Lila Rose Exposes Planned Parenthood's Mammogram Sham

H/T Breitbart Source URL: https://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/lies
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Immigration Speech: President Obama Distorts Truth 7 Times in 54 Seconds

Obama is the master of deception and lies. Bryan Fischer points out that President Obama broke his own record for the number of times that he distorted the truth in the shortest duration in history. Obama distorted the truth 7 times in 54 seconds during his immigration speech. Maybe we should send Obama to Liars Anonymous?

Bryan Fischer points out Obama's distortions here: 

"Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it's not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive — although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona's put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes — driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult."


"ill conceived" — In the most significant parts of the Arizona law, its language is drawn word-for-word from federal immigration statutes signed into law by Democrat icons. The requirement that every non-citizen in the U.S. be required to carry documentation was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. Other parts of the law mirror language from the immigration law signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, a bill championed by Sen. Ted Kennedy.

"divisive" — 71% of Arizonans support the bill. It has unified rather than divided. In politics, a 60-40 win is considered a landslide. For a law to get 71% support is an overwhelming mandate.

"unenforceable" — Just ask Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio exactly how difficult this law is to enforce. If other communities find it unenforceable, they need better sheriffs.


"budgets" — Just ask Arizonans about budgetary impacts. They are coughing up $2.7 billion a year for education, welfare, health care and law enforcement costs to deal with the illegal alien problem. A secure border would free up almost $3 billion dollars, either to be returned to the wallets of residents or spent on other programs. Mayfield, California, a city which declared itself a "safe haven" for illegal aliens, just closed down under the strain of budgetary pressures.

"report crimes" — This is just ridiculous. Nobody asks for your Social Security number when you call 911. They just send a squad car. And the Arizona law only allows law enforcement to check your immigration status if you are committing a crime, not if you are reporting one.

"streets more dangerous" — Ask the residents of Phoenix about this one. Phoenix is now second only to Mexico City as the kidnapping capital of the world. Home invasions, drug crimes and street crimes are up — "off the charts" to use Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's words — because of illegal aliens. The federal government has virtually ceded large swathes of sovereign U.S. territory to the drug cartels, putting signs up warning U.S. citizens to stay of U.S. property because Mexican drug cartels control it. Mayfield, California, which declared itself a "safe haven" for illegal aliens, just closed down.


"jobs of our police officers more dangerous" — Ask Joslyn Johnson, the widow of slain Houston patrolman Rodney Johnson, who was shot to death in 2006 by an illegal alien who had already been deported one time and had been arrested at least three times before gunning Johnson down at a routine traffic stop. If our southern border were secure, Rodney Johnson would be alive today. Making their jobs more dangerous? Hardly. It's the other way round.

H/T RenewAmericaSource URL: https://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/lies
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Glenn Beck Exposes Weiner

I first saw information on this new site called WeinerFacts.com over at Another Black Conservative.  He has a great video on his blog explaining about the new site and why it came into existence.  Basically, Rep. Anthony Weiner has made false accusations about Goldline which sells gold, and which Glenn Beck promotes and buys himself.

Even the message board that Anthony Weiner used as a source disagrees with him. Maybe,  Anthony Weiner needs to stuff a weenie in his mouth before he speaks and falsely accuses a person and a company of being frauds or scamming the American people?  But, checking facts isn't something that Democrats are known for doing, so this doesn't surprise me too much.  And, Weiner shouldn't play around with the type of weenie that Clinton liked to play around with because that might get Anthony Weiner in even more trouble than just spouting off his lying mouth.





Here at WeinerFacts, we’ve already shown that Weiner has tried to prove his case against Glenn by sourcing a message board.



We pointed out that the Better Business Bureau and the New York Times might be better resources for Weiner:


“The Better Business Bureau, which has given Goldline an A+ rating, said Tuesday that it was standing by that. A representative of the bureau said it had recently re-reviewed Goldline in response to Mr. Weiner’s accusations and saw no reason for a change. “It’s a company with not that many complaints,” said Gary Almond, from the bureau. When compared with other companies that sell gold, “there was a remarkable difference in how each one addressed complaints,” noting that some of those other companies had F ratings.” –New York Times


But, upon further Weiner-investigation, even the message board Weiner cited as proof of his claims–completely disagrees with him.


What was the result of the investigation by the founder of ‘Rip-off Reports’ into the claims touted by Weiner?


“Consumers can feel confident and secure when doing business with Goldline International.”


Remember, out of all the horrors that Weiner claims to have found–this was his actual “proof.” A message board who found that “consumers can feel confident and secure” with Goldline.


WEINER. FAIL.







H/T Another Black Conservative
H/T WeinerfactsSource URL: https://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/lies
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

'The Obama Sphere' Tracks Obama's Lies and Flip-Flops

Source URL: https://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/lies
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

The Art of Lying: Rush Compares Obama to Hitler

Note to Lefties:  Rush is not comparing Obama to Hitler in the mass murder sense.  Rush is comparing Obama to Hitler in the BIGGEST LIE EVER TOLD sense. 



H/T goes to The Right Scoop Source URL: https://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/lies
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Exagggeration, Lies, & Blame Game Vs. TRUTH & REALITY

It seems to me that it is either impossible for Obama to see the truth and reality related to his increased spending versus his predecessor’s spending, or he‘s willfully ignoring the reality and truth . Either way, Obama is clearly as blind as a bat. Bush did overspend. But Obama has accelerated the spending and it has turned into a pandemonium of government spending. In addition, the Obama administration continues the blame game. This is the first President in history, that is an irresponsible crybaby, and that has also filled his administration with a bunch of whiny crybabies. Obama has continued to blame and complain about Bush’s prior spending like a naïve little boy. Obama continues to complain about spending when he could halt spending in certain governmental agencies at any time. But, I guess that solution hasn’t come to Obama or his administration’s mind at any time. How come all these supposed geniuses are so blind? Irresponsible in the worst way? And, they continuously refuse to do the obvious to reduce our deficits. Hmmmm… Obama, his administration, and the Democrats clearly DO NOT want to make any budget cuts or decrease funds for any agency or program to decrease the deficit. Instead they are going on a government spending binge. Plus, Obama makes it obvious that he loves playing the blame game. If they reduced the deficit than the Obama admin couldn’t point to this huge deficit and keep on exaggerating and blaming the Bush admin for the deficit. Obama has increased the deficit by 3X what Bush left him with. The Obama admin is all about illusions, exaggeration, and lies.





But, the Obama administration is making it clear that they are continuing with their modus operandi, and keeping allegiance to the failed liberal philosophy of increased government spending. Obama needs to freaking STOP this runaway freight train of spending before it literally wrecks this country. STOP In the Name of Love! Obama STOP for the love of this country. Stop bankrupting this country into oblivion. Please stop pillaging the American people’s wallets!! Please stop stealing from future generations! So, Mr. President, Stop in the Name of LOVE!!!

Here is a fun video and an interesting article below.




 Ten Years Ago? Seriously? By: Keith Hennessey 

On Monday when releasing his budget the President said:



The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon. Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and funded two wars without paying for any of it -– all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs. As a result, when I first walked through the door, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion, with projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.


This is a common refrain from the President and his team.

Argument: The previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program … without paying for any of it.


•Response 1: Yes, we did. At the time, Congressional Democrats tried and failed to create an even more expensive new drug program without paying for it. (Mr. Obama was not in the Senate at the time.)

•Response 2: This Medicare drug program is ongoing. If the President thinks it is too expensive, then he should propose to make it less expensive. If instead he thinks it should be paid for, then he should propose other spending cuts or tax increases to offset the future costs. Pending health care legislation would instead expand this expensive benefit and pay for the expansion, but would do nothing about paying for the ongoing base costs to which the President is objecting. The past six years of deficit spending from this benefit is beyond President Obama’s control. The future spending is not. He could do this through reconciliation with 51 votes in the Senate.


