Posts Tagged ‘liar’

The Man Obama Says We Must Trust Says Obama’s Secretary Of State Is A ‘Liar.’ Don’t Trust Putin Or Demand Kerry RESIGN (Or BOTH)

September 18, 2013

Obama gave an interesting speech (for which he was roundly criticized by BOTH sides for being a hyper-partisan ideologue demagogue at the very moment that Americans were lying dead on the scene less than 2 miles away in the wake of a mass shooting).  Obama gives lip service to the ongoing crisis in Syria, and then immediately said the following:

I want to be clear though that, even as we’ve dealt with the situation in Syria, we’ve continued to focus on my number one priority since the day I took office

This came off the text of the prepared speech as Obama delivered it on his teleprompter.  And note, it does NOT say, “even as we’ve been dealing with the situation in Syria,” in the present active sense, but rather, “even as we’ve dealt.”  Past tense.  Done.  Over.  Language means something, even when it comes from the “Just words” president.  Obama has turned Syria and pretty much the entire Middle East over to Vladimir Putin following his “red line” debacle and he’s shaking the dust off his hands.  It’s an embarrassment, and Obama brushes embarrassments under the rug and ignores them (think “Benghazi”).

Obama has been all over the damn board on Syria.  First he gave his “red line” threat.  Then Syria crossed that line FOURTEEN TIMES.  Then Obama said he was going to attack Syria.  And he said he didn’t need Congress to authorize it (even though the dishonest hypocrite said the exact opposite about the authority of the man who held the SAME office before him).  Then he realized that the rest of the world pretty much thought he was an incompetent disgrace and that they couldn’t trust him to do anything, let alone do it right.  So our great ally England backed out.  And Obama’s “international community” consisted of Obama and whatever demons that inhabit his soul.  So, standing with his feet planted firmly in midair, Obama wilted like a coward.  And then the man who said he didn’t need Congress suddenly decided he DID need Congress to cover his naked scrawny political back.  What he was really hoping for was that Republicans would vote against a strike on Syria and he could politically demonize them for it.  But an interesting thing happened: DEMOCRATS were even MORE opposed to it.  And so having virtually no chance of winning a vote in Congress – and even worse yet, having nobody but himself to blame for his appalling incompetence – he said in the speech that he had arranged to demand Congress vote for his strike to NOT vote for his strike.  Yet another crazy U-turn in a pretzel foreign policy that leaves allies not knowing what Obama will do or not do next and therefore losing all trust in America even as it emboldens enemies and vastly increases the likelihood that they will misjudge whatever the hell Obama’s intentions actually are.  As even the Los Angeles Times now says.

After that, John Kerry uttered an offhanded remark that even the Überliberal The Atlantic called “John Kerry’s gaffe Heard Round The world.”  Russia – seeing Obama’s weakness and desperation along with their OWN opening to impose their will on a situation Obama had clearly completely lost control of – pounced on it.  And Obama, caring far more about his skinny political neck than he ever has about American foreign policy or American prestige, was only too happy to let Russia take over.  So, no need for Syria to cringe in terror over Obama’s “unbelievably small” strike on them, after all.  No need to fear now, world, because Russia stepped in and saved the human race from Obama’s “unbelievably small” attack.

Russia and Putin say they’ll work toward disarming Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile.  You know, the weapons that Syria moved to at least fifty different locations even as this deal to take control over them was being discussed.  Other than the fact that there is almost no way in hell that inspectors can even possibly pull this trick off, and the whole “deal” is a sick joke, we’ve got the bigger problem that Obama has now guaranteed that Bashar al-Assad will remain in power.  Because Russia will see to that and because Obama has just made Assad a PARTNER in the chemical weapons business.  If Assad is out of power, he can’t turn over the weapons, and therefore Obama must see to it that he helps Russia keep Assad in power.

So now we’ve got Bashar al-Assad and his patron Vladimir Putin both saying, “You can trust us.”  And Obama DOES trust them.  Implicitly.  Which is why he’s saying, “Now that we’ve dealt with the situation in Syria.”  Because would Russia ever lie to us???

Let’s call this what it is: an abject disgrace.  America needed a quarterback, and tragically all we’ve had the last five years and all we’ll have for the next three years is a PUNTER who sadly talks a good game but then can’t kick the damn ball.

If you want the best assessment of Obama’s policy in Syria in the fewest words, here it is:

“It seems to me like Putin just put a hook and a line in the water and the President grabbed it, swallowed it and now Putin is just going to sit there, play with him and jerk that around.  All that is happening on the world stage and we are just looking weaker and weaker.” — Congressman Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee

All that having been said, let’s revisit this exchange between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Obama and his Stooge of State John Kerry:

Speaking to his human rights council, Mr Putin recalled watching a congressional debate where Mr Kerry was asked about al-Qaeda. Mr Putin said he had denied that it was operating in Syria, even though he was aware of the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra group.

Mr Putin said: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them (the Americans) and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”

That was on September 4.

Who could have known that Obama would zig-zag on his crazy and incoherent foreign policy to such an extent that a matter of days later the very same man who claimed that the Secretary of State of the United States of America was a liar would be our most trusted figure to help Obama out of the Syria hellhole his idiotic rhetoric got him into?

I mean, not me.  I would have thought that even Obama was smart enough not to trust Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad to fix Syria for us.  But nope.

I’ve written at some length about John Kerry and what an abject lying disgrace that man IS and has been (see here  and here and here and here).

Basically, John Kerry is a man who used his position as an officer to fraudulently put himself in for every medal under the sun – only to treat those medals with the same contempt that he displayed when he applied for them in the first place when he threw them over a fence during an “I hate America” protest; he is a man who turned against his fellow soldiers, Marines and sailors and lied about atrocities he claimed he had witnessed but later acknowledged he had NOT witnessed (because if he’d witnessed them HE would have been guilty of the same war crimes he was trying to frame others for).  He was a man who kicked America right in the balls when it was down.

