Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Posts Tagged ‘Liar’

Cruz’s latest “dirty trick:” telling South Carolina voters that Gowdy is now for Cruz!

Ted Cruz seems to be doing anything to win the South Carolina Primary, even making up endorsements. Trey Gowdy has long endorsed Marco Rubio, but Cruz supporters are spreading propaganda that Trey has switched to Cruz.
Congressman Gowdy, is, understandably outraged.
Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina congressman who supports Marco Rubio, called for Ted Cruz to repudiate the most recent bit of “underhanded tactics” ahead of the South Carolina primary.
“In the last week, we have seen a systematic effort by Sen. Cruz and his allies to spread false information and outright lies in the hopes of winning votes by appealing to our lowest common denominator,” Gowdy said. “Now, Its been reported that a fake Facebook page has been used to fool South Carolinians into thinking that I no longer support Marco Rubio and that I’m instead supporting Ted Cruz.
“Nothing could be further from the truth and I’m demanding that Sen. Cruz and his campaign repudiate these dishonest and underhanded tactics,” Gowdy continued. “We can have a debate about the future of our party and our country. But we need not leave our integrity behind.”
In the Facebook post at hand by a page titled “Trey Gowdy Prayers,”it says that the most recent debate “revealed [Rubio’s] total lack of integrity, intillect and foresight,” before switching the faux endorsement to Cruz.

Untitled-43z,

LIAR, LIAR… PANTSUIT ON FIRE: Here’s A List Of Hillary’s Whoppers From The #DemDebate

Screen-Shot-2015-10-14-at-7.31.54-PM
Cackle, Cackle, Cackle

Tuesday night’s debate featured a master class on lying from the lying liar who lies about her lies, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

She spoke for approximately 24 minutes, and aside from her opening statement – “I’m Hillary Clinton” – virtually every word that exited her mouth was untrue. But because Hillary appeared to be lady with mild socialist depression in a full-blown socialist insane asylum, nobody laid a glove on her.

Thus it is left to us to debunk her various obfuscations and untruths. Here we go.

“I have spent a very long time – my entire adult life – looking for ways…to find the ways for each child to live up to his or her God-given potential.” Well, unless you’re an unborn child. Then, get ready for a trip down the sink.

“Yes, finally, fathers will be able to say to their daughters, you, too, can grow up to be president.” Technically, you’ll have to marry a president first, however.

“Actually, I have been very consistent.” Anderson Cooper asked Hillary about her shifting positions on issues ranging from the Iraq war to same-sex marriage to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She then dropped that whopper. Hillary has been one of the least consistent major party candidates in American history. She then dropped a series of lies about her own positional changes. And then she finally concluded that she had a “range of views, but they are rooted in my values and my experience.” Those values are “becoming president” and her experience is “reading the polls.”

“I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards.” This is plainly untrue. Here’s what she said in 2012 about the TPP: “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.” She didn’t hope it would be the gold standard. It was the gold standard. Naturally, PolitiFact labeled this statement “half-true.” That means it’s a huge, glaring lie.

“I’m a progressive. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done…how to find common ground, and I have proved that in every position that I’ve had, even dealing with Republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly.” Nope. As Senator from New York, Hillary accomplished virtually nothing. Her name was attached to exactly zero legislation. Her only major impact on policy came in the form of Hillarycare, which drove Republicans to massive electoral victory in 1994.

“When I think about capitalism, I think about all the small businesses that were started…” The media drooled over the exchange between Hillary and Bernie over capitalism. But there is no distinction between the economic philosophy of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)16%
and that of Hillary Clinton. She said she wanted to use government to force companies to “share profits with the workers” – a line straight from the Marxist playbook. She said she wanted the wealthy to “pay their fair share” – which meant everything. She said she wanted paid family leave, universal college tuition availability, and a bevy of other free goodies. As I tweeted before the debate, her competition with Bernie Sanders looked like this:

Hillary: Free health care! Sanders: Free college! Hillary: Free abortions! Sanders: Free EVERYTHING! Hillary: FREE EVERYTHING INFINITY!

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) October 13, 2015

“It was pretty straightforward to me that [Sanders] was going to give immunity to the only industry in America. Everybody else has to be accountable, but not the gun manufacturers.” There is no special immunity for gun manufacturers. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 was designed to prevent ultra-leftist jurisdictions from twisting tort law to make gun manufacturers liable for “public nuisance” in the way that manufacturers are liable for their pollution. The law does not stop lawsuits against manufacturers or dealers from being sued if they knowingly sell a product to a criminal. They can still be sued for design flaws, or negligence.

“Well first of all, we got a lot of business done with the Russians when Medvedev was the president, and not Putin….There’s no doubt that when Putin came back in and said he was going to be President, that did change the relationship.” Nonsense. Putin was always the leader of Russia, even when Medvedev was his puppet. Hillary knew Putin ran the country when Medvedev was president; Medvedev, for example, was president when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Hillary handed the Russians a reset button anyway. Hillary also advocated for taking on Bashar Assad – the same man she once called a “reformer.”

“I think while you’re talking about the tough decision that President Obama had to make about Osama bin Laden, where I was one of his few advisers, or putting together that coalition to impose sanctions on Iran…” Glomming onto the kill of Osama Bin Laden in order to explain her vote for the Iraq war was simply nonsensical. But the idea that she “put together the coalition to impose sanctions on Iran” is simply untrue. International sanctions against Iran have been on the books for decades. And Hillary was integrally involved in negotiating the end of those sanctions, as well as letting Iran enrich uranium.

“We had a murderous dictator, Gadhafi, who had American blood on his hands, as I’m sure you remember, threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people… Our response, which I think was smart power at its best, is that the United States will not lead this.” Hillary reportedly manufactured the Libyan genocide story out of wholecloth, and overrode US intelligence in order to push that narrative. If Libya was “smart power at its best,” it would be incredible to find out what “smart power at its worst” would be (well, other than Syria, Ukraine, Iran…). Libya became a haven for terrorists because we deposed a dictator who posed no threat to us. The notion that Iraq was a disaster area of American foreign policy but Libya is a great success story is patently insane. Hillary’s lies about Libya didn’t end there.

“I’ll get to that.” Hillary said this with regard to Benghazi. She never did, of course. Her response mirrored her response in Benghazi, by the way: “I’ll get back to that,” she said to our Libyan staff, then proceeded to do nothing.

“The Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951. And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy.” It would be important to remember that the Libyan government is currently operating with no control of the country, and is effectively a government-in-exile.

“I think it has to be continued threat from the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear material that can fall into the wrong hands. I know the terrorists are constantly seeking it, and that’s why we have to stay vigilant, but also united around the world to prevent that.” Hillary said the spread of nuclear weapons represented the chief threat to the United States. She also negotiated the Iran nuclear deal. The statement that people around the world are united to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is a plain lie, given the acceptance of the Iran deal, which makes Iranian nuclear development inevitable.

“Well, I’ve taken responsibility for it. I did say it was a mistake. What I did was allowed by the State Department, but it wasn’t the best choice. And I have been as transparent as I know to be, turning over 55,000 pages of my e-mails, asking that they be made public. And you’re right. I am going to be testifying. I’ve been asking to testify for some time and to do it in public, which was not originally agreed to.” Lies, lies, and more lies. She did not take responsibility for her email scandal any more than she took responsibility for Benghazi: she said she “took responsibility” but never admitted to having done anything wrong. Her email scheme was not allowed by federal law, but she was the head of the State Department and thus waived rules for herself. She may have been as transparent as she knows how to be, but that transparency involved setting up a private server, loading it with classified information, and then deleting some 30,000 emails. She only asked to testify after Congress demanded she testify. Fortunately, none of this mattered, since Bernie Sanders intervened to hand her his testicles in a jar by saying nobody cared about her emails.

“I want to make sure every single person in this country has the same opportunities that he and I have had, to make the most of their God-given potential and to have the chances that they should have in America for a good education, good job training, and then good jobs.” Not everyone can marry the president of the United States.

“This inequality challenge we face, we have faced it at other points. It’s absolutely right. It hasn’t been this bad since the 1920s. But if you look at the Republicans versus the Democrats when it comes to economic policy, there is no comparison. The economy does better when you have a Democrat in the White House and that’s why we need to have a Democrat in the White House in January 2017.” If Democrats are so great at economics, why is inequality as bad as it has been in a century? And saying that Democratic presidents preside over good economies seems to neglect the fact that Bill Clinton, for example, presided over a Republican Congress.

“We have to deal with the problem that the banks are still too big to fail. We can never let the American taxpayer and middle class families ever have to bail out the kind of speculative behavior that we saw.” In this debate, Hillary Clinton also backed Dodd-Frank, which legally enshrines too big to fail. Bailouts are now mandated by federal law, thanks to Hillary Clinton and Democrats. And Democratic policy loves bailouts – they are huge fans of crony capitalism, endless bailouts through stimulus packages and taxpayer giveaways.

“I represented Wall Street, as a senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 — before the big crash that we had — and I basically said, ‘Cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors.’” This is idiocy. Hillary did do this, but saying that Wall Street was engaging in risky behavior, and that therefore they should have give more loans to risky home buyers and stop foreclosing on bad buyers – well, that’s just dumb. Those practices led to the crisis in the first place.

“I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone.” True, actually. But brutally stupid nonetheless. She also said she would not take a position on pot legalization. No shock there.

“I have been on the forefront of dealing with climate change, starting in 2009, when President Obama and I crashed (ph) a meeting with the Chinese and got them to sign up to the first international agreement to combat climate change that they’d ever joined.” The Copenhagen Summit in 2009 was an international fiasco for the United States. As Michael Bastasch notes, “the summit quickly fell apart and no legally-binding agreement was signed. The summit was widely regarded as a failure, and even Obama was disappointed in the results.” The United States ended up signing onto a non-binding agreement that pledged $100 billion in funding to impoverished countries.

“My plan would enable anyone to go to a public college or university tuition free.” College is not free. Somebody pays for it. Who? As always, the wealthy.

“I think that it was necessary to make sure that we were able after 9/11 to put in place the security that we needed. And it is true that it did require that there be a process. What happened, however, is that the Bush administration began to chip away at that process. And I began to speak out about their use of warrantless surveillance and the other behavior that they engaged in.” Hillary Clinton voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2006. And Hillary’s supposed leadership against Bush-era abuses of the Patriot Act didn’t stop President Obama from expanding the use of surveillance far beyond what Bush ever did.

“Well, I can’t think of anything more of an outsider than electing the first woman president, but I’m not just running because I would be the first woman president….Well, I would not ask anyone to vote for me based on my last name.” False and false.

“California has had a paid leave program for a number of years….And it has not had the ill effects that the Republicans are always saying it will have.” California uses employee payroll taxes to finance paid family leave. That means all the costs of the program are hidden, rather than explicit. Businesses leave California and employment declines because of its high tax rates. Businesses hire fewer women if forced to pay higher taxes in order to do so.

“They don’t mind having big government to interfere with a woman’s right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood. They’re fine with big government when it comes to that. I’m sick of it.” Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood. That’s not big government. That’s small government. Further, it’s not “big government” to protect human life through force of law any more than it is “big government” to have murder laws on the books.

“I know we can afford it, because we’re going to make the wealthy pay for it. That is the way to get it done.” This myth, repeated ad nauseum by Democrats, is truly reprehensible. Rich people cannot pay for all the utopian programs proposed by the left. As John Stossel points out, “If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion.” Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton worshipped at the altar of Denmark last night, but Denmark has lower corporate tax rates than the United States, and far higher taxes on the middle class. You pay a 200 percent tax on cars in Denmark — everyone. Socialism isn’t built on the backs of the rich. It’s built on the backs of everyone who earns, and that includes the middle class.

“Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians.” The Iranians are not Hillary’s enemies. They love her.

Hillary’s a liar. But Democrats don’t care, because liars prosper in a world where hard work and honesty are punished in the name of equality and the Great Socialist Utopia.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Is He Lying Again?

If You Like Your Head, You Can Keep Your Head

Obama’s False ‘7 Million’ Obamacare Claim Earns Dubious Four Pinocchios From Washington Post

by Ben BullardFourPinocchios072

HOW MANY LIES CAN WE PUT UP WITH
President Barack Obama told an assemblage of Democratic governors last week that, thanks to Obamacare’s mandatory Medicaid expansion in States that match the Federal government’s health care subsidy, “We’ve got close to seven million Americans who have access to health care for the first time.”
It’s nowhere close to being true. Even Obama Administration apologist The Washington Post couldn’t find a grain of truth in the statement.
The newspaper’s Fact Checker feature targeted the President’s boast today, noting that debunking the Administration’s frequent lies about Obamacare’s success “is like playing whack-a-mole. Every time we rap someone for getting it wrong, the same problem pops up someplace else. But here is the ultimate authority — the president of the United States — making the problematic claim that everyone counted under the administration’s Medicaid math is getting ‘access to health care for the first time.’”
What is true is that there’s no way to know right now how many people have access to health care “for the first time” because of the Medicaid expansion – but it’s certainly lower than 7 million. That’s because Obama included in his boast new Medicaid enrollees not only from the Medicaid-expanding Obamacare States, but also in the 21 States that have rejected the plan. Whoever enrolled in Medicaid in States like Florida and Texas would have enrolled in it anyway since last October. Obamacare simply doesn’t have any effect on Medicaid eligibility in States that aren’t participating in Obamacare.
Of those enrollees who do live in States that embraced Obamacare, many of the claimed 7 million were already on Medicaid last year – they just renewed their coverage and got counted in Obama’s imaginary 7 million figure. Obama likely used an even less rigid standard: the CBO’s estimate of people who were simply eligible for continued Medicaid coverage in 2014.
The Post’s various sources peg the tally of people who are getting (free) insurance for the first time because of Obamacare somewhere between 1.1 million and 2.6 million.
“In any case, no matter how you slice it, it does not add up to 7 million,” the Fact Checker states. “It is dismaying that given all of the attention to this issue, the president apparently does not realize that the administration’s data are woefully inadequate for boastful assertions of this type.”
What a great observation: the President doesn’t realize that his data is too transparently false to be useful as a bolster for his own lies. And for that – and not for actually lying – does the Post question his judgment.

WASHINGTON POST Gives 3 Pinocchios to Medicaid-enrollment claim … and itself

by Ed MorrisseyThree Pin
ObamaCare rolled out in October. In the following two months, 3.9 million people enrolled in Medicaid. How connected are those two facts? The White House, its allies, and some in the media want people to assume a direct causation — and initially, Washington Post factchecker Glenn Kessler did just that. Kessler used the figure to combine up with the 2.1 million who have signed up for ObamaCare to say that Republican claims that more people have lost insurance than gained it were faulty.

Yesterday, however, Kessler began to have second thoughts, based on Sean Trende’s analysis from earlier this month:

The 4 million new beneficiaries seems to be taking on near-canonical status, even being used by the fact checkers at the Washington Post for evaluating GOP claims.

This is odd, because after looking carefully at the numbers cited, the Medicaid figures are the weakest of the bunch. It’s a virtual certainty that the number of enrollments attributable to Obamacare is an order of magnitude less than the 4 million sign-ups implied, and the number of people [on Medicaid] who would actually lose their insurance if Obamacare were repealed is probably around 200,000 to 300,000.

The problem is identified in this Ezra Klein column (emphasis mine):

“Meanwhile, in October and November alone, more than 4 million people signed up for Medicaid coverage. This number will be much higher when December’s totals are released. It’s hard to say exactly how many of those Medicaid enrollments Obamacare is responsible for – the government’s numbers don’t distinguish between people who signed up through Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and those who entered the program through pre-existing channels. But the fact remains that Medicaid enrolled well over twice as many people as signed up for private insurance through the exchanges.”

(Note: Klein has just published more to this effect.)

This is really important stuff. The statistics tell us how many people signed up for Medicaid, period, in October and November. The problem is that people are always signing up for Medicaid. Even without the ACA, we would have had people signing up in October and November. Lots of them, in fact: Medicaid is a program that services 60 million citizens, so the number of monthly enrollments that keep a relatively stable population is pretty substantial.
In other words, the numbers fail to account for the normal enrollment flow. The question at hand isn’t whether people can sign up for Medicaid at all; it’s the number who would have not otherwise enrolled signed up because of ObamaCare and its expansion of Medicaid. In that sense, the statistics look more like mere correlation:

The above chart tells us that 1.7 million people were determined eligible for Medicaid in November of this year alone. The charts at the end tell us that 780,000 of these enrollees were in states that have undertaken the Obamacare expansion, while 960,000 of them were in states that have not done so.

So, of the November enrollees, 55 percent are in states where the Obamacare expansion of coverage didn’t occur and the ACA is therefore very unlikely to be directly responsible for their coverage. If we look at the October numbers, a little less than half (49.82 percent) were in states that didn’t expand coverage. Therefore, in total, of the 3.9 million individuals newly covered by Medicaid in October or November, only about 1.9 million are from states that expanded Medicaid.**

The next question is: How many of these 1.9 million are eligible directly because of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, and how many were just “normal” Medicaid enrollees? As Klein notes, we’d love to have October and November data on enrollment from last year, but unfortunately we don’t.
Kessler issued himself 3 Pinocchios for using this data unquestioningly, and to everyone else who did as well:

Essentially, then, it is ridiculous to suggest, as the @BarackObama tweet does, that the people who have selected a health plan in the exchanges are in anyway equivalent to the 3.9 to 4.2 million who were deemed eligible for Medicaid.

Soon, CMS will release the Medicaid numbers for December. Presumably the new numbers will reveal as little about the impact of the Affordable Care Act as the 3.9 million figure. Reporters need to be very careful about using the new figure in any sentence that includes a reference to the new health-care law.

We’re awarding Three Pinocchios to everyone, including The Fact Checker, who improperly used this number or left the wrong impression about it.
However, there is one more point which Kessler misses. The 2.1 million number for non-Medicaid ObamaCare enrollments which he uses for the other end of his equation is also highly questionable. Those are sign-ups within the exchanges and not confirmed enrollments. As testimony yesterday made clear, the Obama administration actually has no idea how many enrollments have actually taken place — where the insurance company has the correct data, has issued the policy, and where the consumer has paid the premium. The government is supposed to know this, but they haven’t built the back-end systems to track that yet.

What we do know is that between five and six million people lost their health insurance plans in 2013, thanks to the ObamaCare mandates. And what these figures and their context strongly indicate is that we are still far from the break-even point for the lost coverage.

Obama Is A Sad, Deluded Liar Who Needs To Go

You have to give Obama credit for one thing, he is a great liar. He has taken the previous liberal lair high water mark of “I don’t know that woman, Miss Lewinsky” to levels unimagined heretofore.

He has spent the last 2.5 years repeating his mantra of “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan” so often and at so many public events that one would imagine misquoting him on this would be nigh to impossible. Yet, today he looked calmly into the cameras, opened his mouth, said a silent prayer to his god, and attempted a lie of such magnitude that even his own press secretary said “I give up.”

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — President Barack Obama altered his health care promise on Monday evening in a speech to about 200 of his campaign supporters and health care activists, claiming “what we said was” you can keep your health care plan “if it hasn’t changed since the law’s passed.”
liar-obama-obamacare-e1383620711737
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” John 8:44

Obama regularly promised that Americans could keep their heath care plans under Obamacare, many times emphasizing the point with a “period.” However, he never included the very important “if” that he added on Monday.

The president also sympathy for Americans who are getting kicked off their health insurance plans, but says they were often getting “a very bad deal.”

Obama says his health care plan is making the insurance market better for everyone, even though millions of Americans who buy individual plans have been receiving cancellation notices.

Obama said he knows cancellation notices “can be scary for people.” But he says virtually every insurer is offering newer, better plans.

He acknowledged that technical problems with the health care website to shop for insurance are making it tougher for people to find other plans. He says he’s “not happy about it,” but promised, quote, “We’re going to smooth this thing out.” source -Blaze

Would You Believe This Guy?

Keep-Freedom-590-LI

SOROS THINKS THAT WE ARE REALLY DUMB -IRS Commissioner #1 Cabinet Visitor to White House and Obama Knew Nothing

BY Dave JollyEaster

President Barack Obama has claimed that he knew nothing about the IRS scandal involving the targeting of tea party and other conservative groups. In fact, he claims to have known nothing about Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the DOJ scandal involving AP reporters. I haven’t heard him say anything about the EPA targeting of conservative groups, but I’m sure he’d say he nothing about it either. It seems that Obama is the greatest know-nothing president we’ve ever had.

The more information that comes out concerning the IRS scandal, I don’t see how Obama didn’t know about the targeting and I’m convinced that he knew it months before the 2012 elections.
According to publicly released records, IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House more than any other member of Obama’s Cabinet. In hearings before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, it was made known that 118 of Shulman’s 157 White House visits were made during the period that IRS agents were intentionally targeting tea party and conservatives. In fact, he visited the White House more times than the combined visits of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

The number of White House visits released to public records are as follows:
IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman – 157
Acting Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank – 86
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez – 83
Nominee for Secretary of Commerce Penny Prtizker – 76
Attorney General Eric Holder – 62
Secretary of State John Kerry – 49
Former Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner – 48
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – 43
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano – 34
Secretary of the Department of Education Arne Duncan – 31
Former Secretary of the Department of Energy Steven Chu – 22
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates – 17
When asked in the committee hearings, Shulman came up with a whole list of reasons why he visited the White House so often, including attending the Easter Egg Roll with his kids. Listening to his excuses was like listening to a kid who got caught taking cookies from the cookie jar, but gave mom 20 different excuses rather than admitting his infraction.
Shulman knew about the illegal targeting at least 5 months before the November election and made over 100 White House visits during the times the targeting was occurring. Now we are supposed to believe that Obama knew nothing about the scandal until just recently? This is why the American people have no respect or trust in our government leaders, especially in Obama, our Liar in Chief!

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/11060/irs-commissioner-1-cabinet-visitor-to-white-house-and-obama-knew-nothing/#ixzz2V3k38H9x

Senator Jeff Sessions Catches Democrats in Massive Lie

Liar, Liarr, Liar, Pants on FireI. F. Stone said: “All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.” Sometimes, simple words are all we need to define our lives. With everything around us layered with so much complexity, it is often the elegance of simplicity that cuts to the base of who we are. That quote, by Stone, simply and perfectly captures our government—more specifically, the Democrats.

The Democrats are constantly braying about fiscal responsibility; paying our deficits, and balancing the budget; but their actual intentions could not be farther from the truth. In fact, they lie. Whether or not that lying is intentional or just part of their essence as a human bei–politician–is up for debate. Either way, a lie is a lie.

For four years, we have waited with baited breath for the Democrats in the Senate to offer up a budget; and now that they have, I almost wish they hadn’t. Their budget is as absurd as Joe Biden’s…well, anything that Joe Biden does. Their budget proposes tax hikes of $1.5 trillion dollars, and balloons our deficit to an astounding size.

In case you don’t believe that the Democrats have cornered the market on talking about fiscal responsibility; courtesy of Powerline Blog, here are several quotes for your perusal and enjoyment:

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH): “Before I ask for your vote, I owe it to you to tell you where I stand. I’m for…a balanced budget amendment.”

Senator Mark Begich (D-AK): “It’s time to stop playing political brinksmanship with the budget and do what every Alaskan is doing – balance the budget.”

Senator Mark Udall (D-CO): “I’ve long gone by the saying, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. By restoring healthy and responsible spending through a reasonable Balanced Budget Amendment, we can begin filling in that hole.”

And, a quote from President Obama himself from July 2008:

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

With all of the hot air coming out of Washington Democrats about fiscal responsibility, you’d think that given the option, they would jump at the chance to balance the budget. Well, not so much.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, in a movement on the floor, offered this to the Democrats:

“Mr. Sessions moves to commit S. Con. Res. 8 back to the Committee on the Budget with instructions to report back no later than March 22, 2013 with such changes as may be necessary to achieve unified budget balance by fiscal year 2023.”

This offer was a blank check, designed to give the Democrats free reign to do whatever they wanted to balance the budget. They could even have raised taxes in any way they saw fit, so long as the budget came out balanced. The Democrats–as I suspect Sessions expected–voted against this movement. Every Democrat, aside from one, voted against Sessions’ budget movement.

Given the popularity of balancing the budget, you’d think that a chance to take a crack at it with no limitations would give Democrats fits of joy. According to Hot Air, a recent poll

“…showed that 45 percent of Democratic voters think ‘balancing … the federal budget would significantly increase economic growth and create millions of American jobs.’ A sky-high 61 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans agree.”

Predictably though, the Democrats fell right into Senator Sessions’ trap. He–as well as anyone who has brain cells–knows that the Democrats have absolutely no intention of keeping a balanced budget, reducing spending, or lowering taxes on the middle class. They love to lie.

Democrats and the media have frequently called Republicans the “Party of NO,” but it seems that Democrats are the ones saying no. They were offered a golden opportunity to show just how fiscally responsible they are, and they rejected it. How strange. How odd.

This clever gambit made by Senator Sessions was brilliantly designed to reveal just who the Democrats truly are: liars. Never in recent memory has a Republican pulled something like this on the Democrats. Good on Jeff Sessions for artfully revealing what lies beneath the Democrats’ facade.

Breaking News! President Obama Was Born In 1890, Well The Person Who Originally Owned His Social Security Number Was

By: Skook

President Obama may have a more serious problem for reelection in Ohio than Mitt Romney. A 70 something private investigator has her ducks all in a row and it looks impressive.

Susan Daniels, filed suit on July 2 in the Geauga County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court demanding Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State, remove President Obama’s name from the ballot until the president can prove the legitimacy of his Social Security Number.

Daniels has run thousands of SSNs for former clients; she knows her business and has documented every detail. She insists:

Barack Obama has repeatedly, consistently, and with intent misrepresented himself by using a fraudulently obtained Social Security Number.

Daniels has become a valid write-candidate for president, thus she is eligible to make the challenge, according to Ohio Law.

Ms Daniels began her investigation in August of 2009. She has accessed a variety of proprietary databases, because of her Private Investigator’s licensure.

It is public knowledge the 042 prefix on a SSN designates the state of Connecticut for registery. President Obama has been using a 042 SSN since 1986. Ms Daniels ran ten sequential numbers in alignment with the president’s number and found they were all issued between 1977 and 1979 in CT. The numbers flanking the president’s SSN indicate the President’s number was issued during March of 1977.

In March of 1977, President Obama was 15-years old and living in Hawaii. There is no record of the President ever visiting Connecticut during this period of his life. To qualify for a SSN, an applicant must show up for a “mandatory in-person interview.” The president’s sister, Maya, has a legitimate Hawaii SSN, issued from the state of Hawaii.

From the database of the Massachusetts Department of Motor Vehicles, Ms Daniels discerned the president used the same SSN to obtain a driver’s license, while attending college and has used the same number for filing taxes for 2009.
During the research, Daniels kept coming into a “marked anomaly,” multiple birthdates for the same person. The 08/04/1961 and 04/08/1961 was reasonable, but the frequent appearance of the year 1890 seemed suspicious.

Daniels feels the anomaly arises from the fact that the president’s SSN was originally issued in March of 1977 to a person born in 1890.

This assertion can be verified; the Social Security Administration maintains on microfilm a copy of all original SS-5 applications and their appropriate numbers. Daniels has been denied access to those records.

Consequently, Daniels filed suit:

“Defendant Husted, through this filing,” she argues, “has been made aware that the Democratic Candidate has been using a fraudulent Social Security Number, which would render Barack Obama ineligible under both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions.”

She has asked the court to issue an injunction to prevent President Obama’s appearing on the ballot, until it is determined he is using a legitimate SSN.

Judging from the response of other courts, it is unlikely Daniels will receive justice for her efforts in Geauga County or from the Republican Secretary of State, but she has established a legitimate paper trail, a matter of record that will be hard for even the Conservative media with RINO sympathies to ignore.

The MSM or the president’s propaganda bureau cannot be expected to acknowledge the research; since it so far beyond their job description, but the research has been done and it raises the legitimate question, “Who is this man and why is he an enigma?”

The questions will never go away, until they are answered. They only cause Americans to lose faith in the system and the politicians and bureaucrats running the system.
Source

SEO Powered By SEOPressor