Obama's Obamacare Lies Were Chronicled From the Beginning

David Limbaugh/ Townhall Columnist

Don't you believe that President Obama's lies that people could keep their health insurance plans and doctors were his only lies about Obamacare or that these and the other lies were not demonstrably false when he uttered them.

In my book "Crimes Against Liberty," I chronicled Obama's multitudinous lies about Obamacare and many other subjects, from earmarks to tax increases. Please allow me to revisit some of my reporting on the Obamacare lies in light of the recent furor over Obama's dissembling concerning health care.

Let's start with the particularly galling declaration Obama made after Congress' partisan passage of Obamacare on March 21, 2010: "We proved that this government -- a government of the people and by the people -- still works for the people. ... Tonight's vote ... is a victory for the American people."

Never mind that the American public was manifestly against passage of the bill, as shown in poll after poll and further demonstrated by Obama's inability to get the bill passed -- despite overwhelming Democratic majorities in both chambers -- without, in my words in the book, "legislative trickery, executive deception, political bribes, arm-twisting, and a meaningless executive order to supposedly negate the bill's abortion funding provisions."

Sen. Lamar Alexander, no raging conservative, then observed that Obama's behavior on Obamacare was "the most brazen act of political arrogance since Watergate ... in terms of thumbing your nose at the American people and saying, 'We know you don't want it, but we're going to give it to you anyway.'"

Indeed, this is essentially what Obama's defenders are saying now with respect to Obama's "you can keep your plan" lie: "Obama lied to the American people because a lie is sometimes necessary for the greater good."

During the Democratic presidential primary campaign, Obama repeatedly promised that he would televise the health care debates on C-SPAN. When he was criticized for shamelessly reneging, he reacted similarly to how he is today, by twisting his own words. Even PolitiFact called him out on this "broken" promise.

Many of us pointed out at the time that Obama was lying when he said we could keep our plans and doctors. In the book, I wrote: "Obama said Obamacare 'would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.' But he knew his plan had no such guarantee, and he also knew the plan would likely crowd out private insurers. The chief actuary of the Medicare program estimates 14 million people will lose their employer coverage under Obamacare, even though many will want to keep it."

I continued, "Investor's Business Daily reported that internal White House documents show Obamacare may result in 51 percent of employers (and 66 percent of small business employers) relinquishing their current health care coverage by 2013." Well, IBD may have estimated the date wrong, but these aren't new revelations we're witnessing, folks.

I wrote that Obama told a joint session of Congress on health care Sept. 9, 2009, "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." That very declaration, along with a bogus executive order, I noted, directly led to the passage of the bill by securing Democrat Bart Stupak's vote. The law obviously allowed federal funding for abortion; otherwise, Obama wouldn't have needed to issue the executive order supposedly countermanding it. But abortion, in some cases, was federally funded anyway.

The book also documented the double counting and sleights of hand Obama employed to misrepresent the bill as budget-neutral to the Congressional Budget Office. "'The most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting,' says (former CBO Director Douglas) Holtz-Eakin, is the projected savings of $463 billion from Medicare spending, which will be used to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare has no extra funds at all to donate to the cause: it 'is already bleeding red ink.'" Holtz-Eakin estimated that these unaccounted items would "generate additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years." Clearly, the administration knew at the time it was lying. These weren't just innocuous miscalculations.

Obama was also lying when he said Obamacare would reduce premiums by $2,500 for an average family of four. In the book, I quoted a CEO of one of the biggest health care companies, who said Obamacare would obviously make premiums go up. I also reported that economic experts inside the Health and Human Services Department confessed that contrary to Obama's claim, Obamacare would increase health care costs.

I unpacked Obama's egregious lies concerning the uninsured that served as the fraudulent impetus for this entire reform mania, and I covered the remainder of Obama's Obamacare lies concerning access to care, choice, quality of care, a single-payer plan and more.

The point of all this is not to claim any prescience on my part but to demonstrate that this information was available at the time for all to see. But the liberal media, Democrats and many other Obama enablers nonetheless deliberately assisted Obama in misleading the public into passing a bill that could very well lead to the destruction of the greatest health care system in history.

John Kerry Throws Freedom-Seeking Women Under the Bus

Michelle Malkin/ Townhall Columnist

 

It's confirmed: The "F" in John. F. Kerry stands for "Feckless." Women around the world no longer need to wonder whether America's secretary of state will stand boldly with them in defense of their basic rights. He won't.

On Monday, Kerry was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Anyone with a phone or an Internet connection inside and outside the country knows what's been going on there. The kingdom has been rocked by women of all ages protesting the Muslim nation's retrograde ban on female drivers. Over the past two weeks, the protesters and their supporters have taken to social media to pressure the oppressive sharia-enforcing regime. It is the only country in the world that won't allow its women -- 20 million of them -- to obtain driver's licenses.

Women can own cars. They just can't drive them. They are forced to hire male drivers, who often harass them, crash their cars, can't be trusted and soak up half of their paychecks. Most women rely on taxi drivers, who turn 10-minute commutes into two-hour commutes. Others are held hostage in their own homes.

Foreign women are not even allowed to use their native licenses to drive in the Saudi kingdom. Over the weekend, a Kuwaiti woman was arrested in Saudi Arabia for driving her sick father to the hospital. The Kuwait Times reported that "according to a Khafji police report, the woman was caught driving a Chevrolet Epica ... in front of a hotel in the area located near the border with Kuwait, while a Kuwaiti man was in the passenger's seat. The woman told the officers that the man was her father, adding that he is diabetic and cannot drive and that she had to take him to the hospital for treatment."

The woman remained in custody "pending investigations."

Manal al-Sharif, the 34-year-old female computer scientist leading the protest movement, spent nine days in jail in 2011 for "incitement to public disorder" for driving her brother's car in public. Fourteen other women faced arrest for participating in last month's demonstration; many more faced death threats. Tariq al-Mubarak, a male supporter and high school teacher who helped the October protesters, was held in custody by Saudi interior ministry investigators for several days.

This was the roiling cultural context for a reporter's simple question to Kerry on Monday. "I was wondering," the journalist asked, "what your take is on women driving in Saudi Arabia?" Kerry's take was ... to take cover. "With respect to the issue of women driving here in Saudi Arabia," he filibustered, "it's no secret that in the United States of America we embrace equality for everybody, regardless of gender, race or any other qualification." And then came the "but." The crapweasel "but."

"But it's up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure choices and timing for whatever events. I know there's a debate. We actually talked about this at lunch," Kerry ducked. What he "actually talked about" he wouldn't say. "There's a healthy debate in Saudi Arabia about this issue, but I think that debate is best left to Saudi Arabia, the people engaged in it, all of whom know exactly where we in the United States of America stand on this issue."

Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy. No unequivocal shout-outs for the brave women risking arrest for simply getting behind the wheel? No paean to the cherished freedom to move about as we please? No stirring affirmation of the connection between mobility and women's dignity? Nada.

Of course, we've come to expect nothing less than pure fecklessness from the foggy minds at Foggy Bottom. Kerry's predecessor, feminist hero Hillary Clinton, who preferred "quiet diplomacy" on the matter, had to be dragged into the Saudi women driver's debate in 2011. Even then, she soft-pedaled her message: "I want to, again, underscore and emphasize that this is not about the United States; it's not about what any of us on the outside say," she said. "It is about the women themselves and their right to raise their concerns with their own government."

These "progressive" Democrats are all for championing women's rights and international human rights when it suits them: at Hollywood soirees, Vogue photo shoots, fancy state dinners and black-tie award ceremonies. But stick their Hermes-wrapped necks out once in favor of basic human dignity and risk upsetting the mullahs to their faces? Never. This is Obama's America: leading from the sidelines.

Clinton White House ignored 9/11 warnings

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

The same complacency is more entrenched than ever in Washington today. "FITTON: Clinton White House ignored 9/11 warnings," by Tom Fitton for the Washington Times, November 6:

It took 11 years, but Judicial Watch recently received a response to a 2002 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that revealed another major missed opportunity by the Clinton administration to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, which is part of perhaps the most catastrophic failure in the history of U.S. intelligence. 

The new document reads like a Robert Ludlum spy novel, replete with exotic locales and sinister plots. Its pages explode with intricate twists and international intrigue. The villains are palpably evil; their plans, pernicious and deadly. But the good guys seemed largely oblivious to their machinations.

The chilling details come from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which finally handed over an intelligence information report titled “Letters Detailing Osama bin Laden and Terrorists’ Plans to Hijack an Aircraft Flying Out of Frankfurt, Germany, in 2000.” The report is dated Sept. 27, 2001.

In early 2000, the documents informed America’s top intelligence analysts that al Qaeda had devised a sophisticated plan to hijack a commercial airliner departing Frankfurt International Airport between March and August 2000. The terrorist team was to consist of an Arab, a Pakistani and a Chechen, and their targets were U.S. Airlines, Lufthansa and Air France. The document pieces together an intricate plot directed by a 40-year-old Saudi, Sheik Dzabir, from a prominent family with ties to the House of Saud. It revealed that al Qaeda had actually penetrated the consular section of the German Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, relying on a contact referred to as “Mrs. Wagner” to provide European Union visas for use in forged Pakistani passports for the terrorists.

These revelations came from an unidentified source that provided U.S. authorities with copies of Arabic letters containing precise information about the al Qaeda plot. It was all laid out in minute detail.

So, how did the Clinton administration respond? In the incriminating words of the intelligence information report, advanced warning of the plot “was disregarded because nobody believed that Osama bin Laden or the Taliban could carry out such an operation.”

Perhaps that explains why, for 13 years, the report was classified “secret” and hidden from public view until Judicial Watch forced its release in August of this year.

The report revealed that al Qaeda, the Taliban and Chechen Islamic militants all had substantial operating support bases in Hamburg and Frankfurt, Germany. It included the name, address and telephone numbers of an al Qaeda passport forger in Hamburg for the Taliban and other Afghan terrorists and their support personnel during January and February 2000. The report showed that the terrorists had established a secure, reliable transport route to Chechnya from Pakistan and Afghanistan through Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan. It also revealed that in January 2000, bin Laden and Taliban officials held a two-day hijack planning meeting in Kabul, Afghanistan.

In short, nearly two full years before the horrific attack on the World Trade Center, the international Islamic terrorist cabal revealed its insidious hand for all the world to see. The details of names, addresses and other information from this report should have provided “actionable intelligence” for any number of U.S. anti-terrorist operations. Instead, every scintilla of the information “was disregarded because nobody believed that Osama bin Laden or the Taliban could carry out such an operation.”

This isn’t the first time the Clinton gang dropped the anti-terrorism ball. Judicial Watch previously obtained documents from the Department of State (“Terrorism/Osama bin Laden: Who’s Chasing Whom?” showing that as far back as 1996, the Clinton administration knew of and ignored bin Laden’s terrorist plans against the United States....

US pressure and demands on Israel to make concessions must stop

By MICHELE BACHMANN / Posted in Jihad Watch and The Jersusalem Times

 

The Obama administration has not called out the long, uninterrupted record of PA intransigence and extremism. It has, however, leaned heavily on Israel to make concessions.

A settlement in the Jordan Valley [illustrative] Photo: REUTERS

 

In his address over a month ago to the UN General Assembly, President Barack Obama said that “Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depends upon the realization of a Palestinian state.” He even inferred it had equivalent priority, while saying that “the United States will never compromise our commitment to Israel’s security.”

Yet, only some weeks earlier, the administration, contrary to public assurances that it supported Israeli-Palestinian peace talks without preconditions, pressured Israel to free jailed Palestinian terrorists to bring the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating table. This pressure is symptomatic of a larger, fundamentally flawed approach that has failed the cause of peace.

The administration rightly expressed concern that among the terrorists released by Israel was Al Haj Othman Amar Mustafa, who in 1989 murdered an American and former marine, Steven Frederick Rosenfeld. However, this begs the question why the administration has pressured Israel to free any terrorists at all.

If it is unwise and unjust to free someone who murdered an American citizen, it is equally unwise and unjust to free someone who murdered non-American citizens.

Indeed, why do we accept PA demands to free people who have committed the war crime of targeting civilians? And why are we pressuring Israel at all? We have frequently pressured Israel to concede, including things it never agreed to in signed agreements, while ignoring the Palestinians’ refusal to fulfill the vital concessions and reforms – arresting terrorists, outlawing terrorist groups, confiscating illegal weaponry, ending incitement to hatred and violence against Jews and Israel – they solemnly undertook in the 1993 Oslo and other signed agreements.

It is not Israel that has declared war on its Arab neighbors since its inception in 1948. It it is the neighboring Arab states which invaded Israel the day it declared independence.

It is not Israel that refused peace talks following the first Arab-Israeli war, it was its Arab neighbors.

It is not Israel that refuses concessions. Under the 1979 Israeli/Egyptian peace treaty, it uprooted 4,000 Israelis and returned all of Sinai to Egypt, including the airfields it had built and the oil fields it had developed.

We can’t recall any other country that ever gave back territory won in self-defense, especially containing a reliable source of oil.

Indeed, since the commencement of the Oslo peace process in 1993, Israel has made far-reaching, sometimes irreversible, concessions. In contrast, the Fatah party of Mahmoud Abbas, which controls the PA, has never even rescinded the 10 articles of its Constitution which call for Israel’s destruction and terrorism against Israel.

This has been the pattern since Oslo: Israel undertakes to withdraw from territory or hand over assets and authority – and does so; the PA undertakes to accept Israel, dismantle terrorist groups and prepare its public for peace – and does not do so.

Under successive agreements – the May 1994 Gaza-Jericho agreement; the September 1995 Oslo II agreement; the January 1997 Hebron agreement; the October 1998 Wye River Memorandum and the September 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh agreement – Israel withdraw from over 40 percent of the West Bank and nearly 90% of Gaza.

In the negotiations of 2000-2001, Israel agreed to the Clinton peace plan for Palestinian statehood in Gaza and over 90% of the West Bank, something not promised or undertaken in any previous agreement.

It agreed to uprooting many Jewish communities in the West Bank and the division of its holiest city and capital, Jerusalem.

And it agreed to cede the Jordan Valley, a strategically vital buffer zone protecting Israel’s narrow waist to the east – a massive security risk and unprecedented concession which Yitzhak Rabin himself had explicitly ruled out just before his death.

Yet, the PA did not accept the plan and instead launched a terror wave which claimed the lives of over 1,500 Israelis during the succeeding five years.

Israel still didn’t stop trying. In 2005, it unilaterally withdrew from the remainder of Gaza and four communities in the West Bank, uprooting over 10,000 Jews from their homes and thriving communities. In return, it received exponentially increased rocket attacks from Gaza – over 8,000 since the withdrawal – the results of which President Obama personally saw when he visited Sderot near the Gaza border in 2008.

In 2008, Israel made a further peace offer to Abbas: a Palestinian state in Gaza and on 94% of the West Bank, land swaps of adjacent Israeli territory to offset what Israel retained, and a capital in eastern Jerusalem.

Again, the PA neither agreed to this plan, nor made a counter-proposal of its own.

Palestinian refusal to accept statehood in 1937, 1947, 2000 and again in 2008 suggests that destroying Israel, not building a Palestine, is the Palestinian goal. After all, the terrorist groups’ hate education, glorification of suicide bombers and obscenely anti-Semitic mosque speeches by PA-salaried preachers continue to find a home in the PA.

The Obama administration has not called out this long, uninterrupted record of PA intransigence and extremism. It has, however, leaned heavily on Israel to make concessions.

This is wrong. This is counter-productive. This harms peace prospects. This does not serve American interests.

This is not America at its best. Above all, it is not the America that has declared under successive presidents, including President Obama, that it will stand by Israel when faced with threats, violence, extremism and non-acceptance. Israel faces all these right now.

The time has come for the United States to cease pressuring Israel into unmerited, dangerous, one-sided concessions. The Obama administration must demand Palestinian compliance with all obligations committed to under the signed Oslo agreements, and make future diplomatic and financial support for the PA conditional on their verifiable fulfillment.

We need – right now – a historic change in what has been a fundamentally flawed peace process. A change that would send a crystal clear message to the international community that no longer will the United States serve as a cudgel to beat and pressure Israel.

Conservatism Didn’t Die On Tuesday

by Chip Wood  / Personal Liberty Digest

Liberals are gloating that Tuesday’s election results prove that committed conservatives can’t win the big races. Their main exhibits are two Gubernatorial races: the defeat of Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia and the success of Chris Christie in New Jersey. The left’s message can be summarized in four words: Conservatives lost big time. And, boy, do they love to rub it in.

There’s just one problem with all of their self-satisfied jubilation: The facts don’t support their claims. A much more accurate statement is that, once again, conservatives got sucker punched by liberals. And the GOP’s so-called leadership has a lot to answer for, too.

To see what I mean, let’s take a closer look at the race for Governor in Virginia. Yes, it’s true; Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic operative and longtime friend of the Clintons, beat his Republican challenger, State Attorney General Cuccinelli, by 2.5 percentage points. But considering how Cuccinelli got sandbagged by his own team, it’s surprising that the race turned out to be this close.

The biggest lesson from this week’s elections is that there is no substitute for having plenty of money to spend. And McAuliffe, the longtime Democratic operative, sure did. He outspent Cuccinelli by some $15 million — most of it on the nastiest and dishonest sort of attack ads.

Four years ago, the Republican National Committee spent some $9 million on the Governor’s race in Virginia… and won. This year, it managed to come up with only $3 million for Cuccinelli. Do you think the fact that establishment types control the purse strings at the RNC had anything to do with their pared-down support of a Tea Party favorite?

The spoiler in the Virginia race for Governor turned out to be Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate. Thanks to having a record amount of money to spend for a third-party candidate, Sarvis managed to garner 6.5 percent of the vote. That was enough to tip the scales in McAuliffe’s favor.

But here’s an interesting rumor that’s not getting much play in the national press. It’s that Democratic operatives poured a ton of money into the Sarvis campaign, knowing that he’d siphon a lot more votes from Cuccinelli than their guy. Sad to say, their bet paid off with a victory for McAuliffe.

Now that they’ve proven how to split the conservative/libertarian vote, want to bet that the formula won’t be tried in a lot more places in 2014? What are the chances this story will make the headlines on the nightly news shows? Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

The media have been full of stories about how voters in Virginia were so angry over the 16-day government shutdown that they held their noses and voted for McAuliffe. This is probably true in the northern Virginia counties adjacent to Washington, D.C. Is anyone really surprised that the bureaucrats, lobbyists and others dependent on government largesse want to make sure the good times don’t end?

Cuccinelli did his best to make the election a referendum on Obamacare, and he almost succeeded.

Despite being vastly outspent in the closing days of the campaign, he closed the gap dramatically. A month ago, polls said that McAuliffe had a double-digit lead. By the time the polls opened on Tuesday, the race was virtually neck and neck.

Exit polls in Virginia revealed that 53 percent of the people who voted on Tuesday are opposed to the Affordable Care Act. Of that number, more than 80 percent voted for Cuccinelli.

Brian Baker, the president of a conservative political action committee that supported Cuccinelli, said the election proved that “Obamacare is toxic.” And he added: “If the shutdown had ended a week earlier, or the election had ended a week later, Cuccinelli would have won. This is a bad omen for Democrats in 2014.”

Indeed it is. Of course, that’s not how the mainstream media are calling it. But as the debacle that is Obamacare continues to grow, and millions more Americans lose health insurance they like (and get forced into a much more expensive government-mandated program), this is one issue that could win a lot of elections for Republicans in 2014. And maybe even 2016.

Speaking of the 2016 elections, the only surprise in New Jersey was the size of Christie’s victory. The Republican incumbent was re-elected governor by a margin of 60 percent to 38 percent. There was no surprise in how quickly the national media moved to crown him as the front-runner for the Republican nomination for President in 2016.

