(VIDEO) Barack Obama: The Best Lying Demagogue Ever to Infest the White House

As he disgustingly used law enforcement officials as a back drop in Colorado, President Obama uttered a few lines about his un-Constitutional gun grabbing policy ideas that truly proves he’s the best lying demagogue to ever sit in the Oval Office.

Obama had a message about elected officials, who they are, and what they want to do about Obama’s anti-Second Amendment crusade. But his phrasing of the subject is particularly interesting. He turned the truth on its head, made anyone that stands for the Second Amendment into a nut case, and dismissed any thought that government could be used as a tool of oppression despite the whole of human history proving him otherwise. And he wrapped up by hinting that anyone that stands against him wants more kids to die.

Here is what he said:

Now, notice the conceit, here. Obama is trying to ridicule anyone that supports the Second Amendment for its real, actual purpose–as a check on government oppression. He is trying to make it seem that Second Amendment supporters are nuts or even dangerous, but at the very least dismissible because they understand the true purpose of the Second Amendment.

How does he do this? By claiming that elected officials are “us.” In Obama’s formulation, oppressive government is essentially impossible because “we” elect “us,” we elect the government and it/they is “us.”

The lie that government in the U.S. cannot be oppressive would be news to the participants of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Mormons, the Civil War, anyone that was a slave until 1865, or anyone that was black until 1963. The idea that the government couldn’t possibly step over the line would be a surprise to anyone that home schools or wants to sell un-homogenized milk today. It would be a surprise to people that are beaten and abused by rogue cops, too, something that happens all across the country all too often.

Now, this isn’t me saying that government is always oppressive. Of course it isn’t. It is also not to say that government is unresponsive to we the people unless we threaten to shoot some cop or official, either. That is as equally stupid as Obama’s extreme claim to the contrary.

But Obama is positing that just because we elect people, they couldn’t possibly be oppressive. This is a simply lie used to demean Second Amendment supporters.

There is another context to his talking points, here. Since the government is “us” then we should be able to do what “we” want. “We” are the government, he is saying, so we should be able to say what we want to change at any time. After all, government is “us,” dontcha know!

Yet, then he laments that the U.S. Constitution “restrains” him from oppressing we the people.

So, which is it, Mr. President?

Can government do what ever it wants because government is “us,” or are you constrained by a Constitution that has set ideals governing your actions? You can’t have it both ways, pal.

His ending was particularly demagogic. Standing on the graves of murdered kids, Obama essentially evoked their deaths to stay that if you stand against his un-Constitutional gun grabs, then you want more kids to die.

This episode only goes to show what a lair and demagogue this man really is.

CNBC’s Version of Suburban Poverty
Even Piers Morgan Criticizes Obama Over Lavish Vacation Spending
  • GarandFan

    Typical rabble-rousing “community organizer”. Isolate it, villify it, denegrate it.

  • Brucehenry

    This is the same Warner Todd Huston who was in high dudgeon just this morning because a writer called Ted Cruz “the most hated man in the Senate.” Apparently that’s a lot worse than calling the President a “lying demagogue.”

    And I think Warner made a mistake in posting the actual video. Anyone can objectively see that he was not saying the things Warner imputes to him.

    • fustian24

      He’s saying exactly what Obama says. Didn’t you watch the video?

      Perhaps you don’t know what a demagogue is?

  • SteveCrickmore075

    As Warner and the other wizbang writers keep returning to this subject of gun control, that Obama and Congress might do something however minimal, it is not about logic or crime or the second amendment, but it is about their cultural war, that they feel so insensed, just as the militas, in the late 18th century in the South, were so concerned about slave revolts they pushed James Madison to include the second admendment in the Bill of Rights.

    Today, “people who possess guns are almost five times more likely to be shot than those who don’t. (“A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons,” the authors of one study point out, to help explain that truth.) Far from providing greater safety, gun possession greatly increases the risk of getting shot—and, as has long been known, keeping a gun in the house chiefly endangers the people who live there….

    Alec Wilkinson wrote, with the wisdom of a long-ago cop, “Nobody really believes it’s about maintaining a militia. It’s about having possession of a tool that makes a person feel powerful nearly to the point of exaltation. …I am not saying that people who love guns inordinately are unstable; I am saying that a gun is the most powerful device there is to accessorize the ego.”

    Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/the-cultural-fight-for-guns.html#ixzz2PpJCtcv

    • fustian24


      Gun owners have small dicks?

      That’s really your argument?


      • SteveCrickmore075

        small brains might be a closer analogy, or haven’t you noticed what groups glorify guns? right wing white extremists….black ghetto bangers!

        • LiberalNightmare

          We have noticed what group fears them.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Spouses to police officers and returning veterans, are two of the groups that have the most to fear, they suffer domestic abuse from 25 to 40%, (in a few cases ending in tragedy) well above the average of the traditional American family that Warner is always promoting.

          • stan25

            Where did you get that whopper, Crickmore? From the Dummy Underground or the Kossack? They are the ones that are putting out that kind of horseshit. Oh I forgot, you are one of the enlightened ones over there, because you can read the bilge that is published in the New York Slimes and the Washington Compost where every psychobabble idiot sends all of their new and improved tax dollar wasting studies for propagandizing.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Domestic violence is far more common among the families of police officers than among the rest of the population, according to the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Center for Women and Policing. At least 40% of police families are affected by domestic violence, as opposed to an estimated 10% in other households http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/police-department-ignores-national-standards-for-officers-accused-of-domestic-violence-132868198.html
            Growing Public Health Crisis of Domestic Violence and Suicides by Returning Veterans http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/21/idUS151930+21-Jul-2008+PRN20080721
            This is domestic abuse ( and suicide) not murder, but as anyone knows there is a correlation, even anecdotal news reporting of the more sensational cases. Now the NRA would like to see everyone armed to the hilt buying their products, and lots of them to protect their loved ones as Huston says in the traditional marriage, Well, what do you think will be the likely consequences? Yes, an increase in deaths but not so importantly of the criminals.

          • jim_m

            And it has nothing to do with gun control. Sheesh!

          • LiberalNightmare

            Sounds like we should ban police officers, For The Children, of course.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            maybe we should ban children for the sake of police officers and their wives http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/08/3-year-old-fatally-shoots-deputys-wife-with-his-gun-at-tennessee-cookout/

          • SteveCrickmore075

            maybe we should ban children for the sake of police officers and their wives http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/08/3-year-old-fatally-shoots-deputys-wife-with-his-gun-at-tennessee-cookout/

          • jim_m

            Steve, you do recognize that domestic abuse is different than murder or assault with a deadly weapon (ie a gun)?

            You have managed to conflate the two. You are living proof that people who are anti-gun don’t know crap about what they are talking about.

        • fustian24

          I’ve often found that lefties such as yourself have a real problem with projection.

          We already knew about the small brain. I mean, d’uh…

          Now we know the rest of the story.

        • jim_m

          I think Steve’s argument boils down to his saying that he is ignorant and fearful of people who have different viewpoints than he does, so he has a need to denigrate their intelligence and masculinity since people having differing opinions than his makes him feel stupid and emasculated himself.

          People are pro-gun. so therefore they are stupid because all the people Steve admires and thinks are really smart disagree with that position. So it becomes obvious to Steve that if the smart people he knows are anti-gun only a stupid person could be pro-gun.

    • herddog505

      Jebus, Crickmore: give it a rest, will you?

    • Vagabond661

      Don’t forget that people who own cars are more likely to be killed by one than people who don’t have cars.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Slavery was part of the US Constitution and only one president (Washington) of nine presidents ever freed his slaves, .To borrow from the newyorker piece…

        Slavery, polygamy, female circumcision—all these things played a vital role at one time or another in somebody’s sense of the full expression of who they are. We struggle to understand our own behavior in order to alter it: everything evil that has ever been done on earth was once a precious part of somebody’s culture, including our own.

        We should indeed be as tolerant as humanly possible about other people’s pleasures, even when they’re opaque to us, and try only to hive off the bad consequences from the good. The trouble is that assault weapons have no good consequences in civilian life. A machine whose distinguishing characteristic is that it can put a hundred and sixty-five lethal projectiles into the air in a few moments has no real use except to kill many living things very quickly. We cannot limit its bad uses while allowing its beneficial ones, because it has no beneficial ones. If the only beneficial ones are the feeling of power they provide, then that’s not good enough—not for the rest of us to be obliged to tolerate their capacity to damage and kill. (And as to the theoretical tyrannies that they protect us from: well, if our democratic government and its military did turn on us, that would surely present a threat and a problem that no number of North Dakotans with their Bushmasters could solve.)

        Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/the-cultural-fight-for-guns.html#ixzz2Ppx8O6ay

        • jim_m

          A machine whose distinguishing characteristic is that it can put a hundred and sixty-five lethal projectiles into the air in a few moments has no real use except to kill many living things very quickly.

          More ignorance from Steve. No legal weapon can do that. All weapons sold legally in the US are single fire weapons, meaning that you have to pull the trigger every time a shot is fired. To fire 165 rounds would require probably well over two minutes plus reloading. That’s a good bit more than what most people would consider to be “a few moments”.

          If you pay any attention to the issue you would know this. But you don’t because you are not informed by facts, you are informed by your ideology. You are informed by a bunch of BS.

          Otherwise your suggestion boils down to ” You cannot fight tyranny so you might as well accept it”. Nice, coming from the guy who is fighting to impose that tyranny.

        • LiberalNightmare

          We should ban guns because … slavery.

        • Vagabond661

          The trouble is your comments need to be directed at those who break the laws in place. To point fingers at law abiding citizens and beat us over the head with the guilt bat does squat in keeping guns out of CRIMINAL hands. It may make you feel like you accomplished something but at the end of the day, you are all bluster and no substance.

          We seriously can’t look to the left to solve these problems. It’s time to ignore the ignorant masses who sit at the throne of stupidity.

  • Apropos of nothing and no one, there was a blood price, paid in full, for slavery.

    • jim_m

      And not paid for by democrats who fought to preserve slavery

      • And who still do so whenever they defend mohamedism.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        yes the roles were switched in those days but then most American politicians sympathised with liberalism, which meant the individual was sovereign as opposed to conservative monarchists who felt the King was. Don’t worry not much will happen with gun control except for the passing of a more national slightly stricter background check.

        • jim_m

          Really? They were switched? Last I checked it was the left that still insisted that we judge people by the color of their skins and that we give minorities a pass because they are incapable of performing to the same standard as whites. Sounds racist to me.

          Or maybe you were referring to the dems that stood in favor of segregation? or that formed the KKK? or who filibustered the Civil Rights Act?

          The only thing that has switched is the idea that racism means treating people based on the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            A lot of the left feel affirmative action has passed the expiration date, I for one, and I agree jim_m that there is an entitlement factor in the left constituencies, the Dem leaders know their class interests just as Republican leaders know theirs’, maybe not the tea partiers so much, since they are more populist.

          • jim_m

            A lot of the left feel affirmative action has passed the expiration date

            None who hold office. None.

          • You should have just challenged the low grade moron to show one elected dhimmocrat who publicly opposes AA.

          • More lefty bullshit. The long tradition of racism runs strong amongst today’s Democrats, and the Progressives continue to love tyrants.

  • John Smith

    Classical Stalinist Marxist who hates liberty. His father hated the U.S.. Out of 311 million people, this was the best the modern liberal press could find? What a joke.