Absolutely Nails It
 

forgive the C &P JD...an excellent weekend read that puts the One in perspective...


Just Make Stuff Up
President Obama’s war on the truth.

By Victor Davis Hanson


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.

Trotskyization. Sometimes the past is simply airbrushed away. Barack Obama has a disturbing habit of contradicting his past declarations as if spoken words did not mean much at all. The problem is not just that once-memorable statements about everything from NAFTA to public campaign financing were contradicted by his subsequent actions. Rather, these pronouncements simply were ignored to the point of making it seem they were never really uttered at all.



What is stunning about Obama’s hostile demagoguery about Bush’s War on Terror is not that he has now contradicted himself on one or two particulars. Instead, he has reversed himself on every major issue — renditions, military tribunals, intercepts, wiretaps, Predator drone attacks, the release of interrogation photos, Iraq (and, I think, soon Guantanamo Bay) — and yet never acknowledged these reversals.

Are we supposed to think that Obama was never against these protocols at all? Or that he still remains opposed to them even as he keeps them in place? Meanwhile, his attorney general, Eric Holder, is as voluble on the excesses of the Bush War on Terror as he is silent about his own earlier declarations that detainees in this war were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

Politicians often go back on earlier promises, and they often exaggerate (remember Obama’s “10,000” who died in a Kansas tornado [12 perished], or his belief that properly inflating tires saves as much energy as offshore drilling can produce?). But the extent of Obama’s distortions suggests that he has complete confidence that observers in the media do not care — or at least do not care enough to inform the public.

The “Big Lie.” Team Obama says that Judge Sotomayor misspoke when she asserted that Latinas were inherently better judges than white males. Yet the people around Obama knew before Sotomayor was nominated that she has reiterated such racialist sentiments repeatedly over many years.

Obama complained that his deficits were largely inherited — even though his newly projected annual deficit and aggregate increase in the national debt may well, if they are not circumvented, equal all the deficit spending compiled by all previous administrations combined.

The president lectures Congress on its financial excesses. He advocates “pay as you go” budgeting. But he remains silent about the unfunded liabilities involved in his own proposals for cap-and-trade, universal health care, and education reform, which will in aggregate require well over a trillion dollars in new spending on top of existing deficits — but without any “pay as you go” proposals to fund them.

By the same token, his promise that 95 percent of Americans will receive an Obama “tax cut” is impossible. Remember, almost 40 percent of households currently pay no income taxes at all — and the $1.7-trillion annual deficit will necessitate a broad array of taxes well beyond those assessed on incomes above $250,000.

Obama talks about cutting federal outlays by eliminating $17 billion in expenditures — one-half of one percent of a $3.4-trillion budget. Here the gap between rhetoric and reality is already so wide that it simply makes no difference whether one goes completely beyond the limits of belief. Why would a liberal “budget hawk” go through the trouble of trying to cut 10 or 20 percent of the budget when he might as well celebrate a 0.5 percent cut and receive the same amount of credit or disdain? If one is going to distort, one might as well distort whole-hog.

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.

Good stuff. Keep it coming. There is a lot of good stuff like this available--books, articles, talk radio (sorry Johnny D), interviews, etc. One assumes that everyone else is also aware of these, but it seems that if info comes from a "right wing" perspective, many feel that it is tainted, should be ignored, dismissed out of hand. I hope your post gathers momentum.

BTW, I think your cutting and pasting disseminates ideas, and that THOSE IDEAS should be discussed, not the manner in which you present them. There are very few, if any, absolutely original contributions in these threads. We all comment on what we've read or heard whether it comes from the New York Times, NBC, Fox, or even talk radio. It's the ideas that merit discussion, not the source.

I think most information these days be it from the right or left is tainted to some degree.

The author makes some good points about Obama's accuracy in some recent speeches, but his core argument, that liberals don't care about lying because all truth is relative, is pretty silly.

Most of his accusations can be accounted for by the fact that Obama is a politician in a leadership position.

-spence

I haven't been able to find where Hanson has said "that liberals don't care about lying because all truth is relative". He said that OBAMA is a postmodernist. HE believes that all truth is relative . . ." He was speaking throughout the piece about OBAMA'S lies, not liberals, and the "all truth is relative" is one example of why.

So, then, since being "a politician in a leadership position" is the major or a major lightning rod for accusations, accusations against a politician in a leadership position must be dismissed, unexamined, have no merit, because they are accusations against a politician in a leadership position. Sounds like an extremely circular argument.

you need only listen to Obama's AMA speach yesterday to confirm that what the author describes is absolutely true, the degree to which this president will outright lie and create deception to move his agenda along with no thought of the consequences is deeply disturbing...he's not just a politician in a leadership position, he's a dishonest out-of-control radical idealogue without a conscience....or any experience in all of the matters that he believes he's engaged in solving/ improving... and it shows...also, the smugness is wearing on everyone...his name should be "I"bama...it's all about him...

The author is clearly trying to make the same moral relativism argument against liberalism as was made in the other thread. That Obama can lie because it's easy for him to reinterpret the truth based on the situation to meet his needs at the moment.

The thing is that in 2009 most of us are postmodernists to some degree, but I don't know anyone who believes "all truth is relative".

No, it means that the individual statements need to be taken in context. Some are just errors, some are spin and perhaps some are intentionally deceptive.

But Scott highlighted the critical passages. The author is asserting that it's because Obama is a postmodernist driven by multiculturalism that he's manipulating the truth to fit his agenda of equality.

This sounds a lot like the charges leveled at President Bush who was viewed by most Republicans as neither a liberal or postmodernist.

You can't have it both ways.

-spence

Obama can lie becasue no one, execpt right wing media questions it. The left has done everything it can to derail any right wing voice.

That's simply not true.

Health care, the economy, reversals on foreign policy etc... I read stories every day that question his proposals (and often arithmetic) in the NYT, Newsweek, MSNBC etc which are often considered left of center by the Right.

The fringe left has been very vocal over Obama's flipping on many campaign promises for accountability and transparency regarding correcting Bush era wrongs. Perhaps more vocal than the fringe Right.

-spence

You're not calling MSNBC, Newsweek or the NYT fringe, are you? While I agree that there are more and more media outlets that would be considered left of center questioning him, by using the word "fringe" you're diminishing their relevance. No one really pays any attention to the "fringe".

Obama is still getting a free pass from a lot of people. Did you happen to see the Brian Williams 2 part puff piece on NBC? It's one thing to offer a glimpse of the President's home life, but this was ridiculous.

There is definitely criticism of Obama coming from the left

no. he states that because Obama is a postmodernist, among other things, he is perfectly comfortable "misleading" and manipulating the truth because it serves his "higher purpose" and all who oppose him are the "liars"...he said it yesterday, quite clearly..."those that tell you otherwise are simply not telling the truth" smirk...... a liar accusing others of lying about his intentional lies to further his agenda...interesting...

Here's some left wing criticism that suprised me a bit. I figured Maher would have given the Pres a little more time before he started ripping him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-opSC...layer_embedded

this will happen when you lie to EVERYONE...even the toe suckers become disillusioned with you...Maher wants him to drop the GQ glamour boy act and get onto to full bore communism...fun to watch...I think it's great to see a president talk about sacrafice, living within your means... etc....and then living quite lavishly high on the hog of others... sets a great example...

"no unnecessary trip on Airforce one ever fed a hungry child"

No, I said they were "often considered left of center by the Right" which would place them in the middle or left of center depending on your position.

Personally I find the NYTimes to be mostly in the middle with a more liberal editorial page. Newsweek is in the middle and MSNBC in the middle for news and left of center for opinion. They certainly have gone further left with their evening programs recently.

That being said, the hard left programs like the Ed Show (the MSNBC version of Glenn Beck, both idiots) and Rachel Maddow have been very critical of Obama in the past weeks, and they do impact a lot of viewers.

Was it intended to be just a fluff piece or investigative journalism?

-spence

Monica Lewinski immediately comes to mind...:jester:

It was a Journalistic Lewinski....or...a Puff Job...

I believe I read a quote a few days ago from Bill Maher that said something along the lines of, "These are not the actions of the President whom I voted for." I can't say I fully disagree with him in some aspects.

gas is up a buck a gallon since O took office. If this was "you know who", Nebe would be out here foaming at the mouth saying he is behind this to increase his oil profits. why is it no one blames O?

I know there are market conditions pushing the price, why is it that reality never factored into criticism of "you know who"?

Ya, I heard part of it and noticed he had another new scare tatic statement.

