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.