Anthony Weiner on O'Reilly Factor: Sweet Little Lies

“I dont see how I could,” said Weiner, when I asked whether he’d vote for a bill without a robust public plan. “I dont see any way I could.” His throwing down of the gauntlet is more striking when you consider that he’s known at home in New York as a moderate who’s not known for bucking leadership.
--Weiner: “I Don’t See Any Way” I Can Vote For Bill Without Public Option
[Weiner, of course, voted not once, but twice for a bill without a robust public option--or any public option.]



ANTHONY WEINER LIES TO BILL O'REILLY, AMERICA ON NATIONAL TV

---

LIE ABOUT OBAMACARE AND THE IRS ON NATIONAL TV?
YOU MAY ALREADY BE A WEINER!

Antony Weiner refused five times to answer Bill O'Reilly's question about the why the IRS will be enforcing the individual mandate of ObamaCare.

In fact, Weiner not only said that won't happen, he accused O'Reilly of being "deceptive!"

But then, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) once said that he would not support an ObamaCare bill without a public option. So, we know Weiner's words don't match his actions.

Weiner was on Bill O'Reilly last night and refused to tell the truth about the effects of Obama's American Medical Destruction Act which Weiner promoted.

We'd label Weiner a "proud Progressive," but the Congressman is in that stage where, having committed legislative mischief, he still has to lie about what his handiwork will accomplish.

---

WEINER: "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT YELLOW LIQUID
I'M SPRAYING ON YOUR LEG, IT'S RAIN."

Anthony G. Martin, in the Examiner [Curious interview with Democrat Anthony Weiner on enforcement of ObamaCare] hammers Weiner as we would--which is a good thing. It was hard to believe our eyes at the many blatant lies told by Weiner. So another report by someone watching is confirmation.

To be more blunt, the lies told by Weiner in this interview are utterly astounding.


To his credit, O'Reilly, who of late has angered conservatives and long-time supporters with his seeming willingness to run interference for Obama and company, hammered the Congressman on the issue of enforcement of the provisions of ObamaCare--such as requiring every American to buy insurance whether they want it or not, and using the IRS as a spy agency to track down those who refuse to comply, levying fines against those who do not participate in the system.

Repeatedly Congressman Weiner claimed that none of this is true. In fact, he reiterated at least 6 times that the IRS would not force compliance and that 'Democrats made it clear we do not wish to criminalize anyone over this.'

O'Reilly would have none of it, and rightly so. If in order for the program to work all Americans must be forced to buy health insurance, then clearly the government must have a plan in place to deal with the non-compliant...'lawbreakers,' if the word 'criminal' is too strong.

Again, Weiner vehemently denied there was any such plan to monitor or force compliance.

The outright, blatant contradiction of this is utterly astounding. Either the program is mandatory, or it is voluntary. And if it is voluntary, Americans can refuse to participate with no recrimination by the government.

Readers will do well to look at Martin's whole piece: it's a good one.




Why does Weiner lie?

Because in The Left's war on America, it's not only permissible, it's necessary.

Weiner does what Progressives do: lie and then project his own behavior onto others.

Just listen to what progressives/tyrants say. Remember, what they accuse conservatives of being, such as an angry mob, is who they are in reality. Since they are so radical, and hateful of the good in society, they have to project their ill will onto others. Hitler exemplified Freudian projection theory. In speaking to the Reichstag in Berlin in 1942 about his disdain for Churchill, Hitler in fact described himself.

"He is the most bloodthirsty or amateurish strategist in history...For over 5 years this man has been chasing around Europe like a madman in search of something that he could set on fire. The gift Mr. Churchill possesses, is the gift to lie with a pious expression on his face and to distort the truth...His abnormal state of mind can only be explained as symptomatic of a paralytic disease or of a drunkard's ravings."

Weiner accuses O'Reilly of "making things up" when it is Weiner who is not telling the truth--on national TV!



NY Mag's Daily Intel thought the exchange was amusing. But then, NY Mag is a usually-reliable mouthpiece for Progressive criminals.

Bill O’Reilly and New York congressman Anthony Weiner had at it on the O’Reilly Factor tonight, butting heads over the health care reform bill. While both make gestures of remaining civil during the argument, Weiner - amusingly, we must admit - gets increasingly frustrated as the conversation progresses.

--Anthony Weiner To O'Reilly: "You Are Making Stuff Up" -- Daily Intel


Last night was only the latest lies Weiner has told about this bill. Back in September, Weiner said the following.

“I dont see how I could,” said Weiner, when I asked whether he’d vote for a bill without a robust public plan. “I dont see any way I could.” His throwing down of the gauntlet is more striking when you consider that he’s known at home in New York as a moderate who’s not known for bucking leadership.

ObamaCare is such a good bill, it takes the IRS to enforce its mandatory provisions. It's such a good bill Rep. Anthony Weiner will go on the O'Reilly Factor and say that's not true.

If ObamaCare is the Wonderland that Weiner says it is, why did the Congressman exempt him and his family from its glorious Progressive benefits? Why are they only to apply to Weiner's constituents and not the Congressman himself?

Here's a word cloud of the words Americans use to describe Congress: of which Weiner is currently a member.





Weiner does what Progressives always do after they piss on you: They tell you it's raining.

CORRECTION: Weiner's party affiliation was changed from "Marxist-NY" to "D-NY" to reflect his official designation.


by Mondo Frazier

ObamaCare Repeal: ObamaCare is More Like Prohibition than Social Security, Medicare

THE FIRST STEP TO REPEAL:
WIN the HOUSE, DEFUND OBAMACARE

---

OBAMACARE HAS MORE IN COMMON WITH PROHIBITON
THAN SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE

A lively debate ensued yesterday on whether it's possible/probable to repeal ObamaCare.

It most certainly is, and readers only have to look at the past to find where Americans repealed another highly-unpopular program that was rammed down their throats by those who thought that Government Knows Best: Prohibition.

The talk of repealing ObamaCare was everywhere in the blogosphere. A quick round-up:

* Michele Bachmann, Big Government: We Must Repeal this Bill!

* Bill Whittle, PajamasMedia: FREE WILL AND DESTINY

* Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard: Special Editorial: Repeal

* Jeffrey H. Anderson, The Corner: The Battle Is Lost, and the War Has Begun

* Ace, AofSHQ: We Can Repeal This

* Paul Hsieh, PajamasMedia: ObamaCare: The Coming Battles

Many commentators--some on the Left, some on the Right--insist that once a historic action (entitlement) is taken, it's impossible to reverse. Which calls into question how we got rid of the whole repealing Prohibition thing.

Believe it or not, this is the proper comparison of ObamaCare: not Social Security, not Medicare. ObamaCare has more in common with Prohibition.

* Both ObamaCare and Prohibition are "noble experiments" which attempt to regulate personal human behavior by an unwieldy, gargantuan federal apparatus. In fact, Prohibition was known as the "Noble Experiment."

* Both programs are highly-unpopular with a majority of the population.

* Both programs were promulgated by those who thought that government was smarter than ordinary Americans.

* Both programs are examples of the government's "forcing you to do something you'd rather not do for your own good" philosophy.

It took a Constitutional amendment to make Prohibition the law of the land. While Nancy Pelosi might insist that the unprecedented government power grabs against its citizens are totally Constitutional ("Are you serious?"), we'll see.

---

FIVE STEP PLAN TO REPEAL

Read the rest: 5-Step Repeal Plan: ObamaCare is More Like Prohibition than Social Security at DBKP.

Christian Medical Assn: ObamaCare Lack Conscience Protections

POOR PATIENTS WILL BE HURT

---

IF WASHINGTON IS THE CONSCIENCE
WE'RE ALL GOING TO HELL

WASHINGTON--Christian Medical Association (CMA), today lamented the passage of a sweeping healthcare overhaul bill that lacks strong conscience protections, saying the gap could lead to a crisis of health care for poor patients.

"Millions of poor patients and those in medically underserved areas currently depend on care from faith-based hospitals, clinics and physicians who follow life-affirming ethical standards such as those found in the Hippocratic oath and the Judeo-Christian Scriptures," noted CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens.

---

MORE at DBKP: Death By 1000 Papercuts.com

---

"National polling reveals that 95 percent of faith-based physicians say they will be forced to leave medicine without conscience protections. Since the bill passed by Congress does not include strong conscience protections, it opens the door to an increase in discrimination against physicians, hospitals and clinics that decline to participate in abortion and other morally controversial procedures."

While several longstanding federal laws passed on a bipartisan basis over the past 35 years have offered strong conscience protections, President Obama has announced plans to rescind the only federal regulation that implements those laws. The Senate bill passed by the House on Sunday does not prohibit discrimination by the government or healthcare facilities against healthcare professionals who attempt to follow their conscience on abortion and other morally controversial procedures. The Senate had declined to pass a strong conscience- protecting amendment offered by one of its two physicians, Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn.

Dr. Stevens added, "The last-minute deal for an Executive Order relating to abortion and conscience-- the deal that changed the 'No' votes of pro-life Democrats to 'Yes'--was like trading a birthright for a mess of pottage. The executive order, which added no additional conscience protections whatsoever, can be changed tomorrow by this President, or later by any subsequent President, with the stroke of a pen. The healthcare bill, meanwhile, becomes permanent law."

CMA summarized its position on other aspects of the healthcare bill, including government funding of abortion, in a recent letter to Congress. CMA also coordinates the Freedom2Care coalition of 50 organizations supporting conscience rights in health care.



The CMA forgot to thank Bart Stupak and his wonderfully-principled band of merry "pro-life" pranksters.

And Nancy Pelosi.

And Barack Obama.

This is just the beginning. This is another group who will be energized to fight this fascist Marxism that's come out into the open.

by Mondo Frazier
Source: Christian Medical Association Physicians: Without Strong Conscience Protections, Bill Imperils Poor Patients

Rielle Hunter GQ Interview: 20 Rielle New Age Fables

Saturday is Rielle Hunter's 46th birthday and Hunter's recent interview with GQ gave readers a chance to peer into the mistress of John Edwards' many versions of the truth. We examine many of the statements Hunter made. Were they truthful? Let's find out.



HAPPY BIRTHDAY, RIELLE!
46 YEARS OLD; HOW MANY 'TALL TALES'?

---

RIELLE HUNTER'S GQ INTERVIEW:
A RIELLE-ITY CHECK

A reality check is probably something that the mother of John Edwards' love child, Frances Quinn, would agree is a good thing.

John Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, has come back into the public eye.

And boy, did the public ever get an eyeful.

Hunter did double duty this week in a GQ exclusive interview, Hello America, My Name is Rielle Hunter: readers not only got a bellyful of who Rielle Hunter says she is, but also got an eyeful of a pantless Hunter frolicking about on a bed. The pix showed Rielle and her fan-blown hair using her daughter's toys, pearls and even little Frances Quinn as props--and little else.

The pearls were a nice touch for the former and current child of privilege.

The interview is a two-fer: a look at Hunter in her own words; and, another look at the pix that Hunter later told Barbara Walters "caused her to cry for two hours" after seeing them.

Gotta love a two-fer.

Previously, her nemesis, The National Enquirer, had reported that she had asked "Johnny" Edwards for almost $18,000 a month for child support.

From the look of the GQ pix, not much of that money has been spent on her clothing budget.

