Archive for Liar

#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

Thanks for Reminding Us!

With friends like this, does Obama need enemies?

JONATHAN CAPEHART, WASHINGTON POST: But there’s another thing that you haven’t put in this list is, health care costs. One of the reasons why Americans’ wages were shrinking or stagnant is because health care costs were going through the roof. And when the president was pushing the Affordable Care Act, one of the main pillars of his argument was, we have to do this in order to bend the cost curve, which is happening. The deficit is shrinking. Premiums, yes they are going to go up, but not nearly as much as they would have without the Affordable Care Act.

If that’s so (a whopping great if), it’s not what was promised.

Nineteen times:

He’s an incorrigible liar, but if no one calls him on it, why should he change? Lying got him to the White House, twice, and even in his much-diminished capacity lying serves him well.

We should be stopping traffic and looting stores, but we won’t. In place of “hand’s up, don’t shoot” and “we can’t breathe”, we should be chanting “where’s my $2,500 bucks”, but we don’t.

Expect more of same.

Comments

BTL: Right Again As Ever

Rush likes to boast that he’s 98.7% accurate (or whatever), but it’s not that hard when you learn how to read the stitches on the curveball (as he also says).

We said this but five days ago:

[White House spokesman Shawn] Turner noted, however, that the estimated 5 million immigrants granted protection from deportation will not be eligible for other federal benefits such as student financial aid, food stamps or housing subsidies. Nor are they eligible to purchase health insurance through the federal health-care exchange under the Affordable Care Act.

To which we responded:

Yet.

Yesterday…

President Barack Obama’s executive order to spare some immigrants from deportation has galvanized Democrats, immigration groups and health care advocates in California to push for expanding health coverage to a segment of the population that remains uninsured.

The president’s action excludes immigrants who came to the country illegally from qualifying for federal health benefits. But California has its own policy of providing health coverage with state money to low-income immigrants with so-called “deferred action” that allow them to avoid deportation. Immigrant and health care advocates say that means Obama’s executive order will enable hundreds of thousands of low-income immigrants in California to apply for Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid.

Great. Another million mouths to feed.

Hang on, BTL, you say? It’s not ObamaCare they’re getting, but Medi-Cal.

You interrupted me:

Medi-Cal is a health program for the poor paid for by the federal government and the state. It has grown by about 3 million people in California under federal health care reform and now covers more than 11 million Californians, about 30 percent of the state’s population. The federal government is paying for the expansion, but the state will eventually pay 10 percent of additional costs to cover low-income adults, many of whom are childless.

You want to explain to me how “hundreds of thousands” (estimates of California’s illegals range to nearly three million) of illegal aliens getting health insurance paid in part by the federal government (you and me) is not “health insurance through the federal health-care exchange”?

We need to find that Frenchman who invented a pill that makes flatulence smell like roses. Obama is farting in our face with impunity. If we can’t stick a plug in him, we shouldn’t have to suffer from his stench.

PS: Conservatives believe in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which assigns rights and powers to the states not otherwise assigned to the federal government. That belief stops when a given state behaves irresponsibly and irrationally—Illinois with pensions, California with illegals—leaving the federal government (you and me) to pick up the pieces. And the bill.

Comments

Couple More Problems for ObamaCare

To get the moral of the story out of the way first, don’t lie and don’t bully. It’ll catch up with you eventually.

The lies:

The Department of Health and Human Services projected that between 9 and 9.9 million people would enroll in Obamacare plans next year, well short of the 13 million predicted by the independent Congressional Budget Office. Just a few days later, administration officials admitted they inflated sign-up figures for Obamacare in 2014, including dental plans, to pad the numbers by 400,000 — allowing the administration to meet its original goal of enrolling 7 million consumers.

Care to read that again? Last year, they cooked the books; now they admit it. And that fraud (a 5.7% shortfall) is nothing compared to the fraud already admitted for next year (a 25-30% shortfall). Did you know that? I didn’t.

No wonder, then:

The fallout from the November blunders was hard to ignore. When the administration trumpeted that roughly 460,000 people had signed up for 2015 Obamacare coverage in the first week of open enrollment, the announcement was immediately met with suspicion.

AFter the lies wear thin comes the bullying:

Leading U.S. CEOs, angered by the Obama administration’s challenge to certain “workplace wellness” programs, are threatening to side with anti-Obamacare forces unless the government backs off, according to people familiar with the matter.

Major U.S. corporations have broadly supported President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform despite concerns over several of its elements, largely because it included provisions encouraging the wellness programs.

The programs aim to control healthcare costs by reducing smoking, obesity, hypertension and other risk factors that can lead to expensive illnesses. A bipartisan provision in the 2010 healthcare reform law allows employers to reward workers who participate and penalize those who don’t.

Got that? “Penalize.” Harm someone for not marching in step like a good little foot soldier. Kind of like the individual mandate—an unconstitutional affront until it was transvestized into a tax.

But like it or not, it’s part of the law (of the land).

But recent lawsuits filed by the administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), challenging the programs at Honeywell International and two smaller companies, have thrown the future of that part of Obamacare into doubt.

The lawsuits infuriated some large employers so much that they are considering aligning themselves with Obama’s opponents, according to people familiar with the executives’ thinking.

“The fact that the EEOC sued is shocking to our members,” said Maria Ghazal, vice-president and counsel at the Business Roundtable, a group of chief executives of more than 200 large U.S. corporations. “They don’t understand why a plan in compliance with the ACA (Affordable Care Act) is the target of a lawsuit,” she said. “This is a major issue to our members.”

Have your members never seen Goodfellas or The Sopranos? You don’t want these people as your partners. They’ll bleed you dry.

Obamacare allows financial incentives for workers taking part in workplace wellness programs of up to 50 percent of their monthly premiums, deductibles, and other costs. That translates into hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars in extra annual costs for those who do not participate.

Typically, participation means filling out detailed health questionnaires, undergoing medical screenings, and in some cases attending weight-loss or smoking-cessation programs.

One of the arguments presented in the lawsuit against three employers is that requiring medical testing violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

That 1990 law, according to employment-law attorney Joseph Lazzarotti of Jackson Lewis P.C. in Morristown, N.J., largely prohibits requiring medical tests as part of employment.

“You can’t make medical inquiries unless it’s consistent with job-necessity, or part of a voluntary wellness program,” he said.

The lawsuits are based on the view that it is no longer voluntary if employees face up to $4,000 in penalties for non-participation, loss of insurance or even their jobs.

Employers, however, see the lawsuits as reneging on the administration’s commitment to an important part of the healthcare reform.

If it violates ADA, what was it doing in the [bleeping] law? Did no one think to ask? Of course they did, but Nancy “The Bull” Pelosi gave away the game: we had to pass the “law” to find out what was in it.

The law itself is godawful enough. The process by which it passed was truly the work of Satan. No good could ever come of it. Just strife, chaos, mayhem, hellfire, brimstone, and Supreme Court appeals. All according to schedule.

Comments (1)

“Some Advisor” Watch

Obama’s denial knowing Jonathan Gruber as just “some advisor who was never on our staff” triggered a memory of another such evasion. But I couldn’t place it. Pelosi? Reid? Kerry? I needn’t have thought so hard.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood…

Just as the facts proved otherwise with Ayers, so do they too with Gruber:

Enjoy these cuts while you can, boys and girls—they won’t be around for long:

The University of Rhode Island (URI) removed a video of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber discussing how he exploited the American people.

URI removed a video of Gruber’s speech at an Oct. 30, 2012 Honors Colloquium in which the Obamacare consultant discussed how some details of Obamacare’s design were concealed from the American public.

“It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber said.

“URI has deleted an embarrassing Gruber video while leaving a broken embed on their site – a real ‘stupid American voter’ move,” American Commitment’s Phil Kerpen, who flagged the video’s removal, told The Daily Caller. “I hope that URI will be shamed into reposting the video as Penn was last week when they did the same thing.”

The University of Pennsylvania previously removed the first Gruber video, in which Gruber discussed the “stupidity of the American voter,” but later re-posted it under public pressure. Three of the four executive team members of the health care analysis group Picwell, which Gruber works for, have official positions at the University of Pennsylvania.

If it weren’t a “dog whistle” word, I’d call this a whitewash.

Comments

Gruber: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

Unless you prefer the title “Some Advisor Watch”

“We’ll work to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year,” Obama told an audience on Sept. 6, 2008. He made a similar claim at least 18 more times stump speeches during the campaign.

But that was news at the time to Gruber, who later advised the Obama administration on the creation of Obamacare and is now at the center of a firestorm for candid remarks he made about how the administration duped the American public in order to get the health law passed.

“I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion,” Gruber told the non-partisan FactCheck.org in Feb. 2008….

Go ahead, Aidan, tell us what you think of that:

Yeah, we agree.

“At the end of the day, the only way to control health-care costs in America is to deny Americans health care they want,” Gruber said.

He was seemingly referring to what has been dubbed the Cadillac tax, which is a 40-percent excise tax on the most expensive health insurance plans. Some economists, including Gruber, believe that the Cadillac tax will shore up inefficiencies in the health-care system and “bend the cost curve,” which will save money in the long term.

“Basically, we just don’t know. We just have no clue what it’s going to do,” Gruber added.

But on the campaign trail, Obama adopted the easier-to-understand statement that the average family would save $2,500 per year on their insurance premiums.

In 2008, one of those advisers, Harvard University’s David Cutler, explained to The New York Times that “what we’re trying to do is find a way to talk to people in a way they understand.”

By lying to their faces. Repeatedly.

None of this is a surprise. We all knew this at the time. I would say that the American people were as dumb as Gruber and Obama took them for, but the polls don’t support that. ObamaCare has been unpopular for years. The dummies were the Democrats in Congress who passed it.

But even that’s not true. If we knew they were lying, how could they not know? The fix was in, and everyone was in on it. That’s how they operate. Now that Congress is not so amenable, Obama is just doing away with it altogether.

Comments

Obama Only Just Discovers His Imbecility

Speaking of stealing from Rush (as I was below), here’s his Limbaugh Theorem in the flesh:

RUSH: … I get an e-mail from a friend of mine in Hawaii.

He said, “I don’t believe what I just saw.”

So I wrote back, “What did you just see?”

“I just saw the Limbaugh Theorem wide open! Obama’s in Brisbane, Australia; he said he just found out that day about Gruber and what he’s been saying about Obamacare, and he’s livid. He’s fit to be tied about it! He’s gonna get to the bottom of it, and he didn’t know who Gruber was other than he was some sort of advisor.”

I said, “This is great. Now people are calling me or sending me e-mails saying that they are seeing examples of the Limbaugh Theorem.”

RUSH: (laughing) This is unbelievable. This little sound bite of 23 seconds may be more jam-packed with lies than any 23-second presidential sound bite I’ve ever played for you. “I did not. I just heard about this just now. I get well briefed. I just heard about this. The fact that some advisor who never worked on our staff…” He was in meetings with Obama! Gruber has been bragging about them!

Now, seriously, what are we to do about this? This is sociopathic. There is something terribly wrong here.

It is sociopathic. That’s just the word.

What took us so long to notice?

RUSH: This is not the first time that Obama has said, “I just found out about this! I just found out when you did. I’m livid. I can’t believe this. We’re gonna get to the bottom of this.” We have a montage, March 2009 through November 2014.

Here’s Obama talking about all the various scandals he’s faced, and they’re not identified. I could go through and tell you after the bite what each one’s about, but it doesn’t matter. What you heard him say in Brisbane, “I didn’t know about this! I just heard about this! I’m as mad about this as you are. I’m gonna get to the bottom of this,” blah, blah. We’ve got countless examples. Here we go…

OBAMA, GRUBER, 11/17/14: Uhhh, I just heard about this… [S]ome advisor who never worked on our staff, uhh, expressed an opinion that, uhh, I completely disagree with …

OBAMA, IRS SCANDAL, 05/13/13: I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this.

OBAMA, IRS SCANDAL, 05/15/13: Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it.

OBAMA, OBAMACARE ROLLOUT, 10/21/13: Nobody’s madder than me!

OBAMA, FAST & FURIOUS, 10/14/11: I heard on the news about this.

OBAMA, FAST & FURIOUS, 10/18/11: It’s very upsetting to me, that somebody showed such bad judgment.

OBAMA, SECRET SERVICE SCANDAL, 04/15/12: If it turns out some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I’ll be angry.

OBAMA, IRS SCANDAL, 05/13/13: I’ve got no patience with it! I will not tolerate it!

OBAMA BP GULF OIL DISASTER, 06/03/10: I am furious at this entire situation.

OBAMA IRS SCANDAL, 05/15/13: We’re going to hold the responsible parties accountable.

OBAMA, IRS SCANDAL, 05/16/13: (outdoor/rain noise) I certainly did not know anything about the IG Report before the IG Report had been leaked through the press.

OBAMA, IRS SCANDAL, 05/16/13: (outdoor/rain noise) The minute I found out about it, then my main focus is making sure that we get the thing fixed.

OBAMA, WALL STREET BONUSES, 03/18/09: (aircraft noise) People are right to be angry. I’m angry!

OBAMA, AIR FORCE ONE BUZZING MANHATTAN, 04/28/09: (camera clicks) It was something, uhh, we found out, uhh, about along with all of you.

OBAMA, VA SCANDAL, 05/21/2014: I will not stand for it, not as commander-in-chief! None of us should. It is dishonorable, it is disgraceful, and I will not tolerate it. Period.

What have we done? What have we done?

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »