Obama and the attempted slow murder of Israel

Pinocchio

I agree with every word in David Solway’s article about Obama’s continued efforts to destroy Israel.  The one word I disagree with occurs in this paragraph:

The speech [that Obama gave in Sderot in 2008, promising his support for Israel's right to exist and defend herself] was a stirring one for those who had not tracked Obama’s less-than-stellar record to that date, who had not examined his chequered past and problematic mentors and acquaintances, and who wanted desperately to believe in the empty mantra of “hope and change.” As I watched the YouTube* clip of Obama’s address and listened to those familiar sinusoidal cadences, I knew instantly that the man did not mean a word he said, a conclusion that anyone who had done his homework would have reached. Regrettably, it has taken much of the world five more years to realize that Obama is a trained prevaricator of the first water, whether the issue is government transparency, receding oceans, competitive bidding, citizen surveillance, deficit cutting, the closing of Gitmo, unilateral military action, Fast and Furious, Obamacare, and, in the realm of foreign policy, Iran and Israel. Obama’s evasions and hollow assurances on this latter file demonstrably imperil the future of the Middle East and, quite possibly, the safety of the planet. It certainly spells imminent danger for Israel.

The word with which I disagree is the word Solway was kind enough to hyperlink:  “prevaricator.”  While it’s true that “prevaricator” is a word for a liar, it’s mostly understood to mean, “a person who speaks so as to avoid the precise truth; quibbler; equivocator.”  That’s how I read it:  That Obama is a trained quibbler who doesn’t lie outright, but speaks around the truth.

To the extent that the word “prevaricate” implies only a soft lie, I strenuously disagree.  Obama is an out-and-out liar, a man who’s very being has no relationship with the truth.  If he can lie, he will lie, and that’s true whether or not the lie serves a purpose (such as defrauding the American people) or is simply a lie for lying’s sake (such as lying about staying with his illegal alien uncle).

Obama is the living embodiment of Mary McCarthy’s scathing indictment of another communist, Lillian Hellman:  “Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the.”

The existential despair that comes from living in Obama’s America *UPDATED*

I went to bed depressed and waking up to these Drudge Report headlines reminded me why:

Obamaworld in a Matt Drudge nutshell

The whole Iran-Munich moment has left me believing that Obama is much smarter than we realized.  Even as he was lying to Israel about (a) having her back and (b) not negotiating with Iran, he created a box from which it’s almost impossible for Israel to escape.  There are only bad choices says Yossi Klein Halevi:

Israel’s window of opportunity to launch an effective strike is closing. It is now measured in months, not years. The deal, worry Israelis, could further narrow that window.

Israelis note that the deal doesn’t cover inspections of Iran’s nuclear weaponization program, including fuses, timers and metallurgy, which will no doubt continue apace. And Israel takes for granted that the Iranians will persist in doing what they’ve done all along: lie and cheat, but this time under the cover of a deal. In every previous rounds of negotiations, after all, the Iranians continued building secret facilities. All of which could mean further reducing Israel’s timetable for a strike.

If Israel concludes that its window is closing and does decide to strike, even while the deal remains in effect, it risks becoming an international pariah—in effect exchanging roles with Iran. On the morning after an Israeli strike, Israel could find itself alone, facing tens of thousands of missiles from Hezbollah and Iran launched against its home front.

[snip]

During the first Obama administration, the urgent Israeli question was: Is he is a friend of the Jewish state? That question was largely resolved for many Israelis during the President’s visit to Israel last March, when he won over much of the public by affirming the Jewish roots in the land of Israel and the indigenousness of Israel in the Middle East, as well as Israel’s past efforts to make peace.

Now, though, Israelis are asking this: After eight years of President Obama, will the Middle East be a safer or more dangerous region for Israel?

For most Israelis the answer is self-evident. The turning point came this summer, when Obama hesitated to enforce his own red line over Syria. That was the moment that he lost the trust of the Israeli public on Iran.

This is chess on a malevolent scale.  It was also probably a planned move.  Never forget that the Los Angeles Times has hidden in its vaults a videotape of Obama speaking at a radical pro-Palestinian gathering.  The fact that the LA Times refuses to release the video has long led people to assume that Obama says something along the lines of “I’ll take care of Israel for you.”

We at this blog knew that Obama was never a friend to Israel, and was always doing whatever he could to curry favor with Islamist regimes. (Witness his love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood.)  It turns out that this wasn’t just a feeling, but was a goal to which he committed himself, even though it required the use of fraud and chicanery.  (And let’s not forget the quite obviously faked “long form” birth certificate, which almost certainly hides the fact that the father about whom Obama dreamed in Bill Ayer’s best-selling Obama autobiography probably wasn’t his real father.)

Indeed, Obama’s presidency is proving to have been built entirely on fraud.  Not just lies, which are often merely self-exculpatory or self-aggrandizing, but on fraud, which is the deliberate use of lies and information withholding in order to get people to change their position to their detriment and to your benefit.  He told Americans and Israelis lies, knowing that they were lies, for the specific purpose of getting both America and Israel to change their position to their detriment and to Obama’s benefit.

In the case of Obamacare, the (knowing and known) lies were that (a) you could keep your plan; (b) you could keep your doctor; and (c) average insurance costs would drop $2,500 per year for a family.  He told these lies to strip Americans of their insurance and pave the way for socialized medicine.

In the case of Israel, he repeatedly told Israel that (a) he would never abandon her and (b) he would work to end Iran’s nuclear aspirations.  These lies meant that Israel did not strike against Iran when the striking was relatively easy (as was the case in the strike against the Syrian nuclear facility).  Now, as Halevi showed, even if Israel successfully strikes Iran, Hezbollah is on her border with thousands of missiles aimed at her.  Moreover, having now struck this deal with Iran, Obama won’t have America’s back if she strikes; he’ll join the chorus of disapproval isolating Israel.

In the past, when Israel had her back against the wall, she came out swinging.  Thanks to Obama’s fraud, her hands may well be tied.

Do you remember the headline horror of 9/11?  I do.  Since we were on the West Coast, we woke up in time to turn on the television and see the towers fall.   I don’t need to find words to tell you what that felt like because you were there and you remember.  You felt it too — that sense of watching a train race towards a giant canyon, where the bridge is out, and there is nothing you can do to stop the inevitable carnage.  Every day, I wake up now, grab my iPad, and, driven by a fierce compulsion, open it, expecting that Obamaworld will show me headlines fully equal to the despair and horror of 9/11.

UPDATE:  The wonderful image that Matt Drudge used this morning comes from Jon Gabriel.

The unending depth of Obama’s lies

In my post about Obama’s lies, I noted that he lies endlessly, always adducing new ones to account for old ones.  Neo-neocon noted this habit and has a wonderful anecdote that provides the perfect metaphor for Obama’s lies.  Maybe someone will write a book about the healthcare fraud called “On the backs of turtles.”

And since we’re talking turtles (you’ll understand after you follow the neo-neocon link), the next logical step is Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories, my personal favorite of the Dr. Seuss books. As you may recall, Yertle wanted to be king of all he could see, so he stacked his fellow turtles up high in order to expand his view. That tall stack eventually failed, leaving Yertle buried deep in his pond’s mud.  The book could be seen as a fun metaphor for Obama’s desire to control American healthcare.

