Could it be Another Left-Wing Liar?

I have found a couple of posts and an email I received Redstate.com that report different angles of Barack Hussein Obama as a liar. I am going to post all three.

I will start with the email from the e-list that I am on than post sequentially the posts about Obama.

Since most of the Democratic elite seems to be pushing for Hillary to abandon her campaign (which she refuses so far), voters should be made aware of the character of the man who would be President.

Even if the lies are mere honest faux pas it points to the inexperience Obama would bring to the Oval Office.

You know I have been anti-Clinton not just Hillary because the family has a shroud of deception that covers it. I guess that is something that does not bother Democrats. I am reading that Obama has that same shroud of deception. I guess if you are a Leftist and have a charismatic presence, being a strait shooter is a matter of insignificance. (No I wasn’t writing of the current Vice President. Okay, it was a humorous thought that popped into the moment.)

JRH 4/1/08
******************************************
Remember the Time Line

Redstate.com Email
Erick Erickson
March 31, 2008 9:01:38 AM

Dear RedState Reader,

This whole story about Reverend Wright further demonstrates the fraud that is Barack Obama. Let's work the timeline on this:

Barack claims that he would have left the church in 2007 if Wright had not stepped down as an "active" pastor. (Note that he is still "senior" pastor and all sermons in the churrch bulletin are still copyright to Wright)

Of course in 2006, Barack gave his largest donation to the church ever, $22,500. That's 22,500 demonstrations of his support for the message and work of Rev. Wright when Barack would have us believe that he was struggling with Wright's words and leadership.

Of course, recall that when the Wright story broke Barack hadn't heard about these sermons. They didn't happen when he was there.

Let me offer another theory: we are watching a politician lie. Politicially, it is a convenient lie, because he is lying about his state of mind, something that it is very hard to disprove or corroborate.

This is the same kind of lie that Barack Obama told about his position on Israel. He used to support a radical liberal position on Israel, like the position taught be Rev. Wright. But then, in 2003 he pivots and suddenly becomes a fan of Israel. Why? When politicians change their position a year before an election, the most obvious theory is usually the correct one. They are, or were, lying.

On Israel and on Wright, Obama's stories don't work. And that is not the sort of change we can believe in.

All the best,

Erick Erickson Editor, RedState.com

This email was sent to xxxxxxxx.com because this address is on the RedState Action Emails list.
________________________________

Barack Obama: I'm Lying To You For Votes And You're Too Stupid To Know Any Better
Pretend my people NEVER said we should not hope for a democratic Iraq

By haystack
April 1, 2008
Redstate.com

This "100 year war" tug of war foolishness between Obama and McCain has gone far enough. Barack Obama is lying staight-faced to his followers, and he knows it. His Campaign Co-Chair is on record stating categorically that Iraq is "just the first of our Middle East occupations":

Look. We've been in Europe now since '45. We've been in Japan since '45. Been in Korea since '50. So we've had a European occupation force and a Asiatic occupation force for half a century, and we haven't had a Middle East occupation force, so this is a start of that, this is the way great powers operate, it's the way Rome operated. We will be in the Middle East for a long time. This is just the first of our Middle East occupations.

Barack Obama would have you believe that our being in Iraq is a bad thing. He is against war...well, war in Iraq... but has no problem expanding it in Afghanistan. According to a piece in the WSJ today:

Mr. Obama's call to increase the size of U.S. ground forces by 92,000 troops -- 65,000 for the Army and 27,000 for the Marines -- is precisely the figure offered by Secretary of Defense Bob Gates in 2007.

Fine. He wants to send 92,000 US Soldiers to Afghanistan to beat up an already "badly broken" Taliban, and rummage through caves looking for a couple old guys with cell phones and laptops running the war on terror. Whatever.

That he wants NO soldiers in the streets of Iraq to provide the necessary security and support for Iraqi citizens to conduct business, feed and clothe their families, and educate themselves escapes me, but even THIS is beside the point.

Obama's people are saying the same thing McCain is saying about Iraq...AND the greater Middle East. They are correct in suggesting we will continue exerting our lone superpower status, and they are even factually fair in pointing out that we don't always exert that status appropriately. We make mistakes sometimes too, after all. We've made our share in Iraq, to be sure, but leaving the place isn't how you correct them..is it Mr. "I want to be President without ever having to face reality?"

More below the "lies and the liars that tell them" fold...

Obama is getting a free pass from the anti-war media, despite the fact that the "reality of war and peace" is quite clear in the minds of his advisers. Obama is lying to you. An Obama administration will treat the Middle East no differently than a McCain administration-reality, and all that non-fluff stuff Barry likes to lie to you about, being what it is.

This election is about the mess he's going to make of the US...the economy, the health care system, the tax burdens on all of us, the small businesses he'll singlehandedly destroy, and the number and manner by which more innocent unborn children will be killed....it's NOT about how he'll deal with Iraq differently [read "pull them out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan"], because he WON'T.

The WSJ piece suggests Obama might not understand the meaning of defeat. He needs to get the crash course on it in November.

In the close, WSJ's Bret Stephens reminds us of a passage in "the speech heard 'round the world" when "Obama noted that there was no point trying to best Mr. McCain in matters of experience, that what counted was good judgment".

Good judgment might have been for Obama to let go of the 100 years war rhetoric before the dots were connected between his lies to us on Iraq...or his poor judgment in selecting a campaign CO-CHAIR who sees Iraq exactly the same as McCain does.

Move to a new subject Barry-we know ALL about what you WON'T be doing in Iraq.
______________________________

Another Barack Obama Lie

By Erick [Erickson]
April 1, 2008
Redstate.com

Maybe when Barack Obama says he's not your typical politician, he really means he lies *even more* than your typical politician.

Leon's chronicled one lie about his liberal interest. Jeff had another lie about his church involvement. Below, Haystack chronicles another lie about his Iraq policy. Now, Jake Tapper has another one.

Obama has a new ad out excoriating Exxon for making millions of Americans money in their retirement accounts. Then he says, "I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore."

Well, okay, but Mr. Fabulist is really stretching there. Tapper notes that Factcheck.org has called out Obama on this

and concludes that the statement "misleading" since according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics Obama has taken more than $213,000 from individuals (and their spouses) who work for companies in the oil and gas industry -- not to mention that two of Obama's top fundraisers are top executives at oil companies"

It is literally true that Obama doesn't take money from oil companies. No federal candidate does -- corporations have been banned from direct contributions since 1907.

So yes, Obama did not take the legal maximum donation from Chevron's PAC of $5,000.00. He just took $9,500.00 from oil company employees -- more than could have been given by the company itself.