Posted on 02/03/2014 6:48:35 AM PST by Kaslin
Barack Obamas infamous 21 words about keeping our health insurance and doctors were more than just remarkable political lies that ended his public credibility. Theyve become insidious corrupters of the entire political and journalistic infrastructure that echoed the lies and thats left struggling to prop up the president and itself.
Consider the assorted contortions and embarrassment of, respectively, a Colorado U.S. Senator, a Michigan U.S. Representative, a Colorado regulator, and journalists ranging from a Denver web pundit to the New York Times.
Sen. Mark Udall, facing reelection this year, was nailed on tape echoing the Big Lie. Hes not very comfortable about it, particularly because some 330,000 Coloradans received the cancelation notices he promised they wouldnt. Udalls response was to lean on state insurance regulators to change their numbers by changing their vocabulary. He argued plans shouldnt be counted as canceled if a person was eligible to buy a pricier ACA compliant plan.
The insurance regulator resisted Udalls creative writing. Then things got interesting.
Todd Shepherd, of the local news site CompleteColorado.com, obtained and reported on internal state emails of Jo Donlin, the responsible insurance official, stating Udalls office wanted to trash the states numbers, contacted her repeatedly, and when she refused to bend, she received a very hostile call from Udalls chief of staff. One can only infer Donlins reasons for documenting the pressure she felt.
Udalls interference prompted demands for more information and for an investigation into his conduct. Almost instantly, Colorados Department of Regulatory Affairs, which oversees the Division of Insurance, issued a statement claiming a "neutral and objective panel" investigated the matter and determined Udalls office did nothing improper and there was no intimidation.
The quick, unconditional exoneration prompted more questions, seeking the panel members identities, a list of persons interviewed, and the questions and answers. Department Director Barbara Kelley stonewalled for about a day. She initially asserted the records were confidential personnel files she would withhold to protect conscientious public employees from political harassment.
The embarrassment of calling materials from an investigation personnel records melted Ms. Kelleys cheeks quickly, and she reported later the same day the panel consisted of herself-- a Democratic political appointee--her deputy director--also a Democratic political appointee--and her department lobbyist--similarly a Democratic appointee, the former chief of staff for Senate Democrats. She claimed there were no written records of the panels activities.
You might think the revelation that the objective panel--that acted in a single day or two at most, with zero paper trailturned out to be three partisans would spur the media to press harder. But six days out, that was the last news the Denver Post reported on the matter. The Post also ran an editorial essentially concluding the Department had complied with its public duty, while noting the objectivity of the panel members might be subject to question. Indeed.
Udalls venture into linguistic revision is going mainstream, however, and becoming liberal conventional wisdom. Local web columnist Mike Littwin echoed Udall in the Colorado Independent, arguing if a cancelation notice includes an offer for a more expensive ACA policy, then your insurance isnt technically cancelled. Only those who are terminated and left with no option should count as cancelled policies.
That shameless argument has spread from liberal precincts of the internet to the commanding heights of the New York Times Editorial Page. Michigan Rep. Gary Peters, a Democrat is running for an open senate seat. He echoed Obamas promises the ACA bars canceling policies. But a hard-hitting independent ad smacks him with the fact 225,000 Michiganders in fact had their policies cancelled. In the Times book, these truths are so inconvenient theyre intolerable. The Times fumed: The 225,000 Michigan residents who the ad said received cancellation notices were actually told that they could change to a better policy; they were not told they could no longer have insurance, as the ad implies. (My emphasis).
This is nonsense on stilts. The ad implied no such thing. Besides the fact these people cant speak English, they dont know recent history. Linguistically, the argument is precisely backwards: your policy technically is cancelled; youre offered a more expensive policy. The liberal version amounts to arguing your Ford pickup wasnt repossessed if the wrecking crew offers you a proposal for a more expensive, politically approved Chevy Volt, with higher deductibles and a mandatory maintenance package.
More importantly, the cancellation is exactly what Obama promised against. The Left is trying to redefine keep your plan and keep your doctor to mean instead move up to Obama plans and doctors. Theyre trying to bleach his lie into truth.
They insidiously hide the purpose of Obamas potent, oft-repeated promise.He certainly wasnt trying to reassure Americans he wouldnt strip our coverage and leave us bare in the desert. Rather, he was promising Obamacare was no big deal. It wouldnt hassle most people. If we liked our plans and doctors, then he wouldnt mess with us. He wouldn't force us to switch from our plans to his program. But he did. Big time.
His law cancels our plans, forcing us into his program's plans or into the Exchanges. Now, Orwell's Crew in the persons of politicians like Udall and Peters, pundits like Mike Littwin, and national voices like the Times, are trying to redefine words and rewrite history. They want to erase the fact that millions of Americans lost their plans because of Obamacare.
If their revisionism is right, the president didn't lie at all. He was truthy. His opponents are the ones who should quit lying about it. War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Weve always been at war with Eastasia.
When he blatantly lied to the American people to get ObamaCare passed, he destroyed any credibility he had. Why should Republicans believe him if he says he will secure the borders if they pass amnesty for illegals? He is lying about that too.
They shouldn't. But they will.
2 + 2 = 5 !
Redefining words is how the progressive cult survives. “Murdering babies in the womb” evolved into “pro-choice” and “pro-lifers” who opposed this abomination were labeled “anti-choice.”
Amen!
He blatantly lied to O’Reilly yesterday when he said there was no corruption involved in the IRS persecutions (Dinesh?). He called it “confusion.” Everything coming out of his mouth is either lies, double-talk or whispers to enemies telling them he would have “flexibility” over us. Thus far nothing or no one is stopping him. Our lives, America’s economic future and it’s integrity are in grave peril.
And abortion mills are “reproductive” health care centers
Do not trust Obama to enforce any law enacted by Congress. He makes his own truth and his own law. We do not realize the trouble America is in.
Obama is the tyrannical president that the founding fathers warned us about.
“.....political lies that ended his public credibility.”..
When did he ever HAVE credibility? When he was a senator and voted “present” all the time, he had NO CREDIBILITY.
You EARN credibility and he has not earned that or anything else.
Obama has never eared anything in his life, i.e. the Nobel Peace Prize.
He's absolutely right. You can see the ad here and the phrase "as the ad implies" is a straight up lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsLdhwwSwrQ
Which ONE????? Every word out of his mouth is a lie.
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." - Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788Note particularly the following words of wisdom from Federalist No. 63:"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow." - Federalist Papers, No. 62, February 27, 1788
"As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?" - Federalist Papers, No. 63, 1788Note: Underlining added for emphasis here
Baracks Big Lie Taints All Who Touch It
******
That’s one thing 0 can’t be accused of touching.
It started way before that
Yeah, like that's going to happen against the combined power of a duped and dependent majority and the police power of the almighty State.
Madison was the fair-haired boy who got used.
Hey, Udall — your son’s a junkie thief and you’re a Democrat. Hard to tell which of you is more PATHETIC!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.