Archive for Liar

El Presidente

As usual, it’s not Obama’s hypocrisy and dishonesty that galls so much, but the media’s justification of same:

President Obama will delay taking executive action on immigration until after the midterm elections, bowing to pressure from fellow Democrats who feared that acting now could doom his party’s chances this fall, White House officials said on Saturday.

The decision is a reversal of Mr. Obama’s vow to issue broad directives to overhaul the immigration system soon after summer’s end, and sparked swift anger from immigration advocates. The president made the promise on June 30, in the Rose Garden, where he angrily denounced Republican obstruction and said he would use the power of his office to protect immigrant families from the threat of deportation.

“Because of the Republicans’ extreme politicization of this issue, the president believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects for comprehensive immigration reform to announce administrative action before the elections,” a White House official said. “Because he wants to do this in a way that’s sustainable, the president will take action on immigration before the end of the year.”

The “Republicans’ extreme politicization of this issue”??? How did they even bring themselves to print those words? Obama has been the biggest demagogue on amnesty north of the Rio Grande. For him now to lose what cojones he has for the basest of political stunts would be comic if… well, it’s just comic.

Tragicomic, maybe:

A lawless amnesty decree is bad enough, but openly saying you’re going to issue such a decree only after the people have had a chance to vote is much worse. Every Republican candidate in the House and Senate needs to make clear that, whatever your views on the substance of immigration policy, a vote for any Democrat is a vote for caesarism, for presidential rule by decree. There’s actually a good deal of support for that on the hard left, but most people, of all descriptions, recoil from Obama’s promised power grab.

Note that it’s a “promised” power grab; the AP report notes “the officials said Obama had no specific timeline to act, but that he still would take his executive steps before the end of the year.” So this isn’t some teabagger conspiracy fantasy, but a promise to decree sweeping extra-constitutional changes to the law, but just to do it around Thanksgiving or Christmas to avoid electoral fallout.

I thought the Democrats would lose big in November, but because of ObamaCare. They still might, but this cynical power-grab is such a lavish gift, it makes ObamaCare look like a necktie or a pair of socks under the tree. Scott Brown, et al: you know what to do, or ought to.

PS: With the possible added benefit of so angering pro-amnesty voters that they will stay home. Nice work, O.

Comments

How to Lie

Not that I’m an expert (more than any other blogger), but one of the first rules of lying is to commit to one lie at a time.

Isn’t that right, Mr. President?

At a Saturday press conference, a reporter asked President Obama a question that’s been on our mind since Obama announced a new U.S. military intervention in Iraq: “Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S.–is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?”

“What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision,” Obama replied. “Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government.”

So, he’s going to blame Bush. Five and a half years into his administration, almost a lame duck himself. Very well, if that’s his plan.

Why then, pray tell, this?

“We needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system,” the president said. The Iraqis rejected that demand. “So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because . . . a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.”

What do you mean “we”, Kimosabe? Don’t you mean “they”, the previous administration? Or is there more to this “we” than we thought?

In an April story for The New Yorker, Dexter Filkins painted a more complicated picture. U.S. military commanders told Filkins that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki “said that he wanted to keep [U.S.] troops in Iraq,” but that “parliament would forbid the troops to stay unless they were subject to local law.” But “President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq”:

For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis–like how many troops they wanted to leave behind–because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” [James] Jeffrey [the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad in 2011] told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, [an] Iraqi member of parliament, said.

How many different euphemisms for the First Prevaricator did you count? And how many ways does he sound responsible for the decision?

Obama himself said as much, during the third 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney:

Romney: With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status-of-forces agreement. Did you–

Obama: That’s not true.

Romney: Oh, you didn’t–you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?

Obama: No, but what I–what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down.

So, somewhere between 0 and 9,999 troops, sir? Or are you saying you would have stationed more than 10,000? It’s so hard to tell with you.

It’s hard to take responsibility for your hopeless eff-ups in politics, I get that. But it’s easier than this game of solitaire Twister.

Speaking of hopeless eff-ups:

In a wide-ranging interview with the New Yorker, President Barack Obama compared Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Iraq and Syria to junior varsity basketball players, downplaying their threat as small-league. He also shared what he thought were the chances of reaching Middle East peace agreements.

New Yorker editor David Remnick pointed out to the president that the Al Qaeda flag is now seen flying in Falluja in Iraq and in certain locations in Syria, and thus the terrorist group has not been “decimated” as Obama had said during his 2012 reelection campaign.

“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 told Remnick. “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.”

Remnick characterized Obama’s analogy as “uncharacteristically flip.”

Yeah, I’d say so. But don’t say that to Obama or he’ll call “horse[bleep]“.

Comments

About Those War Crimes

Yeah, but would the truth sell papers?

International media outlets, including The New York Times and the BBC, have raised serious questions regarding Gaza civilian casualty figures as recorded by health officials both in the Strip and abroad.

The outlets maintain that the hard data does not support the notion that the Israel Defense Forces is engaged in “indiscriminate” killing of unarmed residents in the Palestinian enclave, as was suggested by several international leaders over the past month.

Citing figures released by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the BBC’s head of statistics Anthony Reuben found that the number of civilian men killed in the fighting outnumbered the number of women by a factor of nearly 3.5:1. According to the UN, 725 men were killed in the conflict as opposed to 214 women. When the 216 confirmed “members of armed groups” were included in the figures, the disparity grew even larger. Israeli military officials said 750-1,000 Hamas and other gunmen had been killed in the fighting as of Tuesday, August 5.

“If the Israeli attacks have been ‘indiscriminate,’ as the UN Human Rights Council says, it is hard to work out why they have killed so many more civilian men than women,” Reuben noted dryly.

I emphasized the word civilian because I think most of them were anything but. As the New York Times concedes:

The question echoes a New York Times analysis from earlier this week, which showed “that the population most likely to be militants, men ages 20 to 29, is also the most overrepresented in the death toll: They are 9 percent of Gaza’s 1.7 million residents, but 34 percent of those killed whose ages were provided. At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71 percent of the population and 33 percent of the known-age casualties.”

Sorry, you Jew-hating human rights wonks, but you have been hoist by your own petard:

The death-toll statistics may constitute decisive evidence that, contrary to the claims of organizations such as the UN Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch, and others, civilians were not the targets of Israel’s strikes in the Strip. Deliberate targeting of civilians would amount to war crimes under both international and Israeli law. Israel has stressed that it is seeking to avoid civilian casualties as it tackles Hamas rockets and tunnels, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday the international community should hold Hamas responsible for all Gaza civilian deaths since it uses Gaza civilians as “human shields” for its terrorist infrastructure.

Now, where again did the BBC (hardly friendly to Israel in the best of times) get their data?

“Citing figures released by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights…”

How can the UN accuse Israel of war crimes when their own data proved the smear just another blood libel. But as Mark Twain (might have) said: “A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

PS: Meanwhile:

Conflicting reports concerning the mysterious death of a senior Hamas official surfaced Thursday, three days after his mangled body was said to have been uncovered in the ruins of the battered Shejaiya neighborhood, in the northeastern Gaza Strip.

While initial reports stated that Ayman Taha, a former spokesman for the Gaza-based terror organization, had been killed during an Israeli airstrike in the embattled coastal enclave, Palestinian daily Al-Quds reported that he was executed by a Hamas firing squad earlier this week for allegedly maintaining contact with intelligence services in Arab countries, and specifically in Egypt.

Taha, according to Al-Quds, was shot several times in the head and chest. His body was later transferred to the Shifa hospital. Hamas initially barred the incident from publication until Thursday, when the information was released.

All we know for sure is he’s dead. Very dead.

The rest is not so clear:

Sources in the Gaza Strip said on Thursday that Taha was executed because Hamas feared he might implicate some of its leaders in many corruption scandals. “The man knew too much about the senior leaders of Hamas.”

The international media, for its part, will simply endorse the Hamas story because it is more convenient to blame Israel than to get into trouble with a radical Islamist movement that carries out extra-judicial executions.

Comments

Calling Edward Snowden

We need your help, Ed. The IRS claims to have “lost” two years of Lois Lerner emails.

Washington, DC – Today, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) issued the following statement regarding the Internal Revenue Service informing the Committee that they have lost Lois Lerner emails from a period of January 2009 – April 2011. Due to a supposed computer crash, the agency only has Lerner emails to and from other IRS employees during this time frame. The IRS claims it cannot produce emails written only to or from Lerner and outside agencies or groups, such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.

“The fact that I am just learning about this, over a year into the investigation, is completely unacceptable and now calls into question the credibility of the IRS’s response to Congressional inquiries. There needs to be an immediate investigation and forensic audit by Department of Justice as well as the Inspector General.

“Just a short time ago, Commissioner Koskinen promised to produce all Lerner documents. It appears now that was an empty promise. Frankly, these are the critical years of the targeting of conservative groups that could explain who knew what when, and what, if any, coordination there was between agencies. Instead, because of this loss of documents, we are conveniently left to believe that Lois Lerner acted alone. This failure of the IRS requires the White House, which promised to get to the bottom of this, to do an Administration-wide search and production of any emails to or from Lois Lerner. The Administration has repeatedly referred us back to the IRS for production of materials. It is clear that is wholly insufficient when it comes to determining the full scope of the violation of taxpayer rights.”

Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany Jr., M.D. (R-LA) added, “In the course of the Committee’s investigation, the Administration repeatedly claimed we were getting access to all relevant IRS documents. Only now – thirteen months into the investigation – the IRS reveals that key emails from the time of the targeting have been lost. And they bury that fact deep in an unrelated letter on a Friday afternoon. In that same letter, they urge Congress to end the investigations into IRS wrongdoing. This is not the transparency promised to the American people. If there is no smidgeon of corruption what is the Administration hiding?”

This comes from the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp (R MI). Banana Republic anyone?

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Sealed With a Kiss

Waste not, want not!

Blogger Susan Crockford reports on Polar Bear Science that she received an email on May 22 from Dag Vongraven, chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group [PBSG], that an upcoming report on worldwide polar bear population would contain a footnote that some polar bear populations are simply best-guess estimates.

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000,” the footnote reads.

“It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated.”

The note goes on to say here are no “abundance estimates” for bears in the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and Russia.

Which is about the size of Rhode Island, right?

“Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

Why should that stop anyone? Don’t you know how science works?

“Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, *Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century* is considered by many ecologists to be the classic text of the [environmental] movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004?s best textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.”

I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions.” I hope my testifying here will help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing with not only climate change but also other major environmental problems. The IPCC 2014 report does not have this kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why.

To characterize where we are with this report and this issue, I would like to quote James R. Schlesinger, the first U.S. Energy Secretary, who said: “We have only two modes — complacency and panic.”—commenting on the country’s approach to energy (1977)

1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.

2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack.

3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.

9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed.

10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.

11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly settled and based on indisputable facts.

In the parts I omitted, he says there is good science in the report. This is not among that good science:

Why measure the temperature? Why count the polar bears? We have models that do that!

Oops, wrong kind of model—but do you think she’d do any worse?

[T]he IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.

In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined.

The U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with the conservation of this species, acknowledges “Accurate estimates of the current and historic sizes of polar bear stocks are difficult to obtain for several reasons–the species‘ inaccessible habitat, the movement of bears across international boundaries, and the costs of conducting surveys.”

No [bleep]! Who wants to traipse around the North Pole counting polar bears? (Count the number of legs and divide by four.) I’d rather roll on a polar bear rug with my climate model above.

Traitor Obama (if we are to believe half the Bergdahl story) is running hell for leather into the Global Warming fracas. May he wind up looking like the carcass in the picture, top (politically speaking, of course).

Comments

Philosophical Inquiry

Is it still a lie if you say something false under the following conditions?

a) It was obviously and irrefutably false to anyone and everyone who thought about it.
b) It was claimed during a campaign for passage, so veracity was irrelevant.
c) The liar in question meant well (or claimed to, another lie).
and
d) He lied to everyone, equally and without prejudice:

Across the political spectrum, analysts now say that 80 to 90 percent of employer-provided insurance, the mainstay of American health coverage for decades, will disappear as ObamaCare takes hold.

The research firm S&P IQ predicts less than 10 percent of those who get insurance at work will still get it there ten years from now.

“The companies will really be hard pressed to justify why they would continue to have to spend the kind of money they spend by offering insurance through corporate plans when there’s an alternative that’s subsidized by the government” said Michael Thompson, head of S&P IQ.

Even a former adviser to President Obama, Zeke Emanuel, predicted less than 20 percent who now get employer-provided insurance will still get it ten years from now. He wrote in his book “Reinventing American Health Care” that “By 2025 few private-sector employers will still be providing health insurance.”

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

I’ll be honest, I wouldn’t mind seeing health insurance separated from employment. The linkage distorts both health insurance and employment. But I believe in the marketplace (with reservations). Pay me more in salary, and let me pick the best health insurance plan (including “bad apple” plans, from many competitors) for me.

Emanuel and Obama want to free insurance from employment—only to bind it irrevocably to government. Not the same thing. And I wouldn’t lie to you to.

PS:

Premiums would increase 13 percent next year for Ohioans who buy health coverage through the federally run insurance exchange, the Ohio Department of Insurance said yesterday.

Ohio voted for Obama in ’08 and ’12. Ohioans get what they deserve.

Comments

Blame it on Ishtar

Perhaps we’ve been unfair to the Obama Administration for the slaughter of four American diplomatic and military personnel in a terrorist attack in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 (the first US diplomat murdered since 1979), after repeated pleas for greater security, during which they dispatched nothing more than an unarmed drone (in fact, ordering US forces to stand down), and after which they tried to spin and obscure the truth. These things happen.

Besides, it’s not like they did nothing:

During the attack on the U.S. compound at Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, the White House contacted YouTube regarding a video that it may have believed sparked the assault, according to an email.

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, released one sentence of the e-mail — which was sent hours before the attack ended — and put it in the Congressional Record. The rest of the message remains classified, although Issa has requested it be declassified and made public.

“White House is reaching out to U-Tube to advice ramification of the posting of the Pastor Jon video,” reads the e-mail, according to Issa and reported by ABC News. Issa said the subject line of the email was, “Update on Response to actions – Libya.”

A White House official told ABC News that the e-mail proves the Obama administration thought the video, a trailer for the anti-Muslim film “Innocence of Muslims,” caused riots that were to blame for the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

“We actually think this proves what we’ve said. We were concerned about the video, given all the protests in the region,” the official said.

The intelligence community “was also concerned about the video,” the official added. ABC didn’t identify the official by name.

Issa, on the other hand, said the e-mail shows the White House was already working on a “false narrative” of what took place in Benghazi, and why.

“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 told ABC.

I could almost believe the White House version of events—as wrong and wrong-headed as it was—but for the events in real time. There may have been protests elsewhere (I don’t know that there were, or when), but there was an organized assault in Benghazi. Not a march with chants and stones, but a military action with weapons and tactics. I’ve heard the radio transmissions on talk radio; the drone filmed the attack in real time.

Since when does America respond to a terrorist attack, with four American dead, by censoring a YouTube video? Aren’t we supposed to scramble fighters or alert the Strategic Air Command? Not tighten the Parental Controls on the Internet?

Comments

The Reviews Are In

Obama’s kabuki performance of outrage opened yesterday. Aggie and I have had our say.

But what about the real critics, the ones with “skin in the game” (or skin grafts, as the case may be), as Obama likes to say?

Those aren’t dog whistles you hear. They’re boos:

CNN’S JAKE TAPPER TO DREW GRIFFIN, WHO BROKE THE STORY:

TAPPER: Drew, the soldiers, the veterans that you speak with, what did they want to hear from President Obama today? And did he deliver?

CNN’S DREW GRIFFIN, IN PHOENIX: “They did not want to hear is we’re going to wait for yet again another office of inspector general report or some fact-finding mission. I was a little caught off guard by what apparently is a disconnect by what’s happening out in the country and what the president is talking about.”

Further:

[GRIFFIN:] I hate to be curt but these GAO reports, these office of inspector general reports, these memos dating back to 2010 to 2008, this problem is real. It exists. It really doesn’t have to be studied as to what’s going on. The government has done its job studying these issues. And to say that you’re going to now wait for yet again more studies to come back and more fact finding to come back, I would think that the vets I’ve been talking to wanted much more direct action of what actually is going to happen going forward instead of wait and see and then we’ll decide what’s going to happen going forward.

I was a little confused by the president’s remarks today. It seemed that at the same time he was saying he’s known about this problem for years and years and years and it goes back decades far past into other people’s presidencies and yet we’re five years into his presidency and the problem seems to be certainly not better and perhaps even worse.

I should have highlighted the whole thing. It’s a complete refudiation (h/t Sarah Palin) of every world Obama said, including “and” and “the”. Vets aren’t a big enough voting bloc to swing an election, but if there’s a single vet left who will vote for this lying disgrace, he’s more disciplined than the Japanese soldier who held out in the jungle for decades rather than surrender. But vets know the truth. They know their commander-in-chief is a coward.

Comments

Other Broken Promises You May Not Remember

But no less reprehensible.

Remember this gem?

“The president has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester, he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury,” a White House official said at the time.

That was then (April ’13), this is now:

The White House is refusing to confirm whether President Barack Obama followed up on his pledge to take a five percent pay cut due to sequestration last year.

At least he wasn’t so stupid as to pose with a morose look on his face, holding a sign that said:

#shareinthesacrificebeingmadebypublicservantsacrossthefederalgovernment
thatareaffectedbythesequester.

He’s not that dumb. But he is this dumb:

[A]t the time of Obama’s promise, the White House official said Obama would “write a check to the government” each month, according to the New York Times, beginning last April.

The official also promised that the president would take the cut for the entire year, amounting to roughly $20,000.

The White House would not respond to numerous requests submitted by the Washington Free Beacon to the White House press office to confirm that Obama did, in fact, write checks to the Treasury.

When reached by phone, a White House spokesperson said, “I don’t have that information.”

Got your checkbook handy, Mr. President? Bank statements? Maybe you can borrow a line from your former Secretary of State, one which applies to so many of your policy eff-ups: what difference, at this point, does it make?

Next person who asks gets locked in a maintenance shed.

Comments

Portrait of Obama Voters

Bait, meet switch:

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period,” Obama promised in 2009 in front of the American Medical Association. “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away.”

“We have to break people away from the choice habit that everyone has,” Marcus Merz, CEO of Minnesota insurer PreferredOne, told The New York Times Tuesday. “We’re all trying to break away from this fixation on open access and broad networks.”

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the furrowed brows and quivering lower lips of all the Obama voters betrayed by the man and his ephemeral promises. You’re all so fixated on keeping your doctors, all so addicted to choice. What do you think this is, America?

DUMBASSES

Look, I don’t expect any honest confessions here. We’d just laugh in your face. But I was wondering about something else: is there some sort of hierarchy among bumper stickers? I don’t see any I [HEART] OBAMACARE bumper stickers anymore—and I sure used to. Do those of you with ELIZABETH (“for Massachusetts”) WARREN bumper stickers look down on the I’M WITH HILLARY know-nothings? Is a Warren sticker on a Prius the ultimate in liberal smugness? Is it just me, or is a Hillary on a sticker on a Ford F-150 truck the butchest thing on wheels? That thing could change it’s own flat tire!

I’m actually curious. Think of me as Dian Fossey among the apes, or Jacques Cousteau probing into the habits of the giant squid. I wish our liberal reader, Robert, was still here to let us peek into the tiny crevices of what we shall generously call a mind. He had his progressive bona fides down so perfectly, he once actually congratulated black women in New York City for the “courage” of aborting their unborn babies in genocidal numbers.

Who better to ask about the abnormal psychology of liberals than a psychopath?

Comments

Sequester Fester

Wasn’t the sequester supposed to be the greatest threat to humankind not called climate change?

I hope you’re sitting down:

Despite doomsday warnings from the White House and lawmakers on both sides that hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs as a result of the sequester, it turns out the budget cuts have only led to one job being lost among 23 federal agencies.

Now Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is demanding answers as to why the Obama administration repeatedly warned taxpayers that the $85.3 billion in spending cuts, which went into effect in March 2013, would threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs. The findings were revealed in a government watchdog report.

The report is a stark contrast from the dire predictions from the Obama administration and Democratic leadership, who blamed Republicans for the cuts.

In a memo released before the sequester cuts went into effect, the White House claimed they “threaten hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs.” In a speech at the White House that February, President Obama repeated those claims.

“These cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls,” he said. “This is not an abstraction. People will lose their jobs.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid upped the doomsday rhetoric in July, according to the Washington Post, saying on the Senate floor over a million jobs were already lost.

“We have learned that the sequestration already has cut 1.6 million jobs. So we need job creation. We need to help the middle class by creating jobs,” he said.

Team Obama knows what to do when caught in a lie: double down.

In response, OMB spokesman Steve Posner said in a statement to FoxNews.com there is “no question” the sequestration has had an negative impact on Americans, pointing out the report also states that employees had their hours reduced and agencies were forced to curtail hiring as a result of the cuts, among other examples.

“GAO itself notes that many of the flexibilities used to mitigate the effects of sequestration in 2013 may not be available in future years, suggesting that the impacts would be even worse if sequestration is allowed to occur in future years,” he said.

In other words, you got off easy, America. This time.

PS: Harry Reid actually said that—1.6 million people had been canned? More proof that no one listens to that wizened little turd.

Comments

We Get Results

With apologies to the Dude, two years (technically, just over a year and a half) is within the statue of limitations for negligent homicide:

House Speaker John Boehner declared Friday he would create a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack, providing Republicans with a high-profile forum to target the Obama administration’s credibility ahead of crucial midterm elections.

Boehner said U.S. officials misled the American people after the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. diplomatic post in Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He said emails released this week showed the White House has withheld documents from congressional investigators and asked, “What else about Benghazi is the Obama administration still hiding from the American people?”

“Americans learned this week that the Obama administration is so intent on obstructing the truth about Benghazi that it is even willing to defy subpoenas issued by the standing committees of the people’s House,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement. “These revelations compel the House to take every possible action to ensure the American people have the truth about the terrorist attack on our consulate that killed four of our countrymen.”

Separately, the Republican chairman of the House oversight committee, one of several that have investigated Benghazi, said Friday he would subpoena Secretary of State John Kerry to testify about the administration’s response to the attack. Rep. Darrell Issa said he wanted Kerry to appear before the panel May 21 to explain why the latest emails were omitted from previous administration submissions.

Shame on the Republicans were waiting for so long. Nothing this week taught me anything I didn’t already know. Check our archives, we’ve been writing about this for “two years”, dude.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »