Why should I believe it?

Never lie

We need to be wary when any political figure says anything.

Every statement should be weighed against the history of the person/entity making the statement before accepting or rejecting it.

It’s not unlike betting. Ever go to a horse track and bet? Much of the information presented in the racing forms in based on a horse’s history. In almost any sort of betting, much emphasis is place on the previous performance of the team or individual. Why, because it is one of the best indications of how the person or team will perform today.

That’s logical, right? Why then, shouldn’t we use a person or entity’s historical pattern of truth or falsehoods to filter current statements?

I just saw president Obama say that his Iran “framework” is good for the U.S. and the world. With the framework in place, Iran has no path to nuclear weapons and there will be inspections to assure the world that Iran isn’t developing weaponry in secret. In other words, Iran is putting aside their desire to acquire nuclear weaponry and will cease any progress to that end.

You believe that? I don’t.

If he believes Iran, he’s even more stupid than I thought. I’d be willing to bet money that Obama doesn’t believe it either. He’s just so determined to get an agreement – any agreement – with Iran, he’ll cave to any of their demands just so they’ll sign something and he can take credit for bringing “peace” to the world during his presidency (finally justifying his Nobel “Peace” Prize).

Given his history, we believe anything that Barack Obama says at our peril. He has proven that he feels no guilt or shame in saying what he must say to win public support – regardless of the truth or falsehood of the statement. We have ample, documented proof that he has lied to the American people (and foreign governments) many times and there’s no reason to believe that he’s repented and become honest overnight.

So far, neither France nor Israel believes the prez and it’s interesting that the Iranians and Hezbollah are both celebrating the plan as a huge victory. Some would say that they are merely playing to their masses and that their “victory” is pure propaganda. But, I would add that Obama is probably doing the very same thing. Frankly, I don’t trust him to tell us the truth any more than I believe what the Iranians say. What a sorry state our presidency is in when a citizen can’t believe what the president says.

Much the same can be said of Hillary Clinton. In the Clintons, we have a pair of accomplished professional liars. Bill looked the American people “in the eye” and lied about Monica Lewinsky. He was impeached and lost his law license because he lied – it’s on the record. That wasn’t the only time he lied, just the most obvious one.

And Hillary is perhaps even worse than Bill. Hillary has been proven to be a habitual liar ever since, as a 27-year-old lawyer, she committed serious illegal acts while on the Watergate staff investigating Richard Nixon.

Her supervisor, Jeffrey Zeifman said of her, “she was a liar; she was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” And this was early in her professional career, she was just getting started.

Without detailing all of the nefarious activities that can be laid at her feet in the intervening years, the most recent (and egregious) example of her disdain for the truth is displayed by her operating her own private, personal email network while serving as Secretary of State (against State Department rules) and lying about why she did it.

Regardless of her statement explaining the reason for her secret network, we should refer to Occam’s razor which implies that a simpler, more logical reason is more likely, and that was to prevent any congressional or FOIA access of her records. The only reason for doing that would have been to support covering up her (likely illegal, perhaps even treasonous) activities.

Hillary had to know that eventually the secret network would be exposed and that she’d take some negative flak for it, so we should ask ourselves, why would she flaunt the rules knowing that she’d be subject to a hostile reaction? There’s only one logical answer: that any censure she’d receive for operating a private email network would be preferable to what would befall her if her email records were available to investigating authorities.

Looking at the historical records amassed by both Obama and Hillary, we should be extremely cautious before accepting anything said by either party. They are known to lie; they’ve established a pattern and we should expect them to continue to lie when it serves their purpose.

While I’ve only highlighted the country’s most obvious icons when it comes to politicians lying, they aren’t the only ones who bend, fold, and mutilate the truth.

We’re entering a political season and from now through the 2016 elections, we’ll be subject to hundreds of statements from the political candidates and unfortunately, many of those statements will be untrue. The untruths will be mixed in with some factual statements so that it becomes very difficult to tell the good from the bad.

About all we can do is view a candidate’s statement against a backdrop of his/her record.

The point is that, absent a history of truthfulness, individual’s statements should be subjected to the question, “why should I believe it?”

In truth, we’d probably be better off not believing anything a politician says as opposed to believing everything that they may say – that’s downright foolhardy.

Forewarned is forearmed and recent history has proven that our own self-interest demands that we be armed.

Garnet92

 

 

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Why should I believe it?

  1. Hardnox says:

    Good post. We all know the whole meme is bullshit. The Iranians have already said so minutes after Putt and Lurch made their speeches. Anyone that thinks this non-agreement is a good thing must be on crack.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Thanks Nox, all we have to do is consult our new app, the Obama Translator. When we key in Obama’s statement, the translation comes up, “BULLSHIT.” And now we have proof that he is, once again, lying to us.

  2. Uriel says:

    Excellent points Garnet. If Iran speaks we say they lie. If we listen to Putin, we probably have to worry since we know he is a man of few words and trained to command. If O opens his mouth I have learned to reverse his words. So why then are we allowing those already confirmed as unlawful get away with their lies when we have a constitution whose laws are being broken? Demo libs are roasting any Republican or Tea Party member, where is our righteous anger over all Their faults in national media?

    • Garnet92 says:

      I suspect that your questions are all rhetorical Uriel, since as an intelligent person, you’ve already determined that Obama is not to be trusted. It’s unfortunate that we conservatives have been, until now, the silent majority. We are beginning to rise up and condemn those who make their living lying to the American people.

  3. Kathy says:

    The same applies to the media. There are some trustworthy sources and others that we know, while not outright lying, they slant pieces to a such a degree it distorts the truth.

    Between the media and the politicians, this campaign season will keep us on our toes.

    • Garnet92 says:

      You’re right there Kathy. One thing that folks can do is follow us here on N&F since we DO check our sources and endeavor to be truthful and accurate in everything that we post.

  4. CW says:

    Great post, Garnet.

    It is very ironic that the Left have managed to create the perception among the lemmings that it’s republicans who are the party of liars, when the opposite is true. Isn’t one of the rules for radicals (a.k.a. a**holes) to accuse your enemy of your own crimes? I have to admit it’s an effective strategy. That’s the beauty of appealing to lemmings.

    • captbogus2 says:

      Yeah and they have also created the perception that it was the Democrats who fought slavery, Jim Crow and pushed for the Civil Rights Act.
      And nobody seems to rebut their version come campaign time.

      • CW says:

        So true…

      • Garnet92 says:

        Right capt, the only blacks who believe your statement are the ones who did their own research and learned the truth. Most of the other though just accept what the democrats tell them as gospel without any verification or questioning at all.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Thanks CW, it bugs me too. They’ve just had the “podium” via the media for so long and their untruthful rants have been repeated so many times, that the low-info folks have been indoctrinated into believing that THEY are truthful and WE are the liars.

      We’ll just have to yell louder and more often to combat the left’s lies.