Posts Tagged ‘dishonest’

Hillary Clinton: Unfit For The Presidency By ANY Standard (Health, Bad Decisions, Bad Ethics, Contempt Of American People, You Name It)

September 13, 2016

One of the pathological lies this pathological lying Clinton told America is that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary who had conquered Mt. Everest – in spite of the fact that no one had ever heard of the guy prior to that conquest of Everest in 1953 whereas Hillary was born and named in 1947.

But let’s call her by a different and more fitting name: ILLary.  Because she is a sick, sick puppy in more ways than one.

It’s truly amazing.  Hillary Clinton goes from having more proof than ever that yes she SHOULD have been criminally charged over her national security violations with her secret private server designed to bypass transparency and accountability laws, to proof that she was using her Clinton Foundation as a quid-pro-quo pay-to-play machine, to her vile remarks demonizing Trump supporters as racist and every other hateful thing, to this.

Hillary claimed her health was an issue in her FBI interview when she claimed she couldn’t remember 40 damn times.  I have to remember next time I decide to rob a bank to use the Hillary excuse just in case I get caught red-handed: “What’s that?  I robbed a what?  I don’t remember.  I fell and hit my head on something.  I didn’t intend to rob any banks.”

We now know that the Obama FBI never even CONSIDERED destruction of evidence (destroying 33,000 emails and 13 smart phones and five iPads); obstruction of justice (destroying aforementioned emails and devices AFTER learning that they were under active congressional subpoena); or lying to Congress – all federal crimes.  This “investigation” was a whitewash from long before Attorney General Lynch illegally secretly met with Bill Clinton (ostensibly to discuss one another’s children?!?!?).  Nor did the FBI ever consider the numerous crimes committed through and via the Clinton Foundation that was so comingled with the State Department under Hillary Clinton that the two organizations became ONE.  Nor did the FBI ever bother to question how it was that a private contractor with zero security clearance was allowed to wipe and bleach a server loaded with above top secret national security information without ANY security clearance AT ALL???

Nothing to see here, folks.  We’ve got nothing to hide!  NOTHING!!!  Well, except for that giant pile of stuff we had to hide that we destroyed, but now that it’s all gone, nothing to hide!!!

And now we learn that the FBI under Obama is doing its utmost to STONEWALL Congress and deny them the material that they have not only a right but a constitutional DUTY to examine.

The Obama FBI asked, “How can we help you obstruct justice?”  And Hillary said, “Oh, well, I’m glad that you asked!”

So let’s go from the FBI freak show to the media freak show and ask whose campaign is constantly depicted as being in meltdown?  Who is constantly framed as being unfit for the office of president?  Donald Trump.  It’s amazing.

So in this latest installment of God proving that Hillary shouldn’t be anywhere CLOSE to the White House, let alone in the Oval Office, Hillary Clinton has not one but two savage coughing spasms last week.  Everyone was talking about it – you know, everyone but the mainstream media that in typical Stalinistic fashion refused to cover it.  If they did bother to talk about it, they cited the Clinton campaign line: coughing is no big deal, everybody coughs.  And it’s not like her cough means she has anything bad.

Okay.  So what happens next I paraphrase these guys in describing:

So Hillary Clinton – on 9/11, the anniversary of the day when you’re supposed to show STRENGTH – actually FAINTED and COLLAPSED, was grabbed by her Secret Service people, and as she’s falling down trips over her shoe and her shoe falls off.  So there’s this pathetic picture now of Hillary Clinton’s lone shoe just over by the curb.  Again, you couldn’t script it better than this.

Remember George W. Bush’s bullhorn speech moment?  Do you remember the crowd of first responders taking courage from their commander in chief and cheering him as he delivered the greatest speech of his presidency?  That was his 9/11 moment.  And he passed.

Hillary Clinton had her 9/11 moment.  And she fainted and collapsed and her shoe fell off and she was grabbed and hauled away and her team lied and then lied again and then lied some more and are probably still lying about what the hell she has.  And she failed.

It’s like that 3AM moment she ran in her ad against Obama, and then Benghazi came and her phone rang and rang and rang until she unplugged the damn noisy thing and not one damn thing was done to stop four Americans from perishing while defending American soil on her watch.

Then the Clinton capacity for being the worst liar who ever lived started.  Except for the media, where it had ALREADY started when they were confined and forced to stay in their little sheep pen for and hour and a half.  We’ll talk about that in a minute.

The story was first spun by the Clintonian campaign spinners that she just left because of whatever-the-hell miscellaneous reasons. She had another event to attend, some dry cleaning to pick up, whatever.  Anything but that she was starting to have a major health crisis and absolutely could not remain at the ceremony.  And that was the official Stalinist position from the campaign: until it was FINALLY admitted by her dishonest and fascistically secretive staff that there might be a teensy, weensy little health issue. But even then they didn’t tell the actual truth.  That cannot happen when you work for a Clinton.  So the first issue they offered was that she was “overheated.”  The week before New York had been warm, so why not float the global warming claim?  But heck, it was 80 degrees that 9/11 anniversary day, with perfect humidity. And the fact that she was overheated was like the drug-addict starlets who are “exhausted” and so go to a rehab center, right? So that was unbelievable. So next they said she was “dehydrated.” No.  Just no.  Well, okay how about this one: it was allergies. Which is like the one where she had pollen-induced coughing spasms indoors with all the AC and the filters running. So she’s no longer overheated, or dehydrated, or allergic, or whatever the hell; nope, now its something else. What?  Well, she had pneumonia, which we’re finally told she’d had for days without anyone bothering to notify the media that they’d kept behind a line for 90 minutes at the scene of the collapse.

The media couldn’t report the true story.  Because the aforementioned fascistically paranoid and secretive Hillary campaign kept them “confined to a media pen.”

Hillary Clinton’s campaign left reporters in the dark for a full 90 minutes about her health and whereabouts on Sunday after she unexpectedly left a 9/11 memorial event in New York. It took most of the day to disclose that Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia nearly three days earlier and wasn’t simply “overheated,” as the campaign’s initial statement on Sunday said.

The campaign’s limited and confusing disclosures frustrated reporters who cover Clinton and seemed to play into health rumors that have been promoted by her Republican opponent, Donald Trump, and his surrogates and touted in conservative media outlets.

Pool reporters — those who follow the Democratic nominee into restricted spaces and provide reports to other reporters — never saw her leave the commemorative event at the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan and then apparently collapse into a van. The pool was confined to a media pen out of sight of Clinton’s location. Footage of her halting departure was captured by a bystander, Zdenek Gazda, who noticed her being helped to the vehicle.

The news appears to have been broken Sunday morning on Twitter by Fox News reporter Rick Leventhal. Citing an unnamed source, Leventhal tweeted at 9:42 a.m. “Hillary Clinton ‘clearly having some medical episode’ & had to be helped into van by her protective detail at WTC.”

You know, just like the gullible little sheep they are whenever the candidate they are covering is a fellow liberal.

Did you get that?  The Hillary Campaign tried to prevent the media from learning the truth as they lied and lied some more, but a bystander with a phone allowed us to know what no journalist could or would report.  The press was literally CONFINED to the pen and NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE.

And yeah, it finally took the hated Fox News to break the damn story.  And every Democrat hates Fox News because every Democrat has a pathological hatred of and contempt for the TRUTH.

So what does Hillary’s staff do?  She is grabbed and pushed into the van after collapsing and they take her where? The hospital? No. They take her to her daughter’s place. Maybe because there is a full-fledged medical facility there? They would have needed an X-Ray to definitively diagnose her pneumonia they now say she has. And they pump her full of whatever and she’s out hugging children with pneumonia.

I mean, I remember that’s pretty much what I did when I had pneumonia: try to pass it on to a child.  Stupid snot-nosed punk kid had it coming.

You cannot accurately diagnose pneumonia – let alone what type of pneumonia somebody has – at your daughter’s apartment.  If Chelsea Clinton’s apartment has a full barrage of medical equipment, that means that every single Clinton campaign member including her personal physician are intentionally trying to perpetuate a gargantuan lie about the appalling lack of fitness to be the commander in chief.

Now there’s one theory that doctor’s have offered: about a month back, a doctor offered Parkinson’s.  And offered the explanation in a tightly, cogent reasoned medical case.  And one of the leading causes of death from Parkinson’s is complications from pneumonia.  And now more proof than ever: Hillary was wearing those anti-seizure glasses, she’s been having coughing fits, her throat is messed up, she’s having trouble swallowing.  ALL critical symptoms of Parkinson’s.

Oh, and by the way, she was wearing her favorite pair of blue, anti-seizure, anti-epilepsy sunglasses throughout the event.  Because that woman has some awful problems without them.  And oh yes she sure does.  And I mean Major League Big Time.  There was another moment I can’t locate now in which her eyes fixated and locked on a demonstrator and she had to be physically turned away by a staffer.

This woman is having seizures, something that apparently happens fully half the time somebody does what Hillary Clinton admittedly did by passing out, hitting her head, and suffering a serious concussion:

She’s got a colostomy bag to prevent her from drooling poop all over the floor.  Although others have speculated it could also be a catheter bag to keep her from pissing all over the floor.  In any event, there are abundant pictures of her hiding something under those pantsuits she always wears.  She is clearly trying to conceal medical devices.

She has to CONSTANTLY be physically held up to keep from collapsing.

One of the more terrifying theories is that she is suffering from something called “vascular dementia.”   Not only would she not live out her presidency, but she would be a whackjob before she died.

This is worse than the Manchurian Candidate, I’m telling you.  And the most terrifying thing of all is that every single “journalist” is in on the betrayal of America.

You want to tell me I’m believing “conspiracy stories.”  Well, I’ll tell you WHAT: when you destroy 33,000 emails and you physically destroy 13 phones along with other devises, my conspiracy theory is the TRUTH unless and until you produce the evidence you destroyed to prove otherwise.  Especially when that stuff was under direct subpoena when you destroyed it.

Even lifelong liberal media turds are growing scared:

Monday on NPR’s “Morning Edition,” ABC political commentator Cokie Roberts offered her thoughts on the apparent health issues regarding Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the how the party could be looking to handle things if a replacement is needed for Clinton.

According to Roberts, there was already conversation within the party about such a possibility.

“The fact that it comes now when the polls are tightening and Democrats are already saying that Hillary was the only candidate who could not beat Trump and it is taking her off of the campaign trail, canceling her trip to California – it has them very nervously beginning to whisper about having her step aside and finding another candidate.”

Hillary Clinton has no business whatsoever being president.  It was obvious like FOREVER ago.  And it’s just kept getting more and more and more obvious.

And you were wicked fools for making her your candidate.  And that’s why you DESERVE Donald Trump.

As poor as Hillary’s health obviously is – and it is obvious that it is terrifyingly BAD and she has surrounded herself with sycophants to shield her from people knowing the damn TRUTH including with one of her sycophants masquerading as her personal physician – that is not her primary disqualification.

It is not her sick health, it is her sick character, and yes, in this health crisis, it just got revealed AGAIN: her campaign trotted out four not just lie but damn-lie stories about her health crisis and that is why we have absolutely ZERO reason to believe the last iteration they offered.  It’s her pathologically dishonest character; her deceitfulness, her deceptiveness, her truthlessness.  She has simply over and over again in large ways and small ways proven that she cannot be trusted because she is literally incapable of telling the truth about ANYTHING.

Hillary Clinton is unfit for the presidency by any standard under the sun.

You know, I can’t help but remember the REAL day of 9/11, when Muslims – yes, fool, MUSLIMS in the name of ISLAM – attacked America.  And I remember hundreds of people throwing themselves out of the burning World Trade Center towers to their deaths, with the choice of either being burned alive as Obama’s Islamic State does to victims or being pulverized by the impact onto concrete from a thousand foot fall.  And I realize that if that attack were to happen again, Hillary Clinton, just like Barack Obama before her, would do NOTHING.  There would BE no “war on terror.”   Instead, Hillary Clinton would demand that millions of more Muslims be brought into America.

I think of another 9/11, and our president can’t even walk without falling or feinting, let alone LEAD.

I googled the footage of people throwing themselves out of the World Trade Center and my moral outrage erupted anew.  But that is only because I have morality.  And no Democrat has had morality for fifty years.

And that’s why the beast is coming.

Advertisements

The Hell With It. Let’s Just Go Off The Damn Fiscal Cliff. Because You Just Can’t Negotiate With These People.

November 17, 2012

I just got through writing an article calling for a compromise on the tax hike Obama is demanding.  I already have to eat my words.

It is frankly hard to believe how pathologically Democrats prove themselves to be on a constant basis, even as much as I distrust Democrats and call them liars to their faces.

Realize that Democrats – and particularly Obama – have been saying that we need to hike taxes on the rich.  In order to do what?  In order to reduce the deficit, they said.  A nice, noble-sounding reason.  I mean, how can you possibly be against wanting to reduce the deficit???

Here’s a headline of Obama demagoguging tax hikes on the rich under the pretense that it would be to reduce the deficit:

Obama proposes $1.5tn tax hike to cut deficit
US president announces a number of measures aimed at reducing deficit in next 10 years, saying rich should pay more tax.
Last Modified: 19 Sep 2011

Here’s Obama over a year later, preaching the same message:

Obama says deficit plan must include higher taxes for wealthy
By Amie Parnes and Russell Berman – 11/09/12 03:51 PM ET

President Obama called on Congress on Friday to reduce the deficit in “a balanced and responsible way” in his first public remarks since winning reelection.

The president said Congress should extend the current tax rates for 98 percent of Americans, but raise taxes on households with annual income of more than $250,000.

Obama did not talk about higher tax rates in his speech, but said he would not accept a deal that cut spending and entitlements but did not ask wealthier households to pay more taxes.

“If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes,” Obama said. “That’s how we did it in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president, that’s how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy.”

But Democrats are LIARS and you simply cannot do a deal with these liars because they have no integrity at all in any way, shape or form.

Take a look at this:

Senate Democrats say deficit package must include stimulus
By Alexander Bolton – 11/14/12 01:42 PM ET

Senate Democrats, feeling confident from their net gain of two seats in last week’s election, say any deficit-reduction package negotiated in the coming weeks must include stimulus measures.

They have yet to decide which prime-the-pump measures to push, but are mulling options such as new infrastructure spending and an extension of the payroll tax holiday.

Some Republicans are likely to balk at the notion that a package to cut the deficit would include new spending. But Democrats argue the No. 1 concern for voters is job creation and that the government needs to take a more aggressive role in spurring the economy.

“We need to do something on stimulus as part of the overall fiscal cliff,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist. “We have to do something because the economy is not growing fast enough in the first year or two.”

Democrats are liars, and they are particularly liars ANYTIME they say ANYTHING about cutting government spending.  Period.

Obama is the selfsame president who promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and instead tripled that deficit.  And now they’re already at it again just days since they ran a campaign based entirely on lies.

Democrats are now implicitly acknowledging that the “hike taxes so we can pay down the deficit” was a lie and a ruse from the deceitful party of lies and ruses.  Now they’re saying, “People who believe what we say are fools, so we have no qualms about lying in every single ‘promise’ we make.  We’ll promise one thing and then do another, and if you’re dumb enough to believe us then doom on you!”

Here’s another headline to show you just how damn far Obama is from “compromise” while he demonizes the Republicans for not compromising:

Obama Demands $1.6 Trillion More In Taxes Posted
by Adam English on the Wealth Wire
Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

President Obama will begin budget negotiations on Friday morning but moving twice as far away from Republican interests. Instead of the $800 billion in extra federal revenue from tax hikes,Obama will be calling for a whopping $1.6 trillion.

On the other side of the table, House Speaker John Boehner hasn’t specified a revenue target, but he has said he would be willing to accept new tax revenues. He is still unwilling to consider higher tax rates.

As a condition for the possible concession, Boehner continues to insist that Democrats accept structural changes to entitlement programs which are causing long-term budget concerns.

President Obama just attended a meeting with union officials and other activists and will be meeting with CEOs of a dozen companies today. Many executives have already voiced grave concerns about the consequences of the looming standoff over the fiscal cliff.

73% of participants of a Wall Street Journal CEO conference earlier this week said their primary concern was the fiscal cliff.

How the hell do you actually move TWICE as far away to the left from your previous bargaining posture while simultaneously self-congratulating yourself for “compromising” and demonizing the party that HASN’T moved twice as far to the right on their bargaining position?  I don’t know, but with the help of the worst media propaganda since Goebbels, Obama has managed to do it.

Statement of fact: “The offer is twice as high as a deal Obama scuttled last year, suggesting he may be prepared to let talks fail again.”  That deal – which took Boehner to the breaking point – called for $800 billion in tax hikes.  Now Obama is demanding tax hikes that will be TWICE as high as last time.  While somehow trying to simultaneously claim that HE is the one willing to compromise!

Republicans – you know – “the obstructionists” – have offered Obama revenues that match what he says he needs by eliminating and/or capping deductions.  And it turns out that Obama HIMSELF has argued that what the Republicans are proposing is a solution:

The idea of curbing tax breaks isn’t new. Tax policy experts have touted it for  years and Democrats, including President Obama, have proposed it in one form or  another. That’s why it may offer a key to resolving the fiscal cliff.

So this isn’t about raising revenue; this is about targeting one group of people to punish them for daring to try to be successful in America.  This is about an out-of-control government demanding more and more control.  This is about pure demagoguery, pure and simple.

The fact of the matter is that Obama has DOUBLED DOWN on his demand while the Republicans have offered a surprising concession in being willing to increase government revenues.  But because we live in a world that Joseph Goebbels would love, the media STILL portrays Obama as the man who is “compromising” even though he is in fact demanding TWICE as much and the Republicans as “obstructionists” even though they are massively compromising.

I’m not the only human being who can see the massive, galling, astonishing hypocrisy and dishonesty from the Democrat Party, am I?

It doesn’t matter if the Republicans come to the table willing to compromise or not; they are demonized anyway, just the same.  So why compromise?

If Democrats want tax hikes, let’s give them to EVERYBODY.  If you want somebody else to pay more taxes, dammit, YOU should pay higher taxes.

I was looking for some way forward for Republicans and some way out of this fiscal cliff mess.  But let’s just go off that damn cliff.  Because there is no possible way to negotiate with people as deceitful and dishonest and disingenuous as Democrats have proven themselves to be.  And because “the cliff” can’t be any worse than the direction Obama wants to take America, anyway.

Of The Corrupt And Dishonet Democrat Party And The Corrupt And Dishonest Mainstream Media Propaganda That Serves Them

February 6, 2012

You want to see how to report a story without admitting the most central fact to the story?

Ex-mayor of Rosemead admits guilt in bribery case
John Tran, 36, admits to shaking down a developer for more than $10,000 while on the City Council. He also resigns from the school board and withdraws from an Assembly race.
February 04, 2012|By Abby Sewell, Los Angeles Times

A former Rosemead city official who made a run for state Assembly has agreed to plead guilty to soliciting and accepting more than $10,000 in bribes from a developer.

 John Tran, 36, an El Monte Union High School District board member and former Rosemead mayor and councilman, admitted shaking down a developer who was trying to build a mixed-use office and residential project in Rosemead while he was on the council, according to a federal plea agreement made public Friday.

The developer, who was not named in the court documents, had bought a vacant lot for $1.1 million and planned to build offices. At the request of Tran and two city employees, however, the developer agreed to buy an adjacent lot for $700,000 and build a mixed-use project.Between 2005 and 2007, while project approvals were pending, Tran would periodically visit the developer, who eventually became a confidential informant in the federal investigation, and demand money, according to the U.S. attorney’s office.

During that period, the developer gave Tran $10,000 in cash payments and a check for $3,200 made out to “cash,” according to the plea agreement.

At one point, officials said, the developer asked why Tran had done nothing in exchange for the bribes, and Tran said he had done “this” — pointing to a staff report and preliminary design approval that suggested the project was moving forward in the approval process.

After August 2007, the developer refused to give any more payments to Tran, according to the agreement. In 2009, Tran was voted out of office; and the project, which became the subject of the federal investigation, never received final approval.

Before he was charged, Tran had thrown his hat in the ring for the 49th Assembly District seat being vacated by termed-out Assemblyman Mike Eng (D-Monterey Park). Tran’s attorney, Michael Zweiback, said Tran is now withdrawing his candidacy and submitted his resignation to the school board Friday.

“John understands that his elected position and public service is over,” Zweiback said. “He’s done a lot of good things for the community, and he wanted to spare his constituents and his family the pain of a long trial.”

A biography on Tran’s campaign website touts his achievements on the City Council and says that as a school board member “he has worked to establish reforms focused on rooting out corruption in the school district.”

Rosemead’s current mayor, Steven Ly, who won office in the election in which Tran lost his seat by a single vote, said that many community members had suspected Tran of pay-to-play politics before the criminal charges emerged. But Ly said the city has changed under the new council.

“I feel that we’ve done a good job of cleaning house since his period of time,” the mayor said.

A representative of a company that may have been the one involved in the federal investigation has filed a claim against the city in an attempt to recover funds taken by Tran, Ly said. The council voted last month to reject the claim. A representative of the company could not be reached for comment.

You see, what is never mentioned EVEN ONCE is that John Tran is a DEMOCRAT.

To whit:

The same omission “conveniently” occurred when the media reported on the shocking corruption case of Bell, California.  All EIGHT of the corrupt officials who took despicable advantage of their positions were DEMOCRATS.  But you’d never get the mainstream media to admit it.  At least not until the 44th paragraph buried in the bowels of the fine details.

If this guy had been a REPUBLICAN, the LA Times would have made it the first word of their story, as in “Republican John Tran is a scumbag.”

The mainstream media is pathologically dishonest and hyperpartisan in every way it possibly can be.

If you count on them for news, you will believe lies. 

And believing lies is only a degree worse than telling lies.

Don’t Trust Democrats On Debt Negotiations; And Trust Proven Liar Obama EVEN LESS Than Democrats

July 13, 2011

Barack Hussein Obama is a profoundly dishonest and evil man.  That is going to be a major obstacle to debt-ceiling negotiations.  Keep in mind, Democrats have ALREADY lied to Republicans in the past, promising Ronald Regan they would cut spending by $3 for every $1 dollar in tax hikes.  Democrats got their taxes, but then they immediately welched on their committment to reduce spending.  Reagan later said trusting Democrats was the biggest mistake he ever made.

Democrats proceeded to demonstrate that they are dishonest liars again prior to the 1992 elections that saw the end to George H.W. Bush.  Democrats promised that George Bush that they would not make the tax hikes they had coerced from him an election issue if we went along with them; but lo and behold Bush I was brought down by an avalanche of “Read my lips, no new taxes” ads.

Don’t trust Democrats.  They are bad people.  They are dishonest.  They can’t be trusted.  They lie.  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  And this would be the THIRD time (at least).

This is the kind of cynical, pathologically dishonest man Republicans are dealing with:

“President Obama had promised that he would not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000.  When asked whether the penalty attached to the individual mandate was a tax, President Obama said it was “absolutely not a
tax.” He also said “[n]obody considers [it] a tax increase.” Nevertheless, in an attempt to prevent the court from ruling on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the Obama Justice Department argued that the penalty was in fact a tax. The Justice Department argument failed because the individual mandate provision was written in a way clearly to avoid using the word “tax.”

An ObamaCare item is absolutely not a tax in any way, shape or form until Obama gets it passed.  Then it becomes a tax.  Because he is a liar and an evil man who cannot possibly be trusted upon to negotiate anything.

Let’s also not forget that ObamaCare already added $500 BILLION in new taxes.  And now Obama wants to add a TRILLION DOLLARS more.

When it comes to the debt celing negotiations, Obama said of raising the debt ceiling as a Democrat Senator with a Republican President:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Barack Obama is a dishonest demagogue who doesn’t give a damn about the American people.  And that’s putting it politely.  Only a fool would trust him about anything, let alone a deal involving trillions of dollars in new debt and new taxes.

Barack Obama is talking vaguely about being willing to offer $4 trillion in spending cuts as part of a deal.  But at no time has he ever produced anything even close to resembling a specific concrete proposal.  It’s just a bunch of words from a documented liar.  Where is the Liar-in-Chief’s plan?  If there’s going to be any meaningful negotiation, the least Obama can do is bother to put out a plan on the table.

And when you’re negotiating with Barack Obama, just remember that he’s a liar and a weasel from a party of liars and weasels.

Associated Press Aids Rabid Left In New Sarah Palin Scandal Hoax

December 15, 2010

There was that moment frozen in history when Joseph McCarthy went that “one giant leap” too far, and was asked, “Have you no sense of decency?”  And that question resonated with the nation, because this was a time when both political parties and the media actually had a sense of decency remaining.

Those days are long gone from the Democrat Party and the mainstream media.  Their souls swim in “having no sense of decency.”

Now all we have coming from them are demagogic lies and Goebbels-levels of propaganda:

Media Creates New Palin Scandal! Sarah Accused of Bringing Hairdresser on Haiti Trip
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Posted on 12/12/2010 5:57:01 PM PST by kristinn

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin traveled to Haiti this weekend as a guest of the Rev. Franklin Graham and Samaritan’s Purse to spotlight the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the earthquake and cholera-stricken Caribbean (half an) island nation. Instead she has found herself embroiled in a scandal, accused of bringing a hair stylist on the trip to make herself look good for the cameras and “photo-ops.”.

The Associated Press transmitted a photo from Haiti of Palin captioned, “Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, center, has her hair done during a visit to a cholera treatment center set up by the NGO Samaritan’s Purse in Cabaret, Haiti, Saturday Dec. 11, 2010. Palin arrived Saturday in Haiti as part of a brief humanitarian mission. Dieu Nalio Chery / AP”

That photo and caption set off rabid attacks on Palin from the Huffington Post, the U.K.’s Daily Mail and, of course, Palingates.

The photo does indeed show Sarah Palin standing with her husband Todd as a woman whose face is obscured uses two hands to fix the hair on the right side of Palin’s head.

However, one can observe that the woman is white, with her brown hair pulled back in a ponytail, wearing a white shirt with a bulky scarf and dark pants.

In other photos from Saturday, Todd and Sarah Palin’s white, brunette, eldest daughter Bristol, who accompanied her parents on the trip to Haiti, is wearing the exact same clothing and ponytail as the “hair stylist” in the AP photo.

That’s right, what the Palin-hating AP and others fail to report is that the “hair stylist” is Bristol Palin.

The AP photographer who sent the caption would have known that it was Bristol Palin, but by not mentioning her the AP was able to do a media hit on Palin but still be able to claim they told the “truth” with the caption.

The Palins and the Grahams in Haiti (“hair stylist” Bristol second from right):

Palin “has her hair done”:

Photos via Palingates

The Daily Mail titled their story based on the AP photo and caption, Ready for Her Close Up…Sarah Palin Lands in Haiti (where they don’t care what her hair looks like)

The Huffington Post titled their attack on Palin, Reading the Pictures: Palin Does Haiti Cholera: How’s My Hair (and did AP lend a curl?). The AP reference in the headline is based on speculation in the article about whether the AP ran “scathing photo op-defying pictures of “the Sarah show?””

The raving lunatics at Palingates titled their hit piece, BREAKING NEWS: Palin Looks Good in Haiti.

To reiterate, a daughter helps fix a loose strand of her mother’s hair, and it becomes an international scandal. Amazing.

I don’t think that Sarah Palin should run for president in 2012.  I think she’s great, with a rare degree of common sense and the courage to square off with both parties to get things done.  But I literally don’t think the country deserves her at this point.

The left, the Democrats, the mainstream media, have come so completely unglued, and told so many demonic lies about Sarah Palin, that I don’t think she could overcome the vomit that has counted as “coverage” of Sarah Palin.

And they won’t stop.  They are so full of hate that it just oozes out of them.  And it has to keep spewing out.

When large and once-respected media outlets like the Associated Press deliberately insight demagogic hatred of an undeserving major political figure, we are degenerating into a truly dangerous place.

Let me just ask the Associated Press: have you no sense of decency?

Obama White House Accused By Democrat Of Federal Crime In Specter, Bennet Races

February 23, 2010

Richard Nixon was honest to a fault compared to Barack Obama – and Obama is displaying corruption in only a year (Nixon was into his second term before he got caught).

We have Obama on video telling what we now recognize were seven major lies in less than two minutes when he was lying his way to the presidency:

[Youtube link]

We’ve got Obama displaying a shocking pattern of corruption and lack of transparency in a case involving a friend and a sacred-cow program.  It is also a case of a president firing an Inspector General for the crime of investigating a crime in a manner that was not merely Nixonian, but Stalinist (link1; link2; link3; link4).  Rest assured that Obama has his own enemies list.

The case of the illegal firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin is far from over as it works its way through the legal system.

Getting closer to what we now have before us, we have the cases of the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and a list of political bribery shenanigans that gets too long to follow.

All from an administration that deceitfully promised unprecedented transparency and openness and continues to shamelessly represent itself as being the best thing since sliced bread.

But this story – supported by the testimony of Democrats – may be in a whole new class of corruption:

White House Accused of Federal Crime in Specter, Bennet Races
By Jeffrey Lord on 2.22.10 @ 6:09AM

“Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” — 18 USC Sec. 211 — Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

“In the face of a White House denial, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stuck to his story yesterday that the Obama administration offered him a “high-ranking” government post if he would not run against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary.”
Philadelphia Inquirer
February 19, 2010

“D.C. job alleged as attempt to deter Romanoff”
Denver Post
September 27, 2009

A bombshell has just exploded in the 2010 elections.

For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused — by Democrats — of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.

The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The favor requested in return? Withdrawal from Senate challenges to two sitting United States Senators, both Democrats supported by President Obama. The Senators are Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado.

On Friday, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrat challenging Specter for re-nomination, launched the controversy by accusing the Obama White House of offering him a federal job in exchange for his agreeing to abandon his race against Specter.

In August of 2009, the Denver Post reported last September, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina “offered specific suggestions” for a job in the Obama Administration to Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, a former state House Speaker, if Romanoff would agree to abandon a nomination challenge to U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. Bennet was appointed to the seat upon the resignation of then-Senator Ken Salazar after Salazar was appointed by Obama to serve as Secretary of the Interior. According to the Post, the specific job mentioned was in the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Post cited “several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.”

The paper also describes Messina as “President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop.” Messina’s immediate boss is White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Sestak is standing by his story. Romanoff refused to discuss it with the Denver paper. In both instances the White House has denied the offers took place. The Sestak story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reported by Thomas Fitzgerald, can be found here, While the Denver Post story, reported by Michael Riley, from September 27, 2009, can be read here.

In an interview with Philadelphia television anchor Larry Kane, who broke the story on Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Comcast Network show, Sestak says someone — unnamed — in the Obama White House offered him a federal job if he would quit the Senate race against Specter, the latter having the support of President Obama, Vice President Biden and, in the state itself, outgoing Democratic Governor Ed Rendell. Both Biden and Rendell are longtime friends of Specter, with Biden taking personal credit for convincing Specter to leave the Republican Party and switch to the Democrats. Rendell served as a deputy to Specter when the future senator’s career began as Philadelphia’s District Attorney, a job Rendell himself would eventually hold.

Asked Kane of Sestak in the Comcast interview:

“Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?”

“Yes” replied Sestak.

Kane: “Was it Secretary of the Navy?”

To which the Congressman replied:

“No comment.”

Sestak is a retired Navy admiral.

In the Colorado case, the Post reported that while Romanoff refused comment on a withdrawal-for-a-job offer, “several top Colorado Democrats described Messina’s outreach to Romanoff to The Post, including the discussion of specific jobs in the administration. They asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.”

The Post also noted that the day after Romanoff announced his Senate candidacy, President Obama quickly announced his endorsement of Senator Bennet.

The discovery that the White House has now been reported on two separate occasions in two different states to be deliberately committing a potential violation of federal law — in order to preserve the Democrats’ Senate majority — could prove explosive in this highly political year. The 60-seat majority slipped to 59 seats with the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, a Democrat, and the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown. Many political analysts are suggesting Democrats could lose enough seats to lose their majority altogether.

This is the stuff of congressional investigations and cable news alerts, as an array of questions will inevitably start being asked of the Obama White House.

Here are but a few lines of inquiry, some inevitably straight out of Watergate.

* Who in the White House had this conversation with Congressman Sestak?

* Did Deputy Chief of Staff Messina have the same conversation with Sestak he is alleged to have had with Romanoff — and has he or anyone else on the White House staff had similar conversations with other candidates that promise federal jobs for political favors?

* They keep logs of these calls. How quickly will they be produced?

* How quickly would e-mails between the White House, Sestak, Specter, Romanoff and Bennet be produced?

* Secretary of the Navy is an important job. Did this job offer or the reported offer of the US AID position to Romanoff have the approval of President Obama or Vice President Biden?

* What did the President know and when did he know it?

* What did the Vice President know and when did he know it? (Note: Vice President Biden, in this tale, is Specter’s longtime friend who takes credit for luring Specter to switch parties. Can it really be that an offer of Secretary of the Navy to get Sestak out of Specter’s race would not be known and or approved by the Vice President? Does Messina or some other White House staffer — like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — have that authority?)

* What did White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel know, and when did he know it?

* What did Congressman Sestak know and when did he know it? Was he aware that the offer of a federal job in return for a political favor — his withdrawal from the Senate race — could open the White House to a criminal investigation?

* What did Senator Specter know about any of this and when did he know it? .

* What did Governor Rendell, who, as the titular leader of Pennsylvania Democrats, is throwing his political weight and machine to his old friend Specter, know about this? And when did he know it?

* Will the Department of Justice be looking into these two separate news stories, one supplied by a sitting United States Congressman, that paint a clear picture of jobs for political favors?

* Will Attorney General Holder recuse himself from such an investigation?

While in recent years there have been bribery scandals that centered on the exchange of favors for a business deal (Democrat William Jefferson, a Louisiana Congressman) or cash for earmarks (Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham), the idea of violating federal law by offering a federal job in return for a political favor (leaving two hotly contested Senate races in this instance) is not new.

Let’s go back in history for a moment.

It’s the spring of 1960, in the middle of a bitter fight for the Democratic presidential nomination between then Senators John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, Stuart Symington and the 1952 and 1956 nominee, ex-Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson.

Covering the campaign for what would become the grandfather of all political campaign books was journalist and JFK friend Theodore H. White. In his book, the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Making of the President 1960, published in 1961, White tells the story of a plane flight with JFK on the candidate’s private plane The Caroline. The nomination fight is going on at a furious pace, and White and Kennedy are having another of their innumerable private chats for White’s book while the plane brings JFK back from a campaign swing where he spoke to delegates in Montana.

The subject? Let’s let White tell the story.

The conversation began in a burst of anger. A story had appeared in a New York newspaper that evening that an Eastern Governor had claimed that Kennedy had offered him a cabinet post in return for his Convention support. His anger was cold, furious. When Kennedy is angry, he is at his most precise, almost schoolmasterish. It is a federal offense, he said, to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor. This was an accusation of a federal offense. It was not so.

Let’s focus on that JFK line again:

“It is a federal offense, he said, to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”

With a fine and jail time attached if convicted.

What Larry Kane discovered with the response of Congressman Sestak — and Sestak is sticking to his story — combined with what the Denver Post has previously reported in the Romanoff case — appears to be a series of connecting dots.

A connecting of dots — by Democrats — that leads from Colorado to Pennsylvania straight into the West Wing of the White House.

And possibly the jail house.

“It is a federal offense,” said John F. Kennedy, “to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”

And so it is.

Obama – who is loudly and frequently patting himself on the back for how “bipartisan” he is, is the most radically ideological partisan who ever sat in the Oval Office.

And as Obama continues to push his ObamaCare boondoggle apparently to the very last Democrat, it is more than fair to ask: why on earth are we trusting these dishonest rat bastards with our health care system and literally with our very lives in the event that their government takeover succeeds?

Fact-Checking Obama’s Bogus Bullpuckey Stimulus Claims

February 19, 2010

Obama’s fearmongering Congress into rushing the stimulus through so fast that no one in Congress could even read it was utterly demagogic.  His continuous dishonest claims since about the “success” of this pork-ridden slush fund have been deceitful and despicable.

Obama doesn’t just lie, he tells giant lies.  Big Lies, to cite a phrase from history.

Here’s one of the Big Lies that Obama told during his stimulus anniversary media blitzkrieg:

“And economists from across the political spectrum warned that if dramatic action was not taken to break the back of the recession, the United States could spiral into another depression.”

But Obama’s claim that economists “across the political spectrum” had sided with him was an utterly contemptible lie a year ago, and it is an even bigger lie now.  Last February I preserved the following.  Please note the title:

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

And there were a whopping load of economists who signed on to that statement – at least a couple hundred, just at a glance.

That’s 200 economists saying, “YOU LIE!”

The truth was rather this: “‘Economists across the Spectrum’ Continue to Flee Stimulus bill.”

Obama supporters provided exactly two names of conservatives whom they claimed constituted their “across the spectrum.”  Both claims were bogus.

Another Big Lie was the invention of the never-before-seen category of “saved or created” jobs.  It’s a load of rotting baloney.  Harvard economics Professor Gregory Mankiw has said, “There is no way to measure how many jobs are saved.” Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University has said “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?” If George Bush had EVER tried to use this same “saved or created” category, he would have been simultaneously mocked as a fool and attacked as a criminal who was trying to deliberately deceive the American people.  But a liberal Democrat did it, so the mainstream media has merely duly reported the totally-made-up self-serving “statistic” as though it weren’t a frankly horrifying lie.

Now, according to a CBS/New York Times poll, only six percent of the people believe that the stimulus has actually created any jobs:

No matter what the truth is about the stimulus act, public perception is the real battle Democrats have to fight politically as 2010 elections loom. And they are fighting that battle hard, based on the amount of e-mail traffic and stimulus promoting events Democrats are holding across the country today. It’s not going to be easy based on a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week that showed just 6 percent of the American public thinks the stimulus created jobs. Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steele ran with that figure yesterday saying that more people believe that Elvis is still alive than believe the stimulus is working.

For the record, Michael Steele is correct: 7% believe that Elvis is alive.  About the same percentage who believe space aliens anally probed them, I imagine.

Unfortunately, that six percent largely consist of the mainstream media.

It’s nice to see someone in the media take him on over some of his claims, particularly an economist with the prestige of a John Lott.  He apparently limits his takedown to the content provided during one particular interview.  But it is still a devastating, point-by-point, presentation of an administration that could care less about the truth, or about reality:

Updated February 19, 2010
Fact Checking Team Obama’s Stimulus Claims
By John Lott
– FOXNews.com

A look at what the White House said about the stimulus and what they didn’t say…

On Wednesday, Fox News Channel’s Bill Hemmer interviewed Austan Goolsbee, the chief economist for the White House Recovery Board, on the one-year anniversary of the stimulus.

Here is a simple fact check of Mr. Goolsbee’s claims:

Hemmer: “What does the White House predict a year from now?”

Goolsbee: Let’s remember, you’re citing the claim that the unemployment rate wouldn’t go above 8 percent, but if you remember in that same projection they said that if we didn’t pass the stimulus it would only go to 9 percent, and it was above that before the stimulus even came into effect. What the administration and everyone else missed was the depth of the recession that was in place at the end of 2008 and at the beginning of 2009 when the President came into office.

In April, President Obama was busy touting the stimulus as having “already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” Press releases from the administration were already being sent out claiming saved jobs on April 1. Even well before that, on January 25, Lawrence Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, promised that the benefits from the stimulus bill would be seen “within weeks” after passage. Yet, despite Mr. Goolsbee’s claim, the unemployment rate did not rise above 9 percent until May, well after these claimed jobs were supposedly being created.

As for the statement that the president was “surprised” by how bad the economy was, during his first radio address to the nation on Jan. 24, Obama claimed, “We begin this year and this administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action.” In Obama’s first national press conference he talked about the United States finding itself in a crisis *12 times* and also took pains to emphasize that it was an “unprecedented crisis.” Given that the unemployment rate in 1983 reached 10.7 percent, if the president believed that we were indeed in an “unprecedented crisis” or at least the worst shape since the Great Depression, it is hard to see how the unemployment numbers could surprise him or those on his team.

The Obama administration has frequently claimed that they didn’t realize how bad the GDP numbers for the 4th quarter 2008 were when their first unemployment predictions were released, but the February 28 estimates were released well after the GDP numbers were out.

Mr. Goolsbee states that the economy was worse than he expected it to be. But there is another alternative explanation and that is that the stimulus created higher unemployment. In fact, my columns in this space predicted that during at the beginning of February 2009 that would be the case. Moving around a trillion dollars from areas where people would have spent it to areas where the government wants to spend it will move a lot of jobs away from those firms that are losing the money to those who are now favored by the government. Since people won’t instantly move from one job to another, there will be a temporary increase in unemployment.

But there’s still more. Here’s this from Hemmer’s interview:

Hemmer: “So you are saying that you are standing by the numbers and you guys were right all along.”

Goolsbee: What I’m saying is that the impact of the stimulus is very much what they predicted it to be. What they missed — and what everyone missed — was the depth of the baseline that was in place as the president came into office, yes.

Two graphs illustrate Obama’s promises versus what actually happened. Whether one uses the president’s predictions when he came into office or his later predictions as provided on February 28, the actual unemployment rate lies well above either of those predictions.

See the figure here.

If one looks at both the number of people unemployed and the number who have left the labor force, “I can’t see any [employment] benefit from the stimulus,” Professor Stephen Bronars, a labor economist at the University of Texas at Austin, told me.

See the figure here.

And then there’s this from Hemmer’s interview with Goolsbee:

Hemmer: [What if you] Use the unspent stimulus of $514 billion to pay down the national debt?

Goolsbee: Well, Bill, I got to tell you when the people who burned down the back half of the house are complaining about how much it costs to rebuild it, I think we’re in a bit of a strange spot. As you know, the deficit was projected, before the president took office, to be $1.3 trillion, and that’s because we were teetering on the edge of a depression and we needed to put the focus — as we did — on getting us away from the abyss. If we hadn’t done that the deficit would be catastrophically worse even than it is this year and than it was projected to be when the president came in. We should not reverse the second half of the stimulus. It’s needed to get us out of the woods. Look out the window, the unemployment rate is near 10 percent. Now, the stimulus was never capable of restoring the 8 million jobs hole that was created by the recession beginning in 2007. It did part of it and the private sector needs to the rest.

During the middle of October, 2008, after the bailout bill had been passed, then-Senator Obama claimed (during the third presidential debate): “we are now looking at a deficit of well over half a trillion dollars.” Virtually all of the huge 2009 budget deficit of $1.4 trillion has been blamed on the Bush administration — as if Mr. Obama’s $862 billion stimulus (over two years) and his $410 billion supplemental spending bill in March had nothing to do with it. Mr. Obama also asked for $350 billion in TARP money to be released by the Bush administration immediately before he entered the White House. Bush had no plans to spend that money, but, by releasing it before he took office, Mr. Obama is able to claim that the spending should be counted towards the Bush administration.

Then there was this:

Hemmer pointed out that the White House is starting a pushing to focus on the deficit. Isn’t that a contradiction from this administration?

Here’s the response:

Goolsbee: [No.] Because you’re getting confused between the short term and the long term. What we need is to put a focus on deficit reduction in the long term. Everyone agrees with that, [and] the president wants to put a focus [on it]. The reason the budget commission failed, as you know, is because 7 Republicans that sponsored the bill turned around and voted against it when it became clear it was going to pass.

Actually, it isn’t clear how the administration can blame Republicans for the defeat of the budget commission. Democrats controlled 60 seats in the Senate at the time, and they could have approved the commission without a single Republican vote. Sixteen Republicans did vote for the commission (along with 37 Democrats), but 23 Democrats and 23 Republicans voted against the commission. The Republicans voted against it because they worried that the commission would rely heavily on new — and higher — taxes to reduce the deficit.

This came next…

Hemmer noted that a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that only 6 percent of Americans think that the stimulus has created jobs and 48 percent think that it will never create jobs.

Goolsbee: Well, look, that may be true. I’m just a policy guy. I’m not an expert on spinning and convincing. What I would say is if you go get the data from the private sector forecasters, from the non-partisan congressional budget, or you look at Recovery.gov or the reports coming out of the Council of Economic Advisers, you see they are all hovering around the creating or saving of 2 million jobs thus far. And so the key is [that] the hole was extremely deep. This brought us part of the way up out of this abyss hole. But we need to do more. The president has never said that this is sufficient.

It is a bit of an exaggeration that everyone is in agreement with these claims. Cary Leahey, an economist and senior managing director with Decision Economics, one of the forecasters surveyed by The Wall Street Journal, provided me with one explanation for why the stimulus increased unemployment: “With transitional moves in government spending [from the stimulus], there will be dislocations in the economy that will lead to higher unemployment.” But he emphasized that he thought those effects would be “short-lived, six to nine months, definitely not more than a year.” Of the other three sources, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, or if you look at recovery.gov or the reports coming out of the Council of Economic Advisers, all are controlled by Democrats.

Then there was this…

Hemmer raised the point that only two places in the country have gained jobs during the last year: North Dakota and Washington, D.C.

Goolsbee: Well, certainly, if they’re going to be treated to the kind of rationale that you’re describing, it’s going to be very tough. But if you look at what, as I’m trying to describe, the recession began in 2007 – 8 million jobs were lost. If you restore 2 million jobs, that’s 2 million people who are at work, who would have been out of work had we not done that. But that doesn’t fill the entire 8 million hole. And so for you to say they only created jobs in North Dakota, you’re making the mistake of saying, well, the stimulus should have created more than 8 million jobs or else it didn’t have an impact. But that’s just logically incorrect.

Mr. Goolsbee simply isn’t answering Hemmer’s question. Hemmer was asking about the change in jobs since the beginning of last year to evaluate the impact of the stimulus, while Goolsbee is also discussing job losses from the end of 2007. There was nothing “logically incorrect” with Hemmer’s question.

There is also a simple math error in Mr. Goolsbee’s statement. He claims that things would have been even worse than the 8 million drop in jobs if the stimulus hadn’t been passed. What he may have meant to say is that without the stimulus 10 million jobs would have been lost (the 8 million that were lost plus the 2 million that were saved by the stimulus and would have been lost without it). But if the Obama administration really believes this, the unemployment rate in January would have been 11 percent, not 9.7 percent, and the Obama administration never predicted that the unemployment rate would go to 11 percent without the stimulus.

In any case, Goolsbee’s reluctance to explain why jobs, since the beginning of last year, have only increased in the District Columbia, where a lot of government jobs have been created, and North Dakota is understandable.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of “Freedomnomics.”

The first article that Lott linked to in the link titled “” has the following graph.  I leave you with it, as it pretty much shows at a glance just what a whopping load of failure Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus truly was:

This Just In: Obama May Have Lost 824,000 More Jobs Than Previously Reported

February 3, 2010

Whenever numbers look bad for Democrats, the media invariably reports them as “unexpected.” Well, report THIS, mainstream media:

Barry Hussein just broke his own record for failure.

Previously, it had been reported that Obama had lost 4.1 million jobs – presiding over the greatest number of job losses under any president in any year since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started reporting jobless numbers in 1940.

But now we’re finding out that Obama pointed to the center field wall, took a radical swing, and sent unemployment soaring to nearly FIVE MILLION jobs lost with his disastrous failed policies.

There’s not much being reported about this yet, but what there is is BAD for Barry:

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) — The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.

The Drudge Report filed this story under the headline, “MANIPULATE: FEDS MAY LOSE 824,000 JOBS IN ‘REVISION’.”  Which creates the sense that something very suspicious was going on to “manipulate” job numbers to make them look less awful than they actually were.

We have this found via Zero Hedge:

From the BLS:In accordance with usual practice, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is announcing its preliminary estimates of the upcoming annual benchmark revision to the establishment survey employment series. The final benchmark revision will be issued on February 5, 2010, with the publication of the January 2010 Employment Situation news release.

Each year, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey employment estimates are benchmarked to comprehensive counts of employment for the month of March. These counts are derived from state unemployment insurance tax records that nearly all employers are required to file. For national CES employment series, the annual benchmark revisions over the last 10 years have averaged plus or minus two-tenths of one percent of total nonfarm employment. The preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates a downward adjustment to March 2009 total nonfarm employment of 824,000 (0.6 percent).

If you read the conclusion of the Zero Hedge article, you will see an example as to how extreme the disconnect between the actual state of the economy and the stock market has become.

In any event, we find that normally the error that requires correction/revision is .02; but for some reason under Obama the error is .06 — which is 300% larger than the previous ten year average.

Rush Limbaugh said that he had previously stated that he thought unemployment was higher, and that the Obama White House was monkeying with the numbers to make it appear that unemployment was at or under 10%.

Having watched Obama create a category of “created or saved jobs” out of thin air that no economist had ever seen before, and watching the mainstream media report that made-up statistic as if it were gospel; having watched Obama’s “created or saved” job numbers being based on such asinine data that a single $1000 lawnmower was recorded to have saved 50 jobs; having watched the White House engage in rampantly dishonest reporting on its job numbers; having discovered that those bogus job numbers were reported as having been “created or saved” in phony congressional districts and in phony zip code regions, well, let’s just say that I have every reason to believe that this incredibly dishonest White House is capable of anything.

I’m not one iota surprised that the BLS is dumping this news on the typical government bad-news dumping day of Friday.

In any event, you can bet that our 10% unemployment rate is about to take a monster hit.

From a quick calculation, the unemployment rate could all of a sudden be as high as 12%.

It was only yesterday that I wrote this without knowing how right I was:

I continue to believe that unemployment will continue to get worse in agreement with famed analyst Meredith Whitney:

Unemployment is likely to rise to 13 percent or higher and will weigh on the economy for several years, countering government efforts to stabilize the banking industry, analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.

I just didn’t know that I would literally have my instincts proven right within a matter of three days.

Health Care: Democrats Upset That Republicans Would Hold Them Responsible For Their False Promises On Taxes

October 3, 2009

Not raising taxes on the middle class was one of Obama’s signature pledges.  In fact, let’s go back and review it:

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

And Obama repeatedly claimed to the cheering crowds that if he was elected their taxes wouldn’t go up a single dime.

In point of fact, during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting the same sort of mandates he wants to impose on the American people now.  He even ran a huge ad campaign demonizing her for doing the very thing he is now doing.

Remember George H.W. Bush’s now famous pledge, “Read my lips, no new taxes?”  Congressional Democrats who controlled the House and Senate forced Bush the elder to raise taxes – and then demagogued him for having raised them.  In the case of Barack Obama, no rival party is manipulating him; he’s breaking his promises all on his own.

Senate Republicans pointed out yesterday that Democrat health plans would make Obama’s promise to the American people a cynically deceptive and incredibly manipulative lie:

John ensign (R-NV), Senate Finance Committee:  “[Obama] said, ‘But let me be perfectly clear: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime.'”

Mike Crapo (R-ID), Senate Finance Committee:  “If we can’t do health care reform without taxing people in the middle class – and the lower income categories – then we’ve got the wrong plan in front of us.

Republicans pointed to several tax provisions – one clearly labeled an ‘excise tax’ in Sen. Baucus’ plan – would fine a family as much as $1,900 if it didn’t buy health insurance.  And if one failed to pay the tax, the IRS would take more even more drastic action:

Sen. Ensign:  “We heard that the other day.  The effect is, up to a $25,000 fine and one year in jail.”

One blogger backs up the tax increases in the Democrats’ plan by citing their own bill:

All the Democrat bills include tax penalties, administered through the Internal Revenue Service, for individuals and families who do not purchase “government-approved” coverage. Page 29 of the Baucus bill would subject families with incomes higher than three times poverty to an “excise tax” of up to $3,800 per year. Likewise, page 167 of the introduced version of House Democrats’ government takeover of care (H.R. 3200) includes the following language:“There is hereby imposed a tax” on individuals who do not purchase “government-approved” insurance-and neither the House nor the Senate bills exempt those with incomes under $250,000 from the penalties. How is what the legislation plainly calls a new tax on all Americans not purchasing “government-approved” insurance not a tax increase on the middle class?

So Republicans, serving as the guardians of the president’s pledge on taxes (and who ELSE is serving as guardians of the presidents’ pledges on anything?), offered amendments to exempt most taxpayers.

Sen. Crapo:  “It will remove all taxes,fees, and penalties from the bill that apply to families earning less than $250,000 per year.”

The Democrats have chosen to embark upon an incredibly deceitful and false assertion that what is clearly a tax someone isn’t a tax.  Give it up; it’s a TAX (see this also).  And in fact it is a tax with penalties imposed by the iron-gloved hand of your ever-friendly and compassionate Internal Revenue Service.  BECAUSE IT’S A DAMN TAX.

And in point of fact both taxes that the Senate Finance Committee is debating would fall heavily on those who make less than that magical $250,000 a year. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for instance, 71% of those families facing the tax for refusing to buy health insurance make less than $110,000 a year. The change in deductibility would hit most heavily at even lower incomes.

Democrats didn’t dispute the impact of the taxes, but rather – and amazingly – simply accused Republicans of simply making political points:

Sen Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman, Senate Finance Committee:  “Basically what you’re saying is you want to, you want to gut the president’s program.  More than that, you want to gut health reform.”

It’s an interesting – and yet all too typical – tactic from the Democrats.  They’re liars.  They have broken their word to the American people.  They got themselves elected by making one false promise on top of another.  But Republicans are the ones to blame, because Democrats have put on their “Carnac the Magnificent” hats and read the hearts and minds of Republicans’ motives in exposing the Democrats’ lies.

The fact is, the Democrat’s reform efforts depend on getting more healthier young people, for instance, to buy insurance and spread the risk.  And Sen. Baucus didn’t apologize for forcing them to do so:

“If we’re serious about making sure that Americans have health insurance, we have to have shared responsibility.  We all have to participate.”

And outside the committee, Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) suggested there is very likely no way around higher taxes:

“I’m prepared to go to my constituents and tell them there are tough choices to be made.”

Maybe Ron Wyden is prepared to force millions of people to pay high taxes that Barack Obama promised them that they would never have to pay, but what about the people who are going to now have to pay those taxes?

This is a question of lack of honesty, or lack of competence: were Democrats so clearly incompetent that they truly didn’t know that they wouldn’t be able to cover 45 million more people for less money?  Did they truly believe that their promises not to raise taxes on the middle class could even possibly be fulfilled given their massive government spending?

But that’s okay.  Because they’re going to make you pay for their broken promises.

The amendments to halt any tax increase failed by only one vote – with, of course, only Democrats voting against it.  Their vote is a cynical admission that the Democrats are dishonest thieves who will lie to your face about being on your side even as they prepare to rob you blind.  Just the two provisions debated yesterday would raise taxes by over $35 billion over ten years.  And yes, people making under $250,000 would be forced to pay higher taxes – in spite of President Obama’s word to the American people.

If you thought Republicans were bad, Democrats are proving that they are the worst kind of dishonest, arrogant, and cynical hypocrites imaginable.  The Party that self-righteously proclaimed its “transparency” have voted against amendments that required them to read the bills they pass – and even mocked bothering to read such bills, and then said there’s no point to bothering to read the bills they vote on.  If it’s bad enough that Democrats won’t bother to read their own damn bills, they now refuse to allow YOU a chance to read them either, essentially claiming that you are too stupid to understand them.  Moreover, Democrats have ave voted against even bothering to require that bills even be written before they are voted upon.

It’s long past  (and I mean two years of false campaign promises in addition to the last nine months past) holding Democrats accountable to their past promises and demanding that they live up to their rhetoric.  And if they can’t pass their legislation without breaking their campaign promises, then they are offering false and depraved legislation that should never be allowed to pass.

CNN, Media WILL NOT Be Fair In Attacks On Sarah Palin

October 22, 2008

Journalists are slightly above pedophile priests but substantially below cockroaches in my view.  Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of the rabid little vermin filling the ranks of the American media today.  History has shown that propaganda works, and our media today is pushing propaganda to the limit in the name of “objective coverage.”

Sarah Palin has been the target of some of the most unbalanced, unfair, and frankly vicious attacks that any political figure has ever endured.  The media will NOT be fair to her.

Sarah Palin and John McCain HAVE to go on the media to get their message out, even though they know that they will be treated unfairly.  Sarah Palin goes on CNN for an interview and gets this:

GRIFFIN: Governor, you’ve been mocked in the press, the press has been pretty hard on you, the Democrats have been pretty hard on you, but also some conservatives have been pretty hard on you as well.  The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can’t tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above.

PALIN: Who wrote that one?

GRIFFIN: That was in the National Review.  I don’t have the author.

PALIN: I’d like to talk to that person.

GRIFFIN: But they were talking about the fact that your experience as governor is not getting out.  Do you feel trapped in this campaign, that your message is not getting out, and if so who do you blame?

What you will see if you take a moment to look at the facts was that Drew Griffon was patently unfair.  He took a quote out of context in a way that shockingly misrepresented its intent and used it to attack Palin.  National Review has come out and called attention to CNN’s shocking lapse of integrity and objectivity.

If you actually bother to read the National Review piece that Drew Griffon cited to attack Palin, you will see that Byron York offered a marvelous positive piece on her integrity, her intelligence, and her leadership.  It couldn’t have been a more fraudulent representation of York’s words.  CNN and Drew Griffon know that most people are ignorant lemmings who will NOT read the National Review story, and will believe what they are told to believe as the media selectively shapes the narrative.

This is the paragraph that Griffon cites:

Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, it’s sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or — or, well, all of the above. Palin, the governor of Alaska, has faced more criticism than any vice-presidential candidate since 1988, when Democrats and the press tore into Dan Quayle. In fact, Palin may have it even worse than Quayle, since she’s taking flak not only from Democrats and the press but from some conservative opinion leaders as well.

Notice that the National Review isn’t saying ANY of the stuff that CNN attributes to it.  That is a complete distortion.  Rather, Byron York is saying that the unfair unbalanced PRESS COVERAGE is saying it.  And then Drew Griffon comes out and proves that Byron York and the National Review are completely right.  They can not be fair, they will not be fair.  They will deceptively and deceitfully take every single piece of information out of context in a way intended to hurt and attack Sarah Palin.  They prove themselves to be the very sorts of rodents that York says they are!

This is what Byron York – who is represented by CNN as saying, and I quote – “The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can’t tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above” – REALLY says about Sarah Palin:

Still, it’s fair to say that overall, Palin’s time in office, from her swearing-in until the moment John McCain picked her to be his running mate, has been a success. And from her handling of the issues she has tackled, it’s possible to see a pattern in the way she approaches governing.

First, she hires well. “There was a pretty good team of people assembled right away to come in and start with her big-picture principles and develop a process and legislation to carry that out,” says Joe Balash. “I would say that her management style is to give her staff, her cabinet, a pretty long leash, but with very high expectations — and she’s not afraid to tell you that you didn’t get it right.”

Second, she is involved with details on some big things, but not on everything. “When it comes to issues that she cares about, that she knows the public cares about, she’s got all kinds of time and prioritizes things in a big way,” says one insider who has worked with her and asked not to be named. “For the mundane tasks of government . . . say, regulations for the Kenai River, she instead looks for recommendations from her cabinet and the regulatory agencies, but she’s not going to get in and argue specific details.”

Third, she is dead set on fulfilling campaign promises. “There was this absolute expectation that if it was an issue that had been talked about during the campaign and there was a particular commitment that she had made, then we had to live up to it, no matter how difficult,” says Balash, “because her big thing was restoring the confidence of the public in state government.”

It should be noted that none of that makes Palin unerringly conservative. Yes, she calls herself a conservative, and she seems dedicated to reducing the size and cost of government when she can, but she’s also perfectly happy to raise taxes on a big, unpopular (oil) company, if that’s what voters want. Her conservatism comes with a substantial portion of populism.

Still, Palin’s record in office has quieted many of those who said she simply did not have the experience or ability to serve as governor. “She’s been in office for two years now and has been fairly successful,” says Gene Therriault, a Republican state senator and an ally of Palin’s, “which either belies the argument that she was not prepared or is an argument for the fact that she is a quick study.”

MSNBC – another haven for cockroaches – piles on, claiming that her negative numbers are way up and saying:

Now, Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy – ahead of continuing President Bush’s policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.

Do you get that?  She’s an even BIGGER drag on McCain than George Bush is according to MSNBC!  That is a preposterous and frankly psychologically unhinged thing to say.  Her negative numbers are up because a hysterical liberal media has engaged in a vicious attack campaign against her that has repeatedly broadcasted every single negative thing it could find or invent about her while utterly refusing to provide any kind of positive information.  They want to destroy her, and they don’t care how they do it.

Liberal journalists invented a story that someone had shouted “kill him!” about Barack Obama, and argued that Sarah Palin fanned the fires of hate.  It was picked up by ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the Associated Press, the New York Times – you name it.  Even Barack Obama personally claimed that that statement had been made, and that Palin and McCain were irresponsible for not containing such hate.  And it was an outright lie.  The Secret Service – which does not tolerate death threats against Presidential candidates – did a thorough investigation.  And reporter David Singleton made it up to hurt Sarah Palin and John McCain.

We are seeing something truly terrifying.  The media – which was empowered by the Constitution to serve as an objective official keeping the political process honest – has entered the political process on the side of one party which is about to take total control due primarily to their own propganda efforts.

With the White House, the Senate, the House, and the media all firmly under the control of liberals – with NO ONE to watch them – we are on the verge of a disaster the likes which have never been seen.