It was non-stop accusations of racism on the Sunday shows, especially with respect to critics of ObamaCare. Hear the details. Plus, Newt Gingrich basically conceded to Mitt Romney, but could Gov. John Kasich (OH) be on Romney's VP short list? Find out about these stories and more on this week's Hair of the Dog with Stephen Green.
Love the smack-down by George Will!!!
Watch the video here
Showing posts with label Barak Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barak Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Obama lies about Planned Parenthood Doing Mammograms
Caught on tape, did he really not know the truth, or was he just too lazy to find out. Or did he know the truth and just out and out lie? While speaking to the White House Forum on Women and the Economy, President Obama falsely claimed that Planned Parenthood provides "preventive care, like mammograms, that millions of women rely on." The Susan B. Komen Foundation originally stated it would defund and stop supporting Planned Parenthood after finding out that they, indeed, had never performed a single mammogram in their history. However, several days later, they reversed that decision, saying that they would continue to fund existing grants, but would be rewriting grants specifically stating "We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”
“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities,” the statement continues.
The Washington Post February 3, 2012, wrote: Questions remained on several other reasons given by Komen about why it decided to defund Planned Parenthood. As Lena H.Sun, Sarah Kliff and N.C. Aizenman explained:
Executives of the Susan G. Komen Foundation gave a new explanation Thursday of their decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, but their contradictory statements failed to quell a rising controversy that led several of the organization’s affiliates to openly rebel.
Komen had said the decision was the result of newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations under investigation — affecting Planned Parenthood because of an inquiry by a Republican congressman.
On Thursday, Komen President Elizabeth Thompson told reporters that the funding decision was unrelated to the investigation into whether Planned Parenthood was illegally using federal funds to pay for abortions.
Komen founder Nancy Brinker said the organization wants to support groups that directly provide breast health services, such as mammograms. She noted that Planned Parenthood was providing only mammogram referrals.
The controversy raged across social media, with thousands of messages posted to Komen and Planned Parenthood Facebook pages and advocates on both sides rallying support on Twitter.
Some see the Komen debate as a warning sign to President Obama that he may face pressure from pro-choice advocates. As Rachel Weiner reported:
On Friday morning, the Susan B. Komen Foundation backed down from its decision to pull grants from Planned Parenthood.
More than 10,000 people donated to the family planning group in some way, according to President Cecile Richards. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged a $250,000 matching gift to the group.
While the foundation gave itself room to reject future grant applications from Planned Parenthood, the decision is a clear sign that outrage from pro-choice supporters left Komen spooked.
Should Obama be spooked too?
The president angered many pro-choice constituents with his decision to keep the emergency contraceptive Plan B off drugstore shelves.
More recently, Obama sided with women’s groups over Catholic bishops, refusing to exempt church-affiliated employers from covering birth control.
Of course, there are major differences here. Komen’s constituency is made up of people for whom women’s health issues are a primary concern. Obama’s constituency is much broader — in rejecting Catholic calls for a birth-control exemption, some argue he risks losing liberal Catholic support.
In 2008, 70.4 million women voted — 10 million more women than men. Obama won women by 13 points. In 2010 House race, women were evenly split.
While abortion is not a make-or-break issue for most female voters, access to contraception could prove more potent.
“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities,” the statement continues.
The Washington Post February 3, 2012, wrote: Questions remained on several other reasons given by Komen about why it decided to defund Planned Parenthood. As Lena H.Sun, Sarah Kliff and N.C. Aizenman explained:
Executives of the Susan G. Komen Foundation gave a new explanation Thursday of their decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, but their contradictory statements failed to quell a rising controversy that led several of the organization’s affiliates to openly rebel.
Komen had said the decision was the result of newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations under investigation — affecting Planned Parenthood because of an inquiry by a Republican congressman.
On Thursday, Komen President Elizabeth Thompson told reporters that the funding decision was unrelated to the investigation into whether Planned Parenthood was illegally using federal funds to pay for abortions.
