Obama’s 158 Documented Lies

This comes from Vincent Gioia’s Blog. It is a list of 158 lies Barack Obama has told. Here are the a few of them:

  • 158 Obama claims he wrote letter to US Treasurer to try to prevent the housing crisis; but he acted only AFTER he had caused it by blocking McCain’s bill
  • 157 Obama claims he is bipartisan ; Congressional Quarterly shows he voted with his party 97% of the time
  • 156 Obama’s dirty lie scares seniors: falsely claims McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare: liar liar liar says Annenberg Factcheck
  • 155 Obama lies about his mother turning to food stamps AND still sending him to top schools; his grandmother paid for education
  • 154 Obama lied about being asked to wear dead soldier’s bracelet: family had asked Obama to stop wearing it
  • 153 Obama claimed all new spending is economic plan was self-funding; short by $3.5 Trillion says nonpartisan Tax Policy Center
  • 152 Obama denied Admiral Mike Mullen had called Obama’s Iraqi troop plan “dangerous”; Mullen made comment on Fox in July 2008 according to WaPo
  • 151 Obama lied about Kissinger’s views of diplomacy during first debate; Kissinger confirms the lie
  • 150 During Debate 1 Obama denied voting to tax some people making $42000 a year: Annenburg Factcheck,org confirms Obama is lying

Each is linked to the source and Vincent includes this at the end:

Obama WTF defines “DOCUMENTED LIE ” as :
1) a statement by one or more reliable news agencies or credible authorities citing supporting verifiable facts which rebut a reported statement by Obama.2) observable video/transcript contradictions3) the omission of an important fact the exclusion of which defies common sense unless the intent is to deceive.

This therefore EXCLUDES unintentional gaffes e.g. the Auschwitz Memorial Day blip; the 57 States etc which can be found at New Gaffe City This also excludes Flip Flops unless
a) Obama is seen to be holding multiple positions depending on the audience, e.g. The Jerusalem flip flop…where his position was altered with 18 hours, talking to different audiences, or b) Obama lies about holding a different position e.g denying he favored gun control.

Credit to each of the following news outlets who are some of the most cited in the List of Documented Lies:
1. Annenberg Factcheck.org; at U Penn
2. At the St Petersberg Times; www.politifact.com
3. Washington Post Fact Checker …Michael Dobbs
4. Top of the Ticket Blog at the LA Times;
5. Political Punch at ABC News.com.
6. Dozens of other major news orgs are quoted to provide support for one or more lies

Please visit his site to see them all and to follow the links documenting them.

Thanks for compiling this Vincent.

Big Dog

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.

30 Responses to “Obama’s 158 Documented Lies”

  1. Randy says:

    154 Obama lied about being asked to wear dead soldier’s bracelet: family had asked Obama to stop wearing it

    That’s not true. I saw that one right away and verified very quickly that it wasn’t true. I’m willing to bet a whole lot of those ‘lies’ are actually lies themselves. To be clear, I’m not so much defending Obama here as I am trying to get you to look in a mirror and try and recognize what is fundamentally wrong with your approach here.

  2. Big Dog says:

    Randy, did you go to the site and click the link. It goes to an interview with the family and they stated they asked him to stop wearing it. Are they liars?

    My approach? Perhaps I am taking a page out of the Dems books. Rules for Radicals number 4.

  3. Big Dog says:

    Regarding Barack Obama: According to the father, Tracy Jopek wrote to the Senator: “She had asked him not to wear the bracelet.”

    Here

  4. Big Dog says:

    So her husband says she wrote a letter asking him not to wear it and she says she asked him not to mention it.

    He must have seen the letter to know she wrote it so he must have known what it said. If he did not see it she must have told him about it which means she said not to wear it. If neither is the case he would not have known she wrote a letter.

    • Randy says:

      That’s some pretty twisted logic. Anyhow, the ex-husband said something on the radio, the mother then corrected what was said after he said it. The sequence of events is clear. The mother clarified that she asked, in an e-mail to the campaign, not to mention the bracelet on the campaign trail. She had no evidence that the email was actually received. When it was mentioned, she was quite alright with the context in which it was mentioned. That’s a far cry from her asking him not to wear it. Why would she give it to him in the first place?

      • Big Dog says:

        He was NOT her ex at the time. That is a big distinction. They were living together when this happened. Why is it a stretch? What other way would he know? Why would he make that up?

        The article says that she did not give it to him to be used as a prop but to give him her son’s name (to remember).

        • Randy says:

          You have evidence they were living together at the time? None of our business actually, regardless, claiming that claiming the family asking Obama to stop wearing the bracelet and the mother asking him not to use it as campaign foddder (what actually happened) is the same thing is a stretch. You also conveniently omit that she was perfectly content with how it was mentioned after the fact. The real question is why would SHE lie?

      • Level_Head says:

        Hello, Randy.

        The logic is complex because the situation is. I was the one who found this situation to begin with, and I continued to follow it. There are links in the website page attached.

        Obama’s statement is technically false — though it’s a pretty fine point and I don’t think I’d have worded it quite this way.

        The sequence breaks out like this (again, see the link for sources):

        Mrs. Jopek waited to see candidate Obama — apparently (from her later inteview) to ask him to tone down his anti-war rhetoric. She was a big Obama supporter, but did not like this position. She intended to give him the bracelet and ask him to remember her slain son and the sacrifices we are making in Iraq. (I’m using more words than she did, but I think the statement is a fair recap.)

        When she actually met him, after waiting 45 minutes in the cold, she was crying too hard to speak to him. She wordlessly gave him the bracelet, and they embraced. (So, technically, she never asked him to wear it.)

        Later, she heard him use it in a speech, and wrote to him asking him “not to use the bracelet in speeches or debates”. She acknowledged this wording much later, as this blew up.

        The interview with her (now) ex-husband took place (March). It was pointed out during the interview that Obama was still wearing it. Brian Jopek was surprised — and strongly against pulling out of Iraq — but was not in close contact with his ex wife.

        Some months later, a separate speech by Obama (and subsequent meeting backstage) was videotaped by a student. The student asked about the bracelet, and clearly Obama did not know the name and had to look directly at it to read it. He told basically the same story — that he’d been asked to wear it. Not only was this apparently not true, but by this time he’d been told NOT to.

        Or, more finely, “not to use it in speeches or debates”. It is arguable that he could wear it, as long as he didn’t refer to it.

        Later, the debate with John McCain. I was intrigued, remembered Hillary Clinton’s use of a little girl as a prop for health care (which badly backfired) and decided to do a little research.

        By Saturday night, the article went up. The next day Jake Tapper from ABC and tens of thousands of others were on it. And the Associated Press and Obama were apparently in communication — and AP called Mrs. Jopek to “rebut” the story.

        The original article that came out actually confirmed that she had told him not to use it — but that she forgave him (she was still an Obama supporter). And, since she had not heard his intervening speeches, she took Obama at his word and was “honored” by his mention of her son.

        Could he use it again? She would not commit to this.

        Parts of this article were damning to Obama, particularly confirming that she’d asked him not to use the bracelet.

        Apparently, Obama’s team and the AP talked again — for 90 minutes later the article was replaced with one with a far happier spin — and now the mother was “ecstatic” at the mention (in the headline) instead of merely forgiving him.

        Most copies of the original article were killed, and replaced with the new one that omitted any reference to her asking him not to use the bracelet.

        However, both versions of the article still exist — and I think the links I have up might still work for them.

        So that’s the story. He looked bad — the woman at the center of it was (happily for him) still a supporter and went along with the cover. Imagine if she had become a Republican in the mean time!

        (This last seems possible to me, if she had actually heard more of Obama’s speeches about Iraq.)

        I just wrote this for you — it’s an old story — but I might put this up to recap things.

        ===|==============/ Level Head

        • Randy says:

          So your assertion is that the mother lied? You keep changing the wording of what the mother says that she said too. Her claim is that she sent an email to him asking him not to mention it. You changed that to asking him not to ‘use’ it, and then not to ‘wear’ it. I’ll stick to the mothers version of the story, since she is the primary source.

      • Blake says:

        Randy, you are becoming as bad as Sv or D- I used to think you could see the truth and argue ina level fashion, but you are turning out to be as mendacious and petty as those other two- I’m disappointed.

  5. Darrel says:

    “158 lies Barack Obama has told.”

    DAR
    Someday BigD should learn the difference between asserting something and actually demonstrating something. There is a difference and it’s actually really important.

