If Obama Lies About Small Things, What Is Keeping Him From Lying About Everything?

The fact that Obama lies should be indisputable.

Freedom isn’t free. It shouldn’t be a bragging point that ‘Oh, I don’t get involved in politics,’ as if that makes someone cleaner. No, that makes you derelict of duty in a republic. Liars and panderers in government would have a much harder time of it if so many people didn’t insist on their right to remain ignorant and blindly agreeable.” – Bill Maher

Lie about one thing, lie about everything. The negative aspects of human nature operate on an incremental scale, meaning that a small negative behavior will often evolve into a grand one, if the escalation isn’t observed, and stopped. Specifically, when a small negative behavior is beneficial to someone—be it in their career, or in their personal life—they are more likely to continue this behavior, taking larger risks as they go forward, because they have yet to be caught. It’s a toxic combination of arrogance, and moral numbness. Each newly beneficial negative behavior further numbs us to the potential consequences.

The point I’m making is that a small negative behavior, such as a small lie, if left unchecked, will inevitably lead to larger, more catastrophic lies. Politicians lie frequently, but only the liars in the Republican Party are ever castigated. Sure, the media may briefly touch on a lie told by a liberal politician if the lie is too obvious to cover up, or if FOX has made it newsworthy, but generally speaking, because of the media’s devotion to the left, a liberal politician can lie, and get away with it.

Obama is a liar. It’s the plain, and simple truth. He has lied about many things, but, by using semantics, he has also frequently been able to worm his way out of being caught. But let’s take a look at a recent Obama lie that has been labeled–even by the liberal media–as a blatant fabrication.

Back in January, during an interview with The New Yorker‘s David Remnick, president Obama responded to a question regarding ISIS by calling them a JV team, meaning he did not consider them to be a real threat. Then, last week, when talking with Chuck Todd on Meet The Press, Obama claimed that he never actually called ISIS the JV team of terror. Here’s the partial transcript:

Todd: “[A] long way from when you described them as a JV team…Was that bad intelligence or your misjudgment?”

Obama: “Keep in mind I wasn’t specifically referring to (Islamic State)…I’ve said that, regionally, there were a whole series of organizations that were focused primarily locally, weren’t focused on homeland, because I think a lot of us, when we think about terrorism, the model is Osama bin Laden and 9/11.”

Now, Politifact (a liberal organization, by the way) took Obama to task on his assertion that he never called ISIS a JV team. They provided the full section of the transcript from the interview in which Obama referred to ISIS as a JV team.

Remnick:  “You know where this is going, though. Even in the period that you’ve been on vacation in the last couple of weeks, in Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent.”

Obama:  “Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

Remnick: “But that JV team just took over Fallujah.”

Obama:  “I understand.  But when you say took over Fallujah –”

Remnick:  “And I don’t know for how long.”

Obama:  “But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”

Given that it was the group which is now labeled ISIS, ISIL, or IS that had taken over Fallujah, and given that Obama did not dispute that in the slightest degree, it is clear through reading this transcript that Obama knew very well about whom he was talking. Obama referred to ISIS as a JV team. That is indisputable, and even Politifact has acknowledged that. That being the case, when Obama claimed during his interview with Chuck Todd that he was not referring specifically to ISIS, he was lying.

The question is why. It’s an obvious question, but one that needs to be answered nonetheless. Why did Obama lie about calling ISIS JV? Well, because his original assessment was sorely misguided. ISIS has emerged as a powerful and wildly dangerous organization, which has already committed many atrocities, including the beheading of two American journalists. Obama referring to this group as no-big-deal calls into question his ability to assess threats, as well as his deity status among his acolytes. So, to protect himself, and to save face, he simply claimed that he was never actually referring to ISIS. Why does that matter? It’s not a huge lie in the grand scheme of things. Lie about one thing, lie about everything.

Obama believes—rightly so—that the media will always cover for him. This gives him carte blanche to do, and say essentially whatever he wants. Unfortunately for him, this sometimes backfires, partially because of the growth of conservative media. Now, besides Chuck Todd, and a few other brief mentions by other outlets, this very deliberate lie has been swept under the rug. Obama has once again gotten away with blatantly lying to the American people.

Just think, if Obama is willing to lie so casually about something relatively minute, what else is he willing to lie about? If he cannot admit even the smallest mistake regarding his initial assessment of ISIS, what mistakes would he be willing to admit? I’m guessing none. Obama’s negative behavior has been continuously rewarded by the media, and so his capacity to blunt any scruple within himself must be so strong that he can lie about anything. That’s incredibly dangerous. A leader who believes himself to be faultless is poised to become a tyrant.

How have Obama’s lies affected us in terms of national security and domestic policy? How will they continue to affect us? The media will always cover for him, and this can only increase his capacity to lie to us further.