A new Fox News poll shows that 60% of the American people think Obama is a humongous liar. (How could they not?)
About six in ten American voters think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters some or most of the time, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.
Thirty-seven percent think Obama lies “most of the time,” while another 24 percent say he lies “some of the time.” Twenty percent of voters say “only now and then” and 15 percent “never.”
Apparently, some of those people are okay with it because polls consistently show a 50%-52% disapproval rating for the president. Shouldn’t everyone disapprove of a lying president?
“Yes my president lies. But-but-but — he has to fool the rubes in order to push our unpopular agenda. If the American people knew what we really wanted, they would recoil in horror” say 8%-10% of the far left base.
The 20% who think Obama is mostly truthful either don’t follow politics or current events, are delusional, or are themselves, lying. The 15% who said “never”, wear special helmets and drool buckets under their chins, and need minders around the clock to keep them away from sharp objects.
And 50-52% of us are mortified daily by what we see happening to our country.
Here’s a discussion about the poll, and Obama’s most recent failures on the Kelly File:
Rush Limbaugh spent some time on his radio show, Wednesday, lampooning Vice President (Joey Choo-Choo) Biden for making an awkward comment at the Boston bombing memorial, Tuesday. As you may have heard, the Vice President had a “Biden” moment, and said something totally inappropriate to the crowd of survivors. I wrote about it at Breitbart’s The Conversation, yesterday.
In visiting Limbaugh’s site looking for something else I heard Rush say, today, I was surprised and delighted to find that he had quoted me from the post I wrote at the Conversation.
RUSH: Less than a minute into his speech at the Boston Marathon bombing memorial yesterday… By the way, Obama went out there and spoke, too. Do you know he never used the words “terrorism” or “militant Islamist” or anything of the nature about what it was? He just called it a “tragedy.” But the real fun began when the vice president stood up there.
Less than a minute into his speech, Vice President Biden went tragically off script and told the crowd of survivors, “It was worth it.” You want to hear? It’s only 14 seconds. We’re gonna have to replay this. I’m sure the shock here is such that we’ll have to play it a couple of times.
BIDEN: Let me say, uh, to, uh, those, uh, quote, “survivors,” my God, you have survived, and you have soared. It was worth… It was worth it!
Less than a minute into his speech at the Boston marathon bombing memorial on Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden went tragically off script and told the crowd of Boston bombing survivors that “it was worth it.”
After expressing how impressed he was with the tribute, he said somberly, “let me say to those ‘quote survivors,’ my God, you have survived and you have soared. It was worth it. I mean this sincerely – just to hear each of you speak. You’re truly, truly inspiring.”
The audience sat in stunned silence until Biden declared, “I’ve never heard anything so beautiful than what all of you just said.”
He went on to describe how “the first responders” (aka the MSM) handled the gaffe, which was to ignore it entirely – something I had also noted in my post:
RUSH: He went on to say, “I mean this sincerely. Just to hear each of you speak, you are truly, truly inspiring. It was worth it. I mean this sincerely. Just to hear each of you, it was worth it,” to find out how good you were. It was worth it to find out how strong you are. It was worth it to find out how strong we are. The audience, of course, sat there in stunned silence.
And after a moment of stunned silence, Biden then said, “I’ve never heard anything so beautiful than what all of you just said.” They didn’t say anything. “I’ve never heard anything more beautiful than what you’ve just said.” Of course, the Democrats say, “That’s just Joe being Joe. Ah, it was just Joe being Joe.” Let Bush or Cheney show up at this thing and tell ’em it was worth it and you see what would happen then.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It’s fascinating, by the way, to take a look here, folks, at how the left reacts. I call ’em the left-wing first responders. Whenever Biden steps in it or Obama or any Democrat makes a mess of things and causes an emergency, then you have the first responders (i.e., the Drive-By Media) come out and deal with the carnage and try to recast it. In this case, the Regime’s first responder was the Atlantic.com website, rushing to Biden’s defense.
