Hmm, I Don’t Remember Obama Saying the Following … Obamacare Architect Zeke Emanuel Says, “If You Want to Pay More For An Insurance Company that Covers Your Doctor, You Can Do That”
Can you imagine how the 2012 Presidential election would have turned out if Barack Obama had told the truth and said, if you like your healthcare plan and doctor, you can pay more to keep them?
Barack Obama said to pass Obamacare and to get reelected, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, PERIOD! Well, we all know that was a lie. Guess what else was a lie, keeping your doctor if you liked them and paying less. The latest misrepresentation coming to light has to do with individuals being able to keep their doctors. Obama stated, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” But of course that was another Obama lie. Obamacare architect Zeke Emanuel said on Fox News Sunday as he was dodging Chis Wallace’s questions to keeping one’s doctor, “the president never said that you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country that you want to go to.” Well, that was never the question.
It’s not that simple. In order to participate in health-insurance exchanges, insurers needed to find a way to tamp down the high costs of premiums. As a result, many will narrow their networks, shrinking the range of doctors that are available to patients under their plan, experts say.
“Many people are going to find out that the second part of the promise — that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor — just wasn’t true,” says Gail Wilensky, who directed the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs under President George H.W. Bush. Factcheck.org labeled the promise “misleading,” noting that while the law doesn’t contain provisions designed to force people to pick new doctors, a switch may be inevitable for some. “The President simply can’t make this promise to anyone,” the site wrote.
Unbelievable, the gall of these people that they are now passing Obamacare off as a choice. The government is forcing people to buy an insurance that they say is okay or face a tax (penalty) and that is a choice? Individuals were perfectly fine with the coverage and doctors they had, but the government as now made it a choice that Americans must pay more to keep the very choice that they already had. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
The host, Chris Wallace: “President Obama famously promised, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Doesn’t that turn out to be just as false, just as misleading, as his promise about if you like your plan, you can keep your plan? Isn’t it a fact, sir, that a number, most, in fact, of the Obamacare health plans that are being offered on the exchanges exclude a number of doctors and hospitals to lower costs?”
Zeke Emanuel: “The president never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country you want to go to.”
Chris Wallace: “No. He asked a question. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Did he not say that, sir?”
Zeke Emanuel: “He didn’t say you could have unlimited choice.”
Chris Wallace: “It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”
Zeke Emanuel: “Yes. But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice. We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain — for a wider range of choices or wider range of benefits.The issue isn’t the selective networks. People keep saying, Oh, the problem is you’re going to have a selective network–”
Chris Wallace: “Well, if you lose your doctor or lose your hospital–”
Zeke Emanuel: “Let me just say something,” said Emanuel. “People are going to have a choice as to whether they want to pay a certain amount for a selective network or pay more for a broader network.”
Chris Wallace: “Which will mean your premiums will probably go up.”
Zeke Emanuel”They get that choice. That’s a choice they always made.”
Chris Wallace: “Which means your premium may go up over what you were paying so that, in other words –
“Young Invincibles” Turn on Obama in a Major Way … Harvard Poll: Millennial’s 18-29 Year-Olds Says 54% Disapprove of Obama’s Job Performance, 61% Disapproved of his Handling of Healthcare & 57% Disapproved of the Affordable Care Act
Millennial Buyers Remorse …
OUCH … 18 to 29 year-olds are in revolt against President Barack Obama, how he has handled his job, healthcare and Obamacare itself!!!
Hey Mr. President … the millennial’s just are not that into you anymore now that they know they truth and they have been lied to and used. Couple the healthcare lies with the NSA spying scandals and the youth that so supported Barack Obama in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections now learn that there is nothing “Hopey-Changey” about Obama. He is the same old, same old lying politicians. Maybe even worse. According to a new Harvard IOP poll, among the 18- 29- year olds currently without health insurance, less than 1/3 say they’re likely to enroll in the exchange. 13% say they will definitely enroll, 16% say they will probably enroll; 41% say they are 50-50 at the moment.
- 54% Disapprove of Obama’s Job Performance
- 61% Disapproved of his Handling of Healthcare
- 57% Disapproved of the Affordable Care Act
- 44% said they think the quality of their health care will get worse
The Millennials actually now look more like the rest of the voter electorate.
The trend is daunting for the White House but not necessarily surprising,” said Pew Research Center Director Michael Dimock.
“Younger folks are part of Obama’s base … but the rollout confirmed concerns that were already in their minds.”
A poll released Wednesday by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics found that more than half of 18- to 29-year-olds disapprove of ObamaCare and believe it will raise their healthcare costs.
Even more troubling for the administration is that less than one-third of uninsured young people said they plan to enroll in coverage.
Without a large number of young, healthy people in the insurance exchanges, it could create a “death spiral” of high premiums that could threaten the long-term viability of the marketplaces.
The White House appears to recognize the growing threat, and is making outreach to younger people a major focus of its ObamaCare relaunch.
The president began the effort on Wednesday with a youth summit at the White House where he urged audience members to spread the word about the new healthcare exchanges — and think hard about their own health risks.
CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley: Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) & Rep. Rogers (R-MI) Both Say America Is Less Safe From Terrorism Today Than It Has Been in Recent Years … What Happened to Obama’s Claim “Al-Qaeda is on the run”
Looks like Americans were told another lie, I thought President Barack Hussein Obama told us that Al-Qaeda was on the run and on the road to defeat?
This Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, were in complete bipartisan agreement that the United States is less safe from terrorism today than it has been in recent years. Remember when Barack Obama ran on the reelection sound byte that “Al-Qaeda was on the run and on the path to defeat”. Hmm, too bad this president is all about campaigning to win an election and not about leading to defend America against its enemies.
Americans shouldn’t feel safer today than they did before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees said Sunday.
The country now faces a larger number of threats from splintered terrorist groups and more complex weapons than when the U.S. began combat operations in Afghanistan in 2001, the lawmakers said on CNN’s State of the Union. At the same time, the nation’s spy programs–which can help foil terrorist plots–are under heavy scrutiny that could ultimately lessen their effectiveness.
“The threat is higher today and we’re probably less safe,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said.
His counterpart in the Senate agreed.
“I think terror is up world-wide,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.). “There are new bombs, very big bombs…and more groups than ever.”
Sen. Feinstein said advanced weapons make it easier to bring a bomb onto an airplane and make it harder to track possible threats.
CROWLEY: The big question that’s always asked, are we safer now than we were a year ago, two years ago? In general?
FEINSTEIN: I don’t think so. I think terror is up worldwide, the statistics indicate that, the fatalities are way up. The numbers are way up. There are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnatometers. The bomb maker is still alive. There are more groups that ever and there’s huge malevolence out there.
CROWLEY: So congressman, I have to say, that is not the answer I expected. I expected to hear, oh, we’re safer. Do you agree?
ROGERS: Oh, I absolutely agree that we’re not safer today for the same very reasons.
So the pressure on our intelligence services to get it right to prevent an attack are enormous. And it’s getting more difficult because we see the al Qaeda as we knew it before is metastasizing to something different, more affiliates than we’ve ever had before, meaning more groups that operated independently of al Qaeda have now joined al Qaeda around the world, all of them have at least some aspiration to commit an act of violence in the United States or against western targets all around the world.
They’ve now switched to this notion that maybe smaller events are okay. So if you have more smaller events than bigger events, they think that might still lead to their objectives and their goals. That makes it exponentially harder for our intelligence services to stop an event like that.
CROWLEY: Because essentially one person can do a small event.
CROWLEY: So, one of the things that the senator said was that there is more hatred out there, more – and why is that? (read more HERE)
How’s that post Iraq looking these days? How’s that claim of the defeat of terrorism looking today? How’s that talking with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the very enemy we looked to defeat, for a troop withdrawal looking these days? How is Libya looking? How about Syria? This is what happens when you put a community agitator, presidential novice in the White House.
WAPO OP-ED: End Presidential Term Limits … Let’s Have a King Again Instead … We Should Have Senate and House Term Limits
End presidential term limits, are you insane? We should implement US House and Senate term limits as well.
In what might be one of the most foolishly thought out premise, NYU history professor Jonathan Zimmerman inked a WAPO oped titled “End presidential term limits,” suggesting that the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms of office should be repealed as a way to assuring a more effective presidency and protecting democracy from a leader without fear of voters’ wrath. Why is it so important now, because Barack Obama is president? Hell, it’s not like he follows the US Constitution now, watch him run for a third term anyhow and call those oppose racists.
Sorry, but if our countries first president, George Washington, thought multiple terms was a bad thing, that is good enough for me. As it was Washington had to be talked into a second term. Ending term limits was wrong when it was discussed by Republicans during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, it was wrong when Democrats brought it up with Bill Clinton and it is still wrong with Barack Obama. The office of the President is bigger than any one man, that includes Obama. There is a reason why America fought a War of Independence against King George and it was not to replace one tyrant with another.
In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.”
