New Revelations About THE Most Dishonest White House EVER: Treasury Sec Geithner Reveals He Was Instructed To Lie To The American People

This is pretty much exactly what happened in the IRS scandal.  Or in the Benghazi scandal.  Etcetera.

Obama has lied to the American people about their health care.  That is a documented fact.  He has lied to the American people about their economy – as has now been revealed by his former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as a documented fact.  And he has lied to the American people about their national security when he covered up what happened at Benghazi and then attempted to cover up his cover-up.

If you DON’T believe the same first paragraph wouldn’t read, “The White House wanted Ambassador Susan Rice to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Benghazi played in demonstrating Obama’s broad failure of policy against terrorism,” you are a rabid ideologue.  The evidence is so overwhelming it is beyond unreal.  Obama’s White House is THE most viscerally dishonest, zombie ideological and rabidly partisan administration in the entire history of the republic.

White House wanted Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to LIE to the public about social security being behind the deficit
In his memoir, out today, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the White House wanted him to mislead Americans about the long term costs of Social Security
 ‘I objected when  Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ Geithner writes
By Francesca Chambers
Published: 09:20 EST, 12 May 2014  | Updated: 17:45 EST, 12 May 2014

The White House wanted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Social Security played in driving the deficit, it was revealed today.

Geithner writes in his memoir Stress Test, out today, that the White House communications director asked him to downplay the long term cost of Social Security spending to mollify the Democratic Party’s base.

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ he says.

‘Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.’

Geithner’s book release comes amidst allegations that the White House changed the Sunday show talking points of U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s after the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya for political reasons.

Days after the White House claims it knew what happened in Benghazi was ‘an act of terror,’ Rice wrongly blamed an anti-Muslim internet video for the deadly assault in a string of high-profile interviews on network news stations.

The White House has forcefully denied that it made anything other than minor changes to Rice’s talking points. Recently released e-mails between deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and White House communications staff calls the veracity of the Obama administration’s claims into question.

The emails show that Rice was instructed to claim the attack was ‘spontaneously inspired ‘ and ‘to ​underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.’

Geithner’s anecdote about White House communications staff trying pressure him into misleading Americans about the country’s ability to meet its future financial obligations once again casts a shadow on the Obama administration’s willingness to tell the truth when the truth is politically unappealing.

He writes that Pfeiffer, who is now Obama’s senior communications adviser, often let party politics come into play when discussing how the administration should respond to fiscal issues.

During a discussion on spending cuts, Geithner says that Pfieffer argued that ‘we couldn’t afford to alienate our base and split a weakened Democratic Party in pursuit of an imaginary compromise with Republicans who didn’t want to compromise.’

Early reviews of Geithner’s book indicate that the former Treasury Secretary, who now works at a private equity firm, does not appear to have an axe to grind with Obama, giving greater weight to his recollections.

Geithner mostly uses the memoir to provide context for actions he took as Treasury Secretary from 2009 to 2013 to get the nation back on track after the financial crisis of 2008.

The only other seemingly negative remark Geithner makes about the White House is about President Obama, whom he says, ‘Sometimes I thought he wore his frustration too openly.’

‘He harbored the overly optimistic belief that since his motives and values were good, since his team was thoughtful and well-intentioned, we deserved to be perceived that way,’ Geithner says in the book, according to a review in the New York Times.

Hmmm, something about that.  What does Geithner say?

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows…

It reminds me of ANOTHER White House prep session before – heck, FIVE Sunday talk shows in which Obama blabbermouth Susan Rice claimed five times that it was a “spontaneous attack” rather than a planned, coordinated terrorist attack and that a Youtube video was to blame even though we now have it documented that the “video” theory did NOT come from the intelligence community but was fabricated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during a phone call shortly before Hillary invented the video (created by an American citizen) as being responsible for the terrorist attack rather than a “broader failure of policy.”

Barack Obama is a documented liar without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity and without decency.  He has proven more than ANY HUMAN BEING who EVER LIVED that he is wiling to look his people in the eye and lie to them right to their face – as he did at LEAST 37 times when he kept emphatically promising something he KNEW full damn well was an outright lie – NBC documenting that Obama knew for at least THREE YEARS he was lying – and which even the Clintons dating back 20 YEARS AGO knew was a lie:

Three days before the 1994 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton’s advisers fretted about including a line promising that participants in the still-viable Hillarycare insurance overhaul would be allowed to keep their favored doctors and health care plans, a concern that would come back years later when President Barack Obama promised the same thing.

The line, which made it into the final speech in a slightly different form – Clinton told Americans they would have ‘the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor’ – was the subject of controversy because his aides knew it was untrue.

‘We have a line on p. 10 that says “You’ll pick the health plan and the doctor of your choice,”‘ an internal memo read.

‘I know that it’s just what people want to hear. But can we get away with it?’ he asked. ‘I am very worried about getting skewered for over-promising here on something we know full well we won’t deliver.’

• SHARE PICTURE

Copy link to paste in your message

The Clintons’ first term in the White House was marred by the failure of ‘Hillarycare,’ an earlier proposed version of what would later become law as the Affordable Care Act

‘Over-promising’: A 1994 memo released Friday shows a Clinton aide encouraging the president to drop from his State of the Union address a line promising Americans they could keep their health care plans and their doctors

• SHARE PICTURE

Copy link to paste in your message

In his 1994 State of the Union address, Bill Clinton promised Americans ‘the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor’ — 13 years before Barack Obama made nearly identical pledges

The memo was part of more than 4,000 pages of documents released by the Bill Clinton Presdiential Library, and offers new insights into the development – and ‘sale’ to Congress – of the ill-fated Hillarycare program that represented a major public embarrassment for then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

‘Isn’t the whole thrust of our health plan to steer people toward cheaper, HMO-style providers?’ wrote the memo’s author, identified only as Todd.

‘It’s one thing to say we’ll preserve your option to pick the doctor of your choice (recognizing that this will cost more), it’s quite another to appear to promise the nation that everyone will get to pick the doctor of his or her choice,’ he added. ‘And that’s exactly what this line does.’

We are seeing breathtaking dishonesty all across the board.  Barack Obama is a rabid cancer upon America.

And his Democrat Party has circled their wagons and are doing everything they possibly can to prevent so much as QUESTIONS being asked about it.

And the ONLY reason they think they can get away with it is because the mainstream media are more propagandist today – and frankly more sophisticated about the art and science of propaganda – than Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda or Stalin’s TASS were sixty years ago.

We live in an age of deception just before the coming of the Antichrist who was prophesied in Scripture to come to a worshiping world in the very last days.  And we are watching with our eyes a Democrat Party that has officially announced that they are ready to take the Mark of the Beast.

If you believe Obama didn’t instruct Susan Rice to lie through his political thugs on those five Sunday Talk shows where she told outright lies that everyone KNOWS were outright lies, and if you don’t think the GOP should investigate something that frankly should lead to Obama being IMPEACHED for official corruption as he covered up the truth to maintain a lie that he had succeeded in “decimating” al Qaeda when that narrative was proven false by Benghazi – and then covered up his cover up by withholding the proof that the White House substituted its “Youtube video” talking points for “planned terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization”, you have already demonstrated that you will surely believe the Antichrist’s lies and take his mark.  And burn in hell for it.

I’m speaking with the full authority of God’s Word behind me: you’re going to get yours, you baby-murdering (55 MILLION!!!), homosexual sodomy-loving, government-worshiping Democrat.  Obama – you know, the Obama who demonized Bush for a $9 trillion debt – has jacked up that debt to over $17.5 trillion.  Consider this to see yet again how viscerally and rabidly dishonest and hypocritical your false messiah truly has been.  Well, let me assure you, in 17.5 trillion years you will STILL be screaming in the agony of being burned alive forever and ever and EVER for what you did on this earth, Democrat.

You still have time to repent.  But your day is coming.

ObamaCare As The Greatest ‘Good News/Bad News’ Joke In Human History

I’ve got a joke for you:

Doctor:	I have some good news and I have some bad news.
Patient:	What’s the good news?
Doctor:	The good news is that the tests you took showed that you have 24 hours to live.
Patient:	That’s the good news?  What’s the bad news?
Doctor:	The bad news is that  I forgot to call you yesterday!

Here’s another one:

Doctor:	I have some good news and some bad news.
Patient:	What’s the good news?
Doctor:	The good news is they are naming a disease after you!

Yep, ObamaCare is one of those “good news/bad news” jokes.  They named a disease after Obama, too, you know: the fatal disease to the U.S. health care system and ultimately the U.S. economy otherwise known as “ObamaCare.”

The GOOD news is that nearly 50,000 people enrolled in ObamaCare through last week.  Now, keep in mind, Obama predicted that 500,000 would enroll and his forecast was off by about ninety percent.  That’s a number that wouldn’t fill an average football stadium out of a nation of nearly 330 million people.  But we have to consider the 50,000 figure as “good news” given the other enormous whammy that’s coming that is very clearly “the bad news.”

The BAD news is that nearly 5 MILLION people have already lost their health insurance due to ObamaCare.

Which is to say that for every person who just got health care because of ObamaCare, one hundred just lost their health care because of ObamaCare.

The official goal of ObamaCare, they told us, was to insure the uninsured.  The actual result of ObamaCare was to uninsured the insured.

But you really aint seen nothin’ yet about this mother of all good news/bad news jokes.  Because that 50,000 number is very likely grossly inflated (insurance companies are reporting that there are all kinds of multiple enrollments as people hit the “buy” key repeatedly due to the colossal failure of the $600 ObamaCare website).  And because that 5 million figure is grossly underrepresented.

A Duke University health expert released his finding that 129 million Americans will essentially lose their health plans and either get cancelled altogether “because they [will have] already have lost or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014.”

That number, for what it’s worth, represents 68% of he 189 million Americans who have – well, who USED to have – health insurance before the ObamaCare wrecking ball “bad news” part of he joke hit America.

For 129 million Americans – and again, for the nearly 70 percent of Americans who “were satisfied with their health plans” before Obama ruined the world – OBAMA’S PROMISE THAT HE MADE OVER AND OVER (AT LEAST 36 TIMES!!!) WAS A SHOCKING LIE.

Obama said, “If you’re happy with what you’ve got, nobody’s changing it.” He said, “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

That last one was featured in the reliably leftist Washington Post fact check that gave Obama the maximum number of “liar points” possible.  Nixon’s “I am not a crook” statement couldn’t have been a bigger lie than Obama’s “you can keep your health care plan.”  And Nixon’s lie didn’t hurt anybody unlike Obama’s.  People on the verge of dying of cancer just found out that they lost their health plans because of Obama’s lie.  And because of Obama’s criminal incompetence, those people can’t buy insurance to save their lives because the $600 million website won’t work the way any one of all the millions of porn sites on the internet all do.

Obama told America that over and over and over again as he was selling his “signature legislative accomplishment” that barely passed after all kinds of Democrat shenanigans without a single Republican willing to vote for that demonic bill.

And he lied without shame, because he is a man without shame, without honor, without integrity, without decency and without virtue of any kind.

Liberals are truly radical ideologues who – like their Marxist forebears – are determined to ignore reality as they impose their ideology onto the world.  They insist that all evidence and facts aside, their messiah couldn’t have “lied.”  Nope.  He “misspoke” at worst.

David Lazarus is such a leftist ideologue who writes an opinion piece that the Los Angeles Times smuggles into its business news section every week.  Liberal Lazarus is forced to acknowledge a couple of huge facts:

President Obama apologized last week to people whose health insurance was canceled despite his repeated assurances that if you like your policy, it won’t change.

The charitable way of putting it is that Obama oversold details of the healthcare-reform law in his speeches.

His critics say he flat-out lied.

This wouldn’t even be an issue if Obama had qualified his remarks simply by adding that you’d be able to keep your insurance as long as it meets minimum standards for coverage, which is a big part of what Obamacare is all about.

Here’s the thing, though: The rules of the road for healthcare reform have been — and remain — a moving target. For months, not even insurers have known what their requirements would be.

Number one, you can’t demonize the insurance companies for this fiasco, because they had no idea what the incredibly secretive White House was up to while they added another EIGHTEEN THOUSAND PAGES OF REGULATIONS to the 2,000 pages of ObamaCare that nobody read to begin with.

The crime of the insurance companies was that they were blindsided by the most documented liar who ever lived.

Number two that Lazarus acknowledges is the even more important fact that the ability to keep coverage was ALWAYS contingent upon meeting Obama’s “minimum standards.”  And contrary to Lazarus, it wasn’t merely “a big part,” it was THE CENTRAL PART.  The fact of the matter is that Obama had to drive people into his exchanges in order to ever have any hope of making the exchanges work.  Otherwise, only the older and sicker would enroll and ObamaCare would perish a slow, agonizing actuarial death spiral as the costs of coverage skyrocketed.  Which would plunge America into economic ruin as the most critical one-sixth of the U.S. economy became utterly paralyzed and dysfunctional and the people begin to panic.

We know that as early as July of 2010 the White House was fully aware of the fact that the president of the United States was lying to the American people.  We now know that the political people at the Obama White House insisted that Obama keep saying something that everyone knew was false.

And it is simply asinine beyond the limits of asininity to suggest that anybody believe Obama had no idea what was going on.

To argue that Obama never comprehended the central component of his health plan is to claim that Obama is like the retarded boy who hung around a group of nuclear physicists and called himself part of the team but had absolutely no inkling whatsoever what the geniuses in the room with him were doing.  Obama frankly needs to be impeached either as the worst liar who ever torpedoed America or as the most incompetent fool who ever held public office.  Either way, this man simply has got to go.

Obama and his ObamaCare are sick jokes on America that simply have got to end.  Before they end America.

Barack Obama And His Democrat Party: The Most Documented Liars In The Entire History Of The Human Race

Barack Obama has a record that can only be broken by the Antichrist (whose useful idiot Obama is): Barack Hussein Obama is THE most thoroughly documented liar in the entire history of the human race.  And to paraphrase Obama, “Period.”

Regarding ObamaCare, which isn’t some inconsequential or tangential piece of legislation for Obama, but is his “signature legislative accomplishment,” Obama said stuff like this over and over and over and over again:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

It is now a conformed, documented fact that every single thing Obama said about his socialist health care hijack was a pure, distilled, unadulterated, total lie from hell.

Yesterday Obama came out and “modified” his story to say this:

“If you had or have one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really like that plan, what we said was, you could keep it if hasn’t changed since the law’s passed,” added Obama.

Let’s go back to the instant replay:

“If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period. End of Story.”

That is NOT what you said, Obama, you wicked liar.  Not even CLOSE.

I want you to note that that last quote was cited in a National Review article dated July 21, 2009.  And even THEN they were saying Obama was lying through his teeth.  That article cited facts why it was a lie, and then added immediately after quoting Obama above, “But what the president forgot to tell you is that his assertion is only true if the story were fiction.”

And a little more:

A recent NBC investigation found, “buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, ‘40 to 67 percent’ of customers will not be able to keep their policy.”

 But as recently as the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama was telling voters they could keep their plans.

We now know OFFICIALLY that senior White House officials KNEW that what Obama was saying over and over and over again about keeping your insurance was a lie.  And he kept saying it anyway.

And Obama has added lies to his lies, as an example lying about being able to call the phone number or fill out paperwork to get around the failed website – when BOTH merely kicked directly back to the failed website.

Like I have been saying all along, this demon-possessed man is a pathological liar without shame, without honor, without virtue and without integrity of any kind whatsoever.  Period.  End of story.

Even the überliberal Washington Post was forced to give Obama four Pinocchios on a scale of one to four Pinocchios.  Barack Obama lied to the American people.  Period.  And No Democrat will take it away.  No matter what.

But it actually gets even worse: Obama and his minions are STILL LYING.  As the (above-linked) WaPo fact check points out:

The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.

The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.

The president’s promise apparently came with a very large caveat: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan — if we deem it to be adequate.”

The Obama White House knew as early as July of 2010 that every single thing Obama had said about ObamaCare – AND CONTINUED TO SAY – was a lie, and that upwards of 80% of people with individual health insurance would have their policies cancelled because of ObamaCare requirements:

“Remember: The President didn’t say if you like your plan and we approve it you  can keep it,” Stewart wrote, the Post reported. “He promised that if you like  your plan, you can keep it, period— “no matter what.”

Yet the NBC report  said the government knew that wasn’t true, saying that buried in regulations  from the July 2010 law was an estimate that because of normal turnover in the  individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to  keep their policy.

And because many policies will have been changed  since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing  grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people  in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the  rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” Robert Laszewski of Health Policy  and Strategy Associates, told NBC.

He estimated 80 percent of those in  the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will  have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally  requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

Most analysts expect to see 15 million Americans’ health plans cancelled.  And they AREN’T being cancelled because insurance companies are greedy or evil, but rather because Barack Obama and Democrats in their sweeping takeover of the health care industry were greedy and evil in their tyrannous overreach.  They are being cancelled because older people had been allowed to buy policies that addressed their individual needs; now Obama is forcing everyone to have, for example, maternity coverage, even if they are elderly and well beyond their child bearing years.  The policies that do not have such coverage (and many other types of coverage as well) are FORCED to cancel them.

Democrats scoffed at 15 million people as a “mere five percent.”  But let’s remember that these demon-possessed liars imposed ObamaCare on us to provide insurance for only THIRTY million people who were uninsured.

Now, according to what we know, ObamaCare won’t actually help the people who were uninsured.  When ObamaCare is fully implemented, there will STILL be 30 million people uninsured.  ObamaCare did nothing for the people it most promised to help.  But now add to that 15 million who just got kicked off the insurance they HAD because of the devil’s little helper Obama.

And it is simply a FACT (as the liberal WaPo points out) that ObamaCare from the very outset was depending on people paying considerably higher premiums to subsidize the uninsurable and the uninsured who would also be forced into the market by government dictate.  Obama is subsidizing these people at the cost of forcing most Americans to pay far more for their health care than they had previously.

But it gets so much worse its unreal.  And remember, Obama promised over and over again, swore to the American people time and time again, that if you liked your insurance you would be able to keep it, no ifs ands or buts.

Try this on for size:

Expert: At least 129 million will ‘not be able to keep’ health care plan if Obamacare fully implemented
12:45 AM 11/04/2013

If Obamacare is fully implemented, 68 percent of Americans with private health insurance will not be able to keep their plan, according to health care economist Christopher Conover.

Conover is a research scholar in the Center for Health Policy & Inequalities Research at Duke University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. In an interview with The Daily Caller, he laid out what he estimates the consequences of Obamacare’s implementation will ultimately be.

“Bottom line: of the 189 million Americans with private health insurance coverage, I estimate that if Obamacare is fully implemented, at least 129 million (68 percent) will not be able to keep their previous health care plan either because they already have lost or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014,” he said in an email. ”But of these, ‘only’ the 18 to 50 million will literally lose coverage, i.e., have their plans entirely taken away. This includes 9.2-15.4 million in the non-group market and 9-35 million in the employer-based market. The rest will retain their old plans but have to pay higher rates for Obamacare-mandated bells and whistles.”

If you are lucky enough to keep your insurance and not just have it cancelled outright from under your feet, you will be paying a whole lot more for it and probably getting a higher deductible to go with fewer doctors and options in whatever network you get stuck on.

The New York Times can’t bring themselves to say that their messiah whom they endorsed and voted for and worship lied.  Instead, he “misspoke” when he said something that was absolutely false.  These people are liars who lied for these last several years while the cancer of ObamaCare metasticized and now they’re lying about all the lies they told to sell us their lies.

The New York Times editorial smarmily lectures us in the following way:

Many higher-income people who won’t qualify for subsidies, however, will have to buy policies providing more benefits than they want. Maternity care for those who will not have children is one sore point. But that is one price of moving toward universal coverage with comprehensive benefits.

Tell you what: I want women to be forced to cover prostate exams and see how they feel about the shockingly higher cost of their health care premiums.  I think that my erection is a matter that every single woman in America should be forced to concern herself with and pay for – so I demand every woman be required to pay for my damn Viagra pills so Mister Happy can be happy again.  And just remember, women, that your higher premiums is just “one price of moving toward universal coverage with comprehensive benefits.”

People by the MILLIONS are going to be dumped off their health insurance plans that they paid for and were happy with because Obama doesn’t think they provide enough left-wing goodies.

Allow me to paraphrase some lines from the Clint Eastwood classic “Unforgiven”:

Will Munny: It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man’s health insurance plan. Take away all the health care he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.

The Schofield Obama: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.

Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.

We’ve all got it coming in the Obama States of America.

God judges a nation for the wickedness of its king.  And we’ve elected ourselves a most wicked king, indeed.  Believe me, we’ve got it coming.

Obama and his lying minions are similarly claiming that all of the people who are being cancelled are having their plans cancelled because they are substandard and a burden on the taxpayers because they don’t provide adequate coverage.  This is also a lie, as is documented in the case of a California woman with “world class insurance” who is losing her coverage.

Barack Obama will be guilty of this woman’s murder (note the subtitle):

You Also Can’t Keep Your Doctor
I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I’ll live.
By Edie Littlefield Sundby
Nov. 3, 2013 6:37 p.m. ET

Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.

My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.

Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don’t have a clue how to best proceed.

Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University’s Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.

Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.

But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.

You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).

So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are.

Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.

What happened to the president’s promise, “You can keep your health plan”? Or to the promise that “You can keep your doctor”? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.

For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people’s ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that’s a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that’s the point.

Ms. Sundby lives in California.

Again, Ms. Sundby – may God heal her because Barack Obama will surely callously murder that woman – is (still) living proof that everything Obama and Democrats have said and are now saying about ObamaCare and about insurance companies were diseased lies from the most rabies-ridden depths of hell.  This woman did NOT have a “substandard” plan; she had an excellent plan.  The insurance company was NOT “greedy” or “evil”; it had paid out over a million dollars to keep this woman alive in a fight that Barack Obama just surrendered for her on her behalf.

On this blog, I have been consistently saying that ObamaCare was truly evil.  And I say it more loudly and with more evidence to support my cries today than I have ever had.  And if this demonic takeover of health care continues, I guarantee you I will have even MORE evidence because this thing is as catastrophic of a failure as it is an evil takeover of what had been the best health care on the planet such that world leaders came HERE when they faced serious illnesses.

I think of Republicans who tried in vain to stand against ObamaCare – only to get excoriated by a demonic Nazi Joseph Goebbels media just a few weeks ago.  Just realize: they TRIED to do what was right for the American people, but the American people would have none of it.  And so when you lose your insurance, Democrat, independent, or Republican RINO who wouldn’t stand with Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz, just remember that you deserve it.

I submit for the record that Edie Littlefield Sundby’s sin was what she expressed in her second sentence: “My grievance is not political.”  Because it damn well SHOULD have been if she wanted to live.

If you want to live, you’d better be out in the street demanding that Barack Obama be forcibly impeached and removed from office and put on trial for his crimes.  And you had better be demanding that the Democrat Party be criminalized and that every single Democrat be hunted down with dogs and burned alive lest they inflict an even worse evil upon what is left of this nation.

Under Barack Obama, in these days before the Antichrist whose useful idiot Obama has been and continues to be, things are going to get increasingly ugly.

And this nation, this “one nation, under Obama” richly deserves it.

Let’s remember to say our pledge of allegiance as messiah leads us into hell:

[In unison]: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Obama States of America, and to the Messiah for which it stands, one Nation divided by race, class and gender, with redistribution and Marxist fairness for all.”

And don’t forget to praise the Antichrist and get ready to accept the mark of the coming ultimate big government tyrant.

No, Mitt Romney Does NOT Have ‘A $5 Trillion Tax Cut’ As Obama Repeatedly Falsely Claimed In His Miserable Debate Performance

Democrats are trying to transform the narrative from Wednesday night’s disastrous and revealing performance from Barack Obama from “Mitt Romney won the debate” to “Mitt Romney lied.”

And they don’t care how many lies they have to tell to create that false narrative.

There’s a famous Yiddish proverb that should be pointed out before the Politifact article:

“A half-truth is a whole lie”

Here’s the story, with the added caveat that Politifact is decidedly left-leaning as much as Heritage is decidedly right-leaning:

Obama says Romney’s plan is a $5 trillion tax cut
Says Mitt Romney’s plan “calls for a $5 trillion tax cut.”
Barack Obama on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012 in the first presidential debate

Early in the first presidential debate, President Barack Obama attacked Mitt Romney’s tax plan as unbalanced and devastating for the middle class. He charged that Romney’s plan “calls for a $5 trillion tax cut,” and challenged him to defend it.

The candidates repeatedly disagreed about that number. Four times the president spoke of Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut, and four times the governor rejected it.

Obama said: “Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.”

Later, Romney countered: “I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one. So there’s no economist that can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”

Obama has talked about the $5 trillion tax cut for months. We have looked at this claim before and found it lacked important context. Here’s why.

The claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions.

The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion.

The conclusion is accurate but misleading. Yes, the cuts would total that amount, but as Obama himself noted as he continued speaking, Romney hopes to offset the lost revenues by closing loopholes and deductions. The reductions in tax breaks are as much a part of Romney’s plan as the tax cuts.

But Obama is right in pointing out that Romney has yet to specify what tax breaks he would change. The most Romney has personally said is that he might cap deductions at $17,000, but that is a broad figure and does not describe how the number would be achieved.

The impact of changing deductions on the scale needed to offset the tax cuts would be great. The largest deductions include interest on home mortgages, state and local taxes and the tax free treatment of health benefits. These are real pocketbook issues for most households and tinkering with them could have significant effects on large sectors of the economy.

Romney offers key details on the taxes he would cut. But in explaining how to pay for them, he has essentially said only that he would keep the overall tax burden the same across all income groups by changing unnamed tax breaks.

Our ruling

President Obama said Mitt Romney seeks a $5 trillion tax cut.

The $5 trillion figure accounts for only half of Romney’s plan — and it’s cumulative over 10 years. The governor says he will offset those lost revenues by reducing tax deductions and eliminating loopholes. However, he has never said what those changes would be.

The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan, but he did describe what the plan was missing and Romney would not fill in the gaps.
We rate the statement Half True.

So, even according to Politifact, Obama not only lied four times during the debate by deliberately concealing critical information that made his statement a lie, but he has been lying for months.

If you tell only half of the facts, and deliberately ignore the rest of the facts which, if considered, make your claim a lie, you are NOT telling “half the truth”; you are telling a whole LIE.

I have already written about how the “$5 trillion tax cut” meme that Obama trotted out REPEATEDLY in his first debate debacle was a lie.  And I explained precisely WHY it was a lie.  It’s good to see the fact checkers pointing out that it’s a lie.

We now have already documented-hard-core LIAR deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter acknowledging that the $5 trillion figure they claimed Romney was lying about is patently untrue.  And yet Obama is STILL out on the campaign trail saying over and over again what even his own campaign says is a falsehood based on blatantly distorted interpretations of Romney’s tax policy.  These are stone faced liars who call their opponents liars.

The mainstream media is out in force screaming that Mitt Romney is some kind of liar.  They’ve already helped Obama by not only advancing the narrative that Mitt Romney is a liar, but that he’ll kill your wife, too.  But as so often happens these days, the very people screaming “liar” the loudest are the worst liars of all.

You’ll have to look for the truth; and then you’ll have to do everything in your power to put the truth out there so the liars look foolish and wicked for claiming the lies.

Party Of Lies: Barack Obama Sent His New Chief Of Staff Out To Lie To Falsely Blame Republicans Over Democrats’ Failure To Pass ANY Budget

Obama’s new Chief of Staff Jack Lew made the rounds Sunday, February 12.  And he lied to every single mainstream media outlet that would welcome his lies.  And not ONE network host challenged his Big Lie.

Jack Lew has been around.  He is an experienced Washington insider who understands the rules of the political process.  He actually served twice as Bill Clinton’s budget director.  So to say he made a “misstatement” is simply a lie.  Jack Lew tried to falsely demonize the Republican Party for the pathetic and abject failure of the Democrat Party to pass ANY budget for well over a thousand days (that’s nearly three years).

This was clearly no accident.  Lew said the same totally false thing again and again on the morning political talk programs.  As Politifact CLEARLY points out:

Most business in the Senate is subject to filibustering — that is, actions, or even just threats, to talk a bill to death. Filibusters can be overcome by what’s known as a “cloture” vote that shuts off debate and moves a measure toward final consideration. For the Senate to agree to cloture requires 60 votes — a high threshold that many Senate majorities are unable to muster on controversial votes (and, increasingly, even on relatively uncontroversial votes).

However, the filibuster cannot be used to block a budget resolution. That’s because the Budget Act sets out a specific amount of time for debate in the Senate — 50 hours. If a specific amount of debate time is enshrined in the controlling statute, the filibuster is moot. So a simple majority — not 60 votes — is all that’s required to pass a budget resolution.

Indeed, passing a budget resolution by at least 60 votes has become increasingly rare in recent years, according to CRS data. Since 1994, the Senate vote has exceeded that vote threshold just three times, either in the initial vote or on a subsequent vote in which lawmakers consider an identical House-Senate version of the resolution.

More common in recent years are votes where 51 was enough to prevail. In 2009, the Senate even passed the final budget resolution by a 48-45 margin.

“The budget resolution vote is always a partisan affair, and rarely does it gain any minority party support,” said Steve Ellis, a vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense.

So Lew is clearly wrong to say that “you can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes.” As a longtime senior official at OMB and other federal agencies, he should have known better.

Here are Obama Chief of Staff Jack Lew’s own lying words on two separate programs:

From NBC‘s Meet the Press, Sunday, February 12, 2012:

MR. GREGORY: So the leadership deficit in Washington has had an impact on what business does in America and certainly our economic outlook. Here’s a stat that a lot of people may not know, but it’s pretty striking. The number of days since Senate Democrats passed a budget is 1,019. Can you just explain as a former budget director, how do you fund the government when there’s no budget?

MR. LEW: Well, you know, one of the things about the United States Senate that I think the American people have realized is that it takes 60, not 50 votes to pass something. And there has been Republican opposition to anything that Senate Democrats have tried to do. So it, it is a challenge in the United States Senate to pass legislation when there’s not that willingness to work together. Congress didn’t do a great job last year. It, it, it drove right to the edge of a cliff on occasion after occasion. I actually think it’s unfair to blame the United States Senate for that. A lot of that was because of the extreme, you know, conservative approach taken by House Republicans.

The same Jack Lew – the same guy who was a budget director TWICE for Bill Clinton and without question understood that he was lying – went on CNN‘s State of the Union that same day and said:

CROWLEY:  I know we’ll want to talk about the tax hikes in a second, but I want to read for our viewers something that Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the U.S. Senate, who said, we do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year.  It’s done.  We don’t need to do it, talking about last year’s two-year agreement and saying that, you know, so it’s already done.
 
This budget, I can assure you and you know, because you’ve been in this town for a long time, is going to be attacked as a political document.  This is a budget that promises 2 million more jobs if it’s passed, so that come September the president can go out there and say, well, if they’d only passed by budget, we’d have 2 million more jobs, but those darn Republicans are standing in my way, when, in fact, even the Democratic leader in the Senate says, you know what, we don’t need a budget.
 
LEW:  Well, let’s be clear.  What Senator Reid is talking about is a fairly narrow point.  In order for the Senate to do its annual work on appropriation bills, they need to pass a certain piece of legislation which sets a limit.  They did that last year.  That’s what he’s talking about.
 
He’s not saying that they shouldn’t pass a budget.  But we also need to be honest.  You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes, and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support.  So unless Republicans…

And, yes, we need to be honest.  Which means we have to abolish the party of pathological liars, the Democrat Party.  And to finish his interrupted sentence, unless Republicans grow a set of testicles and rise up and hold the Democrats responsible for all of their vicious lies, this nation is doomed.

You need 51 votes to pass a budget.  The Democrat Party currently has 53 votes in the Senate.  When Obama took over, they had a filibuster-proof Senate and they could have passed ANY budget they wanted.

Let’s not forget that last year Obama submitted a budget to a Senate under the control of his own party.  It was such an abject disgrace that it went down 97-0 without a SINGLE Senator voting for it.

I know,  I know.  That was the Republicans Party’s fault, too.

You need to understand something very important about the Democrats.  They are the end result of a culture and a nation that is in pitiful decay and just about to implode.  The Democrat Party is the result of God damn America.

Ancient man did not talk in terms of “rights.”  They talked in terms of DUTIES.  They talked in terms of their duties as human beings, as family members, as citizens of a state.  And any society that fixates on “rights” and abandons the pervasive sense of duty is a society that is on the verge of perishing.  And the Democrat Party is riding the death of America like a jockey urging his horse to a faster pace into hell.

Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”  And THAT is the Democrat Party: the party of the end of the republic.

For Democrats, their “rights” ALWAYS impose duty on somebody else.  It’s my “right” to have a sex change operation, and it is the DUTY of religious conservatives to abandon their four thousand years of Judeo-Christian revelation and affirm my choice to sexually mutilate myself so I can live in my depraved life.  And it is the DUTY of those same religious conservatives to pay for that depraved act of sexual mutilation.  Women have a right to get birth control, abortion-causing drugs and sterilizations without any sort of restriction of any kind whatsoever.  And the Catholic Church has the DUTY to forsake one thousand-five hundred YEARS of clearly defined religious tradition and start providing “access” because Barack Obama is greater than God.  The messiah has spoken, so let it be written, so let it be done.

What is our real debt?  It isn’t the trifling $16 trillion – $6 trillion of which was inflicted on us by Barack Obama alone in just three years – that we hear about.  It is $211 TRILLION plus:

It’s those medium- and long-term debt problems that also worry economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, who served as a senior economist on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. He says the national debt, which the U.S. Treasury has accounted at about $14 trillion, is just the tip of the iceberg.

“We have all these unofficial debts that are massive compared to the official debt,” Kotlikoff tells David Greene, guest host of weekends on All Things Considered. “We’re focused just on the official debt, so we’re trying to balance the wrong books.”

Kotlikoff explains that America’s “unofficial” payment obligations — like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits — jack up the debt figure substantially.

“If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, including defense expenditures, and you subtract all the taxes that we expect to collect, the difference is $211 trillion. That’s the fiscal gap,” he says. “That’s our true indebtedness.”

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff, to make it clear, is a noted economist. He is a research associate at the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research. He is a former senior economist with then-president Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. He has served as a consultant with governments around the world.  And he wrote about this issue of America’s true debt in a peer-reviewed journal of the International Monetary Fund (September, 2010).  This isn’t a joke.  This is our reality.

And which party inflicted this ridiculously unpayable debt???  Which party inflicted the Social Security Ponzi scheme on us when there were in fact far better privatized equivalents at the time which would have been better funded and paid out better benefits?  Which party took over sixty percent of our health care system with a government socialist scheme that is going to be completely BANKRUPT by 2017 at the latest???

Which political party is completely responsible for these depraved government takeovers that will collapse and thus murder millions of elderly people whose only crime was being forced by the Democrat Party to pay into the Democrat Party’s boondoggle?

I think I’ve already hinted at the answer: the Democrat Party.

Democrats want to demonize Reagan and Bush for all the debt.  As I’ve already pointed out, Barack Obama has already vastly outspent George W. Bush in less than half the time.  But that debt is NOTHING compared to the TWO HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS that Democrats are one hundred percent responsible for.

What does Obama’s personal stooge do when confronted by the FACT that his party has not bothered to pass a budget of any kind of for 1,019 days (that is 1,022 days now) according to NBC?

He deceitfully and falsely demonizes Republicans, of course.

Which is to say that the same party from hell that constantly creates new “rights” that OTHER PEOPLE must pay for is likewise the party from hell that always makes OTHER PEOPLE responsible for the hell that they create.

What’s going to be the end of the party of lies???

One day, very soon, after the collapse that the Democrat Party will have imposed upon the United States and therefore the world that has depended on the strength and integrity of the United States for a century, a figure will emerge that the Book of Daniel warned us about nearly three thousand years ago and the Book of Revelation warned us about nearly two thousand years ago.  Democrats don’t give a damn; they despise the Bible and openly mock it as a matter of routine.

Barack Obama is even now shaping the Middle East for the last days and the coming of this dictator whom the Bible rightly foretold would be “the beast.”  Just as Obama is even now shaping the United States – the only nation that has kept Israel from facing a second Holocaust even worse than the last one – for collapse. 

Barack Obama has been repeatedly proclaimed as the “messiah” by the political left.  He’s no such thing; he’s the useful idiot of the Antichrist, of the coming beast who will come riding in on his white horse to save the day after Obama has imploded the economy of the only country on earth that would have resisted him.

When this beast comes, he will be the Democrat Party’s wet dream.  He will be the big government “global unifier” that they’ve always dreamed of.  Democrats will acclaim the Antichrist.  They will vote for him.  They will take his mark.  And they will burn in hell for a well-deserved eternity of suffering for their crimes against the truth.

Liberal Paul Krugman Says Government Should Lie To American People About Space Aliens To Impose Liberal ‘Solutions’

Paul Krugman – former Enron advisor, liberal ideologue, Nobel Prize Laureate, New York Times writer, liberal ideologue and former Enron adviser – has a solution to America’s economic problems.

It involves fascism – I mean forcing – Americans to do what liberals want by lying to the American people to create a false crisis.

And, yes, it actually involves space aliens:

Paul Krugman Calls for Space Aliens to Attack Earth Requiring Massive Defense Buildup to Stimulate Economy
By Noel Sheppard | August 14, 2011 | 10:29

Oh those whacky liberals.

On Sunday’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” New York Times columnist – and, ahem, Nobel laureate – Paul Krugman actually advocated space aliens attack earth thereby requiring a massive defense buildup by the United States that would stimulate the economy (video follows with transcript and commentary):

See Newsbusters for video

KENNETH ROGOFF, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Infrastructure spending, if it were well-spent, that’s great. I’m all for that. I’d borrow for that, assuming we’re not paying Boston Big Dig kind of prices for the infrastructure.

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: But even if you were, wouldn’t John Maynard Keynes say that if you could employ people to dig a ditch and then fill it up again, that’s fine, they’re being productively employed, they’d pay taxes, so maybe Boston’s Big Dig was just fine after all.

Oh those whacky liberals.

So in Zakaria’s view, the government employing people to do absolutely nothing of value would fix the economy.

If this is the case, why doesn’t the government just give money to everyone? The economy, in Zakaria’s opinion, would therefore grow at a record pace.

Of course, anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of arithmetic could figure out that the amount received in tax receipts would be far less than what was distributed thereby exploding the nation’s debt level in a never-ending spiral that would eventually lead to default.

Surely, the credit rating agencies wouldn’t be pleased with this.

On the other hand, isn’t it fascinating that a man that is always opposed to tax cuts – which is government allowing people to keep more of THEIR money – and doesn’t think that stimulates the economy believes it would be economically stimulative to give people someone else’s money to do absolutely nothing?

Only a liberal could think this way.

But hold on to your seats, because a man possessing a Nobel prize in economics was cued up to say something even more absurd:

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Think about World War II, right? That was actually negative social product spending, and yet it brought us out.

I mean, probably because you want to put these things together, if we say, “Look, we could use some inflation.” Ken and I are both saying that, which is, of course, anathema to a lot of people in Washington but is, in fact, what fhe basic logic says.

It’s very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy. But if you had a program of government spending plus an expansionary policy by the Fed, you could get that. So, if you think about using all of these things together, you could accomplish, you know, a great deal.

If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better –

ROGOFF: And we need Orson Welles, is what you’re saying.

KRUGMAN: No, there was a “Twilight Zone” episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time, we don’t need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.

Oh those whacky liberals.

There’s so much in this that it’s tough to know where to begin, so let’s start with this being another admission by Krugman that it wasn’t Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s massive New Deal spending that ended the Depression.

Much as he did on ABC’s “This Week” in November 2008, the Nobel laureate once again dispelled that liberal myth.

I wonder if the Keynes-loving Zakaria was paying attention.

But more importantly, let’s look at the numbers involved to really get a sense of what Krugman advocated here.

The money unsuccessfully thrown at the Depression prior to World War II was staggering. From 1929 to 1939, government spending tripled from $3 billion a year to $9 billion.

And yet unemployment at the end of 1939 was still 17.2 percent.

Not a very good advertisement for Keynesian economics, is it?

Now imagine that kind of “stimulus” today. That would mean the current $3.8 trillion budget would have to rise to $11.4 trillion which would generate about $9 trillion of debt a year.

What do you think would happen to our credit rating and our dollar then? Wouldn’t be pretty, would it?

Yet that didn’t work in the ’30s – a fact that most liberals other than Krugman still contest – so the Nobel laureate is advocating that we spend like we’re being attacked by space aliens in order to get to the level of outlays during World War II.

Total federal spending in 1940 was $9.5 billion. By 1945, this had risen almost tenfold to $93 billion.

Such an increase in today’s budget would create a deficit greater than $30 trillion per year making our dollar and our Treasuries totally worthless.

Did I mention Krugman once won a Nobel prize in economics?

Consider too that the lasting stimulative quality of even the World War II spending is up for debate.

The National Bureau of Economic lists a recession that began in February 1945 that lasted until October of that year. This recession happened despite the federal government spending almost tens times as much as it had only five years prior and 30 times more than in 1929.

Once again, not a very good advertisement for Keynesian economics.

But let’s take this a step further, for NBER’s recession numbers might be too conservative. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product shrank by 1.1 percent in 1945, a staggering 10.9 percent in 1946, and 0.9 percent in 1947.

Again, this was after the largest explosion in federal spending in our nation’s history, and this is what Krugman is advocating we repeat.

Makes you wonder if space aliens have already arrived and they’re residing inside this liberal Nobel laureate’s head.

I’m reminded of a book quote:

“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis.  Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation.  Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency” — Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, page 42

Fascists love creating crises.  And liberals are fascists to the cores of their shriveled little cockroach souls.

Before I respond to Paul Krugman and his pimping of lies and false crises to force the people to do what liberals want (which isn’t different from what Democrats have been doing for fifty years, fwiw), let me make a couple of points.

First, the New Deal was a complete and total failure.  Don’t believe me, listen to FDR’s own Treasury Secretary:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

And for the record, in April 1939, the unemployment rate was 20.7%. Anybody who thinks that FDR’s policies did anything but dig us deeper into depression are morons.

The New Deal was a complete and utter failure.  But don’t believe me, listen to Barack Obama’s former top economic adviser:

“Never forget, never forget, and I think it’s very important for Democrats especially to remember this, that if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15 percent and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed.”

The New Deal was a complete and utter failure.  But don’t believe me, listen to economists:

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

The New Deal was a complete and utter failure.  But don’t believe me, just open your own eyes, because you’re living through the failure of liberal stupidity all over again.

Let me take a moment to address the issue of Paul Krugman – supposedly brilliant intellectual and academic – before I move on.  I’ll quote my own previous words, which have been so accurate I’ve been able to point to them more than once:

I wrote the following the last time I wrote about a leftwing “intellectual” attacking Jews:

Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

American liberals enthusiastically supported Hitler’s socialist fascism during his rise to power, just as they had supported totalitarian communism in the years before.

Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left. They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing. Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.

And the foolishness of academia continues full throttle and full speed to the next fascist dictator.

Paul Krugman is a fascist with the despicable and deceitful ideas of fascism.  And he is a profoundly stupid man not because he has a diminished IQ, but rather because he he has determined to be stupid by sheer brute force of will.  He hates God and rabidly rejects the Judeo-Christian worldview that enables otherwise perverted and degenerate man to see the world as God sees it (i.e., accurately).  And all he has in place of the clear and rational thinking that comes from being created in God’s image is a collection of incredibly foolish secular humanist ideas that have profoundly failed every single time they have ever been tried.

With that said, allow me to explode Paul Krugman’s thesis that if liberal socialist fascist big government merely takes his advice and lies to the American people to trick them into re-enacting the World War Two escape from the Great Depression (that FDR’s failed policies prolonged in the first place), we can escape our dying economy.

The first thing wrong with Krugman’s thinking is that his “plan” calls for the United States to become a completely militarized society.  We’re not even pursuing the ALSO-FASCIST “Moral Equivalent of War” idea where we take advantage of all the great things about militarism to provide a workable and sensible model for achieving desirable liberal ends; we’re talking about pure, hard-core militarism.

We’re not building a better widget; we’re gunning-up to take on space aliens.  We need big bombs and lots of them.  And given that we’re gearing up to take on a super-sophisticated alien race that can travel across billions of light years, we need the most dangerous arsenal ever assembled.  We need NUKES.  We need biological warfare.  We need Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Are you with Paul Krugman on this, liberals?

The second thing wrong with Krugman’s “thinking” is that, if we massively gear up our military production without actual provocation, which society will we most look like?  And the disturbing answer is that we will resemble Nazi Germany rather than the United States which responded to acts of military aggression when it militarized.

I’ve called you liberals “Nazis” for quite a while now.  Thank you for finally officially acknowledging that the jackboot fits.

I wonder how China and Russia would respond to our unilateral buildup of a massive military arsenal.  I’m kind of thinking our, “Ssshhh!  We’re doing it to get ready for the aliens!  We’re totally at peace with you!” line won’t work out to good.  Rather, China, Russia and everyone else will embark on their own militarization to balance ours, and Paul Krugman causes World War III and the extinction of the human race.

The third thing is that the United States didn’t get out of the Great Depression by merely building up its military; IT USED THOSE WEAPONS IN A GLOBAL WAR.  And we would need to do the same thing we did before.

How did the United States become the manufacturing and industrial superpower of the world?  BY BEING THE ONLY MAJOR NATION THAT STILL ACTUALLY HAD A FACTORY STANDING.  All of Europe was completely destroyed.  Russia was completely destroyed.  Much of Asia was completely destroyed.  Britain was attacked and destroyed first by bombing after bombing, and then by the V-2 ballistic rockets.

World War II finally, mercifully ended (at least until Paul Krugman came along), and who was going to build all the stuff that the world now needed more than ever?  Who was going to grow all the food?  And how about the only nation left that wasn’t in complete rubble?

So if we’re really going to pursue that World War II model, let’s do it: let’s build up that arsenal and then let’s just wipe out EVERYBODY.  And the poor, starving, desperate people who survive (assuming their countries didn’t wipe us out in retaliatory strikes) are going to need to turn to us to feed them and clothe them and build their stuff for them.

A few other things.  During the military buildup of World War II, the American people put their money behind the war effort.  We bought war bonds; we sacrificed raw materials so that the troops could have what they needed to fight.  We made due with little for a prolonged period of time so that our troops could achieve victory over our enemies.  The American people were completely united behind that goal, and willing to do whatever was necessary to make it work.  Who thinks we’ve got that can-do and will-do-no-matter-how-much-it-hurts attitude now?

Who would we borrow from now?  How are we going to finance this massive Nazi-like militarizing strategy that Paul Krugman favors?  Right now we massively in debt as it is; we’re borrowing 43 cents for every single dollar we’re spending.  And we’re in debt way above our eyeballs.

Who’s going to build all this for us?  Certainly not us!  Unions have gutted our manufacturing and our industrial bases; we’ve been forced to outsource.  Barack Obama just went on his B.S. bus tour, and who made that bus?  Canada!

This is what Detroit looks like now, thanks to sixty years of being dominated by the Democrat Party.  We can’t build anything.

I’ve watched the History Channel about how some union workers (such as during June of 1941 at the North American Aviation plant in Inglewood, California) attempted to strike to take advantage of the crisis to squeeze every advantage they could, and FDR called in the military to crush these worker uprisings.  I can only imagine the SEIU and the AFL-CIO etc. etc. pursuing the same tactics and getting machine-gunned.

And of course we need to realize that a lot of the utterly unsustainable union benefits that have since completely gutted any hope of ever having a substantial industrial and manufacturing capability arose as a result of bribing union workers not to strike during World War II.

You should understand by now that Paul Krugman is an insane and evil man. Which is another way of saying he’s a liberal. His ideas lead to holocaust, whether that holocaust be of babies, or jobs, or the U.S. economy and our very way of life.

Anthony Weiner A Too-Typical Liberal Bureaucrat: A Pervert With No Marketable Skills Whatsoever

One of the reasons it took twenty days for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign when it didn’t take much more than twenty minutes for Speaker Boehner to demand Rep. Chris Lee’s resignation turned out to be the hold-up of some kind of job for him.

Here are the facts:

Want to know a primary reason that thus far Weiner is refusing to quit  despite the calls for him to do so from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, DNC  Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, NY Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the House  Democrats’ campaign committee and others?  A big reason is he simply cannot  afford to. His world has been turned upside down overnight, and the nation’s  politicians are incensed by it – but it really comes down to the fact that his finances  don’t lend many options right now.

As The NY Post reported “Weiner doesn’t have a business or even a law degree  to fall back on. He made $156,117 in 2010, and owes between $10,000 and $15,000  on his American Express card according to his most recent financial-disclosure  forms.” Anthony Weiner, the man, has never had another job since starting in  politics at the age of 21 in 1985. The future career possibilities for the 46  year old “object” Anthony Weiner aren’t too bright these days.

We are talking about a man who has never held a private sector job in his entire life.

Michelle Malkin has more to say about this:

Last year, the now-jobless Weiner joked on former roommate Jon Stewart’s cable comedy show that he didn’t “have a lot of marketable skills.” It’s one of Weiner’s rare truthful utterances over the past year.  A protégé of fossilized New York Sen. Charles Schumer, Weiner has spent the last 20 years in politics – straight out of college to the present. Through seven consecutive congressional terms, he has stridently advocated job-killing policies in the name of the working class. About which this ruling-class elitist knows nothing.

But it turns out Weiner DOES have one highly marketable skill: he is a rarefied pervert.  And in a degenerate world of pornography (a gift of liberals and liberal judges who said they couldn’t tell the difference between “art” and “porn” no matter how much of it they watched), being the level of sexual pervert that Weiner clearly is DOES have value:

Anthony Weiner Gets Offer From Larry Flynt to Work For His Hustler Empire in Beverly Hills

So I’m sure Weiner will be fine doing what he loves for fellow Democrat Larry Flynt.  Together they can continue to work for “liberal values.”  Such as LYING.

But here’s the thing.

Anthony Weiner was one of THE leading voices of the Democrat Party and THE voice for liberal values.  Bill O’Reilly demonstrated that the real loser in this Weinergate scandal is liberalism; they lost their star voice.  He debated with two liberals who couldn’t come up with anybody better than also-utterly-disgraced Rep. Charlie Rangel.  Even über über liberal Rachel Maddow says Weiner’s resignation will hurt the Democrat Party “probably for a generation.”

And who is this voice of liberalism?  An arrogant perverted punk who has spent his entire life on the taxpayer dole and who has absolutely no redeeming quality whatsoever in the world he demanded to have the power to regulate and then regulate some more.

I have pointed this out before: why on earth would any decent American want a Weiner running their lives???  Why would anyone but the worst fool imaginable want a guy like Anthony Weiner – who is not only a lying pervert but who literally is utterly USELESS in the real world – writing the laws that will control our economy and our lives???

Which just gets more to the point: if you vote for Democrats, you are a true fool indeed.

Michelle Malkin wrote a brilliant chapter in her book, Culture of Corruption.  It details how liberals make incredibly lucrative careeers moving from politics (either in elected office or as staffers) to crony capitalism (as lobbyists or in firms that want to schmooze politicians).  Michelle Obama is an example of this, as is Rahm Emanuel, as is Valerie Jarrett.  Crony capitalism is nothing more than fascism in waiting.  These people get rich gaming the system even as they corrupt and rot the system from within like leeches.

Obama Continues To Reveal He Is The Lowest Form Of Demagogue

CBS News had the story:

President Obama invoked the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35-W bridge in Minneapolis while criticizing cuts to infrastructure in the Republican budget plan at a town hall meeting on Tuesday.

“According to the Republican budget that was passed, for example, we would have to eliminate transportation funding by a third,” he said. “…You remember when that bridge in Minnesota collapsed with all those people on it and there was a big hue and cry, how could this happen in America?”

Obama pointed at the Republican agenda to reign in the utterly out-of-control federal spending that will be absolutely 100% guaranteed to implode America’s economy unless that spending is reigned in, and then demonized the Republicans for a previous bridge collapse.

But as happens far too often in the mainstream media propaganda that often gets to pass for “news,” CBS didn’t fully report the facts.

You see, Obama lied.  Because that’s what he does.  And that collapsed bridge he demagogues to demonize Republicans for – claiming that their budget cuts would eliminate maintenance – didn’t actually have anything whatsoever to do with maintenance:

NTSB: Design errors caused Minn. bridge collapse

WASHINGTON (AP) — The deadly collapse of a Minneapolis bridge last year began at steel plates in a main truss, attributable to a design flaw and not corrosion, federal safety investigators said Thursday.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators said the bridge collapse was unavoidable once U-10 steel gusset plates failed at the U-10 connection, near the center of the bridge. Investigators also ruled out any pre-existing cracking as a factor in the accident.

A hearing into the collapse quickly focused on the U-10 gusset plates on the Interstate 35W bridge. The safety board as far back as January had identified design flaws in the plates as a critical factor in the collapse.

CNS actually does a little investigation and reports the facts in an article entitled, “Obama Misstates Cause of Minn. Bridge Collapse–Falsely Blames Insufficient Federal Spending“:

Contrary to Obama’s townhall speeech, the bridge did not collapse because of “deteriorating” infrastructure. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the collapse was due to a design flaw, not to a lack of maintenance.

“The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error,” the NTSB states in its 2008 report on the incident.

In fact, the NTSB reported that on the day of the collapse, the bridge was in the process of being refurbished, further contradicting Obama’s claim that the collapse was evidence of a lack of infrastructure spending.

“On the day of the collapse, roadway work was underway on the I35W bridge, and four of the eight travel lanes (two outside lanes northbound and two inside lanes southbound) were closed to traffic,” reads the NTSB report.

If Obama were a halfway honest man, he would apologize for his vicious demonization that is entirely based on a lie.  But he’s not a halfway honest man.  And so he will count on the fact that the mainstream media will report his lies and not bother to correct them.  Because they are leftwing ideologue propagandists, and that’s how they roll.

You want to know something else I don’t understand?  It’s why we still need so much money for mainstenance projects.  Remember Obams’s so-called “stimulus” and how it was all going to go to such “shovel-ready projects”?  According to the CBO, Obama’s stimulus will cost $3.27 TRILLION.

Where did that money go, Barry Hussein?  Why is it that if Republicans cut so much as a dime, bridges across America will collapse?

Then there’s Obama’s demagogic remarks about border security and immigration:

“The question is going to be, are we going to be able to find some Republicans who can partner with me and others to get this done once and for all instead of
using it as a political football?”

But Obama had total Democrat control of Congress for TWO YEARS.  And he utterly failed to make any kind of serious bipartisan overture whatsoever on immigration reform during a period when Republicans had little chance of stopping much of anything.  He is simply lying and blaming Republicans for his own failure.  Which is to say, the only one using this issue as a “political football” is the guy demonizing others for doing what he himself is clearly doing.

You can again see just how utterly and vindictively partisan and demagogic Obama is in this exchange over the fact that Obama had a major meeting on immigration reform, and refused to invite so much as a single governor from one of the border states:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Did you hear what is  going on in Washington? President Obama is talking about immigration reform. The president held a meeting  today at the White House to discuss the broken immigration system. He met with a  bipartisan group. Guess what, he didn’t invite any governors from border states.  Why not?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer joins us live from  Phoenix. Governor, did you miss your invitation? Did you decline your  invitation? Why weren’t you here at the White House to talk about immigration  reform?

GOV. JAN BREWER, R-ARIZ.: I wish I would have been  invited. No, I do not — I did not get an invite. You would have thought one of  the governors would have been invited since we are on the frontlines fighting  for security there. It was a little bit of a snub, if you will. I think that on  behalf of myself, I think I could have added insight to the situation that  Arizona certainly is facing.

VAN SUSTEREN: I looked at the White House press release. Of  the people who were invited — the category of those — it says stakeholders  expected to attend. I looked up stakeholders to see whether you might be a  stakeholder or Governor Rick Perry. It says a person or group that has  investment share or interest in something as in the business or industry. I  guess it is someone who has a strong interest in the topic. He must think you  don’t have any interest in the issue or you would have been invited.

BREWER: That is very unfortunate if that’s what he believes.  I feel Arizona, I believe I and Rick Perry and certainly the governors on the  border have been leading the fight. We’ve been bringing the message to America.  And I think that we should have been afforded that opportunity to be at the  table to help him understand the situation that we want straightened out.

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me tell you who he did think was a  stakeholder and has a huge interest in this partial list — Mayor Bloomberg, who  of course is the mayor who sent investigators down to Arizona to investigate you  about guns, your state, the former police chief of New York Bill Brown,  Secretary Michael Chertoff, former secretary of Homeland Security.

Then he invited Senator Mel Martinez, former United States senator. Here’s  another interesting one, Greg Page chairman and CEO of Cargill. I thought that’s  an odd one. I understand why, because Cargill was raided in 2007 by immigration  and ice for violations having to do with immigration. They probably have the  inside scoop on that one.

Al Sharpton was invited. The CEO of Facebook, another one. Arnold  Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California not the current governor, and  Richard Trumka, who is AFL-CIO union leader. Those are some of the people that  the president thinks has a greater interest than you do.

BREWER: That’s an unfortunate list as far as I’m concerned.  I didn’t know he had extended the invitation that this meeting was going to take  place.

But it seems by the list and what has been reported back to me this afternoon,  it is people that looking at that wonderful word “comprehensive immigration  reform.” It has nothing to do with what we really need to have done, and that is  to get our borders secured.

I think they are looking to try to talk about amnesty and all these other  issues and the dream act. None of these things in my opinion are going to take  place until we get our borders secured. I don’t think the American people want  to address anything until we feel secure. Our citizens need to feel secure in  their homes. It just continues to grow with the issue of people coming across  our borders illegal, the drug cartels.

VAN SUSTEREN: I may disagree with you a little bit. I would  like a solution that is complete and which protects our borders, protects  Americans and handles all the issues. I would like to see it put behind us. I to  the president’s speech at American university last summer to hear it. I did want  to hear what he said he was going to do.

We haven’t heard anything. He a Democratic house and Senate we don’t hear  anything until now as he gets ready to launch his campaign. And now things have  changed. Now we are hearing it again. I’m deeply disturbed. I think this is  talk. I think his guest list supports that because this is not bringing people  to the table who have real interests in this.

BREWER: I absolutely agree with you. The bottom line is that  he has a different agenda than what the American people have. Unfortunately, we  keep talking and we keep contacting him with our concerns, really no response,  no concern. Of course now we are in the election period so we now he’s going to  be standing up and talking about he’s going to do this and that. He’s had two  years to deliver what he promised two years ago and hasn’t delivered.

So we want our borders secured. I truly believe that the majority of us are  not going to discuss anything else in regards to what his agenda is, until we  get satisfaction with security at our borders.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/border-governors-not-invited-white-house-meeting-immigration-reform#ixzz1K3EvMeaH

This is beyond ridiculous.  If you have any intention whatsoever of coming to some kind of agreement, you invite the major decision makers.  But Obama doesn’t want solutions; he wants to prevent solutions and then blame Republicans for the well that Obama personally poisoned.

Last week Obama gave a hateful speech in which he blasted Republicans as the party that wanted to kill old people and children with autism.  During a point in the health care debate, when Obama needed to appear bi-partisan, Obama said:

“We’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that’s — the other party’s being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”

And then he proceeded to do the very thing that he himself had said would undermine and poison the process.  Rep. Paul Ryan said correctly:

“What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.”

And, again, Obama doesn’t WANT to fix problems.  Obama wants to demonize and demagogue and lie and accuse and blame.

We can and should go back to 2006 remarks made by Obama when he personally demonized George Bush for raising the debt celing.  Obama demagogued:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. 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. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. 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 problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Now the same weaselly demagogue is saying that anyone who acted like Obama himself acted would be an un-American traitor.

It just never ends with this guy.

Wicked Witches of ‘The View’ Lie by Calling Glenn Beck a Liar

Glenn Beck made the collosal mistake of appearing on a show I call “The Poo.”  It features a gaggle of wicked step sisters (and the Cinderella stand in Elizabeth Hasselbeck) – only in this version the wicked step sisters win and Cinderella loses.

In any event, Beck is on the program for all of 90 seconds before Whoopie Goldberg says she’s pissed at Glenn Beck.

Why is she pissed?

Watch for yourself (youtube):

Aside from the admittedly snotty tone Beck uses to parody Barbara Walters (and don’t think for a nanosecond that Bah-bah Wah-wah didn’t inspect Glenn Beck much the same way that Queen Victoria would have inspected a brothel), the “lie” that Joy Behar, Whoopie Goldberg, and Barbara Walters chime in to accuse Glenn Beck of committing was that Barbara came over to him, when in reality HE went over to her.

And this is suddenly a monumentally important deal.

And Glenn Beck was so shell shocked by the vicious attack that he didn’t even realize: he hadn’t actually said any such thing.

I wasted about seven precious minutes of my life that I will never be able to get back to watch the Youtube footage from “The Poo” episode.  At about 2:44 into the video segment, we get the CLOSEST thing to Glenn Beck saying Barbara came over to him:

“Clear the path.  It’s Barbara Walters and Whoopie Goldberg.  Oh, and Steve Croft.  How did they reserve seats on Amtrack when you can’t reserve seats on Amtrack?  Now, as the train took off, and Barbara said, “Glenn Beck.” And I said, “Yes, Mrs. Walters.  How are you?”

Notice, Beck doesn’t actually say anything about Barbara Walters coming over to him.  Nor does he say he went over to her.  He merely parodies the conversation that they have when they did in fact meet.

Now, the View’s wicked step sisters all proceeded to accuse Glenn Beck of lying because he said Barbara and Whoopie came over to him, when in fact he came over to them.   Whoopie Goldberg not only called him a liar to his face, but she actually called him “A lying sack of dog mess.”

And Glenn Beck – clearly taken aback – admits he came over to them, and has no idea why he would have said otherwise.

The thing is, though, Beck NEVER said they came over to him on the clip they showed him.  It was Joy Behar, Whoopie Goldberg, and Barbara Walters who were actually doing the lying.

Whoopie demands of Glen Beck, “Why did you say that with that voice, “Come over here”!?!?  But watch the damn footage: he DIDN’T say that.

It’s Whoopie Goldberg who is “the lying sack of dog mess.”

The wicked step sisters spent seven minutes torturing Glenn Beck with accusations of a lie that was itself a lie by THEM.

Then, on top of that, Barbara Walters – who I would have thought was smart enough and experienced enough to know better – calls Beck “an investigative reporter.”  And Beck responds that he isn’t an investigative reporter.  He rightly corrects her:  “I’m a commentator.”  And then the nasty witch haughtilly proceeded to conclude that Beck therefore thinks he must have no commitment to check out his facts.  Which is absurd.  Barbara Walters herself hasnt been an investigative reporter for years; does that mean SHE doesn’t have any commitment to check out her facts either?  And the answer in her case – given she’s the one who is entirely wrong about her facts – is apparently “yes.”

It was nothing but a cheap-shot rhetorical attack from the beginning.

And Cinderella wasn’t allowed to get a word in edge-wise.  Not when her pit bull step-sisters were attacking a piece of meat.

The wicked step sisters also claim that they hadn’t reserved a table.  But they offered nothing to prove that.  And Glenn Beck had THREE witnesses with him to defend the fact that a table WAS in fact reserved; and that the police escort seated Walters at that table.

The only thing Glenn Beck seemed to be wrong about was his assumption that Steve Croft – who entered the car with Walters and Goldberg – was with them.

This is exactly the kind of dishonest nastiness that we should respect from the mainstream media today: a vicious and petty attack based on lies, pursued with an attitude that indicates, “I’m outraged, therefore I must be right.”

“The Poo” lived up to its billing.  Because that show genuinely stinks.

Hopefully, the next time Glenn Beck – or any other conservative – considers going onto “The Poo,” he or she will stop, take a moment to gouge out both eyes, and then decide against it.

Russians And Liberals Have Always Been Like Peas In A Pod

Looking at the Russians as they tear the democracy out of a previously Democratic nation, it’s kind of hard to tell them apart from our liberals back home.

– They both love big governments.

– They are both the happiest amidst totalitarianism and socialism.

– They both pretty much want the government to either manage or benefit from everything.

– They both offer ostentatious and grandiose pretensions for whatever they are doing.

– They both lie like crazy the whole time they’re doing whatever they’re doing.

– They both want total control of the media under the guise of “fairness.”

– They both don’t think very highly of allowing things to be voted on.

I think they would come rolling in with tanks (after all, both communism and fascism derive from the left) if it weren’t for the fact that Barack Obama would look like a total dweeb in a helmet, and Nancy Pelosi would muss up her hair-do. American liberals probably decided to avoid tanks after the Dukakis fiasco.