In the latest hint that he will ignore another of his well-advertised campaign pledges, President Obama declared that he was an “agnostic” when it comes to raising taxes on those individuals making less than $250,000 per year.

I believe that the president wanted to make it abundantly apparent that he was either impassive or non-committal in his feelings towards a sub-$250K tax hike. Yet, he for some odd reason used the word agnostic. Perhaps if he was better versed in his words and their meanings or he just chose his words more carefully, he would have veered away from the “a” word. Because an examination of the etymology of the word reveals this root:

Agnostic (Greek: a-, without + gnosis, knowledge)

Hmmmm — let’s see, agnostic = without knowledge. It doesn’t surprise me that this definition might be associated with this president and with this White House. For a man allegedly so well educated, and for an inner circle surrounding him claiming what appears to be excellent educational pedigrees, they are plagued by a dearth of real world knowledge. And they demonstrate their ignorance in policy and action on an almost daily basis.

Now, if we give the president the benefit of the doubt, maybe the lawyer in Obama is trying to infer that he’s without knowledge because he has amnesia (another “a” word) or that he was using the metric system. But wouldn’t any such explanation stretch his credibility even further?

However in these parts, in Massachusetts where I’m from, we have another word that describes a person who has advertised and married himself to a campaign promise and/or slogan, only to jettison it at the first opportunity.

We call him LIAR.