---

ALSO at DBKP
*
Rielle Hunter GQ Interview: Rielle Hunter Photos, Video
* Over 180 articles on the John Edwards Scandal from December 2007 to present: The John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library of DBKP articles
* * John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Indictment, the MSM and the National Enquirer

---

In honor of Rielle Hunter's birthday--the mistress turns 46 on Saturday, March 20--we've decided to take a look at her statements in the GQ interview to see if we could find 46 "Rielle Tall Tales." After all, "truthteller" Hunter is on the record with several statements--of which almost every sentence is a fairy tale.

How many versions of the Rielle truth will we find? Will we actually get to 46?

Let's find out.

HAPPY 46th BIRTHDAY, RIELLE HUNTER

[Read the entire article at DBKP: Rielle Hunter GQ Interview: The Many Versions of the Rielle Truth]

A RIELLE REALITY CHECK


1. I could have cashed out big. But that's not what I'm about.

"Could have cashed out big, but that's not what I'm about?!?" I guess garnering somewhere between $10,000/month (what Edwards originally offered her) and almost $18,000/month (what Hunter requested) in child support isn't cashing out big.

A lot of single mothers--with no other visible means of support and some rusty job skills (Hunter hasn't worked outside of her "Johnny gig" for over four years)--would consider $120,000-205,000/year "cashing out."

2. He's very supportive of me talking now. He [Johnny] believes that it's something that will help me be at peace with it. And he knows how important truth is to me. Factual truth as well as spiritual truth.

We all know how important the truth is to Rielle Hunter. Here's Hunter's statement released on October 11, 2007.

“The innuendoes and lies that have appeared on the internet and in the National Enquirer concerning John Edwards are not true, completely unfounded and ridiculous.

My video production company was hired by the Edwards camp on a 6 month contract, which we completed December 31, 2006.

When working for the Edwards camp, my conduct as well as the conduct of my entire team was completely professional.

This concocted story is just dirty politics and I want no part of it.”

The second sentence in the statement is arguably the truth--we're not sure, because Newsweek's Jonathan Darman reported in August 2008 that Hunter had told him that she was fired from the campaign by Elizabeth Edwards. That's certainly one way of "completing" a contract.

The rest is a complete fabrication.

Unless Hunter classifies the making of a sex tape (which she herself in her court documents insists was made during September 2006) starring Edwards and herself as "completely professional" conduct.


3. I met him on a street corner. [laughs] A lot has been written that I met him inside the Regency [hotel in New York City], that I walked over to his table. That is all 100 percent fiction.

Let's see, we have former Edwards' aide Josh Brumberger's account, which contradicts Hunter. As does Andrew Young's account, which he says he learned from Hunter, which contradicts Rielle's GQ version of events. Oh, and Jonathan Darman's December 2006 account of their meeting, which he presumably got from Hunter herself when the two were flying about on the campaign plane in July 2006. And Darman again in 2008. That's three (we'll only count Darman as one) right off the bat--but wait, there's more!

There's Hunter herself, from this February 2007 interview with Extra:

"He was in a business meeting in New York and I was in the same place."

Unless Edwards was holding his business meeting on the street corner--after all, Edwards did run as on a poverty platform--her latest account doesn't jive.

That makes it four-to-one against Hunter's GQ spin. So do we believe Hunter 2007's account--or Hunter's latest version? We have more sources who say "met in bar," but we don't need them here. Still, we'll let the readers decide.




4. Did you know who he [Edwards] was? I did not know who he was.

Even Lisa DePaulo, the GQ interviewer finds this a bit hard to swallow. So she tries again.

Really?
I did not. The John Edwards I saw in 2004 on TV I believed to be a disconnected, two-dimensional-geek kind of guy. And the man sitting across the room was not that at all.

Ohhhh. Rielle didn't know the "real" John Edwards. I guess that's what she was talking about.


5. Why do you think he loves you?
Um… How do I answer that? [long pause] I mean, I could give so many answers. I could give a spiritual answer, that I reflect back to him large parts of himself that were unconscious. Like, he's a huge, huge humanitarian. He is very kindhearted and sweet. He's very honest and truthful. And all of that was hidden.

The part about Edwards being honest and truthful? It was especially well-hidden. Buried, actually.

It remains hidden to this day--except whenever "Johnny" is forced by events beyond his control to admit to something else about the affair and cover-up.

One. Word. At. A. Time. Whenever. Someone. Nails. Him. On. Something.

The greatest thing about being a New Age solipsist chick is that there's so many neat ways to dress up "denial." It's almost like a game.

Playing hide-and-seek with the truth.


6. He [Edwards] is integrated. He is living a life of truth.

Translation, courtesy of the National Enquirer. Integrated = Terrified (at being indicted by a grand jury). Part of Edwards' "life of truth" was on display in January, when he admitted almost two years after Frances Quinn was born, that she was his daughter.

After repeatedly denying that he was her father.

In public.

On national TV.

Maybe Hunter is referring to his life of truth as having begun from that point 50 days ago? Or maybe she knows that Edwards is going to confess everything to the grand jury and set himself free with the truth. Maybe she's referring to his "upcoming" life of truth? Readers will have to decide this one.


7. So I called him about a half hour later. And I got a voice mail in the room, so I hung up. Did not leave a message. Because I did not know what was appropriate. I knew he was married, and I didn't know if his wife was with him, you know; I didn't know what was appropriate. And this was not—there was no sexual intention here at all.

She didn't know what was appropriate? Even though Hunter found Edwards "hot," she had no sexual intentions? So, if either Hunter or Edwards had been packing some Emily Post, a lot of heartache for a lot of various family members--as well as Edwards himself--might have been avoided?

Even though this is another answer that DiPaulo can't believe, it might be best to rest our case here.


8. So I hung up. And about ten minutes later, my cell phone rang. And I looked down, and I said to my friends, "What is this number?" One of my friends said, "That's the Regency." And I said, "He's calling me back? I didn't even leave a message. How is he calling me back?" And he, you know, star-69'ed or whatever the caller ID was. And he left me this message, "Hi. Call me. I really want to hear what you have to say."

Martin Lewis, Huffington Post [John Edwards & Rielle Hunter: The First Big Lie], is ahead of the curve on this one. Let's turn it over to him.

I just telephoned the Regency Hotel -- where according to Rielle Hunter and multiple other accounts -- John Edwards was staying the night they met and where she telephoned him.

I spoke to a very nice lady on the Front Desk. Juliet Bird. I inquired about the telephone facilities in the guest rooms. "Are the telephones at the Regency Hotel equipped with "caller ID" or "star-69" facility?"

She told me that she had never been asked that particular question before and would need to check with a supervisor familiar with the hotel's telephone system.

She checked. The answer was -- as I suspected -- no. Neither of those facilities, or anything like them, were available on the telephones in their guest rooms.

It's easy to get that 'star-69 thing' confused.

Andrew Young's version is more simplistic--but not nearly as fraught with cat-and-mouse romanticism.

Young says that Edwards gave Hunter the key card to his hotel room.


9. And I said to my friends, "I'm going over there [to Edwards' hotel room]." And it was funny, because they were like, "You cannot sleep with him! You cannot sleep with him, because you can help him!" And I said, "I am not going to sleep with him."

Two out of three people in Hunter's group almost instantly knew the real truth of what was about to transpire. Hint for those slow on the uptake: Hunter was the odd girl out.

But she was right about the part of it being "funny."


10. I used to make a joke that I could have helped save the world, but I had to sleep with him. You know? It was kind of like that.

Actually, Edwards' mistress is telling the truth here--in a roundabout way. After all, if she hadn't slept with him, he might have been president. So maybe she did save the world as well as sleep with him.

What girl can resist a two-fer?


Read the rest at DBKP: Rielle Hunter GQ Interview: The Many Versions of the Rielle Truth


by Mondo Frazier
image credits at DBKP