The new lie is added to this supercut of the 36 times (and counting) Obama said "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period."

Note that he could repeat his lie without the aid of notes -- but now when he offers his new lie -- claiming that "What we said was that... you could keep your plain if your plan didn't change [at all]" -- he needs some Lawyer's Notes to guide him.

On Megyn Kelly last night, Judge Napolitano pointed out the power of adding Period to the end of most of these vows. When one says "Period," one means there is no fine print. There are no caveats, conditions, or qualifications. "Period" means that the vow you just heard is self-contained; there is no extraenous material elsewhere you have to check to determine what the promise means.

But that's exactly what he's saying "Period" doesn't mean now. Now he's claiming "Period" meant-- actually, he's claiming "we" said this, which is a lie -- "unless there have been any changes [whatsoever] to your policy."

Such as $5 increase in your copay to keep pace with rising medical costs. Yes, a $5 change in your copay ungrandfathers your policy. The HHS deliberately wrote these rules to terminate as many policies as possible.

Actually, the lie is deeper than that. Because if you thought "If you like your plan, you could keep your plan" meant that you would be held harmless by the changes wrought by Obamacare, then you were misled -- even grandfathered policies, for example, must have their premiums jacked up in order to pay for the sick and uninsurable.

Another part of Obamacare says that insurers can't discriminate based on health status, which means the sick pay less... and the healthy, necessarily, pay more. A lot more.

And the guarantee of "If you like your policy, you can keep your policy" was never intended to mean you wouldn't be shellacked by higher rates. Or, at least, it was intended to be understood as meaning that; Obama always knew that wasn't the way he was setting it up to work.

In other words: You were never going to keep your old policy. Even as regards grandfathered policies, you were always going to have something new: Steeply increased premiums, which represent a hidden tax to redistribute wealth to Obama's constituents.

So the only people allowed to change your policy were... Obama's HHS officials, by jacking up your premiums.

He flat out lied. And lied and lied and lied. And now he's lying some more.

More on the fallout from the Newest If You Like Your Plan Lie at Hot Air.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but the below clip from Morning Joe is worth watching. They point out that Obama sounds exasperated that he's forced to explain his lie. But then Scarborough points out Obama also sounded exasperated, as if he was dealing with children, when he was lying in the first false promises.

That is, he sounded like an exasperated parent dealing with children when he was lying to the public, and now that he has to explain why he lied, he also sounds like an exasperated parent dealing with children.

He was exasperated lying to you, and now he's exasperated lying to you about why he lied.

Either way, you have greatly disappointed Him.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:08 PM | Comments (328)
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.

Welcome to the November 2013 Election Night Results Thread.
Very bare bones, as funds have been diverted to drugs, new staff, and space exploration, but mainly drugs.

New Jersey Governor
23%IN
CALL- Chris Christie has won re-election, margin all that's left to be decided.
R Chris Christie 57.5%
D Barbara Buono 41%

Virginia Governor
81%IN
CALL- McAuliffe has won based on bellweather county results
R Ken Cuccinelli 47.2%
D Terry McAuliffe 45.9%
L Robert Sarvis 6.9%

Virginia Lieutenant Governor
80%IN
CALL- RALPH NORTHAM HAS WON (just on preliminary county returns) 711PM EST
R E. W. Jackson 46.5%
D Ralph Northam 53.5%

Virginia Attorney General
80%IN
CALL
D Mark Herring 48%
R Mark Obenshain 52%

more...

Posted by: CAC at 02:55 PM | Comments (1405)
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

Actually they're not paying for advertising per se, but instead are paying some lobbying group to "brief" writers and producers on "The Facts" of Obamacare.

The California Endowment, a private foundation that is spending millions to promote President Barack Obama's signature law, recently provided a $500,000 grant to ensure TV writers and producers have information about the Affordable Care Act that can be stitched into plot lines watched by millions.

The aim is to produce compelling prime-time narratives that encourage Americans to enroll, especially the young and healthy, Hispanics and other key demographic groups needed to make the overhaul a success.

"We know from research that when people watch entertainment television, even if they know it's fiction, they tend to believe that the factual stuff is actually factual," said Martin Kaplan of the University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center, which received the grant.

Wonderful. A propagandist-by-fantasy is bragging that the American public is too stupid to be able to tell the difference between fiction and fact.

Corrected: I completely blew the figure in the headline. It's $500,000, not $500 million.

Posted by: Ace at 01:39 PM | Comments (184)
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

Charles C.W. Cooke objects to the White House's spin that there are a "mere" fifteen million victims.

Is that all, President And The Middle Class?

Pushing back against the increasingly common realization that Obamacare’s achievements have thus far been to expose the president as an incorrigible liar and to corrupt the individual health-insurance market in precisely the way that critics were lambasted for suggesting it would, Jay Carney complained last Tuesday that reporters were blowing out of proportion the number of people whose health insurance is being canceled. “In some of the coverage of this issue in the last several days,” Carney griped, “you would think that you were talking about 75 percent or 80 percent or 60 percent of the American population!” Instead, he noted bitterly, “the universe we’re talking about” is only “5 percent of the population.”

Out of context, “5 percent of the population” does not sound especially impressive. But 5 percent of the population is 15 million people — or the collective population of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, and both the Dakotas. Fifteen million people is 300 Yankee Stadiums or two New York Cities. It is twice the number of Germans who died during the Second World War. It is, in another words, a lot of people.

With this in mind, one almost feels sympathetic toward the administration’s crack team of liars. By now, they must be realizing that they have been given an impossible mission: to argue simultaneously that 20 million people’s visiting a website is worthy of our awe and admiration and that 15 million living, breathing rebuttals to the president’s incessant “if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan” promise are but an insignificant rounding error.

This will prove to be an almost impossible feat.

I think @justkarl pointed out that the ENDA bill -- making gays a protected class as far as getting fired from work -- will affect something like 10-15 million American gays.

Apparently that's a block of people Obama has to rush right out to protect.

But the 15 million directly, intentionally harmed by his own lies and socialist schemes? Meh. Can't make an omelette without breaking those eggs.

Posted by: Ace at 12:16 PM | Comments (491)
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

...which is also known as "being an eight year old boy."

Exhibit A: No psychologically-stable boy thinks
ninjas and swords and guns are cool. Obviously,
this kid is a Ticking Time Bomb

Hey kid, you know all that crap we tell you about Self-Expression? Yeah, it's a damnable lie. What we want you to do is Conform with our Corporate Code of Conduct, and attempt to make yourself a bland gray cipher like the living dead school administrators have made themselves into.

The school should look into the large number of Godzillas being shot to death by airplanes on paper book-covers. Can't have kids fantasizing about shooting up Godzillas. That leads to the harder stuff, like drawing pictures of boobies.

Posted by: Ace at 11:49 AM | Comments (179)
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

How long have I been trying to tell people this? At last, this simple Truth has been realized by one actress.

Her name is Jamie Alexander, and I think she plays like Lady Sif or whatever in Thor.

Eh, and for another blow-off thing, here's a neat play that goes wrong. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:18 AM | Comments (212)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

I convinced me.

Swing Voters Oppose Obama 60% to 36%

And I believe this is personal favorability-- not job performance. And personal favorability is more critical, as it sets the ceiling and floor for one's support.

Sixty percent of swing voters have an unfavorable image of Obama, while only 36 percent of them have a favorable view, says the George Washington University Battleground Poll, which was released Nov. 4.

Overall, 50 percent of respondents have an unfavorable view, while 48 percent have a favorable view, the poll reported.

Forty-five percent of respondents approved of ObamaÂ’s job performance, which is a consistent with polls going back to late 2011. That number shows only a small slice of the electorate outside the Democratic base is pleased with ObamaÂ’s work.

Okay, now enjoy this spin from the Democrats behind the poll:

The Democratic pollsters who developed the poll, however, predict the publicÂ’s disgust at Washington will hurt the GOP incumbents in 2014. “The political center — self‐described ‘moderatesÂ’ —… [put] the blame even more squarely on the Republicans (50% to 26% for Obama and the Democrats),” reported Celinda Lake, Daniel Gotoff, and Alex Dunn.

Yeah there's one problem with that: The Republican opposition to Obamacare -- their constant "hysterical warnings" about it, their "extremist obstructionism" in attempting to derail it -- sure looks something like Truth and Wisdom now.

The other thing Democrats will say is, mockingly, "Well, gee, I guess that really dooms Obama in his 2016 reelection, huh? Psych-- he's not running again. Ha ha!"

Yeah I know they'll say that because we said stuff like that about Bush's declining support from 2005 to 2008.

But while Obama is not on the ballot, an awful lot of Democrats are, and those Democrats all supported Obamacare, including voting against attempts to give meaning to Obama's "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" promise.

And Bush's unpopularity fueled the rise of Obama.

Here's another angle: The media loves to focus on the Tea Party because there is an intraparty war going on. The Tea Party has a lot of firm positions that they consider non-negotiable, and the pragmatic, let's-just-win-elections Establishment finds it hard to win with these positions.

But what's going to happen with Obama now? As he falls further in popularity, his most devoted cultists will scream, "You must support him all the harder! He is our savior! He is the apotheosis of the progressive dream and hes is too big to fail!"

So we'll have that sort of extremism from the prog base.

Meanwhile, what will the Democrat Establishment do?

Well, I think what they'll do is continue to stand by Obama... but they will pay a price for that. And when a Senator or two decides to thwart Obama to save his own skin, the left will start enjoying its own intraparty DINOs-must-be-purged war.

Success masks divisions. Failure uncovers them, and catastrophic failure not only uncovers them, but then grinds on them with a cheese grater and spritzes lemon juice into the pink bloody wound.

Remember... Bush supporters being called "dead-enders" in 2007 or so?

Yeah. Can't wait for the Obama dead-enders.

This is so obvious that I feel it's actually stupid to say: But the Republicans should explicitly make the case between their opposition to Obamacare and, well, Obamacare.

See what I mean? It's stupid.

But yes, you can say We were right if you're not obnoxious about it.

And if you don't blame people themselves for having been stupid -- which, and I mean this most emphatically, they were.

But you can't say that. You have to shift blame from the Stupid American Voters to Obama and the Democrats' nonstop lies, telling the voters Their lies, and their media Palace Guards, prevented us from getting the truth to you.

Not that the public was stupid and lazy and bears the responsibility for this -- which they do. But you can't say that.

Take all responsibility from them and shift it squarely on to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Baucus, and the media.

People do not like taking responsibility for their mistakes. And if you ask them to, they will react with hostility.

What they love is being told You're a victim of someone else's wrongdoing.

And there's an awful lot of wrongdoing in the media, in the White House, and in the Democrat Party to make this case to people.

The American People were lied to. They were lied to constantly, shamelessly, enthusiastically. They were lied to with relish -- Obama often smiled as he was lying.

Tell the public they were lied to, and that it's not their fault for trusting in the Democrats' latest series of socialist lies.

Oh, and borrow Obama's pet phrase: "And the Middle Class."

He's financed his boondoggle with a dishonest tax directly on the Middle Class.

And they should know it.

Posted by: Ace at 10:21 AM | Comments (288)
Post contains 874 words, total size 5 kb.

It's not a new low -- he had some bad months mid-2011 -- but it is a recent low.

Furthermore, I think this time it will stick. Because his personal favorability is now also underwater.

And with the news each day about his Gigantic Lies in Service of His Gigantic Incompetence, this stuff is going to hang around long enough to make an impression.

The old take was that, no matter how bad Obama was doing, he was a Nice Man who was Trying to Do the Right Thing. His serial lying and new round of serial lying to explain his past lies (which I'll link next post, even though you now all know about it) obliterates the Nice Man who Is Trying to Do The Right Thing narrative.

He's not just a failure anymore; he's a dishonest, shifty politician who lies to the American people -- and hurts them! -- to get what he wants.

And then who, having lied about just about everything, also fails.

Posted by: Ace at 09:29 AM | Comments (328)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

He said this about 20 minutes ago, in the Health Care hearing.

He began by noting people's objections to paying for maternity care, despite being 60 years old. He first claimed to find some validity in that objection. But then added, "But then I got to thinking about it."

He analogized the forced payment for health care you don't need to Property Taxes. He said something like, "Well my wife and I aren't having more kids, and our kids are all grown up. So why should we pay property taxes for schooling children?"

He added, in a Stage Whisper, that we are living in a "Society," which to him constitutes some kind of argument about our responsibility to pay for others' needs.

Now, Obama and the rest of the Democrats are claiming, falsely, that people are "getting better coverage," which is their answer to why people are being forced to pay double or triple what they used to pay.

The suggestion is that this "better coverage" benefits them personally -- that they themselves are reaping the benefits from this alleged "better coverage."

But Tom Harkin just justified the skyrocketing premium rates honestly -- but too honestly, in a way that exposes the fiction of Obama's claims.

The maternity care costs imposed on 60 year olds does not benefit those 60 year olds. It is not "better coverage" for them. What it is, of course, is a forced subsidy towards 28 year old women, taking from one group to redistribute wealth (in the form of subsidized health costs) to someone else. The 60 year old, who has no need of maternity care, pays for it, so that the 28 year old woman, who does need it, can pay less.

In the case of a property tax -- or any tax -- we understand that that money is being taken from taxpayers to pay for general government spending, which may or may not (and probably will not) benefit the taxpayer himself.

But Obamacare's "better coverage" is explicitly not supposed to be tax on the healthy for the benefit of the unhealthy, or on the infertile for the benefit of the fertile. He keeps selling this "better coverage" not as a hidden tax, but as a boon that personally benefits the recipient.

Tom Harken, accidentally, just exposed this as lie.

Obama swore up and down he wasn't taxing people in order to pay for his boondoggle. Tom Harkin just admitted that's precisely what he's doing.

Furthermore, Harkin's only justification for the soaring costs of premiums is that it is a tax intended to benefit other people, redistributing money from some to pay for others. It can only be justified as a redistributive tax.

Posted by: Ace at 08:31 AM | Comments (293)
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

A bit late for this to have an impact, but...

Campaign finance records show the Libertarian Booster PAC has made the largest independent contribution to SarvisÂ’ campaign, helping to pay for professional petition circulators who collected signatures necessary to get SarvisÂ’ name on TuesdayÂ’s statewide ballot.

Austin, Texas, software billionaire Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PACÂ’s major benefactor. HeÂ’s also a top bundler for President Barack Obama. This revelation comes as Virginia voters head to the polls Tuesday in an election where some observers say the third-party gubernatorial candidate could be a spoiler for Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

Of course, getting Sarvis on to the ballot doesn't get him votes, necessarily. To the extent he's a spoiler, it's due to the fact that a sizable number of Republicans prefer a more libertarian take on many issues.

Posted by: Ace at 07:43 AM | Comments (251)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.