Obama must be forced to defend his every questionable action and inaction while he still occupies the office of POTUS.
2013/11/01 at 12:18 pm
We have come to a point in our history at which it is essential that the Barack Obama myth and fantasy be effectively challenged and utterly destroyed, well in advance of the end of his second term as president. To do otherwise is to allow his impossibly effective campaign to destroy our civic, religious, military, and diplomatic culture (remember, he pledged to ‘fundamentally transform’ America) to become established chapter and verse of a new and demonstrably dangerous nationwide political movement.
If we act before the ink is dry on the fearful new tome Obama is writing, we may be able to erase or obliterate its corrosive message, and prevent it from being transmitted, unexamined and unrefuted, to our children, and to our children’s children. Wait too long, though, and we may never be able to “re-moralize” our country once he leaves office.
Think about it. We are accustomed to speaking about our former presidents in respectful, reverential terms. Obama knows this, and will exploit this dynamic for the rest of his life as he continues to pursue his now-obvious path of demoralizing true patriots and destroying our civil society. To the extent we act as expected and work to preserve our tradition of lionizing former presidents (who would have thought that Bill Clinton, he of rapacious sexual proclivities, could take such full advantage of this otherwise commendable habit!), we, as a country, effectively endorse the political activities, outlooks, and philosophies of our ex-presidents. At the very least, we have –at least to date– placed it outside the sphere of acceptable discourse for a nationally-recognized ‘thought leader’ or politician to professionally lambaste an ex-president, and (if applicable) reveal the true nature of his sociopathic personality, however thoroughly he may deserve such treatment based on norms or standards we apply to ordinary U.S. citizens.
Don’t you see? The time to act is when Obama remains in office. Obama must be forced to defend his every questionable action and inaction while he still occupies the office of POTUS. We must hold up a mirror to him, and force him to admit his past transgressions, as well as his true intentions for the future of this country. If we are lucky, we may see the day when he resigns, his political support entirely eliminated. But if he fails to resign, which seems likely, we must impeach him and remove him from office.
We have a great deal of hard work to do to restore the constitutional republic that is our political heritage. We are bound to protect our society against the current onslaught of attacks that is clearly intended to foment unnecessary self-doubt, sap our strength as a people, and stimulate and accelerate the kind of moral and cultural decay that history shows eventually reduces a proud nation-state to utter rubble. Let that work begin now, while the eyes of the nation, and of the world, are fixed on Obama and his administration.
Plus he’s black.
What does the man’s skin color have to do with anything?
Legendary comedian Jackie Mason has uncorked a full-blown assault on President Obama and his troubled attempt at providing health care for Americans.
“It’s such a ridiculous thing. The whole country’s walking around wondering if this guy’s really the president of a country. He sounds more like a maniac in an asylum,” Mason said in a radio interview Sunday night.
“He’s saying things that nobody believes. He was always lying every day of his life. Every time he talks it was a lie. The only time he tells the truth is when you didn’t hear from him.”
“This is becoming so ridiculous, that even the biggest liar can’t top himself,” Mason, 76, told host Aaron Klein on WABC in New York City. “He looks at you straight in the face, and tells you that if you want your plan, you got your plan, you keep your plan. Now, a month-and-a-half later, you got no plan, you lost your plan, and he tells you you still got a plan.”
Mason continued: “He has a whole country walking around dizzy wondering who we’re listening to. If this is a president of a country, how come he’s the only one in America who doesn’t seem to know what’s going on here?
“Never did I expect a guy like this, the head of a country, to blatantly lie to your face, and then not only lie to your face, then lie about the fact that he never lied. Then lie again about the next lie he told. There used to be a time when you would worship the president, even if you didn’t like him. You knew he told the truth because he’s the president of a country. Now, he’s the only guy in America who would have the nerve to lie this much.
“You say to yourself, ‘Wait a second. Who am I listening to? Was this guy actually elected to the presidency? A man who’s completely out of his mind, who’s out of touch with humanity, with America, who doesn’t seem to know what’s going on here? Does he read a paper?’
“A guy like this should be locked up … If he wasn’t the president, he’d be in jail or in a sanitarium. He wouldn’t be outside talking to people in this condition. He would be considered a danger to his own his own health, to his own life.
“The latest is that it’s only 5 percent of the people, only 15 [or] 20 million people who are going to lose their plan. … What if you shoot a guy? He’s only one person out of 300 million. How come it’s in the paper that you shot an innocent person and you go to jail for it? … Since when do you destroy people and it doesn’t count because it’s too small a percentage?”
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2013/11/legendary-comic-flays-obama-as-lying-maniac/#zl5Zu1jLIgcsIujL.99
Maybe Mr. Mason should do some research on past presidents and then tell us what president did not lie to the voter. Maybe this man does not live on this planet. Also he is a lousy comedian.
jjj, how do you feel about the fact that your president lied to you, and to the rest of us rubes, repeatedly and blatantly and without shame, to tamp down well-founded objections to legislation he favored that will eventually absorb into the federal government one sixth of the private economy?
The NY Times: We Endorse Obama’s Lies
By: DrJohn
https://floppingaces.net/2013/11/04/the-ny-times-we-endorse-obamas-lies/
“Apparatchik” is defined as as unquestioningly loyal subordinate: a subordinate who is unquestioningly loyal to a powerful political leader or organization. You can find a cadre of Obama apparatchiks here. They are known as the Editorial Board of the NY Times. It is claimed that this board operates independently of the regular “news operations” but if no one objects to it, well….
I was going to title this “The Devil Wears Pravda.”
Pravda is the Russian government information outlet, unflinchingly loyal to the leader of the Communist government. The NY Times editorial board has become the US version of Pravda. It has become a pathetic, apologetic, partisan, left wing shadow of itself. It is sodden with democrat bias. It is essentially an arm of the Obama Progressive Movement and the National Democratic Committee.
What it cannot do is tell the truth. The board is an Obama propaganda machine. Yesterday they posted an editorial entitled “Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping”.
In it, they decide what’s worth keeping and what is not despite a complete absence of facts. But more importantly, they send a very important message- lying is acceptable to get what you want.
“He clearly misspoke.”
“Congressional Republicans have stoked consumer fears and confusion with charges that the health care reform law is causing insurers to cancel existing policies and will force many people to pay substantially higher premiums next year for coverage they don’t want. That, they say, violates President Obama’s pledge that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it.
“Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. ”
Misspoke? This is astonishing – it is a lie in itself. Obama didn’t misspeak. He LIED.
It could be argued that Obama misspoke when he claimed that premiums would go down 3000% when he meant to say that premiums would go down an average of $2500 per year (and that was another lie). That’s closer to what one might call misspeaking.
Let’s revisit what Obama said one more time:
“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”
Obama probably said it hundreds of times and he knew it wasn’t true. He and his aides knew that the truth wouldn’t sell:
More from the NY Times today: “The former official added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate “if you like your plan, you can probably keep it” isn’t a salable point.
They knew the truth wouldn’t sell. This wasn’t misspeaking. This was wholesale deceit and the point cannot be made too strenuously. The President of the United States and the democrat Congress sold America a lie.
The Times’ apparatchiks then spend the rest of their apologia defending Obama’s big lie:
“But insurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees. They must offer consumers options that do comply with the law, and they are scrambling to retain as many of their customers as possible with new policies that are almost certain to be more comprehensive than their old ones.”
And they spend the rest of the editorial defending the lie.
“Indeed, in all the furor, people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were. Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didn’t cover hospital care.
“This overblown controversy has also obscured the crux of what health care reform is trying to do, which is to guarantee that everyone can buy insurance without being turned away or charged exorbitant rates for pre-existing conditions and that everyone can receive benefits that really protect them against financial or medical disaster, not illusory benefits that prove inadequate when a crisis strikes.”
“What health care reform is trying to do.”
This is distraction. It is deflection. It is dishonest. What they needed to be was honest, but the Times doesn’t agree.
The NY Post sees Obama going from “Bullsh*t to dishonesty.”
