Why Hillary Clinton Installed A Private Server And Purged Half Her Emails

This line from CNN’s coverage of Obama being “funny” says a lot:

“Think about how things have changed since 2008. Back then, I was the young tech-savvy candidate of the future,” Obama said. “Now I’m yesterday’s news and Hillary has got a server in her house.”

“I didn’t even know you could have one of those in your house,” he continued. “I am so far behind. Did you know that? I would have gotten one.”

As Obama’s joke rather crystal-clearly demonstrates, it’s not NORMAL to have a private server in your home.  It’s way, WAY, WAY beyond abnormal.  It takes world-class chutzpah to do something like this when you’re masquerading as a senor-level “public servant” (which under Obama means another way to say “lord and master”).

Hillary Clinton isn’t “tech-savvy.”  She’s just an old pathologically dishonest and corrupt political shrew with a multi-multi–MULTI-million dollar slush fund to buy tech-savvy people to pull this crap for her so she can wheel and deal with your money using the very latest in criminal thug technology.

Of course, what this also proves is that as corrupt and as dishonest as Barack Obama has proven himself to be, even our current resident Liar-in-Chief is just no Slick Willy.  As giant of a liar and cheat as Barack Obama’s cancerous presidency has been, even HE can only dream of attaining the level of corruption that the Clinton’s have degenerated into in their forty-plus years as political whores.

You can’t blame Obama for not ever thinking of installing a private server to hide your internet tracks.  I mean, How many of us ever thought of that?  Because in the entire history of the republic, NO public official has EVER had their own email server in his/her home before.  Rather, previous Secretary’s of State have used private email accounts such as provided by Yahoo or AOL.  Which of course had control over and preserved all emails.  Simply far too much transparency for a pathologically dishonest shrew like Hillary Clinton.

The Democrat Party are to dishonesty, deceit, corruption, and crony-capitalist fascist quid pro quos what the Wright Brothers are to flying.  I mean, maybe they didn’t invent political corruption in the same manner that the Wright Brothers didn’t really invent the first airplane, but they sure somehow ended up owning all the rights to political corruption on a level that no human being has ever seen before.

A recent article shows us why Hillary installed her very own personal email server and then purged a massive percentage of her emails and ONLY released the rest after YEARS of vetting by her handpicked staff of priestesses.  The following article ran in the print edition of the California Section of the Los Angeles Times under the title, “Emails tie Sony, Ridley-Thomas” (for the official record, Ridley-Thomas is a career Democrat).  Hillary Clinton set up her own private server and purged tens of thousands of her emails so she wouldn’t open the newspaper to see this sort of story about HER criminality:

LACMA expansion, Ridley-Thomas, ‘super PAC’ intersect in email trail
By Robert Faturechi and Jack Dolan  contact the reporters
▼ LACMA Director Michael Govan needed Mark Ridley-Thomas’ support for LACMA expansion
▼ Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas sought help from Sony Chairman Michael Lynton for a PAC
May 20, 2015, 3:00 AM

When Michael Lynton, chairman and chief executive of Sony Pictures Entertainment, sat down for lunch last July with L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, each wanted something.

Lynton is a trustee of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, which needed Ridley-Thomas’ support to secure $125 million in county funding for a major expansion.

Ridley-Thomas wanted Sony to donate to a “super PAC” he had founded, which was supporting an aide’s campaign for a seat on the Los Angeles school board.

In September, Sony wrote a check to the PAC for $25,000. Two months later, Ridley-Thomas joined in a unanimous vote by the county supervisors to fund the LACMA expansion.

The lunch meeting, the PAC donation and discussions surrounding them are described in internal Sony emails, which were stolen by hackers and recently posted online by WikiLeaks. The Times reviewed the emails in collaboration with ProPublica, the nonprofit investigative newsroom.

The messages show how LACMA’s leadership courted Ridley-Thomas and how Sony, concerned about appearances, delayed the PAC contribution until a few weeks after the school board election.

A Sony official, Ridley-Thomas’ top aide and LACMA Director Michael Govan all said there was no connection between the contribution and the vote on county funding.

“We would never conduct ourselves in such a manner,” said Keith Weaver, Sony’s executive vice president for worldwide government affairs.

At the time, the museum was lobbying county officials for $125 million to help pay for a $600-million renovation and expansion of its Mid-Wilshire campus.

Govan, in an interview, recalled that in the months before the vote, he was confident he had the support of one county supervisor, Zev Yaroslavsky, but said he was “nervous” about the other four.

Among those, Ridley-Thomas was considered critical, Govan said. Other supervisors could be expected to defer to him because the new building would jut into his district.

Lynton also had a role to play in promoting the museum project. Sony’s studio complex in Culver City is in Ridley-Thomas’ district, and Lynton is “the only person on my board who had regular dealings with the supervisor,” Govan said.

According to the emails, Lynton held a meeting on May 21, 2014, with Weaver and Govan. The subject was Ridley-Thomas; the emails provide no further detail on the meeting.

Weeks later, Sony gave $5,000 to the PAC founded by the supervisor, campaign records show. Sony had made five previous contributions in the same amount since 2007.

In July, Lynton, Ridley-Thomas and two of their aides scheduled a lunch.

When Govan learned of the lunch, he sent two emails to Sony urging Lynton to press the LACMA matter.

The first message, sent to Weaver on July 16, the day before the lunch, and forwarded to Lynton, listed points to be made in support of the museum expansion and said that “this won’t happen if the Supervisor doesn’t support it.”

In the second message, Govan said the timing of the lunch was “perfect and critical.”

In separate emails to Lynton, Weaver noted that the Ridley-Thomas-founded PAC was spending heavily in support of the supervisor’s education advisor, Alex Johnson, in the Los Angeles school board race.

The PAC — the African American Voter Registration, Education and Participation Project — spent nearly $600,000 in support of Johnson’s campaign, according to state records. Johnson was seeking to represent District 1 on the L.A. Unified School District board.

There are no dollar limits on contributions to super PACs as there are for direct donations to candidates.

Vincent Harris, Ridley-Thomas’ chief deputy, said in an interview that the supervisor asked Lynton for a PAC contribution during the July 17 lunch. Harris said the LACMA funding was not discussed, adding that Ridley-Thomas knows better than to “mix fundraising with any public policy-related work.”

Weaver said he wasn’t sure if the group discussed the museum expansion.

After the lunch, Lynton had reservations about making another contribution to the PAC. According to emails between Lynton and Weaver, the Sony chief executive worried that a donation might create the appearance of a conflict because his wife, Jamie Alter Lynton, is executive editor of LA School Report, a news website that covers L.A. Unified.

Weaver wrote that he had talked with Ridley-Thomas’ office and asked for “options” for addressing Lynton’s concern. A few hours later, Weaver wrote Lynton outlining how to make “a direct contribution in a way that helps the effort, but avoids the perception/conflict issues.”

“You could contribute $25k AFTER the election,” he wrote in a message dated July 31.

That’s what Sony did, writing a $25,000 check that landed in the PAC’s coffers on Sept. 10, nearly a month after a school board runoff, which Johnson lost.

Campaign finance experts said that promising to make a donation and then timing it to delay public disclosure until after an election could be illegal, if there was an enforceable agreement between the two sides.

Stephen Kaufman, an attorney for the PAC, said that there was no such agreement, and that the PAC did not increase its spending during the school board race in anticipation of receiving a donation from Sony later.

Jim Sutton, a San Francisco-based attorney who has represented a number of prominent California politicians, said that even if the contribution doesn’t violate the letter of the law, it appears to violate the spirit of state statutes. “The purpose of the law is giving voters information about supporters before the election,” Sutton said.

Weaver declined to comment on the timing of the donation.

Asked why Sony gave the PAC more money than usual last fall, Weaver said: “There’s always a push for a year-over-year increase. This year we felt inclined to do so.”

Govan said he doesn’t believe there was any connection between the contribution and the supervisor’s support: “I know I’m being romantic, but I believe in politicians.”

In November, two days before the county supervisors were scheduled to vote on the LACMA project, Govan emailed Lynton with some good news.

“Just got an email from MRT,” he wrote, referring to Ridley-Thomas. “I think we’re good! Thank you Michael.”

jack.dolan@latimes.com

Twitter: @jackdolanLAT

This article was prepared in collaboration with ProPublica, where Faturechi is a reporter. Dolan is a Los Angeles Times staff writer

You see, Hillary avoided the mistake of Sony.  She 1) installed her own personal server in her home; 2) purged all the emails that would have criminally convicted her; 3) had THE most dishonest and secretive and frankly thuggish administration in history run constant interference for her wrongdoing.  I mean, there’s “not a shred of evidence” if all the actual evidence has been shredded.  Which is EXACTLY what Hillary Clinton did with HER incriminating emails that she set up to have complete control over in spite of every rule of government accountability and oversight and appearance of wrongdoing and appearance of conflict of interests to the contrary.

We just had four cancer charities that are easily documented to be abject scams.  James T. Reynolds II, the leader of one of these along with his scumbag dad, issued the following statement that really reminds of the Clinton excuse:

[…]

While the organization, its officers and directors have not been found guilty of any allegations of wrong doing, and the government has not proven otherwise, our Board of Directors has decided that it does not help those who we seek to serve, and those who remain in need, for us to engage in a highly publicized, expensive, and distracting legal battle around our fundraising practices.

The silver lining in all of this is that the organization has the ability to continue operating our most valued and popular program, the Hope Supply. Our Board will work tirelessly to maintain the Hope Supply program services that have benefitted our many patients for years – initially under the TBCS banner as it transitions under a different organization – all with the goal of seamlessly providing services to you. I take solace in the fact that this wonderful program has the chance to continue operating.

I have loved leading TBCS and being part of a team that engaged heart and soul in helping to serve the mission of the charity selflessly, tirelessly, and honorably.

On behalf of TBCS, I want to thank you for allowing us to be a part of your lives. It is my hope that you will continue to find the resources and assistance you need through the soon-to-be revamped Hope Supply Program.

Giving back to the community is a mission that drives me. You will forever and always been in our hearts.

This from a guy who from all accounts only gave 2.7% of the millions he took in to the actual cancer patients.  The rest went to himself, his family, his friends, and those he paid off to keep playing his games.

Excuse me while I fill the toilet bowl up to the rim with puke.

The Clinton, Inc. denials are about as hollow.

Here are some facts about the Clinton Foundation as a “charity” that Hillary Clinton was full-time pimping while simultaneously falsely serving America as Secretary of State:

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’
By Isabel Vincent
April 26, 2015 | 7:47am

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

Gosh, the Clinton Foundation is exactly the same as the above cancer “charities.”  The Clinton Foundation exists to benefit the Clintons, their family members (example, their daughter Chelsea and Hillary’s low-life brother), their friends (such as long-term Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal), and those they paid off in exchange for more influence.

Well over a thousand foreign donors weren’t even LISTED as having given to this slush fund that, among other things, sold America’s uranium to our historically worst enemy in exchange for $500,000 for a Bill Clinton speech (paid directly to the Clintons) and a $2.35 million “donation” (read “kickback”) to the Clinton Foundation Slush Fund that was never disclosed by the Clintons in spite of their agreement with the Obama Administration when Hillary took her job as Secretary of Swindle.

And there are literally DOZENS of corrupt deals like this that Hillary purged the details of from her private server.

We are just now learning that Hillary Clinton failed to report $26 MILLION is speaking fees that came from banks and foreign governments and leftist universities (you know, the kind of “free-thinking institutions” that purge all conservative speakers or shout them down if they’re invited).

At best, this woman wants to be president and run the economy of the nation and the planet and she’s clearly not even competent to run a damn foundation.  That if she’s NOT an outright criminal – which she sure is – who belongs in THE BIG HOUSE rather than the White House for her crimes.

It took Hillary Clinton TWO YEARS after leaving as Secretary of State to comply with ANY release of her emails from her private server.  Because it took that long for her acolytes to purge all the thousands of criminal emails.  If there’s not a shred of evidence, it is ONLY because she SHREDDED all the evidence.

And all the while, as she was serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s Temple Priestesses kept a fascistically Nazi-tight reign over public documents that should have been required to be released by law.

While we now learn that the Clinton Foundation has played fast and loose with the law and concealed foreign donations to the tune of MILLIONS that they are now having to acknowledge by amending previous tax returns.

Hillary Clinton has been exposed as a liar for her pathetic “reason” why she elected to go with a private server-grounded private email account so she would only need to use one device (she regularly used at least four).

She’s been caught lying about the fact that she actually used AT LEAST TWO private email accounts rather than what she first claimed through her liars I mean lawyers.

But what can we do?  Our national media is dominated by obvious propagandist hacks like George Stephanopoulos, incredibly a.k.a. ABC News’ chief political anchor when it was beyond obvious twenty freaking years ago that this guy was a biased turd rather than any kind of legitimate journalist.  As one example all the media are falling all over themselves like a dozen puppies all trying to get to the food bowl at once whether Republicans would have still gone to war in Iraq “knowing what we know now.”  How about asking every Democrat, “Would you still have cut-and-ran from Iraq and abandoned everything our troops sacrificed so much to win the way Obama did “knowing what you know now” about Islamic State now OWNING what we surrendered to them???

Maybe James T. Reynolds, Sr. or his corrupt kid should run for president and vice president on the Democrat ticket, given the Democrats love of fascist crooks.

Here’s the thing: just because Obama is keeping the American people from seeing what kind of a crook his successor-thug is doesn’t mean that foreign governments won’t be able to blackmail a President Hillary Clinton.  The fact of the matter is that foreign governments – including all of our very most dangerous enemies – were able to easily penetrate Hillary Clinton’s private server upon which she stored so many vital American national secrets, says the CIA.  And says the Defense Intelligence Agency.  And they’ve got the dirty laundry on Hillary that Obama and his lawthugs like Eric Holder have been doing their best to keep from the American people.

So if you vote for Hillary in 2016 and later wonder why your Traitor-in-Chief betrayed you for the obvious interests of a foreign government, well, you just should have known, fool.

Myth Of Obama’s ‘Shovel-Ready’ Jobs Revealed In Unemployment Stats

Democrats’ promises of “shovel ready jobs” was a shovel load of sh*t.  That’s pretty much what we’re learning.

Here’s a headline to remember: “Construction unemployment rises to 22.7%.”

In a clear sign of construction’s persistently severe problems, the industry’s jobless rate hit its highest level in at least a decade, climbing to 22.7% in December, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported.

The latest BLS monthly employment figures, released Jan. 8, show that construction’s December jobless rate rose from November’s 19.4%, and also was well above the December 2008 mark of 15.3%.

“In at least a decade”?  That would be during – your audible gasp here – the Clinton years, when the streets were paved with gold (but clearly not laid by construction workers).

Hot Air shows us what a bunch of hot air Obama’s and the Democrat’s promises really were:

Democrats insisted that they would usher in a wave of new jobs by speeding up spending on infrastucture, especially road construction.  All across the US, signs began appearing that heralded the local traffic snarl as a product of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — Porkulus, as we came to call it.  Did it do anything to create or even “save” jobs?  The Associated Press says no:

Even within the construction industry, which stood to benefit most from transportation money, the AP’s analysis found there was nearly no connection between stimulus money and the number of construction workers hired or fired since Congress passed the recovery program. The effect was so small, one economist compared it to trying to move the Empire State Building by pushing against it.

Which is to say, Obama is depending on “the butterfly effect” for his stimulus package to actually work.

I should confess here that I have actually captured a butterfly, and have evilly created chaos all over the planet by forcing it to flap its wings.  But apparently no U.S. jobs have come out of it.

I also have to mock the part about the porkulus road signs (actually the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” – but “porkulus” has turned out to be FAR more accurate).  We find that the Democrats are spending millions of dollars for “stimulus” road signs that aren’t stimulating anything but the Democrats’ political slush fund to bribe votes for their ObamaCare boondoggle.

Michelle Malkin presented what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signs SHOULD HAVE looked like nearly 8 months ago:

Meanwhile, what is unemployment among government workers?

3.6%.

Rush Limbaugh was all over that on like poop on stink (which is rather like Obama on stimulus, but actually telling the truth):

“I mean you cannot take $50 trillion or $50 billion, any amount of money out of the private sector then put it back in and say you’re stimulating something.  You’d have to infuse money that’s not already there.  And there’s no money to do that.  You have to print it, you have to borrow it, or you have to tax it and then put it back.  This is an old shell game; it’s an old trick. It’s designed to enhance the growth of government.  But the proof is right there in the latest unemployment numbers — and I don’t mean the 10% employment, which is an obvious disaster, and I don’t mean the 17% real unemployment.  That’s an obvious disaster.  But here are two numbers from last Friday’s jobless numbers: Construction unemployment is 22.7%. It’s 22.7%!  Now, remember, the stimulus was for “shovel-ready jobs;” Roads, bridges, schools, all this infrastructure stuff.  Construction unemployment is almost 23%. Government worker unemployment is at 3%, 3.6, less than 4%.”

The Associated Press has the following story (from which the quote from Hot Air above is a part):

Stimulus for roads no path to help joblessness
Analysis comes as Obama urges another bill funding more transit projects

updated 9:01 a.m. ET Jan. 11, 2010

WASHINGTON – Ten months into President Barack Obama’s first economic stimulus plan, a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an AP analysis has found.

Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn’t matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation, raising questions about Obama’s argument that more road money would address an “urgent need to accelerate job growth.”

Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress that relies in part on more road and bridge spending, projects the president said are “at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth.”

And Rush Limbaugh picks up from there:

“The AP is admitting here it didn’t work but then, hey, they say let’s try it again.  They outline in this piece that the stimulus money that’s been spent so far has had no effect on jobs, none.  Not anywhere.  The veil is off.  They’re no longer pretending that there are jobs created or saved.  Now, here how the story starts: “Ten months into President Barack Obama’s first economic stimulus plan, a surge in –” and it’s not Bush’s.  It’s Obama’s.  “– spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an AP analysis has found. Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn’t matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation, raising questions about Obama’s argument that more road money would address an ‘urgent need to accelerate job growth.'”

All they can talk about from the stimulus that’s been beneficial is the extension of unemployment compensation benefits.  So, you know, the real question there, folks, is how come despite the vast amount of history that’s available to all of us, all of the smart, so-called smart educated business and economic people, hard evidence, examples of failure and successes, charts and graphs, data out the wazoo, we still seem to be confounded by the elementary process of creating and keeping jobs.  Why is this?  Why is the blueprint for coming out of the circumstance we’re in, the 1980s, JFK in the 1960s, why is it ignored?  And why is this, government spending, constantly looked at as a panacea when it isn’t?  And the answer is it’s not looked at as a panacea.  The people in charge of doing this know exactly what they’re doing.  They’re weakening the private sector for a host of reasons that we’ve mentioned.  I’m going to get blue in the face here, repetitive.  Just don’t doubt me.  It’s being done on purpose and the reasons are all recounted in various multiple monologues at my website, RushLimbaugh.com.”

Meanwhile, the government sector is absolutely thriving compared to the rest of the economy.

Would you have supported the stimulus if you’d known the TRUTH: that instead of “shovel-ready jobs” we’d be getting “bureaucrat-ready jobs”?

Democrats Actually Voting To Raid Medicare To Fund ObamaCare

If you are a senior and like your Medicare, then you are a pure idiot for voting Democrat, that’s all I can say.

Medicare cuts focus of Senate health care debate

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans forced Democrats to vote in favor of cutting billions from providers of home care for older people as partisan debate flared Saturday during a rare weekend session on President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

Obama planned to travel to Capitol Hill on Sunday to help Democrats resolve internal disputes that stand in the way of Majority Leader Harry Reid bringing the 10-year, nearly $1 trillion legislation to a vote.

Ahead of his visit, Republicans, bent on making Democrats cast politically risky votes, offered their third amendment in the debate so far showcasing more than $400 billion in cuts to projected Medicare spending that would pay for the bill, mostly for subsidies to help extend coverage to millions of uninsured.

Like the other two, this one went down to defeat, on a vote of 53 to 41. The measure by Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., would have eliminated $42 billion in cuts over 10 years to agencies that provide home health care to seniors under Medicare.

Four moderate Democrats joined all Republicans present in voting for the amendment: Sens. Jim Webb of Virginia, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Underscoring the pressures on the moderates, Lincoln, who faces a difficult re-election next year, initially cast a “no” vote with the Democratic majority but switched to “yes” in the course of the 15-minute vote. Republicans accused her of flip-flopping, but Lincoln said later that she changed her vote after considering how important home health care is to Arkansas.

“That’s why they give us 15 minutes,” said Lincoln.

The more consequential action was taking place behind closed doors Saturday as Democrats struggled to find a compromise on a proposed government insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. Lincoln and several other moderate Democrats are opposed to the government insurance plan in the bill, and Reid, D-Nev., doesn’t have a vote to spare in his 60-member caucus.

Back in 1995, Democrats actually accused Republicans of “cutting Medicare” when they tried to merely slow the rate of growth – even though the actual spending would still increase.    Now the Democrats are flat-out CUTTING Medicare and trying to argue that their cuts are “savings.”

The “more than $400 billion” is actually $460 billion, which is seriously flirting with half a TRILLION dollars in cuts to a Medicare program that was already facing bankruptcy by 2017 – two years earlier than government actuaries estimated only last year.

The Democrats’ logic is to replace a bankrupt government program that will only crash against the seniors it was supposed to cover with a vastly larger government program that will crash with a far larger implosion against everybody.

The federal and states government already controls 61% of health care spending in the United States.  Government control, and government spending, have increased year after year.  I submit to you that too much government control of health care is the real problem, not “the evil insurance companies.”  In point of fact, more than half of Americans who have private insurance have it through not-for-profit insurers; and private insurance company profits are actually incredibly modest in relation to other industries.

Barack Obama has repeatedly said that if you liked your current plan, you could keep it.  That is yet another Obama lie: the fact of the matter is that 11 million seniors very much like their Medicare Advantage programs, and Barack Obama is trying to stop them from keeping it.  And those 11 million are just the tip of the iceberg: the Wall Street Journal demonstrates that some 133 million workers are going to wake up in five years and find out that ObamaCare destroyed their employer-based Erisa coverage.  That’s not nearly all the people that Obama and the Democrats are going to screw with their health care boondoggle – but it’s more than enough.

Seniors are going to die under the Democrats’ plan.  The logic is unavoidable: 1) the plan calls for young, healthy people to buy expensive insurance policies – which they have never purchased before – in order to “spread out risks” for the entire system.  2) If they don’t purchase the coverage, they will be called upon to pay a fine.  The problem is that the fine is much lower than the price of the insurance coverage.  3) Therefore young people largely WON’T purchase the insurance, and will instead pay the fine, knowing that since they CAN’T be rejected for any “pre-existing condition” (such as not being insured), they can’t be turned down if they get sick/injured and then need coverage.  For what it’s worth, a lot of other adults will be encouraged to do the same thing.  4) Therefore, the Democrats’ plan will not raise nearly as much as they think.  And 5) the need to severely ration care will be critical.

The Wall Street Journal rightly calls this fiasco “The Worst Bill Ever.”  Why?

As Congress’s balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can’t regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

The Dean of the Harvard Medical School gave it a “failing grade.”  Dr. Jeffrey Flier argued that:

In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

The California Medical Association came out strongly against the Democrat plan:

The state’s largest doctors group is opposing healthcare legislation being debated in the Senate this week, saying it would increase local healthcare costs and restrict access to care for elderly and low-income patients.

The California Medical Assn. represents more than 35,000 physicians statewide, making it the second-largest state medical association in the country after Texas. […]

d“The Senate bill came so short that we could not support it, even though we solidly support healthcare reform,” said Dr. Dev GnanaDev, medical director at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in San Bernardino, who also serves on the association’s executive committee.

Doctors who oppose the Senate bill are concerned that it would would shift Medicare funding from urban to rural areas, move responsibility for Medicare oversight away from Congress by creating an Independent Medicare Commission and, ultimately, decrease Medicare reimbursement rates.

The “Independent Medicare Commission” is just one of the many “death panels” this bill would create.  One hundred and eleven death panels, to be precise.

Rasmussen, the nation’s most accurate pollster, points out that Americans are opposed to the Democrats’ plan:

Support for the president’s health care plan fell to 38%, its lowest ever, just before Thanksgiving. Followed by two weeks at 41%, this marks the lowest extended period of support for the plan yet. With the exception of a few days following nationally televised presidential appeals for the legislation, the number of voters opposed to the plan has always exceeded the number who favor it.

“This suggests that public opinion about the health care plan is hardening,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “Despite the fact that most American believe our health care system needs major changes, most are opposed to what Congress is currently doing about it.” […]

While one of the chief stated goals of the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats is to lower the cost of health care, 57% say costs will go up if the plan is passed. Twenty-one percent (21%) say costs will go down, and 17% believe they will stay about the same.

Similarly, only 23% think the quality of health care will get better if the plan is passed, while 54% predict that it will get worse. Sixteen percent (16%) expect quality to stay about the same.

Other polling shows that 47% trust the private sector more than government to keep health care costs down and the quality of care up. Two-thirds (66%) say an increase in free market competition will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters nationwide believe passage of the health care plan will increase the deficit. Seventy-five percent (75%) also think it is at least somewhat likely that middle class taxes will have to be raised to cover the cost of the plan. Fifty-nine percent (59%) say such a tax increase is Very Likely.

Only 27% favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone.

So what do the Democrats – who promised unprecedented “openness” and “transparency” – do?  Barack Obama went to the Senate and had a
“closed-door meeting” that slammed the door shut in Republicans’ faces.  This is a hard care ideologically leftist partisan takever, funded by flat-out bribes paid for by the taxpayers.

Entrenched Democrats bought Mary Landrieu’s vote to proceed with their partisan boondoggle in what amounts to  the Louisiana Purchase, Part Deux.

And of course they have a trillion dollars in porkulus slush fund money to bribe and purchase whoever else they need to fundamentally screw the American people and destroy our way of life.

Is this seriously how you want the future of American health care to be decided?

Democrats Worried About Fact That They Haven’t Been Worried About Jobs

This would be funny, if it wasn’t so blatantly pathetic:

Pelosi switches to jobs
By Mike Soraghan – 11/16/09 08:41 PM ET

House Democratic leaders, worried they’ve appeared unresponsive to rising unemployment because they were absorbed by healthcare, are aiming for a legislation solution by Christmas.

That focus follows a similar shift in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told colleagues he also plans to bring up a jobs measure, The Hill reported first last week.

The House change began Monday night when leaders scheduled AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect, to address the House Democratic Caucus.

And it could end with an economic package on the floor sometime in December, Democratic sources said.

But some leadership aides cautioned that leaders are still debating whether to do one large package or a series of smaller bills.

And they say the Obama administration has yet to get on board.

One way or another, aides say, House Democrats’ message from now to Christmas will be about jobs.

“We continue to look for opportunities to build on the recovery package and other actions Congress has taken to bolster the economy,” said Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Leaders want members to have something to take home with them to show that they’re working on the economy. But they have to balance that against growing discomfort among voters about skyrocketing government spending.

It’s not that Democrats give a damn about jobs; they just want to make sure like they LOOK like they give a damn about jobs.

Obama promised that if his giant pork-laden generational theft act known as the “stimulus” passed, unemployment would be capped at no higher than 8%.  And then it just kept growing and growing.

The Democrats’ plan never was about jobs, but about government control and about creating a trillion dollar political slush fund.

Don’t believe me about the stimulus slush fund?

To get as far as the bill did so far, it appears the administration might have spread some money around. California Rep. Jim Costa was wavering but told a local newspaper last week that his vote could be contingent on getting some federal money for a new medical school in his district along with help for local hospitals.

When a constituent named Bob Smittcamp e-mailed him to complain about his vote for the House bill, the congressman explained he’d been offered the dollars he was looking for — $128 million in federal money.

“He responded to me by basically saying that he did not like many of the elements there were in the legislation. However, he was able to procure $128m for the University of California medical school in Merced,” Smittcamp told Fox News.

They have spent the last five months (plus) utterly consumed by a government health care takeover that most Americans didn’t want virtually from the outset.

Now we’re learning that this massive 2,000 page monstrosity is anything BUT “deficit neutral” even in the first ten years (and it blows up into enormous deficits thereafter) and that it most definitely WILL hurt seniors and undermine Medicare.

And all the Democrats can say is “full steam ahead!”

A few things come out of this “Pelosi switches to jobs” article:

1) The Democrats are literally afraid that the American people will recognize the truth and get angry about it.

2) Democrats have absolutely no clue how to create jobs.  And Obama has even less of a clue than the other Democrats.

3) The Democrats are turning their “job creation” over to the unions.

And it’s number three that frankly pisses me off the most.

It’s amazing that the SEIU only has 2.2 million members, but more influence than anyone else bar none in the Obama administration.  SEIU president Andy Stern – basically a confirmed Marxist – has had more visits to the White House (22 so far) than ANYONE.

It’s really no surprise that Obama and the Democrats would run to their special interest to write their legislation for them.  SEIU was given a huge hand in crafting both the stimulus and the health care legislation; why NOT let them write the next jobs bill too?

The words of Barack Hussein Obama, as presidential candidate:

“Your agenda has been my agenda in the United States Senate. Before debating health care, I talked to Andy Stern and SEIU members. Before immigration debates took place in Washington, I talked with Eliseo Medina and SEIU members. Before the EFCA, I talked to SEIU. So, we’ve worked together over these last few years and I am proud of what we’ve done. I’m just not satisfied.”

Obama’s number-one visitor is on the record as saying:

“We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power”

And Obama’s union thugs are all about using “the persuasion of power.”

Glenn Beck pointed out that he had a solid 3 million viewers.  And he wondered how the American people would act if HE had had more visits than anyone else to the Bush White House, and got to write the stimulus and the “job creation” legislation.

The AFL-CIO has about 11.5 million members, based on their own information.  With a total of 15.4 million union members in the United States.  Rush Limbaugh has 14.2 to 25 million listeners, according to the Washington Post.  And I wonder how liberals would react if Rush Limbaugh had more visits to the White House than anyone, and got to write the laws that will run the nation.

So you start to see just how blatantly partisan and ideological the Democrat Party truly is.  The union agenda is just as hostile to what Republicans want for the nation as Glenn Beck’s or Rush Limbaugh’s agenda is to what Democrats want for the nation.

We’re not just talking about partisanship; we’re talking about HYPER–HYPER-partisanship.

Let me say about jobs what Libertychick said about health care: “SEIU (and by obvious extension AFL-CIO) doesn’t care about jobs.  SEIU cares about SEIU.”  Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are going to let the unions and the hard-core union agenda write themselves huge sums of taxpayer dollars.

What’s that?  You DON’T think that the SEIU only gives a damn about the SEIU?

From the Allentown Morning Call:

In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.

Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the city’s largest municipal union.

Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.

“We’ll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,” Balzano told the council.

These unions don’t give a damn about you.  They don’t give a damn about your family.  They don’t give a damn about your community.  They don’t give a damn about altruism or volunteerism or doing right.  And they would burn a Boy Scout’s house down if they thought it would serve their greedy partisan interests.

And the Democrats don’t give a damn about you, either.  Frankly, the Democrats aren’t much different from their number one special interest group.  Democrats are now rushing to cover their hindquarters because they ignored the economy while they were focused on trying to TAKE OVER the economy via their health care agenda.

Obama Continues Rampant Dishonesty With Stimulus ‘Jobs ‘

Want to see how Obama “created or saved” all the jobs he’s claiming?  Here’s how:

In June, the federal government spent $1,047 in stimulus money to buy a rider mower from the Toro Company to cut the grass at the Fayetteville National Cemetery in Arkansas. Now, a report on the government’s stimulus Web site improbably claims that that single lawn mower sale helped save or create 50 jobs.

I bought a new watch the other day; that’s got to be good for at least ten jobs saved or created.

Do you seriously trust these people to run your healthcare?  Are you that idiotic?  I mean, dang.

A newspaper editorial just damns Obama’s dishonesty and deceit the way it deserves to be damned.

Note: I added the html links to the other newspaper articles.

Union-Tribune Editorial
Stimulus dishonesty
Job numbers keep proving to be exaggerated
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 12:43 a.m.

First it was The Associated Press refuting the Obama administration’s claims for jobs saved or created nationwide by February’s $787 billion economic stimulus measure. Then it was The Sacramento Bee refuting the claims that state agencies had made for California. Then it was the Chicago Tribune refuting the claims that state agencies had made for Illinois.

The errors were not of a minor or technical nature. They were egregious.

AP reported that “some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two, three, four or even more times.” The Bee reported that California State University said “the $268.5 million it received in stimulus funding through October allowed it to retain 26,156 employees” – more than half its statewide work force. The Tribune reported that Illinois education officials grossly inflated job-saved numbers, sometimes saying school districts had saved more jobs than their total number of employees.

This is a scandal and should be treated as such. It’s not government as usual. Instead, it appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas.

With U.S. unemployment now topping 10 percent, the Obama administration is struggling more than ever to fashion credible counterarguments to the assertion made by this editorial page and many pundits and economists that the massive stimulus measure was a poorly thought-out pork fest that wouldn’t work. What’s the easiest way to defend the stimulus? Make up claims about its glorious results.

Politics also appears to be driving state agencies in their willingness to prop up this bogus narrative. It helps them make the case that they should get even more borrowed money from the federal government that they never will have to repay.

Such dishonesty should be completely unacceptable – especially at the federal level. We trust the Office of Management and Budget to provide honest figures on the size of the deficit and the national debt. We trust the Labor Department to provide honest statistics on unemployment and job gains and losses by sector. We trust the Commerce Department to provide honest numbers on monthly imports and exports and the gross domestic product. We trust the Environmental Protection Agency to provide an honest accounting of air and water pollution levels.

All of these statistics end up helping shape the public debate on the most crucial issues of the day. If these numbers can’t be trusted, we can’t have an honest debate. When it comes to the economic stimulus package, it sure looks like the Obama White House doesn’t want an honest debate. Instead, it is going to relentlessly push the very dubious claim that the stimulus was a huge success – no matter what.

We are struck yet again by the contrast between the hopeful and idealistic tone of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and the bare-knuckles Chicago-style politics of his White House. If this hardball approach goes beyond the usual arm-twisting to the routine twisting of government statistics for political purposes, that will be a grim day for America.

The first thing to do is congratulate the editorial board of the Union-Tribune for standing up for the truth.  That hasn’t happened a whole lot in the swooning, “thrill going up my leg” coverage of Obama.

Next, I’d like to begin by citing the complete paragraph that the Union-Tribune cites from AP:

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

Then I’ll provide the quote from the Sacramento Bee in its context, which makes it an even more damning indictment:

Up to one-fourth of the 110,000 jobs reported as saved by federal stimulus money in California probably never were in danger, a Bee review has found.

California State University officials reported late last week that they saved more jobs with stimulus money than the number of jobs saved in Texas – and in 44 other states.

In a required state report to the federal government, the university system said the $268.5 million it received in stimulus funding through October allowed it to retain 26,156 employees.

That total represents more than half of CSU’s statewide work force.  However, university officials confirmed Thursday that half their workers were not going to be laid off without the stimulus dollars.

“This is not really a real number of people,” CSU spokeswoman Clara Potes-Fellow said. “It’s like a budget number.”

And then I’ll provide the context for the Chicago Tribune findings:

Gov. Patrick Quinn on Wednesday dispatched officials from a new accountability office to investigate errors in a state database detailing stimulus-funded school jobs promoted by the Obama administration, a day after the Tribune raised questions about the job numbers’ accuracy.

The officials have asked the Illinois State Board of Education to verify the number of jobs created and retained in school districts detailed in the report, said Ashley Cross, a spokeswoman for Quinn’s office. Any necessary adjustments will be incorporated into the next quarterly report on the federal stimulus, she said.

Matt Vanover, a spokesman for board of education, said the flawed database actually had been washed of some glaring errors before being included in the official tabulation, which claimed 14,330 school jobs in Illinois had either been saved or created thanks to $1.25 billion in federal funds.

But the Tribune found that the database claimed far more jobs had been saved in some local school districts than actually existed on district payrolls.

Which is to say that, as egregious as the errors were that the Tribune reported for this story, the school board spokesman said they had actually been much, much more egregious before the Tribune was able to get its hands on the actual data.

When the Union-Tribune editors say:

This is a scandal and should be treated as such. It’s not government as usual. Instead, it appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas.

You should recognize that we are talking about historic levels of dishonesty that match this administrations’ historic levels of spending and historic levels of debt.

And when they point out that:

Politics also appears to be driving state agencies in their willingness to prop up this bogus narrative. It helps them make the case that they should get even more borrowed money from the federal government that they never will have to repay.

Such dishonesty should be completely unacceptable – especially at the federal level.

You should realize that – counter to the Obama administration’s and Democrat Party’s demagogic attacks against businesses such as our health insurance companies (which make only modest profits, contrary to the frankly evil attacks repeatedly made by the left) – there is no greater or more powerful or more dishonest “special interest” than big government.

If you’re opposed to special interest, then whatever the HELL you do, don’t let the federal government take over health care.

And this garbage of deceit and lies about jobs and the fact that Obama has done NOTHING to create more of them is going on all over the country.

The Boston Globe says, “Stimulus job boost in state exaggerated, review finds.”  And it is simply damning.

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.

The Globe’s finding is based on the federal government’s just-released accounts of stimulus spending at the end of October. It lists the nearly $4 billion in stimulus awards made to an array of Massachusetts government agencies, universities, hospitals, private businesses, and nonprofit organizations, and notes how many jobs each created or saved.

But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.

One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’ Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.

In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually – subsidies for affordable housing, for example – was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.

“There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,’’ said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham. “It’s hard to figure out if you did the paperwork right. We never asked for this.’’

The federal stimulus report for Massachusetts has so many errors, missing data, or estimates instead of actual job counts that it may be impossible to accurately tally how many people have been employed by the massive infusion of federal money. Massachusetts is expected to receive an estimated $1 billion more in stimulus contracts, grants, and loans.

When Obama was elected, unemployment was at 6.6%.  He promised that his stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%.  And now it’s 10.2%.

His plan completely failed.  His massive $3.27 trillion stimulus porkulus (according to what the CBO reported Obama’s stimulus would actually cost) did nothing more than create a bunch of pork projects and create a Democrat war chest of slush funds to buy the votes it needs.

Don’t believe me about the slush fund?

To get as far as the bill did so far, it appears the administration might have spread some money around. California Rep. Jim Costa was wavering but told a local newspaper last week that his vote could be contingent on getting some federal money for a new medical school in his district along with help for local hospitals.

When a constituent named Bob Smittcamp e-mailed him to complain about his vote for the House bill, the congressman explained he’d been offered the dollars he was looking for — $128 million in federal money.

“He responded to me by basically saying that he did not like many of the elements there were in the legislation. However, he was able to procure $128m for the University of California medical school in Merced,” Smittcamp told Fox News.

Democrats now have in excess of a trillion dollars in federal money to buy itself the votes it needs to impose the liberal agenda.Rather than actually fix the economy, all Obama has done is a) focus entirely on putting even more of the economy under government control through Obamacare rather than focus on creating jobs; b) make up a bunch of patent lies to make believe his policies are doing anything other than dismally failing; and c) keep blaming Bush for everything.It’s not working out, Obama.  YOU’RE not working out.