Obama's LIES...and threats to Liberty

Tweet

A blogger has taken the time to research the lies of Obama. I have posted the first ten. There are 90 more. 1. Promising to "publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days... before the President signs it," then breaking that promise over and over again. 2. Despite promising to keep lobbyists out of his administration, Obama has broken his word again and again (making 17 exceptions to this promise in his first two weeks). 3. Obama promised to eliminate income taxation for seniors making less than $50,000 a year. He has broken this promise despite numerous opportunities to keep it, including the economic stimulus package and his administration's first budget proposal. 4. The President also boasted during his campaign that "During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired," and has failed to keep his word. 5. Obama made it part of his agenda to "allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009," but didn't include this measure in the stimulus package or his budget proposal. 6. Obama broke his promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide. 7. Obama did a shameless 180 degree turn on earmarks by sharply criticizing them (and bragging that he would pass legislation without a single one) and then signing a spending bill with literally thousands of them. 8. Obama promised a $4000 tax credit for college tuition, but backpedaled when he signed a much smaller $2,500 college tax credit into law. 9. Obama called presidential "signing statements" (letters of interpretation and recommendations attached to Congressional legislation) unconstitutional... then attached a signing statement of his own to a $410 billion spending bill. 10. Obama promised a different tone in Washington D.C. and a move past bitter, partisan rhetoric. It took him less than a week as president to berate Republicans and sully the dignity of his office by picking a very public rhetorical fight with a private citizen, Rush Limbaugh. ONE OF THE COMMENTS TO THE BLOG ANSWERING A SUPPORTER OF OBAMA WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT CRITICAL NATURE OF THE BLOG: I definitely agree with you that a president is not expected to fulfill all of his campaign promises within 100 days; however, there are campaign promises that are an issue of ethics and not simply policy. For instance, President Obama did promise to publish legislation on his website before he signs it. This is something that doesn't require a full-term to accomplish. Other examples would be presidential signing statements and his stance on earmarks, as well as the events surrounding the first stimulus package that he signed. There are campaign promises that are not criticized here, such as the re-tooling of public education, civil service, and new jobs, because that will take years to implement. However, those extended promises were not criticized; the errors that were criticized were targeted towards those campaign promises that abuses liberty by libertarian standards and his own standards. I would also say that one of the best ways to help a president is to be a watchdog over the president. Obama himself said that he expects the American citizens to watch him very critically since he is capable of being corrupted. One of the largest problems that we have had with various presidents in the past is that people become complacent when their favored president is in office and simply go with the programs without offering critical analysis of programs. In my opinion, this was the biggest problem with the Bush administration. In my opinion, tt was the constant criticism under the Clinton administration and Carter administration that made them more effective presidents than any of the Republican presidents of the past 30 years (since Republican presidents are not widely criticized as Democratic presidents). What is most important is that our criticism of political leaders cannot be biased to our party affiliation, which seems to be the error of many Democrats now. On this site, criticism has been on both Democrats and Republicans for violating their promises on protecting liberty, which is the proper role of government. SO WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?