And that was BEFORE he called the man who is now guilty of murdering more than 120,000 of his own people “my dear friend.”

And now he’s helping Obama and Putin kick America in the balls again.

If we can trust Vladimir Putin to disarm Syria, then we cannot trust John Kerry.  Because the man we trust says John Kerry is a liar who KNOWS he’s a liar.

Personally, it is amazing: Obama trusts liars and ONLY trust liars to advance his foreign policy and pretty much every other policy.

America is a sick, dying land.  Because as Obama’s reverend prophetically said, it is “God DAMNED America.”

(At Least They Aren’t Blaming Bush!): Obama Team Blames Romney, John Kerry, The Moderator AND The Altitude For Obama’s Disastrous Debate Fiasco

October 8, 2012

Rest assurred, if the Obama campaign could have figured out a way to demonize George W. Bush to explain Obama’s failure in his first debate, they would have done so.  After all, that’s pretty much how they’ve explained ALL THE OTHER Obama failures up to now.

Team Obama Blames John Kerry for Debate Loss
by Alexander Marlow6 Oct 2012, 3:44 PM PDT533post a comment

The Obama campaign has been reeling since losing the first Presidential debate of this election cycle in front of 67 million viewers.  They’ve tried–and thus far failed–to craft a narrative to explain away the debacle in Denver.  Previously, we reported to you that Obama Senior Advisor David Plouffe, who ran the President’s successful 2008 campaign, (falsely) accused Mitt Romney of lying.  In a rare comedic moment from the typically robotic former Vice President Al Gore, he suggested on Current TV that the Mile High City’s altitude was the reason Obama was low on energy and enthusiasm.  And, of course, Obama’s chronically dishonest deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter and several others passed the buck to the moderator, Jim Lehrer. None of the above caught on, even with the mainstream pro-Obama media.

Now the Obama Administration is floating their latest excuse: that the campaign, particularly John Kerry (who played the role of Romney in simulated debates), did not channel Mitt’s aggression enough.

From CBS’s “This Morning”:

Norah O’Donnell: “Some Democrats say [Obama's] campaign needs a wake-up call.  Bill Plante is here with that part of the story.  Bill, you’ve been talking to your sources; what are they saying?

Correspondent Bill Plante: “Well Norah, they’re simply upset and really outraged.  They blame the President’s team, first of all, for not preparing him to meet the challenge of an aggressive Mitt Romney.  They say that nobody in the room challenged him, including the guy that he was debating with, John Kerry, because, as they say, he wants to be Secretary of State so he’s not going to get in the President’s face. And Presidents are used to deference; they’re not used to people challenging them like that.  So they think that the debate prep was terrible, but they also fault the President himself for not understanding that Romney was going to be more aggressive.”

The 2012 Obama campaign continues to be a stark contrast from their 2008 effort.  In 2008, then Senator Obama used youthful ebullience, soaring rhetoric, and a precise campaign infrastructure to capture the hearts and minds of the American people.  In 2012, the President seems increasingly lethargic and quick to make excuses for missteps on the campaign trail.

What once was “Hope and Change” is now “Mope and Blame,” and this time it’s John Kerry under the President’s bus.

Along with the liberal New Yorker and of course Clint Eastwood, I blame the chair:

Actually, we ought to lay the blame for a president who was clearly incompetent on the backs of the American people, who were so dispicably foolish in 2008 it was unreal.  But as stupid and as depraved as it is to believe the Emperor had clothes on in 2008, anybody who still thinks the naked turd stinking up the presidency is anything but an empty suit when we desperately need a leader is simply in the category of “demon-possessed.”

No, Mitt Romney Does NOT Have ‘A $5 Trillion Tax Cut’ As Obama Repeatedly Falsely Claimed In His Miserable Debate Performance

October 6, 2012

Democrats are trying to transform the narrative from Wednesday night’s disastrous and revealing performance from Barack Obama from “Mitt Romney won the debate” to “Mitt Romney lied.”

And they don’t care how many lies they have to tell to create that false narrative.

There’s a famous Yiddish proverb that should be pointed out before the Politifact article:

“A half-truth is a whole lie”

Here’s the story, with the added caveat that Politifact is decidedly left-leaning as much as Heritage is decidedly right-leaning:

Obama says Romney’s plan is a $5 trillion tax cut
Says Mitt Romney’s plan “calls for a $5 trillion tax cut.”
Barack Obama on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012 in the first presidential debate

Half-True

Early in the first presidential debate, President Barack Obama attacked Mitt Romney’s tax plan as unbalanced and devastating for the middle class. He charged that Romney’s plan “calls for a $5 trillion tax cut,” and challenged him to defend it.

The candidates repeatedly disagreed about that number. Four times the president spoke of Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut, and four times the governor rejected it.

Obama said: “Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.”

Later, Romney countered: “I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one. So there’s no economist that can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”

Obama has talked about the $5 trillion tax cut for months. We have looked at this claim before and found it lacked important context. Here’s why.

The claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions.

The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion.

The conclusion is accurate but misleading. Yes, the cuts would total that amount, but as Obama himself noted as he continued speaking, Romney hopes to offset the lost revenues by closing loopholes and deductions. The reductions in tax breaks are as much a part of Romney’s plan as the tax cuts.

But Obama is right in pointing out that Romney has yet to specify what tax breaks he would change. The most Romney has personally said is that he might cap deductions at $17,000, but that is a broad figure and does not describe how the number would be achieved.

The impact of changing deductions on the scale needed to offset the tax cuts would be great. The largest deductions include interest on home mortgages, state and local taxes and the tax free treatment of health benefits. These are real pocketbook issues for most households and tinkering with them could have significant effects on large sectors of the economy.

Romney offers key details on the taxes he would cut. But in explaining how to pay for them, he has essentially said only that he would keep the overall tax burden the same across all income groups by changing unnamed tax breaks.

