« | »

Obama Tells (Yet) Another ‘White Lie’

From our friend Josh Gerstein at the Politico:

Barack Obama proves to be mortal husband

By: Josh Gerstein
July 7, 2009

… “I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure that you’re all going to have wonderful careers,” [Mr. Obama] said as he warmed up the audience before delivering a commencement speech at an economics school in Moscow Tuesday.

Obama seemed to be playing off an introduction that referred to him meeting his future wife, Michelle Robinson, while he was a student. But the truth is that the couple met not “in class” but at a law firm in Chicago, Sidley Austin, in 1989.

Obama was a summer associate (essentially a legal intern) there and Robinson was an attorney completing her first year at the firm. Both attended Harvard Law School, but Michelle graduated in the spring of 1988, while Barack Obama did not arrive at the Cambridge, Mass., campus until that fall…

Sure, it’s a harmless lie.

But it also shows a now long and familiar pattern that indicates that Mr. Obama is very cavalier about the facts.

He is especially given to re-writing his personal history to fit any situation. (For instance, as we noted at the time, Mr. Obama even falsely claimed  that he had been conceived because of his parents attending the ‘March On Selma.’)

Indeed, even his two autobiographies are said to be filled with untrue fantasies.

How can you trust anyone with such a low regard for the truth?

Who, worse still, has such an unquenchable thirst for power over our lives.

It’s clear that Mr. Obama, just like Mr. Lenin, believes that words are just tools to power.

They have no meaning otherwise.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, July 7th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

28 Responses to “Obama Tells (Yet) Another ‘White Lie’”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    I’ve run out of words to call this guy. Liar, putz, salesman, schlocky greaseball, whatever.

    You know, I ran into guys like this when I was a young enlisted guy. You know, those people who had more stories than experience and if you told them of a unique experience you had, they always had a better one. In fact, they started contradicting themselves with their stories and when you caught them at it, they shut up.

    But nobody seems to want to contradict this putz. I guess to do so would indicate racism or something. So when is it racism to simply point out that our president is an unabashed liar?

    Or is it that we…as a nation….just accept liars as “good people too”?

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      Rusty, In Obama’s case, many liberals I work with actually found hope and solace in the prospects of a presidential candidate who could say one thing and mean another. For instance they didn’t really believe Obama opposed same-sex marriage; they figured it was part of his strategy to say he was, but once in office, he would immediately legalize gay marriage. They didn’t really believe he was going to fire into Pakistan; they figured he was saying that to look tough on defense, but in office he would be a dove.

      And so on, and so on.

      While conservatives may see cause for worry in these misstatements or half-truths, the problem is that Obama supporters have hung their hopes on him not telling the truth all the time. It’s a complicated game.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Very excellent point. And one that has deeply annoyed me from the very earliest days of my memory. Being as humans are complicated, does it always mean that the spoils fall to that person who is most adept at bullshitting the rest? In my experience, it would seem so.

      Thus, to most politicians, words are just tools. Mean nothing, say anything and APPEAR to mean it.

      But, like my grandad told me once a long time ago, “If we lose touch with being truthful, we have nothing and all is lost”. He said that to me when I got caught lying about damaging something of his. He wasn’t angry and looked upon it as a teachable moment. I was deeply ashamed and took his words very much to heart.

      I know that sometimes the truth has to be tempered, delivered cautiously, or even omitted. But in the “game” of politics, oh how I detest politics for that very reason…the same reason I mentioned to Steve in a private letter that attorneys…in the courtroom…it’s about winning…not right or wrong. The competition is the thing. A lawyer respects another lawyer on the basis of their victories in court, not on the measure of his character.

      And that just chaps my ass.

      Much the same way when I lose a war of words with some smart-ass preppy….or similar. I was raised in a matter-of-fact home by matter-of-fact parents who hated useless wordplay. They liked puns and such…and clever jokes, of course…but “negotiating” was not a practiced skill at the dinner table. Some families make it their daily event. I’ve even heard deliberations between parent and child that sound like a contract dispute.

      All that is lost on me. I find it absolutely useless. Verbal and mental masturbation. I hate debate…not specifically, but the clever one-upmanship that part of the human character I really despise.

