The Liar-In-Chief Hits New Height in Hypocrisy

  Bookmark and Share  When it comes attempts to define President Obama’s debate related claim that Mitt Romney is a liar, my first reaction is tell you that the claim is the best case of the pot calling the kettle black that one could ever imagine.  But that would be characterized by the left as blatantly racists.  So here’s how I would explain President Obama’s charge.

Ever since President Obama lost last week’s debate, the left became apoplectic and tried to work through a series of emotions that ranged from fear over losing the election and anger over the President’s ineptness, to disappointment with his performance and embarrassment over his inability to defend his record. Once their shock wore off and they were able to collect themselves they quickly offered up an endless array of excuses for the President’s truly disastrous debate performance.  Some suggested that he was preoccupied by an unfolding international crisis that was yet unknown to the general public or possibly even a personal crisis.  Others like Al Gore suggested altitude poisoning was to blame. But by the time morning came, the President’s campaign released their own excuse for his embarrassing performance in a talking points memo that went out to the leading liberal spinmeisters and the left immediately fell in line to spread the word.

According to the President and the left-wing propaganda machine, President Obama failed to beat Romney in the debate because he was thrown off by the lies Romney was telling throughout the debate.  According to the President and his people, Mitt Romney lied about his own record and plans for America as well as the President’s record and plans for the nation.

The problems with that excuse is that President Obama was the one who was clearly trying to lie his own way through the debate.  With a clear inability to defend his own horrific record against Mitt Romney, President Obama tried his best to continue waging the class warfare reelection strategy that has successfully energized his base.  Part of that strategy was to try and describe Mitt Romney’s economic proposals as a $5 trillion tax cut, mainly for the rich.

But as attested to in the latest Romney ad seen below this post, the only liar on stage in Denver last week was President Obama.

When it comes to Mitt Romney’s tax plan, what President Obama neglected to mention was that when he made the charge that Romney’s tax plan cut taxes by $5 trillion, he was actually lying by taking skewed numbers from a scoring by the Tax Policy Center.  That analysis claimed  the Romney plan shifted $86 billion in taxes from the well-off to the middle class. But the problem with that particular assumption is that it relies on a false narrative which contends the reduce rates would not spur economic growth and generate new tax revenue.   Dynamic scoring of the same Romney plan  concludes the economic growth generated by those reduced tax rates would fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole.  As for the remaining gap, Romney’s plan  to eliminate exemptions on state and local bonds and life insurance policies, would would raise an additional $45 billion.   That means that by eliminating exemptions and prompting new growth, Romney’s plan is likely to actually lower top rates and still raise more revenue.

Making President Obama’s claims even more unreliable is that the author of the initial study that Obama was misinterpreting is  now admitting, that “under those conditions and policies, Romney’s plan “would be revenue neutral.”

But with all these numbers being discussed and explained you are probably still confused with where President Obama’s $5 trillion figure came from.  Well the truth is that it is a figure which he practically pulled straight out of his ass.

Obama took the Tax Policy Center study  which neglected to  figure in the ensuing economic growth that would make Romney’s plan revenue neutral and erroneously concluded that the plan would lead to $480 billion in lost revenues by 2015.  The Obama campaign then took that incorrect figure and multiplied it by a decade.  That left them with $4.8 trillion, which they then rounded up to $5 trillion.

So that explains the lie behind the man who was really trying to deceive voters… Barack Obama.

But that wasn’t the only lie President Obama tried to muddle through the first debate with.

President Obama claimed that Romney’s plan would raise taxes on middle class families yet this flies in the face of what The Associated Press and other studies concluded which is that Romney’s  plans would not raise taxes on anyone.

Our President also used the debate to claim that  Obamacare would make health care premiums more affordable.  According to him,  “when Obamacare is fully implemented, we are going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it is true — but they have gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. We are already seeing progress.

But Factcheck.org found;

“Obama wrongly said that over the last two years, health care premiums have ‘gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.’”

Meanwhile, The Associated Press noted ;

“In 2011, premiums jumped by 9 percent” and “this year’s 4 percent increase was more manageable, but the price tag for family coverage stands at $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that.”

On the issue of Social Security the President stated during the debate that;

“Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound.”

Yet contrary to his claim, the Congressional Budget Office concludes that Social Security will run into financial deficits. Clearly that is not a structurally sound program.

So it would seem that President Obama dedicated his first debate in the 2012 election to doing exactly what he is trying to claim Mitt Romney did… lie.  Now where I come from, that is called hypocrisy.  It’s something that even liberals would normally shun in their leaders.  But something tells me that the left will handle this the same way they have with everything else Barack Obama has ever said and done.   They will refuse to hold him accountable.

