Archive for the ‘Obama Lies’ Category
Any idiot watching this video can see this is just Obama speaking in front of a green screen with the GM assembly-line dubbed in later as background.
BIG GOVERNMENT: President Obama delivered his weekly address to the nation from Detroit, Michigan this week after visiting workers at a GM assembly plant. When the video hit at Breitbart.tv, our tip box suddenly became very active with people claiming that the President was actually sitting in front of a green screen and the background image was really a composite image of an assembly line.
In the image below, you can see a black outline around the president’s shoulder, and you can see the background image slightly distorted around the president’s ear.
Several experts in the field of video effects have given us their opinions on the matter. Some examples of their takes:
- It is a complete lie as this is so obviously green screen it ridiculous! I have been doing green screen for a very long time and although the Key on the green screen is very well done it shows the clean edges that a natural environment doesn’t have. Also, they have added an ambient sound of an empty warehouse and buzz of the transformers to make it more believable.
- It’s a green screen, IMO. Notice the lines and cables behind him, they are totally still. Even if a factory is abandoned lines don’t just hang frozen like that. When I took it to full screen HD the most telling part for me were the areas around his head.
- It definitely looks greenscreen to me. there’s a lot of artifacting going on around the edges, which makes me think it was keyed out. also, the spacial relationships look off…just doesn’t seem to fit…however, around his hair, I don’t see any traces of the keyed out background…this is usually a good place to see some artifacting from the keys.. that said, its tough to say definitively, but it does look greenscreen
- I’m an expert with 20 years of experience in digital visual effects. I’ve been the visual effects supervisor on features and TV shows. I was also the editor-in-chief of two magazines, I’ve hosted dozens of instructional videos and I’ve taught hundreds of seminars around the world. The shot is obviously a composite and a ‘weatherman quality’ one. In it’s front of a still photo and President Obama doesn’t blend into the scene at all.
- I just spoke to a friend of my from Skywalker Ranch. He has been doing Visual X for 2o years. He said “100 % Green Screen” and He LOVES Obama. He was also crushed by watching the video.
- My brother – Emmy award winning VFX artist. – at first thought it was green screen but after looking at it thinks it was likely shot
It’s likely that if the video was shot in front of a green screen, it was so the president wouldn’t disrupt the important work being done at the factory. If this is the case, it does bring up several interesting questions about the stage-management of the presidency. President Obama has been routinely placed in front of stirring backgrounds dating back to his candidacy. The Greek columns placed behind him for his nomination acceptance in Denver was a perfect example of his reliance on visual imagery to convey an important, unspoken message to his audience.
It’s true that the president was in Detroit. And it’s probably true that it would have been wrong for him to shut down production for the sake of taping his weekly address. That being said, why go to the great lengths they went to (assuming this was a green screen composite) just to convey the image of the president sitting on a factory floor? What does it say about the White House’s desire to manipulate reality to evoke an emotional response from voters?
ANALYSIS: If there is any doubt that Barack Obama and the Democrats engage in routine and massive voter fraud, think again. They even use voter fraud (in this case petition fraud) against themselves in Democrat primary elections.
SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE: The signatures of dozens, if not hundreds, of northern Indiana residents were faked on petitions used to place presidential candidates on the state primary ballot in 2008, The Tribune and Howey Politics Indiana have revealed in an investigation.
Several pages from petitions used to qualify Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the state’s Democratic primary contain names and signatures that appear to have been copied by hand from a petition for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jim Schellinger. The petitions were filed with the Indiana Election Division after the St. Joseph County Voter Registration Office verified individuals’ information on the documents.
St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak’s name appears twice on the Clinton petitions. After The Tribune faxed one of the signatures to him, Dvorak identified that signature as his own and confirmed that he had signed the petition. Dvorak did not respond after a copy of the second signature on the same petition was faxed to him by The Tribune.
ASSOCIATED PRESS: In President Barack Obama’s sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington.
When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.
When the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.
And when he calls on Congress to “pass this bill now,” he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities. Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.
To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.
The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans.
He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don’t always fit in if they don’t help make the case.
For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan.
Denies Biden called Tea Partiers “terrorists.”
Obama, increasingly, just does not seem to have a grip on reality.
WASHINGTON TIMES: The president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.
His late-evening news conference Friday was a tour de force of flat-out, unadulterated mendacity — and we’ve gotten a first-hand insider’s view of the president’s long list of lies.
“I wanted to give you an update on the current situation around the debt ceiling,” Mr. Obama said at 6:06 p.m. OK, that wasn’t a lie — but just about everything he said after it was, and he knows it.
“I just got a call about a half-hour ago from Speaker [John A.] Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations,” he said.
Not so: “The White House made offers during the negotiations,” said our insider, a person intimately involved in the negotiations, “and then backtracked on those offers after they got heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House, and its steadfast refusal to follow through on its rhetoric in terms of cutting spending and addressing entitlements, is the real reason that debt talks broke down.”
Mr. Boehner was more blunt in his own news conference: “The discussions we’ve had with the White House have broken down for two reasons. First, they insisted on raising taxes. … Secondly, they refused to get serious about cutting spending and making the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform.”
But back to the lying liar and the lies he told Friday. “You had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that theyve been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues,” Mr. Obama said.
That, too, was a lie. “The White House had already agreed to a lower revenue number — to be generated through economic growth and a more efficient tax code — and then it tried to change the terms of the deal after taking heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill,” our insider said.
CHARLIE BRANNAN-AMERICAN THINKER: Obama held a press conference last Friday, July 15 which turned out to be a purely partisan effort to increase taxes and increase the American debt. His speech and the answers he gave to cherry picked questions from the press was fundamentally dishonest: in all I counted three dozen lies, deceptions and misleading statements.
Deception 1. “make sure that the United States does not default on our obligations, and that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.”
There is zero risk of a default to the creditors of US debt. The federal government takes in about $170 billion each month in revenues, but pays less than $29 billion each month in interest on the debt. The Bipartisan Policy Center has laid out a plan where the Treasury could pay: all debt interest, all Social Security obligations, all Medicare and Medicaid obligations, all Defense contractor bills, all Veterans payments, all active duty troops; and still have almost $7 billion left over every month for other items.
MICHELLE MALKIN: Is there a health insurance horror story disseminated by the White House and its allies that ever turned out to be true? Obamacare advocates have exercised more artistic license than a convention of Photoshoppers. Now, a prominent sob story shilled by President Obama himself about his own mother is in doubt. It’s high past time to call their bluffs.
The tall-tale-teller-in-chief cited mom Stanley Ann Dunham’s deathbed fight with her insurer several times over the years to support his successful push to ban pre-existing condition exclusions by insurers. In a typical recounting, Obama shared his personalized trauma during a 2008 debate: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”
But there was something fundamentally wrong with Obama’s story. In a recently published biography of Obama’s mother, author and New York Times reporter Janny Scott discovered that Dunham’s health insurer had in fact reimbursed her medical expenses with nary an objection. The actual coverage dispute centered on a separate disability insurance policy.
Channeling document forger Dan Rather’s “fake, but accurate” defense, a White House spokesman insisted to the Times that the anecdote somehow still “speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs” — even though Dunham’s primary health insurer did everything it was supposed to do and met all its contractual obligations.
No matter. Expanding government control over health care means never having to say you’re sorry for impugning private insurers. Democrats have dragged every available human shield into the contentious debate over Obama’s federal takeover of health care. Personal anecdotes of dying family members battling evil insurance execs deflect attention from the cost, constitutionality and liberty-curtailing consequences of the law. The president’s Dunham sham-ecdote is just the latest entry in an ever-expanding catalogue of Obamacare fables:
– Otto Raddatz. In 2009, Obama publicized the plight of this Illinois cancer patient, who supposedly died after he was dropped from his Fortis/Assurant Health insurance plan when his insurer discovered an unreported gallstone the patient hadn’t known about. The truth? He got the treatment he needed in 2005 and lived for nearly four more years.
INVESTORS: If “Operation Fast and Furious” was merely a botched attempt at law enforcement, why was a supervisor of the operation, David Voth, “jovial, if not, not giddy but just delighted about” marked guns showing up at crime scenes in Mexico, as career Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent John Dodson told Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee?
Perhaps because all was going as planned until it was learned that two of the AK-47s recovered at the scene of the fatal shooting of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in December were bought in ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious. That wasn’t supposed to happen.
“Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals — this was the plan,” Dodson testified to the panel. “It was so mandated.”
ATF agent Olindo James Casa said that “on several occasions I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms.”
Yet, as we’ve noted, gun-tracking operations stopped at the border.
That seems odd if the purpose was to catch gun traffickers and their drug-lord bosses. It makes sense, however, if the real purpose was to perpetuate, in the interests of pursuing the administration’s gun-control agenda, what Bob Owens of Pajamas Media calls the “90% lie.”
Obama (again) says he’s just like Reagan . . . for doing exactly the opposite of what Reagan would do
BEN SAYS: Reagan never used force to bring democracy to the Middle East, and showed no interest in that quest. Reagan certainly was not for toppling U.S. allies and turning entire countries over to our enemies, as Obama did in Egypt. Reagan won the Cold War against the expansionist Soviet Union, which was about the long-term survival of freedom and democracy here in America. Mr. Obama, read the book WITNESS by Whittaker Chambers to find out what the Cold War was all about.
What a fatuous fool Obama is. No wonder Obama is such a lousy President. He has no knowledge of history.
USA TODAY: President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron kick off two days of diplomacy this morning by pledging to work against repressive regimes in the Middle East — by force if necessary.
In a sternly worded column in The Times of London, the two leaders liken the effort to free Arab people from authoritarianism to the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in the 1980s.
They liken their personal efforts to two leaders who came before them: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Sorry about the stupid question. Uhhh, derrr. Yup. Yeseree! The results are in: Serial Liar.
NANCY MORGAN-AMERICAN THINKER: Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter. Especially when that someone is the President of the United States. Charges of that nature should be leveled based only on absolute proof of a deliberate statement, intentionally made, whose sole purpose is to deceive. Based on this criterion, President Obama is a liar. Demonstrably so. And a disturbing pattern is emerging that allows for the possibility that our president is a serial liar. Consider:
In just the last month, Obama has made several statements that are just not so.