Obama: Pants On Fire

Prior to the presidential election, I was reluctant to call Barack Obama a "liar". For example, in my article "36 Reasons Against An Obama Presidency", you will note that I said, "a lot of people seem to think that Obama has lied on more than one occasion, and some would say on many occasions." And I went on to say that, "To be fair, not all of the supposed lies are valid." And I went even further to quote John Derbyshire at the National Review Online as saying that, "Obama's lies are 'not so much lies as a sort of slippery sleight-of-mouth'". I was in fact attempting to be gracious to a man who does not deserve my grace.

Today, I am convinced that Barack Obama has no compunction about lying with total impunity. Obama's speeches and statements often contain unbelievable contradictions. Obama has not merely contradicted his own words with subsequent repudiating actions, he has contradicted his own words with others, within the context of the same speech! I now firmly believe that Obama is a "Serial Liar" as suggested by John Hinderaker at the Power Line Blog. I also believe that Obama is the most deceitful, wicked and evil President to have ever been elected. Obama may be the ultimate example of "Double-Think". In his novel 1984", George Orwell defined "Double-Think" as...

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. --George Orwell, Definition of Double-think, 1984

I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, so I cannot say with any certainty whether or not Barack Obama is clinically ill. Like the Orwellian 'double-thinker', Obama may actually possess the power to hold two contradictory beliefs in his mind simultaneously. I cannot however believe that Obama is unaware of his lying. Lying is an important brush in the Obama pallete. Where others are artists in oil or clay, Obama is an artist in deception. He works the poll numbers once a week and knows how to tell people exactly what they want to hear, even when it bears no resemblance to the truth. Lying is a tool that Obama developed years ago to propel him through his meteoric political career and which he has refined over the years. What started as "slippery sleight-of-mouth", has now become something much more. But it was easier to fool a small neighborhood in Chicago years ago, than a nation of 300 million people today. A famous man once said, "You can't fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time..."

---

What He Said: "In 2007, the new Democratic leadership in Congress began to address [earmark] abuses with a series of reforms that I was proud to have helped to write. We eliminated anonymous earmarks and created new measures of transparency in the process, so Americans can better follow how their tax dollars are being spent... In my discussions with Congress, we have talked about the need for further reforms to ensure that the budget process inspires trust and confidence instead of cynicism. So I believe as we move forward, we can come together around principles that prevent the abuse of earmarks." --Barack Obama, Obama Earmark Reforms, 11 March 2009.

What He Did: Immediately after President Obama said these words, he signed a spending bill that contained more than 8,500 earmarks in it, costing taxpayers more than $7.7 billion.

---

What He Said: "I've laid out plans for a budget that begins to restore fiscal discipline so we can bring down the $1.3 trillion budget deficit we've inherited... we've produced an honest budget that makes the hard choices required to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term in office." --Barack Obama, Obama Earmark Reforms, 11 March 2009.

What He Did: For his first lie, Barack Obama did NOT inherit a $1.3 trillion deficit. He inherited a 2008 budget deficit of $459 billion according to an article by Karl Rove at the Wall Street Journal. Rove was quoting figures from the Congressional Budget Office (see graphic from Washington Post below). The 2009 budget deficit is one that is shared between Bush and Obama (not inherited). Bush did indeed start a series of bail-outs which pushed up the deficit beyond $459 billion, but the deficit when Bush left office was still only $569 billion. Obama's new proposals add another $1.276 trillion to the deficit this year alone, for a total of $1.845 trillion. Obama did not inherit a $1.3 trillion deficit, he CREATED a $1.3 trillion deficit and added it to Bush's $569 billion deficit.


His second lie is that he did NOT produce "an honest budget" that makes the hard choices required to cut our deficit. He produced a deceitful budget that uses false assumptions and makes false claims. If Obama wants to cut the deficit he inherited in half, then he needs to get the deficit down to half of $459 billion, or even half of $569 billion. Rather, Obama is planning on cutting in half the $1.3 trillion deficit which he himself created. To add insult to injury, the White House budget estimate uses "rosy" scenarios that have the economy growing at a faster pace than the Congressional Budget Office projects.

His third lie is now plain. Obama has done NOTHING to reduce the deficit. He has made NO hard choices whatsoever. Obama's proposals only INCREASE the deficit. The deficit will soar massively this year. As the economy starts to recover, the deficits will start to decrease, but never to a level below where they were when Obama took over... and nowhere near half of what he "inherited". Worse yet, the projections of the CBO show the deficit dramatically climbing in the out years (beyond 2012).

---

What He Said: "At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It’s with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save and invest." --Barack Obama, Obama Press Conference, 24 March 2009.

What He Did: From the graphic above, it should be evident that Obama's statement here is simply ludicrous. He is indeed correct to say that we should move away "from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save-and-invest", but that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Obama's proposals are doing. The increased deficit spending proposed by Barack Obama is nothing more than a new wave of "borrow-and-spend". If the government does not have the money it intends to spend, a budget deficit is created. There are only two ways to live with a budget deficit: 1) borrow the money from others who have it, or 2) print more money, which reduces the value of the money already in circulation, thereby causing inflation.

Obama is counting on other countries like China to invest in U.S. Treasury Bills to pay for his massive deficit spending spree. Obama needs to BORROW the money he wants to SPEND on his programs because the government simply does not have it. If China or other countries become unwilling to loan America the money that Obama wants to spend, then the United States will go into a period of inflation similar to (or worse than) the double-digit inflation of the Carter era. If in fact China or other countries DO subsidize Obama's spending spree, then the U.S. will increasingly become a debtor nation, beholden to the whims of our creditors. Neither scenario is a pleasant one.

Perhaps Barack Obama simply does not understand the concept of "saving". He throws around the word "investment" with regularity. Obama says he wants to "invest" in energy efficiency, in "green" technologies, in education, and the health care system. So, he seems to understand what "investment" is all about. Yet, he never talks about "saving". Obama's "investments" always come at the expense of someone else. Obama doesn't know how to "save-and-invest", only how to "borrow-and-spend".

Well Mr. Obama, here is a brief explanation of "saving": Saving occurs when you are able to set aside the excess of your income after you have paid all the expenditures for your consumption. In other words, in order to have "savings", you need to have a "surplus" of income over expenditures. As I recall, the definition of "surplus" is the exact opposite of "deficit". In order to "save-and-invest" you cannot therefore have a deficit, or be adding $1.3 trillion to it! The only way to reduce a deficit is to increase income, or reduce expenditures. You cannot spend your way into prosperity. You cannot borrow your way out of debt!

---

What He Said: "Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM." --Barack Obama, Obama Speech on Auto Industry, 30 March 2009.

What He Did: Obama established a "government task force" on the auto industry to review "government-mandated" plans prepared by Chrysler and GM "to restructure, to modernize, and to make themselves more competitive." After reviewing those plans, Obama and his government task force decided that "none of them goes far enough." In other words, "the government" is already running the auto industry and is telling it what to do. Thus far, "the government" has not been happy with how the industry plans to operate.

So, in his infinite wisdom and mercy, Obama has given Chrysler and GM more time to re-do their plans, because he is "confident" that we can once again have "a great American industry" that is "out-competing the world... manufacturing the fuel-efficient cars and trucks that will carry us towards an energy-independent future". In fact, Obama is "absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet ONE GOAL... The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars." In other words, "the government" is now dictating to the auto industry what products it must make. [Editor's Note: Socialism = governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.]

According to Obama, "our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough to succeed in a very tough environment." Therefore, on behalf of GM, Obama announced "after broad consultation with a range of industry experts and financial advisors", that "Rich Wagoner is stepping aside as chairman and CEO." In other words, Obama didn't like Wagoner's performance, and so... he fired him. Again according to Obama, "This [decision] is not meant as a condemnation of Mr. Wagoner... Rather, it's a recognition that it will take new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future." In other words, Mr. Wagoner didn't understand or didn't agree with Obama's "new vision" and "new direction" for GM, therefore he was terminated (fired, sacked, or thrown under the bus -- take your pick). As I recall, only those who manage a company are authorized to fire a company employee.

As for Chrysler, Obama did not think the company merited any further support and told Chrysler that it needs to find a new partner if it wanted to "remain viable". Apparently, Obama's government was no longer willing to be a partner with Chrysler -- a tacit acknowledgment that the government had been their "business partner" in the past. He suggested that Chrysler should form a partnership with Italian automaker Fiat (to whom Chrysler had apparently reached-out), no doubt because Chrysler was not a part of Obama's "vision".

However, Obama demanded that Chrysler pay back any debts to the U.S. government before Fiat takes a majority ownership position. He also announced that the U.S. government was in direct negotiations with Fiat to establish facilities in the U.S. to produce new fuel-efficient engines. Obama said, "I am committed to doing all I can to see that the deal can be struck". He said that the U.S. would support Chrysler for 30 days to allow Fiat and Chrysler to reach a final agreement. He said he would be willing to invest up to $6 billion of taxpayer funds, but that's all. In other words, Barack Obama is wheeling-and-dealing. He is choosing to support some parts of the auto industry but not others. He is willing to sell off an American auto company to a foreign company if it suits him. Obama is running the U.S. auto industry.

Obama also said that the problems in the auto industry are "not the fault of our workers... Rather, it's a failure of LEADERSHIP, from WASHINGTON to DETROIT, that led our auto companies to this point." In other words, the unions that represent "our workers" (and donated heavily to Obama's election campaign) bear no responsibility whatsoever for the problems in the auto industry. Instead, it was the fault of those wicked auto executives in Detroit, and the U.S. government in Washington. Apparently Obama thinks that the U.S. government has not done enough "year after year, decade after decade" to correct "problems" in the auto industry, and to make "tough choices" FOR the auto industry. Obama thinks the U.S. government is at fault for not getting MORE involved in the private sector "even as foreign competitors outpaced us".


Despite what Obama says, he has EVERY intention of running GM. Despite what Obama says, he IS interested in running GM (but not Chrysler however). According to Fred Barnes at FoxNews' Special Report w/ Bret Baier...

Look, he says they don't want to operate GM for instance, but he owns GM now, in effect. He kicked out the head of it. The White House will obviously have to approve whoever comes in to run the company. He has his guy from the University of Maryland, some academic economist, who is going to be head of the whole auto recovery. And then he has tax subsidies that helps them sell GM cars, and we heard about the warranties, and all that stuff. This is government intervention like we haven't seen very often. We have seen a little of it now. --Fred Barnes, Special Report w/ Bret Baier, 1 April 2009

I'm sure there are plenty more examples of Obama's lies (both pre-election and post-election). Feel free to note them in the commment section.