Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 05:23:06 PM
-
Does the president have it?
Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 05/14/2013
TheWashingtonPost
(JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS)
“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013
Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.
Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”
Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?
The Facts
Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13
“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13
Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:
Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.
The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.
Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.
For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”
KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”
(You can view this segment of the interview below. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)
Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)
Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:
QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”
So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.
In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”
Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”
She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.
Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”
The Pinocchio Test
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.
But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.
Four Pinocchios
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg?uuid=zmHlfEniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html
-
Who gives a shit what he called it
Darrell Issa seems to think it's significant that Obama called it an "act of terror" rather than a "terrorist attack"
WTF is wrong with these morons
This is why Repubs are a joke
-
i like it, the majority of the american people are seeing the repub party for what they are,an on running joke :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Who gives a shit what he called it
Darrell Issa seems to think it's significant that Obama called it an "act of terror" rather than a "terrorist attack"
WTF is wrong with these morons
This is why Repubs are a joke
I know, I still am unsure what the problem is, is this it? the wording? the changing of talking points like any police investigation. I mean this is like saying a policeman didn't tell us everything all at once because he waited for all the info.
This is a non issue, supporting this shit causes realshit to get pushed aside and focus energy on pointless politics instead of actually fuckign doing something.
-
Does the president have it?
LMFAO.
Of course not.
-
are we REALLY going to sit around and talk about if obama has this or that touchy-feely emotion?
Or are we going to impeach him?
I mean seriously, is this the kinda tampax-sponsored little cryfest we want to have? It's 2013... who in their right mind still doesn't know that obama lacks integrity? It's been 5 years of his rule.... who still wakes up in the morning and doesn't know he's a corrupt Bush III cronie who doesn't give a shit about americans?
I can't believe this is a thread, i really cannot. fvkc.
-
LMFAO.
Of course not.
Just askin'. :)
Another example. Is he telling the truth here?
Carney: White House notified of IRS targeting tea party ‘several weeks ago’; Obama: I found out Friday [VIDEO]
1:55 PM 05/14/2013
White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a press conference Tuesday that the White House was notified about the IRS targeting tea party groups “several weeks ago.” This comes a day after President Obama said he found out about it from news reports on Friday of last week.
During a press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday, President Obama was asked about the IRS scandal. He responded, ”I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.”
However, Carney said Tuesday that first a report had to be compiled by the IRS’s inspector general and then when it was completed, it was passed on to the administration.
Ads by Google“A notification is appropriate and routine and that is what happened and that happened several weeks ago,” Carney said.
Carney said the White House will not make a formal statement until a complete IG report is released.
Carney said later in the press conference that although the White House was notified “weeks ago” about the IRS investigaton, neither he nor the president were notified individually.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/carney-white-house-notified-of-irs-targeting-tea-party-several-weeks-ago-obama-i-found-out-friday-video/
-
are we REALLY going to sit around and talk about if obama has this or that touchy-feely emotion?
Or are we going to impeach him?
I mean seriously, is this the kinda tampax-sponsored little cryfest we want to have? It's 2013... who in their right mind still doesn't know that obama lacks integrity? It's been 5 years of his rule.... who still wakes up in the morning and doesn't know he's a corrupt Bush III cronie who doesn't give a shit about americans?
I can't believe this is a thread, i really cannot. fvkc.
Oh shut the heck up. You had Obama's penis firmly implanted in your mouth for the last four years. You kneedpadded the man as much or more than anyone on this board. Get the heck out of here with that disingenuous impeachment talk. ::)
Oh, and have a nice day. :)
-
Whether Obama called the Benghazi attack a "Terrorist Attack" or not is no big deal. Who cares, right?
Marco Rubio calling the IRS Acting Director, "Director" is the end of the world. What a clown, right?
-
Oh shut the heck up. You had Obama's penis firmly implanted in your mouth for the last four years. You kneedpadded the man as much or more than anyone on this board. Get the heck out of here with that disingenuous impeachment talk. ::)
Oh, and have a nice day. :)
LOL I'm calling for his impeachment. Are you? :)
-
LOL I'm calling for his impeachment. Are you? :)
same old 240 bull shit take one position to gain "credibility" in order to say shit tongue in cheek and not get shit on....
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=479487.0;attach=518372;image)
-
LOL I'm calling for his impeachment. Are you? :)
Of course not. You don't have a clue why you're "calling for his impeachment." lol
I didn't vote for him. Did you?
-
His entire administration has zero integrity. Pathological liars. I wouldn't trust any of them to to even watch my dog for the weekend. Lie, cheat and steal.
-
Whether Obama called the Benghazi attack a "Terrorist Attack" or not is no big deal. Who cares, right?
Marco Rubio calling the IRS Acting Director, "Director" is the end of the world. What a clown, right?
Haha, great point. Leftists are comical in their hypocrisy.
-
Does the president have it?
Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 05/14/2013
TheWashingtonPost
(JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS)
“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013
Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.
Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”
Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?
The Facts
Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13
“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13
Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:
Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.
The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.
Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.
For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”
KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”
(You can view this segment of the interview below. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)
Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)
Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:
QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”
So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.
In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”
Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”
She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.
Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”
The Pinocchio Test
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.
But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.
Four Pinocchios
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg?uuid=zmHlfEniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html
I dont get the "wording" thing
But Obama doesnt have integrity
-
The AG (and I think the president") said this leak "put the American people at risk." Is he telling the truth?
Questions raised over administration claim that AP leak put Americans at risk
Published May 17, 2013
FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON – Americans were in danger.
That was the chief argument Attorney General Eric Holder tried to make this week for why Justice Department officials seized two months' worth of phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press.
But the AP has strongly refuted from the start claims that it put the country in danger. The accusation that the news organization risked national security isn’t sitting so well with other journalists and lawmakers who have started pushing back on the claims.
“We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed,” AP President Gary Pruitt said in a written response to the Justice Department's claims.
A report from The Washington Post appeared to give more weight to the AP's claims.
According to the Post, the AP had been sitting on a scoop about a failed Al Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials for five days. The morning they were supposed to release the story, journalists were asked by government officials to wait another day, citing safety concerns.
However, the CIA officials who first cited the security concerns said they no longer had the same worries. Rather, the Obama administration was planning to announce the success of the counterterrorism project the following day, according to The Post report.
After a series of negotiations, the AP ultimately decided to publish. Months later, the Obama administration seized the phone records – home, work and cell -- of 20 AP reporters and editors.
The government says it was trying to hunt down the AP government source who leaked information about a top secret U.S. operation to thwart an Al Qaeda plan to blow up an airliner.
Holder said earlier this week that it was one of the most serious leaks he's encountered, and it put the American people "at risk."
One White House official told the Post that the reason the administration was planning to go public with the operation was because they knew the AP was planning a story.
But the argument doesn’t hold up, some say, because the day after it was released, the White House’s top counterterrorism adviser went on “Good Morning America” and talked about how successful the operation had been. John Brennan, now CIA director, praised the work of U.S. intelligence officials and said that the Al Qaeda plot was never an active threat to the American public.
Brennan’s comments seem to challenge the reason the government pressed the news organization to hold the story as well as Holder’s claims that the leak and published report endangered Americans.
On Tuesday, Holder defended the department’s secret examination of the AP phone records even though he went on to say he had recused himself from the case. He could not offer details on the investigation.
In all, the government pulled the April 2012-May 2012 telephone records from four AP bureaus including Washington and New York.
The department's actions angered many lawmakers and First Amendment groups.
Pruitt called the Justice Department’s actions “a massive and unprecedented intrusion.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/17/sources-say-cia-claims-that-ap-put-americans-at-risk-is-false/
-
What about Ms. Lerner?
Democrat Crowley: IRS' Lerner Should Be Fired for Lying
Friday, 17 May 2013
By Christiana Lilly
Rep. Joe Crowley Friday all but accused Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner of lying to Congress about the agency's targeting of conservative groups and joined Rep. Sander Levin in calling for her immediate resignation or firing.
Crowley, a New York Democrat, said Friday on MSNBC's Jansing & Co. that Lerner "failed to answer the question" when she was asked at a Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee hearing last week if the IRS was investigating political 501 (c) (4) groups that had applied for tax-exempt status through the agency division she headed.
"She then two days later planted a question at a press event, only to then use that opportunity to apologize for what the IRS had been doing," Crowley continued.
He said he confronted her later and she denied that she had even been asked about the targeting effort at the hearing.
"The truth was, I had asked in Congress at a committee hearing two days earlier," Crowley said, adding: "If you're Miss Lerner, you're worried about your career right now."
Crowley and Michigan Democrat Levin, the top two members of their party on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, called for Lerner to resign, and failing that, to be fired for her conduct in trying to control fallout from IRS controversy, which has now turned into a full-blown scandal.
Crowley insisted, however, that the White House was not aware or involved in the targeting effort, citing the inspector general's report released earlier this week indicating it did not stretch beyond the tax collection agency.
Like Republicans, he said he was angry, too, but added that GOP lawmakers are wrong to claim that Obama knew about it or, even worse, had orchestrated it, much as Richard Nixon had done with the Watergate cover-up nearly 41 years ago.
"It’s about partisanship once again and trying to somehow link this to the White House. It’s the same old, same old, exactly what people are really angry about what is happening in Washington today," he said, criticizing the GOP.
"Really we should all be outraged by what took place. I am. No political entity ought to be investigated or gone after by the IRS."
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/crowley-irs-lerner-lying/2013/05/17/id/505096
-
He cannot really believe this?
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: Final question, Jay Carney. Obviously the president made a big deal when he came into office of being not like previous administrations and was going to be much more transparent. The charge today after this week is that you have had that reputation for transparency pretty heavily dented. Do you accept that and just on a general picture, how are you going to move on now and restore perhaps faith that some Americans have lost this week in your openness and honesty?
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, I'm not sure, again, you're concocting scandals here that don't exist, especially with regard to the Benghazi affair that was contrived by Republicans and I think has fallen apart largely this week. The fact of the matter is that we, that this administration has a record on transparency that outdoes any previous administration's, and we are committed to that. The president is committed to that.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/16/pmt.01.html
-
He cannot really believe this?
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: Final question, Jay Carney. Obviously the president made a big deal when he came into office of being not like previous administrations and was going to be much more transparent. The charge today after this week is that you have had that reputation for transparency pretty heavily dented. Do you accept that and just on a general picture, how are you going to move on now and restore perhaps faith that some Americans have lost this week in your openness and honesty?
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, I'm not sure, again, you're concocting scandals here that don't exist, especially with regard to the Benghazi affair that was contrived by Republicans and I think has fallen apart largely this week. The fact of the matter is that we, that this administration has a record on transparency that outdoes any previous administration's, and we are committed to that. The president is committed to that.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/16/pmt.01.html
Absolutely he does! Inside the Obama WH its a cult of personality
-
Did they purposely pick Jay Carney out because he looks like a little twink? ???
-
Did they purposely pick Jay Carney out because he looks like a little twink? ???
JTWINK!
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=479487.0;attach=518372;image)
Sounds a little like the Christian god...
-
Sounds a little like the Christian god...
Or a bunch of cops...
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Whether Obama called the Benghazi attack a "Terrorist Attack" or not is no big deal. Who cares, right?
Marco Rubio calling the IRS Acting Director, "Director" is the end of the world. What a clown, right?
you sure that's what rubio stated?
"t is clear the IRS cannot operate with even a shred of the American people’s confidence under the current leadership," Rubio said in a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. "I strongly urge that you and President Obama demand the IRS Commissioner’s resignation, effectively immediately. No government agency that has behaved in such a manner can possibly instill any faith and respect from the American public."
Is this the thing you are referring too?
a little differnent. it's like Obama calling it an evil act instead of a terrorist attack.
-
I'm sensing a pattern here . . . .
A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 05/20/2013
TheWashingtonPost
In the days since the Internal Revenue Service first disclosed that it had targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, new information has emerged from both the Treasury inspector general’s report and congressional testimony Friday that calls into question key statements made by Lois G. Lerner, the IRS’s director of the exempt organizations division.
The clumsy way the IRS disclosed the issue, as well as Lerner’s press briefing by phone, were seen at the time as a public relations disaster. But even so, it is worth reviewing three key statements made by Lerner and comparing them to the facts that have since emerged.
“But between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving, and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.”
Lerner made this comment while issuing a seemingly impromptu apology at an American Bar Association panel. (It was later learned that this was a planted question — more on that below.) In her telling, the tax-exempt branch was simply overwhelmed by applications, and so unfortunate shortcuts were taken.
But this claim of “more than doubled” appears to be a red herring. The targeting of groups began in early 2010, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC was announced on Jan. 21. The ruling led to increased interest in a tax-exempt status known as 501(c)(4). Most charities apply under 501(c)(3), but under 501(c)(4), nonprofit groups that engage in “social welfare” can also perform a limited amount of election activity.
At first glance, the inspector general’s report appears to show that the number of 501(c)(4) applications actually went down that year, from 1,751 in 2009 to 1,735.
But it turns out that these are federal fiscal-year figures, meaning “2010” is actually Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010, so the “2010” year includes more than three months before the Supreme Court decision was announced.
Astonishingly, despite Lerner’s public claim, an IRS spokeswoman was not able to provide the actual calendar year numbers. By allocating one-quarter of the fiscal year numbers to the prior year, we can get a very rough sense of the increase on a calendar-year basis. (Figures are rounded to avoid false precision; 2012 is not possible to calculate.)
2009: 1745
2010: 1865
2011: 2540
In other words, while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.”
“I think you guys were reading the paper as much as I was. So it was pretty much we started seeing information in the press that raised questions for us, and we went back and took a look.”
Here, Lerner suggests that she found out about this issue only when news reports appeared in February and March 2012 about tea party groups complaining that they were being targeted. But the IG timeline shows this claim to be false.
According the IG, Lerner had a briefing on the issue on June 29, 2011, in which she was told about the BOLO (“Be On the Look Out”) criteria that included words such as “tea party” or “patriots.” The report says she raised concerns about the wording and “instructed that the criteria be immediately revised.” She continued to be heavily involved in the issue in the months preceding the new reports, according to the timeline.
“I don’t believe anyone ever asked me that question before.”
This was Lerner’s excuse during the media call for why she had not publicly addressed the issue before.
But in congressional testimony Friday, outgoing acting director Steven T. Miller said he had talked with Lerner about arranging to make a statement at a May 10 conference sponsored by the American Bar Association, knowing that the IG report would soon be released.
Lerner then contacted a friend, Celia Roady, a tax attorney with the Washington firm Morgan Lewis, to get her to ask a question about the targeting, according to a statement by Roady on Friday. (Roady had previously denied this was a planted question when asked directly by participants at the meeting.)
So Lerner was dissembling when she suggested that a simple well-aimed question prompted the disclosure.
In fact, just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner appeared before Congress and was asked by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) about the status of investigations into 501(c)(4) groups. She provided a bland answer about a questionnaire on the IRS Web site, failing to take the opportunity to disclose the results of the probe. (The clip is embedded below, with the question coming at 5:09.) Small wonder that Crowley is now calling for her to resign, saying that Lerner lied to him.
We gave the IRS the weekend to provide a response. A spokeswoman said the agency was not able to offer an explanation for Lerner’s remarks in time for our deadline.
The Pinocchio Test
In some ways, this is just scratching the surface of Lerner’s misstatements and weasely wording when the revelations about the IRS’s activities first came to light on May 10. But, taken together, it’s certainly enough to earn her four Pinocchios.
Four Pinocchios
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg?uuid=zmHlfEniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bushel-of-pinocchios-for-irss-lois-lerner/2013/05/19/771687d2-bfdd-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html
-
nate silver said that after his analysis that liberal voters/groups were more like to be scrutinized by the IRS.
-
Morning Jolt. . . with Jim Geraghty
June 6, 2013
Three Administration Lies to the Public That Must Have Consequences
President Obama, speaking to the American public, Friday afternoon:
If people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress, and don't trust federal judges, to make sure that we're abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we're going to have some problems here.
In the specific issue that Obama is discussing, i.e., oversight of the National Security Agency's vast data collection on American citizens, there is the problem in that no one within that system of oversight has the role or duty to speak on behalf of those being monitored, or about to be monitored. The executive branch knows what it wants — it wants to monitor people. The Congress may or may not want to advocate the argument, "hey, that person hasn't done anything wrong, you have no good reason to collect that information on them", but judging from what we now know, no one argued that perspective very strongly. And the oversight of the judicial branch is pretty weak when we know the Department of Justice goes "judge shopping" when their initial requests are rejected. If the executive branch can keep going to new judges until they get the decision they want, there isn't really much of a check on their power, is there?
Regarding that alleged congressional oversight, Senator Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, is coming awfully close to accusing the president of lying:
Since government officials have repeatedly told the public and Congress that Patriot Act authorities are simply analogous to a grand jury subpoena, and that intelligence agencies do not collect information or dossiers on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans, I think the executive branch has an obligation to explain whether or not these statements are actually true.
Wyden's suspicion is driven by a lie he appears to have been told under oath, one we'll look at in a moment. But more generally, we have seen quite a few folks in the executive branch abuse the public's trust and then see no real consequences for it.
LIE ONE: White House press secretary Jay Carney's November 28 explanation about changes made to talking points about the Benghazi attack:
The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two — of these two institutions were changing the word "consulate" to "diplomatic facility," because "consulate" was inaccurate. Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened.
You can see the twelve rounds of revisions here, well more than a single adjustment, and mostly in response to State Department objections.
After it became clear that Carney had put forth false information, he dug in deeper. Carney paid for his lie with two days of hostile questions from the White House Press Corps . . . and then the storm seemed to have blown over.
LIE TWO: Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, May 15:
Well, I would say this. With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy.
Michael Isikoff later reported the precise opposite:
The Justice Department pledged Friday to review its policies relating to the seizure of information from journalists after acknowledging that a controversial search warrant for a Fox News reporter's private emails was approved "at the highest levels" of the Justice Department, including "discussions" with Attorney General Eric Holder.
There is a claim from the usual suspects — Media Matters — that Holder is in the clear because he was asked about prosecutions for publishing classified information, not solicitation for classified information; they assert that the two actions are totally different. A pretty thin reed for a perjury defense, and one that utterly fails the standard of the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States informing the public of his department's operations.
For us to believe that, it would mean that during the entire Justice Department discussion of prosecuting Fox News' James Rosen for soliciting the information, no one suggested or mentioned prosecuting Rosen for publishing it. Remember, Holder didn't just say he didn't agree with that idea; he said he never heard of the idea.
LIE THREE: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, testifying under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on March 12, responding to questions from Wyden:
Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
Clapper: "No, sir."
Wyden: "It does not?"
Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly."
The subsequent explanation from Clapper, to National Journal: "What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mails. I stand by that."
But that's not what he was asked, nor was it even close to what he was asked. In fact, the light from what he was asked takes several years to reach a question about voyeurism.
If your excuse is that you are incapable of discerning what "any type of data at all" means, you are no longer allowed to keep a job title that has the word "intelligence" in it.
This weekend, the Guardian reported, "During a 30-day period in March 2013, the documents indicate, the NSA collected nearly 3 billion pieces of intelligence from within the United States."
Two of these three were under oath before Congress; the other was to the press, with the cameras rolling, on a topic of high public interest and great controversy.
If Obama were to ask for the resignations of Carney, Holder, and Clapper tomorrow, all of us who don't trust him would have to at least acknowledge that he's trying to set a better standard for consequences of lying to the public. But all of us know that he will do nothing of the sort.
Instead, he will continue to give speeches where he expresses incredulity that the public wouldn't trust him and his administration.
'Hi, I'm Edward, and I'll Be Your Whistleblower for This Week'
The Guardian introduces us to their source: "The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden , a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell."
Clapper's coming for him: "Office of DNI states bluntly that anyone with a security clearance is obligated to "protect classified information & abide by the law.'"
Farhad Manjoo: "So one guy who works for a CONTRACTOR for the NSA had access to 'everything.' This doesn't inspire confidence in this agency's data security."
Hey, It's Not Like That Country's a Powder Keg with Huge Religious Influence, Right?
Here's a strong guess on the next place to see a popular uprising:
Every nation bordering Syria—Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Turkey—is being drawn into the conflict there. The leaders in these countries are worried, to say the least. But why is Saudi Arabia in a panic?
None of the Syrian warfare is spilling over into Saudi Arabia. Iraq and Jordan serve as buffers. Still, hundreds if not thousands of Saudis (nobody's counting) are pouring into Syria to fight with one or another of the factions trying to unseat Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. And that has Saudi leaders terrified.
Saudi Arabia's most important cleric, Grand Mufti Sheik Abdulaziz al-Sheik, recently warned that there was no religious reason for Saudis to join the Syrian war.
"The situation in Syria is chaotic due to the proliferation of armed groups that do not fight under a unified banner," he said. "This is not considered jihad, which must be approved by rulers." Among those rulers he seemed to be including himself. And a year ago, Saudi Arabia's Council of Senior Ulema, the state's highest religious authority, issued [1] a fatwa prohibiting fighting in Syria without permission from the authorities.
King Abdullah also warned Saudis to stay out of it—as have many other Saudi government officers over many months—to no good effect.
Why are they so concerned? Well, all of them remember well what happened almost ten years ago when thousands of Saudis joined the jihads against the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan and then came back and turned their weapons on Saudis and foreigners who lived there. Hundreds died. . . .
Today most of the Saudi men fighting in Syria have joined the Nusra Front [3], an al-Qaeda affiliate—giving further worry to Saudi leaders.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/350616/three-lies-public-must-have-consequences-jim-geraghty
-
His entire administration has zero integrity. Pathological liars. I wouldn't trust any of them to to even watch my dog for the weekend. Lie, cheat and steal.
in your opinion.. did the Bush administration have integrity, what about Ronald Reagan.... Please answer carefully
-
in your opinion.. did the Bush administration have integrity, what about Ronald Reagan.... Please answer carefully
Remember the shitstain from Kenya who ran on C H A N G E?
-
Remember the shitstain from Kenya who ran on C H A N G E?
I have no clue as to whom you are referring to.
-
I have no clue as to whom you are referring to.
lOL - remember the Kenyan Marxist fraud and idiot you and your fellow peeps thought was thw anti-W who ran on "HOPE AND C H A N G E" ?
So now what are you left with? A scumbag liar who is as bad or worse than those you thought he was going to be better than and now all you can say - "but they did it too"
Pathetic how slavish and cultish you clowns are to these messiahs in politics
-
lOL - remember the Kenyan Marxist fraud and idiot you and your fellow peeps thought was thw anti-W who ran on "HOPE AND C H A N G E" ?
So now what are you left with? A scumbag liar who is as bad or worse than those you thought he was going to be better than and now all you can say - "but they did it too"
Pathetic how slavish and cultish you clowns are to these messiahs in politics
aye calm down little man.. chicken little
Every politican runs on a platform, and every politician doesnt live up to it "No new taxes!!!!"... you know.. shit like that. Obama is a politican...
oh yeah.. he is also your reason for living
-
aye calm down little man.. chicken little
Every politican runs on a platform, and every politician doesnt live up to it "No new taxes!!!!"... you know.. shit like that. Obama is a politican...
oh yeah.. he is also your reason for living
And when GHWB got busted for lying he was voted out. Obama lied and people still make endless excuses for him why? Simple answer.
-
And when GHWB got busted for lying he was voted out. Obama lied and people still make endless excuses for him why? Simple answer.
What did GHWB get busted for?..What lie
-
What did GHWB get busted for?..What lie
You are the one who just posted it dipshit!
-
You are the one who just posted it dipshit!
yo calm your small frail ass down.
Ok so you think GHWB told one lie and was voted out for it?....
And you say obama tells lies and doesnt and you want to know "what gives"
-
yo calm your small frail ass down.
Ok so you think GHWB told one lie and was voted out for it?....
And you say obama tells lies and doesnt and you want to know "what gives"
Yes - again - I know you are a low information voter - but look up what was the main thing in 1993 in Clinton v Bush "READ MY LIPS"
Be honest - you cant possibly be this dumb.
-
Yes - again - I know you are a low information voter - but look up what was the main thing in 1993 in Clinton v Bush "READ MY LIPS"
Be honest - you cant possibly be this dumb.
lol...ok... you... of all people... on this board.... calling someone dumb... wow... welcome to the multiverse
-
lol...ok... you... of all people... on this board.... calling someone dumb... wow... welcome to the multiverse
You didn't know the reference of the own thing you cited - sorry that is DUMB!
-
You didn't know the reference of the own thing you cited - sorry that is DUMB!
who said i didnt?... you... you are wrong quite a bit
Landslide Coming!!!!
-
who said i didnt?... you... you are wrong quite a bit
Landslide Coming!!!!
speaking of integrity - Oh-Shit! lied again
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-claim-thwarted-nyse-plot-contradicted-court-documents/story?id=19436557#.UcMj3T7D_IU
-
speaking of integrity - Oh-Shit! lied again
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-claim-thwarted-nyse-plot-contradicted-court-documents/story?id=19436557#.UcMj3T7D_IU
Did Bush 2 get voted out after the WMD lie?
-
Did Bush 2 get voted out after the WMD lie?
Is it a lie if you are too stupid to know it's a lie?
-
Did Bush 2 get voted out after the WMD lie?
Everyone thought that Iraq had WMD including Bill, Hill, Kerry, UK, France, the UN, etc.
-
Everyone thought that Iraq had WMD including Bill, Hill, Kerry, UK, France, the UN, etc.
I didn't think there was and I was right, what is frightening is that a guy like me had it right and all those people had it wrong...
-
I didn't think there was and I was right, what is frightening is that a guy like me had it right and all those people had it wrong...
I know the feeling. ;) ;)
-
I didn't think there was and I was right, what is frightening is that a guy like me had it right and all those people had it wrong...
I'm sure a few of those people knew it was bullshit but stood to gain a lot financially.
-
I didn't think there was and I was right, what is frightening is that a guy like me had it right and all those people had it wrong...
Not frightening. You were just lucky. Or did you have access to intel?
-
Not frightening. You were just lucky. Or did you have access to intel?
Intel...common sense....sometimes interchangeable... While he MIGHT have had them, we certainly had them and we have used them before. The inspectors we had on the ground in Iraq at the time were saying he was cooperating, and at the time they were coming up with nil. Could he have had them hidden away? Maybe..but seriously, sending in troops to die should always be a last resort..in my opinion, we were FAR from a last resort option and here we are 10+ years later and 4400+ dead soldiers and I still haven't figured out the why...For our government to say a single word about our flag, country and patriotism while sending our citizens off to die in a meaningless war is the ultimate in hypocrasy...
Just my opinion
Ag
-
Intel...common sense....sometimes interchangeable... While he MIGHT have had them, we certainly had them and we have used them before. The inspectors we had on the ground in Iraq at the time were saying he was cooperating, and at the time they were coming up with nil. Could he have had them hidden away? Maybe..but seriously, sending in troops to die should always be a last resort..in my opinion, we were FAR from a last resort option and here we are 10+ years later and 4400+ dead soldiers and I still haven't figured out the why...For our government to say a single word about our flag, country and patriotism while sending our citizens off to die in a meaningless war is the ultimate in hypocrasy...
Just my opinion
Ag
We know he had them, because he used them against his own people. And essentially everyone thought he still had them, from Clinton and his people through Bush and his people.
Keep in mind the war wasn't just about WMDs. It was about removing a brutal dictator who posed a threat to the region and us (either directly or indirectly). But it's over. We did what we needed to do. It was not managed properly, but we got the job done (removing Saddam). No soldier died in vain.
-
We know he had them, because he used them against his own people. And essentially everyone thought he still had them, from Clinton and his people through Bush and his people.
Keep in mind the war wasn't just about WMDs. It was about removing a brutal dictator who posed a threat to the region and us (either directly or indirectly). But it's over. We did what we needed to do. It was not managed properly, but we got the job done (removing Saddam). No soldier died in vain.
I believe they all did.. but that's my opinion. Same with the Vietnam war.
-
name 5 politicians that have integrity.
-
name 5 politicians that have integrity.
Ron Paul.
End of line.
-
name 5 politicians that have integrity.
Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, George Washington, and the Mayor of my hometown. That's all I can come up with...
-
name 5 politicians that have integrity.
Buddy Rohmer?
All the politicians people see as having integrity is libertarian.
But the republican's will fight them with all they got.
-
Buddy Rohmer?
All the politicians people see as having integrity is libertarian.
But the republican's will fight them with all they got.
YES!!
-
Buddy Rohmer?
All the politicians people see as having integrity is libertarian.
But the republican's will fight them with all they got.
What "people" are you referring to?
-
I believe they all did.. but that's my opinion. Same with the Vietnam war.
I don't think any service member dies in vain. Doesn't matter what the policy is, who won the war, etc. They volunteered to put themselves in harm's way in service of their country. No greater calling or honor IMO.
-
Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, George Washington, and the Mayor of my hometown. That's all I can come up with...
Kucinich? Seriously? Dude sued the fucking Congressional cafeteria (or whoever runs it), over an olive pit injury to his teeth 3 fucking years after the incident supposedly occurred. ::)
-
I don't think any service member dies in vain. Doesn't matter what the policy is, who won the war, etc. They volunteered to put themselves in harm's way in service of their country. No greater calling or honor IMO.
lol. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=364220.0
-
I don't think any service member dies in vain. Doesn't matter what the policy is, who won the war, etc. They volunteered to put themselves in harm's way in service of their country. No greater calling or honor IMO.
And I respect your opinion..
-
And I respect your opinion..
Thanks. I respect yours too.
-
Kucinich? Seriously? Dude sued the fucking Congressional cafeteria (or whoever runs it), over an olive pit injury to his teeth 3 fucking years after the incident supposedly occurred. ::)
The olive suppliers settled with him, so maybe there was something to it. I disagree with Kussinich 90% of the time, but I know he atleast has Americas best interest in mind.
-
What "people" are you referring to?
Look at the posts of getbiggers.
Even dem and republican voters will agree that libertarians have the most integrity.
-
Look at the posts of getbiggers.
Even dem and republican voters will agree that libertarians have the most integrity.
So when you say "All the politicians people see as having integrity is libertarian," you are referring to people who post on this site?
-
So when you say "All the politicians people see as having integrity is libertarian," you are referring to people who post on this site?
I was referring to this thread actually.
But i do think dem and repub voters alike if they their "glasses" of for a second would say the libertarian politicies overall have more integrity.
You disagree?
-
I was referring to this thread actually.
But i do think dem and repub voters alike if they their "glasses" of for a second would say the libertarian politicies overall have more integrity.
You disagree?
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree at this point. I'm not sure there is any kind of reliable sample? Which Libertarian politicians are you talking about?
-
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree at this point. I'm not sure there is any kind of reliable sample? Which Libertarian politicians are you talking about?
Ron and Rand, Rohmer, Nader on the top of my head.
Not a whole lot but then again i cant think of any current dem or repub with integrity.
-
Ron and Rand, Rohmer, Nader on the top of my head.
Not a whole lot but then again i cant think of any current dem or repub with integrity.
Ron and Rand are Republicans. Roemer was a Republican until last year and joined Perot's Reform Party. Nader is an independent.
-
Ron and Rand are Republicans. Roemer was a Republican until last year and joined Perot's Reform Party. Nader is an independent.
Ron got a knife in the back at the convention.
They are not republicans or shouldnt be anyway.
They deserve better.
-
Didn't he promise during his first campaign that donors and lobbyists would not be part his administration?
Obama taps top fundraisers, bundlers for ambassadorships
Published July 20, 2013
FoxNews.com
Just six months into his second term, President Obama has nominated a slew of campaign donors and fundraisers for ambassadorships.
These nominations include major bundlers Denise Bauer and a Los Angeles entertainment attorney Crystal Nix Hines.
As of last month, Obama had given 32.2 percent of ambassadorships to political appointees -- almost identical to his first term rate and slightly higher than those of recent predecessors in the long-held tradition of presidents rewarding big-time financial supporters.
The number compares to 30.02 percent under George W. Bush, 27.82 percent under Bill Clinton and 31.30 percent under George H.W. Bush, according to the American Foreign Service Association.
The president has nominated 19 people for ambassadorships in the second term including at least eight bundlers, according to The Hill newspaper.
The 2011-2012 amounts range from $2.36 million by Bauer, chairwoman of the Women for Obama Finance, who would go to Belgium, to $477,000 from Hines, who would represent the United States at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO.
Other bundlers have been named to serve in Austria, Germany, Singapore, Spain, the Dominican Republic and the United Kingdom.
But much of the attention remains focused on who will get two of the remaining top posts -- France and Japan.
According to The Hill, Democratic National Committee National Finance Chairwoman Jane Stetson, who raised $2.43 million for Obama, is in line for the coveted Paris post, which would knock out Vogue editor-in-chief Anne Wintour, who raised $2.68 million and purportedly wanted either the London or Paris diplomatic positions.
Beyond Wintour, the most talked about potential ambassadorship is Caroline Kennedy to Japan.
Kennedy, daughter of President Kennedy, certainly has the political pedigree and ranks among the president’s biggest fundraisers and political supporters. However, critics argue that her lack of experience in elected office makes her a risky choice as Japan remains a crucial ally in trying to maintain stability in the Korean Peninsula.
Still, Dartmouth government professor Jennifer Lind argues Kennedy’s stature give her extraordinary access to the president and that her father’s “unconventional ” decision in the 1960s to appoint Harvard professor Edwin O. Reischauer to the Tokyo post “helped knit … two countries once dismissed as impossible allies.”
The Foreign Service union, while not directly criticizing Kennedy or Obama, told FoxNews.com this spring that it does not support such appointments and that the rate of political appointees to ambassadorships for Japan and major European countries is as high as 85 percent.
“The sale of ambassadorships and rewards for political support basically suggests we really don’t value diplomacy,” said then-union President Susan Johnson.
Other major Obama bundlers being considered by the president in his second term include retired JP Morgan executive Azita Raji, who reportedly raised $3.15 million and is Obama’s top pick for ambassador to Switzerland.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/20/obama-taps-top-fundraisers-bundlers-for-ambassadorships/#ixzz2bDltaLNF
-
Integrity? WMD's
Integrity? Iran Contra
-
Integrity? WMD's
Integrity? Iran Contra
Bush and Obama are twins in that respect
-
Integrity? WMD's
Integrity? Iran Contra
No lack of integrity regarding WMDs. Iran Contra? Yes.
-
Election-year shock: Obama boasts of ‘decimated’ al Qaeda undermined by intel briefings
Agencies warned administration the group was expanding, not ‘on the run’
By Guy Taylor
The Washington Times
Monday, September 9, 2013
As President Obama ran to election victory last fall with claims that al Qaeda was “decimated” and “on the run,” his intelligence team was privately offering a different assessment that the terrorist movement was shifting resources and capabilities to emerging spinoff groups in Africa that posed fresh threats to American security.
Top U.S. officials, including the president, were told in the summer and fall of 2012 that the African offshoots were gaining money, lethal knowledge and a mounting determination to strike U.S. and Western interests while keeping in some contact with al Qaeda’s central leadership, said several people directly familiar with the intelligence.
The gulf between the classified briefings and Mr. Obama’s pronouncements on the campaign trail touched off a closed-door debate inside the intelligence community about whether the terrorist group’s demise was being overstated for political reasons, officials told The Washington Times.
Many Americans believed when they voted in November that the president was justifiably touting a major national security success of his first term. After all, U.S. special operations forces succeeded in May 2011 in capturing and killing the al Qaeda founder and original leader, Osama bin Laden, in Pakistan.
But key players in the intelligence community and in Congress were actually worried that Mr. Obama was leaving out a major new chapter in al Qaeda’s evolving story in order to bend the reality of how successful his administration had been during its first four years in the fight against terrorism.
“I completely believe that the candidate Obama was understating the threat,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “To say the core is decimated and therefore we have al Qaeda on the run was not consistent with the overall intelligence assessment at the time.”
Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told The Times that “we need to evaluate statements, by the administration or anyone else, in the context of when they were made” during an election.
Like the intelligence community last year, Mr. Ruppersberger draws a distinction between al Qaeda central in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the offshoots gaining strength in Africa.
“It is important to define what we mean when we are talking about al Qaeda,” Mr. Ruppersberger told The Times. “Core al Qaeda is the original organization, headed then by Osama bin Laden and now by [Ayman] al-Zawahri, that orchestrated 9/11 and has a safe haven in the FATA in Pakistan.
“That group has been weakened, but is adaptive and resilient,” he said. “Thus, its strength level fluctuates.”
Obama administration officials declined to comment on the record for this article, though many described privately the nature of the intelligence that the president was receiving last fall.
With America approaching the 12th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and the one-year anniversary of the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Mr. Obama will try Tuesday night to rally war-wary Americans to support military action by asking them to trust his description of the intelligence that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons.
Some of those who will be listening in Congress say the president’s handling of the al Qaeda intelligence last year might provide a red flag for the coming debate.
Mr. Rogers, the House intelligence committee chairman, told The Times that there was “more than enough info at the time to understand the changes that were occurring in al Qaeda” and that two possible scenarios were at play behind the narrative Mr. Obama pushed on the campaign trail.
“One, he wasn’t getting the information that the rest of us were getting, or two, he got the information and decided to disregard it for political purposes. Either of those is a problem for a commander in chief,” he said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/intel-clashes-obamas-election-year-al-qaeda-claims/#ixzz2eVrUIbnb
-
Was it a Deception or Incompetence?
by Keith Koffler on October 22, 2013, 2:42 pm
It’s hard to understand, given the information that has come out during the last couple of days, how the White House could possibly have argued just after the Obamacare exchange website launched that what was happening resulted from high traffic volume.
First of all, while the website took a sizable hit the first day, it was evident even before the site got flooded that it wasn’t going to work.
From today’s Washington Post:
Days before the launch of President Obama’s online health insurance marketplace, government officials and contractors tested a key part of the Web site to see whether it could handle tens of thousands of consumers at the same time. It crashed after a simulation in which just a few hundred people tried to log on simultaneously.
Despite the failed test, federal health officials plowed ahead.
When the Web site went live Oct. 1, it locked up shortly after midnight as about 2,000 users attempted to complete the first step, according to two people familiar with the project.
And yet, here is what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed october 2:
There’s no question that the volume was so high and continues to be so high that that has caused some delays, but it is related to — those delays are, in our view, related to the high volume.
It is, as I mentioned, a good problem to have that interest in these first two days exceeds what we anticipated. And we have an extremely competent team that developed a very user-friendly website and they are working on these problems every day, and the process gets improved every day.
Well, it was not a good problem to be having, because it was already clear to the administration that the website’s difficulties were structural and that it couldn’t even take a small load of traffic. It wasn’t, as Obama’s spin team tried to suggest, a decent technical effort that merely ran into heavier than expected interest.
Either the White House was deceiving the public about what was going on, or HHS, which runs the website, kept the White House in the dark about the problems plaguing the site. In which case President Obama is an incompetent chief executive, because he has not ensured a proper flow of information to his inbox.
Obamacare is the signature initiative of Obama’s presidency. No CEO could survive such a catastrophic product launch. Obama has tenure until January 2017, but HHS Director Sebelius should be ordered to click her heels and return to Kansas without delay.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/10/22/deception-incompetence/
-
:-\
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/21/health-care-cancelled-obamacare_n_4138129.html
F this asshole!!!
-
But . . . .
EXCLUSIVE: Key suspects in Benghazi attack include former courier, bodyguard for Al Qaeda, sources say
By Catherine Herridge
Published October 23, 2013
FoxNews.com
At least two of the key suspects in the Benghazi terror attack were at one point working with Al Qaeda senior leadership, sources familiar with the investigation tell Fox News.
The sources said one of the suspects was believed to be a courier for the Al Qaeda network, and the other a bodyguard in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 terror attacks.
The direct ties to the Al Qaeda senior leadership undercut early characterizations by the Obama administration that the attackers in Benghazi were isolated “extremists" -- not Al Qaeda terrorists -- with no organizational structure or affiliation.
The head of the House Intelligence Committee, Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who receives regular intelligence briefings and whose staffers continue to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack, would not discuss specific suspects or their backgrounds.
But he said the ties to Al Qaeda senior leadership, also known as Al Qaeda core, are now established.
“It is accurate that of the group being targeted by the bureau, at this point, there’s strong Al Qaeda ties,” Rogers told Fox News. "You can still be considered to have strong ties because you are in the ring of operations of Al Qaeda core. ... There are individuals that certainly fit that definition."
Counterterrorism expert Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News that investigators are finding "more and more ties -- not just to Al Qaeda's branch in North Africa ... but Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan."
A year ago, Fox News' Bret Baier was first to report that a former Guantanamo detainee, Sufian bin Qumu, was suspected of training jihadists in eastern Libya for the attack.
Now, sources tell Fox News that Benghazi suspect Faraj al Chalabi, also a Libyan national whose ties to Usama bin Laden date back to 1998, is believed to be a former bodyguard who was with the Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan in 2001.
After the Benghazi attack, al Chalabi fled to Pakistan where reports suggest he was held, then later returned to Libyan custody and eventually released. He was first publicly identified as a suspected terrorist in 1998 by the regime of former Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi for his alleged role in the murder of a German intelligence official, Silvan Becker and his wife. An Interpol arrest warrant in March 1998 named al Chalabi, two other Libyans and bin Laden as the likely perpetrators.
“Our sources say al Chalabi is suspected of bringing materials from the compound to Benghazi to Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan. It's not clear what those materials consisted of but he is known to have gone back to Pakistan immediately after the attack,” Joscelyn said.
Separately, and for the first time, Rogers laid out a timeline for the attack which suggests significant advance planning. According to the congressman, there was an “aspirational phase” several months out, where the idea of an attack was thrown around, followed by “weeks” of operational planning, and then the ramp up to the Sept. 11 assault which lasted up to several days. This assessment is in stark contrast to initial administration statements that the attack was “spontaneous” and achieved with little planning.
“I believe that they had an operational phase that lasted at least a couple of weeks, maybe even longer. And then an initiation phase that lasted a couple or three days prior to the event itself. And so this notion that they just showed up and decided this was a spontaneous act does not comport with the information at least with what we have seen in the intelligence community,” Rogers told Fox News.
Some counterterrorism analysts concur with Roger’s assessment, describing the mortars used to strike the CIA annex in the second wave of the attack as "smoking gun" evidence -- as mortars require skill to fire, and typically must be pre-positioned to ensure accuracy. On Sept. 11, two mortars struck the CIA annex, killing former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
The opposing analysis is that the mortars were set in the early morning hours of Sept. 11, and that the terrorists did not bring equipment with them that suggests significant planning.
Fox News contacted the FBI which is in the lead on the Benghazi investigation, as well as the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC. Both the NCTC and the CIA declined to comment. There was no immediate response from the FBI.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/23/key-suspects-in-benghazi-terror-attack-were-working-with-al-qaeda-senior/
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/23/awesome-obama-heading-five-week-%E2%80%98fundraising-blitz%E2%80%99
Unreal
-
He was supposed to be different.
NSA scandal highlights Obama's unfulfilled promise
By Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor
updated 3:10 PM EDT, Mon October 28, 2013
(CNN) -- The scandal over allegations about NSA surveillance overseas, including monitoring of the cell phone conversations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and millions of phone calls in France, is another huge blow to President Barack Obama.
The news has caused a big uproar in Western Europe, with Merkel demanding a response from Washington. It was "incredible that an allied country like the United States and at this point goes as far as spying on private communications that have no strategic justification," said Jean-Marc Ayrault, the Prime Minister of France. "Trust needs to be rebuilt," Merkel said.
While observers warn these complaints are hypocritical and have more to do with domestic politics in Western Europe than true feelings about the United States, this incident is nonetheless much more than a mere blip in the time line of Obama's presidency. The recent National Security Agency revelation is one more step in a series of revelations about practices that have undercut a central promise that candidate Obama made in 2008 -- to repair America's standing in the world.
When Obama took office, America's position in the global community had greatly deteriorated. President George W. Bush's war in Iraq, and his unilateral approach to foreign policy, had generated tremendous distrust and anger overseas, including among our closest allies.
So, too, had Bush's apparent disregard for civil liberties and willingness to ignore international standards against the use of torture. The United States was seen as a country that acted solely in its own interest and that cared little for protecting strong and durable multilateral alliances. The United States, in the minds of its critics, also took reckless actions to defend its national security interests without thinking about the consequences.
Obama was determined to correct this. This had been a constant theme of his campaign against presidential opponent Sen. John McCain, more so than almost any domestic issue. In June 2008, speaking in Germany near the place where the Berlin Wall once stood, Obama said that, "In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in the world rather than a force to help make it right has become all too common."
He continued to expound on this theme in his first year as president. His stirring speech in Cairo in June 2009 offered inspirational words to many of his supporters, evidence that the president was serious about fixing the damage that had occurred under Bush.
But the promise is unfulfilled. Over the years, it has become clear that Obama left much more of Bush's foreign policy framework in place than many of his supporters had expected.
He continued with an extremely aggressive campaign against terrorist networks, employing drone strikes to destroy networks even when there have been significant civilian causalities, allowing for tough interrogation techniques and detention policies and depending on secret processes that created little accountability for what the government was doing, other than when leakers revealed classified information. Inconsistent policies toward authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes in countries such as Syria, as well as turbulence in Egypt following the fall of Hosni Mubarak, have greatly dampened the enthusiasm about Obama that had existed after 2008.
Nor did Obama do much to strengthen civil liberties. The public has begun to learn how extensive the surveillance has been on their phones, on their computers and every other type of communication that occurs. In short, the government has been watching.
To be sure, the success at generally preventing terrorist strikes within the U.S., barring Boston, is a central accomplishment of his presidency. But the difficulties he has faced achieving the balance he promised in relations with the rest of the world have come with a cost.
The NSA issue began with a debate about the proper domestic balance between civil liberties and counterterrorism and has now has extended into the realm of diplomacy.
Obama needs to make this right. The controversy hurts the ability of the United States to maintain strong relations with the allies whose support is essential to the war on terrorism, as well as in fighting against other global threats. He must provide answers and show that the government is responding to concerns about NSA practices.
One administration official has told the Wall Street Journal that President Obama had been unaware of NSA spying on 35 world leaders and that, as soon as he learned of the practice through an internal review (a response to the political outrage over the revelations of the spy program), he put parts of the program to an end. Even if this is the case -- and the president will need to make clear this is so given how cynical and skeptical the world has become about U.S. political rhetoric on these matters -- the information begs the question of how the NSA was allowed to remain so unaccountable even to the Commander-in-Chief and, more importantly, what steps President Obama will now take to make sure we conduct our counterterrorism programs within some kinds of parameters and guidelines.
If Obama does nothing further, the ongoing revelations will leave behind the same kinds of problems that he, as a candidate, understood to be so devastating in 2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/28/opinion/zelizer-obama-nsa-world/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
-
:-\
Keep knee padding libs, we warned you. Thanks for being part of the problem. And this is from a left wing rag..
NBC News
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
Advertise | AdChoices
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.
The White House does not dispute that many in the individual market will lose their current coverage, but argues they will be offered better coverage in its place, and that many will get tax subsidies that would offset any increased costs. “One of the main goals of the law is to ensure that people have insurance they can rely on – that doesn’t discriminate or charge more based on pre-existing conditions. The consumers who are getting notices are in plans that do not provide all these protections – but in the vast majority of cases, those same insurers will automatically shift their enrollees to a plan that provides new consumer protections and, for nearly half of individual market enrollees, discounts through premium tax credits,” said White House spokesperson Jessica Santillo.
Individual insurance plans with low premiums often lack basic benefits, such as prescription drug coverage, or carry high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. The Affordable Care Act requires all companies to offer more benefits, such as mental health care, and also bars companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.
Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about the president’s promise that consumers would be able to keep their health care. “What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide,” Carney said. “So it's true that there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act.”
Courtesy of Heather Goldwater
Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, says that she received a letter from her insurer saying the company would no longer offer her plan, but hasn't yet received a follow-up letter with a comparable option.
Other experts said that most consumers in the individual market will not be able to keep their policies. Nancy Thompson, senior vice president of CBIZ Benefits, which helps companies manage their employee benefits, says numbers in this market are hard to pin down, but that data from states and carriers suggests “anywhere from 50 to 75 percent” of individual policy holders will get cancellation letters. Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, who chairs the health committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, says that estimate is “probably about right.” She added that a few states are asking insurance companies to cancel and replace policies, rather than just amend them, to avoid confusion.
Advertise | AdChoices
A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), an insurance trade association, also said the 50 to 75 percent estimate was consistent with the range they are hearing.
Those getting the cancellation letters are often shocked and unhappy.
George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.
And the best option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.
"The deductible is less," he said, "But the plan doesn't meet my needs. Its unaffordable."
"I'm sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we're sick," Schwab added. "Everybody's worried about whether the website works or not, but that's fixable. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn't fixable."
Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, is raising a new baby while running her own PR firm. She said she received a letter last July from Cigna, her insurance company, that said the company would no longer offer her individual plan, and promised to send a letter by October offering a comparable option. So far, she hasn't received anything.
"I'm completely overwhelmed with a six-month-old and a business,” said Goldwater. “The last thing I can do is spend hours poring over a website that isn't working, trying to wrap my head around this entire health care overhaul."
Goldwater said she supports the new law and is grateful for provisions helping folks like her with pre-existing conditions, but she worries she won’t be able to afford the new insurance, which is expected to cost more because it has more benefits. "I'm jealous of people who have really good health insurance," she said. "It's people like me who are stuck in the middle who are going to get screwed."
Richard Helgren, a Lansing, Mich., retiree, said he was “irate” when he received a letter informing him that his wife Amy's $559 a month health plan was being changed because of the law. The plan the insurer offered raised his deductible from $0 to $2,500, and the company gave him 17 days to decide.
The higher costs spooked him and his wife, who have painstakingly planned for their retirement years. "Every dollar we didn't plan for erodes our standard of living," Helgren said.
Ulltimately, though Helgren opted not to shop through the ACA exchanges, he was able to apply for a good plan with a slightly lower premium through an insurance agent.
He said he never believed President Obama’s promise that people would be able to keep their current plans.
"I heard him only about a thousand times," he said. "I didn't believe him when he said it though because there was just no way that was going to happen. They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."
For months, Laszewski has warned that some consumers will face sticker shock. He recently got his own notice that he and his wife cannot keep their current policy, which he described as one of the best, so-called "Cadillac" plans offered for 2013. Now, he said, the best comparable plan he found for 2014 has a smaller doctor network, larger out-of-pocket costs, and a 66 percent premium increase.
“Mr. President, I like the coverage I have," Laszweski said. "It is the best health insurance policy you can buy."
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
-
Good interview by Megyn Kelly. Exposing the president's lack of integrity.
-
The Fact Checker
Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away’ your health plan
BY GLENN KESSLER
October 30 at 6:00 am
US President Barack Obama speaks about the Affordable Care Act at Prince Georges Community College on September 26, 2013 in Largo, Maryland. On October 1, 2013, open enrollment starts for the new Obamacare online, state-based exchanges, where consumers will be able to compare and shop for private health insurance plans.
“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
– President Obama, speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009 (as the health-care law was being written.)
“And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.”
– Obama, remarks in Portland, April 1, 2010, after the health-care law was signed into law.
“FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.”
– tweet by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, Oct. 28, 2013, after NBC News airs a report that the Obama administration knew “millions” could not keep their health insurance.
Many readers have asked us to step back into time and review these statements by the president now that it appears that as many as 2 million people may need to get a new insurance plan as the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, goes into effect in 2014. As we were considering those requests, one of the president’s most senior advisers then tweeted a statement on the same issue that cried out for fact checking.
The Facts
The president’s pledge that “if you like your insurance, you will keep it” is one of the most memorable of his presidency. It was also an extraordinarily bold — and possibly foolish — pledge, unless he thought he simply could dictate exactly how the insurance industry must work.
At the time, some observers noted the problems with Obama’s promise.
After Obama made his speech before the AMA, the Associated Press ran a smart analysis — “Promises, Promises: Obama’s Health Plan Guarantee” — that demonstrated how it would be all but impossible for the president to keep that pledge. The article noted that the Congressional Budget Office assumed that 10 million Americans would need to seek new insurance under the Senate version of the bill.
Meanwhile, in the Republican weekly address on Aug. 24, 2009, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), a doctor, made this point: “On the stump, the president regularly tells Americans that ‘if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.’ But if you read the bill, that just isn’t so. For starters, within five years, every health-care plan will have to meet a new federal definition for coverage — one that your current plan might not match, even if you like it.”
One might excuse the president for making an aspirational pledge as the health-care bill was being drafted, but it turns out he kept saying it after the bill was signed into law. By that point, there should have been no question about the potential impact of the law on insurance plans, especially in the individual market.
As we have noted, a key part of the law is forcing insurers to offer an “essential health benefits” package, providing coverage in 10 categories. The list includes: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
For some plans, this would be a big change. In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services noted: “62 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for maternity services; 34 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for substance abuse services; 18 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for mental health services; 9 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for prescription drugs.”
The law did allow “grandfathered” plans — for people who had obtained their insurance before the law was signed on March 23, 2010 — to escape this requirement and some other aspects of the law. But the regulations written by HHS while implementing the law set some tough guidelines, so that if an insurance company makes changes to a plan’s benefits or how much members pay through premiums, co-pays or deductibles, then a person’s plan likely loses that status.
If you dig into the regulations (go to page 34560), you will see that HHS wrote them extremely tight. One provision says that if co-payment increases by more than $5, plus medical cost of inflation, then the plan can no longer be grandfathered. (With last year’s inflation rate of 4 percent, that means the co-pay could not increase by more than $5.20.) Another provision says the co-insurance rate could not be increased at all above the level it was on March 23, 2010.
While one might applaud an effort to rid the country of inadequate insurance, the net effect is that over time, the plans would no longer meet the many tests for staying grandfathered. Already, the percentage of people who get coverage from their job via a grandfathered plan has dropped from 56 percent in 2011 to 36 percent in 2013.
In the individual insurance market, few plans were expected to meet the “grandfathered” requirements, which is why many people are now receiving notices that their old plan is terminated and they need to sign up for different coverage. Again, this should be no surprise. As HHS noted in a footnote of a report earlier this year: “We note that, as the Affordable Care Act is implemented, we expect grandfathered coverage to diminish, particularly in the individual market.”
Indeed, at least six states — Virginia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Wyoming and Kansas — require insurance companies to cancel existing policies, rather than amend them, if the grandfathered coverage lapses.
Now, it’s important to note that many people — perhaps a large majority — are receiving notices that they have lost their insurance plan because they were never grandfathered in the first place. In other words, they got a plan after the bill was signed into law back in 2010. If that’s the case, they have no option but to accept the more comprehensive insurance mandated by the law.
Still, it’s worth remembering that insurance companies pressed throughout the health-care debate to allow people to keep the policy they had effective at the end of 2013. The consequences of the unusual March 23, 2010, cut-off date are now being felt. HHS, when it drafted the interim rules, estimated that between 40 and 67 percent of policies in the individual market are in effect for less than one year. “These estimates assume that the policies that terminate are replaced by new individual policies, and that these new policies are not, by definition, grandfathered,” the rules noted. (See page 34553.)
Moreover, it’s certainly incorrect to claim, as some Republicans have, that people are losing insurance coverage. Instead, in virtually all cases, it’s being replaced with probably better (and possibly more expensive) insurance.
In recent days, administration officials have argued that the plans that are going away are “substandard” and lacked essential protections — and that many people may qualify for tax credits to mitigate the higher premiums that may result from the new requirements.
“Now folks are transitioning to the new standards of the Affordable Care Act which guarantee you can’t be denied, you won’t be kicked off of a policy because you developed a problem, you may be eligible for tax credits, depending on your income,” said Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “So these are important protections that are now available through the Affordable Care Act.”
Or, as White House spokesman Jay Carney put it: “It’s correct that substandard plans that don’t provide minimum services that have a lot of fine print that leaves consumers in the lurch, often because of annual caps or lifetime caps or carve-outs for some preexisting conditions, those are no longer allowed — because the Affordable Care Act is built on the premise that health care is not a privilege, it’s a right, and there should be minimum standards for the plans available to Americans across the country.”
But such assertions do not really explain the president’s promise — or Jarrett’s tweet. There may be a certain percentage of people who were happy with their “substandard” plan, presumably because it cost relatively little. And while Jarrett claimed that “nothing” in the law is forcing people out of their plans “unless insurance companies change plans,” she is describing rules written by the president’s aides that were designed to make it difficult for plans to remain grandfathered for very long.
As the HHS footnote mentioned above stated: “We note that, as the Affordable Care Act is implemented, we expect grandfathered coverage to diminish, particularly in the individual market.”
The Pinocchio Test
The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.
The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.
The president’s promise apparently came with a very large caveat: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan — if we deem it to be adequate.”
Four Pinocchios
(http://img.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/?hpid=z1
-
Obama lied. No kidding.
-
Or a bunch of cops...
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
woah...this is fucked up
-
http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/31/watch-cnn-obama-admin-intimidating-and-threatening-insurance-companies-to-keep-quiet
Just wow
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57608843/healthcare.gov-pricing-feature-can-be-off-the-mark
Obama lied
-
Obama Broke Super PAC Pledge During Campaign
Posted: 11/04/2013
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama quietly attended a fundraising event for the allied super PAC Priorities USA less than a month before the 2012 election, despite a campaign pledge to stay away from such functions, a new book reveals.
In February 2012, the Obama campaign gave its blessing to the creation of the super PAC, saying that while the president opposed the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates to such outside political spending, he couldn't allow himself to be outspent by his conservative opposition.
But the campaign attempted to assuage concerns among Democrats and campaign finance reform advocates by promising that Obama would not solicit donations on behalf of the super PAC.
"While campaign officials may be appearing at events to amplify our message, these folks won't be soliciting contributions for Priorities USA," Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina wrote in a blog post at the time. "I should also note that the President, Vice President, and First Lady will not be a part of this effort; their political activity will remain focused on the President's campaign."
But according to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann' Double Down, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post before its release, Obama and former President Bill Clinton attended a Priorities USA event on Oct. 7, held at the $35 million estate of DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg in Beverly Hills.
Although attendees did not appear to donate money at the event itself, Katzenberg used the joint appearance to raise funds for Priorities USA (p. 429):
Obama and Clinton arrived there that Sunday afternoon, October 7, for lunch with Katzenberg and a handful of the rich and famous. Though the White House publicly described the event only as a "thank you" for a "small group of donors," it was, in fact, a Priorities USA function -- the sort of shindig that Obama had sworn never to attend.
[...]
Katzenberg pitched the lunch to invitees as a once-in-a-lifetime experience -- what he called "unobtainium." He recommended that they donate $1 million to Priorities, and bagged three checks in that amount just the Friday before. He pledged to keep his guests' presence secret.
Asked for a response during his press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney asked for more time to get to the bottom of the story. Later that day, White House spokesman Eric Schultz emailed The Huffington Post the following comment: “As was widely reported at the time, President Clinton joined President Obama at a thank you event for the campaign’s supporters.”
There were, indeed, reports at the time of Obama mingling with wealthy donors at an event and joking about his poor performance in the debate held several days prior. Those reports framed the gathering as a thank you event for donors, not a fundraising affair for Priorities USA. According to the pool report from that day, Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki denied the event was a fundraiser and said a pool reporter would not be allowed to attend:
On the nature of the event with Bill Clinton, which is not a fundraiser: Psaki said it’s for high-dollar donors who have maxed out around other events before. “It’s a thank you event for a small group of donors.” Because it's a small group, it is very informal and that's why pool will not be allowed in. She declined to name those who would be attending.
The statement from Schultz does not deny that there was a fundraising element to the event in question, and a request for comment from Priorities USA was not immediately returned.
When the Obama campaign announced its reversal on super PACs, there was a concern that the temptation to raise money through them would be too great for the president and his team to ignore. On Monday, campaign finance reform advocates voiced their disappointment with the new revelation.
"There was absolutely no reason for President Obama to reportedly break his pledge not to support Priorities USA," said Progressives United Executive Director Cole Leystra. "As our founder said last year, Democrats' embrace of the dirty politics of Citizens United is a dance with the devil. We know from the soft money era what happens when both parties play the game of unlimited money: Wall Street writes its own rules, corporations call the shots, and working families lose."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/obama-super-pac_n_4214466.html
-
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/obamacare-paper-phone-web-apps-stuck-in-the-same-queue-memos-note
Obama is lying about not lying.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/04/obama_what_we_said_was_you_can_keep_it_if_it_hasnt_changed_since_the_law_passed.html#.UnhBzabJp0Q.twitter
Lying about lying.
LOL!!!!
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/04/pelosi_people_kicked_off_of_health_insurance_will_do_better-comments.html
Lying BITCH
-
-
Unreal. And what is sad is the media and his disciples will eat this up.
-
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/lying-about-lies-why-credibility-matters-to-obama-20131105
-
-
The Bush Sr. "read my lips" broken promise was bad, but this is worse because he repeated it so many times for years. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty who supported this man should feel abused right about now.
-
The Bush Sr. "read my lips" broken promise was bad, but this is worse because he repeated it so many times for years. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty who supported this man should feel abused right about now.
I would have been more inclined to accept "Fuck.. I didn't see this coming" than "What we said was, IF..." One is ignorance, the other is lying
-
I would have been more inclined to accept "Fuck.. I didn't see this coming" than "What we said was, IF..." One is ignorance, the other is lying
This is consistent with one of the reasons I didn't vote for him in 2008. He was asked during an interview about the Iraq surge, which he opposed and claimed would increase violence. The surge was successful. When asked if he was wrong and would change his position based on what we now know, he refused to admit he was wrong about the surge.
That may sound like something small, but to me it demonstrated a poor leadership trait: the inability to admit mistakes. We're seeing it time and again with this guy.
Also, one of the talking heads made a good point. If a business operator made false statements to Congress to try and get legislation passed, they would face criminal charges. But when the president lies to the public, no consequences, other than an election that might be years away.
-
This is consistent with one of the reasons I didn't vote for him in 2008. He was asked during an interview about the Iraq surge, which he opposed and claimed would increase violence. The surge was successful. When asked if he was wrong and would change his position based on what we now know, he refused to admit he was wrong about the surge.
That may sound like something small, but to me it demonstrated a poor leadership trait: the inability to admit mistakes. We're seeing it time and again with this guy.
Also, one of the talking heads made a good point. If a business operator made false statements to Congress to try and get legislation passed, they would face criminal charges. But when the president lies to the public, no consequences, other than an election that might be years away.
Muslims believe that lying to advance the cause of islam is completely acceptable. That is why Obama feels zero remorse or hesitation in lying to advance his radical agenda
-
Muslims believe that lying to advance the cause of islam is completely acceptable. That is why Obama feels zero remorse or hesitation in lying to advance his radical agenda
except that he isn't muslim...
-
At least he is telling the truth now, as opposed to lying about his views on traditional marriage.
What? Obama “Overjoyed” Gay Marriage Legal in Illinois?
by KEITH KOFFLER on NOVEMBER 6, 2013
Really? Overjoyed?
If you want another example of President Obama’s disingenuousness – you know, a side dish to go along with your meal of Obamacare lies – look no further than his statement last night celebrating the legalization of gay marriage in Illinois. Is it really possible, given the line we were fed, that he is overjoyed?
Obama, as you remember, opposed gay marriage during the 2008 presidential election, as did Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. All were running for president during the Democratic primaries, and it was unclear that backing gay marriage would get you through the general election.
I’m sorry, I mean they were all opposed to gay marriage out of a devotion to principle.
After winning the presidency, we were told, Obama became engaged in a tortured internal crisis of faith and morality during which his position was “evolving” on the issue.
Well, everyone knew exactly where that position was going to evolve to, assuming the polling data supported it. He, like, clearly wasn’t evolving toward a stronger stance in support of traditional marriage.
Once Biden blurted out his own support for legalization in May 2012, Obama was looking lower on the evolutionary scale than his vice president. And so Obama decided, enough evolving already, and he hastily dialed up Robin Roberts, ABC’s resident Obama booster, so he could confess to her that his aching moral dilemma had been resolved.
In March of this year Hillary belatedly joined them. And what do you know? Within a single year three grown people who’d dealt with gay issues all their political lives “changed” their position on gay marriage . . .
But it turned out Obama WAS NOT DONE EVOLVING!
Now it was time to really be down with the LGBT community and become the BSGME – The Biggest Supporter of Gay Marriage Ever.
Let’s psychoanalyze the president’s statement from last night. Please lie down on the couch, sir.
Tonight, I applaud the men and women of the Illinois General Assembly, a body in which I was proud to serve, for voting to legalize marriage equality in my home state.
As President, I have always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally under the law. Over time, I also came to believe that same-sex couples should be able to get married like anyone else.
No, turn the other way. You’re not supposed to be facing me. No, I didn’t say “I cannot even stand to look at you,” it’s just a technique.
You feel very guilty, Mr. President. You know that you opposed gay marriage out of political expediency, and now you’re trying to tell gays and lesbians that you always liked them and always supported them.
This is a very difficult thing for you, because you think you’re something very special, an enlightened reformer swimming in a fetid little puddle of preening political hacks. You had the audacity to hope, but selling out doesn’t take any audacity at all! You had to be a political hack yourself to get elected. And that really hurts.
So tonight, Michelle and I are overjoyed for all the committed couples in Illinois whose love will now be as legal as ours – and for their friends and family who have long wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and equally under the law.
As I said in my Inaugural Address last January, our journey as a nation is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. And tonight, I’m so proud that the men and women elected to serve the people of the great state of Illinois have chosen to take us one step further on that journey to perfect our union.
The only aspect of your thoughts on gay marriage you truly wrestled with was timing: When to end the charade. Because no one who spends years struggling with a position on a profound moral issue suddenly adopts a viewpoint without reservation, unless God Himself communicates the marching orders to you. If God is present in the Blue Room, please let us know.
It would be very hard for you to be “overjoyed” that gay marriage is legal in Illinois if you were so reluctant for so long to support it. If your faith was so sorely tested by the notion, you’d agree somewhat reluctantly, your spirit perhaps finally at peace – but not soaring in ecstasy over the prospect of massive numbers new gay unions.
But then, nobody thought you were serious in the first place.
That’ll be $350 for the half hour. And I don’t use any of the insurers on the DC exchange.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/11/06/obama-overjoyed-gay-marriage-legal-illinois/
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/07/the-white-house-effort-to-blame-insurance-companies-for-lost-plans
3 Pinocchios for the Lying Scumbag in the WH
-
How far have you fallen when Bill Clinton is lecturing you about truth telling?
Clinton to Obama: Keep ObamaCare promise, let Americans 'keep what they got'
Published November 12, 2013
FoxNews.com
Former President Bill Clinton delivers a speech at Richmond Community High School in Richmond, Va. on Sunday, Oct. 27, 2013.(AP)
Bill Clinton, in an unusually blunt critique of the sitting president, said President Obama should live up to his promise to Americans that if they like their health plans, they can keep them.
The former president weighed in on the roiling controversy about health plan cancellations during an interview with the site Ozy.com. The current president recently apologized to the public for the millions of cancellation notices that are going out -- despite him assuring Americans that, under ObamaCare, they could keep their coverage if they want.
For Clinton, the apology doesn't cut it.
"So I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got," Clinton said.
Clinton defended the health care law as a whole, but explained how the broken promise on health coverage can hurt young people. He relayed the story of a young man who said his individual market plan was canceled and replaced with one whose premiums were twice as high. Though his deductibles and co-pays were lower, that savings is only realized if he gets sick, Clinton explained.
Clinton's comments could cause problems for Obama, who has resisted any major changes to the law. Obama, in explaining the cancellation notices, has clarified that under ObamaCare, policies could be canceled if they had been altered in any way since the passage of the law.
That nuance was not included in the president's initial explanations.
House Republicans, as well as some Senate Democrats, are now planning legislation that would indeed allow people losing their current coverage to keep their plans. The House is planning to vote on its measure on Friday.
The administration argues that while some are losing their current coverage, those plans will be replaced by better-quality insurance. The flip side is that they could be more expensive.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/12/clinton-to-obama-keep-obamacare-promise-let-americans-keep-what-got/
-
Obama mislead the american people.
-
"For the first time in the Quinnipiac survey, 52 percent of voters said they thought Obama was not honest and trustworthy. That compared with 44 percent who said he was."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Quinnipiac-Obama-not-honest/2013/11/12/id/536271#ixzz2kXsvcJf0
-
And this poll was taken after he "apologized."
"Also for the first time in Quinnipiac polling, more voters say the President is not trustworthy. The new survey was conducted last week and over the weekend, mostly after Obama offered an apology on Thursday to people who are losing their insurance because of changes from the federal health care law."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/12/poll-obama-approval-ratings-drop-americans-say-hes-not-trustworthy/
-
too bad this all this couldn't have went down in 2012
-
too bad this all this couldn't have went down in 2012
Tell me about. He's the luckiest politician of my lifetime.
-
Tell me about. He's the luckiest politician of my lifetime.
He is only lucky due to how stupid so many citizens are. He is a disaster
-
Obama’s Big Lie is destroying his credibility
By Michael Goodwin
November 13, 2013
When I first saw the headline saying Bill Clinton was advising President Obama to “honor his commitment,” I had to laugh. The idea of Monica Lewinsky’s boyfriend as moral referee always cracks me up.
Then I got to wondering. Which commitment was Clinton talking about?
Is it the one Obama made to the Israeli people, that he had their backs and would never let Iran get a nuclear weapon? Or was it his promise to enforce a “red line” in Syria?
Or maybe it was Obama’s promise to “never rest” until we caught the terrorists who killed our ambassador and three other Americans in Libya?
Or was Clinton talking about the many times the president said he would “never rest” until every American who wanted a job had one?
Or maybe he was talking about the pledge to change the tone in Washington? Or to go through the budget “line by line” and cross out the waste driving up the deficit?
You get the picture — any of those whoppers would qualify. But, of course, Clinton was talking about the broken promise of the moment, the one where Obama vowed that “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it.”
It ranks as one of the biggest presidential lies of modern times, all the more so because Obama repeated it 30 times. The fallout of millions being forced from their policies, an experience exacerbated by the hapless Web site, has created a crisis of confidence so vast, it threatens to swallow the second term.
So Clinton, who falsely swore he never had sex with that woman, spoke from experience when he told an interviewer, “The president should honor his commitment to those people and let them keep what they got.”
He knows the Big Lie is shredding Obama’s ace in the hole — his personal credibility. The key to Obama’s political success is that his job-approval ratings generally have been higher than the public’s view of his policies.
From the economy to health care to foreign policy, voters were mostly negative on the policies. But when it came to Obama himself, more Americans, often a majority, said they liked him, trusted him and believed he had their interests at heart.
ObamaCare is breaking that bond — and creating a domino effect. The public is turning ever harder against his policies, with only 31 percent now supporting him on the economy and 32 percent on immigration in the latest Pew poll.
Most important, they are also giving a thumbs-down on his overall performance. Pew finds that only 41 percent approve of his handling of the presidency, down 14 points since December, while 53 percent disapprove. And Quinnipiac late Tuesday found he’s hit a new low with 39 percent approval, while a majority said he’s not honest.
No president can lead from such a deep, discredited hole. And his ratings are likely to keep sinking because, once the Web site is fixed, millions more “shoppers” will get sticker shocks from the new policies ObamaCare requires. And next year comes the employer mandate, which will shake up the policies and prices of millions of others.
So Clinton’s advice that Obama “let them keep what they got,” is, in a vacuum, a perfectly logical escape route.
But even if it were possible, the reversal would be a dagger in the heart of ObamaCare. The whole Rube Goldberg scheme depends on using insurance policies to distribute wealth from healthy young Americans to older, sicker ones. Letting people keep the policies they have effectively repeals the president’s signature achievement.
Clinton’s advice, then, won’t fly. But if he, or anybody else, has another idea about how Obama can wriggle out of the mess he created, they should speak up very quickly. Otherwise, it will be too late to make a difference.
. . . .
http://nypost.com/2013/11/13/obamas-latest-broken-promise-is-destroying-his-credibility/
-
But even if it were possible, the reversal would be a dagger in the heart of ObamaCare. The whole Rube Goldberg scheme depends on using insurance policies to distribute wealth from healthy young Americans to older, sicker ones. Letting people keep the policies they have effectively repeals the president’s signature achievement.
I can only hope. Which is why the GOP should withdraw that bill that will allow americans to keep their policies. The White House doesn't even accept it. Don't help this reform. Let it die a miserable death and let the idiots who voted for the incompetent one realize that Republicans and the Tea Party were right all along.
-
Fox News Poll: Half think Obama 'knowingly lied' to pass health care law
Dana Blanton
By Dana Blanton
Published November 13, 2013
FoxNews.com
Half of voters believe President Obama “knowingly lied” when he repeatedly told Americans they could keep their plans under his signature health care law.
In addition, record-high numbers now disapprove of Obama’s job performance -- both overall and on health care, according to the latest Fox News poll.
Obama repeatedly vowed that under the Affordable Care Act, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Period.” Fifty percent of voters believe the president knew he was lying. Four in 10 think Obama didn’t know the law would cause people to lose their insurance (40 percent).
Click here for the poll results.
Seventy-nine percent of Republicans, 51 percent of independents and 22 percent of Democrats believe Obama knowingly lied to get the law passed.
Furthermore, a 59-percent majority believes the administration knew ahead of time that people would be kicked off their insurance because of the law, and 55 percent think the White House has “tried to deceive” people about it. Some 38 percent say the administration has “been honest.”
The lack of trust extends to Obama’s recent apology to Americans losing their insurance because of Obamacare. While 38 percent of voters believe the apology was sincere, many more -- 58 percent -- feel it was “mostly for political reasons.”
The president’s job rating on health care needs emergency care: a record-low 36 percent of voters approve. That’s down from 45 percent approving last month when the health exchanges had just opened (October 1-2, 2013).
At the same time a record-high 61 percent disapprove of Obama’s performance on health care. That’s up 10 percentage points in just over a month.
The president only performs worse on one issue -- the federal deficit. An all-time low 29 percent of voters approve, while a record-high 66 percent disapprove.
Overall, Obama’s job rating has never been more negative: 40 percent approve and an all-time high 55 percent disapprove. He also receives a record 63 percent disapproval rating among independents.
Obama’s approval has hit a low of 40 percent twice before (September 2013 and December 2010).
A year ago, 48 percent approved of Obama and 46 percent disapproved (December 2012).
For comparison, at the same point in George W. Bush’s presidency and in the middle of the Iraq war, 36 percent approved of the job he was doing and 53 percent disapproved (November 2005).
. . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/13/fox-news-poll-half-think-obama-knowingly-lied-to-pass-health-care-law/
-
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/19/president-obamas-credibility-problem
-
Candidate Obama, who "taught constitutional law for ten years," claimed he would not use presidential power to override statutes.
-
You lie?
Does ObamaCare subsidize abortions?
Published November 22, 2013
FoxNews.com
President Obama promised that taxpayer dollars would not fund abortions through the Affordable Care Act.
But now, a new study by a pro-life group suggests that may not be true, in part because federal dollars will be given to those states that are expanding Medicaid -- which, in many states, includes abortion coverage. Also, federal dollars will be given to individuals who qualify, to help them purchase health insurance plans which may, too, include abortion coverage.
"ObamaCare's annual net increase in insured abortions that are either fully publicly funded through Medicaid or heavily subsidized through the exchanges could be as high as 71,000 to 111,500," according to The Charlotte Lozier Institute.
Critics say this would go against the president's promise, and the so-called Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal money from paying for abortions.
"We were assured that this plan would maintain the spirit of the Hyde Amendment. It doesn't do that," said Charles Donovan, president of the institute. "It will extend abortion funding and even make morally and religiously opposed people pay for those plans."
But pro-choice advocates say that is not what is happening here.
They say it's always the case, and is here, that the federal dollars will be separated, and will not be directly used to pay for abortion.
They say the president is keeping his promise.
"The president has been very clear that ObamaCare -- the Affordable Care Act -- would comply with the Hyde Amendment and there's nothing that I have seen including in this study, which basically is a theory at this point, thus far that shows otherwise," liberal radio host Leslie Marshall said.
"I do feel the Affordable Care Act complies with the Hyde Amendment."
Pro-life advocates contend there is no way to separate out the federal dollars.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., has introduced legislation that requires the ObamaCare exchanges to state upfront whether a health insurance plan covers abortion -- so people have all the facts before they purchase a plan.
"There's nothing transparent about this," he said. "The president has broken his word. ... This is a massive violation of the Hyde Amendment."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/22/does-obamacare-subsidize-abortions/
-
Why it is easy for President Obama to lie to the American people
By Dr. Keith Ablow
Published November 18, 2013
FoxNews.com
Recently, America has witnessed something we have not seen since Watergate: The president of the United States openly admitting that he lied to the American people.
There are at least these two differences this time: First, the admission of the lie does not come at a moment when this president is facing impeachment (which would almost certainly have been true for President Nixon had he not resigned).
Second, this president still shows, in my opinion, even after his most recent mea culpa, far less remorse than President Nixon showed in the speech he made upon announcing he would leave office and in his choice to leave office.
I do not believe the president sees most Americans as competent. I believe he sees them as children.
In this case, the president lied to Americans about the Affordable Care Act, promising that passing the legislation meant they could keep their health plans and doctors, when the truth is that tens of millions of people will likely lose their health care plans and be forced to switch doctors.
That’s a really big lie, however you measure it -- whether in the tens of millions of people affected, or the hundreds of thousands of doctors, or the dozens of insurance companies, or the thousands and thousands of employers or the rerouting of billions of dollars.
Yet, the president only said he was “sorry that people are finding themselves in this situation based on reassurances they got from me.”
He didn’t say that he had profoundly violated the trust of the American people.
He didn’t say that he would search his soul for the reason he could have been so intent on passing his legislation that he promised very important things he knew he could not deliver.
He didn’t say that the rage people feel toward him is justified.
Why does it seem so easy for the president to tell such a gargantuan lie?
Here’s why:
- In order to feel guilty about deceiving someone, an individual must have respect for that person.
- He must consider the other man or woman his equal.
- He must believe that depriving the other man or woman of the truth would be a sin because it deprives that person of free will. Because without the facts, competent people can’t make informed decisions.
But I do not believe the president sees most Americans as competent. I believe he sees them as children, who cannot think for themselves, nor support themselves, nor defend themselves.
And because he believes this is a nation of children who are powerless to truly decide anything knowledgably, withholding certain facts from them “for their own good,” is no different than telling the kids a few harmless lies to keep them safe and settle them down and calm their anxieties.
“This doesn’t taste bad,” a father might say to his daughter before giving her medicine, even when he knows it will. The lie is forgivable. It’s meant to keep his little girl from being too anxious and refusing what she needs.
But tell a competent adult something tastes good when it will make him gag, and you’ll be, rightfully, seen as having deprived the person of information he deserved.
This president was lied to by his father who abandoned him, by his mother who abandoned him and by the grandmother who hugged him, but also revealed that she distrusted men of color.
Now, he wants to be the only adult in town. He needs that much power to feel safe, because he was that disempowered and unsafe in the past. So, to him, we’re incompetents.
To him, we’re just kids who need to take our medicine. And lying is the easy and justifiable way to get the job done.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/18/why-it-is-easy-for-president-obama-to-lie-to-american-people/?intcmp=obnetwork
-
too bad this all this couldn't have went down in 2012
would.
not.
have.
mattered.
he still woudl have won. romney was the shittiest candidate since mondale lol...
-
Does the president have it?
You certainly don't , you coward.
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/25/presidents-marks-as-manager-take-hit-in-new-cnnorc-poll/?hpt=hp_t2
Most see him as dishonest
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/25/presidents-marks-as-manager-take-hit-in-new-cnnorc-poll/?hpt=hp_t2
Most see him as dishonest
Not surprised.
-
-
-
Lack of integrity here?
-
I'd say the president wins this one hands down.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/02/2013-lie-year-finalists-vote-readers-poll/
-
This is such an inconsequential thing, why lie?
Seriously this president and admin are fucking pathlogical liars, it seems they lie just for the sake of lying...
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-reverses-course--says-obama-lived-with-kenyan-uncle-202020835.html
The White House acknowledged Thursday that President Barack Obama lived briefly years ago with a Kenyan uncle previously targeted for deportation — after initially insisting there was no evidence they had ever met.
Why the stark turnaround? “Nobody spoke to the president” when the question first arose in 2011, press secretary Jay Carney told reporters at his daily briefing.
Instead, staff appear to have relied on one of the president’s autobiographical books.
“Back when this arose, folks looked at the record, including the president's book, and there was no evidence that they had met, there was — and that was what was conveyed,” Carney explained.
-
Obama's 'If You Like Your Plan You Can Keep It' Promise Named 'Lie of the Year'
By Noel Sheppard | December 12, 2013
Conservatives across the fruited plain are likely going to be shocked by this - and liberals extremely angered! - but the fact-checking website PolitiFact on Thursday named President Obama's "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" promise the Lie of the Year.
Such was announced on CNN's The Lead (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
With a drum roll going, host Jake Tapper said, “So here it is, by popular demand, the number one Lie of the Year, based on something the President first said in 2009, and then updated in 2013.”
A video clip of President Obama was then played with him saying, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”
Another clip was aired with Obama saying more recently, “What we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law's passed.”
“So this was a runaway favorite with readers,” Tapper said. “59 percent voted for this as Lie of the Year.”
“Yeah, the editors of PolitiFact selected this because it had the most impact on the national debate,” replied PolitiFact editor Angie Drobnic Holan. “It’s something we first flagged back in 2009. We said this is partly right. The health care law does leave in place the existing health care system.”
“But it’s partly wrong,” she continued, “because we knew back then not everybody would be able to keep their health care plan, and this was the year that it was proved false as these cancellation letters went out at the end of the year.”
“So that upgrades it from theoretically possibly true/possibly false to Pants on Fire, a lie, the fact that it was implemented, and if you like your health plan, you can’t necessarily keep your health plan?” asked Tapper.
“Well, what happened was the President came out later and said, ‘Oh, we never said that. We said that if your plan hadn’t changed since the law was passed,’” Drobnic Holan replied. “We found 37 separate instances where he said clearly, with no caveats, that you can keep your plan. And that got the Pants on Fire rating, that excuse.”
Now, there's been some debate about which of Obama's statements - the initial one from 2009 or the absurd explanation recently - were really in contention for Lie of the Year.
The folks at PolitiFact Bias think PF is misrepresenting things a bit.
However, Drobnic Holan appeared to answer the concerns saying, "The original statement is partly accurate. The Lie of the Year is not the most wrong statement. It's the most significant impact. And then the excuse got the Pants on Fire overall."
"So, the lie about what he originally said is Lie of the Year?" asked Tapper.
"They're both Lie of the Year, because this is something that unfolded over a bunch of years," Drobnic Holan answered.
"So, this is wrapped up like a delicious chocolate peanut butter swirl," quipped Tapper.
"Yeah," Drobnic Halen responded, "it's something that we've been watching for many years."
I'm not sure that will satisfy the doubters, but it works for me as they were both whoppers that have indeed had a huge impact on the country.
Kudos for PF having the guts to call the President out in such a high profile way.
Let's see whether Obama's fans in the media report this dishonor.
Stay tuned.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/12/12/obamas-if-you-your-plan-you-can-keep-it-promise-named-lie-year#ixzz2nNLhuHdc
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/12/16/the-biggest-pinocchios-of-2013
:D
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/12/16/the-biggest-pinocchios-of-2013
:D
"President Obama ended up with three of the most misleading claims of the year." Only three?? They didn't include his collection of lies about what would happen if the sequester cuts took place.
-
Texas's Wendy Davis Admits Inconsistencies in Biography
Monday, 20 Jan 2014
By Melanie Batley
Wendy Davis, the Democratic candidate for governor of Texas, has admitted that a number of key details in her public personal narrative do not match up with the reality of the facts.
The Texas state senator who rose to national fame for her successful 13-hour filibuster against new abortion restrictions, acknowledged to The Dallas Morning News that there are some chronological errors and incomplete details in what she and her advisers have said about her life.
"My language should be tighter," she told the paper. "I'm learning about using broader, looser language. I need to be more focused on the detail."
Davis, who is running against Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott for the governorship, has repeatedly touted a personal story of having been a divorced teenage mother who lived in a trailer but ultimately fought her way to Harvard Law School.
She has pointed to her narrative as a testament to hard work and the American Dream, and her campaign has heavily relied on it to build support and boost fundraising.
It has now emerged that she was divorced at the age of 21, despite her claims during a recent hearing under oath that she was 19. Also, she lived only briefly in the family mobile home after she separated from her first husband before moving into an apartment with her daughter.
Meanwhile, her website says, "With the help of academic scholarships and student loans, Wendy not only became the first person in her family to earn a bachelor's degree but graduated first in her class and was accepted to Harvard Law School."
The paper points out that she has neglected to disclose that her second husband paid for the second two years of her undergraduate degree from Texas Christian University, as well as the full tuition for law school, and that she divorced him the day after the last payment was made.
It has also emerged that her ex-husband accused her in initial court filings of adultery and was awarded custody of their two daughters, and also that she first ran for city council in Fort Worth as a Republican.
Davis nonetheless defended the accuracy of her overall account as a young single mother who escaped poverty, earned an education and built a successful legal and political career through hard work and determination, according to The Morning News.
"Most people would identify with the fact that we tend to be defined by the struggles we came through than by the successes. And certainly for me that's true," she told the paper. "When I think about who I am and how it's reflected in the things I worked on, it comes from that place."
A former colleague and political supporter of Davis who declined to be named told The Morning News, "Wendy is tremendously ambitious. She's going to find a way, and she's going to figure out a way to spin herself in a way that grabs at the heart strings. A lot of it isn't true about her, but that's just us who knew her. But she'd be a good governor."
Her ex-husband, Jeff Davis, said, "She got a break. Good things happen, opportunities open up. You take them; you get lucky. That's a better narrative than what they're trying to paint."
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Davis-biography-inaccuracies-Texas/2014/01/20/id/547956#ixzz2qxyqX0PL
-
Did he lie?
Secret abortion fees hidden in ObamaCare premiums, lawmakers say
Published January 27, 2014
watchdog.org
Insurance companies working under the Obamacare umbrella have secretly added a surcharge to cover the cost of abortions, an apparent violation of federal law that forbids the practice, congressional leaders charge.
Consumers signing up for insurance in an Obamacare exchange won't find a single sentence telling them that they will pay at least $1 a month to fund abortions.
"The president promised when the health care bill passed that it would not cover abortion. We knew that was an empty promise as the bill stipulated a $1 a month surcharge for plans that covered abortions," said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., who chairs the House's Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Health. "On top of that ... it's near impossible to decipher which plans include abortion and at what cost!"
To fix this, a House bill will be introduced this week to demand full disclosure and a separate itemized premium. It also will prohibit federal subsidies for Obamacare insurance plans that cover abortion. That bill, HR-7, or the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," will be introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
On Oct. 9, Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, introduced a bill on the disclosure issue, which now has been folded into the broader HR-7. Smith is co-chairman of the Bipartisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.
Aides with both Pitts and Smith have researched numerous Obamacare policies and have yet to find any mention of abortion.
"We can't find any insurance plans where this is disclosed," said Andrew Wimer, communications director for Pitts.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/27/secret-abortion-fees-hidden-in-obamacare-premiums-lawmakers-say/
-
Didn't he promise during his first campaign that donors and lobbyists would not be part his administration?
Obama taps top fundraisers, bundlers for ambassadorships
Published July 20, 2013
FoxNews.com
Just six months into his second term, President Obama has nominated a slew of campaign donors and fundraisers for ambassadorships.
These nominations include major bundlers Denise Bauer and a Los Angeles entertainment attorney Crystal Nix Hines.
As of last month, Obama had given 32.2 percent of ambassadorships to political appointees -- almost identical to his first term rate and slightly higher than those of recent predecessors in the long-held tradition of presidents rewarding big-time financial supporters.
The number compares to 30.02 percent under George W. Bush, 27.82 percent under Bill Clinton and 31.30 percent under George H.W. Bush, according to the American Foreign Service Association.
The president has nominated 19 people for ambassadorships in the second term including at least eight bundlers, according to The Hill newspaper.
The 2011-2012 amounts range from $2.36 million by Bauer, chairwoman of the Women for Obama Finance, who would go to Belgium, to $477,000 from Hines, who would represent the United States at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO.
Other bundlers have been named to serve in Austria, Germany, Singapore, Spain, the Dominican Republic and the United Kingdom.
But much of the attention remains focused on who will get two of the remaining top posts -- France and Japan.
According to The Hill, Democratic National Committee National Finance Chairwoman Jane Stetson, who raised $2.43 million for Obama, is in line for the coveted Paris post, which would knock out Vogue editor-in-chief Anne Wintour, who raised $2.68 million and purportedly wanted either the London or Paris diplomatic positions.
Beyond Wintour, the most talked about potential ambassadorship is Caroline Kennedy to Japan.
Kennedy, daughter of President Kennedy, certainly has the political pedigree and ranks among the president’s biggest fundraisers and political supporters. However, critics argue that her lack of experience in elected office makes her a risky choice as Japan remains a crucial ally in trying to maintain stability in the Korean Peninsula.
Still, Dartmouth government professor Jennifer Lind argues Kennedy’s stature give her extraordinary access to the president and that her father’s “unconventional ” decision in the 1960s to appoint Harvard professor Edwin O. Reischauer to the Tokyo post “helped knit … two countries once dismissed as impossible allies.”
The Foreign Service union, while not directly criticizing Kennedy or Obama, told FoxNews.com this spring that it does not support such appointments and that the rate of political appointees to ambassadorships for Japan and major European countries is as high as 85 percent.
“The sale of ambassadorships and rewards for political support basically suggests we really don’t value diplomacy,” said then-union President Susan Johnson.
Other major Obama bundlers being considered by the president in his second term include retired JP Morgan executive Azita Raji, who reportedly raised $3.15 million and is Obama’s top pick for ambassador to Switzerland.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/20/obama-taps-top-fundraisers-bundlers-for-ambassadorships/#ixzz2bDltaLNF
Obama far outpaces predecessors in appointing donors to foreign posts
Published February 10, 2014
FoxNews.com
President Obama has taken the art of naming donors and other politically connected chums as ambassadors to a new level, despite pledging in 2008 to shake up Washington's back-scratching ways.
A string of gaffes by some of his recent nominees has thrust the Washington practice of appointing donors to foreign posts back into the spotlight. The administration faced difficult questions from the press last week, for instance, after Obama's nominee to Argentina admitted he'd never been there.
But a look back at how Obama's appointments stack up to those of his predecessors shows it's not just business as usual -- if anything, the current president is using diplomatic gigs to reward bundlers and contributors seemingly more than ever.
The American Foreign Service Association, which tracks ambassadorial appointments, has found that in Obama's second term, more than 53 percent of these appointments were political. Less than half have come from the career Foreign Service pool.
"Obama is pushing the envelope," Christian Whiton, former State Department adviser in the George W. Bush administration, told Fox News.
The United States is just about the only major democracy that still uses diplomatic posts to routinely reward political friends. Historically, less than a third of these appointments have been political in nature. Under former President Bill Clinton, 28 percent were political; under former President George W. Bush, that number was 30 percent.
Under Obama, the number has climbed to 37 percent overall. By the time he leaves office, it could well be higher.
Though this is a bipartisan practice, the performance during confirmation hearings of some of Obama's latest picks has raised concerns that the United States may be sending the wrong message abroad.
"Sending donors to be ambassadors -- not that uncommon," Whiton said. "Sending them that have no idea what they're doing or about the regions they're going to, that is new."
The administration stresses that it's too early to say, especially based on scattered confirmation hearing performances, how these nominees would do in their jobs.
"I would encourage people to give those who have had tougher hearings a chance to go to their countries and see what their tenure will entail," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Friday. "And the judgment can't be made about how effective they'll be or how appreciated they'll be by the government until we have that happen."
She noted that many esteemed U.S. ambassadors have come from outside the Foreign Service career path, including former Vice President Walter Mondale in Japan, and Sargent Shriver in France.
But the question now is whether Obama's picks are coming into their jobs with little connection at all to the country they would represent.
Obama's nominee to Norway, George Tsunis, had a few cringe-worthy moments during his hearing last month. During the hearing, he at one point referred to Norway's president, though the country is a constitutional monarchy. He also downplayed the importance of the country's Progress Party but was sternly reminded by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that the party is part of the center-right coalition government there.
"I stand corrected," Tsunis responded.
Colleen Bradley Bell, a soap opera producer nominated for ambassador to Hungary, also recently struggled to answer what America's strategic interests are in that country.
The exchanges have riled foreign policy experts.
"The Obama administration's appointments suggest that the president isn't being honest when he says that diplomacy is important to him," Henri J. Barkey, Lehigh University professor and former State Department policy staffer, wrote in The Washington Post. "... it's illogical, and insulting, to presume that Norwegians are such wonderful and civilized people -- and hence unlikely to cause any problems with Washington -- that we can afford to send someone on a taxpayer-funded three-year junket to enjoy the fjords."
Some of the prime candidates for appointments, historically, have been bundlers -- people who gather sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations for the president.
A FoxNews.com review shows that Obama has appointed at least 44 of these so-called bundlers since taking office. That's almost as many as Bush appointed in his full two terms.
The positions awarded to these individuals have remained roughly consistent. Plush posts in western European countries, the Caribbean, and places like Singapore and Canada, often go to the politically connected. France, Great Britain, Germany and Italy are just a handful of the most sought-after jobs. The Japan post, too, is occasionally used to reward political supporters, including most recently Caroline Kennedy.
Tracking by The American Foreign Service Association shows that in some less-popular locations, the ambassador posts for decades have always gone to career diplomats. Armenia, Bangladesh and Mongolia, among others, since 1960 have never had a political donor appointed to serve there.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/10/obama-far-outpaces-predecessors-in-appointing-donors-to-foreign-posts/
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-thats-good-thing-president-i-can-do-whatever-i-want_778944.html
:(
-
So Joe Wilson was right after all. :-\
OBAMACARE RECRUITING ILLEGALS IN CALIFORNIA
by JOEL B. POLLAK
14 Feb 2014
In 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) apologized profusely to the White House for shouting, "You lie!" as President Barack Obama told Congress that Obamacare would not cover illegal immigrants. Now it would appear that the White House owes Wilson an apology, as Covered California--the flagship of state Obamacare exchanges--is recruiting illegal ("undocumented") immigrants to sign up for the program, regardless of their eligibility.
The Covered California website includes a special page entitled: "No temas si eres indocumentado/a y quieres inscribir a tu familia en un seguro médico" ("Fear not if you are undocumented and want to enroll your family in health insurance"). The website goes on to explain that information shared with Obamacare cannot be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It does not explicitly warn that illegal aliens are ineligible.
"According to the laws and implementing regulations," the website says, "the information provided by individuals for coverage can not be used for purposes other than ensuring the efficient functioning of the insurance market ( Covered California) or administration of the program, or to verify certain eligibility determinations including verification of the immigration status of these people."
As Bloomberg News notes, Latinos have been slow to sign up for Obamacare, partly because of problems with the Spanish-language version of the Obamacare website, and partly because some immigrant families are afraid of providing information to the government or using public assistance, among other factors. Covered California is devoting additional resources to recruiting more Latino enrollees before the deadline at the end of March.
Obamacare has been under greater pressure to produce impressive enrollment numbers as the program comes under more intense scrutiny from politicians and the public, providing a possible motive for recruiting illegal aliens to enroll. Earlier this week, the federal government announced that 3.3 million people had signed up nationwide, but that included people who had not yet paid, and actually represented a slowing rate of enrollment, with too few young people joining the program.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/14/Obamacare-Enrolling-Illegals-in-California
-
No surprise - ghettothugbama is trying to collapse this country
-
breitbart :D :D :D the onion of the right :D :D :D :D :D
The headline declaring that “ObamaCare [is] Recruiting Illegal Immigrants” is absolutely, provably false. As is the content of the article that says in the opening paragraph that “Covered California–the flagship of state Obamacare exchanges–is recruiting illegal (“undocumented”) immigrants to sign up for the program, regardless of their eligibility.”
There is no truth whatsoever to that claim. But adhering to factual reporting has never been the mission of Fox News. It’s especially humorous that Joel Pollak, the BreitBrat author of the article, attempts to align his bogus assertions to Republican congressman Joe Wilson who, you may recall, shouted out “You lie,” during President Obama’s 2009 State of the Union speech when the President stated that the Affordable Care Act would not cover undocumented immigrants. Pollak believes that Wilson is due an apology based on his deeply misconstrued interpretation of a page on the Covered California website.
The shoddy news sleuthing by BreitBrat Pollak turned up a page that informed readers that they did not need to worry if they were “undocumented and want your family to enroll in health insurance. That was the spark that set fire to Pollak’s active imagination. Without wasting any effort on reading further or trying to understand the context, Pollak concluded that this was an attempt to enroll undocumented immigrants in ObamaCare, which the law explicitly prohibits. This is what the very first paragraph on the page actually said:
“According to the laws and implementing regulations, the information provided by individuals for coverage can not be used for purposes other than ensuring the efficient functioning of the insurance market (Covered California) or administration of the program, or to verify certain eligibility determinations including verification of the immigration status of these people.”
If Pollak had the comprehension skills to grasp this, he would have noticed two things: 1) The page is assuring applicants that the information they provide will not be shared with immigration agencies. And 2) That verification of immigration status will be a determinant condition of their eligibility.
The importance of the first item is to reassure people that an application will not result in an investigation or potential deportation. Many Latino families have mixed immigration statuses and they are sensitive to the possibility that their families could be separated. Consequently, they refrain from enrolling in benefits programs like ObamaCare. That means that many people who are actually citizens (i.e. children who were born here, or naturalized adults) would be deprived of services to which they are entitled because of their concern for other family members who may not be documented. This assurance allows them to apply without having to fear unrelated consequences.
The second item should be an assurance to bigots like Pollak that no undocumented immigrants would receive health care benefits under ObamaCare. It is an explicit declaration that citizenship is required for eligibility. And it is what makes Pollak’s assertion that illegal immigrants are being recruited regardless of their eligibility such a blatant lie.
It’s interesting to note that the Fox News Latino website does not have a story on this matter. Fox News Latino often takes positions that sharply contrast with those of the Fox News mothership. It is their way of trying to lure in the fastest growing demographic in the country without alienating them the way Fox News does. Although, there is a story that addresses the administration’s efforts to reach out to Latinos. And in that story they correctly point out the dilemma of mixed immigration status families who worry about separation, saying that “One big issue is that the law requires that those seeking coverage provide the immigration status of members of their household to determine eligibility.” That is what the page on Covered California is there for – to alleviate that concern.
It is remarkably dishonest and unethical to portray the information provided on Covered California as attempting to recruit undocumented immigrants to enroll in ObamaCare. Yet that is precisely what Breitbart and the Fox Nationalists did. And they did this despite the fact that the correct information was plainly in front of them on the same page. Therefore, it can only be assumed that they knew the truth and deliberately chose to ignore and/or distort it. But that’s the one thing that is not surprising about this. That is, in fact, standard operating procedure at Fox News.
-
breitbart :D :D :D the onion of the right :D :D :D :D :D
The headline declaring that “ObamaCare [is] Recruiting Illegal Immigrants” is absolutely, provably false. As is the content of the article that says in the opening paragraph that “Covered California–the flagship of state Obamacare exchanges–is recruiting illegal (“undocumented”) immigrants to sign up for the program, regardless of their eligibility.”
There is no truth whatsoever to that claim. But adhering to factual reporting has never been the mission of Fox News. It’s especially humorous that Joel Pollak, the BreitBrat author of the article, attempts to align his bogus assertions to Republican congressman Joe Wilson who, you may recall, shouted out “You lie,” during President Obama’s 2009 State of the Union speech when the President stated that the Affordable Care Act would not cover undocumented immigrants. Pollak believes that Wilson is due an apology based on his deeply misconstrued interpretation of a page on the Covered California website.
The shoddy news sleuthing by BreitBrat Pollak turned up a page that informed readers that they did not need to worry if they were “undocumented and want your family to enroll in health insurance. That was the spark that set fire to Pollak’s active imagination. Without wasting any effort on reading further or trying to understand the context, Pollak concluded that this was an attempt to enroll undocumented immigrants in ObamaCare, which the law explicitly prohibits. This is what the very first paragraph on the page actually said:
“According to the laws and implementing regulations, the information provided by individuals for coverage can not be used for purposes other than ensuring the efficient functioning of the insurance market (Covered California) or administration of the program, or to verify certain eligibility determinations including verification of the immigration status of these people.”
If Pollak had the comprehension skills to grasp this, he would have noticed two things: 1) The page is assuring applicants that the information they provide will not be shared with immigration agencies. And 2) That verification of immigration status will be a determinant condition of their eligibility.
The importance of the first item is to reassure people that an application will not result in an investigation or potential deportation. Many Latino families have mixed immigration statuses and they are sensitive to the possibility that their families could be separated. Consequently, they refrain from enrolling in benefits programs like ObamaCare. That means that many people who are actually citizens (i.e. children who were born here, or naturalized adults) would be deprived of services to which they are entitled because of their concern for other family members who may not be documented. This assurance allows them to apply without having to fear unrelated consequences.
The second item should be an assurance to bigots like Pollak that no undocumented immigrants would receive health care benefits under ObamaCare. It is an explicit declaration that citizenship is required for eligibility. And it is what makes Pollak’s assertion that illegal immigrants are being recruited regardless of their eligibility such a blatant lie.
It’s interesting to note that the Fox News Latino website does not have a story on this matter. Fox News Latino often takes positions that sharply contrast with those of the Fox News mothership. It is their way of trying to lure in the fastest growing demographic in the country without alienating them the way Fox News does. Although, there is a story that addresses the administration’s efforts to reach out to Latinos. And in that story they correctly point out the dilemma of mixed immigration status families who worry about separation, saying that “One big issue is that the law requires that those seeking coverage provide the immigration status of members of their household to determine eligibility.” That is what the page on Covered California is there for – to alleviate that concern.
It is remarkably dishonest and unethical to portray the information provided on Covered California as attempting to recruit undocumented immigrants to enroll in ObamaCare. Yet that is precisely what Breitbart and the Fox Nationalists did. And they did this despite the fact that the correct information was plainly in front of them on the same page. Therefore, it can only be assumed that they knew the truth and deliberately chose to ignore and/or distort it. But that’s the one thing that is not surprising about this. That is, in fact, standard operating procedure at Fox News.
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=11518
Now I know where you get all of your anti-Fox News stories.
-
so what you posted was bullshit,right? like I said breitbart the onion of the right ;D
-
so what you posted was bullshit,right? like I said breitbart the onion of the right ;D
I don't know. Didn't read your story.
-
I don't know. Didn't read your story.
that's what I thought just post shit ,don't bother to find the truth ::) oh it was bullshit ;D
-
that's what I thought just post shit ,don't bother to find the truth ::) oh it was bullshit ;D
Not really. You didn't post a link and I assumed you pulled it from some liberal hack website. I was right. :)
-
link usually automatically comes up. right from Covered California site but breitbart "Onion" gears it's news for idiots :D
-
link usually automatically comes up. right from Covered California site but breitbart "Onion" gears it's news for idiots :D
O Rly? And what about The Daily Caller and the Examiner?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/18/california-bill-seeks-extend-subsidized-health-care-to-illegal-immigrants/
http://www.examiner.com/article/report-says-obamacare-recruiting-illegal-immigrants-california
-
really doesn't matter were it came from,what you posted was wrong,right? :D that's right ,both wrong,in such a hurry to shit on the health care they just copy each other
-
really doesn't matter were it came from,what you posted was wrong,right? :D that's right ,both wrong,in such a hurry to shit on the health care they just copy each other
So now the source doesn't matter? lol You claimed it was wrong (likely without reading it), because of the source.
Regarding the substance of the article, doesn't matter which source reports on the information, so long as the information is correct. Are you saying the website doesn't actually say this?
The Covered California website includes a special page entitled: "No temas si eres indocumentado/a y quieres inscribir a tu familia en un seguro médico" ("Fear not if you are undocumented and want to enroll your family in health insurance"). The website goes on to explain that information shared with Obamacare cannot be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It does not explicitly warn that illegal aliens are ineligible.
"According to the laws and implementing regulations," the website says, "the information provided by individuals for coverage can not be used for purposes other than ensuring the efficient functioning of the insurance market ( Covered California) or administration of the program, or to verify certain eligibility determinations including verification of the immigration status of these people."
-
unlike you I did read it
The importance of the first item is to reassure people that an application will not result in an investigation or potential deportation. Many Latino families have mixed immigration statuses and they are sensitive to the possibility that their families could be separated. Consequently, they refrain from enrolling in benefits programs like ObamaCare. That means that many people who are actually citizens (i.e. children who were born here, or naturalized adults) would be deprived of services to which they are entitled because of their concern for other family members who may not be documented. This assurance allows them to apply without having to fear unrelated consequences.
The second item should be an assurance to bigots like Pollak that no undocumented immigrants would receive health care benefits under ObamaCare. It is an explicit declaration that citizenship is required for eligibility. And it is what makes Pollak’s assertion that illegal immigrants are being recruited regardless of their eligibility such a blatant lie.
-
unlike you I did read it
The importance of the first item is to reassure people that an application will not result in an investigation or potential deportation. Many Latino families have mixed immigration statuses and they are sensitive to the possibility that their families could be separated. Consequently, they refrain from enrolling in benefits programs like ObamaCare. That means that many people who are actually citizens (i.e. children who were born here, or naturalized adults) would be deprived of services to which they are entitled because of their concern for other family members who may not be documented. This assurance allows them to apply without having to fear unrelated consequences.
The second item should be an assurance to bigots like Pollak that no undocumented immigrants would receive health care benefits under ObamaCare. It is an explicit declaration that citizenship is required for eligibility. And it is what makes Pollak’s assertion that illegal immigrants are being recruited regardless of their eligibility such a blatant lie.
What?? This is an "explicit declaration" that citizenship is NOT required.
"the information provided by individuals for coverage can not be used for purposes other than ensuring the efficient functioning of the insurance market ( Covered California) or administration of the program, or to verify certain eligibility determinations including verification of the immigration status of these people."
LOL! But that's what happen when you blindly pull crap off of a leftwing website.
-
What?? This is an "explicit declaration" that citizenship is NOT required.
"the information provided by individuals for coverage can not be used for purposes other than ensuring the efficient functioning of the insurance market ( Covered California) or administration of the program, or to verify certain eligibility determinations including verification of the immigration status of these people."
LOL! But that's what happen when you blindly pull crap off of a leftwing website.
lol that's what happens when you get your news from the onion oh I mean breitbart :D
The page is assuring applicants that the information they provide will not be shared with immigration agencies. And 2) That verification of immigration status will be a determinant condition of their eligibility.
-
lol that's what happens when you get your news from the onion oh I mean breitbart :D
The page is assuring applicants that the information they provide will not be shared with immigration agencies. And 2) That verification of immigration status will be a determinant condition of their eligibility.
And The Daily Caller, Examiner, etc.
Wait. Now you're agreeing with me?? Your previous post said this: "It is an explicit declaration that citizenship is required for eligibility."
So which is it?
-
go to Covered California website read the whole thing don't just cherry pick things you want to read like the onion did.if you can't understand it ,god help you :D :D
-
there is no integrity in national politics, just vote for the party you want.
-
Rep. Joe Wilson was right. The South Carolina Congressman screamed, “You lie!” when Barack Obama told Americans the Affordable Care Act would not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.
[video]
Now we know – Obamacare covers illegal immigrants. 125,000 illegal immigrants will be eligible for free healthcare under Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid expansion. The LA Times reported:
A new report shows that as many as 125,000 young California immigrants may qualify for an expansion of Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.
The Affordable Care Act bars insurance subsidies and enrollment in the Medicaid expansion for undocumented immigrants, but a wrinkle in California rules does offer coverage for those with “deferred action status.”
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was created by President Obama in 2012 to grant immigrants who came to the country illegally as children — sometimes called Dreamers — legal status and work authorization for two-year periods.
Laurel Lucia, a policy analyst at the UC Berkeley Labor Center and author of the report released Tuesday, said California is one of the few states that lets youth with deferred action status enroll in Medicaid.
“But the word still hasn’t been spread,” she said.
The report found that 154,000 people in California had been granted the status as of December 2013. About 81%, or 125,000, are eligible for Medi-Cal based on their annual income, which has to be less than $15,850 for an individual.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/125000-immigrants-eligible-for-medi-cal-benefits-under-obamacare/
-
Do these libtards even realize that everything they say is recorded?
This moron acts as if she never mentioned repeatedly or never embraced the prediction that in order for crapcare to succeed they needed 7 million by the end of March. She is claiming that she doesn't know where the CBO got that number. Maybe they got it from her.
This is what that retard said yesterday:
This is what she said on the day (Sept. 30, 1013) that crapcare was launched. When did she say that it was a CBO prediction?
-
Obama Admits: You May 'End Up Having to Switch Doctors'
Friday, 14 Mar 2014
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Even if you like your doctor, you might not be able to keep him or her, President Barack Obama admitted in an interview Friday — reversing his earlier Obamacare promise.
"For the average person, many folks who don't have health insurance initially, they're going to have to make some choices," Obama said during the wide-ranging interview with WebMD's healthcare reform expert Lisa Zamosky. "And they might end up having to switch doctors, in part, because they're saving money."
Obama's statement was much different from a famous one he made back in 2009, when he was trying to sell his top agenda item to the American public.
At that time, he said in a weekly address, "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."
But on Friday, Obama told Zamosky that as part of Obamacare, consumers will need to make some tough choices, especially when it comes to keeping their doctor.
"If your employer suddenly decides we think this network’s going to give a better deal, we think this is going to help keep premiums lower, you've got to use this doctor as opposed to that one, this hospital as opposed to that one," Obama said. "The good news is in most states people have more than one option and what they'll find, I think, is that their doctor or network or hospital that's conveniently located is probably in one of those networks. Now, you may find out that that network's more expensive than another network. And then you've got to make a choice in terms of what's right for your family."
The White House admitted months ago that some Americans wouldn't be able to keep their current health plans under Obamacare, despite Obama's emphatic promise.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said back in October, as Obamacare was struggling to roll out, it's true there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that do not meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act.
At that time, NBC News also reported some 50 percent — or as many as 80 percent — of those with individual insurance policies could expect to be canceled largely because their policies don't meet Obamacare's minimum standards of coverage. NBC's experts say the costs of new policies will skyrocket.
Republicans, with Rep. Darrell Issa as their chief investigator, have also been hoping for months to prove Obama knew he was lying when he made the promise about keeping doctors. Issa, as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, sent letters to 15 insurance companies demanding key correspondence with Obama's administration that may show the president knew in advance people could lose access to their existing doctors under Obamacare.
Letters have gone out to insurers such as Aetna, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Humana, Kaiser Permanente, and UnitedHealth Group.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/keep-doctor-obamacare-promise/2014/03/14/id/559637#ixzz2vxflqiPL
-
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz Tells Four Lies in One Sentence, Washington Post Grades Two Pinocchios
By Amy Ridenour | April 1, 2014
"When 99 percent of women used birth control in their lifetime and 60 percent use it for something other than family planning, it's outrageous and I think the Supreme Court will suggest that their case is ridiculous." - Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC's The Ed Show, March 25
Debbie Wasserman Schultz may have gotten two Pinocchios from Washington Post "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler Monday for that statement above, but she got off easy.
The 60 percent number is a big lie. The real number is 14 percent.
The 60 percent lie wasn't even the first lie of the sentence. 99 percent of all women do not use birth control in their lifetime. In fact, by age 44, only 86.8 percent of women have ever had vaginal intercourse, even once.
Wasserman Schultz's two lies were meant to support a third lie. It doesn't matter to the HHS contraception mandate debate how many women use "the pill" to regulate hormones or for some other medical purpose other than birth control, because the minute the pill is used for something other than birth control, it falls outside the contraception mandate. And since it falls outside the contraception mandate part of ObamaCare, it doesn't matter what happens to that particular mandate in the courts for those who simply want coverage for a drug to regulate hormones, or for some other necessary medical purpose.
Wasserman Schultz wanted the audience to believe a fourth lie. Wasserman Schultz wanted viewers to believe some people (religious conservatives, of course) are trying to block women's access to routine health care. But nobody is. Even the Catholic Church, which famously objects to artificial birth control, does not object to women taking the pill for non-birth control purposes, and does not object to insurance policies covering the pill for non-contraceptive reasons.
It strains credibility to think Wasserman Schultz is, after years of debate in this topic, unaware that the vast majority of women who take the pill use it for birth control. It is very unlikely she truly believes 99 percent of all women use birth control at some time in their lives (are the lesbians using it too, or doesn't Wasserman Schultz believe in the existence of lesbians? How about the devout Catholics? Women who like children? Women who marry late or never? Women who know they can't get pregnant? And so forth.). And Wasserman Schultz has to know that a drug prescribed for something other than birth control does not fall under a birth control regulation, and two minutes on Google would show her that the Catholic Church does not object to the pill, or insurance coverage for same, for non-birth control purposes.
Kessler's Pinocchios grading scale grades two Pinocchios for "significant omissions and/or exaggerations." Kessler said Wasserman Schultz's ten words ("60 percent use it for something other than family planning") qualified as such.
I say Wasserman Schultz should be graded on her entire sentence: four lies. A "whopper" - four Pinocchios.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/amy-ridenour/2014/04/01/rep-debbie-wasserman-schultz-tells-four-lies-one-sentence-washington-p#ixzz2xf9OazZD
-
Both Reid and the president said millions of jobs were already lost or would be lost.
Harry Reid’s claim that the sequester has ‘already cut 1.6 million jobs’
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 08/01/2013
Reid’s comment jumped out at us — 1.6 million jobs have already been lost because of the sequester? That seemed rather large.
The sequester, of course, is the automatic across-the-board spending cuts that were imposed March 1 when Republicans and Democrats could not reach agreement on a budget plan. The actual impact of the cuts has been in dispute, and we wrote a number of columns about fishy statistics that appeared to exaggerate the possible impact on the federal government. A follow-up review in June by The Washington Post found that claims of a breakdown in government services were, in fact, overblown.
Still, the furloughs of federal employees, the cutbacks to contractors and reductions in government services clearly have some sort of ripple effect across the economy. (Indeed, even the Edward Snowden leak case appears to have sprung from the sequester.)
Reid’s spokesman, Adam Jentleson, did not respond to queries, so we had to do a bit of searching to figure out Reid’s logic.
The Facts
The most obvious source for Reid’s figure is a Congressional Budget Office estimate that was released July 25, spawning a few news stories. CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf wrote that if the sequester were canceled, it would boost employment between 300,000 and 1.6 million in the 2014 fiscal year (which ends Sept. 30, 2014).
There’s that 1.6 million figure, which showed in some headlines, such as “Report: Canceling Sequestration Could Add Up to 1.6 million Jobs.” But of course that’s only the maximum range — and we’re talking about an estimate for next year, not this year.
(Note: Though the CBO was making a prediction for canceling the sequester, under its models it is acceptable to reverse the numbers for the opposite action. Thus it would be fine for Reid to interpret the CBO finding as saying that if the sequester continued, it could result in a loss of as many as 1.6 million jobs.)
There’s another possibility for Reid’s math. The midpoint of the CBO estimate is 900,000 jobs in fiscal 2014. Earlier this year, the CBO estimated that 750,000 jobs would be lost in calendar year 2013 because of the sequester.
Did Reid add the two figures to come up with 1.6 million? Maybe, but that wouldn’t be correct either.
First of all, the two figures slightly overlap by one quarter. But more importantly, you can’t simply add the two figures. Each figure is distinct, relating to that time period. It is quite possible that the 750,000 jobs in 2013 would be just a subset of the 900,000 jobs in 2014.
In fact, there’s really no current estimate of how many jobs have been lost because of the sequester. Before the sequester began, there were many estimates, including one that predicted more than 2 million job losses in 2013.
But the size of the sequester was reduced, various functions (such as air traffic controllers) were spared, and many planned furloughs were reduced, so the impact is probably significantly less than many expected before the sequester was implemented.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics who is frequently cited by the Obama administration, says the real impact of the sequester may not have been felt yet. Still, he told the Christian Science Monitor that for 2013, the impact on the economy would likely be 25,000 jobs a month, for a total of 250,000 jobs.
“Job growth has come down a notch, but only a notch,” Zandi said.
The Pinocchio Test
It is possible that Reid misspoke. We don’t like to play gotcha, but we also get suspicious when a politician’s aides do not respond to queries.
In any case, even if Reid was relying on the CBO estimate, 1.6 million is the high-end of a range for next year, not this year.
A more careful speaker would have chosen the midpoint — 900,000 — which is also the first employment number highlighted in the CBO letter.
While the dust has not settled on the impact of the sequester on employment this year, the available evidence shows that Reid’s claim that 1.6 million jobs already have been cut this year appears wildly off course.
Four Pinocchios
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg?uuid=zmHlfEniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/harry-reids-claim-that-the-sequester-has-already-cut-16-million-jobs/2013/07/31/b40b0cfa-fa28-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_blog.html
-
And now we learn that only one guy lost his job. I'm sure the media will be all over the president and Reid for the scare tactics and outright lying about this.
Despite doomsday predictions, report finds only 1 layoff from sequester cuts
By Stephanie McNeal
Published May 08, 2014
FoxNews.com
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.
“Taxpayers expect us to root our predictions in fact, not ideology and spin,” Coburn said Wednesday in a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Matthews Burwell.
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.
The March report by the Government Accountability Office describes how 23 agencies and departments -- which appear to span most of the federal government -- complied with the cuts. Only one, the Department of Justice, decided to lay off a single employee in fiscal year 2013.
A spokeswoman for the GAO told FoxNews.com the DOJ reported that the laid-off worker was from the the U.S. Parole Commission, but they had no other information about the employee. Virtually every other arm of the government turned to tactics like cutting overtime, reducing employee travel and putting workers on furlough to avoid actual firings.
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.
Republicans also warned about the potential job-killing effect of the cuts, with House Speaker John Boehner claiming in a February 2013 Wall Street Journal op-ed “thousands of jobs” would be threatened.
Coburn said he wants Burwell, who has been nominated to lead the health department, to explain why the predictions were so drastically wrong.
“While that’s good news for federal employees and other workers, it is devastating to the credibility of Washington politicians and administration officials who spent months – and millions of dollars – engaging in a coordinated multi-agency cabinet-level public relations campaign to scare the American people,” he said.
Coburn noted two frequently cited government estimates by Goldman Sachs and the Congressional Budget Office, which predicted a loss of anywhere from 99,999 and 1,599,999 jobs, seem to have been way off base.
Posner said that many figures in the GAO report make clear that "sequestration had significant negative effects on services for the public as well as agency operations and federal workers." He said in the future, it may get even worse.
"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.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/07/despite-doomsday-predictions-sequester-cuts-only-led-to-1-layoff-in-2013/
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/09/four-pinocchios-for-obamas-claim-that-republicans-have-filibustered-about-500-pieces-of-legislation/?wprss=rss_politics&clsrd
More lies from Obama
-
Geithner, in memoir, suggests White House asked him to bend truth on deficit
Published May 12, 2014
FoxNews.com
Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claims in his new book that the White House on more than one occasion tried to put words in his mouth or outright asked him to bend the truth.
In his memoir, "Stress Test: Reflections on Financial Crises," Geithner recalls a Sunday talk show prep session in 2011 during which top White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer wanted him to say Social Security "didn't contribute" to the federal deficit. Geithner wrote that he objected.
"It wasn't a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute," Geithner wrote, explaining his own reasoning. "Pfeiffer said the line was a 'dog whistle' to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security."
After the anecdote began to generate attention on Monday, a source close to Geithner clarified to Fox News that the former secretary "does not believe he was encouraged to go out and mislead the public on the Sunday shows."
The source said all the former secretary was trying to get across was that Pfeiffer wanted him to "send a signal" to liberals about the president's commitment to not allowing major cuts to Social Security.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also defended Pfeiffer, reiterating the White House position that Social Security is not the "main driver" of the deficit, when compared with health care-related entitlement programs. "That, I'm sure, is the point that Dan was making," Carney said.
Still, the episode and others in the 544-page book, in stores Monday, provide a glimpse into how the White House screens and provides information to the public -- particularly following revelations about White House involvement in a "prep call" for then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's controversial appearance on Sunday shows after the 2012 Benghazi attacks.
Geithner also recalled an incident in January 2009, having been on the job as secretary for less than a week, in which he rejected what a Democratic strategist wanted him to say at an Oval Office press event.
"I was supposed to have my first one-on-one meeting with President Obama," Geithner wrote. "As I was about to walk into the Oval Office, Stephanie Cutter, a veteran Democratic operative who was handling our communications strategy, told me we would have a 'pool spray,' a photo opportunity for the White House press.
"The president and I would make brief remarks about executive compensation, responding to a report that Wall Street firms had paid their executives big bonuses while piling up record losses in 2008. 'Here's what you're going to say,' Cutter said."
Geithner wrote that Cutter handed him the text, and he "skimmed the outrage I was expected to express."
He wrote: "I'm not very convincing as an angry populist, and I thought the artifice would look ridiculous."
According to his memoir, he told Cutter he wouldn't do it.
"Instead, I sat uncomfortably next to the president while he expressed outrage. Americans were furious about bailouts for overpaid bankers, and the White House political team wanted us to show we were on the right side of the backlash," he wrote. "The public outrage was appropriate ... but I didn't see how we could ever satisfy it. We had no legal authority to confiscate the bonuses that had been paid during the boom."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/12/geithner-says-in-book-tried-to-put-words-in-his/
-
Fox News Poll: Obama, Clinton seen as deceitful on Benghazi
By Dana Blanton
Published May 14, 2014
FoxNews.com
A majority thinks the White House has tried to deceive people about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. At the same time, Republicans are seen as politicizing the issue rather than trying to get to the truth.
These are just some of the findings from the latest Fox News poll.
Click here for the poll results.
Fifty-four percent of voters think the Obama administration has been deceitful about the events surrounding the Benghazi attacks. Half say the same about former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (50 percent).
In addition, by a 51-39 percent margin, voters say the White House knowingly lied about the attacks to help President Obama’s re-election campaign.
Among Democrats, 25 percent say Obama has tried to deceive on Benghazi and 23 percent think the White House lied to help the campaign.
The attacks that killed four Americans took place less than two months before Election Day. Even though the Obama administration had intelligence that the attackers were connected to terrorist groups, the White House pushed the story of a spontaneous protest in response to an online video.
On April 29 a previously unreleased email surfaced from a White House adviser that discussed how to characterize the attacks.
A week later House Republicans voted to establish a new select committee to investigate Benghazi. Voters approve of that decision by a large 67-28 percent margin. That includes a 55-percent majority of Democrats.
Continuing the Benghazi investigation is not without peril for Republicans. Despite their distrust of the White House on this issue, voters doubt Republican motives are pure. The number saying Republicans are investigating Benghazi for political gain is more than double the number who see the GOP as doing it to find the truth (63-30 percent).
Even 38 percent of Republicans think their party is politicizing the issue.
One possible reason the Obama administration hasn’t been hurt more by Benghazi is that most voters don’t place all of the blame on the White House. While a combined 72 percent say at least some of the blame for the security failings at the U.S. consulate falls on the administration, just 36 percent say the White House deserves “a great deal of blame” (and 36 percent “some blame”).
Republicans (60 percent) and independents (41 percent) are much more likely than Democrats (15 percent) to place “a great deal of blame” on the Obama administration for security failings.
Overall views are similar on how much blame the administration deserves for failing to bring the individuals responsible for the attacks to justice: 38 percent say Obama deserves “a great deal of blame” for that, while 30 percent say “some blame.”
Meanwhile, 78 percent of voters consider the issue serious, including 52 percent who see the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi as “very serious.” For comparison, 53 percent see government surveillance of everyday Americans as “very serious” and 44 percent feel that way about the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,025 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from May 10, 12-13, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/14/fox-news-poll-obama-clinton-seen-as-deceitful-on-benghazi/
-
Isn't this dishonest?
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/february-12-2013/how-obama-administration-inflates-deportation-statistics.html
-
:o
Hillary Clinton About Obama: ‘You Can’t Trust the Motherf***er’
June 27, 2014 By Matthew Burke
Former Newsweek editor and best-selling author Edward Klein’s new book about the “Blood Feud” between the Clintons and the Obamas is sure to cause liberal/progressive/communist heads to spin within the Democrat Party.
While always acting lovey-dovey on stage and anywhere in public, Klein contends that the leftist quartet actually hate each other.
“Blood Feud,” a follow-up to Klein’s NY Times bestseller “The Amateur,” paints a picture of two two-faced couples filled with political greed, working together only with extreme reluctance and only when political expedience outweighs the couple’s mutual hatred.
According to Klein, two months after Hillary Clinton resigned from her position as Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary told a group of friends, over one too many glasses of wine, that, in regards to Obama, “You can’t trust the motherf***er,” while claiming that “Obama has turned into a joke.”
The boozed-up rant took place in May of 2013, according to Klein, at Le Jardin Du Roi, a French restaurant near the Clinton mansion in Chappaqua, New York.
Klein says Hillary told her friends that the Clintons made a deal with the Obamas that they would help him get re-elected in 2012, in exchange for Obama’s support in getting Hillary elected to the presidency in 2016.
“He agreed to the arrangement but then he reneged on the deal. His word isn’t worth sh*t,” Hillary reportedly said.
Many have reported, and it’s no great secret, that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama aren’t the best of friends, and even dislike each other. However Klein reported in “Blood Feud” that it goes much deeper than a casual distaste.
“I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived,” Klein quotes Bill Clinton as having said about the Democrat president.
Klein claims that Valerie Jarrett, a top Obama adviser and longtime friend, and Michelle Obama nicknamed Hillary Clinton “Hildebeest,” comparing her to the ugly gnu that can be seen wandering the Serengeti region in Tanzania.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/27/hillary-clinton-about-obama-you-cant-trust-the-motherfer/
-
I'd be sweating pretty hard if I was Mr. O....his own party will be blaming him in order to stay in office shortly....and the Clinton machine is no stranger to impeachment proceedings.
-
:-\
-
I'd be sweating pretty hard if I was Mr. O....his own party will be blaming him in order to stay in office shortly....and the Clinton machine is no stranger to impeachment proceedings.
I agree that it's not unlikely that Dems will be turning on him in order to not be hurt by his unpopularity in future elections but I don't know why he'd be sweating about that. I mean, like he says, he can't run for re-election. And because he was the first black president, he'll always be of interest to people and therefore he'll always be able to make money on the lecture circuit -- After all, making speeches is the one thing that even those on the right agree he's great at.
I seriously doubt that any impeachment proceeding will get off the ground; After what happened with Bill Clinton, I'm pretty sure that the right as a whole will be too gun-shy to go that route no matter what the short-sighted Tea Party faction wants. Obama's people know all this so impeachment is likely not something he's worried about.
So sweating? I don't think so. Shoot, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that Obama could willingly be used by the Democrats as a sort of lightning rod to attract barbs of the right that would otherwise be directed at those Dems who CAN run for office......Or maybe he's too selfish for that it it's only my inner conspiritard talking. lol
-
I guess he changed his mind about vacations after taking office.
-
I guess he changed his mind about vacations after taking office.
LMFAO!!!!!
-
What does the NY TIMES say about that JV comment?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/politics/a-president-whose-assurances-have-come-back-to-haunt-him.html?_r=0#
But the transcript of the New Yorker interview showed that Mr. Obama made his JV team comment directly after being asked about terrorists in Iraq, Syria and Africa, which would include ISIS. After Mr. Obama’s initial answer, Mr. Remnick pointed out that “that JV team just took over Fallujah,” a city in western Iraq seized by ISIS. Mr. Obama replied that terrorism in many places around the world was not necessarily “a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”
Journalistic organizations like PolitiFact, Factcheck.org and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker all rejected the contention that Mr. Obama was not referring to ISIS when he made his comment about JV teams.
-
Spinning Obama’s reference to Islamic State as a ‘JV’ team
By Glenn Kessler September 3, 2014
Question: “Did the president underestimate ISIS [the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] when he referred to them in an interview only a couple months ago as a JV squad and making a reference to National Basketball Association basketball teams like the Lakers?”
White House spokesman Josh Earnest: “I thought somebody might ask this question today so I wanted to pull the transcript of the interview because it’s important to understand the context in which this was delivered. So let me just read the full quote and then we can talk about it:
“‘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.’
“So the president was not singling out ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, another name for the group], he was talking about the very different threat that is posed by a range of extremists around the globe. Many of them do not have designs on attacking the West or attacking the United States, and that is what puts them in stark contrast to the goals and capability of the previously existing al-Qaeda core network that was led by Osama bin Laden.”
– exchange at White House news briefing, Aug. 25, 2014
Several readers asked us to examine this claim from White House spokesman Josh Earnest that President Obama was not singling out the group that now calls itself as Islamic State when, during in an interview with the New Yorker that appeared last January, he appeared to dismiss it as a “JV squad.” Since then, the group has taken over vast segments of Iraqi territory, declared itself a state and has posted videos that appear to show the beheadings of two American journalists.
The Facts
The New Yorker article, written by David Remnick, appeared in the Jan. 27, 2014, issue. It was clearly based on a series of interviews with the president, over a period of months, but the interview in question took place in the Oval Office on Jan. 7, according to the previously unreleased transcript obtained by The Fact Checker.
The date is important because just four days before, newspapers reported that the Islamic State had captured and raised its flag over Fallujah, where Marines in 2004 had fought one of the bloodiest battles of the U.S. invasion. As Liz Sly of The Washington Post reported:
A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago….
The upheaval also affirmed the soaring capabilities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that was formed a decade ago to confront U.S. troops and expanded into Syria last year while escalating its activities in Iraq.
It was in that context that Remnick asked about a possible resurgence of al-Qaeda. Here is what the transcript shows:
Q: You know where this is going, though. Even in the period that you’ve been on vacation in the last couple of weeks, in Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. 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.
Q: But that JV team jus[t] took over Fallujah.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand. But when you say took over Fallujah –
Q: And I don’t know for how long.
THE PRESIDENT: But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.
Games - Click Here for More!
The president’s “JV” comment was so striking that Remnick, in his article, referred to it as “an uncharacteristically flip analogy.” The New Yorker article does not specifically refer to ISIS, but it is fairly clear in the article — and certainly clear in the transcript — that Remnick was asking about its takeover of Fallujah.
In the White House briefing, Earnest asserted that Obama was referring to groups that “do not have designs on attacking the West or on attacking the United States … they certainly don’t have the capability of attacking the West.” He told reporters that “it’s important that we don’t sort of shorthand the analogy that the president was trying to draw here,” in that the president was referring to “jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes.”
But the context of Remnick’s question makes it clear that he was asking about ISIS, as the president acknowledged. Perhaps at the time the president viewed it as a local matter between jihadists, but now, eight months later, the United States is striking Islamic State targets in an effort to turn back its advance across Iraqi territory.
We asked Earnest and White House representatives for a response but over a four-day period did not get a reply.
The Pinocchio Test
With the passage of eight months, the president’s “JV” comment looks increasingly untenable, so we can understand why the White House spokesman would try to suggest that what is now known as the Islamic State was not the subject of the conversation.
But in quoting from the transcript, Earnest provided a selective reading of the discussion. In particular, he failed to provide the context in which Obama made his remarks — the takeover of Fallujah by ISIS. That’s fairly misleading. The interviewer was certainly asking about ISIS when Obama answered with his “JV” remarks.
Four Pinocchios
(http://img.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/09/03/spinning-obamas-reference-to-isis-as-a-jv-team/
-
White House Doctors Transcript of Obama Remarks
by KEITH KOFFLER on OCTOBER 21, 2014
The White House Monday left a potentially embarassing phrase out of the official transcript of the president’s remarks, altering what is supposed to be a verbatim rendition and, unless it was a mistake, effectively lying to the American people.
The odds, of course, of something harmful being the one thing left accidentally on the cutting room floor or unheard by the stenographer would seem rather low.
According to the White House pool report by Politico’s Jennifer Epstein:
The White House’s transcript of tonight’s DNC fundraiser omits the president’s reference to unpaid bills being stacked up on his desk at home in Chicago. I included a partial quote in the pool report earlier, but in the interest of transparency, especially since this was a print pool only event, I’m sharing the full quote, as I transcribed and checked just now, and as it was in the transcript. Thanks to AP’s Josh Lederman for pointing out the discrepancy
The quote:
“One of the nice things about being home is actually that it’s a little bit like a time capsule. Because Michelle and I and the kids, we left so quickly that there’s still junk on my desk, including some unpaid bills (laughter) – I think eventually they got paid — but they’re sort of stacked up. And messages, newspapers and all kinds of stuff.”
In the transcript, the quote leaves out the reference to unpaid but probably eventually paid bills: “there’s still junk on my desk, including some — newspapers and all kinds of stuff.”
The Bush people also tried altering a transcript and were caught, but that was early in the administration, and they learned their lesson and stuck to exact transcriptions from then on. Given Bush’s challenges with regard to verbal expression in public, it couldn’t have been an easy thing.
Obama’s propagandists should know by now not to produce a false transcript.
The omission was included in the transcript that was emailed out to reporters. A copy has not yet appeared on the White House website. We’ll see what it looks like.
UPDATE: THE PLOT THICKENS: The White House is claiming the stenographer did not hear the omitted phrase. It released a new transcript this morning with “(inaudible)” inserted where the missing phrase should be. Somehow, it wasn’t inaudible to the White House pool reporters, who picked up on the discrepancy between what was said and what was in the transcript.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/10/21/white-house-alters-the-official-obama-transcript/
-
What?? This is an "explicit declaration" that citizenship is NOT required.
"the information provided by individuals for coverage can not be used for purposes other than ensuring the efficient functioning of the insurance market ( Covered California) or administration of the program, or to verify certain eligibility determinations including verification of the immigration status of these people."
LOL! But that's what happen when you blindly pull crap off of a leftwing website.
BB, if you think this is an explicit declaration that citizenship is not required, you've got some reading comprehension issues.
What do you think "not be used for purposes other than..." means in the paragraph you've pasted above? I'll answer for you: It means "can only be used".
So this means that they're saying that info provided for coverage will only be used for insurance-related questions or to verify eligibility for insurance including verification of immigration status.
The main purpose of what's written is they're saying that info supplied won't be used for other shit -- whether that shit is reporting illegals to La Migra or selling addresses to spammers.
The part that I've bolded strongly suggests that immigration status will be used to determine eligibility for insurance.
I realize your post is pretty old so I apologize if you already figured out you that your misreading caused you to take the opposite meaning from what was written.
-
BB, if you think this is an explicit declaration that citizenship is not required, you've got some reading comprehension issues.
What do you think "not be used for purposes other than..." means in the paragraph you've pasted above? I'll answer for you: It means "can only be used".
So this means that they're saying that info provided for coverage will only be used for insurance-related questions or to verify eligibility for insurance including verification of immigration status.
The main purpose of what's written is they're saying that info supplied won't be used for other shit -- whether that shit is reporting illegals to La Migra or selling addresses to spammers.
The part that I've bolded strongly suggests that immigration status will be used to determine eligibility for insurance.
I realize your post is pretty old so I apologize if you already figured out you that your misreading caused you to take the opposite meaning from what was written.
Like the article I posted says: "The website goes on to explain that information shared with Obamacare cannot be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It does not explicitly warn that illegal aliens are ineligible."
So no, they are not ensuring that the applicants are not illegal aliens.
-
Like the article I posted says: "The website goes on to explain that information shared with Obamacare cannot be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It does not explicitly warn that illegal aliens are ineligible."
So no, they are not ensuring that the applicants are not illegal aliens.
That's right. Though it's implied, it is not explicitly stated that illegal aliens will be ineligible. Glad to see you're reading it correctly now.
Not sure how you got "This is an "explicit declaration" that citizenship is NOT required." as you first did.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/09/obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-was-key-because-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-would-have-killed-obamacare
Obama needs to be tried for treason and sent BACK to Africa where he came from and belongs and will fit in better.
Obamacare Architect: Lack of Transparency Was Key Because ‘Stupidity Of The American Voter’ Would Have Killed Obamacare
11/09/2014
Patrick Howley is an investigative reporter for The Daily Caller.
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.
Gruber, the MIT professor who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration during Obamacare’s design, also made clear during a panel quietly captured on video that the individual mandate, which was only upheld by the Supreme Court because it was a tax, was not actually a tax.
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
-
How can you liberals tolerate this lack of integrity?
-
Pelosi cited ObamaCare architect in push for law – now claims she hasn’t heard of him
Published November 13, 2014
FoxNews.com
Nancy Pelosi claimed Thursday she didn’t know who ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber is, after several tapes surfaced showing him gloating about how the law was written to take advantage of the stupidity of the American voter.
Problem is, Gruber’s analysis of the law was cited extensively by her office back in 2009.
Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, tried to downplay Gruber’s role during a press conference on Thursday.
She claimed she doesn’t know who he is, and that he didn’t help write the law. “Let’s put him aside,” she said.
However, Gruber was involved in the process – as his newly surfaced remarks make clear – and his analysis indeed was cited by Pelosi’s office when she was House speaker in late 2009.
At the time, her office put out a “health insurance reform mythbuster” press release pointing to the work of “noted MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber” in examining the House bill’s impact on premiums. They noted that Gruber found it “would result in lower premiums than under current law for the millions of Americans using the newly-established Health Insurance Exchange.”
Pelosi also mentioned Gruber during a press conference at the time.
When the press release was brought to Pelosi’s office’s attention on Thursday, aides indicated she does not know him – as she does not know everyone they have cited on their website.
Democrats have been putting some distance between themselves and Gruber after a series of recordings – mostly from 2012 and 2013 – have surfaced showing him bad-mouthing American voters.
The latest shows him speaking at the University of Rhode Island in 2012 about the law’s so-called "Cadillac tax.” The “Cadillac tax” mandates that insurance companies be taxed rather than policy holders. He said that taxing individuals would have been “politically impossible,” but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn't understand the difference.
“So basically it's the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
The new video follows another showing him speaking on a similar topic at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis. Referring to the "Cadillac tax,” he said: "They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference." He also has said a lack of transparency helped the law pass.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, traveling with President Obama in Burma, said he disagrees with Gruber's comments.
Earnest claimed the bill was written in a transparent way and that it's Republicans who aren't transparent about how they would replace it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/13/pelosi-cited-obamacare-architect-in-push-for-law-now-claims-hasnt-heard-him/
-
She doesn't know who Gruber is?? O Rly?
-
She doesn't know who Gruber is?? O Rly?
Straw voted for her many times
-
That Time Gruber Said An Obama Campaign Promise Was Not Credible [VIDEO]
11/17/2014
Chuck Ross
Embattled MIT economist Jonathan Gruber once disagreed with a bold claim made repeatedly by then-Sen. Barack Obama on the 2008 presidential campaign trail that the average American family would save $2,500 on their premiums per year under his health-care plan.
“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 about proposals offered by Obama and his Democratic challenger at the time, Hillary Clinton.
. . .
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/17/that-time-gruber-said-an-obama-campaign-promise-was-not-credible-video/
-
-
I'm sure it was an innocent mistake.
Oops! Administration Says It Erroneously Inflated Obamacare Enrollment Numbers
AP Posted: 11/20/2014
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says it's been reporting too high a figure for health law sign-ups because of a counting mistake.
It's another embarrassment after video surfaced recently of a former adviser suggesting that deception was used to pass President Barack Obama's signature law.
Administration spokesman Aaron Albright said Thursday the correct number as of Oct. 15 is about 6.7 million people, or roughly 400,000 fewer than previously reported.
Albright said the mistake involved double-counting people who had separate dental coverage in addition to a medical plan.
Foes of the health law say it's no innocent mistake, and that the numbers were padded. Republicans leading the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee say their staff uncovered the discrepancies.
The over count was first reported by Bloomberg.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/20/obamacare-signups-dental-plans_n_6193808.html
-
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/12/16/wash_post_fact-checker_names_isisjv_team_lie_of_the_year.html
-
FACT CHECK: Obama claims credit for an incomplete recovery
Published January 20, 2015
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The U.S. may not have "risen from recession" quite as rousingly as President Barack Obama suggested in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night. Seven years after that severe downturn began, household income hasn't recovered and healthy job growth is complicated by the poor quality, and pay, of many of those jobs.
It's always problematic when a president takes credit for an improving economy, just as it is when he's blamed for things going bad. A leader can only do so much, for better or worse, and there are two sides to every economy. But after an election in which Obama largely held off on chest-beating, he claimed credit in bold terms for what is going right.
Also in his speech, Obama skimmed over the cost to taxpayers of free community college tuition and invited closer scrutiny with his claims about U.S. support for Syrian moderates and about his record of public-lands preservation.
A look at some of his claims, and the facts and the political climate behind them, as well as a glance at the Republican response:
OBAMA:
--"At this moment - with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry and booming energy production - we have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth."
THE FACTS: By many measures, the economy is still recovering from the deep scars left by the Great Recession.
Job growth has been healthy, but fueled in part by lower-paying jobs in areas such as retail and restaurants, which have replaced many higher-paying positions in manufacturing and construction. Part-time jobs also remain elevated: There are still 1.7 million fewer workers with full-time jobs than when the recession began in December 2007.
And the faster hiring hasn't pushed up wages much. They have been growing at a tepid pace of about 2 percent a year since the recession ended 5 1/2 years ago. That's barely ahead of inflation and below the annual pace of about 3.5 percent to 4 percent that is typical of a fully healthy economy.
That has left the income of the typical household below its pre-recession level. Inflation-adjusted median household income reached $53,880 in November 2014, according to an analysis of government data by Sentier Research. That is about 4 percent higher than when it bottomed out in 2011. But it is still 4.5 percent lower than the $56,447 median income in December 2007, the month the recession began.
Booming energy production is indeed a reality, but that's a phenomenon many years in the making, with the development of cost-effective extraction from fracking and other means playing into the rise of the U.S. as an energy production giant.
------
OBAMA: "I am sending this Congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college -- to zero."
THE FACTS: Zero for qualifying students; an estimated $60 billion over 10 years to the treasury.
Obama confronts a Republican-controlled Congress that can be expected to be wary of a new program costing that much. Moreover, the proposal requires states to contribute about a quarter of the money, and getting them to go along is bound to be tough. Many states refused to expand Medicaid under the health care law, for example, even though Washington is picking up the entire cost in the first years.
On the other hand, community college is an issue close to home for state government, perhaps more appealing than partnering with Washington on the health law, so the idea could have a fighting chance if it can get through Congress. Educators are divided on its merits, with some worrying that aid for a community college education could divert students and scholarships away from four-year schools.
------
OBAMA: "We've set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history."
THE FACTS: Waters is the key word here. Before expanding the Pacific Remote Islands National Monument last year from almost 87,000 square miles to more than 490,000 square miles, Obama had protected far fewer acres than his four predecessors, including President George W. Bush.
Expansion of the massive Pacific islands monument puts Obama on top. It's nearly all water, however, and the move has limited practical implications. While it bans commercial fishing, deep-sea mining and other extraction of underwater resources, little fishing or drilling occur in the mid-ocean region now.
------
OBAMA: "Thanks to a growing economy, the recovery is touching more and more lives. Wages are finally starting to rise again.áWe know that more small-business owners plan to raise their employees' pay than at any time since 2007."
THE FACTS: A survey of small businesses by the National Federation of Independent Business does show that a rising proportion plans to raise wages. But plans to raise pay aren't the same as actually raising them.
Average hourly earnings rose just 1.7 percent in December from 12 months earlier, according to the Labor Department. That's about half the rate that is typical of a healthy economy and actually lower than the previous month. Economists generally expect wage gains to accelerate this year, as unemployment continues to fall and businesses are forced to offer higher pay to attract workers. But there is scant evidence that it is happening yet.
------
OBAMA: "In Iraq and Syria, American leadership? -- ?including our military power? -- ?is stopping ISIL's advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We're also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort."
THE FACTS: The U.S. also has been slow to set up long-promised training for the moderate Syrian opposition, and has yet to begin the actual vetting of the rebels. Also, despite persistent pleas from the rebels, the U.S. hasn't sent the more lethal weapons they want. U.S. officials have expressed concerns that the weapons could end up in the hands of insurgents.
Military leaders, however, agree that coalition airstrikes and the military effort in Syria and Iraq have stopped the momentum of the Islamic State group, or ISIL, made it hard for the insurgents to communicate and travel, and hurt their oil revenues.
------
SEN. JONI ERNST: The freshman from Iowa listed Obama's health care law among his "failed policies" and added, "We see the hurt caused by canceled health care plans and higher monthly insurance bills."
THE FACTS: The jury is still out on the law Republicans call "Obamacare."
The number of uninsured people is down by at least 10 million. A large ongoing Gallup survey documented a steady drop in the nation's uninsured rate since the law's big coverage expansion began last year.
The law's record on affordability is mixed. The share of Americans forgoing needed medical care because of cost is down significantly, according to a Commonwealth Fund survey, and fewer are struggling to pay medical bills. Yet many insured people with modest incomes still have problems with high out-of-pocket costs.
As for harm caused by lost insurance, many in Ernst's party are intent on repealing the law, which would probably mean even more lost coverage, because many of the estimated 10 million uninsured people who have gained coverage through the Affordable Care Act would no longer be able to afford their premiums.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/20/fact-check-obama-claims-credit-for-incomplete-recovery/
-
He fucked the middle class along time ago, but........
Tonight, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will propose a series of tax increases on the American people. One of these tax increases is indisputably an income tax hike on middle class families with children.
Under Obama’s plan, earnings in “Section 529” (named for its location in the Internal Revenue Code) college savings plans will face full income taxation upon withdrawal.
Under current law, earnings growth in 529 plans is tax-free if account distributions are used to pay for college tuition and fees. The Obama plan will tax earnings in these accounts even if they are used to pay for college tuition and fees.
These accounts are commonly used by middle class families. There are about 12 million 529 accounts open today, and they have an average account balance of approximately $21,000. Most 529 plans permit monthly contributions as low as $25 per month.
This middle class income tax increase is a clear violation of President Obama's “firm pledge” against “any form of tax increase” on any family making less than $250,000. This promise to the American people is documented below:
Speaking in Dover, New Hampshire on Sept. 12, 2008, candidate Obama said:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” [Video]
During a nationally televised Vice-Presidential debate in St. Louis on Oct. 3, 2008, candidate Joe Biden said:
“No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama’s plan will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it’s their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax.” [Transcript]
In an address to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 24, 2009, President Obama restated the promise in forceful terms:
“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” [Transcript] [Video]
"Rather than raise taxes on middle class families trying to save for their children’s education, Obama should abolish the seven tax increases in Obamacare that directly hit middle-income Americans,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
https://www.atr.org/obama-tax-hike-college-savings-plans-breaks-middle-class-tax-pledge
-
As Senator, Obama Voted to Make 529 College Savings Plans Permanent
Posted by John Kartch, Ryan Ellis on Monday, January 26th, 2015
On August 3, 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama voted to make the current tax treatment of 529 college savings plans permanent.
President Obama’s recently proposed tax plan, however, reverses this vote on 529 plans.
The vote on H.R. 4 — the Pension Protection Act of 2006 — took place in the second session of the 109th Congress, vote #230.
H.R. 4 made permanent the 529 plan expansion in the otherwise temporary 2001 Bush tax cut package (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 — EGTRRA). The vote for H.R. 4 enshrined into permanent law the current tax-free growth of these college savings plans if used for tuition and fees. The 529 provision was in Section 1304 of the legislation.
The Obama administration has now proposed raising taxes on 529 plans, reversing the vote Senator Obama took in 2006. The administration now criticizes 529 plans as “upside down,” and “ineffective."
http://www.atr.org/senator-obama-voted-make-529-college-savings-plans-permanent#ixzz3Q2TDnUmZ
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Brian Williams faces fierce mockery after recanting Iraq war story
Washington post ^ | 2/4/2015 | By Dan Lamothe
Posted on February 5, 2015 at 6:46:29 AM EST by tobyhill
NBC News anchor Brian Williams faced swift, and often harsh and sarcastic, reaction Wednesday after he recanted a story that he was aboard an Army helicopter that was hit with enemy fire in Iraq and forced to land.
The longtime NBC News journalist apologized in an interview with Stars & Stripes, saying he had “misremembered” what happened. He was actually in another nearby helicopter.
“I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams told the newspaper. “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”
The story drew immediate scorn online, where critics — including veterans and retired baseball star Curt Schilling — questioned how it would have been possible to make that mistake.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
There will be more of these "misremembers" because it's time for the media liars to clear the air and get ready for the Hillary Show.
1 posted on February 5, 2015 at 6:46:29 AM EST by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
This won’t go away until he either resigns/retires or he recants his recant. He didn’t misremember. It is patently absurd to believe it was his memory playing tricks on him.
He outright lied. He lied because he and others like him lie regularly to the population at large in their so-called trusted stewardship of the “truth.” That perhaps is the biggest lie of all.
2 posted on February 5, 2015 at 6:50:30 AM EST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Gaffer
I’ve detested this POS since he apologized for the obvious grimace when announcing W had won in 2000.
These commissars aren’t even hiding their contempt for us anymore.
3 posted on February 5, 2015 at 6:52:52 AM EST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic warfare against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
Brian Williams faces fierce mockery after recanting Iraq war story...
As well he should! Whatever little credibility NBC News had, this blows it out of the water. No way he survives in his current position.
4 posted on February 5, 2015 at 6:59:14 AM EST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
“I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams told the newspaper
Huh?
5 posted on February 5, 2015 at 6:59:43 AM EST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Gaffer
“Fake but accurate” - didn’t Dan Rather get into some pretty deep waters with this approach to the news?
And what about Herself, Madame Benghazi, the Cold & Joyless, ducking “enemy fire” upon her arrival in Bosnia in 1996.
Just trying to give snipers a bad name. Herself was NEVER in any danger.
6 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:00:50 AM EST by alloysteel (The Internet is like an icy sidewalk. One slip, and BOOM!, down you go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
These clowns stopped being ‘journalists’ LOOOOOOONG ago.
The viewers are the dupes in all this, because all THEY have to do is tune them out!
7 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:03:18 AM EST by SMARTY ("When you blame others, you give up your power to change." Robert Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: kearnyirish2
I wonder if anyone ever made a good gif of that grimace?
8 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:05:50 AM EST by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
Bob Woodruff and David Bloom were unavailable for comment.
-PJ
9 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:06:55 AM EST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
Musta been the same guys who were shooting at Brian Williams who shot at Hillary as she stood on the tarmac in a receiving line in Bosnia.
10 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:07:15 AM EST by USNA74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: alloysteel
Liberals lie. All the time.
11 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:07:32 AM EST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
12 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:07:57 AM EST by New Perspective (Proud father of a son with Down Syndrome and fighting to keep him off Obama's death panels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: alloysteel
They’ve largely gotten away with these constant lies before because they controlled the bulk of what Americans see on TV and read in print (when they read).
With the spread of the internet and decline of MSM’s influence, these lies aren’t as easy to hide any more.
Whenever his name is mentioned, wherever, it should be appended with Proven Liar.
13 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:09:40 AM EST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
Great war heroes of the left ... John "Killer" Kerry, Tom "Ace" Harkin and Brian "Crash" Williams.
All served in the Stolen Valor division.
14 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:10:07 AM EST by Boston Blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
It is fascinating to see the double standard at work. Williams is liberal, so this will be swept under the rug. If a conservative commentator did it, it would be a topic 24/7 until the person resigned or offed themselves.
15 posted on 02/05/2015 4:10:16 AM PST by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: wbarmy
I’ve seen it on this site, especially soon after it happened; it was strange, as though someone in the studio had to point out to him how obvious his bias was. When they cut back to him after a break, he apologized for it.
16 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:10:24 AM EST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic warfare against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
How do you “misremember” a lie?
17 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:11:22 AM EST by Renkluaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Renkluaf
Ask the Ferguson witnesses (who got away with outright falsifying reports); some even admitted later that they weren’t even present (after swearing to Brown’s coldblooded execution by Officer Wilson)...
18 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:13:58 AM EST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic warfare against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]
To: tobyhill
Bullcrap.
19 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:15:09 AM EST by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: rbg81
Undeniably true.
20 posted on February 5, 2015 at 7:19:26 AM EST by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free Republic
Browse · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/axelrod-obama-lied-about-his-support-for-gay-marriage-2015-2
>:(
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/obama-same-sex-marriage_n_6652892.html#comments
-
One of the most dishonest aspects of his political career.
-
VA Secretary Robert McDonald Falsely Claimed He Served In 'Special Forces'
Posted: 02/23/2015
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2646820/images/n-ROBERT-MCDONALD-large570.jpg)
WASHINGTON -- Robert McDonald, the secretary of veterans affairs, wrongly claimed in a videotaped comment earlier this year that he served in the Army's elite special forces, when his military service of five years was in fact spent almost entirely with the 82nd Airborne Division during the late 1970s.
U.S. special operations forces (SOF) are composed of exhaustively trained and highly capable troops from each military service, including the Army Rangers, Delta Force, Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces (also known as the Green Berets) -- but not the 82nd Airborne. They are certified to undertake the most dangerous and delicate missions, including, famously, the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011. Special operators are a close-knit community deeply hostile to outsiders who try to claim the coveted mantle of special operations.
McDonald, a retired corporate executive who took over the VA last June as the agency was sinking in scandal, made the claim in late January as he was touring a rundown Los Angeles neighborhood during a nationwide count of homeless veterans. He was accompanied by a CBS-TV news crew, which recorded an exchange between McDonald and a homeless man who told McDonald he had served in special forces.
“Special forces? What years? I was in special forces!” McDonald told the homeless man. That exchange was broadcast in a Jan. 30 CBS News story about the VA’s efforts to find and house homeless veterans.
In fact, McDonald never served in special forces. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1975, completed Army Ranger training and took courses in jungle, arctic and desert warfare. He qualified as a senior parachutist and airborne jumpmaster, and was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division until he resigned his commission in 1980. While he earned a Ranger tab designating him as a graduate of Ranger School, he never served in a Ranger battalion or any other special operations unit.
“I have no excuse,” McDonald told The Huffington Post, when contacted to explain his claim. “I was not in special forces.”
McDonald’s remark came to light after several retired military officers noticed his remark on the CBS tape, days after NBC News anchor Brian Williams was suspended for fabricating stories about his reporting experiences in Iraq and elsewhere.
McDonald told The Huffington Post that he “wanted to clear up the confusion I probably created -- I did create” in the exchange with the homeless man in L.A. Saying he was in special forces, McDonald said, “is not right. I was not in special forces. What I said was wrong.”
McDonald said he has many friends in the special forces community “and I have great respect for special forces.” But, he added, “as I thought about this later I knew this [claim] was wrong."
When the homeless veteran claimed to have served in special forces, McDonald said, “I reacted spontaneously and I reacted wrongly, [with] no intent in any way to describe my record any different than it is.”
“It was wrong,” said retired Army Col. Gary Bloomberg, a former senior special forces commander who had not seen the video before being contacted by The Huffington Post. When he first watched it, Bloomberg said, “I thought, 'What a boneheaded statement -- is this what we want from our senior government officials?'”
Bloomberg said he checked around with others in the special forces community, which is normally quick to jump on SOF impostors in the same way that the Stolen Valor organization hunts down and exposes people who wear unearned military decorations and honors.
Bloomberg said he talked to several other former special operators, “and no one got really crazy about the whole thing, compared to some of what we’ve seen,” he said. “It’s a lot different from guys running around faking their special forces credentials.”
Several times a month, Bloomberg said, an email message will bounce around the SOF community asking for information on someone claiming special forces status. “When it turns out the guy doesn’t have it," he said, "the community goes to great lengths to expose it.”
In McDonald’s case, he said, “I can see [other former special forces soldiers] going, ‘Hey, check out this boneheaded remark,’ but I don’t see the gravitas that I would with a guy wearing medals he didn’t earn.”
McDonald, the former chairman, president and CEO of the consumer products giant Procter & Gamble, was selected by President Barack Obama to replace Eric Shinseki, the retired Army general who resigned in disgrace last May following reports of widespread corruption and malfeasance within the VA.
The White House said Monday evening that the Obama administration accepted McDonald's explanation.
"Secretary McDonald has apologized for the misstatement and noted that he never intended to misrepresent his military service," the White House said in a statement. "We take him at his word and expect that this will not impact the important work he’s doing to promote the health and well-being of our nation’s veterans."
UPDATE: Feb. 24, 11 a.m. -- Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla), chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said he was "disappointed" in McDonald's claim that he served in special forces.
"After a rough couple of weeks that also included inflated claims of accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs, I hope Sec. McDonald will redouble his efforts to ensure his statements -- and those of all VA officials -- are completely accurate," Miller said in a statement Tuesday. "This is the only way the department can regain the trust of the veterans and taxpayers it is charged with serving.”
Clarification: Language has been added to clarify specific military terms regarding special operations forces and the conclusion of McDonald's service.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/23/robert-mcdonald-special-forces_n_6739184.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058
-
Fox News Poll: Views of Obama’s honesty hit new low, fewer say he’s patriotic
By Dana Blanton
Published March 05, 2015
FoxNews.com
Most voters believe the United States is the best country in the world. Far fewer of them believe Barack Obama agrees, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
The new poll also finds the numbers saying Obama is patriotic, honest or a strong leader have all declined in the past few years.
More Americans feel they love the United States than think Obama does: 83 percent think the U.S. is the greatest country in the world. Just 64 percent believe Obama feels the same way.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
The difference in the two perceptions is mainly partisan: 90 percent of Republicans think the U.S. is the best, while only 42 percent believe the president agrees. Among Democrats, 82 percent feel this is the greatest nation, and even more -- 88 percent -- believe Obama feels that.
Those who are most likely to feel the U.S. is the best nation in the world include voters over age 65 (93 percent) as well as Republicans (90 percent). Those least likely to feel that way include voters who identify with the Tea Party movement (79 percent), self-identified independents (73 percent) and voters under age 35 (71 percent).
Overall, 54 percent of voters say Obama is patriotic, yet that’s down from 60 percent who felt that way in 2011. Again, party identification matters: the number of Republicans today who think the president is patriotic is down six percentage points from 2011, among independents it’s down four points and for Democrats it’s down one.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani caused an uproar in February by questioning whether Barack Obama loves America. The poll shows 42 percent of voters nationally think there are “legitimate reasons to doubt” whether Obama loves America. That includes 66 percent of Republicans, 42 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats.
Fewer voters than ever before see Obama as honest: a record-low 43 percent. And for the first time since 2007, a majority, 54 percent, disagrees that the president is “honest.”
Three-quarters of Democrats currently think Obama is honest (75 percent), while just 39 percent of independents and 15 percent of Republicans say the same.
For comparison, in 2011 some 57 percent of voters described Obama as honest. That included 86 percent of Democrats, 53 percent of independents and 26 percent of Republicans.
The poll also finds 43 percent of voters think Obama is a “strong leader.” That’s down from a high of 60 percent who said he was a “strong and decisive” leader in 2009.
Of the four traits tested, Obama does best on “caring,” as 60 percent of voters feel that describes him. Although there’s been a decline here too: 68 percent said Obama was “caring” in 2011.
The Fox News poll is conducted by telephone with live interviewers under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). The 1,011 registered voters were reached via landline and cell phone numbers randomly selected for inclusion in this nationwide survey from March 1-3, 2015. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/05/fox-news-poll-views-obamas-honesty-hits-new-low-fewer-say-hes-patriotic/
-
Disgusting.
Harry Reid Relishes Romney Tax Lie: 'He Didn't Win, Did He?'
Wednesday, 01 Apr 2015
By Jennifer G. Hickey
More than two years after he falsely accused Mitt Romney of failing to pay his taxes, retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has no regrets – and appears to relish – leveling serious charges in the midst of a presidential campaign.
"No, I don't regret that at all. No one would help me. They were afraid the Koch brothers would go after them, so I did it on my own," Reid said in response to a question from CNN's Dana Bash.
Story continues below video.
When asked about critics who said his smear of then-Republican presidential candidate Romney echoed the tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, he brushed them off and said with a smile, "Romney didn't win, did he?"
Reid, who has announced he will not seek another term in office, has remained unapologetic since he initially claimed without evidence or justification the rumor that Romney had avoided paying taxes for nearly a decade.
And some believe his refusal to acknowledge the false nature of the allegations, as well as the defense offered by his fellow Democrats, reflects a deeper problem.
"As he approaches his retirement in December 2016, Reid will no doubt be lauded by members of his own party, by at least some people on the other side of the aisle, and no doubt by the president of the United States. None of them will ever make mention of Reid's obvious fabrications, the irresponsible nature of his claims, or the fact that he has no regrets for what he did. And that's a problem," writes Doug Mataconis, a contributor to The Christian Science Monitor.
Before he repeated the charges on the floor of the Senate, Reid suggested in a July 31, 2012 interview with The Huffington Post that a Bain investor told him that Romney had not paid taxes for ten years and that is why he refused to release his full tax returns.
According to Reid, someone called his office in the early summer of 2012 and said, "Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years."
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain. But obviously he can't release those tax returns," he told The Huffington Post, but refused to identify the caller.
Despite the fact Reid did not provide evidence to support his claims, fellow Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi came to the Nevadan's defense.
"If he has said somebody told him that, some credible source, then I believe that," the California Democrat told reporters after a campaign appearance in Florida, according to The Associated Press.
She said it was "up to Gov. Romney to release his returns" and disprove the allegations.
Reid's charges, however, were not accepted without question by everyone. The Washington Post gave him "four pinocchios" days after he first smeared Romney.
"Reid also has made no effort to explain why his unnamed source would be credible. So, in the absence of more information, it appears he has no basis to make his incendiary claim. Moreover, Reid holds a position of great authority in the U.S. Congress. He should hold himself to a high standard of accuracy when making claims about political opponents," said the Post in August 2012.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Harry-Reid-Mitt-Romney-2012-election-taxes/2015/04/01/id/635842/#ixzz3WGiWAxAo
-
POLL: HILLARY TRAILS RAND IN IOWA, COLORADO–MORE VOTERS BELIEVE SHE’S ‘NOT HONEST & TRUSTWORTHY’
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/03/hillary-shock-AFP-640x480.jpg)
AFP Photo
by BREITBART NEWS
9 Apr 2015
Hillary Clinton is losing ground in three more key swing states, including Iowa, which holds the first-in-the-nation caucuses and derailed Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, and trails Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in two of them as more voters do not view her as “honest and trustworthy” in the wake of her private email scandal, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.
Voters in Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia do not think Clinton is “honest and trustworthy,” and Clinton’s leads over potential Republican opponents have diminished in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups. For instance, Paul, who formally launched his presidential campaign this week and blasted Clinton for her private email scandal and the “shenanigans” associated with donations to her family’s foundation, leads Clinton in Colorado 44% to 41%. Clinton trails Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (42%-41%) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is expected to announce his candidacy on this month, (41%-40%) and is virtually tied with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in the state.
In Colorado, Clinton has a negative favorability rating (41%-51%), down from her 46%-47% favorability rating in February. Fifty-six percent of Colorado voters do not view her has “honest and trustworthy” and a majority of Colorado voters believe her email scandal is important to their vote.
“Ominous for Hillary Clinton is the broad scope of the movement today compared to her showing in Quinnipiac University’s mid-February survey. It isn’t just one or two Republicans who are stepping up; it’s virtually the entire GOP field that is running better against her,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. “That’s why it is difficult to see Secretary Clinton’s slippage as anything other than a further toll on her image from the furor over her e-mail.”
In Iowa, Paul edges Clinton (43%-42%), who is virtually tied with nearly every potential Republican opponent. Clinton barely leads New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (41%-39%), former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (41%-40%), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (44%-40%), and Sen. Ted Cruz (43%-40%) in the state. She has a negative favorability rating in Iowa (45%-47%), down from her positive 49%-40% rating in February in that state. A plurality of Iowa voters (49%-43%) do not think she is “honest and trustworthy” and a majority believe the email scandal is important in their vote.
Clinton lost Iowa to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary, ultimately finishing third after her advisers had debated whether she should even compete in the state. Obama’s Iowa win galvanized his supporters in other states who were uncertain about whether Obama could win and ultimately propelled him to his party’s nomination and the presidency.
Virginia, where Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe is governor, is Clinton’s strongest state. She leads Paul 47% to 43% in the increasingly important swing state. She has a 48%-45% positive favorability rating, virtually unchanged from her 48%-44% rating in February. But a majority of voters in the state (52%-40%) believe that Clinton is “not honest and trustworthy.” Clinton’s email scandal is also important to a majority of Virginia voters (51%-47%).
Brown, the assistant director of the poll, said that “running as a competent but dishonest candidate has serious potential problems” for Clinton.
A Quinnipiac poll released on March 31 found that voters in three other swing states–Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida–also did not view Clinton as honest and trustworthy. Clinton trailed Paul in Pennsylvania as her favorability ratings slipped in each of those swing states after her private email scandal. Brown said “these numbers are a boost for U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky as he formally launches his campaign.”
Quinnipiac polled the three swing states (Iowa, Colorado, Virginia) from March 29-April 7, and the margin of error is +/- 3.3 percentage points for Colorado and +/- 3.2 percentage points for Virginia and Iowa.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/09/poll-hillary-trails-rand-in-iowa-colorado-more-voters-believe-shes-not-honest-trustworthy/
-
Horrible spin.
Hillary fudges the truth about her ‘immigrant’ grandparents
By Joe Tacopino
April 16, 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton fudged her family history at a campaign appearance in Iowa Wednesday when she described her grandparents as immigrants.
“All my grandparents, you know, came over here and, you know, my grandfather went to work in a lace mill in Scranton, Pa.,” Clinton said.
But, according to documents posted on Buzzfeed.com, only one of her grandparents immigrated, while the others were born in the United States shortly after their parents arrived.
A spokesperson for Clinton said that although her grandparents were not officially immigrants, they regularly spoke about the “immigrant experience.”
“As a result, she has always thought of them as immigrants,” the spokesman told BuzzFeed News.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/16/hillary-fudges-the-truth-about-her-immigrant-grandparents/
-
:-\
Go to the link to watch the clip.
Flashback: Watch Hillary Clinton defend heterosexual marriage as a 'fundamental bedrock principle'
BY PHILIP KLEIN | APRIL 22, 2015
It's widely known that Hillary Clinton's views on gay marriage have "evolved," but that terminology drastically understates the extent to which she has changed her opinion on the subject to keep up with the times.
It wasn't long ago that Clinton sounded much more like a staunch social conservative than a gay rights champion on the issue, describing marriage as a "fundamental bedrock principle" going back "into the mists of history" that was primarily about raising children.
During 2004 Senate floor debate, Clinton argued that though she opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have amended the Constitution to make marriage between a man and a woman because she thought the issue should be a state matter, she wanted to make it crystal clear that this in no way suggested she wanted to change the definition of marriage.
"I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman," Clinton said. "I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults."
Between 2004 and 2013, when she came out in favor of gay marriage, public opinion on the issue changed dramatically. More recently, Clinton has abandoned the idea that marriage should be a state issue and expressed hope that the Supreme Court would declare a Constitutional right to gay marriage that would prohibit states from keeping marriage between a man and a woman. Though naturally, her campaign is trying to blame the media for creating the impression that her views have changed.
To say Clinton "evolved" on gay marriage is sort of like saying Peter Parker changed slightly after he got bitten by a radioactive spider.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-watch-hillary-clinton-defend-heterosexual-marriage-as-a-fundamental-bedrock-principle/article/2563454
-
this is the problem with hilary. she's been vetted for 20 years now.
the "breaking" news about her is a slight lie in her grandparents voyage, one that we excused with Rubio on his parents, one that we excused with jeb on his voter form heritage, etc.
I want to hear "Hilary will borrow $ until we're broke, she will be soft on global currency, she will cave to NKorea and Bush/obama did, she has no control over Iran situation, she can't fix anything" - and reasons why.
if we're in 2015 and the worst shit on hilary is "her staff didn't tip at a fcking chipolte where there wasn't even a waitress" or "her van paused to let her out in an empty handicapped strip", then the GOP is in serious fcking trouble!
Can repubs please share, right now, 5 reasons america fails is Hilary wins in 2016? Without resorting to the silly shit, please. (oh, and only attack 240 on this personally if you reek of kenyan semen).
-
Fox News Poll: Huckabee seen as more ethical than most, Clinton less
By Dana Blanton
Published May 13, 2015
FoxNews.com
Hillary Clinton wins! Except this is one race she’d rather lose. The former secretary of state and current presidential aspirant tops the list as being “less ethical” than other politicians.
GOP candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is on top as being “more ethical” than others.
That’s according to the latest Fox News poll that asks voters to rate several announced and unannounced 2016 contenders as being more or less ethical than “most other politicians.”
CLICK TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
Some 44 percent of voters think Clinton is less ethical than the typical politician. She’s followed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 37 percent “less ethical.”
On the other side, Huckabee (36 percent “more ethical”) and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (33 percent “more ethical”) are each considered more ethical than the average politician by about one third of voters.
The poll also finds that more than a third of voters (37 percent) are “very” concerned scandals would disrupt a Hillary Clinton administration if she were to win. That’s about twice as many as feel that way if a Republican were to win the White House (19 percent).
Still, more than half are at least somewhat worried scandals would have a “serious effect” on either a Clinton (61 percent) or a Republican administration (51 percent).
Just over half of voters are following news about the Clinton Foundation accepting financial donations from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. Among only those following the news, 74 percent are worried about scandals if Clinton wins.
Overall, a 57 percent majority says it is likely Clinton was influenced by foreign contributors while she was at the State Department.
Thirty-three percent of Democrats say Clinton was influenced by foreign contributors. Compare that to 65 percent of independents and 82 percent of Republicans who say the same.
Views on what that means for her presidential run are mixed: 29 percent think it’s a big enough problem to disqualify her from running, another 31 percent says it’s a serious problem, but not a disqualifying one, and 33 percent say it’s nothing more than people picking on the Clintons.
A 57 percent majority of Democrats thinks the foundation scandal isn’t a big deal -- it’s just people picking on the Clintons.
Despite 42 percent of Democrats saying they are worried about scandals in a Hillary Clinton administration, it hasn’t hurt the level of support she receives for the nomination. Currently 63 percent of self-identified Democratic primary voters back her, unchanged from 62 percent last month. Her support has ranged from 55 to 69 percent since December 2013.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the only other announced Democratic candidate, receives 6 percent support. That puts him behind Mass. Sen. Elizabeth Warren who comes in at 13 percent and ties him with Vice President Joe Biden.
In the race for the GOP nomination, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and neurosurgeon Ben Carson come out on top with 13 percent each among self-identified Republican primary voters. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is close behind with 11 percent and Huckabee gets 10 percent.
Support for Carson, who formally announced his candidacy May 4, is up 7 percentage points. He had 6 percent support last month.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio -- who lost most of his post-announcement bump -- is next at 9 percent. Paul receives 7 percent support and Christie - who has not yet announced - and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz each garner 6 percent.
All others receive less than six percent.
The top four among those who are part of the Tea Party movement are Carson (24 percent), Walker (14 percent), Cruz (12 percent) and Paul (10 percent).
Hypothetical Matchups
For the first time, Bush has the edge over Clinton, albeit by just one percentage point (45-44 percent). Even so, in the head-to-head match-ups it generally looks like Clinton is weathering the “Clinton-cash” storm as she bests all other Republicans tested, topping Huckabee by 3 points, Rubio by 4, Cruz by 5, and Walker and Carson each by 6. She tops Ohio Gov. John Kasich by 8 points and business woman Carly Fiorina by 12.
Independents are more likely to back the GOP candidate over Clinton in each of the hypotheticals, except in match-ups against the two lesser knowns -- Kasich and Fiorina.
Bush now tops Clinton by 45-32 percent among independents. Last month they split 34-34.
Men, married voters, whites and working-class whites prefer Bush over Clinton. Women, blacks, moderates and voters with a college degree favor Clinton over Bush.
Women prefer Clinton over the Republican in each match-up, including Fiorina (55-32 percent).
Pollpourri
Among Republicans, 59 percent think Huckabee is more ethical than other politicians and 51 percent feel that way about Paul. None of the other GOP hopefuls hit the 50 percent mark.
For Clinton, 55 percent of Democrats see her as being more ethical than other politicians, 8 percent say less ethical and 33 percent say about the same.
Who does best among independents? Paul and Huckabee. Over a third of independents think they each have higher standards than other politicians (37 and 36 percent respectively). Clinton does worst, as nearly half of independents -- 48 percent -- say she is less ethical than most others.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from May 9-12, 2015. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error is higher among the subgroups of Democratic (+/-5%) and Republican (+/-4.5%) primary voters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/13/fox-news-poll-huckabee-seen-as-more-ethical-than-most-clinton-less/
-
Huckabee is a slimy as the rest of them (and just as divisive)
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/13/ron-fournier/mike-huckabee-and-diabetes-cure-he-endorsed-no-hea/
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is distancing himself from the unusual ways he earned money before announcing his White House run May 5, but journalists aren’t letting the former Arkansas governor off the hook.
Huckabee, who shed about 100 pounds after being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, filmed TV and radio infomercials advertising a program to "reverse" diabetes in February and March. Huckabee also lent his email list to carry ads about a looming food shortage and a cancer cure found in the Bible.
-
lol, huck isn't running for prez. he's running for high profile and high marketability.
he knows he isn't going to win the nomination, but it sure keeps him as one of the top 10 repubs for another 5-10 years.
-
:-\
(https://scontent.fsjc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11049474_10152934016746700_5078613812582549690_n.jpg?oh=b71ffd0f457d773346d6793102067e29&oe=5629AD7B)
-
:-\
(https://scontent.fsjc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11049474_10152934016746700_5078613812582549690_n.jpg?oh=b71ffd0f457d773346d6793102067e29&oe=5629AD7B)
LOL ;D
-
Haha... :D
-
Fox News Poll: 60 percent say Clinton has been dishonest on Benghazi
By Dana Blanton
Published October 14, 2015
FoxNews.com
A new Fox News poll finds that by a nearly two-to-one margin, voters think Hillary Clinton has been deceitful about the State Department’s role in the events surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Thirty-two percent say Clinton has been honest with the American people, while 60 percent disagree.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
Despite doubts that Clinton has been honest, less than half of voters (46 percent) think Congress should continue investigating her handling of the terrorist attack. Exactly half say it’s time for lawmakers to move on (50 percent). That’s mostly unchanged from this summer, when 47 percent said continue and 49 percent move on (July 2015).
Among Democrats, nearly one in three says Clinton has been dishonest on Benghazi (30 percent), and one in five thinks the Congressional investigation should continue (19 percent).
Clinton was head of the State Department when the September 11, 2012 attack that killed four Americans took place.
Overall, only 13 percent of voters approve of the job Congress is doing. A large 78-percent majority disapproves. A year ago, it was 12-78 percent (October 12-14, 2014). Over the last year, the highest approval lawmakers received was 21 percent in both February and March (2015).
Democrats (19 percent) are more than twice as likely as Republicans (9 percent) to approve of Congress.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,004 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from October 10-12, 2015. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/14/fox-news-poll-60-percent-say-clinton-has-been-dishonest-on-benghazi/
-
She clearly lied when she blamed the attack on a youtube video and claimed the attack was by an angry mob (see 1:00 to 1:25 and 1:35):
Before she made the above statements, she said this:
"So if there's no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madam Secretary," said Jordan, Real Clear Politics reported. "Here's what you said at 11 o'clock that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, 'Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an al-Qaida- like group.' You tell — you tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story. Also on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here's what you said to him: 'Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility.' It's interesting; Mr. Khattala, one of the guys arrested in charge actually belonged to that group. And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister. You told him this: 'We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.'"
Blatant dishonesty.
-
Hillary Clinton Accused of Revising History on Defense of Marriage Act
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=95c8ef64-9ec2-4e8a-accd-88aecb82dd44&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Hillary Clinton Accused of Revising History on Defense of Marriage Act
Monday, 26 Oct 2015
When the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996, Bernie Sanders was a member of the House and Hillary Clinton was first lady. Nearly two decades later, they're battling for the Democratic presidential nomination and have very different recollections of how the law that prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriage came about.
On Friday, Clinton told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that her husband, President Bill Clinton, signed DOMA into law as a "defensive action" to stave off a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. "DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further," said the Democratic front-runner.
Sanders, who voted against DOMA, remembered it differently. "Today, some are trying to rewrite history by saying they voted for one anti-gay law to stop something worse. That’s not the case," the Vermont senator said Saturday at the important Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa. "There was a small minority opposed to discriminating against our gay brothers and sisters. Not everybody held that position in 1996."
But is this true, or is it revisionist history?
Bill Clinton's aides and confidants admitted to the New York Times in 2013 that he knew DOMA was wrong and discriminatory toward gays and lesbians. His former press secretary Mike McCurry said: "His posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996." Democratic consultant and Clinton ally Hilary Rosen added: "In my conversations with him, he was personally embarrassed and remorseful."
Neither said it was a strategic move to prevent something worse. And indeed, that might have been difficult. The Federal Marriage Amendment wasn't introduced until 2002. It didn't become part of the Republican Party platform until 2004.
In 1996, Americans opposed legal same-sex marriage by a margin of 68 to 27 percent, according to Gallup. Today, they support it by 60 to 37 percent.
A group of senators who voted for DOMA wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court in 2013 that they thought its passage "would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more."
Prominent figures in the LGBT community, meanwhile, rejected Clinton's recollection of history.
"Hillary's version of DADT and DOMA is so wrong. The only 'defensive posture' was for their personal politics not LGBT," activist David Mixner said on Twitter. He added: "The LGBT community should NEVER allow any politician to revise our noble and courageous history for political purposes."
Radio host and HuffPost Gay Voices editor-at-large Michelangelo Signorile called Hillary Clinton's version "revisionism" and said it was "simply not true that DOMA was signed to stop something worse." He continued, "Hillary doesn’t need to re-write Bill history to make her better. She’s fine, has promised a lot."
DOMA was poised become law with or without Bill Clinton's signature. It passed 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House, margins easily big enough to override a presidential veto. The question to gay rights advocates was whether Clinton would stand on the right side of history and force Congress to override his veto. To their dismay, he signed the bill.
https://twitter.com/hilaryr/status/retrospect, the practical consequence of Democratic support for DOMA can be spun as having delayed that push, or it can be portrayed as emboldening social conservatives to go further. The alternate course of history is not knowable.
Seventeen years later, in March of 2013, Bill Clinton had changed his mind and argued in a Washington Post op-ed that the law he enacted was unconstitutional. That summer, the Supreme Court struck it down, concluding that its "avowed purpose and practical effect" was to impose a separate status "stigma" on gays who want to marry. This past June, the court went further and made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, rejoiced.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/clinton-doma-revising-history/2015/10/26/id/698972/#ixzz3ph4YRRYj
-
Kelly: Mainstream Media Ignored 'Bombshell' Email at Clinton Benghazi Hearing
Oct 24, 2015 // 1:52pm
As seen on The Kelly File
Megyn Kelly called out media outlets for crowning Hillary Clinton the undisputed victor following the Republican-led Benghazi hearing on Thursday while overlooking a "bombshell" email to the Egyptian prime minister.
Kelly played clips of Clinton and other administration officials repeating a talking point that the Sept. 11, 2012 attack was the result of extremists hijacking a protest of an anti-Islam video that had sparked other protests in the region.
She highlighted a Sept. 14 meeting between Clinton and family members of those killed in the attack, in which Clinton reportedly directly blamed the video's producer for the deaths.
But newly unveiled emails show that just two days prior, Clinton had been telling people, like the Egyptian PM, that the film had nothing to do with the attack.
At the hearing, Clinton explained that she had been going by an Islamist group's claim that they had carried out the attack, which they retracted the next day.
But Kelly said the email proves Clinton knew the film wasn't to blame.
"And yet she and others looked into the cameras and again and again told us a different story," Kelly said.
"To watch most of the media you would think we never saw that email," Kelly said. "To the contrary, the messaging was 'She won, it's over, move on.'"
Kelly then played a barrage of clips showing the favorable press coverage.
Watch her report on "The Kelly File" and discussion with Chris Stirewalt and Howard Kurtz above.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/24/megyn-kelly-says-mainstream-media-ignored-bombshell-email-hillary-clintons-benghazi
-
Is he dishonest, incompetent, or a combination of both?
Intelligence report commissioned by White House says ISIS not contained
Published December 07, 2015
FoxNews.com
A new intelligence report commissioned by the White House says that the ISIS terror group will grow in numbers and gain ground unless it suffers significant losses in Iraq and Syria.
The findings sharply contradict previous statements by President Obama and other White House officials that the Islamic State has been "contained" by a program of U.S.-led airstrikes and the deployment of approximately 3,500 U.S. forces to train and otherwise aid moderate Syrian rebels and Kurdish fighters.
On Sunday, a U.S. official told Fox News that ISIS has been able to effectively recruit and attract affiliates despite losses on the ground, and has now supplanted Al Qaeda as the primary global jihadist threat.The official said that going forward, the entirety of the ISIS threat must be addressed, and the group's main base of operations in Syria must be “degraded.”
The findings were first reported by The Daily Beast, which said the White House asked for the assessment prior to the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris, in which ISIS militants killed 130 people in a series of coordinated shootings and suicide bombings.
In response to the report, The Daily Beast said President Obama had directed Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford to come up with new strategies against ISIS.
One recommendation, announced by Carter Tuesday, is a special operations cell with the ability to capture senior ISIS leaders in the hope of finding out more about their networks.
However, the Daily Beast reported that Carter's announcement took military planners by surprise, since they had yet to finalize important details, including the rules of engagement under which such raids would be carried out.
The eight-page report was compiled by a team of analysts from the CIA, NSA, and other agencies, the website reported.
"This intel report didn't tell us anything we didn't already know," an official told The Daily Beast. "It was lots of great charts showing countries highlighted across the globe, with some groups having pledged allegiance to ISIS and others leaning towards it."
The report also described how the terrorist group with aspirations of founding an extremist Islamic caliphate already has a network of groups that have pledged allegiance or are vying for membership in a dozen countries.
Fox News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report
Click for more from The Daily Beast.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/07/new-intelligence-report-commission-by-white-house-says-isis-not-contained.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Just incredible how much cover she is getting from the MSM.
Benghazi Family Hits Back: Hillary Clinton Lied About Us To George Stephanopoulos
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/12/ap_hillary-clinton_ap-photo2-wi-e1449785784154-640x480.jpg)
Hillary ClintonAP Photo/Willie J. Allen Jr.
by JOHN NOLTE
10 Dec 2015
Kate Quigley, sister of Glen Doherty, one of the four murder victims of the September 11 terror attack against our Benghazi consulate in Libya in 2012, accused Hillary Clinton of lying to George Stephanopoulos about what the former Secretary of State told her and other grieving Benghazi family members.
During her Sunday appearance on ABC’s This Week, Clinton said outright that she never told the Benghazi families that an anti-Muslim YouTube video caused the terror attack that resulted in the deaths of their loved ones.
In other words, Clinton accused these family members of lying.
Stephanopoulos asked her point blank, “Did you tell them it was about the film?”
Clinton flat-out denied it.
“No,” she said. “You know, look, I understand the continuing grief at the loss that parents experienced with the loss of these four brave Americans.”
When asked if Clinton told the truth to Stephanopoulos, Quigley told a Boston radio station Thursday that Clinton is now lying about telling the grieving family members the lie about the YouTube video:
This is a woman that will do and say anything to get what she wants. I have very little respect for her. I know what she said to me and she can say all day long that she didn’t say it. That’s her cross to bear. She knows that she knew what happened that day, and she wasn’t truthful, and that has come out in the last hearings — that she told her family one thing and was telling the public another thing. …
People made mistakes but for some reason somebody decided to perpetuate this lie and I don’t know if we’ll ever know. It fascinates me that people sit in a room and talk about, “Hey, let’s come up with this movie idea and Mohamed and a protest.” Nobody has ever owned up to where that story came from and why, and somebody knows. … It is a fascinating thing that in this day and age, a huge lie was created around a terror attack on 9/11.
So not only did Clinton lie to these people (and America) as they were grieving over their loved ones, Clinton is now publicly defaming them as liars on the Sunday shows.
Here’s the full audio. Hat tip to Mediaite.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/10/benghazi-family-hits-back-hillary-clinton-lied-about-us-to-george-stephanopoulos/
-
lol, huck isn't running for prez. he's running for high profile and high marketability.
he knows he isn't going to win the nomination, but it sure keeps him as one of the top 10 repubs for another 5-10 years.
I see him as a realistic running mate for whoever actually wins the nomination.
-
And the MSM is silent on continued dishonesty by our president.
Obama Releases Dangerous Jihadists - Then Misleads Country About It
Dec 14, 2015 | By STEPHEN F. HAYES and THOMAS JOSCELYN
President Barack Obama says his administration will continue releasing terrorists from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, so long as those released are less dangerous than the jihadists currently fighting against the U.S. and its interests.
The bizarre argument comes in a new interview with Olivier Knox of Yahoo! News and is one of several comments in their discussion that reinforces the president's stubborn nonchalance on issues related to jihad. Obama also shrugs off concerns about recidivism of former Guantanamo detainees, suggesting that only a "handful" of former detainees have returned to the fight and claiming that only "low-level" terrorists have been released from the detention facility. Both claims are demonstrably false.
In the interview, Knox asked Obama about Ibrahim al Qosi, a Guantanamo detainee transferred by the Obama administration to Sudan in July 2012, who recently resurfaced as a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, often described as the most dangerous al Qaeda branch. Al Qosi appeared in a propaganda video disseminated by the group last week. Knox asked Obama whether having someone return to the fight "in a big way," like Qosi, has caused the administration to revisit its vetting procedures.
"I am absolutely persuaded, as are my top intelligence and military advisers, that Guantanamo is used as a recruitment tool for organizations like ISIS," Obama began. "And if we want to fight 'em, then we can't give 'em these kinds of excuses."
There is no reason that Obama would need to be "persuaded" of something that can be easily demonstrated. Either Guantanamo is a major recruitment tool or it's not.
Administration officials have been making this claim for years and it's not true.
Guantanamo rarely appears in jihadist propaganda, whether ISIS or al Qaeda, and reviews of recent propaganda materials from ISIS and al Qaeda – online videos and audio recordings, glossy magazines, etc. – found very few mentions of the facility.
A handful? Obama is woefully ill-informed or he's being dishonest. According to the most recent report on Guantanamo recidivism, prepared in September 2015 by James Clapper's office, Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, 196 former detainees are either confirmed (117) or suspected (79) of returning to the fight. That's a recidivism rate of more than 30 percent. Intelligence officials tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that those numbers are almost certainly low, as they do not include jihadists the United States and its allies are no longer tracking.
(Obama's formulation there is odd, too, using "embittered" as if the reason the jihadists would once again take up arms against the United States is their time in detention.)
Obama continued, describing the process officials use to determine whether a detainee can be released or transferred. "The judgment that we're continually making is: Are there individuals who are significantly more dangerous than the people who are already out there who are fighting? What do they add? Do they have special skills? Do they have special knowledge that ends up making significant threat to the United States?"
It's an odd set of criteria for evaluating threats unless your main objective is emptying the detention facility. These are standards set up to allow the administration to claim that the knowledge base and skill sets of Guantanamo detainees are outdated. But former Guantanamo detainees return to the fight with elevated status and often assume leadership roles in the groups determined to attack the U.S. and its interests. Just like Ibrahim al Qosi.
Obama went on to suggest that those released don't present much of a threat anyway. "And so the bottom line is that the strategic gains we make by closing Guantanamo will outweigh, you know, those low-level individuals who, you know, have been released so far."
Again, Obama's claim is false. Many of the 653 detainees transferred or released from Guantanamo as of September 2015 were much more significant than "low-level individuals." It's a group that includes al Qaeda operatives who worked directly for Osama bin Laden, senior leaders of the Afghan Taliban, and veteran jihadists with decades of experience fighting.
According to assessments provided by Joint Task Force Guantanamo, the original population of Guantanamo was 43 percent "high risk," and 36 percent "medium risk." Only 20 percent of those ever detained at Guantanamo were deemed "low risk." The Bush administration transferred many of the detainees found to present minimal risks to the U.S. and by the time Obama took office, 98.7 percent of those remaining were considered medium risk (23.8 percent) or high risk (74.9 percent).
Consider the Taliban Five, released in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl. Although Obama administration officials initially downplayed the significance of these detainees, intelligence and military officials made it clear that they were high-risk transfers. Michael Leiter, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center under Obama, said it was "very, very likely" that the five Taliban leaders would return to the fight. Rob Williams, the national intelligence officer for South Asia, who briefed Congress shortly after the transfer, testified that there was a high likelihood that at least four of the five freed detainees, and possibly all of them, would rejoin the fight.
And what about Ibrahim al Qosi? He's the Guantanamo recidivist that triggered Knox's question to the president. Was he a "low-level" fighter, as Obama suggested?
He is not. Qosi is now a senior leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the group's public spokesman. AQAP has repeatedly attempted to attack the U.S., while taking over large parts of Yemen. The dossier compiled by U.S. officials for Qosi demonstrates that he served bin Laden in multiple roles because he was so trusted.
A threat assessment of al Qosi prepared by the intelligence officials on the Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) reported that he would present a "high risk" of taking up arms against the United States or its allies if he were freed from the detention facility. "Detainee is an admitted veteran jihadist with combat experience beginning in 1990 and it is assessed he would engage in hostilities against US forces, if released."
Virtually everything Obama said in his Yahoo interview about Guantanamo is false. Guantanamo is not a leading recruitment tool for jihadists. From the earliest days of the facility, many of those detained there were deemed more than the "low-level" fighters the president would have us believe. And far more than a "handful" of released detainees – nearly 200 suspected or confirmed – have returned to the fight.
We are left with this uncomfortable but incontrovertible fact: Barack Obama is releasing jihadists known to present a serious threat to the United States and he's misleading the country about it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/obama-releases-dangerous-jihadists-then-misleads-country-about-it/article/2000221
-
Biggest political lies of the year, according to the Washington Post. Plenty of blame to go around. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/14/the-biggest-pinocchios-of-2015/
-
Poll: 59 Percent of Americans Say Hillary Clinton Is Dishonest
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/12/Hillary-open-mouth-Getty-640x480.jpg)
Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a Town Hall rally at Sokol Auditorium December 16, 2015 in Omaha, Nebraska. Clinton was joined onstage by Billionaire Businessman Warren Buffett. (Photo bySteve Pope/Getty Images
by PATRICK HOWLEY
22 Dec 2015
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is not doing well in polls centered on her honesty and trustworthiness.
A Quinnipiac poll released Tuesday shows that 59 percent of Americans view Hillary Clinton as being “not honest and trustworthy,” with only 35 percent thinking that she is, actually, honest and trustworthy.
The 24-point gap in the honesty poll could mean problems for Hillary Clinton, who is basically running against herself – and her own ethics scandals – at this point in the Democratic primary. If Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)16% continues to pillory Clinton from the left during the primaries, and Donald Trump continues to hammer her for the fact that she has a pending FBI investigation into her private email scandal, the general election results could swing against her.
Some 55 percent of poll respondents said that Clinton does not share their values, while 50 percent said that she doesn’t care about their problems.
However, 58 percent said that she has strong leadership qualities, and her numbers for “experience” better Republican frontrunner Donald Trump’s numbers in the poll.
Trump leads the Republican field in the poll with 28 percent support, followed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
at 24 percent.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/22/poll-59-percent-americans-say-hillary-clinton-dishonest/
-
Why is nobody nailing Obama for this HUGE bald-faced lie he was just caught in?
January 31, 2016
Michael Dorstewitz
President Barack Obama was caught in another lie, this one involving his former secretary of state’s email scandals.
The New York Times reported Saturday that the president had emailed Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton at least 18 times to her private, non-secure server while she serves as secretary of state:
The State Department on Friday said for the first time that “top secret” material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.
The department announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld, citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release. The department’s spokesman, John Kirby, said that exchanges did not involve classified information.
However, in May of last year, Obama told CBS News that he’d first learned of Clinton’s use of a private server “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”
But if you’re a fan of ABC News, and pretty much any mainstream news outlet, don’t expect to hear anything about this reported.
ABC News dedicated a mere one minute 28 seconds to the bombshell revelation that the State Department had uncovered 22 top-secret emails that he been run through Clinton’s private server, according to the Media Research Center. The network didn’t even wave as they sped right by the information about the 18 emails from Obama.
Can you imagine if it was George W. Bush?
This is the same server she claimed was never used to send or receive emails contained any classified information.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/01/31/why-is-nobody-nailing-obama-for-this-huge-bold-faced-lie-he-was-just-caught-in-300720#ixzz3ywMpPXEY
-
Wow. :-\
Hillary: ‘I’ve Always Tried’ To Tell the Truth, ‘Don’t Believe’ I’ve Ever Lied Or Ever Will
by IAN HANCHETT
18 Feb 2016
Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she has “always tried to” tell the truth and doesn’t “believe” she’s ever lied or ever will in an interview on Thursday’s “CBS Evening News.”
After she was asked about Jimmy Carter’s pledge that he wouldn’t lie to the American people, Hillary said, “Well, I have to tell you, I have tried, in every way, I know how literally, from my years as a young lawyer, all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.”
She was then asked if she’s always told the truth to which she responded, “I’ve always tried to.”
After anchor Scott Pelley stated, “Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.” Hillary said, “‘[Y]ou’re asking me to say, ‘Have I ever?’ I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/18/hillary-ive-always-tried-to-tell-the-truth-dont-believe-ive-ever-lied-or-ever-will/
-
Poll: Hillary Clinton Least Honest And Trustworthy Of All Presidential Candidates
GUY BENTLEY
Reporter
02/17/2016
Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is viewed as the least honest and trustworthy of all Democratic and Republican candidates, according to the latest YouGov poll.
Asked whether they think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, 56 percent of respondents say she is not. A little more than a quarter of those polled think Clinton is honest and trustworthy.
Republican candidate Donald Trump beat Clinton in the trustworthiness category by four percentage point. Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders is seen as overwhelmingly more honest and trustworthy than Clinton. Sanders beats her by a margin of 32 percentage points.
(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hillary-is-dishonest-768x381.png)
Honesty and Presidential candidates (Credit: YouGov)
“Sanders is the clear winner on a quality that matter most to a third of the public – being honest and trustworthy. In fact, his rating on honesty is the highest of any of the remaining candidates with the public overall, Republican or Democrat. Clinton and Republican Donald Trump fare the worst,” writes YouGov’s Kathy Frankovic.
“More Republicans describe Sanders as honest and trustworthy than don’t, by a margin of 46 percent to 36 percent. Republicans give their party’s frontrunner, Donald Trump, similar ratings as they give Sanders on honesty. Sanders’ Democratic opponent fares much worse on this characteristic overall and with members of each party. Just seven percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Democrats describe Clinton as honest and trustworthy.”
Though Clinton loses out in the honesty department, she polls significantly better than Sanders when it comes to readiness to be commander in chief and ability to deal wisely with the economy.
(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hillary-vs-Bernie-768x384.png)
Hillary vs Bernie (Credit: YouGov)
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/poll-hillary-clinton-least-honest-and-trustworthy-of-all-presidential-candidates/#ixzz40d9w04Yt
-
The Don lacks integrity.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730
-
The Don lacks integrity.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730
Cue some idiot to insult politico because they're now on the trump bandwagon...
-
Poll: Hillary Clinton Least Honest And Trustworthy Of All Presidential Candidates
GUY BENTLEY
Reporter
02/17/2016
Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is viewed as the least honest and trustworthy of all Democratic and Republican candidates, according to the latest YouGov poll.
Asked whether they think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, 56 percent of respondents say she is not. A little more than a quarter of those polled think Clinton is honest and trustworthy.
Republican candidate Donald Trump beat Clinton in the trustworthiness category by four percentage point. Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders is seen as overwhelmingly more honest and trustworthy than Clinton. Sanders beats her by a margin of 32 percentage points.
(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hillary-is-dishonest-768x381.png)
Honesty and Presidential candidates (Credit: YouGov)
“Sanders is the clear winner on a quality that matter most to a third of the public – being honest and trustworthy. In fact, his rating on honesty is the highest of any of the remaining candidates with the public overall, Republican or Democrat. Clinton and Republican Donald Trump fare the worst,” writes YouGov’s Kathy Frankovic.
“More Republicans describe Sanders as honest and trustworthy than don’t, by a margin of 46 percent to 36 percent. Republicans give their party’s frontrunner, Donald Trump, similar ratings as they give Sanders on honesty. Sanders’ Democratic opponent fares much worse on this characteristic overall and with members of each party. Just seven percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Democrats describe Clinton as honest and trustworthy.”
Though Clinton loses out in the honesty department, she polls significantly better than Sanders when it comes to readiness to be commander in chief and ability to deal wisely with the economy.
(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hillary-vs-Bernie-768x384.png)
Hillary vs Bernie (Credit: YouGov)
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/poll-hillary-clinton-least-honest-and-trustworthy-of-all-presidential-candidates/#ixzz40d9w04Yt
she has the nation fooled... she is a freaking chameleon.
-
The Don lacks integrity.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730
I think on the scale of trustworthy candidates, the worst has to be Trump, then Hillary, then everyone else.
Those 2 are absolute con artists, but Trump is definitely worse. I've honestly never seen (in my life) a politician lie so much.
He's lied about lying and he seems to do it a lot. 77% of the time. Could you imagine that out of 100 sentences you lied in 77 of them?
That's probably worse than 240. :D
-
she has the nation fooled... she is a freaking chameleon.
i disagree. I think most people KNOW she lies whenever politically convenient. she's been caught in so many - her supporters ACCEPT it because they liked living in the clinton years better than the bush years.
they just kinda excuse it. the same way carson supporters excused him making up parables and stories all the time to get his point across. They were complete fabrications.... but the MESSAGE or lesson was more important. Same reason they still consider bill oreilly to be credible - they decided his lies were okay because the message he was telling was more important.
clinton supporters (and I am NOT one of them) just feel they can look past many hilary lies because financially, they'll be living better under her rule, than they will cruz or trump. (although I think a hilary and trump presidency would be nearly identical)
-
I think on the scale of trustworthy candidates, the worst has to be Trump, then Hillary, then everyone else.
Those 2 are absolute con artists, but Trump is definitely worse. I've honestly never seen (in my life) a politician lie so much.
He's lied about lying and he seems to do it a lot. 77% of the time. Could you imagine that out of 100 sentences you lied in 77 of them?
That's probably worse than 240. :D
Oh I beg to differ. Not worse than 240. lol :)
But I do agree about Trump. It's a little spooky how blatant he is with dishonesty and how he completely gets away with it. Check out the clip below and how Megyn Kelly takes apart his claim about Trump University.
'The Kelly File' Fact-Checks the 'D-Rating' on Trump University
Mar 14, 2016 // 10:58pm
As seen on The Kelly File
Donald Trump has taken issue with the assertion that his defunct school, Trump University, received a D-minus rating from the Better Business Bureau in 2010.
Tonight, The Kelly File showed why the GOP front-runner is off-base.
Trump has said that Trump University had an A-rating, not a D-rating – and at the last GOP debate, he gave Fox News a document that does in fact bear an A grade.
But after further inquiry, Fox News has learned that that grade is for a different entity called Trump Entrepreneur Initiative (TEI), explained Megyn Kelly.
That's what Trump University changed its name to in 2010, when it was under siege.
That business, TEI, only operational for a few months, received an A.
But that doesn’t change the fact that Trump University had a D-minus rating before it went out of business in 2010.
Trump University no longer exists, and its successor, TEI, was effectively closed within weeks of opening.
“We stand by our reporting, which has been verified by multiple news organizations, as well as the Better Business Bureau,” said Kelly.
Watch more, above.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/14/trump-university-received-d-rating-kelly-file-fact-checks
-
But I do agree about Trump. It's a little spooky how blatant he is with dishonesty and how he completely gets away with it. Check out the clip below and how Megyn Kelly takes apart his claim about Trump University.
Trump's supporters will NOT BELIEVE any source which trump has demonized.
Think about that. Anyone who has a feud with trump - they discount their words. Megyn Kelly delivers a perfectly detailed explanation of why Trump's claims were complete lies... BUT since she's involved in a feud with Trump, his supporters will not even look at the evidence. They just respond "oh, of course she will make up lies, she hates him!"
They're ignorant. His base voters are ignorant and emotional driven. You guys let the tea party fester and this is the result - people proud of being uneducated but they sure are angry.
-
This woman is incredibly dishonest.
-
The level of dishonesty by these Obama representatives is staggering.
Fed Judge Blasts DOJ Lawyers for Lying in Court to Defend Obama Amnesty
MAY 23, 2016
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/05/fed-judge-blasts-doj-lawyers-lying-court-defend-obama-amnesty/
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/2016/2016-05-19_order.pdf
-
Fox News Poll: Majority thinks Clinton is lying about emails
By Dana Blanton
Published June 09, 2016
FoxNews.com
American voters think Hillary Clinton put national security at risk by mishandling classified emails -- and that she’s lying about it.
By a 60-27 percent margin, they think she’s lying about how her emails were handled while she was secretary of state, according to the latest Fox News national poll of registered voters.
And by 57-32 percent, voters say U.S. safety was at risk because of Clinton’s mishandling of national secrets.
“Clinton’s explanations are clearly not cutting it with voters,” says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll along with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson.
CLICK TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
“This issue continues to act as a drag on her personal ratings.”
Over half of voters feel Clinton lacks the integrity to serve effectively as president (54 percent), and nearly 6-in-10 have an unfavorable opinion of her (56 percent).
Roughly one third of self-identified Democrats think Clinton is lying about her emails (35 percent) and put national security at risk (32 percent).
Twenty-seven percent of those backing Clinton over Republican Donald Trump in the presidential race think she’s lying about her emails.
The State Department Inspector General concluded May 25 that Clinton failed to comply with department policies by using a private email server.
“The question is whether beliefs about Clinton’s handling of emails are already fully baked into perceptions of her, or if the issue can drag her down further,” says Anderson.
“Her emails must be the most talked about in the history of emails. Some voters are certainly bored with the issue and tuning it out.”
Views on this issue are holding steady. Earlier this year, 60 percent said Clinton had mishandled classified emails (February 2016). And 58 percent felt she was lying about it in September (the last time the question was asked on a Fox News Poll).
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cellphone interviews with 1,004 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from June 5-8, 2016. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/09/fox-news-poll-majority-thinks-clinton-is-lying-about-emails.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
AP Fact Check: Hillary Clinton Email Claims Collapse Under FBI Investigation
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Key assertions by Hillary Clinton in defense of her email practices have collapsed under FBI scrutiny.
The agency's yearlong investigation found that she did not, as she claimed, turn over all her work-related messages for release. It found that her private email server did carry classified emails, also contrary to her past statements. And it made clear that Clinton used many devices to send and receive email despite her statements that she set up her email system so that she only needed to carry one.
FBI Director James Comey's announcement Tuesday that he will not refer criminal charges to the Justice Department against Clinton spared her from prosecution and a devastating political predicament. But it left much of her account in tatters and may have aggravated questions of trust swirling around her Democratic presidential candidacy.
A look at Clinton's claims since questions about her email practices as secretary of state surfaced and how they compare with facts established in the FBI probe:
CLINTON: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material." News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Actually, the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton's server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program, Comey said.
Most of those emails — 110 of them — were included among 30,000 emails that Clinton returned to the State Department around the time her use of a private email server was discovered. The three others were recovered from a forensic analysis of Clinton's server. "Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said. Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said.
CLINTON: "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." NBC interview, July 2016.
THE FACTS: Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.
He said the marked emails were "a very small number." But that's not the only standard for judging how officials handle sensitive material, he added. "Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
CLINTON: "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related" to the State Department. News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Not so, the FBI found.
Comey said that when his forensic team examined Clinton's server it found there were "several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000" that had been returned by Clinton to the State Department.
CLINTON: "I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two." News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: This reasoning for using private email both for public business and private correspondence didn't hold up in the investigation. Clinton "used numerous mobile devices to view and send email" using her personal account, Comey said. He also said Clinton had used different servers.
CLINTON: "It was on property guarded by the Secret Service, and there were no security breaches. ... The use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure." News conference, March 2015.
CLINTON campaign website: "There is no evidence there was ever a breach."
THE FACTS: The campaign website claimed "no evidence" of a breach, a less categorical statement than Clinton herself made last year, when she said there was no breach. The FBI did not uncover a breach but made clear that that possibility cannot be ruled out.
"We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account," Comey said.
He said evidence would be hard to find because hackers are sophisticated and can cover their tracks. Comey said his investigators learned that Clinton's security lapses included using "her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries." Comey also noted that hackers breached the email accounts of several outsiders who messaged with Clinton.
Comey did not mention names, but a Romanian hacker who called himself Guccifer accessed and later leaked emails from Sidney Blumenthal, an outside adviser to Clinton who regularly communicated with her.
CLINTON: "I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department." News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Comey did not address Clinton's reason for using a private server instead of a government one, but he highlighted the perils in routing sensitive information through a home server.
The FBI found that Clinton's personal server was "not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial email service like Gmail," the director said.
A May 2016 audit by the State Department inspector general found there was no evidence Clinton sought or received approval to operate a private server, and that she "had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices." Courts have frowned on such a practice.
In an unrelated case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that the purpose of public records law is "hardly served" when a department head "can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to" by maintaining emails on a private system.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ap-fact-check-hillary-clinton-email-claims-collapse-under-fbi-n604526
-
-
Sen. Ben Sasse Condemns Both Trump, Hillary as 'Dishonest'
By Theodore Bunker | Tuesday, 12 Jul 2016
Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse wrote an open letter on Medium decrying the dishonesty of the presumptive nominees of both parties and calling for a reexamination of the reasons for voting.
"Ask yourself: Why are these two the most unpopular candidates in the history of presidential polling? Because they are not honest. And everyone knows it. They do not embody the best of America," the freshman Republican says.
"Sadly, I do not regard either of them as worthy of our trust," he says about whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton could be relied upon to "protect and defend the Constitution."
"I think one of them does not even know what the Constitution is about, and the other doesn't care," he says, without naming either presumptive presidential nominee.
Sasse, who has opposed Trump for months, noted that he "was elected less than two years ago over the strong objections of the Washington establishment."
In February, Sasse took to Twitter in a rapid-fire series of tweets, at one point waxing philosophical: "The presidency is not our national embodiment of Nietzschean Will," according to CNN.
In his opposition to Trump, Sasse is vocally disagreeing with his party constituents in the Cornhusker State, 61 percent of whom voted for Trump in the May primary.
"He's carrying on like a professor, telling the world how things should be," Republican Bob Krist, a Nebraska state senator, told The Washington Post last month. "Either get out in front and lead, or be part of the process that you have been elected to be a part of."
On Medium, Sasse explains why he can't simply choose the lesser of two evils, which he calls "strategic voting," and calls himself a "conscience voter."
"To us, the act of voting is also a civic duty that tells people what we think America means, what we want to teach our kids about moral leadership, what face we want America to present to the world, and what sort of candidates we want more of in coming years."
Sasse doesn't deny that Washington needs change, just that he believes Trump isn't the right person to bring it, and neither is Clinton.
"Sadly, they both appear to be willfully dishonest," Sasse writes. "It's one thing to elect someone who ends up lying to us after the fact. (That's terrible.) But it's another thing entirely to conclude in advance that they are both liars, and simply shrug and elect them anyway.
"That does something to the national soul that tears at the fabric of who we are."
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Ben-Sasse-Condemns-Trump-Clinton/2016/07/12/id/738275/#ixzz4EJ6fsTms
-
Clinton’s claim that the FBI director said her email answers were ‘truthful’
By Glenn Kessler
July 31, 2016
The former secretary of state, senator and first lady is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.
“Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
—Hillary Clinton, interview on “Fox News Sunday,” July 31, 2016
Clinton made these remarks after “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace played a video of her saying: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials. I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time. I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.”
As Wallace put it, “After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true.”
After Clinton denied that, Wallace played another video of an exchange between Comey and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi:
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?
COMEY: That’s not true.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” Was that true?
COMEY: There was classified material emailed.
So what’s going on here?
The Facts
Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation
For instance, when Clinton asserts “my answers were truthful,” a campaign aide said she is referring to this statement by Comey to Congress: “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.”
But that’s not the whole story. When House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked whether Clinton had lied to the American public, Comey dodged: “That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI.”
At another point, Comey told Congress: “I really don’t want to get in the business of trying to parse and judge her public statements. And so I think I’ve tried to avoid doing that sitting here. … What matters to me is what did she say to the FBI. That’s obviously first and foremost for us.”
Comey was also asked whether Clinton broke the law: “In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not,” Comey said.
As for retroactive classification of emails, Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified. But he also said that some emails were classified at the time — and Clinton and her aides should have been aware of that.
Here’s how Comey put it in his lengthy statement when he announced the completion of the investigation: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
Comey said “seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.”
He added: “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.” He noted that “even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”
In her response to Wallace, Clinton at one point appeared to deflect responsibility to her aides: “I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked. And so, in retrospect, maybe some people are saying, well, among those 300 people, they made the wrong call.”
Testifying before Congress, Comey said it was possible Clinton was not “technically sophisticated” enough to understand what the classified markings meant. But he said a government official should be attentive to such a marking.
The Pinocchio Test
As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.
And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/31/clintons-claim-that-the-fbi-director-said-her-email-answers-were-truthful/
-
What is equally as disturbing as the blatant lack of integrity is all of the folks who follow along like cult members.
[/youtube]
-
What is equally as disturbing as the blatant lack of integrity is all of the folks who follow along like cult members.
[/youtube]
This is ridiculous.....the money was not a ransom payment ...it was used as leverage.....if Iran wanted the money them they would have to release the hostages....simple....we used the situation to our advantage....which was smart
you're getting like SC with these youtube hit pieces
-
This is ridiculous.....the money was not a ransom payment ...it was used as leverage.....if Iran wanted the money them they would have to release the hostages....simple....we used the situation to our advantage....which was smart
you're getting like SC with these youtube hit pieces
And right on cue, one of the Obamabot zombies (redundant?) shows exactly what I'm talking about. Think for yourself. If you can.
-
Looks like the audience thinks Hillary lacks integrity.
-
She "doesn't recall." ::)
Clinton: 'I Don't Recall' Joking About Drone Strike on Julian Assange
By Ritika Gupta | Wednesday, 05 Oct 2016
As Wikileaks celebrated its 10th anniversary in Berlin with founder Julian Assange vowing to publish new "significant" documents related to the U.S. presidential elections ahead of the Nov. 8 vote, Hillary Clinton said she did not remember ever joking about a drone attack on Assange during her tenure as secretary of state, Politico reported.
"I don't know anything about what [WikiLeaks] is talking about, and I don't recall any joke. It would have been a joke had it been said, but I don't recall that," Clinton said of a report published Sunday by the website True Pundit.
The website cited anonymous "State Department sources" in the report to claim that Clinton in 2010 asked some staff members, "Can't we just drone this guy?" referring to Assange who was then preparing to release 250,000 secret U.S. cables.
Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook declined to comment on the rumor, telling WTTG Fox 5 DC reporter Ronica Cleary, "I'm reticent to comment on anything that the Wikileaks people have said. They've made a lot of accusations in the past."
"Donald Trump and his allies are trying to do everything they can to change the debate here right now … They got to find some way to change this up and they're trying to do that by doubling down on conspiracy theories," Mook added.
The former secretary of state, who was in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, campaigning continued to attack Donald Trump over his secrecy regarding tax returns, the Daily Mail reported.
Wikileaks has so far released approximately 20,000 emails from seven accounts belonging to DNC staffers in July.
When was asked if she was worried about Assange's recent promise to soon release documents that could affect the November election, Clinton retorted, "Well, I don't know anything about what he's talking about."
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Clinton-Julian-Assange-Drone-Strike-Joke/2016/10/05/id/751770/#ixzz4MEaIyFIZ