Our ruling

President Obama said Mitt Romney seeks a $5 trillion tax cut.

The $5 trillion figure accounts for only half of Romney’s plan — and it’s cumulative over 10 years. The governor says he will offset those lost revenues by reducing tax deductions and eliminating loopholes. However, he has never said what those changes would be.

The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan, but he did describe what the plan was missing and Romney would not fill in the gaps.
We rate the statement Half True.

So, even according to Politifact, Obama not only lied four times during the debate by deliberately concealing critical information that made his statement a lie, but he has been lying for months.

If you tell only half of the facts, and deliberately ignore the rest of the facts which, if considered, make your claim a lie, you are NOT telling “half the truth”; you are telling a whole LIE.

I have already written about how the “$5 trillion tax cut” meme that Obama trotted out REPEATEDLY in his first debate debacle was a lie.  And I explained precisely WHY it was a lie.  It’s good to see the fact checkers pointing out that it’s a lie.

We now have already documented-hard-core LIAR deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter acknowledging that the $5 trillion figure they claimed Romney was lying about is patently untrue.  And yet Obama is STILL out on the campaign trail saying over and over again what even his own campaign says is a falsehood based on blatantly distorted interpretations of Romney’s tax policy.  These are stone faced liars who call their opponents liars.

The mainstream media is out in force screaming that Mitt Romney is some kind of liar.  They’ve already helped Obama by not only advancing the narrative that Mitt Romney is a liar, but that he’ll kill your wife, too.  But as so often happens these days, the very people screaming “liar” the loudest are the worst liars of all.

You’ll have to look for the truth; and then you’ll have to do everything in your power to put the truth out there so the liars look foolish and wicked for claiming the lies.

Democrat=’Demonic Bureaucrat’ Alert: Dishonest Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Fabricates Bogus Quote From Israeli Ambassador To Demonize Republicans

September 5, 2012

You literally cannot be a Democrat today unless you are a liar from hell:

Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Wasserman Schultz lies: Israeli ambassador categorically denies saying Republicans dangerous to Israel

Debbie Wasserman Schultz told a training session of Jewish Democrats on Monday that Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has said that Republicans are dangerous to Israel because they criticize President Obama’s record. (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). In a statement issued by Israel’s embassy in Washington, Ambassador Oren categorically denies saying any such thing. In other words – at least according to Oren (and probably correctly) – the Chairlady of the Democratic party is a liar. This is from the first link.

The Florida congresswoman made the charge at a training session for Jewish Democrats held by the Obama campaign here at the Democratic National Convention, aimed at teaching Jewish Democrats how to convince their fellow Jews to vote for Obama.

Much of the session, which featured a string of speakers from the Obama campaign, was devoted to defending Obama’s record on Israel. During her talk, Wasserman Schultz said that Republicans, who “can’t get anywhere with our community on domestic issues” instead “do everything they can to lie and distort and mischaracterize this president’s stellar record on Israel.”

As she was wrapping up her remarks, she claimed that, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”

Wasserman Schultz went on to elaborate that Republicans were “undermining Israel’s security by suggesting that the United States and Israel don’t have anything other than a unique and close and special relationship. It undermines Israel’s security to its neighbors in the Arab world and to its enemies. And we need to make sure that the fact that there has never been and will never be daylight between the two parties or the support for Israel that we have in the United States, that that is conveyed to Jewish Americans across this country. That’s our responsibility. It’s the responsibility we’re asking all of you to take on.”

She made similar remarks in a recent interview with Hadassah magazine.

It’s especially ironic for her to argue that Republican attacks were dangerous because they were creating a perception of “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. Creating daylight was precisely the goal Obama adopted when he took office. As the Washington Post reported, a few months into his presidency, Obama told a group of Jewish leaders that the peace process didn’t advance during the prior administration because President Bush was too reflexively pro-Israel.

Oren denies the charge. This is from the second link.

The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. has released a statement “categorically” denying Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that he accused Republicans of being “dangerous for Israel.” The Washington Examiner earlier reported that at a Monday event here, Wasserman Schultz decried Republicans attacks on President Obama’s record on Israel, and insisted that, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”

But the Israeli embassy has now released a statement from Ambassador Michael Oren responding to the Examiner report. “I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel,” the statement reads. “Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle.”

Gee, wasn’t it the Democrats who were complaining last year about Israel being made into a ‘wedge issue‘?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:22 PM

For the record, Michael Oren was appointed as Israeli ambassador to the United States in 2009 by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and he serves at Netanyahu’s pleasure just as American ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the U.S. president. Furthermore, there is little question that Benjamin Netanyahu would very much like to see Romney win in November. Not only is Netanyahu a conservative, but he is a personal friend of Mitt Romney as the two men once worked together and forged a lifelong friendship. Even the liberal New York Times has acknowledged this friendship. If that isn’t enough, it is a further fact that Michal Oren is a conservative himself. There is simply no way Ambassador Oren would have said what Wasserman-Schultz deceitfully says he said either professionally or personally.

Particularly after the Democratic Party Platform just cut and ran on Israel the way it just did whereas Romney is standing on Israel’s side.

Now, to make Wasserman-Schultz an even MORE blatant liar than the above shows, Debbie Blabbermouth again went on the record to demonize the paper that reported on the story:

“Unfortunately, that comment was reported by a conservative newspaper–not surprising that they would deliberately misquote me,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Her statement for the record:

“I didn’t say he said that,” Wasserman Schultz insisted. “And unfortunately, that comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. It’s not surprising they would deliberately misquote me. What I always say is that unfortunately the Republicans have made Israel a political football, which is dangerous for Israel. And Ambassador Oren has said that we can’t ever suggest that there is any daylight between the two parties on Israel because there isn’t. And that that’s harmful to Israel. That’s what I said, and that is accurate.”

The problem for Debbie Blabbermouth is that the paper is confirmed on video as Wasserman-Schultz says on tape the very lie that she then lies about having lied about:

Yeah, you did SO say it, Debbie, you blathering liar.  You clearly demonize the Republicans EXACTLY as the paper reported.  You are a liar.  You have zero credibility.  You should resign.  Let’s see if MSNBC and CNN reports on that.

So there is simply no way around it: Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a liar and a terrible human being. Period.  And the fact that this vile, dishonest psycho is the DNC chair is a screaming indictment against the party of lies.

And every single Democrat who supports this party is a dishonest liar by proxy as well as by result of your completely failed worldview.

Democrat dishonesty is pathological.  And hypocrisy is their quintessential essence.

Democrats have been DEMONIZING Mitt Romney as rich.  It didn’t matter to them when just-as rich-as-Mitt John Kerry ran for president in 2004.  Nor does it matter that their candidate who ran for president in 2000 is worth over $100 million.  To be a Democrat is to say, “It doesn’t matter to us if our guy is rich, but if your guy is rich he’s evil because being rich is evil and greedy.”

Democrats have been all hoity-toity about not taking any money from corporate donors because corporations are evil and greedy.  Democrats said they’d have the most open books in history for who paid for their national convention because they are flagrantly dishonest hypocrites who try to falsely posture themselves as being so much better than Republicans when reality screams otherwise.  And so it is no surprise that we learn that Democrats are secretly and hypocritically doing everything they can to get corporations to donate to their convention:

While publicly pledging to refuse corporate money, the official host committee for this week’s Democratic National Convention has quietly and aggressively courted corporate donors — using a sister nonprofit that has been offering firms special “sponsorship opportunities” if they ponied up $1 million or more to help cover the costs of the event.

A 13-page marketing brochure obtained by NBC News shows how New American City, a nonprofit that is closely affiliated with the official Democratic convention host committee, offered package deals to corporate contributors — with different benefits starting at levels of $100,000 and escalating to the top “Tryon Street Level” of $1 million.

The companies that reached the seven-figure level got “naming rights” at “villages” set up for a Charlotte street festival that opened up the convention, as well as guarantees that “your logo will be featured prominently.” The firms also got to put up banners and logos at other convention-related events — such as a delegate and media welcoming parties — as well as the chance to include their logos in gift bags that are being handed out to 6,000 delegates and over 15, 000 members of the media.

Democrats lie about everything.  Absolutely EVERYTHING.  They are saying that they’re going to move Obama’s Thursday night speech to a smaller venue because it’s going to rain Thursday.  Bullcrap.  The Los Angeles Times article titled, “Rain or shine, Obama to address Democratic convention outdoors” kind of debunks that pathetic excuse.  Remember when Nancy Pelosi falsely labelled the Tea Party as “AstroTurf”?  They were busing an AstroTurf audience in as fast as they could to compensate for the fact that North Carolinians didn’t want anything to do with Obama and his turd policies.  Only they just couldn’t find enough AstroTurf to bus in.  So now they’re suddenly cancelling the 74,000-seat Bank of America Stadium venue because of “rain.”  Even though meteorologists are reporting that rain is unlikely.  Thursday night is going to be the best weather of the entire week, they say.

This versus Republicans who packed 50,000 people during a nationally televised HURRICANE in Tampa.

Democrats lie about every little thing and lie about every big thing.  They’re just liars.  It is their nature.  It is what they are.

You Democrats just make me sick in a way a simple vomit can’t even begin to cure.

Update, 9/6/12: I got a beautiful comment to another article that makes you think about Clint Eastwood’s address and then makes you laugh:

IF anyone is in NC they should get into Bank of America stadium put up an empty chair with an Obama sticker and film the DNC convention of the empty chair talking to the empty chairs.

The skies are crystal clear in Charlotte.  President “Empty chair” was terrified that there would be way too many other empty chairs in that stadium.

Obama, I Demand You Apologize To George Bush And Dick Cheney For Your Lies And Demagoguery

April 4, 2011

Today we had Obama sucking the sewer scum with his crazy straw in a different way.

Barack Obama is a serial liar, and the only time he isn’t lying is if he says he’s lying.

Today we find out officially that Obama is backpedeling on two lies: one to close Guantanamo Bay, and the other to try the worst terrorists in civilian court.  As the LA Times reports via the AP:

Professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators are being referred to the system of military commissions for trial, a federal law enforcement official said Monday.

The decision by the Obama administration is an about-face from earlier plans to have the five go on trial in civilian federal court in New York.

You know that Obama is going to go back on his promises.  That’s what liars do.  Obama is the type of slimeball who first broke his word to serve his Senate term, and then broke his promise to use public campaign financing if his Republican opponent did so.  Anyone but a fool should have known the man is a lying weasel on his noblest day.  But what you hope is that he will now keep breaking his stupidest and most despicable promises.

I pointed out the blatant reality that was readily obvious to anyone but the worst of fools nearly a full year ago:

Renditions? Obama got his butt kicked.  Eavesdropping programs? Obama got his butt kicked.  Patriot Act? Obama got his butt kicked.  Gitmo? Obama got his butt kicked.  Surge strategy? Obama got his butt kicked.  Iraq War? Obama got his butt kicked.  Iranian nuclear threat? Obama got his butt kicked.  That sort of thing.

You stupid, arrogant poodle, Obama.  You’d be completely ashamed of yourself if you weren’t such an arrogant narcissist.

Again and again, on issue after issue, Obama demagogued and demonized Bush policies on the campaign trail.  But when it came time to put up or shut up, and actually DO something, Obama’s “poodle policies” ended up on their back with Bush policy fangs around their throat.

And now we see it yet again.  Military Tribunals?  Another Obama butt kicking…”

But just when you think Obama has finally accepted reality, the idiot climbs back on his winged unicorn and flies off in another cloud of magic fairy dust.

By finally relenting – after 17 months of wasted time and God only knows how many millions of dollars spent fighting reality – to try the terrorists at Gitmo, Obama is acknowledging that Guantanamo Bay will not be closed as long as his loathsome character pollutes the White House.

Here’s the worst of it.  Obama cowardly and despicably went overseas and demonized his predecessor for his atrocities such as Gitmo and trying terrorists in military tribunals.  The contemptible rat bastard-in-chief even said he would consider holding Bush criminally responsible.  And now Obama will be embracing the very “atrocities” that he himself personally demonized.

The left has been saying that Gitmo and military tribunals would give al Qaeda ammunition for recruiting terrorists.  Riddle me this: how much more will they gain ammunition by replaying the very words of Obama and his attorney general Eric Holder as saying Gitmo and military tribunals were immoral?!?!??

I like the way Lyflines puts it:

Reality squashes yet another Democrat storyline…

Do you remember how the left demonized George W. Bush for eight years? Remember how he was trampling all over the Constitution with his military tribunals? Remember how Guantanamo was a scourge upon the face of humanity, a veritable second Auschwitz? Remember how Obama was going to close Guantanamo within his first year in office? Remember the “fierce moral urgency of change?”

Yeah, never mind…

Here’s one typical example of Obama being the cynical lying fool that he is.  After wrapping himself in the Constitution and the principles of our founders (both of which he has actually in fact mocked in a way that George Bush NEVER would have) - And I also can’t help but think of the many Democrats who have openly mocked our founding fathers, our Constitution and the conservatives’ love of both - Obama went on to say:

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.  Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.  In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law — a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected.  Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause.  Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear:  Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security.  It is a rallying cry for our enemies.  It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries.  By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.  That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

Now, you vile liberals, you explain to me how al Qaeda will not be playing Barack Obama’s and Eric Holder’s speeches and saying, “You see?  America is evil even by its very own president’s and attorney general’s standards.”

And the only thing that makes America evil is that we voted for a truly evil man to be our president.  Not to mention an illegetimate imposter who should not even be regarded as a legitimate citizen at this point.

Dick Cheney has repeatedly said that Obama couldn’t be more naive or more wrong and that he would ultimately be forced to abandon his immoral positions on both Gitmo and the military tribunals.

You owe George Bush and Dick Cheney a personal apology.  When Dick Cheney stood up to your lies and denounced your terrible policies, he rightly confronted you on the very issues that you just backed down from today in an implicit acknowledgment that he was right and you were totally wrong.  And if you had so much as a single shred of personal honor or decency, you would offer that apology.

The fact that you DON’T have any honor or decency is why we can know that you won’t bother.

Barack Obama Loses Control At Rally, Falsely Demonizes ‘Side’ That Saved More Than A Million Lives

October 31, 2010

Barack Obama is a liar without shame.  He is also a pathologically petty man, a man who has singlehandedly reduced the once great office of the presidency of the United States of America to “dude.”

It’s bad enough to constantly lie, as Obama constantly does.  But he proceeds to falsely demonize Republicans who saved the lives of more than a million people suffering from AIDS.

It’s past time to call this shameless liar and disgrace to the office of the presidency out for what he is.

OBAMA LOSES IT!… Presidential MELTDOWN in Connecticut (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, October 30, 2010, 8:38 PM

Woah!
Unbelievable– President Obama loses it in Connecticut!
Watch him go off on the protesters… Then he switches side and starts going off some other people.
It went on for 3 minutes.

This Was Wild—

He was campaigning for Blumenthal.

More… Chisum added:

Obama said: “We’re funding global AIDS and the other side is not!”

What? I thought it was our tax dollars? He deserves to be booed and ridiculed just for that statement!

The Hill has more on the meltdown.

Still More… President Bush’s international AIDS-fighting campaign saved 1.1 million lives.

The last link above is to a Washington Times article which says in part:

Former President George W. Bush’s international AIDS-fighting campaign has reduced by 10 percent the mortality rates in 15 targeted countries, primarily in Africa, and has saved 1.1 million lives, according to a study that for the first time quantified the successes of his program.

The study by two Stanford University doctors showed the treatment part of PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which involves making drug treatment available to about 2 million people, has shown solid success while the prevention efforts under the program have not yet produced the same concrete results.

“It has averted deaths – a lot of deaths – with about a 10 percent reduction compared with neighboring African countries,” said Dr. Eran Bendavid, a fellow in infectious disease and in health policy and research at Stanford who led the study. “However, we could not see a change in prevalence rates that was associated with PEPFAR.” [...]

Some Republicans fought during the 2008 debate to keep the focus on treatment, arguing it produced concrete results compared with what they saw as vaguely defined prevention efforts. Those advocates saw Monday’s report as vindication.

Barack Hussein Obama is not just a shameless liar who demonizes good people.  He is an evil man.  He is the very worst kind of fearmonger and racial demagogue who tells Latinos “to punish your enemies.”

The New York Times once ran a story about Obama that began:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

I pointed out Obama’s failure and lie a year ago.  And his disgrace is even more profoundly obvious now than ever before.

This liar without shame, character, or honor who billed himself as the leader who would transcend ideology and partisanship is now out there telling one group of people – one RACE of people, in fact – to “punish” another group, another race, as “enemies.”

There is no question that this evil man broke his “core promise” to the American people.

I pointed out after the election that made Obama president that he is the president of “God damn America.”

And that, too, is more obvious than it has ever been before.

You want to punish somebody?  Punish the Liar-in-Chief.  Punish the Democrats who have brought us to the point of ruin.

P.S. Richard Blumenthal, the candidate for whom Obama was campaigning, and Obama are like two peas in a pod.  So it’s fitting that Obama would tell such an egregious lie while campaigning for him.  Lest we forget, Blumenthal is the man who despicably lied about his having served in combat in Vietnam when in fact he hadn’t even been there.  And in addition to a complete lack of character, Obama shares with Blumenthal a complete and pathetic lack of understanding as to how to create jobs.

If you want losers and liars like Barack Obama and Richard Blumenthal, then vote for God damn America.

If, on the other hand, you are fed up with this crap, then show up on Tuesday and vote these Democrat bums out of office.

Question: Should Democrats Confirm ‘General Betray Us’?

June 23, 2010

General David Petraeus earned the legitimate title of “hero” for his incredible work in leading the surge-based turnaround in Iraq.

A work that Democrats did everything they possibly could to undermine and destroy.

When General Petraeus came to Washington to appear before Congress to defend the progress he’d made in Iraq, the leftist MoveOn.org greeted him with the title, “General Betray Us,” which ran at a vastly discounted rate by fellow liberal attack dog The New York Slimes.

Hillary Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required “a willing suspension of disbelief,” all but calling Petraeus a liar.

The Senate voted to condemn the “General Betray Us” sliming of David Petraeus.  None of the Democrat presidential candidates supported it.  Obama had voted on another bill half an hour earlier, but didn’t have the courage or integrity to vote to condemn those who attacked a great general at war.  He essentially voted “present” yet again.  And Hillary Clinton literally voted in agreement with MoveOn.org.

And, of course, how did Barack Hussein analyze the Iraq strategy that Petraeus championed?

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he told MSNBC. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

What did Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have to say about General David Petraeus’ competence to turn around a difficult situation in Iraq?

“Now I believe myself … that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything”

Obama spent his entire seven minutes at the Petraeus hearing whining about how awful everything Petraeus was doing was, in basic agreement with Harry Reid’s words of surrender:

It is to suggest that if the American people and the Congress had understood then that after devoting $1 trillion, which is what this thing optimistically will end up having cost, thousands of American lives, the creation of an environment in which Al Qaida in Iraq could operate because it didn’t exist prior to our invasion, that we have increased terrorist recruitment around the world, that Iran has been strengthened, that bin Laden and Al Qaida are stronger than at any time since 2001, and that the process of Iraqi reconstruction and their standard of living would continue to be lower than it was pre- invasion, that if that had been the deal, I think most people would have said that’s a bad deal, that does not make sense, that does not serve the United States’ strategic interests.

And so I think that some of the frustration you hear from some of the questioners is that we have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation, to the point where now we just have the levels of intolerable violence that existed in June of 2006 is considered success, and it’s not.

I mean, Petraeus didn’t accomplish anything in Iraq, and actually added to the needless violence, according to now-President Barry Hussein; he’s a flat-out dishonest liar, according to now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; we actually lost the Iraq War during Petraeus’ leadership, according to Harry Reid; and he betrayed this country, according to the leftwing machine that largely got this administration elected. And now this same general is all of a sudden the go-to-guy for these very same Democrats? I mean, excuse me?

History has proven that it was Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the entire liberal establishment who demagogued and demonized the Iraq War, who were the liars. The surge strategy and the Iraq war that General David Petraues led was such a monumental success that Joe Biden (rather appropriately nicknamed Joe “Bite Me” by General Stanley McChyrstal’s staff) tried to claim credit for it, saying:

[Iraq] “could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Democrats never admit how terribly wrong and in fact shockingly immoral they were when they did everything they possibly could to undermine General Petraeus and the Iraq War. But that doesn’t mean they won’t cynically and hypocritically take credit for both Iraq and Petraeus now. That’s just the kind of weasels Democrats are.

David Petraeus was the general that Democrats and their leftist allies despised.  Petraeus was Bush’s general.  Petraeus was “the surge general.”  And the fact that the same liberals who hated Petraeus are now cheering Obama’s selection of him makes me want to barf.

All I’m doing here is pointing out that by the twisted, vile, hypocritical, loathsome standards by which Democrats evaluated General Petraues, there is no way they should confirm him now.

They should find someone like the Pied Piper of fairy tale lore and confirm him instead.

And if Democrats do in fact now vote to confirm the man they attacked, it will be an open acknowledgment that they were rabid little treasonous vermin back in 2007.

Update, June 30, 2010: Democrats unanimously voted today to confirm as a matter of fact that they were treasonous liars in 2007.

Between Rock and Hard Place: Hoping That Weasel Obama Breaks Ridiculous Promises

May 16, 2009

It’s not an easy position for a country to be in: we have a choice between having a craven liar for president, or having a president who keeps utterly stupid and immoral promises that undermine the country at every single turn.

This week, Obama is choosing to be a lying weasel who demagogued George Bush’s policies only to adopt those selfsame policies when it became evident just how truly asinine his own ideas were.

First, we hear that Obama decided to break his previous bright idea about releasing terrorists into the United States.  Thanks for not making me live next door to a jihadist murderer, Barry.  Much obliged.

Then Obama breaks his promise not to release Abu Ghraib pictures that by all accounts would have led to revenge-killings of American servicemen by nose-out-of-joint terrorists.  Again, appreciate it, Barry.  Keep up your lying ways so we don’t have to suffer under the most dumbass and immoral policies of any president in history.

And now we’ve got Obama breaking his word about giving terrorists the same rights as every American citizen (you know, the ones that they’re trying to murder).

President Barack Obama, who was one of the Bush administration’s sharpest critics concerning the military tribunals used to prosecute detainees at the Guantanamo detention facility, may be backing away from his election promise to abolish them.

Last week, a story in the New York Times reported that the Obama administration is now likely to retain the military commission system, but in a modified form. According to the Times, the announcement regarding this stunning about-face could come as early as next week.

“The more they look at it,” one official told The Times, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

As an indication of the high priority the military tribunals had for Obama, he requested on Inauguration Day a 120-day delay of all trials in progress. Two days later, the new president signed an order to close the Guantanamo facility itself within a year. Obama planned to transfer the detainees’ cases to civilian courts in the United States where the prisoners would enjoy the constitutional rights, albeit undeserved, of American citizens.

But the president, who during the election said, once elected, he would “reject the Military Commissions Act,” soon encountered hard, cold reality. In Obama’s case, his second thoughts about closing Guantanamo’s military commission system, which he once termed “an enormous failure”, arose after having reviewed the files of the 241 terrorists still held there.

Most of the remaining prisoners, he discovered, are hard-core al-Qaeda members who are too dangerous to be released. And if tried in a regular American court of law, it is estimated that 50 to 100 of them would be acquitted. The problem Obama failed to understand before making his rash promise is that there is not sufficient evidence to obtain their convictions in civilian courts.

There are also other headaches that would arise from civilian trials in the United States, which would not reflect favourably on the Obama administration. One is that the Guantanamo terrorists, including some involved in the 9/11 attack, would be able to grandstand and promote their cause in the courtroom, since now they would have an audience augmented by television cameras. Under the military system in Guantanamo, the trials are closed to the public and the cameras are absent. Reporters are, however, present in the courtroom.

Other problems concern the possibility of civilian judges throwing out key evidence if they deem it was obtained by questionable methods. Intelligence agencies would also be faced with the nightmarish prospect of having to reveal in public how they got their evidence (secret information is not revealed in open court in the Guantanamo legal system). In a civilian courtroom, terrorists would also take advantage of the legal right guaranteed to American citizens to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

But the biggest problem concerning stateside civilian trials for the Obama administration is what to do with the terrorists if they are acquitted, as surely dozens of them would be. Many of them cannot be returned to their country of origin because they will be tortured and possibly executed. Other countries, including those in Europe, are, with good reason, balking at accepting them, regarding the prisoners primarily as an American problem.

“If the detainees are not dangerous, then I don’t see any problem in the USA taking them in,” said one German politician.

The happiest people in all this would be the acquitted terrorists themselves. Some of the Guantanamo prisoners have openly admitted to their American captors their intention to return to terrorism when released. Other former Guantanamo detainees have already done so. So for those still wanting to kill as many Americans as possible, they would love to be set loose in the United States.

THANK YOU, Barry Hussein!  Now there’s less of a chance that these monsters will be able to beat our easy-to-beat legal system so they won’t be able to murder more Americans!  You’re a prince of the realm for breaking your word on that one.  Thank you for demagoguing an issue only to backstab and lie to your idiot supporters!

And, we learn in an AP article about the same broken promise that this means that Obama will be breaking ANOTHER stupid and immoral promise to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility that kept prevented these monsters from harming Americans in the first place.

Obama could roll back the January 2010 deadline, which he imposed on his second day in office. That could throw in doubt his campaign promise to shut down the prison

Thank God we’ve got such a liar for a president.  In the case of our Fool-in-Chief, it’s better to have him breaking one stupid promise after another than keeping one stupid promise after another.

Of course, sometimes having a Liar-in-Chief gets pretty confusing: such as when Obama promises to “look forward rather than backward” rather than criminalize Bush officials, only to almost immediately break that promise by subsequently saying he’d turn them over to his Justice Department, only to YET AGAIN go back on himself by saying he didn’t want to do the thing that he earlier said he’d do before saying he wouldn’t do that thing…

Anyway, the current situation is that Barry Hussein is finally keeping his fool mouth shut by staying out of the whole conversation of prosecuting Bush officials for waterboarding while Nancy Pelosi twists in the wind as a result of her own damn repeated lies.

Liar or fool.  In the case of our current president, we clearly have both in one teleprompter-clinging package.

Documented Liar Pelosi Was Briefed On Enhanced Interrogations That ‘HAD BEEN EMPLOYED’

May 8, 2009

Nancy Pelosi is a demagogue, a liar, and a hypocrite.  While that has always been true, it is now a documented fact. Pelosi demonized Bush officials, literally leading the rabid dog pack out for Bush blood.  Then it was pointed out that she had been briefed on the waterboardings, as had been documented in a Washington Post article from 2002.  And why didn’t she raise a complaint then when it would have actually mattered beyond political demagoguery? Finally she was forced to admit that she had in fact received a briefing, but quibbled in a “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” manner by claiming she was told the enhanced interrogation techniques “could” be performed, not that they “would” be performed:

In a Thursday press briefing, Pelosi flatly denied that she was ever told waterboarding would be used. “My colleague [Porter Goss], the chairman of the committee, has said ‘if they say that it’s legal you have to know they are going to use them,’” she said. “Well, his experience is that he was a member of the CIA, later went on to head the CIA and maybe his experience is that if they tell you one thing they may mean something else. My experience is that they did not tell us they were using that. Flat out. And any — any contention to the contrary is simply not true.” “Pelosi said her recollection was, ‘They told us they had opinions from the [Justice Department’s] Office of Legal Counsel that they could, but not that they were’ using so-called enhanced techniques, ‘and that if and when they were used, they would brief Congress at that time,’” reported Congressional Quarterly. “She said she was never told that such techniques were actually being used.” “‘As a member of Intelligence, I thought I was being briefed. I realized that was not true when I became ranking member’ and got more information, she said,” according to CQ Politics.

Now the Demagogue of the House is even being revealed to be lying about her qualification regarding her earlier lies. A newly released official report dated September 4, 2002 by the Director of National Intelligence reveals that one Nancy Pelosi was in fact briefed by the CIA, with said briefing including (and see here for the actual memo):

“Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.

No “could” or “would” Nancy.  Try “had been employed.”  She was briefed on what had in fact already occurred.  And so were other Democrats, such as Jay Rockefeller.  Right from the start.  And there is no record whatsoever that they offered any objections or even had any qualms about what was going on.

Even if Pelosi’s position were accepted at face value, Pelosi is still being blatantly dishonest.  In her own acknowledgment, she was told waterboarding “could” happen.  Here’s the question: where was her outrage at what she and her party now say was such a barbaric and immoral practice?  Where are the letters expressing her moral qualms, such as Jane Harmon sent in the similar matter of destroying CIA tapes of the interrogation sessions?  She expressed none.  Legally, the failure to object is implied consent.  And here she is just a few years later helping to demonize Republicans?  And the fact is, we don’t have to accept Pelosi’s position, because we have the official record that confirms she has been lying about what she knew and when she knew it.

This represents two moralities: the post-9/11 morality, which held that the United States would go to certain lengths to protect itself from terrorist attacks; and the 2008-2009 morality, which holds that Democrats who agreed with the post-9/11 morality can now hypocritically and for sheer partisan political purposes attack Republicans for harboring a view that key Democrats themselves harbored when it served their interests to do so.

And we can add Barack Hussein and Hillary Clinton to the list of liars whose lies keep changing. Obama released the so-called “torture memos” as nothing less than a blatant partisan attempt to criminalize political differences and demonize the opposition party.  They got their pound of flesh, I presume.  But now that Obama is backing away from the show trial liberals want, it is time for conservatives to counter-attack.

Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi are the worst kind of liars, demagogues, and hypocrites.  That is now a documented reality.  As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is charged with representing her country more than her party, but from the start she has chosen to demagogue rather than perform her duty.  She should resign.  After launching their vile and despicable attack on Bush officials and Republicans, Democrats need to be held accountable for their deplorable and dishonorable political tactics.

Updated May 8, 11:30 a.m.

Obama’s Breaking Promise On Campaign Finance Just One More Lie

June 23, 2008

A few news articles frame the story better than I could:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

In a video e-mail sent to supporters, Obama said he was opting out of public financing because the system “is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”

The nastiest liars have always have that extra little bit of sheer chutzpah that allows them to blame the other guy for why they break their promises. “Ignore the fact that I am openly going back on my promise. Somehow it’s my opponent’s fault. You really should understand that I am the victim here.”

Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

When Obama was the guy who wasn’t raising all the campaign contribution dough, he was high-and-mighty hoity-toity self-righteous in trying to get everyone to agree to limit their fund raising so he could compete with the big boys.

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

Obama wrote: “In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Not so “aggressively,” according to the McCain campaign, which argues that Obama did not discuss this or try to negotiate at all with the McCain campaign, despite writing that he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Michael Dobbs, the Washington Post‘s esteemed Fact Checker, wrote, “Obama’s affirmative answer to the Midwest Democracy Network seems unequivocal,” Dobbs writes. “Now that Obama is raising $1 million a day, his enthusiasm for public financing appears to have waned.”

Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocritical liar; he’s a self-righteous hypocritical liar, which is the very worst kind. It’s bad enough when someone breaks his promises, but when he does it with a smarmy “holier-than-thou” attitude, that’s when you know you’ve got the rarest breed of demagogue on your hands.

This isn’t the first time Barack Obama has promised one thing, and then done the complete opposite. The man began his presidential run by breaking his promise, as a transcript from Meet the Press reveals:

MR. RUSSERT: Well, nine months ago, you were on this program and I asked you about running for president. And let’s watch and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, January 22, 2006):

MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of ‘04, after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You will not.

Every politician does some flip flopping and reconsideration of formerly-held positions. Believe me, in his short political career, Barack Obama has accumulated a whopping load more than his fair share. But it’s one thing to change your position in the proverbial “flip flop,” and quite another thing to flat-out break your word. Doing the former shows you are responding to the changing nature of the political climate; doing the latter shows you are a bald-faced liar.

For example, had John McCain said of his earlier position not to allow offshore drilling, “I will never change my position on this. Count on it.” That would have been tantamount to a lie.

Barack Obama is a demonstrated, documented liar. The guy who began his career undermining a clearly more popular candidate by using every cheap tactic to get the signatures of voters thrown out is now cynically, deceitfully, and despicably presenting himself as the candidate of “hope” and “change.”

Let’s take a moment to look at some of Obama’s more famous recent flip flops.

We can remember Obama pledging that he would meet with leaders of the very worst regimes on earth without preconditions, and then subsequently “clarifying” his remarks with so many caveats and qualifications that his position became identical to the Bush-position which he had originally demonized in the first place.

We can remember Obama claiming that Iran didn’t pose a serious threat to the United States, to (when confronted with the stupidity of his view) saying “Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust…”

Glenn Kessler wrote a story titled, “Obama Clarifies Remarks on Jerusalem“:

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem “must remain undivided.”

Obama, during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-israel lobbying group, had called for Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.) But his statement that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

If “clarifying your remarks” means saying the exact opposite thing to what one had said before, then I suppose we can say Obama “clarified.” But given the fact that he told a Jewish audience exactly what it wanted to hear, and then almost immediately afterward told an Arab audience exactly what it wanted to hear, I would use a different verb such as “pandered” and “lied.”

Considering the fact that there is a real probability that World War III will be fought over the status of Jerusalem, and considering that our next armed conflict will likely be with Iran, I dare say that these “flip flips” are NOT trivial issues. He has repeatedly trivialized the most important issues of our time with his back-tracking and pandering nonsense.

Doing a google search, I quickly found other flip-flops, some big, some little:

1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as “special interest” money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of “working people” and says he is “thrilled” by their support.

2. Public financing Obama replied “yes” in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba” because it had “utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro.” Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it is “an important inducement for change.”

4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should “crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.” He replied “Oppose.” In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.”

5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Believe me, this is a short list.  One site I came across provides a long litany of lies, flip-flops, and disingenuous use of language. The author is clearly partisan, but he backed up his smack-talk with plenty of sourced research.

Apart from the sheer, vile, despicable nature of Barack Obama’s 23-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church – which offended me enough to get involved in politics – the thing that most bothers me about Barack Obama is that he has taken this above-it-all, lofty, holier-than-thou approach as the “new politician” when he is every bit the scheming, manipulating, lying, lowdown, snake-in-the-grass politician from the shadiest tradition of rotten Chicago politics.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers