VIDEO Proof Obama Lied about knowing John Gruber

VIDEO Obama vs Obama on Executive Orders and Amnesty

VIDEO PROOF On Iraq, Bush was Right and Obama is all wrong

Obama WRONG Harry Reid WRONG Hillary Clinton WRONG

and all Obama can do is Lie Lie Lie.

Barney Frank Appalled by Obama and his Obamacare Lies

President Barack Obama made a major political mistake by lying about the details of his health care plan, according to former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

"The rollout was so bad, and I was appalled -- I don't understand how the president could have sat there and not been checking on that on a weekly basis," Frank told HuffPost during a July interview. "But frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. That wasn't true. And you shouldn't lie to people. And they just lied to people."

Obama has taken significant flak in conservative circles for claiming that his health care overhaul would allow all existing health care plans to continue, when, in fact, new consumer protection standards would require some people to sign up for more comprehensive insurance. The law provides government subsidies to help people of modest means pay for the more robust plans. Frank is a strong supporter of the law, and he has repeatedly defended Obama and his legislative agenda.

"He should have said, 'Look, in some cases the health care plans that you've got are really inadequate, and in your own interests, we're going to change them,'" Frank said. "But that's not what he said."

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that Obamacare continues to be widely misunderstood, with a majority of Americans unaware that the law allows consumers to choose between different private sector health plans. Lying about how the consumer protection standards would function, Frank said, created an unnecessary circus around a program that would help people get better coverage.

"Any smart political adviser would have said, 'Don't lie to people, because you're gonna get caught up in it and it's gonna have this tsunami that you now have,'" Frank told HuffPost. "My political motto, very simple. I have always told the truth, and nothing but the truth. But I don't volunteer the whole truth in every situation."

The Huffington Post

76 Percent Think IRS Destroyed Lerner E-mails

A new Fox News survey tested Team Obama’s credibility: "The Internal Revenue Service says that two years of emails from IRS employees about targeting conservative and tea party groups were accidentally destroyed because of a computer crash and cannot be recovered. Do you believe the IRS that the emails were destroyed accidentally or do you think they were destroyed deliberately?"

The answer: only 12 percent believe the lame “accidentally destroyed” thesis, and 76 percent picked “deliberately.” Asked if Congress should keep probing, 74 percent said yes. No one at the networks will be touching this poll, but James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal wondered:

What percentage of respondents do you think believe the IRS?

We'd have said between 30% and 40%. The administration, backed by its allies in the Democratic Party and the media, has cast the scandal in partisan terms, as a Republican witch hunt. Obama himself told Fox's Bill O'Reilly in February that while "there were some bone-headed decisions," there was no "mass corruption. Not even a smidgen of corruption."

Given the partisan polarization of America's political culture--a long-term trend that predates Obama's presidency but certainly has not been arrested by it--we'd have expected at least Obama's hard-core political base to express support for the IRS position.

He was shocked by the 12 percent: “That's congressional-approval-rating territory." Jennifer Harper at the Washington Times included the partisan breakdown: 90 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents, and even 63 percent of Democrats aren't buying the "accidentally destroyed" claim...and 66 percent of Democrats back more congressional investigation.

Taranto concluded:

The president's claim that there was no corruption never quite made logical sense. To believe it, you have to accept two premises: that the IRS acted on its own, without direction from the White House or other politicians; and that it did so incompetently rather than corruptly. Both these premises could be true. But if the first one is--if the problem at the IRS was the lack of supervision rather than the following of corrupt orders from above--then Obama is in no position to make authoritative declarations about what the IRS was up to.

The Fox poll is a stunning vote of no confidence not just in the Obama administration but in the government itself. Public skepticism of government is a healthy impulse, and in this case it seems fully warranted. A government that cannot inspire even a minimal degree of public confidence is a danger to itself and to the country.

Hat Tip to: NewsBusters

The Big 5 ObamaCare Lies

 

With enrollment in the Obamacare exchanges now closed, Democrats and their friends in the media are ebullient. Obamacare is an enormous success, they say, and conservatives have been humiliated. On closer inspection, however, things seem decidedly less bullish for President Obama’s signature achievement. 

Among the many exaggerations and inaccuracies the law’s defenders are touting, five stand out.  

• First, they say that premium rates are down. In support of this, liberals cite research from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), but they misinterpret it. In fact, the CBO’s most recent estimate of premiums shows a decline not from what they were in 2013, before the implementation of Obamacare, but rather from what CBO estimated they would be in 2014. Studies from many outlets have shown that rates have gone up since 2013, substantially for many people. 

This is no mystery. Obamacare basically outlawed insurance underwriting, so rates must go up as healthy people pay the price for the sick. Insurers, moreover, have also increased deductibles and co-pays and narrowed doctor networks and drug formularies.

• Second, supporters claim that Obamacare exceeded the enrollment target promulgated by the CBO. This is questionable. The CBO last year projected 7 million enrollees, and the Obama administration now gloats that 8 million people selected a plan in the exchanges. But not everybody who selected a plan will pay for it. The best estimate right now is that about 15 percent of initial enrollees are not paying their first premiums. If that holds, paid enrollment will come in slightly under CBO’s 2013 prediction.

But there is more. CBO downgraded its forecast earlier this year from 7 million to 6 million, and this month declined to update it even after the “surge” of last-minute enrollees began. The reason: The prediction is an annual average. By this metric, Obamacare will struggle to hit 6 million, with enrollment so weak in the first quarter.

• Third, liberals claim that insurers are happy, pointing to recent earnings reports from the biggest companies. But this is a non sequitur. The insurers have become clients of government. Federal subsidies to exchange insurers this year will hit approximately $10 billion, thanks to a program called “reinsurance” that reimburses Obamacare exchange enrollees for excessive claims. As a point of reference, $10 billion just about equals the combined profits of the top five insurers in 2013. Moreover, the total subsidy could go even higher, thanks to another feature of Obamacare known as “risk corridors.” Insurers on the exchanges are enjoying private profits and socialized losses. Who wouldn’t be happy? What will really matter is how insurers feel in 2017, when reinsurance and risk corridors expire and the exchanges must stand on their own.

• Fourth, liberals claim the law is “working.” This omits the dozens of provisions that the president has suspended or delayed because they were not working—for budgetary or political reasons. The suspended or postponed provisions include the mandate that businesses cover full-time employees, the cancellation of noncompliant plans, and cuts to Medicare Advantage.

In fact, what is working is a very narrow segment of the law, the most politically salable part: the distribution of tax credits so people with low incomes can buy heavily subsidized insurance coverage. To say the law is working is like saying you “ate your dinner” when you gulped down your dessert and skipped the veggies. Just as your mother said you could not have one without the other, so the popular provisions of Obamacare are linked to the unpopular ones. Sooner or later, the administration will have to enforce the law—or watch a vast array of unintended side effects disrupt the national health care system.

• Fifth, the left assures us Obamacare cannot be repealed. This is particularly rich, considering all the provisions the administration itself has effectively repealed when it found them inconvenient.

Irony aside, Obamacare’s future is still very much in doubt. Whereas Medicare and Social Security were designed to benefit everybody sooner or later, Obamacare creates vast classes of winners and losers. It is to the losers that many of the suspensions are directed. But the losers will eventually have to suffer the harm that Obamacare is set to deliver. And that creates the political space for repeal.

Imagine Republicans win the presidency and a congressional majority in 2016. Does anybody doubt they will go after Obamacare with every tool available? If they do, parts of the law will surely survive, but the finished product will be so different from what exists now that Democrats will bemoan Obamacare’s “repeal.”

Thank You: Weekly Standard

Sheriff Joe says Obama's Deportation Numbers "Smoke and Mirrors"

 

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio said the Obama administration’s statistics on the deportation of illegal immigrants are “smoke and mirrors,” claiming he sees the same criminals entering his jails “six, seven, eight times” and speculating that “they’re being let out the back door.”

The Maricopa County sheriff spoke with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on Friday about the Obama administration’s claim that they’ve deported 2 million illegal immigrants. Arpaio contended that the White House is “play[ing] around with statistics.”

“I always had a feeling that a lot of these people that we put on hold — turn over to ICE — really were not being deported,” he said. “I did a survey in the last three months and found out that of the over 1,200 illegal aliens in our jails, one-third, or about 400, that were released in the past have criminal records.”

“And they’re still being booked back into the jail!” he continued. “Six, seven, eight times. Keep coming back! How come they’re not being deported? That’s where they should be, they’re high-level violators.”

“They’re rounded up, they’re booked into my jails for criminal violations, we put holds on them, they’re turned over to ICE,” he explained. “And how come they keep coming back in the last several years? They should be back where they came from, or they’re being let out the back door! You can’t have it both ways. How come they keep coming back to jail?”

‘If you’re talking about the interior of the United States which is enforced by ICE, when you take the 11 million allegedly here, ICE has locked up one percent when you look at the figures,” he declared. “So it’s smoke and mirrors going on, that has been going on.”

Watch the Interview on the: Daily Caller

Share this Proof that Obama Lied about Obamacare

BENGHAZI They Knew 15 Minutes After the Terrorist Attack that it was a Terrorist Attack

The country’s top military commanders clearly understood the assault on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, was a terrorist attack from the moment the first reports came in, just 15 minutes after the assault began on September 11, 2012.

Why Did They Change The Story? 

Heritage Foundation

Obama and the perversion of our language

President Obama has developed this perversion of language into an art form.

His first campaign spoke of “Change we can believe in” without once explaining change from what and to what. He couldn’t, because the change he sought was from semi-freedom to unfreedom.

He spoke of “hope” without once naming what was to be hoped for. He couldn’t, because, for him, the object of that hope was government handouts funded by money taken from those who had earned it–legalized plunder, in the well-turned phrase of Frederic Bastiat.

“We’re all in this together,” the President repeatedly says–without telling us what “this” is. The woozy, undefined “this” turns out to be a package-deal of the voluntary cooperation of free men and the forced regimentation of rightless serfs of an omnipotent state.

As an aid to those who treasure their freedom, I offer this dictionary of Obamaspeak, so that they may know what they are actually up against.

Progressive: one who opposes progress in every form. The “Progressive” opposes nuclear power, coal and oil power, the pharmaceutical industry, and industrialization in general. In politics, the “Progressive” favors a return to the age-old domination of the individual by authority. The “Progressive” rejects the very idea of progress, denying that any society is objectively more advanced than any other. He regards the term “primitive” as politically incorrect. Resurrecting Rousseau’s “noble savage” (though opposing the term “savage”), he claims that savage tribes “live in harmony with their natural environment,” blanking out such facts as their precarious existence, their lifespan of about thirty years, and their constant brutal wars with other tribes.

Ideologue: anyone who has a principled opposition to Obama’s ideology.

Bipartisan: the caving in of the opposition to the President’s “Progressive” legislation.

Folks: people who are expected to regard the President as, aw shucks, just like them–despite the fact that he is constantly telling them that they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions and live their own lives.

Access (as in “access to healthcare”): the ability to be provided with the products of others’ work without having to pay for them.

Transitioning: a process by which “folks” are forced, under penalty of fines and jails, to do what the President knows is best for them, but which they persist in believing is bad for them. E.g., “transitioning to a single-payer system.”

Single-payer system: an arrangement in which the government seizes the funds of the multitude, through taxation and inflation, to pay bottom-dollar for healthcare dictated by the government.

Common sense: the unthought out, emotion-driven feel of things common to “Progressives.”

Stakeholder: anyone who is not an owner, who has not put his own money into the stock of a business, but who is granted the right to dictate its policies.

Worn-out dogmas: the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Something greater than ourselves: the government.

And More At: Forbes

Obama Met With IRS Union Leader Day Before They Targeted Conservatives…

 

Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal?

Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun?

The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts.
March 31, 2010.

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:

Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30
In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”

The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. 

The IG report wrote it up this way:

“April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.”

In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.

Thank You: Weasel Zippers

The Sequester Doomsday

Obama Campaign 'Inflated' Jobs Claims (by Over 4 Million)

By Tom Blumer NewsBusters

Obama’s Inflated Jobs Claim
In a new TV ad, President Obama makes an inflated claim to have added 5.2 million new jobs. The total added during his time in office is actually about 325,000.
In the ad, the president says “over 5 million new jobs” while the figure “5.2 million” appears on screen. But that’s a doubly misleading figure.
Viewers would need to pay close attention to the on-screen graphic to know that the ad refers only to employment gains starting in March 2010, omitting the 4.3 million jobs that were lost in the first year of Obama’s term.
And there’s no way a viewer would know that the total counts only private-sector jobs, omitting continuing losses in government employment.

Read More: NewsBusters

OBAMA Caught arming Al Qaeda

What we do know is that the New York Times — one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country — reported in an Oct. 14 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

READ MORE: PatDollard.com 

Obama’s Real Oil Record

The CLIMATE GATE Book

During Tuesday’s spirited presidential debate, Mr. Obama stated that U.S. oil production has risen every year he has been in office.  However, as Governor Romney and various fact-checkers note, most of those gains have come about on private lands, over which Obama has little control.
However, not divulged during the debate was how the Obama administration has purposefully undermined America’s oil industry. The following is a revealing excerpt from the my book, Eco-Tyranny:
On May 6, 2010, three weeks after the onset of the massive British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama administration cleverly took advantage of the crisis by autocratically imposing a 30-day moratorium on new deepwater drilling operations in the Gulf, and suspending drilling on rigs working in water deeper than 500 feet.  This mandate immediately froze operations on 33 operational oil platforms, and another eight that were under construction, pending an investigation into the explosion that caused the BP leak.

READ MORE: Climate Gate

Pres Obama’s Green Energy Failures

Ashe Schow THE FOUNDRY


It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.
The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.
So far, 36 companies that have received federal support from taxpayers have either gone bankrupt or are laying off workers and are heading for bankruptcy. 

Read More: THE FOUNDRY

JACK WELCH: Obama is manipulating the job numbers because his debate performance was awful