Saturday, June 13, 2009

Obama's War on Truth [add-on]

Victor Davis Hanson truly nails it in his latest article. He covers it all - the truth about Obama's lies, Obama's misleading rhetoric, Obama's historical errors, Obama's flip flopping, his political and moral relativism, and the deception that he is inflicting upon America. The Lamestream Media of Mass Deception does not help because most commentators are "in the bag" with Obama - no matter how much damage he is doing to our nation. Most of the MSM refuse to call him out or into account for all of what is mentioned in the article.

Hanson's National Review Online article is titled: Just Make Stuff Up
President Obama’s war on the truth.

Added on 6/14/09:

The article begins:

In the first six months of the Obama administration, we have witnessed an assault on the truth of a magnitude not seen since the Nixon Watergate years. The prevarication is ironic given the Obama campaign’s accusations that the Bush years were not transparent and that Hillary Clinton, like her husband, was a chronic fabricator. Remember Obama’s own assertions that he was a “student of history” and that “words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up.”

Yet Obama’s war against veracity is multifaceted. [Continue reading article]

Obama's crimes make Watergate look pale in comparison! First of all - he is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND INELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS! Thus far, it would appear that he is getting away with his crimes. However, I still hold onto the hope that the Kerchner et al vs. Obama et al lawsuit brought forth by Mario Apuzzo will finally reveal the truth about his eligibility. The truth usually always comes out - it's only a matter of time. We know that Obama is hiding something!***

One reason that my hope in this matter has increased is because I recently listened to an on demand broadcast of a great conversation between Mr. Apuzzo, Charles Kerchner (lead plaintiff) and Andrea Shea King on Blog Talk Radio. [Note: When you click on the link, look for "On Demand Episodes."

On Demand Episodes 4406 Original Air Date: 6/11/2009 6:00 PM

Atty. Mario Apuzzo - Charles Kerchner
Charles Kerchner, American citizen, and three other men, have filed suit in the US District Court, New Jersey, claiming Obama has violated the 1st, 5th, 9th, 10th and 20th Amendments of our Constitution. They are asking that Obama be declared under Article II to be ineligible to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief, and be removed. Tonight, attorney Mario Apuzzo and leaf plaintiff Charles Kerchner will explain the lawsuit -- Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al -- and the latest development.
Bottom line? Obama is not going to be able to hide the truth forever. I think that this lawsuit has the best chance of succeeding. The ObamaBorg has not been successful at getting this one so easily dismissed. There are many more defendants involved! Perhaps that may prove to be one of the keys of success in this lawsuit!

End of add-on.


Excerpt [from second half of article]:

Outright historical dissimulation. On matters of history, we now know that much of what President Obama says is either not factual or at least misleading. He predictably errs on the side of political correctness. During the campaign, there was his inaccurate account of his great-uncle’s role in liberating Auschwitz. In Berlin, he asserted that the world — rather than the American and British air forces — came together to pull off the Berlin Airlift.

In the Cairo speech, nearly every historical allusion was nonfactual or inexact: the fraudulent claims that Muslims were responsible for European, Chinese, and Hindu discoveries; the notion that a Christian Córdoba was an example of Islamic tolerance during the Inquisition; the politically correct canard that the Renaissance and Enlightenment were fueled by Arab learning; the idea that abolition and civil rights in the United States were accomplished without violence — as if 600,000 did not die in the Civil War, or entire swaths of Detroit, Gary, Newark, and Los Angeles did not go up in flames in the 1960s.

Here we see the omnipotent influence of Obama’s multicultural creed: Western civilization is unexceptional in comparison with other cultures, and history must be the story of an ecumenical, global shared brotherhood.

The half-, and less-than-half, truth. At other times, Obama throws out historical references that are deliberately incomplete. To placate critical hosts, he evokes the American dropping of the bomb. But he is silent about the impossible choices for the Allies — after Japanese atrocities in Manchuria, Korea, the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa — facing the necessity of stopping a Japanese imperial killing machine, determined to fight to the death.

He lectures about equivalent culpability between Muslims and Americans without mentioning American largess to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians. He mostly ignores American military efforts to save Muslims in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Somalia — and American criticism of Russia’s and China’s treatment of their own persecuted Muslim minorities.

When Obama contextualizes the United States’ treatment of Muslims, does he do so in comparison to the Chinese treatment of the Uighurs, the Russians in Chechnya and Afghanistan, or the European colonial experience in North Africa?

When he cites European colonialism’s pernicious role in the Middle East, does he mention nearly 400 years of Ottoman Muslim colonial rule in the Arab-speaking world? Or the Muslim world’s own role in sending several million sub-Saharan Africans to the Middle East as slaves? By no stretch of the imagination is purported Western bias against Islam commensurate with the Islamic threats that have been issued to Danish cartoonists, British novelists, the pope, or German opera producers.

Obama surely knows that a mosque is acceptable in America and Europe in a way that a church is not in most of the Gulf States, or that Muslims freely voice their beliefs in Rotterdam and Dearborn in a way Westerners dare not in Tehran, Damascus, or Riyadh.

Here we see the classic notion of the “noble lie,” or the assumption that facts are to be cited or ignored in accordance with the intended aim: Interfaith reconciliation means downplaying Muslim excesses, or treating Islamic felonies as equivalent with Western misdemeanors.

Why has President Obama developed a general disregard for the truth, in a manner far beyond typical politicians who run one way and govern another, or hide failures and broadcast successes?

First, he has confidence that the media will not be censorious and will simply accept his fiction as fact. A satirist, after all, could not make up anything to match the obsequious journalists who bow to their president, proclaim him a god, and receive sexual-like tingles up their appendages.

Second, Obama is a postmodernist. He believes that all truth is relative, and that assertions gain or lose credibility depending on the race, class, and gender of the speaker. In Obama’s case, his misleading narrative is intended for higher purposes. Thus it is truthful in a way that accurate facts offered by someone of a different, more privileged class and race might not be.

Third, Obama talks more than almost any prior president, weighing in on issues from Stephen Colbert’s haircut, to Sean Hannity’s hostility, to the need to wash our hands. In Obama’s way of thinking, his receptive youthful audiences are proof of his righteousness and wisdom — and empower him to pontificate on matters he knows nothing about.

Finally, our president is a product of a multicultural education: Facts either cannot be ascertained or do not matter, given that the overriding concern is to promote an equality of result among various contending groups. That is best done by inflating the aspirations of those without power, and deflating the “dominant narratives” of those with it.

The problem in the next four years will be not just that the president of the United States serially does not tell the truth. Instead, the real crisis in our brave new relativist world will be that those who demonstrate that he is untruthful will themselves be accused of lying.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. /quote

Hat Tip:

Victor Davis Hansen: National Review Online


***Quote below from The Obama File: Latest Obamanations - Day 146
Obama's Admission

From "Dreams..." -- page 26, last paragraph:

"I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It's a short piece, with a photograph of him. No mention is made of my mother or me, and I'm left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father's part, in anticipation of his long departure. Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father's imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for. I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents."

This paragraph exists in "Dreams from My Father." It is proof that Obama's birth certificate exists, that his grandmother had a copy, and that he's seen it. So he knows what's on it, and whatever it is -- or isn't -- it's the reason he is fighting its release so ferociously.

Undoubtedly, this knowledge provided the motivation for the ransacking of his grandmother Dunham's apartment within hours of her death. He was looking for this document before it fell into the "wrong" hands.


More from "The Obama File":

This is not only bizarre (or, bizCzar) but also most likely UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!


21 And Counting

Obama has appointed 21 "Czars."

These Czars are "Political Officers." In the old Soviet Union, they were called Commissars.

The Executive Branch of government is organized hierarchically, top-down, by Departments (Treasury, Defense, etc.). Each department functions under the direction of an executive, referred to as a "Secretary," who is confirmed by the Senate.

The appointments of these "Czars" changes the fundamental structure of the Executive Branch into a "matrix" structure. The czars have political power across all of the departments within the Executive Branch.

They speak for Obama and their function is to ensure compliance with Obama's policies within the Executive Branch.The American People don't know who most of these Czars are. They've had no background checks. There is no Congressional oversight over the Czars, unlike a Cabinet position. They are appointed by Obama and are extraordinarily powerful, simply because they take their direction from and report directly to Obama.

We don't know how much money they make. We don't know how many tax-payer dollars they oversee. We don't know how much power they wield.

Where are the checks and balances? /quote

1 comment:

Euripides said...

VDH is brilliant. He should be required reading in high schools and university classes. Funny. I just posted something of his from one of his books.

Thanks for pointing this one out.