I’ve been thinking about Kilgore’s comments as I watch President Obama, whose approval rating has dipped to 37 percent in CBS News polling — the lowest ever for him — during the troubled rollout of his health-care reform. Many of Obama’s fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from the reform and from the president. Even former president Bill Clinton has said that Americans should be allowed to keep the health insurance they have.
Or consider the reaction to the Iran nuclear deal. Regardless of his political approval ratings, Obama could expect Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to attack the agreement. But if Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)?
Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear.
Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?
Nothing to fear eh, what would you call the approval rating in the 30′s and the panic that Democrats are presently experiencing? Also, Zimmerman says, “If he [Obama] chooses, he could simply ignore their will.” Just curious, when did Barack Obama or Democrats ever care about the will of the People?
That being said, not only should the 22nd Amendment not be repealed, there should be term limits for Senators and House members as well. As a matter of fact there should be a limit as to how many years that some one can serve in over-all political life. These people need to understand who they work for and the laws they pass will eventually effect them too. That does not happen in today’s politics.
CNN/ORC Poll: NJ Governor Chris Christie Leads Possible 2016 GOP Contenders … Not Only is it Way too Early, Don’t Count On It Christie
A new CNN poll has New Jersey governor Chris Christie as the front-runner of possible Republican contenders for the 2016 GOP presidential nominee. For the Democrats it would appear that Hillary Clinton is already being coronated their nominee. However, for the GOP not only is this poll way too early, I would doubt that Chris Christie will be the Republican nominee unless they plan on losing another presidential election. Polls at this point are merely a popularity contest and with Christie’s recent landslide win for governor in NJ against a no-name opponent, he just happens to be the cause-celeb for today.
There is a long, long way to go and the potential winner for the GOP may not have even come forward yet. The same could be said for Democrats as well. Wasn’t Hillary Clinton the presumptive Democrat nominee winner as well before a certain novice, unprepared, 2 year US Senator from Illinois named Obama got into the race?
Who actually thinks the GOP base would vote for Christie after this?
And according to a CNN/ORC International survey, if Hillary Clinton decides against making another bid for the White House, Vice President Joe Biden would be the initial favorite to capture the Democratic nomination.
The poll, released Friday morning, indicates that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, fresh off his Garden State re-election landslide victory and widespread national media attention, jumped to the top of the pack of potential contenders for the GOP nomination.
Twenty-four percent of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP questioned in the survey say they’d be likely to support Christie for the Republican nomination, up seven percentage points from a CNN poll in early September. Back then, Christie and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget chairman and the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, were virtually tied at the top of the GOP list, with Christie at 17% and Ryan at 16%.
But Ryan, who’s stayed mostly away from the political spotlight the past few months, has dropped to 11%, putting him in third place, slightly behind Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, at 13%. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who like Paul has made multiple trips this year to the states that kick off the presidential primary and caucus calendar, like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, stands at 10% in the survey, the only other Republican White House hopeful to get double-digit support.
Sorry, but a win in New Jersey is hardly a microcosm of winning a primary in the Republican party or a national election. New Jersey is it’s own animal, much like every state is. Much of the GOP base considered Chris Christie a “Benedict Arnold” when he went overboard gushing over Barack Obama after Hurricane Sandy, sabotaging any chance Mitt Romney may have had. The GOP have run two ‘RINO’s’ in a row, the “mavericky” John McCain in 2008 and Mitt “Romneycare” Romney in 2012. Both candidates alienated the GOP base and in the end, really stood for nothing, except they ere not Obama. At what point will the establishment Republicans understand that the GOP electorate wants a candidate with substance and is not Democrat-light?
The focus this last week should have been on Obama’s shameful conduct in Benghazi. Instead, the schizophrenic Christie allowed himself to be manipulated by Obama’s camp so easily, that one has to question the reasoning for his desertion of Governor Romney. I believe the egomaniacal Christie would rather run for POTUS in 2016 than 2020. And chose to spend the last week stabbing Mitt in the back.
I understand that Christie had to ”break bread” with Obama when Obama came to tour New Jersey for disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy. We all should be fine with that. But after Obama left, Christie has continued to act ”star-struck” toward the liberal Democrat. Both men are frequent apologizers for Islam so that may also be a shared bond.
And Christie refused an invitation to attend a Sunday night rally with Mr. Romney in Pennsylvania, only 20 minutes from Trenton. You can google Benedict Arnold/Chris Christie or Traitor Chris Christie and see that the internet is abuzz with stories about how Christie the RINO has been selling out to Obama.
Team Obama Cooked the Books with Unemployment Numbers One Month Before 2012 Election … Jack Welch Vindicated!!!
THE CHICAGO, ALINSKY WAY: “THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO WIN” … WELCOME TO UNEMPLOYMENT-GATE!!!
Remember the skepticism by many when the remarkable coincidence occurred in the last reporting month prior to the 2012 Presidential election, when low and behold the unemployment numbers dropped from 7.1% to 7.8%? The numbers were hailed by Obama, his minions and an all to willing lap-dog media as the country’s economic situation was headed in the right direction and Obama’s policies were working. Just one problem, as reported in the New York Post, “The numbers were manipulated and the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it”. Why is this not a surprise from what has become one of the, if not the most corrupt and scandalous White House’s ever. It was not a shock to Jack Welch, who at the time questioned the numbers reported and basically called them flat out dishonest.
Jack Welch was attacked for his comments on the unemployment numbers … Watch the VIDEO below of Chris Matthews going after him. Welch would not take back what he said. Matthews asked for an apology. Looks like Mathews owes Jack Welch an apology.
In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.
“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.
The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.
The Gateway Pundit reminds us of Jack Welch’s tweet and the 873,000 jobs that were created. What a frigging joke. Just how corrupt is the Obama presidency? Hot Air also emphasizes an important point in that this is not just a political election issue, election issue, Crudele reminds his readers that investors make critical decisions based on BLS data and its reputation for integrity and so does the Federal Reserve. At this point Richard Nixon is looking like a Boy Scout compared to Barry O.
Look for all of Barack Obama poll numbers to hit the 30′s after this.
WAPO/ABC News Poll: Buyer’s Remourse – Mitt Romney Would Beat Barack Obama if the Presidential Election was Held Today, 49% to 45% … Poll Numbers in Free-Fall
DOES ANYONE REALLY WONDER WHY OBAMA LIED THRU HIS TEETH ON OBAMACARE AND YOU CAN KEEP YOUR INSURANCE PLAN IF YOU LIKED IT? DO YOU REALLY WONDER WHY THE MSM NEVER BOTHERED TO ASK QUESTIONS?
It is the great fraud perpetrated on the American People …
As reported at The Politico, there is more disastrous polling numbers for President Barack Obama as a recent WAPO-ABC News poll shows that if the 2012 presidential election was held today, Mitt Romney would beat Obama, 49% to 45% among registered voters. Talk about your “buyer’s remorse”. This is a much different outcome than the 2012 match-up where Obama beat Romney 51% to 47% to win a second term. My how times have changed. What a difference the truth makes. What a difference it makes when the MSM decides to actually report on the numerous scandals of the Obama White House.
Making matters worse for Obama, Independents go for Romney 49% to 39% over Obama.
The WAPO/ABC poll also has Barack Obama’s job approval rating at 42% approve, 55% disapprove.
As more bad poll numbers continue to pour in for President Barack Obama, a new survey finds that if the 2012 election matchup were held this month, Mitt Romney would hold the edge with the voters.
Romney topped Obama 49 percent to 45 percent among registered voters in the Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday. Among all Americans, the 2012 rivals would be tied, at 47 percent.
Obama beat Romney 51 percent to 47 percent a year ago to win a second term.
The poll also found more bad news for Obama: His approval was down to 42 percent, a fall of 6 points from a month ago. Fifty-five percent disapproved.
Other ratings of the president’s performance have tumbled as well. He’s at career lows for being a strong leader, understanding the problems of average Americans and being honest and trustworthy – numerically under water on each of these (a first for the latter two). His rating for strong leadership is down by 15 points this year and a vast 31 points below its peak shortly after he took office. In a new gauge, just 41 percent rate him as a good manager; 56 percent think not.
This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that the president’s personal image has suffered alongside his professional ratings. Fewer than half, 46 percent, see him favorably overall, down 14 points this year to the fewest of his presidency. Fifty-two percent now view him unfavorably, a new high and a majority for the first time since he took office. It may matter: Personal popularity can provide a president with cushioning when the going gets rough. Losing it leaves the president more vulnerable.
ACA – Skepticism about the Affordable Care Act looks to be the driving force in Obama’s troubles. Americans by nearly 2-1, 63-33 percent, disapprove of his handling of implementation of the new health care law. And the public by 57-40 percent now opposes the law overall, its most negative rating to date, with opposition up by 8 points in the past month alone.
RCP Average Polling – Complete carnage, almost under 40% as an average.
EXIT QUESTION: How does everyone think that the 2012 Presidential, House and Senate elections would have turned out if IRS-gate was reported on, if Benghazi-gate had been reported on, if AP-gate had been reported on and if, Barack Obama had told the truth and said that 5-10 million individuals with private healthcare plans who liked their insurance would lose it? How about if he told those with employer insurance coverage would lose theirs as well and it would be worse? Hmm?
Democrat US Rep. Kurt Schrader (OR – 5th) Says “I Think the President Was Grossly Misleading to the American Public” on Obamacare … #You Lie
Grossly Misleading = LIE!!!
From The Weekly Standard, US Representative Kurt Schrader (OR-D) says that President Barack Onama was “Very misleading” when he said over and over and over the promise that you can keep your health care plan, if you like it. More Democrats try and distance themselves from Obamacare and not the website, Healthcare.gov, but the lies that were told to the People in order to get the law passed.
“I think the president was grossly misleading to the American public. I know right away as a veterinarian, I have my own business, that my policies got cancelled even before the Affordable Care Act. I know that I would change policies on a regular basis, trying to find the best deal for myself and my employees. But a lot of Americans, a lot of Oregonians, have stayed with the same policy for a number of years and are shocked that their policy got cancelled.
“So I think the president saying you could stay with it and not being honest that a lot of these policies were going to get cancelled was grossly misleading to the American public and is causing added stress and added strife as we go through a really difficult time with health care.”
Mitt Romney Says “Fundamental Dishonesty” Over Obamcare Is ‘Rotting it Away” and “Put in Peril” Obama’s Second Term (VIDEO)
Barack Obama, ‘The Lying King’: Oh what tangled webs we weave, when we practice to deceive …
Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Sunday on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ that President Barack Obama’s “fundamental dishonesty” over his signature health care program, Obamacare, has “put in peril the whole foundation of his second term.” Romney went on to say that Barack Obama intentionally mislead the American people on the core elements of Obamacare. Romney went on to say that time again that fundamental to his plan was the right people would have to keep their insurance plan, and he knew that was not the case.
“Perhaps the most important lesson the president, I think, failed to learn was, you have to tell the American people the truth. When he told the American people that you could keep your health insurance if you wanted to keep that plan, period (VIDEO), he said that time and again, he wasn’t telling the truth. I think that fundamental dishonesty has really put in peril the whole foundation of his second term.”
“… but the key, I think, that has really undermined the president’s credibility in the hearts of the American people is that he went out as a centerpiece of his campaign and as a centerpiece of Obamacare over the last several years saying time and time again that fundamental to his plan was the right people would have to keep their insurance plan, and he knew that was not the case. He could know it by looking at Massachusetts and seeing people there lost insurance. He could have learned those lessons and told the people the truth, but he didn’t. he told people they could keep their plan. and, you know, it was NBC News that said, look, some 6 million people are going to lose their insurance. that’s not some little number, that’s 6 million American people.”
Last year’s losing Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Sunday that President Barack Obama’s “fundamental dishonesty” on the Affordable Care Act has “put in peril the whole foundation of his second term.”
Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Romney said Obama’s handling of Obamacare’s promises “has undermined the foundation of his second term – I think it is rotting it away.”
He added that what “has really undermined the president’s credibility in the hearts of the American people is that he went out, as a centerpiece of his campaign and as a centerpiece of Obamacare over the last several years, saying time and time again that fundamental to his plan was the right people would have to keep their insurance plan, and he knew that was not the case….”
He said “had the president been truthful and told the American people that millions would lose their insurance and millions more would see their premiums skyrocket… there would have been such a hue and cry against it, (that) it would not have passed.”
Tavis Smiley: ‘Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator’ Under Barack Obama
Finally some one in the liberal black community is admitting the truth, Barack Obama has been a nightmare for blacks.
During an interview on Fox News’s ‘Hannity,’ PBS’s Tavis Smiley said the following, “The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category” There you have it, blacks who voted for Obama 95% in 2008 and 93% in 2012, have been sold a bill of goods and received nothing for their vote but food stamps. So why would African-Americans have voted in such large numbers for a president who has failed them incredibly? Could it possibly be that the liberal MSM and black leaders have refused to tell them the truth that Obama has been their worst nightmare? What would the liberal media be reporting if blacks had lost ground in every single economic indicator, if the president was white?
From News Busters:
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: My last question to you. You often do these seminars with the state of black America. I’ve watched them on C-Span and different channels, right?
TAVIS SMILEY: Right.
HANNITY: Are black Americans better off five years into the Obama presidency?
SMILEY: Let me answer your question very forthrightly. No, they are not. The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category. On that regard, the president ought to be held responsible.
But here’s the other side. I respect the president. I will protect the president. And I will correct the president. He’s right on this government shutdown. Republicans are thwarting the rule of law with the Constitution. If they let this debt go into default, they’re trampling again on the Constitution.
When will minorities ever wake up, but that’s right, it’s all Republicans fault.