Why Did Obama Lie?

This is my rant and I’m not going to demean myself by using some soft and fluffy euphemism in place of what president [sic] Obama actually did, somewhere between 26 and 34 times (depending on the source), and that is: LIE to the American people.

By now, any conscious and awake citizen has heard the president’s numerous lies regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), so I won’t repeat them now. My point in writing this piece is to remind everyone WHY the president pushed ahead with statements that he knew were outright lies.

Obama lying to America with noseAnd let’s be clear, they weren’t little fibs that we might expect from a four or five year-old child or even a teenager trying to cover up some rules infraction. The statements made by our president can accurately be described as fraudulent.

Think I’m being too dramatic? Let’s see if the president’s statements do constitute fraud. The following is taken from the Legal Dictionary:

Fraud: A false representation of a matter of fact – whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed – that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements. Note that in the following determination, the part of the defendant is played by president Obama and the victims are the American people:

  • The defendant made a false statement of a material fact,
  • the defendant knew that the statement was untrue,
  • there was intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
  • there was justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
  • there is (and will be) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

After reading that, I think that someone would have to engage in semantic gymnastics in order to find that the president’s statements were NOT fraudulent. He lied. He knows he lied. We know he lied. And the country will suffer as a result of his lies.

If you believe that the president’s statement wasn’t false or that it didn’t constitute a “material fact,” or that our citizenry didn’t rely on his statements to be true, or that no injury has resulted from his lies, if you really believe that, then you have no business here, go find something else to do – you are in denial.

But let’s return to my purpose for this piece. Let’s look particularly at the third element that it takes to constitute fraud: “intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim.”

Why would the president make statements that he knew, or should have known, were lies? He had to know, his staff knew – they even had meetings to discuss whether he should tell the truth. But politics overcame all who might have argued for telling the truth and he lied – over and over.

He had to lie, if he had told the truth about losing plans, losing doctors, increased premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, what would have been the result? People would have raised hell and their congress-critters would have known of their displeasure.

If Obama had told the truth about the ACA, it would not have passed Congress.

Despite the fact that democrats held majorities in both the House (256/178) and the Senate (60/40) in the 111th Congress, passage was not assured – in fact, it was difficult.

The bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009. All democrats and two independents voted for the bill, NO Republicans voted for the Senate bill.

In the House, the vote was even closer; the House passed H.R. 3590 with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, a seven vote majority, with 34 democrats and ALL 178 Republicans voting against it.

And the bill’s passage was almost overshadowed by the accusations of “foul play,” (e.g., the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Bay State Kickback, etc.). All deals made by democrat leadership to get the final votes to pass the bill – they were legislative bribes, nothing less.

Even with majorities in both houses, the democrats couldn’t pass the bill without bribing some members to vote for the bill. No Republicans voted for the bill, the democrats OWN it, lock, stock, and barrel.

Would Congress have passed the Affordable Care Act if the public had known that so many would lose their current plans, many would not be able to see the same doctor, and their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles would go up? Democrat leadership pulled out all of their tricks, tradeoffs, and bribes to get it passed and it still just squeaked by.

Remember this – the democrat leadership knew then what we’ve only now learning, that’s why we “had to pass it to find out what’s in it.”

The bill would not have passed the Senate, and stood an even smaller chance of passing the House if the truth had been known – the truth would have killed the bill.

So once that legislative hurdle was cleared (passage), only one more major hurdle remained – Obama’s reelection in 2012.

It was necessary to keep the public from knowing the truth until after the president’s reelection. That’s why nothing really happened (in public) until after Obama was reelected. Get him reelected first, then they’d worry about the consequences, if any, later.

If the truth about the Affordable Care Act had been known, and Obama’s lies had been exposed before the 2012 Presidential Election,  Obama would not have been reelected.

But wait, there’s more; there’s another shoe to drop. On January 1st, 2015, the Employer Mandate will take effect.

If you think that it’s coincidental that the Employer Mandate will take effect after the 2014 min-term congressional elections, you are naïve. The mandate was originally scheduled to take effect January, 2014, but Obama delayed its implementation until 2015, after the elections. He did that to reduce democrat losses in the mid-term elections when the truth about Obamacare finally became known.

And what is the truth about the Employer Mandate?

Most businesses – the administration estimates between 39 and 69 percent – will not be able to keep the coverage they have. Many more Americans will lose their current plans when employers dump their existing plans, either voluntarily or by mandate. All of the same complaints will apply regarding doctors, costs, etc. and the uproar will start anew – only this time affecting even more Americans.

Notice how the Obamacare sycophants have been trying to minimize the “you can keep your plan” lie by stating that the current problems would only affect 5% of our citizens? Or only affect a “fraction of the population”?

They say that the approximately 80% who get their insurance from their employer, union, or government program will in fact be able to keep their insurance. They’re lying again.

If Obamacare is fully implemented, Chris Conover in an article in Forbes, estimates that at least 129 million (68%) will not be able to keep their previous health care plan either because they already have or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014. This includes:

  • 9.2 to 15.4 million in the non-group market
  • 16.6 million in the small group market
  • 102.7 million in the large group market

In short, the “vast majority” are not keeping their health plans, even though Obama and his sycophants assured us that we could keep our employer-provided plans – period.

He (and they) lied again. What a surprise.

If details of the Employer Mandate are exposed before the 2014 mid-term elections, I believe that the democrats will lose seats, many seats, and deservedly so. The PPACA bill was passed and the president was reelected based on deceit and lies and it will come back to haunt the democrats.

What I’ve presented here isn’t new, most folks who are paying attention know it, but it hasn’t received the public exposure that it deserves. I learned long ago, that there are two steps between honesty and dishonesty: need and opportunity. Obama needed for the public to remain ignorant of what was hidden in the ACA and he availed himself of numerous opportunities to lie about it so he could convince us that there was nothing to worry about.

And millions believed him.

We will have an opportunity to correct what the Obama administration has forcibly imposed on us by electing more conservatives to Congress in the 2014 elections. If we can gain seats in the House and take control of the Senate, we can remedy this abortion of a law and stop the Obama train-wreck from damaging the U.S. even more.

It may be our only hope.


Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Why Did Obama Lie?

  1. Mrs AL says:

    Not a lawyer, as you know. It’s my understanding that one cannot bring a lawsuit unless they have “standing.”

    Who has standing to bring suit relative to this law?

  2. Garnet92 says:

    Thanks for stopping by Mrs AL. I’m not a lawyer either so I can’t answer the question definitively regarding standing, but it would seem that a prime reason for “standing” is having a personal stake in the matter.

    The reason for bringing up the fraud definition was to just illustrate the seriousness of Obama’s lie. It does fit all of the criteria of a fraud and that makes it more serious than most common campaign lies. I have no idea if anyone would ever attempt to file suit against Obama for lying about the ACA – it would seem doubtful. It may not even be possible.

    • Hardnox says:

      “Standing” is only applicable to those parties, individuals, or corporations that are harmed or negatively affected.

      The floodgates of litigation will be forthcoming.

      I don’t believe that any party can directly file suit against an elected official. They can however file suit against a government agency, department, county, state, or the whole of the federal government.

      • Garnet92 says:

        It’s an interesting question. I Googled it and several answers (the “answer” sites) said that the President can’t be sued for things he did while in his official capacity, but then I ran across this bit that discussed Donald Trump suing president Obama:

        “This is the most ridiculous lawsuit I have ever seen,” says David Boies, a constitutional lawyer. “There is no provision in the law that would allow anyone to sue the president in civil court for damages done in the course of his professional duties.”

        However, not all legal scholars agree that Trump’s case is entirely without merit.

        “Oddly enough, people are allowed to sue the president while still in office,” explains a constitutional law professor at Georgetown. “This was established by the Supreme Court in the 1990s when Paula Jones wanted to sue Clinton.

        So, apparently there’s not an easy answer to the question.

        • Hardnox says:

          The difference is in the act itself. While acting in an official capacity an elected official is immune from a suit. Passing a shitty law has no consequences other than at the ballot box. However, if he is acting on his own behalf while still in office, such as asking for a BJ, then that is personal behavior and the statute is irrelevant.

  3. Kathy says:

    Well said, Garnet. America had better wake up and make some changes in 2014. I’m not crazy about the Republicans, but they will dismantle this, as evidenced by their no votes in 2009.

    • Garnet92 says:

      I’m with you, Kathy. I think that we have reason to be optimistic – I know I certainly am. You can call it what you will, “what goes around, comes around,” “Karma,” etc. I don’t care, I just know that I want to see Omammy get his just deserts and for historians to be forced to include his failures.

  4. upaces88 says:

    Why did he lie? Because everything in the HCB was designed to destroy the country from many directions. He certainly didn’t want it to be “Transparent.”

    The HCB was based on an old layers trick when a large law firm is in litigation with a smaller company…”Paper them to death.”
    There is so much hidden in the legal brief, they won’t want to read it.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Right upaces, while I agree with your characterization about how much evil is likely still hidden in that abortion of a healthcare bill, it first had to pass Congress and I believe that Obummer’s lies were first, to get it passed and later to get reelected. Most of those 2,700 (or so) pages of crap are yet to be deciphered.

      • upaces88 says:

        They do NOT want to read it all…then they would be “forced to be responsible.”
        It isn’t a new method to form an “x” amount of people to read and “x” amount of pages within a specified time….then come back to meet and expose the issues within this OVERLY large HCB.

  5. Clyde says:

    Good post, Garnet. To answer your question, Why Did He Lie? It’s ALL he knows.

  6. Hardnox says:

    That was a stellar post Garnet. There is no question that the Left perpetrated fraud. Now where are the Supremes?

    • Garnet92 says:

      Thanks ‘Nox. It is right out there for all the world to see, but this time he may not get away with it. Screwing with everyone’s health care has really pissed off so many people – and it’s not over yet – that I really believe that 2014 will be a massacre.

      • Hardnox says:

        Which explains why there is an ever increasing number of Dims joining the chorus to delay or dump this mess. Massacre? I hope so. Americans have short memories. The next ugly part of ZeroCare doesn’t kick in until January 2015 when those receiving healthcare insurance from employers start paying taxes on their benefits as income. Then watch the real screaming start.

        • Garnet92 says:

          Agree with that – that’s when the stuff will hit the fan. The plans available to employers have the same essential benefits required and most current plans don’t offer all of those, meaning that most of those group plans will also change and increase in price, co-pay, deductibles, and participating physicians. I expect many employers will drop their coverage and force their employees to go to the exchanges and that’s when the fan will be inundated with excrement. Might as well get some popcorn.

        • If, indeed, there are going to be any employers willing and able to afford to offer employee insurance(s).

          • Garnet92 says:

            That is the question GF. Every year, we established a budget for our part of our group insurance and had our insurance agent present the options to us. When the new insurance costs exceeds the budget, you either cut benefits or ask the employees to pay more. Now that cutting benefits (coverage) is out of the picture, I imagine tons of small employers (under 50) will drop coverage entirely and force employees into the exchanges. The employees who are making decent salaries won’t qualify for much in the way of subsidies and will be pissed off at the new overall costs of Obamacare.

    • Mrs AL says:

      Well goodness, Hardnox, they’re playing a gig at the white house!!

  7. Garnet92 says:

    Right crawfish, if you have a more accurate number, lay it on us. I’ve seen so many different counts, rather than choose one, I just used the range of 26-34, just lazy.

  8. Buck says:

    Hardnox, I’m sure Chief Justice Roberts would find nowhere in the Constitution lying to obtain legislation mentioned….

  9. Garnet92 says:

    This is OFF TOPIC, but since it’s my post, I’m allowed.