Dem. Caught in 'Lie' Drops F-Bomb at Holiest Location in Synagogue Where Debate Took Place


If you thought the left had possibly run out of “hold my beer” moments in the world of disgraceful behavior, you’d be, sadly, mistaken. And this one is a doozy.

According to WBCB News, in Levittown, Pennsylvania, it occurred during a debate Sunday between Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick and Democratic challenger Scott Wallace.

The pair were holding the debate at Congregation Tifereth Israel in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. They were not only in a synagogue, but they were actually on the bimah, the elevated platform that holds the ark where the Torah is stored — “on the bimah is the most sacred place in the sanctuary,” as one website describes it.

Wallace, a liberal Democrat, dropped the “f-bomb,” according to WBCB, when Fitzpatrick began to grill him on attack ads that have accused Fitzpatrick of voting against health care coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions.

“My sense is he was frustrated because I was cross-examining him on the ad he’s running, which is a false ad based on my position on pre-existing conditions,” Fitzpatrick told WBCB. “I was asking him a series of questions on what bill he was referring to, had he read it, and he came out with this expletive.”

Man Who Tried to Shoot Rittenhouse and Ended Up Shot Himself Lands in News Again Under His New Name: Report

Here’s one Twitter user’s take:

It’s not just Fitzpatrick or partisans who think Democrats are peddling a lie about Fitzpatrick’s stance on health care.

Do you believe Wallace's apology was sufficient for what he did?

According to The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee advertisement accuses Fitzpatrick of voting “against people with pre-existing conditions three separate times.”

But that’s not the case at all, as even the liberal WaPo pointed out. The actual reality is that the Democrats were deliberately distorting Fitzpatrick’s position by misrepresenting the parliamentary maneuvers that were being voted on in Congress, the column pointed out. Fitzpatrick actually voted against the GOP party line on the very issues Democrats were attacking him for.

As the “Fact Checker” column concluded, while awarding the DCCC “Four Pinochios,” the rating it reserves for utter lies:

“The DCCC really crosses the line here. Fitzpatrick bucked his party to vote against one of the president’s top priorities, the repeal of Obamacare, specifically because he was concerned about the impact on people with preexisting conditions. His reward? Being attacked for selling his constituents out on the issue because of his minor procedural votes, when just about every member of Congress sticks to party lines…

“You would think the Democrats would at least applaud him for his courage, but apparently that’s not how the game is played these days. The DCCC earns Four Pinocchios.”

Matt Gaetz Humiliates CNN Anchor by Fact-Checking Her on Live TV

Wallace’s use of an obscenity during the debate brought plenty of criticism on social media.

As the story spread on Monday, Wallace issued an apology of sorts.

“I was exasperated by yet another attempt from Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick to hide from his votes to take away protections for people with pre-existing conditions,” Wallace said, according to WBCB.

“I apologize for any offense that might have been taken, I am passionate about protecting people from insurance company abuses, and I’m sorry that in this instance, my frustration got the best of me.”

Many people didn’t buy it.

Considering the Democrat standard for civility these days, when liberals think nothing of accosting senators at dinner and Democratic leaders openly foment mobs to harass members of the Trump administration in public, it’s easy to think that Wallace cursing in a Jewish house of God might be about what voters should expect from the party.

It’s even easier to think he didn’t mean a word of that apology.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , ,