Big Island Forum
Big Island Forum => Community Blog -- Click "New Topic" to post your thoughts. => Topic started by: Kerry on August 26, 2011, 02:08:27 AM
-
Can someone point me to a quote/video of President Obama's in which he publicly acknowledged any of the following lies?
"I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that." On CBS 60 Minutes, November 16, 2008.
- What would have made this statement true is if he had said, [I am presently in favor of closing Guantanamo. I will look into the feasibility of closing that facility.]
What I need to read/hear is: Obama: [That statement was a lie. I have not followed through on my wanting to close Guantanamo. I misled the public in thinking that the decision would be mine alone and that others would have to do my bidding].
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don't need, and insisting that those we do [need] operate in a sensible cost-effective way."
- We don't know if in fact Obama assigned a staff member to read and comprehend every line of all 2,403 pages. If he didn't then the statement is a lie. In any case, his words, "don't need" are subjective and irresponsible; at best misleading. It's a deceptive campaign promise, one that can't be measured by any one person or committee, as though Obama or his staff could decide what's needed for everyone.
What could complete this lie is: Obama: [That statement was a lie. I did not follow though to ensure that a member of my staff read each and every line, and I know now, as I knew then, that "need" is subjective and arguable and that I alone, or even my party, can't determine what's needed, nor can I alone guarantee that each government department is in-integrity (performing efficiently and with integrity, doing complete work].
"I'll get rid of earmarks."
- He has not done so.
What will clean up the lie is, Obama: [That statement was a lie. You can count on me to consistently vote to eliminate the earmark budgeting process. I will not favor any legislator who supports earmarks].
"Look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years." (in 2004, while serving as Senator for Illinois. And, On the January 22nd edition of “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert and Obama had the following exchange: Russert: When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, There's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama replied: “I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed." ”Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?” Obama: “I will not.”
- What would clean up the these lies is: Obama: [I lied when I said I would complete my six-year term as Senator and I lied when I said I would not run for president.]
Video of 7 campaign lies in 2 minutes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0)
- What would work for me is to hear: Obama: [I just viewed the 7 campaign lies in 2 minutes You Tube video. It is clear that each of those statements is a lie. You have my word that I will acknowledge any lie publicly as soon as I am aware of having lied.]
Note: It's not that Obama lied, it's that he has suppressed his natural knowingness that there are undesirable consequences for lying (to include a lie believed to be true when spoken) and, that these consequences are compounded when the lie is not cleaned up (when the lie is not acknowledged to self, another, and in the case of a public leader, to the public). Until a perpetration has been acknowledged one can't eliminate an undesirable outcome (such as the condition of the economy) as a consequence of ones out-integrity.
A lie puts one (with a president—our country) in a condition of out-integrity for which there are undesirable consequences; the condition affects ones ability to consistently manifest his/her stated intentions. There are no exceptions to this phenomenon. An unacknowledged lie, even unconscious lies such as, ". . . till death do us part . . ." or, "I'll be with you in a minute" have undesirable consequences.
I've posted the above here because I know of no way to get into communication with President Obama.* Supportive communications such as these sent to the Democratic Party Chair go unacknowledged. Based upon 33+ years as a leadership-relationship communication-skills coach I predict, with considerable certainty, that things will get worse before they get better. Part of what makes this condition of out-integrity significant is that his wife, Michelle, supports his lying (much like a Mafia boss's wife, his integrity mirrors her's).
* The Hawaii Dem website Contact Us form is not working.
This post is a work in progress (10/3/11) —Kerry
-
Update:
On 10/3/11, using the Contact Us form on http://www.democrats.org/ (http://www.democrats.org/), I wrote the following:
I write because on 10/3/11 Hawaii's Dem website "Contact us" form was not working.
Is there a way to get a communication to President Obama? If not, is there an email address for the Democratic Party Chair?
Bottom Line: My communication addresses the correlation between integrity and outcomes; specifically, if President Obama keeps communicating as he has been, without acknowledging his outstanding lies, it will continue to adversely affect his ability to manifest his stated intentions, especially if we supporters continue to non-verbally support his lies.
With aloha,
Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
Leadership-Relationship Communication-Skills Coach
On 10/4/11 I received an email newsletter from
Patrick Gaspard, Executive Director, Democratic National Committee <democraticparty@democrats.org>. His reply is a boiler-plate reply to someone asking to subscribe to the newsletter; Patrick didn't acknowledge or address my concerns.
On 10/4/11 I replied to Patrick the following:
Hi Patrick,
It doesn't appear that you read my email: (see below [I copy-pasted the above post]). If you did read it your reply doesn't feel good.
For others to follow this subject I've posted your reply at the bottom of "Has Obama acknowledged campaign lies?" (http://www.bigislandforum.org/forums/index.php/topic,2296.0.html)
With aloha,
Kerry
I didn't address the fact that Patrick's reply reveals a flaw in their communication procedure, for which they'd receive an "I" (an incomplete grade) in a high school Sp-Com class. There are implied agreements, to represent all of us and to provide access to our President. Breaking any agreement always has undesirable consequences; that Patrick would risk such a possibility, however remote, reveals that the President's Democratic Party leaders mirror his (the President's) communication model. For example: What would work is a communication from the President to all Democratic Party Leaders: "Design a communication model in which everyone experiences being able to get communications to me. All communications addressed to me must be acknowledged and replied to within 72 hours, no excuses, no reasons."
I'll post follow ups.
Kerry