Tag Archives: Lying Liar Who Lies

Busted! Obama Tells Audience Questioner Post-Debate That He Indeed Delayed Calling Benghazi Terror Attack

By Gary P Jackson

In Tuesday night’s debate, Barack Obama, and his teammate CNN’s Candy Crowley lied about the timeline on the Benghazi terror attacks. They called out Romney who rightly pointed out that the Obama regime took over a week to admit Benghazi was an act of terror. Obama and Crowley attacked Romney, claiming Obama said it was terror straightaway.

Well, CNN’s own reporting proves Obama and Crowley lied. Now, we have a report that Obama, himself admitted last night that he lied. Obama admitted this to the audience member that asked the question on Benghazi.

From Tom Blumer at NewsBusters:

It looks like Candy Crowley, her establishment press excuse-makers (for her and President Obama), and supporters of the President are going to have to resort to finding penumbras emanating from Obama’s September 12 Rose Garden appearance — y’know, the one during which the press and Democrats insist that the President really, really did call the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya a terrorist attack.

The reason they’re going to have to do this is because the person who asked Obama the Libya question is saying that the President himself told him that he delayed calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. Erik Wemple at the Washington Post apparently doesn’t grasp the damning significance of what the questioner, Kerry Ladka, relayed to him.

Wemple does acknowledge that the President never answered Ladka’s actual question, which was “Who was it that denied enhanced security (at Benghazi) and why?

But catch what Ladka claims took place after the debate (links are in the original; bolds are mine):

Kerry Ladka stood before President Obama at last night’s town hall-style debate and asked the question that would touch off an onstage verbal brawl and, later, an intense national discussion.

… Was Ladka satisfied with how the president responded? Simply no. “I really didn’t think he totally answered the question satisfactorily as far as I was concerned,” Ladka tells the Erik Wemple Blog.

… President Obama, though, wasn’t done with Kerry Ladka. After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack.” For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terrorin a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.

So, lefties in the media and elsewhere: What about Obama’s admission to his questioner that, in the questioner’s words, “he delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack” don’t you understand?


H/T: Ray


Filed under In The News, Politics

Of David Dewhurst, Cronies, Lobbyists, and Soros Stooge John Podesta

By Gary P Jackson

As the Texas Senate run-off election date draws closer, and now that Ted Cruz is leading in the polls, avid Dewhurst plays dirtier and dirtier. He just got a big infusion of cash to help him do it.

One of Dewhurst’s dishonest attacks on Conservative Ted Cruz is that Cruz is a “Washington insider” and is backed by Washington. This comes from the fact that several Tea Party groups based in Washington are helping fund his campaign. As are several Conservative lawmakers.

Now I guess one can technically say Ted Cruz is getting money from D.C., but there’s Washington money and there is WASHINGTON money.

Timothy Carey at the Washington Examiner has some interesting tidbits on both Cruz’s fundrasing as well as Dewhurst’s. While Ted Cruz is being funded by regular folks, Dewhurst is getting money from big special interest groups, including ones that heavily supported the passage of ObamaCare, are hoping to regulate the coal business out of existence, and bankers.

Carey exposes the real shocker that Dewhurst attended a fundraiser last year at a townhome owned by George Soros stooge John Podesta.

Podesta is a hard core communist. He co-founded the Center for American Progress with Soros. Podesta also has ties to ACORN and other anti-American groups. He has long, deep ties to the Clintons. Podesta was on Barack Obama’s transition team, and once called on Obama to use “armed forces” if necessary to implement his radical agenda.

Discover the Networks has more on Podesta.

John Podesta’s thoughts on the Constitution.

Why would a Texan, who claims to be a “conservative” be hanging out with someone like John Podesta? Why is he taking money from these groups? Could it be he is bought and paid for?

From Carey:

The primary runoff for Texas’s open U.S. Senate seat has become another battle along the GOP’s major fault line: the Tea Party vs. K Street.

Former state Solicitor General Ted Cruz is the candidate of the GOP’s Tea Party wing. A poll last week, which found Cruz beating Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst 49 percent to 44 percent, showed Cruz dominating 71-26 among voters who identified as Tea Partiers — a bloc including two of every five likely voters polled.

Cruz’s financial support comes from the same sources that funded the 2010 insurgent Senate candidacies of conservative Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah in their primaries against establishment-backed Republicans.

The Club for Growth has spent $2.5 million helping Cruz. Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund has put about $773,000 behind Cruz. FreedomWorks is backing Cruz to the tune of $350,000 already, according to data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Dewhurst has pointed to this flood of D.C. money to attack Cruz as the candidate of the Beltway.

Both candidates have their backers in D.C. Cruz’s corner is full of ideological conservatives who have made headaches for the leadership of both parties. Dewhurst’s corner is packed with lobbyists and the political action committees of major corporations.

Dewhurst has hauled in more than half a million dollars from business PACs, which is 33 times Cruz’s take from business PACs. K Street lobbying firms are siding with Dewhurst, too. The PACs of Greenberg Traurig, K&L Gates, McGuire Woods and other lobbying firms have donated to Dewhurst.

Late last year, Dewhurst held a reception at the townhouse of powerful lobbying firm Podesta Group. Last week, GOP lobbyist Rick Murphy threw a Capitol Hill fundraiser for Dewhurst.

A Dallas Morning News reporter wrote of last week’s event: “Dozens of donors — many wearing nametags indicating they work for lobbying firms and government contractors, as is typical at high-dollar campaign events in Washington — filed out of the townhouse near the Capitol as Dewhurst schmoozed inside.”

One Dewhurst-supporting lobbyist in attendance told me, however, that the crowd was more “Texas-heavy” than K Street-dominated.

This crossfire about donors tells us something about the conservative base today. Attacking one’s opponent as being too close to Washington is a fine tradition in American politics, but attacking an opponent as too close to business and K Street is fairly new in the Republican world. Cruz is doing just that.

Everyone who makes their living from continuing the government spending gravy train is supporting Dewhurst,” Cruz told me in a phone call.

Sure enough, Dewhurst’s donors include plenty of corporations whose lobbying agendas clash with today’s conservative agenda of free markets and lower spending.

The American Hospital Association has been the most consistent booster of Obamacare. The lobby group even filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing on the administration’s behalf regarding the individual mandate. AHA’s PAC gave $5,000 to Dewhurst. Other Obamacare backers whose PACs have funded Dewhurst this election include the American Medical Association, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.

Dewhurst’s donor rolls also include bailout beneficiaries like the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors. These groups might be whom Cruz was describing when he called some Dewhurst supporters “special-interest lobbyists who suckle on government.”

Even the energy companies backing Dewhurst aren’t exactly free-market cowboys. Chesapeake Energy Corp.’s PAC has given Dewhurst the maximum $10,000, while the company’s CEO, Aubrey McClendon, has personally given Dewhurst $5,000.

McClendon and Chesapeake, the nation’s No. 2 natural gas producer, spent $26 million in recent years funding the Sierra Club’s campaign against coal, which is the largest rival of natural gas in electricity generation. Chesapeake also contributed to the American Lung Association’s campaign for stricter regulations on coal-fired power plants.

In Texas, Chesapeake stood to benefit from government intervention in the energy sector — intervention Dewhurst supported. Dewhurst in 2011 pushed an energy bill, SB 15, criticized by the free-market Texas Public Policy Foundation, which likened it to a Colorado bill “evidently intended to increase demand for now-plentiful natural gas by suppressing demand for coal.

This is troubling for me all around. Hanging with Soros stooges is downright un-American, but taking money from corporations that are trying to destroy one industry in order to make money for theirs, is worse. It seems Dewhurst has already tried to push legislation in Texas that would have benefited Chesapeake, you can bet he’d be in their pocket if he made it to D.C.

We already have enough corrupt politicians in Washington, we don’t need to send them reinforcements. Dewhurst is the exact sort of politician we are trying to run out of politics forever. He cannot be allowed to win.


Filed under In The News, Politics

Dewhurst Claims He Never Supported Payroll Tax But Press Release After Passage Says Different

By Gary P Jackson

Lt Governor David Dewhurst is one of those kind of politicians who lies when the truth would work better. The latest lie came in the debate between he and Ted Cruz. In the debate Dewhurst claims to have never supported a payroll tax, but a 2005 press release, made after the law was passed, says otherwise.

Speaking of taxes, let’s not forget that Dewhurst has also supported the idea of an income tax for Texas residents.

In 2005 the Wall Street Journal noted this in an editorial entitled Deep in the Heart of Taxes: [emphasis mine]

Everything’s big in Texas, and, if powerful Republican Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst has his way, that will soon include the state budget. Allow us to explain.

For almost a decade now Texas has been grappling with court orders to provide “equitable” financing for the state’s school system. The Republican-controlled legislature has now interpreted this to mean that the entire tax system in Texas has to be scrapped to raise more money. That makes us as skittish as a cat near a bathtub, because Texas’s status as one of only nine states without an income tax is in serious peril. Both the state Senate and House have endorsed what Mr. Dewhurst — whose post of Lieutenant Governor is nearly as powerful as Governor in the state — is calling a “wage tax.”

A wage tax is of course a fancy disguise for a personal income tax, and imposing one is a sure way to put a state on the path to slower growth. Since 1990 the nine states without income taxes have enjoyed twice the rate of job growth and 2.5 times the population growth of the highest income tax states. Capital, jobs and economic development in America are migrating from high-tax states to low, and from blue states to red. Why would fast-growing Texas want to imitate New York and Massachusetts?

The hot political issue in Texas this year, as in at least a dozen other high-growth states, is skyrocketing property tax assessments. In order to cut real estate taxes as home values rise, the Legislature has proposed a vast conglomeration of even more noxious levies, fees and assessments. At one time or another this year GOP legislators have proposed the wage tax, a one percentage point hike in the sales tax that would give Texas the highest sales tax in the nation at 9.75%, a business value-added tax, a 4% business-profits tax, a tax on cars, and an assortment of sin taxes on cigarettes, liquor and even snack foods.

All of these taxing schemes are allegedly necessary to fix the Texas school system. Along these lines the Legislature is set to lift outlays for its two-year budget to $137.5 billion from $118 billion, or 12.5% a year — the biggest two-year bulge in Texas history.

Mr. Dewhurst defends his plan by trotting out the kind of class-warfare reasoning normally reserved for Washington. What good Texan is going to have real heartburn about paying — out of $650,000 — $6,000 to $9,000 to improve the education of our youngsters?” he asked last week.

We’re all for youngsters getting a better education, but in Texas and other states under court orders “equity” has become a code word for Robin Hood financing schemes that redistribute school cash. This has reduced the authority of local school districts and parents, while empowering the blob of state-run education departments and teachers unions with a stranglehold on the schools. A Texas Public Policy Foundation study last year found that the state’s high-spending school districts are no more efficient in educating kids than the low-spending districts.

There is a better way out of this fiscal mess. Brooke Rollins, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, has suggested a tax plan that would: cut residential and commercial school property taxes by 20%; eliminate the hated business franchise tax, which hammers high-capital investment companies; avoid any payroll/income tax scheme; and make up for lost revenues by broadening the base of the sales tax to many consumer services while raising the sales tax rate by 0.5%. Hold state spending growth to merely the rate of inflation, and the current 8.75% sales tax rate wouldn’t have to be raised at all.

We hope Governor Rick Perry, who heroically closed a $10 billion budget deficit without a penny of new taxes at the start of his term, is listening. Mr. Perry has pledged to veto “any tax bill that would be a job killer.” A wage tax is a toll on employers for hiring workers, and according to one study the latest Senate plan would cost about 40,000 jobs, or the equivalent of eight auto factories.

In 2002 Texas voters gave Republicans control of the Legislature for the first time in 100 years on a pledge to keep government spending under control and maintain a pro-growth tax system. The Dewhurst plan violates both of those conservative governing principles and is the surest way to get the GOP thrown out of office. Better get your veto pen handy, Governor.

Notice Dewhurst went right to the time honored liberal canard of claiming it’s “for the children

Texans remember the lottery was sold as a way to finance education. But as we know, when you give big spenders more money, they’ll simply find more ways to spend it.

The Wall Street Journal praises Governor Rick Perry for his [and Dewhurst’s] smoke and mirrors budget “savings,” but as our Whitney Pitcher pointed out last August:

During the fiscal years for which Rick Perry exercised budgetary authority as Governor of Texas (FY02 through FY10)

• Debt outstanding increased 184.2%, or 20.5% per year

• Per capita debt outstanding increased 140.4%, or 15.6% per year

• Total liabilities increased 60.6%, or 6.7% per year

• Total liabilities per capita increased 35.8%, or 4.0% per year

That’s the worst record of any Governor who ran for President this cycle.

David Dewhurst is the typical liberal Republican Establishment candidate. He has a poor record here in Texas, and there is no sound reason to export our problem to Washington, where he can do even more harm.

David Dewhurst is wrong for Texas and even wronger for Washington.


Filed under In The News, Politics

George P. Bush: It’s very disappointing to see David Dewhurst resort to blatantly false attack ads against Ted Cruz

George Prescott Bush

By Gary P Jackson

David Dewhurst is lying about Ted Cruz yet again. It’s not enough for him to continue to run radio and TV lying about Ted Cruz’s ties to a Chinese company that supposedly stole proprietary information from an “American company” featuring the owner. Never mind the owner of this company helping Dewhurst lie about Cruz actually moved his “American company” to China 20 years ago, making Dewhurst’s claim Cruz is taking away American jobs absurd.

Now Dewhurst, the Establishment™ candidate, is falsely claiming Cruz is soft on illegal immigration, and even suggests he supports amnesty for illegals. Of course it’s Dewhurst who is the pro-amnesty, soft on illegals, squish.

As Lt Governor of Texas, Dewhurst, has supported sanctuary cities, was against e-verify, has said on recordit would not be practical to deport illegal immigrants,” is for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, and hasn’t taken a clear position on a border fence.

In fact, Dewhurst worked behind the scenes blocking legislation that would have outlawed sanctuary cities in Texas.

The Cruz campaign immediately released a video challenging Dewhurst’s lies:

Cruz then held a press conference where he called Dewhurst’s ad “the act of a desperate man clinging to power.” He continued, “Dewhurst’s lies are getting more and more ridiculous.”

The campaign also released a statement from George P. Bush, grandson of President George H.W. Bush, and Nephew of President George W. Bush, that denounced Dewhurst’s attack ad: 

It’s very disappointing to see David Dewhurst resort to blatantly false attack ads charging that Ted Cruz supports amnesty. Ted has always categorically opposed amnesty. The only basis for Dewhurst’s fraudulent claim is that Ted serves on the advisory board of a Hispanic civic organization that seeks to empower Hispanics economically by promoting entrepreneurship.

When I first heard this false attack ad, I was offended not only as a Hispanic but as a Republican. We are a party of inclusion that welcomes the fastest growing demographic in our State that largely shares our conservative values of limited government, strengthening the family and supporting small business. This is the type of divisive racial politics used by President Obama and the Democrats. It has no place in the Republican party.

While Dewhurst is claiming Cruz is soft on illegals, the truth is, Ted Cruz argued Texas’ right to execute an illegal alien who murdered two teenage girls before the Supreme Court of the United States, and won. Cruz has successfully argued several cases before the Court, each time reaffirming Texas’ Liberty and Freedom.

Dewhurst is a lying weasel. He’s the typical slimy career politician who must be stopped. There’s a reason why Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Rand Paul, and many many more Conservatives are endorsing Ted Cruz.

Make sure to Choose Cruz on election day.

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Gun Owners of America: Newt Ain’t Great on 2nd Amendment Rights, Broke His Promise to America

As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights

~ Newt Gingrich lying to the American people

By Gary P Jackson

Like you needed more reasons to scratch Newt of your list as a potential GOP nominee. The Conservative group, Gun Owners of America, reminds us that back in the day, when Newt was in Congress, he was no friend to gun owners.

Despite Newt’s promise that NO gun control legislation would ever make it out of committee, let alone to the floor of the House, many left wing gun control bills did just that, and with the full support of Newt Gingrich.

[And some people wonder why you can’t trust Newt as far as you can throw him!]

Not only did Newt support liberal legislation that infringed on gun owners’ rights, some of this legislation, like the ban of guns in schools, made disasters like the shootings at Virginia Tech all the more possible.

Some of the legislation Newt helped pass through his Republican controlled Congress has resulted in otherwise law abiding Americans to lose their Second Amendment rights for the most minor of infractions.

What kind of man would work to take this lady’s rights away?

From the Gun Owners of America:

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]

Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.

See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .

S. 735, April 18, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .

Newt lies to gun owners, telling them he would protect their rights, and ensure no gun control legislation would see the light of day on his watch, then proceeds to push through some of the most radical gun control laws in our nation’s history. Can you trust this man?


Can you trust Newt when he says he won’t push amnesty for illegals, government mandated health insurance, sweeping “global warming” legislation like cap and tax, if elected? These are all positions he’s supported, some as recently as six months ago.

Not no, but hell no!

If Newt can’t be trusted to protect our sacred Second Amendment rights, after stating in no uncertain terms he would, how could any rational human being think he wouldn’t lie again, and push all of his Big Government “progressive” nonsense once in office.

How can any rational human being think Newt could be trusted in any way, shape, or form?

Newt’s word means nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ….

Though created as an anti-Obama, pro Tea Party video back in 2009, the sentiments apply to phony Conservatives who would destroy your Liberty and Freedom as well. There are very bad man in both political parties. Newt Gingrich is a very bad man.


Filed under In The News, Politics