Of course, Christie was only too happy to play into those expectations. Listen to what the rotund politician said in his victory speech:

I know tonight, a dispirited America, angry with their dysfunctional government in Washington, looks to New Jersey to say, “Is what I think happening really happening?

Are people really coming together? Are we really working, African-Americans and Hispanics, suburbanites and city dwellers, farmers and teachers? Are we really all working together?”

As Alex Castellanos, one of the political analysts on CNN, said afterwards, “It wasn’t an acceptance speech, that was an announcement speech.”

But in his campaign in New Jersey, Christie moved far to the left of most Republicans. Here’s how John Gizzi, chief political columnist for Newsmax, put it:

By winning Tuesday night in a landslide election for his second term as governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie moved so far to the left it may be difficult for him to win the Republican nomination for president come 2016.

The GOP governor won in one of the bluest states, where President Barack Obama beat Republican Mitt Romney by 18 points in 2012. To win, Christie had to morph close to not only blue-state values and views, but become close to Obama himself — and he did just that.

Of course, that won’t stop the left from hailing the maverick Governor as the new savior of the Republican Party.

According to the left, the Republican in primary in Alabama’s first Congressional district was another Tea Party failure last Tuesday. But since three of the largest national Tea Party groups — FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Express and the Club for Growth — all refused to take sides in the Republican primary there, it’s certainly stretching things to claim that they failed.

Finally, what is there to say about the election for mayor of New York City? Voters there chose ultra-leftist Bill de Blasio over Joe Lhota, his Republican opponent, by a margin of 74 percent to 24 percent. You sure can’t call that one close.

The Big Apple is about to get its first Democratic mayor in 20 years. De Blasio has promised that he will usher in a new era of extreme liberalism, including raising taxes on the wealthy. His “progressive” administration will be good news for Texas and other no-tax States, as more of the productive and successful flee the city for friendlier climes.

Tuesday’s elections did prove a couple of things: One is that money can buy elections. That certainly shouldn’t come as any surprise. The other is that there are plenty of voters who will cast their ballots for the big-government candidate. But we knew that too, didn’t we?

Are there enough of us left to keep them from spending this country into bankruptcy? Looks like we’re going to find out — whether we like it or not.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Op-ed: 

A failed apology born of damage control…and damage control alone 
By: Diane Sori

All presidents LIE at one time or another during their presidency and they usually pay a steep price for their LIE even when issuing an apology…and the ultimate LIE that has brought the credibility of Barack HUSSEIN Obama into question might finally be the LIE whose consequences comes back to haunt the media anointed ‘savior’ of us all.

Herbert Hoover LIED while America was on the verge of economic collapse. “The fundamental business of the country, that is, production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis.” Four days later on October 25, 1929 the stock market crashed, depression followed, and Hoover’s political career was over.

“We still seek no wider war” LBJ said after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964, yet the bloody Viet-Nam War escalated right after these words were spoken…and LBJ did NOT seek a second term.

“Read my lips: no new taxes.” This infamous LIE also cost George HW Bush a second term in office, because he broke his promise and raised taxes on the American people.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” “That depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Bill Clinton and cigars forever infamously joined together as he LIED under oath about an affair with intern Monica Lewinsky…a LIE that led to his impeachment and tarnished his legacy.

But these LIES and their soon to follow apologies…apologies issued by honorable men compared to the man currently occupying the White House…pale in comparison to the LIES told time and again and to yesterday's apology that was anything but for he American people have been taken for a ride by a pathological LIAR named Barack HUSSEIN Obama…a man who calculatingly crafts his words…his LIES…to inflict as much pain on ‘We the People’ as he possibly can.

Obama’s LIES go way back…maybe as far back as to the truth about his birth…but we know he started LYING his way into a political career by claiming he was a Constitutional Law Professor…something he NEVER was. The highly reliable source ‘Fact Check’ said he was a ‘Lecturer’ and NEVER was conferred with the title of ‘Professor’...NOT of Constitutional Law or of anything else, period. Yet the man who ‘supposedly’ surrendered his law license voluntarily still claims he was a Constitutional Law Professor.

And here are but a mere few of his infamous LIES told over just the past few years…in early 2010 Obama claimed the southern border fence was, and I quote, “basically complete.” He LIED because as of today the Congressional agreed to 700 mile long fence is still NOWHERE near completion…“I said Benghazi was a terrorist attack from the beginning.” NO he's LYING because for weeks he claimed the attack that killed four Americans was in response to an amateur YouTube video…“First of all, I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line.” YES he did say he set a red line as he tried to ‘up’ Benjamin Netanyahu’s ‘red line’ words concerning Iran’s nuclear program…“The NSA is not abusing its power.” Oh YES it is as they continue to spy on both American citizens and on foreign leaders.

But these LIES are NOTHING compared to the mother lode of all his LIES…a LIE Obama repeated in countless speeches, campaign rallies, and town hall meetings across America...a lie spoken of in numerous NOTHING but photo-op press conferences…a LIE claiming that Americans who are satisfied with their health insurance plans could keep them even after ObamaCare took full effect at the beginning of next year.

“If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away.” And with that LIE Obama’s poll numbers came tumbling down below the critical 40% mark…and rightly so as to date over four million Americans (with that number projected to go upward of 129 million) were cancelled from the private insurance policies that they liked...that met their needs…and that they could afford…and all because of Obama’s LIE.

And now changing his words to “If you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed” just adds another layer to his original LIE...a LIE recorded on tape 29 or more times and countless times in print…each showing that is NOT what Obama said.

And true politician that he is and because of the political fallout and ONLY because of the political fallout, early last night in an interview with NBC News correspondent Chuck Todd, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, in focused damage control mode, said that he "regrets" he wasn’t as clear as he needed to be when he said you can keep the plans you currently have and like.

Guess what...that is NOT an apology…that is NOTHING but hollow meaningless words… meaningless because the words everyone was waiting to hear…the words ‘I LIED’…NEVER crossed Obama’s lips.

And why didn’t they…simply because Obama's only "regret" is that he was caught in a LIE but does NOT "regret" that he told that LIE.

Still NOT taking responsibility for his actions or his words, Obama said, “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me” but that does NOT make right the fact that he and his administration knew since the summer of 2010 that millions of Americans would lose their insurance under the ObamaCare law, and yet he still chose to bold-face LIE to the American people anyway just so he could get this nightmare of a health care law passed through Congress.

And of course the Obama’s spin meisters immediately chimed in to try to neutralize Obama’s weak apology…after all any apology NO matter how weak makes the media anointed ‘savior’ of us all appear weak and vulnerable. Saying Obama did NOT mislead the American people because the law could not have accounted for insurers altering existing plans after passage of the law just adds to the anger millions of Americans are feeling right now.

Feeling anger and rightly so as Obama’s apology itself was a LIE. Saying he had “NOT purposely misled anyone”…that it was always his intention that no one should lose a plan they wanted to keep…he kept saying that most people who are forced off their current plan will be able to find new insurance that is cheaper and provides better coverage. And that right there is the biggest LIE of all for those who have perused the ObamaCare exchanges…those who have successfully navigated the disastrous Healthcare.gov website…have said that the policies offered were more expensive than the ones they were cancelled from and included provisions they did NOT need or want.

But thankfully the truth about this apology came out in a misspeak…for in having NO teleprompter to guide him the true reason for his anything but an apology slipped out unfettered for during the interview...Barack HUSSEIN Obama...the most narcissistic of all presidents had the audacity to say, “I've been burnt…” then fast corrected it to “the American people have been burnt…”*

And that my friends says it all for this miserable excuse of a president and his miserable excuse of an apology was NEVER meant to be about the harm he inflicted on ‘We the People’ but was always intended to be about the harm ‘We the People’ supposedly inflicted on him by NOT marching in lockstep and embracing his equally miserable health care law that most people do NOT want, do NOT need, and cannot afford.

And to that I say...period.
____________________________________________________________

*Click on the link below and hear and see Obama say that 'he's been burnt' then switches it to 'the American people have been burnt' when he realizes what he said. It's at 1 min 7 seconds in...Proof positive this was NO apology for the pain he's caused but was just an apology for his getting caught.
 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFUApuNHZfY