Color me prescient

I didn’t post it last week, but in an email I sent to a group of political bloggers discussing Obama’s debate performance last week, I noted that, when Obama attacked McCain for allowing people to yell “kill” Obama, Obama probably already knew that this myth had been debunked.  Color me prescient (and I’m quoting Matt Lewis’ post in its entirety because it’s so short):

Newsweek reports that not only were the reports that folks attending a McCain rally yelled “kill him” likely false — but also that Obama knew these reports were false before using them in last week’s debate:

“During a heated moment in his final presidential debate with Sen. John McCain, Sen. Barack Obama noted the anger of some supporters at rallies for McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. “All the public reports suggested,” Obama said, that people shouted “things like ‘terrorist’ and ‘kill him’.” Making a death threat against a presidential candidate can be a crime. But even before Obama cited “reports” of the threats at the debate, the U.S. Secret Service had told media outlets, including NEWSWEEK, that it was unable to corroborate accounts of the “kill him” remarks—and according to a law-enforcement official, who asked for anonymity when discussing a political matter, the Obama campaign knew as much. Now some officials are disgruntled that Obama gave added credence to the threat by mentioning it in front of 60 million viewers. At this point in the campaign, said one, candidates will “say anything to make a particular point.”

This, of course, is merely the latest example of Obama’s willingness to inaccurately portray himself as a victim and flagrantly gin up sympathy votes, while simultaneously, ignoring the really, really objectionable behavior his own supporters engage in (viewer discretion advised).

Or perhaps you should just color me wise to Obama’s lies.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • rockdalian

    http://frighteningprospect.com/

    This was not meant as comedy.

  • McLaren

    So on top of being an anti-American socialist, B. Hussein Obama is also a documented liar. Great.

  • pst314

    There’s been a lot of talk lately about our Post-Modern politics. A popular conceit in New Age and Post-Modern circles is that truth is whatever you can persuade people to be true. :-P

  • Mike Devx

    pst314,

    Even worse, current liberal thought indicates that there is no such thing as reality; there is only your worldview, and my worldview, and all worldviews are equally valid.

    “The concepts of private property and capitalism may have had relevance under a certain 18th Century, ‘Founding Fathers’ worldview, but modern worldviews reject such outdated concepts in favor of community values and shared responsibility, modern notions under a modern worldview where the citizens of the world cooperate to efficiently achieve laudable goals that benefit all.”

    The problem is, substitute “free speech” or “objectionable speech” for “private property and capitalism”, and now perhaps your favorite ox is about to be gored. Don’t think it can happen? Better think again.

    Or “objectionable art”, or “objectionable books”. Objectionable to whom? Whoever has the power. Because when there is no truth, then there is no rule of law; the only truth then is POWER.

  • suek

    >>there is only your worldview, and my worldview, and all worldviews are equally valid.>>

    If all worldviews are equally valid, then might means right.

    Right?

  • suek

    >>Because when there is no truth, then there is no rule of law; the only truth then is POWER.>>

    Got interrupted, jumped the gun. Sorry.

    Different words, same conclusion.

    So…where do we go from here?

  • McLaren

    Into our foxholes…..

  • pst314

    “there is only your worldview, and my worldview”

    Exactly, although the POMO frauds and liberal fools usually say “my reality” because “worldview” implies “opinion” and they want to use a word that implies no possibility of disagreement. This corruption of language is absolutely essential because one of the pillars on which progressivism rests is lies. (The others are violence and dependency.)

  • pst314

    “If all worldviews are equally valid, then might means right.”

    I take you have read some POMO philosophers. ;-)

    (Never were there such a gang of depraved fascists. Just look at the backgrounds of Martin Heidegger, Paul de Man, and Michel Foucault. We can discuss Jacques Derrida’s penchant for lies and abuse another day.)

  • suek

    ummmmm…..maybe? What does POMO stand for? If your list of authors is “who they are”, then I’d have to say no. But what other conclusion is there? If all views are equal, then as long as everybody totally respects everyone else, everybody’s happy. But humans that we are, everybody _never_ totally respects everyone else – someone _always_ trys to get one up on somebody – or everybody. And in that case, he that has the mostest – of whatever – wins.

    Original sin is an interesting concept! If you don’t think of it as an individual act, but rather that groups of characteristics that make man man and not beast, it is sort of an explanation of what we are…!

  • Mike Devx

    SueK,

    Now that you’ve brought up original sin ;-) let’s take a look at Genesis 2 and 3.

    2-9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
    [...]
    3-2 [...] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
    3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
    4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
    5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
    6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
    7 And the eyes of them both were opened
    [...]
    22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
    23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
    24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

    I’m no religious scholar or philosopher, but it seems clear that for all the talk of nakedness and fig leaves, the real crux of the problem was that Adam and Eve had been innocent, and therefore not capable of evil (nor good!). Now they understood good and evil and could commit evil, and worse, they were now guaranteed to also become immortal (the fruit of the Tree of Life being there for the taking and irresistible to temptation); and all of these were reserved to God and the cherubim. That is why they were banished and a guard set forever.

    Kind of an aside: When we commit an act in innocence that we later understand to have caused great harm, the moral choice is to recoil from the memory in horror and hopefully to seek repentance. How does that relate?

    And now on to some snarkiness, perhaps well justified: Barack Obama *has* stated that he understands there is evil in the world. But if I remember Rick Warren’s symposium correctly, when he listed evil, he reflected awhile and then listed solely bad things that America had done; things that made America uniquely evil. A typical liberal viewpoint. How does *that* relate?

  • Mike Devx

    Ooops, one more point. As Book noted in her post:

    Newsweek reports that not only were the reports that folks attending a McCain rally yelled “kill him” likely false — but also that Obama knew these reports were false before using them in last week’s debate.

    That sure looks like sin to me, and worthy of repentance. But Obama is a narcissist like no other candidate in memory. (The most obvious example of his extreme narcisssism: Remember the video of him on the plane with the CNN reporters where he posed in the aisle for them as they were oooh-ing and aaah-ing?) I can’t imagine even Bill Clinton, as great a narcissist as he was, doing anything as ridiculously self-centered as that. Obama, and many far-left liberals (in fairness, not all liberals), seem in some ways innocent of their own evil, and of the evils their mistakes cause. In what ways does this innocence excuse them? After all, isn’t it true that as adults who have been “educated”, they should *not* be innocent of that knowledge!

  • suek

    >>And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:>>

    How interesting is that phrasing? It says in effect that the ability to know good and evil makes man “one of us” . And what I see today is that Liberals “know” good and evil in the sense that they themselves determine what is good and evil, and don’t accept an outside objective determination of what good and evil is, making themselves, in effect, gods.

    And then, of course, “Thou shalt not have strange gods before me”. And here we always thought He was talking about strange gods like Baal…etc.!

    >>23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.>>

    I don’t know about evolution – I have some problems with it from the viewpoint of speciation – but. Reading this verse, I really don’t understand why Fundamentalists have a problem with the _concept_ of evolution. I mean…if you assume the possibility exists, how are you going to inspire such primitive people to write more of the details of genetics other than “I created you from dust”? I can just see those early Jews trying to understand DNA and gene dominance…!!

    >>In what ways does this innocence excuse them?>>

    Morally or politically? Morally, innocence excuses all. Politically? not so much, imo. Read this today:

    http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/22/lewis-on-moral-busybodies/

    Relevant quote from C.S. Lewis:

    “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”