By now most folks keeping up with the news know (comparatively) “conservative” members of the House, known affectionately or otherwise as the “Blue Dogs,” have caved in to Democrat arm-twisting and came to some sort of compromise to enable the Healthcare Destruction Bill (H.R. 3200) to come out of Committee but supposedly not to be put to a vote of the full House until September. What this means is that no matter what they say, Democrat dogs will ultimately show their true color which is a strong shade of yellow.
Although it is incredible to me, most everyone in congress is focusing entirely on the Obamacare cost. While I appreciate any reason for opposing this monstrosity, there are so many substantive reasons for consigning Obamacare to the trash which Democrat members of the House refuse to acknowledge or discuss.
The Blue Dog compromise would cut the cost of the "$1 trillion-plus package" by $100 billion, according to one member of the Blue Dog Coalition. [However the cost is much greater than $1 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office.] I wonder how they can feel shaving a mere ten percent assuages their “fiscally conservative” mind set. They also seem to think that their deal would also ensure that the proposed government-run insurance program would not be forced on anyone; but note: a government-run insurance program is still in the bill. No one ever complained about a direct mandate to enter a government program; what anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows is that private businesses can’t compete with the endlessly deep pockets of government so there is no level playing field.
Seven Blue Dogs had held up passage of the bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee over concerns about cost and the speed at which Democrats were advancing the legislation. The committee is the only House panel that hasn't voted on the bill because of this opposition. Not only was the cost compromised but their principles as well since the Democrat leadership is still rushing the House to vote on the bill at breakneck speed considering the importance of revamping our entire health care system.
Chief Blue dog barker, Representative Mike Ross, (D-Ark.) said "We have reached an agreement that will allow health care reform to move forward." Ross said four of those seven colorful dogs agreed to the compromise Wednesday which is enough for Chairman Henry Waxman, (D-CA) to get passage of the bill out of committee.
As the Blue Dogs surrendered, the chief of the kennel has looked at focus group poling and reworded his pitch for demolishing the finest medical care in the world. The Obama news media calls this “retooling his message.” Now Obama is attacking the insurance companies and says that his plan would protect Americans and limit insurers' power.
Obama told people gathered in a North Carolina high school gymnasium: "We have a system today that works well for the insurance industry, but it doesn't always work well for you. What we need, and what we will have when we pass these reforms, are health insurance consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and insurance companies are held accountable."
Obama also mentions insurance portability and coverage for pre-conditions but fails to say that both of these issues can be addressed without draconian changes in the current health care system and without spending $2 trillion.
The failure of the bill to address the supposed goal of providing health insurance to all (including illegal immigrants) is also unmentioned. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that there would still be millions uninsured even if Obamacare becomes law.
Since both the House and Senate have sufficient majorities to pass whatever they want, the only hope is that when the Blue Dogs return home for the summer recess their constituents will tell them that unlike these pseudo conservatives their bite is greater than their bark.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Our New President: Disaster In The Making?
Once in a while I come across something that is so noteworthy it deserves as much attention as it can get. This is the case with a recent article by Thomas Sowell; Mr. Sowell expresses this important message far better than I could so I tip my hat to him.
Vincent
"Our New President: Disaster In The Making?
By THOMAS SOWELL
After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust.
When that person is the president of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited.
Many people are rightly worried about what this administration's reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on. But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief.
He is heading this country toward disaster on many fronts, including a nuclear Iran, which has every prospect of being an irretrievable disaster of almost unimaginable magnitude. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle — and neither can generations yet unborn. They may yet curse
us all for leaving them hostages to nuclear terror.
Conceivably, Israel can spare us that fate by taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities, instead of relying on Obama's ability to talk the Iranians out of going nuclear.
What the Israelis cannot spare us, however, are our own internal problems, of which the current flap over President Obama's injecting himself into a local police issue is just a small sign of a very big danger.
Nothing has torn more countries apart from inside like racial and ethnic polarization. Just this year, a decades-long civil war, filled with unspeakable atrocities, has finally ended in Sri Lanka. The painful irony is that, when the British colony of Ceylon became the independent nation of Sri Lanka in 1948, its people were considered to be a shining example for the world of good relations between a majority (the Sinhalese) and a minority (the Tamils).
That all changed when politicians decided to "solve" the "problem" that the Tamil minority was much more economically successful than the Sinhalese majority. Group identity politics led to group preferences and quotas that escalated into polarization, mob violence and ultimately civil
war.
Group identity politics has poisoned many other countries, including at various times Kenya, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, Guyana, Canada, Nigeria, India and Rwanda. In some countries the polarization has gone as far as mass expulsions or civil war.
The desire of many Americans for a "post-racial" society is well-founded, though the belief that Barack Obama would move in that direction was extremely ill-advised, given the history of his
actions and associations.
This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available. That requires taking all kinds of decisions out of the hands of ordinary Americans and transferring them to Washington elites — and ultimately the No. 1 elite, Barack Obama himself.
Like so many before him who have ruined countries around the world, Obama has a greatly inflated idea of his own capabilities and the prospects of what can be accomplished by rhetoric or even by political power.
Often this has been accompanied by an ignorance of history, including the history of how many people before him have tried similar things with disastrous results.
During a recent TV interview, when President Obama was asked about the prospects of victory in Afghanistan, he replied that it would not be victory like in World War II, with "Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."
In reality, it was not Emperor Hirohito who surrendered on the battleship Missouri. American troops were already occupying Japan before Hirohito met Gen. Douglas MacArthur for the first time.
This is not the first betrayal of his ignorance by Obama, nor the first overlooked by the media. Moreover, ignorance by itself is not nearly as bad as charging full steam ahead, pretending to know. Barack Obama is doing that on a lot of issues, not just history or a local police incident in Massachusetts.
While the mainstream media in America will never call him on this, these repeated demonstrations of his amateurism and immaturity will not go unnoticed by this country's enemies around the world. And it is the American people who will pay the price."
Vincent
"Our New President: Disaster In The Making?
By THOMAS SOWELL
After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust.
When that person is the president of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited.
Many people are rightly worried about what this administration's reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on. But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief.
He is heading this country toward disaster on many fronts, including a nuclear Iran, which has every prospect of being an irretrievable disaster of almost unimaginable magnitude. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle — and neither can generations yet unborn. They may yet curse
us all for leaving them hostages to nuclear terror.
Conceivably, Israel can spare us that fate by taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities, instead of relying on Obama's ability to talk the Iranians out of going nuclear.
What the Israelis cannot spare us, however, are our own internal problems, of which the current flap over President Obama's injecting himself into a local police issue is just a small sign of a very big danger.
Nothing has torn more countries apart from inside like racial and ethnic polarization. Just this year, a decades-long civil war, filled with unspeakable atrocities, has finally ended in Sri Lanka. The painful irony is that, when the British colony of Ceylon became the independent nation of Sri Lanka in 1948, its people were considered to be a shining example for the world of good relations between a majority (the Sinhalese) and a minority (the Tamils).
That all changed when politicians decided to "solve" the "problem" that the Tamil minority was much more economically successful than the Sinhalese majority. Group identity politics led to group preferences and quotas that escalated into polarization, mob violence and ultimately civil
war.
Group identity politics has poisoned many other countries, including at various times Kenya, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, Guyana, Canada, Nigeria, India and Rwanda. In some countries the polarization has gone as far as mass expulsions or civil war.
The desire of many Americans for a "post-racial" society is well-founded, though the belief that Barack Obama would move in that direction was extremely ill-advised, given the history of his
actions and associations.
This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available. That requires taking all kinds of decisions out of the hands of ordinary Americans and transferring them to Washington elites — and ultimately the No. 1 elite, Barack Obama himself.
Like so many before him who have ruined countries around the world, Obama has a greatly inflated idea of his own capabilities and the prospects of what can be accomplished by rhetoric or even by political power.
Often this has been accompanied by an ignorance of history, including the history of how many people before him have tried similar things with disastrous results.
During a recent TV interview, when President Obama was asked about the prospects of victory in Afghanistan, he replied that it would not be victory like in World War II, with "Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."
In reality, it was not Emperor Hirohito who surrendered on the battleship Missouri. American troops were already occupying Japan before Hirohito met Gen. Douglas MacArthur for the first time.
This is not the first betrayal of his ignorance by Obama, nor the first overlooked by the media. Moreover, ignorance by itself is not nearly as bad as charging full steam ahead, pretending to know. Barack Obama is doing that on a lot of issues, not just history or a local police incident in Massachusetts.
While the mainstream media in America will never call him on this, these repeated demonstrations of his amateurism and immaturity will not go unnoticed by this country's enemies around the world. And it is the American people who will pay the price."
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
A broad view of Obamacare
By now most of you reading this have received information about some of the draconian provisions of the Obama and Democrats bill that would irreversibly change the health care we are able to get in the United States now but won’t if they succeed in rushing through their “healthcare reform” through congress. Democrats like to say that the final bill is not yet written and there are several different ones on the table, therefore it is unfair to criticize the bills now. However it is clear that the bills all contain provisions that most Americans don’t want and that will destroy the best medical care and treatment in the world. If you don’t think we have the best medical care in the world, then explain why people come here for medical care and no Americans go elsewhere for theirs.
One of the criticisms of the present healthcare system is the cost. However what these critics want us to ignore is that our healthcare system embodies the most advanced medical devices and scientific equipment designed to diagnose and treat medical problems and which extend the lives of Americans. Statistics show, for example, that survival rates from cancer far exceed those in other countries, and in particular countries with government run health care systems.
Another criticism Obama and Democrats like to advertise is that there are form 47 to 50 million (depending upon the degree of exaggeration they choose) “uninsured “ in the United States and this condition must be corrected. There are two fallacies in this argument: (1) there are not millions of people as alleged who are unable to get health insurance if the wish, the number includes illegal aliens and many people are only temporarily uninsured (usually because they are between jobs), and (2) being without health insurance does not mean they are unable to receive health care.
There are over 1,000 pages in the most discussed House health care bill and virtually all representatives admit they haven’t read the bill, including the strongest advocates. All the information about the bill crossing the internet comment on the first 500 pages of the bill leaving another 500 pages or so un-reviewed. I’m not sure why that is except it may have to do with reader fatigue. Anyone wanting these details can readily find them if they haven’t already received e-mails describing them. However, if you are someone not on e-mail distribution lists, send me an e-mail (gioia@gte.net) and I will send it to you.
I believe it is important to understand how Obama and Democrats want to change the medical care we receive today and the way we receive the medical care, and how they are going about trying to inflict these changes on Americans.
Democrats and Obama’s health-care sales pitch obfuscates who is likely to get hurt by their “reform.” For example at a recent press conference Obama was asked “specifically what kind of pain and sacrifice” he would ask of patients in order to achieve the cost savings he promises. Obama insisted he “won’t reduce Medicare benefits” but instead would “make delivery more efficient.” The most Mr. Obama would concede is that some people will have to “give up paying for things that don’t make you healthier.” That is simply not true or credible.
Of course most Democrats dispute claims that individuals will lose their existing coverage under their reform plans but on other issues many Democrats privately acknowledge some people will indeed get hit to pay for government health care.
With the help of the Democrat house organs known as the “news media” Democrats have brilliantly kept knowledge about their healthcare bills and the pain and sacrifice the would entail from the public, except for the blogosphere, talk radio and conservative columnists who continue to inform the public wherever possible. One way they have done this is to convince health-care industry groups not to run the kind of “Harry and Louise” type of ads that helped sink HillaryCare in 1993. Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) says the pressure not to run ads has been “intense, bordering on extortion.” Newt Gingrich said “Groups were told if they [ran these ads] did they’d give up their seat at the table. What they weren’t told is that they’d be at the table as lunch.”
Taking a broad look of what would happen if Obamacare becomes law, here are some of the groups that will be affected:
If the government successfully mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. According to John Fund: “The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. ‘They’ll have sticker shock,’ says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.”
Employers who don’t provide coverage will be required to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. However even those who do provide coverage also have to pay the tax—if the law says their coverage is not “adequate.” Amazingly, even if a small business provides adequate insurance but its employees choose coverage in another plan offered through the government, the employer still must pay.
According to the Treasury Department eight million Americans are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a HSA savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own.
Obamacare will severely limit this ability. According to the Senate plan a policy deemed “acceptable” must have insurance (rather than the individual) pay out at least 76% of the benefits. The House plan sets the “acceptable” limit at 70%. Roy Ramthun who implemented the HAS regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003 says that’s not the way these plans are set up to work. And the new regulations would be crippling. In a recent interview Ramthun says “Companies tell me they could be forced to take products off the market.”
Medicare Advantage programs most Medicare-qualified individuals have will be severely cut back if not virtually destroyed. Obama and Congressional Democrats want to cut back medical care provided by private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled.
Medicare Advantage plans tend to provide better coordinated and preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage’s private-sector nature. Obama told the Washington Post that the program was “a prime example” of his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims people “aren’t getting good value” from it but millions of people disagree or they wouldn’t be paying and subscribing for these plans. Statistics show that 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.
At least one Democrat governor also disagrees with this aspect of Obamacare; Oregon’s Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing his concern about its efforts “to scale back Medicare Advantage” because the plans “play an important role in providing affordable health coverage.” He noted that 39% of Oregon’s Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and that in “some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with proper chronic disease management for such conditions as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission rates have declined.”
Obamacare will cut $156 billion in Medicare Advantage over the next decade which will force many seniors to go back to traditional Medicare at greater expense and less coverage.
The Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have greater benefits and lower deductibles and co-payments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.
Even some Democrat senators, so-called Blue Dog Democrats, are leery of plans to affect Medicare Advantage programs because they know that their reelection can be at risk when seniors learn how the Democrat health “reform” will affect them. Yet the only way the House and Senate health plans can pass is if they can impose costs on seniors and other vulnerable segments of the population.
One of the criticisms of the present healthcare system is the cost. However what these critics want us to ignore is that our healthcare system embodies the most advanced medical devices and scientific equipment designed to diagnose and treat medical problems and which extend the lives of Americans. Statistics show, for example, that survival rates from cancer far exceed those in other countries, and in particular countries with government run health care systems.
Another criticism Obama and Democrats like to advertise is that there are form 47 to 50 million (depending upon the degree of exaggeration they choose) “uninsured “ in the United States and this condition must be corrected. There are two fallacies in this argument: (1) there are not millions of people as alleged who are unable to get health insurance if the wish, the number includes illegal aliens and many people are only temporarily uninsured (usually because they are between jobs), and (2) being without health insurance does not mean they are unable to receive health care.
There are over 1,000 pages in the most discussed House health care bill and virtually all representatives admit they haven’t read the bill, including the strongest advocates. All the information about the bill crossing the internet comment on the first 500 pages of the bill leaving another 500 pages or so un-reviewed. I’m not sure why that is except it may have to do with reader fatigue. Anyone wanting these details can readily find them if they haven’t already received e-mails describing them. However, if you are someone not on e-mail distribution lists, send me an e-mail (gioia@gte.net) and I will send it to you.
I believe it is important to understand how Obama and Democrats want to change the medical care we receive today and the way we receive the medical care, and how they are going about trying to inflict these changes on Americans.
Democrats and Obama’s health-care sales pitch obfuscates who is likely to get hurt by their “reform.” For example at a recent press conference Obama was asked “specifically what kind of pain and sacrifice” he would ask of patients in order to achieve the cost savings he promises. Obama insisted he “won’t reduce Medicare benefits” but instead would “make delivery more efficient.” The most Mr. Obama would concede is that some people will have to “give up paying for things that don’t make you healthier.” That is simply not true or credible.
Of course most Democrats dispute claims that individuals will lose their existing coverage under their reform plans but on other issues many Democrats privately acknowledge some people will indeed get hit to pay for government health care.
With the help of the Democrat house organs known as the “news media” Democrats have brilliantly kept knowledge about their healthcare bills and the pain and sacrifice the would entail from the public, except for the blogosphere, talk radio and conservative columnists who continue to inform the public wherever possible. One way they have done this is to convince health-care industry groups not to run the kind of “Harry and Louise” type of ads that helped sink HillaryCare in 1993. Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) says the pressure not to run ads has been “intense, bordering on extortion.” Newt Gingrich said “Groups were told if they [ran these ads] did they’d give up their seat at the table. What they weren’t told is that they’d be at the table as lunch.”
Taking a broad look of what would happen if Obamacare becomes law, here are some of the groups that will be affected:
If the government successfully mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. According to John Fund: “The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. ‘They’ll have sticker shock,’ says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.”
Employers who don’t provide coverage will be required to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. However even those who do provide coverage also have to pay the tax—if the law says their coverage is not “adequate.” Amazingly, even if a small business provides adequate insurance but its employees choose coverage in another plan offered through the government, the employer still must pay.
According to the Treasury Department eight million Americans are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a HSA savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own.
Obamacare will severely limit this ability. According to the Senate plan a policy deemed “acceptable” must have insurance (rather than the individual) pay out at least 76% of the benefits. The House plan sets the “acceptable” limit at 70%. Roy Ramthun who implemented the HAS regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003 says that’s not the way these plans are set up to work. And the new regulations would be crippling. In a recent interview Ramthun says “Companies tell me they could be forced to take products off the market.”
Medicare Advantage programs most Medicare-qualified individuals have will be severely cut back if not virtually destroyed. Obama and Congressional Democrats want to cut back medical care provided by private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled.
Medicare Advantage plans tend to provide better coordinated and preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage’s private-sector nature. Obama told the Washington Post that the program was “a prime example” of his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims people “aren’t getting good value” from it but millions of people disagree or they wouldn’t be paying and subscribing for these plans. Statistics show that 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.
At least one Democrat governor also disagrees with this aspect of Obamacare; Oregon’s Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing his concern about its efforts “to scale back Medicare Advantage” because the plans “play an important role in providing affordable health coverage.” He noted that 39% of Oregon’s Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and that in “some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with proper chronic disease management for such conditions as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission rates have declined.”
Obamacare will cut $156 billion in Medicare Advantage over the next decade which will force many seniors to go back to traditional Medicare at greater expense and less coverage.
The Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have greater benefits and lower deductibles and co-payments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.
Even some Democrat senators, so-called Blue Dog Democrats, are leery of plans to affect Medicare Advantage programs because they know that their reelection can be at risk when seniors learn how the Democrat health “reform” will affect them. Yet the only way the House and Senate health plans can pass is if they can impose costs on seniors and other vulnerable segments of the population.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Obama throws old people ‘under the bus’ with Obamacare
“Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Would you vote for a person to be president if you knew when elected he would appoint someone who thought and said this, Obama did? The President appointed Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel added to his comments that Doctors take their jobs too seriously and need to change to reduce costs – “Savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients,” he wrote.
Emanuel knows that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).
Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. You know what this means; if you are old it’s not cost effective to keep you alive, the money is better spent on a younger person. In the world of Obamacare no longer will doctors try to keep patients alive, they will be told that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
To defend discrimination against older patients, Emanuel says: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Medicare was started in 1965 and since then seniors' lives have been extended by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These procedures have allowed the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.
Dr. David Blumenthal is another key Obama adviser; he agrees with Emanuel and recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending. Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he says whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost is “debatable.” (If you or a loved one has cancer, do you think it’s debatable - delay lowers your chances of survival?)
Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology. This is a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically delivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.
In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.
Betsy McCaughey, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor, thinks you need to know who will be involved in your healthcare decisions and provided the information about Drs. Emanuel and Blumenthal, two of the Obama appointees who will be carrying out Obama’s orders to control lives by controlling what medical care people (other than Obama, congress and government bureaucrats) receive.
“Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (Betty McCaughey - JAMA, June 18, 2008).
The Democrat news media house organs will not tell Americans the thinking behind government health “reform” nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support by Democrat opponents in the House and Senate. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
The health bills in the House and Senate will put decision-making about your care in the hands of presidential appointees with the beliefs of Emanuel and Blumenthal who likely reflect what Obama himself thinks. These people will decide what medical insurance plans cover, how much flexibility your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.
This is what we got when voters responded to the clamor for “change” and elected Barack Obama – Obama has showed a willingness to throw folks “under the bus” when it suits him and old folks are no exception.
Would you vote for a person to be president if you knew when elected he would appoint someone who thought and said this, Obama did? The President appointed Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel added to his comments that Doctors take their jobs too seriously and need to change to reduce costs – “Savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients,” he wrote.
Emanuel knows that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).
Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. You know what this means; if you are old it’s not cost effective to keep you alive, the money is better spent on a younger person. In the world of Obamacare no longer will doctors try to keep patients alive, they will be told that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
To defend discrimination against older patients, Emanuel says: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Medicare was started in 1965 and since then seniors' lives have been extended by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These procedures have allowed the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.
Dr. David Blumenthal is another key Obama adviser; he agrees with Emanuel and recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending. Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he says whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost is “debatable.” (If you or a loved one has cancer, do you think it’s debatable - delay lowers your chances of survival?)
Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology. This is a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically delivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.
In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.
Betsy McCaughey, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor, thinks you need to know who will be involved in your healthcare decisions and provided the information about Drs. Emanuel and Blumenthal, two of the Obama appointees who will be carrying out Obama’s orders to control lives by controlling what medical care people (other than Obama, congress and government bureaucrats) receive.
“Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (Betty McCaughey - JAMA, June 18, 2008).
The Democrat news media house organs will not tell Americans the thinking behind government health “reform” nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support by Democrat opponents in the House and Senate. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
The health bills in the House and Senate will put decision-making about your care in the hands of presidential appointees with the beliefs of Emanuel and Blumenthal who likely reflect what Obama himself thinks. These people will decide what medical insurance plans cover, how much flexibility your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.
This is what we got when voters responded to the clamor for “change” and elected Barack Obama – Obama has showed a willingness to throw folks “under the bus” when it suits him and old folks are no exception.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Where is “Deep Throat” when you need him?
The indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. Instead, his campaign has only released his certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of birth information that can be submitted by foreign born people.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Senator John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama. Obama could likewise put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the certificate of live birth.
As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth and relatives in Kenya say he was born in Kenya and some say they were present at his birth.
Obama has not released many other documents in addition to his birth certificate conveniently for Obama did not press for their release after Obama said he would release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.
It is astonishing to me that with all the documentation that might answer the question concerning the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president under our constitutional requirements for that office, no one has appeared to reveal documents that would shed light on the issue. Where is “Deep Throat” when you need him?
Consider the following:
1. Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.
2. Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
3. Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008, but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.
4. Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University and the University will not release them. [By the way, the issue of the Occidental College records is especially pertinent. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records concerning Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980's, because those records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. Obama attended the school on a scholarship -- and there are questions as to whether the financial aid he received was reserved for foreign students. The Obama attorneys have bent over backward to block access. Obama doesn't want anyone to see those records; he is still trying to hide them and the financial records also have not been released.]
5. Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.
6. Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.
7. Obama did not release or authorize records of documents from his time at Harvard Law School.
8. Obama has not released his passport and passport files to show how he traveled abroad.
9. Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register -- but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country)
10. Obama/Dunham marriage license
11. Obama/Dunham divorce documents
12. Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
13. Soetero/Dunham Adoption records
Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Senator Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules while Obama has been far more secretive about his public life and has refused to allow access to normal documents that are routinely made public by candidates for office.
So the question is – how come no one comes forward with copies of relevant documents that should exist. The New York Times has no problem getting a hold of classified information that damages the security of the United States but anything that might show Americans Obama is not the legitimate president is unavailable – makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
We recognized the threat of Communism once; why can’t we recognize Islam as our enemy?
In the federal government, President Harry Truman's Executive Order 9835 initiated a program of loyalty reviews for federal employees in 1947. Truman's mandate called for dismissal if there were "reasonable grounds...for belief that the person involved is disloyal to the Government of the United States. Communism was considered an existential threat to the United States and the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. The possibility of the overthrow of our government was considered real and needed to be guarded against.
When President Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1953, he strengthened and extended Truman's loyalty review program. Similar loyalty reviews were established in many state and local government offices and some private industries across the nation. In 1958 it was estimated that roughly one out of every five employees in the United States was required to pass some sort of loyalty review.
There were many anti-Communist committees, panels, and "loyalty review boards" in federal, state, and local governments, as well as many private agencies that carried out investigations for small and large companies concerned about possible Communists in their work force.
Fast forward to 2009. A group obsessed with creating a Caliphate based on Muslim religious law -- Sharia Law -- in the United States and other nations held their first US conference in Chicago and there is no reaction by the government and little by the public yet the threat posed by Islam and their Jihadists is greater than any ever posed by Communists in the United States.
The conference is titled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," and was held at the Hilton Hotel in a suburb of Chicago. The shocking part of this is that the majority of congress is silent about this gathering of dedicated enemies of the US Constitution and American values, yet they are voicing their outrage over a CIA proposal to "terminate" terrorist leaders overseas. The Obama Administration and most of the news media are also remaining silent.
Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the international movement to re-establish an international Islamic state or Caliphate, started their campaign to win American recruits in a Chicago suburb and nearly 300 people packed the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel for its Khalifah Conference to listen to Islamic ideologues blame capitalism for World War I and World War II, the U.S. sub-prime mortgage meltdown, the current violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, world poverty and malnutrition and inner-city drug use. A speaker (Abu Atallah) even blamed capitalism for the late singer Michael Jackson's decision "to shed his black skin."
In the ballroom where the conference took place, men and women were largely segregated, with men in the front and women in the back. Reacting to criticism of this segregation, one of the speakers said "Men and women must be kept separate to prevent people from behaving like animals."
According to Hizb ut-Tahrir, the world's social and economic problems will not be fixed until the world (obviously including the United States) is governed by Shariah and the government controls all major industries. "Secular capitalism has made me devalue my skin" and "has kept my family in ghettos," said one speaker, an African-American who went on to blame it for the fact that he smoked marijuana and his grandmother played the lottery. Capitalism, he added, is a form of economic "terrorism" and "causes us to be sent to mental hospitals." In an interview with WBBM-TV in Chicago, a deputy spokesman Mohammad Malkawi refused to specifically condemn Al Qaida and the Taliban.
Despite all this Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government and it insists it is only interested in instituting radical change by nonviolent means. But the organization’s alumni include 9/ll mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the late Iraqi terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi and would-be Hamas suicide bombers, and the group's pro-jihadist rhetoric has led critics to label it a "conveyor belt for terrorists."
Even a Muslim American group condemned Hirb ut-Tahir but not the US government. They issued a statement in advance of the conference condemning Hizb ut-Tahrir's radical ideology and challenging others to follow suit.
"Hizb ut-Tahrir preaches an ideology that calls for the destruction of the principles that America is founded on," said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy. "While their words are protected by our First Amendment, their actions and movement must not be allowed to take hold. The silence of American Islamist organizations like [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] CAIR and [the Islamic Society of North America] ISNA in condemning the ideologies of Hizb ut-Tahrir and their agenda of insurgency in America speaks volumes to their own, albeit, more camouflaged Islamist agenda."
How “non violent” can this organization be? One panelist suggested that modern industrial powers could fall to Muslims the way Mecca fell to Mohammed nearly 1,400 years ago. A speaker identified by conference organizers as Imam Jaleel Abdul Razek said that "if they offer us the sun, or the moon, or a nice raise, or a passport, or a house in the suburbs or even a place to pray at the job, on the condition that we stop calling for Islam as a complete way of life - we should never do that, ever do that - unless and until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt."
Does this sound like a peaceful organization to you?
There was a dialogue between the imam and a member of the audience over whether Shariah or the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land in the United States
Audience member: "Would you get rid of the Constitution for Shariah, yes or no?"
Imam: "Over the Muslim world? Yes, it would be gone."
Audience Member: And so if the United States was in a Muslim world, the Constitution would be gone?"
Imam: "If the United States was in the Muslim world, the Muslims who are here would be calling and happy to see the Shariah applied, yes we would."
Audience Member: "And the Constitution gone. That's all."
Imam: "Yes, as Muslims they would be long gone."
Clearly Hizb ut-Tahrir's is not only is determined to destroy capitalism -- it would shred the United States Constitution as well in favor of Shariah law.
Could domestic Communists in the 1950’s have done worse? What has happened to America when we once recognized the threat of Communism but fail to recognize the far worse threat – Islam?
When President Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1953, he strengthened and extended Truman's loyalty review program. Similar loyalty reviews were established in many state and local government offices and some private industries across the nation. In 1958 it was estimated that roughly one out of every five employees in the United States was required to pass some sort of loyalty review.
There were many anti-Communist committees, panels, and "loyalty review boards" in federal, state, and local governments, as well as many private agencies that carried out investigations for small and large companies concerned about possible Communists in their work force.
Fast forward to 2009. A group obsessed with creating a Caliphate based on Muslim religious law -- Sharia Law -- in the United States and other nations held their first US conference in Chicago and there is no reaction by the government and little by the public yet the threat posed by Islam and their Jihadists is greater than any ever posed by Communists in the United States.
The conference is titled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," and was held at the Hilton Hotel in a suburb of Chicago. The shocking part of this is that the majority of congress is silent about this gathering of dedicated enemies of the US Constitution and American values, yet they are voicing their outrage over a CIA proposal to "terminate" terrorist leaders overseas. The Obama Administration and most of the news media are also remaining silent.
Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the international movement to re-establish an international Islamic state or Caliphate, started their campaign to win American recruits in a Chicago suburb and nearly 300 people packed the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel for its Khalifah Conference to listen to Islamic ideologues blame capitalism for World War I and World War II, the U.S. sub-prime mortgage meltdown, the current violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, world poverty and malnutrition and inner-city drug use. A speaker (Abu Atallah) even blamed capitalism for the late singer Michael Jackson's decision "to shed his black skin."
In the ballroom where the conference took place, men and women were largely segregated, with men in the front and women in the back. Reacting to criticism of this segregation, one of the speakers said "Men and women must be kept separate to prevent people from behaving like animals."
According to Hizb ut-Tahrir, the world's social and economic problems will not be fixed until the world (obviously including the United States) is governed by Shariah and the government controls all major industries. "Secular capitalism has made me devalue my skin" and "has kept my family in ghettos," said one speaker, an African-American who went on to blame it for the fact that he smoked marijuana and his grandmother played the lottery. Capitalism, he added, is a form of economic "terrorism" and "causes us to be sent to mental hospitals." In an interview with WBBM-TV in Chicago, a deputy spokesman Mohammad Malkawi refused to specifically condemn Al Qaida and the Taliban.
Despite all this Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government and it insists it is only interested in instituting radical change by nonviolent means. But the organization’s alumni include 9/ll mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the late Iraqi terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi and would-be Hamas suicide bombers, and the group's pro-jihadist rhetoric has led critics to label it a "conveyor belt for terrorists."
Even a Muslim American group condemned Hirb ut-Tahir but not the US government. They issued a statement in advance of the conference condemning Hizb ut-Tahrir's radical ideology and challenging others to follow suit.
"Hizb ut-Tahrir preaches an ideology that calls for the destruction of the principles that America is founded on," said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy. "While their words are protected by our First Amendment, their actions and movement must not be allowed to take hold. The silence of American Islamist organizations like [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] CAIR and [the Islamic Society of North America] ISNA in condemning the ideologies of Hizb ut-Tahrir and their agenda of insurgency in America speaks volumes to their own, albeit, more camouflaged Islamist agenda."
How “non violent” can this organization be? One panelist suggested that modern industrial powers could fall to Muslims the way Mecca fell to Mohammed nearly 1,400 years ago. A speaker identified by conference organizers as Imam Jaleel Abdul Razek said that "if they offer us the sun, or the moon, or a nice raise, or a passport, or a house in the suburbs or even a place to pray at the job, on the condition that we stop calling for Islam as a complete way of life - we should never do that, ever do that - unless and until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt."
Does this sound like a peaceful organization to you?
There was a dialogue between the imam and a member of the audience over whether Shariah or the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land in the United States
Audience member: "Would you get rid of the Constitution for Shariah, yes or no?"
Imam: "Over the Muslim world? Yes, it would be gone."
Audience Member: And so if the United States was in a Muslim world, the Constitution would be gone?"
Imam: "If the United States was in the Muslim world, the Muslims who are here would be calling and happy to see the Shariah applied, yes we would."
Audience Member: "And the Constitution gone. That's all."
Imam: "Yes, as Muslims they would be long gone."
Clearly Hizb ut-Tahrir's is not only is determined to destroy capitalism -- it would shred the United States Constitution as well in favor of Shariah law.
Could domestic Communists in the 1950’s have done worse? What has happened to America when we once recognized the threat of Communism but fail to recognize the far worse threat – Islam?
Monday, July 20, 2009
The latest Obama outrage; controlling the internet
In the world of Obama there cannot be any dissent or criticism of the master designer (no, not God – President Barack Obama) and any attempts to impugn the Obama plans for “change” must be demolished. So if negativity comes from the internet, then of course the blogosphere must be added to litany of government control and censorship.
The recent Obama intended appointment of Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor, to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the next nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. In this position Sunstein will have powers that are unprecedented and very far reaching; not merely mind-boggling but with explicit ability to use the courts to stifle free speech if it opposes Obama policies. In particular, Sunstein thinks that the bloggers have been “rampaging out of control” and that “new laws need to be written” to contain them. Advance copies of Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the new position to which Sunstein is about to be appointed, the powers with which Sunstein will be endowed are very, very, troubling.
The Wall Street Journal reported that "the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases."
As an indication of where Sunstein is coming from, his previous book, “Nudge,” suggests that government ought to “gently force people to be better human beings.” Sunstein reviews the way views get cemented when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary in his "On Rumors." He says he is concerned that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire." He has written “We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet. We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"
Sunstein will be another Obama “Czar” but will really be the chief regulator of what can or cannot appear on the internet. It is very scary that the person who will be in charge of public cyberspace believes that - "Whether you're a blogger or the York Times or a Web hosting service - you should be held responsible even for what your comments say." Currently you're immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Reasonable people," he says, "might object that this is not the right rule," though he admits that imposing liability for comments on service providers would be "a considerable burden."
But who cares about a burden when insults to Obama and Obama plans are concerned; according to Sunstein we must exert a “chilling effect” on those who would spread destructive falsehoods” and this “can be an excellent idea," he says.
The soon to be internet Czar has written "As we have seen, falsehoods can undermine democracy itself;" but what he really means is that he doesn't like what he considers false rumors about Obama, his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague.
In his book on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) Sunstein strives to denounce the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama palling around with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election. Although the facts got out the public chose to ignore this and other revealing facts about Obama and chose “change” over common sense.
Sunstein wants a system that includes a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commentators. This is more than a “nudge,” it is outright censorship. The way this works is that a blogger would get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post. How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Nobody will care about that but it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court.
Consider that the legal bill for bloggers to fight this would be staggering. Bloggers already have plenty of reason to be careful about what they say, even if they don't much fear a libel conviction, but add to that the costs of defense against a plaintiff with unlimited money and you have a clear subversion of the First Amendment.
"We could also imagine a future in which those who spread false rumors are categorized as such, discounted and marginalized . . . people would approach rumors skeptically even they provide comfort and fit their own biases," Sunstein writes. But if his warnings don’t work, Sunstein will likely make good on the implicit threat that runs through his book: that he would redefine libel as the spread of false information and hold everyone up along the way responsible.
Since Sunstein would declare war on bloggers, we should pre-empt him by declaring war on Sunstein, while we still can. Sunstein is an enemy to every news organization and blogger. We should return the favor and declare war on him.
The recent Obama intended appointment of Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor, to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the next nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. In this position Sunstein will have powers that are unprecedented and very far reaching; not merely mind-boggling but with explicit ability to use the courts to stifle free speech if it opposes Obama policies. In particular, Sunstein thinks that the bloggers have been “rampaging out of control” and that “new laws need to be written” to contain them. Advance copies of Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the new position to which Sunstein is about to be appointed, the powers with which Sunstein will be endowed are very, very, troubling.
The Wall Street Journal reported that "the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases."
As an indication of where Sunstein is coming from, his previous book, “Nudge,” suggests that government ought to “gently force people to be better human beings.” Sunstein reviews the way views get cemented when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary in his "On Rumors." He says he is concerned that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire." He has written “We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet. We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"
Sunstein will be another Obama “Czar” but will really be the chief regulator of what can or cannot appear on the internet. It is very scary that the person who will be in charge of public cyberspace believes that - "Whether you're a blogger or the York Times or a Web hosting service - you should be held responsible even for what your comments say." Currently you're immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Reasonable people," he says, "might object that this is not the right rule," though he admits that imposing liability for comments on service providers would be "a considerable burden."
But who cares about a burden when insults to Obama and Obama plans are concerned; according to Sunstein we must exert a “chilling effect” on those who would spread destructive falsehoods” and this “can be an excellent idea," he says.
The soon to be internet Czar has written "As we have seen, falsehoods can undermine democracy itself;" but what he really means is that he doesn't like what he considers false rumors about Obama, his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague.
In his book on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) Sunstein strives to denounce the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama palling around with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election. Although the facts got out the public chose to ignore this and other revealing facts about Obama and chose “change” over common sense.
Sunstein wants a system that includes a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commentators. This is more than a “nudge,” it is outright censorship. The way this works is that a blogger would get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post. How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Nobody will care about that but it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court.
Consider that the legal bill for bloggers to fight this would be staggering. Bloggers already have plenty of reason to be careful about what they say, even if they don't much fear a libel conviction, but add to that the costs of defense against a plaintiff with unlimited money and you have a clear subversion of the First Amendment.
"We could also imagine a future in which those who spread false rumors are categorized as such, discounted and marginalized . . . people would approach rumors skeptically even they provide comfort and fit their own biases," Sunstein writes. But if his warnings don’t work, Sunstein will likely make good on the implicit threat that runs through his book: that he would redefine libel as the spread of false information and hold everyone up along the way responsible.
Since Sunstein would declare war on bloggers, we should pre-empt him by declaring war on Sunstein, while we still can. Sunstein is an enemy to every news organization and blogger. We should return the favor and declare war on him.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Before we leave Sotomayor as she inevitably reaches the Supreme Court...
Sotomayor’s “Wise Latina:” Perjury?
2009-07-17 08:50:45-04
By Joel McDurmon
“Sotomayor” is Spanish for “great thicket.” In the hearings for her Supreme Court nomination this week, Sonia Sotomayor is hoping we won’t see the forest for the thicket. She has used every weasel word, evasion, and even plain language in an attempt to divert attention from the one huge fact we all know: she’s a liberal, feminist, radical judge just waiting to grab power before she unleashes her radicalism. This fact has most clearly shown through in her comment that a “wise Latina woman” can reach a better decision than a white male, and this is why this particular comment of hers has received the most public scrutiny (despite her pretended dismay over the fact). Many have already tired of this issue, but I hope the following paragraphs will persuade you why we should not yet let this go.
In defense of herself she has argued that her critics have pulled the statement from its context. In context she says she only meant to “inspire” young Latino lawyers “to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system.”[1]
Then she spoke very clearly and sternly against her critics’ perception. This statement is very important. She said,
I want to state up front, unequivocally, and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has any advantage in sound judging. . . . The words I used, I used agreeing with the sentiment that justice Sandra Day-O’Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be. . . that both men and women were equally capable of being
wise and fair judges.[2]
In saying this I believe she may have perjured herself, because this was expressly the opposite of what she says in her now well publicized speech. In that speech she clearly expresses disagreement with Day - O’Connor’s view that, as she puts it, “wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.”[3]
She expresses her disagreement with these words:
I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.[4]
There is no escaping the fact, therefore, that she delivered her infamous “wise Latina” comment as a rejection of Day - O’Connor’s view of equality. No honest interpreter could accept this as anything other than a confirmation of a form of racial and gender superiority. Furthermore, she offered this comment in support of her earlier argument in favor of the fact that racial and gender difference must inevitably affect judicial decisions. She puts it this way:
Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. . . . [E]nough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.[5]
Again, she says, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences . . . our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”[6] She embraces this fact, and looks forward to her own “difference making”:
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.[7]
She encourages other young minority lawyers to embrace this attitude as well, and let it infect their legal decisions:
For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? . . . For all of us, how do [we] change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?[8]
And she directs “men lawyers” (presumably “white” males) to consider how they can improve themselves, presumably by approximating the role of previous liberals who have made decisions favoring minorities: “For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.”[9]
It remains clear to me that she intended to mean not that a minority could judge equally as well as anyone else, but as she plainly said, an ethnic or gender minority could “more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” If our legislators cannot understand that this clearly expresses racism and sexism, then America is truly lost in a great thicket of political incompetence and prejudice.
I can’t believe this woman would get off the hook by merely saying she believes in equality and that she was agreeing with Day-O’Connor. Both points made in her hearings flatly contradict what she said and wrote in her speech. The Senate Judiciary Committee should not accept this evasive testimony, and ought to look into it as a possible case of perjury. Worse yet, to confirm her nomination would be the least wise thing they could do at this point.
Endnotes: [1] See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4elLq021igc (accessed July 16, 2009). [2]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4elLq021igc (accessed July 16, 2009). [3] Cited by Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2[4] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[5] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[6] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[7] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2[8] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[9] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).
2009-07-17 08:50:45-04
By Joel McDurmon
“Sotomayor” is Spanish for “great thicket.” In the hearings for her Supreme Court nomination this week, Sonia Sotomayor is hoping we won’t see the forest for the thicket. She has used every weasel word, evasion, and even plain language in an attempt to divert attention from the one huge fact we all know: she’s a liberal, feminist, radical judge just waiting to grab power before she unleashes her radicalism. This fact has most clearly shown through in her comment that a “wise Latina woman” can reach a better decision than a white male, and this is why this particular comment of hers has received the most public scrutiny (despite her pretended dismay over the fact). Many have already tired of this issue, but I hope the following paragraphs will persuade you why we should not yet let this go.
In defense of herself she has argued that her critics have pulled the statement from its context. In context she says she only meant to “inspire” young Latino lawyers “to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system.”[1]
Then she spoke very clearly and sternly against her critics’ perception. This statement is very important. She said,
I want to state up front, unequivocally, and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has any advantage in sound judging. . . . The words I used, I used agreeing with the sentiment that justice Sandra Day-O’Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be. . . that both men and women were equally capable of being
wise and fair judges.[2]
In saying this I believe she may have perjured herself, because this was expressly the opposite of what she says in her now well publicized speech. In that speech she clearly expresses disagreement with Day - O’Connor’s view that, as she puts it, “wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.”[3]
She expresses her disagreement with these words:
I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.[4]
There is no escaping the fact, therefore, that she delivered her infamous “wise Latina” comment as a rejection of Day - O’Connor’s view of equality. No honest interpreter could accept this as anything other than a confirmation of a form of racial and gender superiority. Furthermore, she offered this comment in support of her earlier argument in favor of the fact that racial and gender difference must inevitably affect judicial decisions. She puts it this way:
Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. . . . [E]nough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.[5]
Again, she says, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences . . . our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”[6] She embraces this fact, and looks forward to her own “difference making”:
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.[7]
She encourages other young minority lawyers to embrace this attitude as well, and let it infect their legal decisions:
For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? . . . For all of us, how do [we] change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?[8]
And she directs “men lawyers” (presumably “white” males) to consider how they can improve themselves, presumably by approximating the role of previous liberals who have made decisions favoring minorities: “For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.”[9]
It remains clear to me that she intended to mean not that a minority could judge equally as well as anyone else, but as she plainly said, an ethnic or gender minority could “more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” If our legislators cannot understand that this clearly expresses racism and sexism, then America is truly lost in a great thicket of political incompetence and prejudice.
I can’t believe this woman would get off the hook by merely saying she believes in equality and that she was agreeing with Day-O’Connor. Both points made in her hearings flatly contradict what she said and wrote in her speech. The Senate Judiciary Committee should not accept this evasive testimony, and ought to look into it as a possible case of perjury. Worse yet, to confirm her nomination would be the least wise thing they could do at this point.
Endnotes: [1] See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4elLq021igc (accessed July 16, 2009). [2]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4elLq021igc (accessed July 16, 2009). [3] Cited by Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2[4] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[5] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[6] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[7] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2[8] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[9] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Congress should not rush through something as important as changing our healthcare system
In the finest tradition of the car salesman who says “Here is my best deal but you have to take it right now,” House and Senate Democrats at the urging of President Obama want to push through legislation by the end of August that will transform Americans’ health care, probably irreversibly. Imagine; a complete overhaul of medical care in the United States, said to be about one-sixth of the total US economy, to be rushed through congress with virtually no review, analysis or deliberation by the Senate and House. More time is likely spent on mundane things like national recognition of one or the other organization or person than on something as important as enacting a system that will change how Americans receive medical care in the future or, indeed, whether or not they will receive any healthcare at all.
Until now opposition has focused almost entirely on the cost of the Democrat/Obama healthcare plans. Although the cost is a legitimate issue to consider, there are far worse things in store for Americans if the Democrats are successful. [This will be addressed in a future article,]
At an estimated cost of $1.5 trillion, there is no doubt that Americans will be required to shoulder enormous tax burdens. However the purported cost estimate is specious; the actual cost will like be twice or more this estimate. Add the cost of the healthcare program to already-incurred other costs of the no stimulus “Stimulus Bill and other spending for the budget deficit, TARP, et al, and you have a total expenditure and deficit which is unimaginable even in modern times.
President Obama has made clear he plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts on schedule in 2011; this would mean hiking the top marginal capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 25.4 percent--much higher than Obama promised during his march to the presidency, and near the 28 percent rate existing before the Republican-inspired 1997 Bill Clinton tax cuts. However, the tax increase on capital gains would pale compared to the new top rate on ordinary income, already scheduled to go from 35% to 39.6 percent in 2011, but now pushed up to 45 percent with the new surtax, and actually substantially higher than that as a percentage of taxable income because the new 5.4 percent surtax is applied to adjusted gross income (AGI).
As bad as this is, it actually gets a lot worse. Employers would also be mandated to provide health insurance under the bill, and the cost of health insurance would likely skyrocket because of new regulations called guaranteed issue and community rating. The only alternative, which many companies would either be forced into by cost considerations or choose for simplicity, would be to pay a payroll tax of as much as 8 percent. That's on top of the existing 15.3 percent payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, creating a new total payroll tax of 23.3 percent.
There would also be a new tax on individuals who don't have health insurance, despite President Obama's campaign promise not to require people to be insured or to impose taxes on those making less than $250,000. That tax would be another 2.5 percent of AGI.
Add to these tax figures state and local taxes, (which are also rising in most of the country) and Americans who work to support those that don’t will be taking home much less than half of the money they earn.
It’s not “rocket science,” as they say; it's actually pretty simple economics. The government does not create anything by spending; it simply moves money around. Every dollar the government spends has to come from somewhere, but there are only three options and all make people poorer. Higher taxes take money out of people's pockets and deny them the freedom to spend, save, or invest that money according to their own wishes. Merely printing money is inflationary and destroys the value of every American's savings, slams people on fixed incomes, usually the elderly, with higher prices, and creates a huge hurdle to new investment. The only other option, which we have relied on to the tune of over a trillion dollars already this year, is to borrow. But borrowing is no panacea either; every dollar borrowed by the government is a dollar no longer available for private investment. Moreover, we and future generations have to pay back all the money we've borrowed, with interest. It also will become increasingly difficult to borrow the huge sums required to support our deficits as other countries and wealth funds become skittish about the American economy. Furthermore if some like China, Russia and India succeed in having the world replace the dollar as a global currency, the aftermath will be additionally devastating. Therefore in the long-run the only two practical options are huge tax hikes or skyrocketing inflation.
It is impossible for government spending to make us richer when every way the government can raise money makes us poorer. We can't afford another stimulus, a government takeover of health care, the cap-and-trade energy takeover, or any other radical big government policy. We already have a six-month deficit of over a trillion dollars, how much will the deficit be after 12 months?
Congress must take time to really consider what they are about to do. Don’t give us the car salesman treatment. Conscientious members of the House and Senate must step up and stop the head long rush to economic and healthcare oblivion.
Until now opposition has focused almost entirely on the cost of the Democrat/Obama healthcare plans. Although the cost is a legitimate issue to consider, there are far worse things in store for Americans if the Democrats are successful. [This will be addressed in a future article,]
At an estimated cost of $1.5 trillion, there is no doubt that Americans will be required to shoulder enormous tax burdens. However the purported cost estimate is specious; the actual cost will like be twice or more this estimate. Add the cost of the healthcare program to already-incurred other costs of the no stimulus “Stimulus Bill and other spending for the budget deficit, TARP, et al, and you have a total expenditure and deficit which is unimaginable even in modern times.
President Obama has made clear he plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts on schedule in 2011; this would mean hiking the top marginal capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 25.4 percent--much higher than Obama promised during his march to the presidency, and near the 28 percent rate existing before the Republican-inspired 1997 Bill Clinton tax cuts. However, the tax increase on capital gains would pale compared to the new top rate on ordinary income, already scheduled to go from 35% to 39.6 percent in 2011, but now pushed up to 45 percent with the new surtax, and actually substantially higher than that as a percentage of taxable income because the new 5.4 percent surtax is applied to adjusted gross income (AGI).
As bad as this is, it actually gets a lot worse. Employers would also be mandated to provide health insurance under the bill, and the cost of health insurance would likely skyrocket because of new regulations called guaranteed issue and community rating. The only alternative, which many companies would either be forced into by cost considerations or choose for simplicity, would be to pay a payroll tax of as much as 8 percent. That's on top of the existing 15.3 percent payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, creating a new total payroll tax of 23.3 percent.
There would also be a new tax on individuals who don't have health insurance, despite President Obama's campaign promise not to require people to be insured or to impose taxes on those making less than $250,000. That tax would be another 2.5 percent of AGI.
Add to these tax figures state and local taxes, (which are also rising in most of the country) and Americans who work to support those that don’t will be taking home much less than half of the money they earn.
It’s not “rocket science,” as they say; it's actually pretty simple economics. The government does not create anything by spending; it simply moves money around. Every dollar the government spends has to come from somewhere, but there are only three options and all make people poorer. Higher taxes take money out of people's pockets and deny them the freedom to spend, save, or invest that money according to their own wishes. Merely printing money is inflationary and destroys the value of every American's savings, slams people on fixed incomes, usually the elderly, with higher prices, and creates a huge hurdle to new investment. The only other option, which we have relied on to the tune of over a trillion dollars already this year, is to borrow. But borrowing is no panacea either; every dollar borrowed by the government is a dollar no longer available for private investment. Moreover, we and future generations have to pay back all the money we've borrowed, with interest. It also will become increasingly difficult to borrow the huge sums required to support our deficits as other countries and wealth funds become skittish about the American economy. Furthermore if some like China, Russia and India succeed in having the world replace the dollar as a global currency, the aftermath will be additionally devastating. Therefore in the long-run the only two practical options are huge tax hikes or skyrocketing inflation.
It is impossible for government spending to make us richer when every way the government can raise money makes us poorer. We can't afford another stimulus, a government takeover of health care, the cap-and-trade energy takeover, or any other radical big government policy. We already have a six-month deficit of over a trillion dollars, how much will the deficit be after 12 months?
Congress must take time to really consider what they are about to do. Don’t give us the car salesman treatment. Conscientious members of the House and Senate must step up and stop the head long rush to economic and healthcare oblivion.
Did you know this about Speaker Nancy Pelosi?
“The Pentagon provides the House speaker with an Air Force plane large enough to accommodate her staff, family, supporters, and members of the California delegation when she travels around the country. But, Pelosi wanted routine access to a larger plane. It includes 42 business class seats, a fully-enclosed state room, an entertainment center, a private bed, state-of-the-art communications system, and a crew of 16. Pelosi wanted "carte blanche for an aircraft any time," including weekend trips home to San Francisco. Pretty nice but a very expensive perk! Her Air Force C-32 costs approximately $15,000 an hour or approximately $300,000 per trip home.
And she has the guts to confront the Big Three CEOs for flying their corporate jets to Washington! YOU WOULD THINK SHE, ALONG WITH A HUSBAND WORTH AN ESTIMATED BILLION DOLLARS, WOULD LEASE OR BUY AND FLY THEIR OWN PLANE, OR FLY FIRST CLASS ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINES LIKE OTHER RICH PEOPLE. NANCY PELOSI FACTS:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco. Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi. Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.
Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock. In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.
Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an 'economic development credit in American Samoa.'
Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "CORRUPT”!!
How do you spell "HYPOCRISY”??”
EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT NANCY PELOSI AND BECOME ANGRY ENOUGH TO THROW OUT PELOSI AND HER CRONIES IN THE HOUSE.
By the way, Newt Gingrich, a Republican, served in the House from Georgia from 1978 and as House Minority Whip in 1989. He was Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999. During that time, he never made use of military aircraft.
And she has the guts to confront the Big Three CEOs for flying their corporate jets to Washington! YOU WOULD THINK SHE, ALONG WITH A HUSBAND WORTH AN ESTIMATED BILLION DOLLARS, WOULD LEASE OR BUY AND FLY THEIR OWN PLANE, OR FLY FIRST CLASS ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINES LIKE OTHER RICH PEOPLE. NANCY PELOSI FACTS:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco. Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi. Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.
Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock. In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.
Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an 'economic development credit in American Samoa.'
Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "CORRUPT”!!
How do you spell "HYPOCRISY”??”
EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT NANCY PELOSI AND BECOME ANGRY ENOUGH TO THROW OUT PELOSI AND HER CRONIES IN THE HOUSE.
By the way, Newt Gingrich, a Republican, served in the House from Georgia from 1978 and as House Minority Whip in 1989. He was Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999. During that time, he never made use of military aircraft.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Obama uses your taxpayer money to stifle dissent
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona has been a conservative critic of Obama tax and spend policies and, in particular, of the “no stimulus” Stimulus bill. In a show of Chicago-style politics operating out of the White House, Obama is hitting Senator Kyl hard where it hurts, in his home state.
The Stimulus Bill has money for all sorts of “buy into Obama” projects; dollars replace ethics and purchase support for the administration.
The White House recently released letters from four cabinet secretaries to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, that cite Kyl's comments and outlining transportation, housing, Indian education and other projects in his home state they said would be eliminated if the senator has his way and unnecessary money is cut from the Stimulus Bill. Kyl has said the stimulus spending hasn't succeeded in boosting the economy and that it's adding to the deficit. He has on his Senate Web site comments to the effect that spending not already allocated be halted.
Obama shrewdly placed Rhino Republicans in his cabinet and at least one rewarded Obama with an attack on a fellow Republican. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, one of two Republicans in Obama's cabinet, made no attempt to conceal his criticism of Kyl for trying to save tax payer money.
LaHood wrote Arizona Governor Brewer. "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know."
LaHood noted in the letter that at least $520.9 million of the $48 billion for transportation projects under the economic recovery act are intended for Arizona projects, including transit projects in Phoenix.
Obama’s Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Arizona would lose $45 million for 500 single-family housing loans if projects not already under way were canceled. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the state would forfeit $73 million his department oversees, including $22 million for homeless programs.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Westerner who formerly served with Kyl in the Senate, didn't mention the Arizonan by name in his letter, but referred to "some key Republican leaders in Congress." He said the state would lose $60 million for Bureau of Indian Education schools, among other money.
The Obama underhanded approach is working: The governor’s spokesman Paul Senseman said the governor wants Arizona taxpayers to "receive their fair share" of any stimulus dollars.
"We certainly hope that they're somehow not threatening Arizona's portion of federal funding based on their disagreement with Senator Kyl," Senseman said.
Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, said he called Brewer's office requesting that the governor continue to accept stimulus money. He also sent letters to cabinet officials volunteering Phoenix to act as a fiduciary for all Arizona stimulus funds if Brewer were to turn them down.
"The Senator is 2,000 miles away," Gordon said at a news conference Tuesday. "We're here trying to build roads and put people to work."
One of the few coming to Kyl’s defense was the president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; he posted an article on the chamber's Web site under the headline: "Don't Bully Arizona."
"It is one thing to joust with Senator Kyl over his position, but it is an entirely different matter for Cabinet secretaries to write letters to the chief executive of a state and threaten funding if support isn't provided," wrote Glen Hamer.
On Sunday, Kyl said of stimulus spending that "the reality is it hasn't helped yet." He said it may be years before all the money gets spent and that the economy could recover before then.
"Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it," Kyl told ABC's "This Week."
Last week, Kyl argued in a column posted on his Senate Web site that the economic stimulus program has been a failure. He said he agreed with those who "want to cancel the rest of the stimulus spending."
Of course Senator Kyl is correct; that’s what steams the Obama Chicago-style machine in the White House – can’t have anyone oppose the grand Obama plan to create dependency on tax payer money to implement the government control strategy.
The Stimulus Bill has money for all sorts of “buy into Obama” projects; dollars replace ethics and purchase support for the administration.
The White House recently released letters from four cabinet secretaries to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, that cite Kyl's comments and outlining transportation, housing, Indian education and other projects in his home state they said would be eliminated if the senator has his way and unnecessary money is cut from the Stimulus Bill. Kyl has said the stimulus spending hasn't succeeded in boosting the economy and that it's adding to the deficit. He has on his Senate Web site comments to the effect that spending not already allocated be halted.
Obama shrewdly placed Rhino Republicans in his cabinet and at least one rewarded Obama with an attack on a fellow Republican. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, one of two Republicans in Obama's cabinet, made no attempt to conceal his criticism of Kyl for trying to save tax payer money.
LaHood wrote Arizona Governor Brewer. "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know."
LaHood noted in the letter that at least $520.9 million of the $48 billion for transportation projects under the economic recovery act are intended for Arizona projects, including transit projects in Phoenix.
Obama’s Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Arizona would lose $45 million for 500 single-family housing loans if projects not already under way were canceled. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the state would forfeit $73 million his department oversees, including $22 million for homeless programs.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Westerner who formerly served with Kyl in the Senate, didn't mention the Arizonan by name in his letter, but referred to "some key Republican leaders in Congress." He said the state would lose $60 million for Bureau of Indian Education schools, among other money.
The Obama underhanded approach is working: The governor’s spokesman Paul Senseman said the governor wants Arizona taxpayers to "receive their fair share" of any stimulus dollars.
"We certainly hope that they're somehow not threatening Arizona's portion of federal funding based on their disagreement with Senator Kyl," Senseman said.
Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, said he called Brewer's office requesting that the governor continue to accept stimulus money. He also sent letters to cabinet officials volunteering Phoenix to act as a fiduciary for all Arizona stimulus funds if Brewer were to turn them down.
"The Senator is 2,000 miles away," Gordon said at a news conference Tuesday. "We're here trying to build roads and put people to work."
One of the few coming to Kyl’s defense was the president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; he posted an article on the chamber's Web site under the headline: "Don't Bully Arizona."
"It is one thing to joust with Senator Kyl over his position, but it is an entirely different matter for Cabinet secretaries to write letters to the chief executive of a state and threaten funding if support isn't provided," wrote Glen Hamer.
On Sunday, Kyl said of stimulus spending that "the reality is it hasn't helped yet." He said it may be years before all the money gets spent and that the economy could recover before then.
"Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it," Kyl told ABC's "This Week."
Last week, Kyl argued in a column posted on his Senate Web site that the economic stimulus program has been a failure. He said he agreed with those who "want to cancel the rest of the stimulus spending."
Of course Senator Kyl is correct; that’s what steams the Obama Chicago-style machine in the White House – can’t have anyone oppose the grand Obama plan to create dependency on tax payer money to implement the government control strategy.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Congress, if you won’t read Waxman-Markey (aka American Clean Energy and Security Act ) before voting, at least read this
Clear thinking people owe a debt of gratitude to authors Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson who wrote an article for National Review that outlined no less than 50 outrageous features of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Some refer to the bill by the acronym “ACES” which is not only correct but also prescient; ACES is the “Aces and Eights” dead man’s hand for America.
Like most legislation passed by the House of Representatives ACES was not read before it was voted upon. Speaker Nancy Pelosi saw to it that there was no time for those who might have wanted to understand what was in the bill had time to digest it. Even the author Waxman famously said in answer to a question about the bill “You don’t expect me to know everything in this bill, do you?”
However if one takes time to read the over 1,000 pages of this legislation you will understand that it will not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and relies upon the concept of carbon offsets, “which can be manufactured out of thin air and political imagination.” By use of so-called carbon credits, it will eliminate most of the demands that the legislation puts on industry but will nonetheless increase prices consumers pay for every product that requires energy for its manufacture — which, of course, is everything. Waxman-Markey represents the worst abuse of the public trust and even worse in cost than the stimulus and the bailouts put together.
As Spruiell and Williamson wrote:
“Waxman-Markey creates a permanent new regime in which environmental romanticism and corporate welfare are mixed together to form political poison. From comic bureaucratic power grabs (check out the section of the bill on candelabras) to the creation of new welfare programs for Democratic constituencies to, above all, massive giveaways for every financial, industrial, and political lobby imaginable, this bill would permanently deform American politics and economic life.”
“ACES” has four major objectives: giveaways to special-interests, regulatory mandates having nothing to do with climate change, and a wish list of left wing ideology. Every knife in the heart of American independence cannot be cataloged in a short summary but as Spruiell and Williamson identified here are some of the 50 most outrageous provisions that would change our lives in America forever.
1.Eighty-five percent of the carbon permits will not be sold at auction — they will be given away for free to utility companies, petroleum interests, refineries, and an array of politically connected businesses, however higher costs are in our future. This is the reason big business supports cap-and-trade.
2. Wall Street investment bankers whose money got Obama elected will be enriched, For example: Goldman Sachs is heavily invested in carbon-offset development and carbon permissions. According to CNN:
“Less than two weeks after the investment bank announced it would be laying off 10 percent of its staff, ***Goldman Sachs confirmed that it has taken a minority stake in Utah-based carbon offset project developer Blue Source LLC. . . . “Interest in the pre-compliance carbon market in the U.S. is growing rapidly,” said Leslie Biddle, Head of Commodity Sales at Goldman, “and we are excited to be able to offer our clients immediate access to a diverse selection of emission reductions to manage their carbon risk.”
3. The legislation includes corporate subsidies and special set-asides for politically connected industries, a new corporate interest group, USCAP, the United States Climate Action Partnership, was formed. This group is largely responsible for the fact that carbon permits are being given away like rather than auctioned. The Canada Free Press listed the following participants of this group who will be benefited:
Alcoa, American International Group (AIG) which withdrew after accepting government bailout money, Boston Scientific Corporation, BP America Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Chrysler LLC (which continues to lobby with taxpayer dollars), ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, Exelon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, FPL Group, Inc., General Electric, General Motors Corp. (now owned by the Obama administration), Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, Inc., National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, NRG Energy, Inc., Pepsico, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens Corporation, World Resources Institute, Xerox Corporation.
Major recipients of this largesse in the form of carbon permits are the electric utilities such as those represented by the Edison Electric Institute. Together with the coal and steel companies, the utilities are positioned to receive a huge portion of the carbon permits have become among the nation’s highest-spending lobbies who work to ensure that their interests are served by cap-and-trade.
4. Waxman-Markey will also create “offsets” with the result that nearly all of the bill’s carbon-reduction targets can be met with offsets alone through 2050, meaning decades before any actual reduction of greenhouse gases is required. That means huge new expenses for small businesses and consumers in return for basically zero environmental improvement.
If you wish, you can also earn an offset that can be sold. Buy a farm and profit through such methods as, “improved manure management,” “reduced tillage/no-tillage,” or “afforestation of marginal farmlands.” What this means plant some trees around the house and claim some extra credits on the land.
5. Because the cap-and-trade regime will disadvantage domestic oil refineries vis-à-vis foreign competitors, Waxman-Markey will buy them off with free permits — 2 percent of the national total will go to domestic refineries, at no cost.6. Again, to enlist more support, Agribusiness is exempted from cap-and-trade controls but farmers will be given permits to sell and to profit from anyway.
7. Some in congress voted for the bill because it supposedly strips the EPA of its oversight role when it comes to managing the offsets associated with American farms. However this is specious reasoning because at the urging of Cargill and other big farm aggregates oversight will be entrusted to the USDA — known to be “basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the agriculture cartel, one of America’s most rapacious special-interest groups, which already is stuffed with subsidies and sops.”
8. Waxman-Markey protects the discredited ethanol industry by directing the EPA to ignore the real environmental impact of ethanol and other biofuels. The huge subsidies given on the farm lobby through the ethanol program that encourages farmers to clear forest land to plant corn is preserved notwithstanding that ethanol is a net environmental loss since the use of ethanol does nothing to offset carbon “pollution.” The EPA will be forbidden to change the ethanol program for a minimum of a five years “study” required before a ruling on whether ethanol should be treated the same as any other fuel, and the EPA, USDA, and Congress all must agree to act beforehand.
9. How about this one; farmers will be rewarded for such things as “no till” planting, in which farmers forgo plowing and plant seeds directly into the soil. Two peer-reviewed scientific papers suggest that no-till either does nothing to decrease carbon dioxide or actually increases the level of greenhouse-gas emissions by upping emissions of nitrous oxide — a much more powerful greenhouse gas. Of course weed control will be more difficult the market for herbicides such as Monsanto’s RoundUp will be increased and guess who is spending millions lobbying for no-till?
10. Waxman-Markey will give the Obama administration broad new powers to enact tariffs on imports from jurisdictions that have not enacted similar legislation. This gives Obama an opportunity to develop politically driven trade protectionism and retaliatory measures. As the New York Times wrote:
“A House committee working on sweeping energy legislation seems determined to make sure that the United States will tax China and other carbon polluters, potentially disrupting an already-sensitive climate change debate in Congress. The Ways and Means Committee’s proposed bill language would virtually require that the president impose an import tariff on any country that fails to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions. Directed primarily at China, the United States’ biggest manufacturing competitor, the provisions aim to protect cement, steel and other energy-intensive industries that expect to face higher costs under a federal emissions cap.”
11. Big Labor. A huge supporter of democrats and Obama, will benefit hugely. Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete — and ensuring that these “investments” pay out inflated union wages. And it’s not just the big research-and-development contracts, since Waxman-Markey forces union-wage rules all the way down to the “plumbing-repair and light-bulb-changing level.”
12. The renewable electricity standard in the bill requires utilities to supply 20 percent of their power from renewable energy sources (or “increased efficiency”) by 2020. The bill would create a system of renewable electricity credits similar to the carbon offsets mentioned above — utilities that cannot meet the standard could purchase credits from other utilities but one way or another the cost will be passed along to us.
13. The renewable standard excludes sources of power like nuclear and coal gasification even though these sources are cleaner than traditional coal-burning plants. “Qualified hydropower” is also narrowly defined to exclude hydropower from Canada. Why is that if not to protect profits of domestic industries at the cost to the public?
14. Waxman-Markey calls for the establishment of a Carbon Storage Research Corporation (CSRC) to direct $1 billion annually into the development of carbon-capture technologies. The CSRC would be funded via assessments on utility companies. This is another charge that will be added to electricity bills.
15. Carbon capture will require a whole new bureaucracy and new regulations. The bill requires the EPA to create a permitting process for geologic sequestration (burying captured carbon emissions in the ground), regulations to keep the buried carbon from escaping into the air, and regulations to keep it from escaping into the water supply, much of the technology required for this does not yet exist.
16. We know about the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents already mandate, but the new bill regulates every light fixture under the sun. There are rules governing fluorescent lamps, incandescent lamps, intermediate base lamps, candelabra base lamps, outdoor luminaries, portable light fixtures. The government actually started down this road by regulating light bulbs in the 2005 energy bill. This bill tightens the regulations, which means the unintended consequences produced by the 2005 bill — use of more expensive light bulbs that burn out quicker — will get worse.17. Waxman-Markey will also dictate what appliances we can use. Clothes washers and dishwashers, portable electric spas, showerheads, faucets, televisions — all these and more are covered specifically in the bill. How do you feel about the government telling you what appliances are good for you or not?
18. Appliances will be required to come with “carbon output” labels, and retailers will get bonus payments for marketing those that are certified “best-in-class.” The bill sets up a payment schedule to reward the manufacturers of these “best-in-class” products: $75 for each dishwasher, $250 for each clothes washer, and so on. It’s best to buy that appliance of your dreams now because soon you will be told what you should be dreaming about
19. Homes are not exempt from government regulation because under Waxman-Markey the EPA is required to establish environmental standards for residences, meaning a “federally dictated one-size-fits-all policy for greening every home in America.” New houses in particular will be affected by these regulations mandated by “ACES.” Of course the house of your dream will have to be green, may not include all you want and will cost more – but, hey, you will be helping to save the planet from a nonexistent threat.
20. All commercial buildings also would be governed by a “national energy efficiency building code” that would require 50 percent reductions in energy use in all buildings by 2018, followed by 5 percent reductions in energy use every three years after that through 2030. Everyone knows these changes will be costly, but Waxman-Markey supporters argue that they will pay for themselves through lower energy bills which is nonsense because energy costs will also be rising. Businesses and homeowners will pay twice — once to retrofit or build and again through the energy bill.
21. EPA is given broad power to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from mobile sources such as cars, trucks, buses, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, boats, planes, and trains – nothing is beyond the control of government.
22. Even non-mobile sources are to be regulated by the EPA as well. The Supreme Court cleared the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions by declaring carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Just think about it, you are polluting the air with every breadth you exhale. There is no doubt President Obama will move forward with this even if Congress fails to pass the cap-and-trade bill. He has already announced a strict national fuel-efficiency standard for cars, and the implications for other sources of greenhouse-gas emissions are not good.
23. Waxman-Markey requires the EPA to establish a federal greenhouse-gas registry. Businesses would be required to collect and submit data on their emissions to the EPA, creating yet another compliance cost for them to pass on to their customers.
24. The bill does away with the 10th Amendment by prohibiting states from creating their own cap-and-trade programs. Nearly half of all U.S. states have already taken some sort of action to cap greenhouse-gas emissions by forming regional compacts and implementing their own emission standards. Understandably, these states support a federal cap so that they are not at an economic disadvantage to states that do not cap emissions. If these states want to destroy their own economies in the pursuit of green goals but states that don’t see any reason to do so should not be forced to share in their in that destruction.
25. The government having acquired automobile companies will be forcing the public into green electric put putts. Utility companies are directed by ACES to start laying the groundwork for a glorious future in which everyone drives a plug-in car. The legislation directs them to start planning for the deployment of electrical charging stations along roadways, in parking garages, and at gas stations, as well as “such other elements as the State determines necessary to support plug-in electric drive vehicles.”
26. Waxman-Markey requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a large-scale vehicle electrification program and to provide “such sums as may be necessary” for the manufacture of plug-in electric-drive vehicles, including another $25 billion for “advanced technology vehicle” loans. The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to promulgate regulations requiring that each automaker’s fleet be comprised of a minimum percentage of vehicles that run on ethanol or biodiesel. Forget about that SUV or other unapproved vehicle you may want, the government will tell you what you want.
27. You may recall that Congress passed (and Obama signed) a “cash for clunkers” program as part of the war appropriations bill this month. Under the program, you get a rebate for trading in a used car for one that gets slightly higher mileage. The Waxman-Markey bill takes this concept and applies it to appliances, electric motors — basically anything that can be traded in for a more energy-efficient version. These types of programs hugely fail cost-benefit analyses because more energy goes into the production of the new appliances than would have been used if the old ones had just run their course.
28. Democrats and Obama know that money alone won’t make green mandates cost-competitive and that only carbon rationing can achieve that; that’s why they are pushing a carbon-rationing bill.
29. Waxman-Markey includes $7.5 million to establish a National Bioenergy Partnership to promote biofuels. Economic barriers to the commercial viability of biofuel as an energy source have proven to be so insurmountable that even with all of the federal mandates and subsidies already thrown their way, the ethanol companies lined up with everyone else for a federal bailout when the financial crisis hit. “The last thing consumers need is another full-time, federally subsidized lobbying arm for that industry.”
30. ACES (and eights) also takes care of Obama’s most reliable constituencies; college administrators, will be given billions of dollars to play with through the creation of eight “Clean Energy Innovation Centers,” university-based consortia charged with a mission to “leverage the expertise and resources of the university and private research communities, industry, venture capital, national laboratories, and other participants in energy innovation to support cross-disciplinary research and development in areas not being served by the private sector in order to develop and transfer innovative clean energy technologies into the marketplace.”
31. Of course, another Obama constituency, the community-organizing political arm of the democrat Party — i.e., ACORN — is amply rewarded by Waxman-Markey for their heroic efforts of fraudulent elections of the past and the future. ACORN and the like will be eligible to receive billions in funding as the bill “authorizes the Secretary [of Energy] to make grants to community development organizations to provide financing to businesses and projects that improve energy efficiency.” Federally subsidized “community organizers” will be paid $55 an hour to share their energy expertise with businesses.
32. Waxman-Markey also enables Obama “spread the wealth” by using the tax code to transfer wealth from people who pay taxes to people who don’t, mainly from likely Republican voters to likely Obama voters. The bill “amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow certain low income taxpayers a refundable energy tax credit to compensate such taxpayers for reductions in their purchasing power, as identified and calculated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), resulting from regulation of GHGs (greenhouse gases).” Not only will Waxman-Markey slip more redistribution into the tax code, it will establish a new monthly welfare check. It will create an “Energy Refund Program” that will “give low-income households a monthly cash energy refund equal to the estimated loss in purchasing power resulting from this Act.” If all this wasn’t bad enough, another new class of government dependents will be created by Waxman-Markey. Americans put out of work by Waxman-Markey will be eligible to participate in a program to distribute “climate change adjustment assistance to adversely affected workers.”
33. With unemployment abounding, Waxman-Markey will create new jobs in government. The bill creates: a new United States Global Change Research Program, a National Climate Change Adaptation Program, a National Climate Service, Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Strategy office at the White House, and an International Climate Change Adaptation Program at the State Department; imagine the hundreds of thousands dependent on the government, and Democrats, for their livelihood – how do you think they will vote?
34. It’s easy to see why many states support cap and trade legislation; it allows each state to set up a State Energy and Environment Development (SEED) account into which the federal government can deposit emission allowances. States can then sell these allowances and use the proceeds to support clean-energy programs. They must set aside a certain amount of the money to fund federal mandates, but they are given broad discretion to use the rest by making loans, grants, and other forms of support available to favored constituencies. Once again the 10th amendment is reduced by the federal government using the greed lure of money.
35. Waxman-Markey doesn’t overlook the health care debate; it requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a “strategic action plan to assist health professionals in preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate change.”
If legislators don’t want to take the time to read the American Clean Energy and Security Act, I hope they at least have time to read these outrageous encroachments on our constitutional freedoms and liberty before they vote on this calamity again.
Like most legislation passed by the House of Representatives ACES was not read before it was voted upon. Speaker Nancy Pelosi saw to it that there was no time for those who might have wanted to understand what was in the bill had time to digest it. Even the author Waxman famously said in answer to a question about the bill “You don’t expect me to know everything in this bill, do you?”
However if one takes time to read the over 1,000 pages of this legislation you will understand that it will not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and relies upon the concept of carbon offsets, “which can be manufactured out of thin air and political imagination.” By use of so-called carbon credits, it will eliminate most of the demands that the legislation puts on industry but will nonetheless increase prices consumers pay for every product that requires energy for its manufacture — which, of course, is everything. Waxman-Markey represents the worst abuse of the public trust and even worse in cost than the stimulus and the bailouts put together.
As Spruiell and Williamson wrote:
“Waxman-Markey creates a permanent new regime in which environmental romanticism and corporate welfare are mixed together to form political poison. From comic bureaucratic power grabs (check out the section of the bill on candelabras) to the creation of new welfare programs for Democratic constituencies to, above all, massive giveaways for every financial, industrial, and political lobby imaginable, this bill would permanently deform American politics and economic life.”
“ACES” has four major objectives: giveaways to special-interests, regulatory mandates having nothing to do with climate change, and a wish list of left wing ideology. Every knife in the heart of American independence cannot be cataloged in a short summary but as Spruiell and Williamson identified here are some of the 50 most outrageous provisions that would change our lives in America forever.
1.Eighty-five percent of the carbon permits will not be sold at auction — they will be given away for free to utility companies, petroleum interests, refineries, and an array of politically connected businesses, however higher costs are in our future. This is the reason big business supports cap-and-trade.
2. Wall Street investment bankers whose money got Obama elected will be enriched, For example: Goldman Sachs is heavily invested in carbon-offset development and carbon permissions. According to CNN:
“Less than two weeks after the investment bank announced it would be laying off 10 percent of its staff, ***Goldman Sachs confirmed that it has taken a minority stake in Utah-based carbon offset project developer Blue Source LLC. . . . “Interest in the pre-compliance carbon market in the U.S. is growing rapidly,” said Leslie Biddle, Head of Commodity Sales at Goldman, “and we are excited to be able to offer our clients immediate access to a diverse selection of emission reductions to manage their carbon risk.”
3. The legislation includes corporate subsidies and special set-asides for politically connected industries, a new corporate interest group, USCAP, the United States Climate Action Partnership, was formed. This group is largely responsible for the fact that carbon permits are being given away like rather than auctioned. The Canada Free Press listed the following participants of this group who will be benefited:
Alcoa, American International Group (AIG) which withdrew after accepting government bailout money, Boston Scientific Corporation, BP America Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Chrysler LLC (which continues to lobby with taxpayer dollars), ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, Exelon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, FPL Group, Inc., General Electric, General Motors Corp. (now owned by the Obama administration), Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, Inc., National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, NRG Energy, Inc., Pepsico, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens Corporation, World Resources Institute, Xerox Corporation.
Major recipients of this largesse in the form of carbon permits are the electric utilities such as those represented by the Edison Electric Institute. Together with the coal and steel companies, the utilities are positioned to receive a huge portion of the carbon permits have become among the nation’s highest-spending lobbies who work to ensure that their interests are served by cap-and-trade.
4. Waxman-Markey will also create “offsets” with the result that nearly all of the bill’s carbon-reduction targets can be met with offsets alone through 2050, meaning decades before any actual reduction of greenhouse gases is required. That means huge new expenses for small businesses and consumers in return for basically zero environmental improvement.
If you wish, you can also earn an offset that can be sold. Buy a farm and profit through such methods as, “improved manure management,” “reduced tillage/no-tillage,” or “afforestation of marginal farmlands.” What this means plant some trees around the house and claim some extra credits on the land.
5. Because the cap-and-trade regime will disadvantage domestic oil refineries vis-à-vis foreign competitors, Waxman-Markey will buy them off with free permits — 2 percent of the national total will go to domestic refineries, at no cost.6. Again, to enlist more support, Agribusiness is exempted from cap-and-trade controls but farmers will be given permits to sell and to profit from anyway.
7. Some in congress voted for the bill because it supposedly strips the EPA of its oversight role when it comes to managing the offsets associated with American farms. However this is specious reasoning because at the urging of Cargill and other big farm aggregates oversight will be entrusted to the USDA — known to be “basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the agriculture cartel, one of America’s most rapacious special-interest groups, which already is stuffed with subsidies and sops.”
8. Waxman-Markey protects the discredited ethanol industry by directing the EPA to ignore the real environmental impact of ethanol and other biofuels. The huge subsidies given on the farm lobby through the ethanol program that encourages farmers to clear forest land to plant corn is preserved notwithstanding that ethanol is a net environmental loss since the use of ethanol does nothing to offset carbon “pollution.” The EPA will be forbidden to change the ethanol program for a minimum of a five years “study” required before a ruling on whether ethanol should be treated the same as any other fuel, and the EPA, USDA, and Congress all must agree to act beforehand.
9. How about this one; farmers will be rewarded for such things as “no till” planting, in which farmers forgo plowing and plant seeds directly into the soil. Two peer-reviewed scientific papers suggest that no-till either does nothing to decrease carbon dioxide or actually increases the level of greenhouse-gas emissions by upping emissions of nitrous oxide — a much more powerful greenhouse gas. Of course weed control will be more difficult the market for herbicides such as Monsanto’s RoundUp will be increased and guess who is spending millions lobbying for no-till?
10. Waxman-Markey will give the Obama administration broad new powers to enact tariffs on imports from jurisdictions that have not enacted similar legislation. This gives Obama an opportunity to develop politically driven trade protectionism and retaliatory measures. As the New York Times wrote:
“A House committee working on sweeping energy legislation seems determined to make sure that the United States will tax China and other carbon polluters, potentially disrupting an already-sensitive climate change debate in Congress. The Ways and Means Committee’s proposed bill language would virtually require that the president impose an import tariff on any country that fails to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions. Directed primarily at China, the United States’ biggest manufacturing competitor, the provisions aim to protect cement, steel and other energy-intensive industries that expect to face higher costs under a federal emissions cap.”
11. Big Labor. A huge supporter of democrats and Obama, will benefit hugely. Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete — and ensuring that these “investments” pay out inflated union wages. And it’s not just the big research-and-development contracts, since Waxman-Markey forces union-wage rules all the way down to the “plumbing-repair and light-bulb-changing level.”
12. The renewable electricity standard in the bill requires utilities to supply 20 percent of their power from renewable energy sources (or “increased efficiency”) by 2020. The bill would create a system of renewable electricity credits similar to the carbon offsets mentioned above — utilities that cannot meet the standard could purchase credits from other utilities but one way or another the cost will be passed along to us.
13. The renewable standard excludes sources of power like nuclear and coal gasification even though these sources are cleaner than traditional coal-burning plants. “Qualified hydropower” is also narrowly defined to exclude hydropower from Canada. Why is that if not to protect profits of domestic industries at the cost to the public?
14. Waxman-Markey calls for the establishment of a Carbon Storage Research Corporation (CSRC) to direct $1 billion annually into the development of carbon-capture technologies. The CSRC would be funded via assessments on utility companies. This is another charge that will be added to electricity bills.
15. Carbon capture will require a whole new bureaucracy and new regulations. The bill requires the EPA to create a permitting process for geologic sequestration (burying captured carbon emissions in the ground), regulations to keep the buried carbon from escaping into the air, and regulations to keep it from escaping into the water supply, much of the technology required for this does not yet exist.
16. We know about the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents already mandate, but the new bill regulates every light fixture under the sun. There are rules governing fluorescent lamps, incandescent lamps, intermediate base lamps, candelabra base lamps, outdoor luminaries, portable light fixtures. The government actually started down this road by regulating light bulbs in the 2005 energy bill. This bill tightens the regulations, which means the unintended consequences produced by the 2005 bill — use of more expensive light bulbs that burn out quicker — will get worse.17. Waxman-Markey will also dictate what appliances we can use. Clothes washers and dishwashers, portable electric spas, showerheads, faucets, televisions — all these and more are covered specifically in the bill. How do you feel about the government telling you what appliances are good for you or not?
18. Appliances will be required to come with “carbon output” labels, and retailers will get bonus payments for marketing those that are certified “best-in-class.” The bill sets up a payment schedule to reward the manufacturers of these “best-in-class” products: $75 for each dishwasher, $250 for each clothes washer, and so on. It’s best to buy that appliance of your dreams now because soon you will be told what you should be dreaming about
19. Homes are not exempt from government regulation because under Waxman-Markey the EPA is required to establish environmental standards for residences, meaning a “federally dictated one-size-fits-all policy for greening every home in America.” New houses in particular will be affected by these regulations mandated by “ACES.” Of course the house of your dream will have to be green, may not include all you want and will cost more – but, hey, you will be helping to save the planet from a nonexistent threat.
20. All commercial buildings also would be governed by a “national energy efficiency building code” that would require 50 percent reductions in energy use in all buildings by 2018, followed by 5 percent reductions in energy use every three years after that through 2030. Everyone knows these changes will be costly, but Waxman-Markey supporters argue that they will pay for themselves through lower energy bills which is nonsense because energy costs will also be rising. Businesses and homeowners will pay twice — once to retrofit or build and again through the energy bill.
21. EPA is given broad power to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from mobile sources such as cars, trucks, buses, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, boats, planes, and trains – nothing is beyond the control of government.
22. Even non-mobile sources are to be regulated by the EPA as well. The Supreme Court cleared the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions by declaring carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Just think about it, you are polluting the air with every breadth you exhale. There is no doubt President Obama will move forward with this even if Congress fails to pass the cap-and-trade bill. He has already announced a strict national fuel-efficiency standard for cars, and the implications for other sources of greenhouse-gas emissions are not good.
23. Waxman-Markey requires the EPA to establish a federal greenhouse-gas registry. Businesses would be required to collect and submit data on their emissions to the EPA, creating yet another compliance cost for them to pass on to their customers.
24. The bill does away with the 10th Amendment by prohibiting states from creating their own cap-and-trade programs. Nearly half of all U.S. states have already taken some sort of action to cap greenhouse-gas emissions by forming regional compacts and implementing their own emission standards. Understandably, these states support a federal cap so that they are not at an economic disadvantage to states that do not cap emissions. If these states want to destroy their own economies in the pursuit of green goals but states that don’t see any reason to do so should not be forced to share in their in that destruction.
25. The government having acquired automobile companies will be forcing the public into green electric put putts. Utility companies are directed by ACES to start laying the groundwork for a glorious future in which everyone drives a plug-in car. The legislation directs them to start planning for the deployment of electrical charging stations along roadways, in parking garages, and at gas stations, as well as “such other elements as the State determines necessary to support plug-in electric drive vehicles.”
26. Waxman-Markey requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a large-scale vehicle electrification program and to provide “such sums as may be necessary” for the manufacture of plug-in electric-drive vehicles, including another $25 billion for “advanced technology vehicle” loans. The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to promulgate regulations requiring that each automaker’s fleet be comprised of a minimum percentage of vehicles that run on ethanol or biodiesel. Forget about that SUV or other unapproved vehicle you may want, the government will tell you what you want.
27. You may recall that Congress passed (and Obama signed) a “cash for clunkers” program as part of the war appropriations bill this month. Under the program, you get a rebate for trading in a used car for one that gets slightly higher mileage. The Waxman-Markey bill takes this concept and applies it to appliances, electric motors — basically anything that can be traded in for a more energy-efficient version. These types of programs hugely fail cost-benefit analyses because more energy goes into the production of the new appliances than would have been used if the old ones had just run their course.
28. Democrats and Obama know that money alone won’t make green mandates cost-competitive and that only carbon rationing can achieve that; that’s why they are pushing a carbon-rationing bill.
29. Waxman-Markey includes $7.5 million to establish a National Bioenergy Partnership to promote biofuels. Economic barriers to the commercial viability of biofuel as an energy source have proven to be so insurmountable that even with all of the federal mandates and subsidies already thrown their way, the ethanol companies lined up with everyone else for a federal bailout when the financial crisis hit. “The last thing consumers need is another full-time, federally subsidized lobbying arm for that industry.”
30. ACES (and eights) also takes care of Obama’s most reliable constituencies; college administrators, will be given billions of dollars to play with through the creation of eight “Clean Energy Innovation Centers,” university-based consortia charged with a mission to “leverage the expertise and resources of the university and private research communities, industry, venture capital, national laboratories, and other participants in energy innovation to support cross-disciplinary research and development in areas not being served by the private sector in order to develop and transfer innovative clean energy technologies into the marketplace.”
31. Of course, another Obama constituency, the community-organizing political arm of the democrat Party — i.e., ACORN — is amply rewarded by Waxman-Markey for their heroic efforts of fraudulent elections of the past and the future. ACORN and the like will be eligible to receive billions in funding as the bill “authorizes the Secretary [of Energy] to make grants to community development organizations to provide financing to businesses and projects that improve energy efficiency.” Federally subsidized “community organizers” will be paid $55 an hour to share their energy expertise with businesses.
32. Waxman-Markey also enables Obama “spread the wealth” by using the tax code to transfer wealth from people who pay taxes to people who don’t, mainly from likely Republican voters to likely Obama voters. The bill “amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow certain low income taxpayers a refundable energy tax credit to compensate such taxpayers for reductions in their purchasing power, as identified and calculated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), resulting from regulation of GHGs (greenhouse gases).” Not only will Waxman-Markey slip more redistribution into the tax code, it will establish a new monthly welfare check. It will create an “Energy Refund Program” that will “give low-income households a monthly cash energy refund equal to the estimated loss in purchasing power resulting from this Act.” If all this wasn’t bad enough, another new class of government dependents will be created by Waxman-Markey. Americans put out of work by Waxman-Markey will be eligible to participate in a program to distribute “climate change adjustment assistance to adversely affected workers.”
33. With unemployment abounding, Waxman-Markey will create new jobs in government. The bill creates: a new United States Global Change Research Program, a National Climate Change Adaptation Program, a National Climate Service, Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Strategy office at the White House, and an International Climate Change Adaptation Program at the State Department; imagine the hundreds of thousands dependent on the government, and Democrats, for their livelihood – how do you think they will vote?
34. It’s easy to see why many states support cap and trade legislation; it allows each state to set up a State Energy and Environment Development (SEED) account into which the federal government can deposit emission allowances. States can then sell these allowances and use the proceeds to support clean-energy programs. They must set aside a certain amount of the money to fund federal mandates, but they are given broad discretion to use the rest by making loans, grants, and other forms of support available to favored constituencies. Once again the 10th amendment is reduced by the federal government using the greed lure of money.
35. Waxman-Markey doesn’t overlook the health care debate; it requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a “strategic action plan to assist health professionals in preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate change.”
If legislators don’t want to take the time to read the American Clean Energy and Security Act, I hope they at least have time to read these outrageous encroachments on our constitutional freedoms and liberty before they vote on this calamity again.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Obama's Documented Lies: 158 and remarkably still growing
From Obama WTF (What's The Facts?). This is the original, and most comprehensive, authoritative site about the life, votes, and positions of President Barack Hussein Obama and his political backers. [August 11, 2008]
· 158 Obama claims he wrote letter to US Treasurer to try to prevent the housing crisis; but he acted only AFTER he had caused it by blocking McCain's bill
· 157 Obama claims he is bipartisan ; Congressional Quarterly shows he voted with his party 97% of the time
· 156 Obama's dirty lie scares seniors: falsely claims McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare: liar liar liar says Annenberg Factcheck
· 155 Obama lies about his mother turning to food stamps AND still sending him to top schools; his grandmother paid for education
· 154 Obama lied about being asked to wear dead soldier's bracelet: family had asked Obama to stop wearing it
· 153 Obama claimed all new spending is economic plan was self-funding; short by $3.5 Trillion says nonpartisan Tax Policy Center
· 152 Obama denied Admiral Mike Mullen had called Obama's Iraqi troop plan "dangerous"; Mullen made comment on Fox in July 2008 according to WaPo
· 151 Obama lied about Kissinger's views of diplomacy during first debate; Kissinger confirms the lie
· 150 During Debate 1 Obama denied voting to tax some people making $42000 a year: Annenburg Factcheck,org confirms Obama is lying
· 149 After Debate 1, Team Obama denied Obama ever said, "Iran's not a threat": Video proves Obama DID say "Iran is NOT a threat."
· 148 Obama claims under McCain employers would be taxed on the health care benefits it grants to workers; he's lying
· 147 Obama refers to an Iraqi surplus of $79 billion and says US should have it; its $60 billion and dwindling
· 146 Obama claims only 5% of Americans would see tax increase; he's grossly understating the number of people effected
· 145 Obama accuses McCain of lying about Biden being against clean coal; video proves Obama is lying
· 144 Obama claims McCain is opposed to abortion in cases of rape or incest; McCain has never held that position.
· 143 Obama accuses McCain of making an ad about Obama's vote to approve leaving babies who survive abortion procedures to die; McCain did not make the ad
· 142 Obama's ad on abortion claims BHO always supported medical care to protect infants; text of the Bill he supported shows he wanted babies born alive after abortions to be left to die
· 141 Obama's ad on abortion uses quotes by journalists who made negative comments about a McCain ad; but Obama is misleading because both journalists have been proven to be incorrect
· 140 Obama's lying when he says McCain's ad misstated BHO's Sex Ed for Kindergartners Bill: McCain's ad was accurate; here's the Sex Ed Bill text
· 139 Obama and Biden both truncate McCain's comments on the strength of the economy's fundamentals: deliberate distortion
· 138 Biden claims McCain tried to hurt our veterans by denying them educational benefits; NewsWeek confirms Biden is lying
· 137 Obama claims under McCain, Elderly would have had Social Security tied up in the Stock market; Newsweek cries BS
· 136 Obama claims his opponent will cut social security in half: NOT true; Obama guilty of scare-mongering aimed at Seniors
· 135 Biden claims McCain wouldn't help small borrowers hurt by housing crisis; this is untrue according to Newsweek
· 134 Obama claimed during the primary he had more Ex President Clinton Foreign Policy advisers than Sen. Clinton; she had 70% more
· 133 Obama claimed his father served in World War 2: his Kenyan-born father never served
· 132 Obama grossly misquoted Sen.Clinton about her vote on a banking bill; BHO used the false quote to show why voters don't trust Government
· 131 Obama claimed employers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be prosecuted for employing illegals; Gov stats prove he's lying
· 130 Pushing his Green agenda Obama claimed Japanese Car average 45 mpg fuel efficiency; its actually around 29 mph
· 129 Obama disparaged the President saying he hadn't met with auto makers until the sixth year of his presidency; GWB met automakers in April 2003
· 128 Obama disparaged the efficiency of our healthcare system saying the U.S. spends twice per capita than other countries: WaPo proves he's lying
· 127 Obama claims President Clinton's Labor Secretary said BHO's healthcare plan, "Does more than anybody to reduce costs"; Robert Reich did NOT say it
· 126 Obama falsely claimed he won the Michigan Democrat primary: he was not on the ballot
· 125 Obama's Spanish language ad lies about McCain's position on immigration; tries to stir race-war: lies debunked by ABC
· 124 Obama lies about his interference in Iraqi negotiations; but his campaign admits his treachery
· 123 Obama took credit for the economic stimulus package passed in Feb 08; BHO's colleagues on Capitol Hill cry BS
· 122 Obama claims Big Oil is ignoring 68 million acres of oil fields they could be drilling; most fields are being worked
· 121 Obama claims never questions his opponent's patriotism; asks of McCain "WHICH country first?": ABC says he's questioning McCain's patriotism
· 120 Obama claims personal savings rates are lowest since the Great Depression; currently higher than under President Clinton
· 119 Obama claims on this video that he doesn't switch positions; list of 31 flip flops show he's lying
· 118 In the Primaries Obama puffed his resume claiming he was a "Professor"; State Senate bio shows he was not ; he now agrees
· 117 When Obama ran for US Senate his web site claimed "5 years as a community organizer"; he admits it was only 3 years
· 116 Obama's attack ad in Michigan claims McCain doesn't support loan guarantees for auto-industry. McCain DOES support them
· 115 Obama says "if we're STILL in recession when he takes office...etc"; the economy is NOT in recession
· 114 Obama claims he signed up for Selective Service when he graduated from High School; records show he did NOT until he'd been at college 1 year
· 113 Attacking Palin, Obama has the audacity to claim,"Words mean something; you can't just make things up "; BHO makes stuff up
· 112 Biden claims McCain will increase taxes for workers & Obama will only increase taxes on those making $435k: he's lying
· 111 Biden claims Obama drew the Nation's attention to problems at Walter Reed Army Hospital; it was two WaPo reporters that reported the issues to the Nation
· 110 to make Obama seems more American/less exotic, Biden tells Scranton crowd Obama grew up in Kansas; BHO grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia
· 109 Obama lies yet again to disparage Gov. Palin; ignores her executive experience as Governor of Alaska
· 108 Obama says the US economy has failed under Bush; World Bank stats proves Obama's been lying; US a world leader in growth, employment, incomes
· 107 Obama claims if you are born into poverty in America you are on your own: there are many government programs
· 106 Obama claims he's bi-partisan: voting records prove Obama is #11 most partisan
· 105 Claimed Hillary would be on anyone's short-list; Hillary wasn't on Obama's short-list
· 104 Obama claims abortion rates have not gone down under the Bush Administration; stats show they have gone down
· 103 Obama dismissed Bomber Bill Ayers as "some guy who lives in the neighborhood";they had a close working relationship
· 102 Obama claims there's no charge to attend his acceptance speech: CBS 4 in Denver proves he's lying; some tickets cost $1000
· 101 Obama used being a first-time-buyer to justify consulting with Rezko before he bought his house; BHO had already purchased a residence
· 100 Obama lies about his support for infanticide; campaign concedes in 03 he opposed a bill stopping the killing of kids born alive after abortions
· 99 Obama overstates Oil Industry's contributions to McCain; ignores cash the Oil industry gave BHO; Newsweek debunks
· 98 To belittle America,Obama exaggerated the growth in Debt under the current Administration; debunked by WaPo
· 97 Obama claims President George W Bush had not left the country before he became President; WaPo confirms he's lying
· 96 To promote "green", Obama claimed he drove a vehicle that uses ethanol; GM confirmed the model was NOT ethanol-ready
· 95 Obama claims he's taking his family for a week's rest in Hawaii with no campaigning; schedules a rally for first day
· 94: Obama claims "properly inflating tires" will save as much energy as we could drill offshore; analysis shows not even close
· 93 Obama denies accusing McCain of using race against him; ABC, NYT confirm Obama did accuse McCain of making racial attacks
· 92 Obama claims he's not being political when he's flip-flopping; timing & direction of major flip-flops show he's lying
· 91: Obama INVENTS a wall between Christians and Jews; deceptively omits the major religious wall is caused by a "fatwah" to kill American Christians and Jews
· 90 Obama claims he made a substantive call for Germany to help in Iraq; Berlin speech transcript proves he's lying
· 89: Obama admits he underestimated the decline in violence from the Surge; falsely claims McCain made same mistake
· 88 Obama turned a disappointing crowd of 20,000 into media reports of 200,000
· 87 Obama lied about his father's religious upbringing! half-brother confirms Obama's father was "RAISED Muslim"
· 86 Obama claimed we only made one fundraising trip to Florida during the Primary; Florida papers proved he lied
· 85 Claims reducing obesity to 80's levels would save Medicaid ONE TRILLION DOLLARS; not even close
· 84 To make Iraq/Afghan Wars look bad, Obama claimed demands on Nat Guard personnel hurt flood relief; Guards prove lying
· 83 Claimed due to overseas commitments, too few helecopters were available to help with Midwest flood relief; now concedes not true
· 82 Starting in Iowa, Obama claimed Clinton's healthcare plan would "punish families that couldn't afford healthcare"; NYT calls BS
· 81 Obama claims McCain's tax plan will do nothing to help the middle-class: The Tax Policy Center proves he's lying
· 80 claims the use of an Email with a big red DONATE button is NOT a fundraising solicitation
· 79 Obama claims his trip to Europe was non-political: uses video of Berlin speech to raise money within hours
· 78 Tells NBC that during the debate on the Surge he said the Surge would work in Baghdad; video proves during the debate he said the opposite
· 77 Obama's "Changing World" ad claims he'll fast-track alternatives to oil to stop us buying from hostile nations; "fast track" is totally misleading
· 76 Obama tells Israeli media that he's a member of the Senate Banking Committee; CNN confirms he's delusional
· 75 Obama claims Lou Dobbs caused hate crimes against Latinos to double; the FBI and CNN confirm Obama is lying
· 74 Obama claims the military brass think like he does; top US commanders say his plan for Iraq is unworkable
· 73: Obama promised to filibust FISA; later Obama voted for FISA and now denies changing his position
· 72 Obama belittles Americans claiming we can't speak European languages; he's talking merde; mierda; Scheiße
· 71 Obama denied he accused President Bush of starting the War for political reasons; Russert transcript proves Obama made that false claim
· 70 Obama claims there has been substantial job losses from NAFTA; Independent studies show its at least" job neutral"
· 69 Claimed in Feb 08 he got 90% of funds from donors giving $25, $50; fed filings show he got only about a third from donors below $200
· 68 Obama rewrites history about what specifically he had said during his October 2002 anti-war speech
· 67 Obama claimed in 04 that he had never supported bringing troops out of Iraq; rare video of 03 Teamsters rally shows he's lying
· 66 Obama lied about the softness of the Stock Market to support his false claim the War was being used to distract the public
· 65 To justify move to private funds, Obama claims McCain's campaign is" fuelled" by PACs and Lobbyists; its less than 2% of McCain's money
· 64 Obama's "Dignity" ad claims he "worked his way" thru college and law school; campaign admits only two summer jobs
· 63 Obama's "Dignity" ad gives him credit for reducing Welfare rolls by 80%: he's deceptive as he was opposed to Fed Welfare Reform in '96
· 62 In Obama's The Country I love ad, he takes credit for passing a healthcare bill he did NOT vote for
· 61 Claims he first ran in Chicago as an unendorsed candidate; his '96 election questionnaire proves he had several
· 60 Obama claims he wants a vigorous and open debate on the issues: then goes out of his way to avoid it
· 59 Obama omits key details about a false rumor re video of Michelle's "whitey" rant to justify breaking his public funding promise
· 58 Obama tries to deceive about why he voted "present" more than 100 times in the Illinois Senate; Chicago paper reveals the truth
· 57 Trying to claim patriotism Obama says his grandad signed up the day after Pearl Harbor; army records disagree
· 56 Claims race and party not important to how people vote as they put America first; 93% block vote disproves
· 55 On June 5, Obama stated that Israel must remain undivided; June 6 on CNN he reversed his position, but denied he had done so
· 54 To further his own agenda, Obama grossly overstates the number of potential African-American votes in MS, GA, SC
· 53 Promise of $2500 reduction in Healthcare premiums needs billions in Admin cost savings by 2012: not possible
· 52 Obama omits to mention his 3 week trip to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until it slips out trying to out-do Clinton
· 51 Obama claims McCain wants to wage a lengthy war in Iraq: Video proves Obama's lying
· 50 Obama claimed he never prayed in a mosque; his campaign had to retract that statement
· 49 Obama dishonestly used endorsements in ads to pump up his healthcare plan
· 48 Claims he never discussed politics with Pastor; rebutted by photo of Obama with team of lobbyists led by Wright
· 47 Obama, an expert at parsing words, claimed he wasn't familiar with the word "Clintonian"; then changed his story
· 46 Despite reeking of cigarettes, Obama denied smoking to ABC; now admits smoking on MSNBC
· 45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"
· 44 Obama claims he is using public financing to avoid special interests: WSJ nails his switcheroo
· 43 Obama's rhetoric claims more young black men in jail than college: BoJ Stats disprove
· 42 Claims he never said he was a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare; Video proves he did
· 41 Obama claims remarks to industrialists were greeted with silence, shows he can deliver tough message: video of ovation
· 40 Obamas claim you dont rip opponents & leave on roadside:he did to Alice Palmer
· 39 Obama denies saying Indiana could be tie-breaker: he did
· 38 Obama omits that Pastor Wright led divestiture campaign from Israel
· 37 Obama claims Church not controversial; he knew it was controversial since 86
· 36 Lied about intention of taking US out of NAFTA
· 35 Obamas claim poverty growing up: both distort reality
· 34 Obama denies meeting Saddam's Auchi; sworn Fed. witness places Obama at undisclosed party for Auchi at Rezkos
· 33 Obama lies about not attacking Clinton over her Bosnia lies
· 32 Obama claims he passed ethics reform; ABC News shows he lied
· 31 Obama says he's consistently opposed NAFTA; in October 2007 he supported expansion to Peru
· 30 Obama claims he's above dirty political tricks; Clinton proves he lies
· 29 Obama claims his "bitter" remarks were mangled; then repeats attacks on guns religion and angry people
· 28 Obama claims never said he wouldn't wear US flag-pin; video shows he did
· 27 Obama says he did no favors for Rezko;untrue; he lobbied for him
· 26 Changes story repeatedly re Rezko's help in buying mansion
· 25 Obama claims he never supported a ban on handguns; he has twice
· 24 Obama claims stays at UCC as Pastor acknowledged comments were inappropriate; Wright never made this statement
· 23 Campaign is beholden to "only the people" as unlike McCain/Clinton he does not take lobbyist /PAC money; LIES!
· 22 Claims campaign never called Canada to say Obama not truthful re wanting leave NAFTA; smoking gun memo proves lied
· 21 Mrs Obama admits she's never been proud of America; Video disproves Sen. Obama's later claim she was misquoted
· 20 Claimed would not run for President, as he would not be qualified by 2008: confirmed 3 times to Tim Russert in one 2006 interview
· 19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins
· 18 Claims his parents met at Selma civil rights march; Washington Post noted it occurred 4 yrs after Obama's birth
· 17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003
· 16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill
· 15 Claimed he didn't know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied
· 14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied
· 13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed
· 12 Claims his State Chair is not a drug company lobbyist; Time magazine cries Bullshit
· 11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice
· 10 Claims he did not fill out the 1996 candidate questionaire; Politico proves he lied
· 9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times
· 8 Claims he kept no State Senate records; now he changes his story
· 7 Denies doubling wife's salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital
· 6 Denied meeting Saddam bagman Auchi; now admits he was at his dinner but does not remember talking to him
· 5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree
· 4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied
· 3 Claims his father was a goat-herd; actually he was a man of privilige
· 2 Claims not an active muslim as child; Indonesian paper proves he lied
· 1 Claims father linked to Kennedys; Washington Post proves he lied
Obama WTF defines "DOCUMENTED LIE " as :
1) a statement by one or more reliable news agencies or credible authorities citing supporting verifiable facts which rebut a reported statement by Obama.2) observable video/transcript contradictions3) the omission of an important fact the exclusion of which defies common sense unless the intent is to deceive.
This therefore EXCLUDES unintentional gaffes e.g. the Auschwitz Memorial Day blip; the 57 States etc which can be found at New Gaffe City This also excludes Flip Flops unless
a) Obama is seen to be holding multiple positions depending on the audience, e.g. The Jerusalem flip flop...where his position was altered with 18 hours, talking to different audiences, or b) Obama lies about holding a different position e.g denying he favored gun control.
Credit to each of the following news outlets who are some of the most cited in the List of Documented Lies:
1. Annenberg Factcheck.org; at U Penn
2. At the St Petersberg Times; www.politifact.com
3. Washington Post Fact Checker ...Michael Dobbs
4. Top of the Ticket Blog at the LA Times;
5. Political Punch at ABC News.com.
6. Dozens of other major news orgs are quoted to provide support for one or more lies
· 158 Obama claims he wrote letter to US Treasurer to try to prevent the housing crisis; but he acted only AFTER he had caused it by blocking McCain's bill
· 157 Obama claims he is bipartisan ; Congressional Quarterly shows he voted with his party 97% of the time
· 156 Obama's dirty lie scares seniors: falsely claims McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare: liar liar liar says Annenberg Factcheck
· 155 Obama lies about his mother turning to food stamps AND still sending him to top schools; his grandmother paid for education
· 154 Obama lied about being asked to wear dead soldier's bracelet: family had asked Obama to stop wearing it
· 153 Obama claimed all new spending is economic plan was self-funding; short by $3.5 Trillion says nonpartisan Tax Policy Center
· 152 Obama denied Admiral Mike Mullen had called Obama's Iraqi troop plan "dangerous"; Mullen made comment on Fox in July 2008 according to WaPo
· 151 Obama lied about Kissinger's views of diplomacy during first debate; Kissinger confirms the lie
· 150 During Debate 1 Obama denied voting to tax some people making $42000 a year: Annenburg Factcheck,org confirms Obama is lying
· 149 After Debate 1, Team Obama denied Obama ever said, "Iran's not a threat": Video proves Obama DID say "Iran is NOT a threat."
· 148 Obama claims under McCain employers would be taxed on the health care benefits it grants to workers; he's lying
· 147 Obama refers to an Iraqi surplus of $79 billion and says US should have it; its $60 billion and dwindling
· 146 Obama claims only 5% of Americans would see tax increase; he's grossly understating the number of people effected
· 145 Obama accuses McCain of lying about Biden being against clean coal; video proves Obama is lying
· 144 Obama claims McCain is opposed to abortion in cases of rape or incest; McCain has never held that position.
· 143 Obama accuses McCain of making an ad about Obama's vote to approve leaving babies who survive abortion procedures to die; McCain did not make the ad
· 142 Obama's ad on abortion claims BHO always supported medical care to protect infants; text of the Bill he supported shows he wanted babies born alive after abortions to be left to die
· 141 Obama's ad on abortion uses quotes by journalists who made negative comments about a McCain ad; but Obama is misleading because both journalists have been proven to be incorrect
· 140 Obama's lying when he says McCain's ad misstated BHO's Sex Ed for Kindergartners Bill: McCain's ad was accurate; here's the Sex Ed Bill text
· 139 Obama and Biden both truncate McCain's comments on the strength of the economy's fundamentals: deliberate distortion
· 138 Biden claims McCain tried to hurt our veterans by denying them educational benefits; NewsWeek confirms Biden is lying
· 137 Obama claims under McCain, Elderly would have had Social Security tied up in the Stock market; Newsweek cries BS
· 136 Obama claims his opponent will cut social security in half: NOT true; Obama guilty of scare-mongering aimed at Seniors
· 135 Biden claims McCain wouldn't help small borrowers hurt by housing crisis; this is untrue according to Newsweek
· 134 Obama claimed during the primary he had more Ex President Clinton Foreign Policy advisers than Sen. Clinton; she had 70% more
· 133 Obama claimed his father served in World War 2: his Kenyan-born father never served
· 132 Obama grossly misquoted Sen.Clinton about her vote on a banking bill; BHO used the false quote to show why voters don't trust Government
· 131 Obama claimed employers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be prosecuted for employing illegals; Gov stats prove he's lying
· 130 Pushing his Green agenda Obama claimed Japanese Car average 45 mpg fuel efficiency; its actually around 29 mph
· 129 Obama disparaged the President saying he hadn't met with auto makers until the sixth year of his presidency; GWB met automakers in April 2003
· 128 Obama disparaged the efficiency of our healthcare system saying the U.S. spends twice per capita than other countries: WaPo proves he's lying
· 127 Obama claims President Clinton's Labor Secretary said BHO's healthcare plan, "Does more than anybody to reduce costs"; Robert Reich did NOT say it
· 126 Obama falsely claimed he won the Michigan Democrat primary: he was not on the ballot
· 125 Obama's Spanish language ad lies about McCain's position on immigration; tries to stir race-war: lies debunked by ABC
· 124 Obama lies about his interference in Iraqi negotiations; but his campaign admits his treachery
· 123 Obama took credit for the economic stimulus package passed in Feb 08; BHO's colleagues on Capitol Hill cry BS
· 122 Obama claims Big Oil is ignoring 68 million acres of oil fields they could be drilling; most fields are being worked
· 121 Obama claims never questions his opponent's patriotism; asks of McCain "WHICH country first?": ABC says he's questioning McCain's patriotism
· 120 Obama claims personal savings rates are lowest since the Great Depression; currently higher than under President Clinton
· 119 Obama claims on this video that he doesn't switch positions; list of 31 flip flops show he's lying
· 118 In the Primaries Obama puffed his resume claiming he was a "Professor"; State Senate bio shows he was not ; he now agrees
· 117 When Obama ran for US Senate his web site claimed "5 years as a community organizer"; he admits it was only 3 years
· 116 Obama's attack ad in Michigan claims McCain doesn't support loan guarantees for auto-industry. McCain DOES support them
· 115 Obama says "if we're STILL in recession when he takes office...etc"; the economy is NOT in recession
· 114 Obama claims he signed up for Selective Service when he graduated from High School; records show he did NOT until he'd been at college 1 year
· 113 Attacking Palin, Obama has the audacity to claim,"Words mean something; you can't just make things up "; BHO makes stuff up
· 112 Biden claims McCain will increase taxes for workers & Obama will only increase taxes on those making $435k: he's lying
· 111 Biden claims Obama drew the Nation's attention to problems at Walter Reed Army Hospital; it was two WaPo reporters that reported the issues to the Nation
· 110 to make Obama seems more American/less exotic, Biden tells Scranton crowd Obama grew up in Kansas; BHO grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia
· 109 Obama lies yet again to disparage Gov. Palin; ignores her executive experience as Governor of Alaska
· 108 Obama says the US economy has failed under Bush; World Bank stats proves Obama's been lying; US a world leader in growth, employment, incomes
· 107 Obama claims if you are born into poverty in America you are on your own: there are many government programs
· 106 Obama claims he's bi-partisan: voting records prove Obama is #11 most partisan
· 105 Claimed Hillary would be on anyone's short-list; Hillary wasn't on Obama's short-list
· 104 Obama claims abortion rates have not gone down under the Bush Administration; stats show they have gone down
· 103 Obama dismissed Bomber Bill Ayers as "some guy who lives in the neighborhood";they had a close working relationship
· 102 Obama claims there's no charge to attend his acceptance speech: CBS 4 in Denver proves he's lying; some tickets cost $1000
· 101 Obama used being a first-time-buyer to justify consulting with Rezko before he bought his house; BHO had already purchased a residence
· 100 Obama lies about his support for infanticide; campaign concedes in 03 he opposed a bill stopping the killing of kids born alive after abortions
· 99 Obama overstates Oil Industry's contributions to McCain; ignores cash the Oil industry gave BHO; Newsweek debunks
· 98 To belittle America,Obama exaggerated the growth in Debt under the current Administration; debunked by WaPo
· 97 Obama claims President George W Bush had not left the country before he became President; WaPo confirms he's lying
· 96 To promote "green", Obama claimed he drove a vehicle that uses ethanol; GM confirmed the model was NOT ethanol-ready
· 95 Obama claims he's taking his family for a week's rest in Hawaii with no campaigning; schedules a rally for first day
· 94: Obama claims "properly inflating tires" will save as much energy as we could drill offshore; analysis shows not even close
· 93 Obama denies accusing McCain of using race against him; ABC, NYT confirm Obama did accuse McCain of making racial attacks
· 92 Obama claims he's not being political when he's flip-flopping; timing & direction of major flip-flops show he's lying
· 91: Obama INVENTS a wall between Christians and Jews; deceptively omits the major religious wall is caused by a "fatwah" to kill American Christians and Jews
· 90 Obama claims he made a substantive call for Germany to help in Iraq; Berlin speech transcript proves he's lying
· 89: Obama admits he underestimated the decline in violence from the Surge; falsely claims McCain made same mistake
· 88 Obama turned a disappointing crowd of 20,000 into media reports of 200,000
· 87 Obama lied about his father's religious upbringing! half-brother confirms Obama's father was "RAISED Muslim"
· 86 Obama claimed we only made one fundraising trip to Florida during the Primary; Florida papers proved he lied
· 85 Claims reducing obesity to 80's levels would save Medicaid ONE TRILLION DOLLARS; not even close
· 84 To make Iraq/Afghan Wars look bad, Obama claimed demands on Nat Guard personnel hurt flood relief; Guards prove lying
· 83 Claimed due to overseas commitments, too few helecopters were available to help with Midwest flood relief; now concedes not true
· 82 Starting in Iowa, Obama claimed Clinton's healthcare plan would "punish families that couldn't afford healthcare"; NYT calls BS
· 81 Obama claims McCain's tax plan will do nothing to help the middle-class: The Tax Policy Center proves he's lying
· 80 claims the use of an Email with a big red DONATE button is NOT a fundraising solicitation
· 79 Obama claims his trip to Europe was non-political: uses video of Berlin speech to raise money within hours
· 78 Tells NBC that during the debate on the Surge he said the Surge would work in Baghdad; video proves during the debate he said the opposite
· 77 Obama's "Changing World" ad claims he'll fast-track alternatives to oil to stop us buying from hostile nations; "fast track" is totally misleading
· 76 Obama tells Israeli media that he's a member of the Senate Banking Committee; CNN confirms he's delusional
· 75 Obama claims Lou Dobbs caused hate crimes against Latinos to double; the FBI and CNN confirm Obama is lying
· 74 Obama claims the military brass think like he does; top US commanders say his plan for Iraq is unworkable
· 73: Obama promised to filibust FISA; later Obama voted for FISA and now denies changing his position
· 72 Obama belittles Americans claiming we can't speak European languages; he's talking merde; mierda; Scheiße
· 71 Obama denied he accused President Bush of starting the War for political reasons; Russert transcript proves Obama made that false claim
· 70 Obama claims there has been substantial job losses from NAFTA; Independent studies show its at least" job neutral"
· 69 Claimed in Feb 08 he got 90% of funds from donors giving $25, $50; fed filings show he got only about a third from donors below $200
· 68 Obama rewrites history about what specifically he had said during his October 2002 anti-war speech
· 67 Obama claimed in 04 that he had never supported bringing troops out of Iraq; rare video of 03 Teamsters rally shows he's lying
· 66 Obama lied about the softness of the Stock Market to support his false claim the War was being used to distract the public
· 65 To justify move to private funds, Obama claims McCain's campaign is" fuelled" by PACs and Lobbyists; its less than 2% of McCain's money
· 64 Obama's "Dignity" ad claims he "worked his way" thru college and law school; campaign admits only two summer jobs
· 63 Obama's "Dignity" ad gives him credit for reducing Welfare rolls by 80%: he's deceptive as he was opposed to Fed Welfare Reform in '96
· 62 In Obama's The Country I love ad, he takes credit for passing a healthcare bill he did NOT vote for
· 61 Claims he first ran in Chicago as an unendorsed candidate; his '96 election questionnaire proves he had several
· 60 Obama claims he wants a vigorous and open debate on the issues: then goes out of his way to avoid it
· 59 Obama omits key details about a false rumor re video of Michelle's "whitey" rant to justify breaking his public funding promise
· 58 Obama tries to deceive about why he voted "present" more than 100 times in the Illinois Senate; Chicago paper reveals the truth
· 57 Trying to claim patriotism Obama says his grandad signed up the day after Pearl Harbor; army records disagree
· 56 Claims race and party not important to how people vote as they put America first; 93% block vote disproves
· 55 On June 5, Obama stated that Israel must remain undivided; June 6 on CNN he reversed his position, but denied he had done so
· 54 To further his own agenda, Obama grossly overstates the number of potential African-American votes in MS, GA, SC
· 53 Promise of $2500 reduction in Healthcare premiums needs billions in Admin cost savings by 2012: not possible
· 52 Obama omits to mention his 3 week trip to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until it slips out trying to out-do Clinton
· 51 Obama claims McCain wants to wage a lengthy war in Iraq: Video proves Obama's lying
· 50 Obama claimed he never prayed in a mosque; his campaign had to retract that statement
· 49 Obama dishonestly used endorsements in ads to pump up his healthcare plan
· 48 Claims he never discussed politics with Pastor; rebutted by photo of Obama with team of lobbyists led by Wright
· 47 Obama, an expert at parsing words, claimed he wasn't familiar with the word "Clintonian"; then changed his story
· 46 Despite reeking of cigarettes, Obama denied smoking to ABC; now admits smoking on MSNBC
· 45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"
· 44 Obama claims he is using public financing to avoid special interests: WSJ nails his switcheroo
· 43 Obama's rhetoric claims more young black men in jail than college: BoJ Stats disprove
· 42 Claims he never said he was a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare; Video proves he did
· 41 Obama claims remarks to industrialists were greeted with silence, shows he can deliver tough message: video of ovation
· 40 Obamas claim you dont rip opponents & leave on roadside:he did to Alice Palmer
· 39 Obama denies saying Indiana could be tie-breaker: he did
· 38 Obama omits that Pastor Wright led divestiture campaign from Israel
· 37 Obama claims Church not controversial; he knew it was controversial since 86
· 36 Lied about intention of taking US out of NAFTA
· 35 Obamas claim poverty growing up: both distort reality
· 34 Obama denies meeting Saddam's Auchi; sworn Fed. witness places Obama at undisclosed party for Auchi at Rezkos
· 33 Obama lies about not attacking Clinton over her Bosnia lies
· 32 Obama claims he passed ethics reform; ABC News shows he lied
· 31 Obama says he's consistently opposed NAFTA; in October 2007 he supported expansion to Peru
· 30 Obama claims he's above dirty political tricks; Clinton proves he lies
· 29 Obama claims his "bitter" remarks were mangled; then repeats attacks on guns religion and angry people
· 28 Obama claims never said he wouldn't wear US flag-pin; video shows he did
· 27 Obama says he did no favors for Rezko;untrue; he lobbied for him
· 26 Changes story repeatedly re Rezko's help in buying mansion
· 25 Obama claims he never supported a ban on handguns; he has twice
· 24 Obama claims stays at UCC as Pastor acknowledged comments were inappropriate; Wright never made this statement
· 23 Campaign is beholden to "only the people" as unlike McCain/Clinton he does not take lobbyist /PAC money; LIES!
· 22 Claims campaign never called Canada to say Obama not truthful re wanting leave NAFTA; smoking gun memo proves lied
· 21 Mrs Obama admits she's never been proud of America; Video disproves Sen. Obama's later claim she was misquoted
· 20 Claimed would not run for President, as he would not be qualified by 2008: confirmed 3 times to Tim Russert in one 2006 interview
· 19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins
· 18 Claims his parents met at Selma civil rights march; Washington Post noted it occurred 4 yrs after Obama's birth
· 17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003
· 16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill
· 15 Claimed he didn't know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied
· 14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied
· 13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed
· 12 Claims his State Chair is not a drug company lobbyist; Time magazine cries Bullshit
· 11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice
· 10 Claims he did not fill out the 1996 candidate questionaire; Politico proves he lied
· 9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times
· 8 Claims he kept no State Senate records; now he changes his story
· 7 Denies doubling wife's salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital
· 6 Denied meeting Saddam bagman Auchi; now admits he was at his dinner but does not remember talking to him
· 5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree
· 4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied
· 3 Claims his father was a goat-herd; actually he was a man of privilige
· 2 Claims not an active muslim as child; Indonesian paper proves he lied
· 1 Claims father linked to Kennedys; Washington Post proves he lied
Obama WTF defines "DOCUMENTED LIE " as :
1) a statement by one or more reliable news agencies or credible authorities citing supporting verifiable facts which rebut a reported statement by Obama.2) observable video/transcript contradictions3) the omission of an important fact the exclusion of which defies common sense unless the intent is to deceive.
This therefore EXCLUDES unintentional gaffes e.g. the Auschwitz Memorial Day blip; the 57 States etc which can be found at New Gaffe City This also excludes Flip Flops unless
a) Obama is seen to be holding multiple positions depending on the audience, e.g. The Jerusalem flip flop...where his position was altered with 18 hours, talking to different audiences, or b) Obama lies about holding a different position e.g denying he favored gun control.
Credit to each of the following news outlets who are some of the most cited in the List of Documented Lies:
1. Annenberg Factcheck.org; at U Penn
2. At the St Petersberg Times; www.politifact.com
3. Washington Post Fact Checker ...Michael Dobbs
4. Top of the Ticket Blog at the LA Times;
5. Political Punch at ABC News.com.
6. Dozens of other major news orgs are quoted to provide support for one or more lies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
