Barack Obama transparently lied for eight solid years. Why? Because he could. The press treated each lie as “part of the ‘debate’.”
As we mentioned in a recent post (here), Obama, and the rest of the American Left use the vocabulary of the Right to fool the people into accepting their entirely left-wing agenda.
For the American media, though, that all was, and is, just fine. The media knew it was happening, but still it’s always been just okay with them… because they’re leftists too.
The old joke goes: “Question: How can you tell a politician is lying? Answer: His lips are moving.”
One wonders whether the Left formulated that old jest preemptively… because it should begin: “How can you tell a Leftist is lying? …”
The “politician” beginning allows us all to nod sagely, knowingly to each other, suggesting that we know all about, we’re more honest, and just better than… “politicians.” When, really, we’re better only than leftists.
The Obama Administration — therefore Obama himself — lied unabashedly, overtly, bald-facedly, to the media about the Benghazi incident in which four Americans, including the American ambassador to Libya, died.
For the American media though, that was no problem. Even though people died.
Obama lied overtly about using the IRS to deny basic civil rights to tens of millions of Americans. What was the quote again? Oh, yeah: “Not a smidgen of corruption...”
President Nixon was almost impeached for merely talking about… the very same thing that Obama and his IRS actually did to millions of Americans. For the American media, though, that was, and is, just fine.
Obama lied overtly about every aspect of so-called “Obamacare,” but for the American media, though, no problem. The media presented Obama’s whoppers as merely “part of the debate.”
Then, Trump tells a “lie.” The crowd size thing (see below). Never mind that it was all part of the President’s casual use of superlatives — an already well-known characteristic of the President’s — to describe, well, everything.
So, the people whose very livelihoods depend on their ability to understand, use and process language, are thoroughly flummoxed by a guy whose language is, let’s face it, careless and imprecise.
Mind you, not one single person has ever been able to offer any evidence whatsoever that Trump has ever tried intentionally to deceive, which is the definition of a lie.
Yet, it has been proven, pretty conclusively, that Obama lied — yes, intentinoally… over and over and over and over and over again… For the American media, though… no problem.
And, what have Trump’s “lies” been so far? Well, the only thing I can think of so far is: “The crowd size at my inauguration was bigger than at Obama’s.” And that was debatable, as we mentioned in these pages before.
The problem is that Trump could say that the sky is blue, or that water is wet, and the press would sneer that he was either lying or too stupid even to know what was the truth.
Interestingly, when Trump said that Obama had wiretapped him, the press said only that Trump needed to present evidence of it.(1) That demand has gone away with the production of proof that, indeed, Obama’s NSA was conducting surveillance of Trump transition team people… The logical next question is: why was Obama’s NSA conducting surveillance of Trump transition people. In other words, the burden of explanation now fell on Obama’s defenders in the media. Needless to say, didn’t respond. And — surprise, surprise!!! — the issue has gone silent! In other words, the media were just fine with the silence by Obama’s supporters on the question.
As we remarked in another recent post (here): Obama lied, all the time, about really big, consequential things; things that harmed the lives of hundreds of millions of people in America and around the world. Trump’s only “lie” — the crowd size thing… affected no one. But for the press, Obama’s lies were just fine, no problem.
But that horrible, awful, terrible… crowd size lie? Proof! Proof, I tell you, that we have to get rid of Trump!
None of this should be surprising at all.
(1) Needless to say, but we’ll say it anyway, if Obama had made a similar claim about a Republican, the press would have demanded that the Republican prove that he had not done it. This has been the pattern for a very long time. Remember the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? Some idiot Senator or other sneered that despite a lack of any evidence whatsoever, “the allegations are so serious that we must pursue them.” By that standard, of course, if someone had accused a President of, say, rape, then the serious accusation itself would require that Congress pursue a vigorous investigation.
Oh, wait, that did happen. Except for the investigation, that is.