obama’s white girlfriend who wept because she could never be black.

No wonder Lena Dunham named her alleged rapist “Barry”:

The Wrap now reports that Random House has put out a statement exonerating this Identifiable Conservative Barry, and saying that the alleged rapist wasn’t really named Barry at all:

As indicated on the copyright page of Not That Kind of Girl by Lena Dunham, some names and identifying details in the book have been changed. The name ‘Barry’ referenced in the book is a pseudonym. Random House, on our own behalf and on behalf of our author, regrets the confusion that has led attorney Aaron Minc to post on GoFundMe on behalf of his client, whose first name is Barry.

We are offering to pay the fees Mr. Minc has billed his client to date. Our offer will allow Mr. Minc and his client to donate all of the crowd-funding raised to not-for-profit organizations assisting survivors of rape and sexual assault.

Appalling. The book wasn’t a novel; it was a memoir, offered to readers as such. The copyright page, which I suspect few people read, does say that “Some names and identifying details have been changed,” but it certainly doesn’t tell people which ones.

How different in tone from the earlier exchange between Ms. Dunham and her lawyers and the websites that quoted her “memoir” verbatim on her sexual curiosity toward her baby sister. From snarling and snapping to cringing and submission. It still doesn’t explain why she so convincingly fingered a guy for rape, only to exonerate him under threat of a lawsuit. (All previous entreaties had been ignored.)

We trust that “Barry the Republican”, who didn’t know Ms. Dunham, much less have sex with her, much, much less have rough, unconsensual sex with her, can get on with his life. And we wish Ms. Dunham luck with hers. She’s got the fame and the fortune—what a country!—but she’s otherwise pretty much empty. If it’s love she seeks, instead of metrosexual preening and self-important posing, she’d be better off with Barry the Republican than with Barry the Democrat.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »