History repeats itself.
idk why, but nixon’s mannerisms and face sorta remind me of romney…
Little bit of history for ya. Nothing’s changed, by the way. lol if you thought it had.
DAMN GOOD PLACE TO START…!!!
Poor Richard's News: VIDEO: Obama says he's "not familiar" with Benghazi whistleblower intimidation
Yesterday, multiple whistleblowers and their lawyers came forward and said that the Obama administration has been intimidating them to keep them from coming forward about what really happened during the September 11 terror attacks. One whistleblower actually went on camera with his voice disguised and his face blacked out for fear of retribution. The State Department has been actively blocking the testimony of whistleblowers and the Congressional investigators, saying their own internal investigation “should be enough.”
Today, President Obama denied any knowledge of whistleblower intimidation.
Here’s the video:
Obama is unfamiliar with the whistleblowers just like he was unaware that Benghazi was a terror attack. It’s lie after lie on this story, and thankfully there are people in Congress determined to get to the bottom of it.
(via leftybegone)
Poor Richard's News: Surprise! Cost of Obamacare exchanges doubles initial projections
Lies and broken promises: that is the legacy of Obama’s “signature achievement” as President. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing, premiums are going up, and the American people are being taxed into oblivion.
Now, it seems that the “cost-saving” healthcare exchanges aren’t really going to do all that much saving. Obama’s budget proposal indicates that the exchanges will cost double what was initially estimated.
from Bloomberg:
The $1.3 trillion U.S. health-care system overhaul is getting more expensive and will initially accomplish less than intended.
Costs for a network of health-insurance exchanges, a core part of the Affordable Care Act, have swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal 2012 and 2013 combined, and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, according to the budget President Barack Obama yesterday sent to Congress. That spending would be more than double initial projections, even though less than half the 50 U.S. states are participating.
The unanticipated spending is a consequence of an ambitious timetable dictated by Congress and a complex new way of offering people medical coverage, say analysts, lobbyists and administration officials. Combine that with a majority of Republican governors declining to cooperate with a Democratic president and U.S. regulators are left grasping to get the 2010 health law up and running by a Jan. 1, 2014, deadline.
Let me take a moment to remind everyone that when this article says “an ambitious timetable dictated by Congress,” it’s not talking about the current Republican-led House. It’s referring to 2009’s Democrat controlled House that passed the bill in the first place.
Clearly, Obama and his Democrat allies have bitten off more than they can chew, and depending on how you view things, it could mean a significant defeat for Obama’s signature law. On the other hand, if you’re in the Cloward and Piven crowd (of which Obama is), the inevitable collapse of the massive welfare state might be exactly what you have in mind.
Poor Richard's News: White House admits: Obama not interested in a balanced budget
Here’s a piece of news in which the White House states the obvious: President Obama is not seeking to balance the Federal budget. If you read this blog regularly (or just have a fingernail’s grasp on reality), you already knew this to be true.
It’s just kind of nice to have Press Secretary Jay Carney actually admit it.
from Politico:
White House press secretary Jay Carney on Monday signaled that President Obama is not looking to balance the federal budget but rather to decrease the amount the country borrows each year while fostering economic growth.
“The broader effort underway here is to try to through the budget process achieve a compromise that allows for both entitlement reform and tax reform that produce the savings necessary to achieve that $4 trillion-plus targeted for 10 years of deficit reduction, to put our economy on a fiscally sustainable path, and that is the president’s goal – deficit reduction large enough to put our economy on a fiscally sustainable path so that the ratio of debt to GDP is below 3 percent in a period of time that would allow, concurrently through investments and other policy decisions, allow the economy to grow,” Carney said at a press briefing Monday.
Pressed on whether the president would present a balanced budget this year or if balancing it was a goal, Carney said he would not detail what will be in the budget proposal and pointed to previous budgets as an example of what to expect.
“The president’s budget will achieve what it has in the past, which is through sensible, balanced deficit reduction, to bring our deficit and debt into a place where we are on a fiscally sustainable path,” he said.
Oh, don’t be confused. Obama will still use phrases like “balanced approach” and “restoring balance” or in this case “balanced deficit reduction.” He likes the word “balance” because it polls well. But an actual balanced budget (e.i. one in which we don’t spend more than we take in)? Obama is clearly not interested.
In fact, anytime you hear this administration use the words “balanced” or “deficit reduction,” or even “spending cuts” you can safely assume that they mean “raise taxes.”
Poor Richard's News: Michelle Obama claims Chicago teen slain with "automatic weapon." ABC edits comments out.
ABC News edited out some comments by Michelle Obama about the recent shooting of a Chicago teen. Mrs. Obama claimed that the teen was shot with an “automatic weapon,” which is highly unlikely; but ABC snipped those comments out of its broadcast.
from Washington Times:
In an interview with Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts aired this morning, First Lady Michelle Obama recalled the tragic death of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton who was shot and killed in Chicago after performing during the President’s Inauguration celebration in Washington D.C.
“She was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need,” the First Lady explained. “I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.”
Chicago police reported, however, that Pendleton was shot by a man who “opened fire with a handgun before fleeing in a waiting car” according to the Associated Press.
It is extremely unlikely that the murder weapon was an automatic handgun, an extremely rare occurrence, even in the streets of Chicago. An overwhelming majority of handguns bought and sold in America are semi-automatic. Police officials have not recovered the firearm, but prosecutors stated that the accused attacker shot “at least six times” into the crowd.
Well, there you go. If police haven’t recovered the weapon, then Michelle Obama pulled the “automatic weapon” claim out of thin air. Luckily for Obama, she has a dishonest media willing to cover up her own dishonesty.
Poor Richard's News: Obama's former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was told "You're not even told acknowledge the drone program."
From what I gather about Obama’s former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, he is a man of very little conscience. Today on MSNBC (where he is a new paid contributor) he told the host that one of the first things he was told in his training to become Press Secretary is that he was “not even to acknowledge the drone program” or “even discuss that it exists.”
Here’s the video:
Now, the reason I say Robert Gibbs has little conscience is that this very statement indicates he knew it was his job to lie to the American people from day one. And that’s exactly what he did. His entire existence at the White House was to stand up before the press and parrot Obama’s blatant falsehoods, day after day after day.
Now he has a new job…doing the same thing for MSNBC.
Poor Richard's News: CBS: Obama lied about Capitol janitor pay cuts from sequester
This is by far not the only lie that
Chicken LittlePresident Obama told about the sequester, but it’s just nice to see CBS calling him out on it…sort of.from CBS:
During his news conference to announce that he and congressional leaders failed to avert the sequester cuts going into effect tonight, President Obama gave several examples of people who will be directly affected by the cuts. It turns out, however, that one of those examples was in error.
“[A]ll the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol — now that Congress has left, somebody is going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage — they’re going to have less pay,” Mr. Obama said. “The janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut, and they’ve got to figure out how to manage that. That’s real.”
The president’s mention prompted Carlos Elias, the superintendent of the U.S. Capitol building and the Capitol Visitors Center, to email his employees within hours of Mr. Obama’s comment.
“The pay and benefits of EACH of our employees WILL NOT be impacted,” Elias wrote.
CBS calls it an “error.” But here at Poor Richard’s News, we’re going to call it what it is: a bald faced lie.
News to Me: Lies, Damned Lies, And Banks: Deutsche Bank Caught Again
By Mario A. / February 25 2013
By Wolf Richter | Testosterone Pit
Deutsche Bank, long coddled by the German government, is mired in a swamp of costly “matters,” such as the Libor rate-rigging scandal or the carbon-trading tax-fraud scandal that broke with a televised raid by 500 police officers on its headquarters. It’s writing down assets and setting up reserves to settle these allegations.
Co-CEO Jürgen Fitschen insinuated more gloom was to come. The bank, he said, would “be confronted with more developments in these and other matters” [The Putrid Smell Suddenly Emanating From European Banks].
And now, one of these other matters seeped to the surface: the bank had known for years about the impact of commodities speculation on food prices and the havoc it wreaked on people in poor countries. And it had lied to the German Parliament about it.
On June 27, 2012, David Folkerts-Landau, head of Deutsche Bank’s DB Research, educated a parliamentary commission about the dire consequences of food price inflation—and what didn’t cause it.
“In developing countries where often up to 90% of the income must be spent on food,” he said, “price increases of wheat, corn, and soybeans in the years 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 had devastating consequences.” Volatility made it worse. “Even spikes of only a few months are a serious threat to food security.”
While the volume of options and derivatives in agricultural markets had been ballooning in recent years, “primarily in search of higher yields,” he said, there was “hardly any sound empirical evidence” for the assertion that any of it “led to price increases or higher volatility.”
He cited the big players. The US Commodity and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) had received “no reliable economic analysis” that showed that excessive speculation influenced the markets. US Department of Agriculture came to the same conclusion in 2009. And the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) pointed out as early as 2007 that there was “no convincing causal relationship” between speculation and price increases.
That the BIS would say that makes sense: it groups together 58 central banks, including the most prodigious money printers. On its board: Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, NY Fed President William Dudley, ECB President Mario Draghi, etc. etc.
Thus inspired, Folkerts-Landau concluded that “commodity prices are primarily determined by fundamental demand and supply factors,” not speculation.
Alas, foodwatch, an independent non-profit, has obtained four studies by DB Research and two studies by German insurance and finance conglomerate Allianz that showed that both companies had known for years that commodity speculation—one of their major business activities—drove up food prices.
In September, 2009, a DB Research study pointed out: “Speculation has also contributed to price increases.”
A year later, DB Research found that speculation could be “distorting the normal functioning of the market,” which “can have grave consequences for farmers and consumers and is in principle unacceptable.” It argued that it was important for the proper “functioning of the food chain” that commodity derivatives serve their original purpose of price discovery and hedging against volatility. And it suggested that more regulation of derivatives would “be helpful in avoiding excesses.”
In January, 2011, DB Research—shocked that high food prices had at least in part triggered social unrest in a number of countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa—admitted that “in some instances speculation might have added to the price movement.”
Two months later, DB Research acknowledged that in developing countries where “consumers spend over 50% of their income on food,” price increases can be devastating and “hollow out the right to food.” While there was no consensus on the role of derivatives, the study nevertheless fingered speculation: “When speculation drives prices to a level that is no longer consistent with fundamental data, this can have serious consequences for farmers and consumers.”
Hence another scandal: large banks have known for years that commodities speculation and related products that they sold to their clients caused immense damage to people in developing countries and hurt people even in rich countries. foodwatch points out that even short price spikes can cause permanent damage to already mal-nourished children—and can lead to death.
Yet banks “deceive the public, even lie to Parliament, to continue without scruples to profit at the expense of those who are starving.”
But the banks are just a link in the chain. Central banks have cranked up their printing presses and flooded the world with speculative capital, causing asset bubbles left and right. Their stated policy goal is to cause inflation, but when food-price spikes wreak havoc around the world, it’s of course someone else’s fault.
Deutsche Bank is flailing to get this under control. There have already been noisy demands that it remove those financial products from the markets that bet on price changes of agricultural commodities. But the bank is the bedrock of the German economy, and Germany must soldier on.
All hopes rest on it: its vibrant economy teeming with globalized, ultra-competitive, export-focused companies is supposed to drag France and other Eurozone countries out of their economic morass. But then, there’s an ugly reality. Read…. What If Germany Gets Bogged Down Too? Or Has It Already?
Poor Richard's News: GLOBAL WARMING ALERT! Liberal journalist admits polar bears increasing in numbers, not dying out
He’s the poster boy for the global warming alarmists: the polar bear, dying out because evil humans are driving too many cars and eating too much beef. Well, all that turns out to be a bunch a baloney, and one liberal journalist is finally seeing the light.
from Wall Street Journal:
I knew I was in trouble when the biologist from the Manitoba Conservation Department sat down next to me. “The bears look good,” he said. “I haven’t seen them this fat in years.” We’d both been hanging around the tiny town of Churchill, Manitoba, ground zero for everything having to do with polar bears. Every fall the town is overrun with bears waiting for Hudson Bay to freeze. The bears, in turn, are trailed by herds of tourists, tour guides, scientists, green-leaning types and B-list celebrities—all looking for communion with The Most Important Animal of Our Time.
What worried me wasn’t what the biologist had to say, but what the woman who had occupied that same seat three minutes earlier had said about the very same bears. A publicist for an environmental advocacy group, she shook her head ruefully. “It’s just so sad,” she exhaled. “They all look so skinny that it’s hard to look at them.”
I went north for a simple reason: I wanted to be a hero of the environmental movement and write a poetic obituary for a doomed species. The Center for Biological Diversity—the environmental group that sued the U.S. government to put polar bears on the Endangered Species list—had predicted that “two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could be extinct by 2050.”
But after months of reporting and hundreds of bear sightings, I kept running up against an inconvenient truth: There were a lot of well-meaning, well-credentialed scientists, wildlife officers and local experts who simply didn’t believe that polar bears were one ice cube away from extinction. And they had the numbers to prove it.
Which was good news for the bears…even if it was terrible news for their careers as symbols of environmental doom.
Let’s start with what we know. Almost everybody agrees that there are between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears alive today. Here’s another thing almost everyone agrees on: That number is a whole lot bigger than it was 40 years ago.
So there you have it, the next time somebody tells you that the polar bears are dying out, you’ll know better. They’re most certainly not.
My ppl @patriciada54 say when she typed this up she thought of me lol… She knows me well Lmao #government #lies #FalseFlag #deceit #destruction #kills #destroys #damage
Norman Dodd was interviewed in 1982 by G. Edward Griffin regarding the time he spent as the head researcher for the Reece Committee.
This is a truly eye opening look into what the tax exempt foundations were doing in the United States – their attempt to merge the Soviet system of Government with the USA. Now that the Soviet Union has fallen apart, what can we learn from Norman Dodd’s story about the motives of global elites today?
Rifle found in Sandy Hook shooter's trunk not a Bushmaster
So for those keeping score at home, the initial media report was that the shooter at Sandy Hook used a .223-caliber, AR-15/M-16 pattern ‘assault rifle’ to commit most of the murders. They then had to go back and say that no, he didn’t actually use such a rifle, but he brought one… he just left it in his trunk as he headed inside.
Now it appears that the weapon left behind in the shooter’s car was a shotgun of some sort, not even a firearm of the type that people like Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama are now looking to ban. Let me say that again; certain politicians in Washington are now looking to ban a certain class of weapons over an event in which they were (possibly) not even used. Let that sink in for a second.
You can’t even try to deride this site as a source; there is actual VIDEO of the police pulling the long gun out of the shooter’s car, and it is very clearly a pump-action shotgun. And so there’s three versions of the events at Sandy Hook out there right now; two media fabrications, and the truth. Some sources are claiming that the shooter did indeed have an AR-15 pattern rifle with him while he was attacking inside the school, and others claim only handguns are used. What is the truth, when the media has changed their story so many times already?
It’s in a climate of confusion and misinformation like this that mistakes are made and bullshit laws end up being passed.
