Is it as easy as just de-funding amnesty?

[jimnyc]

Could they stop this by simply denying funds? Or making it unlawful as he states? Or would Obama just do it anyway and let the chips fall where they may? I think this is what they should do, regardless. I wouldn't fund something I didn't vote for if I were there.

--------

Rep. Salmon: Anti-Amnesty Spending Bill Stops Obama 'Dead in His Tracks'

Republicans have a responsibility to the American people to pass a spending bill that would block funding for anything involving executive amnesty, Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon said Friday on Newsmax TV's "America's Forum."

"It will stop him dead in his tracks if our conference decides to put on the spending bill that the president has to have by the end of the year that no money in that spending bill can go for these purposes, for this executive amnesty. If he does that, he's in direct violation of the law," Salmon said.

"We have a responsibility to put forward our views on how the government should be funded as conservatives. The founding fathers gave us the power of the purse just for moments like this. The president has the veto and we have the power of the purse. If our appropriators include that language in the bill, the president will be forbidden from using any money. He can do whatever executive order he wants, he just won't have the money to implement it."

Salmon said there are already 63 signatures, including his own, on a letter he sent Thursday to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers and ranking member Nita Lowey, requesting language be included in "all appropriations legislation prohibiting the use of funds by the administration for the implementation of current or future executive actions that would create additional work permits and green cards outside the scope prescribed by Congress."

"The message from the American people is resonating loud and clear," Salmon said, noting that the tone in Washington has changed markedly since the election.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Matt-Salmon-Obama-amnesty-executive-action/2014/11/14/id/607378/

[fj1200]

Could they stop this by simply denying funds? Or making it unlawful as he states? Or would Obama just do it anyway and let the chips fall where they may? I think this is what they should do, regardless. I wouldn't fund something I didn't vote for if I were there.

I would guess that an EO wouldn't require much expenditure of funds so I don't think it's as easy as that. My understanding is that BO only has powers that were delegated previously by other legislation so we'd have to know what all those powers might be.

[jimnyc]

I would guess that an EO wouldn't require much expenditure of funds so I don't think it's as easy as that. My understanding is that BO only has powers that were delegated previously by other legislation so we'd have to know what all those powers might be.

Well, I would imagine a lot of $$$ will go into what follows the amnesty, and these folks applying for things and getting SS#'s and such. I guess it's a warning at this point, that they will NOT pass any budgets or bills or anything else that has language in it for any type of funding related to the illegals.

AND - placing language in anything that allows money - language that states that the money cannot be used for blah blah blah - excluding any end around moves.

With this knowledge, would it make a difference to those already trying this massive end around?

And lastly, if he grants amnesty, and any/all money related to it is 100% denied by congress - then where the EFF does/will the money come from? Once the dipshit grants amnesty, it's not like you can tell the people months later "haha we were only kdding", so it's kind of irreversible to an extent. So the money WILL have to come from somewhere - but I do not think it should be the American people paying for it. One way or another, I have a sneaky suspicion I will now be giving funds over to these illegal bastards, as if they weren't already siphoning enough away from me.

[DLT]

Could they stop this by simply denying funds? Or making it unlawful as he states? Or would Obama just do it anyway and let the chips fall where they may? I think this is what they should do, regardless. I wouldn't fund something I didn't vote for if I were there.

--------

Rep. Salmon: Anti-Amnesty Spending Bill Stops Obama 'Dead in His Tracks'



Republicans have a responsibility to the American people to pass a spending bill that would block funding for anything involving executive amnesty, Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon said Friday on Newsmax TV's "America's Forum."

"It will stop him dead in his tracks if our conference decides to put on the spending bill that the president has to have by the end of the year that no money in that spending bill can go for these purposes, for this executive amnesty. If he does that, he's in direct violation of the law," Salmon said.

"We have a responsibility to put forward our views on how the government should be funded as conservatives. The founding fathers gave us the power of the purse just for moments like this. The president has the veto and we have the power of the purse. If our appropriators include that language in the bill, the president will be forbidden from using any money. He can do whatever executive order he wants, he just won't have the money to implement it."

Salmon said there are already 63 signatures, including his own, on a letter he sent Thursday to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers and ranking member Nita Lowey, requesting language be included in "all appropriations legislation prohibiting the use of funds by the administration for the implementation of current or future executive actions that would create additional work permits and green cards outside the scope prescribed by Congress."

"The message from the American people is resonating loud and clear," Salmon said, noting that the tone in Washington has changed markedly since the election.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Matt-Salmon-Obama-amnesty-executive-action/2014/11/14/id/607378/

The Dems are crafting yet another government shutdown in their dreams that can be blamed on the Reps, per usual. They know that Bitch McConnel will cave to any such threat or likelihood (or to any pressure at all). But since both Boehner and McConnell have declared that won't happen, they have signaled to the enemy what they can get away with. It seems that not even the Reps got Nov. 4's memo.

[fj1200]

It seems that not even the Reps got Nov. 4's memo.

:rolleyes: Because shutdowns always work well for Republicans?

[DLT]

:rolleyes: Because shutdowns always work well for Republicans?

No, because their job "now" is to stop Obama.....any way they can. Not to play nice, be bi-partisan and not to give away their gameplan ahead of time.

That was made pretty clear by the landslide/sweep election this month. Or didn't YOU get the memo?

[fj1200]

No, because their job "now" is to stop Obama.....any way they can. Not to play nice, be bi-partisan and not to give away their gameplan ahead of time.

That was made pretty clear by the landslide/sweep election this month. Or didn't YOU get the memo?

That really didn't answer the question. Shutdowns do not work well for Republicans and since the 2016 election cycle just began they need to show that they can pass some conservative legislation and not just politically posture for the next two years.

[red states rule]

Could they stop this by simply denying funds? Or making it unlawful as he states? Or would Obama just do it anyway and let the chips fall where they may? I think this is what they should do, regardless. I wouldn't fund something I didn't vote for if I were there.

--------

Rep. Salmon: Anti-Amnesty Spending Bill Stops Obama 'Dead in His Tracks'



Republicans have a responsibility to the American people to pass a spending bill that would block funding for anything involving executive amnesty, Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon said Friday on Newsmax TV's "America's Forum."

"It will stop him dead in his tracks if our conference decides to put on the spending bill that the president has to have by the end of the year that no money in that spending bill can go for these purposes, for this executive amnesty. If he does that, he's in direct violation of the law," Salmon said.

"We have a responsibility to put forward our views on how the government should be funded as conservatives. The founding fathers gave us the power of the purse just for moments like this. The president has the veto and we have the power of the purse. If our appropriators include that language in the bill, the president will be forbidden from using any money. He can do whatever executive order he wants, he just won't have the money to implement it."

Salmon said there are already 63 signatures, including his own, on a letter he sent Thursday to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers and ranking member Nita Lowey, requesting language be included in "all appropriations legislation prohibiting the use of funds by the administration for the implementation of current or future executive actions that would create additional work permits and green cards outside the scope prescribed by Congress."

"The message from the American people is resonating loud and clear," Salmon said, noting that the tone in Washington has changed markedly since the election.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Matt-Salmon-Obama-amnesty-executive-action/2014/11/14/id/607378/

Why would anyone be surprised by Obama's reaction to the ass kicking he took in the election?

He is trying to force a government shutdown to try and salvage his last 2 years. I do hope the R's do not fall into the trap

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu14111020141111063510.jpg

[Jeff]

Why would anyone be surprised by Obama's reaction to the ass kicking he took in the election?

He is trying to force a government shutdown to try and salvage his last 2 years. I do hope the R's do not fall into the trap

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu14111020141111063510.jpg

Obama don't believe that landslide had anything to do with him, hell the entire country is filled with Racist !

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv111714dAPR20141117044525.jpg

[aboutime]

As I read somewhere else today. "Call Obama's bluff on doubling down Repubs!" Close the govt. if that's what it takes to stop him from destroying more of America. That seems to be the favorite LIE...I mean, CLAIM the Dems, and Obama always rely on every time lately.
STOP THE FLOW OF MONEY....The Majority in January can make it really hard, while still paying the Military, and maintaining S.S. Unemployment, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid. Let the DEMS scream and Blame Republicans as much as they want.

WE THE STUPID AMERICANS the Dems, and Obama pretend they know nothing about. HOLD THE PURSE STRINGS. Time to HOLD THEM TIGHTER.

Here is the text. Breaks rules for DP by using the real Link:

Democrats Knew Obama Lied about Obamacare and Voted for it Anyway
Posted 7 Hours Ago by Common Constitutionalist Filed under Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, Law, Liberalism, Low Information Voters, ObamaCare, Politics6 Comments
Share72 Tweet33 Share136 Email1
It seems that Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner has found a few choice quotes from Democrats, namely Nancy Pelosi as the title of her article on Saturday would suggest: “Gruber wrote computer code, not Obamacare.”
Is that right? Well, he sure does have a lot to say and sure seems to have plenty of detailed strategic information for some guy tucked away somewhere pecking at a keyboard; that, or he has a very active imagination. Maybe he’s the inadvertent Edward Snowden of Obamacare, or maybe he's a typical egotistical arrogant liberal who, like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al. who think they can say anything and not be held to account, even when they're caught on audio or video. "Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?"
Nonetheless, Susan writes that House Democrats contend that Jonathan Gruber was merely a computer code expert who was factually wrong in the assertions he made, regarding Obamacare.
By now most of us have heard that he was merely a computer "modeler, who wrote 15,000 lines of computer code." And for this, writes Ferrechio, he "banked more than $1 million from the federal government and states by helping design and implement the Affordable Care Act." Where do I sign up for that gig?
Susan reports that although Pelosi insists that he played no role in writing Obamacare, Gruber evidently visited the White House eight times. Now why in the world would anyone in the White House invite a mere computer programmer to meet with them once let alone eight times? Answer: they wouldn't.
So Pelosi claims he had no role, yet on her own website she said “The White House sometimes consulted Gruber on healthcare issues.” Why would they be asking a computer programmer about healthcare? That's like asking the guy who does my dry cleaning how to rebuild my car’s engine. It makes no sense. It doesn't have to. There are no contradictions in the world of a liberal Democrat.
Want an example? Ferrechio has one. We've all seen the videos where Gruber is caught saying “the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ and a ‘lack of transparency’ were the key to getting the public to accept the 2010 law.” She then cites Pelosi on her own website saying "First of all, there was no lack of transparency in the drafting and passing of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Affordable Care Act had more openness and transparency in its consideration than any law in many years."
I'm not sure that this type of arrogance can be taught. It may be something that Pelosi was born with.
Then there's this from Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY):
Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand admitted on ABC’s This Week that all Democrats knew that Obama was lying when he fraudulently repeated over 30 times that, "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, period." When asked by guest host Martha Raddatz if Gillibrand felt misled by Obama’s promise to Americans of being able to keep their current health insurance plan, Gillibrand responded, “He should have just been more specific. No, we all knew.”
Gillibrand had no problem with the lie since Obamacare was a good cause. The ends do justify the means.
Anyway, back to this "no lack of transparency" claim of Pelosi's. Does the phrase, you have to pass it to find out what's in it ring a bell? This woman really is beyond the pale. That or she's suffering the early stages of dementia.
In fact, she may have more contradictory statements over the past five years then Obama. Ferrechio writes that "Pelosi made a reference to Gruber's modeling during a 2009 press conference, but when asked about him last week she initially said she didn't know him."
All in all, Ferrechio does an excellent job condensing some of Pelosi's more outrageous lies regarding Obamacare and Gruber. It's a difficult thing to do so in a short one page article. It seems that not a day goes by when Pelosi is lying about something.
But hey, that's what Democrat politicians do. They lie and do so with impunity. And they're so arrogant that they don't even care if and when they get caught.
It's the nature of the modern Democrat Party.

[jimnyc]

House Appropriations Committee Confirms Congress Can't Defund Obama's Immigration Action

WASHINGTON -- The House Appropriations Committee confirmed Thursday what some people are already figuring out: Republicans don't have the ability to defund President Barack Obama's forthcoming executive action on immigration.

Obama is expected to announce Thursday night that he will use his executive authority to stop deportations for as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants. Republicans have fumed about the president going around Congress to make such a significant change and vowed to cut off funding for it. Some have even threatened to shut down the government in protest.

But lawmakers can't cut off funding for Obama's action because the agency responsible for carrying out the changes is completely self-funded, the House Appropriations Committee explained in a statement:

"The primary agency for implementing the President's new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the 'E-Verify' program. Therefore, the Appropriations process cannot be used to 'de-fund' the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/20/defund-obama-immigration-action_n_6191958.html

[aboutime]

House Appropriations Committee Confirms Congress Can't Defund Obama's Immigration Action

WASHINGTON -- The House Appropriations Committee confirmed Thursday what some people are already figuring out: Republicans don't have the ability to defund President Barack Obama's forthcoming executive action on immigration.

Obama is expected to announce Thursday night that he will use his executive authority to stop deportations for as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants. Republicans have fumed about the president going around Congress to make such a significant change and vowed to cut off funding for it. Some have even threatened to shut down the government in protest.

But lawmakers can't cut off funding for Obama's action because the agency responsible for carrying out the changes is completely self-funded, the House Appropriations Committee explained in a statement:

"The primary agency for implementing the President's new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the 'E-Verify' program. Therefore, the Appropriations process cannot be used to 'de-fund' the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/20/defund-obama-immigration-action_n_6191958.html



Jim. All of what was stated above was true....as long as the Dems have the majority in the Senate. I will just wait and see WHO the Dems, and Obama think they can fool by Ignoring the laws, and the Constitution....after January.

As a side note, and not something the Dems, or Obama want us to know is. Congress Does fund the STATE DEPARTMENT. That oversee's the imaginary TRICK PONY the Huffington Post has Ignored.

[red states rule]

Obama don't believe that landslide had anything to do with him, hell the entire country is filled with Racist !

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb_c12509920141121120100.jpg

[Kathianne]

That really didn't answer the question. Shutdowns do not work well for Republicans and since the 2016 election cycle just began they need to show that they can pass some conservative legislation and not just politically posture for the next two years.

I agree that 'shutdown' would be stupid. However, with control of both houses, the conservatives should be able to write legislation and with hold funding for specific actions by various actions of the government. It costs to do background checks on folks, the money isn't there.

It costs to verify birth certificates of children of illegals, funding isn't there.

For certain with bureaucracy there are many more details I'm not close to thinking about.

Obama really needs to decide whether he's going to go bi-partisan or his own way. I think yesterday was his gauntlet day, but not sure that the GOP is going to go the way he thinks.

Then again, he may be just as certain he's the smartest guy ever, as I've thought from the beginning, a 'true believer.' Noonan pretty much sums up my thoughts, though unlike her, I never bought what he was selling:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/peggy-noonan-the-nihilist-in-the-white-house-1416533660


The Nihilist in the White House

This administration doesn’t build, it divides and tears down. Vindication is assumed.


By PEGGY NOONAN

<time class="timestamp" style="margin: 0px 0px 4px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Whitney SSm', sans-serif; display: block; line-height: 2.2rem; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">Updated Nov. 21, 2014 6:36 p.m. ET

There is an odd, magical-thinking element in the psychology of recent White Houses. It is now common for those within them to assume that history will declare their greatness down the road. They proceed as if this is automatic, guaranteed: They will leave someday, history will ponder their accomplishments and announce their genius.


The assumption of history’s inevitable vindication is sharper in the current White House, due to general conceit—they really do think they possess a higher wisdom and play a deeper game—and the expectation that liberal historians will write the history.


