The administration’s puppets engage in Obama’s familiar pattern of lies when trying to avoid the smoking gun Benghazi email

Bloody fingerprints in BenghaziThis post is about the administration’s new tactic to get out from under the painful weight of the Ben Rhodes Benghazi email which establishes pretty definitively that the administration immediately began a cover-up after Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone S. Woods were murdered. But before I get to the administration’s new tactic, let me quote at some length from a May 2008 post I wrote about Obama’s unique approach to lies, which I think of as the “affirmative defense style of lying.”

Obama is also a fairly compulsive liar, something that highlights myriad other problems. That is, whenever he’s caught in a problematic situation (ah, those friends of his), rather than making a clean breast of it, or a good defense, he instead engages in a perfect storm of ever-spiraling affirmative defenses, with the common denominator always being that it’s everyone’s fault but Obamas.

For those who are not lawyers, let me explain what affirmative defenses are. A complaint contains allegations that the defendant committed myriad acts of wrongdoing. In response, the defendant does two things. First, he denies everything except his own name, and he’d deny that too, if he could. Next, he issues affirmative defenses, which concede the truth of the accusations, but deny that they have any legal or practical meaning.

As an example of how this plays out, imagine a complaint alleging that I smashed my car into a fence, destroying it. I’d start by saying, “No, I didn’t.” Then I’d begin the affirmative defenses: (1) “Okay, I did bring my car into contact with the fence, but I didn’t actually hurt the fence.” (2) “Okay, I hurt the fence, but I didn’t hurt it badly enough to entitle its owner to any damages.” (3) “Okay, I destroyed the fence, but it was falling down already, so it’s really the owner’s fault, so he gets no damages.” And on and on, in a reductio ad absurdum stream of admissions and excuses.

These affirmative defense patterns have shown up with respect to some of Obama’s nastiest little pieces of personal history. When Jeremiah Wright’s sermons first surfaced, Obama denied knowing anything about them. When that denial failed, he claimed that he only had one or two exposures to this deranged level of hatred, so he didn’t make much of it. When that denial failed, he conceded that he’d heard this stuff often over the years, but wasn’t concerned about it, because he knew his pastor was a good man. (Which makes Obama either complicit in the statements or a fool.) Indeed, he even made a much-heralded speech about what a good man his pastor is. He then promised that he’d never abandon his beloved pastor. But when his pastor became dead weight, Obama dropped him so hard you could hear the thud.

The same pattern appeared when word got out about Obama’s connection with two self-admitted, unrepentant, America-hating terrorists. (That would be William Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, for anyone out of the loop here.) When caught, Obama again engaged in a perfect storm of affirmative defenses. (1) I don’t know them. [A lie.] (2) Okay, I know them, but not well. [A lie.] (3) Okay, I know them well, but we’re just good friends, not political fellow travelers. [A lie.] (4) Okay, we’re more than just good friends, because we served on a Leftist board and I sought political advice from him. And on and on. With every lie, Obama concedes, and then comes forward with a new lie.

The same pattern emerges with Rezko, with Obama freely ranging from “I didn’t know him,” to “I never took favors from him,” to “I didn’t take big favors from him,” to “I took a big favor from him, but I didn’t know it was a big favor.” It just goes ad nauseum, as if Obama is a machine, programmed to spew forth this endless flow of denial and concession. The guy is pathological in his inability to admit wrongdoing and his ability to prevaricate.

[snip]

The question then becomes whether American voters will be happy with the constant barrage of Obama lies, and will be willing to travel Obama’s incremental pathways to unpleasant truths, or if they’re at last going to rebel and say “Who and what are you?” And if they finally get the truth, and it’s pretty sure to be ugly will it matter?

I’d like to think that the truth will matter, just as I’d like to think that, for many Americans, the mere fact that he lied so compulsively will matter too. After all, that is one of the reasons they’ve grown to hate Hillary. My dream is that, no matter how perfectly polished and highly functional the Obama political machine is, the fact that Obama is still the core of that machine will be, in and of itself, an insurmountable problem for him.

In sum, Obama tells a whopper of a lie, and then backs off of it incrementally, always preserving some little space of credibility where his lie really doesn’t, or shouldn’t, matter.

With that in mind, please enjoy Ace’s summary about the way in which the White House’s Pravda-MSM press is trying to spin that smoking gun Benghazi email today:

We saw this script change in the case of Bill Clinton, after the revelation of the Blue Dress.

We saw this script change much more recently in the case of Obama’s “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance lie,” when the script flipped from “You’re stupid and crazy to doubt Obama” to “Of course you can’t keep your insurance, that’s at the heart of the program’s cost-control measures; you’re stupid and crazy to have not realized this sooner!”

And now reliably thoughtless yabbering baboon Donnie Deutsch executes the pivot on Benghazi.

“What about the cover-up for the White House?” Scarborough interjected. “I’ve got everybody here apologizing for the White House. What about a cover-up, Donnie?”
“Why are you jumping to political strategy?” he continued. “So, tell me, what’s the politics of the White House lying about something that we all know they’re lying about?”

“You see the White House spokesperson lying on national television. You see an ABC Newsperson shocked that he’s lying and treating the press corps like they’re stupid. He says it’s not about Benghazi. Republicans and conservatives have been called fools for a year now for saying this happened. They don’t release it with the original the documents. They finally, reluctantly are forced to release it. Then you have the White House lying about it, saying it’s not about Benghazi, and you’re only reaction is, ‘Hey, Republicans better not overreact to the cover-up?’”

“We, as voters, understand both Republicans and Democrats are political animals and are going to manage a crisis to their favor,” Deutsch contested before he was interrupted.

“So, when Democrats cover something up, it’s politics,” Scarborough interjected. “When Republicans cover something up, it’s a scandal.” He closed by calling his co-hosts reaction to the White House’s behavior a “disgrace.”

So Scarborough says “we all know they’re lying,” and Deutsch finally — finally — does not dispute that, but instead chooses to recharacterize the acts of serial lying and cover-up as just some understandable political-animal crisis management.

For eighteen months the line from Obama — and therefore the line from the White House’s communications shops at ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN — has been that Obama was not a “political animal,” and certainly not on a matter of national security.

Now that the Blue Dress Proof of the emails are released, the defense changes to “Of course, this is all obvious, how stupid are you are for dwelling on obvious things.”

Read the rest here.

Please remember:  Malignant narcissists never lie.  Whatever they need to say at a given moment is the truth at that given moment.

Please remember also that a greater is probably never in greater danger than when both the government and the media are either narcissistic or have embraced narcissistic tactics as standard operating procedure.

So, for many reasons — to avenge our dead, to strengthen our national security, and to purge our government of sociopaths — in answer to Hillary’s timeless question about what difference this all makes, let me just say that it makes a Hell of a lot of difference.

Obama and the attempted slow murder of Israel

Pinocchio

I agree with every word in David Solway’s article about Obama’s continued efforts to destroy Israel.  The one word I disagree with occurs in this paragraph:

The speech [that Obama gave in Sderot in 2008, promising his support for Israel's right to exist and defend herself] was a stirring one for those who had not tracked Obama’s less-than-stellar record to that date, who had not examined his chequered past and problematic mentors and acquaintances, and who wanted desperately to believe in the empty mantra of “hope and change.” As I watched the YouTube* clip of Obama’s address and listened to those familiar sinusoidal cadences, I knew instantly that the man did not mean a word he said, a conclusion that anyone who had done his homework would have reached. Regrettably, it has taken much of the world five more years to realize that Obama is a trained prevaricator of the first water, whether the issue is government transparency, receding oceans, competitive bidding, citizen surveillance, deficit cutting, the closing of Gitmo, unilateral military action, Fast and Furious, Obamacare, and, in the realm of foreign policy, Iran and Israel. Obama’s evasions and hollow assurances on this latter file demonstrably imperil the future of the Middle East and, quite possibly, the safety of the planet. It certainly spells imminent danger for Israel.

The word with which I disagree is the word Solway was kind enough to hyperlink:  “prevaricator.”  While it’s true that “prevaricator” is a word for a liar, it’s mostly understood to mean, “a person who speaks so as to avoid the precise truth; quibbler; equivocator.”  That’s how I read it:  That Obama is a trained quibbler who doesn’t lie outright, but speaks around the truth.

To the extent that the word “prevaricate” implies only a soft lie, I strenuously disagree.  Obama is an out-and-out liar, a man who’s very being has no relationship with the truth.  If he can lie, he will lie, and that’s true whether or not the lie serves a purpose (such as defrauding the American people) or is simply a lie for lying’s sake (such as lying about staying with his illegal alien uncle).

Obama is the living embodiment of Mary McCarthy’s scathing indictment of another communist, Lillian Hellman:  “Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the.”

The existential despair that comes from living in Obama’s America *UPDATED*

I went to bed depressed and waking up to these Drudge Report headlines reminded me why:

Obamaworld in a Matt Drudge nutshell

The whole Iran-Munich moment has left me believing that Obama is much smarter than we realized.  Even as he was lying to Israel about (a) having her back and (b) not negotiating with Iran, he created a box from which it’s almost impossible for Israel to escape.  There are only bad choices says Yossi Klein Halevi:

Israel’s window of opportunity to launch an effective strike is closing. It is now measured in months, not years. The deal, worry Israelis, could further narrow that window.

Israelis note that the deal doesn’t cover inspections of Iran’s nuclear weaponization program, including fuses, timers and metallurgy, which will no doubt continue apace. And Israel takes for granted that the Iranians will persist in doing what they’ve done all along: lie and cheat, but this time under the cover of a deal. In every previous rounds of negotiations, after all, the Iranians continued building secret facilities. All of which could mean further reducing Israel’s timetable for a strike.

If Israel concludes that its window is closing and does decide to strike, even while the deal remains in effect, it risks becoming an international pariah—in effect exchanging roles with Iran. On the morning after an Israeli strike, Israel could find itself alone, facing tens of thousands of missiles from Hezbollah and Iran launched against its home front.

[snip]

During the first Obama administration, the urgent Israeli question was: Is he is a friend of the Jewish state? That question was largely resolved for many Israelis during the President’s visit to Israel last March, when he won over much of the public by affirming the Jewish roots in the land of Israel and the indigenousness of Israel in the Middle East, as well as Israel’s past efforts to make peace.

Now, though, Israelis are asking this: After eight years of President Obama, will the Middle East be a safer or more dangerous region for Israel?

For most Israelis the answer is self-evident. The turning point came this summer, when Obama hesitated to enforce his own red line over Syria. That was the moment that he lost the trust of the Israeli public on Iran.

This is chess on a malevolent scale.  It was also probably a planned move.  Never forget that the Los Angeles Times has hidden in its vaults a videotape of Obama speaking at a radical pro-Palestinian gathering.  The fact that the LA Times refuses to release the video has long led people to assume that Obama says something along the lines of “I’ll take care of Israel for you.”

We at this blog knew that Obama was never a friend to Israel, and was always doing whatever he could to curry favor with Islamist regimes. (Witness his love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood.)  It turns out that this wasn’t just a feeling, but was a goal to which he committed himself, even though it required the use of fraud and chicanery.  (And let’s not forget the quite obviously faked “long form” birth certificate, which almost certainly hides the fact that the father about whom Obama dreamed in Bill Ayer’s best-selling Obama autobiography probably wasn’t his real father.)

