Remember those punks in high school that would lie about girls that would not go out with them?

I am sure you can recall the type I am talking about. They ask the pretty girl out, she says no, so they start bragging about how they banged her in the back seat of their car, or somewhere else. Those guys were pricks in high school, and they grew up to become Democrats!

Via NH Journal:

New Hampshire Democrats were quick to attack Republican State Representative Marilinda Garcia once she made her intention to seek the her party’s nomination for the second congressional district seat official. Garcia announced her candidacy via a press release on Monday morning; she joins former Republican State Senator Gary Lambert in the race to take on Democratic Congresswoman Anne Kuster.

Within moments of her announcement, prominent Democratic State Rep. Peter Sullivan attacked Garcia on Twitter using sexist language and imagery. Sullivan compared the three-term State Representative, who holds a Master’s degree from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, to reality television celebrity Kim Kardashian. He went on to refer to her as “[Republican State Rep.] Al Baldasarro [sic] in stiletto heels” and “a lightweight.”

Throughout the 2012 and 2013 election cycles, national Democrats launched repeated attacks accusing Republicans of using rhetoric they claimed was demeaning to women.

Democrats do what they accuse Republicans of doing. And poking fun of a woman who dares to think for herself, rather than knowing her place, as Democrats prefer, is typical Democratic behavior.

mGarcia MGarcia1

Yes, it is true that Marilinda Garcia is quite pretty, and smart, and a Republican Democrats just hate that

*VIDEO* Another Terrific Ted Cruz Speech – New Hampshire (08/23/13)


.

PLEASE DON’T FORGET TO SIGN SENATOR TED
CRUZ’S PETITION TO DEFUND OBAMACARE

Dont Fund Obamacare
………………………Click on image above to sign petition.

.

My first thought when someone mentions Joe Scarborough is………..

… Joe Scarborough, you mean Mika’s Bitch boy?

“Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough says the senators who voted against expanded background checks for gun buyers on Wednesday are providing “the opportunity for terrorists, for gang members, for criminals, for violent rapists” to purchase firearms. 

“I got to say just really quickly, I know we got to go to break, but Mark Halperin, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, voting against background checks for terrorists, voting against background checks for violent rapists, voting against background checks for gang members — I don’t know that she really helped her cause in New Hampshire for re-election, did she?”

The former Florida congressman then declared the Republican Party is “moving toward extinction.”

So, is Scarborough actually saying that terrorists, rapists, and gang members do not have to go through background checks now? Of course not Joe, and this bill would not have forced them to go through background checks either. I will say this slowly Joe. Terrorists, gang members and violent felons do not obey laws. they get guns ILLEGALLY now, and no new law will suddenly force these evil beasts to transform into law-abiding citizens. 

 

Yet another shovel of dirt on America

Yes dodgeball is “just” a game, but the move to ban it at schools is another victory for the Nanny State

The classic gym class game has been a rite of passage for years, but dodgeball may have met its match in the form of the Windham School board, which at a recent meeting voted 4-1 to end dodgeball and other so-called “human target” activities, games with names like bombardment and slaughter.

“It’s almost turning into a nanny state,” said school board member Dennis Senibaldi, the one school board member who voted against the ban. “What happens when they replace that game with something different that another group doesn’t want to play, do we eliminate that group of games?”

 

 

Obama Declared ‘Firearms Salesman Of The Year’ By New Hampshire Gun Dealer (Video)

NH Gun Store Depicts Obama As ‘Firearms Salesman Of The Year’ – WBZ

One of the posters in the front window of a New Hampshire gun shop depicts President Obama as “Firearms Salesman of the Year.” Below the president are two AK-47 rifles.

A second poster featuring the images of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong accompanies a statement that reads, “All Experts Agree, Gun Control Works.”

The signs are in the front window of Collectable Arms & Ammo in Merrimack. Store Co-owner Keith Cox makes no apologies for the storefront that has irritated some neighbors.

“We like to have the creative storefronts which are sort of fun in one aspect and in another aspect if we have an opportunity to make a statement we’ll do that as well,” said Cox.

Cox says he is sending two separate messages and is not connecting Obama to the dictators.

He says Obama’s picture is meant to thank him for sending gun sales surging with all the talk in Washington about gun control.

As for the images of the three dictators, Cox says his message is that people armed with guns are better able to protect themselves against tyranny.

Chuck Mower, who lives down the street from the shop, says he understands free speech, but says the message is over the top and unnecessary.

“I can’t even imagine any president’s picture being portrayed on the front of a business with crossed assault weapons underneath it,” Mower said. “When those kinds of things appear and take the public presence…they paint us more as a gooberville in Arkansas.”

Mower, a longtime Merrimack resident (aka a whiny, leftist douchebag) has filed a complaint with the city.

“It’s not a good community standard message and it doesn’t add to solving any of the complicated issues,” he said.

Outside the store on Friday, there was curiosity about the controversy.

“If people want to show it then so be it, it’s their freedom of rights,” said one Merrimack resident.

“One thing great about this country is you can agree to disagree, but to take these extremes I think it’s shameful and I’m sad to say it’s the town I live in,” said another resident.

Regardless of the controversy, the signage is not coming down.

“I certainly would not ask them to change a flag hanging on their homes or a sign in their yards because I am offended by it or disagree with it,” said Cox. “I will support anybody’s freedom of speech.”

Town officials in Merrimack tell WBZ-TV the storefront is not breaking any town ordinances.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Do you notice that the Left always categorizes “gun crime” as different than “other” violent crimes?

It might seem odd that the Left always wants to talk about gun crimes, gun murders, gun deaths as if putting a gun into the equation makes a violent crime less violent somehow. Personally, I do not wish to get shot, nor do I wish to  be stabbed, or beaten with a bat, or hammer, or to be jumped by a gang of thugs, a gang of NFL cheerleaders is a different story but that is a another matter altogether. The point here is that the Left cannot win the debate over guns by sticking with legitimate stats. So they use emotional appeals, or cooked statistics that are meant to make us believe that gun violence is  a raging epidemic, and that America is awash in gun deaths. Of late their tactic seems to be to segregate crimes, committed with a gun from other violent crimes committed with other weapons. Zion’s Trumpet links to Mark Steyn who explains that while the Left loves to hold the UK up as a shining example of the glorious bliss that are gun bans, the truth is that the UK is a lot more violent than America.

Between the introduction of pistol permits in 1903 and the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Britain has had a century of incremental gun control—“sensible measures that all reasonable people can agree on.” And what’s the result? Even when you factor in America’s nutcake jurisdictions with the crackhead mayors, the overall crime rate in England and Wales is higher than in all 50 states, even though over there they have more policemen per capita than in the U.S., on vastly higher rates of pay installing more video surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the Western world. Robbery, sex crimes, and violence against the person are higher in England and Wales; property crime is twice as high; vehicle theft is higher still; the British are 2.3 times more likely than Americans to be assaulted, and three times more likely to be violently assaulted. Between 1973 and 1992, burglary rates in the U.S. fell by half. In Britain, not even the Home Office’s disreputable reporting methods (if a burglar steals from 15 different apartments in one building, it counts as a single crime) can conceal the remorseless rise: Britons are now more than twice as likely as Americans to be mugged; two-thirds will have their property broken into at some time in their lives. Even more revealing is the divergent character between U.K. and U.S. property crime: In America, just over 10 percent of all burglaries are “hot burglaries”—committed while the owners are present; in Britain, it’s over half. Because of insurance-required alarm systems, the average thief increasingly concludes that it’s easier to break in while you’re on the premises. Your home-security system may conceivably make your home more safe, but it makes you less so.

Conversely, up here in the New Hampshire second congressional district, there are few laser security systems and lots of guns. Our murder rate is much lower than Britain’s and our property crime is virtually insignificant. Anyone want to make a connection? Villains are expert calculators of risk, and the likelihood of walking away uninjured with an $80 television set is too remote. In New Hampshire, a citizen’s right to defend himself deters crime; in Britain, the state-inflicted impotence of the homeowner actively encourages it. Just as becoming a drug baron is a rational career move in Colombia, so too is becoming a violent burglar in the United Kingdom. The chances that the state will seriously impede your progress are insignificant.

Now I’m Canadian, so, as you might expect, the Second Amendment doesn’t mean much to me. I think it’s more basic than that. Privately owned firearms symbolize the essential difference between your great republic and the countries you left behind. In the U.S., power resides with “we, the people” and is leased ever more sparingly up through town, county, state, and federal government. In Britain and Canada, power resides with the Crown and is graciously devolved down in limited doses. To a north country Yankee it’s self-evident that, when a burglar breaks into your home, you should have the right to shoot him—indeed, not just the right, but the responsibility, as a freeborn citizen, to uphold the integrity of your property. But in Britain and most other parts of the Western world, the state reserves that right to itself, even though at the time the ne’er-do-well shows up in your bedroom you’re on the scene and Constable Plod isn’t: He’s some miles distant, asleep in his bed, and with his answering machine on referring you to central dispatch God knows where.

Yes, I know, Liberals will screech that this piece was written over a decade ago, but, as recent stats show, the UK is still a lot more violent than America. The murder rate, burglary rate, robbery rate and stabbing rate are all much higher in the UK. Yes, I understand the Left will ignore those facts. In fact, I have heard more than one Liberal say that somehow a gun makes every crime worse. Not sure how that happens, but we are dealing with Liberals here, their arguments do not have to make sense, they just have to feel like they do to Liberals. Despite the negative impact on the feelings of liberals facts still do matter. And the fact is this. the Left has been pushing gun control for a long time, and they often use the UK as the shining example of how the UK is a more safe nation. This is simply not true

Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour. 

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show: 

  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

Less guns means less crime? No, it does not. The USA has a violent crime rate of 466 per 100,000 people. Canada, another panacea of strict gun laws has a rate of 935 per 100,000 people. In the UK, which bans guns, the rate is 2,034 per 100,000 people. FIVE TIMES the rate in America. 

This is why the Left talks only of GUN crimes, rather than violent crimes. They are lying by omission. And they KNOW they are lying. So, ask yourself this. Why? If their agenda is not truly reducing crimes, what is it? 

 

Rassmussen projects Romney to win 279+ electoral votes, Nate Silver hardest hit

Oh, poor Nate!

According to the latest Rasmussen state polls, Mitt Romney is in position to win the presidency; he should win at least 279 electoral votes. Romney leads in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire; Obama leads in Pennsylvania and Nevada. Wisconsin and Iowa are tied. Were Romney to win both Wisconsin and Iowa, he’d secure another 16 electoral votes, putting him at 295 electoral votes. By way of contrast, George W. Bush won 286 electoral votes in 2004.

 

 

Democrats really hate that whole freedom of the press thing don’t they?

But they seem to jealously defend voter fraud….

Michael Delaney is a Democrat who is attorney general of New Hampshire. James O’Keefe is a journalist who exposed the fact that it was possible for dead people to vote in New Hampshire.

In reaction to O’Keefe’s blockbuster investigative report, the New Hampshire legislature enacted a voter ID law.

Michael Delaney tried to serve a subpoena on O’Keefe.

We support James O’Keefe.

Amen! We absolutely support him! And, we oppose politicians who support voter fraud!

Todays Marxist Moron is………….

The Sate of New Hampshire.

A New Hampshire man stumbled upon the terrifying sight of a burglary in process in his home, and took decisive action with a firearm, but now he could face years in jail for foiling the robbery.

Foxnews.com has the details of the incident which already has 2nd Amendment advocates up in arms:

“Dennis Fleming, 61, of Farmington, was arrested for reckless conduct after the Saturday incident at his 19th century farmhouse. The single grandfather had returned home to find that his home had been burglarized and spotted Joseph Hebert, 27, climbing out of a window at a neighbor’s home. Fleming said he yelled “Freeze!” before firing his gun into the ground, then held Hebert at gunpoint until police arrived.”

Simply unbelievable. This nation has lost its freaking mind. Yes, that rumbling sound you hear IS the Founders rolling in their graves!

Your question of the day

A great one from Protein Wisdom

Question: is the TSA “racist” for requiring a picture ID?

I’m curious, because somehow we’re supposed to believe it’s somehow “racist” to require you to prove yourself yourself before you cast a vote (as a way to combat voter fraud — which of course isn’t a big problem, and even if it is, well, RACISTS!), and yet it’s not considered “racist” to require people to show a picture ID to board a plane.

More double standards from the left I plan to use this question the first chance I get.

Maybe this is yet another Liberal malady? Double Standard Dysfunction?

Chris Matthews goes digging in the Pit of Eternal Stupidity, hits the earth’s core

Good Freaking Grief. Is Matthews stupid? Just playing the shock jock? Or is he just so consumed with hatred for Conservatives that he cannot see straight? Of course, Je$$e Jack$on gives Matthews a run for his money, and we all know Jackson is ALL ABOUT the $$$$$$

Daily Benefactor News – More Democrats Than Republicans Voted For Ron Paul In New Hampshire

……………

—————————————— CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE DAILY BENEFACTOR ——————————————–

—————————————————————————– TOP STORY ——————————————————————————

More Democrats Than Republicans Voted For Ron Paul In New Hampshire – Gateway Pundit

Here’s an important statistic you won’t hear much about today

Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate who blames the US for the 9-11 attacks, attracted more Democrats than Republicans in New Hampshire last night.

FOX News released their exit polling results after the voting yesterday in New Hampshire.

……………

More Ron Paul voters said they were moderately liberal than any other category.

……………

Ron Paul also attracted more Democrat than Republican voters last night in New Hampshire.

Then he went out and told the conservative candidates to quit the race.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Related article:

Ron Paul Supporters Joined Forces With Occupy Wall Street Protesters, Engaged In Violent Behavior At Campaign Stops – Weasel Zippers

Ron Paul’s response: They’re “really nice, clean cut young people.”

……………

Via Politico:

Ron Paul on Wednesday disputed reports that his supporters had joined forces with Occupy Wall Street demonstrators and engaged in violent behavior at various campaign stops in recent weeks, calling his young backers “really nice, clean cut young people.”

“They ought to just come and see the kind of young people who come and make tens if not hundreds of thousands of phone calls for us,” Paul said on Fox News the morning after the New Hampshire primary, responding to critics who have accused the candidate’s supporters of causing ruckus on the campaign trail.

As for the reports of rowdy behavior, Paul conceded that everyone has the right to demonstrate and practice civil disobedience.

Keep reading

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

——————————————————————– NOTE TO READERS ———————————————————————

THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

*VIDEOS* ABC News New Hampshire Republican Primary Debate

….PART 1

.
….PART 2

.
….PART 3

.
….PART 4

.
….PART 5

.
….PART 6

.

*LIVE STREAMING* New Hampshire Republican Primary Debate (ABC News) – January 7, 2012 – 9pm EST

LIVE STREAMING FOR THIS EVENT HAS ENDED.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE ENTIRE DEBATE ON VIDEO.

.
……………

……………
……………

.
Debate Live Stream – Link 1

Debate Live Stream – Link 2

Debate Live Stream – Link 3

Debate Live Stream – Link 4

Debate Live Stream – Link 5

Debate Live Stream – Link 6

Debate Live Stream – Link 7

.
For more information, visit the 2012 Election Central and ABC News/Debate websites.

.

Gingrich Wins New Hampshire Union Leader Endorsement

Gingrich Wins Union Leader Endorsement – The Hill

GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich received the endorsement of the influential editorial board of the New Hampshire Union Leader on Sunday, providing another boost to his surging campaign.

The endorsement gives the former House Speaker additional momentum after a month which has seen him vault to the top of national GOP polls.

“We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing,” said the editorial by publisher Joseph W. McQuaid.

……………………….

“A lot of candidates say they’re going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again,” he added.

The Gingrich campaign said it was “honored to have the endorsement,” calling it “an enormous boost to our campaign,” reported NBC News.

The Union Leader endorsement is highly regarded in the early primary state. Candidates often meet with the editorial board and place great emphasis on securing its backing.

The failure to win the board’s endorsement may be a setback for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign which has struggled to win support from Tea party-affiliated voters and the right-wing of the GOP base.

Drew Cline, editorial page editor for the Union Leader, spoke about the board’s decision on CNN Sunday morning. Cline said that the board’s “two favorites were probably Perry, Gingrich.”

He added that the board, which failed to endorse Romney in 2008 as well gave “every candidate serious consideration.”

However explaining his view on the difference between the two candidates, he added that “Romney’s a guy who wants to be liked, a politician who wants to be liked. Gingrich is a politician who wants to be respected.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Boy, the media is really trying to sabotage Perry

Perry Event 2/1/2010

Image via Wikipedia

I was perusing some blogs this morning, looking for new additions to our blogroll. I came across one post about how Rick Perry said he was against a border fence. Well, I can see how that might hurt Perry amongst some Conservatives. The media would love to see that happen, and Gateway Pundit has the scoop on what Perry ACTUALLY said

Texas Gov. Rick Perry won over some Republican voters at a backyard reception held Saturday at the Manchester home of Chuck Stephen and co-hosted by John Stephen, the former Republican gubernatorial nominee. (Shawne K. Wickham/Sunday News)

And, the state-run media is TERRIFIED of Governor Rick Perry from Texas.
Yesterday the AP reported this on Rick Perry’s campaign stop in New Hampshire:

Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border.

“No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said. “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”

The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member.

But, Weasel Zippers found this report from WOIA TV on Perry’s speech:

Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border.

“No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”

Instead, Perry said he supported “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.

The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member. And it exposed an ongoing rift with some conservative voters over Perry’s immigration record.

The AP deleleted the part of Perry’s speech that including using “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops on the border.

So, here is the important thing to remember. Do not just assume that everything Perry, or any other serious GOP candidate “says” according to the media, is actually what they said. The media will spin their hearts out to make Perry look less appealing to the Conservative base. Keep this in mind.

Also keep in mind that Perry’s reputation, among some Conservatives, for being “soft” on the border issue is based largely on his opposition to a fence. Frankly, what he has in mind makes more sense than a fence, at least to me.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Related:

Governor Perry explained his stance on illegal immigration and border security during THIS INTERVIEW with Mark Levin on September 1st.

Raising Cain in 2012

Stacy McCain has a video of Cain illustrating why we like him so darn much.

Cain’s fifth-place finish at Ames has been seen as a disappointment by some, although the candidate himself has said he was “thrilled” to place in the top five in the straw poll. Cain has pointed out that his campaign remains debt-free, in contrast to former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty who reportedly borrowed money (and required some staffers to work without pay) to finance a major TV ad campaign in Iowa. Cain ran no TV ads in Iowa. Pawlenty dropped out after finishing a distant third behind Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachman and Texas Rep. Ron Paul in the Ames straw poll sponsored by the Iowa GOP. Cain got 1,456 votes in the straw poll, finishing behind former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who placed fourth with 1,657 votes.

Cain today completes a two-day visit to New Hampshire, where yesterday he opened his new state campaign headquarters in Manchester. Cain and his team have indicated that they are taking a long-term approach to the GOP campaign, having visited or begun organizing in such states as Tennessee, Alabama, Oregon and North Dakota whose primaries fall later in the 2012 selection calendar.

Cain is an impressive speaker, and to those, like Michael Medved, who are downplaying Cain, I say shame on them! In my view Cain would be a very good president, he possesses the wisdom that is so obviously missing from the vast majority of our politicians. Personally, I like Cain the best of all the candidates, and yes, I have doubts as to whether or not Cain can succeed. But, I am not going to start yelling for Cain to quit or leave the race, it is way too early.

There are, of course, several names I would love to see leave the race. Are you listening John Huntsman? Newt? Rick Santorum? Ron Paul? These four have no chance, and should simply accept reality and step aside. Likewise, I kind of doubt that Sarah Palin jumps in this race. I also doubt that Paul Ryan will get in either, although I think he would crush Obama head to head, mostly because he keeps saying he will not run. Christie? Forget about it Ann Coulter, he is not running.

My personal choice? Let Romney, who the GOP base distrusts, Bachman, who the “establishment” hates, Perry, the guy I think will be the nominee, and Cain, yes he is  a long shot, but so what? Stranger things can happen, and have happened in presidential elections! Let these four duke it out.

Then, when that dust settles, let’s start working to get the White House back from the Leftist Democrats. Because any of the names I mentioned would be far better than Obama!

I think Chris at Wyblog is aboard the Perry Train

Rick Perry shows us around his office. He's Te...

Image via Wikipedia

He has a Fevah, and the only cure? Governor, er President Perry

He’s (almost) in. According to POLITICO, Texas Governor Rick Perry intends to use a speech in South Carolina Saturday to make clear that he’s running for president.

Then he’ll immediately head on up to New Hampshire and Iowa.

Oh yeah, he’s in.

Yep! Chris is on board, and he has some good reasons why, not least of al, this

Barack Obama is the disease. Rick Perry is the cure. Tell your friends.

And while the media is reading Palin’s Emails, and digging through Michelle Bachman’s husband’s trash……….

They missed this story

Is this, sadly, going to be the second campaign in a row where the so-called mainstream media will make a fetish of fact-checking the Republican candidates while ignoring the misstatements and gaffes of the Democratic candidates — of which there is now just one, President Barack Obama?

Last week, as both Newsbusters and the MRC documented, the New York Times (Kevin Sack) published a lengthy piece on how the White House “declined to challenge” a new book by ex-Times reporter Janny Scott that documents how Obama “mischaracterized a central anecdote about his mother’s deathbed dispute with her insurance company.”

The broadcast networks — throughout the 2008 campaign and the President’s push for ObamaCare — repeatedly conveyed Obama’s claim that while his mother, Ann Dunham, was sick with terminal cancer, she had to fight with insurance companies to “pay for her treatment.”

“I will never forget my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about whether her insurance would refuse to pay for her treatment,” Obama told an August 11, 2009 town hall meeting in New Hampshire.

But ABC, CBS and NBC have yet to mention Scott’s now-undisputed account, drawn from a review of Ms. Dunham’s correspondence with the insurance company: “Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment. Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann only to pay the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”

Wow, just wow.