White House lies

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
– Barack Obama

“You know the people who always try to SCARE people whenever you try to bring them health-insurance reform are at it again. And they’re taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they’re cobbling them together to leave a VERY false impression.”
– Linda Douglass, Communications Director for the White House Office of Health Reform

Will someone please tell these cretins that it’s an uncut video of Obama himself talking. Of course, if you’re dumb enough to buy the CERTIFICATION/CERTIFICATE sleight of hand, perhaps you’re dumb enough to believe that an unedited video of an Obama statement about his beliefs regarding health insurance is an out-of-context, cobbled-together hatchet job.

Depression parallels

John Hood explains how “cash for clunkers” is the automotive equivalent of the 1930s-era crop destruction programs.

Back in the first term of the Roosevelt administration, its agricultural policies created the absurdity of the federal government paying farmers to destroy their crops even as many Americans were finding it difficult to feed their families. The program was intended to prop up prices and thus benefit farm interests at the expense of consumers — the former being well-represented in Washington, the latter not so much. If you think about the economy in Keynesian terms, such a policy might appear rational. If you think about the economy in practical terms, of course, the policy was idiotic.

There’s something similar going on with Cash for Clunkers. Automobiles represent a significant share of the nation’s capital stock. Even used cars often have years of life left in them, years during which owners can use them to get to work, perform work, or transport themselves and their families for education, recreation, or consumption.

The program is remarkably stupid. It’s just another form of credit inflation pushing the demand curve out. Once it hits the limits of demand, the shifting back of the curve to its place on the supply curve will be nasty because none of those new cars will need replacement as soon as the clunkers would have. There are some differences of course. Roosevelt was trying to reduce supply, whereas this program is just a means of consuming tomorrow’s demand today.

Joe Farah explains "news"

The WND chief bitchslaps all the idiot Americans who don’t grasp the concept:

For 24 hours, I have been deluged with e-mail – about 6,000 more than usual – that essentially fall into three categories:

Thank you for getting the goods on Barack Obama – I knew he was born in Kenya.

You really stepped in it this time, Farah. That document is bogus and it’s going to take the whole “birther” movement down once it is revealed as such.

Don’t you investigate the facts before you publish something? That document cannot be real because of X, Y and Z.

Because so many Americans have been educated in government schools, it is probably necessary for me to explain that reporting a news story is different than making an assertion.

No one at WND – not me, not Jerome Corsi, not any columnists, not any reporters – have defended the authenticity of the Kenyan birth certificate. No one here has made a judgment that it is real. What we did was report a fact – that California attorney Orly Taitz has filed a motion in federal court to determine its authenticity.

And yet people ask from time to time why I like writing for WND. I particularly liked the way Farah drew attention to the fact that there has been no evidence provided to demonstrate that the alleged CERTIFICATION of Live Birth document released by the Obama camp is legitimate despite similar questions about its authenticity.

Furthermore, I’m amused to note that some of the same people who claim that documentary evidence is not evidence are now claiming that a computer-generated piece of paper of unknown provenance “proves” Obama’s place of birth. Gentlemen, please! Where is the scientific evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu? Because, as we have been informed, if there is not scientific evidence to support a given assertion, it must be assumed to be false until proved otherwise. So, where are the peer-reviewed publications, the laboratory studies? What is the all-important scientific consensus? Because no scientific evidence to support Obama’s birth in Honolulu has been provided to date, every good scientific rationalist must assume that he was NOT born in Hawaii until conclusive scientific evidence to the contrary is provided. QED.