Monday, December 30, 2013

Real Truth Online's 2013 Fraud of the Year: Barack Obama

Obama makes history as the first President to receive RTO's unwanted Fraudie award. It was well deserved for lying repeatedly to the American people about Obamacare, for doing a complete 180 on his pre-2008 election stance on a health care individual mandate and for unilaterally changing [thus violating] his own law by making amends to the health care bill by decree

by Larry Simons
December 30, 2013

This was a well-deserved Fraudie win for the liar-in-chief, Barack Obama. There are definitely people who lie more often than Obama, but probably not as blatant as this. It does not get any more blatant than telling the American people no less than 36 times they can keep their health care plan under the Affordable Care Act [when passed and even after its passing] and then immediately after the law goes into effect, people begin getting cancellations of their health care plans by the millions in the mail.

As if Obama needed more bad news after the massive failure of the launching of the website on October 1, 2013, it came just the same in the form of one monumental lie after the other, starting with "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" to claiming that Obamacare was never meant for just the uninsured, but the "under-insured".

The lies did not stop there. After these massive lies made headlines on all media outlets [but being watered-down on the liberal ones], Obama lies again and tells Americans that his promise that they would keep their health care plan if they liked it only applied from the time he made the promise until the Affordable Care Act became law. Not only is this lie one of the worst lies ever uttered by a President in my lifetime, it is one the easiest to verify. For one, it made no sense that Obama would promise people that they would get to keep their plans only until the ACA was law, because before it became law there was no law to prevent anyone's plans from being changed. Also, Obama continued to promise Americans "if you like your plans, you can keep them" after the ACA became law! These monumental lies make Bush look like an amateur.

How does Obama respond to this lie? By lying again. He then said Americans that had health care plans they liked would be grandfathered in, but if insurance companies change the plans, they had to change it to a higher standard, make it better and had to improve the quality of the plan they are selling.

Problem with this? Obama had never uttered anything even close to this before the ACA became law. In fact, on February 25, 2010 he said the complete opposite. He said:

"Actually, any insurance that you currently have would be grandfathered in so you could keep it. So you could decide not to get in the exchange the better plan. I could keep my Acme Insurance, just a high deductible catastrophic plan. I would not be required to get the better one."

What good would it do Americans to be grandfathered in to the new law if insurance companies could just turn right around and change the policies? The whole point of being grandfathered into anything is that the party who is being grandfathered does not have to follow the new system everyone else does who joins later. If insurance companies are allowed to just change policies of the ones being grandfathered into the ACA, then grandfathering does not exist.

In fact, Obama knew [or should have been told by his Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] that it was written into the ACA law in 2010 that 40% to 67% of insured Americans would lose their grandfather status. Sebelius knew this because HHS wrote the law. This means that either Obama knew it all along and he knew he was lying when he said , "If you like your plan, you can keep it" as he was saying it, or he should have fired Kathleen Sebelius. Sebelius still has her job, so this can only mean one thing: Obama knew he was lying AS he was telling Americans they could keep their plans if they liked them.

Even with all the evidence mounting up that Obama knew Americans would lose their health insurance, could there possibly be more to add to this? The answer is, shockingly, yes. In January of 2010 Obama gave a speech in Baltimore, MD at the GOP House Issues Conference. Health care was a big issue to say the least. In this speech, Obama mentions that some provisions within the ACA law [still yet to be passed at this point in time] might invalidate his promise to Americans that they could keep their health care plans if they liked them.

Obama said this:

"The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making.

And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge."

Big problem: Although Obama is admitting there were provisions to the law they "we were in the process of eliminating", they were never eliminated. Those provisions remained in the law. Obama is attempting to backtrack here and tell ACA opponents, "Hey, sorry man, we were trying to get those provisions out of the ACA, but they kind of snuck right in, my bad." That would have been just fine and dandy if he wouldn't have told Americans repeatedly between 2009-2013 that they could keep their plans if they liked them.

Obama is admitting violating his own pledge to Americans that they could 'keep their plans if they liked them' three months before the ACA became law, and he kept making speeches for the next three years telling Americans they could keep their plans when he already knew this was not true. Since this speech was given three months before the bill became law, Americans could have easily assumed that he would not sign the bill into law unless the provisions were removed.

Since the provisions were not removed and Obama signed the bill into law anyway, one is left in sheer amazement why he is even standing before people giving a speech, telling them why he had issues with these provisions and why there was an attempt to remove them. Even this had to be a lie, because the provisions remained in the law, when Obama could have easily made sure they were removed, or refused to sign the damned bill into law unless they were.

Another issue that is mind-boggling is how Obama possesses the power to unilaterally change his own law by decree by simply ordering mandates within the law be delayed for certain periods of time and for certain groups of people. When the outcry hit the media that millions were losing their health care plans and Obama had simply lied, Obama said he would "fix" this and allow insurance companies to keep their customers for another year.

The media jumped to Obama's defense and said he fixed it, but it was no fix at all. First of all, Obama has no power to tell insurance companies to keep customers in whose plans do not comply with ACA guidelines. One might say, "yes, because Obama said it was OK for them to". Wrong. Obama just said they can, meaning: if they wanted to. They are not required to, because in rejecting Obama's decree, the insurance companies would be breaking the law. Even Obama has to know deep down that he can't unilaterally change a law by his spoken word, or he would have made it a requirement for insurance companies to take their customers back. Obama knew he could not require them to do so, because Obama would then be telling them, "You have to break my law".

And here is where we have the problem. Obama is basically telling insurance companies they are allowed [not required] to break the law, just by him simply uttering the words. Sorry folks, but even the President does not possess that kind of power.

This is not the first time Obama issued by decree that his own law can be broken. This past July 2, Obama unilaterally exempted all employers [with 50 or more employees] from the employer mandate provision of the ACA for an additional year. The employer mandate states that employers with over 50 employees will incur a financial penalty for each full-time employee who does not have health insurance.

In August of 2013, Obama exempted some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits [or no limit at all] on out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and co-payments until 2015 [a full year delay], although the ACA clearly states that there will be caps on out-of-pocket costs [not exceeding $6,350 a year for individuals and $12,700 a year for families] starting January 1, 2014.

The authority to delay a law's implementation only lies with Congress, no one else. Changes in laws have to be voted on by Congress in the same way the law was voted on to begin with. Without Congress's authority to amend the law for the changes Obama has made, Obama is simply declaring himself King, and Congress is allowing him to do so.

Just when you think it couldn't possibly get any worse for Obama, it did, but not in the media and not nationally. Only right here at RTO was it uncovered that all during Obama's 2007-2008 presidential campaign, Obama was seen on camera numerous times telling crowds of people and even other presidential candidates that he was against government mandates for purchasing health care.

In one clip he told Anderson Cooper this about his presidential opponent John Edwards:

"John and I have a disagreement. John thinks that the only way we get universal coverage is to mandate coverage. I think that the problem is not that people are trying to avoid getting health care coverage, it's folks like that who are desperately are in desire of it but they can't afford it.."

In another debate, Obama said this about presidential opponent Hilary Clinton:

"Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise there will be a lot of people who don't get it. I don't see those folks, and I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you're going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses and they may charge people who already don't have health care fines or have to take it out of their paychecks, and that I don't think is helping those without health insurance".

In another clip, Obama told an elderly man this:

"...I don't want to create is a situation where you've got...we say there's a mandate, people have to purchase it, but frankly they don't have the money to purchase it, and then we've created a bunch of outlaws out of people who would love to have health care coverage but don't have it".

In another clip from CNN from 2008, Obama compares a government mandate to purchase health care to a mandate to force homeless people to buy homes. Obama said:

"If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house. The reason they don't have a house is they don't have the money".

So, you see, there is no doubt that Obama wins this year's Fraudie hands down with no one else even a close second. Even the political website PolitiFact named Obama's lie that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" as 2013's lie of the year. But only here at RTO do you get a gold statue for the being the biggest liar and fraud of the year.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

O' Reilly's "War on Christmas" 2013: Billo Now Includes Macy's in His List of Anti-Christmas "Band of Fascists"

The reason? Simple: Because Macy's has the audacity to include a picture of Santa on their website without mentioning what holiday Santa is celebrating

by Larry Simons
December 15, 2013

Just when you thought Billo's imaginary "War" on Christmas tirades could not get any worse, he strikes again and outdoes himself. How is this possible, you ask? Keep in mind, we are talking about Bill O' Reilly. He is not to be confused with a sane, rational or thought-provoking person. It is his job to create a story where there is no story and ignore legitimate and relevant ones.

Billo's "war" on Christmas claims are becoming an expected staple with every approaching Christmas season, on par with showings of It's A Wonderful Life and A Christmas Story. Since 2003, he has been cherry-picking isolated examples across the country of particular freedom of speech groups, stores and civil liberty organizations who have not wanted to use the word "Christmas" [but rather the word "holiday"] and pretending that these small, isolated examples are really a smaller picture of a grand conspiracy to completely eviscerate traditional Christmas jargon and ultimately the entire Christmas holiday as a whole.

To us rational and sane Americans, we know nothing could be further from the truth. The true reality is, the real war going on is the war on freedom of speech/expression, the very thing O' Reilly himself hates [while, ironically, claiming that he supports freedom of speech].

All Christians hate when they hear stories of non-Christians [whether it be atheists, agnostics, Muslims or any other non-Christian group] who love celebrating the ideals promoted in the Christmas season [love, family, peace, joy, etc.] but do not honor the central figure of the Christmas holiday, Jesus. This makes a Christian's blood boil more than the existence of the devil himself: Those who do not acknowledge or worship Jesus having the audacity to claim that they can possess morals and values too, that they can express the same human emotions to love one another and have joy in their hearts, but doing so without Jesus.

Billo's hatred of freedom of speech is so intense, he has now stooped so low as to attack a company who has been the one of the nation's top advocates of Christmas among secular companies: Macy's. Yes, that Macy's. The one that is the central theme of the 1947 film Miracle on 34th Street. What did Macy's do that has so angered Bill O' Reilly? What equates Macy's with atheists in whom Billo called "a merry band of fascists" last year?: They had the nerve to put a picture of Santa Claus on their website and did not mention what holiday Santa was celebrating.

Are you serious? I wish I was making this shit up, but as always with O' Reilly, truth is stranger than fiction. It might just be possible that the reason the word "Christmas" was not mentioned on the same webpage as the photo of Santa is because every human being on planet Earth from ages 6 months and up knows what holiday Santa Claus is associated with. Jackass Bill O' Reilly thinks it's because Macy's is at war with Christmas.

I decided to investigate this further and see just how much Macy's hates Christmas by counting how many times Macy's uses the word "Christmas" on their site, in addition to how many Christmas items Macy's sells on their site in comparison with how many times O' Reilly himself uses the word "Christmas" and how many Christmas items Billo sells on his site.

Turns out, it would have taken me literally all day to count how many times Macy's uses the word "Christmas", since there were so many. Additionally, Macy's sells hundreds and hundreds of Christmas items, also too many to count. Here are a few examples of how often Macy's uses the word "Christmas" mixed in with Christmas items:

"Christmas ornaments"
"Christmas decorations"
"Christmas Memories collection"
"Lenox Christmas Exclusive Ornament, Lighted Wonder Ball Angel"
"Swarovski Christmas Ornament, 2013 Annual Star"
"Wedgwood Christmas Ornament Collection"
"Wallace Christmas Ornament, 2013 Sleigh Bell 43rd Edition"
"Jim Shore Christmas Collectible Figurines Collection"
"Trans Pac Christmas Decorations, Mini Kissing Krystals Collection"

This is only to name a few! And this was taken from just two different webpages. Macy's also sells Nativity set figurines and angel figurines. When you type the word "Christmas" into their search bar, you see on the left side of the page categories such as:

"Christmas Ornaments"
"Christmas Trees"
"Christmas Tree Themes"
"Christmas Villages"
"Nativity Sets"
"Christmas Bath"
"Christmas Dining"

The number of Christmas items sold and "Christmas" references were endless. I literally did not have enough time to view even half of them. There were that many. This site couldn't have been more jammed-packed with Christmas and religious items than if it was a known Christian company, like Hobby Lobby.

Now let's look at Bill O' Reilly's site for references to "Christmas" and Christmas/religious items sold:

"Christmas" references: ONE. On his "O' Reilly Store" page, it says in big words "The O' Reilly Christmas Store"

Christmas items sold:  NONE

Not ONE item in his "Christmas" store mentions or even relates to Christmas. The entire site is O' Reilly's own merchandise, his books, mugs, pens, memberships, men's and women's jackets, hats, and house and car items. Not ONE item is associated with anything religious or pertaining to Christmas. Nothing.

Macy's wins hands down. And this prick has the nerve to criticize a store because on one of their webpages it shows a picture of Santa but doesn't say the word "Christmas" on that same page? But Billo mentions the word "Christmas" once but sells zero Christmas items on the very section that claims is a "Christmas store"? It is only a "Christmas" store in the sense that his idiotic followers can buy his merchandise as Christmas presents for their other lunatic family members.

Macy's sells actual Christmas items, like religious ornaments and nativity scene figurines [while not claiming to be "Christian"]. What does this say for O' Reilly himself if an outfit not claiming to be "Christian" out-mentions the word "Christmas" and out-sells Christmas items?

The bottom line is this: If you watch, listen to, follow or trust Bill O' Reilly when it comes to anything even resembling a news story, then your quest for anything truthful is a futile quest and therefore he must truly be preaching to the choir. People who are required to suspend belief in the concept of reality to accept Christianity in the first place are, in my view, the only people who would sacrifice common sense and abandon human reason in order to allow themselves to be fooled into believing O' Reilly is anything but a corporate-controlled fraud.