Category Archives: Romney

Obama exposed in NC in print, October 25, 2012, Rhino Times, Obama lies on Benghazi, Romney debate performance, US economy, Israel, Liberal mainstream media having hissy fit

Obama exposed in NC in print, October 25, 2012, Rhino Times, Obama lies on Benghazi, Romney debate performance, US economy, Israel, Liberal mainstream media having hissy fit

“We tried our plan—and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”…Barack Obama

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

From John Hammer of the Rhino Times, in print in NC, October 25, 2012.

“But technology has its downside as well, and President Barack Hussein Obama is learning about the problems with electronic communication. The problem is that people can go back and find the records.

Obama tried to blame the whole Benghazi confusion on the State Department and the intelligence community. It simply was not believable that during and after the attack the State Department and the intelligence community believed that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration. Four people were killed in the attack but everyone else survived, plus there were the surveillance videos.

Obama clearly was doing his best to push this entire controversy past Nov. 6 because after Nov. 6 it won’t matter whether he got an email from Ambassador Chris Stevens the day before the attack demanding more security, or a text message during the attack describing the well-organized planned attack that was taking place.

The truth is that Obama knew that it was an organized planned attack, but it doesn’t fit in with the worldview that he is trying to sell to the American people that the US has defeated al Qaeda and the world is a safer place because of President Obama. The truth didn’t fit in with his message, so he changed the story that he told to the American people and now he has been caught. It may change someone’s vote to know that the president deliberately misled the American people to better his chance of getting reelected.”

“The polls that the public sees just aren’t that good. Proof of that is that they still have North Carolina in the “leaning Romney” category. Barring some last minute surprise that will cause even hardcore Republicans to vote for Obama there is no way that Obama can win North Carolina. So any poll that doesn’t put North Carolina solidly in the Romney camp, and I haven’t seen one that does, is automatically suspect.”

“Judging from the campaigns, not only does Romney think he is ahead, Obama is convinced that Romney has won and is running around the country like a madman attacking Romney, trying to make something happen.

And Obama has to attack Romney; he has no other viable campaign. Obama can’t run on his record and he has a big problem if he presents a great plan to bring the country’s economy back around because then the question is, Why aren’t you doing this now? Why do you have to wait to get reelected?”

“One of the biggest lies of the debate was when Obama talked about Israel being “our greatest ally in the region.” Obama refused to even meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he was in the US this fall. Obama said it didn’t fit into his schedule, but during the same time he managed to find time for David Letterman and a lot of campaigning, which indicates his priorities.

Also, the White House has refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Obama has been as rude to Netanyahu as one head of state can be to another, and now he is trying to say that he believes Israel is our closest ally. You simply don’t treat your friends the way Obama has treated Israel. As president he has never visited Israel.”

“But in the debate it certainly didn’t appear that Obama knew more about foreign affairs than Romney. In fact, Romney did what presidents often do and mentioned some obscure groups and movements that may be big news in national security briefings but haven’t made the daily newspapers. It made Romney seem like he was more knowledgeable.

Obama’s comment about horses and bayonets was just rude. It was a good idea, but the way he said it was rude and mean. No one doubts that Romney knows all about aircraft carriers and submarines. But Obama is a rude man. He is rude to our allies, rude to the people he should be working with in Congress, rude to his political opponents and rude to foreign heads of state who visit him in the White House.

Romney once again didn’t take the bait.

But Romney’s big advantage in this race is the economy. The question that people are going to be asking when they go into the polls is, “Am I better off than I was four years ago?” And for the vast majority of Americans the answer is no.

Not only did Obama allow Romney to talk about the economy, he got sucked in and started talking about it himself.”

“The liberal mainstream media are having a hissy fit right now. The liberal media have figured out that their candidate is not going to win and they are beside themselves. The attitude seems to be, how can the American people ignore all the horrible things they have written about Romney and vote for him?”

“The New York Times Sunday magazine did a hit job on Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan this week. It is amazing what they manage to weave into an article like it belongs. But the reporter, Mark Leibovich, seemed to dislike Sen. Rob Portman even more than Ryan.

Here’s one phrase about Portman, which is really interesting if you have a few facts: “One mark against the wealthy senator was that he might be perceived as too much of a Grey Poupon Republican …”

Here’s the problem. Portman is certainly wealthy, and he is a senator, but he is not a “wealthy senator.” He is kind of average by Senate standards. Portman doesn’t even make the list of the 50 wealthiest members of Congress. Portman, according to Roll Call, is worth about $6.72 million.”

“So of the top 10 richest members of Congress, three are Republicans and seven are Democrats. And Portman doesn’t make the top 50, yet The New York Times refers to him as a “wealthy senator.” How many times have you read – wealthy Sen. Dianne Feinstein, wealthy Sen. John Kerry, or wealthy Sen. Frank Lautenberg?”

“The article is an incredible piece of liberal Democrat propaganda, but very smoothly done. It makes it sound like offering someone barbecue sauce is a bad thing. The tone is really incredible.”

Read more:

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Columns-c-2012-10-24-213602.112113-Under-the-Hammer.html

John Hammer.

Excellent!

Advertisements

Obama Romney third debate, Obama Benghazi lies, Obama takes credit for Osama Bin Laden but worked against efforts, Navy Seals did job Obama delayed

Obama Romney third debate, Obama Benghazi lies, Obama takes credit for Osama Bin Laden but worked against efforts, Navy Seals did job Obama delayed

“With some trying to turn bin Laden’s death into a campaign talking point for Obama’s reelection, it is useful to remember that the trail to bin Laden started in a CIA black site — all of which Obama ordered closed, forever, on the second full day of his administration — and stemmed from information obtained from hardened terrorists who agreed to tell us some (but not all) of what they knew after undergoing harsh but legal interrogation methods. Obama banned those methods on Jan. 22, 2009.”…Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. 31 year CIA veteran 

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

The third debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney takes place tonight, October 22, 2012 at 9:00 PM. The focus will be foreign policy.

Obama has a problem. The lies he and his administration told about the terrorist attack at Benghazi. He will predictably respond with Orwellian damage control.

There is a consensus that Obama will continue to brag about killing Osama Bin Laden. However, the only thing that Obama can take credit for is not delaying the operation further by giving the order.

Let’s be clear. The Navy Seals risked all and deserve most of the credit.

A new book claims that

“Obama ‘cancelled missions to kill bin Laden THREE TIMES after getting cold feet – until Hillary Clinton stepped in'”

“Barack Obama cancelled three operations to kill Osama bin Laden before finally going ahead with the mission at the insistence of Hillary Clinton, according to a new book.

The explosive allegation is contained in an expose by journalist Rich Miniter, who argues that the White House’s carefully-crafted narrative of Obama as a decisive leader who dispatched the al-Qaeda leader despite the doubts of advisers is a myth.

Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him will be published on Tuesday. Excerpts have been viewed by Mail Online.

Miniter, a former ‘Wall Street Journal’, ‘Washington Times’ and ‘Sunday Times’ of London journalist, cites an unnamed source within Joint Special Operations Command as revealing that three ‘kill’ missions were cancelled by Obama in January, February and March 2011.

Bin Laden was eventually killed by US Navy SEALs inside his compound in Abbotobad, Pakistan in May 2011.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191021/EXCLUSIVE-Obama-cancelled-missions-kill-bin-Laden-THREE-TIMES-getting-cold-feet–Hillary-Clinton-stepped-claims-explosive-new-book.html

The search for Bin Laden began years before Obama took office.

“The CIA was able to find him by tracking a courier.  This was a process that took years.  It actually began during the Bush Administration — in 2007.  How did the Intelligence Community find the courier who eventually took them to bin Laden?  They found him through information gained from interrogating terrorist prisoners.

Let’s repeat that point because it needs to be emphasized.  Ultimately, bin Laden was found and killed as a result of information gained from the interrogation of a captured terrorist.  Actually, given all of the ink and pixels that have been spilled over this subject, it bears repeating one more time: bin Laden’s death is a direct result of information gained from the interrogation of detainees, reportedly at the famed Guantanamo Bay prison camp.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/bin_ladens_death_and_the_vindi.html

From the Washington Post April 30, 2012.

“The path to bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama”

“As we mark the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death, President Obama deserves creditfor making the right choice on taking out Public Enemy No. 1.But his administration never would have had the opportunity to do the right thing had it not been for some extraordinary work during the George W. Bush administration. Much of that work has been denigrated by Obama as unproductive and contrary to American principles.

He is wrong on both counts.

Shortly after bin Laden met his maker last spring, courtesy of U.S. Special Forces and intelligence, the administration proudly announced that when Obama took office, getting bin Laden was made a top priority. Many of us who served in senior counterterrorism positions in the Bush administration were left muttering: “Gee, why didn’t we think of that?”The truth is that getting bin Laden was the top counterterrorism objective for U.S. intelligence since well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This administration built on work pain­stakingly pursued for many years before Obama was elected — and without this work, Obama administration officials never would have been in a position to authorize the strike on Abbottabad, Pakistan, that resulted in bin Laden’s overdue death.In 2004, an al-Qaeda terrorist was captured trying to communicate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the terror organization’s operations in Iraq. That captured terrorist was taken to a secret CIA prison — or “black site” — where, initially, he was uncooperative. After being subjected to some “enhanced interrogation techniques” — techniques authorized by officials at the most senior levels of the U.S. government and that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel confirmed were consistent with U.S. law — the detainee became compliant. He was not one of the three al-Qaeda operatives who underwent waterboarding, the harshest of the hard measures.

Once this terrorist decided that non-cooperation was a non-starter, he told us many things — including that bin Laden had given up communicating via telephone, radio or Internet, and depended solely on a single courier who went by “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.” At the time, I was chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. The fact that bin Laden was relying on a lone courier was a revelation that told me bin Laden had given up day-to-day control of his organization. You can’t run an operation as large, complex and ambitious as al-Qaeda by communicating only every few months. It also told me that capturing him would be even harder than we had thought.

Armed with the pseudonym of bin Laden’s courier, we pressed on. We asked other detainees in our custody if they had ever heard of “al-Kuwaiti.” Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, reacted in horror when he heard the name. He backed into his cell and vigorously denied ever hearing of the man. We later intercepted communications KSM sent to fellow detainees at the black site, in which he instructed them: “Tell them nothing about the courier!”

In 2005 another senior detainee, Abu Faraj al-Libi, told us that this courier had informed him that Libi had been selected to be al-Qaeda’s No. 3 official. Surely that kind of information is delivered only by highly placed individuals.

A couple of years later, after I became head of the National Clandestine Service, the CIA was able to discover the true name of the courier. Armed with that information, the agency worked relentlessly to locate that man. Finding him eventually led to tracking down and killing bin Laden.

With some trying to turn bin Laden’s death into a campaign talking point for Obama’s reelection, it is useful to remember that the trail to bin Laden started in a CIA black site — all of which Obama ordered closed, forever, on the second full day of his administration — and stemmed from information obtained from hardened terrorists who agreed to tell us some (but not all) of what they knew after undergoing harsh but legal interrogation methods. Obama banned those methods on Jan. 22, 2009.”

This past weekend, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin attacked statements made in May 2011 by me, former CIA director Michael Hayden and former attorney general Michael Mukasey regarding what led to bin Laden’s death. They misunderstood and mischaracterized our positions.

No single tactic, technique or approach led to the successful operation against bin Laden. But those who suggest it was all a result of a fresh approach taken after Jan. 20, 2009, are mistaken.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-path-to-osama-bin-ladens-death-didnt-start-with-obama/2012/04/30/gIQAfFmdsT_story.html

Obama Romney debate moderator Candy Crowley liberal bias, Crowley selects audience questions , Crowley will not follow rules, Biased history

Obama Romney debate moderator Candy Crowley liberal bias, Crowley selects audience questions , Crowley will not follow rules, Biased history

“I recall standing out in very chilly Springfield, Illinois, when Barack Obama announced. And a lot of people I talked to there said, ‘Oh, you’re an Obama supporter?’ I said no, but you know, this might be history. I wanted to bring my kid. Same with Hillary Clinton. I brought my daughter, you know, because I think this might be history.”…CNN’s Candy Crowley on American Morning, February 1, 2008

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”…George Washington

***  Update Oct. 17, 2012, 8:35 AM  ***

Candy Crowley did not disappoint us. She performed as her history and associations predicted. More on this later today.

From Media Research Center October 16, 2012.

“MRC Study: By 2-to-1 Margin, Journalists Favor Liberal Questions at Town Hall Debates”

“Tonight’s town hall-style presidential debate will ostensibly feature questions from undecided voters, but the evening’s agenda will really be decided by the moderator, as CNN’s Candy Crowley will select which of the more than roughly 80 voters in the room will actually get a chance to talk to the candidates.

Reviewing the five previous town hall debates, the journalist-moderators have tended to skew the agenda of these so-called citizen forums to the liberal side of the spectrum, but not always. In 2004, ABC’s Charles Gibson selected a balanced menu of questions, with questions from the left matching those from the right.

But Gibson is the lone exception. The other journalists who have moderated these forums — ABC’s Carole Simpson in 1992, PBS’s Jim Lehrer in 1996 and 2000, and NBC’s Tom Brokaw in 2008 — all favored liberal agenda questions as they chose which of the undecided voters would actually participate in the debate.

The bottom line: if history is a reliable guide, Mitt Romney has twice the chance of facing a hostile liberal question Tuesday night as Barack Obama has of facing a question based on a conservative agenda, as the record shows a 2-to-1 tilt to the left in past town hall debates.

The Media Research Center has examined the agenda of every town hall debate since the format debuted 20 years ago. In the 1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot debate in Richmond, we scored eight audience questions as straightforward requests for information, four liberal questions, and no conservative questions. One participant that year described the election as about choosing a father who would take care of citizens, whom he referred to as “children.”

The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties?

Four years later, we tallied ten questions as straightforward, five as conveying a liberal agenda, and three as conservative. That year, one voter asked Bill Clinton whether he had “plans to expand the Family Leave Act,” while another insisted during a discussion of health care that “the private sector is a problem.”

In 2000, moderator Jim Lehrer favored liberal questions by an 8-to-2 margin over conservative questions. Examples from that debate: One voter asked George W. Bush and Al Gore: “Would you be open to the ideal of a national health care plan for everybody?” while another targeted Bush:

We’d like to know why you object to the Brady handgun bill, if you do object to it. Because in a recent TV ad, it showed that the [NRA] says if you are elected that they will be working out of your office…actually, that kind of bothers me.

In 2004, anchor Charles Gibson picked an ideologically balanced set of questions: eight from the left/pro-Kerry, eight from the right/pro-Bush and two ambiguous/neutral. From the left, one voter lectured then-President Bush about the “intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled the Iraq situation,” while another complained about the Patriot Act “which takes away checks on law enforcement and weakens American citizens’ rights and freedoms….Why are my rights being watered down?”

But balancing the night, Gibson also showcased a voter who posed this tough question to John Kerry: “You’ve stated your concern for the rising cost of health care, yet you chose a vice presidential candidate who has made millions of dollars successfully suing medical professionals. How do you reconcile this with the voters?”

Another voter aimed at Kerry’s cynical use of stem cell research to paint Republicans as anti-science. “Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn’t it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?”

In 2008, NBC’s Tom Brokaw selected a dozen questions from citizens — three from the left, none from the right, and nine that were neutral/informational. The Obama-McCain town hall debate took place at the height of the financial panic that year, and one voter demanded to know “What’s the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people [retirees and workers] out of the economic ruin?”

Another voter wanted to see a flurry of legislation to create “green jobs,” telling John McCain: “We saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know, what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?”

As the Gibson example shows, a moderator has it within their power to ensure an ideologically balanced discussion of the issues — to serve all of the potential voters who might be watching. It’s up to Crowley to determine whether the candidates will face equally tough questioning, or whether the liberal Barack Obama will face a friendlier agenda than Mitt Romney.”

http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/mrc-study-2-1-margin-journalists-favor-liberal-questions-town-hall-debates

Candy Crowley has stated she will not abide by the rules.

From Politico October 16, 2012.

“In an interview with CNN this afternoon, Candy Crowley reiterated that, like past town-hall debate moderators, she intends to do more than just hold the microphone at tonight’s debate in Hempstead, N.Y. — an intention that has caused concern for both campaigns.

“They will call on ‘Alice,’ and ‘Alice’ will stand up and ask a question. Both candidates will answer. Then there’s time for a follow-up question, facilitating a discussion, whatever you want to call it,” Crowley said. “So if Alice asks oranges, and someone answers apples, there’s the time to go, ‘But Alice asked oranges? What’s the answer to that?” Or, ‘Well, you say this, but what about that?'”

(Also on POLITICO: 5 things to watch at the debate)

Crowley’s vision of her role at tonight’s debate is in keeping with past town hall debates, but it would defy the expectations agreed to by both campaigns in the co-signed memorandum of understanding, obtained and released yesterday by Time’s Mark Halperin. From section 7, part (c), sub-part (iv) (italics mine):

7. Additional Rules Apllicable to the October 16 Debate…

(c) With respect to all questions…

(iv) The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.

There is hardly any gray area here. Crowley is expected to do nothing except to acknowledge questioners, enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments. Many people — especially journalists — would and have objected to that, but that’s the agreement. ”

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/crowley-promises-to-defy-debate-contract-138596.html

Candy Crowley’s history.

From News Busters August 15, 2012.

“Affirmative-action lovers were thrilled that CNN’s Candy Crowley would be the first female to moderate a presidential debate since Carole Simpson’s sneering turn in 1992. Crowley deserves the opportunity after being in the field of political news for decades, and is the closest thing the current crop of moderators has to a Tim Russert type in being able to question firmly both sides of the aisle.

However, Crowley still fits within the CNN media-elite mold of liberalism, and not just with her unfortunate channeling of “some Republicans” on Saturday who anonymously felt the Paul Ryan pick “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.” Below are a list of some of Crowley’s more liberal moments on the CNN airwaves:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
“Usually you kind of give the President a pass on leaking confidential stuff.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on Obama’s self-promoting national security leaks, June 10, 2012 State of the Union.

“Let me talk to you a little about the swing state of Virginia, and I want to show our viewers your unemployment rate which has basically stayed two to three points below the national unemployment rate. It’s a success story really. Okay? You like this. I understand that. But, but, even as you embrace it as a Republican governor, does it not make it difficult for Mitt Romney, who has the same problem in other swing states, to come in and say, ‘The economy is terrible and, you know, you need to elect a new president?’ Because Virginia is doing very well under President Obama. – CNN’s Candy Crowley to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, June 3, 2012 State of the Union.

“Do you have a problem with being inclusive, because most people do look at Republicans going ‘They’re a conservative bunch of white guys who want to protect Big Oil.’ And now you’re even hearing Republicans saying, ‘It’s not big enough. We haven’t opened up the tent door.’” – CNN’s Candy Crowley touting an Arnold Schwarzenegger op-ed to Newt Gingrich, May 6, 2012 State of the Union.

“We have a poll where the majority of Americans said you all need to compromise on this debt ceiling, you all need to raise the debt ceiling, and it out to be — the deal ought to include a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. You are opposed to both raising the debt ceiling and that kind of compromise. So doesn’t that put you outside the mainstream?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley to Rep. Michele Bachmann, August 14, 2011 State of the Union.

“There’s that term, ‘penny wise and pound foolish.’ Would you worry that, by cutting off those services, people…would have sicker babies, or certain people…wouldn’t have HIV testing…and that would just cost us more?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley questioning Rep. Steve King on Planned Parenthood subsidies while guest-hosting The Situation Room on February 18, 2011.

“So let’s get down to the basic question, who’s going to get hurt in this budget?…So you have said in an editorial you wrote that the budget is an expression of our values and aspirations. So if I look at this what we call discretionary spending, things we don’t have to spend on, you want to cut back community development block programs. That creates jobs in communities; it helps them with infrastructure, that kind of thing. Home heating assistance; education, as you just mentioned. You’re also going to do — the Great Lakes Restoration Fund Initiative is getting a pretty healthy cut in what they get from the feds, eight states involved, in trying to keep the Great Lakes economically viable. What does that say about our values and aspirations?: – CNN’s Candy Crowley pressing Obama budget director Jack Lew from the left on State of the Union, February 13, 2011.

“It’s probably less of a phony issue than a passe issue. This might have had some resonance had he done it early on, and he had a whole, you know, springtime to begin to, you know, chip away. The problem is, that the economy just came down on him.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley after the third presidential debate raised the issue of Obama’s friendship with radical Sixties bomber Bill Ayers, October 15, 2008.

“If you raised more than a quarter billion dollars in the primary season, would you limit yourself to $85 million in the fall campaign? Duh!” – CNN’s Candy Crowley’s spin when Obama decided to break his promise to abide by campaign spending limits to accept public financing, June 19, 2008.

“I recall standing out in very chilly Springfield, Illinois, when Barack Obama announced. And a lot of people I talked to there said, ‘Oh, you’re an Obama supporter?’ I said no, but you know, this might be history. I wanted to bring my kid. Same with Hillary Clinton. I brought my daughter, you know, because I think this might be history.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on American Morning, February 1, 2008.”

Read more:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/08/15/cnns-moderator-candy-crowley-political-news-pro-still-liberal-media-elit

I will be commenting live on Twitter.

http://twitter.com/citizenwells

Princeton professor Harvey Rosen Obama misrepresents study of Romney tax plan, Romney plan can be revenue neutral, More Obama lies exposed

Princeton professor Harvey Rosen Obama misrepresents study of Romney tax plan, Romney plan can be revenue neutral, More Obama lies exposed

“It is time for the Obama campaign to retire this talking point, no matter how much it seems to resonate with voters. The financial crisis of 2008 stemmed from a variety of complex factors, in particular the bubble in housing prices and the rise of exotic financial instruments. Deregulation was certainly an important factor, but as the government commission concluded, the blame for that lies across administrations, not just in the last Republican one.
In any case, the Bush tax cuts belong at the bottom of the list — if at all. Moreover, it is rather strange for the campaign to cite as its source an article that, according to the author, does not support this assertion.”…Washington Post October 1, 2012

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels

“Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially not insofar
as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent.”
Adolf Hitler

From the Weekly Standard October 8, 2012.

“Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney’s Tax Plan”

“Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or blowing a hole in the deficit. “Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes,” said the Obama campaign press release. “In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000.”

But that’s not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper on Romney’s tax plan:

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.  It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal.  The main conclusion of my study is that  under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.  That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

You can check the math that shows Romney’s plan is mathematically possible here.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html

Obama records remain hidden 2007 to 2012, Obama demands Hillary and Romney provide records, Obama birth college senate records hidden with taxpayer dollars

Obama records remain hidden 2007 to 2012, Obama demands Hillary and Romney provide records, Obama birth college senate records hidden with taxpayer dollars
“We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history, and not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, as you’re making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem.”…Barack Obama October 30, 2007

“If there’s nothing to hide, why not clear it all up and release multiple years of returns like every candidate has done for decades, including Mitt Romney’s own father?”…deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter

“The guilty dog barks the loudest”…Proverb

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

Deja Vu all over again.

From Meet the Press November 11, 2007.

“MR. RUSSERT: You talked about Senator Clinton having records released from the Clinton Library regarding her experience as first lady, and yet when you were asked about, “What about eight years in the state senate of Illinois,” you said, “I don’t know.” Where, where are the—where are your records?

SEN. OBAMA: Tim, we did not keep those records. I…

MR. RUSSERT: Are they gone?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, let’s be clear. In the state senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois. The, the stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule. I didn’t have a schedule. I was a state senator. I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library. I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues. So…

MR. RUSSERT: But your meetings with lobbyists and so forth, there’s no record of that?

SEN. OBAMA: I did not have a scheduler, but, as I said, every document related to my interactions with government is available right now. And, as I said, news outlets have already looked at them.

MR. RUSSERT: Is your schedule available anywhere? Are—the records exist?

SEN. OBAMA: I—Tim, I kept my own schedule. I didn’t have a scheduler.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Durbin, your colleague, publishes his schedule each day. Would you do that?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, these days I have a public presidential schedule that I think everybody has access to.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/

From the Chicago Tribune November 12, 2007.

“The status of any government records Sen. Barack Obama might still have from his time as a state lawmaker in Springfield has come up as he has repeatedly criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton for how slowly records from her husband’s administration have been released.

In a Tribune interview Thursday, the Illinois Democrat said he had no intention of sharing any of the documents he might still have in his possession. Here is the full transcript from that discussion on his campaign bus:

Q: It is kind of unknown where some of the records from your time in Springfield are located. Where is that stuff, what do you have?

“We had one district director. I had one staff person, so, you know, we didn’t have some elaborate sort of system. I didn’t at my disposal millions of dollars and potentially multiple staff people to conduct an archive. Now keep in mind, it is apples and oranges. First of all, I’m not the one who has made this an issue. We saw during the debate, Senator Clinton was asked about it and the suggestion was somehow they’ve done all they could. And my simple point was, I don’t think there is some smoking gun in these archives or something, or some damning evidence. The only point that I’ve made is that, you know, Senator Clinton continues to base her claim on experience, in part, in substantial part, on her role as first lady, because if her, you know, experience was just based on her tenure as an elected official, it’s thinner than mine. So, I think it’s fair for people to ask, you know, what exactly was she doing, if that’s a substantial claim that she is making. So, I’m not interested in playing a game of gotcha, where I think there is evidence of something. I’m assuming most of this stuff is pretty mundane, you know, stuff. But what we do know is that she was involved in health care. Based on the questions you just asked me, or [New York Times reporter Jeff] Zeleny just asked me today, there’s this sense of, well, yeah, I was in charge of health care, but the fact that it didn’t work out, wasn’t my fault. That, we’ve at least got a public record that she was involved. From that point forward, we really have no idea what she was involved in. And so, you know, what I think, what I think, is not, doesn’t make sense is to say, to able to take credit for whatever Clinton Administration successes that she wants, and then selectively distance herself from any Clinton Administration failures, and not have some sort of public record that allows people to get a sense of that. Now, my sense is that this is information that, if they wanted to accelerate the process, so that it was available before this election, they could get it out there.”

Q: What about your stuff, though? What do you have?

“I have no idea. I mean [muffled on recording]. I really don’t. Again, I did not have at my disposal. I wasn’t preparing for the Obama state senatorial library.”

Q: You must have kept some stuff. Correspondence, calendars?

“The problem is whatever remaining documents I have are inevitably incomplete. And then the questions going to be, where’s this or where’s that. Once I start heading down that road, then it puts me in a position that could end up being misleading. I don’t want to mislead people. I don’t know the extent of the records that I have as a state senator.””

(Link not available)

From Politico November 11, 2007.

“Obama records requests prove fruitless”

“On Friday, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that she had asked Obama at a news conference: “Do your state senate papers still exist? If they do, just where are they? And would you ever intend to make them public to be responsive to some requests?”

Sweet wrote that he replied: “Nobody has requested specific documents.”

But the Chicago Tribune has reported that it “requested documents from his time in Springfield and never received a response.”

And Sweet wrote of her own paper, “The Chicago Sun-Times has also been asking about Obama’s papers.”

RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said of Obama’s reticence on records: “Barack Obama is a rookie senator with few accomplishments. Perhaps he’s reluctant to inform the public about his activities in Springfield because they demonstrate a lack of leadership at a state level as well.”

UPDATE: An Obama aide said: “Obama is pleased that all of the records that the state considers to be public are currently available. We are not in possession of documents from his time in the state senate that are not available to the general public and any pertinent files were passed on to his successor in the State Senate, Kwame Raoul. This is as opposed to the millions of documents that should be publicly available from the Clinton White House that currently are not. In fact, tens of thousands of documents are currently being kept from public view by a representative of the Clintons and that is just a miniscule fraction of what is available to archivists right now.”

Also, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday morning that Obama “Senior strategist David Axelrod said Sunday night, ‘Files pertinent to ongoing casework were passed to Kwame Raoul, his successor.’ ”

In the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia on Oct. 30, Obama said to Clinton: “We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history, and not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, as you’re making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem.”

On Nov. 3, the Obama campaign sent out a letter from two leaders of his Iowa campaign, pressing Clinton to release her White House schedules before the Iowa caucuses.

“Fully releasing these records is in keeping with the spirit of the process that makes the Iowa caucus so special,” the letter says.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6821.html