Of course Obama believes his own lies — he’s a narcissist

A lot of people are very surprised that Chuck Todd, after interviewing Obama, concluded that the President genuinely seems to believe his own lies:

You know, he does not believe he lied on this, and that’s the sense I get. I mean, I think that that’s, he’s taken issue with that before with folks off the record, and I got it’s a sensitive issue, felt like he did not sit there and say he intentionally lied. He said that he wanted to, he thought he was going to be able to keep this promise. I thought what was revealing in that answer, when I asked him that direct question about this, was this a political lie that you started to believe it, was he talked about well, you know, it turns out we had trouble in crafting the law.

John Nolte adds that, if this is the case, “that borders on pathological.”

Nolte is too kind.  It doesn’t “border” on pathological, it is pathological.  Pardon me if I quote myself:

More than five years ago, when Barack Obama threw his hat into the political ring, I realized that he was a malignant narcissist who lied compulsively.  For Obama, truth was then and is now defined by the needs of the moment.  If it will benefit him at that moment to say something at variance with facts as other people know them, he is telling the truth because his political needs are the ultimate yardstick by which all truth must be measured.

Narcissists believe in absolute truth.  Unlike others who believe in certain moral absolutes, though, the narcissist’s truth is not measured by God or philosophy or scientific rationality.  Instead, each narcissist is his own God head; he is the science and the proof; and his philosophy is made up by squaring the circle of his own little navel.

So of course Obama doesn’t believe he lied.  His acolytes (such as the New York Times) willingly buy into his doctrine.  That doesn’t mean, though, that the rest of us should worship so manifestly false a God.

Obama’s lies: spin followed by a non-apology apology

Democrat spinmeister Lanny Davis appeared yesterday on Fox & Friends to be telling Obama to ‘fess up about his early statements regarding Obamacare, and Obama seems to have tried to do so.  At least, that’s the spin.  But let’s see what really happened.

First, a little history.  Between 2009 and the summer of 2013, Obama said a bazillion times some variation of “If you like your plan/doctor/hospital, you can keep your plan/doctor/hospital.”  He said this knowing that it was not economically possible for this to be true, and he continued to say it after 2010 even though he knew that his own people were drafting regulations written so that insurance companies issuing both individual and employer group plans would be forced to cancel those plans.  In other words, Obama repeatedly said “X” to the American people to keep them in line when all along he knew that the truth was “not X.”

With that in mind, listen to the way in which Lanny Davis tells Obama to “come clean” with the American people:

President Barack Obama needs to heed “crisis management rule 101″ and acknowledge that he “messed up” in saying people could keep private health insurance they like under Obamacare, Lanny Davis, who served as special counsel to former President Bill Clinton, said Thursday.

“President Obama, and all Democrats, should say, ‘We support this act . . . We messed up in explaining it,”

“It wasn’t explained well. Now, we just have to acknowledge that — which is crisis management rule 101 — and fix it,” he added.

Did you get that?  Obama “messed up” and did “explain[] well.”

Let me explain what it means to mess up by not explaining well.  We’ll use the “Orange Crush Interchange” which is ranked as the most complicated interchange in the world, for our example.

Orangecrush

Let’s imagine that I have a friend who’s heading southeast on I-5, and I’m trying to get them to my house in Orange.  If I “mess up” by not “explaining well,” I might say to my friend, “When you get near the Santa Ana River, make a left turn.”  That’s a gross oversimplification that doesn’t explain things well, but I’m still kind of describing what goes on.

But if I say to my friend.  “Oh, it’s an easy northbound trip through green pastures on a quiet two lane road,” that’s an out-and-out lie, because it doesn’t simplify the reality, it denies it.

Obama didn’t mess up, or fail to explain well.  He committed an act of fraud against the American people in order to sell them a bill of goods.

As for Obama’s apology, let me say a word about apologies.  I know someone who has never once, in all the time I’ve known him, issued a real apology.  Instead, if one stands in front of him and demands that he apologize for something truly egregious that he did, for which he was solely responsible, and which really harmed someone, his apology will invariably be something along these lines:  “I’m sorry you’re upset.”  The notion of accepting responsibility and expressing remorse is utterly alien to him.  He couldn’t even read the words of a TelePrompter.  They’d choke him first.

And now for Obama’s “apology”:

CHUCK TODD: Thanks to you. I’ll start with health care. It’s probably the most quoted thing or requoted thing you have said in your presidency, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” You said it a lot during the run up. At this point, though, it’s obviously something– a promise that has not been able to be kept. Just today, the Denver Post — 250,000 people in Colorado are seeing health insurance policies cancelled. Some of those people liked those policies. And they can’t keep them. What happened?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well– first of all, I meant what I said. And we worked hard to try to make sure that we implemented it properly. But obviously, we didn’t do enough– a good enough job– and I regret that. We’re talking about 5% of the population– who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own.

A lot of these plans are subpar plans. And we put in a clause in the law that said if you had one of those plans, even if it was subpar– when the law was passed, you could keep it. But there’s enough churn in the market that folks since then have bought subpar plans. And now that may be all they can afford. So even though it only affects a small amount of the population, you know, it means a lot to them, obviously, when they get– this letter cancelled.

Is there a word of responsibility, remorse, or repentance in there?  No!

First, Obama doubles down on his lie.  “I meant what I said.”  And then Obama basically says “I’m sorry you’re upset, but the fact is that you’re upset because you’re too stupid to realize that my lie was for your own good.  The real problem from my point of view is the “small amount” of people (currently 15 million Americans, and heading up to 92 million Americans) who had policies that I determined just weren’t good enough even for morons and these same morons are now foolish enough to demand that I apologize.”

I think Obama’s effort falls into the “non-apology apology” category, except without any apology part.  I didn’t hear the word sorry, I didn’t hear responsibility, I didn’t hear remorse, and I didn’t hear repentance.  Mostly, what I heard was a big “screw you” for challenging his manifest lies.

Still, in Obama’s defense, the information about his lies, about his pattern of lying, about his fraud, about his economic ignorance, about his narcissist arrogance — all of it was out there for the American people in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.  And they still voted for him.  They get the government they deserve, and we, like Roland at Roncesvalles, get the glory of having been killed trying to fight a valiant rearguard action — with the only problem being the fact that there’s no one left to finish the battle on our behalf.

P.S.  Ace also looks at Obama’s non-apology and, as always, it’s better than anything I can write.

Wednesday stuff, for want of a better word

My day is not proceeding as planned.  Grumble, grumble, grumble.

But I still found some good stuff out there:

For all the criticism aimed at him for daring to defend his nation from nuclear annihilation, Netanyahu successfully shifted the paradigm — not far enough, but it’s movement in the right direction.

Apparently 25 years or so is all it takes for New Yorkers to forget the horrors of Progressive government.  I know this is unfair to the small, smart minority that didn’t vote for de Blasio, but I hope that New York goes to hell in a hand basket very quickly (kind of the way Hollande’s France or Mugabe’s Zimbabwe did).  That seems to be the only way in which people invested in liberalism learn lessons.  (And sadly, sometimes, even the worst that can happen isn’t bad enough.)

Here are Seven devastating facts about Obamacare that you should memorize and politely slip into conversation whenever you find yourself trapped in conversation with those who still believe it’s a winner.

Jonah Goldberg suggests that the Republicans might want to be there for Tea Partiers because, ultimately, Tea Partiers are there for the Republicans.

And two from Keith Koffler.  The first is about Obama’s fraudulent conduct with regard to his “changing” views on gay marriage, and the second is about his administration’s fraudulent conduct regarding Obamacare.

I think it’s important that we stop using the word “lie.”  In the context of politics, we tend to think of a “lie” as an after-the-fact cover-up (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”). What Obama has done, repeatedly, is to commit fraud.  Fraud is a very specific legal animal.  Here’s as good a definition as any, culled from a fairly recent California case:  “The tort of deceit or fraud requires: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 938 P.2d 903, internal quotation marks omitted.)  Fraud is not a lie.  It’s much worse than a lie because you’re not just protecting yourself; you’re deliberating setting out to make others rely on you to their detriment.

And of course, Sebelius seems charmingly insouciant about the fact that your private information could end up in the hands of felons that Obama’s government has hired to collect that private information:

Does news about the Obamacare fraud affect your perception of the birthers?

“Reputation, reputation, reputation! Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, my reputation!” — Shakespeare, Othello

Those of us paying attention have long known that Obama lies . . . and lies . . . and lies.  Up until recently, his known lies fell into the area of ex post facto cover-ups:  “I didn’t know my minister and mentor was a raving anti-American, antisemitic loon.”  “I didn’t know we were sending guns illegally into Mexico.”  “I didn’t know that anything untoward was occurring in Benghazi.”  “I didn’t know that the IRS had appointed itself the partisan police arm of a permanent Democrat party federal government and was harassing and silencing political opposition.”  “I didn’t know that my government was spying on everyone, whether within or outside of the United States.”  Obama told more of these lies than any other president in American history, but the lies were a known quantity, along the lines of Nixon’s and Clinton’s CYA lies.

But there’s a different class of lie, and one that people find less forgivable than those lies reflecting the all-too-human impulse to avoid censure or punishment.  These are lies knowingly told in order to get people to change their position, to their detriment, and to the liar’s benefit.  The legal word for this kind of lie is “fraud.”  These lies aren’t after-the-fact cover-ups.  They are manipulative scams intended to force people to do things they would never do were they in possession of the actual facts.

Obamacare now stands as the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and Obama is at the center of this fraud.  For those still murmuring “Bush lied, people died” — sorry, folks, but this is different.  Yes, Bush definitely wanted to go to war, but he was relying on the best data available, which was that Hussein had WMDs.  Other world leaders had the same data — they just didn’t want to go to war.

In the case of Obamacare, though, the data was irrefutably in the opposite direction of the lies told.  Contrary to Obama’s statements that happy people could keep their policies, doctors, and hospitals, all while paying less, everything he said was a deliberate lie intended to trick the American people into buying into a program that would not — and could not — perform was promised.

With this in mind, I’d like to know if you now have a different opinion of those people who believe that Obama lied about his birth certificate.  Are you more likely to believe them now than you were before learning about the Obamacare fraud (as opposed to the hundreds of previous Obama lies)?

Having been caught engaged in out-and-out fraud, Obama engages in a familiar pattern to cover up his lies *UPDATED*

More than five years ago, when Barack Obama threw his hat into the political ring, I realized that he was a malignant narcissist who lied compulsively.  For Obama, truth was then and is now defined by the needs of the moment.  If it will benefit him at that moment to say something at variance with facts as other people know them, he is telling the truth because his political needs are the ultimate yardstick by which all truth must be measured.  This pathological outlook means that, when Obama is caught in what ordinary people would characterize an out-and-out lie, he engages in a cascading cover-up of lies, all dictated, not by objective facts, but by his needs at the moment.

Barack Obama has been "gaslighting" the American people

Barack Obama has been “gaslighting” the American people

Think of it this way:  We’re all living out the movie Gaslight, with Obama as the dangerously manipulative, dishonest Charles Boyer character, and the American public as the hapless, helpless Ingrid Bergman character, whom Boyer is trying to drive mad so that he can take her wealth. (Which raises the question whether Ted Cruz is the Joseph Cotten character who rides to the rescue….)

Even thought I’m right about something depressing, I’m human enough to take some pleasure in having been right in the first place.  So, forgive me for analyzing Obama’s latest lies, and his lie about those lies, using a post I wrote five-and-a-half years ago, when I first realized he was using the narcissist’s classic approach to lying and manipulation.

Here’s Obama’s original series of lies about Obamacare, all of which he repeated ad nauseum:

Just yesterday, Obama’s presented his latest version of the “truth” (by which I mean a “truth” direct from Obama’s mouth, rather than through his official spokespeople or media proxies):

And here’s what I wrote back in May 2008 about candidate Obama, when his disturbing pattern of lying — and then lying about his lies — was becoming apparent:

Obama is also a fairly compulsive liar, something that highlights myriad other problems.  That is, whenvever he’s caught in a problematic situation (ah, those friends of his), rather than making a clean breast of it, or a good defense, he instead engages in a perfect storm of ever-spiraling affirmative defenses, with the common denominator always being that it’s everyone’s fault but Obamas.

For those who are not lawyers, let me explain what affirmative defenses are.  A complaint contains allegations that the defendant committed myriad acts of wrongdoing.  In response, the defendant does two things.  First, he denies everything except his own name, and he’d deny that too, if he could.  Next, he issues affirmative defenses, which concede the truth of the accusations, but deny that they have any legal or practical meaning.

As an example of how this plays out, imagine a complaint alleging that I smashed my car into a fence, destroying it.  I’d start by saying, “No, I didn’t.”  Then I’d begin the affirmative defenses:  (1) “Okay, I did bring my car into contact with the fence, but I didn’t actually hurt the fence.”  (2) “Okay, I hurt the fence, but I didn’t hurt it badly enough to entitle its owner to any damages.”  (3) “Okay, I destroyed the fence, but it was falling down already, so it’s really the owner’s fault, so he gets no damages.”  And on and on, in a reductio ad absurdum stream of admissions and excuses.

These affirmative defense patterns have shown up with respect to some of Obama’s nastiest little pieces of personal history.  When Jeremiah Wright’s sermons first surfaced, Obama denied knowing anything about them.  When that denial failed, he claimed that he only had one or two exposures to this deranged level of hatred, so he didn’t make much of it.  When that denial failed, he conceded that he’d heard this stuff often over the years, but wasn’t concerned about it, because he knew his pastor was a good man.  (Which makes Obama either complicit in the statements or a fool.)  Indeed, he even made a much-heralded speech about what a good man his pastor is.  He then promised that he’d never abandon his beloved pastor.  But when his pastor became dead weight, Obama dropped him so hard you could hear the thud.

The same pattern appeared when word got out about Obama’s connection with two self-admitted, unrepentant, America-hating terrorists.  (That would be William Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, for anyone out of the loop here.)  When caught, Obama again engaged in a perfect storm of affirmative defenses.  (1)  I don’t know them.  [A lie.]  (2) Okay, I know them, but not well.  [A lie.]  (3)  Okay, I know them well, but we’re just good friends, not political fellow travelers.  [A lie.]  (4) Okay, we’re more than just good friends, because we served on a Leftist board and I sought political advice from him.  And on and on.  With every lie, Obama concedes, and then comes forward with a new lie.

The same pattern emerges with Rezko, with Obama freely ranging from “I didn’t know him,” to “I never took favors from him,” to “I didn’t take big favors from him,” to “I took a big favor from him, but I didn’t know it was a big favor.”  It just goes ad nauseum, as if Obama is a machine, programmed to spew forth this endless flow of denial and concession.  The guy is pathological in his inability to admit wrongdoing and his ability to prevaricate.

In an odd way, Obama’s approach to truth reminds me of how they used to break the news to patients about cancer — incrementally, very incrementally.  I know this first hand, because this is what happened with my Dad.  In his case, the following statements played out over the course of about a week:  “Nothing’s wrong.”  This was a lie.  “There’s a slight anomaly on the tests, but nothing to worry about.”  This was a lie.  “There’s a tumor, but we’re sure it’s benign.”  This was a lie.  “The tumor is, in fact, malignant, but it’s completely treatable.”  This, too, was a lie.  “You have one year.”  Finally, the truth.  What you end up with is that, at the end of all the lies, cancer is cancer, and Obama’s past is Obama’s past.

The question then becomes whether American voters will be happy with the constant barrage of Obama lies, and will be willing to travel Obama’s incremental pathways to unpleasant truths, or if they’re at last going to rebel and say “Who and what are you?”  And if they finally get the truth, and it’s pretty sure to be ugly will it matter?

I’d like to think that the truth will matter, just as I’d like to think that, for many Americans, the mere fact that he lied so compulsively will matter too.  After all, that is one of the reasons they’ve grown to hate Hillary.  My dream is that, no matter how perfectly polished and highly functional the Obama political machine is, the fact that Obama is still the core of that machine will be, in and of itself, an insurmountable problem for him.

My question then (in 2008) was whether voters would elect a man who lied so frequently and blatantly.  My question now is whether America will recover any time soon from the disastrous effects of those lies.

UPDATE:  Ron Fournier, who has stood by Obama rather steadfastly for the past five years, is disturbed to find that his idol has feet of clay.  He rightly calls Obama on precisely what I’ve described above:  the lie about the lie.  I agree with everything Fournier has to say about Obama’s lie, except for the very last thing:  “On history’s scale of deception, this one leaves a light footprint. Worse lies have been told by worse presidents, leading to more severe consequences, and you could argue that withholding a caveat is more a sin of omission.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Mr. Fournier.  This is the worst lie a president has ever told the American people. To the extent presidents have lied before, they’ve done so for national security (every wartime president, including Obama himself); because they themselves were lied to, as was the case when Saddam Hussein’s self-created Potemkin village of WMDs led the Bush administration and most world leaders to believe that Hussein did indeed have WMDs; or because they were protecting themselves from their failings, as Nixon and Clinton did.   Obama marks the first time ever that a president provably committed an act of fraud against the American people:  He deliberately lied to people, knowing that they would believe that lie, in order to get them to change their position to their detriment based upon that lie.

It’s not this November lie that destroys Obama’s credibility.  The November lie is the typical retrenchment lie of someone who was caught doing something bad.  It’s the original lie — the enormous fraud committed against America — that should outrage every citizen.

Hollywood got there first: AP’s spin about Obamacare *UPDATED*

Here’s the AP, an unofficial arm of the Democrat party, telling us that Obama had to simplify his Obamacare promises to the point of fraud because the American people are too unintelligent and uninformed to deal with the Act’s complexities:

President Barack Obama’s early efforts to boil down an intricate health care law so Americans could understand it are coming back to haunt him, leaving a trail of caveats and provisos in place of the pithy claims he once used to sell the law.

Think about the message implicit in that well-crafted sentence:  How do you sell an “intricate” law to morons (i.e., Americans)?  You lie!

Where have I heard that before?  Oh, I know:

UPDATE: Rich Lowry imagines what Obama would have said if he thought well enough of the American people to tell them the truth.

Obama and his claim that, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed….”  George Orwell defining “doublethink,” in 1984.

“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”  H. L. Mencken

“There’s a sucker born every minute.” attr. P.T. Barnum

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Abraham Lincoln.

Barack Obama’s biggest lie of all (if the number of people deceived is the yardstick) *UPDATED*

If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it.”

If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

Every one of the above statements came directly from Obama’s mouth.  That is, they were not relayed by his press office or parroted through spokespeople.  Obama opened his mouth and there these words were.  These were fundamental promises that Obama made in order to convince Americans not to lynch the lawmakers who engaged in procedural chicanery to pass a monstrous bill that none of them had read.  (Or as Nancy Pelsoi explained, “But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it.“)

Here’s another quotation, from Bob Laszewski, an expert in healthcare policy and marketplace review:

The U.S. individual health insurance market currently totals about 19 million people. Because the Obama administration’s regulations on grandfathering existing plans were so stringent about 85% of those, 16 million, are not grandfathered and must comply with Obamacare at their next renewal. The rules are very complex. For example, if you had an individual plan in March of 2010 when the law was passed and you only increased the deductible from $1,000 to $1,500 in the years since, your plan has lost its grandfather status and it will no longer be available to you when it would have renewed in 2014.

These 16 million people are now receiving letters from their carriers saying they are losing their current coverage and must re-enroll in order to avoid a break in coverage and comply with the new health law’s benefit mandates––the vast majority by January 1. Most of these will be seeing some pretty big rate increases.

For anyone paying attention (i.e., any who was not a member of the liberal elite with his body so contorted by leftist ideology that his brain was pressed deeply into his own inferior orifice), it was inevitable that almost every individual health insurance policy in America would have to be canceled, because almost none of them would have the exquisite balance of mandatory coverages called for by Obamacare (interesting things such as pregnancy care for 90 year old men, etc.).  For the insurers to add these things would (a) result in the cancellation of existing policies by operation of law and (b) inevitably force up the price of existing policies so that they contained things that aren’t insurance, but are maintenance.  Bye-bye, old policies; hello, new price increases.

And again, you don’t need an Ivy League degree to figure these things out.  Indeed, I do believe that an Ivy League degree impairs a person’s ability to figure out simple economic reality.

I’m running to pick up kids now, so I don’t have time to think about this question, let alone research it, so I’ll just ask it:  Can a blatant lie of this magnitude, a fraud on an extraordinary scale, justify impeachment?  (And I know this is theoretical, because no one would have the courage in Washington, even if they had a sizable majority, to impeach the first black president for fraud and deceit.)

UPDATE:  Daniel Henninger touches upon the much broader implications flowing from Obama’s lack of credibility.  As long-time readers know, I’ve been harping on Obama’s dishonesty since his 2008 campaign.  I was a cheerleader for this parade, not a latecomer.

If you want my opinion about Obama’s serial dishonesty, it’s because he’s a malignant narcissist.  Although these people have long-term goals, and long memories when it comes to holding grudges, one significant part of their brain exists only in the present:  Whatever they say is dictated by the needs of the moment.  There are no such things as absolute truths, incontestable facts, or binding promises.  When malignant narcissists open their mouths to speak, their “truth” is what will serve them best at that particular moment.  They’ll pass a lie detector test at that moment because, to them, absolute truth is identical to immediate need.  And when they blatantly lie about a lie (“I didn’t draw a red line; the world drew a red line”), they’ll pass that lie detector test too because their lizard brains are telling them “If you need to say it right now, then it’s the truth.”

