You have to hand it to the New Left. They cannot even directly admit when they lie under oath. No, they have to call it being "untruthful" as if that somehow mitigates the fact that they lied. To the New Left, truth can be stated in degrees, apparently. Case in point is James Clapper, the National Intelligence Director under the Obama administration. This guy is the point man for national and domestic security. He has given testimony before Congressional panels and essentially stated that no one's privacy was intentionally violated, though it might have been accidentally violated.
That was before revelations by Eric Snowden, NSA whistleblower. Since Snowden's claims have come to the fore, Clapper has had to backtrack, but has done it in an interesting way. Rather than simply admit, "I lied," Clapper said he has been untruthful, but even the way he said that makes him appear as though it wasn't really his fault. Clapper "has now admitted he gave the 'least untruthful' answer to a direct question in March about the extent of surveillance on US citizens. The admission sets up a critical test of Clapper's relationship with the congressional committees that oversee him – committees the Obama administration is relying on for its defense of the surveillance efforts."
Wow, so in the end, Clapper states that his answer was the "least untruthful." The least untruthful. That doesn't even make sense? How can something be the least untruthful? It's a double negative, isn't it, which makes it a positive? Shouldn't it be the least TRUTHFUL? Not for James Clapper. It's the least UNtruthful. Thanks for saying what you mean, Jimmy. But maybe he did say what he meant...
After these revelations came out, another puppet for the Obama regime - Caitlin Hayden - said, "The president has full faith in director Clapper and his leadership of the intelligence community." Whoopee. Who cares? It's not as if Obama and his administration are the beacons of truth by which we all set our moral compass! Anymore all an endorsement from Obama means is that he is pleased with the way a person can lie.
James Clapper is being completely deceitful...still. Some are not willing to allow Clapper to get away with it. Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, wrote that Clapper 'lied under oath' to Congress."
Amash went on to post on his social network page, "It now appears clear that the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, lied under oath to Congress and the American people...Members of Congress can't make informed decisions on intelligence issues when the head of the intelligence community wilfully makes false statements. Perjury is a serious crime. Mr Clapper should resign immediately." How about going to jail too? Is that an option?
While I agree with Amash, I have to ask, is perjury really a crime anymore? The way the Obama administration trashes the Constitution and continually gives answers that are beyond belief with no negative consequences, one would think that lying is the new truth these days. It's asinine to say the very least. Like most of you, I am so sick and tired of what our federal government has become. It is a cesspool. Call Roto Rooter!
But check out how Clapper defended himself against the charge that he lied. "Clapper defended himself in a surprising way. He told NBC's Andrea Mitchell this week that the question was unfair, akin to asking him when he was going to stop beating his wife. 'So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no,'." Okay, so he's really saying that he did not lie, but gave an answer that as close to the truth as possible. I see. Again, thanks for the clarification, Jimbo.
The question was unfair says Clapper, so he responded in a way that...what?...made the question more fair? He of course makes no sense, except in his mind. What was the question he was asked?
Lest we think he was "entrapped" by the GOP, it was actually a Democrat who had grown "frustrated that he could not get a 'direct answer' from Clapper about a question [Oregon Democrat Ron] Wyden said he had been posing to the intelligence agencies in a series of letters for a year: when do US spies need a warrant to surveil Americans' communications?" That was the basis for the question that Wyden asked. The exact question was, "What I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question: does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
That was the question that Clapper believed to be "unfair," so he responded with, "No, sir...Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly." That was the "unfair" question that forced Clapper to answer in the "least untruthful" way.
But using Clapper's own example of "when he was going to stop beating his wife," again, Clapper makes no sense. The question was not, "When is the NSA going to stop collecting all types of data at all on millions...of Americans?" The question was "does the NSA collect any type of data...?" A question akin to it (using Clapper's example) would have been, "Do you beat your wife?"
Jesus said, "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil," (Matthew 5:37) and there was a reason for that. He was telling us in no uncertain terms that we should be able to answer every question truthfully with "yes" or "no" and anything else that tries to give another impression comes from the evil one.
Listening to Clapper is reminiscent of listening to Bill Clinton painstakingly state, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" when we all know he was lying. While he did not have normal sexual intercourse with Lewinsky, he had a form of sexual relations with her. By restricting the definition of "sexual relations" in his mind to the actual act of sexual intercourse, Clinton pretended he was being "truthful" when in fact, he was being completely disingenuous. He was trying to give the truthful impression that he had not had any type of sexual liaison with Lewinsky when he had. In other words, Clinton was being literalistic or hyper-literal in an effort to avoid telling the truth.
This is what the New Left does. They lie, they redirect ("What difference does it make at this point?!") and provide the "least untruthful" response to a question in the hopes that their own deceit will remain hidden.
It is impossible to trust people like James Clapper because they have no integrity. They pretend they are the victims.
James Clapper needs to go. In fact, Obama needs to go and he can take his ilk with him. The problem though is what our government has now become. The data-collection bureau known as the NSA has just recently opened up its huge new facility in Utah. Does anyone actually think that it will be closed down or that they will stop collecting data of all Americans? Not a chance. Even if they get a court order from the Supreme Court, I believe they would ignore it while publicly trying to make it appear as though they are complying.
James Clapper represents what is wrong with our government and unfortunately, there is no quick fix. We cannot fight everything because it would overwhelm us, so we need to choose our battles. All I can say to that is choose wisely. Don't go after molehills. Choose a mountain and begin scaling it. Join up with others who are trying to scale the same mountain. Little by little, the mountain will be scaled and victory gained.
That's the only way I know how to fight the scourge of deceit thrown up as roadblocks to us.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.