Either Obama doesn't understand the plan that bears his name (in which case he's incompetent), or he knew he was lying when he repeated that phrase on more than 20 occasions (in which case he is a liar).
An incompetent or a liar?
For more on the Obama administration's blatant lies and deception about Obamacare, see Charles Krauthammer's recent Washington Post column, Obamacare laid bare.
But then, reflect on the last four Democrats who've been president: Obama (liar and/or incompetent, spending future generations into the poorhouse), Clinton (impeached for lying), Carter (inept micromanager - author of stagflation) and LBJ (until Obama, LBJ had the distinction of doing more damage to our country in five years than any president in US history - author of "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" that began our entitlement culture and increased poverty at a staggering cost!).
To be sure, the Republican Party has had some doozies in the White House over that period. Richard Nixon (EPA, Watergate) and Nixon's VP-turned-President, Gerald Ford ("WIN" buttons - Whip Inflation Now - to combat slow economy brought on by inflation). Reagan was a bright spot whose policies brought this nation out of stagflation and recession and produced the greatest peacetime boom in modern history, an economic resurgence that carried well into the Clinton years (for which Clinton took credit from day one). Reagan also brought a renewed pride in being "American" as he returned virtue, honesty and humor to the White House. The Left still hates Reagan for that - witness his shabby, dishonest treatment in the recent motion picture, "The Butler." But then, that's what the Left does. They lie. All the time.
Continuing with GOP presidents, neither of the Bush's possessed a capacity for dynamic leadership. The elder Bush was a disappointment, primarily because he lacked the qualities that made Reagan great. Reagan understood our Constitutional Republic, neither of the Bush presidents ever gave any indication that they truly understood the very limited legitimate roles for the federal government. Consequently, both Bush's were mediocre, though the younger Bush rose to the challenge of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. And, while few people seem to understand this, the younger Bush had the post-terrorist attack federal spending approaching balanced budget territory with a deficit of just $161 billion (after three straight years of deficit reduction) in 2006, the last year the GOP controlled both the House and the Presidency. When Democrats took over Congress in January 2007 (Obama's first year in the Senate), spending was under control and headed down. Democrats took care of that in short order. They tripled the deficit (to $458 billion) their first year controlling spending and tripled it again to $1.413 TRILLION in their second year controlling spending (2008). In short, with Democrats controlling expenditures (the House), the federal deficit went up by almost a full order of magnitude in a mere two years - the last two years of Bush's second term.
And then Obama had the audacity to claim he "inherited" the budget mess from Bush!
And what did Obama do about that "inherited" problem? He produced three straight deficits in excess of $1 trillion, all the time blaming Bush!
What kind of people make excuses for a political party with that track record? Answer: People who rely on emotion, have little taste for nor ability to reason, and can NEVER, EVER - I repeat, NEVER, EVER - admit they were wrong about anything political. Recognize this trait in any of your Democrat friends?
And now our "Bumbler/Liar-in-Chief" signs an EXECUTIVE ORDER mandating regulations to control climate change!
The Executive Order (EO) is a tool of the Chief Executive that can only be used pursuant to executing provisions of Federal Law and EO must have their authority derive from existing Federal Law. But Congress has passed no "global warming/climate change" law authorizing any such EO. Nevertheless, Obama once again shreds our Constitution and does whatever he pleases regardless of whether it is lawful under our Constitution.
One thing Obama learned might have at Harvard (and perhaps little else) is that it takes a lot of time and money to stop an unconstitutional act of Congress or the President. So Obama goes right on doing what he wants, lawful or not. And the incompetent GOP House does nothing about it, despite their being sworn to protect and defend our Constitution.
It would be one thing if there were a truly imminent and scientifically-supported threat of significant "human-caused-climate-change"(and, in that event, Congress would act) . But the scientific facts simply do not support any scenario in which human activity could possibly make a significant impact on global climate. There is simply no legitimate science to support such alarmist claims. In fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary!1
The proposed "greenhouse effect" theory the latter 19th century was widely ridiculed and discredited. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) even published a paper2 in 1951 that dismissed the role of CO2 as a climate modifier.
Just how does the "greenhouse warming theory" explain such cooling climate while atmospheric carbon dioxide continues merrily growing at the same pace it's been growing for decades? Answer: It can't.
Human-caused-climate-change is a cause for the scientifically illiterate.
Sadly, it would now be appropriate to add "constitutionally and scientifically illiterate" and "incompetent and/or liar" on Obama's resumé.
2Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.” For more discussion of this, see Global Warming Alarm Is Built On 200-YEAR-Old Discredited Science.
Biography - Bob Webster
Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.