Why it is easy for President Obama to lie to the American people By Dr. Keith Ablow

[mystery-ak]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/18/why-it-is-easy-for-president-obama-to-lie-to-american-people/print

Why it is easy for President Obama to lie to the American people

By Dr. Keith Ablow

Published November 18, 2013

| FoxNews.com

Recently, America has witnessed something we have not seen since Watergate:  The president of the United States openly admitting that he lied to the American people. 

There are at least these two differences this time: First, the admission of the lie does not come at a moment when this president is facing impeachment (which would almost certainly have been true for President Nixon had he not resigned). 

Second, this president still shows, in my opinion, even after his most recent mea culpa, far less remorse than President Nixon showed in the speech he made upon announcing he would leave office and in his choice to leave office.

In this case, the president lied to Americans about the Affordable Care Act, promising that passing the legislation meant they could keep their health plans and doctors, when the truth is that tens of millions of people will likely lose their health care plans and be forced to switch doctors. 

That’s a really big lie, however you measure it -- whether in the tens of millions of people affected, or the hundreds of thousands of doctors, or the dozens of insurance companies, or the thousands and thousands of employers or the rerouting of billions of dollars. 

Yet, the president only said he was “sorry that people are finding themselves in this situation based on reassurances they got from me.”

He didn’t say that he had profoundly violated the trust of the American people.

He didn’t say that he would search his soul for the reason he could have been so intent on passing his legislation that he promised very important things he knew he could not deliver. 

He didn’t say that the rage people feel toward him is justified.

Why does it seem so easy for the president to tell such a gargantuan lie? 

Here’s why: 

- In order to feel guilty about deceiving someone, an individual must have respect for that person.

- He must consider the other man or woman his equal. 

- He must believe that depriving the other man or woman of the truth would be a sin because it deprives that person of free will. Because without the facts, competent people can’t make informed decisions.

But I do not believe the president sees most Americans as competent.  I believe he sees them as children, who cannot think for themselves, nor support themselves, nor defend themselves.

And because he believes this is a nation of children who are powerless to truly decide anything knowledgably, withholding certain facts from them “for their own good,” is no different than telling the kids a few harmless lies to keep them safe and settle them down and calm their anxieties. 

“This doesn’t taste bad,” a father might say to his daughter before giving her medicine, even when he knows it will.  The lie is forgivable. It’s meant to keep his little girl from being too anxious and refusing what she needs.

But tell a competent adult something tastes good when it will make him gag, and you’ll be, rightfully, seen as having deprived the person of information he deserved.

This president was lied to by his father who abandoned him, by his mother who abandoned him and by the grandmother who hugged him, but also revealed that she distrusted men of color.

Now, he wants to be the only adult in town. He needs that much power to feel safe, because he was that disempowered and unsafe in the past. So, to him, we’re incompetents. 

To him, we’re just kids who need to take our medicine. And lying is the easy and justifiable way to get the job done. 

[Bigun]

If you blatantly lie about something you are selling in the private sector you WILL go to jail! In the public sector apparently serial fraud is A OK!!

[Oceander]

Because Obama knows, as one of his indirect intellectual forebears knew, that "[t]he great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."  That forebear?  I'll leave it to the reader to discover, but I will say that he was the leader of the NSDAP.

[Bigun]

Because Obama knows, as one of his indirect intellectual forebears knew, that "[t]he great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."  That forebear?  I'll leave it to the reader to discover, but I will say that he was the leader of the NSDAP.

Any, and I do mean any, previous president who had committed gross serial fraud in order to get something passed through congress, as we now know that this president did, would have been impeached  and removed from office but now serial fraud  comes under the heading of "good behavior" I suppose!

[Oceander]

Any, and I do mean any, previous president who had committed gross serial fraud in order to get something passed through congress, as we now know that this president did, would have been impeached  and removed from office but now serial fraud  comes under the heading of "good behavior" I suppose!

If you're a liberal, any option is available to you.  Recall the black member of Congress who said Obama should suspend the 2012 elections because he had too much important work still to do?  Imagine if a republican had said that.

[Rivergirl]

Counting on the msm to convince us  that his lie wasn't a lie. 

He is evil to his core and nothing than change that fact.  This man demanded that a baby born alive following an abortion attempt NOT be given medical care because it's not what the mother wanted.

He agreed with that.   

[Bigun]

If you're a liberal, any option is available to you.  Recall the black member of Congress who said Obama should suspend the 2012 elections because he had too much important work still to do?  Imagine if a republican had said that.

And I didn't even begin to mention all the other impeachable offenses he has committed!

[Oceander]

And I didn't even begin to mention all the other impeachable offenses he has committed!

Yes, but let's just remember the difference between something being impeachable, and actually impeaching the little shit for something that is impeachable.  Unless the democrat party decides it's a good idea, impeachment would be the death knell for the GOP.

[Bigun]

Yes, but let's just remember the difference between something being impeachable, and actually impeaching the little shit for something that is impeachable.  Unless the democrat party decides it's a good idea, impeachment would be the death knell for the GOP.

I'm not so sure about that but I know that is the conventional wisdom on capitol hill so what I think isn't going to be of any consequence!

[Oceander]

I'm not so sure about that but I know that is the conventional wisdom on capitol hill so what I think isn't going to be of any consequence!

What you think is always of consequence; that being said, that doesn't guarantee that the rest of us will agree with you!

In this case the conventional wisdom is correct.  All of these impeachable offenses have already been bandied about in public and to-date they have yet to gain much traction in the general public; so far the botched rollout of Obamacare seems to be the only one.  Bringing them up in a House investigation as a preliminary to an impeachment would not give them any greater traction; to the extent the media have managed to keep these activities out of the public eye, they would continue to do so, only with orders of magnitude more effort because of how high the stakes would become with a potential impeachment in the offing.  And if anyone thinks the accusations of racism made against anyone who disagrees with Obama are too frequent now, just wait for the level of accusation to ratchet up if an impeachment is being seriously contemplated.  Triggering the race war some people are worried about would not gain the GOP too many additional friends.  And the attacks against Obamacare would become child's play to deflect:  all the democrat party would have to do is cry that this only demonstrates how desperate the republicans are - they cannot defeat Obama's signature accomplishment, which provided health care to all, so they are now attacking him personally.  They would be most ably abetted by the media and that would become the dominant theme, not the supposed impeachable offenses of Mr. Obama.

There is also a further risk that an unsuccessful impeachment would raise:  creating a precedent that these actions are not, in fact, impeachable offenses and that future presidents can engage in them and still be acting within the bounds of the Constitution.  The mere lack of any sort of an impeachment does not create that sort of a precedent because there are all manner of other explanations for why an impeachment wasn't brought that have nothing to do with the merits of the matter.  In other words, the absence of an impeachment is not the same thing as a failed impeachment; the latter is orders of magnitude worse.

Finally, at the end of the day, what would a successful impeachment actually accomplish?  Would it repeal Obamacare?  No.  Would it undo all of the executive orders he's issued?  No.  Would it undo the tens of thousands of pages of new regulations his administration has thrown at us?  No.  All that it would accomplish would be making Joe "big bleep' deal" Biden President.  Is that really worth pursuing the finer points of impeachable offenses academically and without resort to the practical realities involved?

[andy58-in-nh]

Richard Nixon lied to the nation.

But being a man of faith, the lies and the coverup that followed tortured his conscience. Because he was a Republican, the news media hounded him relentlessly and magnified, rather than diminished the impact of Nixon's dishonesty. He resigned not because he faced certain impeachment, but because he believed the nation would suffer needlessly if he were to stay and fight for what he knew in his heart to be wrong. 

Barack Obama lied to the nation.

But being a man of no discernible faith, the lies and the coverup that followed do not trouble his conscience. Because he is a Democrat, the news media have rallied around him, attacking his accusers relentlessly, diminishing rather than magnifying the impact of Obama's dishonesty. He will never resign, even if he faces certain impeachment, because he believes that the nation's suffering pales in comparison to his personal ambition, and that he is never wrong.

[Bigun]

What you think is always of consequence; that being said, that doesn't guarantee that the rest of us will agree with you!

In this case the conventional wisdom is correct.  All of these impeachable offenses have already been bandied about in public and to-date they have yet to gain much traction in the general public; so far the botched rollout of Obamacare seems to be the only one.  Bringing them up in a House investigation as a preliminary to an impeachment would not give them any greater traction; to the extent the media have managed to keep these activities out of the public eye, they would continue to do so, only with orders of magnitude more effort because of how high the stakes would become with a potential impeachment in the offing.  And if anyone thinks the accusations of racism made against anyone who disagrees with Obama are too frequent now, just wait for the level of accusation to ratchet up if an impeachment is being seriously contemplated.  Triggering the race war some people are worried about would not gain the GOP too many additional friends.  And the attacks against Obamacare would become child's play to deflect:  all the democrat party would have to do is cry that this only demonstrates how desperate the republicans are - they cannot defeat Obama's signature accomplishment, which provided health care to all, so they are now attacking him personally.  They would be most ably abetted by the media and that would become the dominant theme, not the supposed impeachable offenses of Mr. Obama.

There is also a further risk that an unsuccessful impeachment would raise:  creating a precedent that these actions are not, in fact, impeachable offenses and that future presidents can engage in them and still be acting within the bounds of the Constitution.  The mere lack of any sort of an impeachment does not create that sort of a precedent because there are all manner of other explanations for why an impeachment wasn't brought that have nothing to do with the merits of the matter.  In other words, the absence of an impeachment is not the same thing as a failed impeachment; the latter is orders of magnitude worse.

Finally, at the end of the day, what would a successful impeachment actually accomplish?  Would it repeal Obamacare?  No.  Would it undo all of the executive orders he's issued?  No.  Would it undo the tens of thousands of pages of new regulations his administration has thrown at us?  No.  All that it would accomplish would be making Joe "big bleepin' deal" Biden President.  Is that really worth pursuing the finer points of impeachable offenses academically and without resort to the practical realities involved?

Yeah! I know but still I worry about what ignoring all of these offenses says!

[Millee]

Richard Nixon lied to the nation.

But being a man of faith, the lies and the coverup that followed tortured his conscience. Because he was a Republican, the news media hounded him relentlessly and magnified, rather than diminished the impact of Nixon's dishonesty. He resigned not because he faced certain impeachment, but because he believed the nation would suffer needlessly if he were to stay and fight for what he knew in his heart to be wrong. 

Barack Obama lied to the nation.

But being a man of no discernible faith, the lies and the coverup that followed do not trouble his conscience. Because he is a Democrat, the news media have rallied around him, attacking his accusers relentlessly, diminishing rather than magnifying the impact of Obama's dishonesty. He will never resign, even if he faces certain impeachment, because he believes that the nation's suffering pales in comparison to his personal ambition, and that he is never wrong.

Excellent! 

[Oceander]

Yeah! I know but still I worry about what ignoring all of these offenses says!

What does it say?  That the US population is, as a general matter, in thrall to a grifter?  We, and the rest of the world for that matter, have known that for years.  What matters much more than whether we impeach the a-hole or not is what we as a country do in the 2016 election and whom we elect as the next President.  If we demonstrate that collectively we have not learned the hard lessons of the Obama debacle, then we'll look substantially worse than we do now.

[andy58-in-nh]

Yeah! I know but still I worry about what ignoring all of these offenses says!

I think it fair to say that impeachment has in time proven a wholly inadequate constitutional remedy to the excesses of a lawless, imperial Presidency. 

With the vast expansion of centralized Federal power, and (with the 17th Amendment), the conversion of US Senators to being representatives not of state governments but of each state's political interest groups, the impetus toward constitutional self-correction as once intended by the legal remedy of impeachment has been effectively nullified.

A more effective remedy is the nationalization of congressional campaigns by the party out of power, as in 1994. To this end, the GOP should make ObamaCare, and its repeal and replacement the centerpiece of the campaigns of all Republican congressional candidates, along with a promise to return to freedom and American opportunity, and away from destructive dependency and the concentration of wealth and power in Washington, DC.

[Bigun]

Points well made all around, especially with regard to the damage of the 17th amendment, but still something bothers me.

[musiclady]

Richard Nixon lied to the nation.

But being a man of faith, the lies and the coverup that followed tortured his conscience. Because he was a Republican, the news media hounded him relentlessly and magnified, rather than diminished the impact of Nixon's dishonesty. He resigned not because he faced certain impeachment, but because he believed the nation would suffer needlessly if he were to stay and fight for what he knew in his heart to be wrong. 

Barack Obama lied to the nation.

But being a man of no discernible faith, the lies and the coverup that followed do not trouble his conscience. Because he is a Democrat, the news media have rallied around him, attacking his accusers relentlessly, diminishing rather than magnifying the impact of Obama's dishonesty. He will never resign, even if he faces certain impeachment, because he believes that the nation's suffering pales in comparison to his personal ambition, and that he is never wrong.

You have summed it up perfectly, andy!

[PzLdr]

Why? Because a malignant narcissist and a sociopath, and WAY too many voters are idiots. 

[olde north church]

There is a remedy.  It isn't being applied.  There are probably 2,000,000 people who swore to it.  In public, freely.

[Bigun]

There is a remedy.  It isn't being applied.  There are probably 2,000,000 people who swore to it.  In public, freely.

I suspect that the number is far greater than 2 million!