Goldilocks wrote: The statement is quoted out of context. NY Times Musters Hillary Defense Of O’Care “What Difference Does It Make?”
Dear Comrade Locks,
Ok, so let me put it in context for you.
Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone S. Woods, Glen Anthony Doherty and Sean Smith died on or shortly after September 11th, 2012 in a terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Libya by supposed allies of the Obama administration. The administration was supposedly acting on behalf of the American people.
But yet, no one really knows why this terrorist attack happened.
At the time Obama said that an Internet video degrading Islam was responsible.
"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," he said according to CBS News contemporaneous with events.
Then-Secretary-of-State Hillary William-Rodham-Jefferson-Clinton said the same thing.
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said in the statement released by the State Department. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”
No only were these statements trying to tie the sacking of the embassy and death of Stevens, Woods, Doherty and Smith to an Internet video not true, it is now known that at the time the administration knew the statements weren’t true. In essence they fabricated a story.
Why? Well, why do they lie about everything?
The Internet video story was included as part of revisions to the original report sent over by the CIA. And, if done for political purposes, the made-up story is a prime facie felony. Altering an intelligence product because you don’t like the political ramifications is a crime that should result in a substantial fine, jail time and dismissal from service of the federal government for life, no matter who does it, from president on down.
That’s the law.
And THAT fact would partially answer the question why the administration is like a tomb when it comes to Benghazi "talking points."
Someone could-- and someone should-- not pass go, not collect $200 and go directly to jail over edits demanded by politicos at the White House and the State Department.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
This pretty much confirms what we have said all along.
The administration is hiding the truth from the American people about why and how the Benghazi attacks happened.
I don’t know about anyone else, but when politicians knowingly lie to me I want to know why.
And I’m just as demanding on Republican administrations as I am on Democrats.
I have had tough words for the Bush administration regarding mistakes they made in Iraq.
So I also question why in response to tough questioning from Republican Senator from Wisconsin Ron Johnson, Hillary tried to avoid why the administration deliberately lied in response to the attacks in Benghazi:
“With all due respect,” Clinton testified, “the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out.”
It’s clear that Clinton knew at the time of her testimony, or certainly should have known, that the attack was not some “guys out for a walk who decided that they’d go kill some Americans.” Or that it was a protest over some Internet video. The IC (intelligence community) indeed does have a process and it’s clear the administration, including, Rodham-Jefferson-William-Clinton and Barack “Barry” Hussein Obama hijacked that process to alter the history of the Benghazi attacks.
Clinton should have known what happened that night. And it’s hard to credit that she didn’t.
So that, Comrade Locks, is the context I used for the New York Times defense of Obamacare.
The Times knew at the time of their support of Obamacare that healthcare insurance policies would be cancelled; that the promise that you could keep your insurance if you liked it was a lie. They know too that you won’t be able to keep your doctor, your hospital-- that in fact, healthcare has been radically altered to a model that sacrifices function for politics. In fact, it was promised that Obamacare would help healthcare function even better in the United States.
And their response has been: What difference does it make?
Thanks again for giving me this time to provide you with “context.”
Now we all know what you, the New York Times and Hillary Clinton-Jefferson-Rodham-Williams meant.
And hopefully you understand what I mean as well.
Dhensley813 wrote: Well, I for one welcome our new masterful healthcare laws. I would much rather pay $1000 a month and get a good policy with a proper, sensible, fair deductible of only $6000, than pay $500 a month and face a thank-goodness-now-illegal deductible of $8000. The extra $6000 I pay for insurance is a good deal now that I have the peace of mind that comes of knowing I can't be hit by insane medical out of pocket expenses like $8000. I'm protected. It can't go any higher than $6000. Woo-hoo! Obamacare is GRREEEAT! . NY Times Musters Hillary Defense Of OCare “What Difference Does It Make?”
Dear Brother DH,
It’s really as bad as all that too.
Now you will have to change your plan and your doctor and you’ll be allowed to pay higher premiums for the privilege. And here is where it gets really hairy: Doctors are leaving the profession, in large part, because they will not have much say in treating patients. Instead they’ll be slaves of the system.
A survey from Jackson Healthcare says that doctors are leaving the medical profession in high numbers as a result of Obamacare. Few doctors expect Obamacare to improve outcomes, and a majority expects it to worsen healthcare.
42 percent of doctors are either highly dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with their profession,” says the Jackson survey, with the highest dissatisfaction in internal medicine, family practice and primary care.
These are the frontline healthcare providers.
I spoke with someone over the weekend that has opted to become a physicians’ assistant instead of going to medical school, because as she said, it wasn’t worth it.
Doctors seem to agree, with 59 percent of doctors unlikely to recommend the medical field as a profession.
Already, I rarely see a doctor. Instead, I see a nurse practitioner.
It’s almost as if they WANT doctors to leave the profession so that they can use unionized nurses instead.
In the old Soviet Union, doctors were nothing more than glorified nurse practitioners, with diagnostic tool like pulling on kids’ ears to see if they had infections.
Despite the lip service paid to equality of the sexes, in Russia under the communists, doctors were made up of women, in part, because it was not regarded as a highly respected profession. Doctors in USSR probably would have had a hard time passing a nursing exam in the U.S.
Welcome to the future of healthcare.
It’s already died 1,000 deaths in the past.
I expect it to claim millions more in the future.
Birdfighter wrote: Democracy is a terrible form of govt, but is the best humans have so far devised, better than kings, dictators, oligarchy, etc. It's been said govt is a necessary evil, and so it is. So don't be so schocked when the guy who got elected, though he seemed on the surface to be cool and astute, is corrupt and a liar and a demagogue. And You Thought Obama Didn’t Believe in Torture?
Democracies suck. Republics rock.
One of the central problems that we face today is that we are no longer a country of laws, as it is understood in terms of a Republic, but more of a direct Democracy, where popular opinion rules.
Do you know why the IRS chooses to prosecute some tax evaders and leave others like Democrat Tom Daschle alone? Do you know why the federal government enforces some laws on immigration, but not others? Do you know why Obama will get away with selectively enforcing some provisions of the Obamacare law and not others, even though the executive branch is sworn to faithfully execute the laws so help them God?
It’s because we let them.
We let them because we are a Democracy and we’ll allow them to do whatever they want as long as we believe we are their the masters.
But one day, we’ll wake up to find ourselves mistaken and by then we’ll be slaves.
The easiest way to create a dictatorship in the United States is to create laws that we selectively enforce.
We’re dangerously close today to that dictatorial government.
Look at the case of JPMorgan, and you’ll get an idea where we are headed.
Even some Democrats agree:
“Billionaire media mogul and longtime Democrat Barry Diller condemned the Obama administration for targeting JPMorgan Chase on Tuesday,” reported the Daily Caller. “Diller angrily wondered why the government would fleece a record $13 billion from a bank he believes handled itself ‘quite well.’”
At issue were mortgages issued by companies that the Obama administration made JP Morgan buy.
“You certainly can’t be responsible for being induced to buy two banks in the ‘Great Problem Years,’” Diller said, “and be responsible for their practices during that period as if it was the fault of your governance.”
Under Obama? Yes. You Can.
And you, and you and you can too.
All you have to do is cross Obama as JP Morgan did.
Karpe_Diem wrote: "Obama has a kind of guttural reaction to critics." Dear Mr. Ransom, i do not know what you meant to say but the word guttural means to produce sound in the throat. is that what you meant to say? please explain. And You Thought Obama Didn’t Believe in Torture?
Dear Brother Karpe,
Guttural refers to a “harsh” noise in the throat. But it can also be used to describe a generally harsh reaction.
Merriam Webster describes: “being or marked by utterance that is strange, unpleasant, or disagreeable.” I would add that in my own understanding of the word it also denotes a deep, automatic reaction as well.
Obama rarely owns any mistake he’s made.
The skin distinction that marks out Obama from other presidents isn’t color. It’s thickness. He’s remarkably thin-skinned for a politician.
When critics go after Obama, he never admits a mistake unless pressed very hard.
Instead he resorts to calling names, blaming others, even when it it’s clearly not always in his best interest.
That’s because Obama’s surrounded by “yes” men—and women—and, for purpose of complying with federal laws, the “yes” transgendered.
Dan Bongino, the former Secret Service guy who spills the beans on how bad the administration is, says that Obama never hears “no” inside the White House. Bongino said people didn’t have a problem saying “no” to Bush or Clinton.
But, as I reminded Bongino, in the case of Clinton it was more like a “no means no” type of no.
Corbett wrote: Does this sound like Munich? At Munich, Britain gave away half of Czechoslovakia to a nation that had already annexed Austria and Hungary in exchange for promises not to take the rest of the country. Here we have gotten real concessions -- verifiable concessions -- from a country that has never built a bomb and has always said it was not going to do so. This is not at all like Munich and only a fool would suggest that it is. -- Putin, Iran Find Obama Really Flexible After Election
Dear Comrade Corbett,
You’re making the same argument that Eugene Robinson, former "Style" editor at the Washington Post and currently op-ed writer for the Post, has made.
My biggest problem with you doing is that you pretend to be a conservative while doing so.
It’s OK to be wrong this badly only if you are a liberal.
Don’t pose as a conservative though and expect us all to buy it.
The Munich analogy stands.
Iran has tried to export its revolution worldwide. Their long-term goal has always been the establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate. Nothing changes now.
They have been the main state sponsor of terror in the region and if you think they spin centrifuges for only peaceful nuclear energy purposes, you must have missed their cameo appearances at the North Korean missile launches.
The point here is that Iran has hardly tried to hide their intentions to acquire nuclear weapons and thus be the dominant Islamic player in modern power politics. Hitler didn't try to hide his intentions either. Hitler often told the world that he sought the return of territory held by Germans majorities who lived in other countries. Everyone knew that one day he would come to accounts with France. And that he was seeking to expand Germany into the plains of Russia to destroy Communism and create living space for the German super race.
The commonality here is that the Chamberlain government was-- and the Obama government is-- so obtuse, so arrogant and so incompetent that they couldn't see what's obvious to everyone.
“A sobering assessment of the nuclear threat the United States faces over the next decade has been published," reported the UK’s Daily Mail in June, “which has been jumped upon by supporters of the beleaguered missile defense shield. The Pentagon report states that China, Iran and North Korea are aggressively developing nuclear missiles capable of striking the United States and proliferation among these nations of technology is rife.”
That means that they are all sharing technology. And these are the guys you believe will never build a bomb?
Come on. The only absurdities here are that you probably advise Obama on national security issues and your posts on THFinance likely rise to the level of a white paper under this administration.
Or at the very least talking points.
This from our friends at NightWatch:
The strongest evidence of sharp legal practice is the US "fact sheet." In almost no significant substantive respect, the fact sheet fails to correspond to the actual four-page agreement, which NightWatch used in its analysis. Whoever wrote that fact sheet should be fired because it makes assertions about Iranian undertakings that are factual misrepresentations.
The actual agreement requires no "roll back" of the Iranian nuclear program, though the US fact sheet indicates it does.
These inconsistencies are the signs of a rushed job. If the White House fact sheet represents the US understanding of the terms of the agreement, there is no agreement because the Iranians have an entirely different understanding. They got everything they wanted and sanctions relief. That explains the Iranian declarations of a diplomatic victory and the celebrations in Tehran.
Wishful thinking and daydreaming does not substitute for real foreign and defense policy.
Chamberlain and England found that out the hard way, and I suspect the U.S. will too.
Drayburn wrote: WTF ! make a different in this world, you pollute are lakes, oceans, air, space, all for the old mighty buck, as long as it's not global warming. God you people are nothing more than greed driven morons I have ever read. --63 Percent Chance Weather Predictors Are Skeptics on Global Warming
Dear Comrade Dray,
The “old mighty buck”?
My best guess: Half-educated, non-native speaker of English.
Take a grammar course. And a pronunciation course.
When I studied Russian at college a professor once lectured us on the importance of grammar and accent.
His point was that you could have a great vocabulary but come across like an idiot because you didn’t know the proper declination and pronunciation of words.
He ran clips of Gaddafi, who was in the news a lot back then, pointing out that Gaddafi knew many words, but his accent made him seem stupid, which of course he was not.
Anyway, if you are going live here and want to make a difference learn how to speak and write properly.
I say that to everyone with the utmost sincerity.
Being well-spoken can take you far.
Djones wrote: Millions like Christie. He is a rotund bulldog that sparks interest. Dont't judge too quick as there is not that quick witted free sprit is possible GOP candidates. Now ask where that rebellious gusto is against obamacare? Anybody with tenacity to the forefront? Any select commirree in the elite objecting or they afraid their pass to AHC will turn on them Governor Of The United States Chris Christie If You Like Your Current Government You can Keep It Obamacare And All
Dear Comrade Jones,
I’m trying to guess what you are talking about. I’m guessing you are saying “Christie good. Me likey. He bulldog. Bulldog good.”
That’s what primaries are all about. We’ll see how many people like him then when it counts.
The easiest politician to like is the one not running yet.
Sarah Palin was the most popular governor in the country when she was nominated for Vice President. She was a reformer, someone who took on the establishment…she was a woman—and I say that with no offense meant to the transgendered (in order to comply with federal laws on ticket balancing).
I’m thinking that when the media gets done with Christie, he’ll just be another fat, stupid conservative.
Perry looked like a nominee, until he ran. Fred Thompson looked like one too. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was supposed to be great as well.
Let’s let the campaign unroll before anointing someone.
Hillary has always been the presumptive nominee of her party.
We’ll see how Christie and Hillary shake out.
In the meantime, I’m looking for other candidates.
DoctorRoy wrote: Christie needs to get down to his fighting weight, whatever that is, in order to have a shot. You know there is a reason why William Howard Taft couldn't get elected today. Governor Of The United States Chris Christie If You Like Your Current Government You can Keep It Obamacare And All
Dear Comrade Doctor,
I’m going to let your stupid comment stand as is. You can’t improve on perfection.
I will add that William Howard Taft isn't running.
dneuville wrote: This is the third time this website has wiped away my comments. Is it because I oppose their conservative views. There are quite a bunch of views posted here that say absolutely nothing but I guess they want to see it posted. So I will leave this as my last....any party that will take food from those that most NEED it to make the rich richer is a PARASITE which is feeding off another without giving something in return. They call it socialism, Communism....when they are the ones that caused the very condition. You are pathetic PARASITES. Live with it. -- Quick Call Poison Control: Liberals Messing with Constitution
Dear Comrade DNEU,
You have to do something really bad to have comments taken down.
You either used very offensive language or were cutting and pasting the same comments on various threads.
We’ve put in extra technology for this type of behavior and unfortunately it doesn’t discriminate. If you do it, they’ll remove all of your comments.
We, the Parasites, in order to form a more perfect union, never take food from people who need it most. In fact, it is our surplus production that feeds those who can’t feed themselves. Liberals have a hard time understanding this.
I had to endure the unendurable over Thanksgiving while I was traveling. A Matt Damon (Matt Damon!) interview was running on the Stupid Channel while I was in line for boarding a flight. Shiver.
Damon was bemoaning the fact that 600 million people still live without potable water in the world.
And you know why the other 6.5 billion have clean water?
Socialism is the New Middle Ages for Dummies.
If monarchies had been replaced by socialists rather than capitalists we’d wouldn’t even have modern medicine, nor yet running water.
Read books, as I have said, don’t burn them.
Pamela247 wrote: I cannot for the life of me understand why people think that Social Security is a scam. I worked and paid into it as did my employer and now am reaping my rewards. I am lounging about and doing what I like best entering comments in your blog. I realize that at one point monies for SS were put into a SS Trust Fund not to be used for any other purpose but that of SS and I believe it was LBJ that removed the funds and placed them into the General Fund where there now exists only IOWs.
I am enjoying my retirement. Governor Of The United States Chris Christie If You Like Your Current Government You can Keep It Obamacare And All
Dear Comrade Pamela,
People think it’s a scam because it is a scam.
Your money was spent long ago, as the SYSTEM was designed to do at the very beginning.
Here’s the scary part: The frets and worries about Obamacare aren’t that much different than the frets about Social Security once it passed, but before it was implemented.
First passed in 1935 and not meant to pay out benefits until 1942, congress and the president were already tinkering with the law by 1939.
Time Magazine reported in 1939 that already the president and Congress were considering a fifty-percent increase in Social Security taxes to finance expanded benefits, even as qualified beneficiaries doubted that they’d live to see any benefit from the program.
The actuarial tables admitted that by 1980 the program would not have sufficient numbers of workers to pay benefits, which in fact is what happened 38 years later when Social Security was first declared broke.
We have several options to bail out Social Security: 1) Find more workers to pay into the system now to support more retirees; or 2) We raise taxes on the fewer workers we have today to support more retirees; and 3) Cut benefits.
Since creating more workers is a project with a long lead-time—especially under Obama—the default will be to raise taxes and cut your benefits.
Sounds pretty much like a scam to me.
No insurance company, bank or brokerage firm would be allowed to do something like that without people ending up in jail...unless of course they were big contributors to Obama, like Jon Corzine.
Pow1000 wrote: Vote party NOT Person, even if you have to hol’d your nose. Otherwise we will be stuck with Hillary, who is just as bad as 0bama. Governor Of The United States Chris Christie If You Like Your Current Government You can Keep It Obamacare And All
Dear Comrade Pow,
You got it wrong. Vote issues, not party or persons.
Movement Conservatism is where it’s always been at. Still is.
Goldilocks wrote: The right believes in torture. And You Thought Obama Didn’t Believe in Torture?
Dear Comrade Locks,
The LEFT believes in torture.
Explain Joe Biden, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton without using the word torture.
What qualifies Hillary Clinton to be anything?
Because she put up with a philanderer for four decades we’re supposed to elect her president of the United States so she can be the first WOMAN president—or transgendered, if you prefer-- fully in compliance with federal laws on gender equality?
Pelosi, Jackson Lee, Waters?
Dumb, Dumber and Dumberer.
I’m telling you the only way you can explain Democrat leadership is with the use of the word torture.
That’s it for this week,