Argument: The previous Administration and Congresses funded two wars without paying for it.


•Response 1: The Obama Administration is continuing these wars without paying for them, and expanding forces in Afghanistan without paying for that.


•Response 2: Two of those years were with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. There were legislative attempts to end the Iraq efforts, but none to end the Afghanistan efforts. I don’t remember anyone in the Democratic majority Congress (including then-Senator Obama) making a serious run at cutting other spending or raising other taxes to offset the war costs. Last year Rep. Obey proposed a war tax and was quickly silenced by his colleagues.


Argument: The previous Administration cut taxes for the wealthy without paying for it.


•Response 1: Setting aside the mischaracterization “for the wealthy,” President Obama proposes to extend a significant portion of that tax relief “without paying for it.”


•Response 2: If all the Bush tax cuts are left in place bracket creep will soon cause total federal taxes to once again climb above their historic average of just over 18% of GDP. Repealing these tax cuts would mean the government would be taking far more from the private sector in taxes than it has in the past. I believe taxes are not too low.


•Response 3: Our medium-term and long-term deficit problems are driven by the growth of entitlement spending: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Raising taxes will not slow this spending, it will just buy us a few years of delay and slow economic growth.
CONTINUEDSource URL: https://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/lies
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Obama Admits that He Spread Misinformation: Under Obamacare You Won't Be Able to Keep Your Own Doctor

Over the past year, we have been told by the Democrats and Obama on several different instances that we will be able to keep our same doctors under Obamacare. Now, the TRUTH has spewed out of the liars mouth. The truth is that there is a provision in the bill that contradicts the very promise that Obama has consistently made to the American people over the span of one year. Gee, that's integrity for you. NOT. That is real change that you can believe in, NOT. Obama constantly says one thing, and then either does the opposite thing or means the opposite of what he says. Now, look who the people who were spreading MISINFORMATION really were - Obama and Democrats in Congress. The Democrats were spreading MISINFORMATION the whole time, and on purpose. The Dems and Obama have clearly been lying to the American people just to pass their socialist health care. What other misinformation are the Dems spreading around about this health care bill? I am sure Dems are spewing even more misinfromation regarding their health care "reform" proposals just to use the American people and con them into being for something that really won't be in their best interest. Clearly, we need to start over from scratch with this health care reform because the Dems version SUCKS REAL BAD. Let's start over and formulate a common sense health care bill that will lower health care costs and increase accessability for all people.

Here Glenn Beck reveals the TRUTH:




Obama finally admitted to the GOP you can kiss your doctor good-bye:


The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

H/T to Gateway PunditSource URL: https://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/lies
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Obama's 16 Lies

H/T goes to Stormin's morning Java
H/T goes to Naked Emperor NewsSource URL: https://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/lies
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

My Rant on The Radical Obama Administration

The Obama White House is filled with a number of radicals and just to name a few, examples include Cass Sunstein, Kevin Jennings, and HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Obama has strategically placed radicals in his administration. Are the Czars in place for a government takeover? Are the Czars in place to force tyranny upon citizens? Is this just the tip of the iceberg of Obama remaking America?
Obama's lies and deception have become apparent recently with the revelation of yet another broken promise from the Obama campaign trail. Obama promised eight separate times to the American people during his campaign that he would televise health care negotiations on C-Span. And, Obama has finally agreed that one whole hour (Oh! Gee... Golly! Yeah! sarcasm) of the end of negotiations will be aired on C-Span. This is not broadcasting the whole debate on C-Span as he promised. The Obama administration has attacked free speech with the "fishy" emails request and outright attacking the one news channel that is critical of Obama and his administration- Fox News. The Obama administration has been about as transparent as a brick wall.


