Lying Liz Warren gets slammed by Senator Scott Brown in debate

It's about time Senator Scott Brown puts this pathetic liar and tool of the Libs away.

Fauxcahontas found out last night her lies will not carry her into office. Take a look at the picture from last night. Prof. " Blame America First" Warren who doesn't wear an American Flag on her lapel, just like her boss/mentor President Doofus.

Scott Brown charges out of gate, slams Liz Warren on ‘truthfulness’ By Hillary Chabot and Joe Battenfeld Friday, September 21, 2012 - Boston Herald

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown turned aggressor in his first debate clash with rival Elizabeth Warren, questioning her character for claiming to be Native American and scolding her for “scaring women” to win votes.

“She checked the box claiming she was a Native American, and clearly she’s not,” Brown said in the opening minute of the debate, referring to law school directories where Warren listed herself as a Native American minority.

“When you are a United States senator, you have to pass a test, and that’s one of character and honesty and truthfulness,” Brown said. “And I believe and others believe that she’s failed that test.”

Read the whole thing -

http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061161946&position=1

LIAR LIAR - Obama lies about his Mother's death for political purposes

Ethics question - When you use the death of your Mother for political purposes and twist the facts in a way that any reasonable person would know what you said is misleading/false, why would you do it ?

ANSWER - Because the unethical idiot would have sold his own Mother if it benefited him politically.

The President's propaganda campaign film has been panned by most as not more than a OBOT fantasy of what they would like others to believe. Two political writers from the Washington Post call it as it is and show once again, there is no low-level that these feckless fools won't stoop to in an attempt to hold on to the White House.

I feel sorry for anyone who can't see how unethical this crap is and those who actually voted for this huckster....I know the GOP candidate won't be perfect, but the Village Idiot from Chicago qualifies as a serial liar.


‘The Road We’ve Traveled:’ A misleading account of Obama’s mother and her insurance dispute
By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post

Narrator Tom Hanks: “He knew from experience the cost of waiting [on health care reform].”

President Obama : “When my mom got cancer, she wasn’t a wealthy woman and it pretty much drained all her resources”

Michelle Obama: “She developed ovarian cancer, never really had good, consistent insurance. That’s a tough thing to deal with, watching your mother die of something that could have been prevented. I don’t think he wants to see anyone go through that.”

Hanks: “And he remembered the millions of families like of his who feel the pressure of rising costs and the fear of being denied or dropped from coverage.”

--series of statements with images of Obama and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, in the Obama campaign film “The Road We’ve Traveled”

“The Road We’ve Traveled” is a very slick and impressively produced campaign film—sheer catnip for Obama fans. There are a number of facts and figures that could be challenged, but for now we are going to focus on this sequence. The series of words and images is an excellent example of how such films can create a misleading impression, while skirting as close as possible to the edge of falsehood.

The sequence, in fact, evokes a famous story that candidate Obama told during the 2008 campaign—that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, fought with her insurer over whether her cancer was a pre-existing condition that disqualified her from coverage.

But the story was later called into question by Dunham’s biographer. The fact that Obama’s initial claim is not directly repeated suggests the filmmakers knew there was a problem with the campaign story, but they clearly wanted to keep some version of it in the film.

The Facts

During the 2008 campaign, Obama frequently suggested his mother had to fight with her health-insurance company for treatment of her cancer because it considered her disease to be a pre-existing condition. In one of the presidential debates with GOP rival John McCain, Obama said:

“For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”
But then earlier this year, journalist Janny Scott cast serious doubt on this version of events in her excellent biography, “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s mother.” Scott reviewed letters from Dunham to the CIGNA insurance company, and revealed the dispute was over disability coverage, not health insurance coverage (see pages 335-339).

Disability coverage will help replace wages lost to an illness. (Dunham received a base pay of $82,500, plus a housing allowance and a car, to work in Indonesia for Development Alternatives Inc. of Bethesda, according to Scott.) But that is different than health insurance coverage denied because of a pre-existing condition, which was a major part of the president’s health care law.

Scott writes that Dunham, who died in 1995 of uterine and ovarian cancer, had health insurance that “covered most of the costs of her medical treatment…The hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”

Dunham had filed the disability claim to help pay for those additional expenses. The company denied the claim because her doctor had suspected uterine cancer during an office visit 2 ½ months before Dunham had started the job with Development Alternatives, though Dunham said the doctor had not discussed the possibility with cancer with her. Dunham requested a review from CIGNA, saying she was turning the case over to “my son and attorney Barack Obama.”

When Scott’s book was published, the White House did not dispute her account. “The president has told this story based on his recollection of events that took place more than 15 years ago,” a spokesman said.

Now let’s look at what the movie does with this story. It does not directly repeat the claim that Obama’s mother was denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, fighting for treatment in her hospital room. But look at what it does say:

1. Hanks says the president knew the cost of waiting on reform. (Though disability coverage was not an issue in the health care debate.)

2. The president says cancer “drained all her resources.” (Health insurance paid for most of her bills, so this is not the case of someone being bankrupted by tens of thousands of dollars in bills. Her salary of $82,500 in 1995 was the equivalent of $123,000 today, but Scott says she had little savings.)

3. Michelle Obama says Dunham “never really had good, consistent insurance.” (It is unclear what she means by this, except maybe that Dunham had different jobs, some of which did not provide insurance. But Dunham had good health coverage when the cancer was discovered.)

4. The first lady also suggests the death “could have been prevented.” (Again, it was not an insurance issue. Before going overseas, Dunham was too busy with work and had skipped an important test recommended by her U.S. doctor, dilation and curettage, that might have spotted the cancer earlier. Then an Indonesian doctor diagnosed her problem as appendicitis and removed her appendix. By the time the cancer was finally discovered, it was third-stage.)

5. Hanks says that Obama’s family felt “the pressure of rising costs and the fear of being denied or dropped from coverage.” (Maybe for disability, but not health insurance.)

In the end, the impression left by the film, especially if you watch it (go to the 8:45 mark), is very similar to Obama’s 2008 campaign rhetoric: His mother was denied health-insurance coverage, draining her resources, and with better coverage she might have lived longer. The film suggests this experience helped inspire the president to keep fighting for the health care law, even in the face of advice from aides that he accept a less-than-satisfactory compromise.

Note that none of the quotes in the film actually use the words “health insurance” or “health insurance coverage.” Instead, the first lady says “insurance” and Hanks says “coverage,” which could just as easily mean disability insurance. But that would not be as evocative—or as motivating.

Asked for response, the Obama campaign referred us to the previous White House statement on Scott’s book.

The Pinocchio Test

We use a “reasonable man” standard here, and we think there are few viewers of this film who would watch this sequence and conclude that Dunham was involved in anything but a fight over health-insurance coverage.

The disability-insurance dispute certainly may have motivated the president, but he has never explicitly stated that. In any case, the filmmakers must have known they had a problem with this story or else they would have recounted it as Obama had done in the 2008 campaign, using phrases such as “pre-existing conditions,” “health insurance,” and “treatment.”

Instead, they arranged the quotes and images to leave a misleading impression of what really happened.

Washington post rating on Obama -

Three Pinocchios

Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions

LIAR LIAR - Obama’s health care law will cost DOUBLE what he promised

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Looks like the FOOL in the Oval Office is trying to run fast & loose with the numbers on his signature disaster for our country, Obamacare.

In the history of our great country, there have been times where a government program improved something that the free market operates. This is not one of those times. The law will ensure compliance by enlisting the help of the IRS. REALLY ? How's that " Hopey/Changey" sound now ?

If the idiots in Washington DC can't get the basics right on what makes up good government, what makes you think we want them in charge of our healthcare ?

CBO boosts its Obamacare Medicaid cost estimate
by Philip Klein Senior Editorial Writer - National Examiner

I’ve already noted in a separate post that new Congressional Budget Office projections show President Obama’s health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years, rather than the $940 billion originally advertised. But there are lots of other moving parts in the CBO’s updated estimates that are worth deeper elaboration.

The big picture takeaway is that due mostly to weaker economic projections, the CBO now projects that more people will be obtaining insurance through Medicaid than it estimated a year ago at a greater cost to the government, but fewer people will be getting insurance through their employers or the health care law’s new subsidized insurance exchanges. Overall spending will be higher than estimated a year ago, but increased revenue from penalties and taxes will more than offset this. Also interesting: CBO now expects two million fewer people to be covered as a result of the health care law than previously projected.

It’s worth keeping in mind that what the CBO did today was update its forecasts for the cost of expanding insurance coverage under the health care law. That represents, by far, the bulk of the spending in the legislation, but it doesn’t constitute a full rescoring of the law or a revised deficit estimate. That would have to include estimates for all the taxes, Medicare cuts and other spending in the law. Also, the $1.76 trillion cited above is for the years 2013 through 2022, but if we want to compare changes to last year’s estimates, we have to use the comparable years of 2012 through 2021. (Estimates for 2022 only became available today.)

The CBO now projects that from 2012 through 2021 the federal government will spend $168 billion more on Medicaid than it expected last year, $97 billion less on subsidies for people to purchase insurance on government-run exchanges and $20 billion less on tax credits to small employers. That works out to a $51 billion increase in the gross cost of expanding coverage from what the CBO estimated a year ago. However, the CBO also expects the federal government to collect more revenue from penalties on individuals and employers, as well as other taxes. These revenue increases will more than offset the spending increases, according to the CBO, so it now expects the cost of Obamacare during those years to be $48 billion lower.

It’s also worth noting that we were told time and again during the health care debate that the law didn’t represent a government takeover of health care. But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges.

Blame Game

The Company you keep......

Seems a Governor Rick Perry would like to alter history and forget that he was an ardent supporter of AL " THE SKY IS FALLING " GORE... GORE is top of the hypocrites list with his fake crusade to "save the earth" which is really his way to shill more money out of people's pockets.....

A picture says a 1000 words...We already learned not to listen to POLS who deny their past associations ( Like all the idjits that President Obama associated with before running for President)

It's hard to soar like an EAGLE when you flock with TURKEYS.....looks like PERRY is a bit of a TURKEY and less of an EAGLE than he alludes to be.... GORE is a Turkey and a gold plated liar. maybe if he kept his mouth sut for 5 minutes, it would lower all the co2 in the atmosphere.

Perry backed crusading Gore in '88
By: Bob King - Politico.com
August 15, 2011 06:32 PM EDT

Texas Gov. Rick Perry may have forgotten a thing or two about the Al Gore presidential campaign he helped lead in 1988.

In an interview with an Iowa radio station on Monday, the Republican presidential contender explained his role as the Gore campaign’s Texas chairman by saying that “this was Al Gore before he invented the Internet and got to be Mr. Global Warming.”

But in fact, global warming was already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988 — long before his activism led to several books, a Nobel Prize and a part in an Academy Award-winning film. It was also well before the right gave him the "Mr. Ozone" nickname and talk radio heaped endless mockery on the future vice president.

Gore, then a young Tennessee senator trying to break out in a crowded Democratic field, mentioned the warming planet as one of his priorities for his presidential campaign in April 1987, according to news coverage at the time.

“He laid out a broad list of national objectives, from combating AIDS and Alzheimer's disease to curbing the ‘greenhouse effect’ — the threat to the Earth's atmosphere from the burning of oil, gas and coal,” The Los Angeles Times reported in covering Gore’s announcement. In May 1987, according to The Washington Post, his stump speeches included a call for the nation to “confront the emerging problems of the greenhouse effect and the threat to our ozone.”

Later that summer, Gore joined Republican Sen. John Chafee in calling for urgent action on climate change and the threat of coastal flooding.

Such was his reputation for green wonkery that, in a January 1988 profile in the Christian Science Monitor, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund said of Gore: ''I think it would be safe to say that he goes to bed at night worrying about things like stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming.''

So was all this unknown to Perry, who at the time was a Democrat trying to put Gore in the White House?

No, Perry spokesman Mark Miner said Monday. They just disagreed.

“The governor has always been a conservative and didn't agree with Al Gore on every issue, global warming being one of them,” Miner said in an email to POLITICO.

Perry has, of course, broken with Gore before. In a December 2009 speech to builders in Dallas, Perry said a lot had changed in the years since he worked on Gore’s campaign: “I certainly got religion. I think he’s gone to hell.”

In a 2007 speech to Californian Republicans, Perry said: "I've heard Al Gore talk about man-made global warming so much that I'm starting to think that his mouth is the leading source of all that supposedly deadly carbon dioxide."

Paranoid & Pathetic - Looks like the White House went after Fox News in 2009 after all

A local blogger from the hometown accused me once of "regurgitating FOX News" simply because I have a low opinion of the President. I have rarely, if ever, highlighted a FOX News story here. I like to write about issues, provide some newstype as the basis of what the discussion is about and leave the analysis of my POV to you the reader.

Some of us are old enough to remember the infamous NIXON Administration and the " Enemies List" that President Nixon had in a paranoid delusion that he could control the opinion of others by excluding his "enemies" from access to the White House (which in reality belongs to the PEOPLE).

Well flash forward to 2009, and the juveniles in the Obama Administration were accused of doing the same thing with FOX News, a charge which they dismissed as baseless......Seems as the TRUTH (something the White House has no clue about) was that YES, THEY DID make a concerted effort to exclude FOX News from the access given to others who were Obama's Cheerleaders.

I'm sorry, but when you start having to utilize NIXONIAN style tactics to defend your actions, you've pretty much shown that whatever you were doing is wrong....and then to LIE about it only further repeats the mistakes.....Paranoid & Pathetic - Very telling behavior from the worst President we have seen since NIXON.....

TIME TO GO BARRY....back to Chicago where you belong.


Looks like the White House went after Fox News in 2009 after all
By Joe Pompeo -Media Reporter
Yahoo News The Cutline – 16 JULY 2011

As the U.K. phone-hacking scandal continues to engulf News Corp's British segment, one of the company's top-performing assets in the U.S. is enjoying a bit of unrelated vindication.

Rewind to October 2009: Fox News Channel and the White House were at war. In one particularly heated incident, Fox claimed the Obama administration had tried to oust the "fair & balanced" network from an interview with Treasury official Kenneth Feinberg, when the other four news nets in the TV coverage pool had been offered access. In the end, Fox was included, and a Treasury Department spokesman snarled: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."

Emails that surfaced last week, however, through a public records request by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, suggest otherwise.

"We'd prefer if you skip Fox please," a White House broadcast media staffer advised a Treasury Department public affairs secretary ahead of the interview. In other emails during the same time frame, deputy White House communications director Jennifer Psaki called Fox News anchor Bret Baier "a lunatic" and boasted that "I am putting some dead fish in the fox cubby--just cause." In yet another email, another White House press officer wrote: "We've demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews …"

Proof of an anti-Fox agenda in the Oval Office? Judicial Watch thinks so.

"These documents show there is a pervasive anti-Fox bias in the Obama White House," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton in a statement. "The juvenile Mafioso-talk in these emails has no place in any White House. For the Obama administration to purposely exclude a major news organization from access to information has troubling First Amendment implications."

But current White House press secretary Jay Carney pushed back on the revelation during a briefing Thursday.

"It is well known that at the time there was a dispute between Fox News and its coverage and the White House and its feelings about the coverage," he said, according to CBS News. "I mean, that was then, and we obviously deal with Fox News regularly. ... We regularly engage with every network and every news organization here, including Fox, and give interviews to Fox, and respect the reporters at Fox who are reporters and do their job."