[1]Right From the Start
During a trial, a lawyer is permitted to test the veracity of a witness by demonstrating prior inconsistent statements. The lawyers can also challenge the witness’ character for truthfulness and thus demonstrate the witness’ propensity to lie.
President Barack Obama lied about the effects of The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) prior to its passage and repeatedly after its passage. At a minimum he lied about the assertion that you could keep your existing healthcare plan, keep your current physician and keep your current hospital. Mr. Obama and members of his administration had the facts in hand that indicated just the opposite and yet continued to repeat what they actually knew was a false statement. Mr. Obama did not engage in an overstatement. Mr. Obama did not misspeak. Mr. Obama was not taken out of context. These were calculated and deliberate lies when the truth was already known to them but withheld from all the rest of us.
By reference to prior inconsistent statements in the White House’s own internal memorandums produced while the Obamacare legislation was pending, it has been established that Mr. Obama lies.
The left is fond of pointing to President George W. Bush’s assertion that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction as part of the justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and declaring that Mr. Bush lied. Mr. Bush had the same intelligence reports as every other Western power, as well as Russia, and they all concluded the same thing – that Mr. Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he had restarted his suspended nuclear weapons research. He and all the members of Congress privy to the same information were mistaken – Mr. Hussein had either destroyed his weapons of mass destruction or, more likely, transferred them to Syria and/or North Korea. That was not a lie – a lie requires knowledge of the truth and an assertion of the contrary.
The right is fond of point to President Bill Clinton’s denial of sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and declaring that Mr. Clinton lied:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false.”
Mr. Clinton did, in fact, lie but it did not rise to the level of what Mr. Obama has done. Mr. Clinton’s lie did not involve his duties as President. It was a lie about a personal indiscretion and while it was done primarily to avoid negative publicity and injury to his chances for re-election, it could also have been done to avoid the wrath of his wife, Hillary Clinton, who had previously demonstrated her violent reactions to Mr. Clinton’s serial cheating.
In contrast, Mr. Obama’s lies about the effect of Obamacare were done with the full knowledge of the actual truth and were done to assure passage of legislation that would have failed if the truth were known. Next to responsibility as commander-in-chief, a president’s primary responsibility is the administration of current laws and the proposal of new laws necessary to affect his agenda as chief executive officer of the country. In doing this Mr. Obama and every other president is commanded by the United States Constitution to take the following oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
In order to “faithfully execute” the office, a president must not deliberately lie about the fundamental responsibilities of the office. To do so effectively destroys the democratic process. And in this instance, Mr. Obama – a self-proclaimed expert in constitutional law – knew that the democratic process must be ignored in order to pass Obamacare. He has torn at the very roots of our constitutional system.
If Mr. Obama has lied about the fundamentals of Obama care, what else is that he has lied about? The circumstances giving rise to Mr. Obama’s lies provide the foundation for testing the veracity of a whole range of other assertions by Mr. Obama for which the national media has had to accept his word despite information that would suggest Mr. Obama’s assertion were suspect.
Mr. Obama knew that if he had told the truth – that tens of millions of current healthcare policy owners would lose their current coverage; that their current healthcare professionals would be lost and that their hospitals would refuse their new coverage –Obamacare could not have been enacted in either the United States Senate or the House of Representatives. Had he told the truth, even the fawning national press corps would have begun asking serious questions. Had he told the truth, we would have verified the arguments of conservatives on talk radio and FOX News who repeatedly warned of the now visible calamity. Obamacare is Mr. Obama’s signature – actually, singular – accomplishment of his presidency. Passage and preservation of passage of this act has become the watershed of his presidency. Later, after passage, Mr. Obama’s largest liability in terms of re-election was the truth about the effects of Obamacare. Had the truth become known prior to the election in 2012, Mr. Obama most assuredly would not have been returned to office.
It is safe to say then that passage of his signature legislative agenda and securing election (re-election) were the motivating forces for lying. In that context, we should re-examine a number of statements by Mr. Obama deemed to be dubious by some pundits but which were buried by the mainstream media because of a lack of overwhelming proof:
- Mr. Obama denied his relationship with and influence by Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dohrn, both 60’s radicals who was involved in violent acts against the United States. Mr. Ayers was co-founder of the WeatherUnderground, a self-described communist revolutionary terrorist group dedicated to bombing public buildings in protest over the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama referred to them as just another couple in the neighborhood despite holding a fundraiser at their home, and serving on a board with Mr. Ayers. Admitting to anything further would have jeopardized his opportunity in both the presidential primary and general elections.
- Mr. Obama denied knowing about the radical views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his Black Revolutionary theology including his anti-white and anti-American preaching despite having attended Rev. Wright’s church for over twenty years and identifying Rev. Wright has his spiritual counselor. Admitting that he had participated in a congregation that espoused such racist and anti-American views would have jeopardized his opportunity in both the presidential primary and general elections.
- Mr. Obama has denied any knowledge of the facts surrounding a decision to send Ambassador Susan Rice out to the Sunday talk shows to assert a knowing lie about the source and cause of the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya. So thorough is Mr. Obama’s denial of participation that he has thus far refused to disclose where he was and with whom he spoke during the attack on the embassy.
- Mr. Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have denied any prior knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious that ran guns across the Mexican border which wound up in the hands of narcoterrorists and resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death. Internal memos now disclose that Mr. Holder did have prior knowledge and it is difficult to believe that once the tragedy became public that he did not confer with Mr. Obama regarding the matter.
- Mr. Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have denied any prior knowledge of electronic spying on news reporters critical of the Administration’s handling of foreign affairs despite the fact that subsequent memoranda disclosed that Mr. Holder actually signed one of the affidavits for the search warrant falsely stating that the reporters were the “subjects” of a criminal investigation. It is difficult to believe that Mr. Holder would proceed against nationally known journalists without Mr. Obama’s specific knowledge and, at least, tacit approval.
- Mr. Obama has denied any knowledge about the decision by ranking members of the Internal Revenue Service to target conservative organizations in order to deny them tax exempt status during the lead up to the 2012 elections. All of this despite a series of memoranda that demonstrate that members of the Administration in the White House received information on the decision and its effects on silencing conservative organizations.
- Mr. Obama has denied any knowledge regarding the National Security Administration’s spying on domestic communications of millions of American citizens despite dozens of memoranda indicating that White House personnel and senior members of the President’s National Security Council were all privy to those decisions and regularly reviewed and discussed the information gleaned from that domestic surveillance.
The list is hardly exhaustive. The first two items are not unusual but are illuminating about the man that pundits declared the most open and honest politician in decades and would preside over a post-partisan period of progress. The latter items strike at the conduct of a sitting president. In both, you are entitled to conclude that Mr. Obama has lied in each and every instance based on demonstrated previous conduct and similarity of circumstances.
They demonstrate a casual disdain for truthfulness in any matter dealing with Mr. Obama’s election (re-election) and key legislative and administrative initiatives. These are not occasional lapses but rather a pattern of repetitive conduct. The man lies – he lies repeatedly and comfortably. There is not even a hint of conscience in his delivery. He is pathological.
So what now? As you would with a child that has broken your trust, you must impose the burden on Mr. Obama to demonstrate the truth of any assertion. But don’t hold your breath. He cannot and will not do so.