      Yet, I fully acknowledge that my lack of skill in the area doesn’t mean that it isn’t without its uses. But this talking stick of a president takes it to a sublime level. Truly….he is developing a track record of never sticking to ANYTHING he has ever said so I must draw the conclusion that his words are from his tool-kit for that moment and that moment only. And he expects the minions to understand that “hey….it’s just politics, man. We all do it…it’s how we make our living”

      And possibly it’s that attitude that frosts me more than anything. It’s little more than what a car salesman does to a “mark” on the showroom floor. He’s learned it well and I don’t know if he has ever had reason to run through the list of what he’s said in his own mind. I guess to him it just doesn’t matter. Today it’s “A”; Tomorrow it’s “B” and who cares?

      Such duplicity is bullshit to me. I hate it.

    • pdsand says:

      Au contraire…that’s the democrat recipe for a successful Presidential candidate. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, they all got where they are by coming from relative obscurity and having no documented past. That way they could be dyed in the wool liberals, but they could openly lie to the public and claim to be common sense moderates, even conservative on some issues. And of course the MSM can cover for them at all costs. It’s the only way mainstream America can stomach them.

      The dangerous difference is that Clinton knew he was lying and relished his abilities, I think Carter and Obama really believe it.

  2. proreason says:

    I don’t think he has a moral compass that differentiates between the truth and fiction.

    In his mind, people like himself are free to portray their lives any way they see fit. That makes it easier to rule us, which he sees as his natural position in life. So lieing is a good thing, not a bad thing….as long as it for his good cause.

    • Wamp says:

      Any means are justified by the end.

      Lawyers (a former profession; now another business)

  3. catie says:

    He can’t even keep his “how I met my spouse” story straight. Well, I do know this-the Belle had to take the IL Bar twice. My good friend who graduated from John Marshall as well as my brother who went to Northwestern only had to take it once. John Marshall is a “joke” of a law school to those at Harvard. But Kris passed the first time-the Belle took two times. Wonder if that come out. Things that make you go hmmh.

    • Right of the People says:

      Maybe the second time she got to take the “minority” version of the exam, you know the one with pictures and an open book.

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      Catie, the difference is, your brother and friend are probably proud of America all the time, as opposed to only when they’re married to people who are adored by the press. If you hate the country you live in, you won’t take the rites of passage that form your country’s infrastructure very seriously.

  4. pdsand says:

    From the looks of that picture, he truly is at home over there in the USSR. I mean Russia.

  5. texaspsue says:

    Russia isn’t fooled by Obama. Even Pravda questions his truthfulness: http://english.pravda.ru/print/opinion/columnists/106914-Obama_Swindler_Liar-0

    Putin’s is also playing games with Obama…..I love the article over at Drudge LOL http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSTRE5661Q520090707

    (Sorry I didn’t tiny url, SG)

    • BatK says:

      VERY interesting article… suprising anyone in the media has the stones to write something like that

  6. Howard Roark says:

    When are we ever going to be introduced to a liberal who inspires honesty, character, and a life of authenticity, instead of the Clintons, the Gores, the Kerry’s and the Obamas who all seem to have a history of trying to build a political career in their younger adult years?

    Kerry threw military medals over the White House fence in dramatic protest, yet they weren’t his medals, because he knew he’d need plausable deniability in the future (“I never threw my medals over the fence”)…

    Bill Clinton holds his nose and signs up for ROTC, yet squeals and throws a temper tantrum to evade the ugly experience…

    Hillary claims to have been named after the great mountain climber who scaled Mt Everest, yet was born well before he became famous…

    Al invented the internet; he claims Vietnam as an experience, yet his “experience” was as the over-protected son of an American senator, and was the only Stars And Stripes reporter to have an abreviated tour there, while surrounded by bodygaurds. The boy who was raised in the Watergate Hotel in DC has never had to struggle for anything in his life, just like Barry and Michelle, despite all of their tales of woe and struggle from the south side of Chicago.

    And somehow they all have parlor rooms full of smug condescension for people like Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan. Of course, they only fool the effete attendees of their yacht parties.

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      “When are we ever going to be introduced to a liberal who inspires honesty, character, and a life of authenticity?”

      Howard, “liberal” initially meant someone who believed in human rights, free markets, governmental restraint, and open debate. Somehow the Left commandeered and poisoned the term in the 20th century and yoked it to racial paranoia, Marxism, sexual indiscretion, cosmopoloticanism, and pacifism.

      So in answer to your question, a liberal who inspires honesty, character, and a life of authenticity is …. a “conservative” in today’s sense. In other words, us.


    • Howard Roark says:

      Thanks for your lesson on American political philosophy, but just for the record, I was asking that rhetorically.

      What you forgot to include in the description of the classical definition of Liberal was the belief in the sovereignty of the individual. What Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Hume and Thomas Jefferson wrote and defined was echoed in the 20th century writings of Hayek, Friedman, Buckley, and a few others.

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      Howard, you will love this excerpt from Russell Kirk’s THE CONSERVATIVE MIND (first published 1953):

      Kirk defines Burke’s definition of conservatism as a reaction against these six tenets of “radicalism” in the era of the French Revolution — the six tenets would later become what we know of 20th century “liberalism”:

      The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk. Washington: Regnery, 2001. Pg. 27.

      (1) If there is divine authority in the universe, it differs sharply in its nature from the Christian idea of God: for some radicals, it is the remote and impassive Being of the deists; for others, the misty and new-modelled God of Rousseau.

      (2) Abstract reason or (alternatively) idyllic imagination may be employed not merely to study, but to direct, the course of social destiny.

      (3) Man naturally is benevolent, generous, healthy-souled, but in this age is corrupted by institutions.

      (4) The traditions of mankind, for the most part, are tangled and delusory myth, from which we learn little.

      (5) Mankind, capable of infinite improvement, is struggling toward Elysium, and should fix its gaze always toward the future.

      (6) The aim of the reformer, moral and political, is emancipation from old creeds, old oaths, old establishments;; the man of the future is to rejoice in pure liberty, unlimited democracy, self-governing, self-satisfying. Political power is the most efficacious form of reform — or from another point of view, the demolition of existing political power.

      I’m intrigued by the way Kirk approached our political outlook. He defines the Right as essentially the only counterbalance against these 6 recurring tendencies of the Left. (Kind of like Buckley saying he has to stand athwart history yelling stop!)

      But by the way, I am only half in agreement with Russell Kirk. He is much too aristocratic and he seems to dislike hardworking common folk.

  7. amber says:

    Wonder what his wife thinks of his memory. How unfortunate that he sees his first meeting with her too dull to speak about so he has to make up a story. My husband first saw me from behind in BDUs and he said the way my back side looked in them he knew I was the one. I saw him, for the first time, under a HMMV. He was giving me my first drivers test and we were doing the PMCS. To me, my story is wonderful, I smile when I think of it. Too bad Obama does not. Not such a romantic couple after all (as if we all did not know that already).

  8. Travis says:

    He is a congenital deceiver, and with the help of the media has pulled a major scam on this country.

  9. VMAN says:

    Yep make it up as you go along that’s what I always say. If you can’t dazzle em with brilliance baffle em with bulls**t or something like that. Do unto other before they do unto you. A bird in the hand might crap there if you’re not careful and so on.

  10. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Howard Roarke said:
    “despite all of their tales of woe and struggle from the south side of Chicago.”

    So THAT’s what Blammo meant when he said “I too, grew up in the South.”

    Had me scratching my head…..until now. Wonder how much o’dat cotton day be pickin’ in dat souf side o’ chi-town.

    The guy is a useless cutout. Naturally made useful by the puppeteers of the DNC. These days though, I’m starting to think that the republicrats are in on it too. Somehow this lack of protest from our own government over things blatantly in violation of the Constitution is deeply disturbing.

  11. Liberals Demise says:

    When will he apologize for us winning the Cold War?

    As soon a he pulls Mitchelles’ size 12 Hi heel pumps out of his rectum!

  12. zappatrust says:

    It’s all “snake oil salesman” all the time…When the lie gets soooo big…..you forget the basic facts. If you think M’chelle’s upset…think again, she’s got troubles of her own trying to keep the Big Lie going.

  13. Confucius says:

    “White lie”? How racist. It’s a black lie.

  14. Ed23 says:

    Obama probably did meet Michelle in school, the mixup is Ayers’ fault because he got it wrong when he wrote the book.

  15. canary says:

    During campaign Michello said 1st date at museum to make Obama look book smart. Then, Obama tells star Wesley Snipes it was to see one of his movies.
    In his book Obama tells the story different. Their 1st official date was to Baskins and Robyns, where Obama told her he once “worked”, and wore the brown uniforms. They kissed and it he said it tasted like chocolate.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »