Archive for Liar

Is The Israeli Public As Brain Dead As The US Public?

Are they buying this?

former aide to President Barack Obama told Israeli television on Friday that the United States would be able to detect any Iranian effort to “sprint” toward an atomic weapon as part of the emerging nuclear agreement in the P5+1 talks.

Dennis Ross, the former Mideast peace envoy, told Channel 2 on Friday that the agreement being discussed would enable Western officials to perform “anytime, anywhere inspections of declared and undeclared sites” for a period of up to 10 years.

Ross said that while there is an obvious need to see what the final agreement would look like, he said that he has received indications that the Americans will insist on a deal that will include “verifiable mechanisms for detection.”

“It would take a year’s time if [the Iranians] were making a determination they wanted to move towards a nuclear weapon – and they would have to move quickly,” Ross told Channel 2. “That would be something that would be detectable. So you’d have a time frame if they were making a decision to move quickly to detect what they were doing and do something about it.”

Ross said that the Obama administration is aiming for a deal that offers “transparency.”

And I had always respected Dennis Ross… Well, sir, here are three questions: 1. What happens in 10 years? 2. The fact that the US could know what Iran is up to doesn’t mean that they will do anything about it, does it? 3. Why do you believe this nonsense. You’re better than that.

Very disappointing indeed.

– Aggie

Comments

Grubby Gruber

Aw, gee. I hope he doesn’t turn to terrorism:

Jonathan Gruber, the consultant who said ObamaCare became law due to the “stupidity of the American voter,” was fired from the board of the Massachusetts health exchange on Wednesday.

Gov. Charlie Baker (R) asked Gruber, an MIT professor, to resign, along with three other members of the board, accoring [sic] to the governor’s office.

All three complied.

The architect of ObamaCare is in trouble in another New England state:

In a 54-page memo, Vermont State Auditor Doug Hoffer confirms that embattled Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber overbilled the state in invoices he submitted for work Gruber claims was performed by research assistants.

“The evidence suggests that Dr. Gruber overstated the hours worked by the RA, but we have insufficient documentation to say any more about his inconsistencies and questionable billing practices. I have referred the matter to the Attorney General for his consideration, which is standard procedure in such circumstances,” Hoffer said in the conclusion of his memo, released Monday.

As Breitbart News reported earlier, Gruber also faces unanswered questions about his billing practices for work performed for the State of Minnesota.

Take a number, Minnesota. The line to sue this son of a bitch forms to the right.

The whole house of cards Gruber built is falling down around him, and the architect of ObamaCare is revealed to be the Joker that everyone should have seen him to be.

More here.

Comments

Stolen Valor

It makes no difference to me if you want to claim you were under fire in Tuzla, or to report that a chopper (sorry, bird) you were flying in took an RPG hit. As a decorated combat war vet myself (As an eight-year-old, I took the garage, alone, from the entrenched forces of my older brother and his friends, using dog poop grenades to flush them out), I have learned that there’s more than enough valor to go around.

But you know who gets all touchy about that kind of thing? Veterans.

So then, why…

Robert McDonald, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, misrepresented his military record in a recent TV appearance, falsely stating that he was in an elite special operations division.

McDonald, a West Point grad who served with the 82nd Airborne Division during the late 1970s, has issued an apology for the misstatement.

The story was first reported by the Huffington Post’s David Wood. There was no suggestion in Wood’s story of any pattern of misstatements by McDonald. The comment in question came while McDonald was being filmed by a CBS News crew as he toured Los Angeles during a count of homeless veterans, one of whom told McDonald he had served in special ops.

McDonald replied: “Special Forces? What years? I was in Special Forces.” The segment aired Jan. 30.

“Special operators are a close-knit community deeply hostile to outsiders who try to claim the coveted mantle of special operations,” wrote Wood, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2012 for his reporting on the “physical and emotional challenges facing American soldiers severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan during a decade of war.”

Wood reported that McDonald, the former chief executive of Procter and Gamble who was brought in to shape up the embattled VA, completed Army Ranger training but “never served in a Ranger battalion or any other special operations unit.”

In a statement provided by the VA, McDonald said: “While I was in Los Angeles, engaging a homeless individual to determine his veteran status, I asked the man where he had served in the military. He responded that he had served in special forces. I incorrectly stated that I had been in special forces. That was inaccurate and I apologize to anyone that was offended by my misstatement.”

I guess he gets a pass. He did serve, and the story says he completed Army Ranger training. It was a brain fart, not a pattern of lying. But for the VA Secretary to do something so stupid, so offensive to the veterans he was appointed to serve? I wouldn’t expect them to be as forgiving.

PS: Or is there a pattern of lying?

Comments

So Gay

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

But you know what? He was lying.

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

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

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

John Kerry, yes; Barack Obama, no.

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

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

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

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

So, when he said in 2008:

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

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

Until he needed your votes in 2012?

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

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

Comments

If You Repeat A Lie Often Enough, People Will Believe It

Did Bush lie us into Iraq?

n recent weeks, I have heard former Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier on Fox News twice asserting, quite offhandedly, that President George W. Bush “lied us into war in Iraq.”

I found this shocking. I took a leave of absence from the bench in 2004-05 to serve as co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction—a bipartisan body, sometimes referred to as the Robb-Silberman Commission. It was directed in 2004 to evaluate the intelligence community’s determination that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD—I am, therefore, keenly aware of both the intelligence provided to President Bush and his reliance on that intelligence as his primary casus belli. It is astonishing to see the “Bush lied” allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.

The intelligence community’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated, in a formal presentation to President Bush and to Congress, its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—a belief in which the NIE said it held a 90% level of confidence. That is about as certain as the intelligence community gets on any subject.

Recall that the head of the intelligence community, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, famously told the president that the proposition that Iraq possessed WMD was “a slam dunk.” Our WMD commission carefully examined the interrelationships between the Bush administration and the intelligence community and found no indication that anyone in the administration sought to pressure the intelligence community into its findings. As our commission reported, presidential daily briefs from the CIA dating back to the Clinton administration were, if anything, more alarmist about Iraq’s WMD than the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

You can read it at the link. I happen to remember this, and find it shocking and discouraging that people who were adults at the time can’t recall it. I would also point out that among the western nations, only Israel stated that Saddam did not have WMD’s. Ariel Sharon said it publicly at the time. But one would have to read the Israeli press and assume that Israelis know something about what goes on in the Middle East in order to have taken him seriously. Sharon told the world that the problem was not Iraq, but Iran.

The scapegoating that the Left has employed against GW Bush will bite them really hard someday. This is because it contributed to the general cynicism about government which is ubiquitous today. Don’t get me wrong – Obama is a truly awful president and lies routinely to our faces (remember that red line in Syria? You can keep your health care plan?) but someday we might have a decent president again. And when he or she says we need to do something big, who will believe it?

– Aggie

Comments

Climate Change BS Exposed (Again)

The British media weighs in

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

More at the link. But cogitate on this: If the Left will lie about which group – militant Islam – is responsible for the various terror attacks in our time, why would they tell the truth about anything?

– Aggie

Comments

You Lie!

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

We shouldn’t have bothered:

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

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

But Axelrod’s claim is nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

A Mole at the SOTU

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

It’s true:

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

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

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

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

Except she’s not:

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

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

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

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

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

Even Michelle seemed pretty annoyed at the whole charade:

Comments

With a Friend Like Him, Who Needs an Enemy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »