List of Obama’s lies and Iranian fact sheet that completely contradicts White House

Obama-Lies-SC

When asked about the post-Iran contretemps, I said repeatedly on a number of radio shows this week that if I had to choose who was the bigger liar, Obama or Khameni, there was no contest — Obama.

Obama is a liar. Pathological. Is there anything he hasn’t lied about?

You can keep your doctor.

The Benghazi  attack was the fault of a  YouTube video.

There was no stand down order.

Islam is peace.

Obama on IRS Scandal: “Not Even A Smidgen Of Corruption”

“My position hasn’t changed” on using executive authority to address immigration issues.

Says his comment about extremists being a JV team “wasn’t specifically referring to” the Islamic State.

Afghanistan is the good war.

The “most realistic estimates” for jobs created by Keystone XL are “maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline.”

“My father served in World War II”

“No more Illegal Wire Tapping of American Citizens”

“Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts” to create a legal framework on counterterrorism.

“Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of” President George W. Bush’s policies and the recession. (Fast and Furious began in 2009,)

“The only time government employment has gone down during a recession has been under me.”

He is a pathological liar. The Iranians may scam the talks in order to buy time to build their nuclear arsenal, but Obama is the liar.

So I ask you, who do you believe?

EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Parliament Releases “Factsheet” for Revision of Lausanne

Statement

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940126001122

Screen Shot 2015-04-17 at 11.57.08 AM

TEHRAN (FNA – Fars News Agency)- The Iranian parliament’s Nuclear Committee

on Wednesday released a factsheet to declare the revisions needed to be made

in the Lausanne statement that was issued by Tehran and the world powers as

a framework understanding at the end of their nuclear talks in Switzerland

earlier this month.

The factsheet which was presented by Head of the Nuclear Committee Ebrahim

Karkhaneyee on Wednesday stresses the necessity for respecting the redlines

and guidelines specified by Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution

Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, making Iran’s decisions and undertakings

reversible to enable the country to resume its nuclear operations in case of

the other side’s non-commitment to its undertakings, and immediate

termination of all sanctions in a single step and on the first day of the

implementation of the final agreement.

The factsheet also necessitates commitment of both sides to their

undertakings based on the Geneva agreement, a fair and reasonable balance

between the gives and takes, taking good care not to impair the country’s

security and military boundaries and national interests, providing 190,000

SWUs (Separative Work Units) of nuclear fuel enrichment capability needed by

Iran to produce fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant immediately after

the end of contract with Russia, safeguarding the nuclear achievements,

actual operation of all nuclear facilities of Iran not in words, but in

action, continued Research and Development (R&D) works and scientific and

technological progress in Iran and immediate application of R&D findings in

the country’s industrial-scale uranium enrichment cycle.

The factsheet urges operation of 10,000 centrifuge machines at Natanz and

Fordo, a maximum 5-year-long duration for the deal and for Iran’s nuclear

limitations, replacement of the current centrifuges with the latest

generation of home-made centrifuge machines at the end of the five-year

period.

Enrichment Program:

The period for the Join Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) should be

limited to five years, in which about 10,000 active centrifuges operating at

Natanz and Fordo now will continue nuclear fuel production by enriching

uranium below the 5% grade.

The UF6 enriched reserves which are under the supervision of the

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should be kept at Fordo nuclear

plant and will be turned into nuclear fuel complex based on the existing

capabilities.

During the five-year period, the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue to

keep the excess centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo or will gradually

dismantle them, and at the end of the 5-year period, it will replace all the

existing centrifuges, including the active or inactive ones, with the new

generation of (IR-N) centrifuge machines with the help of the new spaces and

infrastructures which will have been already prepared and will use them

without any limitation.

Justification:

Based on the Geneva agreement, the period for the final step should merely

include a single period which has been considered as to be five years in the

present factsheet. But in the Lausanne statement, different periods of 10,

20, 25 years and higher have been considered.

Given the Geneva agreement, the amount of enrichment should be specified

based on the country’s practical needs and the number of 10,000 centrifuges

has also been specified on this basis.

The 5-year period in this factsheet has been has been specified with respect

to the date when Iran’s nuclear fuel contract with Russia for the Bushehr

nuclear power plant will end; hence, the rules and limitations for the

components of the enrichment cycle should be set in such a way that the

Islamic Republic of Iran will be able to supply the fuel needed for the

power plant after the end of the contract with Russia.

Operation of 10,000 centrifuges and developing and having a 10-ton enriched

uranium stockpile will enable the Islamic Republic of Iran to supply the

fuel needed for the Bushehr power plant in the year when the fuel supply

contract with Russia (28-30 tons) ends.

Fordo installations:

Fordo nuclear facility will remain an enrichment and nuclear Research and

Development (R&D) center. 4 enrichment cascades with 656 centrifuges will

continue operation and production of fuel for purity levels lower than 5% by

maintaining the current chain arrangements.

If the country would need 20%-degree (enriched) uranium, the nuclear fuel

production line for purity levels lower than 5% will be altered to enrich

uranium to the 20%-grade after connecting the centrifuge cascades to each

other again.

Justification:

Based on the above, Fordo will remain an actual and active center, and the

Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain its capability to reverse its

decision and restore the 20%-grade enrichment.

Research and Development (R&D):

In a bid to use R&D findings in the country’s industrial-scale enrichment

chain, R&D should be planned in a way that the necessary possibilities and

infrastructures will be provided for replacing the first generation of

centrifuges with the latest generation of centrifuge machines (IR-N) when

the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action comes to an end after 5 years.

The R&D program should undergo no limitation before it comes into use for

industrial-scale operation.

Justification:

Accordingly, the advanced centrifuges will enter the chain of nuclear fuel

production without any restriction at the end of the 5-year deal.

Arak Heavy Water Reactor:

Given the Group 5+1 countries’ mere concern about the plutonium existing in

the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) of the Arak 40-MW heavy water reactor, the fuel

used by the reactor will be sent abroad.

The G5+1 states will be committed to cooperate and take the necessary

measures for relevant international licensing and permissions.

Justification:

Given the SNF export abroad, the insistence of the G5+1, specially the US,

on redesigning the said reactor is merely a pretext and doesn’t have any

scientific rationale.

What is more important than the heavy water nature of Arak reactor is the

core of the reactor which is due to be taken out and then be redesigned and

renovated. Such a move is irreversible in nature, and thus means crossing

the specified redlines.

Supervision and Inspection:

Supervision and inspections of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear

program should be carried out within the framework of the the

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards agreements.

Justification:

Once done, the principle stated by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic

Revolution – that security and military sanctities and boundaries shouldn’t

be violated and that the inspections should be carried out at conventional

levels similar to all other countries – will be respected and materialized.

Given the Islamic Republic of Iran’s opposition to the world arrogance,

endorsing and implementing the Additional Protocol will provide the world

arrogance (a term normally used for the US and its western allies) with

legal grounds to stage their preplanned plots against the Islamic Republic

of Iran.

Sanctions:

Concurrently with the start of the JCPOA, all the US and EU sanctions will

be terminated and Iran will start fulfilling its undertakings based on the

verification of the IAEA.

The UN Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran will be annulled

and all nuclear-related sanctions will be terminated and the Islamic

Republic of Iran’s case will be normalized.

The G5+1 countries, the EU and the UNSC will avoid imposition of new

nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

Justification:

By terminating all sanctions in a single step right at the start of the

implementation of the final comprehensive agreement, the Supreme Leader’s

statement that termination of sanctions is part of the agreement and not its

result will be materialized.

Based on the Geneva agreement, after the implementation of the JCPOA, all

UNSC, US and EU sanctions should be terminated and no new (UNSC) resolution

would be needed in this regard; Hence, terminating the UNSC sanctions will

close the case and no new resolution which would pave the ground for new

plots will be issued.

International cooperation:

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear cooperation with the world states,

including the G5+1 members, in areas of building nuclear power plants,

research reactors, nuclear fuel production, nuclear safety medicine and

nuclear agriculture, etc. will be possible and will improve. Based on the

JCPOA, Iran will be provided with access to the global market, trade and

finance and technical know-how and energy.

Reversibility:

In case of the two sides’ non-commitment to their undertakings, there will

be a possibility for reversing all measures.

Justification:

Based on the aforementioned proposal, the Islamic Republic of Iran will be

provided with reversible measures at the lowest level of damage and,

therefore, the G5+1’s commitment to its undertakings will be in fair balance

(with those of Iran).

Duration of the JCPOA:

After the end of the five-year period and the JCPOA exercise, all

restrictions will be lifted and based on the Geneva agreement, the case with

the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program will be similar to that of

the other NPT member states.

The Iranian Parliament factsheet for a revision to the Lausanne agreement

came after the US released a factsheet different from the joint statement

issued by Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Federica

Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs

and head of the G5+1 in nuclear talks with Iran, at the end of the latest

round of Iran-world powers nuclear talks in Switzerland on April 2, known as

the Lausanne statement.

The US factsheet that was released only a few hours after the Lausanne

framework understanding caused fury in Iran, encouraging many to raise deep

doubt about the results of the talks and US accountability and

trustworthiness.

In only a few weeks, a bipartisan bill was also presented to the Congress

for vote that would give the US legislature oversight of a final deal, a

move seen by many across the globe, including both Iran and the US, as

furthering impediments to the endorsement of a final deal between Iran and

the sextet.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator Bob Corker, who wrote

the bill, said the White House had agreed to go along with the bill only

after it was clear there was strong Democratic support. The legislation was

passed unanimously by the committee and is expected to pass the full Senate

and then the House of Representatives.

“That change occurred only when they saw how many senators were going to

vote for this,” Corker said.

Bipartisan support for the bill had grown in recent weeks to near the 67

votes needed to override any presidential veto. But senators from Obama’s

Democratic Party did succeed in adding amendments to water down the bill,

making it more palatable to the White House.

– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/list-of-obamas-lies-and-iranian-fact-sheet-that-completely-contradicts-white-house.html/#sthash.7U9xYXj0.dpuf

Activists Unite To Turn Illegal Immigrants Into Democratic Voters

Screen Shot 2015-04-10 at 10.51.41 AM

RACHEL STOLTZFOOS

Reporter

A coalition of immigration activists, community organizers and unions are rallying around a comprehensive strategy to create millions of new Democratic voters by defending President Obama’s executive orders on immigration and helping illegal immigrants.

The Committee for Immigration Reform Implementation is training “navigators” and volunteers to connect and educate legal and illegal immigrants, and to register as many voters as possible who will support President Obama’s immigration policies.

In a series of power point presentations obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation, the coalition outlines their strategy to train volunteers who will then register voters, help illegal immigrants determine the best path to what could eventually be citizenship, and work to defend Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

A slide titled “Path To Power” breaks down the number of illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and citizens with foreign-born parents, and the percentage of each eligible for citizenship or who qualify for benefits under Obama’s executive orders:

Screen Shot 2015-04-10 at 10.54.00 AM

Another slide outlines the plan for navigators to organize, rally and educate legal and illegal immigrants, and to help them with legal advice, so that “millions gain relief,” “orgs gain capacity,” and “leaders are empowered.”

Screen Shot 2015-04-10 at 10.55.00 AM

These navigators would be similar to those trained to educate people about Obamacare in order to boost enrollment numbers and public support for the program.

This effort centers around defending Obama’s most recent executive order granting millions of illegal immigrants work permits, especially by flooding the system with applications. “Especially now, defending Administrative Relief [the executive orders] is critical,” one slide reads.

Navigators are told to host house meetings and info sessions, sign people up to vote, and encourage people to start saving money and documents they might need to gain benefits or legal status, consult with an immigration lawyer, share stories with the press and defend Obama’s executive orders.

More than 20 organizations are part of the coalition, including the AFL-CIO, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, SEIU, the American Bar Association Commission on Immigration, and Center for Migration Studies.

Their goal is to “maximize the successful adjustment of status of eligible immigrants through legislation or executive action.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated The Center for Immigration Studies is part of the coalition.

STATES TELL FEDS TO POUND SAND

Screen Shot 2015-03-31 at 10.51.40 AM

State nullification efforts chip away at the monster government

by MICHAEL BOLDIN | MARCH 31, 2015

The Internal Revenue Service gives subsidies when it wants. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Environmental Protection Agency redefine words on a whim in an effort to give themselves more power and more control over your life. “Legislating from the bench” has been superseded by this even more dangerous “lawmaking” by unelected, unaccountable federal agencies.

As Chapman law professor Ronald Rotunda noted recently, we “have come a long way towards governance by bureaucrats.” Some states, however, are taking positive steps in 2015 to thwart the effects of these unilateral — and wildly unconstitutional — acts.

The following is an overview of state legislation to thwart federal overreach that’s moving forward right now.

Federal gun control

Even though the ATF has, at least temporarily, backed down on a proposed M855 ammo ban, gun rights advocates should be alarmed. More of this should be expected moving forward, that is, more gun control no matter whom you elect to Congress.

In Arizona, however, a bill that would effectively block in practice any additional restrictions on the natural right to keep and bear arms has already passed the state Senate by a 17-12 vote and is due for further consideration in the state House in the near future. A similar bill passed the Montana Legislature and is going to Gov. Steve Bullock’s desk, and another in Tennessee is up for a do-or-die vote in committee this week.

Other states like Ohio and Pennsylvania have seen legislation introduced, but not yet considered. Should any of the bills pass into law, they’d join Idaho, which in 2014 was the first in the country to pass legislation specifically designed to thwart any new federal gun control measures.

Broader bills have been introduced in other states, with the goal of addressing not just new federal gun control measures, but nearly all of them. Missouri HB1341 would make any federal gun control measure — past, present or future — invalid and unenforceable in the state. And two Texas bills, HB413 and HB422, would work together to do almost the same. Should either pass, they’d join Alaska, which passed a similar law in 2013.

Self-ownership

The Food and Drug Administration has a lengthy process for approving new treatments for people. In some situations, however, that long process can actually kill people.

Take, for example, the case of Mikaela Knapp, who was diagnosed with kidney cancer. She and her husband, Keith, launched a social media campaign to lobby drug firms and the FDA to give her access to a new gene therapy. Their efforts gained national attention and generated 200,000 signatures on a petition, but failed to win access to the treatment. The 25-year-old newlywed died a few months later.

In 2014, Arizona residents approved Prop. 303, a measure that now allows people the “Right to Try” some experimental treatments not yet approved by the FDA. They joined Colorado, Missouri, Louisiana and Michigan in passing such legislation.

In 2015, governors in Wyoming in Arkansas have already signed a Right to Try act into law. Bills in Virginia, Montana, Indiana, Utah and Mississippi have also passed the full legislature and are awaiting a signature from each state’s governor.

“These laws are a no-brainer,” said Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center. “When someone is on their deathbed, the fact that FDA regulations would let them die rather than try, has got to be one of the most inhumane policies of the federal government. Every state should nullify the FDA like this.”

Farming

The total retail value of hemp products sold in the U.S. in 2014 was recently said to be at least $620 million. According to the Hemp Industries Association (HIA), a nonprofit trade association consisting of hundreds of hemp businesses, this includes items like nondairy milk, shelled seed, soaps and lotions, along with clothing, auto parts, building materials and various other products.

Federal regulations resulting in a de facto ban on hemp farming has created a situation where the U.S. is the world’s No. 1 importer of hemp, while China and Canada are the top two exporters in the world.

And while the Feds now “allow” hemp farming for “research purposes,” some states and individuals have taken action beyond what is permitted and are now harvesting crops for commercial purposes.

Hemp is already being farmed in both Colorado and Vermont. On Feb. 2, the Oregon hemp industry officially opened for business. One week later, the first license went to a small nonprofit group that hopes to plant 25 acres this spring. The Tennessee Agricultural Department recently put out a call for licensing, signaling that hemp farming will start soon there, too. A law by Gov. Nikki Haley in South Carolina in 2014 authorizes the same. Another passed this year in North Dakota is awaiting a signature from Gov. Jack Dalrymple.

Hemp farming bills have also passed the New Hampshire House, the Washington State Senate, and committees in Connecticut and Missouri. Legislation has been introduced and will be up for consideration soon in Texas, Florida, Maine and elsewhere.

Surveillance

Former National Security Agency chief technical director William Binney called the agency’s practice of “parallel construction” the “most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War.” This is the process whereby federal spying data is being handed off to local police for use in everyday law enforcement work, not just for investigating “terrorists.”

In 2014, Utah and New Hampshire passed bills to ban each state from participating in this practice. And this year, bills in Texas, Alaska, Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina and elsewhere have been introduced to ban all “material support or resources” to all federal bulk warrantless spying programs.

Passage would ban participation in parallel construction, but also take things further and withhold other resources like water, electricity or even trash pickup from state or local governments or agencies to any federal agency involved in the wholesale surveillance of anything and everything you do with your phone or Internet service.

Legislation to help block a recently revealed nationwide license plate tracking program has already passed the Virginia Legislature and the Montana House. Similar legislation is up for consideration in New York, Missouri, Vermont, Massachusetts and Oregon.

Obamacare

While the legal world awaits an opinion this summer from the Supreme Court in the King v. Burwell case, some states are considering bills that will help bring down the federal takeover no matter what the court opines.

Bills passed in the Arizona House and introduced in Texas would ban a crucial enforcement mechanism for the federal act, and set the stage for pulling the rug out from under it and bringing it down.

What’s next

Sometimes, however rare, a federal court will stop a federal agency from unilaterally giving itself more power. Sometimes, a federal agency will back down on a newly proposed rule, like the recent M855 ammo ban from the ATF, because of heavy public pressure. And even more rarely, although I can’t remember anything of note, Congress will actually repeal a law it passed, giving up its own power.

The truth of the matter is this: Federal courts cannot be trusted to limit federal power, and federal politicians cannot be trusted to limit their own power. Only the states and the people can do it now.

While these moves by states give liberty-lovers hope, there is no silver bullet to stop the runaway freight train that is the federal government. But instead of waiting years for a lawsuit, or a convention, or any other national-level process, these state nullification efforts chip away at the monster government right now — one state at a time.

What this gets down to is the power of the people. When enough people tell the Feds to pound sand, and enough states pass laws backing them up, there’s not much the Feds can do to force their unconstitutional laws, rules, regulations or mandates down our throats.

ON OBAMACARE, IT’S THE PRESIDENT WHO REFUSES TO EMBRACE REALITY

Screen Shot 2015-03-27 at 11.42.26 AM

BY PETER SUDERMAN

Obamacare turns five years old this week, and to mark the occasion, President Obama took after critics of the health law, noting their ongoing opposition while briefly laying out the reasons he believes it to be a success. “It’s time to embrace reality,” he said, according to The Hill.

The president ticked off a string of points in support of the law: an additional 16 million insured, 50,000 fewer preventable deaths, slow growth in health premium costs, and lower deficit projections as a result.

The law, he said, is “working even better than expected.”

One could reasonably quibble with much of this, because not all of the points President Obama cited are clearly or fully attributable to Obamacare.

Health spending growth, for example, is indeed down, and this is driving much of the decline in the deficit, but at least a sizable portion of the decline—perhaps most of it—can be attributed to the recession. One study in Health Affairs last year concluded that about 70 percent of the health spending slowdown is a result of the economy, not any structural changes to health care delivery. Obamacare may be due some credit, but not too much.

Similarly, it’s true that a government report estimated that between 2010 and 2013, deaths from “hospital-acquired conditions” were reduced by about 50,000. But it’s hard to fully pin this on Obamacare when the report states up front that “the precise causes of the decline in patient harm are not fully understood.” 

Meanwhile, the 16 million insured figure comes from a March report by the Department of Health and Human Services, and it is a total of those who gained coverage through Obamacare’s exchanges, Medicaid, employment, and the individual market place, which means it’s not wholly attributable to the law. And it tallies those who signed up for coverage rather than those “effectuated enrollment”—those who have already paid their premiums. The actual number is probably not too far off from what President Obama stated, but, once again, Obamacare isn’t the entire story here.

So Obama is overstating the case, and, of course, leaving out points against the law.

For example: About half of the people who received subsidies through the law last year will have to pay them back through their taxes this year, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study this week. On average, those who owe will have to pay a little more than a quarter of their subsidy back. A few will have to pay back the entire subsidy.

On the flip side, a little less than half will end up getting money back, but even that will be complicated by the fact that the federal government and California, which runs the biggest state exchange, sent out nearly a million tax forms related to the health law with incorrect information, leading the administration to ask many to delay filing their taxes as a result. California has already issued 120,000 correct tax forms, but there are still “tens of thousands” who haven’t gotten updated forms, according to the L.A. Times.

Whitehouse.gov

Beyond that, there are additional questions about whether the Internal Revenue Service is even equipped to handle all the new paperwork required by the law. According to the Chicago Tribune, roughly a quarter of tax filers will have extra filing requirements due to the health law.

And then there are the poll numbers for the law, which is still unpopular, just as it has been throughout the five years it has been law. Polls differ on the exact contours of public opinion about the law, but all the polls in the Real Clear Politics opinion survey show that oppositions outweighs support by at least seven points; on average, the opposition is 10.5 points higher than the support.

If the law is truly working so well for so many people, if it is, as Obama has now taken to saying, working better than expected or anticipated, then why does it remain so stubbornly unpopular?

When the law was being debated in Congress, many supporters of the law argued that it would grow popular once it passed. When that didn’t happen, Obamacare backers insisted that it polled poorly because the major benefits had yet to kick in.  When the major benefits kicked in, they argued that the botched launch of the exchanges was killing support.

These excuses no longer work. The coverage expansion has arrived, and while the precise numbers aren’t clear, there’s no denying that far more people are covered now than two years ago. The exchanges are still incomplete on the back end, but the consumer-facing part of the system works well enough. The health insurance subsidies have arrived, and are being doled out to millions, and so have the insurance rules restricting insurers from charging or denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.

Obamacare’s major benefits have gone into effect and had time to work their way through the system—and yet the law remains widely disliked. Obama’s message about the law, meanwhile, remains the same as always: It’s great, and people should stop resisting and recognize how great it is.

After five years, in other words, President Obama has not changed his message, even in the face of consistent broad public opposition, even as the various theories for why it remains unpopular have fallen away. Obamacare is simply not well liked. This is the political reality—and President Obama still refuses to embrace it. 

Nothing to see here: Obamacare to cost $50K per person covered

Capture

Buried deep inside the latest CBO budget outlook report there is some shocking (by which I mean not shocking to anyone who has been paying attention) information on the effects of ObamaCare. You can forget about all the promises that were made by the administration and their Democrat allies during the debate… they were lying clearly inaccurate in their estimates. So how bad is it? The Daily Mail came out with the first report.

It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday.

The number comes from figures buried in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization’s new ten-year budget outlook.

The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.

Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head.
If you want to read the report yourself, it’s tucked away back in Appendix B of the document. (.pdf format) The total bill over ten years is closing in on the two trillion mark, and the various taxes and fees imposed under Obamacare are only going to make up for $643B of it. So I guess we really did have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.

At this point it is worth asking if maybe the entire fight could have been avoided without crafting such an elaborate system. Assume for arguments’ sake that the Democrats were going to win on the general subject of having some form of massive government program for health insurance. Assume further that the insurance industry was going to agree to go along with some new government mandates about having to cover pre-existing conditions and older children living at home, etc. in exchange for an assurance that they would have a bunch of new customers paying them. At that point, the bill could have been chopped down to about ten pages in length.

The plan is covering 27 million people with estimates of that growing by 25% over the next decade. A mid-range quality health care plan through most employers – including the employer contribution – can be had for roughly $5,400 per year. That works out to a little less than 150 billion dollars to just buy all of those people a health plan under the old system and the insurers would have been thrilled. The crippled, complicated government web site could have been stripped down to just ask how much you make each year and, based on that, issue you a voucher for a health insurance plan from a company that covers your area. We wouldn’t have liked it, but it would have come in at one heck of a cheaper rate and the debate would be over.

Rather than an exit question, we’ll just close with an observation. You were lied to. Again.