Does news about the Obamacare fraud affect your perception of the birthers?

“Reputation, reputation, reputation! Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, my reputation!” — Shakespeare, Othello

Those of us paying attention have long known that Obama lies . . . and lies . . . and lies.  Up until recently, his known lies fell into the area of ex post facto cover-ups:  “I didn’t know my minister and mentor was a raving anti-American, antisemitic loon.”  “I didn’t know we were sending guns illegally into Mexico.”  “I didn’t know that anything untoward was occurring in Benghazi.”  “I didn’t know that the IRS had appointed itself the partisan police arm of a permanent Democrat party federal government and was harassing and silencing political opposition.”  “I didn’t know that my government was spying on everyone, whether within or outside of the United States.”  Obama told more of these lies than any other president in American history, but the lies were a known quantity, along the lines of Nixon’s and Clinton’s CYA lies.

But there’s a different class of lie, and one that people find less forgivable than those lies reflecting the all-too-human impulse to avoid censure or punishment.  These are lies knowingly told in order to get people to change their position, to their detriment, and to the liar’s benefit.  The legal word for this kind of lie is “fraud.”  These lies aren’t after-the-fact cover-ups.  They are manipulative scams intended to force people to do things they would never do were they in possession of the actual facts.

Obamacare now stands as the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and Obama is at the center of this fraud.  For those still murmuring “Bush lied, people died” — sorry, folks, but this is different.  Yes, Bush definitely wanted to go to war, but he was relying on the best data available, which was that Hussein had WMDs.  Other world leaders had the same data — they just didn’t want to go to war.

In the case of Obamacare, though, the data was irrefutably in the opposite direction of the lies told.  Contrary to Obama’s statements that happy people could keep their policies, doctors, and hospitals, all while paying less, everything he said was a deliberate lie intended to trick the American people into buying into a program that would not — and could not — perform was promised.

With this in mind, I’d like to know if you now have a different opinion of those people who believe that Obama lied about his birth certificate.  Are you more likely to believe them now than you were before learning about the Obamacare fraud (as opposed to the hundreds of previous Obama lies)?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Robert Arvanitis

    I believe (preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable etc.):
    1. Obama is glib enough to have slid through leftist society all his life, and has no other perspective. Note he was only briefly out in the cold of the private market and found it not to his liking.  HE quickly scuttled back to the warm embrace of academia.
    2. Obama is no scholar – Attacking insurers, early on he complained his “junker” car was wrecked and he got no payment. He does not understand the difference between first- and third-party auto insurance.  There is no way he grasps the Constitution
    3. He hid his grades and even attendance records out of embarrassment.
    4. He likely is a citizen, BUT he passed himself off as a foreign student to game admissions, gain fraudulent scholarships, and unmerited employment. It was too dangerous to admit this, running for president, despite the fact Elizabeth Warren got away with the exact same thing vying for the Senate.
    5.He in no way had the ability to outline, much less craft, the compound, complex fraud of Obamacare.
    6. In short, he is a deliberately manufactured “Chauncy Gardner,” for malevolent ends.

  • raymondjelli

    Even worse is the bizarre world view from his grandfather and mother that built his worldview and consists of lying to one’s self. Obama’s mother was named Stanley because grandfather felt cheated he didn’t get a son. What kind of person does this? What person saddles their own daughter with that kind of weird burden? Certainly it is a sense of entitlement but a twisted sick one.
    Reverend Wright is more than a lie. It is a lie of identity. Wright was associated with Farrakhan. There are plenty of “churches” where Nation of Islam are “invited” and “lecture on issues common to both Christians and Islam”. America’s chickens are coming home to roost is a phrase by Malcolm X. Using churches as fronts for Islamic thought is recognized in Islam as legitimate. Given Obama’s Islamic background he lived happily in a lie.
    All leftism is a lie. When reality catches up to non-Leftists and they don’t live up to professed ideas its hypocrisy and deservedly so. When reality catches up to leftists its simply policy and someone else is to blame for the failure. It is why leftism and psychopaths go together.

  • Charles Martel

    One interesting thing about Wright is that he is a convert from Islam. He is a master practitioner of taqiyyah, the Allah-sanctioned Muslim tactic of deliberately lying to non-Muslims in order to secure an advantage. The man is no more a Christian than is my dog’s arse. 
    Robert, I think your “manufactured Chauncy Gardner” description is spot on.

  • jj

    Doesn’t affect my opinion of the birthers at all.  Whether he’s a reflexive liar or not, I have not at any time ever believed he was a citizen – and in fact doubt if he’s a citizen to this day.  When he was born in 1961 the rule was that in the case of anyone born to a non-US citizen (his father was a Kenyan) and an American citizen, the only way the offspring was a native American was if the American half of the equation had been one, and also had lived in the US as a citizen for 5 years past the age of 16.  His father was Kenyan, his mother was 18 when he was born.  18 is not 5 years past 16.  The only way he could be a citizen at all – and it wouldn’t be a ‘natural-born’ or ‘native’ one, would be through the naturalization process.  You know his mother, being a teenager and an idiot at best, never had him naturalized, and would never in 17 million years know he needed to be – it simply never would have occurred to her.  So I would bet a substantial sum that to this day he is not an American citizen.
    The citizenship rules for people born in 1961 used to be readily available at but, oddly enough, they’ve been removed from the simple and obvious inquiry.  (Findlaw has changed their format in the last couple of years – what a coincidence!)  I haven’t bothered to track it down since, though I did once include a link here at the Room a few years back.  It would be interesting to see where the link leads, these days.  But, though they have made it harder to find – and not just as findlaw – the law in effect at the time of his birth specifically disqualifies him from serving as president.  And I have to aim some kudos (small ones, they had the help of the entire ABA) to his cronies for shifting the argument to the birth certificate, and away from where the real problem lay: in his parentage and the law as it was in 1961.

  • Robert Arvanitis

    With apologies to Book for diverting the thread — Your dog’s arse is undoubtedly better than most who profess ANY religion.





    /* Style Definitions */
    {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
    mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
    mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
    mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;

  • Ymarsakar

    Bush never needed to convince anyone about WMDs. He chose to do so, but could have gone to war anyways. Just like Obama bombed the hell out of Libya and sold weapons to AQ, on his administration’s decision. There was no need for a vote or public approval.

  • lee

    A few random thoughts:
    On the Stanley naming thing: My aunt read that she was probably named after the female character, Stanley, in the Ellen Glasgow novel, “In This Our Life,” made into a movie in the 1940’s with Betty Davis in the role of Stanley. Which is even WEIRDER!
    I have NOT read the book, but the movie is a strange thing touching on race. Stanley is the bad daughter. I do not know how the book handled the Stanley character, but she is pretty craven in the movie. The movie was released in May, 1942, Stanley Ann was born that November. (the book won a Pulitzer in 1941.)
    On lies: In the pomo world, there are no lies. The truth is relative. So, the Won isn’t lying per se, he is just telling the relative truth. Elizabeth Warren didn’t LIE, she told the relative truth. We owe a lot (of animosity) to Lacan, and his ilk, for giving foisting up the unsuspecting public the swill that is postmodernism. Thanks to him and his cronies, we now have “gender identity” bulls##t–there is no male or female, pers se, male and female are social constructs… And, joy of joys, pomo gives us moral relativism–there is no right or wrong–it’s relative! It was a kind of fun mental excercise when I was in grad school, but at some point, I felt like the kid in “The Emporer’s New Clothes”–I KNEW it was BULLS##T. Except, unlike the kid, I just left Dodge; the kid was braver than me…
    We are so SCREWED!
    On the birthers: One of the theories behind the birth certificate is that once upon a time, birth certificates in some states were destroyed and reissued when a child was adopted. I recall reading that Sotearo adopted Barry. That was a little inconvenient for the Won, and his “relative truth” about his life. So… And riddle me this, Batman–why is someone allowed to run for office without having to prove he is eligible to run for that office? Because that is what the Won did.
    How did we get this person in the White House? How!?

  • LSBeene

    Robert Arvanitis
    Wow – it’s like you read my mind.
    1.       Not only him, but his wife did not like the private sector.  Obama quickly found out that WORK was effort and that he was much more suited to massaging the masses with oratory and playing the racial grievance card. 
    His wife was just as bad.  Anyone who understand how “lawyering” works knows that the first year you may not even have passed the bar – and you are not actually in any meaningful way a lawyer.  By Mich Obama’s first year she was making the comment to her SR Assoc / Partner (not sure to whom) that “Gee, sure are a lot of white males on the partner list”.  Insinuating that maybe they needed to fast track a woman of color (and she could think of one).  NO ONE says that in their first year.
     By year 3 is when you start to make the firm money.  In year 3 she was given a golden hand shake and left to become “special assistant”  to Mayor Daley.  She got patronage job after patronage job after that – including one where she helped a major hospital get less poor folk to go there, and to get them to go to clinics.  So much for helping the poor people of color get healthcare.
    2.       Obama is NOT a scholar.  Robert Arvanitis already covered this.
    3.       Yep – hid his grades – and how the hell did he get into Harvard!?  President of the Law Review and never wrote **ONE** opinion!?  That’s all those dudes do.  Show off their talent by commenting on the law.  Anyone think someone like Obama, who loves acclaim, kept silent out of not wanting others to say “wow, you’re brilliant” or rather he knew he was out-freaking-classed.
    4.       I am certain – with no proof, to be fair – Obama got in and got financial aid by claiming to be a foreign born student.
    5.       Obamacare we cobbled together from a bunch of advocacy groups, special interests, and utopian liberal fantasies.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I generally take the attitude that I will take someone at face value until they give me cause not to. Obama has given everyone plenty of cause to doubt him by hiding details of his birth certificate, openly promoting himself as a Kenyan student at the university, hiding his grades, etc. etc.
    So, given those facts, I never had reason to either believe or doubt the birthers. Instead, the reasoning that I shared with people who attacked the birthers in conversation was that it wasn’t the birthers that were the problem, but rather that Obama had given us so many reasons to doubt him and to reinforce the credibility of the birthers’ points of view.

  • Ymarsakar

    My position hasn’t changed concerning the subject. I always thought that allowing individuals to go their own way and challenge Obama in the way they saw most fitting, was the best strategy to come up with the best individual tactics. Most people preferred to focus on the tactic itself, criticizing it. These people fall into the mistake of thinking tactics is all important in war, like many armchair generals.