    Want to back any of these up? I haven’t looked at them because I would like to be surprised and the burden is upon you to support your claim anyway. Why don’t you try and see, just as an exercise, if you can do it.

    D.
    —————–
    (five sentences above, no uncomfortable references, I hope Victoria approves)

  6. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, go to the site. All of them are linked to a source.

    The guy who wrote them backed them up. The post clearly indicates that.

    I have not asserted anything. I said to go to the site from whence it came and read the sources.

    Surely a man of your many talents can do that…

    • Randy says:

      One source: a blog called obamawtf.com

      Really?

      • Blake says:

        Apparently it is at least as reputable as HuffPo, or the FFT forum, which you all want us to take at face value.
        Can you say hypocritical?
        I thought you could.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “The guy who wrote them backed them up. The post clearly indicates that.”>>

      DAR
      That’s nice. That’s hearsay. The post may actually claim that but there is a difference between pointing to someone who claims something and actually making a case anyone should believe in.

      Bigd: “I have not asserted anything.”>>

      DAR
      You made an article on your blog, bolded, underlined, and entitled:

      “Obama’s 158 Documented Lies”

      In your second sentence you claim to have access to “a list of 158 lies Barack Obama has told.”

      Now, be a Big Dog and take credit for what you have claimed. Second step, back up your claim. Back *one* up. Cherry pick. You can do it.

      Bigd: I said to go to the site from whence it came and read the sources.>>

      DAR
      Why should I do that? I made extremely precise adjustments to 1,110 tuning pins today (and that many yesterday). Now you want me to tune the discordance out of your material? People should back up their own claims.

      Bigd: Surely a man of your many talents can do that…>>

      DAR
      Of course. But how are YOU going to learn from someone else doing all the work again? Look at the work Randy had to do just to knock down one really silly example.

      You’ve supposedly got “158” to cherry pick from. And you don’t want to try and attempt to make a case for, and/or try to confirm, one of them?

      That’s curious.

      Okay, couldn’t resist, I peeked at a few of them. It’s worse than I thought. Perhaps this explains your hit and run, full retreat… “I have not asserted anything” claim?

      D.

      • Blake says:

        D- you are ridiculous- you expect everyone to be as unnecessarily verbose as you and your free thinkers are?
        Why? These are lies that Hussein said- they have been checked, once, why should we spend our time going over things that have been vetted before? That is your “specialty”- rehashing and twisting facts.
        Homie don’t play dat.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: why should we spend our time going over things that have been vetted before?”>>

          DAR
          Some people have a standard for “vetting” that rises above having read a claim on the internet. And this is even taking into consideration the solid reputation of a mainstream source like “obamawtf.com”

          BLK: “These are lies that Hussein said…”>>

          DAR
          Okay, care to show this? Didn’t think so. So your unwilling and/or incapable of even trying and Bigd is confident of this junk he won’t commit beyond: “I have not asserted anything.”

          Got it.

          D.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          you expect everyone to be as unnecessarily verbose as you and your free thinkers are?

          SAV
          What’s wrong, Blake? Not such a good reader? Intimidated by big words like freethinker?

        • Blake says:

          Listen to you self- important toadies go on about your “standards”- what a crock- we present you with facts, you dismiss them, but then expect us to listen to your cherry- picked fairy tales?
          Please try to stay with us in reality, please.

        • Blake says:

          Oh- I say free thinker- see the space? it denotes what is between your ears. Should I use more space for you?

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          Listen to you self- important toadies go on about your “standards”- what a crock-

          SAV
          What’s wrong, Blake? You’re jealous because we have standards, or you don’t know what a standard is?

          BLAKE
          we present you with facts,

          SAV
          Not reliably. You get your butt kicked on your balderdash all the time.

          BLAKE
          Please try to stay with us in reality, please.

          SAV
          Blake, I’ve been begging you to do this. Does this mean that you’ll be starting soon? You know, where “Obama” means “Obama” and not “Frank” or “Franks” or “Gramm”?

          BLAKE
          Oh- I say free thinker- see the space?

          SAV
          I do, which makes it obvious that you’re still incapable of both using a dictionary and reading what is posted for you.

          free·think·er
          one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority ; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma

          It seems your mechanism for dealing with what you consider difficult big words like “freethinker” is to split them up. Hey, it works for second graders.
          We’re beginning to get a better idea of Blake’s capacity: fifth grade science level, second grade reading level, first grade problem solving skills… Who’d have thought that his science knowledge could be considered “advanced” compared to other areas?

        • Blake says:

          Ahh, and your technique is to inflate your importance in the free—–thinker process I space those words, because for you they are meaningless, that’s evident- you are so wedded to your ignorant suppositions that you can’t recognize the real world.
          You would have my pity, but you are grown, so you deserve whatever hell life rains down on you for your mistakes in perception. Go on being self important in your world, clap each other on the back in an electronic circle jerk, and think you are all that. We know better.

        • Darrel says:

          If I said Blake is a “car penter,” it would be appropriate for him to correct me. If I continued to call him a “car penter,” wouldn’t it look like *I* had a learning disorder?

          Unless… wait, is it supposed to be funny to put breaks in the middle of words? Is Blake trying to make a funny?

          Is it funny to say Blake is a “Car penter?”

          This is the state of conservative discourse today?

          Some day I hope to find a conservative with the courage and ability to stand up and defend their beliefs forthrightly, with honesty and intelligence.

          D.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          you are so wedded to your ignorant suppositions that you can’t recognize the real world.

          SAV
          You keep up with these claims, but you haven’t shown that they’re true. Quite the contrary, actually.

          BLAKE
          We know better.

          SAV
          No, you certainly don’t. Would you like examples?

        • Savonarola says:

          DAR
          Some day I hope to find a conservative with the courage and ability to stand up and defend their beliefs forthrightly, with honesty and intelligence.

          SAV
          Darrel, when beliefs can be defended forthrightly, with honesty and intelligence, those beliefs usually aren’t neoconservative. Perhaps if modern Republicans realized this, they’d be measurably respectable.

    • Blake says:

      Well, all you atheists- my spell checker goes nuts when I try to put free and thinker together- I’m guessing that it thinks those two words are not supposed to be mashed together as you atheists have put them, but that’s ok- I understand that there is a lot of vernacular and made-up words that will make it into the dictionary soon.
      Keep up hope, (or is “Hope” being too Christian?)

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “my spell checker goes nuts when I try to put free and thinker together>>

        DAR
        My spell checker doesn’t. Lot’s of freethinkers aren’t atheists.

        BLK: “made-up words that will make it into the dictionary”>>

        DAR
        Will make it? Blake should read a little about his nation’s history and get up to speed. This might be a start:

        Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.

        The word “freethinker” would have been in the dictionary back when they invented dictionaries.

        D.
        —————–
        Short version:

        freethinkers
        Related: Philosophy

        “Those who arrive at conclusions, particularly in questions of religion, by employing the rules of reason while rejecting supernatural authority or ecclesiastical tradition. The freethinkers believe that independence of thought from such authority leads all men to essentially identical conclusions concerning morality and religion. The name came into general use in the 18th cent. after the publication (1713) of Anthony Collins’s Discourse of Freethinking Occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect Called Freethinkers. The movement took different forms in different countries. In England it was intimately connected with deism but did not break completely with traditional Christianity. It took a more radical form in France. Voltaire renounced all connection with Christianity, and the Encyclopedists broke with religion altogether. Freethinking also has an important social side and influenced the philosophies of the Freemasons and, in France, the Culte de l’Être Suprême. In the United States the organizations established to further freethinking include the American Rationalist Association, the American Secular Union, and the Freethinkers of America. The International Order for Ethics and Culture, organized at Bern in 1908, is designed to investigate the ethical factors in society without theological or metaphysical bias.”

        Columbia Encyclopedia.

      • Savonarola says:

        BLAKE
        my spell checker goes nuts when I try to put free and thinker together- I’m guessing that it thinks those two words are not supposed to be mashed together…

        SAV
        But we’ve given you multiple definitions to the word freethinker, including links. You’re actually arguing that your browser’s spell-check is more reliable than multiple dictionaries.
        Normally, I’d just suspect someone was being obtuse in an attempt to get our goat (no, not literally, Blake); but with you, I think it’s quite likely that you really don’t understand how stupid your position is.

        But it’s par for the course when Blake is involved. He insists that scientists don’t know how scientists use terminology and then insists that freethinkers don’t know that “freethinkers” is a real word. And in both cases, he pokes fun at the people he‘s wrong about.