Skip to comments.President Barack "I Didn't Do It" Obama
Posted on 02/24/2013 12:59:36 AM PST by Kaslin
Its one thing for a politician to massage the truth ... it happens all the time. But its quite another for one to so brazenly repeat an easily disprovable lie.
But, as in the case of President Obama and sequestration, when the fear of being caught in a lie is removed because those charged with being watchdogs are active participants, brazenly lying carries no more risk than saying hello.
Sequester, automatic across-the-board reductions in the rate of increase in government spending commonly and lazily called spending cuts by the media was the spawn of the Obama administration. Youd never know it to hear him talk about it. During the campaign the president lied repeatedly about the origin of this monster, but he was the Dr. Frankenstein here.
The Washington Posts Bob Woodward, in a piece not posted to the Internet until a time generally reserved for incriminating government document dumps (5:59 pm Friday), reminded the world, The automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors...
The president approved the plan put forth by his employees and, in direct contrast to his current rhetoric, agreed to a deal with Republicans that included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nations debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.
He has since won re-election, which apparently means any agreement made beforehand is not only no longer valid, but never happened. The media, too busy focusing on the important issues facing the country such as complaining about not getting a picture of the president with Tiger Woods, havent bothered to point out any of this.
Rather than the tough medicine President Obama created to begin, on a miniscule scale, addressing our ballooning government spending, he treats sequester as a Frankensteins monster birthed by Republicans. But, as Woodward reminds us, paternity lies firmly at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Im not one who is concerned with sequestration. The federal government is spending $1 trillion more per year now than it did in 2008. Thats an astronomical increase in government in four years. The idea that shaving what amounts to a rounding error off the budget will bring about Armageddon is worthy of mockery. If, that is, we had an honest media doing the job it is supposed to do.
But we dont have an honest media, and as such we have a president predicting things that make doomsday preppers seem like mellow pot smokers.
Should this slight slowing of the increase in future government spending come to pass, Obama told the world, Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.
In what seems more like a rejected flashback storyline for The Walking Dead TV show, the president of the United States wants the American people to believe a less than 2 percent cut in government spending, after increasing it by more than a third in four years, will bring about end times. Criminals will roam the countryside as unattended children consume rancid uninspected meats, airports become bumper-car worlds and everyone dies, uneducated, of cancer.
Yet Republicans in the House have passed two alternatives to across-the-board cuts, which are collecting dust in the Democrat-controlled Senate. If Democrats really want compromise they simply have to pass their own alternative and hammer out the differences in a conference committee, the way legislation is passed in Congress. But they havent, and they wont.
Democrats, in spite of their panicked protestations, arent seeking a deal; theyre pre-emptively assigning blame.
The last quarter of 2012 saw the economy shrink .01 percent. If the economy shrinks again in the first quarter of 2013 we will officially be back in a recession. That would be the Obama recession. They cant have that. The blame, that is, not the recession. Thats why we had the president on Al Sharptons radio show saying Republicans would rather harm the economy than close loopholes on the rich.
In an attempt to preemptively shift blame, we get the Were all gonna die if Republicans dont stop being so uncooperative press event we saw from the president last Tuesday.
But since Google exists, anyone except, it seems, journalists can find this quote from President Obama in 2011 on this very subject saying, Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.
If we were truly facing the Thunderdome-esque future he is now claiming, why would President Obama threaten to veto ANY EFFORT to replace the meat cleaver with a scalpel just 15 months ago?
The answer is obvious he, as Bob Woodward pointed out, is lying.
Theres an old episode of The Simpsons where Bart becomes famous for causing a disaster on television then looking into the camera and saying, I didnt do it. President Obama is employing this strategy with his economy and sequester. While the audience was in on the joke when Bart did it, were the butt of it now. And the throne-sniffing media is only too happy to help.
What calls itself news today isn’t. It’s color commentary entertainment and sees no need for anything but the most tenuous connection with actual happenings. Food stamps are the bread, and the “news” is the circus.
The New Heaven and the New Earth
21 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.[a] 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; 3 and I heard a great voice from the throne saying, Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people,[b] and God himself will be with them;[c] 4 he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.
5 And he who sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. Also he said, Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true. 6 And he said to me, It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water without price from the fountain of the water of life. 7 He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.[d]
Me too. Bring it on!
The mystery of Hitler’s evil triumph in terms of communal deference is not much of mystery anymore.
Reagan: “Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”
That is why I call them “LIEberals!”
There has been nothing stopping the Republicans from ALWAYS referring to it as “Barack Obama’s sequestration”.
The media has its head so far up Obama’s hindquarters that when he opens his mouth, you see Brian Williams and the rest of the liberal media mob.
And they shouldn’t stop, as it came from the White House
Perfect name for them, that fits them to the teeth
You said it
Check it out:
Who seek to destroy America.
Me, too. It won't.
Nice phrase. Good imagery.
Every Republican that is interviews by some Obama propagandist should ask the interviewer this question, "You do realize that every federal dept. will not have one cent less next year than this year and in fact will get an increase?"
It isn’t just telling a lie enough times and people will believe the lie anymore, it has now progressed to tell a lie to get the opposite side to respond with another untruth which also serves your purpose just as well and no one ever knows what the truth is.
A perfect example if the “spontaneous” lie with the attack in Libya.
They kept repeating the “spontaneous” lie over and over and everyone responded with there was no connection to the protest in Egypt and the attack.
It is now accepted that there was no connection between the protest in Egypt and the attack in Libya, when in reality the attack in Libya was planned then the protest in Egypt was planned to make it appear as if the terrorist had picked up on a news story and planned an attack in a matter of a few minutes, in other word “spontaneous”.
Part of the reason the attack was planned was to create the “spontaneous” lie which means the Zippo adm. planned the attack.
The “spontaneous” lie and the “no connection” falsehood both serve the same purpose in removing the Zippo adm from being the ones who planned the attack.
The asshat doesn’t know when he is lying or telling the truth. IMO, he is nothing but a habitual liar.
But, as in the case of President Obama and sequestration, when the fear of being caught in a lie is removed because
those charged with beingthe entertainers who claim to be watchdogs but who are active participants are trusted by a majority of the people as if they actually were watchdogs, then brazenly lying carries no more risk than saying hello.
Think, people, of the absurdity of believing people who tell you that they are objective! How could they possibly know that?!! It is not humanly possible.
It is possible, and laudable, to diligently try in good faith to be objective. It is even reasonable to claim to be trying to be objective. But the very first thing you (or anyone else) must do in a good-faith effort to be objective is to examine and confess to any and all identifiable motives and influences which might prevent you from being objective. How, then, can someone who claims actually to beobjective actually even be trying??? They have prejudged the issue in their own favor before the battle was even engaged. You might as well ride a car to the finish line of a marathon race and walk across the finish line, claiming victory before the starting gun has even been fired!And let us hear nothing of the fatuous conceit that the Constitution charges the press with being watchdogs. Freedom is not responsibility, it is authority. There is a difference. It is God, not government, which gives us rights. And it is to God, not government, that we (whether we own a printing press yet or not) are responsible for our exercise of those rights. And if you think that the owner of a press is sinning, well, preach to him. But as far as responsibility to you is concerned, the owner has no more of it than you have to him. Get your own press and give your own opinion in it. In reality that is what FreeRepublic.com is.
Do the people have no recourse at all, then? IMHO the answer to that should properly be no, and I do not mean to imply that I am calling for a change to the Constitution. In fact, laws against libel are on the books, and laws against monopoly are on the books as well. The Associated Press and its membership constitutes a monopoly.
In 1945, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Associated Press v. United States that AP had been violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by prohibiting member newspapers from selling or providing news to nonmember organizations as well as making it very difficult for nonmember newspapers to join the AP. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_PressThat case came out of Chicago, and was a dispute with the United Press. But more generally,
indicts the AP for monopolistic practices, and more generally yet, any wire service tends to unify and homogenize journalism:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of nations, Book I, Ch 10. . . and a newswire is nothing but a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets. The AP needs to be sued for libel whenever it propagates a libelous story. And it propagates libels very routinely. Think, George Zimmerman. Think, the Duke Lacrosse Three. Think, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Think, Rathergate. Think, Sarah Palin. Think, Alar and apples. Think, fracking. Think, Carbon Dioxide. It is scarcely too much to say that journalism exists to promote libel against free institutions and free men, as a way of promoting themselves . . . and other self-promoters. Journalism as a whole, and the Democratic Party, exist to practice on the credulousness of the people, and toexploit the people who make the country work, who get things done - upon whom we most depend.
The rationale of the news service is to minimize the cost of disseminating the news. But satellites and fiber optic lines have by now made the cost of bandwidth for the transmission of news negligible. Consequently the mission of the AP is obsolete, and the AP is not too big to fail.
It’s obvious from what he says that he doesn’t have a grasp of even the basics of any subject matter, at least nothing that I have heard him say.
He repeats what he is told to say.
Does he know it’s not true?
He is clearly without a doubt, the most ignorant person that has ever stepped foot in the WH, and that included the janitors.
He may not know enough to even know what he is saying isn’t true.