“Obama denounced the individual mandate to purchase health insurance during the primaries to get to Hillary’s left, but his stated reason was that it wouldn’t be fair to force people to buy health insurance if they couldn’t afford it. You could argue he covered himself by including in the law large subsidies — your income can be four times the poverty line ($94,000) and you still qualify for aid.
“He said he would close Guantanamo but that was just campaign blather for suckers — an applause line, not a serious policy proposal. As any student of the matter knew, there wasn’t a better alternative, and nobody really cares about Guantanamo detainees anyway. It was just opportunistic Bush-bashing.
“This week was something new. It was the week Obama was revealed to be a stone-cold liar.”
Obama’s lies are so egregious that even WaPo gave Obama Four Pinocchios.
There are a number of ways one could summarize the NY Times position, but “the end justifies the means” is probably the most accurate.
Obama and the NY Times will decide. They know what’s best for you. You are too stupid to make your own choices.
You don’t even deserve the truth.
No, you can’t keep your plan and you can’t keep your doctor. For one woman, that could be fatal:
“Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.
“But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.”
Should she lose her battle, would it be fair to say Obama killed her?
The Times go to great lengths to defend what is being done here but the truth remains- Obama lied and they are endorsing his lying so that he and the rest of his Progressives can force upon you what they and they alone decide is best.
Just like Stalin.
Just like Hitler.
Just like Mussolini.
Just like Gaddafi.
Just like Mubarak.
Just like Mugabe.
This is how it always begins. They impose their will on people. They knew what was best for you. Once you get past the need for the truth anything is possible.
I think it forms the bases of most of his detractors objections.
This healthcare marketplace is actually what the GOP suggested back in the Clinton years. A transparent marketplace for healthcare does two things: 1) forces providers to compete with each other for services on like for like terms and 2) emancipates millions of corporate workers to increase labor mobility.
The only people who would be against such an idea are 1) health industry companies and providers who don’t want an open marketplace, because opacity and de facto collusion are far more profitable and 2) corporations who prefer captive employees who are more afraid of losing coverage than they are of losing their jobs.
And for #6: are you really surprised that Affordable Care didn’t live up to Obama’s campaign promises, given the working over it received in the legislative branch? This is politics 101. Were you as equally outraged when Bush went to war against Iraq under false pretenses? Or did your inner Tom Clancy let that slide?
#7 “Rob’..since you decided to bring up Bush. He went to war based on reports of WMD. Sadam Hussein had plenty of time to move them….to Syria. Of course the lamestream media chooses to ignore the fact that the Syrians are too dumb to figure out how to make this stuff and the WMD that Sadam hid there were recently used in the killing of thousands. So Pres Bush has been exonerated…but the press chooses to ignore it as they stay on their mission of propping up Obummer, the worst president since Jimmy Carter.
So Rob, let me get this straight: the only potential point of criticism when it comes to Obama is his skin color, because any imperfections present in the signature legislative achievement that bears his name is so clearly the fault of “those meddling kids” in Congress that no right-thinking individual could dream of blaming the president, who did not veto the bill, but rather signed the bill with great fanfare, with no explanation or “signing statement” to explain that Congress screwed it up, not him. Have I got this right?
A dishonest presidency
By Marc A. Thiessen, Monday, November 4, 10:45 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-dishonest-presidency/2013/11/04/841947c6-4561-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html
The Wall Street Journal broke the news this weekend that, even as President Obama was telling the American people they could keep their health plans, “some White House policy advisors objected to the breadth of Mr. Obama’s ‘keep your plan’ promise. They were overruled by political aides.”
Overruled by political aides? This is simply damning.
It’s not easy to get a lie into a presidential speech. Every draft address is circulated to the White House senior staff and key Cabinet officials in something called the “staffing process.” Every line is reviewed by dozens of senior officials, who offer comments and factual corrections. During this process, it turns out, some of Obama’s policy advisers objected to the “you can keep your plan” pledge, pointing out that it was untrue. But it stayed in the speech. That does not happen by accident. It requires a willful intent to deceive.
In the Bush White House, we speechwriters would often come up with what we thought were great turns of phrase to help the president explain his policies. But we also had a strict fact-checking process, where every iteration of every proposed presidential utterance was scrubbed to ensure it was both accurate and defensible. If the fact-checkers told us a line was inaccurate, we would either kill it or find another way to make the point accurately. I cannot imagine a scenario in which the fact-checkers or White House policy advisers would tell us that something in a draft speech was factually incorrect and that guidance would be ignored or overruled by the president’s political advisers.
This whole episode is a window into a fundamentally dishonest presidency. And the story gets worse. After Obama began telling Americans they could keep their plans, White House aides discussed using media interviews “to explain the nuances of the succinct line in his stump speeches.” But they decided not to do so, because “officials worried . . . that delving into details such as the small number of people who might lose insurance could be confusing and would clutter the president’s message.”
Yes, no need to “clutter” the president’s message with confusing details — like the fact that millions of Americans being told by the president that they could keep their plans were being knowingly misled.
Obama could easily have come up with another way to make his point accurately. He could have said “most Americans will be able to keep their plans.” Or he could have said, as his communications director Dan Pfeiffer put it on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, “if you had a plan before the Affordable Care Act passed, [and] it hasn’t been changed or canceled, you can keep it” (which prompted McConnell spokesman Don Stewart to reply, “So . . . you can keep your plan — unless it’s been cancelled. Gee, thanks.”) That would certainly have been less powerful, but at least it would have been accurate.
But Obama didn’t say those things. He said, “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” That statement was clear, unequivocal and wrong — and Obama and his advisers knew it.
The president’s defenders are twisting around for ways to explain away his 16 words. The New York Times wrote in an editorial Sunday that “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke.” Misspoke? On 24 separate occasions? Sorry, the president didn’t “misspeak.” This was an premeditated deception. This wasn’t something Obama ad-libbed. It was a line in a presidential speech that was carefully reviewed by the entire White House senior staff. Obama’s political advisers were told by his policy aides the statement was inaccurate — but they decided to let Americans believe the falsehood.
Obama’s former chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau, told the Journal that the speechwriters were working to find ways to explain a complex policy and that the goal was “simplification and ease of explanation . . . while still being true.” Except what Obama said wasn’t true.
Every president faces the challenge of explaining complex policies in simple terms. But the quest for simplicity is no excuse for dishonesty.
Obama’s own advisers told the Journal that they knew those 16 words were untrue, but Obama kept on saying them — over and over and over again.
If that’s the case, then Obama didn’t misspeak.
He lied.
The following is an excerpt from the November 5, 2013 article written by Glenn Fairman entitled “A Post-Obama World”. The sentiments expressed are remarkably similar to the original essay in this blog article, suggesting that many, many people are now coming to the same conclusions about pResident Obama.
___________________________________________________________
… I force myself to turn to happier thoughts as I meditate on what a Post-Obama America can look like, and whether the resulting economic, social, and political malaise that his stain on American prestige and power can be eradicated: like shocking an algae-laden swimming pool to clarity with a massive burst of chlorine. With an earnest reawakening, it is certain that we can wind back the tentacles that the Progressive regime has driven autocratically into the executive branch. And further, we can mend the political and diplomatic fences that have been either burnt down or allowed to decay in the current uncertain atmosphere of ideological contempt and treasonous neglect. But the question in my head still reverberates: Does America still retain within the marrow of its collective will the moral vision and fortitude to return again to the First Principles of its prudent founding?
It is heartening that, as of late, a considerable infusion of not-so-ancient wisdom has buttressed a reawakened citizenry to the salutary virtues of limited government and negative liberty. Indeed, the now readily discernible hum that even the MSM can no longer ignore is evidence of a startling realization that Obama’s wholesale mutation of Executive Branch prerogative into velvet tyranny has duly compromised the internal balanced mechanics designed within our republic. But what is infinitely more disturbing is how large a number of drones swell the ranks of Progressive servitude — a sizeable phalanx consisting of our friends and neighbors who have bitten deeply into the poison apple and pronounced it Good. In closing their eyes in blissful ignorance to the constitutional and cultural demolition going on around them and becoming in the bargain energetic tools of the Collective, they have willingly assented to the grim edict of the Hive as payment for their silent heedlessness: affectionately trading their sacred birthrights for scraps conjured from an EBT card.
Whether the people’s love of liberty has been stillborn or abandoned through disuse, the time will soon be upon us when the paper-mache foundations undergirding Obama’s Pillars of Progressivism come crashing down. And make no mistake; by its very nature Socialism is unsustainable except as a strutting ideological tapeworm that sickens its host unto death. It cannot long survive on its own steam because its core assumptions are artificially imposed and counter to every free and noble instinct that attends the healthy human imagination. To the Patriot who viscerally understands the ramifications of Fabian Socialist rot on our national character, he should also discern the cryptic meaning of the Nietzschean epigram as applied to an irrational faith in Marxian collectives: “That which is falling should be pushed.”
A Post-Obama World — a Post-Socialist World will be one of immense pain in the short term: as the soured nipple is ripped from our collective teeth and we learn again to stand and walk unaided. Shall we not again begin to accept the risks of existence in the cold Hyperborean air of liberty while slowly germinating within ourselves the virtues of men and women who live free, know how to choose the sweet from the sour, despise the political flim-flam, know a genuine friend from a dissembling villain, and have the courage to ride out of town on a rail those who would dare tell us otherwise?
The entire article can be found at:
https://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/a_post-obama_world.html
Mona Charen apparently also thinks that the time is now for Obama’s other falsehoods to be uncovered, and for the scales finally to fall from the eyes of Obama’s most dedicated supporters and protectors.
__________________________________________________________
Disillusioned with Obama, will Media Investigate Benghazi?
Mona Charen | Nov 05, 2013
The question many on the left are asking as they witness the Obama administration flail in response to HealthCare.gov’s debut disaster is: How could this happen? Obama is so brilliant, so capable and so wise. How could he bungle his signature initiative?
He isn’t, but even if he were, it wouldn’t make a particle of difference. One of the central delusions of progressives is that government is efficient and effective and that complex human societies are amenable to centralized control and direction.
We on the right presume government ineptitude. The Washington Post reports today, for example, that the federal employee retirement system paid more than $400 million in benefits over the past few years to deceased retirees. On the same page, we learn that despite the U.S. government’s $7 billion investment in combatting heroin cultivation in Afghanistan, the trade is booming. Last week, the Brookings Institution published a study suggesting that Cash for Clunkers was a failure, costing taxpayers $1.4 million for each of the 3,676 jobs created.
This is normal. There are common sense reasons for it — explanations available to most students of Econ 101. Those spending other people’s money have very little incentive to economize or seek top value. Nor can central bureaucrats possibly have enough information to make wise decisions about something as complex as one-sixth of a $16 trillion economy. As Friedich A. Hayek cautioned: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
Discovering that government lacks competence in many areas is what caused a critical group of liberal intellectuals to become the “neo-conservatives” in the 1970s and 1980s. Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, Michael Novak and others were not moved only by anti-Communism. They were first chastened by studying the failures of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.
As for the other story of the past month: as to the media’s discovery that Obama is untruthful, we conservatives are adamantly unshocked.
Observing the left’s confusion about the emperor’s lack of clothes is perhaps a clarifying moment. Liberal journalists who until now had covered for Barack Obama, rationalized his failures, explained away his misrepresentations, and believed in his integrity seem shaken. The “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” vow was so clearly a blatant lie that even the Praetorian Guard of White House correspondents is reporting on it accurately.
Since the armor now has sunlight streaming through it, perhaps the fifth estate will re-examine other pivotal moments of the Obama years girded with their newly acquired skepticism.
Start with Benghazi. “60 Minutes” has revisited the story. It’s more than a year late, but come on in, the water’s fine. There were so many lies told about Benghazi that investigative reporters could be kept busy for years tracking them all. The president of the United States maintained for two weeks after the attack that he couldn’t possibly say whether it was terrorism or not, though the CIA acknowledged that it knew within hours that the attack was planned and coordinated. President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton blamed the attack on an Internet video that “insulted the Prophet,” so as to avoid criticism for failing to provide security and to prevent the press from interpreting the Benghazi attack as a refutation of Obama’s claim that al-Qaida was essentially defeated. Those were not shadings of the truth or diplomatic doublespeak. They were lies.
The president also claimed that he ordered that everything possible be done to save the Americans who were under attack. Yet no one has ever seen such an order. The press hasn’t bothered to ask for evidence of it. Perhaps they trusted his word. Do they still? Are they not curious about why the administration did nothing to come to the aid of Americans under fire? Beyond the lies, that is a scandalous breach of trust, as is the president’s promise — uttered with campaign-inflected intensity — to find the people who killed four Americans “because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.”
It’s been 14 months. Is this government incompetence or another lie? Someone should ask.
https://townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/2013/11/05/disillusioned-with-obama-will-media-investigate-benghazi-n1736506/page/full
David Limbaugh? He is experiencing the same sentiment, and is saying so in his own way, RIGHT NOW.
Must we wait for Bill and Hillary Clinton to pen a similar essay, or can we say that we’ve now reached the tipping point, after which the president’s ouster is inevitable?
__________________________________________
Obamacare Is Obama Unmasked
David Limbaugh | Nov 04, 2013
Everyone is focusing on Obamacare because it is such an obvious disaster, but in fact, it is but a microcosm of Barack Obama’s entire presidency. Obamacare is Obama unmasked.
Aren’t some of you tired of making lame excuses for him that only serve to make things worse? He has made a mess of nearly everything his policies have touched, and he’s mostly avoided the blame; but he owns Obamacare, and he has nowhere to hide.
When someone with the influence Obama enjoyed upon first taking office sets out to fundamentally transform the nation — and he has the unqualified support of the entire liberal media apparatus, the Democratic Party in lock step, millions of people purchased with government money and/or indoctrinated in liberal universities, and the cudgels of racial shaming and white guilt — the possibilities are endless.
Constitutionalists have observed for years that America has been on a downward spiral as its ruling class has discarded its founding principles — the very ideas that led to this nation’s uniqueness, power, prosperity and benevolence. We’ve known that we could not forever piggyback, with impunity, on America’s system of limited government and its free market economy. Eventually, statist encroachments on both would destroy our prosperity, liberty and power.
But we were thinking in terms of decades into the future, not a matter of a few years. Who would have ever thought the United States would embark on such an accelerated path of national suicide?
At the beginning, people could argue that Obama would usher in a period of prosperity and bipartisanship and that things would get better in America. But after five years of unconscionably reckless federal spending, a wholesale assault on our domestic energy industries, endless abuses of executive authority and other lawless incursions on the Constitution, unprecedented divisiveness and polarization across economic, racial and gender lines, America’s declining power and prestige in the world, an explosion of the welfare state, and the worst economic recovery in 60 years, how can anyone who cares about this nation’s future and the well-being of our children and grandchildren keep supporting this man’s policies?
Even those of you who seem to have an endless capacity for buying into the administration’s childish scapegoating of the Bush administration or the current GOP opposition for every Obama policy failure surely are beginning to have doubts as you watch the inglorious unfolding of Obamacare.
At first, you may have been hanging on to the fantasy that this was just a technical problem with the website — perhaps marginally understandable given the immense scope of the “transition” into government-run health care. But unless you have been asleep the past few weeks, you understand that the problems with the website were so colossal that only an incompetent and arrogant administration could have presided over them.
But you also know that as horrendous as the website problems are, they pale in comparison with the substantive problems with Obamacare and Obama’s abject lies to pass the bill in the first place and his continuing pattern of deceit concerning this boondoggle.
You may choose, like New York Times editors, to become part of the lie and euphemize Obama’s Obamacare lies as “misstatements.” But that’s an insult to anyone in possession of the left side of his brain. Actually, it’s an insult to right-siders, too, because you’d have to be bereft of intuitive powers not to sense the enormity of the presidential deception.
It is inconceivable that Obama merely misspoke when he promised that Americans could keep their private plans and doctors if they liked them and when he said the premiums for an average family of four would decrease by $2,500. Those were cold, calculated lies designed to defraud the American people and their representatives into supporting Obama’s “signature” legislative dream, which was never about increasing access, reducing costs, increasing quality and preserving choices. Rather, Obamacare has always been nothing less than the linchpin in Obama’s bigger dream to fundamentally change America into a nation he could like instead of resent — a socialist utopia rather than the land of the free, of the brave and of equal opportunity.
Those on the left who stubbornly insist on continuing to support Obama and his destruction of America need to re-evaluate him. Is your appetite for denial unbounded?
Those on the right who insist on continuing to pull their punches instead of calling it like it is will also eventually have America’s blood on their hands.
We all had better wake up. There’s only so much bitterness and covetousness a nation’s leaders can arouse in its people before they reduce it to permanent mediocrity.
Obama supporters will go hysterical over this well sourced list of 423 examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc.
By Dan from Squirrel Hill
Posted on August 15, 2013. Updated on November 3, 2013.
As the author of this blog post, I place it into the public domain. Anyone may freely copy it in any part or in its entirely, without asking my permission, and without paying any money. I do ask you please cite a link to https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/
I ask you to please show this list to as many people as possible – and especially, to please show it to as many Obama supporters as possible. Sunshine really is the best disinfectant. I can’t stop Obama from doing any of these horrible things, but I can tell people about what he is doing. So please share this list with others on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Thank you. The short link for this is https://tinyurl.com/ku9vxug
Every President, every politician, and every human being tells lies and engages in acts of hypocrisy. But Barack Obama does these things to a far greater degree than anyone else that I have ever known of. His campaign promises were so much better sounding than anyone else’s – no lobbyists in his administration, waiting five days before signing all non-emergency bills so people would have time to read them, putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN, reading every bill line by line to make sure money isn’t being wasted, prosecution of Wall St. criminals, ending raids against medical marijuana in states where it’s legal, high levels of transparency. Obama’s promises of these wonderful things sounded inspiring and sincere. They sounded so much better than the promises of any other President. So when Obama broke these promises, it felt so much worse than when other Presidents broke their promises.
In the 2008 United States election, I wrote in Ron Paul for President. In the 2012 election, I voted for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Those who are of a more leftist persuasion than myself might want to consider voting for the Green Party in future elections.
Some of the things on this list are major events that should scare the daylights out of any true liberal who cares about civil liberties.
Other things on this list are medium things that some Obama supporters may dislike, but would be willing to overlook in light of the things that Obama has done which they like.
And some of the things on this list may seem trivial, but I still think they are an interesting reflection of the kinds of policies that Obama supports.
Every claim that I make in this list is sourced. Click on the blue text to see the sources. I have cited a wide variety of sources, from right wing, to left wing, to middle of the road.
I welcome any comments and criticisms that you may have. If you say my list is wrong, please back up your claim by citing specific examples.
And now, on with the list:
1) Carried out military interventionism in Libya without Congressional approval
In June 2011, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said that Obama had violated the Constitution when he launched military operations in Libya without Congressional approval.
2) Gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton – just like Bush did
In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011, just hours after the Justice Department had said it would pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of using kickbacks to get foreign contracts.
3) Has an administration full of lobbyists, after promising he wouldn’t have any
While running for President, Obama had promised that, unlike Bush, he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.
4) Has close ties to Wall St., but pretends to support Occupy Wall St.
Although Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, the truth is that he has raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years. In early 2012, Obama held a fundraiser where Wall St. investment bankers and hedge fund managers each paid $35,800 to attend. In October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry.
5) Broke his promise to close Guantanamo Bay
Obama broke his promise to close Guantanamo Bay.
6) Supported the $700 billion TARP corporate-welfare bailout just like Bush
While Senator, Obama voted for the $700 billion TARP bank bailout bill. The bailout rewarded irresponsible and illegal behavior. It redirected resources from more productive uses to less productive uses. It punished the hard working taxpayers who had played by the rules and obeyed the law. It created horrible incentives, and sent the wrong message. The bailout was evil because it rewarded the bad people and punished the good people. No society that does this can expect to remain free or prosperous. Instead of bailing out these corrupt corporations, we should have let them cease to exist, like we did with Enron.
…And the list goes on, now up to #423…