Obama, the lying liar

One of the tropes at which I’ve hammered relentlessly since Obama first threw his hat into the presidential ring is that he’s completely and compulsively dishonest.  Here’s just a partial list of my posts making that point:

If there can be said to be an “Obama lies” train, I boarded it before it left the station.  No one can call me a Johnny-come-lately to this one.

That I saw what was happening from the beginning doesn’t mean that I’m not delighted when other people finally figure it out.  Sure, I’m a little perplexed by their slow learning curve, considering all the evidence before them for years now, but I still enjoy it when people see the light.  People like Merrill Matthews, for example, a contributor to Forbes:

I have come to the point that I cannot believe a thing President Obama says.  That’s not quite the same as saying I don’t believe anything he says.  When he speaks he may be telling the truth, he may not be, or he may be parsing his words to mislead.  But it’s impossible to know which is which?

Matthews then provides chapter and verse for myriad Obama lies.  Not all of them, of course, because that’s a book, or perhaps a five-volume series, not just an article.  Still, it makes for illuminating reading lest there be anyone out there who hasn’t yet realized that Obama is a narcissist who has only one truth:  “I, Barack Hussein Obama, am always correct and virtuous.”  Anything that does not protect this core ego identity must be shaped in a way so that, eventually, it does.

With respect to Syria, the president tells us there will be no U.S. boots on the ground.  Um, would that be like:

  • Health insurance premiums for a family would be $2,500 lower by the end of his first term in office.  They were actually about $3,000 higher.
  • The Obama administration was not responsible for proposing the budget sequester idea.  Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward challenged this claim and forced the administration to backtrack.
  • Money from the nearly $800 billion stimulus package would be spent on “shovel-ready projects” and unemployment would drop to 5.3 percent by the end of his first term.  The president later conceded the projects weren’t as shovel ready as he had hoped and unemployment was 7.9 percent.
  • There was nothing Obama could do about Benghazi.  Subsequent revelations and congressional testimony have shown just how disengaged or disinterested the administration was.
  • The Justice Department told a judge that Fox News reporter James Rosen was a “co-conspirator” and a security threat?  The DOJ later apologized and tried to make amends with Washington reporters.
  • That Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t know about the Fast and Furious gun-running program?  Investigators have found documents confirming that he did have knowledge.

Please, read the rest here.

An absolutely perfect matched set on Obama and the immigration debate

I was trolling the internet and I saw this headline for an article by Byron York (click on the image to go to the article):

Obama jumps into immigration debate — will that help or hurt  WashingtonExaminer.com - Mozilla Firefox 682013 72916 PM.bmp

Good question, I thought to myself, saving the article in a new tab as one I intended to read later. Then, still in trolling mood, I clicked over to Breitbart to see if there was anything there I wanted for my evening reading list. And I saw this headline (again, click on the image to go to the article):

emFalseem Obama Claims Immigration Bill Requires Illegals to Learn English - Mozilla Firefox 682013 73024 PM.bmp

I don’t know about you, but I think that Breitbart answers York’s question pretty darn well. If Obama is going to go out there and lie, it will affect the debate. The only real question about his precise effect on the immigration debate is whether people believe the lies or are disgusted by them.

Why blogging seems a little stale, flat, and unprofitable of late

In the lead-up to the 2008 election, blogging was exciting because there was hope.  Not the synthetic hope Obama was selling, but the real hope that both Hillary and Obama would lose, and that John McCain would be a half decent president.

In the first two years of Obama’s administration, there was no hope, but blogging was still exciting because there was a peculiar fascination, much like watching a train wreck unfold in slow-mo, in watching the way in which a hard Left democratic president who owned Congress would legislate.  On the one hand, there was ObamaCare, which was a serious downer.  On the other hand, though, there was the rise of the Tea Party, which raised that hope thing again.

In the third year of the Obama administration, blogging had some sizzle as we hoped that the smashing Republican victories in 2010 would slow down Obama’s headlong rush into European-style socialism (with a dash of Soviet totalitarianism thrown in), even as Europe began its own slow-mo train wreck.

In the fourth year of the Obama administration, blogging was explosive because we got another election, this time with some very exciting Republican candidates.  Watching them implode one right after the other, right up until Romney’s final implosion on election day, was not fun, but it at least provide scintillating fodder for bloggers.

Since then, blogging has not been fun at all.  We’ve gotten Kerry, Hagel, and Lew in charge of way too much, and we have reason to believe that Brennan, who may or may not be a Muslim convert (despite that fine Irish name) will soon be sitting in the catbird seat at the CIA. Egypt is becoming another Iran, except this time we’re helping the transition out by paying for it in advance.  Iran, meanwhile, is working on becoming another North Korea, complete with sufficiently functional nuclear weapons.  Europe continues to collapse, with a maddened antisemitic comic holding Italy’s elections hostage.

And then there’s Obama.  His four years in office have proven something:  he’s a dreadful little man.  His politics, which he hid for two elections, are lefter than left.  He runs a crude, abusive White House.  He uses political power for patronage and demagoguery.  His favorite (semi) European leader recently announced that Zionism is a crime against humanity.  He recently tried to blackmail Congress by releasing thousands of criminals, something along the lines of “nice country you’ve got here.  It would be a shame if something happened to it.”  His governing style has nothing to do with the good of America and everything to do with what’s good for Obama.

Worst of all, despite his many, many failings, none of it matters.  For a long time, nothing mattered because the press had built an impregnable wall around him.  That was bad enough.  What’s even worse, though, is that, when the impregnable wall fails, people still don’t care:

(a) The president and his administration are responsible for the sequestration idea. (b) Before that fact became widely known, Mr. Obama misled Americans of that fact in a debate with Mitt Romney–and his aides did the same thing in the aftermath of the debate. (c) Thanks to Bob Woodward’s The Price of Politics, the White House has now been forced to admit that, as top White House adviser Gene Sperling put it on Sunday, “Yes, we put forward the design of how to do that [implement sequestration].” (d) Over the last several weeks, the president vilified sequestration as a brutal, savage, and inhumane idea. (e) At a press conference last Friday, when sequestration cuts began and the world as we know it did not end, the president began to moonwalk away from his scorching rhetoric, saying, “Just to make the final point about the sequester, we will get through this. This is not going to be an apocalypse, I think, as some people have said.” (f) Since the sequestration idea was first signed into law by President Obama in 2011, House Republicans have twice passed legislation to make the cuts more reasonable–and Democrats have refused to act on it. (g) In the last week, Republicans have tried to give the president greater authority to make more reasonable cuts–but he has refused it, allowing unnecessary pain to be inflicted on Americans in order to blame Republicans.

To summarize, then: The president has spoken in the harshest possible terms about an idea he and his White House originated and signed into law. He has used apocalyptic language leading up to the sequestration–and then, as the sequestration cuts began, lectured us that “this is not going to be an apocalypse” as “some people have said.” And Mr. Obama has warned about the devastating nature of the cuts even as he has opposed efforts to make the cuts less devastating.

