Opinion Forum

Is Obama a Serial Liar?

May 10th, 2011

Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter. Especially when that someone is the President of the United States. Charges of that nature should be leveled based only on absolute proof of a deliberate statement, intentionally made, whose sole purpose is to deceive. Based on this criteria, President Obama is a liar. Demonstrably so. And a disturbing pattern is emerging that allows for the possibility that our President is a serial liar. Consider:

In just the last month, Obama has made several statements that are just not so. Statements made to the American public that were in direct conflict with known facts.

In April, Obama flatly stated that implementing ObamaCare will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. A day later, the Congressional Budget Office reported that statement was “incorrect,” pegging the “deficit savings” at $210 billion over 10 years.

In the same April 15 speech, Obama stated that the tax burden on the wealthy is the lowest it has been in 50 years. A simple fact-check proves him wrong. Obama did not correct his false statement and the media didn’t either.

In January of 2009, Obama stated that it was no longer necessary to kill Osama Bin Laden to win the war against al-Qaeda. On May 1, 2011, after the successful raid by Navy Seals that killed bin Laden, Obama told the nation that he made the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden a “top priority,” and had instructed CIA Chief Leon Panetta to make this job number one. Which statement is correct?

Last week, several of my friends asked me if I believed that bin Laden was really dead. The questions weren’t surprising, considering the mass of misinformation and conflicting accounts of bin Laden’s death now emanating from the White House. It appears the question of bin Laden’s demise was only settled after al Qaeda issued a statement confirming it.

What does it say about Obama’s credibility when the pro-Arab al Jazeera media reports are given more credibility than our own President? Maybe that’s why Columbia School of Journalism just awarded al Jazeera a journalism prize.

Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, I’ll allow for the possibility that Obama underwent a drastic change of heart and altered his position on bin Laden. It happens. But when added to the increasing number of statements Obama continues to make that defy reality, the facts, and common sense, I’m more inclined to believe Obama’s “misstatements” are a deliberate effort to deceive the American people.

For example: Obama told the American people that NOT spending money is “mortgaging America’s future.” Who knows, it’s possible Obama actually believes this, but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows we can’t spend our way out of bankruptcy.

Another blooper: Obama stated that increased drilling will not solve our energy problems. Huh? Again, the media let this statement go unchallenged. (At least Sen. Vitter called him on it.)

Obama would have us believe that the big bad oil companies are to blame for our skyrocketing gas prices, despite the fact that every energy decision made by Obama, from withholding drilling permits to increased regulatory burdens being placed on big oil, has directly resulted in raising the cost of gasoline.

Obama would like us to ignore the fact that his Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, stated in 2008 that he wants to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Since then, gas prices have doubled. Mission accomplished.

Despite the pain at the pump, Obama’s energy disinformation campaign has been quite successful, with a new poll showing that only 9% of Americans believe that Obama is responsible for rising gas prices.

Tailoring the facts to reflect the most favorable interpretation is an accepted prerogative of the bully pulpit. Every president will, of course, spin the news to a certain extent. This is not new. But under Obama, there appears to be a deliberate campaign by the White House and many segments of the government to blatantly deceive the American people. Consider our Department of Homeland Security:

“Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress [last week] that the Obama administration is trying to come up with a new yardstick to better reflect the improvements it says it has made.” The Washington Times correctly noted that, unable to meet it’s border goals, the DHS merely moved the goals.

Arizona Sheriff Larry Deaver pretty much confirmed the Washington Time’s report, testifying before Congress that “the U.S. Border Patrol has told its agents to stop arresting illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico to keep the illegal immigration numbers down.” In other words, deceive the American people by peddling perception as reality.

Obama and his administration are masters in getting Americans to think with their hearts instead of their brains. After all, emotions are easier to manipulate than facts. And many truths are easier to ignore than acknowledge. But not acknowledging reality doesn’t change the reality. And we ignore reality at our own peril, as we are now finding out on a daily basis.

Though not specified in our Constitution, I believe Americans should have the right to enough information to make informed decisions. Instead, we are being fed a steady stream of outright lies and deliberate misstatements. And when we the people fail to challenge our elected representatives when they lie, we not only enable them, we become complicit. We also forfeit the right to complain when reality hits us in the pocketbook while America continues it’s slide to the level of a third world country.

(This article was published at American Thinker and was posted at Right Bias.)

Articles written by Nancy Morgan
Tags: bin Laden, budget, deficits, gas, immigration, liar, lies, Obama, prices, taxes
Categories: Economics, Politics | Comments (1) | Home

One Response to “Is Obama a Serial Liar?”

Tom Carter | May 11th, 2011 at 8:31 am

When Bush was in office, liberals constantly called him a liar. Obama is now in office, and conservatives constantly call him a liar. Ho hum, business as usual….

There’s a very big difference between telling lies and stating what you think the truth to be or what your preference or intention is. For every example used here, there’s a counter-point or argument. Not using it is presenting a one-sided case to prove Obama is a liar, just like conservatives did to Bush.

For example, the Sheriff says the Border Patrol told its officers to stop arresting illegal aliens; the Border Patrol says in no uncertain terms that they didn’t do it. Why not give both sides?

A big one is Obama saying that he would close Gitmo, then trying to do it as soon as he was in office. But, guess what, he couldn’t get it done. No lie there; just a politician running smack-dab into a wall of reality.

As far as anything having to do with the economy is concerned, there’s an authoritative voice for any side you want to take on any issue — even the most inane (cf. almost anything Krugman says). Just because Obama says something goofy about it doesn’t make him a liar — a fool, maybe, but not a liar.

Why can’t we focus on substance rather than name-calling?