Indeed, Obama’s presidency is proving to have been built entirely on fraud.  Not just lies, which are often merely self-exculpatory or self-aggrandizing, but on fraud, which is the deliberate use of lies and information withholding in order to get people to change their position to their detriment and to your benefit.  He told Americans and Israelis lies, knowing that they were lies, for the specific purpose of getting both America and Israel to change their position to their detriment and to Obama’s benefit.

In the case of Obamacare, the (knowing and known) lies were that (a) you could keep your plan; (b) you could keep your doctor; and (c) average insurance costs would drop $2,500 per year for a family.  He told these lies to strip Americans of their insurance and pave the way for socialized medicine.

In the case of Israel, he repeatedly told Israel that (a) he would never abandon her and (b) he would work to end Iran’s nuclear aspirations.  These lies meant that Israel did not strike against Iran when the striking was relatively easy (as was the case in the strike against the Syrian nuclear facility).  Now, as Halevi showed, even if Israel successfully strikes Iran, Hezbollah is on her border with thousands of missiles aimed at her.  Moreover, having now struck this deal with Iran, Obama won’t have America’s back if she strikes; he’ll join the chorus of disapproval isolating Israel.

In the past, when Israel had her back against the wall, she came out swinging.  Thanks to Obama’s fraud, her hands may well be tied.

Do you remember the headline horror of 9/11?  I do.  Since we were on the West Coast, we woke up in time to turn on the television and see the towers fall.   I don’t need to find words to tell you what that felt like because you were there and you remember.  You felt it too — that sense of watching a train race towards a giant canyon, where the bridge is out, and there is nothing you can do to stop the inevitable carnage.  Every day, I wake up now, grab my iPad, and, driven by a fierce compulsion, open it, expecting that Obamaworld will show me headlines fully equal to the despair and horror of 9/11.

UPDATE:  The wonderful image that Matt Drudge used this morning comes from Jon Gabriel.

The unending depth of Obama’s lies

In my post about Obama’s lies, I noted that he lies endlessly, always adducing new ones to account for old ones.  Neo-neocon noted this habit and has a wonderful anecdote that provides the perfect metaphor for Obama’s lies.  Maybe someone will write a book about the healthcare fraud called “On the backs of turtles.”

And since we’re talking turtles (you’ll understand after you follow the neo-neocon link), the next logical step is Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories, my personal favorite of the Dr. Seuss books. As you may recall, Yertle wanted to be king of all he could see, so he stacked his fellow turtles up high in order to expand his view. That tall stack eventually failed, leaving Yertle buried deep in his pond’s mud.  The book could be seen as a fun metaphor for Obama’s desire to control American healthcare.

Of course Obama believes his own lies — he’s a narcissist

A lot of people are very surprised that Chuck Todd, after interviewing Obama, concluded that the President genuinely seems to believe his own lies:

You know, he does not believe he lied on this, and that’s the sense I get. I mean, I think that that’s, he’s taken issue with that before with folks off the record, and I got it’s a sensitive issue, felt like he did not sit there and say he intentionally lied. He said that he wanted to, he thought he was going to be able to keep this promise. I thought what was revealing in that answer, when I asked him that direct question about this, was this a political lie that you started to believe it, was he talked about well, you know, it turns out we had trouble in crafting the law.

John Nolte adds that, if this is the case, “that borders on pathological.”

Nolte is too kind.  It doesn’t “border” on pathological, it is pathological.  Pardon me if I quote myself:

More than five years ago, when Barack Obama threw his hat into the political ring, I realized that he was a malignant narcissist who lied compulsively.  For Obama, truth was then and is now defined by the needs of the moment.  If it will benefit him at that moment to say something at variance with facts as other people know them, he is telling the truth because his political needs are the ultimate yardstick by which all truth must be measured.

Narcissists believe in absolute truth.  Unlike others who believe in certain moral absolutes, though, the narcissist’s truth is not measured by God or philosophy or scientific rationality.  Instead, each narcissist is his own God head; he is the science and the proof; and his philosophy is made up by squaring the circle of his own little navel.

So of course Obama doesn’t believe he lied.  His acolytes (such as the New York Times) willingly buy into his doctrine.  That doesn’t mean, though, that the rest of us should worship so manifestly false a God.

Obama’s lies: spin followed by a non-apology apology

Democrat spinmeister Lanny Davis appeared yesterday on Fox & Friends to be telling Obama to ‘fess up about his early statements regarding Obamacare, and Obama seems to have tried to do so.  At least, that’s the spin.  But let’s see what really happened.

First, a little history.  Between 2009 and the summer of 2013, Obama said a bazillion times some variation of “If you like your plan/doctor/hospital, you can keep your plan/doctor/hospital.”  He said this knowing that it was not economically possible for this to be true, and he continued to say it after 2010 even though he knew that his own people were drafting regulations written so that insurance companies issuing both individual and employer group plans would be forced to cancel those plans.  In other words, Obama repeatedly said “X” to the American people to keep them in line when all along he knew that the truth was “not X.”

With that in mind, listen to the way in which Lanny Davis tells Obama to “come clean” with the American people:

President Barack Obama needs to heed “crisis management rule 101″ and acknowledge that he “messed up” in saying people could keep private health insurance they like under Obamacare, Lanny Davis, who served as special counsel to former President Bill Clinton, said Thursday.

“President Obama, and all Democrats, should say, ‘We support this act . . . We messed up in explaining it,”

“It wasn’t explained well. Now, we just have to acknowledge that — which is crisis management rule 101 — and fix it,” he added.

Did you get that?  Obama “messed up” and did “explain[] well.”

Let me explain what it means to mess up by not explaining well.  We’ll use the “Orange Crush Interchange” which is ranked as the most complicated interchange in the world, for our example.

Orangecrush

Let’s imagine that I have a friend who’s heading southeast on I-5, and I’m trying to get them to my house in Orange.  If I “mess up” by not “explaining well,” I might say to my friend, “When you get near the Santa Ana River, make a left turn.”  That’s a gross oversimplification that doesn’t explain things well, but I’m still kind of describing what goes on.

But if I say to my friend.  “Oh, it’s an easy northbound trip through green pastures on a quiet two lane road,” that’s an out-and-out lie, because it doesn’t simplify the reality, it denies it.

Obama didn’t mess up, or fail to explain well.  He committed an act of fraud against the American people in order to sell them a bill of goods.

As for Obama’s apology, let me say a word about apologies.  I know someone who has never once, in all the time I’ve known him, issued a real apology.  Instead, if one stands in front of him and demands that he apologize for something truly egregious that he did, for which he was solely responsible, and which really harmed someone, his apology will invariably be something along these lines:  “I’m sorry you’re upset.”  The notion of accepting responsibility and expressing remorse is utterly alien to him.  He couldn’t even read the words of a TelePrompter.  They’d choke him first.

And now for Obama’s “apology”:

CHUCK TODD: Thanks to you. I’ll start with health care. It’s probably the most quoted thing or requoted thing you have said in your presidency, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” You said it a lot during the run up. At this point, though, it’s obviously something– a promise that has not been able to be kept. Just today, the Denver Post — 250,000 people in Colorado are seeing health insurance policies cancelled. Some of those people liked those policies. And they can’t keep them. What happened?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well– first of all, I meant what I said. And we worked hard to try to make sure that we implemented it properly. But obviously, we didn’t do enough– a good enough job– and I regret that. We’re talking about 5% of the population– who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own.

A lot of these plans are subpar plans. And we put in a clause in the law that said if you had one of those plans, even if it was subpar– when the law was passed, you could keep it. But there’s enough churn in the market that folks since then have bought subpar plans. And now that may be all they can afford. So even though it only affects a small amount of the population, you know, it means a lot to them, obviously, when they get– this letter cancelled.

Is there a word of responsibility, remorse, or repentance in there?  No!

First, Obama doubles down on his lie.  “I meant what I said.”  And then Obama basically says “I’m sorry you’re upset, but the fact is that you’re upset because you’re too stupid to realize that my lie was for your own good.  The real problem from my point of view is the “small amount” of people (currently 15 million Americans, and heading up to 92 million Americans) who had policies that I determined just weren’t good enough even for morons and these same morons are now foolish enough to demand that I apologize.”

I think Obama’s effort falls into the “non-apology apology” category, except without any apology part.  I didn’t hear the word sorry, I didn’t hear responsibility, I didn’t hear remorse, and I didn’t hear repentance.  Mostly, what I heard was a big “screw you” for challenging his manifest lies.

Still, in Obama’s defense, the information about his lies, about his pattern of lying, about his fraud, about his economic ignorance, about his narcissist arrogance — all of it was out there for the American people in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.  And they still voted for him.  They get the government they deserve, and we, like Roland at Roncesvalles, get the glory of having been killed trying to fight a valiant rearguard action — with the only problem being the fact that there’s no one left to finish the battle on our behalf.

P.S.  Ace also looks at Obama’s non-apology and, as always, it’s better than anything I can write.

Wednesday stuff, for want of a better word

My day is not proceeding as planned.  Grumble, grumble, grumble.

But I still found some good stuff out there:

For all the criticism aimed at him for daring to defend his nation from nuclear annihilation, Netanyahu successfully shifted the paradigm — not far enough, but it’s movement in the right direction.

Apparently 25 years or so is all it takes for New Yorkers to forget the horrors of Progressive government.  I know this is unfair to the small, smart minority that didn’t vote for de Blasio, but I hope that New York goes to hell in a hand basket very quickly (kind of the way Hollande’s France or Mugabe’s Zimbabwe did).  That seems to be the only way in which people invested in liberalism learn lessons.  (And sadly, sometimes, even the worst that can happen isn’t bad enough.)

Here are Seven devastating facts about Obamacare that you should memorize and politely slip into conversation whenever you find yourself trapped in conversation with those who still believe it’s a winner.

Jonah Goldberg suggests that the Republicans might want to be there for Tea Partiers because, ultimately, Tea Partiers are there for the Republicans.

And two from Keith Koffler.  The first is about Obama’s fraudulent conduct with regard to his “changing” views on gay marriage, and the second is about his administration’s fraudulent conduct regarding Obamacare.

I think it’s important that we stop using the word “lie.”  In the context of politics, we tend to think of a “lie” as an after-the-fact cover-up (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”). What Obama has done, repeatedly, is to commit fraud.  Fraud is a very specific legal animal.  Here’s as good a definition as any, culled from a fairly recent California case:  “The tort of deceit or fraud requires: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 938 P.2d 903, internal quotation marks omitted.)  Fraud is not a lie.  It’s much worse than a lie because you’re not just protecting yourself; you’re deliberating setting out to make others rely on you to their detriment.

And of course, Sebelius seems charmingly insouciant about the fact that your private information could end up in the hands of felons that Obama’s government has hired to collect that private information:

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)?

Having been caught engaged in out-and-out fraud, Obama engages in a familiar pattern to cover up his lies *UPDATED*

More than five years ago, when Barack Obama threw his hat into the political ring, I realized that he was a malignant narcissist who lied compulsively.  For Obama, truth was then and is now defined by the needs of the moment.  If it will benefit him at that moment to say something at variance with facts as other people know them, he is telling the truth because his political needs are the ultimate yardstick by which all truth must be measured.  This pathological outlook means that, when Obama is caught in what ordinary people would characterize an out-and-out lie, he engages in a cascading cover-up of lies, all dictated, not by objective facts, but by his needs at the moment.

Barack Obama has been "gaslighting" the American people

Barack Obama has been “gaslighting” the American people

Think of it this way:  We’re all living out the movie Gaslight, with Obama as the dangerously manipulative, dishonest Charles Boyer character, and the American public as the hapless, helpless Ingrid Bergman character, whom Boyer is trying to drive mad so that he can take her wealth. (Which raises the question whether Ted Cruz is the Joseph Cotten character who rides to the rescue….)

Even thought I’m right about something depressing, I’m human enough to take some pleasure in having been right in the first place.  So, forgive me for analyzing Obama’s latest lies, and his lie about those lies, using a post I wrote five-and-a-half years ago, when I first realized he was using the narcissist’s classic approach to lying and manipulation.

Here’s Obama’s original series of lies about Obamacare, all of which he repeated ad nauseum:

Just yesterday, Obama’s presented his latest version of the “truth” (by which I mean a “truth” direct from Obama’s mouth, rather than through his official spokespeople or media proxies):

And here’s what I wrote back in May 2008 about candidate Obama, when his disturbing pattern of lying — and then lying about his lies — was becoming apparent:

Obama is also a fairly compulsive liar, something that highlights myriad other problems.  That is, whenvever he’s caught in a problematic situation (ah, those friends of his), rather than making a clean breast of it, or a good defense, he instead engages in a perfect storm of ever-spiraling affirmative defenses, with the common denominator always being that it’s everyone’s fault but Obamas.

For those who are not lawyers, let me explain what affirmative defenses are.  A complaint contains allegations that the defendant committed myriad acts of wrongdoing.  In response, the defendant does two things.  First, he denies everything except his own name, and he’d deny that too, if he could.  Next, he issues affirmative defenses, which concede the truth of the accusations, but deny that they have any legal or practical meaning.

As an example of how this plays out, imagine a complaint alleging that I smashed my car into a fence, destroying it.  I’d start by saying, “No, I didn’t.”  Then I’d begin the affirmative defenses:  (1) “Okay, I did bring my car into contact with the fence, but I didn’t actually hurt the fence.”  (2) “Okay, I hurt the fence, but I didn’t hurt it badly enough to entitle its owner to any damages.”  (3) “Okay, I destroyed the fence, but it was falling down already, so it’s really the owner’s fault, so he gets no damages.”  And on and on, in a reductio ad absurdum stream of admissions and excuses.

These affirmative defense patterns have shown up with respect to some of Obama’s nastiest little pieces of personal history.  When Jeremiah Wright’s sermons first surfaced, Obama denied knowing anything about them.  When that denial failed, he claimed that he only had one or two exposures to this deranged level of hatred, so he didn’t make much of it.  When that denial failed, he conceded that he’d heard this stuff often over the years, but wasn’t concerned about it, because he knew his pastor was a good man.  (Which makes Obama either complicit in the statements or a fool.)  Indeed, he even made a much-heralded speech about what a good man his pastor is.  He then promised that he’d never abandon his beloved pastor.  But when his pastor became dead weight, Obama dropped him so hard you could hear the thud.

The same pattern appeared when word got out about Obama’s connection with two self-admitted, unrepentant, America-hating terrorists.  (That would be William Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, for anyone out of the loop here.)  When caught, Obama again engaged in a perfect storm of affirmative defenses.  (1)  I don’t know them.  [A lie.]  (2) Okay, I know them, but not well.  [A lie.]  (3)  Okay, I know them well, but we’re just good friends, not political fellow travelers.  [A lie.]  (4) Okay, we’re more than just good friends, because we served on a Leftist board and I sought political advice from him.  And on and on.  With every lie, Obama concedes, and then comes forward with a new lie.

The same pattern emerges with Rezko, with Obama freely ranging from “I didn’t know him,” to “I never took favors from him,” to “I didn’t take big favors from him,” to “I took a big favor from him, but I didn’t know it was a big favor.”  It just goes ad nauseum, as if Obama is a machine, programmed to spew forth this endless flow of denial and concession.  The guy is pathological in his inability to admit wrongdoing and his ability to prevaricate.

In an odd way, Obama’s approach to truth reminds me of how they used to break the news to patients about cancer — incrementally, very incrementally.  I know this first hand, because this is what happened with my Dad.  In his case, the following statements played out over the course of about a week:  “Nothing’s wrong.”  This was a lie.  “There’s a slight anomaly on the tests, but nothing to worry about.”  This was a lie.  “There’s a tumor, but we’re sure it’s benign.”  This was a lie.  “The tumor is, in fact, malignant, but it’s completely treatable.”  This, too, was a lie.  “You have one year.”  Finally, the truth.  What you end up with is that, at the end of all the lies, cancer is cancer, and Obama’s past is Obama’s past.

The question then becomes whether American voters will be happy with the constant barrage of Obama lies, and will be willing to travel Obama’s incremental pathways to unpleasant truths, or if they’re at last going to rebel and say “Who and what are you?”  And if they finally get the truth, and it’s pretty sure to be ugly will it matter?

I’d like to think that the truth will matter, just as I’d like to think that, for many Americans, the mere fact that he lied so compulsively will matter too.  After all, that is one of the reasons they’ve grown to hate Hillary.  My dream is that, no matter how perfectly polished and highly functional the Obama political machine is, the fact that Obama is still the core of that machine will be, in and of itself, an insurmountable problem for him.

My question then (in 2008) was whether voters would elect a man who lied so frequently and blatantly.  My question now is whether America will recover any time soon from the disastrous effects of those lies.

UPDATE:  Ron Fournier, who has stood by Obama rather steadfastly for the past five years, is disturbed to find that his idol has feet of clay.  He rightly calls Obama on precisely what I’ve described above:  the lie about the lie.  I agree with everything Fournier has to say about Obama’s lie, except for the very last thing:  “On history’s scale of deception, this one leaves a light footprint. Worse lies have been told by worse presidents, leading to more severe consequences, and you could argue that withholding a caveat is more a sin of omission.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Mr. Fournier.  This is the worst lie a president has ever told the American people. To the extent presidents have lied before, they’ve done so for national security (every wartime president, including Obama himself); because they themselves were lied to, as was the case when Saddam Hussein’s self-created Potemkin village of WMDs led the Bush administration and most world leaders to believe that Hussein did indeed have WMDs; or because they were protecting themselves from their failings, as Nixon and Clinton did.   Obama marks the first time ever that a president provably committed an act of fraud against the American people:  He deliberately lied to people, knowing that they would believe that lie, in order to get them to change their position to their detriment based upon that lie.

It’s not this November lie that destroys Obama’s credibility.  The November lie is the typical retrenchment lie of someone who was caught doing something bad.  It’s the original lie — the enormous fraud committed against America — that should outrage every citizen.

Hollywood got there first: AP’s spin about Obamacare *UPDATED*

Here’s the AP, an unofficial arm of the Democrat party, telling us that Obama had to simplify his Obamacare promises to the point of fraud because the American people are too unintelligent and uninformed to deal with the Act’s complexities:

President Barack Obama’s early efforts to boil down an intricate health care law so Americans could understand it are coming back to haunt him, leaving a trail of caveats and provisos in place of the pithy claims he once used to sell the law.

Think about the message implicit in that well-crafted sentence:  How do you sell an “intricate” law to morons (i.e., Americans)?  You lie!

Where have I heard that before?  Oh, I know:

UPDATE: Rich Lowry imagines what Obama would have said if he thought well enough of the American people to tell them the truth.

Obama and his claim that, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed….”  George Orwell defining “doublethink,” in 1984.

“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”  H. L. Mencken

“There’s a sucker born every minute.” attr. P.T. Barnum

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Abraham Lincoln.