This is Nixonian conduct on steroids, writ large before the American public.  It doesn’t even account for an economy whose growth isn’t even measured in single digits, but in tenths of single digits.  And yet he still has a 47% approval rating.  I agree that 47% isn’t as good as something over 50% would be, but it’s still shocking that his numbers aren’t in the 20s:  He lies, cheats, bullies, destroys the economy, weakens us before our enemies — and almost half of Americans think he’s a great guy to have in the White House.

And that’s why blogging seems a little stale, flat, and unprofitable.  Blogging is more fun when you’re advancing a case as exposed to charting a nation’s demise.

The one thing Obama does really, really well

You know that old joke, the one that goes “How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.”  That’s Obama.

I think Obama’s skilled lying arises from the fact that he is a borderline personality, whether malignant narcissist or sociopath.  These specific border personalities lie better than ordinary people because to them, the truth is always what they need it to be at the precise moment they’re speaking.  During SOTUs, Obama needs the truth to be that he’s all about deficit and debt reduction, job growth, affordable insurance, and cheap energy.  He therefore confidently, and with every appearance of honesty, makes statements to that effect.  When he’s actually running the country, though, his truth becomes something quite different.

This short GOP video perfectly sums up Obama’s variable truths:

A foreign policy/war powers law establishes that the unnecessary deaths in Benghazi were Obama’s responsibility

Here’s what didn’t happen in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:  Despite advanced warning of the attack, and despite urgent, detail rich phone calls from the CIA/former Navy SEAL operatives under attack, and despite real time video feeds of events unfolding on the ground,* no one came to help.  No one came to help the 30-odd people trapped in the embassy, no one came to help Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, and no one came to help Glen Doherty and Lance Woods as they rescued those trapped people and then spent seven terrifying hours on the roof of the administration’s CIA outpost, holding off an al Qaeda affiliate’s attack before they were finally killed.

During this long night, Obama seems to have hung out a bit watching events before going to bed in preparation for a campaign junket to Las Vegas.  (One Las Vegas paper does not appreciate that effort.)  The next day, the administration started playing the blame game.  First, Obama and his shills blamed a 14-minute nothing of a video.  To add verisimilitude to an otherwise unconvincing narrative, the government ignored the First Amendment, arranged for the video maker to be arrested for exercising his right of free speech and, seven weeks later, keeps him imprisoned.  (And yes, he was ostensibly jailed for a parole violation, but I think we all know that the way he was treated was a farcical overreaction that can only be explained as part of a larger cover-up.)  Just so you know, they do the same kind of thing in China, which is not blessed with a First Amendment.

When the video story fell apart, Hillary said events in Benghazi were her responsibility (although she was careful to blame unnamed subordinates for the actual security failure).  Interestingly, neither the administration nor the media demanded her resignation or even an investigation.  When the Obama administration started to turn its knives on Bill Clinton for allegedly giving bad campaign advice, Hillary leaked that, well, no, really, she’d done everything she could to increase security, but nobody (read:  the White House) would let her.

With the State Department pushing back, the next obvious culprit was the CIA — especially once we learned that Woods and Doherty had begged the CIA for help.  The media and the White House were thrilled.  Thrilled, that is, until General Petraeus said that no one on his watch had refused help.  Suddenly, all eyes (except, of course, for mainstream media eyes) were back on the White House.

Next up for blame?  The Pentagon, of course.  Leon Panetta lamely explained that “Golly, it was dangerous out there and the military never sends its troops into danger, don’t you know.”  Panetta’s excuse was ridiculed by people who care and accepted as the God’s honest truth by the mainstream media.  The White House again heaved a sigh of relief.

But then, darn it, Lance Woods’ father refused to slunk back into the night.  Instead, he told a few home truths:  Obama was a cold fish, Hillary lied again about the video, and Joe Biden . . . . Well, there really aren’t words for a man who walks up to a bereaved father and makes vulgar remarks about his dead child’s anatomy.  The MSM kept silent on this one too, but enough people (plus Fox, of course) were agitating that the story suddenly started to spread — and that despite the media’s by now quite valiant efforts to ignore it to death:

Mother Nature suddenly seemed to send a reprieve to Obama: A Category 1 hurricane that, while not strong, managed to blow directly landward, wrecking havoc across vast swaths of the heavily populated Northeastern seaboard.  While Obama has not been forthcoming with pictures of him handling Benghazi, he rushed out photos of him meeting with his Council about Hurricane Sandy, hugging bereaved Hurricane victims, and generally looking manly and noble amidst the rubble.

Too bad for the President that, four days before the election, things aren’t going so well in those areas damaged by the Hurricane.  People on Staten Island are suffering terribly and vocally. This may well be because, as Danny Lemieux suggested to me, Staten Island is staunchly Republican.  However conservative political leanings certainly don’t explain the disaster in New York’s Public Housing apartments, which have no power and no plumbing.  As always, Matt Drudge neatly sums up the situation:

So, here we are, President Obama, four days before the election, and you’re still not off the hook. Indeed, as of today, it’s entirely possible that things are about to get a whole lot worse for you. Your blame game started falling apart when all the other suspects (the State Department, the CIA, the Pentagon) seemed to have followed your absent lead.  That was all negative evidence, though, that you weren’t doing anything to help Americans under Jihadist attack in Libya.  That is, there was no smoking gun pointing to your involvement and subsequent dereliction of duty as Commander in Chief.  But now there is (emphasis mine):

The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent  – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.

Please read the whole thing.  What’s apparent is that, as a matter of law, the only person who could have helped in Benghazi was the president himself.  The President’s authority in this regard is the equivalent of the famous nuclear brief case or red phone or red button that featured so prominently in voters’ minds during the Cold War years.  Back then were always asked to consider “whose hand should be on the button.”

Regarding Benghazi, everyone else could plan and argue and organize, but only the President had the power to make it happen.  And nothing happened.  Hillary was right:  it was 3 a.m. and Obama didn’t answer the phone.  Damn him!

______________________________

*A spokesman for the National Security Council denies that there was a real-time video feed.

Found it on Facebook

With the election drawing near, the pace of political posting on Facebook is rapidly picking up.  I found two interest things just the other day.

The first thing a friend put up is “The Worst Lies Paul Ryan Told.”  What quickly becomes apparent is that, well, Paul Ryan didn’t really tell lies.  His facts were correct, we just disagree with his conclusions.  I do believe that John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things.”  The people at Care2 make a difference seem to believe that, stubborn though facts are, they can just be ignored into insignificance.  Herewith a small sampling of the post, along with my interlineations in square brackets:

“It began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America.”

It’s true that America’s credit rating was downgraded by one of the three major credit rating agencies during Obama’s term. While Moody’s and Fitch both rate America’s debt at “AAA,” or “outstanding,” Standard & Poor’s dropped the US rating to “AA+,” or “excellent,” in 2011.  [In other words, Paul Ryan's statement was absolutely correct.  It's a stubborn fact.  That doesn't stop liberals from attacking it.]

However, Ryan is being dishonest when he lays the blame for the downgrade at President Barack Obama’s feet. After all, S&P said why they were downgrading U.S. debt, and they didn’t blame Obama. Instead, S&P blamed the “brinksmanship” of the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, in which House Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling without significant cuts to the budget. S&P also lamented a refusal to consider higher taxes, saying, “It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.”

Who was leading the House charge against Obama? Well, the House leadership team, including their budget committee chair, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Ryan himself was instrumental in forcing the brinksmanship that led the U.S. to have its debt downgraded; Ryan was right about a downgraded America, but the culprit isn’t Barack Obama, but rather the guy Ryan sees in the mirror each morning.  [The blame for this fact -- a downgraded credit rating -- could just easily have been laid at Obama's door.  A game of chicken always has two players.  Obama was enthusiastic about imposing ever greater debt upon America, while the Republicans, Ryan included, made the principled claim that this was suicide, and that the only way to improve the American economic situation is to do with every intelligent person facing financial trouble would do:  cut spending.  In other words, from Ryan's point of view, the credit rating collapse occurred because of Obama's dangerous profligacy, which Republicans, with great difficulty, reined in slightly.]

“Yet by his own decisions, President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments of Europe combined.  One president, one term, $5 trillion in new debt.”

“He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report.  He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.”

This is a two-fer. The first part is technically true — the debt has gone up significantly during the term of President Obama. Ryan failed to mention, however, that the increase in debt is primarily due to two policies — the Bush Tax Cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Simply, those were all policies Obama inherited — all policies started by President George W. Bush, and supported by the vote of Paul Ryan.  [Again, the article begins by conceding the truth of Ryan's statements.  Yes, debt has increased faster on Obama's watch than ever before.  So where's the lie?  Well, we'll get to that.]

It’s the second part, though, where Ryan really outdoes himself. It’s true, Obama did appoint the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which was tasked with looking for ways to reduce the debt. Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson did issue a report. That report was not endorsed by the full commission, however, which rejected the report.  [Oh, well, the second part is kind of true too, Care2 concedes.  Obama appointed a commission and ignored it.  There's no indication that, when the commission faltered, Obama did anything to engage it further.]

Among the members of the commission who voted against the report? The chair of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan.  [Yes, he did.  And it's important to note here that Ryan never said he agreed with the commission. He just said that Obama is so disengaged from the American economy and the federal budget that Obama ignored his own commission.  No lies here.]

Yes, Paul Ryan was a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission, the “bipartisan debt commission” he references, as if they were a group he was vaguely familiar with. “‘They’ came back with an urgent report,” except “they” didn’t — the commission didn’t issue a report. And while Obama didn’t push the recommendations of the commission, Paul Ryan actively opposed them, voting against them, and preventing the report from being officially adopted.  [Same point.  Ryan never said he agreed with the commission.  He just said that Obama, having delegated a task, completely ignored the outcome.]

So while Barack Obama may have decided to pass on the recommendations of some members of a commission, Paul Ryan, a member of that commission, opposed those recommendations. And yet Ryan tells America that we should be outraged at Obama for not adopting the proposals Ryan himself opposed. Truly, the man has a dizzying intellect.  [No, Ryan tells America they should be outraged that Obama is so lazy, he didn't even work with his own debt commission.]

And so it goes.  Not lie, after not lie.  In every case, the article concedes that Ryan stated the absolute truth.  The post’s authors simply do not like to the conclusions Ryan reasonably draws from those truths, and therefore castigates them as lies.  By the way, if you want to see real lies — statements that are completely at odds with facts — check out the Top Ten Biden lies.  These weren’t Biden’s only bald-faced lies; just the most significant of Biden’s bald-faced lies.

The other thing I found on Facebook was Matt Taibbi’s over-the-top support of Biden’s debate behavior, which he spells out in his Rolling Stone article:

I’ve never thought much of Joe Biden. But man, did he get it right in last night’s debate, and not just because he walloped sniveling little Paul Ryan on the facts. What he got absolutely right, despite what you might read this morning (many outlets are criticizing Biden’s dramatic excesses), was his tone. Biden did absolutely roll his eyes, snort, laugh derisively and throw his hands up in the air whenever Ryan trotted out his little beady-eyed BS-isms.

But he should have! He was absolutely right to be doing it. We all should be doing it. That includes all of us in the media, and not just paid obnoxious-opinion-merchants like me, but so-called “objective” news reporters as well. We should all be rolling our eyes, and scoffing and saying, “Come back when you’re serious.”

The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn’t even a real platform, it’s a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda – cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill.

That is how the Left thinks.  I believe it has something to do with Alinsky:

5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

[snip]

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

What Taibbi really forgets is that there are four parties involved in the debate process: the two candidates, the moderator, and the American people. As to these last, Biden’s behavior was a gross insult. Tabibi and Biden are so locked into their Alinsky-esque world view, that they forget that they Biden was engaging in a stately ritual of democracy. As to that, I think Michael Medved has the best counter to Tabibi’s crude savagery:

In the last 40 years of presidential politics, Democrats have often derided their Republican rivals as jokers and buffoons. But they have never before laughed in their faces on national TV. In that sense, Joe Biden made history with his weird, wired performance in the vice-presidential debate—but he did so in a way that could easily damage the Obama campaign.

[Medved gives examples of the Ford/Carter debates and the Bentsen/Quayle debates, where the pre-debate rhetoric from the Left was crude and demeaning, but the debate itself was dignified]

Finally, Sarah Palin’s moose-hunting exploits, chirpy delivery, disinterest in daily newspapers and powerful, puzzling Christian mama sexiness offered the ripest possible target to the comedy-industrial complex, yet when she faced Joe Biden in their widely-watched debate he behaved like a perfect gentleman. He smiled indulgently, even affectionately at times, but wisely avoided giving any discernible indication that he considered the first female GOP nominee anything less than a worthy opponent.

Why, then, did he decide to snicker, chuckle, grin, smirk and shake his head at the one GOP nominee for national office in the last 50 years that even partisan Democrats acknowledge as a serious, substantive, and formidable guy?

[snip]

The oddest aspect of his patronizing performance involved the complete disconnect between his derisive laughter and anything that Paul Ryan actually said. Where, exactly, did the GOP nominee make some point so ridiculous, or express himself so clumsily, that the only appropriate response would be the uncontrollable urge to titter or chortle?

Biden was the slob at the state dinner, the guy who messes up a young woman’s wedding, the person who spills the water at the baptism.  He took a solemn, meaningful occasion (perhaps not always substantive, but still in important part of America’s ritual) and despoiled it.

 

Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.

William Galston, who writes for The New Republic (i.e., he’s a Leftist), is not sanguine about Obama’s standing in the presidential race.  Without getting into the why of Obama’s decision to run a staggeringly vindictive campaign (which would force him to acknowledge that Americans dislike both what Obama has and has not done), he looks at polls which indicate that this tactic has Obama treading water, rather than swimming away from Romney.  After examining several polls that show the two candidates in a statistical dead heat, he turns his sights on an outlier, and professes bewilderment (emphasis mine):

For reasons I don’t understand, the Pew surveys have pretty consistently yielded better results for Obama—larger edges and higher shares of the electorate—than have those from most other organizations over the past few months. For our purposes, however, the most important finding from their latest survey is this: “there is no clear trend in either candidate’s support since Romney wrapped up the GOP nomination … The presidential campaign’s dynamics have changed little in recent months.”

Maybe Glaston should start reading National Review, as I do.  If he’d taken a minute to check things out over there, Jim Geraghty represents a letter that explains why those Pew surveys have funny numbers (emphasis in original):

Starting in 1992, EVERY Pew poll appears to lean to one directionalways towards the Democrat, and by an average of more than 5 percentage points. Worse this is a reflection of the “final” poll which even the Democratic firm, Public Policy Polling, usually gets right.

[snip]

After being wrong in the same direction so consistently, wouldn’t you think that Pew might attempt to adjust their sampling techniques to adjust their techniques to avoid under-sampling Republican voters?  Keep in mind the polls I have highlighted are the last polls in the race.  I find it interesting that not one of their poll statisticians came out and said, ‘Boss, these results look whacked out because the electorate is going to be more than 24 percent Republican, and self-identified Democrats aren’t going to outpace Republicans by 9 percentage points.’

I know why no Pew employee has suggested re-weighting the polls and why Galston professes ignorance about Pew’s peculiar results:  As Thomas Gray said, “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”

Incidentally, if you’re wondering just how nasty Obama’s side of the campaign is getting, it’s getting this nasty:

I thinks is a superb ad, because it’s going out to an audience that neither knows nor cares that these vicious claims have been resoundingly and repeatedly debunked. Nor will anyone care that Barack Obama personally approves of this multitude of lies.  You and I are rightfully disgusted; they don’t want to know that there’s anything to be disgusted about.

Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.

Elizabeth Warren’s “minority status” certainly goes a long way to explaining her career trajectory

I had some brilliant teachers when I was at law school in Texas.  Elizabeth Warren was not among their number.  While she knew her stuff, her disjointed, elliptical communication style made her one of the poorer teachers I’ve had during my 20 years as student (from kindergarten through my J.D.).  I’ve always said that she was a nice lady (never mean or cutting to students), but teaching was not her skill.

I didn’t follow Warren’s career after she left Texas, so I was unaware that she had moved on to Harvard.  I learned that only recently, when the Obama election caused her to become a player on the national scene.  By then, I was so focused on what she was saying or doing, that it didn’t occur to me to ask how the heck she got to Harvard.  After all, she really wasn’t “all that.”

Now that the news has broken that she falsely claimed minority status based upon her alleged 3% (or may 1.5%) drop of Native American, her Harvard employment makes sense.  Harvard needed a Native American law professor — and there Warren was.

I realize that Warren’s coming out as a race hustler is somewhat stale news, but my history with her popped into my mind when I read Alana Goodman’s little summary of the effect Warren’s lies are having on her campaign:

The growing narrative about Warren, on the other hand, is that she’s an ivory tower liberal with some shady character flaws. This latest Trail of Tears development also makes her something of a punchline, similar to how Coakley became a running joke after she cluelessly claimed former Red Sox pitcher and Brown supporter Curt Schilling was a Yankee fan. While the Coakley’s meltdown happened shortly before Election Day, Warren still has time to repair her image. But her window of opportunity is quickly closing, and the drip-drip of details like this will make it difficult for her to turn things around.

Reading that made me realize that her shady days go back a long time, and have propelled her forward on a body of lies.

Anatomy of a smear; or, no, conservatives are not trying to ban contraception in America

In 1965, the United States Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut, the first case to enunciate a “right to privacy” under the U.S.  Constitution.  Before Griswold, notion of a right to privacy had only existed as a common law doctrine, applicable to ones fellow citizens.  This was the first time, however, that the United States Supreme Court anchored this common law privacy right to the Constitution — despite the justices’ acknowledgment that the Constitution makes no mention of privacy as one of the inalienable citizen rights upon which a government cannot impinge.  Instead, the justices used strained and imaginary “penumbras” and “emanations” of existing rights (the Fourth Amendment, for example, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures) to justify their decision.  So, a lousy law (and banning contraception was an exceptionally lousy law) led to something even worse:  a fake constitutional right.

In any event, since 1965, contraceptives have been legal all over America.  You can get them with a prescription if they’re hormonally based, and you can pick them up at any pharmacy, grocery store, vending machine, high school, middle school, etc., if they’re barrier-style contraceptives.  United States taxpayers already subsidize those that get to people through Planned Parenthood and through our schools.

Such was the status quo until ObamaCare.  Now, though, the Progressives have added a hitherto unknown imaginary constitutional right:  women have the absolute right to free contraceptives.  Of course, since nothing is free, what this really means is that women have the absolute right to contraceptives paid for by others.  Regardless of how one feels about either privacy or contraception, anyone with even a smidgen of intellectual honesty has to concede that forcing third parties to pay for women’s access to a readily available, perfectly legal product is not something one can find in the Constitution itself, or even in the Constitution’s recently discovered penumbras and emanations.

Some Republicans in Congress, appalled by this government overreach, have proposed a bill that bars the government from using ObamaCare to justify forcing third parties to pay for women’s contraceptives.  It’s important to note here that they are not banning contraceptives.  Nor are they even reversing the current status quo (because the ObamaCare ukase has not yet gone into effect).  Rather, the Republicans are maintaining the status quo that has existed in the United States since 1965:  contraceptives are legal and women (and men) are free to buy them any time, any where.  Some are more expensive than others, but none are very expensive.  The alleged annual $600 cost for the average women wouldn’t be a big deal now if it wasn’t for the rising price of fuel, something that makes everything expensive.

The above are the facts.  Here’s the spin the Progressives are using to keep the White House in 2012 and to regain the House:  “GOP officials fight to restrict women’s access to contraceptives.”  (That verbatim quotation is taken from a longer post saying that the current GOP fight regarding contraception is akin to their failed fight to keep the state of Florida from forcing Terri Schiavo to starve to death.)

Let me repeat:  The Progressives are explicitly stating that the GOP is “fight[ing] to restrict women’s access to contraceptives.”

This is a bald-faced lie.  The GOP isn’t touching the status quo on abortion, a status quo that has been in place for almost 50 years.  Instead, the GOP is fighting to restrict the federal government from creating a non-existent “right” to birth control, a right that allows the federal government to force third parties, including religious organizations, to subsidize birth control, abortifacients, and sterilization.

Facts are stubborn things, and the facts favor conservatives.  Unfortunately, as Churchill knew, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”  We’ve got the facts on our side, but this is one lie that the Progressives are making sure has legs.

Whenever my “real me” Facebook friends put up a post about the GOP attack on contraception, I politely point out that, as I understand things, the GOP isn’t challenging women’s right to contraception.  It’s just challenging a federal mandate forcing religious institutions to subsidize a doctrinally offensive product.  Interestingly, whenever I drop that indisputable fact into one of hate-filled rants regarding the GOP and women’s rights, I stop the Facebook conversation dead.  There are no arguments and no ripostes.  Facts are stubborn things.

An excellent summary of the whoppers in Obama’s speeches about health care

Obama lies.  He does not merely prevaricate, waffle, beg the question, evade, mince words or engage in any other delicate dodge around the truth.  When it comes to the health care bill he is trying to sell American, he and out and lies.  He tries to sell us big, fat, juicy, completely false representations of facts.  You and know this, but I have to give Michael F. Cannon and Ramesh Ponnuru lots of credit for putting together one of the most lucid, compact summaries I’ve seen to date explaining the biggest of those lies.

Oh, about those jobs saved? It’s not true.

“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.” — Abraham Lincoln

Obama lies, and lies, and lies again. Sometimes he lies directly, and sometimes he lies by having his administration make a formal announcement. AJ Strata decimates the administration’s lie about “jobs saved or created.”