Speaking of mendacity, here's Buck Sexton insinuating that Kamala Harris deployed Christine Ford against Brett Kavanaugh when it was Anna Eshoo and Diane Feinstein

 But of course the lapdogs just lap up this rewriting of history, which is deployed now because Kamala Harris is on the cusp.

Kamala simply piled on the pig-pile after the fact and has never done anything notable either as a senator or as VP.

She's a Didn't Earn It hire who came in a distant fourth in November 2019 in presidential polling . . . in her own state of California. That's why she dropped out.

Not even California wanted her anywhere near the White House.

 

 

There's plenty of mendacity afoot on both sides, including from the isolationist click-farmers

 

Democrat gaslighting in the headlines

 

Dems Gaslit America for 4 Years in the Name of 'Democracy'

Gerard Baker, WSJ

 

Debate Exposed the Dem Media's Fabrications

Victor Davis Hanson, American Greatness

 

American Voters Rightly Feel They've Been Lied To

Mark Hemingway, The Federalist

 

Voters Should Punish Democrat Mendacity Up & Down the Ticket

David Sacks, X

 

Biden's Debate Disaster Reveals a Campaign Built on Lies

Julian Epstein, NY Post

 

Debate Takeaway is Biden Hasn't Actually Been in Charge

Chamath Palihapitiya, X

 

Aides Have Shielded Biden Since Beginning of Presidency

Alex Thompson, Axios

 

The Ruling Class' House of Cards Crumbles

David Deavel, AMAC

 

Now the Entire World Knows What Liars Dems & Media Are

Sasha Stone, Substack

 

Rarely Are So Many Lies Dispelled in a Single Moment

Bari Weiss, The Free Press

 

Why Dems & the Media Lied About Joe Biden's Frailty

Brendan O'Neill, Spiked

 

Dear Dems: The Gaslighting Isn't Helping Matters

Tim Miller, The Bulwark

One of the worst things Biden ever did for his credibility is let this incompetent, evasive, mendacious, stonewalling, partisan hack become the daily public face of his administration

 

The next two years will be nothing but the sound of the media's excuses for getting Russiagate wrong

Which will be nothing but the flip side to Hillary's excuses for two years for losing Election 2016.

All we ask for is integrity and competence . . . all we get is mendacity and excuses.

John O'Sullivan: Rubio is the poster boy for the liberal immigration policies which Trump launched his campaign to oppose

Green card holder John O'Sullivan at National Review prefers Trump to the ever mendacious Marco Rubio, here:

[N]one of the three leading Republicans have been exactly models of truth-telling in this campaign. So the relevant question then becomes “Compared with whom?” Let’s compare Trump’s boastful and evasive untruths with the very different lies of Marco Rubio on various immigration bills he has tried to sell to conservatives (as detailed by John Fonte on NRO on Wednesday.) These amounted to a long campaign of deliberate mendacity intended to deceive allies on a matter of the greatest public interest so that they would unknowingly support what they really oppose.

O'Sullivan correctly acknowledges that Trump's is a non-ideological conservatism which is widely shared among Americans:

Conservatives in practice accept that their realism about human nature shouldn’t (or can’t) stop at the door of the voting booth. What there is of Trump’s conservatism seems to be of that kind. And that seems also to be true of “ordinary” conservatives outside Washington, as several writers such as Rod Dreher have pointed out. They tend not to have highly consistent ideologies but to tolerate contradictions within a broadly conservative outlook. One very likely effect of a GOP conservatism influenced by Trumpery, therefore, is that it will remain conservative but in a less consistently ideological way. It is likely to be more spasmodically interventionist in economic policy, more concerned with directly protecting the interests of Americans (and especially the voting groups who have surged up to back Trump), more anxious about how to solve the problems identified by Charles Murray in Fishtown without spending too much more on them, more protective of entitlements, and more loudly patriotic in general. As a fully paid-up Thatcherite, I will find a lot of this irksome and mistaken. It will remind me of the pre-Thatcher Tory party and its bumbling resistance to economic rationality. And I’m beginning to feel grouchily that I want to hear a little less about American exceptionalism until the U.S. manages not to lose a war. 

Mock Trump and Code Pink all you want, Pat Buchanan still asserts we found no WMD in Iraq, no connection to 9/11, and Bush lied about it

Here, as recently as March 19, 2013:

Of the three goals of the war, none was achieved. No weapon of mass destruction was found. While Saddam and his sons paid for their sins, they had had nothing at all to do with 9/11. Nothing. That had all been mendacious propaganda.

Where there had been no al-Qaida in Iraq while Saddam ruled, al-Qaida is crawling all over Iraq now. Where Iraq had been an Arab Sunni bulwark confronting Iran in 2003, a decade later, Iraq is tilting away from the Sunni camp toward the Shia crescent of Iran and Hezbollah.

What was the cost in blood and treasure of our Mesopotamian misadventure? Four thousand five hundred U.S. dead, 35,000 wounded and this summary of war costs from Friday’s Wall Street Journal:

“The decade-long (Iraq) effort cost $1.7 trillion, according to a study … by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Fighting over the past 10 years has killed 134,000 Iraqi civilians … . Meanwhile, the nearly $500 billion in unpaid benefits to U.S. veterans of the Iraq war could balloon to $6 trillion” over the next 40 years. ...

We are not known as a reflective people. But a question has to weigh upon us. If Saddam had no WMD, had no role in 9/11, did not attack us, did not threaten us, and did not want war with us, was our unprovoked attack on that country a truly just and moral war?

The likes of National Review and Glenn Beck are simply lying about Trump's views on amnesty

Everyone who has heard Trump's extended remarks on the subject of illegal immigration on The O'Reilly Factor in 2011 knows there's not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Trump has flip-flopped on the issue which is presently at the center of his campaign for president. Both National Review and Glenn Beck are mendacious for suggesting otherwise.

During that 2011 interview Trump committed to a case by case method of deciding who among the millions who are here illegally gets to stay and who must go, which shows that Trump is not the uncompassionate Neanderthal he is being made out to be on the subject. He acknowledged that the sheer size of the numbers makes it a formidable problem indeed, but not one the size of which was so large that our government wouldn't be able to work through it. But for that his opponents, who are not just critics, slimily accuse him of supporting a pathway to citizenship as if his position is not substantively different from the get-out-of-jail-free card the Democrats, and some Republicans, would hand out to each and every one of them. 

All Trump's other remarks about the subject on that show demonstrate without a doubt that Trump's position about enforcing the border with military if necessary, building a wall and living by the rule of law has been consistent with his clearly stated views over the course of almost two decades.

Hillary the Mendacious altered her emails, making everything she has turned over suspect

Kim Strassel for The Wall Street Journal, here:

Nothing Mrs. Clinton has supplied to the State Department can now be trusted as legitimate. The real bombshell news was the State Department’s admission that, in at least six instances, the Clinton team altered the emails before handing them over. Sentences or entire paragraphs—which, by the way, were work-related—were removed. State was able to confirm this because it could double-check against Mr. Blumenthal’s documents.

Liberal hubris two months ago about Ebola virus may mean death for many Americans

Flashback to late July when you were on the beach. At the time the mendacious CDC said Ebola wouldn't spread "widely" in the US, not that it wouldn't get here, and you went on with your novel and your drink (dateline NBC here):

“It is not a potential of Ebola spreading widely in the U.S. That is not in the cards,” Frieden told reporters on a conference call. “We are not telling people who are essential to leave.” ... “This is a tragic, painful, dreadful, merciless virus. It is the largest, most complex outbreak that we know of in history,” Frieden said. “We at CDC are surging our response along with others. Although it will not be quick and it will not be easy, we do know how to stop Ebola.” ... “We have quarantine stations at all the major ports of entry,” he said. People cannot transmit Ebola to others unless they are sick, and Ebola makes you so sick that it’s pretty obvious pretty quickly, Frieden said. A traveler will be flagged by the flight crew and if someone gets sick after arrival in the U.S. they will almost certainly seek medical care. “Ebola poses little risk to the U.S. general population,” Frieden said. “Ebola is spread as people get sicker and sicker. They have fever and may develop serious symptoms.” Ebola doesn’t spread through the air like measles. People who get sick are family members or healthcare workers in prolonged and close contact with victims. ... “This is a marathon, not a sprint,” he said. “This is going to take at least three to six months, even if everything goes well.”

-----------------------------------------------------

If they knew how to stop Ebola, then why is it here two months later? Maybe because liberals couldn't get past their first ideological barrier: their commitment to the idea of world citizenship and thus of nations without borders and of free travel between them. Kind of reminds me of free trade, which has infected America with a disease known as unemployment and underemployment.

Stopping the spread of deadly viral disease requires restrictions on international travel, and contact tracing by every doctor, two things no longer routinely practiced in America nor supported by the health authorities. The latter has been considered "discriminatory" since the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. And while AIDS has been more or less contained in the US for other reasons, sexually transmitted disease has not. Half the population carries one.

Your doctor is most likely part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Ron Radosh Skewers Filmmaker Oliver Stone's Mendacious Stalinism

Here:

According to his own testimony, if he had become president, Wallace would have made Harry Dexter White his secretary of the Treasury and given a position in government to Laurence Duggan. Both men were Soviet agents. As a KGB cable found in the Venona archives shows, the Soviets hoped that Duggan would aid them “by using his friendship” with Wallace for “extracting .  .  . interesting information.” ... Stone allows no critical opinions by scholars who have studied the Soviet archives to disturb his rehash of Communist propaganda themes. His sainted Henry Wallace opposed the creation of NATO, advocated abandoning Berlin in response to the Soviet blockade, denounced the Marshall Plan for European reconstruction as “the martial plan,” and justified the 1948 Communist coup in Czechoslovakia as a measure to thwart a plot by fascist forces. Precisely the Kremlin line.

Mitt The Mendacious Comes Out For Key Provisions Of ObamaCare

Quoted in the Tampa Bay Times, here:

"I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform," Romney said. "There are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like. I also want individuals to be able to buy insurance, health insurance, on their own as opposed to only being able to get it on a tax-advantage basis through their company."

These positions represent government interference in the private and free market for health insurance, and therefore will drive up costs for everyone, not to mention making not growing up already an even bigger problem than it already is.

Mitt Romney doesn't have a limited government bone in his body.