The Obama administration comports themselves as if they are living in a quasi reality using euphamisms like "overseas contingency operation" instead of war on terror. Obama and Company is extending more rights to the terrorists than they are obligated to by International law. Obama and Holder in a cult of cultural imperalism are extending their arms openly and are aiding terrorists by allowing them the priviledge of an American trial, an American jury, Miranda rights that don't apply to terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield.
Liberals demonize the elderly for attending Town Hall meetings, and other conservatives attending Tea Parties who want smaller government. Obama made a swift wrong-headed judgment against a police officer who was merely doing his job, and showed a delayed reaction and a lack of prudential judgement in his awful response to the underwear bomber's attempt to blow up a plane with 300 innocent lives aboard.
Obama claimed that his administration was going to be different than all the past presidential administrations. He was going to bridge the great divide between the right and left across our country but his administration has divided this country further and basically proclaimed a "fatwa" against any person, company, or organization that disagrees with with his policies and oesn't fall lock in step behind the Obama administration like good little Obamabots.
Obama plays the role of today's Robin Hood, stealing money from the rich and spreading the wealth to Unions, liberal corporations like GE, expanding the government at an unprecedented rate, and just maybe they'll be some money left over for the poor and needy in our society.
Barack Obama is NOT just another President. He is the worst of the worst. Obama is the most corrupt President in the history of the United States. Please, wake up people, those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. I fear history may be repeating itself now. Obama is the Radical-in-Chief.Source URL: https://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/lies
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

The Heritage Foundation's Ernest Istook Schools Ed Schultz on How Obamacare Hurts Poor & Kills Jobs

Here is an interesting transcript of an interview between Ernest Istook and Ed Schultz in which Istook schools Schultz on what is exactly in Obamacare. Of course, Schultz just believes the Democrats misinformation. And, he falsely calls the truth, or what is actually in Obamacare, misinformation. That is all these damn Democratic commentators do - is spread lies and deception to citizens that the Obama administration and Democrats relay to them regarding Obamacare.

This article is from The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry

Ed Schultz is a leftist radio personality who recently graduated to MSNBCs barely watched opinion line up. Schultz still hosts his daily radio show and recently had Heritage Foundation fellow Ernest Istook on to discuss Obamacare. The following exchange (audio here) transpired:


SCHULTZ: OK, give us your new information from the Heritage Foundation on health care. Tell us how screwed up the Democrats are on that.

ISTOOK: Well, you know, I think this may be in the category of unintended consequences, although frankly it may be part of the cost control. As we’ve been going through this 2,000 pages that have been brought up for debate in the US Senate, evidently the penalties that they put upon employers if their, the people who work for them go into this public plan, this so-called insurance exchange …

SCHULTZ: Don’t tell me they’re going to jail! Please …

ISTOOK: No, this is not about that.

SCHULTZ: OK.

ISTOOK: This is, the penalty if you are an employer and you hire someone who then receives the federal subsidy because of their family income, you as the employer, the penalty can be $3,000 for each worker that you hire. Here’s the difficulty, Ed. It makes it more costly for a company to hire somebody such as a single mother with small children who may need the job the most of all. It makes it more expensive for a company to hire them than it does to hire someone, for example, who is married and has multiple sources of income for their household because the subsidies are based upon household income. The unintended consequence of this could be that the people who most need work will have the biggest difficulty in finding it.

SCHULTZ: I tell you what, you guys have really, uh, dug something up over at the Heritage Foundation on that one.

ISTOOK: No, we didn’t write the bill.

SCHULTZ: There is, congressman, if people break the law there’s going to be a fine, that’s basically what you’re saying.

ISTOOK: Well, I’m not talking about that aspect …

SCHULTZ: …. That’s if the mandate, that’s if the mandate is accepted in conference committee. I mean, we’re still, I mean, there is, there’s no guarantee that there’s going to be any fines anywhere.

ISTOOK: Well, again, this, are you telling me that there’s no guarantee that the main parts of the bill will go through? This is what they call the provision to stop what they call free riders, people that receive their health care through this government system that would be set up there and they’re saying if you as an employer have people who work for you who receive their health care in this fashion, you as the employer are going to have to pay extra into this system to the tune of approximately $3,000 per worker per year.


SCHULTZ: No! Ernie, that’s not true!

ISTOOK: Well, all you have to do is read the bill.

SCHULTZ: This is going, this is going to reduce the cost to small businesses across America.
ISTOOK: Surprise! The small businesses don’t believe you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: OK. Wow.
ISTOOK: Again, I mean …
SCHULTZ: I can’t take all this misinformation! I can’t take all this misinformation, I can’t! I don’t know what you guys do over there at the Heritage Foundation. Go to lunch! This is, this is going to relieve small business. This is one of the attacks that the Democrats have got to come up with on the Senate floor, is that the Republicans, you’re not for small business. If someone’s under $90,000 a year and works for a company of less than 50 employees, and that’s the majority, that’s over 95 percent of employees in this country are in that category, this is going to help, you know, Ralph’s Radiator Garage. There’s no …

ISTOOK: Ed, rather than read Democratic talking points I suggest you read the bill.

SCHULTZ: That’s a fact! That’s a fact! That’s an absolute fact! This is going to help small businesses! For you folks over at the Heritage Foundation to come out and say, well, you’re gonna get fined! For what?!
ISTOOK: Ed, the fines and the penalties are in the legislation. And …
SCHULTZ: You send me the page. It is not there!
Well, Ed, on page 350 of the Senate’s version of Obamacare it reads:

LARGE EMPLOYERS OFFERING COVERAGE WITH EMPLOYEES WHO QUALIFY FOR PREMIUM TAX CREDITS OR COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS.—


(1) IN GENERAL.—If—


(A) an applicable large employer offers to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any month, and


(B) 1 or more full-time employees of the applicable large employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled for such month in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee, then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the number of full-time employees of the applicable large employer described in subparagraph (B) for such month and 400 percent of the applicable payment amount.

Later on page 352 we learn:

(1) APPLICABLE PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The term ‘applicable payment amount’ means, with respect to any month, 1?12 of $750.

Some quick math reveals: 12 * $750 = $750 a year, and 400% of $750 is $3,000. Or as Heritage scholar Robert Book explained:

Then there is the “employer responsibility” provision (Section 1511-1513, pages 346-357). Companies with more than 50 employees are required to offer qualified health plans – with a benefit package to be defined later by bureaucrats – to their full-time employees or pay a tax of $750 per full-time employee. That’s a lot cheaper than providing health insurance, and the $750 is just a tax – it doesn’t count towards the employee’s premium.

However, an employer who does offer qualifying insurance isn’t entirely off the hook. Suppose an employer offers insurance, but has an employee from a low-income family who qualifies for a premium subsidy in the “health insurance exchange” and decides to accept it. In that case, the employer is stuck with a tax penalty of $3,000 for that employee, and every other employee who qualifies and makes that same choice – unless it’s more than a quarter of the employees, in which case the tax is capped at $750 times the total number of full-time employees. (Workers will be permitted to opt out of their employer’s plan only if they qualify for a subsidy, have insurance through another family member, or if the employer covers less than 60 percent of their premium.)


Hurting the Poor. In other words, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can save money by dropping their health plan and just paying the $750 per-employee tax. (And they can make as many employees as possible part-time.) However, if they have mostly middle-income workers, they face a heavy penalty — $3,000 – every time they hire a worker from a low-income family. This goes by the employee’s family income, not the income the employee is paid by any particular company. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children.


Even worse, if at least a quarter of the employees qualify for a premium subsidy based on their income and family size, the company is going to end up paying the same $750 per-employee tax – whether they offer insurance or not! So companies with a lot of low-income employees will essentially be encouraged to drop their health plans entire, dumping the remaining higher-income employees into the federal exchange at their own expense.

Seriously Bad Policy. In other words, employers will have a strong tax incentive to lay off the workers who need the jobs most – people without other sources of income.

How will employers know who those workers are? The federal officials will tell them when they send the tax bill (Section 1412).

Employer will be required (Section 1513) to inform the IRS of precisely who their employees are and during which months they carried insurance, to make sure the IRS knows who has to pay the “individual responsibility” penalty.Source URL: https://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/lies
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection