Posts Tagged ‘Pants on Fire’

r, 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.

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

The Obama campaign has launched a new negative ad against Mitt Romney, arguing that his a heartless, outsourcin,’ greedy “corporate raider:”

The Washington Post’s fact checker is decidedly unimpressed, awarding the spot “four Pinocchios,” its harshest review possible. Why?

The Obama campaign fails to make its case. On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue, from the use of “corporate raider” to its examples of alleged outsourcing. Simply repeating the same debunked claims won’t make them any more correct.

In other words, every single element of this ad is false. Though, in fairness, they did get Mitt Romney’s name right this time. A few more details on other misleading elements within the ad:

On the “corporate raider” label:

In a previous life, The Fact Checker covered renowned corporate raiders such as Carl Icahn and his ilk. We also have closely studied Bain Capital and can find no examples that come close to this situation; its deals were done in close association with management. Indeed, Bain generally held onto its investments for four or five years, in contrast to the quick bust-em-ups of real corporate raiders. So calling Romney a “corporate raider” is a real stretch. So how does the Obama campaign justify this phrase? It cites a single Reuters story from last August, about a campaign stop in New Hampshire, written by a stringer, Jason McLure, who was previously based in Africa. Buried in the article is a reference to Romney as a “former corporate raider.”

On outsourcing:

Regarding the outsourcing claims, we have frowned on these before. The Obama campaign rests its case on three examples of Bain-controlled companies sending jobs overseas. But only one of the examples — involving Holson Burns Group — took place when Romney was actively managing Bain Capital. Regarding the other claims, concerning Canadian electronics maker SMTC Manufacturing and customer service firm Modus Media, the Obama campaign tries to take advantage of a gray area in which Romney had stepped down from Bain — to manage the Salt Lake City Olympics — but had not sold his shares in the firm. We had previously given the Obama campaign Three Pinocchios for such tactics. The Modus Media case is also not an example of shipping jobs overseas. The company closed one plant in California and transferred the jobs to North Carolina, Washington and Utah. At the same time, it opened an unrelated plant in Mexico.

On factual sourcing:

The ad also cites as a source a Boston Globe article from last month that merely reports on an earlier ad making similar charges. That’s highly circular reasoning — and is not fair play.

But aside from all that, this seems like a pretty fair, incisive commercial. Meanwhile, a few new polls are out today: AP shows Obama leading Romney 47-44 overall (down from his eight-point lead in May), and Quinippiac says the president has opened up a small lead in Florida. Rasmussen’s daily tracker has Romney up four, while Gallup’s pegs Romney’s lead at two points. Political handicapper Stuart Rothenberg just made the bold statement that Obama is now a slight underdog heading into the fall, but I’m not sure I agree. The president just endured a punishing month, yet has hung right in there. This is going to be a very tight, challenging election.

UPDATE – Two more data points for you: Gallup shows Obama’s approval rating taking a nose dive to 43/49 — down three points in the three day survey cycle. And yet another poll shows Michigan looking like a pure toss up between Romney and Obama — who carried the state by 16 points in 2008.