Is There Anything Obama Will Not Lie About?

We know that Barack Obama is a liar. It is obvious when he opens his mouth that he is not telling the truth and anyone with a brain can see it (which excludes liberals). Obama has already been caught doing the flip flop with regard to the debt limit. Back in 2006 he said that the president (G W Bush) and Republicans looking to raise the debt ceiling demonstrated a lack of leadership and that we had a debt problem. I agreed with his words from then. Now he has his mouthpiece say that he was in error to vote against raising the debt limit and only did it out of spite because he opposed Bush’s policies. That does not negate the fact that he said it demonstrated a lack of leadership and now that he is asking for the debt limit to be raised, he is the one lacking in leadership qualities (though to be fair, he never possessed any to begin with).

Now we have Obama, in his own words, from 2008 with regard to presidential signing statements. Obama said that this was not part of the president’s power and reinforced that by telling people he taught Constitutional law for 10 years. God help us because he, no doubt, taight his interpretation rather than that of the people who wrote it. In any event, here is Obama from 2008:

That’s not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress. Real Clear Politics

One could argue that Obama is now using signing statements, not to do an end run around Congress, but to make his point clear. That would be a BS argument but I know many liberals will make it. Obama makes it clear from the outset that IT IS NOT PART OF HIS POWER. That means that any signing statements are not part of the president’s power. Whether they are or not is irrelevant because Obama said they were not and based it on his teaching the Constitution so he said what he meant and what he wanted people to believe was true.

Now it is a little different. Obama used a signing statement on the recently passed budget compromise in which his czars were eliminated. Obama issued a signing statement that he was not going to follow that part of the deal.

He used a signing statement to do an end run around Congress. There is no other way to look at it. He did exactly what he said he would not do. That makes him a liar. Obama lied, got it liberals, your messiah lied to you. How many of you will call him on this? My guess is that most will defend him. The rationale will be something like, well Bush was wrong when he did it but Obama is right.

In fact, his mouthpiece (Jay Carney) said just that and he too lied along the way:

His concern was with what he saw as an abuse of the signing statement by the previous administration. So that the positions he took in signing statements on the budget bill entirely consistent with that position, you need to retain the right to, as president, to be able to issue those signing statements, but obviously they should not be abused. Real Clear Politics

Compare the two statements and you can see the glaring lies. Obama never said he opposed the abuse of signing statements. He said that the president did not have the power to use them and that he knows it because he taught the Constitution. He said he would not use them to do an end run around Congress but Carney is saying that Obama was never opposed to them and that using them is consistent with his previous position (the false premise Carney began with). This is all a lie and it is all recorded and presented in their own words.

Obama is a liar though his change of position on this issue might be consistent with him being a teacher of the Constitution. You see, liberals believe the Constitution is a living document that can be molded and adapted to meet any condition (see FDR). This is utterly false and the Founders never meant for it to be that way but to Obama and liberal/progressive schmucks like him, the Constitution is a barrier to what they want to do to this country. It gets in their way so they need to keep changing it to suit their needs.

It suited his purpose to say that Bush had no authority to use signing statements when he was trying to take Bush’s place but now that he is in the position it suits his purpose to use the very instrument he derided as unconstitutional.

He is a liar and we need to keep beating him with his own words.

And Republicans need to stop making deals and lay down the law. Stop funding everything until we get the budget under control and tell Obama to stuff it. I would also recommend that any bills submitted by Congress include language that says the use of signing statements is not allowed on the bill.

Hamstring this Socialist and keep him from doing any more harm to this country.

Wake up America. This man and his people are telling you lies because they think you are too stupid to notice or to care. I might agree there are a lot of stupid people because Obama was elected but even dumb animals learn from their mistakes.

Any of you liberal/progressive Obamabots want to defend this? I know there will be someone who does.

Hmm, another war in the Middle East, extension of the tax cuts, excessive spending, signing statements, and asking that the debt limit be raised. They told me if I voted for McCain I would get Bush’s third term.

Looks like they were right.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

37 Responses to “Is There Anything Obama Will Not Lie About?”

  1. Adam says:

    “Compare the two statements and you can see the glaring lies. Obama never said he opposed the abuse of signing statements. He said that the president did not have the power to use them…”

    Wrong. Obama never said such a thing and you have to take him out of context to suggest otherwise. RCP even points out that Obama is speaking in reference to using signing statements to “accumulate more power.” I know you already tried to short circuit the factual argument against your point by calling it BS but you’re flat out wrong to suggest Obama was opposed to all usage of signing statements.

    Obama in Dec, 2007:

    Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

    No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.

    • Blake says:

      So has Bari- not to mention using illegal regulations to get around the people in Congress (you know, the people who are SUPPOSED to make the laws, not the EPA).
      If you toted up all the end runs Bari has made, along with his “Czars”, around
      Congress, one could easily assume that Bari is trying his dead level best to make the Constitution irrelevant, and Congress impotent.
      He is a Clear and Present Danger to this country.

      • Adam says:

        This nonsense about czars aside, I think it’s a fair argument from both sides to suggest Obama has or has not used signing statements like Bush did. I disagree with that argument from what I’ve seen of his usage but I’d change my mind presented the proper evidence.

        On the other hand it is not a fair argument to suggest Obama has ever opposed all usage of signing statements.

  2. Adam says:

    I guess this post begs the question: Is there anything about Obama your side will not lie about?

  3. Big Dog says:

    Sorry Adam, you are wrong again. Here is what he said:
    “That’s not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along”

    Obama is now doing the same thing. The issue is moot (it happens to be about czars but that is not the real issue) what matters is that he said he would not use them to do an end run around Congress and he has done just that. He lied.

    It is BS and you know you are wrong. You are saying it is OK for him to do it because he is not Bush.

    As far as it goes, Bush might completely disagree with Obama and say that his own signing statements were fro upholding his Constitutional authority.

    As far as it goes though, your quote is from 2007 and mine from 2008 and it is the one that matters. He was trying to win and told people he would not do what he just did.

    Like that whole lack of leadership thing…

    • Adam says:

      “Show me where there is a lie in this post. You can’t do it but show me one.”

      Right here is a two for one deal:

      Obama never said he opposed the abuse of signing statements. He said that the president did not have the power to use them and that he knows it because he taught the Constitution.

      Obama absolutely said he opposed the abuse of signing statements. He absolutely said the president is within his power to use signing statements in several ways.

      “You are saying it is OK for him to do it because he is not Bush.”

      Obama has used signing statements every year he’s been president. He has not however issued 100’s a year as Bush did.

      • Big Dog says:

        Nice try but won’t fly. In the statement I posted he said it was not within his (the president’s) power. Abuse is not mentioned. He made it clear, at that time, (long after your quote) that it was not in his power and he would not do it.

        It is not a lie to point out what he said. You can say it is not a lie because he said something different earlier in his career but since the two are opposing views he had to lie about one of them. Since I posted the one that is most recent and he has done the opposite of what he said, he lied.

        Therefore, you have failed to show that i lied about him. It is there in his own words.

        • Adam says:

          “It is not a lie to point out what he said.”

          It is a lie however to take a person out of context as you’re doing. Again, it’s a fair argument to suggest Obama is doing an “end-run around Congress” but I disagree. The power exists and has not been abused by Obama yet.

  4. Big Dog says:

    Not to mention that any idea of abuse of them is in the eyes of the person making the claim. I view what Obama just did as abuse so he abused the process. My view on the matter is as valid (more so since I am his boss) as his.

    • Adam says:

      I think that is a fine argument. I just don’t think it’s truthful to suggest Obama was ever opposed to all usage of signing statements.

      • Big Dog says:

        His last statement was that it was not within the president’s authority and Obama said he knew that because he taught the Constitution. That is not taking his words out of context, that is exactly what he meant.

        I did not take him out of context since I used his exact words.

        Now, it would all depend on what abuse is. Is it a certain number of times (even if they were as noble as you think this time is) or is it when it is used to do something someone does not like? What constitutes abuse? As you can see, you and I differ on whether this is abuse and I am sure Obama and Bush differed on whether what Bush did was abuse.

        Abuse is arbitrary in the instance of using signing statements but Obama was clear in 2008 when he said it was not within the president’s power. What else could he mean? Don’t tell me how you took it, tell me what he said and how any sane person should interpret it.

        Obama is more like Bush than you would like to admit.

  5. Big Dog says:

    “I just don’t think it’s truthful to suggest Obama was ever opposed to all usage of signing statements.”

    He might have been for them in the past but in 2008 he was opposed to them when he said they were not in the president’s power.

    By saying that it was not in his power and that he knows it because he taught the Constitution and would follow it he made it sound as if Bush was doing something unconstitutional AND that Obama was, at that time opposed to the statements.

    So yes, saying he was ever opposed to them is valid because he made that point in 2008.

    Saying he ever was is different than saying he always was. He might not have been in 2008 but that is not what he presented. Just because he said it for political purposes does not mean we can’t hold him to his words.

    Like, lack of leadership for seeking to raise the debt ceiling. Obama is showing, by HIS OWN DEFINITION, a lack of leadership. Or did he never say that either?

    • Adam says:

      “He might have been for them in the past but in 2008 he was opposed to them when he said they were not in the president’s power.”

      First of all let me say again: Obama never said he was opposed to all usage of signing statements even in the 2008 clip you cite.

      Second: You can take what he did say in 2008 to suggest he thinks he should never nullify any part of what Congress passes. That is a different argument. It’s also an argument that falls flat given his other statements before and after that video took place.

      Your side pulled this same crap with Obama and ear marks to suggest he was somehow opposed to all earmarks. He never was but that doesn’t stop your side from calling him a liar and a flip flopper.

      • Big Dog says:

        In the 2008 clip he said it was not in the president’s power and that he would follow the OCnstitution because he taught it. The impression he gave was that what Bush was doing was unconstitutional and he would not do the same thing.

        He gave that impression in what he said, no doubt about that. He said he was opposed to violating the Constitution and that bush violated the Constitution with signing statements therefore he was opposed to them.

        If A=B and B=C then A=C.

        • Adam says:

          “He said he was opposed to violating the Constitution and that bush violated the Constitution with signing statements therefore he was opposed to them.”

          He was talking about abuse of signing statements. You know that but you can’t admit it because then you’d have to move on to arguments based in fact.

    • Adam says:

      I agree that the debt ceiling is a clear reversal though. I don’t deny that one. I simply understand the reason for the reversal as is the case in most of his reversals. Being a Senator or speaking on the campaign trail is not the same as being a leader forced to actually execute decisions. Every president learns that.

      • Big Dog says:

        Real leaders know that.

        Say what you mean, mean what you say and don’t pander.

        • Adam says:

          No, every president learns on the job despite what you pretend. President Cleveland may be the only president ever elected with actual knowledge of being president.

          • Big Dog says:

            Every president learns about being president on the job. They either know and have leadership qualities when they get there or they don’t

            Obama never lead anything, knows nothing about real leadership and is simply the product of affirmative action.

            Kennedy, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, Johnson,and both Bushs are examples of people who had leadership positions prior to being elected to the White House. Obama has nowhere near the experience of any of them and it shows.

            I have more leadership experience than he does.

            • Adam says:

              “I have more leadership experience than he does.”

              I’m sure you do but being president takes a whole package of qualities. Obama has leadership qualities, intelligence, education, government experience, and political savvy. You think he’s a poor president because of his policy decisions and you make that statement by wrapping it in attacks on his leadership, intelligence, education, and experience, etc.

            • Blake says:

              Adam, yes, being President takes a blend of qualities, much like a samurai sword, which takes a blend of soft AND hard steels in order to make a sword that is neither too brittle, nor too malleable.
              Unfortunately, Bari has noe of the qualities you cite, except that he makes a good speech (Along with the Totuses, or is it Toti?)
              The man can lie with the best of the Cons- he always makes me think of the Musical “The Music Man”, wherein “there’s TROUBLE in River City….”

  6. Adam says:

    “Abuse is arbitrary in the instance of using signing statements but Obama was clear in 2008 when he said it was not within the president’s power. What else could he mean?”

    Abuse is not as arbitrary as you claim. We know Obama’s not opposed to all signing statements. Just the way Bush used them.

    You can argue Obama is using them the same way as Bush but based on what? Bush issued over 100 signing statements making over 1000 challenges. So far in 2 years Obama has issued a little over a dozen statements amounting to a couple of dozen challenges.

