Free Markets, Free People

As the left calls Romney a “liar”, Thomas Sowell exposes the real liar

Pay attention because this is important.

A week or so ago, a video from a 2007 Obama speech surfaced in which he used race baiting tactics to exploit the Hurricane Katrina disaster as proof that Republicans didn’t care for Black Americans.

In his speech — delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn’t use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience — he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit as they had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after hurricane Andrew hit.

Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does.

Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be “part of the American family.” But the people in New Orleans — predominantly black — “they don’t care about as much,” according to Barack Obama.

Got it?  That was the crux of the speech.  Now remember, when delivered, he was a US Senator.  And remember too that the speech was delivered on the 5th of June, 2007.

Why is that significant?

Here’s why:

Because, less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined.

So on the 5th of June, Senator Barack Obama got up and told a lie.  A known falsehood.  The Stafford Act had already been waived.  In the United States Senate.  You know, the body to which he was an elected member?

And if you can believe it, it gets worse:

The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against – repeat, AGAINST — the legislation which included the waiver.

Sowell says:

Some people in the media have tried to dismiss this and other revelations of Barack Obama’s real character that have belatedly come to light as “old news.” But the truth is one thing that never wears out. The Pythagorean Theorem is 2,000 years old, but it can still tell you the distance from home plate to second base (127 ft.) without measuring it. And what happened five years ago can tell a lot about Barack Obama’s character — or lack of character.

I don’t use the word “liar” much.  Politicians stretch facts, spin them to their own advantage, etc.  But there are certain instances when the word is very appropriate.

This is one of them.  And, as Sowell implies, that’s why this isn’t “old news”.

So next time you see the left deploy the  word “liar”, refer them to this “old news” and remind them about “glass houses”.

~McQ
Twitter: @McQandO
Facebook: QandO

37 Responses to As the left calls Romney a “liar”, Thomas Sowell exposes the real liar

  • There is so much lying going on right now that it all burrs together …

    Why would CNN [or CNNi] refuse to air the Nick Robertson report with Muhammed Al Zawahiri (brother of Ayman Al Zawahiri) that clearly shows the Egyptian uprising was 100% in response to his call for protests for release of the Blind sheik on 9-11.? Why would the “most trusted name in news“, hide the report showing the truth, and instead allow the false narrative to be sold, by them, to the American electorate?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M86ndC4V7EQ

    CNN never aired the Nick Robertson report in Egypt because it completely contradicted President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s assertions. In short, the Robertson report, if aired, would have proved Obama and Clinton were lying.

    The Nick Robertson CNN report was filmed on 9/9 and, by coincidence, it would have aired at the exact moment Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began attributing the Egyptian embassy protest to a “U-Tube Video”.
    Both the Cairo and Benghazi “events” had nothing to do with the infamous YouTube trailer.

    • And remember Huma.  She is in that mix, too.

    • At least they finally have given us a version of what is probably pretty close to reality about Benghazi.
       
      After oh, nearly a month of lying about it, arresting the guy who produced a video on parole violations to delude the Muslim world into thinking we’re punishing him for his insult to the prophet, and re-iterating again and again it was a spontaneous attack caused by said video.  Now we watch involved agencies point fingers at others, as the press covers by saying “some members of the administration”, like it was NOT the President, and hopes that we won’t remember who said what when before the election wraps up.
       
      One more thing – the detail of the attack now presented certainly puts the lie to the nonsene that a detachment of ARMED US Marines could not have stood this off.  The details indicate the few armed men they had were able to hole up and withstand occupation of the compound, and finally effect a withdrawal to a more secure location after they were relieved.  The only people lost in the Ambassadors compound were lost when they chose to split the party up and isolate the Ambassador with a lone security team member as defense.   Whoever designs these safe rooms ought to remember that fire and it’s children heat and smoke are charter members of man’s oldest weapons club.

    • Thanks! That explains why I saw a photo of demonstrators in Bahrain, supposedly angry over the video, with a banner of the blind sheikh.
      The media helpfully didn’t translate that banner.

      • weird. most of their banners are in English. I guess that’s only when we are supplying them.
         

  • Oh gosh, I have to see if I can find my surprise face again.
     
    I agree, the word liar is one I hesitate to use.  I give them the benefit of the doubt, it’s a big government.  Sometimes I don’t think they know, aren’t told, are told after whatever they said that made them appear to be lying.   I used to apply the mens rea rule a lot, not so much any more; thank you Harry, Nancy, Barack and assorted others both Republican and Democrat, elected, appointed and hired.
     
    I’m pretty sure I’ve been regularly using the word Liar in connection with the President for over a year now.

  • Obama’s speech was a tour d’main in racist demagoguery.  In addition to the myth about “N’Orlens” and “where’s yo’ dollah?”, he was also telling his audience that they were short-changed in the funding, compared to other disaster-struck areas.
    Also, he told the lie about there being more Black males in prison than in college.  You can look up the numbers yourself.
    But this is a guy who has literally occupied the same speaking venue as the leader of The New Black Panthers.
    And, in that speech you reference, McQ, he extols The Wrong Rev. Wright as “a great leader”.
    Even his religious act was pretense…or a lie.  He is as religious as was Bill Clinton.
    What would we call a candidate who spoke from the same venue as the leaders of the Aryan Nation, and recited a litany of white supremacist myths, using their speech idioms and their favorite themes?

    • “What would we call a candidate who spoke from the same venue as the leaders of the Aryan Nation, and recited a litany of white supremacist myths, using their speech idioms and their favorite themes?”
       
      Sadly we now call him “Mr. President”.

    • But this is a guy who has literally occupied the same speaking venue as the leader of The New Black Panthers.
      You don’t mean New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz, do you ?
      He recently got the honor of being added to the SPLC’s list of “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right.”
      Do radical Right activists hang out with radical Left community organizers ?  I’m so confused.

  • In all fairness, IIRC, Obama voted against the NO relief bill because it included funding for Iraq.  Since it was clearly going to pass anyway he was just grand standing.  That doesn’t change the fact that he lied about the bill that did pass.  Then again, the whole Iraq funding thing was nothing more than political games.  He ran for president on getting the US out of Iraq but then actually failed in an attempt to keep troops there when his attempts to re-negotiate the Bush withdraw time table fell apart.  So when Obama says he got the troops out of Iraq, it is not because he wanted to.  It was because the Iraqis stuck with the Bush plan.

    • No, leave it up – it shows categorically that an “Adult Discussion” is impossible with these clowns.

      • So far it appears the Obama Campaign would LIKE you to have that talking point – they haven’t acknowledged Big Bird’s request yet.
         
        Since we’re getting the grand tour of who makes what over at Big Bird incorporated, courtesy of Obama thrusting them into the ‘free tax money’ spotlight, I think they’d like it if we could forget that the guy in the Big Bird suit and his boss are both firmly in the 1% we were working so hard to demonize last year.

        • B. Bird has more money than Romney.  Hence, B. Bird is a Fat Cat.  I’m so confused…

  • What I find interesting is what this 2007 video says about Obama’s subsequent handling of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  The basic upshot is that Obama cares more for his union cronies than either the populations of New Orleans or the environment, for that matter.

  • Of course that is not just an example of a political lie, it is hateful race baiting. He told a black audience a lie they were already predisposed to believe, that the white man had been mean to them again.

    • And imho talked down to them by affecting an accent while doing it.   Affected accents aren’t an accident.

  • Obama lied, Amb. Stevens died
     
    And Romney and Ryan BETTER make sure the public knows it

  • I think the relevant line is #23 on page 97 of HR2206. That’s definitely the 80-14 vote on May 24, 2007. But it reads like the matching requirement is waived only for the $10 million allocated for the State Historic Preservation Officer. Is that right, or was it waived for the whole $3.4 billion? A little help please.
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr2206eah/pdf/BILLS-110hr2206eah.pdf

  • 0

    Anne
    October 11th, 2012

    Ya gotta admire old slow Joe’s versatility, folks;
    talking out of his ass with his foot in his mouth.
    Strategy: Lie about Ryan’s positions on issues,
    and when Ryan refutes those lies, call him a liar.
    Al Sharpton is the face of the Democatic Party.
    Slimy Democrats sure love their slimy con artists.
    Not to worry. Ryan will clean ol Joe’s clock.

  • IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ:
     
    Joe Bidem intentionally lied last night. He said that even if the Iranians already had nuclear weapons, they don’t have the means to deliver them.
     
    The Iranians have three different missles which could deliver nuclear warheads, an Ashoura 2-stage, long range missile with a capability to deliver multiple warheads, and two deadly medium range missles, the Shahib-3 and the Fajr (MIRV).
    Hell, Joe, a truck or a shipping container on a ship or an airplane could even deliver nuclear warheads, you dolt. Only other Democrats will be gullible enough and stupid enough to beleve your malarkey.
    Joe told three other whoppers, too. I’ll address them later when I have more time. Paul Ryan could have won the debate handily if he had said what I said here.
    My point is that Joe and Barack and their slimy sycophants at MSNBC are the liars.