I am just at a big loss for words as to why those in the white house are lying, spinning, and denying the entire story of the bust of Winston Churchill. Shows me that all of the obama regime lie as a matter of course!
WASHINGTON — Shortly after 9/11, President George W. Bush received from Prime Minister Tony Blair a bust of Winston Churchill as an expression of British-American solidarity. Bush gave it pride of place in the Oval Office.
In my Friday column about Mitt Romney’s trip abroad and U.S. foreign policy, I wrote that Barack Obama “started his presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”
Within hours, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer had created something of a bonfire. Citing my statement, he posted a furious blog on the White House website, saying, “normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. … This is 100% false. The bust [is] still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.”
Except that it isn’t. As the British Embassy said in a statement issued just a few hours later, “the bust now resides in the British ambassador’s residence in Washington D.C.”
As the British Embassy explained in 2009, the bust “was lent for the first term of office of President Bush. When the president was elected for his second and final term, the loan was extended until January 2009. The new president has decided not to continue this loan and the bust has now been returned.”
At which point, one would expect Pfeiffer to say: Sorry, I made a mistake. End of story.
But Pfeiffer had an additional problem. In his original post, he had provided photographic proof of his claim that the Oval Office Churchill had never been returned, indeed had never left the White House at all, but had simply been moved from the Oval Office to the residence.
“Here’s a picture of the president showing off the Churchill bust to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House residence in 2010,” he wrote. “Hopefully this clears things up a bit and prevents folks from making this ridiculous claim again.”
Except that the photo does nothing of the sort. The Churchill sculpture shown in the photograph is a different copy — given to President Lyndon Johnson, kept in the White House collection for half a century and displayed in the White House residence. The Oval Office Churchill — the one in question, the one Pfeiffer says never left the White House — did leave the White House, was returned to the British government, and sits proudly at this very moment in the British ambassador’s residence.
Was that little photographic switcheroo an honest mistake on Pfeiffer’s part? Or was it deliberate deception? I have no idea. But in either case, the effect was to deceive Pfeiffer’s readers into believing that my assertion about the removal of the Oval Office Churchill was “patently false … ridiculous … 100% false.”
The decent thing to do, therefore, would be to acknowledge the (inadvertent?) deception and apologize for it. He could send the retraction to New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, who at first repeated Pfeiffer’s denunciation of the Churchill bust “falsehood,” and then later honorably corrected himself, admitting that “I got some facts wrong, because I made the mistake of relying on a White House blog post by the communications director Dan Pfeiffer.” Rosenthal then chided Pfeiffer for posting “a weaselly follow-up comment” after the facts became clear that “fails to acknowledge that his post … was false.”
In my view, this whole affair was entirely unnecessary. Pfeiffer devoted an entire post (with accompanying photography) on the White House Blog to a single sentence in a larger argument about foreign policy, and blew it up into an indignant defense of truth itself and a handy club with which to discredit the credibility of a persistent critic of his boss. (After all, why now? Why this column? Since the return of the Oval Office Churchill in 2009, that fact had been asserted in at least half a dozen major news outlets, including Newsweek, CBS News, ABC News, the Telegraph and The Washington Post.)
So I suggest Mr. Pfeiffer bring this to a short, painless and honorable conclusion: a simple admission that he got it wrong and that my assertion was correct. An apology would be nice, but given this White House’s arm’s-length relationship with truth — and given Ryan Zimmerman’s hot hitting — I reckon the Nationals will win the World Series before I receive Pfeiffer’s mea culpa.
Story from Patriot Post.
Why the news on CBS (commie broadcasting service) can never be trusted when you have so called journalists just come out and flat lie and never do fact checking!
CBS News recycles Obama campaign position that Romney took Obama’s words out of context…
On CBS Evening News tonight, reporter Nancy Cordes did a segment on false campaign ads and started with a recent Obama ad that got a Politifact “pants on fire” rating for saying that Romney supported a bill that backed abortion even for rape and incest. Turns out that simply isn’t true.
Knowing what was coming, I couldn’t wait to see which ad by the Romney campaign Cordes was going to call “false”. Of course she pulled the ad where Romney went after Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comments, but she didn’t need to go to Politifact to get the “truth” as she did with the Obama ad. No, she just took it straight from Obama’s lips and said Romney took his words out of context. Cordes alleged that Obama’s comments were about government’s role in infrastructure but that Romney tried to make it sound like Obama belittled the private sector, and to prove that she played a slightly larger section of Obama’s comments:
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
Finish reading and view the video of this HERE.
H/T TO BARRACUDA BRIGADE
PATRIOTS, IT’S TIME TO SHOW YOUR COLORS AND RID THE COUNTRY OF THE DARK SCOURGE THAT HAS BLANKETED THE LAND FOR OVER 3 LONG YEARS.
Dan’s post on Jonathan Chait’s entry into the “if it’s bad for Obama, it’s racist” games is a keeper. What I love about this stuff is that liberals tend to insist how racism is not only repugnant to them, but alien to them. And yet, they continually demonstrate a sensitivity and acuity for spotting it that even real racists seem to lack. They’re like people who claim to be nose deaf (if you prefer, anosmic) who nonetheless insist they can pick up an exotic scent from miles away (“A lactose intolerant armadillo has grown flatulent over by the old Miller farm . . .”).
I don’t think liberals appreciate how much conservatives laugh at this stuff. We’re constantly being told we’re racists and that conservatism is full of racist codes and dog whistles aimed at conservatives. And yet the only people who consistently decipher these codes or hear these dog whistles are liberals themselves. Most of the time it’s a form of projection of course. Liberals see themselves as sinless and heroic on matters racial, so their opposite numbers in politics must be sinful and villainous on matters of race. It’s a form of lazy categorical thinking that completely fails to take account of reality in order to sustain a self-serving narrative.
I still laugh at this earnest handwringingfrom Tim Noah about how journalists must not call attention to the fact that Barack Obama is skinny because doing so may — just may — tip off racist voters that Obama is black. “Hey this Obama guys looks like he’s got a 32 inch waist . . . Wait. A. Second. He’s black! I can’t vote for him!”
I read and see on tv stories all the time about cops shackling some 6 year old for pointing a finger at another kid, or having some knife in a pocket, stuff like that. And we allow that to happen!
Our apologies to those “bombs bursting in air,” because the latest proof that our flag is still there is courtesy of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), an unmanned spacecraft that is mapping the moon’s surface. LRO’s camera (LROC) took detailed shots of the six Apollo landing sites and, by studying the changing shadows at different times of day, researchers confirmed that the flags planted by the Apollo astronauts are still standing. Well, five of them are; Buzz Aldrin noted that Apollo 11?s exhaust toppled that flag upon liftoff. “Personally I was a bit surprised that the flags survived the harsh light and temperatures,” LROC’s chief scientist, wrote. “But they did. What they look like is another question.” [Source]
Tell you, ever since Newsweek (the liberal rag shutting down it’s print version) put Mitt Romney on the cover a couple of days ago pointing out he is a wimp, the people on the internet have gone crazy in making what should be the real newsweek covers. Just search for them, there are quite a few like this one out there.
Last week, I wrote an article for a local newspaper about the lack of civility displayed over the years towards Republicans when manning their booth at the Marin County Fair. Because the paper now requires comments to go through the reader’s personal Face Book account, the public responses to this article were relatively tame. Unleashed, however, and without the protection of the Facebook filter, local members of the “Party of Tolerance and Diversity” revealed their true colors about the article and did so under the cover of darkness and the cowardly guise of anonymity.
Left-wing intolerance and lack of respect for diversity of opinion play out every day in the national arena. The president routinely takes center stage when, cloaked with fancy rhetoric and peppered with jocular musings, he vilifies success, wealth, education, self-reliance, religion, etc.
His surrogates point fingers at fictitious racism, just as Louise Lucas did this past week, and his pundits slander the innocent with heinous crimes, as George Stephanopoulos and Brian Ross did when they rushed to judgment and tagged the Movie Massacre Murderer a Tea Partier.
These displays of intolerance, invective, and hate have become so commonplace during the Obama years that they are no longer byproducts of the silly season, but rather the stuff of every day.
It’s easy to behave this way in front of a camera, with the power of your office behind you, where your target is floating around in a vast and vague viewership, removed from your direct line of fire. The average conservative Joe doesn’t feel calumny’s sting quite as much when the attacks are leveled at a presidential candidate, a congresswoman making a legitimate inquiry about the influence the Muslim Brotherhood might have on US foreign policy, or, on any given day, the entirety of the Republican Party.
But not so when these odious left-wing assaults are levied against the boots on the ground as they go about their everyday lives — driving, shopping, working, sleeping, parenting.
I have witnessed left-wingers risk life and limb just to flash you the bird because your bumper sticker offends them — they’ll speed up to your car, take their eyes off the road, and angrily flip you off. I saw a public union thug break a Tea Partier’s hand for no reason other than that he was at the same protest but on the other side. My car was kicked in by members of the California Nurses Association at a peaceful event for Carly Fiorina. I know people who have had their houses egged for the crime of displaying a yard sign. Another friend had garbage dumped on her for committing the offense of manning a table for conservative candidates at a farmer’s market. I hear endless stories of cars being keyed because of bumper stickers, and recently, a good friend was followed into a store because of her “Obamacare: It’s a Tax, Stupid” bumper sticker. She was followed, yelled at, and harassed the entire time she was shopping.
Since publishing my article, I had my Romney bumper sticker ripped off my car. Saturday night, there was a party for Romney (which I did not attend) about 3 miles from my home. Two yard signs were placed outside. When accounting for the signs at the end of the evening, the hosts noticed that one was missing and the other had been completely bent out of shape.
Later that night, my son discovered what we would soon realize was the missing sign — mangled and thrown onto our front yard. This means that the “Sign Mangler” saw the signs when he drove by the party, stopped the car, grabbed one and destroyed it (leaving it as a warning to the homeowner), then drove the other one 3 miles to my house, where he threw it in my front yard. He obviously knew who I am, was acquainted with my politics, and knew where I lived.
This was all topped off by a letter sent to me by none other than “Bill Maher,” although the return address simply stated “Northern California.” The letter is reproduced below in its original form. One thing you’ll know immediately is that Bill Maher never could have written this — even with its errors, it is way too clean.
Finish reading this HERE.
ARLINGTON, Va. — Having Bubba keynote the Democratic National Convention may not be such a good idea for Democrats, former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich argued during a press conference Monday.
Gingrich said that former President Bill Clinton’s presence at the convention in September will just remind voters how liberal Obama’s presidency has been in comparison to the Clinton administration in the 1990s.
It was announced Monday that Clinton has been tapped by Obama to play a starring role at the convention, slated for September in Charlotte, N.C.
“There is a huge gap between Bill Clinton’s effort to take the Democratic Party to the center and Barack Obama’s effort to take it to the left,” Gingrich said at a northern Virginia television store. “So I think in a funny kind of way, having President Clinton at the Democratic convention may highlight the difference between the two choices.”
Gingrich said Clinton’s speech will “remind us that Obama really is a failed left-wing president with high unemployment, high deficits, huge regulatory policies and a very, very bad foreign policy.”
The Republican said voters will compare the current economic environment to the Clinton years of balanced budgets and welfare reform and all the “things that were done to make the economy better for the American people.”
“I think that will be a terrific opportunity for those of us who served with President Clinton to point out that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton,” Gingrich said.
Stupidity Sold as Common Sense
For me, there’s nothing quite like an ideological argument whose final destination brings us to terminal stupidity sold as common sense. Two of my personal favorites are playing themselves out right now, one courtesy of the atrocity in Colorado, the other courtesy of the 2012 election. Once again, the issues of gun control and the economy are at the forefront of the national conversation. And once again, both illuminate the utter bankruptcy of progressive ideology.
Let’s begin with gun control. Actually, the words “gun control” are a bit misleading. Government-imposed “self-defense control” would be a far more accurate statement of what the American left is attempting to foist on the public. Only a progressive could imagine that limiting a law-abiding citizen’s right to own a firearm would reduce the amount of gun violence, inasmuch as the law-ignoring citizen (or non-citizen, for that matter) would be completely unaffected by such restrictions. Perhaps progressives, as is their wont, envision a society with no guns at all, as if the proverbial toothpaste can somehow be squeezed back into the tube.
Of course in order to achieve that, one would first have to confiscate all of the existing illegal firearms, and/or eviscerate the Second Amendment. No doubt that is something a lot of progressives would like to do, especially if they could just avoid that “messy” constitutional amendment process that requires an enormous level of consent by people still quaint enough to believe in the rule of law. Like so much of their agenda, progressives would prefer to rely on the courts to do their dirty work for them. Perhaps if Barack Obama is re-elected, he will appoint one or two Supreme Court Justices who could manage to find a “living” reason for tossing the Second Amendment overboard.
Which brings us directly to why we have a Second Amendment in the first place. Unlike the straw-man arguments progressives and their media lapdogs are currently pushing about how much firepower a hunter does or doesn’t need, or American cities turning into shooting galleries should the right to carry be extended to places where it is currently illegal, the real reason we have a Second Amendment is because the Founding Fathers remembered why they came to America in the first place: to escape tyrannical government and all its excesses. It is truly remarkable how many Americans would willingly surrender their right to protect themselves from such tyranny, even as self-protection per se becomes a nice side benefit.
Finish reading HERE.
The author of a new book describing presidential paralysis prior to the May 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout is demanding the White House back up its vehement denials with documentation.
“I call on them to release the full [planning] timeline, starting in October 2010, of each of the major decisions that the president made relating to the bin Laden mission,” author Richard Miniter told The Daily Caller.
TheDC asked Miniter if his inside sources might go public with their accounts of presidential indecision. “Yes, yes,” he replied. “There is a chance.” (RELATED: Book: Obama canceled Bin Laden ‘kill’ raid three times at Jarrett’s urging)
Any confrontation between national security officials and President Barack Obama in the months preceding the 2012 election could hamper to his chances of winning a second term.
That’s partly because Obama and his deputies have repeatedly cited his risky decision to kill al-Qaida’s leader as a counterweight to growing worries about his non-confrontational response to the region’s rising Islamist political groups.
The White House’s principal deputy press secretary, Josh Earnest, today dismissed the revelation in Miniter’s book that Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s top aide, helped delay the raid by persuading Obama to call it off on three separate occasions.
“That is an utter fabrication,” Earnest said.
NEW YORK CITY (BHN) – Newsweek Magazine continues its unabashed shilling for President Obama, with its upcoming issue featuring the cover story “Romney: The wimp factor – is he just too insecure to be President?”
The article bizarrely likens seasoned captain-of-industry Romney to a “mouse” in the White House.
The magazine’s owner announced recently that the publication will soon be going out of print due to the non-shocking revelation that the writers are the only people reading it.
My comments: How sad is it that this partisan, leftist rag is losing money? Answer: Not very!
Yes, obama did say that and yes, Romney and the republicans are pounding him daily on this speech! Though the liberal press, obama campaign and obama himself are spinning this into a grave.