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

How Will The Media’s Double Standard Play Out Regarding Obama’s Osama Ad?

Bookmark and Share   To mark the anniversary of Osama bin Laden receiving his just desserts, President Barack Obama decided to air an ad which suggested that his all but officially nominated Republican presidential opponent would not have given the go to the operation that allowed SEAL Team Six to do the job that brought bin Laden down.

The ad entitled “One Chance”, is based entirely on one quote made by Mitt Romney in an Associated Press interview back in April of 2007, some five years ago. The ad shows an incomplete quote from that interview as it reads “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person…”.

On its own, those words may seem to suggest that bringing justice to Osama bin Laden was not a priority for Mitt Romney, but for the record, the inference created by Team Obama after some very careful and artful political editing is totally incorrect.  When asked by the Associated Press,“Why haven’t we caught bin Laden in your opinion?”, Romney offered the following response;

“I think, I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person… Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is – it involves millions of people and is going to require a far more comprehensive strategy than a targeted approach for bin laden or a few of his associates.”

In other words, Romney suggested that while the capture or execution of bin Laden was desired, the AP reporter asking the question should try to not lose focus on the broader War on Terror which involves many more people than just Osama.  Clearly though, Mitt Romney did not suggest that he would not pursued bin Laden or that he would not have approved of the operation that led to his death, as inferred by the President’s ad.

But the story here is not that a rival candidate and his political campaign took his opponents words out of context.  This is politics folks and if you don’t know it yet, politics is all about perception.  Truth has little to do with it and reality is merely what those we elect can convince the majority of voters of.  Sad but very true.  And besides, Mitt Romney already did a similar thing to President Obama back in late November of 2011, when one of his own ads used a statement by the President to mislead voters.  Back then, the Romney campaign used video of the President giving a speech in which viewers saw and heard the President say;

“If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”

The problem is that those words actually came from candidate Obama in 2008 when he was quoting something supposedly said by the McCain campaign.

Then Senator Obama’s full quote was;

“Senator McCain’s campaign said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”.

So I guess you can say that the President’s new ad was simply payback to Romney.  Or you might say it is just politics as usual.

Or is it?

The story here is not that politicians are playing politics.  The story is all about what President Obama is playing politics with.

By exploiting the efforts of the the mission to bring justice to the ring leader responsible for one of nation’s darkest days in history, with a deceptive, misleading, political campaign ad, President Obama has demonstrated that nothing, absolutely nothing, is sacred in his attempt to hold on to power.  He could have been the better man here and accepted the nearly unanimous approval and credit he deservedly received for doing the right thing and allowing SEAL Team Six to do their job and not making a Bill Clinton-like call that allowed Osama to live another day.  He could have accepted that feather in his cap which Seal Team Six handed to him after they succeeded at their mission. But instead the President decided to suggest that only he was brave enough to make the decision that allowed our Special Ops forces to risk their lives and take down the most wanted man in the world.

President Obama deserved credit for making the right decision.  Afterall, I would have been the first to blame him if he made the wrong one.  The decision to go through with the operation was one of the only right decisions this President has made and as such, it could have been one of the few things he could legitimately get some praise for.  However, now that the President has taken the anniversary of the end of bin Laden’s rule of al Qaeda and used it to exploit the real heroes behind the event in such a nefarious and unscrupulous way, he now opens himself up to criticism for the one achievement during his Administration that most Americans can agree was good.

After this disgraceful interpretation of the effort to capture bin Laden I can’t help but wonder if getting bin Laden was really a priority on this President’s agenda for the nation.  It now seems to me  that it was merely a priority for his eventual reelection effort?  Afterall, President Obama was simply carrying out the search and search process for bin Laden that his predecessor, George W. Bush already had in place.  You do remember George W. Bush, the guy that President Obama blames everything on?  The guy who’s policies in the War on Terror and in Iraq and Afghanistan he criticized and contradicted but ultimately followed through on?  All of which begs the deeper question which is, does Barack Obama have his priorities straight?

Such criticism relating to the Osama bin Laden capture and kill mission might not have ever been raised had President Obama not been so willing to act so unpresidential and spike the ball after doing cartwheels on the field of play.  But the decision by the President and his campaign team to run this disturbingly tacky and dishonest ad in connection with such a sensitive topic, reveals to me that both he and his staff are nothing but disingenuous, tacky, and incompetent custodians of the Oval Office.  It also shows me that this President is scared.  So scared that he will go to any lengths to try and create a fictional national narrative that paints him in a positive light regardless of how dim, dismal, and debilitating he and his policies have been for our nation.

In the end, politicians taking politicians out of context is nothing new and the practice won’t come to an end anytime soon.  So maybe we really can’t attack either candidate for playing politics as usual.  But we can attack them for what they play politics with and for crossing any new lines that their lack of judgement allows them to.  This is just such an occassion.

Still, it would be nice to see the media do their job and hold President Obama accountable for his disingenuous conducts and deceitful distortions.  Just as we see here, when Communist Chris Matthews, the DNC bullhorn who moonlights as a responsible commentator on MSNBC, went after Mitt Romney when he took President Obama out of context this past November.  But who am I kidding?  Does anyone honestly expect the media to drop their liberal bias and give up their double stereotypical liberal double standards?

Bookmark and Share

Add Another Name to the Lamestream Media’s Liberal Hall of Shame

Picture from Roll Call

Bookmark and Share  As most of us know, the lamestream media is dominated by mushy minds that have been brainwashed by liberal propaganda and media elites. Of course there are in fact many true journalists, who if charged with delivering just the news, can do so without even subtle hints of political bias.  But  journalists of that sort seem to be far and few between .  They are also the ones whom the liberal media holds up as evidence when they try to claim that the media is not biased.  Sadly though, there are far more examples of media bias than there are of impartial reporting.

Take for example the treatment of the rise of the TEA movement as compared to the spread of the “Occupy” protests which have taken place.

While TEA Party protests and demonstrations gathered tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands, the Occupy “Whatever” protests have

produced numbers in the hundreds.  But despite the obvious lack of populist appeal of the liberal endorsed demonstrations, the mainstream media tends to downplay the TEA movement and inflate the  Occupy protesters.  For example, when anywhere from 200,000 to 400,00o or more TEA activists showed up in Washington, D.C. , on September 12th of 2009, newspapers reported that there were tens of thousands in attendance.  But now that a few thousand leftwing, anti-capitalists band together with big union organized,  professional, protestors, the event is described as “outrage” that “ has spread all the way to Anchorage, Alaska” and  as “a group of protesters that is certainly growing in size and  diversity.”  Those comments came from so called “reporter”cilia Vega.  On that same “unbiased” news” program, Vega and World News anchor David Muir, spoke of how the Wall Street protests have supposedly “gone global

But as the TEA Party rose, it was described as little more than a group of angry Republicans and was accused of being violent and racist.  That certainly isn’t the case here.  Put a smiley face button on a person wearing a tie died t-shirt and put in their hands a sign with anything liberal written on it, and you have what the mainstream media is describing as being similar to “the Arab Spring of uprisings in the Mid East.”

As I said, none of this is new.  We have all come to expect liberal bias from the mainstrem media.  And I am not talking about clearly defined opinion programs such as Hannity or the Rachel Maddow Show,  or periodicals like National Review or New Republican.  I mean straight news services like CBS News, or The New York Times.

Which brings us to today’s new entrant into the Mainstream Media’s Liberal Hall of Shame.

His name is Steve Peoples and he works for Roll Call while the Associated Press often farms out some of his work.

Now according to Asssociated Press their mission is to “be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the
highest quality, reliability, and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.”

Given that description, I find it hard to accept Mr. People’s October 10th story (and I do mean story) entitled “GOP presidential candidates keep focus off the economy“.

In  it, Peoples, along with contributors Holly Ramer and Philip Elliott, try to live up to the AP’s mission of objectivity by writing a piece which insinuates that Republicans are trying to avoid the topic of the economy.

Peoples writes;

In an election that’s supposed to hinge on jobs and the economy, the Republican presidential contest in recent months has been defined by almost everything else.

Immigration and children’s vaccines. Race and religion. Homosexuality and health care. The issues range far from the economic woes that concern most voters, but they have captivated Republicans in New Hampshire and other early voting states, providing the candidates with ways to distinguish themselves from  their rivals. The biggest applause lines on the campaign trail usually have little to do with a candidate’s economic positions.

I am not sure if Mr. Peoples realizes it or not, but we are not electing a Chairman of the Federal Reserve and their running mate, the Secretary of Treasury.  We are in the midst of a long campaign to elect or reelect a President and Vice President of the United States.  That responsibility deals with a host of issues, including those that are a part of the economic priorities that no one is doubting.  As such, all issues are, and should be discussed.  Additionally perhaps, Mr. Peoples missed the coverage of the economic programs which almost all of the Republican candidates dedicated their very first major policy announcements to.

To be sure, there is no doubt that the economy is in such dire straits that it is indeed a priority.  To deny that would be like claiming that it is more important to put someone’s cigarette out while a woman is hanging out of the window of an inferno filled house, right in front of your face.  But it is equally absurd to deny that the economy is not a primary issue in the Republican presidential primaries. Republicans have been and continue to make it a theme of their campaigns.  Why wouldn’t they?  Furthermore, the economy is just about the only issue that all the Republican running for President have similar ways to address.  And all agree that the first thing to do is everything that President Obama is not doing.

Did Mr. Peoples dare write a similarly “objective” piece in 2009  about  President Obama when many argued that the President made “a colossal miscalculation” by choosing the wrong priorities and instead of focussing on the economy “like a laser beam”, he essentially prevented government from dealing with anything else other than healthcare reform?  Which ironically has proven to do little more than exacerbate the economic predicament we are in by creating a greater uncertain future among investors and businesses.  I seem to have missed the story that Mr. Peoples and his liberal collaborators wrote about the President not devoting enough time to the Obama economy back then.

Did Mr. People’s accuse President Obama of avoiding the issue of the economy when he turned the nations’ attention to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?  Did he criticize the President and prompt people to provide him with quotes criticizing President Obama for traveling to El Salvador to discuss immigration and drug trafficking with President Mauricio Funes, instead of focussing on the economy?  Or does  Mr. Peoples just not understand that the presidency of the United States does not allow one to drop all else for the sake of just one aspect of life in America.

Even though his opinion on this issue is greatly flawed, Mr. Peoples’ article might have a place in an opinion oriented tabloid if it were written by an admitted partisan author.  But it has no place in a newspaper or on an online newspaper, and especially not coming from a “news” outfit that claims its job is to be objective.  You see,  there is a difference between opinion and news.  White House 2012 makes it clear that it covers the Republican race for the White House.  It does so by also making clear that it covers the race from a conservative viewpoint and with opinions of the facts.  Contrarily, the Associated Press bills itself as a news organization, a “premier” news organization, that delivers the news, not editorials.

You might think that this one story is not enough to hold one person up as a example of unsavory  journalistic conduct.  And that might be right……..if it was the only example.  But it’s not.

Before jumping to conclusions, I tested my suspicions about Steve Peoples by researching past stories he wrote.

While there were many accounts of obvious bias that he penned under AP’s banner of objective reporting, one of the most interesting discoveries was an article by Tom Blumer for News Busters.  In his September 7th piece entitled “AP’s Partying Peoples and Blathering Blood Celebrate Tea Party Negatives in  Cooked AP-GfK Poll“, Blumer writes that Steve Peoples tailored an interpretation of poll results to “celebrate” negative sentiments towards the Tea Party that were created by a skewed  AP-GfK .  Blumer goes on to note that  somehow, People’s article  “failed to report on the  president’s growing negatives found in a separate AP-GfK poll report with the  same respondents.”

It is all just indicative of how careful Americans must be when it comes to trying to have a real picture of public sentiments and our political environment.

One must really be careful about what information they use as a foundation for establishing their own conclusions.  What may seem to be fact is often in fact, not.  Steve Peoples is just one example of that.  And there are many other examples of  Peoples’ and the AP’s crimes against journalistic integrity, but suffice it to  say, White House 2012 is confident in the knowledge that Steve Peoples truly deserves to be hung in the Lamestream Media’s Liberal Hall of Shame.

The Associated Press’ picture has already been hanging there for quite some time now
Bookmark and Share

Mitch Daniels Makes a Point To President Obama?

Bookmark and Share Before President Obama delivered a speech in Indiana, on the economy, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels caught up with the President as he got off of Air Force 1.

It is not yet been disclosed what the two men, and possibly two opponents for the presidency in 2012 spoke about and we’ll probably never know. The standard answer to that question in politics is “I will not discuss the private conversations I have with someone”.But in what was either a stroke of genius on the part of Governor Daniels or just a perfectly timed stroke of luck for him, an AP photographer snapped a shot of the two engaged in conversation, that implies a thousand strong words for a potential Daniels campaign. As seen below, the photo gives the impression of a confident man sending a strong message to the President. It can almost be construed as though Daniels is “setting the President straight” on something.

Photos by Charles Dharapak/AP

From the smile on the Presidents face, I am sure Mitch Daniels was not being in anyway disrespectful or out of line. Knowing the nature of Daniels, he was probably telling him a joke that was only enhanced by the pointing finger. But Mitch Daniels is quite a shrewd man and he knew that many highly publicized photos would come from this briefmeet and greet. As such, Daniels may have quite intentionally created a situation where his finger in the Presidents face was perfectly natural and appropriate in regards to the discussion he was having . But at the same time, he knew that the image of that one moment in time, could help create the impression of a man who is not afraid to speak his mind and set the President straight, something which many Republican primary and caucus would love to do themselves.

Whether the finger pointing gesture was designed or not, the image speaks louder than words, even if we dont really know what the image is really a reflection of. In many ways this seemingly innocuous image could become one of those totally unexpected turning points.

Who could forget this image:

This picturewas taken during a photo-op that the Dukakis campaign intended to use in order to convey the Massachusetts Governors military gravitas. But its actual translation wound up creating a clown-like impression that made it seem like Dukakis could not be taken seriously as a Commander-in-Chief.

Images that happened to have been caught at just the right moment, have helped to change the course of many events in history, be they intentional or accidental. So I would not just write off this photo of Mitch Daniels addressing the President. Eventually, be it by design of a future Daniels presidential campaign, or through a proliferation of its reproduction in the blogosphere, this picture could at some point be responsible for sealing just the right image of Daniels in the minds of Republican votersand possiblymake the difference in who they nominate to run for President.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: