TOP

Obama Attack Ad Edits what Romney says On Abortion

OBAMA ATTACK AD SELECTIVELY EDITS ROMNEY ON ABORTION

by DR. SUSAN BERRY 19 Oct 2012, 8:44 PM PDT 0POST A COMMENT

A new Obama campaign ad directed at women votersstates that Republican candidate Mitt Romney would ban abortion, but uses a Romney quote that has been cut off to distort the candidate’s stance toward the 1973Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

The quote is from a Republican primary debate during which moderator Anderson Cooper asked the candidates, “If Roe v. Wade were overturned, Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no?”

The ad depicts Romney’s response as, “I’d be delighted to sign that bill,” but truncates the remainder of his sentence, which was, “But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today.”

The ad comes as a new USA Today/Gallup poll finds more women in swing states are leaning toward Romney. The Obama campaign and the campaigns of many other Democrats around the country are doubling down on the left’s “War on Women” canard, a sure sign that the “women’s vote” is no longer a certainty for Democrats.

In the state of Connecticut, for example, abortion and access to birth control took center stage during the final debate between U.S. Senate candidates Democrat Chris Murphy and Republican Linda McMahon. Similarly, on Thursday we reported that Planned Parenthood is spending an additional $828,000 on Romney attack ads in the swing states of Colorado and Virginia.

In response to the ad, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said:

President Obama’s campaign continues to mislead voters in a desperate attempt to distract from this president’s failed economic record. Five and a half million women are struggling to find work in the Obama economy, and they are suffering from record unemployment under this president.

Read More
TOP

There are Two Paths

It’s up to YOU to pick the right one.

Read More
TOP

Obama’s Lies about his Job Creation

Obama and his team believe Americans are stupid and won’t look into the actual numbers.   Fortunately some have.  Obama has continued to lie about his job creation throughout his campaign; especially in his comparison to President George Bush.   Unreal.

 

 

 

Read More
TOP

The Facts behind the Unemployment Numbers

THIS ONE CHART EXPLAINS DIP IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

From The Blaze

The reported unemployment rate measures the ratio of unemployed workers seeking work relative to the size of the workforce. So what happens when the size of the workforce shrinks to historic lows? You get a small dip in the unemployment rate.

As this chart (via Zero Hedge) demonstrates, America’s workforce continues shrink as unemployed workers give up on finding jobs:

This one chart explains dip in unemployment rate

Does today’s dip in the unemployment rate mean our economy is on the right track? That’s the argument President Obama and his campaign are sure to make. But the labor force participation rate – which has fallen precipitously from 66.1 percent in 2008 to 63.5 percent today – tells a different story.

The median family income in America has dropped 8% since Obama took office.

The nation’s real unemployment rate remains near 11%.

The percentage of college graduates who can’t find work now exceeds 50%.

The U.S. birthrate has even declined as young Americans struggle to get established.

The number of workers settling for part-time work rose 7.5% last month to 8.6 million.

Clearly, the unemployment rate is not telling the whole story.

To add insult to injury, the United States added 114,000 jobs in September. Cause for celebration? Hardly: With just 1/10th of the population of the United States, Canada added 52,000 jobs last month. If the United States economy created jobs at a rate on par with Canada’s economy, we would’ve created about 480,000 jobs last month, not 114,000.

If this is what moving “forward” looks like in America nowadays, we’re in serious trouble.

Read More
TOP

Obama’s FAKE Steel Worker – the LIES continue

 

From the Gateway Pundit

Obama Camp to Deploy Fake GST Steel Employee to Bash Mitt Romney Before Debate

Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, September 30, 2012, 8:54 AM
The Obama Campaign will attack Mitt Romney’s business record before the debate this week by sending out a phoney GST steel employee to bash the Republican nominee. David Foster spoke against Mitt Romney at the DNC too.

David Foster’s first line at the DNC:
“I’m David Foster and I was a steelworker for 31 years.” (He forgot to mention he was a union organizer and not an employee of GST steel.)


But David Foster never worked for Bain or GST. He was a union organizer.

The Politico reported:

The Obama campaign will deploy a group of surrogates to go after Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital record in the days surrounding the first presidential debate on Oct. 3, a campaign official said Saturday.

Among those surrogates will be multiple ex-employees of companies owned by Bain. Randy Johnson, the former Ampad worker who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, will campaign in Wisconsin on Oct. 2 and 3. Former Dade Behring employee Cindy Hewitt will appear in Florida on Oct. 3 and 4. And David Foster, who was a union negotiator for workers at the Bain-owned company GST Steel, will visit Ohio on Oct. 3 and 4 and join some of Johnson’s events in Wisconsin.

But former “steelworker” David Foster never worked at GST or Bain. He was a union organizer.
ABC reported on this during the DNC convention:

David Foster was never an employee of GST Steel’s Kansas City plant. He was employed by the United Steelworkers of America as their regional union director to represent GST Steel, but was not employed at our facility,” according to BC Huselton, who was head of HR at GST.

Instead, Foster was a union organizer, who negotiated for workers that did work for the company.

Read More
TOP

Democrats have ZERO respect for Women Voters

Democrats have been telling the most despicable lies to women voters.  They are fearmongering and lying about all for a vote. What they don’t talk about is the higher poverty rate for women under Obama or the high unemployment rate for women under Obama’s reign.

Click on the links below to find out the TRUTH

 

Read More
TOP

Democrats’ Lies about Redefining Rape

From National Review Online

Scare Tactics Gone Wild

In recent days, the Left has pumped up the volume with scare tactics about the new majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans are back and they want to take over your personal lives! Ironic, of course, given the whole Obamacare incident. And the image of Speaker John Boehner asking Chris Wallace to leave him and his bad smoking habit alone is a little bit in conflict with that contention, too.

The latest attempt at scaring and misleading the public is the recent claim that Republicans, in some kind of supposedly radical ban on federal taxpayer funding of abortion — a ban along the lines of what the pro-choice Left has claimed has been law all along — are trying to redefine rape.

Redefining rape?!

They’re not.

In particular, abortion activists* are taking aim at H.R. 3, “The No Funding for Abortion Act,” which everyone from John Boehner to Republican Study Committee chairman Jim Jordan, to Democrat Dan Lipinski has explicitly and vocally supported for about a year now. On their radar is also “The Protect Life Act,” which Rep. Chris Smith (R., N.J.) introduced along with Lipinski the morning after January’s Obamacare repeal vote (the same day Smith joined Boehner to introduce H.R. 3).

A Mother Jones piece that ABCNews’s website republished yesterday as what appeared to be a news story (and later removed) insists that Republicans are on some kind of rape campaign: “Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.”

“The Hyde Amendment does permit federal funding of abortions for women who are impregnated through assaults, regardless of age, which of course includes drug-assisted rape and rape of unconscious women, to cite just two of the more ludicrous examples invented by pro-abortion propagandists in recent days,” Douglas Johnson, of the National Right to Life Committee, counters.  “And so do the bills.”

Johnson explains further:

In our view, on this matter, H.R. 3 and H.R. 358 would codify the substance of the policy that was in place from 1993 on (which rape/incest exceptions were added to the Hyde Amendment).  We do not believe that the Hyde Amendment has ever been construed to permit federal funding of abortion based merely on the youth of the mother (“statutory rape”), nor are we aware of evidence that federal funding of abortion in such cases has ever been the practice. It is true that the new bills would not allow general federal funding of abortion on all under-age pregnant girls — but this is no change in policy. In falsely claiming that it is a change in policy, the pro-abortion advocacy groups really are engaged in a brazen effort greatly expand federal funding for abortion. They want to federally fund the abortion of tens of thousands of healthy babies of healthy moms, based solely on the age of their mothers. We would oppose such an expansion of federal funding of abortion.

You can read the FBI’s own longstanding definition of “forcible rape,” which explicitly excludes statutory rape, here. Michael New took a critical look at some of the nonsense the New York Times was peddling this weekend here.

* Would it be redundant to include the media here? I’ll stop asking the question when I see more coverage of the senseless violence that is such a mainstream part our culture today. Planned Parenthood, for instance, is painfully mainstream, a recipient of taxpayer funding and leading politicians’ support. I’ll stop asking the question if I see more coverage and action in response to this new video from New Jersey.

Read More
TOP

The Democrats’ $6,400 Medicare LIE

Updated August 19, 2012, 10:24 p.m. ET

The $6,400 Myth

Breaking down a false Obama Medicare claim.

 

One of President Obama’s regular attacks on Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is that it would force seniors to pay $6,400 a year more for health care. But merely because he keeps repeating this doesn’t mean it’s in the same area code of accurate.

The claim is based on a now out-of-date Congressional Budget Office estimate of the gap between the cost of health care a decade from now, in 2022, and the size of the House budget’s premium-support subsidy for a typical 65-year-old in 2022.

Editorial board member Joe Rago critiques the latest Obama Medicare ad.

In other words, the $6,400 has no relevance for any senior today. None. But it also is unlikely to have any relevance for any senior ever because CBO concedes that its number is highly uncertain and “will depend on the evolution of the health care and health insurance systems over time, which is hard to predict.” That’s for sure.

Republican Vice Presidential candidate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks during the Victory Rally in Florida at Town Square, Lake Sumter Landing on August 18, 2012 in The Villages, Florida.

The more fundamental problem is that the CBO analysis has nothing to do with the current Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan plan. Nada. Over the last year Mr. Ryan has made major adjustments to his original proposal as he sought a compromise with Democrats. In its most up-to-date analysis, CBO admits that it “does not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects” in the new version. That is, it does not have the tools to make its $6,400 exaggeration again.

The reason CBO can’t model the 2013 House budget and the Romney-Ryan plan is that they harness markets with competitive bidding. Congress’s budget gnomes can’t handle these dynamic forces.

So how would Ryan 2.0 work in practice? Traditional Medicare and all private insurers in a region would make bids to cover seniors and compete for their business by offering the best value and prices. Then the government would give everyone a subsidy equal to the second-lowest bid.

If seniors chose that No. 2 option, whether it was Medicare or another plan, they’d break even and pay nothing extra out of pocket. If they picked the cheapest plan, they’d keep whatever was left over after the government subsidy—that is, they’d get a cash refund. If they instead picked the third-cheapest option, the fourth-cheapest, etc., they’d pay the difference above the government subsidy.

That structure ensures that seniors would have at least two choices (and likely far more) that they are guaranteed to do better than they do now. The amount of the premium-support subsidy would also be tied to underlying health-care costs, so it would not shift costs to beneficiaries, as Democrats also falsely claim. The very reasonable Romney-Ryan policy bet is that costs could nonetheless fall over time because seniors would have the incentive to switch to the most competitively priced Medicare plan.

The latest real-world reason to expect that would happen comes from a new paper by the Harvard economists Zirui Song, David Cutler and Michael Chernew. The researchers—Mr. Cutler used to be an Obama health adviser—looked at Medicare Advantage, the program that currently gives one of four seniors private alternatives (and that ObamaCare deliberately undermines).

The Advantage insurers make bids today against a benchmark set by traditional Medicare spending, and the Harvard trio find that the second lowest bid in 2009 came in 9% below the normal program on average. Medicare costs $717 per person per month, but the cheapest private plan could provide the same coverage for 87 cents on the government dollar. The second cheapest could do it for 91 cents.

Messrs. Song, Cutler and Chernew are alarmed because they say their results imply—broadly speaking—that seniors in traditional Medicare would have to pay $64 a month more if they kept that coverage. (Note: That totals $768 a year, not $6,400.) But a better way of reading the data is that seniors would migrate to more cost-effective options, saving both themselves and taxpayers a bundle.

None of these facts are likely to deter Democrats from their distorted claims. But the truth is that the Ryan-Romney reform isn’t anywhere close to Mr. Obama’s cartoon version.

A version of this article appeared August 20, 2012, on page A10 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The $6,400 Myth.

Read More
TOP

Stolen History

MUST watch video

Read More