Komen founder Nancy Brinker said the organization wants to support groups that directly provide breast health services, such as mammograms. She noted that Planned Parenthood was providing only mammogram referrals.
The controversy raged across social media, with thousands of messages posted to Komen and Planned Parenthood Facebook pages and advocates on both sides rallying support on Twitter.
Some see the Komen debate as a warning sign to President Obama that he may face pressure from pro-choice advocates. As Rachel Weiner reported:
On Friday morning, the Susan B. Komen Foundation backed down from its decision to pull grants from Planned Parenthood.
More than 10,000 people donated to the family planning group in some way, according to President Cecile Richards. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged a $250,000 matching gift to the group.
While the foundation gave itself room to reject future grant applications from Planned Parenthood, the decision is a clear sign that outrage from pro-choice supporters left Komen spooked.
Should Obama be spooked too?
The president angered many pro-choice constituents with his decision to keep the emergency contraceptive Plan B off drugstore shelves.
More recently, Obama sided with women’s groups over Catholic bishops, refusing to exempt church-affiliated employers from covering birth control.
Of course, there are major differences here. Komen’s constituency is made up of people for whom women’s health issues are a primary concern. Obama’s constituency is much broader — in rejecting Catholic calls for a birth-control exemption, some argue he risks losing liberal Catholic support.
In 2008, 70.4 million women voted — 10 million more women than men. Obama won women by 13 points. In 2010 House race, women were evenly split.
While abortion is not a make-or-break issue for most female voters, access to contraception could prove more potent.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The New Congress Will Consider Impeachment
The New Congress Will Consider Impeachment
In the local newspaper today, the following column appeared written by Floyd and Mary Brown/Cagle Cartoons. I have to say, they speak for me. Please click on link above to read the entire article. At the bottom of the article is a link to sign the petition to impeach Obama. Please take a moment and do so. As Mr. Brown says, our nation depends on it!
NEXT CONGRESS COULD HAVE IMPEACHMENT ON ITS AGENDA
Floyd and Mary Brown
The new Congress elected in November will surprise everyone. They will seriously consider impeaching Barack Obama.
Growing under the radar of the mainstream media is a movement that is gathering momentum.
More than one million citizens have signed petitions calling on the U.S. Congress to impeach Barack Hussein Obama. Some of the soon-to-be-elected members of Congress are amongst those who have signed up, and they are not about to be cowered by establishment Republicans scared silly of the issue.
Ultimately, it comes down to a commonly shared belief amongst Tea Party activists that Barack Obama is systematically trying to hurt America. Obama, the argument goes, is not an incompetent boob in over his head. Nor is he is not some well-meaning community organizer who has seen his plans go astray.
Barack Obama is a dishonest, manipulative liar who actually is pursuing an agenda that he hopes will take America off the international leadership stage. He wants America to fail so that the vision of internationalist socialists can be realized. America is hated by the elite intellectuals of the world because we have been the single biggest roadblock to their plans to establish a one world governing system with them in charge.
Americans has consistently rejected socialism. Whether it is Hillarycare or Obamacare, Americans are speaking with a loud, clear voice against socialism.
The Left hates America because of our belief in God, our belief in rugged individualism, our belief in private property, and our belief in the right to keep and bear arms.
It is only through impeachment that the new Congress can send Barack Obama a clear and unambiguous message that he does not have carte blanche to run roughshod over America.
Impeachment is the political tool given by the Founders to correct abuse by a president. Impeachment is often misunderstood because of confusion about what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense.
Former President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The key phrase here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in English common law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” essentially means bad behavior.
Here’s a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Constitution:
“High crimes and misdemeanors” entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment – treason and bribery – were not enough. He worried that other “great and dangerous offenses” might not be covered… so Mason then proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a “misdemeanor” meant “mis-demeanor,” or bad behavior.
In other words, “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not refer to a criminal act, as some would lead you to believe. Our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the president for actions which are gross incompetence, gross negligence, outright distasteful, or in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show “malevolence toward this country, which is unabated.”
And for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Obama would be a simple matter of “playing politics,” the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting president be a political act.
The Founding Fathers deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment.
The Obama administration qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior.
Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.
Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.
In the local newspaper today, the following column appeared written by Floyd and Mary Brown/Cagle Cartoons. I have to say, they speak for me. Please click on link above to read the entire article. At the bottom of the article is a link to sign the petition to impeach Obama. Please take a moment and do so. As Mr. Brown says, our nation depends on it!
NEXT CONGRESS COULD HAVE IMPEACHMENT ON ITS AGENDA
Floyd and Mary Brown
The new Congress elected in November will surprise everyone. They will seriously consider impeaching Barack Obama.
Growing under the radar of the mainstream media is a movement that is gathering momentum.
More than one million citizens have signed petitions calling on the U.S. Congress to impeach Barack Hussein Obama. Some of the soon-to-be-elected members of Congress are amongst those who have signed up, and they are not about to be cowered by establishment Republicans scared silly of the issue.
Ultimately, it comes down to a commonly shared belief amongst Tea Party activists that Barack Obama is systematically trying to hurt America. Obama, the argument goes, is not an incompetent boob in over his head. Nor is he is not some well-meaning community organizer who has seen his plans go astray.
Barack Obama is a dishonest, manipulative liar who actually is pursuing an agenda that he hopes will take America off the international leadership stage. He wants America to fail so that the vision of internationalist socialists can be realized. America is hated by the elite intellectuals of the world because we have been the single biggest roadblock to their plans to establish a one world governing system with them in charge.
Americans has consistently rejected socialism. Whether it is Hillarycare or Obamacare, Americans are speaking with a loud, clear voice against socialism.
The Left hates America because of our belief in God, our belief in rugged individualism, our belief in private property, and our belief in the right to keep and bear arms.
It is only through impeachment that the new Congress can send Barack Obama a clear and unambiguous message that he does not have carte blanche to run roughshod over America.
Impeachment is the political tool given by the Founders to correct abuse by a president. Impeachment is often misunderstood because of confusion about what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense.
Former President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The key phrase here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in English common law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” essentially means bad behavior.
Here’s a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Constitution:
“High crimes and misdemeanors” entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment – treason and bribery – were not enough. He worried that other “great and dangerous offenses” might not be covered… so Mason then proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a “misdemeanor” meant “mis-demeanor,” or bad behavior.
In other words, “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not refer to a criminal act, as some would lead you to believe. Our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the president for actions which are gross incompetence, gross negligence, outright distasteful, or in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show “malevolence toward this country, which is unabated.”
And for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Obama would be a simple matter of “playing politics,” the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting president be a political act.
The Founding Fathers deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment.
The Obama administration qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior.
Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.
Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Obama press secretary Gibbs refuses to answer if Obama will credit Bush for surge in upcoming speech
From this video we can gather that Gibbs can count...and that what he is truly counting is the number of times he refuses to answer the question. I like Gretchen's "cute" comment at the end though.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Lies of Obama, John Ellis, Frontpage Magazine
When politicians are caught out in lies, their supporters often resort to the old cliché: all politicians lie. But that is itself a lie: most don’t. Even among those who do, there are enormous differences in the importance and frequency of the lies. And it is surely now clear that this nation has a far from routine problem in the scale and regularity of President Obama’s lying.
When politicians lie they are usually trying to avoid political damage, or to make themselves look good. Bill Clinton lied (and got himself impeached) to save himself from embarrassment about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton lied about being under fire in Bosnia to enhance her non-existent foreign affairs profile. Richard Nixon was forced from office because he lied to cover up his involvement in a political dirty trick. John Kerry lied about his Vietnam combat experience to blunt his anti-military reputation. But Barack Obama’s lies are far more corrosive and destructive, because they go the heart of legislation and governance, and so seriously undermine trust in government. His lies generally take a specific form: they attempt to persuade people to vote for him or his policies by categorically assuring them that they need not have the anxieties that they have been expressing. The lies say, essentially: trust me, support what I want, and I promise that what you fear will never happen. But in every case it soon becomes clear either that he knew perfectly well that what the public feared would in fact happen, or that he was giving a firm assurance that he was in no position to give, or that he had no intention of following through on his promise.
The accumulated weight of Obama’s deceit is overwhelming:
* During his campaign for the presidency and since, Obama repeatedly assured us that he would protect Medicare against cuts; but he now presses for passage of bills that include savage cuts in Medicare.
* To obtain passage of his first stimulus bill, Obama assured us that 90% of the jobs created would be in the private sector; but as he well knew, most of them were to be in the public sector.
* Early in the health care debate, Obama assured us that he had not said that he favored a single payer system; but he was on record as having said exactly that.
* Obama gave primary voters a firm assurance that if he became the nominee of the Democratic party he would (unlike Hillary Clinton) abide by the campaign finance limits of public funding; but as soon as he became the party’s nominee, he reneged on that pledge.
* During the presidential campaign Obama criticized the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration; but once elected he proceeded to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors.
* Obama criticized the size of George Bush’s deficit and promised to stop deficit spending if elected; but he has already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and recklessly continues new federal spending in the trillions.
* When campaigning Obama criticized bills before the congress that were too long for anyone to be able to read and promised to stop that; but the bills he has been backing throughout his first year are infinitely longer (2000+ pages) than the ones he criticized.
* Candidate Obama promised an end to the corruption of earmarks and pork, but in the bills he has supported this year there have been more and bigger earmarks than ever before.
* Candidate Obama promised us that CIA personnel involved in the interrogation of terrorists would not be prosecuted; but his administration is now doing exactly that.
* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that the health bill he supported (pre-Stupak) would not provide public funding for abortions; but bitter resistance on the part of House Democrats to inclusion of language to that effect soon proved that it did.
* Candidate Obama promised that he would make sure that there was always enough time for the public to read legislation before it was enacted; but he has done exactly the opposite, repeatedly pressing for even faster passage of even longer bills.
* Candidate Obama met fears that he would be a tax and spend liberal by promising, emphatically and repeatedly, that those earning under $200,000 would see no increase in their taxes of any kind; but he now urges passage of a healthcare bill that breaks that pledge in many different ways, and his unrestrained increase in federal spending makes more tax increases inevitable.
* Candidate Obama promised bipartisanship and an end to partisan bickering; but in a display of especially ruthless partisanship his allies have shut Republicans out of all key meetings on his health care initiative, with the unprecedented result that domestic legislation of historic importance garnered not a single Republican vote in the Senate.
* Candidate Obama criticized his opponent’s plan to tax employer paid healthcare benefits, and promised he would not tax them; but the bill he now backs will do just that.
* Obama had promised that he would not sign a healthcare bill that would add one dime to the federal deficit; but the bill he now backs adds trillions in new federal spending, offset only by new sources of revenue that are both uncertain and more properly seen as offsetting the already existing deficit.
* Obama coerced congress into passing his stimulus bill by promising that if it were passed unemployment could go no higher then 8%; but unemployment is now at 10%, and he could not possibly have had good reason to exclude that possibility.
* Obama promised that his cap and trade legislation will create jobs; but its massive tax increases will certainly hobble the economy and destroy jobs, while green jobs in significant numbers can at best be hoped for, but never promised.
* Obama has repeatedly assured the American people that if they like their current health plan they can keep it; but the House bill which he supported created huge incentives for employers to drop their coverage and shift their members to a public option.
* Obama has just as often assured the public that under his health plan everyone will be able to keep their current doctor; but many are certain to lose their doctors when ObamaCare’s large cuts in Medicare funding induce more doctors to withdraw from Medicare coverage, as they also would were employers to transfer patients to a public option to save money.
* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that his health plan would not fund illegal aliens; but his allies had been busy voting down amendments to that effect. (This was the point of Joe Wilson’s outburst.)
* Obama claimed that Caterpillar’s CEO had told him that Caterpillar would begin hiring again as a result of the stimulus bill; but that individual immediately announced that he had said no such thing, and that Caterpillar would in fact be laying off more workers.
* Candidate Obama promised that Guantanamo would be closed by January 1, 2010; but it is still open.
* Candidate Obama promised that his administration (unlike his predecessor’s) would be so transparent that TV cameras (C-Span) would be there for key deliberations; but an unprecedented level of secrecy prevails as the final stages of Obamacare are negotiated behind closed doors and kept so secret that even the Senate majority whip admitted that he had no idea what was going on. Requests for Obama to honor the promise of C-Span cameras are being ignored.
* To gain traction for his attempt to return a would-be socialist dictator in Honduras to power, Obama claimed that he had been overthrown in an illegal coup; but the congressional research service pointed out correctly that ex-President Zelaya had been removed for constitutionally sufficient cause by legal and constitutional means.
* Obama claims that he wants a public option only to increase choice and competition; but the House bill would clearly reduce choice both by squeezing unsubsidized private health plans out of the market, and by setting rigid conditions on acceptable plans that would narrow available options.
* Candidate Obama claimed that violent radical Bill Ayers was just another guy in his neighborhood; but the record shows that the two had worked closely together.
* Obama assured us that his stimulus bill would create or save a million jobs; but he was claiming as fact what could never have been more than a wild (and highly improbable) guess, and his more recent attempts to justify that guess have been fraudulent.
* Obama assured us that his health plan would never ration care, or “pull the plug” on grandma; but the legislation he backs sets up panels to make crucial decisions on when to withhold care, and it makes such deep cuts in Medicare that rationing is inevitable.
* Obama now assures us that health insurance premiums will not go up if ObamaCare becomes law, insisting indignantly that people who say this have not read the bill; but the legislation forces insurers to cover preexisting conditions, which will compel them to raise premiums substantially.
This is an extraordinary record of serial mendacity. One or two instances might charitably be regarded as rash promises later regretted, or as the wishful thinking of someone who had not thought through the implications of what he was saying. But when it happens again and again—and my 30 instances are by no means exhaustive—only one judgment seems possible: this is the record of a habitual, shameless liar, a man who will say anything to get what he wants. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, goes the old saying. But scores of times? How shameful is that for our society when this disgraceful record is never the subject of a reproachful editorial in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CBS news? Richard Nixon was removed from office, and Bill Clinton impeached for a single lie. Who could look at Obama’s record without concluding that his lying is in a completely different league to theirs?
President Obama evidently believes that he can solve any problem with a speech. But he really does not care whether what he says is true or not, nor does he feel any responsibility to honor the assurances and promises he makes. As a result, this nation is now in a position where it cannot believe a word that he says, and that amounts to an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the Presidency. Democratic government will atrophy if we allow lying on this scale to count as the business as usual of politics. When will the press and the Congress hold him accountable?
Read the entire article here
When politicians lie they are usually trying to avoid political damage, or to make themselves look good. Bill Clinton lied (and got himself impeached) to save himself from embarrassment about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton lied about being under fire in Bosnia to enhance her non-existent foreign affairs profile. Richard Nixon was forced from office because he lied to cover up his involvement in a political dirty trick. John Kerry lied about his Vietnam combat experience to blunt his anti-military reputation. But Barack Obama’s lies are far more corrosive and destructive, because they go the heart of legislation and governance, and so seriously undermine trust in government. His lies generally take a specific form: they attempt to persuade people to vote for him or his policies by categorically assuring them that they need not have the anxieties that they have been expressing. The lies say, essentially: trust me, support what I want, and I promise that what you fear will never happen. But in every case it soon becomes clear either that he knew perfectly well that what the public feared would in fact happen, or that he was giving a firm assurance that he was in no position to give, or that he had no intention of following through on his promise.
The accumulated weight of Obama’s deceit is overwhelming:
* During his campaign for the presidency and since, Obama repeatedly assured us that he would protect Medicare against cuts; but he now presses for passage of bills that include savage cuts in Medicare.
* To obtain passage of his first stimulus bill, Obama assured us that 90% of the jobs created would be in the private sector; but as he well knew, most of them were to be in the public sector.
* Early in the health care debate, Obama assured us that he had not said that he favored a single payer system; but he was on record as having said exactly that.
* Obama gave primary voters a firm assurance that if he became the nominee of the Democratic party he would (unlike Hillary Clinton) abide by the campaign finance limits of public funding; but as soon as he became the party’s nominee, he reneged on that pledge.
* During the presidential campaign Obama criticized the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration; but once elected he proceeded to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors.
* Obama criticized the size of George Bush’s deficit and promised to stop deficit spending if elected; but he has already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and recklessly continues new federal spending in the trillions.
* When campaigning Obama criticized bills before the congress that were too long for anyone to be able to read and promised to stop that; but the bills he has been backing throughout his first year are infinitely longer (2000+ pages) than the ones he criticized.
* Candidate Obama promised an end to the corruption of earmarks and pork, but in the bills he has supported this year there have been more and bigger earmarks than ever before.
* Candidate Obama promised us that CIA personnel involved in the interrogation of terrorists would not be prosecuted; but his administration is now doing exactly that.
* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that the health bill he supported (pre-Stupak) would not provide public funding for abortions; but bitter resistance on the part of House Democrats to inclusion of language to that effect soon proved that it did.
* Candidate Obama promised that he would make sure that there was always enough time for the public to read legislation before it was enacted; but he has done exactly the opposite, repeatedly pressing for even faster passage of even longer bills.
* Candidate Obama met fears that he would be a tax and spend liberal by promising, emphatically and repeatedly, that those earning under $200,000 would see no increase in their taxes of any kind; but he now urges passage of a healthcare bill that breaks that pledge in many different ways, and his unrestrained increase in federal spending makes more tax increases inevitable.
* Candidate Obama promised bipartisanship and an end to partisan bickering; but in a display of especially ruthless partisanship his allies have shut Republicans out of all key meetings on his health care initiative, with the unprecedented result that domestic legislation of historic importance garnered not a single Republican vote in the Senate.
* Candidate Obama criticized his opponent’s plan to tax employer paid healthcare benefits, and promised he would not tax them; but the bill he now backs will do just that.
* Obama had promised that he would not sign a healthcare bill that would add one dime to the federal deficit; but the bill he now backs adds trillions in new federal spending, offset only by new sources of revenue that are both uncertain and more properly seen as offsetting the already existing deficit.
* Obama coerced congress into passing his stimulus bill by promising that if it were passed unemployment could go no higher then 8%; but unemployment is now at 10%, and he could not possibly have had good reason to exclude that possibility.
* Obama promised that his cap and trade legislation will create jobs; but its massive tax increases will certainly hobble the economy and destroy jobs, while green jobs in significant numbers can at best be hoped for, but never promised.
* Obama has repeatedly assured the American people that if they like their current health plan they can keep it; but the House bill which he supported created huge incentives for employers to drop their coverage and shift their members to a public option.
* Obama has just as often assured the public that under his health plan everyone will be able to keep their current doctor; but many are certain to lose their doctors when ObamaCare’s large cuts in Medicare funding induce more doctors to withdraw from Medicare coverage, as they also would were employers to transfer patients to a public option to save money.
* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that his health plan would not fund illegal aliens; but his allies had been busy voting down amendments to that effect. (This was the point of Joe Wilson’s outburst.)
* Obama claimed that Caterpillar’s CEO had told him that Caterpillar would begin hiring again as a result of the stimulus bill; but that individual immediately announced that he had said no such thing, and that Caterpillar would in fact be laying off more workers.
* Candidate Obama promised that Guantanamo would be closed by January 1, 2010; but it is still open.
* Candidate Obama promised that his administration (unlike his predecessor’s) would be so transparent that TV cameras (C-Span) would be there for key deliberations; but an unprecedented level of secrecy prevails as the final stages of Obamacare are negotiated behind closed doors and kept so secret that even the Senate majority whip admitted that he had no idea what was going on. Requests for Obama to honor the promise of C-Span cameras are being ignored.
* To gain traction for his attempt to return a would-be socialist dictator in Honduras to power, Obama claimed that he had been overthrown in an illegal coup; but the congressional research service pointed out correctly that ex-President Zelaya had been removed for constitutionally sufficient cause by legal and constitutional means.
* Obama claims that he wants a public option only to increase choice and competition; but the House bill would clearly reduce choice both by squeezing unsubsidized private health plans out of the market, and by setting rigid conditions on acceptable plans that would narrow available options.
* Candidate Obama claimed that violent radical Bill Ayers was just another guy in his neighborhood; but the record shows that the two had worked closely together.
* Obama assured us that his stimulus bill would create or save a million jobs; but he was claiming as fact what could never have been more than a wild (and highly improbable) guess, and his more recent attempts to justify that guess have been fraudulent.
* Obama assured us that his health plan would never ration care, or “pull the plug” on grandma; but the legislation he backs sets up panels to make crucial decisions on when to withhold care, and it makes such deep cuts in Medicare that rationing is inevitable.
* Obama now assures us that health insurance premiums will not go up if ObamaCare becomes law, insisting indignantly that people who say this have not read the bill; but the legislation forces insurers to cover preexisting conditions, which will compel them to raise premiums substantially.
This is an extraordinary record of serial mendacity. One or two instances might charitably be regarded as rash promises later regretted, or as the wishful thinking of someone who had not thought through the implications of what he was saying. But when it happens again and again—and my 30 instances are by no means exhaustive—only one judgment seems possible: this is the record of a habitual, shameless liar, a man who will say anything to get what he wants. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, goes the old saying. But scores of times? How shameful is that for our society when this disgraceful record is never the subject of a reproachful editorial in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CBS news? Richard Nixon was removed from office, and Bill Clinton impeached for a single lie. Who could look at Obama’s record without concluding that his lying is in a completely different league to theirs?
President Obama evidently believes that he can solve any problem with a speech. But he really does not care whether what he says is true or not, nor does he feel any responsibility to honor the assurances and promises he makes. As a result, this nation is now in a position where it cannot believe a word that he says, and that amounts to an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the Presidency. Democratic government will atrophy if we allow lying on this scale to count as the business as usual of politics. When will the press and the Congress hold him accountable?
Read the entire article here
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thanks, Mr. President, for the Hope and Change.
Sign posted in Hutchinson, Kansas.
Obama, on the other hand, has said he is quite "comfortable" being a one-term president. Personally, I would like to end his term before it's over, however, it's good to know he feels that way.
Obama ‘Quite Comfortable’ As One-Term President, White House Spokesman Says
Friday, August 21, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
President Barack Obama White House (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama is “quite comfortable” with the prospect of being a one-term president in order to address the issues he is concerned about, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday.
The comment came on the same day the president’s approval reached a new low, with only a 45 percent approval rating in the Zogby International poll released Friday. The poll said that 51 percent disapprove of the president’s job performance. The Real Clear Politics average of all polls puts the president approval rating at 52.2 percent.
Gibbs was addressing a question about a comment made by Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), who said the president told him he is willing to risk a second term to get a health care overhaul bill approved.
Gibbs said that would be true of most issues.
“I don’t know that I’ve specifically heard him on health care,” said Gibbs, “but I have heard the president say that if making tough decisions in getting important things done that Washington has failed to do for decades means that he only lives in this house and makes those decisions for four years, he’s quite comfortable,” Gibbs told reporters at the White House press briefing.
Read the rest of the article here
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
We Have to Make People Understand that He's Not Real...
Picture courtesy of The People's Cube
The Once-Appealing Barack Obama
Peter Wehner - 01.18.2010 - 8:46 AM
Wednesday marks the one-year anniversary of Barack Obama’s inauguration. It has been, by almost any measure, a difficult and disappointing year for him and his party.
Mr. Obama now has the highest disapproval rating in Gallup’s history for a president entering his second year in office. According to a new Washington Post–ABC News poll, among independents, only 49 percent approve — the lowest of any of his recent predecessors at this point in their presidencies. (Obama has lost a stunning 18 points among independents in just a year’s time.) In November, Democrats suffered crushing defeats in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial campaigns — and if Republican Scott Brown prevails in his race against Martha Coakley in tomorrow’s Senate election in Massachusetts, it will rank among the most important non-presidential elections in our lifetime.
It has been a staggering collapse by a president who entered office with enormous support and an unprecedented amount of goodwill.
The reasons for this slide include unemployment rates that are much higher than the Obama administration predicted, job growth that never materialized despite the president’s promises, a record-setting spending binge, a massive and hugely unpopular health-care proposal, and an agenda that is far too liberal for most Americans.
But there is another, and I think quite important, explanation that was reinforced to me while reading John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s book, Game Change, which is a fascinating (and very well-written) account of the 2008 presidential campaign.
One is reminded once again of how the core of Obama’s popularity was an appeal not to policy or to a governing agenda; instead it was an appeal to thematics and narrative. “Obama cast himself as a figure uncorrupted and unco-opted by evil Washington,” the authors write. He was the candidate who “promised to be a unifier and not a polarizer; someone nondogmatic and uncontaminated by the special-interest cesspool that Washington had become.” Obama’s appeal was romantic and aesthetic, built on the rhetoric of hope and change, on his “freshness and sense of promise.” A cult of personality built up around Obama — not because of what he had achieved but because of what he seemed to embody. (”Maybe one day he’ll do something to merit all this attention,” Michelle Obama dryly told a reporter.)
“We have something very special here,” Obama’s top political aide Axelrod is quoted as saying. “I feel like I’ve been handed a porcelain baby.” Axelrod tells Obama — dubbed by his aides as the “Black Jesus” — that voters were looking for “a president who can bring the country together, who can reach beyond partisanship, and who’ll be tough on special interests.”
That was what we were promised. What we got instead is a president who increased the divisions in our nation, the most partisan and polarizing figure in the history of polling, one who is dogmatic and has been as generous to special interests as any we have seen. The efforts to buy votes in pursuit of the Obama agenda has added sewage to the cesspool.
This would hurt any president under any circumstances; for Barack Obama, whose allure was based almost entirely on his ability to convince the public that he embodied a “new politics,” it has been doubly damaging. It was Hillary Clinton of all people who understood Obama best when she said during the campaign, “We have to make people understand that he’s not real.”
Not real indeed. Obama’s stirring call for Americans to reject the “politics of cynicism” was itself deeply cynical. Perhaps none of this should come as a surprise. After all, Heilemann and Halperin write, Axelrod was “a master of the dark arts of negative campaigning.” The first major profile of him, more than 20 years ago, was titled, “Hatchet Man: The Rise of David Axelrod.”
Obama and Axelrod might have been able to get away with this if Obama’s presidency had been viewed as successful and skilled. But it’s not. And when combined with the growing realization that Obama is not up to the task of governing, that he is pursuing policies that exacerbate our problems and takes us down a wrong and even perilous path, it is poison. The toxicity is such that what was once unthinkable now seems more likely than not: Democrats losing the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for almost half a century. And even if they don’t, 2010 is shaping up to be a perfectly awful year for Democrats. It’s a safe bet that in response they and their allies will lash out in rage, angry at the perceived injustice of it all, furious at the fate that has befallen them. They will blame Obama’s predecessor, Republicans in Congress, the conservative movement, angry white males, Fox News, Sarah Palin’s tweets, and the wrong alignment of the stars. It won’t work.
Having created a myth, they must now live with its unmasking.
Full article can be viewed here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)