Tag Archives: Lie

News

Is Obama telling the truth about creating 5.2 million new jobs?

Leave a comment

From Yahoo News, of all places.

Excerpt:

In a new TV ad, President Obama makes an inflated claim to have added 5.2 million new jobs. The total added during his time in office is actually about 325,000.

In the ad, the president says “over 5 million new jobs” while the figure “5.2 million” appears on screen. But that’s a doubly misleading figure.

  • Viewers would need to pay close attention to the on-screen graphic to know that the ad refers only to employment gains starting in March 2010, omitting the 4.3 million jobs that were lost in the first year of Obama’s term.
  • And there’s no way a viewer would know that the total counts only private-sector jobs, omitting continuing losses in government employment.

According to the most recent employment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy has eked out a net gain of 325,000 jobs since January 2009, when Obama took office. And that’s giving credit for roughly 386,000 jobs that the BLS has announced, on a preliminary basis, that it will be adding to this year’s employment totals next year, as a result of its routine annual “benchmarking” analysis.

Looking only at private-sector jobs, it’s true that the total has risen just under 5.2 million since February 2010 — provided that credit is given for roughly 453,000 private-sector jobs to be added next year through the BLS benchmarking process. But over Obama’s entire term, those private-sector jobs have gone up only 967,000, even counting benchmarking additions.

The Heritage Foundation puts the number even lower, at 316,000 jobs created in the last 30 months.

News

Obama says that adding 4 trillion to the debt is unpatriotic… then does it

Leave a comment

Here’s the speech from July 3, 2008:

Ha! That looks like Obama giving that speech. Oh, it is Obama. Ha ha.

In that clip, Obama says:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

Obama liked to talk about the credit card from the bank of China during the campaign. And many people who watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and Rachel Maddow believed him. They believed him because the comedians told them to believe him. They did not want to stop laughing long enough to look at Obama’s voting record to see that he was consistently getting F ratings on spending and government waste and pork in all of his years as a legislator.

So Obama said that spending 4 trillion is “unpatriotic”. But then Obama did a funny thing. CBS News reports.

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama’s four-year term.

Mr. Obama blames policies inherited from his predecessor’s administration for the soaring debt. He singles out:

“two wars we didn’t pay for”
“a prescription drug program for seniors…we didn’t pay for.”
“tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for.”

He goes on to blame the recession, and its resulting decrease in tax revenue on businesses, for making fewer sales, and more employees being laid off. He says the recession also resulted in more government spending due to increased unemployment insurance payments, subsidies to farms and funding of infrastructure programs that were part of his stimulus program.

Obama’s explanation for the deficits doesn’t wash, since the deficit was only $162 billion in 2007, the last year the Republicans had control of the House and Senate.

The Washington Times explains.

Excerpt:

A favorite liberal narrative is that President George W. Bush squan- dered the Clinton-era budget surpluses and piled up deficits with expensive wars and tax cuts for the rich. Candidate Barack Obama used this tale to great effect, and President Obama tells it still. Take his State of the Union address last week, when Mr. Obama attributed the Bush-era deficits to “paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

The truth is that Mr. Bush’s deficits were the product of spending, not tax cuts. In fact, Mr. Obama could learn an important lesson for his own economic plan by studying Mr. Bush’s two very different attempts at tax-cutting.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

So, Bush passed his tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, but revenue went up:

Federal receipts after Bush tax cuts
Federal receipts after Bush tax cuts

And the deficits went down from 2004 to 2007:

Obama Budget Deficit 2011
Obama Budget Deficit 2011

Bush was on track to balance the budget, then Nancy Pelosi came along and added 5.34 trillion to the debt in her 4 years as Speaker.

News

UK woman makes EIGHT false rape accusations and gets no jail time

3 Comments

Story from the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Misandry Review)

Excerpt:

A woman who made eight separate false claims of rape or sexual assault has been spared jail.

Gemma Gregory, 28, accused seven different men over a six-year period.

Former boyfriends were subjected to police questioning and DNA testing to clear their names.

Her fantasy stories also wasted huge amounts of police time.

As long ago as 2002, she admitted in a statement to police that she was ‘ seeking attention’ from them. But it was not until last year, after recording several hundred calls either from her or about her, that they took action.

[…]Her latest offence was in May when she rang police to say she had been raped at her home. She stuck to her story in a video interview three days later despite being warned she would be prosecuted if it was another lie.A 34-year-old man was interviewed by police and for the next five months Gregory regularly contacted officers to ask how the case was progressing.

Yesterday, the victim spoke of his ordeal.

‘We were going out for five to six months. I ended the relationship with her, but she got back in touch with me a couple of months later.

‘We met up at a pub and saw each other for about two or three nights after that. I stayed at her flat one of those nights and we had sex just the once.’

He continued: ‘She then left a message on my phone saying come round tonight but I was doing other things.

‘The next thing I knew the police rang me up and asked me to come to see them. I was not arrested but attended the police station voluntarily. It wasn’t very nice to be accused of rape.

[…]Detective Constable Paul Weymouth, of Plymouth CID, said yesterday: ‘We conducted a thorough rape inquiry.

[…]She rang us every two or three days to keep it going and claimed that her exboyfriend had made silent calls.’She wanted him put in prison. She kept this going for a long time.’ He said that some of the earlier ‘suspects’ had been arrested and had intimate samples taken as part of the inquiries.

[…]’It was not thought appropriate to take action at an earlier stage.’

And here’s another story from the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

A young woman cried rape after ‘fulfilling a fantasy’ of having sex with two strangers, a court heard yesterday.

Chloe Dolton, 22, was ‘bored’ with her life and willingly engaged in the threesome after an argument with her boyfriend, it was alleged.

A jury heard she had previously expressed her sexual fantasies in a diary, in which she wrote: ‘I am in crisis. I am so bored of my life and need a miracle.

‘I try to be nice and decent but I always end up one way or another trying to **** someone, a girl or a boy.’

The entry on a computer diary entitled The Life of Chloe Dolton continued: ‘I should be out having fun with every boy I meet, having sex with whoever I like.

‘I am such a hateful girl, such a selfish girl.’

The prosecution said she fulfilled her fantasy at the end of an evening spent drinking alcohol, and later accused the two men of rape because she was ashamed of what she had done.

[…]Dolton denies perverting the course of justice by making the false rape claims.

Miss Martin said of the defendant: ‘She deliberately lied to her boyfriend, her family and friends and to the police.

‘She clearly lied because probably of her shame and regret. She had in fact had consensual sex with two complete strangers.’

So in the first story, the woman made a false accusation to get attention. In the second story, the woman wanted to blame others for her own bad decision. And in the Lehigh University case I wrote about earlier, the woman needed an alibi after she was caught drunk in a public place after a long bout of underage drinking. She wanted the police to view her sympathetically, as a victim, so she lied and said that a police officer had raped her.

How often do women make false accusations of rape?

According to one study, false rape accusations are commonly used by women to provide an alibi for some other crime they are guilty of committing. The study lists this reason as one of the three reasons why women invent false rape accusations.

Excerpt:

A study of rape allegations in Indiana over a nine-year period revealed that over 40% were shown to be false — not merely unproven. According to the author, “These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.” ( Kanin EJ. Arch Sex Behav. 1994 Feb;23(1):81-92 False rape allegations. )

In 1985, a study of 556 rape allegations found that 27% accusers recanted when faced with a polygraph (which can be ordered in the military), and independent evaluation showed a false accusation rate of 60%. (McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.)

It seems that these fake charges are being leveled all the time, not just in high profile case like the Duke University scandal or the Hofstra University scandal. Something is going on in the minds of young women that is making them invent stories about men with total disregard as to the consequences it causes on those men. And the police and the courts are quite unable to do anything about it because feminism is so entrenched in the justice system.

So why are women doing this? Well, it’s because they are unable to get attention, affection and approval from men without engaging in drunkenness and irresponsible sex. And why have relations between men and women degraded to this point? The answer is that women embraced third-wave feminism, which has as its goal the complete destruction of sex differences in the public square. Feminism is to blame for the decline of chastity, courtship, courtesy, manners, romance, love and especially chivalry.

It was feminism that broke up the traditional family, feminism that removed men from homes. Women need fathers in the home to know how to relate to men so that they don’t go too far, and then feel guilty. But since 77% of young unmarried women voted for Barack Obama, the feminist candidate, we must assume that women are happy with the status quo. Either that or they are incapable or unwilling to investigate what consequences follow from their own decisions.

Related posts

Here is my previous post on how women overwhelming believe that men are constantly drugging them with date-rape drugs, when in fact peer-reviewed medical studies and police reports show that this virtually never occurs.

And more:

My posts on chastity and chivalry: