Well, let’s clear it up.
Debunk – (transitive verb) – to show that something is wrong or false.
Spin – (verb) (slang) – to cause to have a particular bias, influence in a certain direction.
Pretty plain, huh. I recently had a Twitter exchange with a person who called into question assertions made in an excellent article by Dan Gray, at Washington Times Communities.
(here is the link http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/gathering-storm/2013/nov/21/obama-fans-would-you-trust-dick-cheney-kind-power/#.Uo5y3zgOD38.twitter).
Now you should know that the Twitter person (let’s call him Lib Tweeter) is unabashedly liberal. I followed him first on Twitter, for the very reason I am posting today. To broaden the discussion on Liberty and Freedom. He was intent on “Debunking” Mr. Gray’s assertions that Barak Obama is an unabashed Liar. (Upper Case L intended) Let’s see if he debunked anything at all, or just followed the normal spin. You probably know the answer but humor me.
If you know me, you are aware that I do not take political party sides. I consider myself a Liberty-minded independent. In my opinion, both major parties have their agendas and would gladly take away our rights if it suited their agenda. Having said that, I freely admit that more often than not, but not always, I come down on the side of conservatives or libertarians on issues. I call it the way I see it when it comes to personal Liberty.
The point of Dan Gray’s article was that Obama “fans” are willing to give him enormous leeway and feel that he can do no wrong.” It asks them if they would be willing to grant those same powers and give the same leeway if Dick Cheney were the president. Of course the assumption, is that liberal’s and Democrats hate Cheney so much that their eyes would spin in opposite directions if Cheney were president and attempted the vast expansion of presidential powers that Obama has.
Anyway, in responding to one of Dan’s Tweets featuring his article, that I had retweeted to followers, Lib Tweeter said the following:
“you need to update many of your claims as they’ve been debunked many times”
I responded to Lib Tweeter with:
“Can you be a bit more specific…. What has been debunked?”
He did respond. Lib Tweeter provided me with some issues that he felt had been debunked, either in the press or through various Congressional reports. I thought it appropriate to respond and am doing so here because of the limitation in Twitter communications.
Lib Tweeter – “Guantanimo (sic): can’t complain about a broken promise when GOP blocked closing it in HR 2346. But he’s trying to work around it.”
Yes, the GOP did. Good for the GOP. But the article wasn’t complaining that Guantanamo had not been closed. It was pointing out that a key promise made by the president to his liberal supporters was to close Guantanamo. He made it numerous times. He did not keep that promise, although recent events in his “negotiations” to normalize relations with Cuba indicate that perhaps he has found a way to do so through the back door. Clearly, to this point, the promise has not been kept.
Lib Tweeter – “job creation — come on”
Come on? Okay, I guess that means that it is a no brainer that Obama has created more jobs than Bush I, Bush II and God. He cites as a source a report in Eclecta Blog – Progressive News and Commentary (here is the link http://www.eclectablog.com/2014/10/fun-fact-more-net-jobs-have-been-created-under-obama-than-both-bushes-combined.html ).
Eclecta Blog’s report is actually a series of quotes from a speech the President gave recently at Northwestern University. What? A speech from the president? Why that should be completely trustworthy, should it not? No axe to grind there.
Here’s the reality…not the spin…about jobs. First, presidents have very little power or ability to create jobs, except in the way they enforce regulations that affect business or their appointees to the Federal Reserve (a whole other topic in itself).
Second, accepting the fact that all presidents take credit, or are blamed, for successes or failures during their time in office let’s look at the real numbers. My source is the Wall Street Journal…I know, I know…I can hear it now from my liberal friends…the WSJ!….that’s the man…the system…down with the man!
Well, calm down, here are the stats.
You will note that the job gain during Barak Obama’s administration to this point is 5.7 million. Under George H.W. Bush, 3 million jobs were added. And finally, under George W. Bush only 1.3 million were added.
So, in fact, jobs have gained by 2.7 million more than George I and 4.4 million over George II’s rate. But in the interest of “debunking” let’s dig just a bit deeper.
Bush the First, served one term. It would be expected that a two term president would preside over a larger number of job creations.
Bush the Second, served two terms. The last year and a half (at least) during the beginning days of the “Great Recession” when jobs were declining dramatically.
It should be noted that, other than George W. Bush, Barak Obama’s job creation record falls far below other two-term presidents. Other than Bush II, the only ones he leads are the one-term presidents (Bush I, Gerald Ford, John Kennedy) He falls far behind the other one-term president, Jimmy Carter.
Without wishing to take any credit away from Barak Obama, the process of economic recovery would have brought job increases, no matter who slept at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In effect, he had nowhere to go but up. One might ask, however, if the recovery would not have been more rapid had the president not used Federal Agencies and the Affordable Care Act to hamstring small businesses. By the way, business, mostly small businesses, are where jobs come from, not the president, despite his promises to the contrary.
Another thought on jobs. 1.6 million, middle class manufacturing jobs have been lost. Many of those have been replaced with low-paying service industry jobs, far from an equivalent change.
As I said above, presidents have limited ability to create jobs, despite speeches to college students. But if you want to take credit, then you have to stand behind the real numbers.
As a Note – Dan Gray’s article only made the point about the president’s inability to create “millions of shovel ready jobs” as he had promised. These were to be primarily public works jobs, funded through grants from the federal government. Lib Tweeter really didn’t attempt to “debunk” the point Dan made. He spun it around to something else. Imagine that.
benghazi: “Darrel Issa quietly published his committee report just recently admitting that there was nothing there”
Once again, this does not address or debunk anything. It misses the point altogether.
Gray pointed out that the lie told by the White House staff, the CIA and by extension, Mr. Obama was that the Benghazi attack on our embassy was the result of a YouTube video. Deny it if you want; that’s what they said. Hell, it was all over the Sunday news talk shows.
But the report from Congressman Issa’s committee did state that former Deputy Director of the Cia, Mike Morrell, edited the talking points that Susan Rice and others used in the first days after the attack. Those talking points included the statement that the attacks were the result of protests that were directly linked to a YouTube video that was insulting to Muslims. Those talking points were bull****.
The report that Lib Tweeter chose to use as a source also, makes it clear that there was ample intelligence available that an attack on Americans in Libya and the embassy was likely. The State Department (read Hillary Clinton backed by her boss Barak Obama) denied requests for enhanced security.
Was there a conspiracy? I don’t know. There were certainly a lot of stupidity and lies…and four American died for no good reason.
Lib Tweeter – “IRS: again Darrel Issa and the FBI independently investigated and came up with nothing. the IRS targeted all political orgs”
Gray’s article states that one of Obama’s lies is that he knew nothing about the targeting of conservative non-profit organizations by the IRS. Lib Tweeter cites the Issa committee report as saying that liberal groups were targeted as well as conservatives. This is true…but shall we unspin it for Lib Tweeter and our liberal/progressive friends.
As you can see from the chart above, Progressive/liberals were targeted. Of copurse the targeting rate was not quite the same. 7 Progressive groups were targeted against 104 Conservative/Tea Party/Patriot groups.
Maybe there just weren’t as many Progressive groups applying for non-profit status. Possibly true. After all their guy is the president. They might be really happy with things.
But interestingly, as you can see from the chart, conservative groups were asked three times the number of questions and were approved at a rate of just 46%. Amazingly, 100% of progressive groups were approved. They must be way smarter than the rest of us, I guess.
Oh yes, and there’s all those IRS hard drives that just mysteriously crashed and all the emails that would further the investigation are gone. Damn, I hate when that happens, don’t you?
And of course, Ms. Lerner, using her fifth amendment rights not to incriminate herself was just…well, it just was. Nothing to hide there is there? Of course, not. She just didn’t feel like talking to Congress, that’s all.
A little bit of common sense here and there should not even be a question about whether the president and his “Team” lie. He does. They do. Routinely.
Lib Tweeter – Obamacare: he didn’t say it would reduce premiums… he said it would slow the growth, which it has
Uhm…sorry Lib Tweeter. He did say it…a bunch of times. And guess what. It’s not true.
Lib Tweeter uses as a source an article from Forbes…have to give him credit for that. The article, written by Rick Ungar, he states in his bio that he writes from the left, paints a very pretty picture of the future of Obamacare. Things are great!
But as people with agendas often do, he spins it. Here’s the short version, premiums are going up but…not so much. Great, huh?
Let’s dig deeper. The report is about Obamacare enrollees on the healthcare exchanges.
Ungar admits that 65% of premium rates will go up. The median rise in premiums will only be 4%. For the record Median not an average. Median means this –
If you line up numbers in a row from 1 to 100, the median number is 50….the one in the middle.
But if in those numbers of 1 to 100 you have actual points of 25, 30, 75 80, 85 and 90 representing the data points, or premium increases, the average is 64%
See what I mean? It is another spin of the numbers to create a lie. The median rise in premiums is projected at 4%, however, a report from The Hill by Elise Viebeck, shows that the average rate increase across the country will be 7.5%, almost double the “Median” projection. Additionally, premiums in some locations will be in double digits. Some in Nevada could hit 36%, Arizona 23% and Indiana 15%.
Bottom line is that premiums are going up, not down by $2,500 per family as Mr. Obama promised. I’m sorry Lib Tweeter, he did say it. Here’s the link to the YouTube videos where he was recorded saying it…(dang, pesky videos…just not fair, huh)
Gray’s article points out that the president stated on numerous occasions that insurance premiums would go down for people. Is that a lie? Looks like a lie, sounds like a lie? I don’t know about you, but I think it’s …a lie.
Okay, enough said. I am pretty sure I have not convinced any apologists for Barak Obama that he is, in fact, a liar. I’m sure they will continue to be happy as he usurps power from the people and their elected representatives and expands presidential powers…his presidential powers…to unheard of, totalitarian proportions.
But if you love freedom, believe in personal liberty and accountability for all, then you must at some point stand up and call it what it is…A Monumental Lie.
Best – Glenn