Showing posts with label Obama truth vs false. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama truth vs false. Show all posts

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Truth, Justice and the American Way--1/20/2013

What’s new Today 

Story #1 looks at Obama and the truth and determines that are strangers.  #2 is an interesting look at why the Obama campaign may have gone after Ann Romney.  #3 Democratic Senator Jim Webb looks at Obamacare and sees a lack of leadership by President Obama.  #4 looks at the GSA scandal and wonders why anyone wants to make government larger.  #5 looks at the book A Righteous Mind.  It appears to be a good look at the difference between liberals and conservatives.  #6 looks at Eisenhower’s other warning (besides the military industrial complex)in his farewell address. 



Today’s thoughts



From a study in 2010 some frightening statistics.  A majority of people don’t know the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  More frightening?  Eight percent named Thurgood Marshall, who not only was never the Chief Justice but also died in 1993. And let’s not even talk about the four percent who think Harry Reid, a Senator not a member of the Supreme Court, is the Chief Justice.



With the attack on Ann Romney we’ve heard leftist claim she had nannies to help her.  Actually according to her children they didn’t.  But Barack Obama was raised by a nanny while he was living in Indonesia.



The Hitler movie is back only this time it’s about Barack and his eating Hitler’s dog.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEBN8wOKjMo

First time jobless claims were up again for the second straight week.  Unless a lot of people drop out of the labor market we will see a tick up in unemployment. 



1.   Are Obama and the Truth Strangers?

George Will writes that "Barack Obama's intellectual sociopathy -- his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth -- should no longer startle." But why do Obama and his supporters feel no compunction when they do so? And does this pattern provide an opportunity for Mitt Romney to gather votes in November?

As has often been commented, all of Barack Obama's promises come with an expiration date. They range from the relatively minor to the truly majestic such as his promise that he would not raise taxes for those families earning under $250,000 a year and that he would cut the deficit in half.  

He peddled a world of wonders that would flow from passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The fabrications started early -- even in the very name of the act. Patients are not protected: not only will they not be able to keep their current plans if they like them, as he promised (businesses have been dropping company plans in reaction to Obamacare), but their care will fall under the control of the Independent Payment Advisory Board that may just decide that various medical procedures are not covered -- and, incidentally, the people on this board are "unelected." Where is the Patient Protection?

Nor is the Act "affordable". Obama pledges that the Act would cut the deficit and bend the cost curve downward have been shown to be false…


Expect to see a lot of this kind of information.  This is the Republican campaign plan.  Simply remind everyone (in Obama’s own words) what was promised and then show what was delivered.



2.  The Attack on Ann Romney

Ann Romney's oldest son Tagg was baffled why anyone would attack his mom when he was interviewed  by Hugh Hewitt about growing up in the Romney home. Ann stayed home and raised their five sons and now has the joy of 16 grandkids….

… Somehow Ann Romney also found time and energy to do non-paid work helping children in need. Her work outside the home has been devoted to at-risk youth, inner city girls, third world children, equine therapy programs for physically challenged children, literacy for children, the American Red Cross and the Perkins School for the Blind. She has also worked outside the home promoting advocacy and research for a cure for cancer and multiple sclerosis (two terrible illnesses she has suffered from herself). She is also a national prize-winning athlete as an equestrian, her personal lifelong passion. An admirable, good woman.

So why would the Obama campaign want to pick on her?

It was certainly purposeful. The White House chose a top political operative to attack Ann Romney. Hilary Rosen is somebody. She has visited the White House 35 times. She has had five personal work sessions with Obama, as well as meeting with Valerie Jarret and David Axelrod...

… For Obama, the politics of envy is more than a campaign strategy. Envy gnaws at his core. Envy is alive and personal. As we hear in speech after speech, Obama sees America as an unfair place where the fortunate live at the expense of the unfortunate. Envy and grievance give his life meaning, they give him a cause….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/why_do_they_want_to_pick_on_ann_romney.html#ixzz1sTPurXps


I recommend reading this piece in its entirety. With the upbringing of Barack Obama it is a miracle that he turned out as well as he did.  But there are a lot of demons in his background which explain a lot of the faults we are seeing. 
 



3. Obamacare:  Lessons in a Lack of Leadership



President Obama’s new health-care law will be his greatest liability as he attempts to once again win the critical swing state of Virginia, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) warned Wednesday.

“I’ll be real frank here,” Webb said at a breakfast organized by Bloomberg News. “I think that the manner in which the health-care reform issue was put in front of the Congress, the way that the issue was dealt with by the White House, cost Obama a lot of credibility as a leader.”

Webb voted for the law, but also for more than a dozen GOP-offered amendments to it.

“If you were going to do something of this magnitude, you have to do it with some clarity, with a clear set of objectives from the White House,” added Webb, who opted not to run for a second term this year. “...It should have been done with better direction from the White House.”

He faulted Obama for playing too passive a role in shaping the legislation. Taking a lesson from Bill Clinton’s failed 1994 health-care overhaul effort--which was faulted for its micromanagement of the details of the bill--Obama opted to spell out a broad set of goals, and let Congress work out the details.

What happened in the end, Webb said, “was five different congressional committees voted out their version of health-care reform, and so you had 7,000 pages of contradictory information. Everybody got confused. ... From that point forward, Obama’s had a difficult time selling himself as a decisive leader.”

Webb also said that if Obama had opted for a smaller measure, he would have stood a chance of winning the support of a significant number of Republicans on Capitol Hill...


Obamacare is a major problem for Obama.  The American public was horrified by the way it was passed and Obama role in it was disgraceful. 











4.  GSA:  A Lesson about Big Government



Congressional lawmakers grilled General Services Administration officials for a third straight day Wednesday about a rogue employee's penchant for lavish, taxpayer-funded junkets, unearthing evidence that the waste, fraud and abuse is more common and has been going on much longer than first indicated.



Over the last six years, the GSA, which is in charge of the federal government's real estate holdings, has been racked repeatedly by financial kickbacks, insider dealing and general incompetence, lawmakers said.



Just last year, seven GSA employees were found guilty of accepting bribes and defrauding the government in a scheme that cost taxpayers $750,000. Other GSA scandals date back to the Carter administration in the 1970s.



"It really shakes you up," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chaired a Senate inquiry Wednesday. "The expression is fool me once, but again and again?"



Senators Wednesday marveled at the scope of the latest scandal. A regional commissioner, Jeff Neely, spent $823,000 on a conference for GSA employees in Las Vegas in October 2010 and appears to have a long history of freely spending taxpayers' money on leisure trips and perks and other questionable expenses.



The GSA's Inspector General, Brian Miller, who has been investigating Neely since November 2010, said he learns of new abuses nearly daily. He told the Senate committee he just discovered that Neely's wife, Deborah, "had a parking space throughout the year" at the federal building where Neely worked, even though she doesn't work for the government.



Wasteful spending was embedded in the culture of some GSA departments, in particular Neely's, where the management for years planned annual conferences with the chief goal of outdoing the previous year's event, Miller said.



The Las Vegas conference Neely planned included loft hotel suites, lavish parties, a mind reader and clown for entertainment and commemorative coins in velvet boxes for the 300 attendees.



While the Las Vegas event was described as "over the top," even by Neely, it was apparently nothing new, Miller said….


This is an example of the problems with big government.  The “Yes We Can” chant takes on a whole new meaning when you see exactly what they can do with our money. 



5.  The Righteous Mind

You’re smart. You’re liberal. You’re well informed. You think conservatives are narrow-minded. You can’t understand why working-class Americans vote Republican. You figure they’re being duped. You’re wrong.

This isn’t an accusation from the right. It’s a friendly warning from Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal. In “The ­Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature. Politics isn’t just about ­manipulating people who disagree with you. It’s about learning from them.

The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others.

Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment….


This is especially hard for the left to accept since they view themselves as the open minded ones.  Apparently they aren’t. 



6.  Eisenhower’s Other Warning



…Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society….


The left likes to remind us of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.  But he also warned us about a government research complex that subordinates good science to government whims.  Perhaps foreseeing the AGW dilemma we find ourselves in, Eisenhower recognized the corrupting influence government money could bring to science.




Saturday, October 8, 2011

The hole gets deeper

Obama Approval at All Time Low in Gallup Poll

The latest Gallup 3 Day Poll for October 4-6 shows Obama with only 38 percent approval and 53 percent disapproval.  During the 2010 elections, his approval rating was 44%. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx





Barack Obama and his poetic license



BARACK OBAMA IS TODAY FACING ACCUSATIONS THAT HIS TALE ABOUT A TEACHER TOLD HE WAS LOSING HIS JOB THREE TIMES WAS NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE.

The President claimed on Thursday to have ‘had a chance to meet a young man named Robert Baroz’ - BUT THEY HAVE REPORTEDLY NEVER MET.

He also talked about the teacher ‘receiving three pink slips because of budget cuts’ - BUT NEGLECTED TO MENTION HE REPORTEDLY NEVER LOST HIS JOB.

He’s got two decades of teaching experience,’ President Obama said in a press conference on Thursday. ‘He’s got a master’s degree….

…Mr Baroz is now working as a ‘literacy and data coach’ at a school in Jamaica Plain, near Boston, Massachusetts, reported the Boston Herald.

But he said he was happy for President Obama to use poetic licence to explain the importance of ‘investing in education and in communities’…


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046684/Barack-Obama-Robert-Baroz-Teacher-lost-job-actually-employed.html#ixzz1aBW02oG4


This must be like his story about his mother having to fight the health insurance people when she was dying.  It seems a good story is just that--- a story. 





Obama’s disastrous Presidency

After almost three years of disastrous governance, ALL BARACK OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE LEFT IS THE POLITICS OF BITTERNESS AND ENVY. He can't run on his record -- not with unemployment high and the economy in shambles.

It didn't have to be this way. Obama let Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and every other crackpot Democrat write his Stimulus Bill. In the end, he spent a trillion dollars insulating union members and government employees from the effects of the economic downturn, while the rest of us suffered.

The Stimulus could have consisted of permanent tax cuts for business, allowing capitalist competition to direct funds to its most profitable uses, thereby accelerating economic growth and providing jobs, but Barack Obama does not like profit and its trickle-down wealth.

Instead, in service of OBAMA'S PREFERRED POLICY OF TRICKLE UP POVERTY, we funded non-shovel-ready construction projects and flushed billions down the low-flow toilet of green energy, while GIVING THE REST OF THE STIMULUS FUNDS TO THE STATES TO COVER THEIR BUDGETARY SHORTFALLS. Stimulus dollars bought us green energy boondoggles, un-built roads, and more government, with zero economic growth and increased unemployment. MILLIONS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS LOST THEIR JOBS, WHILE THE GOVERNMENT ADDED 230,000 WORKERS AND CRONY CAPITALISTS GREW FAT.

THE ADMINISTRATION DIVERTED TARP FUNDS TO RESCUE GM AND CHRYSLER, WHILE FLIPPING THE ORDER OF SECURED AND UNSECURED CREDITORS. Obama may have saved the UAW, but at what cost? The UAW was made whole, while some secured creditors had to take fifteen cents on the dollar. WILL ANY INVESTOR EVER PURCHASE SECURED DEBT FROM GM AGAIN? IF SECURED CREDITORS DON'T HAVE PRIMACY IN BANKRUPTCY, WHAT IS THE POINT OF BEING A SECURED CREDITOR?

Fresh from roiling the credit markets with the auto bailouts, the president then encouraged and SIGNED INTO LAW THE DODD-FRANK FINANCIAL REFORM, a law so complicated that no one knows what's in it. The uncertainty felt by financial markets won't abate until the administration finishes writing the rules. In the interim, homeowners can't get mortgages and businesses can't get loans.

IN 2007, THE LAST YEAR WITH A BUDGET CONTROLLED BY A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT, THE DEFICIT WAS $161 BILLION. The non-stimulating STIMULUS EXPLODED THE BUDGET BASELINE, raising the percentage of GDP consumed by the government from 20% to 25%, resulting in the $1.6-trillion deficits we have today. Looking at employment and the economy, it's clear that the nation has received nothing for the $5 trillion Barack Obama has added to the national debt. INSTEAD OF CAPITALIST COMPETITION, WE'VE HAD AN EXPLOSION OF CRONY CAPITALISM. WITH THE GOVERNMENT PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS, WE HAVE REPLACED ADAM SMITH'S INVISIBLE HAND WITH BARACK OBAMA'S THUMB.

Take solar panel manufacturer Solyndra as an example. The administration put a half a billion dollars into a company with financial ties to a group headed by Obama campaign donor George Kaiser. THE ADMINISTRATION STRUCTURED THE LOAN TO GIVE THE GROUP'S INVESTMENT PRECEDENCE OVER THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER NOW THAT THE COMPANY IS BEING LIQUIDATED THROUGH BANKRUPTCY. Its business plan consisted of producing a product for $1 and selling it for $0.75, while hoping to make up for the deficit in volume….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/a_disastrous_presidency.html



Obama seems to have a problem with following civil law. 




Senate Dems’ canary in the coal mine

Since August, President Obama has made “running against Congress” a centerpiece of his reelection strategy, as President Truman did in 1948. BUT THE COMPARISON BETWEEN 1948 AND 2012 CONTAINS ONE INCONVENIENT FACT: THE SENATE IS STILL CONTROLLED BY THE PRESIDENT’S OWN PARTY, AND THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE PART THAT IS GIVING HIM THE GREATEST TROUBLE.

Numerous Senate Democrats – including top brass like Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Max Baucus – have made clear THEY ARE NOT GOING TO “PASS THIS BILL” WITHOUT MAJOR CHANGES. Sen. Begich, Ben Nelson, Casey, Landrieu, Webb, McCaskill and others are openly uncomfortable with defending another fat stimulus package – this time funded with the kicker of broad tax increases.

Now SKEPTICISM IS HARDENING INTO OUTRIGHT OPPOSITION. This week, Jon Tester, one of the three most vulnerable Democrats in the Senate, publicly opposed the Obama stimulus tax bill. What does that mean for the other two most vulnerable Senate Democrats: Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Claire McCaskill of Missouri?...


The Senate Democrats have already been through this where they do things that are politically unpopular for President Obama.  Although they didn’t lose the Senate last election they actually won a smaller percentage of the seats that were up for reelection than did the Democrats in the House and this coming election, the Democrats have 24 of the 33 seats that will be up for reelection in 2012.  (the Republicans need to pick up 4 of them to take control). 


Occupy Wall Street



…While the President, liberal Democrats, union leaders and some in the media have tried to convince Americans that this is a grassroots movement that is raging against corporate greed on Wall Street and is being led by disenfranchised Americans, the truth of the matter is that THIS IS THE USUAL BUNCH OF SUSPECTS ON THE FAR LEFT SUCH AS INTERNATIONAL ANSWER, CODE PINK, THE COMMUNIST PARTY USA, AND THE WORKERS WORLD PARTY, TO NAME A FEW — a loose coalition of anarchist groups and angry trust-fund babies looking for their lot in life.

President Obama and liberal Democrats, in praising this bunch, are trying to give them mainstream exposure, but as the American people have come to find out more about this so-called coalition group and their list of demands, which read something like a Communist Redbook, they are coming to realize that this is the same bunch that show up at annual IMF/World Bank Meeting and engage in massive protests which includes general mayhem, destroying private property and battling the police in the streets. With that said, you can hardly call this group grassroots; THEY ARE PROFESSIONAL PROTESTORS WHOSE OVERALL OBJECTIVE IS TO REPLACE OUR SYSTEM OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS WITH BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM, even if that means using violence to accomplish it….

http://biggovernment.com/kmartin/2011/10/07/obama-appeases-occupywallst-professional-protestors-to-boost-reelection-chances/#more-345836

This is something to keep an eye on.  It appears to me to be a genuine small grass roots protest mostly by unemployed or underemployed college students wanting their college debt forgiven.  Beyond that it is being joined by the usual suspects mentioned in this article.







How Harry Reid's Senate rules change could backfire



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s sudden decision to force a narrow change in the chamber’s procedures could backfire.

First, it could make it harder for Democrats to break GOP filibusters because Republicans may be even less willing to close off debate on legislation.

Even worse for Democrats, the tactics Reid employed to change a Senate precedent could make it easier for Republicans to justify using similar procedures to force simple-majority votes on hugely contentious issues, such as repealing Democratic priorities like health care reform and Wall Street regulations, Senate experts on both sides of the aisle said Fri

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65439.html#ixzz1aBbExYhJ

When I first heard about this I thought it sounded foolish.  Reid did this to simply save the President and Democratic Senators the embarrassment of having to vote against voting for Obama’s “jobs bill.”  He sold out this principle for far too little benefit to the Democrats.





Obama Scandal Update:  Solyndra

ENERGY DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WERE WARNED THAT THEIR PLAN TO HELP A FAILING SOLAR COMPANY BY RESTRUCTURING ITS $535 MILLION FEDERAL LOAN COULD VIOLATE THE LAW and should be cleared with the Justice Department, according to newly obtained e-mails from within the Obama administration.

The e-mails show that ENERGY DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MOVED AHEAD ANYWAY WITH A NEW DEAL THAT WOULD REPAY COMPANY INVESTORS BEFORE TAXPAYERS IF THE COMPANY DEFAULTED. The e-mails, which were reviewed by The Washington Post, show for the first time concerns within the administration about the legality of the Energy Department’s extraordinary efforts to help Solyndra, the California solar company that went bankrupt Aug. 31….

… The records provided Friday by a government source also show that an Energy Department stimulus adviser, STEVE SPINNER, PUSHED FOR SOLYNDRA’S LOAN DESPITE HAVING RECUSED HIMSELF BECAUSE HIS WIFE’S LAW FIRM DID WORK FOR THE COMPANY. Spinner, who left the agency in September 2010, did not respond to requests for comment Friday….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-obama-and-rahm-emanuel-pushed-to-spotlight-energy-company/2011/10/07/gIQACDqSTL_story.html

At this point in time, I don’t think we have deliberate criminal activity, but rather a comedy of errors that cost the Taxpayers ½ a trillion dollars.  In my opinion it was incompetence by the Obama Administration. 

Update from Instapundit:

ABC published a report about Spinner last week to which JAY CARNEY REPLIED THAT, TO THE BEST OF THE WHITE HOUSE’S KNOWLEDGE, SPINNER HAD NO INPUT ON THE GREEN LOANS PROGRAM. According to today’s e-mails, though, not only was Spinner evidently in contact with the White House — including Biden’s office! — about Solyndra, HE CORRESPONDED DIRECTLY WITH SOLYNDRA’S VP OF MARKETING.”