Obama's lies

Postby WTFO » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:58 pm

I know that this thread could go on forever, but let's start with a clip of 7 lies within 2 minutes:

WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Obama's lies

Postby WTFO » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:00 pm

ACORN lie:

WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Obama's lies

Postby WTFO » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:02 pm

Lobbyists?

WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Obama's lies

Postby WTFO » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:06 pm

How about single payer health care plans?

WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Obama's lies

Postby WTFO » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:12 pm

How about his pastor and his views on whites?

WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Obama's lies

Postby WTFO » Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:56 pm

During the President's State of the Union (campaign) speech, he stated "This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy"

Now, besides the fact that he is stating a clear objective from the Tea Party, is this statement from him the truth? Does he really believe in developing energy from "every available source"? Or is this another lie? Well, let's look at his statements and actions:

First off, President Obama rejected the Keystone Pipeline project. That would have created tens of thousands of jobs, given the US a great source of energy from a friendly nation instead of importing from the Middle East, and lowered Americans' energy costs for years to come. Maybe Obama's definition of "all-of-the-above" doesn't include oil.

Well, what about coal (the biggest source of US energy)?





Okay, so "all-of-the-above" doesn't include coal either.

So maybe in his world view, available sources ONLY include the so called "Green" energy sources. What's his track record in investing (aka, spending huge amounts of tax-payer dollars) in "green" energy?

ELECTRIC VEHICLES
In 2008, Obama Promised As President To Put “One Million 150 Mile-Per-Gallon Plug-In Hybrid Cars On Our Roads Within Six Years.”OBAMA: “First, we'll commit ourselves to getting one million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrid cars on our roads within six years. And we'll make sure these cars are built not in Japan, not in China, but right here in the United States of America.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Town Hall, Youngstown, OH, 8/5/08)
The Washington Post: “Evidence Is Mounting That President Obama Was Overly Optimistic To Pledge That There Would Be 1 Million EVs On The Road By 2015.” (Editorial, “Overcharged,” The Washington Post, 1/1/12)
-Taxpayers May Not See A Return On The $5 Billion In Taxpayer Funds Obama Poured Into The Electric-Car Industry. “The Obama administration has poured roughly $5 billion in taxpayer funds into the electric-car industry, offering incentives to manufacturers, their suppliers and even car buyers who might want to go green. But analysts say the risk is rising that taxpayers in many cases will not see a return on their money soon, if ever. Instead, they warn that some federally subsidized companies could be forced to shut down in coming months.” (Carol D. Leonnig, and Joe Stephens, “For Obama’s Green-Car Revolution, Fits And Starts,” The Washington Post, 12/7/11)

A123 SYSTEMS
Obama Predicted That A123 Systems, A Michigan-Based Battery Maker That Received $380 Million, Would Create 3,000 Jobs, But It Only Has 690 Employees And Has Announced Forced Layoffs. “A123 Systems, a battery maker that received $380 million in government support, announced recently that declining orders had forced layoffs. Instead of up to 3,000 new Michigan jobs as Obama and the company had predicted, it now has 690 employees.” (Carol D. Leonnig, and Joe Stephens, “For Obama’s Green-Car Revolution, Fits And Starts,” The Washington Post, 12/7/11)

FISKER
Fisker, Backed By More Than A Half-Billion Dollars In Loan Guarantees, Missed Early Manufacturing Goals And Has Pushed Back Plans For U.S. Production And Creation Of Thousands Of Jobs. “An electric car company backed by more than a half-billion dollars in Department of Energy loan guarantees has missed early manufacturing goals and has gradually pushed back plans for U.S. production and the creation of thousands of jobs.” (Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens, “Fisker, Electric Carmaker Backed By $529 Million U.S. Loan, Balks At Solyndra Comparison,” The Washington Post, 10/21/11)
-“This Week, Fisker Learned Its Product Couldn’t Deliver On Its Efficiency Pledge — The Car Cannot Travel Solely On Electricity For A 50-Mile Stretch. That Adds To The Many Hurdles Standing Between The Company And Profitability.” (Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens, “Fisker, Electric Carmaker Backed By $529 Million U.S. Loan, Balks At Solyndra Comparison,” The Washington Post, 10/21/11)
- Fisker, Which Received $529 Million In Federal Loan Guarantees, Manufactures Its Cars In Finland. “A $529 million federal loan guarantee to an electric car company manufacturing automobiles in Finland is drawing more unwanted attention to Energy Department loans. A report by ABC News on Thursday said Fisker, a startup electric car company, is making cars in Finland after receiving the loan because it could not find a contractor in America to actually manufacture its electric vehicles.” (Keith Laing, “Energy Defends Loans For Electric Cars,” The Hill, 10/21/11)

TESLA MOTORS
Obama’s Department Of Energy Loaned Tesla Motors $465 Million In June 2009. “The Obama Administration will lend Tesla Motors $465 million to build an electric sedan and the battery packs needed to propel it. It’s one of three loans totaling almost $8 billion that the Department of Energy awarded Tuesday to spur the development of fuel-efficient vehicles.” (Chuck Squatriglia, “Feds Lend Tesla $465 Million To Build Electric Car,” CNN, 6/23/09)
- Despite Federal Funding, Tesla Has Lost Money Every Quarter. “Tesla’s SEC filings reveal the start-up has lost money every quarter. And while its federal funding is intended to help it mass produce a new $57,400 Model S sedan, the company has no experience in a project so vast.” (Matthew Mosk and Brian Ross, “Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland,” ABCNews, 10/20/11)
-As Of June 30, 2011, Tesla Had Lost $522.8 Million. “Tesla has yet to turn a profit and suffered net losses in each quarter. ‘Since inception and through the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, we had accumulated net losses of $522.8 million,’ its most recent 10-K form shows.” (Matthew Mosk and Brian Ross, “Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland,” ABCNews, 10/20/11)

SOLYNDRA
Solyndra, Obama’s Poster-Child For “American Ingenuity And Dynamism,” Declared Bankruptcy. “The California-based Solyndra, which employed more than 1,000 people, declared bankruptcy earlier this month. President Obama visited the company in May of 2010, saying it was a prime example of ‘American ingenuity and dynamism.’” (Alexander Mooney, “White House Beats Back Claim It Pressured Loan To Now-Bankrupt Company.” CNN,9/14/11)
-“Solyndra Was The Epitome Of What The Government Envisioned To Be Our Green Tech Future…” (David Louie, “Fremont Solar Panel Maker Solyndra Scales Back Expansion Plans,” The Oakland Tribune, 11/4/10)
-Solyndra Was Offered The First Recovery Act Loan Guarantee, Receiving $535 Million From Taxpayers In March 2009, And Went Bankrupt In August 2011. (Solyndra, “Solyndra Offered $535 Million Loan Guarantee By The U.S. Department Of Energy,” Press Release, 3/20/09; Joe Stephens And Carol Leonnig, “House Republicans Step Up Solyndra Investigation,” The Washington Post, 9/1/11; George Avalos, “Fremont Solar Tech Firm Solyndra To Shut Down, Lay Off 1,100 Workers,” The San Jose Mercury News, 8/31/11)
-In August 2011, Solyndra Announced That It Will File For Bankruptcy, “Immediately Laying Off 1,100 Employees.” “Solyndra, a Fremont solar tech manufacturer, announced Wednesday it is suspending operations and immediately laying off 1,100 employees. The company said it will also file for bankruptcy.” (George Avalos, “Fremont Solar Tech Firm Solyndra To Shut Down, Lay Off 1,100 Workers,” The San Jose Mercury News, 8/31/11)

ENER1
Ener1, An Energy Storage Company That Received A $118.5 Million Stimulus Grant, Filed For Bankruptcy. “An Indiana-based energy-storage company that received a $118.5 million stimulus grant from the Energy Department filed for bankruptcy Thursday. Ener1 is asking a federal bankruptcy court in New York to approve a plan to restructure the company’s debt and infuse $81 million in equity funding.” (Andrew Restuccia, “Obama-Backed Electric Car Battery-Maker Files For Bankruptcy,” The Hill’s E2 Wire, 1/26/12)
-“The Energy Department In 2009 Approved A $118.5 Million Stimulus Grant For Enerdel, A Subsidiary Of The Company That Develops Lithium-Ion Batteries Used In Electric Vehicles.” (Andrew Restuccia, “Obama-Backed Electric Car Battery-Maker Files For Bankruptcy,” The Hill’s E2 Wire, 1/26/12)

BEACON POWER
Beacon Power Was Awarded A $43 Million Federal Loan Guarantee In August 2010 To Build A 20-Megawatt Flywheel Energy-Storage Plant In Stephentown, NY. “In August 2010, Beacon Power was awarded a $43 million federal loan guarantee that the Tyngsboro, Mass., company used to put in place a 20-megawatt flywheel energy-storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y. The plant takes excess electric energy from the power grid and converts it into the energy of a spinning wheel, releasing it into the grid when needed. By June 30, the project had drawn down $38 million of the loan. Beacon also qualified for a $23 million grant from the DOE.” (Yuliya Chernova, “Renewable-Energy Firms Facing Financial Hurdles,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/27/11)
-Beacon Power Filed For Bankruptcy In October 2011. “A Massachusetts company that received a $43 million Energy Department loan guarantee last year filed for bankruptcy Sunday, a step certain to fuel criticism of federal green energy financing in the wake of the solar company Solyndra’s collapse. Beacon Power Corp., which develops energy storage systems, filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.” (Ben German, “Second Energy Department-Backed Company Goes Bankrupt,” The Hill, 10/31/11)

AMONIX
Amonix Inc., A California-Based Solar Company, Will Lay Off 200 Of Its Employees At Its North Las Vegas Solar Power Manufacturing Plant. “Just seven months after California-based solar power company Amonix Inc. opened its largest manufacturing plant, in North Las Vegas, the company’s contractor has laid off nearly two-thirds of its workforce. Flextronics Industrial, the Singapore solar panel manufacturer that partnered with Amonix to staff the new $18 million, 214,000-square-foot plant, laid off about 200 of its 300-plus employees Tuesday.” (Justin M. Bowen, “Some 200 Laid Off At North Las Vegas Amonix Solar Plant,” Las Vegas Sun, 1/26/12)
-In 2010, Amonix Received A $5.9 Million Federal Stimulus Tax Credit. “Amonix received a $5.9 million investment tax credit through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act in 2010, and another $12 million in private capital helped finance the plant.” (Justin M. Bowen, “Some 200 Laid Off At North Las Vegas Amonix Solar Plant,” Las Vegas Sun, 1/26/12)
-At The Time In 2010, Obama Cited Amonix’s Example To Support His Program Of Clean Energy Investments. OBAMA: “A solar panel company -- a solar power company called Amonix received a roughly $6 million tax credit for a new facility they’re building in the Las Vegas area -– a tax credit they were able to match with roughly $12 million in private capital. That's happening right now. And that’s just one of over, that's just one of over 180 projects that received manufacturing tax credits in over 40 states. Now, here’s the -- the only problem we have is these credits were working so well, there aren’t enough tax credits to go around. Now, here’s the -- the only problem we have is these credits were working so well, there aren’t enough tax credits to go around. There are more worthy projects than there are tax credits. When we announced the program last year, it was such a success we received 500 applications requesting over $8 billion in tax credits, but we only had $2.3 billion to invest. In other words, we had almost four times as many worthy requests as we had tax credits.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At University Of Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, 7/9/10)

GREEN ENERGY JOBS
A $500 Million Labor Department Program Designed To Train Workers For Green Jobs With A Goal Of Placing Nearly 80,000 Workers In Careers In Energy Efficiency Or Renewable Energy By 2013 Is Coming Up Far Short Of Its Goals. “The Labor Department's inspector general says a $500 million program designed to train workers for green jobs has come up far short of its goals.A report finds that only about 8,000 people participating in the program have actually found work so far. That's just 10 percent of the target goal of placing 80,000 workers in careers in energy efficiency or renewable energy by 2013.” (“Report Says Green Jobs Program Far Short Of Goals,” The Associated Press, 10/3/11)
-The New York Times: “Federal And State Efforts To Stimulate Creation Of Green Jobs Have Largely Failed.” “Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.” (Aaron Glantz, “Number Of Green Jobs Fails To Live Up To Promises,” The New York Times, 8/18/11)
-Obama’s $38.6 Billion Green Loan Program Created Only 3,500 Jobs, But Obama Had Predicted It Would Save Or Create 65,000. “The Washington Post reported in September that Mr. Obama’s $38.6 billion green loan program had created a mere 3,500 jobs over two years. He had predicted it would ‘save or create’ 65,000.” (Editorial, “The Non-Green Job Boom,” The Wall Street Journal, 11/28/11)

WEATHERIZATION PROGRAMS
President Obama Said Weatherization Is “Exactly The Kind Of Program That We Should Be Funding.” OBAMA: “We’re going to weatherize homes. That immediately puts people back to work. And we’re going to train people who are out of work, including young people, to do the weatherization. As a consequence of weatherization, their energy bills go down and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What would be a more effective stimulus package than that? You’re getting a three-fer. Not only are you immediately putting people back to work, but you’re also saving families on their energy bills, and we’re laying the groundwork for long term energy independence. That’s exactly the kind of program that we should be funding.” (President Barack Obama, CBS’ Evening News, 2/3/09)
- Vice President Biden Called The Program A “Triple Win. … Because It Creates Green Jobs, Jobs That Can’t Be Outsourced.” BIDEN: “Investing in retrofits is a triple win. It’s a win for consumers who save money on their energy bill. It’s a win for the environment because we’re using less energy, which cuts down on harmful emissions from greenhouse gases. And, finally, it’s a win for the American economy, because it creates green jobs, jobs that can’t be outsourced. ” (Vice President Joe Biden, Remarks By The Vice President Announcing Recovery Act “Retrofit Ramp-Up” Awards On Eve Of Earth Day, Washington, DC, 4/21/10)
- Over $200 Million Spent On Weatherization And Job Training But With Little To Show For It. “California was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize homes. So far, the program has created the equivalent of only 538 full-time jobs. A $59 million effort to train people for green jobs in California produced only 719 job placements.” (David Brooks, “Where The Jobs Aren’t,” The New York Times, 9/5/11)
- DOE Inspector General Gregory Friedman: “Weatherization Work Was Often Of Poor Quality.” “Even programs that appeared the most straightforward, such as home weatherization, were mired in challenges at the federal, state and local levels. ‘Weatherization work was often of poor quality.’” (Darius Dixon, “DOE IG: 100+ Stimulus-Related Criminal Probes,” Politico, 11/2/11)
- “In A Recent Audit Performed At The State Level, Nine Of The 17 Weatherized Homes We Visited Failed Inspections Because Of Substandard Workmanship,’ Friedman Said.” (Darius Dixon, “DOE IG: 100+ Stimulus-Related Criminal Probes,” Politico, 11/2/11)

http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/c ... z1kpM0axNU

Well, it looks like the POTUS lied to us in the state of the union speech. SURPRISE!
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Obama's lies

Postby WTFO » Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:06 pm

Here's a shock (well, maybe not). The President lies so much that there's a website dedicated to capturing all his lies. http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

Here's some from that site:

President Obama falsely claimed that no Republicans in the Senate voted for the payroll tax cut. (in December 2011)

“Virtually every Senate Republican voted against the tax cut last week,” he told reporters.

There's only one huge problem. The statement is completely false.

According to the Senate Roll Call, twenty Republicans voted for the measure to proceed, including Idaho's Mike Crapo and James Risch.

On the other hand, every Democrat but one voted against it.

Wow, doesn't the President know we can look at the records? I guess he didn't expect anyone in the media to stop licking his boots long enough to go check.

There's tons more on this site. Go check it out. This man takes the stereotype of a lying politician to all new hights.
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Obama's lies

Postby WTFO » Mon May 14, 2012 9:36 pm

Fact & Fiction about the POTUS:
---------------
Part One: The Fiction and Non-Fiction of Obama
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 12:25pm by Tiffany Gabbay

It could be argued that if then-presidential candidate John McCain had truly assailed his rival Barack Obama over his exhaustive collection of dubious dealings and less-than-scrupulous friends (think: Davis, Khalidi, Pflager, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Said, etc.), he just might have taken the election. Instead, McCain chose to “keep above the fray” — although few are clear as to why bringing up substantive and valid concerns over the first-term senator’s past constituted otherwise to the Maverick-camp. Now, President Obama is three years into his first term as president, and his campaign for reelection has officially kicked off with a record-setting $15 million celebrity-fundraiser hosted by devotee George Clooney.

If the president’s true history continues to be replaced by the alternate narrative he has constructed for himself; if his fact, rather than fiction-based life is swept under the carpet again, he will likely retake the Oval Office.

With this in mind, Glenn Beck dedicated his Thursday evening broadcast to reviewing the staggering array of inconsistencies, embellishments and “manufactured lies” perpetuated by the president over the course of his political career.

“His life is complete fiction,” Beck said. Let’s review the non-fiction version before we go any further:

Dreams from an anti-colonialist father

It is difficult to understand what truly moves the president without understanding who his father was. In his book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” Dinesh D’Souza described in painstaking detail, an unsavory character who womanized, abused, drank excessively (killing a man in one drunk-driving incident, losing both of his legs in another, and later killing himself in yet another), abandoned his eight children at various points in their lives, married thrice without ever having divorced his first wife, and advocated taxing income at a 100% rate. Unbelievably, the man described is not a work of fiction. He was President Barack Obama’s father.

Barak Obama Sr. (spelled without the “c”) was a Harvard economics graduate student from Kenya and despite the president’s insistance that his paternal lineage comprised humble stock, Barak Sr. was actually from a prominent and wealthy farming family. His father, Hussein Onyango Obama, was also an observant Muslim who chose the Arabic name “Barak” because it means “blessed.”

In an article written for the East Africa Journal in 1965, “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barak Sr. explained that in the wake of colonialism, socialism was necessary to ensure national autonomy for Kenya. “The question,” he wrote, “is how are we going to remove the disparities in our country, such as the concentration of economic power in Asian and European hands . . .?” [emphasis added]

“We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.”

Sound familiar?

Obama Sr. went on to insist that “theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”

D’Souza explains the significance:

Absurd as it seems, the idea of 100 percent taxation has its peculiar logic. It is based on the anti-colonial assumption that the rich have become rich by exploiting and plundering the poor; therefore, whatever the rich have is undeserved and may be legitimately seized.

Recall now that the president’s book is titled Dreams From My Father, not Dreams Of My Father. In the memoir, Obama described longing to emulate his senior, writing, “it was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.”

D’Souza also noted those close to Obama Jr., including his grandmother Sarah Obama, agreed with the passage. She told Newsweek, “I look at him and I see all the same things — he has taken everything from his father . . . this son is realizing everything the father wanted.”

While some might argue that it is implausible to think the president would seek to live-out the dreams of a deeply flawed man who callously abandoned him, human nature and psychology dictates otherwise. Even into adulthood, we often seek the approval of our parents — sometimes even the ones that withhold love — because theirs is the affection we most desire gaining. True, one cannot hold the president responsible for the sins of his father, but that does not mean he doesn’t still seek his approval.

All the while, Obama dimisses the influence his father had on him. Yes, it is possible that the president is so repulsed by his father’s life that he would reject everything the man ever stood for, but then why would his own memoir read as a tribute to the dreams his father never had the opportunity to realize?

“We’re not in Kansas anymore”: Stanley Ann Dunham

Not a tremendous amount his known about the woman with an unusual first name who married Barak Obama Sr., some say, to spite her racist father. But what we can glean from various accounts provides relevant insight into Obama’s upbringing and influences.

After moving several times as a child, Stanley Ann Dunham eventually settled in progressive Mercer Island, just outside Seattle. She attended Mercer Island High School, a place that distinguished itself by having a former Communist Party member serve as chairman of the island’s school board. But that is not where the leftist connections ended.

According to the American Thinker, Dunham attended her high school’s ”anarchy alley,” where philosophy courses on Karl Marx were offered. The academics leading the effort were Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman, both reportedly of the Marxist “Frankfurt School“ and who taught ”critical theory” to students that included curriculum on the rejection of societal norms, and attacks on Christianity and the traditional family. Dunham’s peers considered her an “inquiring mind” and it is said that she grew to become part of the left’s intelligentsia.

After her family moved to Hawaii, Dunham attended the University of Hawaii at Manoa where she studied anthropology. It was in her Russian language class that she met the future president’s father, who would later leave Dunham and their new child, Barack Jr. to attend Harvard. Eventually the two divorced (though some claim they were never married in the first place) and she went on to marry Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, who worked as a government relations executive for an Oil company. While Soetoro was a Muslim, accounts differ as to the level of his observance. In 1967 the family moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. Obama’s memoir paints Soetoro as an even-tempered man who became increasingly interested in Western culture while Dunham became increasingly interested in Indonesian and other world-cultures. Inevitably a rift was formed.

According to Dr. Rich Swier, Dunham moved between Indonesia and Hawaii twice more before traveling the world to “pursue a career in rural development that took her to her Ghana, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Nepal and Bangladesh.” She also traveled to China and Pakistan and by 1992 earned her Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. Her 1000-plus page dissertation, according to Swier was titled: “Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: Surviving and Thriving Against All Odds.”

What perhaps bears mention is that President Obama has portrayed his mother as a simple girl from Kansas when she was in fact anything but. He has also credited her with providing him with his political world view.

Mentored by a Communist

After Barack Jr.’s family re-relocated to Hawaii, he found another mentor. In his book “Dreams From My Father,“ Obama often and affectionately mentioned his ”dashiki-wearing” role model from whom he sought both career and personal advice. While it is clear this father figure played a pivotal role in the young Obama’s life, the mystery-man is only ever referred to by his first name: “Frank.” Given the history, most believe the person in question is none other than the late Frank Marshall Davis – a man publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

Recalling his friend, Obama wrote: “It made me smile, thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created.” But by that point in time, Frank was far from the harmless throw-back characature Obama painted him to be — that is of course assuming his last name was Davis. National Review’s Paul Kengor revealed that after moving to Hawaii Davis launched a Communist publication espousing the virtues of the Soviet Union. Kengor wrote:

Davis served as an editor and writer for a Communist-line publication, the Chicago Star, in the 1930s. I next learned that the Midwest native had flown thousands of miles away to Hawaii to take up permanent residence, just when American Communists were looking to launch a publication there, namely the Honolulu Record. Subsequently, Davis wrote a weekly column for that publication.

Kengor went on to reveal that with the determined help of research assistants, he obtained Davis’ weekly column, “Frank-ly Speaking” and that its contents mirrored perfectly “Soviet propaganda.”

All the while Obama has denied his Frank is the same Frank.

A Christian of the Black Liberation variety

After his 1960s-style awakening with Frank, another influential figure found his way into Obama’s life. In fact, Reverend Jeremiah Wright is the man credited with having led the community organizer to Christianity. A member of Wright‘s Trinity United Church in Chicago’s South Side for 20 years, so influenced by the controversial pastor was Obama, that he even named his other book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of the reverend’s sermons.

Wright is of course best known for espousing anti-Semitic and anti-Western sentiment, once declaring that America’s “chickens had come home to roost” in the wake of the September 11 attacks. To Wright, the U.S. had brought the worst terrorist attack in history upon itself by perpetrating crimes against humanity across the world.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Wright blasted. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards.”

Wright practices and preaches a form of Christian ideology rooted in Marxism dubbed “Black Liberation Theology,” which operates with the mindset that members of the black community are still subjugated by white, racist oppressors. Those “oppressors” can range from a single individual to a head of state or even an entire government or geographical region (i.e.: “The West”).

With a victimhood mentality deeply entrenched in the collective mindset of the movement, Black Liberation Theology preys upon and seeks to reignite past resentments within the black community, thus fomenting a racism of its very own. While this tactic is certainly anathema to tenets of Christian “brotherly love,” it does not seem to stop Wright from fanning the flames of hatred. In fact, Black Liberation Theology condones violence so long as it is wielded by “the oppressed” in their “struggle to remove inequities” (whatever those might be).

In an analysis of the theology, Ron Rhodes writes: “The removal of inequities is believed to result in the removal of the occasion of sin [i.e., the oppressor] as well.”

In other words, assaulting, even killing your perceived foe is considered a good deed by Black Liberation standards.

Despite this, President Obama sat in the pews of Wright’s church for 20 years while the incensed

preacher spouted a steady stream of anti-Semitism and 9/11 conspiracy theories, proclaimed the HIV virus was an invention of the U.S. government to infect and ultimately annihilate the black populace, vehemently opposed interracial marriage and post-segregation assimilation, and praised the dictatorships of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. Wright is also friendly with fellow-Chicagoan and radical Louis Farrakhan.

All the while, Obama claimed ignorance, suggesting he was absent the days Wright delivered his more piquant declarations and dismissed his spiritual adviser of 20 years as a kind of “crazy uncle” that you may love, but take with a grain of salt. Wright must have been none-too-pleased.

Launching his career with the help of Marxists and domestic terrorists

Another point of contention has been President Obama’s ties to notorious domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, who many believe was instrumental in launching Obama’s political career. Leader of the radical “Weather Underground,“ Ayers has railed against capitalism and the ”establishment” for nearly half-a-century, often resorting to physical violence to carry out his goals. Aside from organizing typical protest demonstrations (some of which turned riotous), Ayers is perhaps best known for orchestrating a series of bombings: at the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol Building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.

You might also recall that Ayer’s “Days of Rage” demonstrations — in which he incited aspiring revolutionaries to “kill all the rich people” including their parents — served as inspiration for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Where does a resume like that take you in life? The halls of academia, of course. Ayers served as a “distinguished” professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago from 1987 to 2010.

No one knows the exact origins of their relationship. Perhaps it was through Frank Marshall Davis, or Obama’s parents, or the fact that he lived merely three blocks away that Obama connected with Ayers in a seemingly profound way. Whatever the case, the 1960s radical must have taken a shine to the Obama as he is credited with helping him gain admission to Harvard and, in 1995, along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn, organized meet-and-greet gatherings at his Chicago home to introduce the aspiring state-senator to their inner-circle of friends political allies (including fellow Marxists Alice Palmer and Quentin Young). Evidence also strongly suggests Obama’s memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” was in fact penned by Ayers.

Obama has brushed off the level of his involvement with Ayers but in his book, “Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War-Activist,” Ayers admitted the tie:

“In 2008 there was a lot of chatter on the blogosphere about my relationship with Barack Obama: we had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fundraiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign.”

It is also worth noting that Ayers’ father Tom is said to have given Obama his first professional break, yet the president claims to have never met him.

All the while, the president has trivialized his relationship with Ayers, begrudgingly admitting to have attended a political event at his home, but that he had no clue of the Weather Underground nor Ayer’s history as a domestic terrorist.
--------------------------
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/part-on ... -of-obama/
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Obama's lies

Postby WTFO » Mon May 14, 2012 9:40 pm

Next part:
-------------
Part Two: The Fiction and Non-Fiction of Obama
Posted on May 13, 2012 at 4:46pm by Tiffany Gabbay

In Part I of this report, we examined President Obama’s earliest role models and the influence each likely had on him as he shaped his worldview. With an anti-colonialist father, a mother who rejected Western society, a communist mentor, a domestic-terrorist benefactor, and an anti-Semitic preacher, the reasons behind Obama’s past and present actions come more sharply into focus. Below, we navigate through just some of the president’s questionable political positions.

“Brave” enough to order the killing Osama bin Laden…but had a back-up memo to blame the military in case it went wrong?

The entire Obama administration along with the American left has heaped praise on the president for his “daring” and “brave” decision to send a Navy SEAL team into an Abottobbad compound to assassinate 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden. In fact, Obama has even used the accomplishment as the crux of his latest campaign ad — a move even liberal mediaite Arianna Huffington deemed despicable. Yet in April it was revealed that then-CIA Director Leon Panetta drafted a memo that included an escape clause for the president should the operation go awry [emphasis added]: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”

In plain-speak, Obama chose to blame the military, through a patsy — in this case, Admiral McRaven — should the mission to kill bin Laden fail. Does this sound like something a Commander in Chief would or should ever do? The Wall Street Journal adds:

Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.

While it comes as no surprise that a politician might go to great lengths to protect his or her own image, a wartime president overseeing one the most redemptive moments for America in the wake of 9/11 (and who surely took the credit for all the glory) while at the same time plotting to use the military as a scapegoat in the event bin Laden’s takedown was botched, is beyond the pale by just about anyone’s standards.

Disdain for troops or plain indifference?

Considering Obama’s OBL-escape clause memo, it seems clear the value he places on military is questionable. While a U.S. president serves many roles during his or her term in office, their greatest responsibility lies in being “Commander in Chief” of the nation’s armed forces. It is perhaps for this reason more than any other, that the president’s gaffes, flubs, and insults where America’s servicemen and women are concerned are so egregious. Recall that nearly one year ago, speaking to the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, the president announced that a soldier (who had died serving in Afghanistan) was in fact alive. In his speech, he recalled a time when he awarded the first Medal of Honor to someone “not receiving it posthumously.” However, the deceased Jared Monti did receive the medal posthumously. Then, back in 2009, Fox contributors Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer criticized the president’s lack of leadership and reverence for soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan when they revealed that in a 20-minute long speech, the president did not use the word “democracy” once even though America established “the only functioning democracy among the 22 Arab states.” The two also noted that the Commander in Chief did not treat soldiers as warriors, bur rather as “victims.“ ”We lost a lot of good men and women in order to establish a democracy,” Krauthammer said. “And he, as commander-in-chief, did not even acknowledge that.”

There was another gobsmacking incident where the president displayed what even mainstream networks dubbed a shocking display of insensitivity. During a press conference to address the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in which 13 people were killed and another 29 injured by an Islamic ideologue, the president set aside compassionate eloquence to “give a shout out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” He spoke for some three minutes before ever mentioning the shooting or those who paid the ultimate price.(Related: Do You Know Anybody Like Obama? Beck’s Latest Expose Could Go Down in History)Obama also came under fire after refusing to visit wounded troops, presumably because there was no photo-op in it for him.

Scrubbing the term “Special Relationship” from the lexicon

Now recall that Obama’s father was a staunch anti-colonialist. With this in mind, it might make sense that the president insisted on returning to Britain, our staunchest ally, the bust of “pro-colonialist” Winston Churchill — even though the move was an insult of epic proportions. The bust had been a loaned gift in the wake of September 11, meant to show the U.K.’s solidarity with America in a most grievous time. But this was not the only time Obama snubbed Britain. In fact, the Telegraph’s Nile Gardiner pointed out that this “world-class ‘statesmen’” has delivered no less than 10(11 if you count the embarrassing iPod for the Queen incident) beyond-the-pale insults to the nation with whom we supposedly shared a “Special Relationship.” Below is a list of how the ever-diplomatic Obama has handled that special relationship:
•Sending then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown a “gift” of improperly formatted DVDs that could not be played on DVD machines outfitted in the U.K. This of course was after Brown was denied a Rose Garden press conference, as well as dinner with the president when he was stateside. Gardiner said the move “would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World country.”
•Refusing to personally meet with Brown after no less than five requests while proceeding to “give him the run-around at the UN General Assembly.”
•Declaring neutrality over the Falklands dispute, a move dubbed “the most brazen betrayal so far of a US ally” especially considering 255 British soldiers died retaking the islands from Argentina in 1982.
•Downgrading Special Relationship by “not mentioning Britain once” in any major policy speech and expunging the term from use by administration officials fullstop.
•Undermining British influence in NATO by pandering to France. This was done by giving Paris

“a lead role in the NATO alliance at Britain’s expense, granting it one of two supreme NATO command positions – Allied Command Transformation (ACT).”

•Refusing to recognize Britain’s sacrifice of 250 servicemen and women in Afghanistan, as well as its stationing of 10,000 soldiers in the warzone. Gardiner writes that in contrast to George W. Bush, “who frequently thanked the British armed forces and people for their role in the War on Terror, Obama has spectacularly failed to do so.”
•Allowing White White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to belittle British press by stating that if it’s “truthful news” you want, Britain is not the place to look. “This kind of attack would normally be made against the likes of the North Korean or Iranian state media,” quipped Gardiner.
•Reducing the United States’ greatest ally to “nothing special.” This was reflected in the words of a senior State Department official following Brown’s chilly reception at the White House: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

It is difficult to think of another president who has ever treated Britain in such a disdainful way — but this is likely a nod to the influence of Obama’s father. Some speculate that Obama blamed Churchill for suppressing Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion in which Hussein Onyango Obama was allegedly tortured. However, author Diana West notes that Churchill didn‘t become prime minister for the second time until the end of 1951 and that the Mau Mau Rebellion didn’t begin until the end of 1952, “one year after Obama‘s grandfather’s release.” She added that returning the Churchill bust likely indicates a “more an open breach in the Western continuum out of which a new orientation toward the Third World will become increasingly apparent.” In other words, Obama seeks to strengthen the U.S. relationship with the Third World while downgrading the relationship shared with other world powers — particularly ones viewed as colonialists like Britain.

Breaking with Israel

Following his lead with U.S.-Britain relations, President Obama has been no friend to Israel either. Friends with those who consider the Jewish State the “biggest obstacle to peace” in the region, the president snubbed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in much the same way he snubbed brown when refusing to share dinner with the Israeli leader. This of course seems small in comparison to the monumental sell-out that occurred when Obama’s declared to the world that Israel should “return” to its “1967 borders.” Nevermind the fact that there are no such borders but rather armistice lines, and that in either case, they are equally indefensible.

Of course, no mention of the president’s stance on Israel would be complete without mentioning his former instructor and friend, the late Edward Said. The pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University professor openly condemned Israel, which he considered to be an illegitimate, colonialist state.

There is that word again: “colonialist.”

Said frequently bemoaned the “plight” of the “oppressed” Palestinians and was even a member of the PLO’s Palestinian National Council throughout the 1970s and 80s. He inevitably stepped down in 1991, allegedly in protest to the Oslo peace accords and to what he considered Yasser Arafat’s unduly moderate stance toward Israel. In 1998 Obama attended a speech by Said in which the scholar called for a campaign “against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.”

Given Obama’s apparent animus towards nations he deems “colonizers,” it comes as no surprise that he has abandoned one of America’s greatest ally, indeed the greatest ally in the Middle East. When examining the president’s view on Israel it also becomes clear why his administration supports the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood — a group whose own cleric recently declared that it was sending an army of martyrs to establish a Caliphate in Jerusalem.

Ironically, administration official James Clapper infamously declared that the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact “secular.” Meanwhile, a new barrage of rocket-fire into Israel has begun emanating from the Sinai. But perhaps that is just a coincidence.

Voting against legislation that would ensure life-saving measures were taken to aid infants born alive after botched abortions

Outside of foreign policy, Obama’s actions at home are equally puzzling. It sounds like a line from the trailer of a horror movie, yet a September 2000 report from the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee observed that physicians at Christ Hospital in Illinois used induced labor as a means of aborting healthy late-term fetuses and infants “with non-fatal deformities” and that many of these babies ended up surviving the procedure only to be left to die. “Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance,” nurse Jill Stanek testified.

Another nurse, Allison Baker, testified that these live-born infants were being deposited in “soiled utility rooms” where they were left to expire and Stanek recalled when an infant “was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.” The testimony continued in much the same gruesome fashion, after which a piece of legislation was introduced that would require physicians administer all life-saving measures possible when these botched abortions occur. MCCLPAC explains the bill:

Legislation was then introduced to require appropriate care for abortion survivors. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) defined as legal persons “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Further, “born alive” was defined as “the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”

While this all sounds reasonable, Obama was the sole opponent of the legislation — not once but twice, the second time was during the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002. His reasons for voting against the bill, as laid out in an article by Stanek, include that it would: add undue burden to the mother; is a legal trick to define a fetus as a person (if a person then the aborted infant would be subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution); it would interfere with a doctor’s judgement; that there was “no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony”; it was all a ploy to derail Roe v. Wade. Regardless of his reasons, it bears repeating that Obama was still the only person who voted against the legislation. When one thinks of the Complete Lives Systemof Obamacare, this stance, too, might make sense.

Changing his stance on gay marriage nearing the election

Another of Obama’s contradictions stems from his stance on same-sex marriage. He claims to be a practicing Christian, and that his faith shaped his view that marriage is something that can only be shared between a man and a woman. Obama has since changed that tune — several times in fact — the latest instance being his declaration that same-sex marriage should be legal. Examine the inconsistency: The Blaze’s Billy Hallowell reported that in 1996 the then-state senator candidate affirmed his “unequivocal support for gay marriage.” “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” But by 1998 Obama, during another election cycle said he was “undecided” on the issue. Then, during a senate campaign debate in 2004 with Alan Keyes, Obama said that marriage is between one man and one woman and that he does not support gay marriage. Hallowell adds:

In 2004 (yes, another election year), Obama took a more middle-ground route, as he publicly supported domestic partnerships and civil unions. He also took the opportunity to say that, unlike his statement in 1998, he did not support gay marriage. “I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws,” he said. “I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about primarily just as a strategic issue.”

By the second year of Obama’s presidential term, he then hinted that a change of heart could be in store yet again:

“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage,” he said. “But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”

During his announcement in May, 2012, Obama cited his gay and lesbian friends, soldiers and staffers as inspiration for the change of heart. He also explained that it was his Christianity that helped him to see that people in committed relationships should be allowed to marry. To the contrary, many believe the president was motivated by politics, rather than faith, especially given the suspect timing of his declaration.

Other anomalies and contradictions

During his expose, Beck noted a series of other seemingly unfathomable acts committed by either the president, his friends or members of the White House. From the administration member who declared that NASA’s primary goal should be ”Muslim outreach” to a first lady who once said that she was never proud of her country until her husband was elected president; from the president saying that the U.S. Constitution needs to become a “photo-negative” in order for it to make sense in today’s world, to an administration official declaring that our enemies are “not terrorists” nor jihadists — the list reads like something out of a fiction novel. And indeed that is what Beck said: Obama’s life is a “work of fiction.”
---------------
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/part-tw ... -of-obama/
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Obama's lies

Postby KALKAM » Tue May 15, 2012 1:30 pm

Let's not forget the easy one....the economy.

You see his idiotic supporters will say collectivist things like "social justice" while claiming he is to credited for the stock market rebound.

IT"S A LIE.

The market is cyclical...as all those idiots will have to admit when slamming it...it makes no difference who is in charge...if stocks are cheap people like me who ignored everything the collectivist economic professors said and saved money waiting for the next downturn...and then went all in.

I have proven that I know more about our economy than most collectivist idiotic left voting and supporting professors. And Obama HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Individuals invested and society benefited...as always.

JOB CREATION...another lie.

You steal money and run up debt to invent jobs for your collectivist base. Not one job was created...they were INVENTED AND FUNDED WITH COLLECTIVIST THEFT!
KALKAM
User avatar
PolitiNoob
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:36 am

Forum Statistics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Options

Return to PolitiChat

cron