Posts Tagged ‘Lies’

Arianna Huffington: Nobody Believes Obama’s Jobs Rhetoric Anymore

Posted by the Right ScoopArianna Huffington: Nobody believes Obama’s jobs rhetoric anymore

Posted by The Right Scoop on August 4th, 2011 in Politics | 46 Comments

The reality of a bad economic situation is beginning to set in on the left and some of the more honest lefties are now admitting that there isn’t a hopeful outlook for Obama’s re-election. I’ve included the entire interview of Arianna Huffington with LarryO because of not only the way she trashes Obama and his renewed focus on jobs, but also the way that she talks about how disenfranchised people on the left feel with this debt deal. She even goes as far as saying that Obama needs ‘intense therapy’ so that he can explain to himself why he agreed to such a debt deal. Just the way she characterized it surprised me because it’s not even over yet. We’ve only been through one phase of the deal and I can assure you that the left will push hard for tax increases the next go round as they hold the defense cuts hostage.

But then she starts talking about Obama’s recent pivot toward jobs again. Arianna says that she went back and counted the number of times Obama said he was focused on jobs and apparently it’s so many times that she says no one believes him anymore. She points out that Obama is very focused on campaigning for 2012, and while she agrees that’s an important goal, she says the only number that people will care about in 2012 is the unemployment rate and that there are no prospects for it going below 9%.

What’s funny to me is that the premise that began the interview was that LarryO was trying to find a way to convey hope about economic conditions that are less than hopeful, to help the President as much as they possibly could, and yet it’s their hopelessness that made me feel more hopeful.

Watch the whole interview. It’s not as difficult as it normally would be:

7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes



As the GOP primaries heat up, and the 2012 election quickly approaches, the Obama reelection campaign has reportedly decided to focus all of its attention on the economy. Perhaps three years of being hammered by Republicans for poor job growth and high unemployment prompted this supposed change of focus.

“We’re seeing continuing high levels of unemployment. We see home values declining; foreclosures remain at record levels,” said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, concluding that Obama “has failed in the job he was elected to do.” And Romney’s not the only high-profile GOP candidate to attack President Obama on the economy. All of them have.

Therefore, because the Obama administration would like to see a repeat of the 2008 election, don’t expect to see feel-good messages like “Hope and Change.” Get ready for the dawn of “Fair Shot.”

As Christi Parsons and David Lauter of McClatchy-Tribune News Service point out, the Obama administration, up until this point, has relied mostly on the “It Could Be Worse” tactic while defending its economic initiatives. However, for all the obvious reason, strategists in the Obama camp don’t think this message will go far with the average American. They decided they needed something more proactive and endearing to voters.

So, what’s the new campaign theme? Parsons and Lautner report:

…increasingly, Obama and his aides have switched to a longer view, trying to focus attention on what they portray as the president’s defense of the middle class…The theme of giving the middle class a “fair shot” potentially works against whoever survives the demolition derby among the Republican hopefuls…The “fair shot” theme also provides a more positive message than previous Obama formulations, which some analysts saw as harder-edged attacks on the wealthy [Editor’s note: admittedly, “fair shot” has a nicer ring to it than “punish our enemies“].

It’s about “defending the middle class” and giving them a “fair shot.”

“This isn’t just about recovering from this recession,” said a senior adviser to Obama, “This is about saving the middle class from a decline that’s been going on for three decades.”

The president’s “Teddy Roosevelt” speech at Osawatomie, KS., earlier this year marked the beginning of his “Defenders of the Middle Class” campaign strategy. You can expect to hear a lot more of this type of rhetoric, especially during his upcoming State of the Union address.

“It’s a much stronger position than where he was before,” said Democratic pollster StanleyGreenberg. Talking about the “state of the middle class” connects with voters in a way that discussing the “state of the recovery” doesn’t, he said.

Not surprisingly, some analysts have labeled this new strategy as “class warfare” and have accused the president of continuing to “duck the nation’s problem of creating jobs.” But despite these criticisms, “Defenders of the Middle Class” is the theme the campaign has settled on and they’re going to stick to it.

“Obama set the stage for the new approach this fall as he told friends that he felt a need to deliver a speech that would look at the nation’s economic troubles from a ‘higher altitude,’” reports Parsons and Lautner.

Democratic strategists believe that there are two benefits to this new campaign theme. First, they believe there is a large audience (Occupy Wherever) that will take an instant liking to the message. Second, they believe ”Republicans have played into their argument by first backing tax cuts for the wealthy and then balking at a payroll tax cut aimed at the middle class,” writes Parsons and Lautner.

“The social Darwinism, the trickle-down economics – these are just not working for this country,” said David Axelrod. “The president’s vision was a very distinct vision from what the Republicans are offering.”

The Expanding Catalogue of Obamacare Fables

Written on July 16, 2011 by Michelle Malkin
Is there a health insurance horror story disseminated by the White House and its allies that ever turned out to be true? Obamacare advocates have exercised more artistic license than a convention of Photoshoppers. Now, a prominent sob story shilled by President Obama himself about his own mother is in doubt. It’s high past time to call their bluffs.

The tall-tale-teller-in-chief cited mom Stanley Ann Dunham’s deathbed fight with her insurer several times over the years to support his successful push to ban pre-existing condition exclusions by insurers. In a typical recounting, Obama shared his personalized trauma during a 2008 debate: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

But there was something fundamentally wrong with Obama’s story. In a recently published biography of Obama’s mother, author and New York Times reporter Janny Scott discovered that Dunham’s health insurer had in fact reimbursed her medical expenses with nary an objection. The actual coverage dispute centered on a separate disability insurance policy.

Channeling document forger Dan Rather’s “fake, but accurate” defense, a White House spokesman insisted to the Times that the anecdote somehow still “speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs” — even though Dunham’s primary health insurer did everything it was supposed to do and met all its contractual obligations.

No matter. Expanding government control over health care means never having to say you’re sorry for impugning private insurers. Democrats have dragged every available human shield into the contentious debate over Obama’s federal takeover of health care. Personal anecdotes of dying family members battling evil insurance execs deflect attention from the cost, constitutionality and liberty-curtailing consequences of the law. The president’s Dunham sham-ecdote is just the latest entry in an ever-expanding catalogue of Obamacare fables:

— Otto Raddatz. In 2009, Obama publicized the plight of this Illinois cancer patient, who supposedly died after he was dropped from his Fortis/Assurant Health insurance plan when his insurer discovered an unreported gallstone the patient hadn’t known about. The truth? He got the treatment he needed in 2005 and lived for nearly four more years.

— Robin Beaton. Also in 2009, Obama claimed Beaton — a breast cancer patient — lost her insurance after “she forgot to declare a case of acne.” In fact, she failed to disclose a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately, but had her insurance restored anyway after intense public lobbying.

— John Brodniak. A 23-year-old unemployed Oregon sawmill worker, Brodniak’s health woes were spotlighted by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof as a textbook argument for Obamacare. Brodniak was reportedly diagnosed with cavernous hemangioma, a neurological condition, and was allegedly turned away by emergency room doctors. Kristof called the case “monstrous” and decried opponents of Democrats’ health care proposals as heartless murderers. The truth? Brodniak not only had coverage through Oregon’s Medicaid program, but was also a neurology patient at the prestigious Oregon Health and Science University in Portland (a safety-net institution that accepts all Medicaid patients). Kristof never retracted the legend.

— Marcelas Owens. An 11-year-old boy from Seattle, Owens took a coveted spot next to the president in March 2010 when Obamacare was signed into law. Owens’ 27-year-old mother, Tiffany, died of pulmonary hypertension. The family said the single mother of three lost her job as a fast-food manager and lost her insurance. She died in 2007 after receiving emergency care and treatment throughout her illness. Progressive groups (for whom Marcelas’ relatives worked) dubbed Marcelas an “insurance abuse survivor.” But there wasn’t a shred of evidence that any insurer had “abused” the boy or his mom. Further, Washington State already offered a plethora of existing government assistance programs to laid-off and unemployed workers like Marcelas’ mom. The family and its p.r. agents never explained why she didn’t enroll.

— Natoma Canfield. The White House made the Ohio cancer patient a poster child for Obamacare in 2010 after she wrote a letter complaining about skyrocketing premiums and the prospect of losing her home. After Obama gave Canfield a shout-out at a health care rally in Strongsville, Ohio, and promised to control costs, officials at the renowned Cleveland Clinic, which is treating her, made clear that they would “not put a lien on her home” and that she was eligible for a wide variety of state aid and private charity care.

Since Obamacare passed, the amount workers pay in health care premiums has soared an average of nearly 14 percent; thousands of businesses have sought waivers in search of relief from the law’s onerous mandates; medical device makers have slashed jobs and research; and the private individual health insurance market is in critical condition. Post-Obamacare truth is bloodier than pro-Obamacare fiction.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is

Abe Lincoln’s interview with Obama points out Lies


Five Lies About ObamaCare

1.The Budget Buster

White House officials brag that the multi-trillion-dollar health-care bill reduces deficit. But once fully implemented, ObamaCare will have the nation swimming in even more debt. When taxes and spending meet on the actual first 10 years of ObamaCare (2014-2023), the projected cost is $2.6 trillion. Also tack on an extra $200 billion for the Medicare “doc fix” portions and another $115 billion in discretionary spending needed to help execute the law.

2. Lower Thy Premium

Barack Obama promised to lower premiums by $2,500 a year for the average family. But now, in the real world, the cost of individual insurance will rise by $2,100 per year, says an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

3. Cost Control Fantasy

Remember when Obama said: “If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that’s not a bill I can support. It’s going to have to control costs.” Costs are a-soaring! The chief Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, stipulated in an April 2010 report that ObamaCare will increase health expenditures “by a total of $311 billion” over the next 10 years.

4. Jobs Killer

While the left is out chest-thumping that the Republicans should address the economy and not health care, the likelihood of economic growth and ObamaCare are inexorably tied together. As one GOP aide put it, repeal means that “taxpayers will not face $569 billion in tax increases scheduled to take effect over the coming years—job-killing taxes that will harm an economy struggling to grow.”

5. Big Government Galore

“The question we ask today is not whether government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” Barack said it on Inauguration Day. Funny thing is, the size of government and its efficacy are blood brothers.  And Americans know it, but the objections of the people were drowned out by the Democrats’ government-knows-best elitism. So with ObamaCare comes 159 new programs, bureaucracies and boards for Americans to look forward to.

The Bottom line is simple:  The GOP must do all in its power to weaken and defang Obamacare until a full overhaul is achieved.  Remember the Gipper’s sage warning:  The closest thing we’ll ever see to eternal life here on earth is a government agency.  And Obamacare gave us a whole new fleet of bureaucracies to worry about.








The Thief – Bradley Manning – Manning was an intelligence analyst assigned to a support battalion with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team,10th Mountain Division at Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq. Agents of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command arrested Manning based on information received from federal authorities provided by an American informant, Adrian Lamo, in whom Manning had previously confided Lamo said that Manning claimed, via instant messaging, to be the person who had leaked the “Collateral Murder” video of the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, in addition to a video of the Granai airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables, to the whistleblower website Wikileaks, with Manning saying he hoped the release of the videos and documents would lead to “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.”

Bradley Manning Support Network – He needs money to perform – The following support Manning. – Michael Moore. Code Pink, Norm Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Movement for a Democratic Society, Answer Coalition, Veterans for Piece, Open Society Institute – George Soros, all are National Socialist Organizations.

The Leaker – WikiLeaks – they define it asa non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices. Sounds wonderful doesn’t it – all National Socialist causes sound wonderful. Then you realize what they are…..
The Leeki – Julian Assange – is an Australian publisher, and internet activist. He is best known as the spokesperson and editor-in-chief for WikiLeaks, awhistleblower website. Before working with the website, he was a physics and mathematics student as well as a computer programmer. Assange, a former computer hacker, leads a nomadic He describes the leak as – it has opened the truth about worldwide anarchy7existence and cultivates an aura of mystery. He left Sweden last month after authorities there said they wanted to question him about allegations of rape and other sexual offenses.

He describes the leaks as an opening of worldwide anarchy in .csv format, it’s climategate with a global slope and breathtaking depth, it’s beautiful and horrifying.

Julian Assange’s lawyer is Mark Stevens – who is also the Lawyer for Gorge Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

George Soros is a listed “advisor” to wikileaks. Soros funds Wikileaks through – OSI his open Society Institute.

So let’s connect the dots. George Soros wants – the perfect storm to destroy the Republic. He wants us to lose diplomatic relationships, He wants other countries to not trust us. He funds the above people to disrupt our way of thinking. He wants you to think that the Government is always lying and that you will distrust the Government. He intends to add instability to your thinking.  He wants Ciaos.

Notice how his puppets reacted. Obama did not talk about what was going on. Hillary Clinton makes like they are the bad guys, but it is not serious. Eric Halter went to Europe to talk about soccer.

Only the media will keep the story going.

Make sure that you know what this is and diss the whole thing.