    • Big Dog says:

      So to you, the number of them constitutes abuse rather than why they were used. Rather strange way to look at it.

      Obama was opposed to the way Bush used them and I am opposed ot the way Obama used them so, it must be abuse. My opinion is at least as valid as his. So yes, it is arbitrary.

      You claim we know that he is not opposed to them but that is not what he said in 2008.

      • Adam says:

        “So to you, the number of them constitutes abuse rather than why they were used.”

        Not exactly but we’d need to go on a case by case basis to examine his different statement uses and see. On face value I don’t see how Obama’s use against czars is that big of a deal but if Obama starts making such statements for every thing the GOP hands him then he’ll be abusing the process and become like Bush.

        “You claim we know that he is not opposed to them but that is not what he said in 2008.”

        In 2008 he said he was opposed to the way Bush used signing statements to grow his power over Congress. He did not say he was opposed to the use of all signing statements.

        • Big Dog says:

          No, read what he said. It is not within his power. He did not say I don’t like how he does it, he says it is not in his power.

          I am sure I have the education and intelligence. I probably have as much government experience but he has the political savvy, I will give you that. I know that I can do a better job than he.

          As for leadership qualities, Obama could not lead a group of people out of a burning building.

          • Adam says:

            “No, read what he said.”

            Please quote for me the text of the entire segment of the video. When you’ve done that maybe you’ll have caught the actual context of what “that” refers to when he says, “That’s not part of his power…”

            • Big Dog says:

              Look here and watch the video. Will you use signing statements, NO.

              Congress has a job to pass legislation and the President can sign it or he can veto it. What George bush has decided to do is change use little statements to say what he will do and not do. That is not part of his power.

              It is very clear in the video by his words. Obama said he would not use them and he did not have a caveat. He then said Bush uses them and it is not part of his power.

              It is not out of context but maybe out of your sphere of reality.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Here is the transcript:

    Question: When Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?

    Barack Obama: Yes.

    [Extended Applause]

    Let me just explain for those who are unfamiliar with this issue. We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or courts too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do, as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency, is he’s been saying, “Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying, ‘I don’t agree with this part or I don’t agree with that part. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way.’”

    That’s not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress, all right?

  8. Big Dog says:

    Signing statements have been around a long time and most were not controversial in that they praised legislation or told how the president interpreted ambiguous items (especially if something could have several meanings).

    Recent presidents have used them to indicate that they see something as unconstitutional or, in Bush’s case, to refuse to do anything that would be against his Constitutional authority:

    “In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.”

    There was no real objection to what Bush did when Clinton did it more often, just that Bush did it. Disregard any that are purley comments (like this is great legislation, etc) and focus on those where they indicate they will not do anything that runs contrary to their Constitutional authority. Bush is the bad guy but Clinton and Obama are not?

    Makes no sense. It is purely politics as you have demonstrated here by justifying what Obama did when Bush did the same. It was about Bush and that is all or Obama would have been mentioning Clinton because he signed more.

    I have no problem with the comment type statements. Hey, this is great legislation, thanks for the hard work, blah, blah and I have no problem with one that clears up an ambiguity (though it might be better to clear it up before signing) but my preference for all other issues is to veto the bill.

    The Constitution allows him to sign it into law or veto it. Do one of those two things and follw the process and all will be OK.

    But since they do it and the public and Congress allows it then one cannot say it is not in the president’s power and then do it himself…

  9. Big Dog says:

    Good information here. (this is where I got the above listed quote about GW Bush and signing statements)

  10. Adam says:

    Apparently to you “do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way” becomes “No, I will not use signing statements at all ever in any way.” No, he did not promise to never use a signing statement. He just promised to not use it to get his way to accumulate more power like Bush did. Does his most recent usage make him like Bush? Again, I don’t believe so but it could be argued otherwise. I’m just still not seeing how you arrive at the conclusions you keep arriving at over the 2008 quote alone.

    I must once again argue that any ambiguity in his statement has been clarified more than once in statements both before and since the 2008 statement. You’re beating a dead horse here to falsely make Obama look like he’s a liar.

  11. victoria says:

    “No, I will not use signing statements at all ever in any way.” No, he did not promise to never use a signing statement. He just promised to not use it to get his way to accumulate more power like Bush did.”

    You are so full of it, Adam.