Saturday, September 12, 2009

Obama Administration Agrees with AP and Joe Wilson: Obama Lies!

Our dear friend, Joe Wilson, who has suddenly discovered the validity of the Biblical truth that "a prophet is not without honor, save in his own country," is, though mocked as some kind of uncivil beast, nevertheless having the truth of his prophetic message ("Obama, Thou Doth Verily Lie!") borne out by numerous sources.

It was the very next day when the Associated Press offered its critique of Wilson's prophetic message - in technical newspaper jargon, the AP essentially said, "Yep, Obama lies."

But on Friday night, while everyone was asleep, partying, or traveling to Washington, D.C. to participate in Glenn Beck's suggested protest against Obamalotry, the White House itself released a statement that essentially admitted that Joe Wilson wasn't lying when he called Barack Hussein Hoover Pinnochio Muhammad bin Obama on the carpet. Yes, even the White House is saying Obama lied!

The particular lie which elicited such righteous indignation from Wilson (only God Himself knows how Wilson restrained himself for so long, as Obama's lying was pervasive through the entire speech on Wednesday night, but God, I understand, inspires His prophets with messages peculiarly suited for a particular occasion) was a statement wondrous in its lawyerly precision (reminiscent of another lying Democratic lawyer who speculated as to the meaning of the ancient term "is") as Obama attempted to persuade his audience that illegal immigrants would not receive benefits under extant plans for health care reform.

His particular statement was: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." Now, in the fine tradition of "I did not have sex with that woman..." this statement demands a little parsing.

Lying liars and the lies they lie.

First, "the reforms I'm proposing." Well, until Wednesday, Obama himself hadn't exactly been proposing any reforms. A two-and-a-half page summary of his goals appeared on the White House website only this week stating in broad generalities what Obama would like socialized health care to become. So essentially, as of the statement which drew Wilson's unique critique (and ire), Obama's "proposed reforms" were something of a matter discernible only by occult means, since they were hidden deep within the recesses of the empty head, heart, and suit of Barack Hussein Hoover Pinnochio Muhammad bin Obama.

But perhaps most disturbing (false) allegation in the statement above is that whatever form the health care "proposal" takes, it will not "apply to those who are here illegally." Apply? Now, apply is an exceedingly broad term, is it not?

Obama supporters, not known for their reasoning ability in the first place, pick out isolated instances of various extant bills which appear to forbid the extension of benefits to illegal immigrants and vacuously maintain - "See? Obama didn't lie! Benefits are prohibited to illegals!" One must remember, however, that these people are intellectually challenged from the get-go, inasmuch as they admit that they actually voted for Obama.

But no extant bill makes any provision for the discovery of whether one is an illegal immigrant or not. So the prohibition essentially amounts to a traffic stop at which a license check is taking place without requiring the examination of any licenses. How can one prohibit driving without a valid license when one refuses to examine licenses? And how can one prohibit the extension of benefits to illegal aliens when one refuses to check on one's citizenship status?

Alas, the White House has now taken the side of Conservatives, Libertarians, Tea Party attendees, Glenn Beck, the Associated Press, and even Joe Wilson in admitting that...

as a practical matter, there is no way of verifying the citizenship of applicants -- which is the current state of play. Republicans say that then means illegal immigrants would end up being enrolled in plans -- bill language or no bill language.

And the Administration is proposing changes to existing proposals that would prevent illegal immigrants from buying private insurance on the proposed health-care exchange, but also admitting that...

hospitals would be compensated with public funds for the care of undocumented immigrants.

And the administration recommends introducing verification requirements to insure that illegal immigrants do not participate in transactions within the proposed health-care exchange.

It is indeed a strange and sad day when a president is identified as such an inveterate liar that even his own administration is forced to stand against the information in his speeches. What is perhaps even sadder, however, is the lying liars who elected, and continue to defend him.


  1. And isn't this the policy now? If Heinz hires illegal immigrant workers to pick tomatoes for one of Saint Ronald's vegetables in a squeeze jar and is somehow hurt in the field should he/she be left to die? If he/she is taken and dumped at the ER what shall we do? What if YOU end up at the ER with no identification? Shall the nurses and doctors withhold treatment until it can be determined - without a doubt that you are in fact a citizen of the USA or here legally? Do you need to provide your original 'long form' birth certificate? Your passport? Your rambling right-wingnut words are purdy but they don't hide the fact that "YOU LIE!"

  2. Thanks for that attempt to buttress an indefensible position. And special thanks for demonstrating that liberalism is all about emotion, not intellect. Of course, those of us capable of thinking (that would exclude ALL Obama supporters, of course) have already discerned that libtards such as yourself are not quite up to the task of thinking, just feeling.

    One of the things that you will note, no doubt (should you ever begin thinking, rather than parroting the incomprehensible nonsense that you glean from Katie Couric every night), is that liberals, because they are ALWAYS wrong, desire to blur the lines of a discussion as much as possible, setting up straw men and reasonably similar situations to the one under discussion without actually discussing the issue at bar. This is because they know they are wrong, and if they bother to discuss that which is actually at issue, they know that they will lose.

    For instance, in your idiotic screed above, you have confused "getting health care/treatment" with "getting your health care financed." There is a difference.

    Yes, if a totally random CITIZEN is out walking, is hit by the car, and shows up in the ER, he will, by law, be treated. That is how it should be. If it is later discovered who he is, his insurance may be filed or, lacking insurance, he may be responsible for paying his own bill. If he is not capable of doing so, then his bill will be one of many that are written off as bad debts. Over time, the cost of these bad debts is absorbed through a decrease in inflowing money for the hospital and may (or may not) be reflected in the price charged to other users of that hospital.

    If a totally random ILLEGAL is hit by a car, the same regime prevails. And that is how it should be. When a quick decision, minus otherwise necessary information, has to be made as to what to do with human life, the civil society says "Save it."

    But note that neither a guy who is a citizen nor an illegal may, with no identification or insurance, simply walk up to a hospital or doctor's office and partake of all possible health care options. They may not demand nonemergency health care. They may not demand voluntary procedures. They may not demand preventative procedures. This is also as it should be - for in the civil society nobody has a right to have their day-to-day needs financed by everybody else.

    But what NObama proposes, and you libtards seem to favor, is that a totally random illegal should be able to obtain non-emergency, voluntary, preventative, and other types of health care on the dime of those who work hard and provide for their own care.

    I do find it entertaining, and indicative of a certain contempt for morality in general on your part (and the part of all NObama supporters), that NObama supporters (generally) are VERY concerned about the emergency treatment of illegal aliens on the taxpayer's expense, but are correspondingly also assured that unborn babies ought to be similarly slaughtered at the taxpayer's expense.

    Oddly, the socialist soul (or lack thereof) wants very much to preserve the lives of those involved in a criminal activity (being illegally, and knowingly so, in this country in contravention of the law) but has no similar concern to preserve the lives of innocents.

    But then, if you had morals and good sense, you would not have voted for NObama, would you?