Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 16      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #1 

Comey says "Obama was truthful"

Jason Easley (PoliticusUSA) is reporting that a source close to former FBI Director James Comey said that Comey didn't write memos about his conversations with Barack Obama because the conversations were routine and Obama was truthful.

CNN's Pamela Brown:

"Even though he liked to create paper trails through his years at the Justice Department and the FBI, it was not common practice for him to document conversations with senior officials unless he thought it was significant. Conversations that Comey had with Trump he documented. In one memo, Anderson, he included a description of the president talking to him about crowd size at the inauguration. The source I spoke to said Comey did not do this with President Obama in part because he had fewer one on one conversations with the president, and as the source said, in Comey's view, there was no need to document the conversations with people that are truthful or situations that are routine."

You can't make this stuff up. There is no debate that Barack Obama was the most mendacious occupant of the Oval Office that ever existed.

This thread has hundreds of documented Obama lies. The Archive has hundreds more.

pic906.jpg



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

Susan "Benghazi was caused by a video" Rice is on TV again and she's still lying

The FireAndreaMitchell blog says how cute. Susan Rice did another interview with CNN plagiarist Fareed Zakaria. It was as softball as you would expect, with Susan Rice, aka Dirty Rice making the claim that she didn't do anything untoward with respect to intelligence. Of courses, everyone knows that's complete and utter bullshit, but Rice was able to get away with her lies because this is CNN.

ZAKARIA: One of the elements of fallout from Russia's attempt to influence the American election was that there was a certain amount of intelligence work being done on Russia. Our intelligence agencies were listening to what Russian government officials or Russian intelligence officials were saying. Donald Trump has accused you of trying to unmask the Americans on the other end of those conversations in an attempt to implicate the Trump campaign or people associated with Trump in some kind of collusion with Russia. What is your reaction to that? It's an extraordinary charge by the President of the United States.

RICE: Well Fareed, it's absolutely false. I've addressed this previously. I think now we've had subsequently members of Congress on the intelligence committees on both sides of the aisle take a look at the information that apparently was the basis for Chairman Nunes' concern and say publicly that they didn't see anything that was unusual or untoward. I did my job, which was to protect the American people, and I did it faithfully and with -- to the best of my ability, and never did I do anything that was untoward with respect to the intelligence I received.

pic749.jpg

How does this woman sleep at night?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #3 

Obama's dangerous game of lying about Trump's refugee ban

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that Barack Obama made his comeback -- unwanted by half the nation -- after only two weeks away from the microphone. He lied through his spokesperson about President Trump's temporary ban of seven countries of concern he himself selected.

Kevin Lewis, Obama's post-presidency spokesman, said he "is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country."

"With regard to comparisons to President Obama's foreign policy decisions, as we've heard before, the president fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion," Lewis added, highlighting November 2015 comments from Obama about a Muslim ban.

There is no Muslim ban. There is no discrimination against the religion.

pic222.jpg

Kellyanne Conway told Fox News' Martha MacCallum Monday that Obama is playing "a dangerous game" by commenting on President Donald Trump's policy decisions only 10 days after leaving office.

"He's welcome to say what he wants," Trump's senior counselor stated. "It's a free country, including for ex-presidents, but let's back it up for a second."

"President Trump agrees with what you said there, the first part, which is we don't think anybody should be discriminated against based on their religion."

"When you are someone as powerful as an ex-president or a current sitting senator, and you say or do anything that could possibly mislead people into believing something that has an impact that it clearly does not, it's a dangerous game," Mrs. Conway told the host.

This lie really could be used by terrorists as a recruitment tool. Obama is pretending that President Trump declared war on Islam. If he has to start a war to destroy Donald Trump, he will do it.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #4 

Obama's final whopper

pic170.jpg

John Fund (NationalReview) is rporting that Obama is known for telling some whoppers -- "If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it" is perhaps the most infamous -- so it shouldn't surprise anyone that he told a final one right before leaving office last week.

At his final press conference, Obama promised that he would continue to fight voter-ID laws and other measures designed to improve voting integrity. The U.S. is "the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder to vote," he claimed. "It traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of slavery, and it became sort of acceptable to restrict the franchise. . . . This whole notion of election-voting fraud, this is something that has constantly been disproved. This is fake news."

The argument over whether or not there is voter fraud will rage on, in part because the Obama administration has spent eight years blocking states from gaining access to federal lists of non-citizen and other possibly illegal voters. Even so, there is abundant evidence that voter fraud is easy to commit. The Heritage Foundation's website contains hundreds of recent examples of people convicted of stealing votes.

But Obama's first statement, that the U.S. is unique in trying to enforce ballot integrity, is demonstrably false.

All industrialized democracies -- and most that are not -- require voters to prove their identity before voting. Britain was a holdout, but last month it announced that persistent examples of voter fraud will require officials to see passports or other documentation from voters in areas prone to corruption.

In 2012, I attended a conference in Washington, D.C., of election officials from more than 60 countries; they convened there to observe the U.S. presidential election. Most were astonished that so many U.S. states don't require voter ID. Lawyers with whom I spoke are also astonished to see Obama link voter ID with the Jim Crow era. As John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog wrote:

President Obama says the effort to ensure ballot integrity "traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of slavery." This is idiotic. When Democrats imposed Jim Crow laws across the South in the wake of Reconstruction, they relied on poll taxes and ridiculously difficult or ambiguous tests -- administered only, apparently, to African Americans who hadn't finished a certain grade level -- to maintain Democratic Party control. Voter ID had nothing to do with it. But no one ever said that Barack Obama knows anything about history.

And if Obama knew much about geography, he might notice that our neighbors require voter ID. Canada adopted voter-ID requirements in 2007 and saw them reaffirmed in 2010; they have worked smoothly since, with almost no complaints. Mexico's "Credencial para Votar" has a hologram, a photo, and other information embedded in it, and it is impossible to effectively tamper with it. "Mexico's paper ballots have a level of sophistication equivalent to legal tender," Catherine Engelbrecht, of the nonprofit True the Vote organization, told me. "They've found a balance between security and access to the polls that has restored confidence in their once tainted elections."

Britain is painfully learning that it too must take steps to restore confidence in its elections. Sir Eric Pickles, a former Conservative cabinet minister, warned earlier this year, in a government-commissioned report titled "Securing the Ballot," that voter fraud had been allowed to fester in Muslim communities because of "politically correct over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion." Sir Eric said that the authorities were in a "state of denial" and were "turning a blind eye" to fraud cases.

Last month, Theresa May's government responded to the problem. It announced that "endemic corruption" meant that voters in certain areas will now have to show photo identification. The government may even require people to prove their UK citizenship before granting them the right to vote. It also issued a nationwide ban on political workers handing in large numbers of completed postal ballots on election day. The maximum penalty for voter fraud will be raised from two to ten years. Legislation is being prepared to allow police to block people from "intimidating" voters near polling places.

Chris Skidmore, Britain's minister for the Constitution, wrote in the Daily Telegraph:

We already ask that people prove who they are in order to rent a car, buy a mortgage, or travel abroad -- and I believe we should go further by taking the same approach to protect voting rights.

In many other transactions, ID is an essential requirement -- voting for a democratically elected government, your MP, or your councillor is one of the most important transactions someone can make and it is right that in turn their identity and the security of their vote should be protected.

Polls have shown that voter-ID laws and similar measures enjoy great popular support all over the world. In the U.S., a comprehensive Washington Post poll in 2012 found that 74 percent of respondents believed that voters should present a photo ID. Polls since then have confirmed that level of support.

Backing for voter ID in the Washington Post poll crossed all demographic lines.

Backing for voter ID in the Washington Post poll crossed all demographic lines -- 66 percent of independents, 60 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of African Americans, and 64 percent of Hispanics. The Post also asked whether respondents thought that the supporters and opponents of voter ID were acting out of genuine concern for fair elections or were instead trying to gain partisan advantage. Respondents replied that voter-ID opponents were acting more out of partisanship than supporters were. "I think that party leaders have tried to make this a Republican-versus-Democrat issue," former Democratic state representative Jon Brien, who shepherded Rhode Island's 2011 voter-ID law through a Democratic legislature, told the Pew Center's Stateline news service. "It's not. It's simply a good-government issue."

Which is precisely why it's so disappointing to see Barack Obama use it to raise baseless fears that voter ID is a racist form of voter suppression. Even as he leaves office, the president who promised to unify us is continuing his level best to polarize and divide us.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #5 

Obama will be remembered for distorting George Washington's legacy

pic49.jpg

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) says Barack Obama will be remembered for distorting George Washington's legacy by comparing his to the first president of the United States who was not an unrepentant Marxist.

Obama's most dramatic and eloquent farewell, which he said modeled George Washington's, was given last night before throngs of adoring admirers. The president has 54% approval despite a record of "accomplishments" that have a dismal approval record.

George Washington's Farewell to the nation was an open letter of advice and warning to the American people about their long-term safety and happiness. It constitutes the central premise of the American cause.

Heritage writes, Washington warned of the dangers facing the young republic, chiefly from internal faction and foreign dangers. But he also hailed the greatness that could come from a unity founded on necessity and prosperity, and further graced by the character of its citizens.

Washington talked of the need to cherish and safeguard the union and the constitution. He warned of the dangers of special interests, designing men, and factious parties.

It was Washington who first spoke of the inherent need for religion and morality as "indispensable supports." In today's world, where atheism proliferates, a world he could not conceive of, he might say morality and an upright philosophy of life are indispensable supports.

Further, he stated that a self-governing nation requires the enlightenment of formal institutions of education and of civic education. The "great Pillars of human happiness" and the "firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens," he emphasized, were religion and morality. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports."

Furthermore, as to the role of America in foreign affairs, he stated that the United States should "observe good faith and justice towards all Nations."

The nation's first president asks us to remember "it will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence." In other words, we will be lifted up by our national character.

Not an isolationist as he is often depicted, Washington recommended as the great rule of conduct that the United States primarily pursue commercial relations with other nations and have with them "as little political connection as possible," consistent with its treaty obligations.

Washington did not call for America to withdraw from the world: he warned of political connections and permanent alliances. The French Revolution was shaking up the world at the time.

Obama will be remembered for distorting George Washington's legacy in an effort to promote his own which is clearly the opposite. Obama is a man who does not seek unity and has divided us according to things not the business of the state, such as sexual preference, and of things not meant to be divided, such as race. This president has people at each other's throats.

His identity politics is effective but evil. All manipulation is evil.

While we can't expect atheists to become religious, we can expect our president to not denigrate one religion and hold up another as nearly faultless, elevating it to protected status.

When it comes to foreign entanglements, he has used his pen and phone to tie our country to International Law and the rule of a club of dictators and thugs known as the UN.

Instead of protecting our sovereignty as George Washington would have done, he has attempted to put us under the rule of the global government.

Obama has used illegal immigrants and refugees to increase the voting power of Democrats to convert the nation into a Socialist nation that is no longer self-governing.

Finally, Washington was a man who voluntarily relinquished power. He could have been king. Barack Obama, on the other hand, seems saddened by the fact that he can't have a third term, which can be seen in his intrusions into the next presidency with 11th hour deals and his frequent farewell addresses.

George Washington would have been shocked and likely appalled by Obama's behavior, lies, policies, and his final speech which only focused on his so-called accomplishments.

The accomplishments he listed should have been humiliating for him to enumerate, especially praising Obamacare which is a horrible disaster, though well-intentioned like the road to Hell.

Sean Hannity gave a summary of his "accomplishments" last night, followed by a scorching indictment from Laura Ingraham. It's worth listening to.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #6 

Whole lotta lyin' goin' on

pic911.jpg

Scott Johnson (Powerline) says that by just about everyone's reckoning, the so-called signature achievements of the Obama years are the enactment of ObamaCare and the Iran nuclear deal. They have a lot in common. Both are ruinous and both were built on an edifice of bald-faced lies.

Obama is the lyin' king and these are the lyin' years.

We recall the foundational lies of ObamaCare -- if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep him. ObamaCare will save the average family $2500 a year. Obama enunciated these lies in a manner suggesting that anyone who disputed them was an idiot. The compilation below documents Obama's incessant reiteration of the lie about keeping your health care plan. Our familiarity with it should not dull our contempt for the liar, his partisan allies and his mainstream media adjunct.

The same applies many times over to the Iran nuclear deal. In the first sentence of his statement announcing it (video below), Obama asserted that it constituted "a comprehensive, long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon." The truth, however, is that in a best case scenario under the deal, Iran will have nuclear weapons in little over a decade.

Moreover, Iran will finance its nuclear weapons program and other murderous activities with the billions of dollars it obtains pursuant to the agreement, much of it delivered in in cash on pallets as ransom to induce Iran's agreement to the deal. The Wall Street Journal's Jay Solomon and Carol Lee follow the money this week in "Inside the 37-year standoff over Iran's frozen US dollars" and in "A tally of Iran sanctions relief includes more than $10 billion in cash, gold." As Churchill said on Munich, though Obama lacks Chamberlain's good faith and the United States lacks Britain's excuses, we should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road

The money adds to the shame and humiliation implicit in the deal. It is indeed worse than Munich; Britain didn't pay Hitler.

Obama again enlisted the assistance of his mainstream media adjunct in selling the big lie of the Iran deal. Obama national security flack Ben Rhodes even bragged about it to David Samuels.

In the Obama administration's parting betrayal of Israel in the United Nations we see the same operation at work. We see the mainstream media offering up Ben Rhodes to comment. You might say we've been down this Rhodes before.

It represents Obama's modus operandi.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #7 

Will Obama ever be charged in court for his many lies to American people?

pic704.jpg

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) says Barack Obama may be the most dishonest politician ever.

During his presidency Obama routinely lied to the American public without any accountability from the liberal mainstream media.

Here are a few of Barack Obama's more disturbing and consequential lies.

1.) "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan."

     (Number of mentions: 37 times)

As Obama was pushing the tremendously unpopular legislation now known as "ObamaCare," at least 37 different times he promised that -- If you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan. Even the liberal media could not ignore it. This was lie of the year in 2013. After cancellation letters were sent to 4 million Americans, the public finally realized his breezy assurances were wrong.

2.) "With ObamaCare we will reduce your insurance premiums by $2,500, per family per year."

     (Number of mentions: At least 22 times)

ObamaCare increased 2014 individual market premiums by an average of 49%.

Barack Obama promised repeatedly that ObamaCare would reduce your premiums by $2,500 per year. It was a lie. The exact opposite happened. Average premiums have skyrocketed, for some groups as much as 78 percent.

ObamaCare premiums will rise by double digits in 2017 when Obama leaves office.

3.) "I cannot pass amnesty through executive action… I am not a dictator."

     (Number of mentions: At least 22 times)

At least 22 times Obama said he couldn’t do executive amnesty himself. Then he implemented an immunity scheme via executive fiat. "In bypassing Congress, Obama blatantly ignored the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy and violated his presidential oath to uphold the laws of this land."

4.) "Not one dime of ObamaCare will go for abortions."

     (Number of mentions: At least 12 times)

1,036 ObamaCare plans cover abortions.

In spite of repeated promises that ObamaCare would not pay for abortions, it is now clear that Obama lied. The GAO confirmed that Obama lied about this and if fact 1,036 ObamaCare plans pay for abortions. In fact, the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns who provide care for the poor, were forced to file a class action mandate to obtain a judgment so they could refrain from providing access to abortion-inducing drugs.

5.) "It was not my decision to pull all the troops from Iraq."

     (Number of mentions: 2 times, maybe more)

When Obama was running for reelection in 2012, he repeatedly took credit for "ending the war in Iraq." Then in August 2014, when he sent troops back to Iraq to fight ISIS, Obama said removing U.S. troops from Iraq was not “my decision.” As a result of this reckless move, thousands of innocents have been murdered (including many beheadings), enslaved, relocated forcefully, terrorized and tortured. The horror of Obama’s Iraq blunder will be felt for generations.

6.)  Barack Obama accused the Pentagon of not providing him with a strategy to defeat ISIS. Another lie.

Obama also claimed in the same press conference that he brought the deficit down by two-thirds since he came into office. Another lie. That was just one speech. We still have two more years of this. Two more years of nonstop lies.

This was just a short list of Barack Obama's deliberate lies to the American public.

Now that this man is leaving office -- Will he ever be charged and sentenced for his criminal activity?



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #8 

The birth of a cover-up

Remember this interview?

That's Obama lying to the American People.

And this is Team Clinton scrambling to "clean up" the fact that Obama Knew all about Hillary's home brew email server and that Obama and Hillary were exchanging emails.

pic39a.jpg pic39b.jpg pic39c.jpg

What was that about intent?

Obama knew. He always knew -- and he clearly approved.

And Team Clinton knew that Obama knew and they knew Obama lied about it. That's when they then went into overdrive trying to figure out how to "clean it up."



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #9 

Wikileaks just revealed the email address Obama used to email Hillary via her home-brew server

Remember this? It's not one of Obama's more elegant lies.

Well, now Marisa Schultz (NYPost) is reporting that Hacked emails published by Wikileaks reveal Barack Obama's private email address in another potentially embarrassing document dump.

WikiLeaks just released a batch of emails that contain Obama's secret email address and implied that even more of Obama's private communications will be released.

The site published seven messages involving an email address purported to be that of the commander-in-chief: bobama@ameritech.net .

One exchange was dated the evening of Nov. 4, 2008 -- Election Day. John Podesta, co-chair of Obama's transition team, urges Obama not to accept an invitation to a G-20 meeting Nov. 15 on the global financial crisis should outgoing President George W. Bush invite him that night after Obama is officially elected.

Podesta attached a memo the transition team prepared weighing the pros and cons of going to the summit.

"Attendance alongside President Bush will create an extremely awkward situation," the memo stated among the cons.

"On the chance that President Bush would raise this with you tonight, I wanted you to be aware that it is the unanimous recommendation for your advisors that you NOT attend," Podesta added.

When the G-20 convened in Washington, Obama was absent.

An email message sent Thursday to Obama's alleged address didn't bounce back immediately -- signaling it could still be a working account.

The White House declined comment. US intelligence authorities believe Russia orchestrated the widespread cyber-attacks into Democratic Party-related emails. The Obama messages were among some 23,000 emails stolen from Podesta, who now serves as Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman.

The tech-savvy Obama was allowed to keep a BlackBerry when he became president and just this year he was upgraded to a smartphone to replace the outdated technology. For security reasons many of the smartphone's functions -- including texting, playing music, calling and taking photos -- were disabled, Obama told "Tonight Show" host Jimmy Fallon this year.

"So basically it's like -- does your 3-year-old have one of those play phones. It's got, like, the stickers on it. That's basically the phone I've got," Obama said.

The alleged Obama emails are from 2008 when the young Illinois senator was about to win his historic White House bid and was assembling a transition team. The emails largely address staffing a transition economic team and adding diversity to a future Obama Administration.

In one exchange dated Oct. 6, 2008, transition team member Mike Froman sends Obama an email with the subject line "Diversity" informing him he's sending recommendations for senior level positions for an Obama administration.

One list will be of women and another will be candidates who are "African American, Latino and Asian American candidates … Native Americans, Arab/Muslim Americans and Disabled Americans," Froman wrote.

The same day, Podesta emailed Obama the contact information for Leon Panetta and Erskine Bowles.

In another email dated Oct. 30, 2008 with the subject of "economic staffing decisions," Podesta floated choices for Obama's team.

"First, should Daley or Tarullo run the interim economic staff team in the early days of the transition?," Podesta emailed, presumably a reference to Daniel Tarullo, who joined the Federal Reserve Board in 2009. and William Daley, was named to Obama's transition economic advisory board and later Obama's chief of staff.

Podesta also asked Obama who should serve on the interim council: "You added Warren Buffett to the potential list. How do you want to proceed?" Podesta emails.

"I will give you an answer on this tomorrow," was the reply signed "Barack" and followed by an automated standard footnote: "Sent via BlackBerry -- a service from AT&T Wireless."

Billionaire Buffett went on to serve on Obama's transition economic advisory board.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #10 

Leaked emails reveal Team Obama intervened to suppress Hillary's "secret server" scandal

Tyler Durden (ZeroHedge) is reporting that last October, about 6 months after the New York Times first revealed the existence of the Hillary Clinton private email server, Barack Obama appeared on "60 Minutes" and denied any and all knowledge of her potentially illegal technology arrangements.  When asked point blank whether he knew about Hillary's private email server, Obama responded, quite simply, "No."

Of course, we now know from the FBI's investigation notes that, in fact, that was a complete lie.  As we noted back in September, Huma Abedin's interview with the FBI on April 5, 2016 revealed an email sent on June 28, 2012 from Obama, using an unknown pseudonym, to Hillary on her private email server.  So, either Obama is so incompetent that he didn't recognize that Hillary wasn't using a ".gov" email account or he simply lied in the following interview.  We'll let you be the judge.

But now, per a report last night from the Wall Street Journal, we know that, not only did Obama and his White House team know about Hillary's private email server they actually conspired, along with the State Department, to cover it up.  New emails, obtained by the Wall Street Journal via a FOIA request by the Republican National Committee, reveal communications between the White House and the State Department coordinating over how to minimize the potential fallout from Hillary's email scandal so as to not impact her nascent presidential campaign.  We're sure Bernie supporters must love that.

The first relevant exchange occurred between White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri and State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki.  Shortly after, the March 2nd New York Times article on Hillary's private email server, Palmieri, who was known to be leaving the White House to join the Clinton campaign, emailed Psaki to request that John Kerry not discuss Hillary's email scandal on an upcoming interview with "Face The Nation" on March 15th.  Apparently, Psaki was able to coordinate with CBS to make sure Kerry wouldn't be asked any "uncomfortable" questions and then wrote back to Palmieri that they were "good to go on killing CBS idea."

Ten days after the story broke, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri emailed State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki to ask, "between us on the shows…think we can get this done so he is not asked about email." That apparently referred to Mr. Kerry, who appeared in an interview on CBS 's "Face the Nation" three days later.

"Agree completely and working to crush on my end," wrote back Ms. Psaki.

A day later, Ms. Psaki added, "Good to go on killing CBS idea." She continued, "And we are going to hold on any other TV options just given the swirl of crap out there." Mr. Kerry wasn't asked on CBS about the email server, though it isn't clear how Ms. Psaki could have guaranteed that.

Teased by Ms. Palmieri about her use of the phrase "swirl of crap," Ms. Psaki wrote back: "Ha I mean -- the challenging stories out there."

And, of course, you can see from the transcript of Kerry's interview that he, in fact, was never asked a single question about Hillary even though other guests were questioned about the scandal later during the show.

Worse yet, Psaki, of the State Department, was seemingly rewarded for helping to "crush CBS idea" as she was given Palmieri's position at the White House once Palmieri departed to join the Clinton campaign.

Ms. Palmieri had previously announced she would be leaving the administration to join Mrs. Clinton's campaign in mid-2015, but was still at the White House when she sent the email. Other emails show Ms. Palmieri helped arrange for Ms. Psaki to move from the State Department to the White House communications job Ms. Palmieri was vacating.

Unfortunately the stories don't end there as other emails reveal coordination between the State Department and Hillary's attorney's all while the FBI was conducting an official investigation.

In another email coming from the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management, told Heather Samuelson, one of Mrs. Clinton's attorneys, about new documents the State Department had posted concerning the former secretary of state.

Ms. Samuelson was one of the attorneys who reviewed Mrs. Clinton's emails to determine which were government-related and which were personal before providing the official ones to the State Department. She was interviewed by the FBI as part of its probe and granted limited immunity in exchange for turning over her laptop as part of the investigation.

In another exchange, Mr. Kennedy told Ms. Samuelson that Politico was "running [a] story that State official said Secretary Clinton did wrong thing. Wildly inaccurate reporting."

But, as outrageous as this story is, we're sure the mainstream media will simply bury it as yet another ring-wing attempt to "criminalize behavior that is normal" and promptly go back to demanding Trump's tax returns.

Also posted in the "Hillary" thread.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #11 

He lies and he lies and he lies . . .

pic701.jpg 



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #12 

Obama's colossal email lie final test for tarnished mainstream media

pic677.jpg

Roger L Simon (PJMedia) says that Barack Obama communicated in 2012 -- under a redacted pseudonym -- with Hillary Clinton on the then secretary of State's permeable home-brew email server and then claimed he did not know of that server's existence until it was reported in the press in 2014 is far more than the usual politician's prevarication.

Since the fish rots from the top -- and in this case it stinks to high heaven -- the surfacing of this particular Obama lie calls to question the entire FBI inquiry into the Clinton server, an investigation whose credibility was paper thin in the first place and has now completely vanished.

It's time to ask that age-old question: "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

That we do know (as of this Friday's dump) that one of Clinton's own IT workers referred to her then just-announced 60-day email retention policy (who does that?) as "Hillary's coverup operation" almost (but not completely) tells the story in those three quoted words. Even though they say it's not the crime, but the coverup, in this case, it's both.

The seriousness of this crime/coverup -- involving the national security of our country -- makes Watergate seem like a minor kerfuffle at a sewing circle. If the mainstream media does not investigate this thoroughly, they are unquestionably the court eunuchs many of us have accused them of being. Worse, they are the enablers of the decline of Western civilization.  Without a free and honest press -- some of it anyway -- not to mention adherence to the rule of law, such a civilization cannot survive.  And the decline can come remarkably swiftly.  We have plenty of  examples of that from twentieth century Europe.

Does this sound over-heated?  You could say so, but how do you avoid the conclusion, given the MSM's passivity, or is it collaboration, that they do not care a whit about the rule of law as long as their side wins?

But not to be entirely negative, I am going to offer some help to the Fourth Estate, since investigative journalism has not, for some time, been their long suit.  Fortunately, via the Internet (at least for a few weeks until Obama passes us all into the censorious hands of the United Nations) we have the "wisdom of crowds" to draw upon.  Yesterday, the following fascinating comment from one "susanholly" appeared under my column "What Happens When You Can't Trust the FBI and the State Department?" I have no idea who "susan" is or if her conjectures are accurate, but she has given us food for thought. I don't often quote comments at length, but this time it seems worth it:

susanholly:

The timeline tells it all:

Monday, June 27, 2016: Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix.

Saturday, July 2, 2016: There’s this shifty FBI interview set-up, with Hillary on a Saturday morning on a HOLIDAY WEEKEND, at the FBI Headquarters in Washington -- when LOTS of FBI employees were off (fewer witnesses). The entire interview was jut a charade and Comey is a LIAR -- he covered this up. Who was actually present is an interesting question -- out of Hillary’s team of lawyers, the FBI redacted ONE name from the notes. It listed David E. Kendall, Cheryl D. Mills, Heather Samuelson, Katherine Turner. The NY Times, back in July, reported that other lawyer as Amy Saharia, but I doubt that is the truth. It makes NO sense to redact her name. The FBI redacted the names of THREE DOJ officials present. Who the heck was present on a Saturday morning, on a long holiday weekend??? It’s a cover-up.

Tuesday , July 5, 2016: In the morning, after this long holiday weekend, FBI Director Comey makes his bizarre announcement that there would be no criminal charges.

On July 2nd, the New York Times reported:

Accompanying Mrs. Clinton into the meeting were her lawyer David E. Kendall; Cheryl D. Mills and Heather Samuelson, longtime aides who are also lawyers; and two lawyers from Mr. Kendall’s firm, Williams & Connolly, Katherine Turner and Amy Saharia.

Eight officials from the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice conducted the interview, according to a person who was familiar with the substance of the session but declined to be named because the meeting was private. This person characterized the meeting as "civil" and "businesslike."

So, when the FBI released Hillary's interview notes, the first paragraph makes no sense at all, when compared to the NY Times report on Juy 2nd. The Clinton lawyer redaction would be Amy Saharia, which makes no sense. Why would the FBI redact her name? She's a nobody in this invesigation and even Mills who was granted immunity is listed. Then there's the FBI/DOJ officials. The FBI Notes list FBI Section Chief, Peter P. Strzok and David Laufman and there are three blocks of redactions, which would seem to indicate 5 FBI/DOJ officials present, compared to the EIGHT mentioned in the NY Times story. Now, if that one very long block of redacted information is more than one name, we are still left with the FBI gave us 2 names of FBI/DOJ people present and the NY Times reported EIGHT. Who are these 6 FBI/DOJ people and why were their names redacted and why on earth redact Amy Saharia's name?

Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch STAGED this charade; they planned it on June 27th on the tarmac in Phoenix.

Back to me.

I'm not sure susanholly is entirely correct that it had to be planned in detail between Bill and Loretta in the attorney general's plane that day.  Their meeting was too short and, besides, Lynch and Comey (in cahoots with the White House?) were quite capable of doing the planning by themselves.  They already had their marching orders, direct or implicit. Perhaps all Clinton was looking for was assurances his wife wouldn't be carted off and the campaign would go on.  Comey might give her a tongue-lashing for cover, but she would be exonerated.

Did Bill give a quid pro quo for that?  Who knows?  Will we ever know anything close to the whole truth?  It's hard to say and may depend on the emergence of a new "Deep Throat" or Julian Assange revealing all in October.  One thing we do know -- if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will never be able to govern effectively.  Only the most credulous will believe anything she says.

Yes, Hillary knows classified information does not always come with a "header"

And speaking of the credulous who disrespect the rule of law, as I finished typing this article, the news that the New York Times is supporting Hillary Clinton for president was announced.  The venerable reactionary institution that gave us Walter Duranty  and for many years over-looked the Holocaust informs us in their editorial idiotically lauding Clinton for changing her mind on a variety of issues that her email scandal is passé and now "looks like a matter for the help desk.”  They could have a point at least in that regard.  As with most help desks, we are definitely being kept on hold.

The NYT has already failed the final test referred to in the headline.  But that's less surprising than dog bites man. The MSM, as exemplified by the Times, are the real "bitter clingers" in our society.  For them to change would mean total personality disintegration.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #13 

Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton -- proof Obama lied (again)

Josh Gerstein and Nolan D. McCaskill (Politico) are reporting that Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday.

The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents from its investigation into Clinton's private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

The 189 pages the bureau released includes interviews with some of Clinton's closest aides, such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and even Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker "Guccifer."

In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used by Obama, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at Obama's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

The State Department has refused to make that email public and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the "presidential communications privilege," a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.

The report doesn't provide more details on the contents of that particular email exchange, but says it took place on June 28, 2012, and had the subject line: "Re: Congratulations." It may refer to the Supreme Court's ruling that day upholding a key portion of the ObamaCare law.

A report on the FBI's June 7, 2016 interview with "Guccifer" confirms FBI Director James Comey's claim that Lazar falsely asserted that he'd surreptitiously accessed Clinton's server.

"Lazar began by stating that he had never claimed to hack the Clinton server. [An FBI agent] then advised that Fox News had recently published an article which reported that Lazar had claimed to have to Clinton server. Lazar then stated that he recalled the interview with Fox News, and that he had lied to them about hacking the Clinton server."

Additional FBI interviewees whose reports were made public Friday included Jake Sullivan, Clinton's policy planning director; Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton technology aide; Monica Hanley, a veteran Clinton aide who worked for her in the Senate and at State; and Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton's longtime confidant.

Hanley revealed in her FBI interview that she had no idea where a thumb drive she used to store an archive of Clinton's emails had gone. Hanley searched for the thumb drive, which the FBI described as "something she happened to have laying around the house," several times but was unable to find it.

The interviews provide more insight into Clinton's lack of technical acumen. According to the FBI's Abedin writeup, she "could not use a computer." Hanley said Clinton had no idea what her own email password was, and had to rely on aides.

The so-called "302" reports also detail FBI interviews with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA acting director Mike Morell, State Department official Pat Kennedy, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick, Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, former diplomatic security chief Eric Boswell and longtime diplomat Lewis Lukens.

Some of the interview reports had the subject's name removed on privacy grounds before the records were released. Many of those people seem to be computer technicians or lower-level State Department officials.

The FBI published 58 pages of documents earlier this month that revealed Clinton had relied on others' judgment to not send her classified material during email correspondences.

"Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system," the FBI said in its Sept. 2 report. "She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #14 

Obama lies (again) -- new details confirm $400 Million payoff to Iran was indeed "hostage ransom"

Tyler Durden (ZeroHedge) says that for the self-described "most transparent administration ever" it appears keeping the lies straight is becoming harder and harder. Having slammed the press, Donald Trump, and anyone who dare mention the "lack of logic" in paying a $400 million ransom for 4 Iran hostages, WSJ reports that Treasury officials have confirmed that Obama lied and in fact, the tightly scripted exchange of cash was specifically timed to the release of several American prisoners held in Iran. Trump was right again.

As a reminder, The Hill reported that, Barack Obama chastised the press for their coverage of the payment, noting that the deal with Iran was announced months ago as part of a larger diplomatic settlement.

"This wasn't some nefarious deal," Obama said.

"It's been interesting to watch this story surface," Obama said. "Some of you may recall, we announced these payments in January. Many months ago. There wasn't a secret, we announced them to all of you."

"What we have is the manufacturing of outrage on a story that we disclosed in January," he added later.

"The notion that we would somehow start now in this high-profile way, and announce it to the world, even as we're looking in the faces of other families whose loved ones are being held hostage and say to them, 'we don't pay ransom,' defies logic," Obama said.

Defies logic indeed -- because having slammed the press for suggesting this was a "ransom payment," we discover that is exactly what The Justice Department warned...

[20160812_oops_0]

In his remarks, Obama didn't mention the objections raised by his own appointees within the Justice Department, where, according to people familiar with the discussions, many officials raised alarms that the timing of the cash payment would look like ransom. (via WSJ)

The head of the national security division at the Justice Department was among the agency's senior officials who objected to paying Iran hundreds of millions of dollars in cash at the same time that Tehran was releasing American prisoners, according to people familiar with the discussions.

John Carlin, a Senate-confirmed administration appointee, raised concerns when the State Department notified Justice officials of its plan to deliver to Iran a planeful of cash, saying it would be viewed as a ransom payment, these people said. A number of other high-ranking Justice officials voiced similar concerns as the negotiations proceeded, they said.

The U.S. paid Iran $400 million in cash on Jan. 17 as part of a larger $1.7 billion settlement of a failed 1979 arms deal between the U.S. and Iran that was announced that day. Also on that day, Iran released four detained Americans in exchange for the U.S.'s releasing from prison -- or dropping charges against -- Iranians charged with violating sanctions laws. U.S. officials have said the swap was agreed upon in separate talks.

The objection of senior Justice Department officials was that Iranian officials were likely to view the $400 million payment as ransom, thereby undercutting a longstanding U.S. policy that the government doesn't pay ransom for American hostages, these people said. The policy is based on a concern that paying ransom could encourage more Americans to become targets for hostage-takers.

Of course, the denials kept on coming from The White House. However, as The Wall Street Journal now reports, new details of the $400 million U.S. payment to Iran earlier this year depict a tightly scripted exchange specifically timed to the release of several American prisoners held in Iran, based on accounts from U.S. officials and others briefed on the operation...

U.S. officials wouldn't let Iranians take control of the money until a Swiss Air Force plane carrying three freed Americans departed from Tehran on Jan. 17, the officials said.

Once that happened, an Iranian cargo plane was allowed to bring the cash back from a Geneva airport that day, according to the accounts.

President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials have said the payment didn't amount to ransom, because the money was owed by the U.S. to Iran as part of a longstanding dispute linked to a failed arms deal from the 1970s. U.S. officials have said that the prisoner release and cash transfer took place through two separate diplomatic channels.

But the handling of the payment and its connection to the release of the Americans have raised questions among lawmakers and administration critics.

...

One of the Americans released in January as part of the prisoner exchange, a Catholic pastor named Saeed Abedini, said he and other American prisoners were kept waiting at Mehrabad airport for more than 20 hours from Jan. 16 to the morning of Jan. 17.

He said in an interview that he was told by a senior Iranian intelligence official at the time that their departure was contingent upon the movements of a second airplane.

Just as Trump had suggested (before oddly retracting his suggestion), the exchange did take place and as the BBC reported. a video did indeed exist of the events, referring to a documentary called "The Rules of the Game" which was broadcast on Iranian state TV in February. In the clip, one can see shots of an airport are accompanied by commentary which references 17 January in Tehran's Mehrabad Airport.

Specifically, the video shows a loaded crate, partially blurred out, which allegedly shows the money in question.

[iran-cash-1_0]

[iran-cash-3_0]

And another version:

A translation of the commentary with the pictures, per BBC, reads as follows.

"Early hours of 17 January 2016, Mehrabad Airport (Tehran), $400m cash was transported to Iran by an airplane.

"A little bit later, part of the interest money was also paid to Iran, and the US government made a commitment to pay the rest of Iran's money."

While it is not clear if this is intended to be a literal description or whether the shots are just general views of the airport.

The video is shown below, and the pettets of cash appear at the 11:00 mark.

The video It can also be found on YouTube, and was also hosted and discussed by MEMRI tv at one point, and was also in a BBC Journalist twitter feed.  Here are the links to the short and the full version of the Iranian Documentary. Finally here is another version.

It is unclear where Donald Trump might have caught the clip of the video, and whether or not the cash disclosed is what Iran claims it is (in light of the WSJ revelations it is very likely that this is indeed the alleged payment in question) but the footage was widely discussed several months ago when the hostages were released.  The Iranian TV ran it with a title "The Rules of The Game." It was released on BBC TV during a segment discussing the release of the prisoners.

In other words, it did exist.  

*  *  *

So to summarize - Obama lied; the administration did indeed make a $400 million in exchange for the release of four hostages (if it walks like a ransom, and talks like a ransom, it is a ransom), and Trump was right.

Finally, this is far from over, as The Wall Street Journal concludes, Republican lawmakers have charged that the $400 million payment equated to a ransom paid by the White House to gain the release of the Americans.

Republican leaders said they are preparing to hold hearings on the $400 million transfer once Congress returns from its summer break in September. Rep. Sean Duffy (R., Wis.), chairman of a House investigative body, sent letters to the Justice and Treasury Departments, as well as the Federal Reserve, on Aug. 10 requesting all records related to the Iran exchange.

Mr. Duffy asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to identify all "persons within the Department authorizing or otherwise taking steps to carry out the payment."

Obama administration officials have confirmed that they have paid the remaining $1.3 billion to Iran as part of the settlement reached in January on the failed arms deal. This marked the interest accrued over the past 37 years on the original $400 million paid by Iran. U.S. officials, however, have refused to disclose how the Obama administration made this additional payment. Lawmakers are seeking to determine whether this money was also paid in cash or if the Treasury Department was able to wire it electronically.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #15 

Obama says "honesty is absolutely necessary" when you are president

Ha, hah, hah! Obama even lies to himself.

"I actually believe my own bullshit" -- Barack Obama as quoted in Renegade.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #16 

White House justifies Obama’s lie about ease of buying guns

Justin Koski (WesternJournalism) is reporting that during last week’s Dallas police officer memorial, Barack Obama again claimed it was easier to get a gun than a book. He said:

"We flood communities with so many guns that is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book."

Just who is this "we" that Obama keeps referring to?

And if Obama wants to improve the schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods, he needs to reform the National Teachers Association, the union that has a stranglehold on public education.

The United States spends a ton on education -- almost $12,000 per student for elementary/secondary education.

The National Center for Education Statistics reports that in 2012, the United States spent $11,700 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on elementary/secondary education, which was 31 percent higher than the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of $9,000. At the postsecondary level, the United States spent $26,600 per FTE student, which was 79 percent higher than the OECD average of $14,800.

The answer to the problems in "disadvantaged" neighborhoods is to restore the black family. Children need to be raised by a mother and a father, not a village. It's clear that "the village" is failing miserably.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #17 

5 Big lies in Obama's Dallas memorial speech

pic846.jpg
The biggest lie in Obama's Dallas speech

Investor's Business Daily is reporting that in his memorial service speech in Dallas, Barack Obama took the opportunity to bash the country he leads, rattling off several supposed failings to explain unrest among blacks. In doing so, he peddled some blatant falsehoods.

In the speech, Obama tried to explain why it is that there's so much tension between blacks and the police these days (without, of course, mentioning his own role in fomenting those tensions). Here's what Obama said:

"That so much of the tensions between police departments and minority communities that they serve is because we ask the police to do too much and we ask too little of ourselves. As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book. ... We know these things to be true."

Actually not one of those things is true.

Underinvest in decent schools?

Government spending on elementary and secondary education has steadily increased from already high levels. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, real spending per pupil climbed roughly 5% from 2002 to 2013 -- to an average of more than $11,000 per student. New York City spends more than $20,000 per pupil, Philadelphia, $19,000.

In any case, money isn't the same as quality. Texas spends less on education than California but gets far better results. The problem isn't that schools are underfunded, the problem is too much bureaucracy, too little competition, powerful unions that oppose change, and lack of accountability.

Allow poverty to fester?

 The federal government spends more than half a trillion a year on "income security" programs -- food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing and the like. This year, outlays will total $525 billion, according to Obama's Office of Management and Budget. That's up 24% since 2008. If poverty is festering, it isn't for lack of taxpayer money.

Refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs? 

Federal spending on drug treatment programs has more than doubled since Obama took office, going from $14.8 billion to $30.6 billion

As far as mental health programs go, a recent Government Accountability Office report found 112 programs -- spread across eight federal agencies --- that provide mental health services.

Just four of these agencies report that they spent "about $5.7 billion for programs that specifically targeted individuals with serious mental illness in fiscal year 2013."

How exactly does this constitute "refusing to fund" these programs?

Flood communities with guns?

Economist Mark Perry notes that there's an inverse relation between gun ownership and homicides.

"The gun-related homicide rate of 3.6 deaths per 100,000 population in each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2013 makes those recent years the safest in at least 20 years, and possibly the safest in modern U.S. history." Yet gun ownership rates soared 50% from 1993 to 2013.

Easier to buy a Glock than a book?

Obama has been using this line for a while now, but he never cites a source. Probably because it makes no sense. It's illegal for anyone under 18 to own a gun, which means a teen would have to buy one on the black market, where they will cost something like $1,500. A school textbook? Books are easily available at libraries and textbooks are distributed free at schools. Meanwhile, a decent laptop at a local Best Buy sells for half the price of a legally bought Glock.

Immediately after making these blatantly false claims, Obama said "if we cannot talk honestly and openly (about these things), then we will never break this dangerous cycle."

He's right about that. But he should be pointing the finger of blame at himself, not the rest of us.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #18 

Obama says he has no idea why a racist anti-white black power activist killed 5 cops in Dallas

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Barack Obama told NATO reporters on Saturday he has NO IDEA why racist Black Power activist Micah Johnson gunned down five police officers at a Dallas Black Lives matter protest.

It has been widely reported that Micah Johnson told police he supported Black Lives Matter and he wanted to murder white people. Dallas Police Chief Brown said:

"He was upset about Black Lives Matter. He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers."

But Obama says he is completely blank on why Micah slaughtered 5 policemen and wounded 7 civilians.

"First of all, I think it’s very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter."

What a crock of crap.

The pejorative, "racist," is probably the most overused word in the language, but when a person says he wants to do harm or wishes harm on a person because of their race or ethnicity they have to be publicly tarred as a racist.

Barack Obama has, like most liberal-progressives, a world view that only certain people are racists -- whether they are or not.

Barack Obama is not an honest man.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #19 

Obama's ISIS lies exposed

pic606.jpg

Ari Lieberman (FrontPage) says the Radical-in-Chief's rosy fairy tales are contradicted by his own CIA director -- and the undeniable facts.

Orlando's Pulse nightclub terror attack will go down in U.S. history as the single largest case of mass slaughter ever conducted by a lone gunman in the nation's 240-year history. Barack Obama's shameful but predictable response to the carnage can best be characterized as deceitful spin involving a two-part strategy of obfuscation.

The first part involves deflection. Divert America's attention from the main culprit -- Islamic terrorism -- to forwarding dual strawman/red herring arguments designed to confuse and mislead. By doing so, he hoped to draw America's attention away from his own flawed foreign and domestic policies which enabled the ISIS-inspired Muslim terrorist to commit mass slaughter.

Obama cleverly but disingenuously framed the issue as a gun control matter, cynically exploiting the tragedy to advance his agenda for further eroding Second Amendment rights. In his eyes, it was the AR-15 sporting rifle (which turned out not to be the gun that was actually employed) and the National Rifle Association that bore direct responsibility for the killings. He then referred to the carnage as a "hate crime" directed against the gay community, completely glossing over the central role played by a malevolent political ideology that seeks to dominate and impose Sharia law on the West.

In fact, Omar Mateen never expressed anti-gay animus during his 911 rants to police though he did express disdain for U.S. foreign policies and unambiguously professed his Islamic leanings and allegiance to the Islamic State. Moreover, he scouted other locations, having no nexus with the LGBT community, before finally settling on the Pulse nightclub to execute his diabolical plans. Perhaps he did so because he was familiar with the club's layout, having been there on multiple prior occasions as a patron. Or perhaps he viewed it a soft target in which he could easily inflict mass carnage. No one will know for certain why he chose Pulse but Obama has already set the agenda and charted a course for its trajectory. That trajectory places Americans on a thought process that deliberately diverts attention away from the main causes and culprits.

Taking cue from her boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed to release a sanitized transcript of the exchanges between Mateen and police. References to the terrorist's Islamist proclivities and revulsion of the West were to have been redacted with the aim of adding a further layer of opaqueness to confuse the public but public outcry forced a stunning reversal of that decision. 

For those still unconvinced by the White House's blatantly transparent pivoting techniques, Obama has adopted his fallback position -- lie to the American People. Immediately following the Orlando attack, Obama, echoing past claims, alleged that ISIS was on the defensive and that the U.S. was mustering all its resources to wipe the terrorist group off the face of the earth. Again, Obama spins a web of lies from a kernel of truth.

While it is true that ISIS has suffered reversals in Syria and Iraq in recent months, the group still maintains a sizable force in that region of between 18,000 to 22,000 fighters. The terrorist group has also succeeded in establishing a sizable presence in Libya, just beneath the soft underbelly of southern Europe and its malign influence continues to spread in Nigeria, Egypt and elsewhere. Meanwhile, Arab and Muslim migrants from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and North Africa, a disproportionate number of them young males, continue to stream into Western Europe. No one knows precisely how many among the migrants are operating as sleeper cells but it is confirmed that at least two of the Paris gunmen, who murdered 130 people, disguised themselves as "refugees."

Obama's policy of utilizing pinprick airstrikes against ISIS targets represents but a fraction of the havoc capable of being brought to bear against the terror group if the U.S. chose to employ readily available resources. Instead, the administration has stumbled and stammered throughout its campaign against ISIS, vacillating between denial of the emerging ISIS threat and halting use of resources to engage the enemy.

American intelligence had correctly assessed the international threat posed by ISIS many months before the group turned into the menace that it is today. But Obama cast aside those assessments and dismissively referred to the group as the "JV team." Following the Paris attacks, Obama absurdly referred to the massacre as a mere "setback," outraging allies and opponents alike. And after the Hypercacher slaughter, he referred to the Jewish victims murdered in the kosher supermarket as "folks in a deli" who were "randomly" shot by "zealots." The fact that Muslims had carried out a massacre against Jews wasn't important enough to note. Time and again, he has misjudged, mischaracterized and mismanaged the conflict against Islamic terrorism, refusing to even employ the term!

Moreover, Obama's own CIA director, John Brennan, flatly contradicted his boss's rosy outlook. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee just after the Orlando attack, Brennan noted that "despite all our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach." The director and his boss are not seeing eye-to-eye on matters of grave concern to the American public.

Obama needs to focus his attention on securing the broken border and improving border controls while at the same time, ramping up attacks against ISIS and doing more to assist regional allies. Had he acted sooner and with vigilance, ISIS could have been neutered before it metastasized and attacks witnessed in both Europe and the United States could have been thwarted. Moreover, if the administration had been doing its job properly, people like Tashfeen Malik, who together with her husband murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, would never have passed border controls and would have been promptly sent back on a one-way ticket to Pakistan.

But the Obama administration has learned nothing from the lessons of recent terror attacks and continues with the policies of deflection and obfuscation. FPM's Robert Spencer recently authored a piece highlighting some very disconcerting events unfolding along the Mexican border that underscore the seriousness and imminence of the Islamic terror threat. Narco-terrorists and Islamists have partnered in an effort to cause immeasurable harm to America's citizens. In the most recent incident, an "Islamic refugee," pulled over during a routine traffic stop in Luna County, New Mexico was found to be "in possession of the region's gas pipeline plans."

In the words of some of his top advisers and shills, Obama will continue to rely on the "stupidity of the American voter" and will continue to create "echo chamber[s]" designed to further advance false narratives that deflect and obfuscate. Meanwhile, our border remains dangerously porous and Islamic terror continues to take its toll on innocent civilians. 



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #20 

Who you gonna believe?

Obama says ISIL ranks are shrinking and morale sinking:

But his CIA director just now warned that ISIS's terror capability has not been diminished despite battle losses. The director of the CIA warned:

"ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could attack in the West and is continuing to inspire sympathizers with no 'direct links' to ISIS to attack on their own as it did in Orlando."

CIA Director John Brennan just told the Senate Intelligence Committee that: 

"We judge that ISIL is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks. ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West. And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel."

Brennan also says despite all the efforts by the U.S. against ISIS, it has not stopped the group.

"Unfortunately, despite all our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach. The resources needed for terrorism are very modest, and the group would have to suffer even heavier losses of territory, manpower and money for its terrorist capacity to decline significantly. In fact, as the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda."

But what will blow your mind, is that Director Brennan's solution to the ISIS threat is "more diversity" -- translation: we need more Muslims in our intelligence community:


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #21 

White House claims "executive privilege" -- won't let top aide testify in front of Congress

Nicole Haas (BizPacReview) says there are lies, and then there are White House lies.

In what appears to be an effort to protect Barack Obama and his Iranian nukes deal, the White House will not allow senior advisor Ben Rhodes to testify before the House on the Iran Nuclear Deal.

pic223.jpg

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has launched a fierce investigation into the behind-the-scenes events that led to the Iran Deal after Rhodes essentially admitted that the White House manipulated the press to get the deal done.

During an interview with the New York Times, Rhodes bragged the White House had deceived the public, by creating an "echo chamber" to distribute a false narrative surrounding the deal.

As of Monday afternoon, Chaffetz was planning on Rhodes testifying before the House on Tuesday at the "White House narratives on the Iran Nuclear Deal."

Late Monday, Chaffetz got word from the White House that Rhodes would not be attending, citing what appeared to be an executive privilege-related claim, Fox News reported.  Rhodes' appearance "threatens the independence and autonomy of the President, as well as his ability to receive candid advice and counsel." For those reasons, W. Neil Eggleston, White House counsel continued, "we will not make Mr. Rhodes available to testify."

Rhodes may get out of testifying, but three Sens. Mark Kirk, R- Ill, John Coryn, R- Texas, and John Barrasso, R- Wyo, are keeping the pressure on.

"We are deeply disturbed to read … Rhodes's public admission to The New York Times that he spearheaded the charge to mislead elected lawmakers and the American people about the Iran nuclear deal and the negotiations that led to this agreement," the senators wrote in a letter sent to Obama Monday, The Hill reported.

The senators are pressing the president to "dismiss Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes before he further tarnishes the office of president."

Given Rhodes' "executive privilege" to get out of testifying, his firing seems highly unlikely.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #22 

Democrat Rep says Obama is lying!

Seth Moulton was interviewed on "The Lead by Jake Tapper" and called out Obama’s lie about the Iraq mission.

pic187.jpg

Democrat Rep. Seth Moulton says, "We need to have a clear mission for the troops, a clear end game and then a strategy to maintain the peace once we defeat this terrorist group. We already fought these same battles against Al Qaeda but when we pulled out of Iraq so quickly, the diplomats, people working in the prime minister’s office, the Iraqi government went off the rails and created a political vacuum that ISIS came in to occupy. We cannot keep repeating this mistake in Iraq going back again and again and again."

CNN’s Jake Tapper: "There are more than 4,000 military personnel in Iraq right now but the White House argues this is not a combat mission. Do you think that the Obama Administration is misleading the American public?"

Democrat Rep. Seth Moulton: "That’s just simply not true. This absolutely is a combat mission. In 2004, I had an advisory mission as a Marine with my platoon in Iraq. We were advisers to an Iraqi unit, and when that Iraqi unit started to get overrun, we went to their assistance and started the Battle of Najaf, which was some of the fiercest fighting of the war."

Moulton said there is a very fine line between an advisory mission and combat, "and it’s very clear from the death of the Navy SEAL just last week that this is absolutely a combat mission."

The congressman was referring to Navy SEAL Charlie Keating IV, who was killed last week when ISIS fighters attacked Kurdish Peshmerga forces he was advising.

Moulton said he was not sure why the administration refuses to say any soldiers in Iraq are in a combat role and criticized Obama’s handling of ISIS.

"This is a president who promised to get us out of Iraq and then promised to use the tools of diplomacy to prevent wars from happening and that just hasn’t happened," Moulton told Tapper. "Our solution, our strategy is to train Iraqi troops. Well, you don’t fix Iraqi politics by training Iraqi troops. And Iraqi politics are broken. That’s the fundamental problem in Iraq that we need to fix."

Tapper noted at the start of the interview that Moulton tweeted a photo last week of himself in uniform with a counterpart in the Iraqi Army, who was killed by ISIS fighters.

"Yesterday I lost my closest friend in the Iraqi Army to ISIS and our failed policy in Iraq," the tweet says.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #23 

Watch Obama's speech writers laugh about writing the "lie of the year"

Aleister (ProgressivesToday) is reporting that three of Obama's speech writers recently appeared on the Charlie Rose show and actually laughed when they talked about the lies they wrote for him.

This is absolutely stunning.

NewsBusters provides a transcript:

On Monday's edition of PBS's Charlie Rose show the host invited on former Obama speechwriters David Litt, Jon Favreau and Jon Lovett to wax fondly about Obama's "great" communication skills when it came to delivering both serious speeches and funny lines. When Lovett, now a writer in Hollywood, told Rose he was most proud of the "serious speeches" on the economy and health care, Favreau jokingly jabbed that Lovett was responsible for the now infamous lie about keeping your health insurance plan. Rose and the entire panel cracked up at the line.

CHARLIE ROSE: My point is do you have equal impact on serious speeches? Because it's about style, use of language, etcetera?

JON LOVETT, FORMER OBAMA SPEECH WRITER: I really like, I was very — the joke speeches is the most fun part of this. But the things I'm the most proud of were the most serious speeches, I think. Health care, economic speeches.

JON FAVREAU (former Obama speechwriter): Lovett wrote the line about "If you like your insurance, you can keep it."

LOVETT: How dare you!

[laughter]

LOVETT: And you know what? It's still true! No.

Watch the video:

Millions of Americans lost their health plans and doctors under ObamaCare and these guys think it’s funny that they and Obama lied to the American people about it.

Their arrogance and disdain for the American people is overwhelming.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #24 

Obama's foreign policy guru boasts of how Team Obama lied to sell the Iran deal

pic104.jpg
Rhodes was also responsible for the Benghazi talking points blaming a YouTube video 

Lee Smith (WeeklyStandard) says it’s hardly any wonder that Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has a "mind meld" with his boss, the president. According to a David Samuels New York Times Magazine article to be published Sunday and already posted to the website, Rhodes, like Barack Obama, is contemptuous of "the American foreign-policy establishment." What Obama calls the "Washington playbook" dictating the sorts of responses available to American policymakers, Rhodes calls the "Blob."

The Blob includes "editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker," etc. It also encompasses, according to Rhodes, Obama's former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and the administration's first defense secretary Robert Gates. Presumably Leon Panetta, former Pentagon chief and CIA director, who goes on the record to criticize Rhodes and the president, is also part of the Blob, alongside "other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East." In other words, the emotion driving the administration's foreign policy is contempt -- contempt for allies, colleagues, and the generations of American policymakers who built the post-WWII international order, ensuring relative global stability, and peace and prosperity at home.

Samuels's profile is an amazing piece of writing about the Holden Caulfield of American foreign policy. He's a sentimental adolescent with literary talent (Rhodes published one short story before his mother's connections won him a job in the world of foreign policy), and high self regard, who thinks that everyone else is a phony. Those readers who found Jeffrey Goldberg's picture of Obama in his March Atlantic profile refreshing for the president's willingness to insult American allies publicly will be similarly cheered here by Rhodes's boast of deceiving American citizens, lawmakers, and allies over the Iran deal. Conversely, those who believe Obama risked American interests to take a cheap shot at allies from the pedestal of the Oval Office will be appalled to see Rhodes dancing in the end zone to celebrate the well-packaged misdirections and even lies -- what Rhodes and others call a "narrative" -- that won Obama his signature foreign policy initiative.

"Like Obama," writes Samuels:

Rhodes is a storyteller who uses a writer's tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal. He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts and motivations supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials. He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama's foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the traditional press.

As Rhodes admits, it's not that hard to shape the narrative. "All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes said. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."

In Rhodes's "narrative" about the Iran deal, negotiations started when the ostensibly moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected president, providing an opening for the administration to reach out in friendship. In reality, as Samuels gets administration officials to admit, negotiations began when "hardliner" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still president. It was Rhodes who framed the Iran deal as a choice between peace and war, and it was Rhodes who set up a messaging unit to sell the deal that created an "echo chamber" in the press. "[Al Monitor reporter] Laura Rozen was my RSS feed," says Tanya Somanader, the 31-year-old who managed @TheIranDeal twitter feed. "She would just find everything and retweet it."

"In the spring of last year," Samuels writes:

legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. "We created an echo chamber," [Rhodes] admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. "They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say."

When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America's future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. "In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this," he said. "We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked." He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. "We drove them crazy," he said of the deal's opponents.

It’s hardly any wonder that Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has a "mind meld" with his boss, the president. According to a David Samuels New York Times Magazine article to be published Sunday and already posted to the website, Rhodes, like Barack Obama, is contemptuous of "the American foreign-policy establishment." What Obama calls the "Washington playbook" dictating the sorts of responses available to American policymakers, Rhodes calls the "Blob."

The Blob includes "editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker," etc. It also encompasses, according to Rhodes, Obama's former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and the administration's first defense secretary Robert Gates. Presumably Leon Panetta, former Pentagon chief and CIA director, who goes on the record to criticize Rhodes and the president, is also part of the Blob, alongside "other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East." In other words, the emotion driving the administration's foreign policy is contempt -- contempt for allies, colleagues, and the generations of American policymakers who built the post-WWII international order, ensuring relative global stability, and peace and prosperity at home.

Samuels's profile is an amazing piece of writing about the Holden Caulfield of American foreign policy. He's a sentimental adolescent with literary talent (Rhodes published one short story before his mother's connections won him a job in the world of foreign policy), and high self regard, who thinks that everyone else is a phony. Those readers who found Jeffrey Goldberg's picture of Obama in his March Atlantic profile refreshing for the president's willingness to insult American allies publicly will be similarly cheered here by Rhodes's boast of deceiving American citizens, lawmakers, and allies over the Iran deal. Conversely, those who believe Obama risked American interests to take a cheap shot at allies from the pedestal of the Oval Office will be appalled to see Rhodes dancing in the end zone to celebrate the well-packaged misdirections and even lies -- what Rhodes and others call a "narrative" -- that won Obama his signature foreign policy initiative.

"Like Obama," writes Samuels:

Rhodes is a storyteller who uses a writer's tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal. He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts and motivations supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials. He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama's foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the traditional press.

As Rhodes admits, it's not that hard to shape the narrative. "All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes said. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."

In Rhodes's "narrative" about the Iran deal, negotiations started when the ostensibly moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected president, providing an opening for the administration to reach out in friendship. In reality, as Samuels gets administration officials to admit, negotiations began when "hardliner" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still president. It was Rhodes who framed the Iran deal as a choice between peace and war, and it was Rhodes who set up a messaging unit to sell the deal that created an "echo chamber" in the press. "[Al Monitor reporter] Laura Rozen was my RSS feed," says Tanya Somanader, the 31-year-old who managed @TheIranDeal twitter feed. "She would just find everything and retweet it."

"In the spring of last year," Samuels writes:

Legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. "We created an echo chamber," [Rhodes] admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. "They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say."

When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America's future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. "In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this," he said. "We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked." He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. "We drove them crazy," he said of the deal's opponents.

It's not clear whether or not Panetta supported the deal, but he admits he was wrong about Obama's willingness to take all measures to stop Iran from getting a bomb.

As secretary of defense, he tells me, one of his most important jobs was keeping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, from launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. "They were both interested in the answer to the question, 'Is the president serious?' " Panetta recalls. "And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they're developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen."

Panetta stops.

"But would you make that same assessment now?" I ask him.

"Would I make that same assessment now?" he asks. "Probably not."

Rhodes tells Samuels that Don DeLillo is his favorite novelist. "That's the only person I can think of who has confronted these questions of, you know, the individual who finds himself negotiating both vast currents of history and a very specific kind of power dynamics," he tells Samuels. "And that's what it's like to work in the U.S. foreign-policy apparatus in 2016."

So that's it. For the last seven years the American public has been living through a postmodern narrative crafted by an extremely gifted and unspeakably cynical political operative whose job is to wage digital information campaigns designed to dismantle a several-decade old security architecture while lying about the nature of the Iranian regime. No wonder Americans feel less safe -- they are.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #25 

State Department tries to deny "no boots on the ground" pledge

Keith Koffler (WhiteHouseDossier) says even for Team Obama, this one takes the cake.

State Department spokesman John Kirby Monday said to an astonished Matt Lee of the Associated Press that the administration has not been saying there would be "no boots on the ground" in places like Syria in Iraq.

This after Barack Obama announced Monday that 250 special operations troops would be hitting the ground in Syria during the next several weeks.

Maybe they will not be wearing boots. Maybe Obama is having them don ballet slippers as part of the restricted rules of engagement.

Lee: For months and months and months, the mantra from the president and everyone else in the administration has been, "No boots on the ground," and now —

Kirby: No, that is not true.

Lee: What?

Kirby: It's just not true, Matt.

Lee: It is. It's true!

Kirby: No it's not. I just flatly, absolutely disagree with you.

At another point, Kirby claimed, "There was never this, ‘No boots on the ground.' I don't know where this keeps coming from."

Well, here's where it keeps coming from:


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved