Archive for LIES LIES LIES

"Any subject the extreme right deems worthy of a lie" becomes a campaign

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

extreme right gopTruth-Lies

The extreme right lies constantly. They lie on air, they lie in print, they lie in tweets, they lie in Congress, they lie in GOP legislatures, they lie in their sleep. The extreme right lies about things that they claim are false but are provably true. Documented things. Factual things. *coughCLIMATECHANGEcough*

But that doesn't stop them, because if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. Especially uninformed, misinformed, ignorant people who can't or will not do any research of their own on any given topic.

Corporations are allowed to legally lie, too, by the way. Well, "corporate people," because, freedom of speech. Thank you, Supreme Court! Watch:

We can't stop them, legally at least. We can call them out, we can prove them wrong, we can try to be louder than the liars on the extreme right, and we can try to dissuade the gullible, the ignorant, the willfully ignorant, our friends and neighbors, and anyone else within shouting/writing distance. But they will still lie.

And with that, here are today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re: "When it comes to politics, there's no need to outlaw lying," Editorial, June 17

Police the liars? How did that work out for the millions of us advocating for equality as we tried to negate the lies coming from the pro-Proposition 8 campaign in 2008? There are people who, six years later, still hold to be true the falsehoods perpetuated by the television ads and mailers of the campaign's deep pockets.

The damage is done, is nearly irreparable and causes harm to this day. Shame on the Supreme Court for clearing the way for the continuance of fabrication within political campaigns.

Couple that decision with the Citizens United and McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission rulings, and we're all in for Proposition 8-style campaigns on any subject matter the extreme right deems worthy of a lie. Again and again, the damage will be done as many take as gospel untruthful propaganda.

Sheila Alberg

Bakersfield

***

In the world of the pre-Roberts court, your editorial about criminalizing false political advertising would be on target. But since Citizens United and its progeny under this Supreme Court, money is apparently king.

If a well-funded group (spelled K-O-C-H) decides to place ads deliberately misrepresenting a candidate or ballot measure, how does the citizen candidate ever have the funds to publicly correct the defamation?

Your position would give license for more negative (and deliberately false) political ads and still more expensive campaigns.

And, by the way, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's line that "the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true" reminds me of the National Rifle Assn.'s phrase about good and bad guys with guns. That also sounded good until the Las Vegas good guy with a gun was killed and the Seattle good guy with pepper spray became a hero.

So much for the turn of a phrase.

Ken Goldman

Beverly Hills

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Fact checking Raffy "Ted" Cruz's Meet the Press #Obamacare lies

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

facts schmacts smaller

ted cruz (Doug Mills-The New York Times)

Earlier today, Paddy posted Video- Meet The Press: David Gregory Thumps Ted Cruz-'You Haven't Moved Anybody.'

In that video clip, Raffy Cruz did what he does best: lie. It was way too easy to fact check him, but for those who don't have time, allow me.

First, on his claim that Congress is exempt , CNN begs to differ (h/t: Reader Riccardo Cabeza). Congress isn't exempt:

What the Obama administration has done is ruled that the congressional workers will continue to receive the employer contribution to help them buy their insurance on the exchange.

VERDICT:

False. Congress is no more exempt than any other employer who drops coverage and then helps employees purchase insurance on the exchanges.

The second lie was that James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, thinks that Obamacare is "destroying healthcare."

Wrong. USA Today:

On the same day that Cruz concluded his floor speech, Hoffa issued a statement telling the senator to stop misrepresenting what he and the other union presidents had said.

Hoffa, Sept. 25: Though we may have concerns with specific provisions of the ACA, we share the president's goal of ensuring that every American has affordable access to top-quality health care. It is on this main point that we disagree wholeheartedly with the efforts of extreme right-wing Republicans to gut the ACA. Any suggestion otherwise is simply political posturing.

I call on Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. David Vitter and others to cease and desist from misusing our constructive comments in their destructive campaign to hobble the president and the nation.

Of course, Cruz didn't listen.

And finally, Raffy laughably said the Affordable Care Act "is not working." Actually, the parts that have been implemented are working:

  • Children can now stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26
  • Preventive health services are already being covered
  • Big Insurance must spend at least 80% of the money a person pays in to pay for their treatment, and if a company exceeds the limit, it must pay rebates, money that many of us have already received
  • Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing medical conditions
  • The Medicare “doughnut hole” has been closed

And then there's this reminder from CBS:

When open enrollment begins on the online, state-based marketplaces established under Obamacare, premiums nationwide are expected to be around 16 percent lower than originally predicted, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department said in a new report released Wednesday.

Key words: "When open enrollment begins." It hasn't begun yet, but it will on Tuesday.

Note to Raffy: The earliest the policies of the new health care plan will take effect is January 1, 2014. As our regular contributor Will Durst put it:

Saying you tried it but didn’t like it is real similar to saying you didn’t enjoy Bruno Mars’ halftime show at next year’s Super Bowl. That you think Ben Affleck’s portrayal of Batman fell far short of the exacting standards previously set by George Clooney. That you found the church basement covered-dish spread following your funeral service to be underwhelming.

And finally, just for good measure, this from Think Progress:

Is it true that Obamacare will force me to switch doctors / force my company to cut my hours/ end employer-run health insurance as we know it?Many of these “downsides” to the law are being pushed by people who don’t like it for political reasons, but that doesn’t make them true. No, your doctor is not now going to be forced to ask you about your sex life. The new government-run plans aren’t going to put all your personal information at risk. And all the buzz you’re hearing about having to switch doctors because of the law is overblown. It is possible you might have to switch doctors in the coming years, but that has more to do with the state of the health insurance industry than with the specifics of Obamacare. As the LA times explains, forcing patients to switch doctors “has been happening anyway because insurers are under enormous pressure from big customers to cut costs.”

Obamacare is also becoming a scapegoat when it comes to the prospect of your employer potentially cutting your hours or moving people from full- to part-time. Any employer you hear about that is cutting people’s hours is just pretending Obamacare is the reason so they don’t look like the bad guy. Very few employers have cut hours citing Obamacare, and many actually say they’re planning to hire more workers just in time for the full Obamacare rollout.

And, in terms of Obamacare ending employer-based insurance, there’s no need to panic there, either. Yes, the law will provide more options than we used to have. It will probably gradually shift people away from employer-run plans, too. But even generous predictions estimate that the vast majority of people will still get insurance through their jobs over the next decade. One potential impact of the law is that more people will have the flexibility to look for a new job now that they know they won’t be tied to their employer-provided insurance for coverage.

myths debunked

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Video- Fox Falsely Claims Obama Administration Leading "Christian Cleansing" Of Military

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Can't type well enough to really go after this bull. Expect some serious rants when I become two fisted again. Via.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Ten years later...

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

bushtopple

Hugh Kaufman (senior policy analyst with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) is an old pal and a primary source of information for years. He just sent me a series of emails and has given me permission to share them with you. I've added a few things of my own to his collection.

And while we're at it, please take a look at Rachel Maddow's documentary "Hubris" (based on the book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff) at this link. It's an exposé of how the Bush administration snookered this country into a fraudulent war on a sovereign country that never invaded us. BushCo saw an opportunity and took it, and took us.

Ten years later...

The Obama administration and many Congress members inexplicably still want to “look forward, as opposed to looking backwards” instead of investigating and eventually prosecuting those who might have broken the law.

Ten years later...

Does prevarication pay? Did anyone apologize for prevaricating? Remember this bogus New York Times story that Saddam Hussein was gonna build nuclear weapons to bomb us with? Which helped lead to the Iraq War 10 years ago.

One of the reporters who wrote the bogus story is still at the New York Times, and the other is now at Fox News.

Meanwhile, the taxpayers are out $3 trillion, and hundreds of thousands are dead.

THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE IRAQIS; U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS:

More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb...

Ten years later...

Donald Rumsfeld says thank you for helping burn $3 trillion and the killing of hundreds of thousands based on his WMD lies.  (Why isn't he in jail?)

tweet donald rumsfeld iraq war ten years laterI wonder how liberated the dead Iraqis feel.

Ten years later...

Why aren't any media, except CNN, even mentioning that the Iraq War was to help the Big Oil Companies take over Iraq's Nationalized Oil?

Even, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan said, writing in his memoir:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

When shows are sponsored by BP, all that honest silly talk about corporate profits from Iraqi oil pretty much disappears.

Ten years later...

Why the Iraq War was fought for Big Oil...

Follow the money.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms. From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton...

Also, check out this article at the Nation about the money scam, that was the Iraq War, Why the Invasion of Iraq Was the Single Worst Foreign Policy Decision in American History:

By 2009, of course, it should all have been so obvious. We were no longer inside the neocon dream of unrivaled global superpowerdom, just mired in what happened to it. We were a chicken factory in the desert that no one wanted. [...]

In the bigger picture, the world is also a far more dangerous place than it was in 2003. Indeed, for the State Department, which sent me to Iraq to witness the follies of empire, the world has become ever more daunting. In 2003, at that infamous “mission accomplished” moment, only Afghanistan was on the list of overseas embassies that were considered “extreme danger posts.” Soon enough, however, Iraq and Pakistan were added. Today, Yemen and Libya, once boring but secure outposts for State’s officials, now fall into the same category. [...]

And so, happy tenth anniversary, Iraq War! A decade after the invasion, a chaotic and unstable Middle East is the unfinished legacy of our invasion. I guess the joke is on us after all, though no one is laughing.

Ten years later...

Why aren't these folks in jail, instead of being comfortable multimillionaires?

And finally, please link over to VIDEO- Osama bin Laden Watch: The so-called “vigilance” of George W. Bush.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO-- Hubris: Selling the Iraq War. BushCo saw an opportunity and took it, and took us.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

bushtopple

If you missed this exposé of how the Bush administration snookered this country into a fraudulent war on a sovereign country that never invaded us, then here's your chance. Please take a look and share widely.

Sadly, the Obama administration and many Congress members want to "look forward, as opposed to looking backwards" instead of investigating and eventually prosecuting those who might have broken the law:

Here are a few excerpts from the text:

By the end of 2002, the U.S military is headed to the Gulf. Congress is on board, as are British Prime Minister Tony Blair and most of the mainstream media. The stage is set for war. [...]

We were moving along the path of getting a good inspection going that would probably come to fruition one way or the other, but once you start military forces flowing to the extent that we did for Iraq, it's hard to pull them back.

As the inevitable moves closer, President Bush reargues the case and ups the ante with 16 infamous words in a state of the union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

That would be yellowcake, again. But by referring to a six-month-old British white paper, the president does an end-run around a claim discredited by his own intelligence service.

It wasn't a matter of lying about this or lying about that, but rather through the artistry of speech writers and case presenters, conveying an impression to the American people that certain things were true.

It's a real sleight of hand. And I think it's kind to call that disingenuous.

He walked into my office with a sheaf of papers in my hand and he threw them down on the desk and said that's the script of my presentation at the United Nations. it came from the vice president's office. It was junk. It was pure junk. I was in charge of putting it together. [...]

On February 5th, 2003, the moment of truth arrives. The 4,701st meeting of the Security Council is called to order.

The world witnesses Colin Powell deliver the ultimate argument for war against Iraq. [...]

As he is talking about this and showing vials of white powder and so forth, I turned to a woman next to me who had followed this whole case of Curveball much more closely than I, I said, "What the hell is going on?" And my colleague said, "I don't know. I don't know what is going on. What is this?"

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: Pardon Don Siegelman! He goes back to jail for 6.5 yrs if something is not done soon

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

To make a long story short, Don Siegelman is a political prisoner. Actually, he was, and is set to return to prison again on September 11 if nothing is done before then to save him from insane punishment for a crime he didn't commit.  Not only did he not commit a crime, no crime was committed, period.

I'm not going to recount the story here. The best thing you can do is read, watch and listen to the mountains of information on the website at DonSiegelman.org, and please sign the petition at Change.org/PardonDon.  

And watch/listen to the interview my friend and radio host Nicole Sandler did this morning.

Please do sign that petition. And please share this post.

And here's a 2009 segment in which Rachel Maddow covers this story:

And unfortunately, there was this very short update:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO ADDED: Team Romney never stops lying. I just documented 2 in 10 minutes.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I wasn't watching all that closely since I was busy writing a post, but the little I caught on MSNBC was more than enough for me to catch two whoppers in ten minutes, tops. Both Romney surrogate (and possible running mate) Tim Pawlenty and Willard Romney himself blatantly lied, one after the other.

Tim Pawlenty was being interviewed by Andrea Mitchell and claimed that his candidate shouldn't have to be held to a "higher different standard" (or maybe he said he should be held to the same standard, I can't remember the precise wording) as previous presidential candidates regarding the number of tax returns he should release. I'll post the clip when it becomes available.

So Pawlenty thinks two is enough. Considering the two years of returns Romney is saying he's willing to share (2010 and 2011) would be well within the time period he knew he was running for president for Pete's sake, then those returns would be much less revealing than earlier ones.

Previous years would tell Americans far more about him than the most recent ones.

But since TPaw made a point of saying which standards his guy should be held to, let's compare and contrast Romney to everyone else. Source: TaxHistory.org:

Since the early 1970s, however, most presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly. In the hope of making this information more widely available, the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts has compiled an archive of presidential tax returns.

Higher standard?

Again, George Romney disclosed 12 years of his tax returns in his failed 1968 White House bid. So what could his son be hiding? Brad Friedman thinks it might be voter fraud.

Then MSNBC switched to a live feed of a campaign speech in which Willard claimed that Democrats had a filibuster-proof super majority for two years and got nothing accomplished. Wrong and wronger. One: He must have forgotten about that secret GOP conspiracy to obstruct in order to make Obama a one term president. Two: A lot was accomplished, despite all the roadblocks. And three: The so called super majority lasted only a few weeks, not two years. Via Sully (you should really read his entire piece):

This stood out to me in "The Lies of Mitt Romney III":

"we remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years"

I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.

And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.

Facts schmacts.

And now, because it's election season and we'll be extra busy, we GottaAsk:

Please note: You can chip in to help TPC using the widget below via PayPal or major credit cards.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare