Lying liars and the lies they tell in the White House

The Obama administration, perhaps emboldened by a media that rarely if ever questions them. That is evidenced by the lengthy list of lies told by this president, a list Glenn went through on radio today. If only the media cared...

Some of the highlights:

1) BIDEN: Look, I was there when we did that with Social Security in 1983. I was one of eight people sitting in the room that included Tip O'Neill associating with President Reagan.

GLENN: Okay. Now he was talking about how great President Reagan was. First of all, Joe Biden never thought President Reagan was great. I mean, these guys hated him when he was in office. But he's specifically talking about how great Reagan is and how we need to get together, and he was, as he just said, in the room. Now, I should mention here that even as a ‑‑ even as cynical as I have become about these progressive politicians, I took Biden at his word on that. And who would say that? "I was there." Okay, then you can dance around it. But then he followed up, "I was in the room with about eight people when we did this." Fortunately ABC's Jake Tapper didn't take him at word. Jake looked into it and found out that, yes, Joe Biden was not in the room. He lied. He wasn't in the room working out that deal. He was not one of the key negotiators. Tapper called Biden on it, caught him in his bold‑face lie and how did he respond? This is what the office said: In 1983 the then Senator Biden was one of many senators who weighed in on budget‑related issues from the party leadership including on Social Security reform. In particular he was one of the group of members who met with Tip O'Neill while the speaker was negotiating with President Reagan on reform specifics. In those meetings the vice president, other members gave their thoughts on the negotiations to the speaker and the Senate majority leader ‑‑ or minority leader Robert Byrd.

2) Obama claimed he did not cut permits and licenses for oil and gas leases on federal land and federal waters in half. 

After Obama called Romney a liar for bringing up the figure, Chris Wallace found out Romney was right but only after the debate was over.

3) Obama's campaign claimed Romney was planning a $5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy.

Stephanie Cutter has come out and admitted this is untrue.

4) OBAMA: " We stabilized the banking system but we got back every dime we used to rescue the banks with interest."

 GLENN:  Did we really?  Because according to the Congressional Budget Office we're losing $24 billion on that deal.  The same day he said that, the CBO comes out and says we've lost $24 billion.  That's a lot of dimes, Mr. President.

5) OBAMA: "Under Governor Romney's definition, there are a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small businesses.  Donald Trump is a small business."

GLENN: No, Mr. President, Donald Trump has upwards of 25,000 employees, or more.  His revenue and his other millionaires and billionaires receive ‑‑ the revenues that he receives makes him ineligible for this.  Another lie.  The president told Univision that he inherited the scandalous, deadly, and disastrous Fast and Furious program. 

6)  OBAMA: First of all, I think it's important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field‑initiated program begun under the previous administration.  When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it.

GLENN: This is an outrageous lie, according to ABC News.  ABC reports in actuality the Fast and Furious program was started October 2009.  October 2009.  That's the year the president got in.  Bush's last day ended in '08.  Instead Obama claims Bush started it, Holder discovered it and stopped it.  Instead of beginning the plan in 2009?  What?  What an outrageous lie.  How the media is not all over this administration for this, how the media thinks this ends up well for them or for any American, you cannot allow somebody with this much power to out‑and‑out lie over and over and outrageous lies.

7) Benghazi - PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING

GLENN: And let me end this with another hugely important lie. In addition to all the campaign and debate lies and quite honestly nearly everything that he says on the campaign trail about himself or Romney has been a lie. But all of ‑‑ in addition to all of that, this president has betrayed the sacred trust placed in him by the American people and has lied over and over again about the Benghazi tragedy. And this is so incredibly important. It may not be the sexiest story. It may not be the one that everybody is talking about, but what is happening over in the Middle East, especially the way it relates to Benghazi, is so critically important because the lies are covering what we're really doing over there. It is so critically important. Hear me, people of the left. Hear me, please hear me, Democrats. We are not divided on the war thing. We're not. We're not on opposite sides. You don't want another war; I don't want another war. You don't want American soldiers killed; I don't want American soldiers killed. I'm tired of the war, too. What is happening, they are sucking us into a global, a global war.

There was a predator drone flying over the embassy that night beaming a live feedback to the United States. Are you really going to tell us that you didn't know that there was no protest? You didn't know exactly what this was? You had a drone. It's been verified, with a live feed showing the firefight. You knew exactly what was going on.

Mr. President, in the situation room, I don't know if you've ever been there, but underneath your office is a room called the situation room where you can watch those live feeds. Somebody in your office was downstairs in the basement watching the feed! Somebody was there. Now why they didn't brief you is beyond me. Some might say that they did and you had been lying. And that someone is me. They said it was a protest gone wrong. You knew it was a lie. There was no protest. You said it was about a YouTube video, unprecedented, coordinated attack. You knew that that was a lie. They said they didn't know about all the requests for extra help and security. We know that that is a lie. This is why Romney is going to win.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.