It's clear that for liberals, 10,000 illegal aliens sneaking over the border daily, which works out to be about 3.7 million a year, isn't a huge deal. When questioned about the unrelenting influx , President Obama responded by saying, "Given the size of the border, it's never going to be 110 percent. What we can do is ... continue to improve it."

Lest we forget, thus far, despite the secure border spin, efforts "to improve it" have been largely ineffective. Moreover, to avoid admitting that the border issue isn't even a priority, Obama cleverly employed the fine art of exaggeration: saying "it's never going to be 110 percent" allowed the president to gloss over the fact that he couldn't care less if it were only 25 percent.

The truth is that President Obama's relaxed stance on our porous border is quite different from other policy initiatives where he seems driven to perfection. For instance, the president is just fine granting amnesty without ensuring border security. Yet when it comes to health care reform, the justification for pushing 90 percent of the American population into a government-run health care system is 10 percent, or 30,000,000, un- or underinsured people.

If Obama truly believes that small numbers of illegals are insignificant, then why did he insist that on behalf of the minority and to the detriment of the majority, the health care system -- which constitutes approximately 16 percent of the GDP -- be demolished and rearranged?

Moreover, when Medicare recipients are about to be denied cancer treatments, why would senators representing the $1.4-billion president's party vote against an amendment that would have prevented illegal immigrants from accessing taxpayer-funded health care?

The excuse given for refusing senior citizens life-saving chemotherapy is sequestration, but the more likely reason is the $716 billion Obama cut from Medicare to supposedly offset the costs of expanding health care. Now it appears that the goal all along may have been to provide free health care to future Democrats still sneaking over a porous border that the president disingenuously insists is "never going to be 110 percent."

Barack Obama's nitpicking attitude, which it's already been established does not include finding fault with border security, also rears its double-talking head in the area of gun control. Again, the president's concern over gun violence applies only to American citizens, not "Fast and Furious" Mexican drug cartels and gunrunners.

If unregistered AK-47s are loaded into black SUVs and shuttled into Mexico, even if an American Border Patrol agent or two lose their lives in the process, the Obama administration is unfazed. For this president, a problem arises only when upstanding American citizens exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; that's when Mr. Obama employs a strategy similar to the one he successfully used to justify health care reform. This time, instead of the 30 million uninsured, the president has turned his attention to exploiting a tragedy that annually affects approximately 0.01 percent of the population.

In America, the number of guns owned amounts to about 270,000,000. In 2012, the number of gun-related deaths was about 32,000. If one gun was used per gun-related death, that means that last year, 0.01 percent of all the guns in America were involved in fatalities. That's tragic, but it's still a miniscule number. Comparatively speaking, that would amount to about 3 days' worth of border-crashing, which president Obama would probably dismiss as negligible.

Meanwhile, billions of bullets are being purchased by federal agencies, supposedly to control the cost of a firearm accessory that American gun owners may soon have to be certified for eligibility to purchase. Does that make any sense at all?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but thus far, Obama hasn't suggested banning motor vehicles just because 32,000 people -- again, 0.01 percent of the U.S. population -- perish in car crashes every year, has he? Hence, his selective outrage proves yet again that if truth gets in the way of Barack Obama's mission to transform America, he'll either distort or dismiss it.

Logic has no place here, because clearly it's not about logic; it's about political expediency. Thus far, Barack Obama simply refuses to be "constrained" by the Constitution, and he subverts any possible constraint by making contradictory arguments to support different policy goals. In order to limit the freedom of many, Barack Obama emphasizes that which he'd otherwise downplay if doing so benefited his liberal vision for America.

Therefore, the only conclusion one can come to about President Obama's double-talking mendacity, which has manifested itself in the areas of health care, gun control, and now immigration, is that he will say anything to advance his "fundamentally transformative" agenda.

Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com.