Meanwhile, congressional investigations are now taking place as we try to uncover exactly what was behind the Obama lies surrounding the terrorist attack that killed our Libyan Ambassador and three other Americans.  But if all of that still isn’t enough to convince you that Barack Obama is our Liar-In-Chief, I suggest you see watch the video below.  It’s an original,  un-narrated documentary that looks at Obama and his first term with regards to transparency, healthcare, taxes, fairness, energy, and the national debt through his own words

Bookmark and Share

Al Gore and Friends Blame Obama’s Poor Debate Performance on the Altitude

  Bookmark and Share After spending more than 4 years  blaming everything on George Bush, the left, under the leadership of liberal icon Al Gore has now turned to a new scapegoat…. the altitude.  (See video below this post)

After last night’s tragically disappointing debate performance by the liberal messiah, President Barack Obama, Al Gore claimed took the opportunity to to use his obscure, irrelevant, and barely watched cable network, Current TV, to the high altitude of Denver, the locations of last night’s debate, for President Obama’s losing debate performance.  Gore predicates his charge by making it clear that his opinion will be a controversial one but not so according to the cast of clowns gathered around Gore on the panel, who all agreed that the altitude was certainly part of the President’s problem.

The unintended result of this theory is that if President Obama has a problem with high positions, than he obviously is not capable of holding the highest position in our nation.

Bookmark and Share

Florida is Boardwalk…

And they know it.

Florida is preparing today to announce that they are moving their primary to January 31.  While this comes as no surprise, it still angers several other states who may now have to push their primaries up as well to get their early start.  I don’t blame them, Florida is kind of acting like it’s the big man on campus.

As a Floridian myself, I figured I would bring some local perspective to the issue.  Florida is a state that has called the election in all but one of the last 10 elections.  Florida went blue in 2008, red in 2004, narrowly red in 2000, and blue in 1996.  Each time, Florida helped pick the winner.

In 2008, Florida played a huge role as a game changer for the Romney campaign.  Romney went into the Florida primary expecting a slim win.  Instead he was handed a slim loss.  John McCain went on to be our candidate, and lose.  Despite the horrible first three years Obama has experienced, Florida will likely be a deciding factor again in this general election.

Florida could be a huge game changer in this election, if the Florida straw poll is any indication.  As far as the media is concerned, this is a two man race between the faltering Rick Perry and the polished fiscal conservative Mitt Romney.  But influential Florida Republicans said no.  Let’s take another look at Herman Cain.  Shortly afterward, a Rasmussen poll added weight to the Florida game changer.  Herman Cain went from a future has-been back to contender status in one afternoon.

Let’s face it.  We know Iowa will probably go to Rick Perry and New Hampshire will go to Mitt Romney.  I think South Carolina is a toss up right now.  Florida is a clear toss up.  By moving up, Florida will get the candidates to flood the state, court the voters, and could be an early change in the momentum of the race.

Of course, other early states like Iowa and South Carolina will no doubt move up their primaries.  But Florida will still get that early say and make sure we have a voice before it truly is just a two man race.  Considering the role Florida plays in the general election, maybe other states should just get used to our bully stance.  Then again, we were the deciding factor in tossing John McCain into the ring with Barack Obama.  So maybe not.

Gore/Clinton 2012 Fading, but Hillary is Golden

Back in mid June, I wrote this.  Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would be successful primary challengers to Obama.  I think this very early prediction may need some adjusting.

Al Gore has recently joined the quickly backfiring liberal trend of charging opponents with racism in any context.  Gore, whose own father voted against the Civil Rights Act, said that global warming deniers should be treated like racists.  So, Mr. Gore, as a global warming denier myself, I’ll be expecting a gift-wrapped tie on Father’s Day.

Of course, Gore’s timing is terrible.  This is also the week that Andre Carson declared that TEA Party members would like to see blacks hanging from trees.  The constant charge of racism, especially towards a multi-racial group like the TEA Party, is getting stale and ridiculous.  At this point, Democrats who make charges of racism every time someone disagrees with them have lost credibility.

Enter Hillary 2012.  Back in June I didn’t think Hillary would have success at the head of the ticket because she lost in 2008 and has worked for Obama ever since.  In fact, hiring Biden and Clinton were probably the smartest things Obama has done politically. Now, I think she may have a better chance.

The worse things get, the more nostalgia sets in.  People start to fool themselves into thinking Hillary could be as moderate as her husband became when Newt ran Congress.  Already, 32% of Democrats are admitting they need a primary challenger.

Hillary could pull a Rick Perry, riding a wave of anti-current field sentiment and quickly becoming the front runner.  By entering the race now, she would be a fresh face.  She would carry the excitement of being something new and different.  She would bring change, the only thing more distracting to a Liberal than a shiny object.  She could offer the Democrats everything Obama has failed to deliver on, even though her similar policies would produce the same results.

If ever Hillary was going to be President, 2012 would be her year.

 

Gore/Clinton 2012?

Al Gore has a new cause: socially responsible capitalism.  And it could be his ticket to the Whitehouse.

Now, Whitehouse2012 is normally a GOP primary website blog and I certainly would never endorse an Al Gore candidacy.  However, it is worth noting that Barack Obama’s economy is in trouble, his ideologies are becoming highly unpopular with many of the social liberal/fiscal conservative Democrats who elected him, and the contrast between his words and deeds are becoming ever more apparent.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but Obama’s policies are failing and he has no one left to blame.  Even DNC Chair Debbi Wasserman-Shulz said Democrats own this economy.  Of course, in her opinion things are going pretty well in America these days.  Obama on the other hand, with a playful chuckle, has admitted that his trillion dollar stimulus hasn’t created the “shovel ready jobs” he hoped it would.

Meanwhile, Al Gore is presenting himself as a contrast to the anti-capitalist rhetoric of his party.  At least that is how he is positioning his pro-socially responsible version of capitalism.

Gore has some other things on his record that could make him a formidable opponent to Obama:

1. He won the vice presidency twice and won the popular vote in 2000.  Al Gore may be the last person left who could run against the “wrongs” of George W. Bush and actually get votes because of it.

2. Gore has Clinton/Gingrich’s economic coattails to ride.  Bill Clinton balanced the budget, even if he did it by siphoning money from Social Security.  But that could help Gore too, after all he coined the term…

3. Social Security lockbox.  Just sayin’.

4. Gore is the ultimate green energy advocate.  I mean, come on.  He won a Nobel Prize.  Nevermind that his garage consumed more energy every year than George W. Bush’s entire property.

5. Gore is an outsider who has been out of the spotlight long enough for the stink of dirty politics to wear off.  People look at the Clinton years and even Gore’s candidacy with nostalgia now.  Sure he tried to sexually assault a massage therapist a few months back, but he’s a Democrat.  It’s part of the job description.

All Al Gore needs is a good running mate.  Who better than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?  While Obama is out there bowing to dictators and can’t seem to rub enough etiquette together  to keep from embarrassing himself every time he visits England, Hillary has become somewhat of a rockstar of foreign policy.

In fact, she is even the hero of a new comic book.  How’s that for an inspiring idea for a Summer 2012 movie?

Hillary is the Democrat most Democrats wish they had run in 2008.  She fixes Obama’s overseas messes, and can invoke the “following orders” argument for embarrassments like our war on Libya.

There is still time for an opposing Democrat ticket to make a primary out of it.  When this latest leg of the great Obama recession kicks into full gear, a Democrat primary is going to look real appealing to the disappointed left.

So you heard it here first: Gore/Clinton 2012.  Time to get the band back together.

Chris Christie In Iowa Now, But How About In the White House Later?

Bookmark and ShareAuthor: Art Gallagher  Originally posted for More Monmouth Musings,

“To be president of the United States, you have to want it more than anything else in the world, and I don’t.”

~ Governor Chris Christie in Iowa yesterday

Is that true? 

Did Ronald Reagan want to be president more than anything else in the world?   Did Eisenhower or Truman?  Did Lincoln want it more than anything?

Clinton did. Nixon did. The Roosevelts sure seemed to want it badly.

Did George W. Bush want it more than Al Gore did? 

Is burning ambition the determining factor of who becomes president?    In good times it probably is.  In times of crisis, the presidency is not an ambition.  It becomes a duty.  A sacrifice for a transformative leader.

I believe Governor Christie when he says he will not be a candidate for president in 2012.   I don’t think he would leave his work in New Jersey half done.  I think he really believes in the work that he his doing now, especially in regard to education, is a higher calling.   By transforming state government and education, and setting an example for other states to follow,  he can make a more powerful impact on the quality life in our nation than many presidents have.

Chris Christie could probably win the 2012 Republican nomination for president.  He could probably win the office.  If his ambitions were personal, he would probably do it.

Bookmark and Share

   Photobucket

Submitted by Art Gallagher

Art will be joining White House 2012 as a regularly contributing author in November

 Art Gallagher of Monmouth Musings 

MoreMonmouthMusings

 

Art Gallagher is a New Jersey political writer, pundit and Republican leader who blogs at More Monmouth Musings, an online publication geared towards Monmouth County, New Jersey politics, but which often expands its scope to touch upon politics throughout the state. 

A graduate of Georgetown University with a BA in Economics, in 1988 Art founded his own business, Gallco Enterprises, a vehicle and equipment leasing company and a used vehicle dealership which he currently serves as the President of. 

Art has also served as President of the Northern Monmouth Chamber of Commerce and the Chairman of the Atlantic Highlands Republican Committee in New Jersey and has served as an advisor to many Jersey political figures and their campaigns.  

Mr. Gallagher’s political expertise and intuition, combined with his dedicated service to the Republican cause makes him a most welcome addition to White House 2012 and we are honored and pleased to have him join us this November. 

%d bloggers like this: