“My name is Barack Obama and I can’t stop lying”

Loading

obama ootl

Lightning strikes again. In the same place. For the eighth time. CBS’s Bill Plante, along with the rest of the Obama media, doesn’t even take notice of this utter impossibility.

President OOTL (Out of The Loop) claims to have learned about Hillary’s email system from news reports.

President Obama says he first learned from news reports that his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, used a private email account during her tenure, amid reports the White House and State Department may have known as far back as last August that Clinton did not use government email.

“The same time everybody else learned it, through news reports,” Obama told CBS’ Bill Plante, in response to a question of when the president learned of Clinton’s use of a private email account for conducting government business.

Obama, in an interview with CBS aired Sunday, continued to stand by his claims that “the policy of my administration is to encourage transparency… and that’s why my emails — the BlackBerry that I carry around — all those records are available and archived and I’m glad that Hillary has instructed that those emails that had to do with official business need to be disclosed.”

This is really curious, since the White House was notified of the violation back in August:

The White House, State Department and Hillary Clinton’s personal office knew in August that House Republicans had received information showing that the former secretary of state conducted official government business through her private email account — and Clinton’s staff made the decision to keep quiet.

Sources familiar with the discussions say key people in the Obama administration and on Clinton’s staff were aware that the revelation could be explosive for the all-but-announced candidate for president. But those involved deferred to Clinton’s aides, and they decided not to respond.

Sharyl Atkisson observes that this is the eighth time Obama has learned something critical to his administration from the new media:

1. Controversial Air Force One Photo Op Flyover
2. Fast and Furious Cross-Border Operation Supplying Guns to Cartels
3. Gen. Petraeus’ Sex Scandal
4. The IRS Using Nixonian Tactics Against Conservative Groups

The rest are at the link.

But….but….but……

Thing is, I don’t know how he can learn anything from the news because he doesn’t watch the news. Back in August he said he doesn’t watch the news because:

“whatever they’re reporting about, usually I know.”

Unless it’s something important. But that was like so….August. Remember how I always say liberals have zero long term memory? Not even six months’ worth.

Obama, according to Obama, spends most of his morning watching ESPN and golfing in the afternoons.

I know the press is hopelessly biased. I know the press is stupid. I know the press doesn’t get tough on Obama else he throws them off the big plane. But there comes a point at which, despite their low self esteem and long departed credibility, you would think that at some point members of the lamestream media have to ask themselves

“What the f*ck?”

Because you members of the press sure look like idiots to me. When you interview Obama and he says he learned of Hillary’s misdeeds “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports” and you don’t burst out laughing, something’s really wrong with you.

Fatally wrong. Just how much bulls*t can you swallow with a straight face?

We should all be so fortunate to have this protective system of incompetent fools surrounding us.

UPDATE

And just like that, we learn Obama did exchange emails with Hillary and somehow the smartest man on Earth didn’t notice it was not on a .gov address?

UPDATE

Obama did remind me of one of my favorite songs:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzTr2P0AJo[/youtube]

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

One wonders why, when Obama issued his edict that no one should be using private email he never followed up to see if anyone might choose to comply with his instructions. Oh, well… I guess that’s what never having a job, never answering to anyone and never having any responsibility teaches you; NOTHING.

Now, am I wrong or was this whole issue of Hillary using a private email account revealed by Guccifer, the hacker? If so, why is this not more prominent in the story? After all, this is WHY she wasn’t supposed to be using private email.

It doesn’t matter if he lies or not. The liberals (his loyal followers) will believe him no matter what.

@ Redteam: Oh, it matters. He HAS to lie in order to fulfil their expectations, for the liberal ideology can never actually deliver what is promised. So, lie, lie, lie in order to blame the failures on someone else. He promised transparency, but transparency is impossible for then the lies, failures and ineptitude would be revealed. So, promote transparency while condoning State Department business carried out on private, secret emails which no one can ever be sure they can see all of.

This story was covered on ESPN… there’s this new sport for politicians, called Olympic Scandal Ducking, kind of like a cross between high diving, gymnastics and curling, with some relay stuff thrown in… That’s how the president heard about it.

This administration truly believes that the American people are stupid. And in 2012, Obama proved that over half of us are since he got re-elected. But then, it is no surprise since we have dumbed down public education to the point where college students can’t even name the Vice President or the Chief Justice. If I had a kid that was public school age, I would pull them out and send them to a private/parochial school even if I had to work five jobs to pay for it. Or I would join a home school coalition.

Not content to brain wash university students, you know, like thinking flying the American flag is insulting, the crap flows downhill into our high schools.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/barrons-ap-test-prep-guide-equates-clarence-thomas-with-fascists.php

And we wonder how a man who had never really accomplished one notable thing in his life managed to become president?

This letter borders on treason.

@Jeff:

This letter borders on treason. Republicans have gone insane.

And what in that letter is not true? Obama doesn’t have the authority to negotiate treaties (which any agreement with Iran would fall under) without the “advise and consent” of the Congress.

There is also nothing that would prevent the next president from saying “Bring me every Executive Order Obama ever signed and I am going to repeal them.”

If you trust that Obama, and our Secretary of State Lurch, can negotiate a deal with Iran that will benefit the United States, and Israel, you need to be medicated.

Jeff @#6… go ahead and explain how you figure that… we’ll wait.

@retire05:

And we wonder how a man who had never really accomplished one notable thing in his life managed to become president?

remember the guy that said passing Obamacare depended on the stupidity of the American people? All these ‘man on the street’ interviews that don’t know what the two sides were in the civil war, or who won. Many don’t know who won the Revolutionary war. Or who lost. Most can’t name the vice president. I even saw some thinking Karl Marx would be a great candidate for president. Those are the folks that voted for BH Obama a man that has never held even one job or accomplished anything. He doesn’t even know how to get a legal Social Security card.

Not to mention the treasonous action of the GOP Congress in inviting Bibi to thwart Obama’s efforts with talks with Iran or the freakin’ letter they sent to Iran to derail the talks further.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/09/desperate-bid-sabotage-nuclear-talks-gop-directly-threatens-iranian-leaders

@Scott in Oklahoma

Read the Logan Act. It’s clear enough for anybody to understand.

@Shirley: Sorry but your a friggin moron!! Prove this was treason or STFU!!

@Jeff: Proof of treason, real proof moron!!

@Jeff: It is factually correct and there is nothing ‘treasonous’ in the letter.
Obama can not approve a treaty or any agreement. He can sign an ‘Order” that can be revoked by congress and/or the next president.

@Shirley:

Not to mention the treasonous action of the GOP Congress in inviting Bibi to thwart Obama’s efforts with talks with Iran

But I guess Nancy Pelosi inviting President Calderon to speak in front of Congress, without President Bush’s approval, which he did and bashed the U.S. while he was doing it, was A-OK with you? You want pure hypocrisy? How about Eric Holder doing his Jack-In-The-Box imitation as Calderon spoke of how the U.S. needed to cease the gun running into Mexico when it was Holder doing the gun running?

So where did you come from, Shirley? Are you another Obamaite that comes to conservative web sites, hiding in the dark until you can bash Republicans? My guess is you have been here before, but now, dishonestly, you are using another moniker.

@Jeff:

Read the Logan Act. It’s clear enough for anybody to understand.

If you’re claiming the letter to Iran violated the Logan Act, obviously it wasn’t clear enough for you to understand. Perhaps you can take a reading comprehension course before you again delve into something that far over your head.

@Jeff:That’s not correct. The Logan Act prohibits negotiating with other countries. Informing a foreign country of various laws and procedures can not be construed as ‘negotiating’. It’s no more than as if they are telling them how the US Constitution works.

@retire05: Seldom does a ‘reading comprehension’ course help any liberals. They are the victims of liberal run educational systems and can’t understand reading comp.

Google: “Soumar.”
It is an Iranian missile.

Iran can now hit American naval vessels in the Persian Gulf.
Its design is based on a Soviet missile, similar to one stolen from Ukraine 12 years ago which made its way to Iran from the Chinese.

The Defense Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Brigadier General Hussein Dahqan added that during the upcoming Persian year, which begins this year on March 21, the armed forces will be receiving a much higher quality of rockets, particularly when it comes to their range, accuracy and destructive capabilities. This will be an ongoing and permanent endeavor in the years to come.

Gee, a 2500km range that is capable of reaching a series of countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Israel and others.
A bit of overkill if ISIS is their main target.

@Redteam:
Matter of fact, Liberals are beginning to question the racism of good grammar and reading comprehension.
That’s ”racist!”

@Redteam:

Did you read the Logan Act?

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

“This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.”

They corresponded with a foreign government with the intention of defeating a measure of the United States. The idiots broke the law. There’s no question about it. They should be prosecuted. Being idiots doesn’t make them immune to the law.

@Jeff: You have proven your ignorance as expected!! What measure is being defeated numb nuts?? The letter was to help the Iranians understand that President Obola’s game does not apply after he leaves office, as per that little thing called our Constitution!! Show me the measure or STFU!!

@DrJohn:

Imagine for a moment, that Obama agreed to give Iran all of our stealth technology in return for an assurance that Iran won’t develop a nuke for five years.

It’s not beyond the possible. How should Congress respond?

Lol. I know you’re not a serious person, but even for you this is ridiculous. If there’s a .001% chance something might happen, we can do anything to preempt it!!!

@Common Sense:

Are!!
You!!
Upset!!
About!!
Something!!??
Because!!
You!!
Are!!
Abusing!!
The!!
Written!!
Word!!
!

@Common Sense:

“The measure” is the effort to negotiate a stop to Iran’s nuclear bomb program. What else do you think “the measure” might be?

@Tom:

Lol. I know you’re not a serious person, but even for you this is ridiculous. If there’s a .001% chance something might happen, we can do anything to preempt it!!!

Yeah, like Clinton didn’t give weapons technology to China and missiles technology to North Korea,.

Tell me, are all you left wingers as clueless as you are? Why wasn’t that “preempted?”

Perhaps we need a dose of truth here. What is this really all about?

We’ve had a gradual degradation of our Republic since Obama took office. All infractions by Obama and friends are always up for a deluge of relative statements and loose interpretations of the law, if in his favor. All infractions by the Republicans…you know, the majority in the house and senate the represent millions of us…are black and white, cut and dry, and are interpreted as to damn duly elected officials that carry the real power in Washington, and the World.

This is about power.

The left and it’s supporters believe they are right, no matter the cost, no matter the truth. They will perceive and act in a way that has nothing to do with what is just, only what they want. Their cause…like so many dangerous zealots before them…is completely just…so they believe. They’ve lost all objectivity.

Obama has threatened to bypass the law of the land again and again. Both he and his supporters believe we need a new government: this is implied, but not consciously acknowledged by the left. To mirror the former sins of the Right by taking them to the extreme….this is the new left. A mirror of the exaggerated Right. Worse, and with the power of self-righteousness.

For Jeff and Shirley, you need to understand something. No, just because Obama “won” does not give him, or you, absolute power to pursue your media-fed agenda. This is diverse nation of many people and many viewpoints. Obama has become authoritarian, and shame on your for supporting this historical phenomenon.

I hope congress continues to thwart Obama, and break laws if necessary, because enforcement of the law is now relative and controlled by the left. Like MLK in his “Letters from a Birmingham Jail”, unjust laws are not real laws. Laws that only apply to a regime for their own furthermore, while being used to subjugate their opponents, become unjust.

Congress represents me and millions of other thinking Americans that go beyond a Oprah-style rockstar and hollywood-engineered ideology. They are just in opposing Obama’s trend towards tyranny.

The real power in America continues to be free-will, and self determination of the people. May Obama’s legacy be what happens when we let an amateur get filled with so much power they become an autocrat (ever has it happened this way), and how we can stop it.

What goes around, comes around. And Obama and the dems will now reap what they’ve sown: a divided house. The world knows it, and Bibi and the rest will bypass our corrupt President because they have to.

@Jeff: You needed to think this through.

The cited text may also be applied to Obama, if you are now equating Branches of the government with “citizens”.

Congress has authority, as does Obama. This is clearly not a violation of the Logan Act.

This is my problem with the current crop of leftist followers: armchair lawyers gleaning and proof-texting what they need to support what they need to bully other citizen into giving them what they want….like a fundamentalist preacher from the 80s.

@Tom: I am upset with liberal morons like you but then I consider the ignorance and move on!! Likely won’t help your lost condition though.

@Tom: @Jeff: i remember a certain senator from ma. by golly i think it was a kennedy who went to russia during the 80,s,to circumvent the U.S policy against Russia (maybe looking for a waitress sandwich with todd to kill the in between time) yes he should have been arrested right? shit for brains

@Nathan Blue:

Congress has authority, as does Obama. This is clearly not a violation of the Logan Act.

Incorrect. Congress has no authority to negotiate with foreign governments. The conduct of diplomacy is entirely the responsibility of the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch sets the nation’s foreign policy objectives. Congress can influence foreign policy, but not like this. This act is in direct opposition to White House objectives. That’s flat out illegal. It’s exactly what the Logan Act forbids. The sons of bitches should be charged with violation of the Logan Act. I wouldn’t rule out sedition, either. The President isn’t the domestic enemy. They are. They’re going to propel the nation into another disaster.

@Jeff:

They corresponded with a foreign government with the intention of defeating a measure of the United States. T

And tell us all how you decided what their “intention” is or was? Give us a direct quote from their letter that says that their intent is to stop or prevent them from reaching agreement. They seem to make it very clear that they are only telling the Iranians what the procedure is to reach an agreement, they clearly do not say that they do not wish them to reach an agreement. I think you’re just ‘wishing’ and ‘hoping’ they did something wrong. It certainly can’t be determined from the letter that they are attempting to prevent an agreement.

@Jeff:

Congress can influence foreign policy, but not like this. This act is in direct opposition to White House objectives. That’s flat out illegal. It’s exactly what the Logan Act forbids.

Oh Contrare…. Congress is not attempting to ‘influence’ policy’, only to inform them about the correct procedures. What in the letter is ‘in direct opposition’ to WH objectives? Give us the quote. Telling them what the rules are is not a ‘negotiation’. I think you’re just ‘wishing’ and ‘hoping’. If you’re so concerned about lawbreakers, why don’t you insist Obama get his own Social Security Card and pay SS taxes.

@obamarhhea:

Russia (maybe looking for a waitress sandwich with todd to kill the in between time

Or to run off into a river and drown her.

@Redteam: Someone needs to explain to Obama how it works.

@Jeff: Actually, by definition, it is Obama that is in violation.

Just dropped by to see if folks still feed the trolls here. Not surprisingly they seem to be multiplying.

@Nathan Blue:

The left and it’s supporters believe they are right, no matter the cost, no matter the truth. They will perceive and act in a way that has nothing to do with what is just, only what they want.

That’s a strange and startlingly un self-aware thing to write as part of an extended defense for an unprecedented and dangerous partisan power grab. You seem to feel that because you and others disagree with the President’s policies, all is permitted. Notice I didn’t say with his methods, because if Congress feels he’s doing something illegal, they are free to avail themselves of courts. Obviously, there’s nothing illegal about the President negotiating a nuclear treaty. It’s not the first time this has happened, by the way (imagine if members of Congress had felt unconstrained to inject themselves destructively into Ronald Reagan’s negotiations with the USSR in the 80s). Your excuse for this behavior is built entirely upon your personal partisan visceral reaction, the very thing you seem to take issue with above. Since you feel the GOP are free to open up direct lines of correspond with the mullahs of Iran and conduct rogue foreign policy, why don’t you tell us how this is going to work in practical terms going forward? Is every member of Congress now free to conduct foreign policy unilaterally? Since you and others seem to believe that just evoking the name Obama is enough reason to justify anything, why don’t you explain exactly how the United States can practically conduct foreign policy in the future moving forward, say under a GOP President, with a Congress unconstrained from partisan meddling? What you’re actually advocating is the impossibility of conducting foreign policy, which I deem childish. There should be less destructive ways for reactionaries to get their Obama derangement fix.

@Jeff:

Being idiots doesn’t make them immune to the law.

It’s worked out pretty well for Obama so far.
As Dr. J. pointed out, Article 2 Section II of the Constitution specifically states:

The President may enter the United States into treaties, but they are not effective until ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Now your boy Josh Earnest said the US-Iran deal will not be submitted to congress. That is in clear conflict with the Constitution.
So you go ahead and bring on the trials.

@DrJohn:

Strawmen. If you want to discuss amnesty, I’m fine with that, but it’s hardly a logical response to the GOP’s attempts undermining the President on Iran.

@Tom:

It’s not the first time this has happened, by the way (imagine if members of Congress had felt unconstrained to inject themselves destructively into Ronald Reagan’s negotiations with the USSR in the 80s).

They did. Congress (while controlled by either party) has always used what influence it has to sway a president to its will.

Reagan’s supporters argued against the arms control provisions of the measure on grounds that the President is close to reaching an agreement with the Soviet Union to reduce intermediate-range missiles. But Democrats viewed it as a way to keep pressure on the President to negotiate arms control

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-04-24/news/mn-624_1_arms-control

But I’m sure congress doing that was ok because it was controlled by democrats.

I’m sure you can point to people that dislike President Obama because of who he is. Just like there were people that disliked Bush (and even Reagan) for who they were. I don’t know Obama, never met him. He seems like a nice enough guy. But I don’t like his policies and I don’t trust him. He has given me absolutely zero reasons to trust him. For you or anyone else to tell dissenting Americans to sit down, shut up, and trust he will make a good deal is ludicrous. We have no such obligation.
And for you Logan Act enthusiasts, I would like to remind you that Pelosi went to Syria without permission from the Bush Whitehouse to negotiate a peace treaty on behalf of Israel. The only problem is Israel made no such request.

@Aqua:

They did. Congress (while controlled by either party) has always used what influence it has to sway a president to its will.

If you mean “they did” as in, the matter was hotly debated at home, I agree. if you mean “they did” as in Democratic Congressmen sent a letter to the Soviet Union stating they would do everything in their power not to honor any deal forged by Ronald Reagan, I would like to see that. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you why this is damaging to the interests of the United States, and undermines our negotiating hand. It’s not like the GOP is telling Iran something they don’t know about Congressional ratification. It’s the implicit messages to Iran and to our allies: the United States can’t function as a good-faith negotiating partner. The United States will not honor agreements. There is no “American Foreign Policy”, only dysfunction.

I’m sure you can point to people that dislike President Obama because of who he is. Just like there were people that disliked Bush (and even Reagan) for who they were. I don’t know Obama, never met him. He seems like a nice enough guy. But I don’t like his policies and I don’t trust him. He has given me absolutely zero reasons to trust him. For you or anyone else to tell dissenting Americans to sit down, shut up, and trust he will make a good deal is ludicrous. We have no such obligation.

You seem to be confusing the issue at hand with something else entirely. Who told you to shut up? This is about how our government functions and precedent.

As for Obama being “disliked” that’s quite an understatement. What % of Republicans think he’s a Christian? A Muslim? A Manchurian Candidate? You might be surprised at the answers. You can’t compare Obama Derangement with Bush Derangement. Two completely different things. Paranoia about Bush was driven by the kind of extraordinary external events – 9/11, the Iraq war – that tend to attract conspiracy nuts of all stripes. Simply put, there would have 9/11 conspiracies regardless of who was POTUS. From day 1 it’s always been personal with Obama – who he is, where he comes from, his loyalty. Look at it this way, if Bush had been President since 2008, without 9/11 and Iraq, what would be driving paranoid hatred toward him? Now put Obama in the White House on 9/11 and tell me what the reaction amongst your friends on the Right would have been. Just think about that for a second. That’s the difference.

@Aqua:

Another thing to recall would be the Democratic and liberal American response in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 vis a vis Bush. Sure normal partisan rancor would eventually return, but that’s an important thing to recognize if you’re going to contrast the two. Bush wasn’t presumed by millions of Americans to be covertly working against American interest and sympathetic to terrorists. That is the world in which Obama operates. Many on the Right don’t need to know more than Obama’s position on a subject to know how they feel about it. Since they believe he hates America, anything he supports they see as an attack on America. There is no reasonable debate that can counteract this. You seen to have a lot of anger and angst surrounding your perception that Obama isn’t inclusive in his decision making, but explain to me how he can work with people who think he’s a secret traitor? It’s not two people who share the same goal arguing about tactics. It’s him, not the policy.

@Redteam:

And tell us all how you decided what their “intention” is or was?

Anybody who isn’t stupid knows what their intention is. Playing dumb about what’s obvious is childish. They never stop complaining about Obama’s imaginary violations of law. Their violation is real.

@Tom:

f you mean “they did” as in, the matter was hotly debated at home, I agree. if you mean “they did” as in Democratic Congressmen sent a letter to the Soviet Union stating they would do everything in their power not to honor any deal

They passed a bill in an attempt to undermine Reagan’s negotiations. Like I said, it wouldn’t matter anyway, as long as democrats did it, it would be fine.

You can’t compare Obama Derangement with Bush Derangement.

Completely and totally false. Be perfectly honest with yourself and imagine for a minute that Dick Cheney used a private email address. Just think about it for a minute and imagine the how quickly democrats would be calling for a special prosecutor to find out how much Bush knew and when he knew it.

. Sure normal partisan rancor would eventually return, but that’s an important thing to recognize if you’re going to contrast the two.

Selective memory. Maybe you’ve forgotten the number of people that said it was an inside job.

You seen to have a lot of anger and angst surrounding your perception that Obama isn’t inclusive in his decision making, but explain to me how he can work with people who think he’s a secret traitor?

Obama is not an emperor. We have a Constitution. We have laws. When one side decides they no longer have to abide by the laws of the land, what makes them believe the other side should?
I don’t believe Obama is a secret traitor. But I definitely question his and his administrations reasoning on certain issues. Why would you refuse to call out anti-Semitic behavior or refuse to acknowledge that Christians are being targeted in the Middle East?
Obama pretty much started the war with congress when he told republicans, “I won, elections have consequences.”
Well, guess what? They do. And right now the republicans control the House and the Senate. Co-Equal branches of government. I’m not sure what part of Co-Equal democrats refuse to understand.