amiconservative.com

EDMONDS: How much worse could it get when you got down to 6500?  I think it’s encouraging. it’s somewhat sustained performance by the stock market.  I think you saw the news on housing starts.  That’s encouraging.  I think we can take a breath but not relax yet.

MARTIN: Are we getting better?  Yeah, when you’re at 6500 and you’re now at 9000, that’s better. Rush Limbaugh, it’s better whether you like it or not.  So it amazes me when people act as if you cannot acknowledge when the number is better.

ROMANS:  Rush took a little piece out of me, mentioned this program, also my friend Susan Lisovicz saying that by talking about the stock market rally we were somehow missing all of the terrible things that have happened.  But look, you can at least open up your 401(k) statement and see that you’re getting a little bit of it back.

MARTIN:  Rush, you can’t argue with those facts. And so you always want to see positive growth. You always want to see that if things are getting slightly better that’s much better than it’s getting worse. Literally it was every day people going, “Oh, my God, not another report of how bad it is.”

Me: The stock market is still down, peaked up at over 14,000

There’s still no job being created.

“And so you always want to see positive growth.” Really? Did you do that, Martin, during the Bush years? Did your colleagues at CNN report all the positivity during the Bush years?

On CNN, July 1^st,

ROMANS:  The silver lining, if you will, is that May was revised — the previous month, I should say, was revised lower, and that was May.  Also we have a separate report from Challenger Gray & Christmas, which shows the planned job cuts, the announcements slowed, and that is the fifth straight month, so that is encouraging.  What is also high, and this is also silver lining, is the first day of July starting off on a positive note, the Dow is up 128 points, the NASDAQ is up 25.  Good start.  Tough act to follow, though, the second quarter rally that we saw.

On CNN, June 30^th,

NGUYEN: Christine Romans here to explain.  How did we do in the first half of the year?

ROMANS:  (giddy) We’ve seen a spring stock market rally that has been quite incredible.  Job losses are slowing. Consumer confidence is improving. People are feeling a little better.  They’re feeling better because they’re spending less. They’re saving more money. They’re getting back to basics. There’s a new frugality that’s making them feel better.  There was a hu-u-uuge rally in the stock market in the second quarter. The stock market [is] telling us that it thinks things are going to get better eventually, and you’re going to see that rally. If you are still invested in stocks — if you had faith and you were buying stocks along the way this spring, you’re buying them at cheap prices — you’re going to see that rally when you open up your 401(k) statement.

Me: People are still scared to death to open up their 401 k statement. The state-run media will do anything to tell people what they’re seeing and feeling isn’t true. Verizon wireless will have cut 8,000 jobs before this year is over.

COLLINS: Joining us now, Susan Lisovicz from the New York Stock Exchange.  Hi, Susan.

LISOVICZ:  We’ve seen the market turn around.  Why is that?  Well, you just mentioned new home sales.  The expectation was that new home sales rose 2.3% last month.  Guess what?  It jumped 11%.  That is –

COLLINS:  What?

LISOVICZ:  — the number we are seeing.

COLLINS:  What?

LISOVICZ:  Yes.  Yes.  We saw the third straight monthly increase, Heidi, a remarkable summer scorcher.  The sense that corporate America is telling us things may be bottoming out or in some cases improving just a little bit, and so the market has taken off on that.  The Dow’s best two-week run since the beginning of the decade; the NASDAQ rallied 12 consecutive sessions.  We haven’t seen that since before the dot-com bubble way back when in 1992.  And now we’re getting this information that the housing market, which I think many would argue, which is where this crisis all began, is showing signs of life.

COLLINS:  I’m sorry.  I’m a little slow.  I just want to make sure I have this right.  We thought it was only going to go up by about two-to-three percent, but it actually went up 11?

LISOVICZ:  That’s right. (giddy) These are estimates, and –

COLLINS:  Right.

LISOVICZ:  — as you know sometimes they’re way off.  This would be an example.  And a lot of times we see revisions, and we saw a revision as well.  The revision was higher.  But the fact is, there’s activity.

What might be an explanation for new home starts and housing starts going up?

One, there’s a plan out there that first-time home buyers are being subsidized to the tune of eight grand if they buy a new house by November.

Two, home values have gone down drastically, and thus there are bargain prices everywhere, not including the even cheaper foreclosed homes. People with the wherewithal are taking advantage of the bargain prices. The markets work. Period.

What’s the lesson here? What incentivizes new home sales? A tax cut or a tax credit.  Now, if a tax cut – or credit, if you want to look at it that way – can stimulate the housing market this way, then is there not a lesson here that maybe the same kind of activity over the economy at large would accomplish the same thing? They know what to do, it’s just they won’t do it since they’re too ideological.

It’s just  interesting to see that when everything was going good during the Bush times, they tried to make it look as bad as it actually is today. Not that it is actually the worst recession since when Reagan took office, they’re trying to look for silver lining wherever they can find it and to paint the situation as beautifully as they can.

ABC radio news said some economists are declaring the recession over today (July 27, 2009)

OK, so you have seen the propaganda in favor of the Obama administration, coming out of CNN.

You know, during last three to four years of the Bush administration, mainstream media did everything in its power to try to create a consumer confidence rating such as that that’s in actuality today. They failed. Nonetheless, though, what they tried to do would be harming the US economy; these people are so ideological, and they cared much more about destroying Bush than seeing the economy thrive.

CNN is now doing its best to tell everybody that what they’re seeing and feeling and experiencing isn’t accurate.

That we’re coming back, that the stock market’s rebounding, that your 401(k) is all of a sudden expanding. Everything’s okay now. ABC radio news said some economists declared the recession is over. The 401(k)s are coming back, stock market’s ticking up.

“The Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index, which retreated last month, fell to 46.6, down from 49.3 in June. Economists were expecting a reading of 49. It would take a reading above 90 to signal that the economy is on solid footing.”

Somebody needs to tell them this over at CNN. The economy is in the toilet. Bank of America is closing 10% of their branch. Verizon wireless cutting 8,000 jobs this year. Caterpillar

CNNmoney.com: “As a growing number of Americans default on their mortgages the Obama administration is set to meet today with industry executives to discuss their efforts so far to help people save their homes. As joblessness soars, more Americans are losing their homes, the Obama administration meeting with loan servicers to find out why this is happening.”

Are you gonna kneecap them, too? “why this is happening?” The answer is simple, people are losing their jobs and/or have less money in their pockets, because of what the Obama administration has been doing to the private sector.

You don’t give grants to solve this problem, because that will just delay the reckoning. The answer to this problem is to create a growing, thriving economy, partly by incentivizing the private sector to excel and create jobs.

MOYERS:  Some of you remember the Fairness Doctrine, adopted 60 years ago by the Federal Communications Commission.  It said that opposing points of view had to be presented on radio or TV in a way that was honest, equitable and balanced.  If not, said the FCC, a station could lose its license.  Ronald Reagan abolished the doctrine in 1987, but mention it today, and the Rush Limbaughs of the world still scream like martyrs being stretched on the rack.  These people earn millions inciting riots in the public mind.  If they were required to be fair they would soon be penniless out on the street, cup in hand.

Folks, there are a few things I have to say about this:

1.  God has endowed each and everyone of us with certain unalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If somebody wants to start a program – TV, radio, magazine, or some other – he/she has the full right to do so. The first amendment of the US constitution protects the right to freely speak and write. And it’s his program, so he can do whatever he wants with it. And there is nothing political about this, those on the left side of the political aisle can do the same; we still live in America. The Fairness Doctrine – as Moyers explained – is simply unconstitutional, and that is the reason Ronald Reagan abolished it in 1987.

2. Inciting riots in the public mind!? Are you insane!? How absurd can you be!?

Who stirred up the flame that caused the pitch forks coming up at the homes of AIG executives?? Who is impugning the work ethic of police officers and exacerbating the racial divide just last week? Who’s accusing doctors of taking kids’ tonsils out to line their pockets? Who’s fanning the flames against the insurance companies? If there’s anybody “inciting riots in the public mind,” it is none other than the lifelong community agitator Barack Obama, helped by you Mr. Moyers and your buddies in the media.

