Tag Archives: obama lying

AN UNREDEEMED PRESIDENCY

As election day draws near and the presidential campaigns execute their final strategies the winds of success appear to be at the backs of the Romney/Ryan team, and it’s not too imperious to envisage a Romney/Ryan victory. It appears that a significant part of the electorate agrees with the title of Niall Ferguson’s cogent essay entitled “Obama’s Gotta Go”. As we eagerly await their promising triumph on November 6th and, risking impetuousness, we deign to contemplate what a Romney presidency will resemble in its maiden year.

From any perspective, looking forward, President Romney will undoubtedly have to play the part of America’s master repairman.  He has the unenviable task of repaving America’s avenue of exceptionalism, a road rendered potholed and fractured by the Obama administration. There are considerable fixes Romney the new renovator-in-chief must undertake, and if anyone is deserved of a “blame Obama” free pass it will be the new Chief Executive. But leaders don’t blame, they take responsibility for their actions, so it’s doubtful President Romney will exhibit behavior beneath his character and the office of the presidency.

President Romney will have to refurbish America’s ruptured domestic economic environment laden with Obama’s absurdist wealth redistribution policies and profligate spending sprees. He will have to remake a hegemonic America in decline due to President Obama’s feckless appeasement of America’s enemies and indifference and disregard towards its allies. But perhaps President Romney’s most daunting task for renovating America’s path of exceptionalism will be to restore a united America torn asunder by an Obama-led class warfare crusade. A crusade pitting American against American to assuage his personal disdain for a hallmark of Americanism embodied by the freedom loving rugged individualist who takes personal responsibility for their successes and failures. These are the very Americans President Obama fears and derides because he cannot control their independent spirit, intimidate their freedom of thought, nor render insecure their confident natures.

While a Romney presidency is committed to a renewal of American exceptionalism, the Obama presidency is only a remembrance of unfulfilled promise. The 2008 Obama pledges are legendary for their hollowness and now have the status of a parlor joke, to wit, “how is that hope and change working out for you?” Space does not permit the entire smorgasbord of utopias (over 500 by some accounts) offered up by candidate and President Obama. But because of their far-reaching consequences a few warrant call outs to capture the essence of his disappointing term. Candidate Obama professed he would revolutionize American governance by replacing backroom political cronyism with a presidency that would be “the most transparent administration in the history of our country”. It was candidate Obama who swore that he would reduce the national deficit in half by the end of his first term. In 2009 President Obama guaranteed that unemployment would be at 5.2% at the end of his first term and there would be 3% to 4% GDP growth in the final three years of his first term. There were the President’s infamous assurances that his ObamaCare legislation would be budget neutral, reduce premium costs and allow individuals to keep their existing coverage. The President avowed he would commence a “new beginning” between America and the Arab world through his policies of appeasement toward America’s enemies. These and the preponderance of other hopeful pieces of paradise promised by an Obama presidency are relegated to a wasteland of deceit and deception.

Obama partisans are chock full of excuses for the president’s fiascos.  Some justify President Obama’s failures due to his executive inexperience, so perhaps Mr. Obama ran afoul of one of the cardinal rules of business, which is to never over promise and under deliver. But his devotees also plead that now since that he has gotten his feet wet give him four more years. But, to quote one of Vice-President Joe Biden’s few lucid remarks, “…the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” Some of the president’s acolytes have chalked up his failures as a consequence of his predecessor’s policies igniting the “blame Bush” strategy. If that is at play, and since every president inherits some undesirable policies and unfavorable domestic and geo-political environments, then it is reason enough to man the Oval office with someone who can live up to the challenges of the presidency. Finally, in keeping with the Obama finger-pointing presidency, the President’s disciples accuse the republicans in congress of partisanship and obstruction. This is mendacious and preposterous given that the Obama policies, which laid the groundwork for America’s current decline, were undertaken in the President’s first two years in office, a period in which the democrats controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Obama presidency was unique for both it’s promise and it’s fortification. Without any notable experience to speak of on the part of candidate Obama an adoring mainstream media colluded with an ingenious presidential campaign to successfully fabricate the illusion of a candidate that was infallible and omnipotent. Candidate Obama was lauded and praised as the savior for the woes of the American Republic and he would right the injustices of the past with a wave of his majestic hand. From the failed, pork ridden stimulus to the Benghazi tragedy with flyovers to ObamaCare, Solyndra and his Middle East “American Apology Tour” the media’s coddling continued into his presidency while President Obama’s advisers strove feverishly to enable, defend and rationalize his failures. But the President’s aura of entitlement and enablement were ironically the causes of his failures and disappointments.

However it was how he failed that signifies the tragedy of his presidency. America’s post-modern presidential version of the “emperor with no clothes” luxuriated in praise and fumed at criticism. Handed every opportunity to succeed he stubbornly ignored the obvious manifestations of his failed socialist ideologies. He dug in his heels insisting on an economic agenda that wreaked havoc and misery on the middle class, the very group he claimed to champion in his class warfare campaign. His lethargic foreign engagement characterized as “leading from behind” emboldened America’s enemies resulting in a much more dangerous and tumultuous world for America than when he took office.

In spite of the dangers to America’s economic and international well being, the future of the Republic and his disregard for his oath of office the President was obdurate in his single mindedness. The Constitution is clear as to the president’s responsibilities and President Obama disregarded his solemn oath which was “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Perhaps it is his ability that is at issue.

But the time for entertaining excuses or conjecture is over. In the parlance of the President’s many “let me be clear” moments it is now history’s time to write the Obama epitaph. Historians, unlike the President’s sycophants, will not justify his failures nor inoculate his shortcomings. As with all Presidents Mr. Obama’s presidency will be reviewed and recollected historically on the merits of his accomplishments. He was dealt a hand that he willingly accepted and he failed to deliver. It was President Obama’s personal decision to selfishly satiate his personal dogmata at the expense of his sworn responsibility to act as steward of America’s welfare. For that reason he shall not be forgiven, and for that reason the Obama presidency’s epitaph will forever be known as an unredeemed presidency.

Benghazi “Intell” Excuse Unravels; CIA Reported Immediately to White House “Militants Responsible for Attack”

Voice of America (CC)

Did you hear that sound? Yea, it was the other shoe dropping on the White Houses’ “excuse” for Benghazi.  In a stunning development, the AP reports today

 Within 24 hours of the deadly attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants, officials told The Associated Press. But for days, the Obama administration blamed it on an out-of-control demonstration over an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

Let’s review.  On September 11th, 2012 our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked.  Ambassador Stevens, along with 3 “Security Personnel” are murdered.   In the days that follow, we are told by Obama, Clinton, Rice and Carney that the “cause” of said attack is a YouTube video, which denigrates the Prophet Mohammed.   The man responsible for the video, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is summarily arrested, with SWAT teams and LA County Sheriff Deputies out in full riot gear.  Many question this video “excuse”, but it isn’t until around October 2nd, 2012, we learn per State Department officials that “no one in the State Department” communicated such an excuse.  During Congressional hearings, these officials testify under oath, to the following:

  • State Department official Susan Lamb denied requests for added security for Benghazi.  She also watched “in real time” the whole attack from a drone overhead. This 50 min tape exists.  Who has this tape is unclear as of this writing.  (note: Sean Hannity mentions he has confirmed it exists per his sources on October 17, 2012.)
  • Col. Wood and Eric Nordstrom in Benghazi, report they requested the added security, but were told, “the need to keep the security forces “numbers” artificially low.  They add, along with Lamb this was due to “political implications”
  • Lamb and Ambassador Kennedy, testify that as State Department officials, they never related the idea that this was due to a protest, or a video.  They do, however, imply that the “intell” side (CIA) may have been the agency to report this scenario to the White House.

What we hear from Rice, Obama, Carney and Hillary Clinton, is what they were reporting—the whole YouTube video excuse, was the best “intell” (meaning CIA) they had at the time.  We now know this too, is untrue.   This is a stunning development.  CIA sent their report on September 13th.  What remains unclear is who, who at the White House read these reports?  It is highly unlikely that it was ignored, being that 4 Americans were dead.   Former CIA Station Chief Fred Rustmann Jr., says the White House would have been aware of it:

“When things go down like that, there is no analysis in between,” said Rustmann, who has separately accused the Obama administration of sharing too many details about the raid that killed bin Laden. “You report this raw information as you receive it in Sitrep (situation report) format, from the CIA station to concerned worldwide (CIA) stations and bases and to the White House, Pentagon and State Department.”

Best timelines of the Benghazi-gate “excuses” have September 14th, as the day the White House goes “all in” with the “video” fairy tale.  It is clear to this writer, that the White House, (A)-worried about the Election, (B)- worried about the failed Foreign policy of this Administration,  (C)-wanting to tie into the UN Resolution of December 2011 that Rice signed, and lastly (D)-defending the whole overthrow of Libya, concocted this lie about this YouTube video.   Carney states, on September 14th, per   the McClatchy Report from October 18th 2012,

Carney then launched into remarks that read like talking points in defense of the U.S. decision to intervene in last year’s uprising against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: that post-Gadhafi Libya, he said, is “one of the more pro-American countries in the region,” that it’s led by a new government “that has just come out of a revolution,” and that the lack of security capabilities there “is not necessarily reflective of anything except for the remarkable transformation that’s been going on in the region.”

This story is not going away.  And it should not.  Americans deserve the truth.  This Monday, the debate will center on Foreign policy, and we will wait to hear from our Commander and Chief, we will expect the truth, once and for all.    One thing is clear, the “intell” was not confusing, or lacking, and to imply anything else is pure hogwash.  Mr. President, there is nothing to be “waiting” for as you have stated.  You know the truth, have always known the truth, so come clean.  This isn’t about your legacy, this isn’t about protecting your “Foreign Policy”, this isn’t working to help you win the Election.  This whole lie is out, and its time to man-up.

 UPDATE:  Jake Tapper just released this article.  Issa (R-CA) releases the Stevens documents to back up the claims of the requests and the need for added security.   Cummings (D-MD) accused Issa of politicizing the Benghazi events by releasing the documents, saying “this has turned into a witch hunt“.  I’m sure that is what the Republicans were saying about a little thing called “Watergate” too, Rep. Cummings.

 

 

What Does $40 per Week Mean?




Just to put things into perspective, leaving the Social Security tax as it is will increase national debt by another $120 billion, and will leave the social security trust fund even further in the red. But we are not here to discuss the effects of leaving the Social Security tax alone or not. This article deals with the disingenuousness, and down-right lying, of President Barack H. Obama and his administration.

On Thursday, December 22, 2011, Obama said, “We’ve been doing everything we can to make sure that 160 million working Americans aren’t hit with a Holiday tax increase on January First…If you’re a family making about $50,000 a year this is a tax cut that amounts to about a thousand dollars a year. That’s about forty bucks out of every paycheck.” He continued, “It may be that there are some folks in the House who refuse to vote for this compromise because they don’t think forty bucks is a lot of money. But anyone who knows what it’s like to stretch a budget knows that at the end of the week or the end of the month forty dollars can make all the difference in the world….”

Obama said, “That’s about forty bucks out of every paycheck.” But further in his speech he said, ” So on Tuesday, we asked folks to tell us what would it be like to lose $40 out of your paycheck every week.  [emphasis mine]  How did “every paycheck” get changed to “every week?” Most people get paid bi-weekly, or every two weeks. Disingenuousness, and down-right lying? Your call. Either way, he is now comparing apples to oranges. A family would have to earn $104,000 a year for Obama’s continued Social Security tax holiday to be worth $40 every week.

But did that little fact stop Obama? To quote the late John Belushi, “Noooooooooooooooooooo.” Obama then, in his speech, quoted some of the emails from his “folks” about how they would deal with the loss of $40 per week.

  • Joseph from New Jersey talked about how he would have to sacrifice the occasional pizza night with his daughters. He said – and I’m [Obama] quoting – “My 16-year-old twins will be out of the house soon. I’ll miss this.”
  • Richard from Rhode Island wrote to tell us that having an extra $40 in his check buys enough heating oil to keep his family warm for three nights. In his words – I’m [Obama] quoting – “If someone doesn’t think that 12 gallons of heating oil is important, I invite them to spend three nights in an unheated home. Or you can believe me when I say that it makes a difference.”
  • Pete from Wisconsin told us about driving more than 200 miles each week to keep his father-in-law company in a nursing home – $40 out of his paycheck would mean he’d only be able to make three trips instead of four.
  • We heard from a teacher named Claire from here in D.C. who goes to the thrift store every week and uses her own money to buy pencils and books for her fourth grade class. Once in a while she splurges on science or art supplies. Losing $40, she says, would mean she couldn’t do that anymore.
  • For others, $40 means dinner out with a child who’s home for Christmas, a new pair of shoes, a tank of gas, a charitable donation. These are the things at stake for millions of Americans. They matter to people. A lot.
  • $40 a week is the cost of my prescriptions; without these medications I would die from a stroke or heart attack.
  • $40 buys a week’s worth of the nutrient drink that my 98-year-old mother virtually survives on.
  • $40 pays for over a week of groceries, fresh fruits, veggies, dairy, whole wheat bread.

Do any of these e-mails sound like they came from someone making $104,000 per year?

There are, however, some people to whom $40 every week would be make a real difference:

  • A hotel maid who works full time for $8.50 per hour
  • A construction worker who has been cut back to half time work at $17 per hour
  • A self employed business owner whose customers were hammered by the recession and now barely survives by depleting his savings. He generated only $17,700 profit this year after paying his employees and the employer’s half of the payroll tax which was not reduced by the Obama payroll tax markdown.

To each of these people Obama’s temporary payroll tax cut is worth not $40 per week, or even $40 per paycheck, but $6.80 per week.

Much of the MSM has already begun to help Obama plant a false perception in the minds of uninformed voters that Republicans would deny everyone $40 per week. Obama knows that informed voters will figure out the lying. But he doesn’t care about informed voters. They won’t vote for him anyway.

But that’s just my opinion.

Access to other articles like this one can be found at RWNO, my personal web site.