Obama Lies About Lies

Wow! Where to start? Hmm...let's go through the transcript from the President's speech shall we?


On the Recession

August 1, 2009 : CNNMoney

President Barack Obama warned Saturday it would take "many more months" for the United States to get out of recession

September 9, 2009

"thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink"

So is the recession going to last "many more months" or is it over?


On the number of uninsured

Over and over again all of the Demowhacks and BHO have been pushing this number of 46-47 million (often couched as almost 50 million) Americans that have no health care. Analysis has shown that number breaks down like this:

18 million can afford it but don't want to pay for it (Leaves 32 million)
8.4 million are 18 to 24 and think they are invincible (Leaves 23.6 million)
12.6 million are illegal aliens (Leaves 11 million)
9.4 million are only temporarily uninsured until they get a job (Leaves 1.6 million)
Some of those are covered by government programs but haven't signed up

Strangely enough, if you read the transcript, you will see that this magical number of 47 million somehow decreased overnight to 30 million.

"There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."

I guess they decided they better stop count illegal aliens.


On Medicare and Medicaid

Regarding Medicare and Medicaid, here is what Obama had to say:

"Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined."

His theory is that rising costs cause people to not be able to afford healthcare and then go on to Medicare or Medicaid, raising the cost of those programs. What he fails to recognize is one of the major factors in pushing up the cost of medicine for everyone not on Medicare and Medicaid is the ridiculously paltry sum that the government pays providers for Medicare and Medicaid care, causing them to have to pad their costs to people with private insurance to be able to stay in business.


On How to Reform

"Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch."

So his idea of what works is government control ala Medicare and Medicaid which are going bankrupt? Or will they model it after Social Security - oh yeah, that's going bankrupt too. How about open competition in the market place - I guess that's too conservative an idea and doesn't give the Demowhacks enough power to keep them happy.


On Partisanship

"But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government."

Partisanship? Really? Like when Obama stated, "We won."? Or like when Pelosi stated that since they were in power, they would write the bill? Or the fact that the President has not asked Republicans to the White House to discuss their ideas since April? I do believe, Mr. President, that making a charge of partisanship against the Republicans is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. I'm sure some people will think that is racist, but that is how the saying goes, so get over it.


On Details for Obama's Plan

"nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. "

Really? So all the people who read the section in the legislation coming out of the house where it stated that if anything at all in your plan changed, the premium, the coverage, whatever, you would be forced into the Public Option were just imagining it?

"This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right."

Translation: This will give me time to run for re-election, touting the fact that I passed health care reform before you have had to use it and figure out that it sucks!

"If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors."

And if we force all business to provide health care to all their workers, people will lose their jobs (and therefore their insurance), and/or the additional health care costs will be passed on to the American people through increased prices. It's a zero sum game.

"And while there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe"

Really? You've been pushing this bill since January, wanted it signed by August, and you still have details to iron out? What the hell are you waiting for?


On the "Lies" Being Told About Obama's Plan

"claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. "

No one claimed they will kill of senior citizens. Rather the claim is that care will be denied to seniors due to cost/benefit calculations to save money. If you don't think this will happen, take a look at the National Health System in Great Britain.

"There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

Well, until now, Mr. President, you used a number that included illegal aliens. This time you saw fit to subtract them, but I would bet that there is no provision for checking citizenship status before providing care. If you write restrictions into the bill, but no provisions for enforcement, you are just giving lip service. Hell, you Demowhacks don't like to even require ID for voting, and that requirement of citizenship to vote is in the Constitution itself!

"And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions"

Yet back in July 2007, this is what he said to Planned Parenthood:

"We’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services"

Obama did not use the word "abortion," but a spokesman for the campaign said later that abortion would be included. Caught again, Liar-in-chief!

"a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight"

What Obama is referring to is a poll that said that 77 percent of Americans feel it is important to have a choice between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage. Liberals say this is support for the public option. Really? Sounds more like support for "choice". And in fact, when the question was rephrased as "Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?", the numbers come back as 43 percent support the public option, and 47 percent oppose it. Not a majority at all.

"I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. "

And who do you suppose will force you to enforce that provision against yourselves?

"we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse... And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid...The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies -- subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don't improve the care of seniors. "

So there is $900 billion of fraud and waste going on in Medicare and Medicaid? And you expect to start fixing that in 4 years? How about now?

"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing."

A common straw man argument. No one on the right is saying do nothing. We can fix health care in 3 quick steps:

1) Remove exclusions for pre-exisiting conditions - this will slightly increase prices, but it's the humane thing to do.

2) Tort reform - this will decrease medical insurance costs and decrease prices.

3) Allow policies to be sold across the country, rather than being restricted state by state. This will increase competition and decrease prices.

Now, let's fix Social Security

1) Raise the eligibility age (it was originally set at life expectancy, but people are living longer)

2) Means testing - if you make more than $1 million a year, do you really nead $1500 a month?

3) Eliminate the ceiling on income that is taxable - at the same time you can lower the tax rate.

Now to fix taxes

1) Tax every dollar above the poverty level a flat rate

2) No exceptions, no exemptions, no tax credits (besides those below the poverty level).

3) Lower tax rate while receiving more revenue

If you need any other advice, Mr. President, feel free to contact me.

First one to the car wins...no wait, first one to the car loses!

My 6-year old son is in the phase where he wants to be the fastest, smartest, best. But most of all, he wants to win. All the time. Even if it means changing the rules on the fly so that only he is qualified to win. Sound familiar?

The Demowhacks in Massachusetts were so worried that Governor Mitt Romney might be able to appoint a replacement for John Kerry should Kerry win the Presidency (thank God for small favors), that they changed the law in Massachusetts taking that power away from the governor and requiring a special election. Of course they didn't say they wanted to do it because they were afraid of Romney appointing a Republican (gasp!), instead they claimed that the gubenatorial appointment power was undemocratic and that only the people should be allowed to choose a replacement.

Fast forward to 2009, just days after Ted Kennedy's death, and my how the tune has changed! Now the party line is that the state should not be without full representation especially while important issues like Obamacare are being discussed. What's changed in 5 years? Why there's a Demowhack in the governors office, of course?

Guess what, Demowhacks? Even if we bought your story before about how it was undemocratic to not let the people decide, as soon as you tried to backtrack for your own benefit, you immediatly lost all credibility on the issue.

If the Demowhacks go ahead and change the law back simply to favor their party, I hope that the people of Massachussetts vote them all out of office including the governor and whomever he picks for Kennedy's replacement. I don't even care if you replace them with Democrats or Republicans, just find some people with some spine who can stand by their decisions.

As Dr. Phil would say, "If they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you." You might like them pushing an agenda that ties in with your values, but what happens when it becomes more advantageous for them to do an about face? Will you get that sinking feeling? (My homage to Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy).

What to Nazi's, Klansmen, and evil-mongers have in common?

Well of course they are all names that have been given by Demowhacks to people who are concerned about their healthcare.

Harry Reid said that town hall protesters are "evil-mongers".

Nancy Pelosi said that they "carry swastikas".

And John Dingell said that "the last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it. At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble."

Really? We're Nazi's, Klansmen, and evil-mongers?

And yet if a conservative politician even used the wrong term, say queer instead of homosexual, the liberals would be at the gates with pitchforks and torches.

On a similar topic, let's talk about those darned Obama/Joker posters showing up all over LA. A Washington Post writer had this to say about the posters:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503876.html

The Joker's makeup in "Dark Knight" -- the latest film in a long franchise that dramatizes fear of the urban world -- emphasized the wounded nature of the villain, the sense that he was both a product and source of violence. Although Ledger was white, and the Joker is white, this equation of the wounded and the wounding mirrors basic racial typology in America. Urban blacks -- the thinking goes -- don't just live in dangerous neighborhoods, they carry that danger with them like a virus.

Did you get that? Even though Heath Ledger (and Jack Nicholson) were white, and the character the Joker is white, a poster portraying Obama as the Joker is racist. Huh?
And yet when they published a picture of Bush looking like the Joker in Vanity Fair, that was OK.

http://iusbvision.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/bush-the-joker002.jpg

So to sum up, if you are against Demowhacks in general, you are a Nazi or at least a Klansman (anybody remember a Demowhack named Robert Byrd?), and if you say anything, anything at all against Obama or his policies, then you are a racist.

Oh, and don't forget, you will be reported to flag@whitehouse.gov for your "fishy" behavior!

And another video - Go Michelle!

Michelle Malkin gives the lefties of The View a whuppin'!

http://www.breitbart.tv/michelle-malkin-newsflash-george-bush-is-not-in-office-anymore/

And while we are posting videos...

Let's post this one where Obama and other Dems admit their ultimate goal is a single payer system.

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

Congressional rap : Freedom vs. Tyranny

Too funny! You have to check this vid out here:

http://www.wimp.com/newstuned/

Cash for Clunkers?

Everyone is talking about the cash for clunkers program. Liberals claim it is a great way to stimulate the economy. Conservatives question how you can trust the Federal government to rein in heathcare cost estimates if the $1 billon they had put aside that was supposed to cover this program from July-November ran out in one week. I have some other questions...

1) Why pick new cars? There are lots of other industries out there. Dems say because there are a lot of other businesses that are affected by new car sales. OK, then what about the travel industry? You have airlines, hotels, cruise ships, car rentals, taxis, restaurants, resorts, attractions, the list goes on and on. Maybe it's because the government owns car companies but doesn't own any travel companies or hotels.

2) Who are you helping? Are liberals the ones who want to help the poorest people? Are the poorest people going out and buying new cars? No, it's the middle and upper middle class who are buying these cars. In a lot of cases it's people who were already planning on buying a new car soon, so it's not so much an incentive to trade in a clunker, but more of a windfall for something they were going to do anyways.

3) Who are you hurting? Not only is cash for clunkers not helping the poor, it is potentially hurting them. By law, the cars turned in must be destroyed wholesale. Nothing can be removed from them. What that means is not only are there fewer used cars available for people who can only afford to buy used cars, and driving up the prices of the used cars that are available, but there are also going to be fewer parts for cars that people already own, driving those prices up as well. Why not just require the engine be destroyed? How much pollution does a transmission emit? Zero. Doors? Nada. Rims? Zilch. Airbags? Zip. Are you seeing the pattern?

4) Who else are you hurting? Used car companies, used parts companies, repair shops (more expensive parts may lead to less business for them), and new car dealers. How are the new car dealers being hurt when they are getting all this business you ask? Well, for one thing they cannot resell the car, but for another, as mentioned below, a great number of these people turning in their cars are simply accelerating a purchase they were going to make anyways, so each sale now comes out of a company's future sales. Also, its possible that when the program ends, people may hold off buying new cars hoping that Congress might start up a similar program again.

5) Are they really clunkers? People working for companies who shred cars have reported that they are seeing cars that are not clunkers at all. In one case, they got a car that had less than 30,000 miles on it. Of course under the law they have no choice and that car had to be destroyed along with all the others. And the rules exclude cars older than 25 years. Why? Aren't those worse polluters than cars that are 10 years old?

And finally, Mr. Obama and you Dems jamming things like this through the two houses, why do I now have to pay for other people's cars? I don't mind paying taxes for things I use, roads, schools, fire and police departments, but I really resent paying for private property for other people. Let's call it quits at $1 billion wasted on this program and not send another $2 billon down the new car toilet.

It's not my fault, you made me do it!

Yesterday, Harry Reid informed the media that the August deadline for healthcare reform bills to be passed was a ficticious deadline that the media had created.

“That is a deadline that you created,” Reid told a group of about 75 reporters.

Really? So all this time for the last couple of months whenever the media reported that Obama was pushing for passing a healthcare bill by August, they were lying? Or do they have some sort of mind control over the President to make him espouse this deadline that they created?

Sen. Reid, please grow up and take responsibility for your own failures. The media did not create the deadline you were all touting. And while we are on the subject, the Republicans were not stopping you from passing the bill. And good luck getting the votes in September or October to try to pass this, I predict you will fail spectacularly.

Obama Beer Fest 09

Today is the day that Sgt. James Crowley, Prof. Henry Gates, and President Obama have a beer together to try to reconcile over the arrest of Prof. Gates. And there is now a discussion going on about the choices of beers being served - does that really matter?

But back to the main issue of this posting, I am getting tired of the media playing clips of people saying how shameful it was for Sgt. Crowley to arrest this 55 year old man who gets around on a cane, blah, blah, blah. Reports from witnesses stated that Gates had no problem walking without a cane when he as berating Sgt. Crowley outside of the house.

Even if he did need to use a cane, hell, if he had to use a wheelchair, SO WHAT? Does that mean that we should never arrest disabled people? How about old people, should they be immune from arrest as well? Age, race, disability, religion, sex, sexual preference - none of that should come into play into asking whether or not someone was rightfully arrested. The only question at hand should be did they break the law? Let a judge or a jury decided that even though they broke the law, it wasn't so eggregious as to needing to punish the person. Let the law enforcement officer just worry about whether or not a law was broken. KISS.