THREE ARTICLES ON THE SUBJECT
James R. Clapper was asked by Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, during a hearing on March 12, 2013, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Mr. Clapper answered, “No sir … not wittingly.” After Edward Snowden spilled the National Security Agency’s beans three months later, Mr. Clapper retreated to his Ministry of Truth persona when asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on June 10 why he lied to Mr. Wyden: “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying, ‘no.'”
February 2011, that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood was “a very heterogeneous group, largely secular.” His office released a clarification of that one even before the day ended. On Dec. 22, National Security Adviser Susan Rice insisted in a “60 Minutes” interview that NSA officials “inadvertently made false representations.” “The fact that we have not had a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11 should not be diminished.”
Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5, 2009, and the Boston Marathon last April 15, Benghazi was assaulted on Sept. 11, 2012. Hillary Clinton, insisted that it was not a terrorist attack. Then the administration switched to blaming the CIA for giving Ms. Rice bad talking points. A 7,000-word article. Written by David D. Kirkpatrick, “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi” dismisses the claim that al Qaeda played any role in the attack. Instead, the newspaper reports, local Islamic militants cased the consulate and engineered the assault.
It is completely a lie,” one witness told Fox News. Could it be that the newspaper is blowing smoke over Benghazi so that future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton can later claim that it was all just too confusing to sort out?
In terms of lies, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may be in a class by itself in the Hall of Shame. Americans were promised a “transparent” legislative process and instead got one- party, closed-door sessions. We got a massive new tax law that originated, unconstitutionally, in the Senate instead of the House. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a House bill, gutted it, changed its name, and stuffed it with 2,700 pages of Obamacare. President Obama told Americans point blank that the legislation did not constitute a new tax.
Roberts agreed with Mr. Obama’s attorneys and upheld Obamacare as … a new tax. The whopper of them all, as agreed upon by even liberal media, was Mr. Obama’s claim made over and over that people can keep their health insurance under Obamacare. “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.”
THE TRICKLE DIES LIE: Blasio, in his inaugural speech, denounced people “on the far right” who “continue to preach the virtue of trickle-down economics.” According to Mayor de Blasio, “They believe that the way to move forward is to give more to the most fortunate, and that somehow the benefits will work their way down to everyone else.” But the “trickle-down” lie is 100 percent lie. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a “trickle-down” policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them. In 2008 Obama attacked what he called “an economic philosophy” which “says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”
Yet none of those who denounce a “trickle-down” theory can quote anybody who actually advocated it. Any suggestion that there are limits to how high they can push tax rates on people with high incomes, without causing repercussions that hurt the economy as a whole. Kennedy and Woodrow Wilson likewise argued that tax rates can be so high that they have an adverse effect on the economy.
In his 1919 address to Congress, Woodrow Wilson warned that, at some point, “high rates of income and profits taxes discourage energy, remove the incentive to new enterprise, encourage extravagant expenditures, and produce industrial stagnation with consequent unemployment and other attendant evils.”
In a 1962 address to Congress, John F. Kennedy said, “it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
This was not a new idea. John Maynard Keynes said, back in 1933, that “taxation may be so high as to defeat its object,” that in the long run, a reduction of the tax rate “will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget.”
Source—creators.com, Thomas sowell, gop usa
WORDS ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE:
Obama’s Birth Certificate Discovered to Contain Words and Places That Did Not Exist in 1961.
Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ’birth certificate’ state he is “African-American” when the term wasn’t even used at that time?
The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961 & Lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right ? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in “Kenya , East Africa”. This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet Exist?
The listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called ”KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936 – if my math holds (Honest! I did That without a calculator!). Now we need a non-revised history book – one that hasn’t been altered to satisfy the author’s goals – to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn’t have been more than 9 years old. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes?
Sources—richard liverlieb, minority report,