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

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 16      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #26 

Obama argues he’s done more to fight terrorism than other presidents


Bridget Johnson (PJMedia) is reporting that Barack Obama pushed back against criticism of how he’s handled terrorism during his tenure by arguing “there isn’t a president who’s taken more terrorists off the field than me.”

In an interview aired this morning on Fox, host Chris Wallace asked Obama about a recent interview with The Atlantic in which the writer notes that Obama frequently reminds his staff "terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do."

"I don’t think we make too big of a deal of the terror threat. My number one job is to protect the American people. My number one priority right now is defeating ISIL. My number one priority throughout my presidency has been going after terrorist networks that would attempt to do harm to Americans inside or outside of America," Obama responded.

"So what's you're point?" Wallace asked.

"My point is that, how we do it is important, that we have to make sure that we abide by our laws. We have to make sure that we abide by our values. And we have to make sure that what we do doesn't end up being counterproductive," Obama said, singling out Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) carpet bombing comments and Donald Trump's Muslim ban.

Wallace noted that "bathtub manufacturers aren't trying to kill us, and they're not trying to up the body count -- I think it's fair to say that some of the sharpest criticism of you, from both sides during your presidency, has been the way that you've responded -- personally, not necessarily in policy -- to terror attacks."

"After James Foley was beheaded, you went out and played golf. After Paris, you said it was a setback," the Fox News Sunday host said. "After San Bernardino, you talked about gun control. And some people wonder, I think the concern is, do you worry about terrorism and feel the threat of terrorism the way they do?"

Obama noted that he's "the guy who calls the families, or meets with them, or hugs them, or tries to comfort a mom, or a dad, or a husband, or a kid, after a terrorist attack."

True to form, Obama creates a platoon of straw men and compares oranges to baseball bats and wraps them all up in his usual bullshit.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #27 

Obama lied -- $750 million in taxpayer-funded ObamaCare subsidies went to illegals in 2015

Katie Pavlich (Townhall) reminds us of this moment from 2009 when Barack Obama was trying to reassure Americans that Obamacare would not benefit illegal immigrants?

"There are also those that claim our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This too, is false. The reforms I am proposing do not apply to those who are here illegally," Obama said.

"You lie!" South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson shouted out.

Well, it turns out Congressman Wilson was absolutely correct. According to a new report, illegal immigrants received nearly a billion dollars in ObamaCare subsidies last year, a far cry from being barred from using the government healthcare program.

Illegal immigrants and individuals with unclear legal status wrongly benefited from up to $750 million in ObamaCare subsidies and the government is struggling to recoup the money, according to a new Senate report obtained by Fox News.

The report, produced by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, examined Affordable Care Act tax credits meant to defray the cost of insurance premiums. It found that as of June 2015, "the Administration awarded approximately $750 million in tax credits on behalf of individuals who were later determined to be ineligible because they failed to verify their citizenship, status as a national, or legal presence."

The review found the credits went to more than 500,000 people -- who are illegal immigrants or whose legal status was unclear due to insufficient records.

Keep working America, bloated and irresponsible bureaucracy depends on it, as do those who are in the country illegally.

On another note, not only are illegal immigrants obtaining hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the form of ObamaCare subsidies, they're also voting in elections.

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

Posts: 100
Reply with quote  #28 
You would also have to believe that as Secretary of State for four years Mrs Clinton never sent or received classified emails since she never used a .gov address.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #29 

Report proves Obama lied about his knowledge of Clinton's personal email


Aurelius (IOTW) is reporting that according to a new report from the New York Times, the State Department announced that 18 emails between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will be withheld from release to the public. These emails "had been sent through Hillary Clinton's private computer server" on her private email.

The report from the Times did not make the connection that Obama had lied. However, IOTW Report has found that this revelation proves that Obama lied about how he gained knowledge of Hillary Clinton's server. According to CBS News, Obama stated that he had no knowledge of Clinton's server during her time as Secretary of State.

Further, when asked directly by 60 Minutes, Obama again denied any knowledge of it at all.

"Did you know about Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server?" 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft asked Obama. "No," he responded. "While she was Secretary of State?" he pressed. "No," Obama again answered.

Obama continued, "I don't think it posed a national security problem. I think that it was a mistake that she has acknowledged."

Obama further argued that the issue was only a problem because Republicans are looking for a way to damage Hillary Clinton.

"I do think that the way it's been ginned-up is in part because of -- in part -- because of politics," he told Kroft. "And I think she'd be the first to acknowledge that maybe she could have handled the original decision better and the disclosures more quickly."

This was not the only time that Obama denied knowledge about Hillary's server. He also went so far as to say he did not even know about it before the general public. I learned about it "the same time everybody else learned it: through news reports," Obama told CBS in a separate interview.

Hillary Clinton's own campaign site even acknowledges that the people she emailed using her private server knew that she was using such a server.

To believe Obama, you also have to believe that in the four years that Hillary was Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary never sent Obama an email.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #30 

Stunning truth behind the capture of our U.S. sailors by Iran


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that the line we were fed by the government and the media about the capture of our U.S. sailors is unbelievable -- literally.  The media and the administration droned on with the message -- "mechanical failure" and "inadvertently drifted" and "boat in distress".

Boats don't drift 50 miles off course when one is capable of towing the other.

As John McCain said, "boats do not lose their sovereign immune status when they are in distress at sea."

The U.S. boats held and released by the Revolutionary Guard were deliberately taken. They were not spy ships and they are well-equipped with radar, GPS, and chart plotters as well as having a trained force to steer clear of Iranian waters.

If the force wasn't trained, it would be unheard of.

The Iranians took the ships GPS equipment so we can't prove they were in international waters. We already know our government lies about almost everything and we know they will do anything to get this Iranian nuclear deal.

How could these ships end up 50 miles off course? Anyone who has boated knows this is completely unreasonable.

These sailors were in hostile territory and they knew they had to avoid the Iranian waters. One boat was reported to have problems. Normally, the other boat would tow them, they would not look for safe harbor in Iran. Certainly they would not have entered these waters without both ships being in top condition.

That story wasn't working so our State Department came up with a new one, worse than the original. They admit the first story was false.

There was no engine failure, and the boats were never "in distress." Once the sailors were released, AP reported, "In Washington, a defense official said the Navy has ruled out engine or propulsion failure as the reason the boats entered Iranian waters."

Instead, said Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at a press conference Friday morning, the sailors "made a navigational error that mistakenly took them into Iranian territorial waters." He added that they "obviously had misnavigated" when, in the words of the New York Times, "they came within a few miles of Farsi Island, where Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps has a naval base.

They mis-navigated by 50 miles? Were they not trained? Didn't they use their chart plotters?

U.S. sailors frequently travel these waters. This was not a difficult trip navigationally.

They never sent an S.O.S. to say they mis-navigated.

We are being fed a pack of lies. The sailors never left international waters.

This took place immediately before the State of the Union.

It's very likely Iran planned this entire operation.

Our idiotic State Department went along with whatever the Iranians said. Nothing would stop this nuclear deal.

John Kerry thanked Iran for humiliating our sailors.


These sailors were completely humiliated. As Senator Royce told Bill Hemmer on America's Newsroom Thursday, the U.S. is being "rolled". This took place right after the Iranian Revolutionary Guards fired a rocket close to our U.S. carrier.

The Iranians continue with "this type of bad behavior", Royce said, "and we continue to retreat."

Senator Royce said Iran is emboldened and there has been "one dangerous and provocative act after another. Whether it's launching the ICBMS, whether it's taking an additional U.S. hostage which they did some weeks ago, whether it's this kind of activity…I believe they're messaging throughout the region just as they did when they said they were going to overthrow the government of Bahrain, overthrow the government of Saudi Arabia, they've already overthrown the government in Yemen…so, this kind of actions, conducted by the Ayatollah, the Revolutionary Guards forces are just beginning…"

When the Iranians shot rockets 1500 yards off our ships, our administration did nothing.

During the Green Movement, we did nothing, and "this tilt towards Iran has strengthened the Ayatollah," Royce said.

Retired Navy Captain Chuck Nash said exactly the same thing and more. He told Fox News anchor Martha McCallum that he believes Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made the decision to release the footage because the group detaining the sailors was the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which reports directly to Khamenei.

It wasn't simply the Iranian Navy which reports up a military chain of command. This decision to release the tape and take these guys was made by Khamenei himself and it was done intentionally.

Nash wants to know what kind of training the commander of our ships had because he should have been trained to steer clear of enemy forces. We don't know if he was under duress, however, Nash added.

The U.S. is trying to put lipstick on this pig by claiming that the nuclear deal enabled the U.S. to get these men back. Nash pushed back on that.

"This was done intentionally and it was done to further embarrass the United States" Nash said. "And to send the clear message to the Gulf Arabs: If the Americans won't stand up for themselves, they're certainly not going to stand up for you. We're the big dog now."

Under Obama, nearly every pronouncement that originates from within the bowels of the White House is dissimulation or an out-and-out lie.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #31 

Obama's 11 flat-out lies during his State of the Union address


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) says s with all his speeches, Barack Obama lied last evening during the State of the Union. It was a political charade, nothing more. We have 11 of the lies here.

1.Barack Obama insisted he wants civility in political discourse but continually attacked critics.


2. Obama bellowed that "anyone claiming America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction." The truth is the recovery has been extremely slow and wages have declined. Too many youth graduating from college can't find jobs.

3. We've protected the "open Internet" according to Obama, but Net Neutrality turned broadband into a public utility under heavy regulations. Investment has sharply declined.

4. Obama boasted of nearly 900,000 manufacturing jobs "in the past six years." Over his entire time in office, manufacturing jobs have gone down by 230,000.

5. Obama said the Affordable Care Act fills in the gaps in employer-based care so people can still have coverage when unemployed. In fact, the growth rate jumped in 2014, when the law's coverage provisions were implemented. The premiums and deductibles are so high, it's unaffordable for many.

6. ISIS isn't an existential threat according to Barack. However, there are thousands of ISIS sympathizers in the US. ISIS has issued a handbook, which is available in the refugee camps, that gives step-by-step instructions on how to wage chemical warfare.

7. Obama bragged about making "the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history." Solyndra is the most famous fiasco but there were many. Fracking is what led to the energy boom, not his investments. It's not wind and solar that are reducing gas emissions – they're hardly a blip. It's fracking of natural gas!

Research by Oren Cass of The Manhattan Institute revealed the real force behind reducing US greenhouse gas emissions and it is Fracking!

Solar represents less than 1% of US electricity generation. Wind and solar power combined generated less electricity in the first half of 2015 than in 2014 and the investment in the industry has been flat for five years domestically and internationally according to the Institute.

US greenhouse gas emissions have fallen a great deal since they peaked in 2007 but the biggest cause is the fracking-led natural gas boom. While solar reduced CO2 emissions by 1%, natural gas reduced it by 20%.

Growth in wind and solar power has consistently fallen since 2008. Global investment has declined as well.

8. "No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that's the path to ruin." He said this as ten Americans were held captive by Iranians. It's outrageous.

9. He said he attends his daily intelligence briefings but that's a lie. He allegedly gets them on his iPad.

10. He said that "Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, setting us back in Latin American." The Castros have no intention of abandoning communism and now they have our Hellfire missile.

11. Obama claimed he cut our deficits by almost three-quarters. He credits Bush with the Tarp, which he spent, and he cut from that year as if that was the amount Bush spent every year. He has also cut the INCREASE in spending under pressure during sequester. The 2015 budget was the only budget that cut the deficit. Because of his deficits each year, he has doubled the US debt.


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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #32 

One observer's view of Obama's State of the Union


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

Posts: 246
Reply with quote  #33 

Obama's executive order is based on a falsehood

Obama and his minions are lying and drastically misinformed. His executive order is based on a falsehood. I can't believe that ATF signed off on this deception. Buying a gun on the internet is almost an impossibility. You can "order" a gun on the internet but it must pass thru an FFL to take delivery. There is no gun auction site that I could find that allows you to buy and take delivery of a gun without passing thru an FFL and background check. It is so ridiculous for Obama to say that. Why? Because ATF would quickly flush out any such site and arrest the people involved. The felonistas would never buy that way because it would leave a trail a mile long.

You should also understand that "black powder" guns and rifles are not considered controlled firearms by ATF. Likewise heritage firearms and antique guns are also exempt. You can buy those on line or at gun shows without an FFL and background check.

I have never heard of a 7-11 robbery or mass murder shooting using black powder guns.

This is taken from -- "Can I buy here?"

You must register with us to bid on or sell items. Registration is safe, secure and private. We do not share your information to third parties unless you have given us your consent. Please read our Privacy Policy for full details.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own firearms, ammunition, knives, and gun accessories is allowed to buy or sell them here. It is your responsibility to be in compliance with all Federal, state, and local laws when using this site.

You do not have to be a licensed dealer to buy a firearm. If you are not a licensed firearm dealer (also called an FFL Holder), you must make arrangements with an FFL Holder in your state to receive the item and transfer it to you. Virtually anyone who is involved in the sale or distribution of firearms is an FFL Holder, including gun shops. You must make arrangements with your FFL Holder before placing a bid on an item. By contacting the FFL Holder before bidding, the buyer can verify that all state and federal laws will be observed. For most firearms, the buyer must be able to pass a background check. has compiled a list of FFL Holders who are willing to manage the legal transfer of firearms to unlicensed persons. Find a Transfer Dealer.

Non-firearm items, such as air guns, knives, ammunition, antique guns that were built in 1898 or earlier firearm accessories, and some gun parts do not require transfer by a licensed dealer. There are age restrictions on many of these items, and you will be asked to verify your age to the seller (typically by mailing a photocopy of your driver's license) before you can purchase the item. In general, you must be 18 years old to buy items on this site. (To buy Pistol ammunition, you must be at least 21 years old; at least 18 years old for Rifle ammunition.)

If you have any questions or doubts about whether an item can be shipped to you, please contact your local FFL Holder or send a message to the seller of the item by clicking on the "Ask seller a question" link located in each item listing.

International buyers: Be sure you get all your information on exporting and importing firearms to the United States.

**** Hillary=Obama 2.0 ****

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #34 

Obama told the American People a huge lie about buying guns online

Gina Cassini (Top Right News) is reporting that as part of his press conference justifying his outrageous and unconstitutional gun control actions today, Barack Obama told a whole lot of lies. Especially about Americans being safer, since criminals do not ever obey gun laws or restrictions.

However by far the biggest whopper is one he just told the American people, and then sent right out on Twitter.

Here’s what he said:


It took less than a minute for a Twitterstorm to erupt and expose the outrageous lie Obama had just told (click to enlarge -- "Esc" to return):


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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #35 

The year of the leftist liars


Thomas Sowell (FrontPage) asks, "how shall we remember 2015? Or shall we try to forget it?"

It is always hard to know when a turning point has been reached, and usually it is long afterwards before we recognize it. However, if 2015 has been a turning point, it may well have marked a turn in a downward direction for America and for Western civilization.

This was the year when we essentially let the world know that Barack Obama was giving up any effort to try to stop Iran -- the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism -- from getting a nuclear bomb. Surely it does not take much imagination to foresee what lies at the end of that road.

It will not matter if we have more nuclear bombs than they have, if they are willing to die and we are not. That can determine who surrenders. And ISIS and other terrorists have given us grisly demonstrations of what surrender would mean.

Putting aside, for the moment, the fateful question whether 2015 is a turning point, what do we see when we look back instead of looking forward? What characterizes the year that is now ending?

More than anything else, 2015 has been the year of the big lie. There have been lies in other years, and some of them pretty big, but even so 2015 has set new highs -- or new lows.

This is the year when we learned, from Hillary Clinton's own e-mails, after three long years of stalling, stone-walling and evasions, that Secretary of State Clinton lied, and so did Obama and others under him, when they all told us in 2012 that the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed the American ambassador and three other Americans was not a terrorist attack, but a protest demonstration that got out of hand.

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" as Mrs. Clinton later melodramatically cried out, at a Congressional committee hearing investigating that episode.

First of all, it made enough of a difference for some of the highest officials of American government to concoct a false story that they knew at the time was false.

It mattered enough that, if the truth had come out, on the eve of a presidential election, it could have destroyed Obama's happy tale of how he had dealt a crippling blow to terrorists by killing Osama bin Laden (with an assist from the Navy's SEALS).

Had Obama's lies about his triumph over terrorism been exposed on the eve of the election, that could have ended his stay in the White House.

And that could have spared us and the world many of Obama's disasters in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. That is why it matters, and will continue to matter in the future.

Lying, by itself, is obviously not new. What is new is the growing acceptance of lying as "no big deal" by smug sophisticates, so long as these are lies that advance their political causes. Many in the media greeted the exposure of Hillary Clinton's lies by admiring how well she handled herself.

Lies are a wall between us and reality -- and being walled off from reality is the biggest deal of all. Reality does not disappear because we don't see it. It just hits us like a ton of bricks when we least expect it.

The biggest lie of 2014 -- "Hands up, don't shoot" -- had its repercussions in 2015, with the open advocacy of the killing of policemen, in marches across the country. But the ambush killings of policemen that followed aroused no such outrage in the media as any police use of force against thugs.

Nor has there been the same outrage as the murder rate shot up when the police pulled back, as they have in the past, in the wake of being scapegoated by politicians and the media. Most of the people murdered have been black. But apparently these particular black lives don't matter much to activists and the media.

No one expects that lies will disappear from political rhetoric. If you took all the lies out of politics, how much would be left?

If there is anything that is bipartisan in Washington, it is lying. The most recent budget deal showed that Congressional Republicans lied wholesale when they said that they would defund Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, and other pet projects of the Democrats.

As for 2015, good riddance. We can only hope that people who vote in 2016 will have learned something from 2015's disasters.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #36 

What is it with Hillary's videos and Obama's cable TV remarks?


Dave King says that usually politicians are clever enough to discuss believable things that make their point or that endear them with the public, but in the case of Hillary and Obama they are stuck on dumb and dumber, each with their own favorite lying subjects. These two leaders of the Democrat party are repeat, proven, pathological liars, and while they lie about a wide range of subjects, Hillary is most fond of videos and Obama prefers Cable TV.

Hillary, who has a broad plateau of lies on her resume (White Water; Bimbo Gate; Cattle futures; emergency landing, under enemy fire, in Bosnia; receiving Top Secret emails on an unsecure server; only using one mobile device while Sec State) seems to favor referencing videos, one of which she lyingly says caused the Benghazi consulate attack and killings, and the other was about ISIS using Donald Trump's image to attract recruits to their murderous cause. Both video references are lies.  What is it that Hillary doesn't understand about going to the well one too many times?

And then we have Barack Obama, who lately likes to blame everything on cable TV. On one occasion he told an interviewer that he was unaware of a major event having taken place in his own administration until he saw it reported on TV. On another occasion, when he pretended to not understand how upset the public was about the Paris terrorist attacks last November, he said that he doesn't watch TV enough and was therefore uninformed of their concern about terrorism in general. And then most recently, when Obama learned that the American public is worried about the terrorist attack here at home in San Bernardino, and Obama's "What, Me Worry?" response to it, he blamed the public's concern for terrorism on cable TV's reporting of the news, thereby frightening the public unnecessarily, when most of us believe the reason for the press is actually to report the news as it happens.

Obama's resume of lies is so much larger than Hillary's that one would think he would have a wider range to select from and get off the Cable TV sticking point. GOTUS (Golfer of the United States) is good at lying, but terrible at deciding what to lie about.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #37 

Obama is breathtakingly dishonest about the released Guantanamo Bay terrorists

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #38 

Obama lies again -- this time about terrorists and guns


S. Noble is reporting that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked FBI Director James Comey about a number of methods and a number of procedures the FBI can and do take when someone on the no-fly list applies for a gun permit.

His answer and Chuck Grassley's follow up have to have Barack Obama fuming.

Obama said terrorists on the no-fly list are able to buy a gun and there is nothing the government can do -- and that is a very big lie.


Ted Kennedy, pictured above, is the only known person on the "terror watch list" to have ever killed anybody

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #39 

Obama Lackey, Ben Rhodes, spreads lies about vetting Syrian "refugees" on Sunday talk shows

Patrick Poole is reporting that in the wake of Friday's horrific terror attacks in Paris, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes was dispatched to the Sunday morning talk shows to spin his boss' claim the previous day that the ISIS threat had been "contained."

But he was also asked about the ability of the Obama administration to properly vet a wave of 10,000 Syrian refugees announced in September in light of reports that one or more of the Paris terrorists had entered and transited the EU as a Syrian refugee.

And yet Rhodes' response that measures to properly vet the Syrian refugees are in place flatly contradicts the recent sworn congressional testimony of FBI officials.

Rhodes appeared on CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper. It brought this exchange:

TAPPER:  I think there is a question about how good this intelligence apparatus is, Christiane Amanpour -- Christiane Amanpour reporting this morning that at least one of the terrorists, according to French authorities, seems to have smuggled himself into Europe by embedding with refugees.

Ben, are you confident enough in our vetting process as the United States brings Syrian refugees into our country to pledge that this will never happen here?

RHODES:  Well, first of all, Jake, the threat of foreign fighters has been front and center from the very beginning of this counter-ISIL campaign.  We have made that a focus, so that we're working with countries to share information, to improve their laws and authorities to be able to monitor and detain people.

And we're going to continue to do that.  That will be a focus of discussion here in Turkey.  With respect to refugees, we have the most extensive security vetting that we have ever had to deal with Syrian refugees coming into the United States that involves not just the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, but also our intelligence community, the National Counterterrorism Center, so that anybody who comes to the United States, we are carefully vetting against all of our information.

And let's not forget, Jake, that some of these people are people who have suffered the horrors of war.  They're women.  They're orphans.  They're children who have suffered at the hands of ISIL.  We cannot close our doors to these people.  We can focus on keeping terrorists out of the United States while having an open door to people who deserve a safe haven.

And when asked by Chuck Todd of NBC's Meet the Press about whether the developments in Paris had given Barack Obama pause on admitting more Syrian refugees, Rhodes replied:

No, Chuck. We have very extensive screening procedures for all Syrian refugees who come to the United States. There is a very careful vetting process that including our terrorism community, our Department of Homeland Security. Let's remember, Chuck, we're also dealing with people who suffer the horrors of war. Women and children, orphans. We can't just shut our doors to those people. We need to do our part to take refugees in need.

But as I reported here two weeks ago at PJ Media, FBI Director Robert Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee that vetting Syrian refugees will be "challenging" when asked by Rep. Louie Gohmert about the quality of intelligence and information that exists on Syrians:

Gohmert: Well, without a good fingerprint database, without good identification, how can you be sure that anyone is who they say they are if they don't have fingerprints to go against?

Comey: The only thing we can query is information that we have. So, if we have no information on someone, they've never crossed our radar screen, they've never been a ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there and so it will be challenging.

Those concerns echo congressional testimony given earlier this year by FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach to the House Homeland Security Committee about the quality of information available on anyone coming out of Syria:

The concern in Syria is that we don't have systems in places on the ground to collect information to vet…You're talking about a country that is a failed state, that does not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the datasets -- the police, the intel services that normally you would go to to seek information doesn't exist.

The FBI director was also asked by Rep. Gohmert during his testimony last month about the database the U.S. government maintained to screen Iraqi refugees, including an IED fingerprint database in addition to other intelligence obtained by U.S. forces and the Iraqi government -- considerably more extensive than anything the National Counterterrorism Center has for Syria.

And yet despite the extensive database screening Iraqi refugees, U.S. authorities have admitted that possibly dozens of terrorists were admitted into the U.S. under that program, including two Iraqi terrorists living in Bowling Green, Kentucky, who were convicted of attempting to send weapons and money to Iraqi terrorists.

Comey also said during a speech last month that the FBI has 900 active investigations on suspected ISIS supporters and other extremists.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #40 

Obama lied about Clinton emails during "60 Minute" interview


Tom Blumer is reporting that a Friday evening story at the New York Times covered the Obama administration's decision to "try to block the release of a handful of emails between Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton."

In it, reporters Michael D. Shear and Michael S. Schmidt demonstrated that Barack Obama undoubtedly did not tell the truth in his interview with CBS News's Steve Kroft in a 60 Minutes episode which aired on October 11.

In that interview, Obama had the following to say about his knowledge of Mrs. Clinton's private email server:

Steve Kroft: Did you know about Hillary Clinton's use of private email server--

Obama: No.

Steve Kroft: -- while she was Secretary of State?

Obama: No.

Steve Kroft: Do you think it posed a national security problem?

Obama: I don't think it posed a national security problem. I think that it was a mistake that she has acknowledged ...

Unfortunately for Obama, as the Times reported, the latest release of Hillary Clinton emails shows that the two corresponded via email. The State Department then gave the White House a heads-up before releasing them to congressional investigators, giving the administration the opportunity to quash their release:

Obama's direct correspondence with Mrs. Clinton was forwarded by the State Department to the White House, which has decided against release, a move likely to intensify the struggle between Mrs. Clinton and congressional Republicans, who have pressed for disclosure of her emails as part of an investigation into the administration's handling of the Benghazi events.

So how could Obama have answered "no" when CBS's Steve Kroft asked him "Did you know about Hillary Clinton's use of private email server?"

The pair of reporters at the Times acknowledged that Obama wasn't telling the truth, and then proceeded to trot out the following lame excuses from Obama's press secretary (HT Twitchy):

The contents of the emails between Mrs. Clinton, who is running for president, and Obama have not been disclosed, but their presumed existence has not been a secret. The White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, acknowledged in March that the two “did have the occasion to email one another” when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state.

Obama told CBS News in March that he learned about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server “the same time everybody else learned it — through news reports.” Mr. Earnest later clarified that the president was aware that she sometimes used a private email address but did not know the details about how the server was set up.

Apparently the two crack journalists are the latest in a long line of media lapdogs who, having heard how Earnest "later clarified" things, didn't wonder how Obama could have stated that "I don't think it posed a national security problem" if he, as Earnest admitted, "did not know the details about how the server was set up."

The President has been caught in a obvious falsehood, and has also been caught making an assessment of the presence or absence of a "national security problem" without have the requisite knowledge to make that assessment.

This would be a screaming-headlines story in a Republican or conservative presidential administration, but it has barely been noticed elsewhere in the establishment press. For example, the Associated Press has no related story; in fact, it has no story whatsoever on the latest Clinton email release.

A Twitter-curating blog does a better job of delivering meaningful news than the entire establishment press, which should be ashamed of itself, but is instead serving as the palace guard.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #41 

The truth about Benghazi Inextricably linked to the Arab Spring, Syria, and al-Qaeda

The lies we have been told about Benghazi show the true character of Team Obama.

The Conservative Byte says check it out:

As Bethany Blankley reported in October 2014, their deaths were consequences of a CIA-led weapons smuggling operation with al Qaeda -- unauthorized by Congress -- which the Obama Administration aggressively sought to cover up.

The mystery surrounding Benghazi can be largely dispelled in a few short paragraphs.

First, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, aka Ansar al-Sharia, a jihad militia, was hired to guard the compound by the American government.

Second, according to CNN's Jake Tapper dozens of CIA operatives were allegedly on the ground during the attack and the Obama administration went to "great lengths" to obscure their activities. Many speculate Ambassador Stevens was a CIA asset in the State Department.

Third, only hours before the attack on September 11, 2012, Stevens met with a Turkish ambassador at the compound. Turkey was a transshipment point for many Libyan weapons that were later smuggled to jihadists worldwide.

Fourth, Morsi's Egyptian government (Muslim Brotherhood controlled) was also involved with the compound's attack. In fact, some of the terrorists were recorded on video pleading, "Don't shoot! Dr. Morsi sent us!"

One theoretical answer endorsed by retired Four Star Admiral James Lyons suggests that Ambassador Stevens was to be traded for the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, a man who had embodied Islamic terrorism to the world for generations and who Morsi wanted released from prison.

These facts beg the question: If Ambassador Stevens was actually overseeing a gun running operation to Islamic/jihadist/Muslim Brotherhood militias, why then would the same people kill him, as the American public were repeatedly told?

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #42 

Russian says U.S. not bombing ISIS at all -- Obama is lying to the American People


Steve Griffiths is reporting that Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament's international affairs committee, created a firestorm today when he took to Twitter and said Barack Obama is not bombing ISIS.

"McCain accused us of striking out at US-trained insurgents… However, since they have either run away or joined al-Qaeda, hitting them is a mission impossible," Pushkov wrote on his Twitter account.

"The US-led coalition spent a whole year pretending they were striking ISIL targets but where are the results of these strikes?" Pushkov asked during and interview with France's Europe 1 Radio.

Max Boot, of the Council on Foreign Relations, admits the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS is primarily smoke and mirrors.

"Obama's strategy in Syria and Iraq is not working… (because) the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS has been remarkably restrained," Boot wrote for Newsweek in February.

Figures compiled by the CFR reveal the U.S. has dropped 43 bombs on ISIS per day since the campaign began. In 1991 the Pentagon dropped 6,163 bomb per day on Iraq and 1,039 in 2003. Even Serbia, which posed no threat to the United States, saw a total of 60 bombs per day in 1995.

Earlier this week the Lebanese Prime Minister Tammam Salam said there "is clearly no seriousness" to the war against ISIS. He added the objective is not eliminating the Islamic State but rather an effort by the West to "force their presence" in the region and worsen the situation there.

"From the very outset, this air campaign has NOT been directed against ISIS," writes Michel Chossudovsky. "The evidence confirms that the Islamic State is not the target. Quite the opposite."

"The air raids are intended to destroy the economic infrastructure of Iraq and Syria."

During the first invasion of Iraq in 1991 the same principle applied.

Souad N. Al-Azzawi of the Brussels Tribunal writes that "the major goals of the bombing was not liberating Kuwait or Iraq, rather, it was the total destruction of the civilian infrastructure."

NATO and the United States targeted civilian infrastructure of Libya as well.

The coalition "debilitated Libya's water supply by targeting critical state-owned water installations, including a water-pipe factory in Brega," writes Nafeez Ahmed.

The infrustructure breakdown in Libya, coupled with Obama's allies murdering Gadaffi, led directly to the ISIS takeover of Libya, and subsequent mass migration of 800,000 Muslims into Europe through Libya.

NATO and the US also destroyed Yugoslavia's civilian infrastructure, targeting schools, hospitals, farms, bridges, roads, railways, water lines, communications facilities, factories, industries and other objects necessary for the basic functioning of a modern day society, according to the Independent Commission of Inquiry Hearing to Investigate U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia.

Bombing the Islamic State runs counter to the agenda revealed in Defense Intelligence Agency documents from 2012.

The documents show the United States and its partners in the Gulf states and Turkey supported the Islamic State and planned to establish a Salafist principality in Syria.

The Pentagon has admitted it "helped build ISIS" and armed the group with weapons transferred from Benghazi, Libya.

The globalist Brookings Institute also described the ultimate objective.

In June, Tony Cartalucci, citing the Brookings document, wrote that the goal is "to divide, destroy, then incrementally occupy a sovereign nation thousands of miles from America's shores."

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #43 

Obama's greatest lie


U. S. News reports that on Thursday, May 23rd, 2013, Barack Obama proclaimed the "global War on Terror" was over.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #44 

Obama don't know Shiite!


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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #45 

Obama's biggest lies on his so-called Iran deal

America's Conservative News says that with each passing day, more and more lies on Obama's deal with Iran are exposed to the light, but here is a list of the 5 biggest whoppers Obama is telling in reference to his deal that puts Iran, the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism, on the path to obtaining nuclear weapons...

Big lie #1 -- Inspectors will also be able to access any location...where necessary, when necessary

FALSE: According to this faux arms treaty, there is a potential window of up to 24 days from the time when a request is made to visit a suspicious location to the time when the visit may actually occur. Of course, such a window would give Iran more than enough time to conceal any violations of the deal. Also, an "independent commission" will be empowered to review all requests and the provisions of the faux treaty also allow Iran to contest the request and even reject it outright.

ABC News, hardly a bastion of conservative opinion confirmed that contention: "Any inspections at those sites would need to be approved by a joint commission composed of one member from each of the negotiating parties. The process for approving those inspections could take as many as 24 days, which critics will claim is enough time for Iran to cover up any non-compliance."

Moreover, it would appear that only representatives from nations that are friendly to the rogue Iran Regime will be allowed to conduct these inspections. Gary Bauer with American Values reports; "[I]nternational inspectors must ‘come from nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran.' That means there will be no American inspectors allowed into Iran. Why would we agree to that?"

Of course, Barack Obama isn't the only one spinning tall-tales about the "inspection" provisions of the deal. Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA) says: "Iran's nuclear program will be under lock, key and camera 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The eyes of the international community are on every centrifuge, every ounce of uranium, in all of Iran's nuclear facilities."


Bauer again: "Far from being under lock and key, we have to ask permission to inspect a site and then the Iranians have more than three weeks to scrub it. That's not exactly the "anywhere, anytime" inspections that the administration was demanding in April.

Big lie #2 -- If Iran violates [the] sanctions will snap back into place

FALSE: More than being false, this Obama fabrication is probably the most fanciful, as "snapping back" any sanctions is tantamount to closing the barn door after the horses have fled.

Under the terms of the deal, once it has been "verified" (and what constitutes "verified" is anyone's guess) that Iran is dismantling its centrifuges and moth-balling its stockpiles of enriched uranium, the United States will release $100 billion in frozen assets.

ABC News reports: "Once it has been verified that Iran has committed to dismantling its centrifuges and diluting or selling its stockpile of enriched uranium, all economic sanctions will be lifted, effectively releasing over $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets."

The question that sane people should be asking is; how does the United States go about recovering $100 billion dollars in released assets when -not if – Iran reneges on the deal in the foreseeable future?

Answer: It's impossible.

Moreover, the United States is not the only nation that has sanctions against Iran. How would our political leaders ensure that other nations would follow suit if the United States decide to re-impose sanctions?

Answer: We can't. reports: "The phrase ‘snap back' is vivid, and conveys precisely the sort of rapid, alert, and decisive action skeptical hawks have been demanding… But if sanctions really do ‘snap back' as promised, it would be an unprecedented episode of economic diplomacy."

An "unprecedented episode of economic diplomacy"? How about calling it an unprecedented act of prestidigitation. Even Barack Obama admitted, during the so-called negotiations, that global support for sanctions could fail if negotiations failed. In that vein, it would seem to make sense that some nations would be hesitant to reimpose sanctions.

But Iran may already have all it really wants. $100 billion may not seem like a lot of money but Iran's economy is only $300-$400 billion, for them, $100 billion is a huge chuck of change.

And once the frozen assets are released, any imposition of sanctions may become meaningless as Iran may have already achieved its endgame, or at least achieved a major victory.

Jeffrey Goldberg with The Atlantic argues: "The U.S. could reimpose sanctions on Iran if Tehran cheats on the deal, but it would be reimposing these sanctions on what will be a much-richer country, one that could withstand such sanctions for quite a while."

Snap back is a fantasy… a fool's folly.

Big lie #3 -- Today...we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region

FALSE: Does Barack Obama believe that anyone, including his supporters, are fooled by such a juvenile and moronic statement?

The Daily Caller reports: "Experts, including some in the U.S. government, are already warning that, whether Iran's nuclear capacity is restricted or not, today's deal is unlikely to stop the ongoing race for nuclear capacity in the Middle East."

NBC News, among others, are already reporting that other nations in the region, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are skeptical and will likely start to follow through on plans to acquire nuclear weapons.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton states: "We have given Iran the path it has been seeking for almost 35 years. The other states in the region are not going to sit idly by, which is why in effect the nuclear arms race is already underway."

Speaker of the House John Boehner agrees: "Instead of making the world less dangerous, this ‘deal' will only embolden Iran -- the world's largest sponsor of terror -- by helping stabilize and legitimize its regime as it spreads even more violence and instability in the region… Instead of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, this deal is likely to fuel a nuclear arms race around the world."

But Obama's opponents aren't the only ones who are sounding the alarm. The media is chiming in as well and the consensus is that this deal is going to make the world a much more dangerous place.

CNBC says: "An Iran nuclear deal could mean a new arms race in the Middle East…"

Fox News reports: "The newly announced Iran nuclear deal and the negotiations leading up to it already are fueling an all-but-declared nuclear arms race in the Middle East, according to current and former government officials who say the situation also creates an opening for Russia to exert more influence in the region."

Ron Dermer, writing for the Washington Post, states: "Because states throughout our region know that the deal paves Iran's path to the bomb, a number of them will race to get nuclear weapons of their own. The most dangerous region on earth would get infinitely more dangerous. Nuclear terrorism and nuclear war would become far more likely. In fact, if someone wanted to eviscerate the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, this deal is definitely a great place to start."

But nuclear weapons aren't the only danger that may destabilize the region.

ABC News reports: "The final win for Iran is the gradual lifting of an international arms embargo. The accord states that Iran will be permitted to buy and sell conventional arms on the international market in five years; and in eight years they'll be able to do the same with ballistic missiles. The embargo was a major sticking point throughout the talks, with Iran demanding it be lifted."

Rather than stopping the spread of nuclear weapons in the region, Obama may have jump-started an arms race in the Middle East.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #46 

As Obama continues to lie about the Iranian deal, he is tougher on Congress than on Khamenei

Victor Davis Hanson says Barack Obama's speech last week advocating congressional approval of the Iran deal was mostly made-up history mixed with invective. Indeed, he talked far more roughly about his congressional partners than he did about our Iranian enemies, who have worked so hard to kill Americans over the last 35 years. Obama assured us that in the past a "nonproliferation treaty . . . prohibited nations from acquiring nuclear weapons." One wonders, then, how India, China, North Korea, and Pakistan ever obtained them, given they were all forbidden to do so under "new agreements" forged by Democratic and Republican presidents. Is there much logic in the assertion that the intelligence was flawed when we went to war with what proved to be a non-nuclear Iraq, but that we can trust the same intelligence agencies to apprise us precisely of the nuclear status of Iran?

"After two years of negotiations," Obama went on, "we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb." The deal does no such thing.

Iran can still possess some enriched uranium. It can still operate centrifuges. It is not subject to anytime, anywhere inspections. And it will be almost impossible to restore international sanctions should Iran be caught cheating. As in the case of Obamacare, most of Obama's pre-negotiation assurances are now either forgotten or ignored. Obama, as is his wont, derides any who disagree with him: "Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal."

Yet even as Obama spoke those words, an array of Hollywood liberals was appearing in commercials drumming up support for the treaty. China and Russia are said to be lobbying senators to vote for it. When Obama drones on ad nauseam about those "same people" who "argued for the war," whom exactly does he include in the stable of Iraq War supporters -- neocons like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Fareed Zakaria, and Thomas Friedman? When Obama blasts the "tens of millions of dollars in advertising," with suggestions of the nefarious role of the "same people" who wanted the Iraq War, I think we are meant to understand the old wink-and-nod dual-loyalty trope about American supporters of Israel.

Obama claimed that the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq was "a preference for military action over diplomacy." Yet the Iraq War was authorized by both houses of Congress, with a majority of Democratic senators voting in favor, and the resolution contained 23 writs of action -- all following up, in the post-9/11 climate, on the regime-change and liberation acts signed into law by former president Bill Clinton. The Bush administration spent months at the United Nations seeking to persuade Security Council members France and Russia (each enjoying valuable oil concessions from Saddam Hussein) to authorize military action in order to enforce U.N. sanctions. In contrast, Obama went to war in Libya without congressional approval. By bombing Moammar Qaddafi into extinction (as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it, "We came, we saw, he died"), Obama exceeded the U.N. authorization, which limited U.S. action to humanitarian support and no-fly zones. If Hillary wanted to quote classical Latin concerning the Libyan aftermath, she would have done better to invoke Tacitus: "Where they make a desert, they call it peace."

The most disingenuous element of Obama's entire speech was his assertion that "More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq . . . Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL."

When Obama entered office in January 2009, post-surge Iraq was quiet. By the end of his first year in office, three Americans had been killed. In 2010, fewer Americans were lost in Iraq each month than in accidents involving the U.S. military. That is why Joe Biden thought Iraq would be the administration's "greatest achievement," and Obama himself declared the country "stable and self-reliant." Pulling all U.S. troops out at the end of 2011, against the advice of almost all sober military and diplomatic experts, achieved the desired talking point for the 2012 reelection campaign, but collapsed the country and birthed ISIL. Obama's demagoguery is as if President Dwight Eisenhower had pulled all U.S. troops out of South Korea in 1955 to prep for his 1956 reelection campaign -- and then blamed the ensuing North Korean victory and devastation of South Korea on Harry Truman for entering the Korean War in the first place in 1950. Obama, again, blames George W. Bush for most of the problems he himself has caused.

Obama, again, blames George W. Bush for most of the problems he himself has caused. For instance, he claims that the Iranians started spinning centrifuges while Bush was in office, conveniently forgetting two key points. First, as a senator, Obama voted to deny the Bush administration the ability to use military force to deter Iran, and he voted against the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, despite its then-recent efforts to kill Americans in Iraq. Second, far more centrifuges have come on line during the Obama administration than did during the Bush administration.

What mostly brought Iran to the negotiating table was not skillful Obama diplomacy, but the ongoing increases in global gas and oil supplies, and the resulting collapse of oil prices, which assuaged our Asian and European allies' worries about skyrocketing oil prices should Iranian oil go off the market. The prospect of a glut persuaded them to join in sanctioning Iran. The plunge in oil prices that strengthened the Obama administration's hand came about as a result of private exploration in the U.S. that occurred despite rather than because of Obama's efforts.

When Obama claims that so far his diplomacy has curtailed Iranian enrichment, he has no idea whether that will prove to be an accurate assessment, given the secrecy of the Iranian project and the Iranians' refusal to allow inspectors full and open access to their facilities. But if Obama is correct that the interim deal worked so well, and if sanctions brought Iran to the table, why in the world would he discard the status quo?

When he details all the things Iran must and will certainly do, why would he think it is any more likely that Iran will follow the letter of the treaty than that Qassem Suleimani -- a high-ranking Iranian general and commander of the Quds Force, which carries out terrorist operations -- would obey international travel bans? In fact, shortly after listening to Obama's speech, Suleimani brazenly broke the ban and traveled to see Putin, apparently to negotiate Russian arms sales with his newly released $150 billion in formerly embargoed funds.

Obama says there is "daily access" to Iran's "key" nuclear sites. But what if Iran declares a site not "key" and therefore off limits? Obama likewise assures us, "This access can be with as little as 24 hours' notice."

Does anyone really believe that? Not Obama himself, for he immediately qualified that with, "And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we've identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in." If a 24-day wait is no hindrance to inspection, why then have it at all? The definition of appeasement is to accept demands from an aggressor and then declare that the resulting concessions were of no real importance in the first place.

Obama insists: "Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option, another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative, I am stating a fact."

That is not a fact. And it is shameful to suggest that it is. Again, the alternative to the deal is not war now, but rather continued sanctions, and a continuation of the increased oil production by the U.S. and the Gulf monarchies that brought a cash-strapped Iran to the table. Both measures could be ratcheted up even further. Obama talks of a "game changer" -- another regrettable selection of words when we remember the history of that phrase in the context of the Syrian pink line. Iran was getting weaker by the day even as Obama's tenure was running out. The urgency came from both Iran and Obama. The former was fearful that it would be both poorer and weaker when a possibly very different president takes office in 2017; the latter in desperation was looking for a legacy after the detritus of reset, Libya, ISIS, Syria, and the growing estrangement from long-term allies such as Egypt and Israel.

Obama assumes Tehran will spend its impending windfall on domestic projects, and told us that such investment "improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people" -- as if theocratic authoritarians are sober and judicious officials who feel that improving health care or building freeways would best serve their interests, rather than bullying neighbors and thus raising their own military and political statures. From Hitler to Saddam, there is little evidence that dictators think like the technocrats of social democracies.

Obama reassures us that Iran's "conventional capabilities will never compare to Israel's." Israel is a country of 8 million people, Iran one of nearly 78 million -- with appendages in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the West Bank, and Lebanon that together perhaps already have more conventional missiles pointed at Israel than Israel has bombers that can reach them.

Obama downplays Iran's Hitlerian rhetoric: "Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America' does not mean that that's what all Iranians believe." That is an adolescent remark -- analogous to saying that just because Hitler promised a "final solution of the Jewish question" did not mean that all Germans shared his anti-Semitism. What would it matter even if such an assertion were true?

Even if a million Iranians once again hit the streets to protest the theocracy -- a movement shunned in 2009 by Obama himself -- they would probably not be able to sway the policies of their fascist government. Whether most Germans disagreed with the Nazis' anti-Semitic policy in 1939 was about as relevant as whether Iranians today privately object to the theocrats' rhetoric.

Obama should know better. The problem is not that Iranian "hardliners" are chanting "Death to America." Rather, to take one example, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in good Mein Kampf fashion, has just published a book of 400-plus pages outlining the de facto end of Israel.

It is beneath a president of the United States to equate U.S. congressional representatives with theocratic fascists. But that comparison is about what Obama offered when he declared, "It's those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It's those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus." It is as if Obama's affinities to the Khamenei clique trump those to, say, Senator Marco Rubio or Senator John McCain.

One wonders whether Obama includes in his weird Iran/U.S. Congress "common cause" the man designated to succeed Harry Reid as the Democrats' leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, who, after listening to Obama's speech, promptly came out against the pact -- to the rejoicing, no doubt, of Iranian "hardliners." Or are the allies of the hardliners the majority of the American people, who also oppose the Obama deal? And what about the Chinese and Russian leaders who wholeheartedly support Obama's deal, whether out of the desire for lucre, or for humiliation of the U.S. in the present and in the future -- or both? Does Obama envision himself and the Iranian theocracy allied against American and Iranian "hardliners" -- as if his affinities to the Khamenei clique trump those to, say, Senator Marco Rubio or Senator John McCain?

It is rich from Obama to declare that critics of the deal are playing politics and endangering U.S. credibility: this, from a man who, as senator, in the middle of the critical surge in Iraq in 2007 declared it a failure and advocated pulling out all U.S. troops in the spring of 2008. It was Obama who destroyed U.S. credibility by setting empty deadlines with Iran, empty step-over lines with Russia, and an empty red line with Syria, while promising to shepherd Libya to a stable postwar government, a policy whose natural trajectory ended in Benghazi.

All the contortions that Barack Obama has offered about Iraq -- damning the invasion in 2003; claiming in 2004 that he had no policy differences on Iraq with the Bush administration; declaring in 2007 that the surge would fail; demanding in 2008 as a presidential candidate that all U.S. troops be brought home; assuring the world in 2011 that Iraq was "stable" and "self-reliant" as he pulled out all American peacekeepers; reassuring the world in 2014 that Iraq's ISIS was not a real threat; and then deciding in 2015 that it was, as he ordered forces back in -- have been predicated on perceived political advantage. That also explains why the deal was not presented as a treaty requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate, as the Constitution outlines.

The final irony? Obama's rambling and mean-spirited speech may well achieve the opposite effect of its apparent intention. It may persuade some members of his own party that they could do a lot better than joining a dishonest deal and a disingenuous deal-maker.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #47 

Take away the charm and you're left with a liar as president


S. Noble says Barack Obama will say anything to deceive people while putting on a false front in order to further his leftist ideology furtively in plain sight. He says one thing and does another. What's good for him is not for others. It's what they do in tin-pot dictatorships.

As one example, he will get his way on the nuclear deal and degrade opponents at the same time. This is a man who has nothing but positive things to say about the people who regularly chant, "Death to America", "Death to Israel," "Death to England."

This is what he said at the May 1st, 2010 at the University of Michigan commencement address about not comparing people to Fascist regimes:

"Now, the second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate. (Applause.) These arguments we're having over government and health care and war and taxes -- these are serious arguments. They should arouse people's passions, and it's important for everybody to join in the debate, with all the vigor that the maintenance of a free people requires.

But we can't expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. (Applause.) You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question somebody's views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. (Applause.) Throwing around phrases like "socialists" and "Soviet-style takeover" and "fascist" and "right-wing nut" -- (laughter) -- that may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, our political opponents, to authoritarian, even murderous regimes."

This week he compared the GOP to the Iran hardliners in a speech and a follow up interview.

In a Friday interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN, he was asked, "In your speech at American university, you made a comparison. You said Iran's hard liners were making common cause with Republicans. It is coming under criticism. Mitch McConnell said Democrats should be insulted."

Obama, who wants ultimate obedience and respect for himself, said this:

"What I said is true factually. The people inside Iran, the people most opposed to the deal, are the revolutionary guard and hardliners opposed to any deal. The reason that Mitch McConnell and the rest of the folks in his caucus who oppose this jumped out and opposed it before they even read it. Before it was posted. It's reflective of an ideological commitment not to get a deal done. In that sense, they do have loot in common with hardliners who are satisfied with the status quo."

He said in his original speech that it doesn't show true leadership.

Obama's goal is a one-party Socialist state and in order to achieve that, he must destroy his opposition.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #48 

GOP congressman confronts Obama on Twitter about "secret" Iran "side deals"


Oliver Darcy is reporting that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise directed a tweet at Barack Obama over the Iran deal on Wednesday -- and he received a response back.

"Mr. President, Americans deserve to know the details about the secret side deals," the Louisiana congressman tweeted.


The tweet was in reference to reports that the nuclear agreement includes private deals Iran made with the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding key inspections. The deals, which Iran has demanded remain secret from the U.S., are not subject to review by the U.S. Congress.

Obama, however, denied that there are any "secret deals" in his response to Scalise.

"Important detail -- there are no secret deals. My staff can brief you on any question about any part of the deal," Obama tweeted.


The Republican representative, not seemingly satisfied with the answer, tweeted back at Obama.

"Mr. President, reports say your own negotiator admits there are side agreements that will not be released to Congress," he wrote, linking to an article by The Hill.


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-Ky.) announced Wednesday that the Iran deal debate has been scheduled for September 8 after the August recess.


Click here for Washington Post news report: Obama's secret Iran deals exposed

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #49 

Mr. Obama, you are a goddam liar

Dr. John says Barack Obama is a fundamentally dishonest man.  I have stated here repeatedly that I believe him to be a sociopath -- not unlike Frank Underwood in House of Cards and I am more convinced of it every time Obama speaks. His endless lying about the ACA is the stuff of legend but what really stands out is his sheer audacious mendacity. When asked if he mislead the country about the ACA, Obama said unequivocally:

"No. I did not."

Barack Obama is a bald faced liar.  And he just can't stop. The other night Obama appeared on the TV show of his water boy Jonathan Stewart. In the "interview" Obama blamed Congress for the IRS targeting conservative groups:

President Obama last week blamed the targeting scandal not on poor management but on "crummy" legislation he said Congress passed that gave his employees confusing instructions, and on funding cuts. He said the IRS wasn't able to do its best work as a result.

Moreover, he called them "stupid."

"Congress has passed a crummy law that didn't give people guidance in terms of what they were trying to do. They did it poorly and stupidly," Mr. Obama told "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart. Stewart sat there like a liberal bobble head.

Judicial Watch now has concrete proof that the IRS tried to cover up the IRS targeting of conservatives.

In one Nov. 3, 2011, exchange between Ms. Lerner and Cindy Thomas, a program manager in the Cincinnati office that was handling the cases and was involved in a back-and-forth with Washington, the IRS admitted to having hundreds of cases stacked up and awaiting action.

Afraid of congressional pressure, Ms. Thomas ordered one of the inquiry letters to be sent, just to prevent one of the organizations being held up from complaining.

"Just today, I instructed one of my managers to get an additional information letter out to one of these organizations -- if nothing else to buy time so he didn't contact his Congressional Office," she wrote in the email released by Judicial Watch.

Ms. Thomas said she feared a judge would get involved soon and order the IRS to move the applications more quickly.

That email exchange did confirm that IRS employees in Washington were deeply involved in making decisions about the nonprofit groups' cases.

Thing is, the IRS long ago admitted targeting conservative groups for the 2012 election. They IRS even went on to destroy emails after they had been subpoenaed. It takes a sociopath to lie in the face of facts on television. It takes a kowtowing pathetic canker blossom like Stewart not to challenge that screamingly obvious falsehood. When you consider this list of lies, one wonders how many truths Barack Obama has ever even spoken.

Noel Williams calls Obama lies "bad faith" lies:

Obama lies are an outgrowth of what French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre called "bad faith," in which he not only deceives others, but also himself. In essence, he is choosing to not be free, but engulfed in bad faith. Over time, the habit of lying "divorces [Obama] further and further from reality, so [he] see less and less clearly the choices before [him] and what is at stake in them. Eventually, [he] may be unable to see what [he's] really doing and how it is affecting others."

Detached from reality indeed. Obama lies because no one challenges him. He lies because he gets away with it. He lies because he can. He knows his supporters will believe anything he says without so much as a thought and his lapdogs in the media swallow what's put in their mouths. Some of us won't swallow.

Mr. Obama, you are a goddam liar.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #50 


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

Help fight the

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

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved