The Trial of Hillary Is Happening Anyway

When FBI Director Comey outlined a litany of security violations with regard to Hillary Clinton's email server, he essentially showed her to be a liar and a reckless individual on so many issues as this video clip of MSNBC's Morning Joe so clearly states:

In my opinion, this may possibly explain why Comey didn't bring any charges.

He merely tossed all of the violations out into the public domain and, as a result, she will be  tried in the court of public opinion; and, as that video shows, not favorably.  He could have simply handed the conclusions of his FBI investigation to the Justice Department without a press conference and allowed that agency to decide whether or not to press charges.  But, by having an unprecedented news conference, he ensured that what she did wouldn't be swept under the rug.  He also gave Donald Trump, the Republican National Committee (RNC), and any Trump SuperPacs, all the sound-bites they need to keep prosecuting her in that fabled public court.  In fact, as of this writing, the RNC has already released this ad:

If Hillary Clinton does lose the election because of her server problem, the Democrats may regret that she wasn't charged so that they could have had the opportunity run someone else for President.

References:

Morning Joe eviscerates Hillary Clinton in wake of brutal FBI report about email conduct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maVuOWDOHL8

Transcript: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Katie Couric Continues the Tradition of Gun Control Activist's Lies

One thing I've realized while doing research for this blog is that gun control activists lie because they can't win on facts.

In fact, Katie Couric just followed that tradition by lying in a documentary she recently aired called "Under the Gun".  In a round table discussion with a panel of gun rights advocates, Couric asked "If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?".  In the aired version, that question is followed by 9 seconds of silence with edited-in video clips of the panel looking perplexed or, as some say, stupid.  However, the real version -- that was edited out -- showed thoughtful responses to the question by the panel members.  But, like most gun control activists, they don't want "thoughtful" or realistic anything regarding gun control.

Take the gun show loophole that Hillary Clinton decries constantly.  There is none.  What she calls the gun show loophole is the fact that any private citizen, per the Brady Bill, can transfer the possession of a firearm to another private party without a background check.  That was an intentional part of the law and not a loophole.   She also claims that 40% of guns sold at gun shows and on the internet are sold without background checks.   There isn't a single study or report that supports that claim.  That statistic is a perversion of a 1994 telephone survey that asked the respondents if they bought their gun from a licensed dealer.  It had nothing to do with background checks because they didn't even exist until 4 years later in 1998. 

A group that calls itself Handgun Control, Inc. claims that 25 to 50 percent of vendors at gun shows don't have federal firearm licenses.  That fact is only true when it includes the  vendors that are not selling guns at the show.  Like those selling hot dogs, hats, t-shirts etc.

Then, Denver congresswoman Diana DeGette said that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows.  This is another lie.  The Department of Justice asked 18,000 prison inmates what was the source of the gun they possessed at the time of their arrest.  Only 7-tenths of one percent said it came from a gun show.  The highest response by almost 40% was the "Streets".

Here's the truth in just one graph:

Essentially, gun-related homicides have fallen, while the number of guns owned has risen since 1993. Almost proportionately.  In addition, and not shown on the graph, is the fact that non-fatal gun violence has fallen 68% over the same period.  Also understand that 80% of all crimes are gang related.  Yet, gun control advocates seem to think that it is the average gun owners that are the problem.

Simply, I tune out any talk of gun control because it is almost always based on lies.  Also, our energies would be better focused on gang control and not gun control.

References:

Katie Couric slammed for 'deceptive' documentary about gun rights: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/05/26/katie-couric-slammed-for-deceptive-documentary-about-gun-rights.html

Katie Couric Decried ‘Edited’ Planned Parenthood Footage, Then Doctored A Gun Owner Interview: http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/26/katie-couric-decried-edited-planned-parenthood-footage-then-doctored-a-gun-owner-interview/

The Facts About Gun Shows: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows

Fact Check: Clinton’s claim that 40 percent of guns are sold at gun shows and over the Internet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/16/clintons-claim-that-40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/

Firearm Use by Offenders: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Source of Graph: https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

Gangs Blamed for 80 Percent of U.S. Crimes: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423&page=1

pb

The Obama Con Game

It wasn't even two years ago that we found out from the ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber, that the healthcare law was sold based on the belief that the American voter was stupid.  To that point, here are a few quotes from Gruber:

"Lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

"It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter..." 

"...if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.

Now, thanks to a profile that appeared in the New York Magazine, we find out that the Iran deal was predicated on stupidity as well.  This time the media was preyed upon as being a bunch of 27-year-old-somethings that knew nothing.

For the last 7+ years, Barack Obama and his minions have been telling us lies gift-wrapped as plausible truths and, the media and the voters have accepted them.  Hopefully, in retrospect, some intelligent future historian will sort through those deceptions for all of us to see.

References:

The guy who thinks voters are 'stupid': http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/opinion/cupp-gruber-obamacare/

Ben Rhodes Reveals How Obama Duped America Into The Dangerous Iran Deal: http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/09/ben-rhodes-reveals-how-obama-duped-america-into-the-dangerous-iran-deal/

Is Obama a Serial Liar: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/05/is_obama_a_serial_liar.html

Serial LIAR: Video Of Obama Blatantly Lying 36 Times: http://www.infowars.com/serial-liar-video-of-obama-blatantly-lying-36-times/

Obama: Serial Liar | Frontpage Mag: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/190091/obama-serial-liar-daniel-greenfield

pp

Hillary's Gun Show and Internet Gun Sales Lie

Hillary Clinton endlessly repeats a stale and false statistic that 40% of gun sales at gun shows and over the Internet are transacted without background checks.

So, where does that 40% statistic actually come from?

It originated from a 1994 randomized telephone survey in which only 251 gun owners were  interviewed over a given period.  Once the questioner was able to determine that the called party had a gun or guns or any access to them, a simple Yes or No question was asked as to whether or not it was purchased from a licensed firearm dealer.  If the answer was anything other than a definite "yes", the "no" box was checked off.  Even if the party honestly couldn't remember; or if the gun was purchased by someone else in the household;  or if the firearm may have been received as a gift or an inheritance where it was very possibly purchased from a licensed firearm dealer.  As a result, 64.3% said the guns were purchased from a licensed dealer and checked "yes", and 35.7% were checked "no".  Since then, gun control advocates have rounded that number up to 40% while it was more accurately closer to 35%.

Also understand that the Federal background check system didn't exist in 1994.  It wasn't until late 1998 that that background checks were started as part of the Brady Bill.  Further, the Brady bill made many types of gun transfers without background checks a felony.  For example, it is a felony to transfer a firearm across state lines. It is also a felony to transfer it to a person who:

1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
2. Is a fugitive from justice.
3. Is an unlawful user of, or addicted to any controlled substance.
4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship.
8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
9. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

With this list in mind, does anyone really believe that a seller at a gun show or on the Internet would risk being charged with a federal felony for selling a gun to someone that they don't know and who may fit any of the restricted categories outlined above?  I don't think so.

Also, Hillary persists in applying that 40% figure to gun show and internet sales when that study conducted in 1994 had nothing to do with either background checks, gun shows, or the Internet.

Now to the truth.

Just recently, the Washington Post gave Hillary 3 Pinocchios for that 40% claim.  In defending themselves, the Post wrote this, among other things:

Unpublished data from the 2004 National Firearms Survey, provided by Lisa Hepburn of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, show that about 30 percent of firearm transactions were gifts or inheritances and 70 percent were purchases (42 percent came from a store, 9 percent from a private sale, 8 percent from a family or friend, 7 percent from a gun show, 2 percent from a pawn shop and 1 percent “other”).

Thus, only 7 percent of the 70% of the respondents to that survey said they purchased a gun at a gun show.  That means that less than 5% of all legal gun owners (4.9%)  got their guns from a gun show when you calculate the percentage on the basis of 100% of the respondents to the survey.   Even if 100% of those 4.9% were all obtained without a background check, it is nowhere near 40%.  Further, the Internet was a non-issue in this survey.  Perhaps, Internet sales are part of the 1% of the 70% that are labelled "other".  Again, even if all of those purchases were without background checks, that fact makes Hillary an even bigger liar.

As I have often written in this blog, Hillary Clinton is completely distorting the facts on many issues in order to get votes from her political base.  Maybe she should study the details of the Brady Bill. that her husband signed into law and which, in most cases, closed the supposed gun show loophole and made it nearly illegal to sell guns on the Internet without a background check. If you buy a gun on the Internet it must be from a licensed dealer who will send the gun that you bought to another licensed firearm dealer, who will then conduct the check. That's the truth. Note this explanation from Internet dealer grabagun.com:

Click on Image to Enlarge

Further, a Justice Department survey of thousands of inmates in both federal and state prison found that less than 1 percent said they obtained their guns at a gun show.

Click on Image to Enlarge

I am certain that we will continue to hear the 40% lie. Something that Hillary is well versed in.

References:

Fact Checker:  Clinton’s claim that 40 percent of guns are sold at gun shows and over the Internet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/16/clintons-claim-that-40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/

Brady Bill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

FBI NiCS Background Checks by Month/year: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf

Buying A Gun Online - The Ordering Process Explained!: Skip Graphic and go to the bottom: http://grabagun.com/ordering-guide

Department of Justice: Firearm Source Table 10: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Hillary's Latest Big Email Lie? She's 'Sorry'

Whenever a liar gets caught, they always tell another lie in the hope that you'll accept the new one and forget the original.  That's what liars do, and if they sense that you're not believing the latest version, they will create another and dig themselves in even deeper.  This has been the case, for months now, with Hillary and the saga of her private email server.

When the "not-hardly-a-vast-right-wing-conspirator New York Times" exposed Hillary's private server, her immediate "lie" was to say she didn't want to have to use two devices for her personal and State Department emails. Then it was determined that she had already been using two anyway, a Blackberry and an iPhone. She also claimed that Colin Powell also used a private email system.   When the question of the security of her private server came up, we were told that it was secured in her house in Chappaqua with secret service agents guarding it.  Besides that, she claimed that no classified information was ever sent using that server.  When it was disclosed that several emails had contained classified information with two being labeled Top Secret, she claimed that she never sent or received any emails that were in any way marked classified.  Those that have been found, are now being classified after the fact.

Last week, she said that the State Department knew of her server and approved of it.  If that were true, why is she, this week, saying "I'm Sorry" for having the server.  The "I'm sorry" simply exposes the untruthfulness of everything she has said since March.  However, the sincerity of her apology also come across as a lie since it was literally formulated after seeing the result of a focus group.  She doesn't mean it.  It's just another political tactic in an attempt to bury the problem all together.

References:

Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html

Hillary Clinton's five email lies | New York Post: http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/hillary-clintons-5-e-mail-lies/

Smoking guns aplenty in Clinton emails: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-goldberg-clinton-emails-20150907-story.html

Hillary Clinton on emails: 'I'm sorry':   http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/hillary-clinton-private-email-abc-news-apology/

Hillary Apologized for Email After Focus Group: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/09/08/hillary-apologizes-for-private-emails.html

M.I.T.'s Jonathan Gruber: A One-Man Wrecking Crew

Touted by Nancy Pelosi and paid handsomely by the White House to consult on the crafting of ObamaCare, it was obvious that Jonathan Gruber was the go-to-guy and the how-to-guy for the creation of the Democratic takeover of 1/6th of the economy: Health Care.  After all, he was the primary architect of Massachusetts' healthcare reform law.  So, he had already been there and done that.

Recently, Gruber has become a big problem for the Democrats because in six videos, (and, still counting), this M.I.T. professor has blown the lid off of how the ObamaCare law was assembled. According to Gruber,  it was crafted in such a way as to dupe the stupid American voters and, at the same time, dupe the Congressional Budget Office; who's responsibility it was to verify the impact on the federal deficit.

As a result, in addition to all the lies that were used to sell ObamaCare, we are now getting to hear the lies being told to discredit Gruber's assertions.  Even though those assertions are logically backed up by some key elements of the health care law.  Even so, the now apparently senile Pelosi, can't seem to remember Gruber nor believes he had anything to do with ObamaCare.  This despite a 2009 video in which she praised him. There is also the fact that his name, comments, and work are all over her official website.  Then, like a scene from Mission Impossible where Mr. Phelps is told that, if you are caught, we will disavow any knowledge of you, the White House and President Obama are also denying knowledge of Gruber.  This, even though there are the more than a half-dozen logged visits by him to the White House. There is also the pesky fact that the Obama Administration has paid him $400,000 in consultation fees for just that purpose.

The truth is, that despite current assertions, Gruber has always been known as a key architect of the law.  Here's that fact as noted in Wikipedia:

Gruber has been heavily involved in crafting public health policy. He was a key architect of both the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform, sometimes referred to as "Romneycare", and the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as "Obamacare".^[1]

But, because of his mouth and the videos of him using it, he may have just changed from being the architect of ObamaCare, to the man who took a wrecking ball to it and any trust Americans may have still felt towards the Obama Administration.   He has single-handedly exposed the President and the Democrats for using deceit to craft and sell the law to the public.  At the same time, he may have also sunk any chance that the Supreme Court will side with the President in the forthcoming case of King vs. Burwell over ObamaCare subsidies being handed out to 34 states that elected not to build there own exchanges.  Thus, leaving millions of low income enrollees to pay their insurance premiums on their own.  Then there is the argument that the law never intended to exclude non-state exchanges. This is undermined by Gruber's statement that the withholding of subsidies was done intentionally and politically to punish states for not setting up their own exchanges.  Famously, in 2012, Gruber said exactly that, in his own words, and as documented in Wikipedia:

Gruber: January 18, 2012: "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits."

Of course, Gruber now says he misspoke back then.  But, it sure sounds correct when you read the law and when it clearly says that subsidies will only be given to those who enroll in "Exchanges established by the State'.   A fact that the IRS overruled by extending subsidies to all enrollees in direct contradiction to the President's own namesake law.

So you see, the Democrats are now paying heavily for their relationship with Gruber.  Truly, he is the slayer who increased the lack of any confidence that still remained in Obama or the Democrats, and he may have easily sunk ObamaCare's chances of surviving an upcoming Supreme Court decision.

What he has said only confirms why the new healthcare law had to be crafted in secret, behind closed doors, and without any Republican attendance or input.


References:

Jonathan Gruber (economist): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gruber_%28economist%29

Washington Post: Nancy Pelosi Lied About Not Knowing Jonathan Gruber: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/11/13/wapo-pelosi-lied-about-not-knowin-grber

White House: Jonathan Gruber Had Nothing to do With Obamacare, We Swear: http://spectator.org/blog/60970/white-house-jonathan-gruber-had-nothing-do-obamacare-we-swear

SMOKING GUN VIDEO: Jonathan Gruber Admitted Obama Was In the Room When Cadillac Tax Lie Was Created. UPDATE: WHITE HOUSE LOGS CONFIRM!: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/smoking-gun-video-jonathan-gruber-admitted-obama-was-in-the-room-when-cadillac-tax-lie-was-created/

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has billed federal and state governments at least $5.9 million for advice, as more videos surface showing him undercutting the landmark law: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2835384/Obamacare-architect-Jonathan-Gruber-billed-federal-state-governments-5-9-million-advice-videos-surface-showing-undercutting-landmark-law.html

Obamacare architect in 6th video: 'Mislabeling' helped us get rid of tax breaks: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/gruber-update-friday-white-house-obamacare/

King v. Burwell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Burwell

The Washington Post: Fox Poll: 81 percent of Americans believe that Obama lies to them at least “now and then” on “important matters: Obama's 'blizzard of lies': http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-blizzard-of-lies/2014/10/13/7acc3d22-52e4-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html

 Obamacare behind closed doors:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rvnfleVzyw

pb

The Selling Of ObamaCare: Exposing The Lies and Deception

Last year, ObamaCare and it's individual mandate were rolled out. As a result, (the President's lies that you could keep your doctor, and your insurance, and the average family would save $2500 a year) were clearly exposed.

In June 2010, the Obama Administration also made a quiet entry into the Federal Register, saying that it was projected that 93 million Americans would have their current insurance policies cancelled as a result of ObamaCare.  Yet, past that date, the President continued to claim you could keep your present doctor.

Then, this year, one of the architects, Ezekiel Emanuel, wrote a book titled: "Reinventing American Health Care: How the Affordable Care Act Will Improve Our Terribly Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System".  In it, he clearly states that the ObamaCare law will cause two-thirds of the current employer-offered insurance policies to just go away.  Apparently, from his words, this was intentional.  Thus, adding to the deception that "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance".

But, more than anything, the words of another ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber, tell of the deceit  used to get ObamaCare passed into law:

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish ... we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not."

Essentially, he is saying they intentionally deceived the CBO.  Further, he bragged about how they used the lack of transparency to fool the stupid American voters.

But, Gruber also said this about two years ago:

"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."

The reason that these words are important is because in court case after court case, the Justice Department has argued the it was never the intent not to provide subsidies to states who didn't set up their own exchanges.  Well, Gruber clearly shows that to be a lie.  Now, the Supreme Court will hear the "subsidies" argument and one has to wonder how much of their decision will be based on Gruber's comments.

When Nancy Pelosi said "we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what's in it", she clearly was admitting that the truth was being hidden from the American public.  After all, it was crafted behind closed doors with the exclusion of any Republicans.  Then, the near 3,000 page document was put to a vote before anyone could read it, let alone debate it.

If a corporation had lied this much to its customers, it would have been sued out of existence.  But, the Democrats lied to the American people and only a few have been punished by losing their seats in Congress.  As of  January 2014, there will still be 44 Democrats in the Senate and 184 in the House of Representatives who will not have been punished for the deception and lies of their party and their President leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

References:

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

Most Employers Will Drop Health Coverage: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Emanuel-employers-drop-health/2014/03/21/id/560906/

Jonathan Gruber recently said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency," and video footage of his remarks was deleted from the internet: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/gruber.asp

Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges (Updated With Another Admission): http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube

Video: Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what's in it:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

 

Obama's Weekly Address Gets Pinocchio'ed..But How Many Americans Knew It?

In this week's address, President Obama decided to hammer the Republicans over John Boehner's decision to sue him for the lawless actions of using executive orders to delay and change current laws without any Congressional involvement, approval, or legislative action.

In that address, there was a line that was almost exclusively reported by the national media. The President stated that:

"So far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked every serious idea to strengthen the middle class. Lifting the minimum wage, fair pay, student loan reform - they've said no to all of it..." 

So, as in the case of a CBS report and many others, most American's got the "news driven" notion that the President was speaking the truth when he blamed the Republican House for inaction; never once alluding to the fact that he was perhaps stretching the truth when he claimed that "every serious idea" was blocked.

However, one main stream media giant, the Washington Post, did take the time to admonish Obama by showing that many "helping-the-middle-class" laws were passed by the House and were either signed into law or left to languish in the Senate where Harry Reid selectively brought votes to the floor only when they gave political advantage to the Democrats. For Obama's lying, the Washington Post gave the President "3" big Pinocchios.

The problem is that this was only seen by those who took the time to read the Washington Post's online blog, or to watch Fox News to see the coverage of the "3 Pinocchio" story.  As a result, most Americans probably believe that the middle class is now worse off, thanks to the GOP.

The media is doing a disservice to this country by allowing Obama to lie in his weekly address and not publicly admonishing him for it.  The Boehner lawsuit is what is needed to, once again, allow us to,  maintain the division of powers and to stop the lawless actions of the President.  A fact that was so eloquently testified to by the eminent liberal law professor Jonathan Turley in a recent hearing before Congress.

References:

CBS:  Obama to GOP: Instead of suing me, "do something": http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-to-gop-instead-of-suing-me-do-something/

Obama’s claim that the GOP has ‘blocked every serious idea’: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/15/obamas-claim-that-the-gop-has-blocked-every-serious-idea/

Jonathan Turley: Congress ‘Must Act’ Against Obama’s Overreach Or Face ‘Self-Destruction’: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/16/jonathan-turley-congress-must-act-against-obamas-overreach-or-face-self-destruction/

How The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision Is Being Distorted By Media

In headline after headline, the Supreme Court decision, siding with Hobby Lobby, is being grossly distorted by calling it a decision against a woman's reproductive health; or, more generally: contraception.  This is a complete lie.

What is not being told, is the fact that Hobby Lobby and the other litigant, Conestoga, already provided insurance with contraceptive coverage for 16 of 20 methods of contraception that were mandated by ObamaCare; meeting the contraception needs of 95% of the women working at their companies. Their's was not an argument against providing contraception or, somehow, a kind of war against women's reproductive health.  What they did object to is having to be told by Obama and his Department of Health and Human Services that they have to provide therapeutic abortion drugs such as Plan B as part of their medical insurance plans.  This is the only and true basis of their religious objection.

I think one of the most distorted headlines about the Supreme Court decision was this from NBC: "Hobby Lobby Ruling: Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control."  It paints "employers", in a broad brush fashion, being able to deny birth control coverage. That is simply a lie.  The decision by the high court was limited to companies that are non-public owned and whose ownership is closely held by, for example, a family -- as was the case for Hobby Lobby.  All other employers must comply with the ObamaCare mandate to provide total contraceptive coverage; including abortive drugs.

The reality is that many, if not most employers had already provided some forms of contraception; and, they did so long before ObamaCare.  It is just good business in several ways.  Coverage of contraception is a recruiting tool that is able to attract good, qualified female employees; just as other benefits would.  Also, a pregnancy can be very costly to a company.  Under existing laws, women are entitled to maternity leave with their jobs held for them when they return.  As a result, companies must hire some form of temporary help to cover the loss of a woman on leave.  While some lower level jobs are easy to cover with temporary help, some higher level vacancies must be supplemented with extremely expensive consulting and contract labor.

Now, one last important note.  ObamaCare is designed to literally destroy the system of employer-based insurance in this country.  That's why the penalty for not providing it is so low; relative to the cost of providing insurance. So, the Hobby Lobby win is a moot point because, that company, like so many others, will probably elect to pay the ObamaCare employer mandate tax penalty and force their employees to buy their own insurance through the exchanges; assuming ObamaCare hasn't been repealed.  And, once an employee is in the exchange, all forms of contraception are covered; including those designed to be abortive.

References:

New Research Shows that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Provide the Contraceptive of Choice to Over 95% of Women it Ensures: http://reproductiveresearchaudit.com/new-research-shows-that-hobby-lobby-and-conestoga-provide-the-contraceptive-of-choice-to-over-95-of-women-it-ensures-only-330-women-likely-not-covered-for-abortion-causing-drugsdevices/

Hobby Lobby Ruling: Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control:  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hobby-lobby-ruling-employers-dont-have-cover-birth-control-n144321

Obamacare And The End Of Employer-Based Health Insurance:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/11/14/obamacare-and-the-end-of-employer-based-health-insurance/

Obamacare Architect Emanuel: Most Employers Will Drop Health Coverage: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Emanuel-employers-drop-health/2014/03/21/id/560906/

Hillary Clinton's Tall Tales, Fish Stories, and Outright Lies

In a 1996 opinion piece entitled 'Essay;Blizzard of Lies', the late-William Safire -- noted New York Times Columnist and frequent guest on NBC's Meet the Press -- set off a political firestorm by calling the then-First Lady, Hillary Clinton, a "congenital liar".   Safire -- being a surefooted journalist -- did not make that charge unsubstantiated.  Instead he looked back at the whole host of scandals that Hillary was implicated in -- Whitewater, Cattlegate, Filegate, Travelgate, the Vince Foster Death investigation, and the Madison Savings and Loan scandal --  and found that she was never charged with a single wrong-doing because, as Safire asserted, she lied.

And, his assertion, was and continues to be, well founded.

For example, in the Travelgate scandal -- the Whitehouse Travel Office was completely replaced with Hillary's crony Arkansas travel agents in a questionable claim that the current staff was corrupt -- the investigating counsel found that she lied but, as Wikipedia reports, they had "...insufficient evidence her statements were either knowingly false or that she understood that her statements led to the firings."

Then, in the case of Cattlegate,  where, after dabbling in both sugar and cattle futures for just over a year, she parlayed a mere $1000 investment into nearly $100,000.  In explaining her success, she first claimed to have "educated herself" and "watched the market closely." As any cattle futures trader knows, it would take years to understand cattle farming and how and when cattle are brought to market in order to be that successful.  This is why, under media pressure, Hillary gave a highly unusual and live news conference where she admitted that the $1000-to-$100,000 success was a result of her being counseled by Tyson Foods contract-lawyer and friend, James Blair, who simply made the trades in his own accounts on her behalf.  Further, even though her trades themselves were highly suspect and possibly illegal, the statute of limitations kept her from being prosecuted for anything.

Since, Safire's original contention, there has been some additional proof of Hillary's proclivity for lying.  Take this famous video where Hillary recounted landing in Bosnia and claimed to be "under fire" and how CBS clearly exposed this very "Tall Tale":

Then, of course, there's the big Benghazi lie where she still claims that the assault on our mission was due to an anti-Muslim video.  This despite dozens of testimonies by national security leadership personnel that completely discredit her position. 

So, it should be no surprise that, in a recent interview with Dianne Sawyer, Hillary lied about being totally "broke" when leaving the White House.  Nor should it be a surprise that she claimed to have had a short recovery time after a bad fall when in fact, her husband, Bill Clinton, said it took a difficult 6 months.

With that, I ask a simple question: Is this the type of person we want in the White House once the current occupier and liar leaves office?

References:

Bill Safire: Blizzard of Lies: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html

Whitewater Controversy/Scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy

Cattlegate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

Filegate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy

Travelgate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy

Madison Savings and Loan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Guaranty

Vince Foster Death Coverup:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Foster

 Hillary Clinton Took 6 Months to ‘Get Over’ Concussion, Bill Says of Timeline: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/hillary-clinton-took-6-months-to-get-over-concussion-bill-says-of-timeline/

Hillary's Claim Of Being Broke When Leaving the White House: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/06/hillarys-claim-of-being-broke-when.html

Naivete: 15% of America Still Thinks Obama Always Tells The Truth

In a shocking Fox poll result, only 15% of Americans thought that Obama was being truthful all of the time.

Personally, I'm shocked that there are even that many.  

Where were these people when the President received the "lie of the year" award for his "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" proclamation.  Here's his badge of honor for that one:

Surely, those 15% must have heard about it.  Even if they don't watch the news, it was the favorite punchline on too many comedy shows not to have been noticed. 

It just proves that, once again, polls can't be trusted. Obviously, Fox wants to curry favor with the Prez by under-reporting that only 85% of Americans think he's a liar; when we all know the number must be higher than that.  

References:

Poll: Most Believe Obama Lies: http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-most-americans-believe-obama-lies-on-important-issues/article/2547367

Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it': http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

Robert Reich: A 'Misinformation' Propagandist For ObamaCare

During the rise of the Third Reich, one person, Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, operated on a very simple principal: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

To me, there are many on the left that have been taken Goebbels words to heart with the constant spinning of all things about Obama and ObamaCare. But none are as prolific in the "spin" agenda than the former Clintonista, Robert Reich. Last Sunday was no exception with his latest New York Times piece titled: "It's Working Despite Misinformation".

The problem with this latest laughable "piece-of-whatever", is that he claims that "misinformation" is being used to slander the law and, thus, retard its success.  So, to counter that, he uses actual and very intentional "misinformation" to try and prove that ObamaCare is "working".  

Right off the bat he writes this:

 "After decades of rising percentages of Americans lacking health insurance, the uninsured rate has dropped to its lowest levels since 2008."

First of all, we're supposed to take his word for it that there has been decades of "rising percentages" because he provides no support for that supposed fact.  Well, here's the truth.  For almost two decades, the "percentage" of uninsured has hovered slightly above or below 15%:

But, you see he didn't want us to know that.  Instead he presents a link to this chart in support of his statement that the percentage of uninsured has dropped to the "lowest since 2008" and, which, in no way supports his previous statement about rising percentages:

To me, this chart just raises more questions than any support of his commentary; and, I think that's why he didn't embed it in his opinion piece. Instead, he made it a hypertext link with the assumption that his readers probably won't even look at it.  This way he gets away with his "lowest level since 2008" because, in fact, 15.9% is lower than the first quarter of 2009's 16.1%.  But, not by a whole hell of a lot and still almost a full percentage point higher the average of about 15% from 1990 to 2008.  Also, he fails to make note of the fact that we are still a full percentage point higher than the decades low of 14.4% that existed just before Obama took office.

Not once does he explain why the dramatic drop in uninsured in 2014 followed a record rise in 2013 from 16.3% to a history making 18%. The only explanation that I can think of is that people, because of ObamaCare, were losing their policies in the run up to its implementation on October 1, 2013.  This chart just tells me that, at the beginning of 2013, 16.3% or 15.7 million Americans were without insurance.  Today, a year later, 15.9% or 50.4 still have no insurance. That's only a net improvement of 300,000 uninsured.  Or, in other words, of the 5 million who have already signed up for ObamaCare, only 6% previously had no insurance and 4.7 million previously had insurance. Not hardly proof that "It's working".  All this chart is telling us is that ObamaCare is real good at forcing people to lose their private insurance and not so good at solving the uninsured problem in this country.

Then, too, Reich repeats an Obama claim that we are already seeing slower growth in health care costs thanks to ObamaCare.  This is a complete lie.  First of all, the slowing of costs started long before any part of ObamaCare went into effect in January of this year. Economists who have studied this have concluded that the slowing in health care expenditures are a direct result of the slow recovery from the recession and higher than normal numbers of uninsured and unemployed. In fact, Obama's own people at the Centers For Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS), just released another study in January that supports that very fact.

While I could go on and on in tearing up the rest of Reich's propaganda, I think I've made my point on his critical points of misinformation.  People like Reich spin by cherry picking and telling half-truths and, in many cases, complete lies in support of failed Democratic party policies.  They survive on the basis that they carry hefty professional and educational credentials and, as a result, most people won't fact check their claims.  In Reich's case, he relies heavily on his tenures at both Berkley and Harvard.  Therefore, how could anyone doubt the words of someone who had taught at these two prestigious institutions of higher learning?  Well, I do and so do many millions of Americans who have been hurt by ObamaCare!

One final comment. Reich liked his propaganda piece so much that he repeated it, word for word, in the Huffington Post Blog section with a different title: The Real Truth About Obamacare.  Remember part of what Goebbels said: "... and keep repeating it" and "people will eventually come to believe it."


References:

Joseph Geobbels: http://www.goebbels.info/goebbels-goebbels.htm 

Robert Reich: It’s Working Despite Misinformation: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/20/obamacares-four-year-checkup/the-affordable-care-act-is-working-despite-misinformation 

CMS: Recession Drove Lower Healthcare Spending: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/cms-report-recession-drove-lower-healthcare-spending.html/?a=viewall

The Real Truth About Obamacare: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/truth-about-obamacare_b_5020496.html

pb
 

Obama & Benghazi: When Your Too Busy Lying, Things Don't Add Up

Right after the Benghazi attack, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama apparently had such supposed clarity of "intelligence information" that they were able to declare that the attack was both spontaneous and a result of a mob protest over an anti-Muhammad YouTube video.  Now, just recently, we find out that CIA operatives on the ground in Benghazi asked for military assistance as the attack was developing.  Instead of providing that assistance, it was denied and, further, they were told to stand down; meaning that they were not even allowed to go to the consulate, just a mile away, and help those under attack.

Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, is now defending that inaction by saying that they didn't have a "clear enough picture" (you know, intelligence) to allow troops to be sent in to help.  So, apparently, they had enough immediate intelligence to blame the attack on the video but not enough to save our slain patriots; even though it is now known that they had a real-time video feed of the attack being streamed to the White House Situation Room.  Everything here is contradictory and my intelligence says cover-up.

--- Fox News: Exclusive: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

Can You Believe Bill Clinton's Speech Last Night?

Rush Limbaugh has said that Bill Clinton is the only politician he knows of that can lie to you, straight faced, and you don't mind being lied to.  Hence, his widely held nickname of  "Slick Willie". Certainly, much of what he said last night was just that.  And, how do I know this? In making his points, he used that same boney, word-by-word cadenced finger pointing that he used when saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."  This kind of scolding gesturing is his way of saying that "you'd better believe me" (even though I'm lying). Otherwise, when telling the truth or when making honest comments, he tends to express himself with open outstretched-hands or with a hands-on-chest gesture as if to pull the audience into what he's saying.

Oh, and by the way.  Don't expect the liberal media to fact-check anything Clinton said last night.  That's because he is their god, and, to fact check god would be akin to blasphemy.

The Big Stimulus Package Lie!

Over and over, you will hear from Democrats that the Stimulus has worked because, before it, we were losing over 700,000 jobs per month. Superficially, this is true.

Simply looking at the Bureau Of Labor and Statistics own tracking chart of the monthly job gains and losses over the last two years, one could easily, and falsely, come to that same conclusion:

First off, the chart clearly shows that job losses peaked in January of 2009 at a level of just under 800,000 additional unemployed. Then, following Obama taking Office and the passage of the Stimulus Package, the losses began to decline; just as the left keeps touting. In fact, by August, the job losses had been slashed by nearly 80% to a level that was a little over 200,000 newly unemployed for that month.

But was the abatement of job losses really due to the Stimulus? Not, hardly!

The left seems to conveniently forget that the first Stimulus moneys didn't even start to going out the door until August of 2009; and, for many government agencies, even later than that (Click here to See a Typical Story: August a Busy Month for DHS Stimulus Spending). Much of the delay in awarding contracts for job creation was due to the slow Washington D.C. bureaucracy wasting months trying to figure out what to do and what the rules would be. The joke at the time was that all those presumably shovel-ready jobs weren't quite ready for prime time. In addition, It took weeks to setup up procedures for the approval and distribution of funding for any projects under the Package. But, by the time the initial projects were finally approved, this nation's job losses had "naturally" slowed on their own as our economy was busily trying to heal itself without any stimulus moneys.

Then, too, in early 2010, the job's picture moved from negative to positive. But, this, too, wasn't due to the Stimulus. Instead, it was primarily due to the hiring of temporary census workers. Now, in this latest report for June -- the first report since the hiring of the census takers was over -- we are again seeing losses, and those losses will only grow larger as the exacerbating effect of the census layoffs takes hold. With that in mind, most economists think that the unemployment rate will again go above 10%.

The lies associated with the Stimulus Package's ability to create jobs "and" the gullibility of the American public to believe those lies is amazing to me. What's worse, we have a group of noted economists in this country who are touting the benefits of the Stimulus but, in doing so, completely ignore the real facts surrounding the actual payouts of stimulus money. This is a simple denial by a group of supposed experts who don't want to admit that their Keynesian/demand-side economic theory is all wet in any practical application. Then, too, their personal politics might be clouding their opinions.

Surely, if the Stimulus Package was truly successful, we'd be basking in job growth and we wouldn't be hearing the excuse that the Stimulus is working "but" it needs to be even bigger. Let's not forget that, originally, long before Obama got into office, his team of economic gurus thought that $120 billion would be adequate to kick start the economy (Click here to See Story: Obama unveils $120 billion stimulus plan). Later, once elected and in office, that number soared to $787 billion. Now, some of those same people who originally thought the $120 billion would be fine, seem to think another trillion dollars is needed to get the economy going again. What, then, after that second trillion dollars doesn't work? $3 trillion? $4 trillion? Just how much of our money are these people willing to piss away to keep justifying a flawed economic theory?

The trouble with lying is that you have to keep lying in order to cover up the truth that you were attempting to hide with the first lie. Generally speaking, numbers don't lie when they're kept in their proper context. However, all too often, people are willing to pluck numbers out of that context and lie about them in order to advance their own personal agendas and/or to cover up or hide their original lie. And, that, my friends, is where Obama and the Democrats are today regarding the impact of the Stimulus Program!

AP Contradicts Obama and Dems On Those Bad Health Insurance Companies

Back in August, I wrote a blog entry that was titled: "Those Bad Health Insurance Companies". In that entry, I showed that the top health care insurers in America had profits ranging from 2-1/2 percent to just under 5%. Then, I compared those profits to companies like Apple, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson; showing that their profits were at least double that of the health insurers. In fact, Johnson & Johnson's profits were almost 12 times higher than Humana's.

Now, the Associated Press has done their own study -- taking all the health insurers into account -- and their finding is that the industry, as a whole, barely makes a 6 percent profit in the good times and only 2.2% in the current recession (Click to See Full Story: "FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat").

I am glad to see that the Associated Press has taken a stand here and contradicted the lie that Obama and the Democrats keep pushing. We need more to come out and put a stop to all the distortions we are getting from the Democrats about ObamaCare.

The Many Distortions of Truth by Barack Obama

If you listen to Barack Obama, he claims that he only wants to talk about the issues and he is not able to because of all the personal attacks from John McCain. His latest TV ad calls McCain out for this and more or less calls him a liar.

Well, I think Mr. Obama should do some self analysis. He has been distorting McCain's positions and words since he clinched the nomination. It started with the constant hammering that John McCain would stay in Iraq for 100 years. That was a distortion because the context that John McCain made that statement was based on the fact that we would remain in Iraq (after hostilities) in much the same way that we have remained in Japan and Germany since World War II. Maybe, 100 years.

Obama's campaign slogan has been that John McCain is four more years of George Bush. This is an outright distortion. McCain has clearly been at odds with Bush on many "major" issues. He was against the tax cuts by Bush on the basis there were no corresponding spending cuts. He was against Bush and Rumsfeld on the war in Iraq because he always believed that it was being waged with too few U.S. troops. He was pushing the surge when Bush and many Republicans were against it. He sided with Ted Kennedy and against the Republicans and Bush on a defeated immigration bill. When Obama says that McCain has voted with Bush and the Republicans 95 percent of the time, he, like almost all Senators, had done the same. Democrats and Republicans, John McCain and Barrack Obama have consistently voted in agreement on the day-to-day resolutions that constantly pass through the Senate. Those resolutions do things like honor people or declare days honoring the World Series Champs or vote on making some month like May or June the national whatever month. That's what voting with Bush and the Republicans for 95% of the time actually means.

Obama has attacked McCain on his age. He has stretched a gaffe that McCain said, and immediately corrected, into a distortion that McCain doesn't know who we are fighting in Iraq because he doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. He has distorted McCain's not knowing how many homes he owns and for that reason says McCain is out of touch with average Americans. The reality is that John McCain actually doesn't own any homes. The homes he lives in are owned by his wife, various legal trusts, and by the corporate interests of his wife. It wasn't a simple answer for McCain to handle in a phone interview with a reporter.

Obama has distorted John McCain's exaggerated comment, and acknowledged by him to to be so, about a person being rich if they make $5 million a year. McCain made that comment to make a point; but, in typical Obama gotcha tactics, Barrack has painted that literary style of making a point into a fact. Most recently in another TV ad, Obama has claimed that McCain doesn't use a computer or send emails as if those were prerequisites for someone to be the President of the United States. The fact is that McCain doesn't use a computer or send emails because he is physically unable to do so; due to the beatings he sustained as POW. I think that someone who was a trained fighter pilot, flying in combat at close to twice the speed of sound, could handle a laptop computer. But, that's the Obama distortion machine!

On Obama's own policies and records, he is guilty of his own distortions. He claims that he will give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut. That would be fine if 95 percent of Americans paid taxes. Unfortunately, 40 percent of Americans aren't even eligible for taxes. He claims that people making less that $250,000 won't see a tax increase. That's wrong because he will uncap the current ceiling of $102,000 for FICA taxes so persons making between $102,000 and $250,000 will see a tax increase. Many seniors in this country rely heavily on interest, dividend, and capital gains to sustain them through their retirement years. He will raise the tax rates on all three of these sources of income and that will increase the tax rate for any senior who make less $250,000; probably any senior who is making more than social security pay as income.

Is McCain guilty of stretching the truth? Yes, he is. But, Obama would have you believe that McCain is the only one involved with this type of old-style politics. That, too, is another Obama distortion.