NewMediaJournal.us
www.NewMediaJournal.us     Return to Article     Kindle Compatible

JR Dieckmann
How Many Lies Is Enough?
November 25, 2009

"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." -- Barack Obama

When questioned later on being judge, jury and executioner, he clarified,

"What I said was, people will not be offended if that's the outcome. I'm not pre-judging, I'm not going to be in that courtroom, that's the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury. What I'm absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism."

What I said was...? No it wasn't. Both Obama and Holder have been guaranteeing a guilty verdict in this trial since the decision was made to try them in New York. And somehow, this is supposed to convince our enemies how fair our court system is? Or is it intended simply to convince the American people that the New York Five will be convicted - without any real substance to the claim - a propaganda attempt to make us feel comfortable with civilian trials of foreign terrorists in the U.S.?

Obama’s and Holder’s statements have already prejudiced the jury pool and could cause the trial to end in a mistrial. Under the law, the government would then be compelled to release KSM and the other four terrorists on American soil. Their very statements alone assure that a "fair trial" would be impossible.

Holder assures us of "a successful outcome." What does he mean by "a successful outcome?" That there will be a conviction, or simply that the trial will ultimately conclude with a verdict? To most of us, we take it to mean that there will be a conviction. But what does that say to the Muslim world that Obama is trying to impress with his show trial? It doesn’t make any sense, unless you consider the national security intelligence and CIA methods that will be exposed by the trial. Now, if you want to destroy the U.S. national security and intelligence community, this might be a way to do it. What then? No place else to go for defense but to the U.N. and the global government - favored by the Obama.

Every time the Obama is challenged on something he said, he says "As I said before…" or "What I said was…," or "As I’ve said repeatedly…," or "As I’ve consistently said…," and then he says something completely different and contradictory to his previous statements. If he is so adept at remembering what he said before, then why can’t he remember a speech without use of a teleprompter? Most of those speeches are just the same old rhetoric that he has said many times before with the same old lies in every other sentence. "What I said was..." is simply another Obama lie.

"I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession." -- The Obama

I think it more likely that people are losing confidence in this Obama-run government, if they ever had any to begin with. This statement from Obama represents perhaps the most hypocritical things ever heard by the American people. If Obama is so concerned about adding to the debt, then why does he keep doing it?

And to compound the lie, he adds this:

"I intend to take serious steps to reduce America's long-term deficit because debt-driven growth cannot fuel America's long-term prosperity."

Neither can government programs and handouts. Government creates no wealth, it merely spends it. With the spending spree the Obama is ramming through congress and cramming down our throats, the national debt is about to surpass the nation’s GDP. So what happens when your debts become greater than your assets? You end up like GM and Chrysler - bankrupt. The country will be sold to the highest bidder, just as it is now being sold off to Red China.

When the Obama refuses to reduce spending, then says he intends to "take serious steps to reduce America's long-term deficit," there is only one possible conclusion: raise taxes, or borrow more money and apply the budget deficit to the national debt.

When you raise taxes, you kill any economic recovery that may or may not be taking place. Borrowing money from China to pay for the deficit is destroying the nation’s credit with a national debt that is nearly impossible to pay off. Just the interest payments alone are enough to keep us broke for decades to come. And how are we handling those interest payments? Paying them with borrowed money, or just letting them add more to the debt? Our credit is just about maxed out.

According to The Tax Foundation, to offset deficits, "Federal income tax rates would have to be nearly tripled across the income spectrum," with the lowest bracket at 27 percent and the highest at 95%. "Even the CBO estimates that rates would have to exceed 80 percent, and that's before state and local taxes," says the Patriot Post. I assume they mean for generations to come.

But Obama isn’t concerned with that, in fact, it’s exactly what he wants. Break the bank and redistribute the wealth to those who no longer have any income after the economy has collapsed and the country finds itself in a deep depression - taking much of the free world down with it. That is the Cloward-Piven strategy for the destruction of capitalism and the free market:

"The Cloward-Piven strategy - first proposed in 1966 - seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse."

This is intended to result in what the left calls a Marxist utopia and is the goal of George Soros, ACORN & affiliates, and others associated with the Obama.

How can any reasonable person believe that wealth can be created from government handouts? What happens when the handouts run out and no wealth has been created by a company? Obviously it cannot remain in business as the overhead exceeds the revenue. Wealth can only be created by entrepreneurship and passed down to employees.

But perhaps the most obscene lie is the concept of "trickle up prosperity." You take money from the job creators and give it to the poor, who then go out and spend it to generate business for the job creators. Then you just take it away again and give it back to the poor. Where is the wealth creation? This is not wealth creation, it is socialist redistribution of wealth.

The Obama learned it well from the radicals and Marxist professors he sought out during his college years. So have the people he now employs in the White House staff.

The Obama is a chronic liar. He lies nearly every time he opens his mouth in front of a camera. I have only discussed just a few from the past week in this article. He also tells us that he is trying to save the economy while in reality, he is trying his best to destroy it by stealth before he can be removed from office, and he continues to blame it all on George Bush - who does share some of the blame - perhaps 10% of it. Remember when our presidents were honorable men?

Did I say "removed from office?" On what grounds? Maybe violating his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, abusing the office of president and the taxpayers, treason against the American people, ignoring his duties while running around doing photo ops and speeches, betraying our troops fighting overseas, usurping powers from the legislative branch while expanding executive powers beyond constitutional limits, interfering with the courts, just for starters?