Fact Checking Obama's Claims About The Pork Spending (Stimulus) Bill

Okay, all is not well with the Obamanation. Here are some facts that have been checked by the Associated Press and have been found wanting:

OBAMA: "My bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs?" he told the news conference. He said in Indiana, "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years." THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error." Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.

In the long run, this bill will cause a loss of jobs. The money to pay for this massive spending must come from somewhere. Ultimately, it will come out of our economy and hurt our ability to create jobs.

OBAMA: "They'll be jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil and modernizing our costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and countless lives." THE FACTS: The economic stimulus bill would allocate about $20 billion to help hospitals and doctors transition from paper charts to electronic health records for their patients. Research has shown that in some instances, electronic record keeping can eliminate inappropriate services and improve care, but it's not a sure thing by any means. "By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce significant cost savings," the Congressional Budget Office reported last year.

Only proven technology leads to new job creation. Unproven technologies rely on government subsidies to continue, like wind farms that need government dollars to remain on-line. Again, this will lead to fewer jobs in the long run.

OBAMA: "I've appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. ... I made a mistake. ... I don't want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules." ... Obama previously acknowledged he "screwed up" in making it seem to Americans that there is one set of tax compliance rules for VIPs and another set for everyone else. Yet his choice for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, achieved the post despite having belatedly paid $34,000 to the IRS, an agency Geithner now oversees. That could leave the perception that there is one set of rules for Geithner and another set for everyone else.

And let's not forget how Obama went on a tirade about lobbyists in John McCain's campaign and yet Obama himself appoints lobbyists to his own staff.

Anyone else think that there aren't two set of rules here?

OBAMA: "We also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression." THE FACTS: This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s — yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January — the most in nearly 35 years — and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992. And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several years from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.

When we do reach the unemployment levels of the 1930's, it won't be because of the Bush Administration and the economy growing tax-cuts they enacted. It will be because of the socialist policies the Dems are trying to force down our throats right now.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Examining Obama's Job, Pork Claims
Calvin Woodward
Associated Press via Yahoo News
February 10, 2009

CNN's Campbell Brown On the Double Standard Being Applied To Sarah Palin And The New York Times Won't Name ACORN

Every now and then, even the leftist news organizations allow some nuggets of truth to slip through. I'm certain the producers at CNN are not thrilled with this, but Campbell Brown had something to say about all the attention that Sarah Palin's wardrobe was getting.

The transcript from Wednesday's Election Center:

CAMPBELL BROWN: ...[F]irst, as we do every night, we’re cutting through the bull -- a lot of sniping and a lot of stories today about Sarah Palin’s clothes. Politico.com reports that the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothes, hair, and makeup for Palin on the campaign trail. Now, these are not your tax dollars. This is money given by Republican donors to the RNC. But the report questions whether it's legal to use campaign cash for quote,’personal use.’ My issue: there is an incredible double standard here, and we're ignoring a very simple reality. Women are judged based on their appearance far, far more than men. This is a statement of fact. There has been plenty of talk and plenty written about Sarah Palin’s jackets, her hair, her looks. Sound familiar? There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Hillary Clinton’s looks, hair, pantsuits. Compare that to the attention given to Barack Obama’s $1,500 suits or John McCain’s $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison. Women get scrutinized based on appearance far more than men, and look, I speak from experience here. When I wear a bad outfit on the air, I get viewer e-mail complaining about it, a lot of e-mail, seriously. When Wolf Blitzer wears a not-so-great tie, how much e-mail do you think he gets? My point is, for women, unfortunately, appearance is part of the job. If Wolf or Anderson shows up on the air without makeup, do you think you would even notice? I show up on the air without makeup, trust me, you’ll notice. This doesn't just apply to TV. All women in the public eye deal with this issue, and it’s for this reason that I think the RNC should help Palin pay for hair, clothes, and makeup. It is part of the job. Now, you may think that’s an awful lot of money to spend on clothes, hair, and makeup, or you may complain, as some have, it’s hypocritical to sell yourself as a small-town hockey mom when you’re wearing designer clothes. That's fine. Just don't ignore the fact that there is a double standard here and personally, I think, in this campaign, with so much at stake, this is a peripheral issue. I myself have raised plenty of questions about Sarah Palin, much to the annoyance of the McCain campaign. But those questions have been about her qualifications and experience, never her appearance. Let’s keep the focus on what really matters here.

This is absolutely true. I have never seen a man running for public office put under the scrutiny that Sarah Palin has been put under simply because she is a woman.

CNN’s Campbell Brown Rips ‘Double Standard’ on Palin Clothing Issue
Matthew Balan
NewsBusters.org
October 23, 2008

---

And how about the New York Times? They can't even bring themselves to name the voter-fraud group ACORN in the headline of a story about voter fraud.

From Ed Laskey at the American Thinker:

So now the Times has to own up to the fact that its dismissive attitude towards criticism of ACORN was wrong. Why does The Times refer to a "Group"; by now, its readers are surely familiar with the "group's" name: ACORN. Will the Times own up to the fact that it was also wrong regarding the extent of the ties between Barack Obama and ACORN, which it also dismissed as so much piffle? The fact that the campaign funneled over $800,000 dollars to a corrupt group that has engaged in massive voter fraud, that illegally used get out the vote efforts for partisan purposes, that Barack Obama had ACORN as a client, that Barack Obama trained ACORN (though his campaign peddled the deceptive line that he was not ever a "hired" as a trainer. True-he thought so highly of the group he trained them for free).

Lasky also notes that nearly one in three registrations by ACORN were outright frauds and asks why anyone would not worry about it.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

New York Times Can't Bring Itself To Name ACORN In Its Headline On Voter Fraud Story
Ed Lasky
American Thinker
October 24, 2008

Exposing The Latent Sexism Of The Democrats And Other Leftists

I really wanted to post about this particular topic earlier this morning, but I felt it was more important to have a look at Gov. Palin's speech first. Of course, the entire nation is talking about her and what she brings to the GOP table now and what she can bring in the future. A star was truly born last night and I am proud to one of those who wholeheartedly supports her.

That being said, we should also look at some of the peripheral stories as they speak as much to main story too. One of those is an Internet rumor that Sarah Palin wanted certain books banned from the Wasilla library back in 1996. I'm not going generate any website hits for such a ridiculous claim by posting a link so you'll have to go and search for one on your own. But when you find one, take a look at the list. One of the things that should stand out to you is the listing of the complete Harry Potter series. J.K. Rowling hadn't even published The Sorcerer's Stone yet in 1996. That should tell you something about how idiotic such rumors are.

Another story we need to look at is how the woman Sarah Palin has been treated differently than the men who are running for office. Take for example Joe Biden. Biden was a single father who made it a point to rush home every night to be with his children after he tragically lost his wife. But for some reason, no one ever questioned his ability to be a politician while trying to keep up his family responsibilities.

Well, two people from the opposite sides of the political spectrum came together on that one. On the one hand, we have Mayor Rudy Guiliani and on the other, we have Susan Estrich. Both of them agree that the attacks on Sarah Palin's committment to family are nothing short of double-standard sexism.

From Mayor Giuliani's speech last night:

One final point. And how — how dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president. How dare they do that! (APPLAUSE) When do they ever ask a man that question? When? (APPLAUSE)

It was a perfectly placed shot, dead on target.

But, as we can see from the following excerpt, women on left are noticing it too. From Susan Estrich:

No would be asking these questions if she were a man. No one asked whether Arnold Schwarzenegger should run for governor because he has four children. They looked at Maria, his wonderful wife, and said, what a beautiful family. A mother doesn’t get the same treatment. This is how the double standard works. ... Why is that our business? Why is it our business whether Sarah Palin returned to her job as governor three days after her son was born, or three months? Is there a right answer? Maybe for the individual, depending on her responsibilities, whether she has a supportive spouse, family at hand, flexibility to go to work, but also to pump her breasts when she needs to, and get home when she has to. But how she answers it is private, not a basis for judging her qualifications for high office. ... I have no doubt that Barack Obama can count on his fingers the number of times he has been home in the last 19 months to put his two beautiful daughters to bed. In interviews, he says as much, expressing his gratitude to his mother-in-law, who has taken over many parenting responsibilities during the campaign, given that his wife has been away a great deal of the time as well, making appearances and raising money. Does this make him a “bad father"? Should it undercut his claim to the presidency? Of course not. Why should Sarah Palin be different?

When Rudy Giuliani and Susan Estrich are on the same page, we should take notice. The undercurrents of the selection of Sarah Palin as the GOP Vice Presidential candidate may prove to be politically fatal for some.

You can access Mayor Giuliani's speech and Susan Estrich's column on-line here:

Raw Data: Rudy Giuliani’s Remarks At The GOP Convention
FoxNews.com
September 3, 2008

Sarah Palin And The Double Standard
Susan Estrich
FoxNews.com
September 3, 2008