The Traitorous “Gang of 18” Republican Senators!

Yes, traitorous!

Traitorous in the sense that we were implored to support republicans in the 2022 elections to prevent exactly what they ended up voting for.

I guess the results of the 2022 midterms reflected the support the republican senate candidates deserved.

At least with the democrats, we know where they stand.

The “Gang of 18” republican senators can all be rightfully described as “snakes in the grass” sell-outs!

All republican politicians will end up paying the price for The Gang of 18. Mark my words. The republicans’ contribution revenue stream has now officially dried up.

According to Anna Skinner, reporting for Newsweek, “The Senate voted to pass a $1.66 trillion omnibus spending bill Thursday afternoon with only a day remaining before a deadline that could partially shut down the government.”

The shutting down of our government, even a partial shutdown, would be the best thing that could happen for our country.  

“Eighteen Republicans joined all 48 Democrats and two independents [“Independents in name only!] in passing the bill, which must still pass through the House before it arrives on President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law. The final vote was 68-29.”

“If approved [by The House of Representatives], [and it was] the bill will extend government funding through September 30, 2023. It had been delayed for weeks as lawmakers argued over its proposals, which included funding around immigration, emergency disaster assistance and military aid to Ukraine.”

Now, even after this bill’s passage, they are still writing-in portions of the bill. It’s the democrats’ version of a late night voting dump.

“Before the Senate voted, former President Donald Trump slammed members of the Republican party for their potential help in passing the bill in a video message posted to Truth Social. Trump specifically targeted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell [and rightfully so], who voted in favor of the bill.”

“Trump had urged all members of his party to vote against the bill and called the bill a ‘disaster’ for the Republican Party since Republican senators could have stopped it. Trump also criticized Democrats for pushing the bill through Congress before Republicans take control of the House in the New Year.”

“However, McConnell thought the bill was a win for Republicans because it increased the nation’s defense budget by nearly 10 percent, according to an article by The Hill. Nondefense and nonveteran spending received a more than 5 percent bump, totaling $772 billion.”

‘“The world’s greatest military will get the funding increase that it needs, outpacing inflation. Meanwhile, nondefense, nonveterans spending will come in below the rate of inflation, for a real-dollar cut,’ McConnell said on the Senate floor, according to The Hill.”

“If it is signed into law [and it will be], the bill will direct $19.8 billion toward Ukraine and NATO military aid and an additional $12.9 billion to help the Ukrainian economy as it battles through the Russia-Ukraine war, The Hill added.”

“The House is expected to vote on the bill Thursday night or Friday morning. Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman tweeted that since the Senate added several items to the bill, it could ‘take a while to process and get to the House.’”

They did vote on the bill, and they passed it, and it didn’t take very long at all. It’s called “take the money and run.”

Here is a full list of Republican senators [traitors] who voted in favor of the bill (in alphabetical order):

Roy Blunt (Missouri)

John Boozman (Arkansas)

Shelley Capito (West Virginia)

Susan Collins (Maine)

John Cornyn (Texas)

Tom Cotton (Arkansas)

Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)

Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma)

Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)

Jerry Moran (Kansas)

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

Rob Portman (Ohio)

Mitt Romney (Utah)

Mike Rounds (South Dakota)

Richard Shelby (Alabama)

John Thune (South Dakota)

Roger Wicker (Mississippi)

Todd Young (Indiana)

This “Gang of 18” should go down in infamy, regarding their unnecessary capitulation to the democrats, and their disregard of their constituents and conservative Americans everywhere.

From the mouth of liberal propaganda news headquarters itself, CNN, we hear some of the lowlights of the omnibus bill.

Tami Luhby and Katie Lobosco report for CNN, “What’s in the massive government funding bill? Some [most, if not all] Congress members may not even know.”

And that’s another thing. Who actually wrote-up this 4,000 plus page behemoth of a bill?

And shouldn’t the actual author(s) be published on the bill?

Just sayin’.

“The House passed a $1.7 trillion yearlong federal government spending bill on Friday, paving the way for it to be signed into law by President Joe Biden.”

“The legislation includes $772.5 billion for nondefense discretionary programs and $858 billion in defense funding, according to a bill summary from Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. That would represent an increase in spending in both areas for fiscal year 2023.”

A few hundred billion dollars here, and a few hundred billion dollars there, and pretty soon we’re talking about some real money!

“The sweeping package includes roughly $45 billion in emergency assistance to Ukraine and NATO allies, and an overhaul of the electoral vote-counting law…”

“It also would provide a boost in spending for disaster aid [But not for Florida hurricane relief, however. Hmmm, I wonder why?]…, and additional funds for the US Capitol Police, according to Leahy’s summary and one from Sen. Richard ‘Benedict Arnold’ Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee.”

So, democrat politicians (and The Gang of 18) want the police defunded for us, but additionally funded for them. Isn’t that special?

“And the legislation contains several major Medicaid provisions, particularly one that could disenroll up to 19 million people from the nation’s health insurance program for low-income Americans.”

Well, isn’t that wonderful as well?

“However, the bill, which runs more than 4,000 pages [more than three times the size of The Bible], left out several measures that some lawmakers had fought to include. An expansion of the child tax credit, as well as multiple other corporate and individual tax breaks, did not make it into the final bill.”

That’s odd.

“The spending bill, which would keep the government operating through September, the end of the fiscal year, is the product of lengthy negotiations between top congressional Democrats and Republicans.”

Ahh, yes…, we love those “top congressional democrats and republicans!” Especially our top “bend over” republican snakes in the grass!

“Here’s what’s in the bill [some of the lowlights]:”

“More aid for Ukraine: The spending bill would provide roughly $45 billion to help support Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself against Russia’s attack.”

We surely can’t leave Ukraine off of the gravy train.

“Also, it would provide $13 billion for economic support to the Ukrainian government. Other funds would address humanitarian and infrastructure needs…”

Our own economy and humanitarian, and infrastructure needs are all good here, so…

“Emergency disaster assistance: The bill would appropriate more than $38 billion in emergency funding to help Americans in the west and southeast affected by recent natural disasters, including tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding and wildfires.”

Like I mentioned earlier, Florida hurricane relief is not included here for some reason. I wonder why that would be?

“Overhaul of the electoral vote-counting law: A provision in the legislation aims at making it harder to overturn a certified presidential election, the first legislative response to the US Capitol insurrection and then-President Donald Trump’s campaign to stay in power despite his loss in 2020. The legislation would clarify the vice president’s role while overseeing the certification of the electoral result to be completely ceremonial.”

This is the “how dare you attempt to question our illegitimate election results” portion of the program.  

“Funding for January 6 attack prosecutions: The bill would provide $2.6 billion for US Attorneys, which would include funding efforts “to further support prosecutions related to the January 6 attack on the Capitol and domestic terrorism cases,” according to a fact sheet from the House Appropriations Committee.”

“Domestic terrorists” as in concerned parents at school board meetings?

And would that “further support of prosecutions related to January 6” include Nancy Pelosi and all of her FBI co-conspirators?

“The package also gives $11.3 billion to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including for efforts to investigate extremist violence and domestic terrorism. The funding measures are part of nearly $39 billion that would be for the Justice Department.”

We can’t neglect the support for our politically weaponized versions of our own Gestapo and KGB, can we?

“Changes to Medicaid and other health care programs: The spending bill would phase out the requirement that prevented states from disenrolling Medicaid recipients…”

Hmmm, seems legit.

“Under the spending bill, states would be able to start evaluating Medicaid enrollees’ eligibility and terminating their coverage as of April 1.”

Those damn Medicaid enrollees, wanting to be all heathy and stuff!

“Up to 19 million people could lose their Medicaid benefits, according to estimates, though many would be eligible for other coverage.”

Exactly what “other coverage” would that be?

Maybe we’ll get the special kind of coverage that Congress enjoys instead! Ya, that must be it!

“Plus, the package would provide more money for the National Institutes of Health [NIH] and the Centers for Disease Control…”

Oh, goodie! More money for the political, fake science, “doctors” to promote liberal control policies, propaganda, and out and out lies.

“It would include nearly $53 billion to address higher inflation [by actually increasing inflation] and $2.7 billion, a 25% increase, to support critical services and housing assistance for veterans and their families.”

I would really like to know exactly how this money will “support critical services” and “housing assistance.”

Why do I think we would be way, way better served by just turning this money over directly to an organization like Tunnels to Towers or Wounded Warrior Project?  

“The bill would also help families who have had their food stamp benefits stolen since October 1 through what’s known as ‘SNAP skimming. It would provide them with retroactive federal reimbursement of the funds, which criminals steal by attaching devices to point-of-sale machines or PIN pads to get card numbers and other information from electronic benefits transfer cards.”

Say what? Is this really that big of a thing? I’m sure it would be hilarious to see exactly how this would be processed and administered. Why do I think the criminal will find a way to double dip on the skimming and the reimbursement? Just a wild, but educated, guess.

“Help to pay utility bills: The bill would provide $5 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Combined with the $1 billion contained in the earlier continuing resolution, this would be the largest regular appropriation for the program, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association. Home heating and cooling costs, and the applications for federal aid in paying the bills have soared this year.”

Here’s an idea! Why not just reverse some of the idiotic democrat anti-energy policy, and nip this in the bud, so people won’t need assistance to begin with? Of course, with that scenario, people would be less dependent on government, and we can’t have that!

“Additional funding for the US Capitol Police: The bill would provide an additional $132 million for the Capitol Police for a total of nearly $735 million. It would allow the department to hire up to 137 sworn officers and 123 support and civilian personnel, bringing the force to a projected level of 2,126 sworn officers and 567 civilians.”

As I mentioned earlier, democrat politicians (and The Gang of 18) want the police defunded for us, but additionally funded for them. They require 2,700 people to protect 635 representatives? That’s roughly four people for every representative. Boy, they must really be important! On our end of things, we’re lucky to have one police officer for every 300 of us.

“It would also give $2 million to provide off-campus security for lawmakers in response to evolving and growing threats.”

I’m not even sure what to say about this. If I did, it would be nothing good.

“More resources for children’s mental health and for substance abuse: The bill would provide more funds to increase access to mental health services for children and schools. It also would invest more money to address the opioid epidemic and substance use disorder.”

Again, not a bad thing. But while we are allowing tons of drugs to flow over our border every day, it seems like an attempt to additionally fund our missile defense system with fly swatters.

“Investments in homelessness prevention and affordable housing: The legislation would provide $3.6 billion for homeless assistance grants, a 13% increase. It would serve more than 1 million people experiencing homelessness.”

Oh, yeah! Because these current homelessness prevention programs are working so well!

“The package also would funnel nearly $6.4 billion to the Community Development Block Grant formula program and related local economic and community development projects that benefit low and moderate income areas and people, an increase of almost $1.6 billion.”

Another stupid and wasteful program that will just continue to line the pockets of people who are talking a good game, but actually doing nothing to help these low income areas.

For a good example of these wonderfully wasteful programs, please let me refer you to one of my prior blogs:

“More support for the environment: The package would provide an additional $576 million for the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], bringing its funding up to $10.1 billion.”

More increased funding for a government agency with way too much uncontrolled power as it is.

Let me just add that all of the alphabet of government agencies, with all of their unelected Nazi wannabes, are up to no good, and are all involved in only controlling us more. That would include, for starters, in no particular order, the IRS, NSA, NIH, CDC, DHS, DEA, FBI, CIA, EPA, DOE, FCC, FEC, NRC, and the DOJ. And like I said, this is a list just for starters.   

In addition, we see funding for:

A Michelle Obama “trail” for $3.6 million,

An LGBTQ museum in New York City for $3 million,

$410 million to secure foreign borders, with nothing to secure our own borders,

$7.5 million to study the “domestic radicalization phenomenon,” whatever that means. Since they feel it is a “radicalization,” I can only assume it is a study to target and minimalize normal, everyday, patriotic citizens.

And, $200 million for something called the “Gender equity and Equality Action Fund.” Here, again, I’d like to see an actual accounting of where this money is going, and how it is actually being used.

And there is more disgusting wasteful spending we will hear about as people continue to dissect this monstrosity of a bill.

Oh, and I forgot to mention they threw in a 16.5% raise for themselves. How’s that for a cherry on top?!

Thank you “Gang of 18” for your irresponsible and unexplainable support of the democrats and their continued degradation of our great country. You have officially become heroes of “the swamp,” and newly minted members of “the dark side.”

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.  I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

“Moveon.org” is just another liberal lie and misrepresentation!

A domain name that ends in “.org” was originally intended for non-profit organizations, but this restriction has not been enforced.  The domain is commonly used by schools and communities, but also by some for-profit entities.

Leave it to the liberals to bastardize this system in their own interests as well.

From Moveon.org’s own website:

“[Moveon.org is] a joint website of MoveOn.org Civic Action and MoveOn.org Political Action.  MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action are separate organizations.”

“MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on important national issues.”

“MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.”

moveon 1

Are you starting to get an idea of how this works?

moveon 2

There’s two organizations operating under the same website…, but only one of them is a tax exempt 501)(c) organization.

How convenient.

I’m sure if we’d look at their pathetic attempt at keeping accurate accounting records, we’d see that somehow over 90% of the money flowing in somehow ends up on the tax exempt side.

From the IRS.gov website:

“The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).”

It’s interesting how these regulations are worded.  There always seems to be elements that could be open for interpretation.  This allows “the swampers” at the IRS the wiggle room to hang conservative groups out to dry while absolving liberal groups, like Moveon.org, of any wrong-doing.

moveon 4

moveon 5

moveon 6

I’m sorry to be so cynical, but it is what it is.

Let’s take a look at some of the “Petitions” and “Campaigns” that don’t “include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.”

Examples directly from From Moveon.org’s own website:

“Shut down the Trump administration’s concentration camps”

“We demand that the University of Florida cancel Donald Trump Jr.’s Speaking Appearance”

“University of Florida is going to pay Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle, his partner and former Fox News show host, $50,000 to speak. It’s a waste of student funds and fuels the Trump family’s corrupt and bigoted right-wing agenda. No UF tuition dollars to oligarchs!”

“Trump is an out-of-control, dangerous man, and he’s using the power of the White House to harm us all. He is stirring up racial divisions and violence with his racist attacks and committing human rights atrocities against immigrant families, all while enriching himself, his family, and his donors. And he is obstructing every congressional effort to get to the truth—about his obstruction of justice, his family separation policies, his attempts to insert racist questions into the census, the secrets hidden in his taxes, and so much more. Failure to act will erode our Constitution and democracy, proving that the president is above the law and can act with impunity.  For all these reasons, Democrats need to stand up to stop Trump’s abuses. Congress will be home on recess until September 9th. Meet with your Congressperson and demand they open a formal impeachment inquiry. “

“Confront gun violence and white nationalism.  Trump’s hateful agenda, which is responsible for so many deaths and injuries, is unacceptable, and MoveOn will continue to fight against Trump’s bigotry, take on racism, reject white nationalism, and stand up to the epidemic of gun violence in our country through large scale actions, pressure on elected officials, and by running the largest election campaign in our history to kick racists out of office. Add your name to say ‘enough is enough.’”

“Win Elections and Endorse Progressive Candidates.  As we march to the ballot box in 2020, MoveOn is endorsing candidates to end the GOP control of the Senate and take back the White House. And we’re endorsing 100 dynamic, diverse, progressive candidates for state and local office.”

“Oppose Trump’s March to war.  Donald Trump is assembling a war Cabinet to rush his march toward war. And while we can’t stop warmonger John Bolton, who, Trump appointed to be his national security adviser, we worked hard to defeat the nomination of Mike Pompeo as secretary of state. Pompeo is a pro-torture, anti-diplomacy, anti-Muslim, anti-choice, anti-LGBT, climate-change denier who is unfit to serve. MoveOn members made 15,000 calls to the Senate to reject Pompeo, and we ran videos, ads, and digital billboards that helped sway the vast majority of Democrats to oppose him. While the effort fell short of persuading Republicans, it has been a critical fight to oppose Trump’s rush to war—and to lay the groundwork against further military escalation Trump and Pompeo have planned.”

“Act in solidarity with immigrant communities and against white supremacist attacks.  Immigration should be a safe and empowering choice. Everyone should have the freedom to move and freedom to stay based on what is best for them to thrive. But from the cruelest policies of the Trump administration to recent attacks in El Paso, TX, and across Mississippi, immigrant and Latino communities have been relentlessly assaulted. Donald Trump has escalated his all-out attack on immigrants in America—increasing brutal deportations, separating families, detaining sick and pregnant immigrants, and announcing the end to the successful DACA program that enabled young immigrants to live, work, and support their communities without fear of deportation. Working tirelessly alongside immigrant-led allied organizations, MoveOn members are actively demanding that Congress hold the federal agencies committing human rights abuses accountable. Tell Congress to stop enabling Trump’s mass deportation machine and to demand cuts in the budgets for detention beds, ICE and CBP agents, and border militarization.”

Have you read enough?

There’s quite a bit more, but I didn’t want to bore you any longer with the left’s partisan gibberish.

I didn’t see any “direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office,” in any of these “petitions” or “campaigns,” did you?

Just sayin’.

This is exactly why conservatives have to stay on their toes and keep our eyes open.

These liberals don’t take any days off…, which means the days are over when we could afford to look the other way.

moveon 7

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

 

“Freedom of the Press” does not mean “the press” has the freedom to break the law!

“The swamp,” or “the deep state,” if you prefer calling it that, are always more than happy to help “the cause” by providing otherwise classified information, making available personal and protected information, and leaking anything else that is required to the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media.”

In this case, we have a person, or people, from the IRS, who have provided some of President Trump’s tax return information to The “failing” New York Times.

trump tax 6

According to Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, for Fox News, “NY Times publication of Trump tax information violates his legal right to confidentiality.”

trump tax 3

“The New York Times no doubt considers it quite a coup to have obtained and published President Trump’s tax return information from 1985 to 1994.  But doing so violated President Trump’s right under federal law to the confidentiality of his tax returns.”

Just a minor consideration, in their eyes, I’m sure.

trump tax 1

“The Times – which reported on Trump’s businesses…has no more right to Trump’s tax returns than it has to mine or those of any of you reading these words.”

I keep having to remind all of these people that all of these “rights” and “laws” of protection only apply to card carrying members of “the swamp;” conservatives and republicans and all the rest of us peasants operate at the mercy of democrats and “the deep state.”

“Confidentiality, as the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 1991 in U.S. v. Richey, is essential to ‘maintaining a workable tax system.’”

Hmmm…, the Ninth Circuit Court?  Isn’t that the court out on the left coast that is constantly trying to legislate from the bench?

I guarantee you that the “U.S. v. Richey” case either protected a liberal or attacked a conservative.

“Taxpayer privacy is ‘fundamental to a tax system that relies on self-reporting’ since it protects ‘sensitive or otherwise personal information,’ said then-Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1986 in another case when she served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.”

Hmmm…, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?  The most liberal court in the land; second only to the Ninth Circuit Court we mentioned previously.

RBG of course was referring to the privacy of democrats and liberals at the time, I’m sure, and not conservatives or republicans.

“Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law.”

“Federal law – 26 U.S.C. §7213(a) (1) – makes it a felony for any federal employee to disclose tax returns or “return information.” Infractions are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine as high as $250,000 under the Alternative Fines Act (18 U.S.C. §3571).”

“According to the newspaper, it did not actually obtain Trump’s tax returns but ‘printouts from his official Internal Revenue Service tax transcripts, with the figures from his federal tax form, the 1040, from someone who had legal access to them.’”

Yes…, THEY (Meaning a liberal IRS confidant; probably Lois Lerner’s brother or sister!) had legal access to them.  But THEY did not have the rights to give others access to them.

trump tax 9

trump tax 10

trump tax 8

“Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law. If the newspaper obtained this information from an employee of the IRS, that employee will be in big trouble if he or she is identified.”

“Could the editors and reporters at the New York Times be prosecuted for publishing this information?”

“Section (a)(3) of the law makes it a felony for ANY PERSON who receives an illegally disclosed tax return or return information to publish that return or that information. But it’s unknown if the bar on publication by a media organization could survive a First Amendment challenge.”

I believe the words “ANY PERSON” would mean “ANY PERSON,” but that’s just me!

“Now the interests of protecting the privacy of taxpayers warrants the opening of a government investigation to find the leaker who provided the Trump tax information to The New York Times.”

YES!  Bravo!

“The IRS and the U.S. Justice Department should investigate how this disclosure happened, find out who did it, and prosecute anyone who violated the law.”

Again…, YES!  Bravissimo!

Why do these people seemingly do whatever they want and always get away with it?  It’s way past time that we start to hold these government weasels accountable.

trump tax 4

trump tax 5

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

You can have “softballs” or real questions President Obama…, and we’re all out of “softballs!”

President Barack Obama sat down with Bill O’Reilly, February 2, 2014, prior to the Super Bowl, to discuss an array of topics.

As we read over the selected portions of the transcripts for this two-part interview, the difference between how President Trump answers questions and how President Obama answers questions becomes very apparent, very quickly.

Donald Trump is not a politician at heart, and Barack Obama is.  This is something we should all be able to acknowledge.

Donald Trump actually answers questions that are posed to him.  Barack Obama dances around questions, manipulates the English language, and tries to dodge tough questions altogether.  In some cases he even chooses to be deceitful.

President Obama seems upset that someone is actually asking him these questions, as the “biased, liberal, fake news media” regularly gives him a pass on all of this “uncomfortable stuff.”

Since none of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” (CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, et al) chose to “hyper analyze” President Obama’s interview at the time, no one really did, I have decided to perform this community service in retrospect.

NOTE:  My comments will be inserted as “MER,” for MrEricksonRules.

Let’s take a look at this first part of the interview, regarding the rollout of the Obamacare Healthcare.gov website, Benghazi and the IRS scandal.

 

O’REILLY:  I want to get some things on the record.  So let’s begin with health care.

OBAMA:  Yes?

O’REILLY:  October 1st it rolls out.

OBAMA:  Right.

O’REILLY:  Immediately, there are problems with the computers.

OBAMA:  Right.

MER:  We have now experienced three honest and straight forward answers in a row.  It’s all downhill from here.

O’REILLY:  When did you know there were going to be problems with those computers?

OBAMA:  Well, I think we all anticipated there would be glitches, because any time you’ve got technology, a new program rolling out, there are going to be some glitches.  I don’t think I anticipated or anybody anticipated the degree of the problems with the Web site.  And…

MER:  Having been a software developer at one point, there doesn’t have to be an expectations of “glitches,” if the system is properly tested.  In order to properly test a system, it helps to have “users’ who ae competent and intelligent, as well as software developers who are competent and professional.  In this case, it would appear that we had neither.

O’REILLY:  So you just didn’t know when it rolled out that this was going to be…

OBAMA:  Well, I don’t think…

O’REILLY:  — a problem?

OBAMA:  — as I said, I don’t think anybody anticipated the degree of problems that you had on HealthCare.gov.  The good news is that right away, we decided how are we going to fix it, it got fixed within a month and a half, it was up and running and now it’s working the way it’s supposed to and we’ve signed up three million people.

MER: That is good news that you were able to decide how to fix it.  I’m shaking my head right now.  Oh…, and it only took a month and a half to fix it?!  Like I said, I was a software developer at one point, and this Healtcare.gov program does not seem to be a particularly complex program.  So who were these clowns that were responsible for developing this software, and why were they selected?  The company’s name is CGI Federal, and it’s owned by a Canadian firm, CGI Group.  CGI had done work in the healthcare arena before, and not all of it good.  Its performance on Ontario, Canada’s health-care medical registry for diabetes sufferers was so poor that officials ditched the $46.2 million contract after three years of missed deadlines.  Two good questions would be, why was an American company not selected, and why was this company selected, given its poor track record?  My guess is it would have something to do with campaign contributions, but I’m just cynical that way.

O’REILLY:  I don’t know about that [that it’s working the way it’s supposed to], because last week, there was an Associated Press call of people who actually went to the Web site and only 8 percent of them feel that it’s working well.

Why didn’t you fire Sebelius [Kathleen Sebelius was serving as the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services], the secretary in charge of this…

OBAMA:  (INAUDIBLE).

MER:  Excuse me…, what was that?

O’REILLY:  — because I mean she had to know, after all those years and all that money, that it wasn’t going to work?

MER: She was obviously clueless like all the rest of them in this administration.  There was absolutely NO excuse for this debacle.

OBAMA:  You know, my main priority right now is making sure that it delivers for the American people.  And what we…

O’REILLY:  You’re not going to answer that?

OBAMA:  — what, what we’ve ended up doing is we’ve got three million people signed up so far.  We’re about a month behind of where we anticipated we wanted to be.  We’ve got over six million people who have signed up for Medicaid.

(MRE: No, he’s not going to answer that.)

O’REILLY:  Yes.

OBAMA:  We’ve got three million young people under the age of 26 who have signed up on their parents’ plan.  And so what we’re constantly figuring out is how do we continue to improve it, how do we make sure that the folks who don’t have health insurance can get health insurance…

O’REILLY:  OK…

OBAMA:  — and those who are underinsured are able to get better health insurance.

O’REILLY:  I’m sure, I’m sure that the intent is noble, but I’m a taxpayer.

MER:  I would have to differ with you at this point O’Reilly.  I’m sure the intent is anything but noble.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  And I’m paying Kathleen Sebelius’ salary and she screwed up.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  And you’re not holding her accountable.

OBAMA:  Yes, well, I…, I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable.  But when we’re…

MER:  That’s a lie.

O’REILLY:  But she’s still there.

OBAMA:  — when we’re in midstream, Bill, we want to make sure that our main focus is how do we make this thing work so that people are able to sign up?  And that’s what we’ve done.

O’REILLY:  All right.

Was it the biggest mistake of your presidency to tell the nation over and over, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?

OBAMA:  Oh, Bill, you’ve got a long list of my mistakes of my presidency…

MER: I wouldn’t call it a “long list of mistakes,” seeing this is only the second “mistake” that he’s addressing.)

O’REILLY:  But, no, really, for you…

OBAMA:  — as I’ve (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — wasn’t that the biggest one?

OBAMA:  But this is, this is one that I regret and I’ve said I regretted, in part because we put in a grandfather clause in the original law saying that, in fact, you were supposed to be able to keep it.  It obviously didn’t cover everybody that we needed to and that’s why we changed it, so that we further grandfathered in folks and many people who thought originally, when they got that cancellation notice, they couldn’t keep it or not (INAUDIBLE)…

MER: Ah hah!  The old, dreaded, double grandfathered law scenario!  Nice try President Obama.  We all knew that was a lie, and so did you.  You repeated this lie to the American people well over twenty times!  “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  Period!”  There didn’t seem to be any concern about some “clause in the original law” then.  Please note that the “biased, liberal, fake news media” completely looked the other way on this one.  Not one “biased, liberal, fake news media” outlet so much as made mention of President Obama’s faulty claims or questioned them at the time.  Can you imagine if President Trump had made a similar type of claim?  Exactly.

O’REILLY:  It’s in the past.  But isn’t that the…

OBAMA:  So…

O’REILLY:  — biggest mistake?

OBAMA:  Well, I, you know, Bill, as I said…

O’REILLY:  You gave your enemies…

OBAMA:  You…

O’REILLY:  — a lot of fodder for it.

OBAMA:  — you were very generous in saying I look pretty good considering I’ve been in the presidency for five years.  And I think part of the reason is, I try to focus not on the fumbles, but on the next plan.

MER:  That’s probably wise.  It would be hard to even attempt to focus on the vast array of fumbles swirling around you!

O’REILLY:  All right.

Libya, House Armed Services testimony, General Carter Ham, you know, the general?

OBAMA:  Yes.  Right.

O’REILLY:  Security in Africa.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  He testified that on the day that the ambassador was murdered and the three other Americans, all right, he told Secretary Panetta it was a terrorist attack.  Shortly after Ham, General Ham, said that, Secretary Panetta came in to you.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, it was a terrorist attack?

OBAMA:  You know what he told me was that there was an attack on our compound…

O’REILLY:  He didn’t tell you…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — he didn’t use the word “terror?”

OBAMA:  You know, in — in the heat of the moment, Bill, what folks are focused on is what’s happening on the ground, do we have eyes on it, how can we make sure our folks are secure…

O’REILLY:  Because I just want to get this on the record…

OBAMA:  So, I…

O’REILLY:  — did he tell you it was a terror attack?

OBAMA:  Bill — and what I’m — I’m answering your question.  What he said to me was, we’ve got an attack on our compound.  We don’t know yet…

O’REILLY:  No terror attack?

OBAMA:  — we don’t know yet who’s doing it.  Understand, by definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound…

O’REILLY:  Yes?

OBAMA:  — that’s an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened.  So the — so the question ends up being who, in fact, was attacking us?

O’REILLY:  But it’s more than that…

OBAMA:  And that…

O’REILLY:  — though…

OBAMA:  — well, we…

O’REILLY:  — because of Susan Rice.

OBAMA:  No, it…

O’REILLY:  It’s more than that because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration…

MER:  Ah yes…, “clueless” Susan Rice.  President Obama’s talking puppet of choice.  Her performances on the Sunday talk shows was especially “swampy” in this case.

OBAMA:  Bill…

O’REILLY:  — off a videotape but your…

OBAMA:  Bill…

O’REILLY:  — your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it’s a terror attack…

OBAMA:  Now, Bill…

O’REILLY:  Just…

OBAMA:  — Bill…

O’REILLY:  — as an American…

OBAMA:  — Bill — Bill…

MER:  That’s seven “Bills,” just to be clear.

O’REILLY:  — I’m just confused.

OBAMA:  And I’m — and I’m trying to explain it to, if you want to listen.  The fact of the matter is, is that people understood, at the time, something very dangerous was happening, that we were focused on making sure that we did everything we can — could — to protect them.  In the aftermath, what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions and — that needed to be taken were taken and both myself and Secretary Clinton and others indicated as much.

But at the moment, when these things happen, Bill, on the other side of the world, people…

O’REILLY:  It’s the fog of war…

OBAMA:  — people — that’s — people don’t know at the very moment exactly why something like this happens.  And when you look at the videotape of this whole thing unfolding, this is not some systematic, well organized process.  You see…

MER:  It was the anniversary of 9/11.  That’s why something like this happens.  On the anniversary of 9/11 all of our foreign entities, especially those in Muslim countries, should be on a heightened state of alert, and response forces around the world should be on a heightened state of readiness as well.  This was just another demonstration of the Obama administration’s ineptitude

O’REILLY:  Well, it was heavy weapons used…

OBAMA:  — you…

O’REILLY:  — and that…

OBAMA:  — what you…

O’REILLY:  — that’s the thing…

OBAMA:  — what you see — Bill…

O’REILLY:  — heavy weapons coming in.

OBAMA:  — Bill, listen, I — I — I’ve gone through this and we have had multiple hearings on it.  What happens is you have an attack like this taking place and you have a mix of folks who are just troublemakers.  You have folks who have an ideological agenda.

MER:  Just for the record Mr. President, they’re called “radical Islamic terrorists.”  They’re not only “a mix of folks who are just troublemakers.”  These aren’t some frat boys trashing a dorm.

O’REILLY:  All right.

OBAMA:  You have some who are affiliated with terrorist organizations.  You have some that are not.  But the main thing that all of us have to take away from this is our diplomats are serving in some very dangerous places.

MER:  Reeeeeally?!

O’REILLY:  But there’s more…

OBAMA:  And we’ve got…

O’REILLY:  — there’s more than that…

OBAMA:  — and we’ve got — and we’ve got to make sure that not only have we implemented all the reforms that were recommended…

MER:  I believe the reforms that were recommended were, one: pull your head out of your arse, and two, try using common sense once in a while.  They didn’t even bother to recommend putting the country or the American people ahead of your political ambitions because it just didn’t occur to them that “that” was an option!

O’REILLY:  OK.

OBAMA:  — by the independent agency…

O’REILLY:  I…

OBAMA:  — but we also have to make sure that we understand our folks out there are in a hazardous, dangerous situation…

O’REILLY:  I think everybody understands that…

MER:  Yes, we do understand that.

OBAMA:  — and we…

O’REILLY:  — Mr. President.

OBAMA:  No, but — but, actually, not everybody does, because what ends up happening…

MER:  Apparently everybody does…, except you and your administration, Mr. President!

O’REILLY:  I think they do.

OBAMA:  — what ends up happening is we end up creating a political agenda…

MER:  Just to be clear…, that is ALL you and your friends do is create and manage your political agenda.

O’REILLY:  Absolutely…

OBAMA:  — over something…

O’REILLY:  — and that’s…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — that was my next question.

OBAMA:  — which Democrats and Republicans should be unified in trying to figure out how are we going to protect people (INAUDIBLE)?

O’REILLY:  I’ve got to get to the IRS…

OBAMA:  OK.

O’REILLY:  — but I just want to say that they’re — your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out.

MER:  Bingo!

OBAMA:  Bill, think about…

O’REILLY:  That’s what they believe.

OBAMA:  — and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.

MER:  Are you calling Bill O’Reilly and Fox News “fake news” Mr. President?

O’REILLY:  No, I’m not telling them that.

(LAUGHTER)

MER:  I do believe he is calling you “fake news,” O’Reilly!

O’REILLY:  I’m asking you whether you were told…

OBAMA:  But — and what I’m saying is…

O’REILLY:  — it was a terror attack and you…

OBAMA:  — and what I’m saying is that is inaccurate.

O’REILLY:  All right.

OBAMA:  We, we revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time.  The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when, a week later, we all said, in fact, there was a terrorist attack taking place the day after, I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn’t be a very good cover-up…

MER: The Benghazi attack took place on Sept. 11, 2012 (on the anniversary of 9/11) and into Sept 12, 2012.  This was a good month and a half prior to the 2012 presidential election.  You and your administration, Mr. President, did in fact perpetrate a cover-up and the deception of the American people.

According to an article by Kelly Riddell, for The Washington Times, June, 28, 2016, “A post Benghazi report points out Obama, Clinton lies.”

The scandal of Benghazi, and yes it was a scandal, reflects the effort by the Obama administration to deflect attention from failed American foreign policy and the rise of terrorism, through a conscious spin effort that hid the truth from the American public.

According to the House Benghazi report, “The Obama administration knew attacks on the consulate were because of terrorism, but they knowingly changed the narrative to blame an ‘inflammatory’ viral video, to escape any culpability of the attacks so close to a November election. In the 2012 campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly spoke of not only killing Osama bin Laden, but how Al Qaeda had been ‘decimated’ under his watch.  Any word Benghazi was actually a terrorist attack would undermine this narrative.”

In her first public comment on the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, Mrs. Clinton blamed the attack on a viral video.

“I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today,” said Mrs. Clinton, then secretary of state. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

The next day, Mrs. Clinton told the American public the administration was “working to determine the precise motivations” of those who carried out the assaults, but that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”

Privately, she told the Egyptian Prime minister: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest. … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Another day goes by, and publicly Mrs. Clinton continues to blame the internet video in her remarks in Morocco.

On Sept. 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney, answering a question about Benghazi during a press conference, said: “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.”

This was a blatant lie.  But it was spin directed from the top, Mr. Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s political future was at stake, after all.

An email sent to officials from White House foreign policy adviser Benjamin Rhodes, with the subject line, “goals,” shows the Benghazi narrative was: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

But IT WAS a broader failure of U.S. policy!

CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell said in a written statement to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence a few days later, “The critically important point is that the analysts considered this a terror attack from the very beginning.”

Mrs. Clinton blamed her changing public statements on differing intelligence reports she received in real-time.  But there’s no evidence to suggest Mrs. Clinton had anything but clarity, right from the evening of the attack, that it was indeed terrorism.

Her public and private statements remained consistently at odds with each other. Privately, there was no doubt the attack was terrorism; publicly, it was blamed on a video and protesting, despite there being no eyewitness accounts of a protest.

She knew. The administration knew. But it wasn’t politically expedient to admit.  So a lie was created, the narrative set, and everyone stuck to it.

MER:  At this point, what difference does it make!?  Oh…, I’m sorry Hillary…, that was your line!

O’REILLY:  I’ve got to get to the IRS…

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  — because I don’t know what happened there and I’m hoping maybe you can tell us.  Douglas Shulman, former IRS chief, he was cleared into the White House 157 times, more than any of your cabinet members, more than any other IRS guy in the history, by far.

OK, why was Douglas Shulman here 157 times?

Why?

OBAMA:  Mr. Shulman, as the head of the IRS, is constantly coming in, because at the time, we were trying to set up the, uh, HealthCare.gov and the IRS…

O’REILLY:  What did he have to do with that?

OBAMA:  — and the IRS is involved in making sure that that works as part of the overall health care team.

O’REILLY:  So it was all health care?

OBAMA:  Number two, we’ve also got the IRS involved when it comes to some of the financial reforms to make sure that we don’t have taxpayer funded bailouts in the future.  So you had all these different agendas in which the head of the IRS is naturally involved.

MER:  I wouldn’t say the head of the IRS should “naturally be involved” with anything other than collecting taxes, and certainly not with “taxpayer funded bailouts!”

O’REILLY:  Did you speak to him a lot…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE).

O’REILLY:  — yourself?

OBAMA:  I do not recall meeting with him in any of these meetings that are pretty routine meetings that we had.

MER:  Out of 157, that’s 157, visits to The White House, President Obama doesn’t “recall meeting with him in any of these meetings.”  Now that’s what I call a good example of “plausible deniability!”

O’REILLY:  OK, so you don’t — you don’t recall seeing Shulman, because what some people are saying is that the IRS was used…

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  — at a — at a local level in Cincinnati, and maybe other places to go after…

OBAMA:  Absolutely wrong.

O’REILLY:  — to go after.

OBAMA:  Absolutely wrong.

O’REILLY:  But how do you know that, because we — we still don’t know what happened there?

OBAMA:  Bill, we do — that’s not what happened.  They — folks have, again, had multiple hearings on this.  I mean these kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part because you and your TV station will promote them.

MER:  Yes, we remember these great hearings, highlighted by Lois Lerner and her refusal to testify, but somehow make a statement anyway.

O’REILLY:  But don’t…

OBAMA:  But when (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — think there are unanswered questions?

OBAMA:  Bill, when you actually look at this stuff, there have been multiple hearings on it.  What happened here was it that you’ve got a…

O’REILLY:  But there’s no definition on it.

OBAMA:  — you’ve got a 501(c)(4) law that people think is focusing.  No — that the folks did not know how to implement…

O’REILLY:  OK…

OBAMA:  — because it basically says…

O’REILLY:  — so you’re saying there was no…

OBAMA:  — if you are involved…

O’REILLY:  — no corruption there at all, none?

OBAMA:  That’s not what I’m saying.

O’REILLY:  (INAUDIBLE).

OBAMA:  That’s actually…

O’REILLY:  No, no, but I want to know what…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — you’re saying.  You’re the leader of the country.

OBAMA:  Absolutely.

O’REILLY:  You’re saying no corruption?

OBAMA:  No.

O’REILLY:  None?

OBAMA:  There were some — there were some bone-headed decisions…

MER:  Now that we can believe!

O’REILLY:  Bone-headed decisions…

OBAMA:  — out of — out of a local office…

O’REILLY:  But no mass corruption?

OBAMA:  Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.

MER:  “Not even a smidgeon?”  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” even felt obligated to chime in regarding this obvious abuse of power:

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said: “There is a reasonable fear by all of us, by any of us, that the kind of power the IRS has could be misused,” she further said that this scrutiny of Tea Party groups was “not fair.”

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart stated that the controversy “threw doubt on President Obama’s ‘managerial competence’ and had proven correct ‘conspiracy theorists.’”

ABC News’ Terry Moran wrote that this was: “A truly Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama administration.”

NBC’s White House correspondent Chuck Todd said, “It didn’t seem like they had a sense of urgency about it, a real sense of outrage,” and further; “This is outrageous no matter what political party you are.”

Even MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said, “This is tyranny,” and talked about “unspeakable abuses by the IRS.”

O’REILLY:  OK.  I got a letter from Kathy LaMaster (ph), Fresno, California.  I said I would read one letter from the folks, all right?

OBAMA:  All right.

O’REILLY:  “Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?”

OBAMA:  I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation…

O’REILLY:  But those are your words.

MER:  Just because President Obama has said he wants to “fundamentally transform the nation,” numerous times in the past, this doesn’t mean he actually wants to do it, O’Reilly!

OBAMA:  I think that what we have to do is make sure that here in America, if you work hard, you can get ahead.  Bill, you and I benefitted from this incredible country of ours, in part, because there were good jobs out there that paid a good wage, because you had public schools that functioned well, that we could get scholarships if we didn’t come from a wealthy family, in order to go to college.

O’REILLY:  Right.

OBAMA:  That, you know, if you worked hard, not only did you have a good job, but you also had decent benefits, decent health care…

O’REILLY:  They’re cutting me off…

OBAMA:  — and for a lot of folks, we don’t have that.  We’ve got to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to expand the middle class…

MER:  President Obama’s idea of “expanding the middle class” is making sure everyone has a “good paying job” at a fast food restaurant, enrollment in Obamacare, and all the food stamps you can get your hands on, along with any other government benefits that may apply.

O’REILLY:  All right…

OBAMA:  — and work hard and people who are working hard can get into the middle class.

O’REILLY:  I think — I — you know, I know you think maybe we haven’t been fair, but I think your heart is in the right place.

MER:  Not even that is a fair statement, Mr. O’Reilly.

 

Please note that the full transcript of this interview is available on-line as well as the full video record of the interview.  Watch the video if you want to get the full effect of President Obama’s condescending tone which we all know and love!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

O'Really and obama cropped

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