More importantly, what Rush Limbaugh does is not incite riots in the public mind; what he does is simply report the truth and the facts. All he Limbaugh did is inform people what Obama said in the press conference. Another example is in the health care debacle: Rush informs what’s in the health care bill; he doesn’t simply label it “socialized health care” without backing it up with facts. All you have to do is read the health care bill, and you’ll see what Limbaugh is saying is true.

3. “These people” do earn millions, but not by inciting riots in the public mind; they do so by providing content that their target market wants. There’s a demand for the program, and “these people” simply supply. And they make a lot of money in satisfying that demand.

4 “Required to be fair?” What’s unfair? If you view “these people” as right-wingers, then lemme tell you, the left-wingers have the same right to start a similar type of program, just with leftist content. And there are left-wing talk radio programs. So what’s unfair? Fairness is always an effective argument appeal because everybody wants fairness, and it is the intentions of Mr. Moyers and the likes of him to define what “fair” is.

In my opinion, Mr. Moyers is just upset and jealous of the “Rush Limbaughs of the world.” Why? Because Mr. Moyers used to have the monopoly on what you were told and thus what you knew. . And I can’t help but notice Moyers’ jealousy, since he keeps bringing up the money that “Rush Limbaughs of the world” make. Moyers is jealous of the kind of money that’s being made by those who took the monopoly power away from him.

Also on the same night, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said this on MSNBC:

GIBBS:  The president wants to have constructive dialogue with people that clearly want to have constructive dialogue on issues that are as important as race.  Uh, whether or not Rush Limbaugh wants to be part of, uh, a constructive dialogue or whether he wants to get ratings to sell commercials, uh, on a radio show, I’ll let him answer that question.  Rush is paid a lot of money to fan the flames, uhhh, again so he can sell advertising on his radio show. Uh, I — I — I don’t think that’s what’s important.  I think what’s important is obviously these are important issues, they have been over the lifetime and the history of our country, and the president takes them seriously and wants to deal with them seriously.  I think that’s what it’s going to take.  I think that, uh, very few of our issues are going to be solved yelling at each other on talk radio.

1. Obama does not want to have “constructive dialogue.”

Obama does not care about anything anybody says that doesn’t agree with him. All he cares about is advancing his agenda. One of proofs for this is before the stimulus bill was passed, Rush Limbaugh was the first to offer a truly bipartisan stimulus plan: use half the money to do whatever the Democrats wanted to do with it, and half for Republican plan, such as tax cuts. The op-ed was published in the Wall Street Journal. Of course Obama didn’t care. Rush Limbaugh asked Obama to debate him, and of course Obama never debated Limbaugh.

Dyson, sociology professor from Georgetown University, said this on MSNBC on the same night:

DYSON:  Rush Limbaugh has perverted the nature of the conversation.  To call Barack Obama an angry black man is as ridiculous as calling Rush Limbaugh a first-class intellectual.  So the reality is that, uh, President Obama — with equanimity and poise — articulated his viewpoint, talked about the competing forces that, uh, made this situation untenable, and then tried to resolve it by acknowledging that perhaps, uh, tempers flared on both sides but not denying the legitimacy of the point that m-must not be lost here in all of the discourse:  The president is committed to using his bully pulpit to inform, to enlighten, and to elevate the conversation beyond the trashy character that Rush Limbaugh is addicted to.

Folks, before we move on, if you listen to the tone of voice Dyson had when speaking this, he was the one who sounded angry.

Rush Limbaugh has never perverted the nature of the conversation. Informing people what Obama said in the audience, and reporting that Obama was the first one to inject race into this, were the things Limbaugh did. And you want to label this perverting the nature of the conversation?

And Obama is an angry black man. He says in his own book that he keeps a smiling face so people can accept him.

The president is not committed to “using his bully pulpit to inform, to enlighten, and to elevate the conversation;” His choice of words couldn’t possible have informed and enlightened anybody. The first thing he said was that he was biased and didn’t know all the facts; and he never gave us the facts, and played the race card in that press conference where he was first asked the Gates question. All you have to do is listen to the whole press conference to see that. Obama basically was saying, “I am biased and don’t know the facts, but I tell you; the cop is wrong and stupid.”

DYSON:  Rush Limbaugh does not play to the better angels of their nature.  Rush Limbaugh, his entire modus operandi is to deconstruct the sheen of genius and of incredible popularity around this president.  The Republicans must be willing to be self-critical.  We’ve heard of driving while black, now housing while black, being housed while black, is that a sin as well?

Not true, Dyson. Rush Limbaugh’s entire modus operandi is to tell the truth; pure and simple.

OBAMA: I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station.  I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Professor Gates probably overreacted as well.

Me: See, he threw Gates under the bus! The pulling of Professor Gates out of his home was not an overreaction; he was uncooperative and belligerent.

Gates was the one who overreacted when the police officer came to his house.

Note also Obama said, “based on what I have heard,” and not “based on the facts I now know.” He said what he said so you can’t blame him for anything, since there’s always that possibility he has been told the wrong and/or incomplete information.

OBAMA:  My sense is you’ve got two good people in a circumstance,  in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved and the way they would have liked it to be resolved. The fact this has garnered so much attention I think is a testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very sensitive here in America.

Me: There he is throwing the race card again. “Garnered so much attention”?? Who brought the attention level up this high!? YOU did, Mr. President! This is a testimony that you are indeed a community agitator (which he officially was for 20 years) who can’t step away from defining issue. You are the president; and the president doesn’t stoop this low to interfere at the local level.

OBAMA:  And, you know, so to the extent that my choice of words didn’t illuminate, but rather contributed to more media frenzy, I think that was unfortunate.

Me: Mr. Obama, in that press conference you said you didn’t know all the facts and were biased, and still you called the cop stupid. And you are the president of the United States, so of course your “choice of words” would contribute to “media frenzy.” Your choice of words could not possibly have illuminated anybody; your choice of words did not have the capability to do that. Mr. Obama, your “choice of words” impugned the reputation and work ethic of the police officers all over the country, not to mention the hatred for cops the comment ginned up.

OBAMA: What I would like to do, then, is make sure that everybody steps back for a moment, recognize that these are two decent people, not extrapolate too much from the facts, but, as I said at the press conference: be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, African-Americans are sensitive to these issues.

Me: Who needs to step back here? Who extrapolated too much from the facts? It was none other than Barack Hussein Obama himself.

OBAMA:  And even when you’ve got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity –

Me: But still stupid

OBAMA: — interactions between police officers and the African-American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding.

Me: not in this case, Obongo.

OBAMA:  My hope is that as a consequence of this event, this ends up being what’s called a teachable moment, where all of us, instead of pumping up the volume, spend a little more time listening to each other and try to focus on how we can generally improve relations between police officers in minority communities and instead of flinging accusations we can be a little bit more reflective in terms of what we can do.

Me: Hey Barack, you pumped up the volume! You didn’t spend any time gathering the facts before you did that, much less listening to each other. What you said Barack, calling the cop’s actions stupid, only made worse the relations between police officers and minority communities, because what you say gets spread nationwide, Barack. Who was “flinging accusations?” You did, Barack; you engaged the accusations!

OBAMA: Over the last two days, as we’ve discussed this issue, I don’t know if you’ve noticed but nobody’s been paying much attention to health care.

Me: that’s not true. I don’t know about the mainstream liberal media, but those in the new media have continued to pay much attention to health care in spite of the distraction.

OBAMA: I just wanted to emphasize that that as president, I shouldn’t have stepped into this at all because it’s a local issue, I have to tell you that that thing — that part of it I disagree with.  The fact that this has become such a big issue is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of our society.

Me: There he is throwing the race card again. Of course he disagree with that part, he’s a community agitator. ACORN can’t step away from defining issue. This has become such a big issue because of your un-presidential actions, President Nifong. The fact that this has become such a big issue is indicative of the fact that you are still a community agitator who isn’t qualified to be the President of the United States.

OBAMA: Whether I were black or white, I think that me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to constructive, as opposed to negative, understandings –

Me: I see now, the poll is plunging; that’s why Obama chose to escalate the issue.

OBAMA: — about the issue is part of my portfolio.

Me: yep; your portfolio: your five-minute career.

OBAMA:  At the end of the conversation, there was a discussion about my conversation with Sergeant Crowley, there was a discussion about he and I and Professor Gates having a beer here in the White House.  We don’t know if that’s scheduled yet, but we may put that together.

Me: Ho ho! Is there some prejudice that cops in Massachusetts drink beer?

OBAMA: He also did say he wanted to find out if there was a way of getting the press off his lawn.  I informed him that I can’t get the press off my lawn.  He pointed out that my lawn is bigger than his lawn. But if anybody has any connections to the Boston press as well as national press, Sergeant Crowley would be happy for you to stop trampling his grass, all right?  Thank you, guys.

There you go, President Barack Nifong turning down the volume on the issue, throwing the distinguished Professor Gates under the bus in the process.

KILLIAN:  Cambridge police are not stupid.  I’m proud to represent the officers of the Cambridge Police Department.  It is a great department.  As far as the president’s comments, the governor’s comments — and comments that I did not hear that our mayor made — I think when the time is right, they should make an apology to us.  I think the president should make an apology to all law enforcement personnel throughout the entire country that took offense to this.

Next, Cambridge police union’s Alan McDonald added:

MCDONALD:  First of all, he began his comments by saying he had a personal bias and that he didn’t have all of the facts.  The next sentence should have been, “So I’m not going to say anything.”  Unfortunately, he proceeded to say some things.  He said that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly” in taking the actions they did.  Second and more important, the president suggested that somehow, at least implied there was a link between what happened here and the history of problems between persons of color and law enforcement.  And while that well is true in some localities, it isn’t true in Cambridge. It wasn’t true in this case.

Exactly right. I concur. I hope you do too.

Nevertheless, folks, do you want to know what the left is saying about this? Well, CNN anchor Tony Harris calls the press conference “incendiary,” and White House press secretary Roberty Gibbs came out and said, “Well, of course those cops up in Cambridge want the president to apologize. I think the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed McCain.”

That’s the same thing as saying, “Of course those cops wanted an apology, they’re white.” That’s what Gibbs was saying.

The Obama’s White House is turning this local issue into something national, turning it political, and turning it racial. It seems to me that, it is Standard Operating Procedure for the Obama team to throw the race card whenever he’s in trouble.

And for CNN anchor Tony Harris to call this press conference “incendiary”? First of all, it isn’t. But this just illustrates the point that they just want the cops to shut up, after hatred for them have been ginned up, after their work ethic and reputation have been impugned, Tony Harris and the likes want them to just simply shut up, because Obama doesn’t get criticized, and he doesn’t get talked-back to.

FACTS: You may be able to keep your current insurance for a year, until you either change or lose your job, then you’ll have to go with the public option. On top of that, the private insurance companies can’t compete with the government. Obama himself has declared that the profits aren’t right and he’s going after them. No company can compete with the government, who doesn’t have to make a profit to thrive. The government can print money, too.

OBAMA: “I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it.”

FACTS: According to White House budget director Peter Orszag, this promise does not apply to the proposed spending of $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget also has listed a variety of accouting gimmicks that can hide the true burdens of the deficit

OBAMA: “You haven’t seen me out there blaming the Republicans.”

FACTS: In his opening statement, Obama said this, “I’ve heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it’s better politics to ‘go for the kill.’ Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about ‘breaking’ me.”

OBAMA: “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

FACTS: Obama admitted also that he didn’t know all the facts and that Professor Gates was his friend, so he would be biased. Gates wasn’t arrested for being in his own home, as Obama implied, but for allegedly being belligerent when the policeman demanded his identification.

OBAMA: “If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you’d have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we’ve made, it’s going to be $7.1 trillion.”

FACTS: Obama’s numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office, which relies on unrealistic assumptions on economic growth. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the deficit over the next decade would cumulatively be $9.1 trillion.

And here are more fact checks, courtesy of the New York Times:

OBAMA: doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies and AARP had supported efforts to overhaul health care.

FACTS: Half-a-dozen state medical societies have sharply criticized provisions that would establish a new government-run health insurance plan.

OBAMA: Medicare could save large amounts of money by creating “an independent group of doctors and medical experts who are empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency” and hold down the annual increases in payments to health care providers.

FACTS: Far from supporting this proposal, the American Hospital Association is urging hospital executives to lobby against it.

OBAMA: Of the proposed new cost-control agency, “It’s not going to reduce Medicare benefits. What it’s going to do is to change how those benefits are delivered so that they’re more efficient.”

FACTS: Hospitals say the cuts could indeed cut services in some rural areas and from teaching hospitals, which receive extra payments because of higher costs.

OBAMA: 160 Republican amendments were adopted in a bill approved last week by the Senate health committee.

FACTS: Republicans said many of the amendments involved technical provisions and did not alter the fundamental features of the bill.

The president said that health insurance companies were making “record profits.”America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main lobby for insurers, contends that “for every $1 spent on health care in America, approximately one penny goes to health plans’ profits.”

Mr. Obama said he was not proposing to ration care, but just wanted to coordinate it better. For example, he said, he wants to eliminate repetitious tests ordered by different doctors for the same patient.

Under [Obama’s] plan, it is not clear who would take responsibility for patients and coordinate care in traditional fee-for-service medicine.

The president continued to take credit for deficit reduction by making a claim that has been challenged by many experts. “If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made,” the deficit over the next 10 years would be $2.2 trillion greater, the president said.

In fact, $1.5 trillion of those “savings” are mainly based on an assumption that the United States would have had as many troops in Iraq in 10 years as it did when Mr. Obama took office. But before leaving office, President George W. Bush signed an agreement with Baghdad mandating the withdrawal of all American forces within three years.

So Mr. Obama is claiming credit for not spending money that, under the policy he inherited from Mr. Bush, would never have been spent in the first place.

I was just laughing as I listened to Obama talked that night. None of what he said last night.  He said he’s a deficit reducer.  He said our economy is growing;  we’re back from the brink.  He said he’s cut deficit spending.  He said he doesn’t like government. I was just laughing out loud hearing him saying that. None of those is true.

Another thing I laughed at was when he said, “Have you seen their profits lately, have you seen their profits?  That’s not right, in this economy, profits too high.  I will squeeze those profits.” LOL. Remember during one of the debates during the campaign he talked about the oil company profits. He said something like, “And they’re just not going to let go of those easily.”  He’s after those profits. Those profits are none of his business. Businesses need profits to survive; and the more those profits are, it goes to expanding the company, the profits go to the shareholders, and the shareholders then can invest all the more, creating more jobs. Also, the more profitable a company is, the more jobs it can create and the higher pay it can provide for its employees.

And If he goes after the profits of the insurance companies, how is he going to do that?  If they’re too profitable, in his view, what’s he going to do?  Is he going to pass a law that says their profit can only be whatever percentage?  Is he going to raise taxes on them?  “Profit’s outrageous, we’re going to squeeze those profits.” Well, if you squeeze the profit, you squeeze them out of business because they’re competing with Obama and his public option, which doesn’t have to make a profit to live.  That’s why him telling you that, “If you like your plan, well, fine, keep it,” is a blatant misrepresentation; and I’m being charitable there by calling it “misrepresentation.” You will not be able to keep your plan.

This guy has a resentment for private sector and its profits, and he plans to kill the private sector. Just read the bill yourself. To Obama the villains in health care are the insurance companies and doctors; and this was on display that night of this week press conference.

Many democrats and those in the press are upset that Obama didn’t give details of his plan.There is a reason why he didn’t give out details. Obama didn’t give details because the details would kill his plan. In December. Daschle said, “Details kill.  If we get too far into the weeds, if we produce a 1,500- or 1,600-page bill, we’re going to get hung up on all the details and we’re never going to get to the principles… once Congress does take up a health plan, it also can’t divert attention to other subjects, he said. ‘Let’s not put it down, let it lie there for months and months and figure out a time when we can get back to it later.” Daschle advised Obama to keep you in the dark; and that is why Obama never gives out the details of this plan.

This isn’t about health care; it isn’t about health insurance; it’s not about the details of the plan. it’s about obtaining the legal means, without amending the Constitution, to get around the Bill of Rights. How do you do that? You take over one-sixth of the US economy: the entire health care business. Then the government can dictate and regulate every aspect of your behavior, because whatever your behavior is, it has ramifications on your health. This health care debacle is about control; it’s about regulating your life.

What a press conference by Obama. He whined all night, and lied about what he inherited. “We inherited a mess.” He lied about inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit. The Democrats have been running the show in Washington since 2007, and Obama, while in the Senate, voted for everything that busted the budget. He voted for the “mess,” he inherited his own work.

Take a look at what Obama said during the press conference:

Obama: “A result of the actions we took in those first weeks we’ve been able to pull our economy back from the brink.  We took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market, and we passed a Recovery Act that has already saved jobs and created new ones, delivered billions in tax relief to families and small businesses, and extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have been laid off.  Of course we still have a long way to go.  And the Recovery Act will continue to save and create more jobs over the next two years just like it was designed to do.”

None of that is true! Our economy is not back from the brink. We have not taken any steps to stabilize our financial institutions and housing market; steps that were taken just made them worse. “Has already saved jobs and created new ones”???? We are over 9.5% unemployment and it keeps rising. There has been no tax relief to families and small businesses; did you get one? He did extend unemployment insurance. Health insurance? The Recovery Acts was not designed for recovery; it was not designed to save and create more jobs. His own treasury secretary Geithner said this was going to be a “jobless recovery.”

Obama told false facts and projections, he was lying through his teeth. He lied through his teeth to the press corps, none refuted any of the lies. You must have such high level of arrogance to come out to America and tell those lies, believing that the people watching him would just simply believe him. That pretty much summed up Obama’s press conference on 22 July 2009.

“I want to be very clear.  I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade, and by helping improve quality and efficiency, the reforms we make will help bring our deficits under control in the long term.  Those who oppose reform will also tell you that under our plan you won’t get to choose your doctor, that some bureaucrat will choose for you.  That’s also not true.  Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family doctor should be, and no one should decide that for you, either.  Under our proposal if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor.  If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance.  Period.  End of story.

Opponents of health reform warn that this is all some big plot for socialized medicine or government-run health care with long lines and rationed care.  That’s not true, either.  I don’t believe that government can or should run health care, but I also don’t think insurance companies should have free rein to do as they please.  That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs, and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest and choose what’s best for your family.”

Every bit of that is a lie. I’ll point them all out to you:

Lie #1

“I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade, and by helping improve quality and efficiency, the reforms we make will help bring our deficits under control in the long term.“

Truth: deficits will be added onto. The CBO has come out and said the deficit is going to rise by $213 billion, and that’s minimal.  The plan will not save money.

Lie #2

“Under our proposal if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor.  If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance.”

You may get to keep them for a year, until you either change jobs or your employer shelves your health care coverage, then you’ll have to sign up for the public option plan. If you read the house plan, then you know what’s in it: you are going to lose your insurance package under most scenarios, and it is going to be the federal government choosing your doctor based on the plan that they assign you to. If you don’t have health insurance, you are subject to huge increases in penalties and that the IRS will levy every year when you file your taxes.

You do not get to keep your insurance, and you do not get to keep your doctor. Period. End of story.

Lie #3

“Opponents of health reform warn that this is all some big plot for socialized medicine or government-run health care with long lines and rationed care.  That’s not true, either.”

Yes that is true. Obama lied by saying “that’s not true.” There are already 1,700 options available for you in choosing health insurance, and adding the government amongst the mix isn’t gonna do much as far as competition goes. What it will do though, is run the private health insurance companies out of business, because you can’t compete with an organization that doesn’t have to make profits to thrive.

It is government-run health care, it is socialized medicine; it will have long lines and rationed care.

Here’s Nancy Pelosi last week on Friday, lying about how the Obamacare will provide you with a choice:

“It’s really important for everyone to know that when this bill passes shortly thereafter, preexisting medical conditions will no longer bar people from having health care.  If you lose your job, if you change jobs, if you start a new business and if you become self-employed you will continue to have health care.  It will lower costs, it will improve quality, it will expand choice and it will give people peace of mind. This is legislation that will not increase the deficit.  Half of the funds for the bill will come from savings, others from the revenue stream. I hope that we can change that percentage, that we have much more coming from savings.  That I believe that all the costs of the health care reform bill can come from squeezing more savings out of the system.”

Who’s gonna get squeezed, madam speaker? The doctors? The private health insurance companies? The hospitals?

Again, a pack of lies coming from yet another top democrat who’s in a rush to get this thing passed. This is a legislation that will increase the deficit. The CBO has come out and said the deficit is going to rise by $213 billion, and that’s minimal.

These democrats are lying through their teeth just in order to get the bill passed. These are the people who have no standards, no values, and for whom truth is relative. These are the bunch who has given us over $12 trillion in deficits over 10 years, and now they’re talking about efficiencies and savings.

To Obama, representing all the democrats who back this plan, I say, “You sir, are a liar: liar, liar, your pants are on fire!”

Now folks, here are some defense that comes from the left, and look at how such invalid defenses they are.

1. The comment was taken out of context.

UNTRUE. The comment was not taken out of context; you can’t take that comment out of context. Besides, let’s hear from Sotomayor herself what the context is; she said, in the hearing, that she was just trying to inspire Latina. Well, ok, let me ask this question: inspire them to do what? Inspire them to believe that they’ll reach better conclusions just because they’re Latina? That’s even worse.

Huh, “taken out of context.” You mean like Macaca?

2. You can’t say she’s a racist based on just one comment.

She said this not just once, she said the “wise latina” comment many times in different speeches spanning a period of many years. You can’t take it out of context.

3. There is nothing else in her record that shows she’s a racist.

O really? What about the recent Ricci firefighters case? She ignored facts, even ignored the Constitution, because she’s so content that the results would favor the minority.

5 years in different speeches she made the comment and stood by it, and on July 14, 2009, she tried to say it’s a rhetorical flourish or was taken out of context or just outright deny it.

Folks, if she really didn’t mean it, she could have ended all accusations by saying, in the hearing, “I misspoke.” And that’s it. And then what’s anybody gonna do? If anybody tries to go after her then, then he/she would be called mean and so forth.

But she didn’t say she misspoke to end this debacle, and why not? Because she believes so strongly in what she said.

Imagine for a moment that it were a Bush nominee, a white male, saying, “I would hope that a wise white man would come to a better conclusion than a hispanic woman, because she just hasn’t lived the live a white man has.” Now, what would you make of that? What do you think they’d be talking about all over the media? The white man would be forced to withdraw.

Well folks, if words still mean things, then Sotomayor is a racist, and a bigot, too.

Well, borrowing the phrase Joe Scarborough used to ask the public about George Bush, I now ask you, “Is she stupid, or just inarticulate?”

From oral arguments on December 10^th, 2007, the Ricci case

SOTOMAYOR: “This first seven who are gonna be hired, only because of the (pause) uh, vagrancies (sic) of the vacancies at that moment.”

Vagaries, not vagrancies; she meant vagaries.

Next example:

SOTOMAYOR:  “Under New York law, if you are being threatened with eminent (sic) death or very serious injury –“

It’s imminent, not eminent.

Next one:

SOTOMAYOR: “ — is educate themselves. They build up a story (sic) of knowledge about legal thinking.”

You build up a “store” of knowledge, not a “story.”

Another one:

SOTOMAYOR:  All questions of policy are within the providence (sic) of Congress first.

She meant “province,” right of congress, not providence. Providence means record, let’s say you are selling an antiques, you gotta be able to prove where they’re real antiques; show where they’ve been, where you got them, how they’ve been stored; that’s providence.

And here’s the last one:

“And it becomes clear to me after looking at that case that that process led to affirming the decision of the National Labor Relationships Board, “

There’s no such thing, but there is a National Labor Relations Board.

Folks, we don’t find that many learned people making the following butchers on the English language she made. Imagine if a bush nominee were under the spotlight… this would’ve been laughed at all over the media, saying he isn’t bright enough, the guy’s stupid, etc; if it were George W. Bush, you know what.

Any Republican nominee butchering English like this would be disqualified, and it would be all over the headlines.