Just make them stop talking. Somebody, please.
The people who make up the Obama Administration, from the Oval Office on down, simply cannot seem to tell the truth about anything.
Everyone, including some of President Obama's biggest supporters, has realized by now that he lied repeatedly when he said Americans could keep their health care plans under Obamacare. The president even sort of half way apologized for lying, even though it was somebody else's fault somehow, according to his various spokespeople, who are pretty sure now that you mentioned it that it was all a big misunderstanding caused by the media misreporting what the president said. ... Yeah. ... That's the ticket.
This Administration has earned its reputation.
Benghazi? There are still Democrat loyalists who insist that whole mess is just a fluke resulting from a spontaneous protest over a stupid YouTube video. Or that Obama really said it was terrorism the day after the attack.
They apparently just can't help themselves any more.
The latest lie involves Obama's illegal immigrant uncle Onyango Obama, who has been in the country since the 1970s but is facing deportation proceedings.
When asked in 2011 if the president knew Uncle Onyango, the White House press office replied that they had no record of the two ever meeting.
That's what's called a non-answer, because "we have no record" can easily mean "we have no record because our department head put the file in his car trunk."
There was a time when there were people who would have questioned an official response like that. They were called journalists. We shall not see their like again.
Now, Uncle Onyango himself has broken the tape on the file with his testimony in a deportation hearing, wherein he said that Obama stayed with him for about three weeks in Cambridge in the 1980s while waiting for his apartment to be ready before beginning law school. Onyango had been in the country illegally since the 1970s and was facing deportation then, too, when Obama stayed with him.
Anybody seeing a small problem here? "Law school"; "illegal immigrant uncle"? Anybody? Bueller?
The White House's excuse for the fliparoo is that in 2011, the press office hadn't actually asked the president about the relationship.
Understandable. It must be difficult to ask the president about living with an illegal immigrant when you work at least several doors down the hallway from him.
And there's no way that the "miscommunication" of 2011 had anything to do with the approaching election cycle of 2012. I mean it's not like someone in, say, the Oval Office ordered the press office to lie about some scandal in Obama's past. The guy's the golden child, after all. Any scandal, ergo, is "phony."
Yeah. That's the ticket.
You know, the president's lucky I don't do the journalism thing any more. If the writer ever got an invite to a presidential briefing, He’d be the guy who got thrown out for asking the obvious questions on live TV: "Mr. President, at any time during the three weeks of living with your illegal immigrant uncle Onyango, did you actually meet him?"
When you start fibbing about small things like which relatives you've eaten dinner with, you're a pathological liar.
And that's the truth.
70 Percent Of California Doctors Won’t Participate In Obamacare
The California Medical Association (CMA), the State’s largest physician’s organization, estimates that 70 percent of doctors won’t participate in Covered California, the State’s Obamacare health insurance exchange.
That prediction comes after the CMA reviewed Obamacare coverage forecasts provided by independent insurance brokers, even though Covered California is touting an expected 85 percent doctor participation rate.
CMA’s vice president of medical and regulatory policy, Lisa Folberg, told the Washington Examiner that Covered California comes by its 85 percent participation figure through some optimistic statistical legerdemain.
“Some physicians have been put in the network and they were included basically without their permission,” she said.
That’s because Covered California is using a pre-deployment document released in May that came out before doctors had a chance to respond to a memo of understanding with Obamacare insurers. The doctors’ reticence then was understandable – they hadn’t seen a rate schedule, so they had no idea what kind of compensation they were being asked to accept.
“Only in September did insurance companies disclose that their rates would be pegged to California’s Medicaid plan, called Medi-Cal,” reports the Examiner’s Richard Pollock. “That’s driven many doctors to just say no.”
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency director Alex Briscoe said he’s not shocked that doctors aren’t lining up to take a pay cut under Obamacare.
From the report:
“Enrollment doesn’t mean access, because there aren’t enough doctors to take the low rates of Medicaid,” [Briscoe] said. “There aren’t enough primary care physicians, period.”
Briscoe hopes his eight community health centers can handle the 200,000 uninsured individuals he said reside in his county, but he warned that “there is a doctor shortage. It is going to get worse as more people enter the market.”
Briscoe professed not to be surprised by the refusal of doctors to participate in Covered California. “It rings true. I’ve been kind of wondering in my head, ‘How are they offering such low premiums?’”
In addition to low doctor participation, Obamacare is compounding the access problem by incentivizing another way for doctors to opt out: retirement.
“I just turned 55, and a lot of us are kind of going, ‘Maybe there’s something else we can do in the last 10 years,’ because this is just getting too onerous to keep on going,” San Diego ENT specialist Theodore M. Mazer told the Examiner.
Earlier this week, the House Judiciary Committee called in experts on constitutional law to assess what they are seeing as a dangerous trend. Enabled by the Democrat-controlled Senate, President Obama has successfully tilted the balance of power decidedly toward the Executive Branch.
Among the most telling of testimonies was that of Georgetown Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who said that the Obama administration has “an undeniable pattern of circumventing Congress in the creation of new major standards, exceptions, or outright nullifications.” Professor Turley added…
“We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend, we also have the continued rise of a “fourth branch.”
We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdictions.”
LOTUS gave orders for military forces to stand down on advice from co-president Valerie Jarret....then rretired to presidential bedroom to prepare for next day's Las Vegas c mpaign fund raiser....
Members of the House Intelligence Committee learned in a closed-door briefing yesterday that more contractors are corroborating the report that the Obama administration had plenty of time to respond to the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic facility.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) called the new information “outstanding testimony.”
“And essentially what they were able to prove today, they basically backed up the other contractors who were on the ground in the two previous hearings. So this is an ongoing investigation,” Nunes said Tuesday evening. “And I think they gave us a lot of good leads today and I feel very comfortable moving forward with where we are at today.”
The congressman confirmed the White House claim that the attack was sparked by protest over a YouTube video “was a completely lie, and we always knew that.”
“But what I think, some important testimony came out today. So these gentlemen found out about this right around dusk. And they knew the ambassador was missing, and they were in Tripoli. So, and then you have this whole time, you’re talking about roughly 9 to 10:00 at night, until 5:00 in the morning,” he said. “And at that point, you know, essentially the attack was still ongoing.”
“Because they arrived at the time the mortars hit and killed two additional Americans that were not killed at the embassy compound earlier. So this is — there is just nothing there the administration is standing on anymore, as to what were they doing? How come nobody came to help? I think that was clear, nobody knew even at 5:30 that the attack was going to be over.”
Nunes said the timeline begs the question: “What if the attack had went on for another 24 hours?”
“Would they have eventually sent help then? I mean, there is no accountability in this process that I’ve seen so far. And nobody knows what the president knew and when he knew it,” he said.
The recent testimony, though, hasn’t shed any additional light about what President Obama was doing the night of the attack, as the people testifying Tuesday “are the guys that are on the ground that saved everybody’s life.”
“And they were radioing everything upstairs, they assumed that people knew, but they didn’t know — they were on the ground trying to save people’s lives,” Nunes said.
Blew a $1 Billion Instead
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) told Bill Hemmer on America’s Newsroom today that an internet giant offered to build the Obamacare website for free.
This was confirmed during testimony today before a Congressional committee. Issa, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman, said the Obama White House turned down the offer.
Bill Hemmer: Was it proven today that an internet company offered to build the website for free but the government passed on it? Was that true? Did that happen?
Rep. Darrell Issa: It was stated under oath that it was true. No one argued that it wasn’t.
The Obama administration blew over a billion dollars so far to build the failed Obamacare website.
It looks like they were talking about IBM.
In a 2010 interview, IBM’s CEO said: “We could have improved quality and reduced the costs of the health-care system by $900 billion. … I said we would do it for free to prove that it works. They turned us down.”
But DeSantis directed us to video of a Sept. 14, 2010, Wall Street Journal interview of Sam Palmisano, IBM’s then-CEO and chairman.
The video opens with the Journal’s Alan Murray saying: "When President Obama was elected, you started spending a fair amount of time at the White House."
Palmisano: "Yes, I did."
Murray: "What was that all about?"
"Well," Palmisano replied, "part of it was the administration was reaching out to the business community. I mean, I was one of many, obviously ... around economic (issues)... So we were having lots of input, lots of exchange. That’s what we all were working on at the time."
Palmisano offered an example: "We -- and I’m fairly confident about this one because it required no legislative change -- we could have improved quality and reduced the costs of the health-care system by $900 billion... It was self-funding. You could have insured anybody you wanted to, illegal aliens, dogs, cats, ponies, whatever, right? And the stuff was simple. Did not require any big legislative change."
About $400 billion of the reduced costs could be realized through negotiating discounts with drug companies, just as IBM negotiates its own discounts, he said. "Buy a nationwide discount," he said. "Just like pharmaceutical companies sell to us on a nationwide discount. It’s no different. I said, ‘Take the IBM discount! Take the IBM discount.’ "
Another example of savings: "Two hundred billion in fraud. That was a 3 percent improvement, by the way. This wasn’t transformational. ... There’s so much fraud in the system -- 3 percent and then Year 7 was 8 percent, Year 5 was 5 percent. It’s 200 billion."
Murray: "And why didn’t they do that? Is there a fraud --"
Palmisano: "I said we would do it for free to prove that it works. They turned us down. You’ll have to ask them… Free. Free wasn’t good enough."
It is not designed for Medicare recipients.
That's not what Dr. McCaughey concluded after her reading the Obamacare tax law. What did you find that disagrees with her conclusions after you read the law?
In a shocking apology on NBC News, President Obama talked about his landmark healthcare bill, and its poor implementation.
"Obviously, we didn't do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law," President Obama said. "I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me."
President Obama backpedaling on Obamacare's effectiveness is the equivalent of Jefferson rethinking the Louisiana Purchase, or Reagan telling Gorbachev to keep the Berlin Wall up.
And Obama is far from the only Democrat noticing the #$%$ in Obamacare...
· 39th President Jimmy Carter: "His major accomplishment was Obamacare, and the implementation of it now is questionable at best."
· Barney Frank, former Massachusetts Congressman: "I think we paid a terrible price for health care."
· Former Democratic Presidential candidate and current Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean: "The Affordable Care Act's Rate-Setting Won't Work."
Obama is losing control of the Democratic Party. And with a measly approval rating of 39%, he's losing control of the entire country.
With all the "Defund Obamacare" talk from Ted Cruz, John Boehner, and Rand Paul, it's easy to think that Republicans are the only ones against Obamacare.
But that just isn't the case.
That's because on top of higher healthcare costs, Americans will be hit with a barrage of new taxes... $1 trillion worth.
And these taxes won't just affect anyone who makes over $250,000 a year.
The bulk of these taxes will be passed on directly to the middle class.
That's because while a majority of these "stealth taxes" were designed to tax businesses, they're actually transferred directly to ordinary citizens.
Of course, the Obamacare plan was primarily designed to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce healthcare costs.
But experts are saying it will have the exact opposite effect. In fact, it's estimated that Obamacare will cost the average taxpayer nearly $6,000 in extra taxes as early as next year!
A McKinsey report now estimates Obamacare will cost taxpayers at least an additional $400 billion more than originally proposed.
And worst of all, millions of Americans will now lose their full-time jobs.
So it's no surprise that in a recent poll from The Washington Post, 42% of Democrats are against Obamacare; the highest percentage ever.
More and more Democrats are coming out of the woodwork to voice their opposition to the bill. And with midterm elections coming in 2014 Democrats are running-not walking-away from Obamacare.
What started as a promise to insure 40 million Americans has quickly morphed into another game of Washington politics.
And average Americans are getting the short end-again.
With the implementation of Obamacare quickly approaching, Americans are asking what they can do to prepare for all the new costs and rules.
One expert, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant Governor of New York and constitutional scholar with a Ph.D. from Columbia University, recently wrote a best-selling book showing Americans how they can survive Obamacare.
McCaughey is one of the only people in the country-including members of Congress-who has actually read the entire 2,572 page law.
Her book, titled Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for Surviving the New Health Care Law breaks down the complicated bill into 168 pages of actionable advice.
The book, written in an easy-going, easy-to-read style, shows some startling facts about Obamacare not seen in the mainstream press.
For example, she points to a little known passage in the bill that shows how you could get slapped with a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance - even if you do actually have it.
She also goes into detail explaining how one-third of all U.S. employers could stop offering health insurance to their workers.
In one chapter, she shows how ordinary Americans will get stuck paying for substance abuse coverage even if they never touched a drink or drug in their life.
According to McCaughey's research, senior citizens will get hit the hardest. "If you're a senior or a baby boomer, expect less care than in the past," she says. "Hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery will be especially hard to get from Medicare in the months ahead." Details on how to pick up her book here...
She warns seniors to get some of those types of procedures done now before Obamacare goes into full effect.
In addition, many will find it difficult to keep their medical records private, according to McCaughey.
"The law will compel Americans to share with millions of strangers who are not physicians confidential private and personal medical history information they do not wish to share."
My president was able to do what Carter, The Dripper, Bush The Insignificant, Clinton, and Bush The Lesser could not accomplish.
RIGHTTTTTTTTTT...SELL US DOWN THE RIVER!
Gen. Hayden: Iran Deal 'Worst of All Possible Outcomes'
Schumer released the following statement on the deal regarding Iran's nuclear program:
"I am disappointed by the terms of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations because it does not seem proportional. Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions.
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said Sunday that the Obama administration was naive and had possibly made a "cataclysmic error of gigantic proportions" in its deal to ease sanctions on Iran in exchange for an opening up of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
"I think it could turn out to be a cataclysmic error of gigantic proportions," Dershowitz said of the deal, which he described as "naive."
Israel has “the right and obligation” to defend itself and won’t allow Iran to develop the capability to build atomic weapons, Netanyahu said today at a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem.
“What was achieved last night in Geneva is not historic; it is a historic mistake. Today, the world has become a much more dangerous place,” he said in comments broadcast on Israel Radio. “Israel is not bound by this agreement.”
President Obama Job Approval - Economy
Poll Date Sample Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 10/30 - 11/18 -- 37.3 58.4 -21.1
The Economist/YouGov 11/16 - 11/18 1000 A 37 51 -14
CBS News 11/15 - 11/18 1010 A 37 60 -23
ABC News/Wash Post 11/14 - 11/17 RV 42 56 -14
FOX News 11/10 - 11/12 1006 RV 37 60 -23
Quinnipiac 11/6 - 11/11 2545 RV 38 59 -21
Gallup 11/7 - 11/10 1039 A 39 58 -19
Pew Research 10/30 - 11/6 996 A 31 65 -34
President Obama Job Approval - Foreign Policy
Poll Date Sample Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 9/28 - 11/18 -- 37.0 52.0 -15.0
CBS News 11/15 - 11/18 1010 A 38 50 -12
FOX News 11/10 - 11/12 1006 RV 38 54 -16
Quinnipiac 11/6 - 11/11 2545 RV 38 53 -15
Gallup 11/7 - 11/10 1039 A 39 53 -14
Pew Research 10/30 - 11/6 996 A 34 56 -22
The Economist/YouGov 9/28 - 9/30 1000 A 35 46 -11
No one should be confused about what happened yesterday.
The Obama Democrats killed the United States Senate as a deliberative body 226 years after the Founding Fathers created it.
The use of a simple majority to change the Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominees and other appointments--a device that made getting 60 votes a practical necessity--was a decisive first step toward reducing the Senate to a body that operates by simple majority.
The Democrats have tried to argue that they killed the filibuster only for a handful of presidential nominees. But in fact they’ve killed a tradition that had survived more than two centuries. There will be no principle to stand on to block controversial appointments or legislation in the future.
This is a big deal, and it will change the culture of the Senate profoundly. And the Obama Democrats understood exactly what they were doing.
In 2005 as a senator, Barack Obama himself said that “everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.”
The same year Senator Joe Biden said, “We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party… We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.”
He called it “the single most important vote” he had cast during his three decades in the Senate.
He said “I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
Senator Harry Reid himself praised the filibuster at the time, lauding it as “far from a procedural gimmick.” It is, he said, “part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate.”
That is what Senator Reid and the other Obama Democrats destroyed yesterday, fully aware of the permanent damage they were causing in order to achieve fleeting political goals.
That trade of long-term stability for short-term gain is exactly the opposite of the wisdom the framers of the Constitution intended for the Senate (a big part of the reason the body exists in the first place). The Founders were worried that the House, with its frequent election cycles and small Congressional districts, would be shortsighted, easily impassioned, and unaccountable for the ultimate consequences of their decisions.
The Senate was supposed to guard against this danger, as a “temperate and respectable body of citizens...to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind,” as Madison put it in Federalist 63. It would do so by making decisions for the long term, he thought--“well-chosen and well-connected measures, which have a gradual and perhaps unobserved operation.”
Until yesterday, the filibuster was one such device--an important protection which for centuries had been inviolable.
Harry Reid and the Obama Democrats’ reckless decision to kill it will change the Senate forever.
These "facts" are
Are just that....
My stepdaughter and husband live in Calgary, and the come to states for all their medical care because of the terrible Canadian medical system
The U.S. Senate Democrats just voted 52 to 48 to eliminate most filibusters of Presidential nominations. Exercising the “nuclear option” they scuttled a long-standing tradition by now allowing a simple majority vote on Presidential nominations rather than a super majority.
This was a mistake, and it’s amazing how Democrats have forgotten the arguments they employed when Republicans wrongly considered and rightly rejected such a move under President George W. Bush.
In 2005 then Senator Barack Obama called for his colleagues considering the nuclear option to consider “free and democratic debate.” : “Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country. I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate.” (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Floor Remarks, Washington, DC, 4/13/05)
Obama: “The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)
Obama: “Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe. These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)
In 2005 then Senator Joe Biden called the nuclear option the “single most significant vote” in his “32 years in the Senate.” He also called it an “example of the arrogance of power.” Biden: “Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I have not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I have been here for over three decades. This is the single most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate. I suspect the Senator would agree with that. We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party, propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It is nothing more or nothing less. … We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 5/23/05)
“Isn’t what is really going on here that the majority does not want to hear what others have to say, even if it is the truth? Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said: You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. But I am afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)
Senator Harry Reid, In 2005: “The filibuster is not a scheme and it certainly isn’t new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate. It was well-known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it’s an integral part of our country’s 214-year history. The first filibuster in the United States Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. It’s been employed on legislative matters, it’s been employed on procedural matters relating to the president’s nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and it’s been used on judges for all those years. One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters. Senators have used the filibuster to stand up to popular presidents, to block legislation, and, yes, even, as I’ve stated, to stall executive nominees. The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution and in our own rules.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05)
Reid: “For 200 years we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some procedural gimmick. It’s within the vision of the founding fathers of our country. They did it; we didn’t do it. They established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control. Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. They want to do away with Mr. Smith, as depicted in that great movie, being able to come to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they’re wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that’s true.”(Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05)
Then Senator Hillary Clinton said in 2005: “So this President has come to the majority in the Senate and basically said: Change the rules. Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there were not very many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of Senators have acted and said: Mr. President, we are with you. We support you. But that is a bridge too far. We cannot go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President. We have confirmed 95 percent of your nominees. And if you cannot get 60 votes for a nominee, maybe you should think about who you are sending to us to be confirmed because for a lifetime appointment, 60 votes, bringing together a consensus of Senators from all regions of the country, who look at the same record and draw the same conclusion, means that perhaps that nominee should not be on the Federal bench.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)
Clinton: “And I just had to hope that maybe between now and the time we have this vote there would be enough Senators who will say: Mr. President, no. We are sorry, we cannot go there. We are going to remember our Founders. We are going to remember what made this country great. We are going to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Senate.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)
There are actually two messages here. The first is very interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot.
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
National Health Insurance?
Check this last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.
You know what the private business sector is a real-life business, not a
government job. Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt.................... 38%
Hoover ........................... 42%
F. Roosevelt................... 50%
Eisenhower................ .... 57%
GH Bush......................... 51%
Clinton .......................... 39%
GW Bush........................ 55%
This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:
only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?
How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.
We'll NEVER see these facts in the main stream media.
"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
This is amazing. Even more amazing is that this hasn't been published long before now.
CHURCHILL ON ISLAM
Unbelievable, but the speech below was written in 1899... (check Wikipedia - The River War).
The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many, but expresses in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries.
He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time. He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.
HERE IS THE SPEECH:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ..."
Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).
Churchill saw it coming....
Here is yet another reason to stay as far away from the Obamacare websites as possible: Your private information is being broadcast all over the place. Once you input your private data into Obamacare it simply isn’t safe. And now we see the director of Enroll America actually conspiring to release your private data.
Project Veritas has done it again, exposing the criminal enterprise that is the Obama administration.
James O’Keefe and the gang have found that your private data is being “cross-pollinated.”
Enter Enroll America, a Sebelius-linked group dedicated to signing people up for Obamacare and Chris Tarango, Texas Enroll America Communications Director who Project Veritas caught on tape agreeing to help obtain a private list of potential Obamacare enrollee data for election/political purposes. Tarango goes so far to say he’ll “Do whatever it f****** takes.”
why did Reagan give the excuse that he didn't know Iran-Contra was going on.
He didn't, and he accepted responsibblity for his lack of knowledge
PRESIDENT REAGAN IN HIS TELEVISION ADDRESS ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR. PRESIDENT REAGAN CRITICIZED HIMSELF FOR FAILING TO LISTEN TO SECRETARY SHULTZ AND SECRETARY WEINBERGER BUT ALSO REFUSED TO LET ADMIRAL POINDEXTER TAKE THE FULL BLAME FOR NOT INFORMING HIM. PRESIDENT REAGAN ALSO SPOKE ON THE BALANCED-BUDGET AMENDMENT, AGREEING TO NEGOTIATE ON EVERY SPENDING ITEM IN THE BUDGET.
"Congress included that prohibition in a bill" (which attempted to transfer responsibility for foreign policy from president to the congress), which is unconstitutional. Thus there would be no constitutional basis for impeachment.
A must read news reports revealling the ferocity of LOTUS dictatorship, his hate of the military, and power of co-president Valerie Jarret.
Bush, like most predecessors, holds tongue on successor
Then came his serious answer.
"I don't think it's good for the country to have a former president criticize his successor," Bush said.
Then there'e Jimmy Carter----
LITTLE ROCK, May 19, 2007 -- Former president Jimmy Carter called President Bush's international relations "the worst in history" and also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative program.
The criticism came in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, which reported Carter's remarks Saturday. The denunciation of a sitting president was unprecedented for Carter, a biographer said.
AND Slick Willie
Bill Clinton criticizes Bush on Iraq
WASHINGTON Thu Jul 19, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton on Thursday criticized President George W. Bush's administration for failing in Iraq, saying their was no evidence of much-needed political or diplomatic progress.
"The point is, that there is no military victory here," he said in an interview on ABC's Good Morning America.
So every time some government employee does something wrong, it is the fault of the president?
LOTUS is no "Give 'em Hell Harry"...who declared who had "The Buck Stops Here" Desk Sign