Obama campaign turns off the “honesty” switch (and a related side note about dishonest “science”)
Bookworm on Apr 02 2012 at 11:59 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, Media matters, Presidential elections
Funnily enough, the MSM isn’t picking up on this story, the one that provides proof (proof that can easily be replicated) that the Obama campaign machine is set up to encourage completely fraudulent campaign donations. The same proof exercise shows that the Republican candidates have set up their donations to block fraud.
Hmm. Obama encourages fraud for cash; Republicans do not. It sounds like a distillation of the entire Obama administration.
Incidentally, my reference to “proof that can easily be replicated” was not random. A poll came out recently stating that conservatives distrust science. Except that, if you dug down into the data that reported this “scientific” conclusion, the facts behind the study didn’t support the conclusion. Instead, the fact revealed that conservatives distrust scientists, which is a far cry from distrusting science.
Turns out that they have reason to: scientists are not trust-worthy or, at the very least, they’re not reliable:
A former researcher at Amgen Inc has found that many basic studies on cancer — a high proportion of them from university labs — are unreliable, with grim consequences for producing new medicines in the future.
During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 “landmark” publications — papers in top journals, from reputable labs — for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.
Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. He described his findings in a commentary piece published on Wednesday in the journal Nature.
The MSM hasn’t yet figured out that “science” is only as good as the scientists that produce it. Conservatives, however, are ahead on that curve. This may explain why the MSM is ignoring the easily reproducible facts proving that Obama is cheating.
Email This Post To A Friend
11 Responses to “Obama campaign turns off the “honesty” switch (and a related side note about dishonest “science”)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Go figure. Coffee will kill you! Coffee will save you! Repeat one of these each month for ten years. Have two camps repeat each at the same time. Bleh.
As to Obama honesty, that’s like looking for virginity on a porn set.
I did say that the US military would have to all learn chi gong and taiji Chuan if they couldn’t get any more coffee.
I followed the link to the article. What is disturbing is that in the comments to the article people blame …the pharmaceutical industry and advocate for more grants to academia. That is what depresses me the most. After reading the comments the only thing I can think is that we are doomed. The Left has succeeded in brainwashing people into believing that any business is bad, no matter the facts. Very depressing indeed.
Eric.
Peter, Peter, Peter! Virginity can only be lost if love is involved.
Merchandising is another way of getting around the campaign donation laws. 60 Minutes reported – long after the election and reports by bloggers – that brothers in Gaza had purchased $30,000 of Obama ’08 t-shirts. All the information was Gaza – shipping/billing address, telephone number – and the stuff was shipped anyway. When confronted, Obama campaign said they thought GA was Georgia, but they couldn’t return the money because they couldn’t get the merchandise returned.
Another is the donation amount being way under the reportable limit. As Bookworm has shown, Obama is now asking for $3.00 donations which is far below the reporting limit.
Deception wins wars. I guess they didn’t teach that in public education. But Alinsky mentioned it.
I think the Obama team intends to keep a series of cultural fires burning at a constant level, in the news, and the MSM will knowingly help them. The intent is twofold: activate their liberal base. But more importantly, keep peoples’ minds off of the bad economic news.
The second goal is not going to work. People are going to be reminded of the bad economic news every week. Every week they will struggle with paying bills. And every week they will fill up their gas tank.
Hopefully the GOP nominee will keep bringing the points home. Obama is totally vulnerable on gas prices. All you really have to do is run commercials using his own sound bites and video bites from 2008 and 2009. On the ecoonomy and jobs, you highlight the jobs gap (fifteen million), puncturing the Democrat hollow arguments. You keep talkling about Obama’s “job-killing policies”. There’s no lie or deceit there. It’s not rocket science.
On the fund-raising and Obama’s illegal conduit from foreign countries… well, he’s a committed internationalist who despises traditional America! What else did you expect him to do? There may be opportunities here to point out (legitimately) that Obama is an outsider and has been behaving like an outsider. That he does not appear to have America’s best interests at heart. Try to get people to ask themselves: What is Obama’s true agenda? The hot-mic moment with Putin stooge Medvedev helps immensely there. Nothing succeeds like video.
The second goal isn’t to keep their minds off of it. The second goal is to give them an enemy to hate. Whether it’s big Pharma or Republicans, the mob will be led to hate somebody not Obama for the problems.
In a recent talk about Catholic standards on sexuality, if I got it straight, they are refusing to battle the standards because the Left infiltrated the Catholic Church and was the primary cause of the sexual scandal? So by refusing to battle the Leftist sexuality mode, because of the Leftist sexuality mode, this is one or two victories for the Left?
Regarding studies from university labs… . The NIH (and NSF) grant award process is one of the biggest and under-investigated boondoggles in history. NIH has a budget of $30,900,000,000. 80% of that is distributed– via “competitive” grants– to researchers at universities. But not all of that money goes to fund actual research (or even things that support research). Most universities require that grant applications be inflated with “overhead”– sometimes more than $0.50 on the dollar. Overhead is what keeps universities running.
I had this discussion not long ago with some smart, politically savvy folks who thought that universities run on funds from tuition (and alumni contributions). Not hardly.
Did you know that $263,605 of taxpayer money was granted to Ginger Cross at Mississippi State University to
“form partnerships between researchers from various disciplines (including the social sciences, nutrition, human sciences, and communications), a health care professional, staff at an interactive children’s health education center, as well as input from students, parents, teachers, and community members to address these factors, promote healthy foods and lifestyles, and raise awareness of research on obesity-related topics. Building upon the expertise of project partners, the proposed research will use a variety of creative techniques to educate pre-K and K students, their parents, teachers and community members about topics related to obesity. These techniques range from age-appropriate dynamic and innovative, hands-on exhibits and field trip programs offered at a children’s health education center to community awareness/media activities such as public service announcement scripts, social media tools, and print media. The information generated from the project will provide information to the public that are reflective of their reality and provide real solutions to improve health” ??
How about $163,181 to research HIV prevention in the youth of Batswana? Since when is Batswana a state?
Someone should go Breitbart on NIH. You can search all NIH grants here: http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
Btw, these researchers are the ones behind Global Warming and they complain about Wall Street’s Mexican vacations to cancun, taking trips on planes on the tax payer’s dime and all that. You know how it is. The Left always accuses you of what they themselves did first.