Here’s what they said: “We, like most viewers of the speech, assumed Biden was (poorly) talking about coming to the event, rather than the bombings themselves. Despite getting flagged by a Fox News reporter, the quote didn’t even make it into the news channel’s write-up of the tribute. ” Of course not! Of course. That’s what the first responders do, is they keep it out of the news. But we, ladies and gentlemen, found it. We’re not gonna shield you from it.
So the Drive-By first responders’ emergency services personnel arrive on the scene, and clean up the mess that Biden makes. “Oh, no, he wasn’t talking about the bombing being worth it! No, no, no, no, no. He was talking about it was worth it attending the event, that everybody in the audience attending the event was worth it.” Okay. Well, let’s listen again. What is a “quote, ‘survivor,'” by the way?
Me, yesterday:
But of course, that was just Joe being Joe. The MSM knew exactly what the Vice President meant to say, and thus it wasn’t a story, today:
We, like most viewers of the speech, assumed Biden was (poorly) talking about coming to the event, rather than the bombings themselves. Despite getting flagged by a Fox News reporter, the quote didn’t even make it into the news channel’s write-up of the tribute.
No, of course it didn’t. Joe meant well. If a Republican had said something similarly stupid and awkward, though, he would have been crucified – because in the media’s eyes no Republican ever means well.
Via the Daily Rushbo: SHOCK! RUSH: Biden Goes Tragically Off Script:
Limbaugh’s website linked to my post at the Conversation and a couple of other websites.
And now I can’t remember what it is that I was originally looking for.
And the DOJ official she contacted – the former IRS Commissioner’s Chief of staff (!) – was eager to help.
Via Katie Pavlich of Townhall, emails obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request, show that former IRS official Lois Lerner “was in contact with the Department of Justice in May 2013 about whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for “lying” about political activity.”
“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS,” Lerner wrote in a May 8, 2013 email to former Nikole C. Flax, who was former-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller’s chief of staff.
“I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?” Flax responded on May 9, 2013.
In a rash of documents provided under the Freedom of Information Act to Judicial Watch, a non-partisan public interest law group, is an April 2013 email written by David Fish, acting manager of IRS Exempt Organizations Technical Guidance and Quality Assurance and sent to, among others, former IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner. It was part of a thread discussing a recent U.S. Senate hearing on the potential for the abuse of the 501(c)(4) tax status by organizations intervening inappropriately or improperly in candidate elections.
Responding to a message “What can I say?” from Lerner, Fish responds, “Tell Ruth she needs to get on the stick and that the next election cycle is around the corner. This is obviously a wonderful idea (that’s why we suggested it). I think you told Greg all you can tell him, unless you want to tell him that we’re taking guidance plan suggestions.”
The email is dated April 15, 2013 – well after initial allegations that the IRS had “slow-walked” the applications of conservative groups had been made and, by the agency, denied.
The “Ruth” mentioned in the message refers to Ruth Madrigal, an official at the U.S. Treasury Department. The “Greg” mentioned in Fish’s message is apparently a San Francisco-based attorney named Gregory Colvin, who started this chain with an e-mail to Lerner and Madrigal letting them know he has just testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism on the issue of whether officers of (c)(4) organizations who made false statements under penalty of perjury on tax returns “could be criminally prosecuted.”
The Obama administration has insisted from the beginning that conservative groups were not singled out and that electoral considerations did not factor into what clearly went on. They prefer to adhere to the fiction that anything untoward that occurred generated spontaneously in branch offices among low level staff and not at the direction of anyone in Washington.
UPDATE:
Katie Pavlich was on the Kelly File, Wednesday night to talk about the newly released emails.
Trey Gowdy is sadly mistaken in his belief that Holder does take being held in Contempt seriously – not only because Holder hasn’t produced any documents since being held in contempt – but because Holder has explicitly said so, himself.
He told ABC News in Feb 2013 that the contempt votes didn’t matter to him:
“…I have to tell you that for me to really be affected by what happened, I’d have to have respect for the people who voted in that way,” Holder said. “And I didn’t, so it didn’t have that huge an impact on me.”
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) introduced a bill Tuesday that would cut off pay to federal officials like Attorney General Eric Holder as long as they’re being held in contempt of Congress.
Holder was held in contempt of Congress in June of 2102 for refusing to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious investigation.
“The American people should not be footing the bill for federal employees who stonewall Congress or rewarding government officials’ bad behavior. If the average American failed to do his or her job, he or she would hardly be rewarded,” Farenthold said.
Under Farenthold’s bill, a resolution holding an official in contempt would have to be adopted by either the House or Senate. Contempt resolutions would not have to be cleared by both chambers of Congress in order for a federal official to lose their pay.
Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.
You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.
To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out Wednesday morning
Simple, no?
It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?
Many on the “law and order” right have been struggling to make sense of the Cliven Bundy ranch stand-off. After all, Bundy stopped paying the BLM in 1993 for grazing rights on federal land near his ranch, and the courts have sided with the government in the decades long dispute. At some point, you would think some sort of action would be waranted.. Yet the natural instinct of most conservatives is to side with the individual against the federal leviathan. John Hinderaker notes at Powerline, that although Bundy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, fellow citizens should feel sympathetic to his plight.
Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that..?
On his show, Tuesday night, Mark Levin pointed out that by the way – the stupid tortoise out there is no longer endangered, so what’s this thing really all about? “It’s not just about land use – it’s about human use. It’s not just about control of development – it’s about control of you. They chased out every single rancher. Of those hundreds of thousands of conservation lands – based on the tortoise -which is no longer threatened – –They tried to bankrupt him [Bundy], they tried to run up his legal bills. They run up his fines, they calculated his grazing fees, they’ve got one court order after another.” He noted that people say, ‘well it’s the law – he needs to abide by the law’ but made the point that “the federal government needs to abide by its limitations!” He exclaimed, “why the hell does the federal government control 87% of Nevada?! Why the hell does the federal government control 25-30% of the continental United States?!” He continued, Wwhen I was the Deputy Solicitor of the Interior for a short period under President Reagan, the general rule was don’t harass these people, they’re trying to eke out a living – they’ve been there forever. Don’t crush them…Treat them as neighbors, treat with them respect. Don’t look for excuses to put them out of business.” Levin marveled at the grim double standard that “we have anarchy on the border” where the government has complete control if it wants it, and where people want law enforcement to stop what’s going on, but the feds say, ‘no, we’re going to Nevada and we’re going to surround this guy’s ranch.'” “Forget about him!” Levin exclaimed, “take care of the border!” But where the government has unequivocal power to protect our Southern border, they refuse to do for political purposes. “And when it comes to the tortoise, when it comes to the bald eagle, when it comes to any quote-unquote endangered species, the solar panels come first, the wind turbines come first. In other words, the radical left Marxist ideology comes first.” He said it pains him to see the patriotic men and women in law enforcement have to carry out the will of the hardcore left.
Stetsy Bundy Cox, Cliven Bundy’s daughter, told the Washington Free Beaconthat some of the rangers at the confrontation with the ranchers, last week, had Oregon and California license plates.
“You know, some of these guys don’t even know why they’re here,” she said. “A few people have talked to them and they got called in here on an emergency feed and they didn’t know what it was for, it just said they had to be here.”
“They’re almost like a hired gun,” Cox said. “Because what they’re supposed to do is they each have a road, and are told to stay on that road, and they’re supposed to keep people off that road, whatever means possible. That’s their job. They don’t even know how many cows have been gathered.”
The BLM did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Cox said she spoke with an out-of-state Ranger who was ashamed of his job.
“I actually went and talked to one, he was in the back, nobody was even talking to him. He didn’t say much,” she said. “He had a huge big gun on him, but he didn’t really even touch his gun.”
“I asked him, ‘What are you doing? Do you know what you’re doing? You’re stealing an old man’s cattle, his livelihood. He’s a poor man that doesn’t have anything,’” she said. “And I said, ‘You’re pushing baby cows’—I watched a baby cow not want to move and a helicopter swoop down and honk at him till he had to move.”
Cox said the Ranger said, “No, no, we don’t want that.”
“But I saw it,” she said.
“‘Well, well,’ and he goes, ‘I don’t even want to be here. Do you think my grandfather’s proud of me? You think I like this? You think this is fun for me?’”
Land Management: A Chinese solar farm that fries birds is OK, as is redrawing tortoise habitat boundaries to benefit political donors. But an American rancher grazing his cattle brings feds with sniper rifles. It appears Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has, at least temporarily, wonhis “range war” with the paramilitary wing of the Bureau of Land Management. Fearing another Waco, BLM has announced it will no longer enforce a court order and stop stealing Bundy’s cows, called “trespass cattle” by the feds, accused of grazing free on part of the 84% of Nevada that is federal property. If the forces deployed in and around the Nevadan’s ranch had been deployed to Benghazi, it’s likely Glen Doherty, Ty Woods, Sean Smith and Ambassador Christopher Stevens would be alive today. If illegal aliens were grazing on the disputed property, there would not have been federal snipers perched nearby with American citizens in their sights. The government that has detonated hundreds of nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert claimed a rancher’s meandering cattle threatened a protected species. BLM, one of the myriad federal agencies armed to the teeth these days, would have us believe the 67-year-old rancher is a trespassing bitter clinger who isn’t paying his federal grazing fees as his cattle munch on government-owned vegetation and threaten the endangered desert tortoise.
KLAS TV: Armed guards surround Bundy, supporters fear imminent threat:
LAS VEGAS — Local rancher Cliven Bundy may have his cattle back, but his supporters say they are still preparing for an imminent threat.
Militia groups from all over the country say they are flocking to the Bundy ranch to protect the family from a feared federal government raid.
The Bureau of Land Management allowed Bundy to release his cattle Saturday, after they felt threatened.
Bundy now has a whole contingent of armed guards surrounding him 24 hours a day.
“They’re just there, trying to make sure something crazy doesn’t happen to him,” Bundy’s son Ammon Bundy said.
His security detail and family feel he is someone to be protected because of what the federal government could do.
“There were snipers on the hills and armed guards and you know, military forces with cameras all over.” Ammon Bundy said.
Cliven Bundy fears that the government could gather up again because they never reached a formal deal.
He is also trying to determine whether federal agents damaged any of his cattle before they released them.
There exist a number of elements to the story that inject shades of grey into the dominant media narrative. Perhaps hundreds of Bundy supporters have already shown up to the ranch area to “protect” the family and their land—which is federal land—but federal land such usage was promised to the family in the government’s efforts to get people to settle the West after Mexico ceded the land to the U.S. Court documents—discussed later in this article—reveal that the Bundy family decided at some point that the federal government was illegitimate and that they no longer had to give heed to the federal courts. The Bundy family patriarch has openly stated his willingness to use force against federal agents if they take his cattle off of the federal lands; the federal agents stand ready to use force against the family or their supporters if they interfere with the cattle removal. Both sides are armed, both sides are frustrated, and the rhetoric and hyperbole surrounding the entire matter has left many onlookers from around the world confused as to what is actually happening.
In the immediate aftermath of the infamous cattle roundup, Cliven Bundy granted a number of high profile media interviews continuing to deny—to the point of absolutely ignoring family history—what the federal courts have twice told him.
“I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada,” Bundy recently told a radio reporter. “…I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But, I don’t recognize the United States Government as even existing.”
Nice Deb 