Posts Tagged ‘promise’

Obama Lied About ObamaCare. He Lied About EVERYTHING ABOUT ObamaCare.

November 14, 2013

A lot of people in the media are fixated on Obama’s lie – repeated at least thirty-six times on camera! – that:

“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.”

Every single one of the millions of Americans who lost their health coverage because of your evil health care takeover ought to be able to give you a good hard kick in the ass and leave you with your tail bone permanently sticking out of your ear.  Period.  And no one should be able to take that tail bone away from there.  No matter what.

Of course the above link takes you to a LIBERAL Washington Post fact check that gives Obama the maximum number of Pinocchio (i.e., “LIAR”) points.  But WaPo also has this gem compiling an assemblage of Obama in flat-out liar-liar-pants-on-fire mode.

For the official record, Republicans knew that Obama was a liar on this promise more than three years ago:

In 2010, Republican Senator Mike Enzi (WY) said on the Senate floor that the Obama administration had broken its promise that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

Sen. Enzi also correctly predicted that employers will be less likely to hire workers and may even lay off employees. He was accused of fear-mongering by his Democratic counterparts back then.

Tonight on The Kelly File, the senator told Megyn Kelly, “I couldn’t believe what some of my colleagues were saying even though the federal register […] predicted millions were going to lose their insurance.”

He criticized President Obama for making changes to the law, referring to the delay of the employer mandate, while telling Republicans that the law can’t be changed.

Sen. Enzi wrote a bill that would have guaranteed that people could keep their health plans according to Obama’s promise.  EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT – including Hillary Clinton and especially including the fifteen Democrats who are now panicking about their precious re-elections – voted against it.  Which is to say they voted to screw America twice by voting for ObamaCare to begin with and then voting for the hell of uninsuring the insured it would cause that is coming to pass right now.  Because they don’t give a flying DAMN about the American people.

Now, here’s the thing: the fecal matter is smacking the rotary oscillator now as 5 million independently insured Americans lose their health care with a total of 15 million expected to lose their similar coverage.  Those people are losing their coverage that they were happy with even as they are unable to buy coverage because Obama is so criminally incompetent that he took three years to piss away $634 million to build a website that doesn’t work as well as any one of about a million porn sites.  That ought to tell you why Obama decided to suspend his law for employer-based health plans.  But when that kicks in next year, you will see 129 million Americans have their health plans either cancelled or cost substantially more (while many of them will get substantially less in benefits).

That’s when things will really start hitting the fan.

It only took the mainstream media five years to start being accountable to the truth.  You know, whereas the same media would have already been blasting a Republican president before he took his oath of office.

But that Obama lie is just the tip of the Obama lie iceberg.

How about this Obama lie:

In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.

Obama promised that his socialist takeover of health care would “bend the cost curve down,” but in actual FACT it will bend it UP with an arc of a rocket ship blasting into space.  Obama said it would lower a family’s cost by $2,500 a year; try raising it by $7,450 a year instead.

Don’t believe me because I disagree with Obama and am therefore “racist”???  Time to smell some reality, you drones.

As I write this, I noted that even the Los Angeles Times is beginning to expose this Satanic lie from Obama:

Obama supporter miffed at botched healthcare rollout: Margaret Davis favors wider access to insurance, but under the Affordable Care Act she’d see her premiums rise 88% for inferior coverage. By Steve Lopez November 12, 2013, 7:58 p.m.

Margaret Davis of West L.A. voted for President Obama and appreciates the ideas behind the Affordable Care Act. She agrees that everyone should have access to healthcare and no one should be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

But here’s the problem:

She knows firsthand, as the new law of the land rolls clumsily into being, that it’s not working out to everyone’s advantage.

“I’m a 55-year-old woman in excellent health and have a catastrophic health plan,” she wrote recently to Obama and California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. “I am completely happy with my plan. I received notice that the plan is being canceled and that to stay with a “comparable” plan my premiums would increase 88%, or $200 extra per month. To add insult to injury, the plan is INFERIOR to my existing plan.”

If you guessed that she got no response from any of those elected officials, you win a box of cough drops.

But public officials didn’t throw a complete shutout at Davis. She wrote to U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) when she didn’t hear from the others, and one of Bass’ staffers called Davis to say she’ll be looking into the specifics of her case.

“Any time you do a huge policy change like healthcare, there’s going to be all sorts of problems and glitches that need to be worked out,” Bass told me Tuesday from Washington, where she said there were new calls for allowing people to keep the policies they have, as President Obama had repeatedly promised they’d be able to do.

President Clinton has urged such a move, and Feinstein’s office backed the idea Tuesday. She noted in a statement that her office had received 30,832 contacts from Californians, “many of whom are very distressed by cancellations of their insurance policies and who are facing increased out-of-pocket expenses.”

“The Affordable Care Act is a good law, but it’s not perfect,” the Feinstein statement said.

No, not by a longshot, beginning with the federal website debacle and highlighted by Obama’s now-laughable promises of a smooth transition. But Bass worries that the problems will further embolden critics who were determined from the beginning to do a grave dance on healthcare reform.

Hundreds of people attended a town hall conference hosted by Bass on Sunday in West L.A. She said some attendees were in the same situation as Davis and not very happy about it; others were confused by their options. Bass said many were assisted as they enrolled in new plans through the state exchange, Covered California.

“But overall, people were like Margaret,” said Bass, who called Davis on Tuesday to discuss her case. “They really want this to work, and they’re just trying to figure it out.”

Which hasn’t been all that easy for Davis, an accountant and software consultant who couldn’t believe “how botched up” the healthcare.gov website was, among other problems.

And would anyone be shocked if insurance companies were trying to take advantage of all the confusion?

Davis lives with her husband and two teenage sons but chose not to be covered by her husband’s healthcare plan, which would have added $600 per month to the cost. All she wanted from her own plan was the peace of mind that came with knowing she wouldn’t go broke if she were seriously ill or injured.

She paid Kaiser $224 a month with a $5,000 deductible.

Under the new Kaiser plan, her premium would rise to $420.46 a month. The plan carries a lower deductible, of $4,500, after which she would then pay 40% of the cost of care up to a cap of $6,350.

Though Davis appreciates the goal that all policies must meet minimal standards of coverage, she doesn’t anticipate needing either the maternity or mental health care that would be part of her new plan.

“I had a feeling my cost would go up,” said Davis, who makes just enough money to be ineligible for a government subsidy, “but I was floored when I saw that it was an 87.7% increase.”

That massive increase in your health care cost BECAUSE of ObamaCare ought to be a hell of a lot more believable to you now given the fiasco you are seeing unfold right in front of your eyes.

Now, the story of woe of Margaret Davis of West L.A. and tens of millions of other Americans sets us up for yet another massive Obama (and ObamaCare) lie from hell:

Example 1:

BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Example 2:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

Well, of course, we know that when this law was passed, Obama promised that it wouldn’t be a “tax,” but a “penalty.”  But the Supreme Court in its upholding ObamaCare said a “penalty” would be unconstitutional.  They let ObamaCare stand by declaring that Barack Hussein Obama was merely a lying weasel who had called a “tax” a “penalty” because a “tax” would have sent his “signature legislative accomplishment” down in flames.  And we found that ObamaCare was in fact a “tax,” and it was OBAMA who was the “penalty.”

The simple fact is that Obama promised that if you made less than $100,000 a year or if you were a member of a family making less than $250,000 a year, your taxes wouldn’t go up “one dime.” “Not one single dime.”

When you get your new health insurance premiums, please realize that every single dime of increase in the money your paying right out of your hind end is a TAX to OBAMA.

It is a “Lying Tyrant Tax.”  To again quote Obama: Period.  End of story.

Now, back in 2009, a cynical, dishonest, lying Obama scolded George Stephanopoulos on national television for suggesting that his ObamaCare mandate was a tax increase.  Obama said it “is absolutely not a tax increase.”  Reading that now knowing what a total liar Obama was is actually kind of funny now.  But this same lying weasel who said his mandate was “absolutely not a tax increase” sent his lying lawyer shills out to the Supreme Court to argue that yes it was too a tax increase (right after arguing that not it wasn’t).  And being a pathologically dishonest weasel, Obama had pathologically dishonest weasels do his lawyering for him, too.  Samuel Alito pointed out the transparent dishonesty of the Obama regime when he said, “General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax.”

That’s the kind of president we’ve got.  Which is why we’ve got the kind of crisis we’ve got.  Because a dishonest man started lying and just wouldn’t stop.  Period.

Amazingly, Obama has spent $684 million to promote a $634 million utterly failed and glitch-ridden website that IT people say they could have had running for a tiny fraction of that ridiculous price.  And Obama is going to make your health care cheaper???

Has the government proven to you that it can do things better, faster and for less money yet, you morally idiotic Democrat???

How about this Obama lie:

I’ve told this story before — I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition so they could wiggle out of paying for her coverage. How many of you have worried about the same thing? (Applause.) A lot of people have gone through this. Many of you have been denied insurance or heard of someone who was denied insurance because they got — had a preexisting condition. That will no longer be allowed with reform. (Applause.) We won’t allow that. (Applause.) We won’t allow that.

Now, please keep in mind that Barack Obama is a man who is so evil and so dishonest that he literally lied about his own mother and demonized the insurance company that kept her alive.

Quote: “Barack Obama’s Mother,” [Stanley Ann] Dunham had an employer-provided health insurance policy  that paid her hospital bills directly. Her insurer, Cigna, never denied payment  for her cancer treatment.

But that lie is merely an example of a man with a truly wicked and vile personal character.  We’re focusing on ObamaCare lies.  So let’s consider whether people with pre-existing conditions are getting cancelled or not.  And the answer is, contrary to the most documented liar in all human history, yes, people with pre-existing conditions are being cancelled.  Eddie Littlefield Sundby begins her Wall Street Journal op-ed with these words:

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.

That woman who just lost her insurance with her life-threatening pre-existing condition is probably going to die because that’s what tends to happen to stage 4 cancer patients when Obama decides their actually quite excellent health care is somehow “sub-par” and that he should be trusted to do better than her doctors.  Barack Obama murdered her with his lies.

Or how about this Obama lie:

“And let me tell you exactly what Obamacare did. Number one, if you’ve got health insurance it doesn’t mean a Government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can’t jerk you around. They can’t impose arbitrary lifetime limits. They have to let you keep your kid on their insurance—your insurance plan until you’re 26 years old.” — – President Obama during the first presidential debate in 2012

Like with every other Obama promise, it was a lie for a critical group of Americans: our military veterans and their families:

One of the most touted benefits of President Obama’s health care overhaul law is the provision allows parents to keep their adult children on their health insurance until age 26.

However, Trace Gallagher reported on “The Kelly File” Monday, this benefit is not being extended to a significant group of Americans: members of the U.S. military.

TRICARE, the Department of Defense program that provides health coverage to active duty and retired military members and their families, only covers young adult dependents up until age 21, or age 23 if they are enrolled full-time in college.

TRICARE recipients can then purchase a plan for their young adult dependents, according to their website.

Air Force veteran Eddie Grooms said he was disappointed to learn he could not add his 21-year-old daughter to his insurance provided by the military, as he thought he had been promised under the health care overhaul.

“It’d be nice if they leveled with everybody and let them know so that people could make plans, because this is going to hit all, I mean it’s going to hit thousands of retirees over time,” Grooms said.

So maybe your kid can stay on your policy until he or she is 26.  Unless you’re one of the heroes who defended American freedom.  Then Obama screwed you but good.

Not that Obama ever liked our nation’s veterans.  Apparently he figures that people who fought for America would be more inclined to fight him when he tries to impose his tyranny over America.

The thing is that I could go on.  And probably on and on.  Suffice it to say that absolutely every single thing Obama said about his health care hijack was a lie.

I’ve said it over and over again: Barack Obama is not merely a liar; he is a truly evil man.  He is a man devoid of character, or honesty, or integrity, or virtue.  He is nothing short of the Antichrist’s useful idiot.

The horror story is yet to come.  Obama set up one of his promises thusly:

“First of all, nobody is talking about some government takeover of healthcare,” Obama told the crowd in Raleigh. “I’m tired of hearing that…. Under the reform I’ve proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your healthcare plan, you keep your healthcare plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody.”

Given that Obama lied about being able to keep your doctor, being that Obama lied about being able to keep your healthcare plan, you need to realize that “the folks who were scaring everybody” were the only ones who were telling the truth.  Which means that YES, OBAMACARE IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE.  And things are going to get ugly in this “fundamentally transformed” people’s socialist republic.

If you’ve got any sense in your head at all, you are now listening to the people Obama demonized as “scaring everybody.”  Because everything we said would happen is happening right in front of your fool eyes.

I have stated my view that Barack Hussein Obama is demon-possessed.  When you get your health care bill and as you start watching your costs spiral as we encounter the nightmare scenario of an actuarial death spiral (and see here) as the young people ObamaCare needed to enroll refuse to do so while the sickest and least healthy Americans overload the system (and you pay their tab), tell me I’m wrong.

I predict that the actuarial death spiral is THE most likely outcome as young people refuse to pay double the premiums they would have had to pay (and even THEN refused to pay) for insurance they don’t feel they need in order to pay the costs for he older and sicker population.  And rates will systematically skyrocket as a result.  (I also predict that Democrats will demonize the insurance companies for their sin of trying to remain in business rather than going bankrupt trying to carry out Democrats’ insane delusional socialist fantasies).

I can’t resist one more.  Allow me to end with a lie you can already see in the making:

Obama Administration Promises Health Care Site Will Be Fixed By End of November
By Kate Pickert @katepickertOct. 25, 2013

The Obama administration says the problem-plagued healthcare.gov website will  be working properly by the end of November and that the government has appointed  a new contractor to head up repairs for the troubled health insurance  exchange.

“Each week, the experience will get better and better,” Jeff Zients, a  management consultant and former administration budget official recently hired  to oversee fixes to the website, told reporters on a conference call Friday. “We are confident that by the end of  November, healthcare.gov will operate smoothly for the majority of users.”

If that deadline is met, it would come two months after the site was launched  with major technical failures, prompting widespread criticism and giving  ammunition to Republican opponents of President Barack Obama’s signature  domestic achievement.

Oh, really, lying Obama administration???

Troubled HealthCare.gov unlikely to work fully by end of November
By Amy Goldstein, Juliet Eilperin and Lena H. Sun

Software problems with the federal online health insurance marketplace, especially in handling high volumes, are proving so stubborn that the system is unlikely to work fully by the end of the month as the White House has promised, according to an official with knowledge of the project.

The insurance exchange is balking when more than 20,000 to 30,000 people attempt to use it at the same time — about half its intended capacity, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal information. And CGI Federal, the main contractor that built the site, has succeeded in repairing only about six of every 10 of the defects it has addressed so far.

Government workers and tech­nical contractors racing to repair the Web site have concluded, the official said, that the only way for large numbers of Americans to enroll in the health-care plans soon is by using other means so that the online system isn’t overburdened.

This inside view of the halting nature of HealthCare.gov repairs is emerging as the insurance industry is working behind the scenes on contingency plans, in case the site continues to have problems. And it calls into question the repeated assurances by the White House and other top officials that the insurance exchange will work smoothly for the vast majority of Americans by Nov. 30. Speaking in Dallas a week ago, President Obama said that the “Web site is already better than it was at the beginning of October, and by the end of this month, we anticipate that it is going to be working the way it is supposed to, all right?”

Just another lie from a serial liar.  But we’ve already let him get away with so many thousand lies it’s beyond unreal.  Let’s just chew our cuds like herd animals and let him lie American into oblivion.

Advertisements

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

November 12, 2013

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 peopleWe 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.

Hillary Clinton’s Solemn Oath To Afghan Women: ‘We Will NOT Abandon You’ (Until Obama Cuts And Runs And Abandons You)

April 10, 2012

Another Obama promise bites the dust.  We can add the lie below to Obama’s “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal“; we can add that lie to Obama’s very first executive order swearing that he would close Gitmo within one year (psst: it’s still open); we can add that lie to Obama’s promise to accept matching campaign funds (until he broke that promise) and Obama’s promise that he would not accept super pac money (until he broke that promise); we can add that lie to a long list of Obama flat-out lies (see also here).

Sorry, women of Afghanistan.  I know this will be an incredibly painful lesson as Barack Obama returns you to the state of abject slavery that George Bush delivered you from.  Just remember from now on NEVER to trust Democrats; they will promise you the world only to completely abandon you the moment it becomes politically expedient for them to do so.

Status of Afghan women threatens Hillary Clinton’s legacy
The secretary of State has devoted herself to the issue, but gains made may be reversed as Afghanistan’s conservatives become more powerful in the West’s wake.
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
April 8, 2012, 6:05 p.m.

WASHINGTON — In the final months of her tenure as secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton is fighting a long retreat on a cause close to her heart, and to her legacy — the status of Afghan women.

Clinton embraced the cause long before the first U.S. troops landed in the country, and as secretary of State she has brought Afghan women worldwide attention, political power and unbending promises of American support.

“We will not abandon you,” she pledged.

But now, with U.S. officials laying plans to remove most troops in two years, the Afghan government and other institutions appear to be adjusting their positions on women’s rights to accommodate conservative factions. Restrictions on women have made a comeback.

“Most of women’s important achievements over the last decade are likely to be reversed,” predicted a bleak report issued last month by the Afghan Human Rights and Democracy Organization, a nonprofit in Kabul funded by Western governments and private groups.

This puts Clinton in a tough spot. Among senior U.S. officials, none is more closely associated with women’s rights: When prominent Afghan women are alarmed by developments at home, they often fire off emails to Clinton’s staff.

“She has been a very strong conscience of the world on this issue,” said Wazhma Frogh, director of the Research Institute for Women, Peace and Security in the Afghan capital, Kabul. “We have leaned on her help in the past, and we are looking to her help for our future.”

Clinton insists that the United States views women’s rights as a nonnegotiable “red line.” At a recent meeting of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council, she insisted that “any peace that is attempted to be made by excluding more than half the population is no peace at all. It is a figment that will not last…. We will not waver on this point.”

Yet administration officials also acknowledge sharp limits to what America can do. Even future U.S. funding to help women is uncertain.

Melanne Verveer, U.S. ambassador at large for women and a longtime Clinton aide, said that American officials remain influential and will do all they can.

“But this is going to be in the end an Afghan-led process,” she said. “Ultimately, it is going to be the Afghans who are in the driver’s seat. We can’t see the future. This is a work in progress — we don’t know — we hope it will be progress.”

Senior U.S. officials see Afghanistan as an intractable foreign policy mess that will only get worse as long as large numbers of U.S. troops remain in the country. Winding down the U.S. commitment has become an overriding priority.

As America’s chief diplomat, Clinton has won praise not only from liberals, but also from conservatives. Gallup polls have found she is the nation’s most admired woman for each of the last 10 years.

Clinton has signaled that she will step down as top U.S. diplomat early next year, and the fate of Afghan women may not be clear until long after her departure. Even so, a reversal on women’s rights would be a blow to Clinton’s legacy.

“People will identify her with whatever happens,” said Shamila Chaudhary, who was National Security Council advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan until late last year and is now with the Eurasia Group research firm in Washington. “There’s a huge reputational risk in this for her.”

Clinton’s advocacy for women in Afghanistan goes back to her time in the Senate before the Sept . 11 attacks, when the world was horrified to see how the Taliban regime had marginalized women.

Clinton pushed for guaranteed seats for women in the Afghan parliament and other government bodies and has made sure that the United States has amply funded programs to support women’s health and education, businesses, legal clinics and shelters. Clinton was among the Western officials who lobbied the Afghan government to set up a women’s ministry and enact a tough law barring violence against women.

Her efforts have contributed to Afghan women’s gains. Over the last decade, women’s life expectancy there has increased from 42 to 64 years, and the number of girls in school has gone from 10,000 to 2.5 million.

But two months ago, the country’s top religious body, the Ulema Council, issued an edict that men are “fundamental” and women “secondary,” and barred women from mingling with men in schools or the workplace. Afghan President Hamid Karzai appeared to embrace the ruling, setting off an international outcry.

When Clinton called Karzai on March 8 to demand an explanation, Karzai said the ruling was only “advisory” and insisted that he stood by the Afghan Constitution’s guarantees of equality for women.

Yet the incident was widely seen as proof that Karzai and other Afghan institutions have started to position themselves for the more conservative era they see ahead.

Karzai “has a lot to lose if he can’t find a way to reach an accommodation with the Taliban,” said Heather Barr of Human Rights Watch in Kabul. “The consequences for him of moving against women’s rights are probably a lot less serious.”

Clinton’s pressure helped gain women nine seats in the High Peace Council, a body appointed to help direct the negotiations with the Taliban. But so far, Afghan women have been largely shut out of the preliminary talks, former First Lady Laura Bush, another advocate for the women’s cause, said during the meeting of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council.

There are other trouble signs. Dozens of mixed-gender and girls schools have been destroyed by insurgents in recent years, including 74 in 2010 alone, Amnesty International says. Prominent female politicians have been killed and others face growing threats of violence, Amnesty says.

U.S. spending for Afghan women, like other aid, has begun to decline, women’s advocates say. Although the administration is committed to long-term development aid to Afghanistan, Verveer acknowledged that decisions on such appropriations “will be a negotiation between the administration and the Congress.”

Although Clinton has remained focused on women’s rights, others in the Obama administration have concentrated most on security goals, starting with winning Taliban commitments to break off ties with Al Qaeda, say current and former U.S. officials.

If the negotiators are able to work out an agreement on security and other key issues, “the final deal won’t be held up by a disagreement over women’s rights,” Chaudhary predicted. “No way.”

You can go back to what Democrats did to Bush on Iraq to see that Democrats are 100 percent reliable – to abandon their own words and instead cut and run when their allies need them the most:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

George Bush won his war in Iraq that Barack Obama demonized.  Vice President Joe Biden literally tried to claim credit for Iraq, claiming, “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”  Barack Obama proceeded to piss that victory away by not bothering for three years to get any kind of agreement to keep US forces in as peacekeepers whatsoever.  And now we find that Barack Obama is very obviously losing his war in Afghanistan.

And proving that anybody who trusts a Democrat might as well put a “kick-me” sign over their face.

Marriage Undefended: Obama Decides To Ignore Law Passed By Congress And Signed By Pres. Clinton

February 23, 2011

Let me first go back to Barack Obama’s own words as candidate for president:

Asked to define marriage, Obama said it “is the union between a man and a woman.”

That was when he was running.  His promises don’t matter though.  This man is a documented liar.  He is an evil man.  Why should his promises and what he said when we was seeking votes matter?

Obama promised that he would transcend the political divide.  The New York Times called that promise “the core of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.”  And I want someone to explain to me how doing undermining something that Republicans and many Democrats approve of and which was signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton isn’t a vicious gut-punch to Obama’s “core promise” to the American people???

That’s first of all.  Second, let’s say that George W. Bush had taken a law – oh, let’s say laws protecting unions or civil rights laws – and said, “I don’t think this is constitutional and we’re not going to uphold it anymore.  We aren’t going to recognize anything that says we have an obligation to recognize that.  I’m president, and I can do whatever I want.”  [See more on the ramifications of this despicable view at the bottom of this article].

Democrats would RIGHTLY have called for Bush’s impeachment.  Because like the laws or don’t like them, the laws of the land are the laws of the land.  And the president has the constitional duty to uphold laws that have been passed by Congress and signed into law by a president of the United States.

This is unthinkable.  It is unconstitutional.  It is an abuse of the office of the presidency.  If Obama gave a flying damn about the Constitution, he could begin by pursuing his role within it and recognizing the authority and the power of both the Legislative and the Judiciary branches which he just stomped all over.  And yes, Barack Obama should be impeached.

President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law “Unconstitutional”
February 23, 2011 12:39 PM
by Jake Tapper, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states.

The announcement was made in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to congressional leaders in relation to two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, which challenge a section of DOMA that defines marriage for federal purposes as only between one man and one woman.

President Obama believes that section – Section 3 — “is unconstitutional” given the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (including its equal protection component), Holder wrote, and the president has instructed the Department of Justice to no longer defend the law in those two lawsuits.

President Obama “has made the determination,” Holder wrote, that Section 3 “as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

DOMA was passed by a Republican House and Senate and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. In application the law means same-sex couples are not afforded the same rights as straight couples when it comes to Social Security benefits, hospital visitation and other rights.

Following presidential precedent, the Obama administration has been defending the law even though President Obama has long opposed it.

But now, “under heightened scrutiny” since the 2nd circuit court asked for the administration to defend its position given lack of precedent, Holder wrote, the government’s ability to defend the law can no longer be made by “advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review.  Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.”

That legislative record, Holder wrote, “contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny.  The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

Chuck Donovan, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation said that “After a series of steps that undermined the legal case for the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama Administration has apparently decided to drop its mask and publicly switch sides.  This action raises the stakes in this litigation even higher, because both portions of DOMA – both the federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as well as the authority of Congress under Article 4 of the Constitution to interpret the Full Faith and Credit Clause to allow states to protect similar definitions – are now at heightened risk.”

Last month, then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “we can’t declare the law unconstitutional…The President believes, as you said, that this is a law that should not exist and should be repealed.  But we, at the same time, have to represent the viewpoint of the defendant.” Gibbs said that “given the current makeup of the Congress,” having DOMA repealed would be :inordinately challenging,”

President Obama told Holder that the Executive Branch of the government will continue to enforce Section 3 “consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.  This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.”

In Zanesville, OH, in June 2008, then-candidate Obama said DOMA “was a unnecessary imposition on what had been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage.”

“This is a monumental decision for the thousands of same-sex couples and their families who want nothing more than the same rights and dignity afforded to other married couples,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals. Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law. The federal government has no business picking and choosing which legal marriages they want to recognize.  Instead Congress should take this opportunity to wipe the stain of marriage discrimination from our laws.”

-Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

UPDATE:

A reminder that in June 2009, President Obama’s DOJ began its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act by invoking incest and adults marrying children.

This did not go over particularly well among some of the president’s supporters.

In July 2010, a judge ruled against the Obama administration.

Also in June 2009, the president extended some benefits to same sex partners of federal employees.

At a news conference in December of 2010, shortly after signing into law a repeal of the military’s ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy toward gay servicemembers, I asked the President if it was “intellectually consistent to say that gay and lesbians should be able to fight and die for this country, but they should not be able to marry the people they love?”

Gay marriage, he said, is an issue with which he struggles.

“My feelings about this are constantly evolving,” he said. “I struggle with this.  I have friends, I have people who work for me who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions, and they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.”

At this point, “unconstitutional” becomes the adjective which best describes the Obama presidency.  And I’m not just talking about the bizarre inability of this man to produce a birth certificate.  I am stating that Obama is now not a president, but a dictator.  Because dictators place themselves above the law, just as Obama is doing now.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996.  It passed both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.  The Supreme Court has not said anything about this being in any way unconstitutional for fifteen years.  And it is Obama’s role as our Lord and our God, and the ONLY Lord and God with whom we have to do, to overturn the constitutional process, the Congress, the law of the land and the will of the people???

The Constitution is not a salad bar which allows you to pick and choose what you like and what you don’t like.  Unless you’re a liberal who despises truth, who believes truth doesn’t even exist and holds that the truth is whatever you can make it.  I’ve described the invariable outcome of that view before: it’s called fascism.

We have a history of liberal activist judges who usurp their constitutional role all the time.  Now we’ve got a president who thinks he’s a liberal activist judge.  And who gets to sit in judgment over the Constitution and every law that has been passed before him.

Obama also thinks he is the entire liberal constitutional philosophy in microchosm.  Liberalism holds that the Constitution means nothing in and of itself, that it is constantly changing and that only the changes reflected in current liberal rulings have any real power (if conservatives embrace the exact same philosophy, of course, then they and only they are wrong).  And lo and behold, “Obama’s views on same-sex marriage are ‘evolving,’” and so therefore obviously the Constitution must be evolving.  Because everything revolves around Obama.

Obama should be impeached.  And the only reason he won’t be is that Democrats as a class don’t much give a damn about the Constitution, either.  And the Democrats still control the Senate.

Just remember this, Democrats.  If Obama gets away with this, the next Republican president has the right by precedent to decide which laws HE wants to ignore.  And you will have supported that right by supporting what Barry Hussein is doing right now.

The “Hunt Every Democrat And Burn Them Alive Act” is coming.  I can feel it.  And when it comes, Democrats will have burned themselves.

Update, Feb 24: Rush Limbaugh was on his game today.  He mentioned that this wasn’t about gay marriage – as bad as that is – but rather about a president who is lawless.  This is a president who is literally community agitating in several states across the republic; this is the president who is ignoring a federal judge’s ruling that his health care program is unconstitutional; thisis a president who enacted sweeping environmental rulings through his EPA because the United States Congress would never have allowed such a radical agenda to pass; and this is a president who added more czars than just about every president before him combined.  And now this is the president who makes himself the sole arbiter of what is “constitutional” and what is not.

And so Limbaugh started talking about a President Palin doing the same things (including not being able to produce her birth certificate, because you don’t think the left would make an issue out of that if she couldn’t?).  This President Palin – citing Barack Obama as her justifying precedent – would determine that she did not think Roe v. Wade was constitutional, and so so sorry, but it wouldn’t be defended any longer.  This President Palin would look at ObamaCare and virtually anything else she didn’t like (e.g. drilling bans) and simply determine that they weren’t constitutional on her view as dictator #2 (Obama having set the stage as dictator #1), and so would not be defended.  And further, whereas the Obama White House meets repeatedly every week with union thug president Richard Trumka to plot strategy on how to “punish their enemies.”   So just imagine President Palin meeting with big oil, big business and big insurance three plus times per week to plot how to punish liberals and liberal groups.  All in secret, of course, and all justified by Obama indifference to the Constitution and hostility to any interest that doesn’t pay billions to his campaign warchest.

Republicans now have a huge majority in the House.  And yes, they are heavily favored to re-take the Senate in 2012, thanks to Democrats being the vile cockroaches that they are.  Meanwhile, Obama’s approval has plunged well below 50% in states he needs to win.

Like I said, the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs And Burn Them Alive Act” is coming, and its coming thanks to Democrats as conservatives learn the new rules of the game that Obama started.

Democrats are howling about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker not listening and bargaining with unions.  Don’t you dare forget, you vile hypocrite Democrats, how Republicans and even many Democrats spent the last two years shut out and not even getting to know what was happening, let alone have a vote in uber-liberal government takeovers like ObamaCare.  And how dare you whine as the same hell you unleased comes back to you?

The massive Obama stimulus that heavily favored blue states and blue districts and ObamaCare were Pearl Harbor moments for conservatives.  And just as decent American people gave the Imperial Japanese the hell they richly deserved, decent American people are more than ready to give imperialist liberals the hell that they richly deserve.

This has become a war.  Obama promised to transcend the partisan divide, but he is a liar and a cheat who plunged deeply into that divide than any American preisent in history.  It is an ideological and cultural war being fought over every front for what precisouAnd it is a war because liberals and Democrats have incapable of any other political approach.  When they have the power, they use that power in an un-American fashion.  And when they don’t have the power, they use their mainstream media voice to bitch and whine about how the other side that they never once listened to when they had the power won’t listen to them.

The Catastrophic Obama Failure That The Mainstream Media Forgot (As Predicted)

July 16, 2010

First, let us review.  Reflect on the January earthquake that left Haiti a disaster zone.  Obama promised Haiti that “You will not be forsaken.”  Obama promised “unwavering support.”  Obama promised an “all-out relief effort.”

For the record, I promised that Obama would be a total failure.  I also promised that the media – which is so completely in the tank for Obama that we have to go back to Tass and the USSR to find a parallel – would give Obama a pass on his failure.

Who was right?  I was, of course.

USA  TODAY
July 12, 2010 Monday
FINAL EDITION
NEWS; Pg. 1A

In Haiti, ‘we’re headed for a catastrophe’;
Six months after quake, many barriers to recovery

Ingrid Arnesen and Marisol Bello

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Six months after a devastating earthquake flattened Haiti’s capital city, little has changed for Ernst Leo and his 7-year-old daughter, Therissa.

Every night, they crawl into a cramped tent barely big enough to hold a mattress and their few belongings.

For six months, they have lived on the street in a once-thriving middle-class neighborhood. Every day, they hustle for basic necessities. Their bathroom is in the home of a neighbor whose house is still standing, their evening light comes from Leo’s cellphone and their meals from other families who live in nearby tents.

Leo, 33, a computer technician, wonders how much longer they have to live this way or where else they can go.

His wife of 12 years and older daughter died in the earthquake. His house, like most buildings that collapsed, remains a heap of concrete and debris.

“Since January 12th, I’ve never received any aid,” Leo says in French. “Ever since this dramatic event, it’s like life has no meaning anymore. Nothing has changed in six months.”

Six months to the day since a magnitude-7.0 earthquake leveled 60% of the city’s buildings and killed 230,000 people, there are few visible signs of improvement.

Buildings destroyed by the earthquake lie where they collapsed. The presidential palace, which became a worldwide symbol of the devastation, remains a gleaming heap of concrete
.

One of the biggest challenges is helping the estimated 1.5 million people who were left homeless. More than 1,300 makeshift camps sprang up after the earthquake. Food and housing are scarce and expensive, even for the few, like Leo, still working.

“It’s an emergency response still,” says Mary Kate MacIsaac, a spokeswoman in Haiti for the Christian relief group World Vision. “We are still meeting the basic needs of people in these camps … but it’s not sustainable. We need to transition into the recovery or the long-term goal.”

Frustration is high among Haitians and aid groups who say they see halting and haphazard progress toward recovery.

And all of those 1300 camps should be given names relating to Obama as Failure-in-Chief.  Camp Hopey.  Camp Changey.  Camp Hussein.  Camp Gitmo.  And so on.

Barack Obama is an empty suit.  The only things he can do is attend a racist, Marxist, anti-American church for twenty years and read off a teleprompter screen.  Other than that, he is a completely useless fool.

Obama was a failure in Haiti from the very start.

Allow me to reproduce much of my January article in order to once again expose Barack Obama and the mainstream media:

Bush Katrina Economy Obama Haiti Economy
By Michael Eden

Yesterday on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos substitute host Jake Tapper interviewed Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Bush could not have been more gracious in praising Obama’s relief efforts.

In other words, he didn’t try to do to Obama what Obama and the Democrats so viciously did to him.

And I couldn’t help but wonder: if Democrats believed their own crap about Bush and Katrina, why on earth would they be asking George Bush to lead an effort for Haitian relief now?

It has now been six days since the earthquake that destroyed Haiti.  Obama promised an unprecedented massive effort to provide emergency relief.

Has it been organized well?

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. relief effort after the Haiti earthquake started too slowly and cautiously, says a retired general who led the military relief effort on the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

“The next morning after the earthquake, as a military man of 37 years service, I assumed … there would be airplanes delivering aid, not troops, but aid,” said retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who coordinated military operations after disaster struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. “What we saw instead was discussion about, ‘Well we’ve got to send an assessment team in to see what the needs are.’ And anytime I hear that, my head turns red.”

The problem, Honore told USA TODAY, is that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, instead of the military, take the lead in international disaster response.

“I was a little frustrated to hear that USAID was the lead agency,” he said. “I respect them, but they’re not a rapid deployment unit.”

USAID immediately dispatched an assessment team and search-and-rescue teams, but there has still not been widespread distribution of food or water, three days after the Haiti earthquake.

Let’s file that as a ‘no’.

Very little in the way of actual lifesaving supplies had gone out as of the time of that article.  Has that situation improved?

Yesterday, ABC’s Tapper pointed out:

But it’s five days later, and still a lot of the relief effort, a lot of the aid has not gotten to the people who need it most.”

An exchange between Tapper and Raddatz:

So how about it, Martha? Is the relief effort getting to those who need it most?

RADDATZ: Well, we actually went with a convoy, one truckload of supplies yesterday. We arrived really early in the morning, expecting to track this truck, come back, and go out with another truck. It took us five-and-a-half hours to get these supplies where they were needed.

General Keen, the military commander, said that 70,000 bottles of water and 130,000 food rations had been handed out Saturday – four days after the disaster!  70,000 bottles of water for 3.5 MILLION people in need.  They needed 10 million bottles of water a day.

Let’s file that as another big ‘no.’

How many days did Bush get before Democrats hatefully and viciously attacked him?

Well, are they at least providing security for the relief supplies yet to come?

Another exchange during the ABC program between Jake Tapper and Martha Raddatz:

TAPPER: Speaking of chaos, Martha, we keep hearing about reports of sporadic violence. Where is the U.S. military in all this? Are they making attempts to secure the island?

RADDATZ: Absolutely not, Jake. They really aren’t. I keep hearing these numbers. There are about 4,200 American military supporting this mission, but mostly they’re out on the ships. They’re on the cutters. You’ve got the 82nd Airborne, not all of the 82nd Airborne, a brigade, about 3,500 soldiers are here. They’re expected to be here sometime next week. The Marines are not yet here, 2,200 Marines.

Jake Tapper pointed out to the US military commander for the region, General Keen, that:

General Keen, I’d like to go to you first. Martha Raddatz just reported that U.S. troops are not out there securing Haiti, even though there are sporadic outbursts of violence, some of them horrific. We heard a report of — in Petionville, a suburb of Port- au-Prince, a policeman handed over a suspected looter to an angry crowd. They stripped him, beat him, and set him on fire. We’ve also heard that some medical personnel are clearing the area because they don’t feel secure.

Sounds like another rather big ‘no’ vote.

I think I’ve amply proven the case that a week after the Haiti disaster a great deal separates what has been done from what could have been done.  I can’t help but remember how bitterly the left attacked Bush for the same failures following an unprecedented natural disaster.

This is what liberals would be saying about Barack Obama if they weren’t hypocrites: Barack Obama hates black people!!!  Barack Obama is creating a genocide of black people!!!

And Republican elected officials, if they were like Democrats, would be claiming accusing the Obama administration of “ethnic cleansing” in Haiti.

Because that’s how loathsome Democrats rolled just a few years back.  And yes, that’s right: the same Democrats who regard any criticism of Barack Obama as a form of blasphemy.

I was pointing that out last year during the Democrat National Convention when Democrats were STILL demonizing and demagoguing Bush for Hurricane Katrina.

The left ignored the fact that Hurricane Katrina was a supermassive disaster that simply overwhelmed the resources of the federal government regardless of who was in charge of it.  They ignored the fact that Bill Clinton hadn’t prepared New Orleans for such a disaster any better than George Bush did.  They ignored the fact that the heavily Democratic city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana had utterly failed to prepare, when such preparation should have been at the very core of their agenda.  They ignored details such as this:

The vultures of the venomous left are attacking on two fronts, first that the president didn’t do what the incompetent mayor of New Orleans and the pouty governor of Louisiana should have done, and didn’t, in the early hours after Katrina loosed the deluge on the city that care and good judgment forgot. Ray Nagin, the mayor, ordered a “mandatory” evacuation a day late, but kept the city’s 2,000 school buses parked and locked in neat rows when there was still time to take the refugees to higher ground. The bright-yellow buses sit ruined now in four feet of dirty water.

They ignored everything but their ideological agenda and the political axe-to-grind they had in their hands to swing at George Bush with.

And the propagandistic mainstream media helped them do it.

The same media that basically demanded that George Bush push a button and FIX New Orleans have gone out of their way to make excuses for the numerous failures in Haiti under Obama.

Obama made all sorts of grandiose promises to help devastated Haiti.  But it is an obvious, glaring FACT that he never bothered to even try to live up to them.  As in so many other occasions, Obama took advantage of the media spotlight to garner attention for himself, and then walked away.

And a media that is more like the party-propaganda machine controlled by Joseph Goebbels than it is the independent watchdog envisioned by the founding fathers has let him do it.

Because they are as dishonest as he is.

It’s an amazing picture today.  The NAACP – nakedly revealing itself as an ideological tool for the left – comes out and demagogues the Tea Party for racism, referring to poster signs that don’t exist, statements that have never been made, and events that never happened, as “proof.”  The NAACP cites the racial epithets that were supposedly hurled at black congressmen by Tea Party members, and an alleged spitting incident involving Rep. Emanuel Cleaver.  It doesn’t matter that even Cleaver went out of his way to distance himself from any claim that he was spat upon.  Nor does it matter that, with literally thousands of recording devices, no one has ever produced any evidence that racial epithets were used at that event.  Or that cameras that clearly were in position to capture the claimed racial epithets proved that nothing racial was actually said.  The charge itself becomes the only “proof.”  Which is profoundly anti-American.  Meanwhile that same organization won’t bother to point out the vicious, hateful racism of Samir Shabazz and the New Black Panthers.

And all the while these events are swirling around, Barack Obama is allowing unknown numbers of poor, oppressed, helpless black people in Haiti to suffer and die.

It’s long passed time that Barack Obama be held accountable for his failures and his false promises involving Haiti. And it’s also long passed time that the American people hold responsible the mainstream media that has become nothing but a propagandist tool.

ObamaCare Increases Health Cost By $311 Billion While Threatening Access To Care

April 23, 2010

Just in case you didn’t catch it, it’s official: ObamaCare was packaged and sold entirely based on lies.

CMS Study Shows Health Care Law Increases Costs–$311 Billion in 10 Years
By Tom White, on April 23rd, 2010, at 11:43 am

US Senate Morning Briefing

Last night, the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released his long-awaited report on the Democrats’ health care spending bill. The report states, “[W]e estimate that overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion during calendar years 2010-2019. . . .” This was an assessment that was requested by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell prior to the final votes on health care in the House, but CMS told Republicans that they couldn’t complete an analysis in time for the vote. Given the report’s findings, it’s easy to see why Democrats decided to rush ahead with a vote before the report could be completed.Reporting on the CMS analysis last night, the AP wrote, “President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law will increase the nation’s health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation. A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls. But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs. It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and ‘possibly jeopardizing access’ to care for seniors.”

But in the run-up to the vote, indeed throughout the year-long debate on health care, Democrats and President Obama repeatedly insisted that their unpopular legislation would control costs and save the government money. In December, President Obama announced, “We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care. Families will save on their premiums. Businesses that will see their costs rise if we do nothing will save money now and in the future.” Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) insisted at the beginning of debate in the Senate, “The Republican Leader just a few moments ago says that this bill raises costs. With all due respect to my good friend from Kentucky, that statement is false.” And Democrats repeatedly cited a CBO report saying that if all the Medicare cuts are implemented, the bill could save $130 billion over the next decade. This was pointed to by everyone from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to rank-and-file House Democrats like Ohio Rep. John Boccieri.

But as the AP story explains, “The [CMS] report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade. ‘During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage,’ wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary. ‘Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare … reductions is doubtful.’”

As Sen. McConnell said when President Obama signed the health care bill, “Most Americans out there aren’t celebrating today. . . . People oppose this bill not because they don’t know what’s in it, but because they know exactly what’s in it. . . . They know you don’t have to slash Medicare by half a trillion dollars to get lower premiums. . . . People know you won’t save money on health care by spending another $2.6 trillion on health care. . . . They know you don’t reduce the deficit by creating a massive new government program that even Democrats have described as a Ponzi scheme. They know you can go a long ways towards doing all these things without creating a brand new entitlement at a time when we can’t even cover the cost of the entitlements we have.”

Once again, studies by neutral observers have shown that Democrats’ claims about their health care bill just do not match reality. This was a flawed bill rushed through because Democrats wanted to “make history.” But Americans know better. At a time of record deficits and debt, this irresponsible health spending bill should be repealed and replaced with legislation that actually addresses health care costs.

All one has to do is look at Obama’s plunging polls in the aftermath of the passage of ObamaCare to verify that the American people did not want and do not want this “boondogglization” of the American health care system.  Polls across the board show Obama’s approval plunging dramatically since health care “reform” was shoved down the nation’s throat: Quinnipiac has Obama’s approval at a lowest-ever-measured 44% – with a majority disapproving of him; top-pollster Rasmussen has Obama at only 47% – with a whopping 52% disapproving of him; and the RCP average has Obama WELL below a 50% approval.  Barack Obama is no longer in any way speaking for or representing the American people.

It turns out this is the same guy who is on tape at least eight times saying all the health care negotiations would all be on C-SPAN – and then he went to closed-door meeting after closed door meeting that resulted in a health care bill that NOBODY knows anything about.  It turns out that this is the same guy who promised he would unite the country in a bipartisan manner – and instead broke that promise and became the most polarizing and divisive president in history.   This is the same guy who said he would NEVER allow health care to pass by the awful partisan reconciliation tactic – and then he did exactly what he promised he wouldn’t do.  This is the guy who repeatedly promised that he wouldn’t tax anyone making less than $250,000 a year – and now everyone knows he’ll break that central, fundamental promise.  This is the same guy who demonized Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for doing what his own chief of staff had just done only the day before.

I can go on.  For example, I can talk about how his administration promised up and down that the $787 billion (subsequently massively upwardly revised to $862 billion) stimulus – which will actually cost $3.27 TRILLION – would keep unemployment under 8%.  Obama sold a massive lie to sell a massive porkulus.  And now we’re paying for a fat pile of lies.

Now we find out that this fundamental liar told yet another massive, fundamental lie.

Now we find out that Barack Obama personally and repeatedly lied to the American people about the cost of his precious boondoggle ObamaCare:

“I pledged that I will not sign health insurance reform — as badly as I think it’s necessary, I won’t sign it if that reform adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade — and I mean what I say.”

You loathsome, vile LIAR.

You said whatever you thought you needed to say to get the American people to jump into bed with you.  Then you raped them.  And then moved on to the next lie and rape.  And the next lie and rape after that.

Now, you think this is terrible news about the terrible ObamaCare power-grab?  You aint seen NOTHING yet.  Have a gander at this:

Not one of its major programs has gotten started, and already the wheels are starting to come off of Obamacare. The administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn’t passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them.

The White House is trying to spin the new report from Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster as only half bad because it concludes that, while costs will increase, only 23 million people will remain uninsured (instead of 24 million previously estimated).

But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for Obamacare and how many of its promises will be broken:

1. People losing coverage: About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

2. Huge fines for companies: Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

3. Higher costs for consumers: Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

4. A program created to fail: The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

5. Spending increases: Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

6. “Free-riders”: An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

7. Spending reductions are fiction
: Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

8. You can’t keep your doctor
: Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

9. Coverage but no care: A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

This is an objective report by administration actuaries that shows this sweeping legislation has serious, serious problems.

And there’s more: Joint Economic Committee Republicans explain in a new report the impact of a rarely mentioned $14.3 billion per year tax on health insurance, effective in 2014. They find this tax will be mostly passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. It will cost the typical family of four with job-based coverage an additional $1,000 a year in higher premiums and will fall largely, and inequitably, on small businesses and their employees.

States are fighting back. The Florida legislature voted Thursday to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban any laws that compel someone to “participate in any health care system.” It requires a 60 percent vote to succeed. The legislation is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced or announced in 42 states.

It just makes you want to cry.  Fifteen percent of hospitals are going to close, tens of thousands of doctors will leave medicine, and yet millions of people are going to start swamping the healthcare rolls.  If I wanted to destroy our healthcare system, that’s how I’d do it.

On top of that – something that will crash the system even sooner – is the fact that more and more healthier people will increasingly pay the fines and opt out of ObamaCare, will more and more sick people enter the system.  The result will be a social catastrophe.  Our very worst enemy couldn’t have engineered our downfall better.

Business after business have been and will continue to be writing down billions and billions of dollars in profits to cover the huge costs of ObamaCare.  These are businesses that would have hired workers, only now the skyrocketing costs of paying for ObamaCare for their employees will keep that hiring to an absolute minimum.

Barack Obama proudly and arrogantly said, “You Can Measure America’s Bottom Line By Looking At Caterpillar’s’” – and then he torpedoed Caterpillar’s bottom line.

Unemployment is going to be soaringly high for years – as even the Obama White House acknowledges.  Now you know why.

What’s the result of the Democrats’ idiotic policies?  Ask Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who just told us that sky-high “unemployment is likely to remain unacceptably high for a long time.”

The unemployment rate “is still terribly high and is going to stay unacceptably high for a very long time,” Geithner said.

Of course, if unemployment is going to stay “unacceptably high” for “a very long time,” you’re pretty much accepting it, aren’t you?

Meanwhile, there will be trillions of dollars in additional spending that Obama and the Democrats refused to allow the CBO to count: such as the SIX TRILLION DOLLARS it will cost Americans to buy ObamaCare policies or face fines.

The Titanic wasn’t as big of a disaster as ObamaCare.  If we can’t repeal and replace it, it will bankrupt the country.

The Coming VAT: Poor Americans, Get Ready For GIANT Tax Increase

April 22, 2010

Remember candidate Obama’s ten thousand promises that he would absolutely not under any circumstances raise your taxes so much as one dime:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people:  if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.”

April fools, you fools.

It turns out this is the same guy who is on tape at least eight times saying all the health care negotiations would all be on C-SPAN – and then he went to closed-door meeting after closed door meeting that resulted in a health care bill that NOBODY knows anything about.  It turns out that this is the same guy who promised he would unite the country in a bipartisan manner – and instead broke that promise and became the most polarizing and divisive president in history.   This is the same guy who said he would NEVER allow health care to pass by the awful partisan reconciliation tactic – and then he did exactly what he promised he wouldn’t do.  This is the same guy who demonized Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for doing what his own chief of staff had just done only the day before.

Yeah, well, that same guy is on the verge of breaking another one of his fundamental promises to the American people on taxes.  And it’s going to be the poor who Obama is going to hose the worst.

JUST LIKE I AND OTHER CONSERVATIVES ASSURED YOU HE WOULD DO BEFORE THE ELECTION.

The VAT (Value Added Tax) is a consumption tax which is both socialist and regressive – in other words, the worst of both worlds.

It will make Obama a liar yet again.  But seriously, what else is new?

White House economic adviser refuses to rule out VAT — six different times in one TV appearance
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
04/20/10 3:28 PM EDT

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that the Obama administration’s economic team was kicking the policy tires on a national value added tax (VAT) as a means of dealing with the deficit, among other things. But earlier today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration was not considering a VAT.

If Gibbs is telling the truth, then why did White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, refuse six different to rule out a VAT? Americans for Tax Reform kept count:

MARK HALPERIN: Will the President ever consider tax reform that will involve a VAT? Would he ever consider it?
(Refusal #1) GOOLSBEE: Look, we are not, the  report — and I’m not sure where it came from cause it’s not anything I saw — was that they were contemplating a VAT, that is not true. We have stood up this bipartisan fiscal commission, which as I understand it is considering a whole bunch of things.
HALPERIN: But would he ever consider..
(Refusal #2) GOOLSBEE: He’s going to consider whatever comes out of that fiscal commission.
HALPERIN: So if they recommend a VAT, he would consider it?
(Refusal #3) GOOLSBEE: I’m not going to get into a linguistic game about it.
HALPERIN: Well it’s not a linguistic game.
(Refusal #4) GOOLSBEE: He’s looking to see what comes out of the fiscal commission. He’s going to look at it.
HALPERIN: We had a President for eight years who said ‘no new taxes, we’re not going to raise taxes’. This President said ‘no taxes on the middle class’. Arguably there are taxes in the healthcare bill that will hit the middle class. So again, a VAT would be a big change in America. Would he consider it, if the commission recommends it,  would he consider it?
(Refusal #5) GOOLSBEE: As you know, the President cut taxes for 95 percent of the workers in the stimulus. Many many billions of dollars. The President is committed to this bipartisan fiscal commission process and he’s going to seriously consider all the things that they put forward and he’s going to look at them. It doesn’t mean he’s supporting a VAT. We haven’t even contemplated a VAT.
HALPERIN: But if they recommend it, it’s not something he’d rule out?
(Refusal #6) GOOLSBEE: I’m not going to get into a hypothetical thing about it. He’s committed to a bipartisan fiscal commission.
It’s safe to say they are considering a VAT, all right.

So Obama officials refuse to dismiss the Obama-pledge-busting value added tax on the poor and middle class.

Surely Obama is against breaking his word?!?!

Nope.  He’s pretty much fine with that.

Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option
Apr 21 05:33 PM US/Eastern
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.

Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, “I want to get a better picture of what our options are.”

After Obama adviser Paul Volcker recently raised the prospect of a value-added tax, or VAT, the Senate voted 85-13 last week for a nonbinding “sense of the Senate” resolution that calls the such a tax “a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America’s economic recovery.”

For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.

“I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn’t something that the president had under consideration,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.

After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is “not considering” a VAT.

Many European countries impose a VAT, which taxes the value that is added at each stage of production of certain commodities.

When CNBC asked Obama whether he could see a potential VAT in this nation, the president said: “I know that there’s been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It’s something that would be novel for the United States.”

“And before, you know, I start saying ‘this makes sense or that makes sense,’ I want to get a better picture of what our options are,” Obama said.

He said his first priority “is to figure out how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide. And then we decide how do we pay for that.”

Volcker has said taxes might have to be raised to slow the deficit’s growth. He said a value-added tax “was not as toxic an idea” as it had been in the past.

Since then, some GOP lawmakers and conservative commentators have said the Obama administration is edging toward a VAT.

Mind you, Obama has ALREADY broken his promise to the American people when he shoved his ObamaCare boondoggle through Congress by a reconciliation process which he strangely ALSO promised not to use (as I already pointed out above).  That’s because ObamaCare contains twelve new taxes on people Obama swore up and down he wouldn’t tax.

You see, the most profligate spender in the history of the entire human race has a problem: he’s spent so much money, even if he confiscated all the wealth of all the wealthiest people in the country, it wouldn’t scratch the surface in the debts he’s created.  So he needs to come after you and your family to pay his debts.

Obama Promises Girls A Puppy, Brings Home Rabid Dog Rahm Emanuel

November 7, 2008

Barack Obama promised his girls – with all the warmth and sincerity of that glitzy media fanfare could produce – to get his girls a puppy.

And then he went and brought home a vicious, rabid dog named Rahm Emanuel.

I hope Obama’s girls have all their shots.

A Time article on Emanuel summed it up rather well:

When Barack Obama asked Sen. Rahm Emanuel to be his White House chief-of-staff, few political insiders were surprised. The Chicago congressman and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus has been described in the past as a profane, hyperactive attack dog — and it is just this sort of steamrolling personality that makes him such a valuable asset. There are few people in Washington D.C. who could make for such a formidable gatekeeper to the Oval Office.

He’s even got a “hyperactive attack dog’s” nickname:

Emanuel’s nickname is “Rahmbo,” and he is known for mowing down his opponents. Coming out of Chicago, both he and Obama know the value of muscle.

Now, me, I wish that Obama had picked up some snarling, frothing-at-the-mouth Rottweiler chained up in some crack dealer’s front yard for the girls’ “puppy,” and picked a reasonably decent and human chief-of-staff instead.

Obama promises a whole new, wonderful world where everybody loves each other.  And then he goes and gets himself the most rabid, vicious, frothing at the mouth attack dog he can find:

And Emanuel’s partisanship—after winning back the House in 2006, he recommended that Republicans “go f*** themselves“—could undercut Obama’s promises to reach across the aisle.

COULD? Did they say ‘Could’?

Yeah. The way dressing his entire cabinet in Nazi SS uniforms COULD undercut Obama’s promises of an “unshakable commitment” to Israel.

Barack Obama will say whatever he has to say to get elected.  It doesn’t matter if it’s a little white lie, or a great big gigantic lie.  He knows the media won’t hold him responsible for anything he says.

I’m sure that Barack Obama will keep his promise to his girls and get them some really nice puppy.  As for his promise to be a “new politician” epitomizing “hope” and “change” that he made to the other 300 million Americans – well, we can quote Emanuel’s famous line to them.

Sooner or later, the public will come to realize they bought a bunch of bogus promises.

Obama’s Breaking Promise On Campaign Finance Just One More Lie

June 23, 2008

A few news articles frame the story better than I could:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

In a video e-mail sent to supporters, Obama said he was opting out of public financing because the system “is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”

The nastiest liars have always have that extra little bit of sheer chutzpah that allows them to blame the other guy for why they break their promises. “Ignore the fact that I am openly going back on my promise. Somehow it’s my opponent’s fault. You really should understand that I am the victim here.”

Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

When Obama was the guy who wasn’t raising all the campaign contribution dough, he was high-and-mighty hoity-toity self-righteous in trying to get everyone to agree to limit their fund raising so he could compete with the big boys.

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

Obama wrote: “In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Not so “aggressively,” according to the McCain campaign, which argues that Obama did not discuss this or try to negotiate at all with the McCain campaign, despite writing that he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Michael Dobbs, the Washington Post‘s esteemed Fact Checker, wrote, “Obama’s affirmative answer to the Midwest Democracy Network seems unequivocal,” Dobbs writes. “Now that Obama is raising $1 million a day, his enthusiasm for public financing appears to have waned.”

Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocritical liar; he’s a self-righteous hypocritical liar, which is the very worst kind. It’s bad enough when someone breaks his promises, but when he does it with a smarmy “holier-than-thou” attitude, that’s when you know you’ve got the rarest breed of demagogue on your hands.

This isn’t the first time Barack Obama has promised one thing, and then done the complete opposite. The man began his presidential run by breaking his promise, as a transcript from Meet the Press reveals:

MR. RUSSERT: Well, nine months ago, you were on this program and I asked you about running for president. And let’s watch and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, January 22, 2006):

MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of ‘04, after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You will not.

Every politician does some flip flopping and reconsideration of formerly-held positions. Believe me, in his short political career, Barack Obama has accumulated a whopping load more than his fair share. But it’s one thing to change your position in the proverbial “flip flop,” and quite another thing to flat-out break your word. Doing the former shows you are responding to the changing nature of the political climate; doing the latter shows you are a bald-faced liar.

For example, had John McCain said of his earlier position not to allow offshore drilling, “I will never change my position on this. Count on it.” That would have been tantamount to a lie.

Barack Obama is a demonstrated, documented liar. The guy who began his career undermining a clearly more popular candidate by using every cheap tactic to get the signatures of voters thrown out is now cynically, deceitfully, and despicably presenting himself as the candidate of “hope” and “change.”

Let’s take a moment to look at some of Obama’s more famous recent flip flops.

We can remember Obama pledging that he would meet with leaders of the very worst regimes on earth without preconditions, and then subsequently “clarifying” his remarks with so many caveats and qualifications that his position became identical to the Bush-position which he had originally demonized in the first place.

We can remember Obama claiming that Iran didn’t pose a serious threat to the United States, to (when confronted with the stupidity of his view) saying “Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust…”

Glenn Kessler wrote a story titled, “Obama Clarifies Remarks on Jerusalem“:

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem “must remain undivided.”

Obama, during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-israel lobbying group, had called for Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.) But his statement that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

If “clarifying your remarks” means saying the exact opposite thing to what one had said before, then I suppose we can say Obama “clarified.” But given the fact that he told a Jewish audience exactly what it wanted to hear, and then almost immediately afterward told an Arab audience exactly what it wanted to hear, I would use a different verb such as “pandered” and “lied.”

Considering the fact that there is a real probability that World War III will be fought over the status of Jerusalem, and considering that our next armed conflict will likely be with Iran, I dare say that these “flip flips” are NOT trivial issues. He has repeatedly trivialized the most important issues of our time with his back-tracking and pandering nonsense.

Doing a google search, I quickly found other flip-flops, some big, some little:

1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as “special interest” money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of “working people” and says he is “thrilled” by their support.

2. Public financing Obama replied “yes” in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba” because it had “utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro.” Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it is “an important inducement for change.”

4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should “crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.” He replied “Oppose.” In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.”

5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Believe me, this is a short list.  One site I came across provides a long litany of lies, flip-flops, and disingenuous use of language. The author is clearly partisan, but he backed up his smack-talk with plenty of sourced research.

Apart from the sheer, vile, despicable nature of Barack Obama’s 23-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church – which offended me enough to get involved in politics – the thing that most bothers me about Barack Obama is that he has taken this above-it-all, lofty, holier-than-thou approach as the “new politician” when he is every bit the scheming, manipulating, lying, lowdown, snake-in-the-grass politician from the shadiest tradition of rotten Chicago politics.