The illusion becomes a form of license. We don’t have to listen to critics, adversaries, worriers and warn-ers, we just have to force through our higher vision and let history say down the road we got it right.


They make this assumption because they don’t know much about history—they really are people who saw the movie but didn’t read the book—and because historical vindication is what happened so spectacularly in the case of Ronald Reagan. So it will happen to them, too.

...


Historical vindication happens. The Obama White House assumes it will happen to them. Thus they can do pretty much what they want.


What they forget is that facts largely decide what history thinks—outcomes, what happened, what it means. What they also forget, or perhaps never knew, is that the great ones are always constructive. They don’t divide and tear down. They build, gather in, create, bend, meld, and in so doing move things forward.


That’s not this crowd.


This White House seems driven—does it understand this?—by a kind of political nihilism. They agitate, aggravate, fray and separate.


Look at three great domestic issues just the past few weeks.
...

The future acknowledgment of greatness only follows actual greatness. History takes the long view but in the end relies on facts.


“But history will be written by liberals.” Fair enough, and they will judge the president the more harshly because he failed to do anything that lasts. ObamaCare will be corrected and torn down piece by piece. The immigration order will be changed, slowed or undone by the courts, Congress or through executive actions down the road. Keystone will pass and a veto overridden.


And the president has failed liberals through unpopularity, which is another word for incompetence.

</time>

[fj1200]

I agree that 'shutdown' would be stupid. However, with control of both houses, the conservatives should be able to write legislation and with hold funding for specific actions by various actions of the government. It costs to do background checks on folks, the money isn't there.

It costs to verify birth certificates of children of illegals, funding isn't there.

For certain with bureaucracy there are many more details I'm not close to thinking about.

Obama really needs to decide whether he's going to go bi-partisan or his own way. I think yesterday was his gauntlet day, but not sure that the GOP is going to go the way he thinks.

Then again, he may be just as certain he's the smartest guy ever, as I've thought from the beginning, a 'true believer.' Noonan pretty much sums up my thoughts, though unlike her, I never bought what he was selling:

Exactly, they need to act like they know what they're doing.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As I read somewhere else today. "Call Obama's bluff on doubling down Repubs!" Close the govt. if that's what it takes to stop him from destroying more of America. That seems to be the favorite LIE...I mean, CLAIM the Dems, and Obama always rely on every time lately.
STOP THE FLOW OF MONEY....The Majority in January can make it really hard, while still paying the Military, and maintaining S.S. Unemployment, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid. Let the DEMS scream and Blame Republicans as much as they want.

WE THE STUPID AMERICANS the Dems, and Obama pretend they know nothing about. HOLD THE PURSE STRINGS. Time to HOLD THEM TIGHTER.

Here is the text. Breaks rules for DP by using the real Link:

Democrats Knew Obama Lied about Obamacare and Voted for it Anyway
Posted 7 Hours Ago by Common Constitutionalist Filed under Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, Law, Liberalism, Low Information Voters, ObamaCare, Politics6 Comments
Share72 Tweet33 Share136 Email1
It seems that Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner has found a few choice quotes from Democrats, namely Nancy Pelosi as the title of her article on Saturday would suggest: “Gruber wrote computer code, not Obamacare.”
Is that right? Well, he sure does have a lot to say and sure seems to have plenty of detailed strategic information for some guy tucked away somewhere pecking at a keyboard; that, or he has a very active imagination. Maybe he’s the inadvertent Edward Snowden of Obamacare, or maybe he's a typical egotistical arrogant liberal who, like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al. who think they can say anything and not be held to account, even when they're caught on audio or video. "Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?"
Nonetheless, Susan writes that House Democrats contend that Jonathan Gruber was merely a computer code expert who was factually wrong in the assertions he made, regarding Obamacare.
By now most of us have heard that he was merely a computer "modeler, who wrote 15,000 lines of computer code." And for this, writes Ferrechio, he "banked more than $1 million from the federal government and states by helping design and implement the Affordable Care Act." Where do I sign up for that gig?
Susan reports that although Pelosi insists that he played no role in writing Obamacare, Gruber evidently visited the White House eight times. Now why in the world would anyone in the White House invite a mere computer programmer to meet with them once let alone eight times? Answer: they wouldn't.
So Pelosi claims he had no role, yet on her own website she said “The White House sometimes consulted Gruber on healthcare issues.” Why would they be asking a computer programmer about healthcare? That's like asking the guy who does my dry cleaning how to rebuild my car’s engine. It makes no sense. It doesn't have to. There are no contradictions in the world of a liberal Democrat.
Want an example? Ferrechio has one. We've all seen the videos where Gruber is caught saying “the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ and a ‘lack of transparency’ were the key to getting the public to accept the 2010 law.” She then cites Pelosi on her own website saying "First of all, there was no lack of transparency in the drafting and passing of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Affordable Care Act had more openness and transparency in its consideration than any law in many years."
I'm not sure that this type of arrogance can be taught. It may be something that Pelosi was born with.
Then there's this from Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY):
Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand admitted on ABC’s This Week that all Democrats knew that Obama was lying when he fraudulently repeated over 30 times that, "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, period." When asked by guest host Martha Raddatz if Gillibrand felt misled by Obama’s promise to Americans of being able to keep their current health insurance plan, Gillibrand responded, “He should have just been more specific. No, we all knew.”
Gillibrand had no problem with the lie since Obamacare was a good cause. The ends do justify the means.
Anyway, back to this "no lack of transparency" claim of Pelosi's. Does the phrase, you have to pass it to find out what's in it ring a bell? This woman really is beyond the pale. That or she's suffering the early stages of dementia.
In fact, she may have more contradictory statements over the past five years then Obama. Ferrechio writes that "Pelosi made a reference to Gruber's modeling during a 2009 press conference, but when asked about him last week she initially said she didn't know him."
All in all, Ferrechio does an excellent job condensing some of Pelosi's more outrageous lies regarding Obamacare and Gruber. It's a difficult thing to do so in a short one page article. It seems that not a day goes by when Pelosi is lying about something.
But hey, that's what Democrat politicians do. They lie and do so with impunity. And they're so arrogant that they don't even care if and when they get caught.
It's the nature of the modern Democrat Party.

The following observation by the author of that article cites exactly what is wrong with liberals in general and Pelosi and the Obama in particular. Think about the ramifications for that being an honest judgment and their actions all start to make sense..
It is "upside down turvy" day everyday for them and the destruction that brings is tremendous..-Tyr


I'm not sure that this type of arrogance can be taught. It may be something that Pelosi was born with.
Then there's this from Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY):
Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand admitted on ABC’s This Week that all Democrats knew that Obama was lying when he fraudulently repeated over 30 times that, "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, period." When asked by guest host Martha Raddatz if Gillibrand felt misled by Obama’s promise to Americans of being able to keep their current health insurance plan, Gillibrand responded, “He should have just been more specific. No, we all knew.”
Gillibrand had no problem with the lie since Obamacare was a good cause. The ends do justify the means.
Anyway, back to this "no lack of transparency" claim of Pelosi's. Does the phrase, you have to pass it to find out what's in it ring a bell? This woman really is beyond the pale. That or she's suffering the early stages of dementia.
In fact, she may have more contradictory statements over the past five years then Obama. Ferrechio writes that "Pelosi made a reference to Gruber's modeling during a 2009 press conference, but when asked about him last week she initially said she didn't know him."
All in all, Ferrechio does an excellent job condensing some of Pelosi's more outrageous lies regarding Obamacare and Gruber. It's a difficult thing to do so in a short one page article. It seems that not a day goes by when Pelosi is lying about something.
But hey, that's what Democrat politicians do. They lie and do so with impunity. And they're so arrogant that they don't even care if and when they get caught.
It's the nature of the modern Democrat Party.