Obama

Why Obama Lies

By Ed Lasky

George Will writes that "Barack Obama's intellectual sociopathy -- his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth -- should no longer startle." But why do Obama and his supporters feel no compunction when they do so? And does this pattern provide an opportunity for Mitt Romney to gather votes in November?

As has often been commented, all of Barack Obama's promises come with an expiration date. They range from the relatively minor to the truly majestic such as his promise that he would not raise taxes for those families earning under $250,000 a year and that he would cut the deficit in half.

He peddled a world of wonders that would flow from passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The fabrications started early -- even in the very name of the act. Patients are not protected: not only will they not be able to keep their current plans if they like them, as he promised (businesses have been dropping company plans in reaction to Obamacare), but their care will fall under the control of the Independent Payment Advisory Board that may just decide that various medical procedures are not covered -- and, incidentally, the people on this board are "unelected." Where is the Patient Protection?

Nor is the Act "affordable". Obama pledges that the Act would cut the deficit and bend the cost curve downward have been shown to be false.

Bu the lies keep coming and will expand exponentially during the campaign at a far faster pace of growth than the economy has under Barack Obama's stewardship.

Often these falsehoods will focus on Medicare -- trying to play the politics of fear with the politically potent group of seniors who depend on Medicare. Barack Obama recently charged that Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare and ensure its future viability will "end Medicare as we know it." When this lie was first used by Democrats in 2011 it won the none-too-coveted "Lie of the Year" award from Politifact, the truth-checking outfit. Regardless of this dubious distinction, Obama recycled the lie once again.

The list can go on and on.

Oil companies do not get "subsidies" from taxpayers ; however, his green energy boondoggles and failures (I am being redundant here) do. He claimed that Solyndra was not funded under his program "per se" but under a program funded by the all purpose straw man, George Bush. That was false. He promised that his green energy push would create 5 million jobs by 2008, but that was a lie and the numbers of jobs actually produced despite the expenditure of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been miniscule, as has the actual production of kilowatts. He has truly hit a gusher with his string of lies claiming credit for oil production gains over the last three years, but he has a long history of claiming credit for the work of others.

The Supreme Court "Citizens United" decision does not permit foreign money to be donated to political campaigns, as he charged in the State of the Union address last year. It would not be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to find an act of Congress unconstitutional -- that is their role under our form of government and they have done so many times; nor was Obamacare passed by "strong majorities" (219-212 in the House; 60-39 in the Senate). Perhaps Barack Obama, the president of the Harvard Law Review and a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, needs a remedial course not just on the basics of constitutional law but also in elementary school math.

Barack Obama has won numerous awards and prizes: the Grammy Award (twice) and the Nobel Peace Prize. But he has also won numerous Pinocchio Awards bestowed by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post for his "stretching of the truth" over the years -- and those he has actually earned and deserved.

But why does he -- and his supporters -- feel they can so blithely lie to us?

There are obvious reasons and one not very obvious reason.

First, the obvious reasons.

One obvious reason is to distract us from his poor record as president. He is so confident of his oratory that he, as is true of many con men, can feel confident that whatever message is being peddles will be believed.

The liberal media will provide cover for them and will not judge the veracity of his claims. Journalists are overwhelmingly liberal and give the vast bulk of their donations to Democrats. He can rest assured that major media will not fact-check most of his claims or filter out the most obvious fabrications. The various fact-check groups are a small blip on the radar screen compared to such Obama-friendly media outlets as MSNBC or the New York Times.

He will use his vast war chest to flood the media with commercials filled with all sorts of fantastical claims regarding his record while demonizing Republicans -- especially his likely opponent, Mitt Romney. Interestingly, his campaign is making a truly unprecedented effort to tap the internet to tailor very specific and individualized messages to voters: the plan has been so aggressive that it has drawn complaints from privacy advocates (see Big Brother Obama is Watching ). These campaign efforts will be difficult to monitor for their veracity.

Barack Obama and his supporters apparently feel the end justifies the means -- as has been true of many despots throughout history, by the way. After all, one cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs (Hat Tip: Joseph Stalin) and if one is determined to "fundamentally transform America," such antiquated concepts as honesty and trust can be thrown under the bus. You can take the politico out of Cook County but you cannot take Cook County out of the politico.

A Cook County politician to the core, he plays hardball as much as he plays basketball. He revealed his modus operandi back in 2008: he brings a gun to a knife fight. Lying is just the way he plays the game. Winning is not only the most important thing -- it is the only thing that matters. He has repeatedly shown his willingness to embrace ruthlessness when it comes to his career (this New York Times article provides insight to the methods and means he has used to defeat opponents; behind the big grin must be some very sharp incisors)

However, there may be a more fundamental reason we are so consistently lied to by Barack Obama and his allies: they just do not respect most Americans and have very little regard for our intelligence.

Where, one may ask, is the proof of this claim? Barack Obama and his closest advisers have in fact told us they don't think too highly of most Americans.

The tip off should have been Barack Obama's "gaffe" (Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe made by a politician is when he tells us how he truly thinks by accident) back in 2008 when he derisively described people who live in small-towns as bitter people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Ah, yes, ignorant yokels sharing kinship if not genes with the Clampetts.

But his scorn is not reserved just for people who live in rural areas. He has also said that "I'm not interested in the suburbs. Suburbs bore me," so it may be a fair assumption that he does not have much respect for suburban dwellers either (though if the zip code is ritzy enough he may drop by for a fundraiser or two or two dozen).

But his condescension is as big as his ego and it doesn't stop with suburbia or small towns; it is as big as our nation.

He has said we have become "lazy" and grown "soft" over the years. He has mocked Republicans as being too dumb to understand a jobs bill he was trying to pass, so Democrats were going to have to break up the Jobs Bill into bite-sized pieces that were easier to understand.

A leader who has no respect for the people "below" him becomes emboldened to make all sorts of claims, confident that the dullards will not fathom they have been had.

But he is not alone in his derogatory remarks about Americans. Michelle Obama has called us a "mean" country; Attorney General Eric Holder has called us a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussions of race. But even more revealing were comments made by his closest adviser, Valerie Jarrett, who said that Obama and his officials might have to use "simpler words" when addressing supporters of the so-called Tea Party.

Undoubtedly, Obama's chief speechwriter Jon Favreau (here seen groping and shoving a beer into the mouth of a cardboard cut-out of Hillary Clinton, so take that War on Women propagandists!) would agree with this condescending sentiment. When asked about the victory address following the last Democratic primary Favreau just responded "Hope. Change. Y'know" How revealing that the man vested with the power by Obama to put words in his mouth thinks so little of the American people that he just thought a few words were all that was needed -- repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseam -- would propel Obama to the Presidency. Unfortunately, he was right with many voters, particularly among young voters.

The Republicans therefore have a target-rich environment for future commercials starring Barack Obama and his leading team members. One can dream up some visuals: a list of claims made by Barack Obama and show them to be false-one after another. Then ask a question: why does Barack Obama lie to us so often?

Cue up some choice comments, such as those mentioned above, revealing how little regard he has not only for the truth but for his fellow Americans. Reveal not only his dishonesty but also his disrespect for so many of us. Perhaps, there can also be a reference to the media giving him a free-ride on any obligation to be honest. Mitt Romney, taking a page from Newt Gingrich, has criticized the media for its favoritism towards Barack Obama -- a smart move on several levels. Romney shores up conservative support while reinforcing the view of many Americans that Obama has been blessed with a cheering section in most media outlets

The Obama campaign has recently given the Romney campaign a gift by announcing that "Trust" will be a feature of their attacks against Romney ("Hope" and "Change" have clearly outlived their usefulness). Jujitsu-like, Romney can turn that word around and ask why Americans should trust Barack Obama given his record of lies and the disregard he has for so many millions of Americans.

Hope springs eternal that the GOP and its more wily supports in the super-PAC world (that would include you, Karl Rove) will focus their firepower on Barack Obama in ways-- such as the one suggested herein -- that escaped John McCain a few trillions of dollars of debt ago.

The future of our nation is at stake.

Fidogate has just gone international. Already the Left is defending Obama for eating dog meat on the grounds that his stepfather--who was Indonesian--wanted to share his culture and customs with him. But there’s just one problem with this: it wasn’t his culture or custom.

In fact, in Jakarta, where the Obamas lived with their Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, dog meat is illegal. In the majority Muslim Indonesia, eating dog is forbidden among most ethnic groups in the islands, though a small, black market is said to exist for those looking for it. The only exception are the Batak people, principally of Northern Sumatra who eat it on holidays--but Obama's stepfather, who was raised in West Java, isn’t a part of that ethnic group. Besides, the Obamas lived hundreds of miles and several islands away.

A diplomatic source close to the Indonesian delegation in the U.S. confirms that while dog is sometimes eaten in Indonesia, it is done so very rarely. “Obama had to go hunting for dog meat,” the source, who didn’t want to be identified, told me.

“I don’t know of anyone who eats it and frankly, I’m a little offended you would ask.”

Breitbart.com scoured Indonesian cook books. Not one mentions ways to prepare dog.

Still, the bit in Dreams from My Father where Obama says that a man can take on the powers of whatever he ate is a traditional animist belief among some tribesmen in Indonesia.

But the question remains: having confessed eating dog, grasshopper, and snake, which one’s powers did Obama pick up?