Connect with us

Media

If Obama Lies About Small Things, What Is Keeping Him From Lying About Everything?

Published

on

The fact that Obama lies should be indisputable.

Freedom isn’t free. It shouldn’t be a bragging point that ‘Oh, I don’t get involved in politics,’ as if that makes someone cleaner. No, that makes you derelict of duty in a republic. Liars and panderers in government would have a much harder time of it if so many people didn’t insist on their right to remain ignorant and blindly agreeable.” – Bill Maher

Lie about one thing, lie about everything. The negative aspects of human nature operate on an incremental scale, meaning that a small negative behavior will often evolve into a grand one, if the escalation isn’t observed, and stopped. Specifically, when a small negative behavior is beneficial to someone—be it in their career, or in their personal life—they are more likely to continue this behavior, taking larger risks as they go forward, because they have yet to be caught. It’s a toxic combination of arrogance, and moral numbness. Each newly beneficial negative behavior further numbs us to the potential consequences.
The point I’m making is that a small negative behavior, such as a small lie, if left unchecked, will inevitably lead to larger, more catastrophic lies. Politicians lie frequently, but only the liars in the Republican Party are ever castigated. Sure, the media may briefly touch on a lie told by a liberal politician if the lie is too obvious to cover up, or if FOX has made it newsworthy, but generally speaking, because of the media’s devotion to the left, a liberal politician can lie, and get away with it.
Obama is a liar. It’s the plain, and simple truth. He has lied about many things, but, by using semantics, he has also frequently been able to worm his way out of being caught. But let’s take a look at a recent Obama lie that has been labeled–even by the liberal media–as a blatant fabrication.
Back in January, during an interview with The New Yorker‘s David Remnick, president Obama responded to a question regarding ISIS by calling them a JV team, meaning he did not consider them to be a real threat. Then, last week, when talking with Chuck Todd on Meet The Press, Obama claimed that he never actually called ISIS the JV team of terror. Here’s the partial transcript:

Todd: “[A] long way from when you described them as a JV team…Was that bad intelligence or your misjudgment?”

Obama: “Keep in mind I wasn’t specifically referring to (Islamic State)…I’ve said that, regionally, there were a whole series of organizations that were focused primarily locally, weren’t focused on homeland, because I think a lot of us, when we think about terrorism, the model is Osama bin Laden and 9/11.”

Now, Politifact (a liberal organization, by the way) took Obama to task on his assertion that he never called ISIS a JV team. They provided the full section of the transcript from the interview in which Obama referred to ISIS as a JV team.

Remnick:  “You know where this is going, though. Even in the period that you’ve been on vacation in the last couple of weeks, in Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent.”

Obama:  “Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

Remnick: “But that JV team just took over Fallujah.”

Obama:  “I understand.  But when you say took over Fallujah –”

Remnick:  “And I don’t know for how long.”

Obama:  “But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”

Given that it was the group which is now labeled ISIS, ISIL, or IS that had taken over Fallujah, and given that Obama did not dispute that in the slightest degree, it is clear through reading this transcript that Obama knew very well about whom he was talking. Obama referred to ISIS as a JV team. That is indisputable, and even Politifact has acknowledged that. That being the case, when Obama claimed during his interview with Chuck Todd that he was not referring specifically to ISIS, he was lying.
The question is why. It’s an obvious question, but one that needs to be answered nonetheless. Why did Obama lie about calling ISIS JV? Well, because his original assessment was sorely misguided. ISIS has emerged as a powerful and wildly dangerous organization, which has already committed many atrocities, including the beheading of two American journalists. Obama referring to this group as no-big-deal calls into question his ability to assess threats, as well as his deity status among his acolytes. So, to protect himself, and to save face, he simply claimed that he was never actually referring to ISIS. Why does that matter? It’s not a huge lie in the grand scheme of things. Lie about one thing, lie about everything.
Obama believes—rightly so—that the media will always cover for him. This gives him carte blanche to do, and say essentially whatever he wants. Unfortunately for him, this sometimes backfires, partially because of the growth of conservative media. Now, besides Chuck Todd, and a few other brief mentions by other outlets, this very deliberate lie has been swept under the rug. Obama has once again gotten away with blatantly lying to the American people.
Just think, if Obama is willing to lie so casually about something relatively minute, what else is he willing to lie about? If he cannot admit even the smallest mistake regarding his initial assessment of ISIS, what mistakes would he be willing to admit? I’m guessing none. Obama’s negative behavior has been continuously rewarded by the media, and so his capacity to blunt any scruple within himself must be so strong that he can lie about anything. That’s incredibly dangerous. A leader who believes himself to be faultless is poised to become a tyrant.
How have Obama’s lies affected us in terms of national security and domestic policy? How will they continue to affect us? The media will always cover for him, and this can only increase his capacity to lie to us further.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Media

ABC Busts Biden Campaign For Raising Taxes On Middle And Lower Class

ABC caught red-handed doing actual journalism.

Published

on

By

ABC Busts Joe Biden For Raising Taxes On Middle And Lower Class

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl confronts Biden campaign co-chairman Democrat Rep. Cedric Richmond: “Sen. Harris said that she wanted to repeal the Trump tax cuts on day one…that does raise taxes on middle-income earners”

ABC’s Jon Karl asked Biden campaign co-chair Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), almost apologetically, but he still asked, doesn’t Biden’s plan obviously raise taxes on most Americans if you repeal the Trump tax cuts? Not just those making more than $400,000?

Biden campaign co-chairman responded that’s our “goal” but “on day 1” you’ll see our plan.

From ATR:

A repeal of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would impose a large tax increase on the American people. Thanks to the tax cuts, a typical family of four earning the median family income of $73,000 saw a tax cut of over $2,000– a 58% reduction in federal taxes. A single parent with one child with annual income of $41,000 saw a tax cut of $1,304 — a 73% reduction in federal taxes.

As noted by the New York Times: “Most people got a tax cut.” The NYT also stated: “To a large degree, the gap between perception and reality on the tax cuts appears to flow from a sustained — and misleading — effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a broad middle-class tax increase.” Biden is a key part of this misleading effort.

Biden also repeated a lie he made during his campaign kickoff speech, claiming only high-income households received a tax cut. The Washington Post gave this claim four Pinocchios, noting it was “clearly false.” The Post also stated: “Most Americans received a tax cut.”

Democrats think that the lesson learned from Nancy Pelosi’s famous: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it” quote was that America bought it hook line and sinker. He will raise everyone’s taxes. We’re not stupid.

Continue Reading

Culture

CNN Analyst And Former FBI Agent “We Have A Biological Terrorist In The White House”

Published

on

By

CNN Analyst And Former FBI Agent “We Have A Biological Terrorist In The White House”

Asha Rangappa, an analyst for CNN and a former FBI special agent tweeted: “We have a biological terrorist in the White House.” This follows President Trump’s return to the White House on Monday evening after treatment for the Coronavirus.

Defending her claim, Asha Rangappa cited a Justice Department memo stating back in March that the novel Coronavirus “appears to meet the statutory definition of a biological agent” and that those who engage in the “purposeful exposure and infections of others” could be charged for terrorism-related offenses.

While there are allegations that he knew about his positive diagnosis significantly earlier than he had announced it on Thursday evening, there is no certifiable evidence that he knowingly exposed officials and staffers to the virus.

Twitter took aim!

Vile Democrats joined in with her:

Continue Reading

Media

Major Newspapers Assign Top Reporters To Update Trump’s Obituary

Ghouls!

Published

on

By

The New York Times’ Ben Smith says top reporters at three of the major newspapers in the nation, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times have been assigned to update President Donald Trump’s obituary, according to TDW.

Those reporters include Peter Baker at The New York Times, Marc Fisher at The Washington Post and Mark Z. Barabak at The Los Angeles Times, Smith claimed people from the various papers confirmed to him.

Smith noted of the “reporters arrayed at Walter Reed military hospital on Sunday” that “the White House press corps is working with admirable aggression and openness. We need to know who is in charge of the government, and to understand the outcome of President Trump’s long evasion of the coronavirus crisis as Americans begin to vote.”

Dr. Mark Fisher, a professor of neurology and political science at the University of California, Irvine, told Smith, “It will help if reporters are medically knowledgeable, and ask the right questions, e.g. blood pressure, heart rhythm, sleep disorders. The more specific and precise questions reporters ask, the better. A robust fund of knowledge by the reporter is a great advantage.”

The major newspapers preparing their obituaries for Trump’s possible death may likely be premature; on Saturday evening White House physician Sean Conley, D.O., released a statement on President Trump’s health which indicated he had improved significantly since he had been diagnosed with COVID-19. More

How can this possibly be true‽ Top reporters don’t work for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times! The MSM has a significant case of Stage 4 TDS.

Continue Reading

Media

Leftists Go Nuts Over Trump Taking Short Ride Outside Walter Reed Medical Center

Published

on

By

Leftists Go Nuts Over Trump Taking Short Ride Outside Walter Reed Medical Center

Leftist MSM personalities took to Twitter following President Trump temporarily leaving Walter Reed Medical Center and taking a short drive to see his supporters who were outside showing their excitement for the president.

The most distinguished hit came from Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, who went on a rant and called for the Maryland Attorney General to “indict Trump for reckless endangerment” and “assault.”

CBS News reporter David Begnaud complained that the president appeared to not wear the correct type of mask.

Elizabeth Landers a reporter for Vice News claimed that a Secret Service agent told her that Trump’s actions were “so reckless and careless and heartless.”

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Tax Return Hit Piece Fact Checks Itself: He Paid $1 Million in 2016 and $4.2 Million in 2017 to US Treasury

Published

on

By

The New York Times just published a so-called “bombshell” report on the president’s taxes, where they claimed Trump only paid $750 in federal income taxes for 2016 and 2017. Of course, the rest of the MSM has taken this and ran with it.

The MSM everywhere are pushing the story of Trump only paying $750 in taxes as 100% fact, but unfortunately, they’re missing an immense part of the equation.

TWJ:

The New York Times never lets the facts get in the way of a good story – it just buries them so far down no one will see.

Then it buries its own credibility, too.

That was the case Sunday when the most biased “news” organization in the country published its latest in-kind donation to the Democratic Party in the form of a nearly 10,000-word account of President Donald Trump’s income tax history, deliberately written to cast Trump as a villain to hard-working, taxpaying Americans.

But one key fact buried by The Times gives the game away on how misleading the article actually was.

The so-called “newspaper of record” started out the article with sentences apparently aimed at Everyman: It didn’t talk in billions or millions of dollars, figures most Americans don’t deal with on a regular basis (even Times readers).

Under the ominous headline “Long-Concealed Records Show Trump’s Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance,” it claimed that a billionaire who became president of the United States had “paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.”

That’s in the lede. The first sentence of a story that should set the tone for everything that follows. More

There is no wonder why President Donald Trump has to use Twitter to get his truth out! The Garbage times and other rags, never tell the truth!

Continue Reading

Democrats

Feminist Journalist Crank: Amy Coney Barrett Is “Weaponizing Her White Womanhood”

Like clockwork.

Published

on

By

Demented Liberal Fixates On Amy Coney Barrett’s Children

As reported by Newsbusters, Christine Grimaldi of Rewire News Group put her tweets on “protected” status after severe online backlash.

“This whole press conference is a display of Amy Coney Barrett weaponizing her white womanhood to grab whatever power managed to slip through the cracks in the Trump administration’s unrelenting misogyny,” tweeted Grimaldi.

“Trump and Barrett using her black children and child with down syndrome to score political points isn’t surprising, but it’s no less appalling,” she continued. “CNN keeps going on and on about Barrett’s family as if that makes her qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and a whopping three years as a Trump-appointed federal judge, as if that’s enough to qualify for a lifetime on the Supreme Court.”

TDW:

Liberals are throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the race to keep her off the Supreme Court. After an “anti-racist” author referred to her as a “white colonizer” for adopting two black children from Haiti, feminist journalist Christine Grimaldi of Rewire News Group claimed that Barrett is “weaponizing her white womanhood.”

In a series of angry tweets on Saturday, while Barrett was accepting her nomination to the Supreme Court, Grimaldi claimed that Barrett was actually using her black children as props to gain political points. More

Continue Reading

Media

CNN Asks If The U.S. Military Can Intervene If Trump Doesn’t Leave Office

I love how they are asking President Trump this question when it was Democrats who actually said they would not concede.

Published

on

By

CNN Asks If The U.S. Military Can Intervene If Trump Doesn’t Leave Office

H.R. McMaster laughed in CNN’s Wolf Blitzer face when he asked a ridiculous question: “It’s so worrisome, indeed. And General, if the President were to lose the election on November 3rd, and if he were to refuse to concede — this is a hypothetical, but you’re a military guy — what role would the U.S. military have to play in that type of scenario?”

“Absolutely no role, Wolf,” H.R. McMaster firmly replied with a chuckle. “And those who suggest that the military would have any role in transition — they are being equally irresponsible.”

He invoked George Washington, who he credited for establishing a “very bold line between the military and politics” during the nation’s founding.

“The military should have nothing to do with partisan politics and nothing to do with any talk — any talk — about a transition between administrations,” McMaster told Blitzer.

“And the fact that we even have to ask a question like that is so worrisome in and of itself,” Blitzer defended his question. “I never thought I would have to ask if the U.S. military were to have to get involved in dealing with this.”

Twitter weighs in:

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend