by

News/Politics 10-13-12

What’s news today?

Some of Biden’s lies at the debate have been exposed.

These are just a few, there’s more.

First the Afghan War Support Lie,

From WFB

““I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

Read more here

Then the abortion lies, from Joe and the campaign,

Catholic Bishops have responded to Biden and his public misrepresentation of reality.

From USCCB

“Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any          insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.”

Read more here

Biden knows this, yet he lied about it. Just like the campaign continues to lie on behalf of the other half the ticket about his abortion enabling.

From the WeeklyStandard

“At the end of the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan lobbed charges of extremism at one another on the issue of abortion. “The Democratic party used to say they want [abortion] to be safe, legal, and rare,” Ryan said. “Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn’t second-guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme.”

Biden shot back, saying that Ryan has “argued that, in the case of rape or incest, it was still–it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend.” Debate moderator Martha Raddatz followed up with Ryan, asking if pro-choice Americans should be “worried” about Romney, but she didn’t follow up with Biden.

In the spin room following the debate, I asked top Obama officials, as well as Planned Parenthood chief Cecille Richards, if Obama’s position on abortion is as extreme as what Ryan claimed. The Obama campaign denied the president favored abortion without restriction, but top Obama officials Jim Messina, Stephanie Cutter, and David Axelrod could not name a single restriction the president supports.”

Read more here

Sorry guys, you don’t get to run from your record. You own it.

Every Major Pro-Abortion Group Has Endorsed Obama Again

Obama Campaign Tries to Hide His Pro-Abortion Mandate, Record

President Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation

And they call Romney/Ryan the extremists?

25 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-13-12”

  3. Ricky, thanks for that Redstate article that nails Biden’s tendency to make things up. When you add that to Aj’s excellent sources, the case that Biden is a liar is clear.

    Unfortinately, most American people don’t care to get into the weeds of these matters. That’s how Obama/Biden got elected in 2008 and might do so again in November. The hard truth is that on the whole the American people get the government they deserve.

    Like

    Reply

  5. Charles, that’s what Reagan meant when he termed Biden a “smooth but pure demagogue.” This was stated when Biden opposed the Reagan Doctrine of defeating the Soviet Union, something that Biden regarded as war=mongering.

    Like

    Reply

  6. So Mr Biden didn’t know that the Obamacare law had few if any exemptions for religious organizations regarding contraception and abortion. No surprise. After all, no one knew what was in the law before they voted for it. Just ask Ms Pelosi.

    Like

    Reply

  7. The one thing AJ reliably does is a sum and substance of what right wing blogs and media are saying — I kind of like because I can come here and not add hits to right wing sites 🙂

    I’m sure that you guys know that politicians distort — it’w what they do, so for the sake of balance let’s see how Sail’s “knight” did:

    The series of links below highlight:

    Fibs on Iran sanctions, fibs on Libya as a terrorist attack, fibs on medicare cuts, fibs on the size of the navy. The last link is more balanced and discusses distortions that both candidates made. Truth is most if not all of our modern political figures are talented in distorting and twisting the truth. One has only to look at Romney’s tack to the center and Ryan’s different guises (he supported medicare expansion and well, all of the Bush spending before his current role of deficit hawk) to see this talent in action on the Republican side of the aisle.

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/vp-debate-paul-ryan-lied-24-times/politics/2012/10/12/51086

    http://www.politicususa.com/paul-ryans-5-biggest-lies-vice-presidential-debate.html

    http://hinterlandgazette.com/2012/10/paul-ryan-malarkey-full-display-vice-presidential-debate-lies.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=paul-ryan-malarkey-full-display-vice-presidential-debate-lies

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/biden-vs-ryan-vice-presidential-debate-fact-check-who-lied.html

    Like

    Reply

  8. Bill Kristol has a thoughtful article today on the subject of manic depressive liberalism that goes far to explain Obama’s and Biden’s debate style. The summary paragraphs are as follows:

    To watch Obama and Biden on stage is to watch a liberalism that has lost its nerve, a liberalism that is the enervated and excitable residue of an earlier, energetic doctrine. Mansfield saw it coming over three decades ago: “From having been the aggressive doctrine of vigorous, spirited men, liberalism has become hardly more than a trembling in the presence of illiberalism. .  .  . Who today is called a liberal for strength and confidence in defense of liberty?”

    But a decadent liberalism can do real and lasting damage. The United States can survive—the United States has survived—four years of weakness and drift. Four more years would be another matter. Obamacare institutionalized, defeat in Afghanistan, the Middle East in chaos, a Supreme Court unmoored from the Constitution—these would be the wages of four more years of Obama and Biden. The historic task of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is to bring home to Americans just how much damage could be done by another four years of a decadent liberalism—and to make the case for a conservatism neither enervated by an acceptance of decline nor made excitable by a fear of change, a conservatism that shows strength and confidence in defense of liberty.

    Like

    Reply

  12. CB,

    So tell me, what’s wrong with this right-wing assessment? Seems dead on to me, although I’m sure it won’t be to your liking. Sometimes I think the thing left leaning folks hate most about what they consider right-wing news is the accuracy. Some facts are pesky and best not exposed.

    From TownHall Administration Welcomed Wolves Into The Sheepfold

    “Imagine, pre-9/11/12, that you were responsible for arranging the defense of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Would you have considered American interests and personnel best protected by bringing in a local security outfit called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade?

    The question has yet to come up in House hearings, but I think it holds the key to the Obama administration’s betrayal of the American people in “Benghazi-gate.” To an American with common sense not subverted by advanced degrees, the thought of putting Islamic “martyrs” in charge of American “infidels” in Benghazi — which, fun fact, literally means “city of holy warriors” — would trigger the inevitable “heck, no.” And that’s without even knowing what is significant about Feb. 17.

    But I’m talking about Washington, D.C. Here, placing the lives of Americans in the hands of a thug-army linked to multiple atrocities and drawn from jihad-epicentral eastern Libya disturbs no collective brain wave. No matter that Benghazi and nearby Derna sent more men, per capita, to Iraq to kill Americans than anywhere else in the world. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, putting local boys in barracks inside the consulate compound was a great idea. Why not? President Obama’s ambassador, the late Christopher Stevens, was, as they say, “reaching out” across the jihad spectrum on official business.”

    This is idiocy masquarading as foreign policy. It’s stupid, and it cost lives.

    Like

    Reply

  15. AJ

    You might remember that the decision to intervene in Libya when Libyans were revolting was not one made in haste. The central question was whether to support the rebels or support Qaddafi. Neither choice presented good foreign policy options — it’s not as if Qaddafi was a good friend and not as if the fighters that went to Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t happen on Qaddafi’s watch.

    If the Administration had not supported the rebels and Qaddafi had leveled Bengahzi, it seems pretty much a guarantee that U.S. inaction would be a central topic of the Romney campaign — who lost Libya, some such thing. The criticism would probably be similar to what they are saying on Syria. (We need to arm the Syrian rebels — newsflash, those guys, the Syrian rebels are also a mix of folks who include radical Islamists). There are no easy or good foreign policy options in these kinds of situations.

    Ricky

    See above for why I dislike Steyn’s opinion on the matter. If I had my druthers, pundits left, right and center would spend more time educating about the intricacies of policy in the MENA region, the many players and the limited options. Steyn does his usual job of hackery rather than add something useful to the conversation.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292205259561409.html

    Like

    Reply

  16. Further to the point on interventions and who’s who, this from American Conservative’s Philip Giraldi in their State of the Union blog is classic:

    A quick, completely un-professional and non-systematic survey of some of my former CIA colleagues about how one goes about identifying the Syrian insurgents “who share our values,” per the Mitt Romney formula to overthrow the Assad regime, produced the following responses:

    “Ask them if they share our values. Explain what our values are if they seem confused. If you are confused regarding our values ask the Chief of Station what they are.”
    “Make up a values checklist. If you can plausibly check three boxes they’re okay, particularly if they can carry a gun.”
    “Should we ask for their high school transcripts and start calling references?”
    “Ask the village cop if they are good people and go to Mosque on Fridays.”
    “Have them fill out a questionnaire with trick questions that reveal their innermost thoughts.”
    “Waterboard them until they confess.”
    “Polygraph them and since Arabs are good liars assume that every answer is a deliberate deception.”
    “Say something nice about Osama bin Laden and note how they react.”
    “Have a Mormon missionary knock on their door saying ‘Mitt sent me’ and see how they respond.”

    Like

    Reply

  17. CB,

    I responded to you on the politics thread from the other day. No need for you to respond if you have nothing more to say, but I just wanted to let you know in case you never went back to it.

    Like

    Reply

  18. CB, Steyn’s article dealt with the following points:
    1. The Obama campaign’s emphasis on his defense of Big Bird;

    2. The month-long string of lies told by the administration about the Benghaxi attack;

    3. The Democrats’ false charge that the Republicans are “politicizing Libya”;

    4. An accurate description of what it means to politicize foreign policy: “Gee, they nuked Israel. Do you think that will hurt us in Florida?”

    5. A critical analysis of security at our Benghazi consulate and Biden’s lies about requests for more security; and

    6. An analysis of who is actually politicizing Libya.

    These are important points, regardless of what one believes about overall Libyan or Middle Eastern policy.

    Like

    Reply

  19. My wife, who is very liberal, has made up her mind already, so she did not listen or watch any of the debates. She asked me who “won” the Vice-Presidential debate. I said there are only about 10 percent of “undecided” people, and it’s hard to tell where they are going. And it gets complicated. Probably quite a few people don’t like Obama because he’s liberal and quite a few because he’s part black — but they don’t want to admit that (as I note from all the denials right here on WV). On the other hand, quite a few evangelical Christians don’t really think Mormons are real Christians. After all, I have been accused of seeking to put myself above God — and a religion that promises you will become a God seems very dubious to me. So evangelical voters have a difficult choice facing them. Take the trouble to vote either against a blackish liberal or for a faux (that fancy French word means fake) Christian who puts himself above God. What a difficult choice!

    Please think about it! Please think about it so long that you forget to get around to voting. You know that’s what Satan wants you to do! Well, let’s ask Sail. Is Romney a real Christian? How do we tell?

    Like

    Reply

  20. Probably quite a few people don’t like Obama because he’s liberal and quite a few because he’s part black — but they don’t want to admit that (as I note from all the denials right here on WV).

    You’re hilarious, Random. The fact that people here insist that Obama’s skin color has nothing to do with their dislike of him proves what? According to Random Name, it proves—that people are dishonest about what they dislike about Obama. Is this an example of your common sense reasoning?

    (And no, I haven’t forgotten about my promise to provide recommended reading. I’ll do that.)

    Like

    Reply

  21. But we all have our difficult dilemmas. I wrote a letter to the local newspaper arguing that we should “privatize” marriage. My daughter and her partner kind of just shrugged, but a local heroine — at least I think she’s a heroine because she was a Colonel in Vietnam who served as nurse and probably helped save a lot of American lives and comfort a lot of Americans as they were dying — sounds pretty heroic to me. But she’s a Christian and wants to marry her long-time partner (though she was married for many years and gave birth to four sons, one of whom died in an auto accident). So she’s a person who is a heroine and a Christian and a person who has known great grief and suffering. And she wrote a letter in rebuttal to mine saying that I am mistaken.

    Well, with so many people telling me I am mistaken, some quite admirable people, and many contradicting each other, who am I to believe? Maybe I should become a Mormon. They seem to be able to make up their minds. Especially when one of them is trying to become President of the United States. Wahooo!

    Like

    Reply

  22. Are you sure that I am hilarious? Or are you just saying that to woo me? Is Romney a real Christian? Or is he just saying that because he wants to get elected? Are people against Obama completely indifferent to his skin color? It might be. I am a little dubious, but I DON’T KNOW! I just have my suspicious. You, on the other hand, are completely sure there is a God, and are completely sure you know what He wants. Again, that’s why there are scores of different churches, and they all agree with each other on the important issues, and don’t kill each other about doctrine any more.

    Like

    Reply

  23. Random, we know for sure that a lot of Obama’s supporters are extra excited about him because of his skin color, and undoubtedly there are some who will vote against him at least partly for that reason. (No one claims there are no racists in America!) But it’s ludicrous to say, “If you don’t like him, it has to be because he’s black. There’s no other possible valid reason; be honest and admit it.” I’ve only ever given money to one presidential candidate; I wrote two checks to Alan Keyes several years ago. If anything, he’s “blacker” than Obama.

    Obama’s race/color/ethnicity means nothing to me. (I can’t say that about his nationality, because it really does matter that a presidential candidate be constitutionally eligible to run. But his ethnicity is meaningless.) I dislike Obama because he’s dishonest, incompetent, and dangerous to our financial, moral, and social well-being. If he were any other skin color, I’d be just as heartily opposed.

    Like

    Reply

  24. Are people against Obama completely indifferent to his skin color? It might be. I am a little dubious, but I DON’T KNOW! I just have my suspicious.

    Personally, I believe anyone who thinks skin color is an issue is a closet racist. Suspicious people are not. They just need to worry about something else.

    Like

    Reply

  25. They just need to worry about something else.

    That’s too cryptic for me. What is the something else suspicious people need to worry about?

    I am a pragmatist. I would love to vote for an atheist, but as far as I know there are none running for President. So I will bite my gum hard, and vote for somebody who claims to be a religious believer. But voting for a Mormon who pretends to be a Christian is definitely a skybridge too far for me.

    Actually, there is an atheist running for Congress near me, but he strikes me as pretty dumb and irritating, so even if I were in his district I would not vote for him. Although as far as I can tell, Obama is an American citizen, the point of that Constitutional requirement escapes me. I think the Constitution should be amended to require the President to be a properly citizen-ized person born on planet earth. I don’t know if a child will be born on a space station during my life time, but whether she becomes a citizen will be something for my grandchild to fret about. For all I know she will be the first woman to give birth off this planet, but if she follows after her mommies, she will have to go the implant way. And I am not talking about mammary glands. (She has not hit puberty yet, so it’s too early to tell if she will be concerned about hers. Though she will definitely be very tall and very thin. I worry more about anorexia, as she is very fussy about food and often does not eat very much.)

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to rickyweaver Cancel reply