Not an exact qoute but-- If we don't do something with health care imediately
it will be a catastrophe.

He uses scare tactics for every bill he wants passed.

It's growing old real quick.

yup, predictable

Simple enough playbook to achieve socialist/fascist goals:

1) Proclaim that a crises exits (if one doesn't exist, invent one).
2) Manipulate and scare the mindless masses into buying into it.
3) Set up and demonize "straw men" to heroically knock down.
4) Insist that the only possible remedy is government bail-outs, programs, regulations, etc.
5) Cram the legislation through Congress ASAP (preferably without even reading it!).
6) Send the bill to future generations.

Tools required: Charismatic and Machiavellian salesman, Slavishly obedient MSM, muscle to intimidate straw men (e.g. union thugs, "community organizers", ACORN, etc.), gullible cult-like followers, timid CEO's and a cowardly opposition party.

Then just fill-in the crisis du jour and run with it! (finance, auto industry, health care, global warming/energy, etc.).

This playbook is not new. Thomas Sowell wrote extensively about it in "The Vision of the Annointed" about 20 years ago...

it was the same during the Clinton admin. "CRISIS A WEEK"...I remember Hillary on with Katie one morning whispering..."there's a "silent" crisis in America"...the "silent" crisis at the time was a lack of free government provided and run day care....it was going to bankrupt the nation..or something...

hey, here's an idea..this administration should get one or more of the big three networks to move their news division right into the White House where they could take directions from Rahm and the "O" and promote their agenda in prime time for free with no opposing views...this would be the perfect way to fully take advantage of an adoring and obedient mainstream media...but...I doubt that even the shills at the big networks would prostitute themselves to that degree...probably never happen....:doh:

At this time last year gas was 4 bucks a gallon. Of course the prices are going to be higher around Memorial day than in February.

-spence

But it wasn't old under Clinton for 8 years and Bush 43 for 8 years?

Bush couldn't pass a bill without reminding everyone that if they didn't support it they would soon be dead.

To be honest I haven't heard Obama make many doom and gloom statements that are out of line. Some of his policy responses to the problems are weak, but for instance with health care we do have a massive bomb about to explode.

-spence

Spence, you will have to jog my memory of the Clinton and Bush years when Every bill was an emergency,crisis, or needed immediate action including the times when it was so massive and such a crisis Congress couldn't read it, let alone understand it before it was passed?

Obama is pushing most everything on the basis of fear.

Just caught some of his news conference where he wants to add more bureaucracy on top of the Fed and SEC.

He used the word crisis 5 times!

Is adding more bureaucracy a crisis, or does the FED and SEC need to get their act together and do their job?

Do we really need more government to mess up what they already messed up?

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Hmmm... sounds exactly like the justification for the Patriot Act, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and most political decisions made by Bush. Just replace the word "crisis" for either "terrorists" or "WMDs".

Now, I'm not much a fan of what Obama is doing in terms of the possible healthcare plan or *some* of the regulations. However, the way he's trying to campaign support for them is no different than how most policies were pushed through in the last 8 years.

It's business as usual and the American public is still stupid enough to fall for it.

I agree JD, except i don't believe it is all stupidity.

IMHO ,the average Americans are so busy working to keep their heads above water,
they don't have the time to keep up with this lighting speed legislation and the slew of new programs every week.

Politicians know it and know memories are short in these warp speed changing times.
They count on it, and Obama is taking it to a new level.

If that's the excuse now, what was the excuse 3, 5 or even 7 years ago when the economy was flourishing and everyone had a job?

The average American is ignorant when it comes to politics and the policies that will have an effect on their day to day lives and their children's lives. Call me a cynic but the intelligent people (for the most part :tooth: ) that participate in this forum is a poor representation of the average American public. None of us will agree on every thing, and a majority will disagree on most subjects; informed, critical thinking and insight takes place here every day. I don't believe the average American has those capabilities.

When the elections were taking place, my roommate's girlfriend couldn't even name Obama or McCain's running mates - and she wasn't the only one I bumped into that couldn't. I'm talking about college educated, intelligent people - not the bums sitting at home watching Maury everyday collection their handouts (who as an aside, should know the most about politics due to the massive amount of time on their hands).

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;694792]If that's the excuse now, what was the excuse 3, 5 or even 7 years ago when the economy was flourishing and everyone had a job?

[/QUOTE
JD, I would say it started 15-20 year ago when corporate mergers became common place and with downsizing came 60-70 hr work weeks becoming the norm instead of the 40 hour week.

Not much time left to keep current on politics on all levels when at work or chained to a cell 24/7.

I agree every American should know the basics of our government and participate, but the few who have the time to keep abreast of Obama's new warp speed daily programs are few and far between.

That is to all our detriment.

maybe you've forgotten, at the beginning of the Bush years, a bomb actually DID go off( and we had a corresponding recession).....to compare the response to a terrorist attack on American soil and the justification for the response to it and the threat it clearly posed regarding potential future attacks with the response to a recession which includes blatant opportunistic wholesale government takeover of large sectors of American economy, Czar after Czar appointed, government intrusion into every aspect of American life and deficit spending like none seen in history would show a clear lack of critical thinking and insight... we've had a dozen recessions in the last hundred years...only one ended in a depression and we're following the same recipe...seems to me most dems say we should have gone to Afghan. and focused all our efforts there, would you argue that the Patriot Act has not made us safer?...NOONE has provided a coherent alternative of what should have been done with Iraq/Saddam...300 more UN resolutions?...years and years of food for oil scandal, headaches, torture( I'd refer you back to the Iraqi History Project)...continued funding of terrorism by the Iraqi regime, WHAT WOULD THE MIDDLE EAST LOOK LIKE RIGHT NOW WITH THIS WEAK ASS PRESIDENT AND SADDAM STILL AROUND TO FURTHER COMPLICATE MATTERS, HE WASN'T EXACTLY COOPERATIVE and his kids(heirs) were worse!...but if you want to point to that and say that the threat was INFLATED and claim it somehow similar to what is being done by this administration using "CRISIS" to make MASSIVE changes in all of our lives with little regard for the outcome and open disdain for anyone that offers criticism...can you imagine if Bush had bristled at criticism and openly attacked his critics and media outlets that questioned his judgment the way that this president does? Bush was always clear that he respected those that disagree with him, Obama smugly calls those that disagree with him liars and criticizes media outlets for not towing his line....I'm not a huge Bush fan but if you make a list of the criticiams of him through his 8 years most were created by the left for political leverage and advantage..the "domestic spying saga" was crap..Valerie Plame was crap....the firing of the US Attorney's-crap, Clinton fired all 93 without a whimper from the dems...hell, they were so desperate with regard to his ROTC records that they forged them and ran them on a National News Broadcast...where are all of those investigators with regard to Obama's past????...if the Patriot Act was this horrible nefarious thing created and fostered on the heel of a crisis then exactly what advantage did/do currently the NEOCONS gain from it?????...exactly what political advantage was Bush hoping to gain by going to Iraq? EVERY FREAKING DAY THIS ADMINISTRATION UNROLLS ANOTHER TAKEOVER OVER SOME PART OF THIS ECONOMY AND IT'S INDUSTRY THROUGH DIRECT CONTROL BY GOVERNMENT OR BY ONE OF IT'S APPROVED/APPOINTED MINIONS....NO, HE'S NOT A SOCIALIST

In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be achieved by a form of government control over business and labour (called "the corporate state" by Mussolini).

BTW MUSSOLINI was a huge fan of FDR

DE JA VU all over again....

Greatly admiring Benito Mussolini's fascist system in Italy, Roosevelt proceeded to implement the same type of economic system in the U.S. For example, his National Recovery Act gave him virtually unlimited dictatorial powers over American business and industry. And any American citizen who did not do his "patriotic" duty by supporting the NRA and its "Blue Eagle" soon found himself at the receiving end of FDR's vengeance and retaliation.

And it was during this period of time that such alien schemes as the Social Security Act, the FDIC, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Emergency Banking Relief Act the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Securities Act, and the National Labor Relations Act came into existence — all with the aim of taking control of people's lives as well as absolving them from responsibility for errors and foolhardiness by giving them the political loot that had been stolen from others.

But all of this was not sufficient for FDR. He persuaded Congress to provide him a power which Stalin and Mussolini proudly possessed: the power to nationalize people's gold. And his confiscation of gold was accompanied by one of the most shameful acts in American history: the repudiation of government debts payable in gold — the noteholders, most of whom were Americans who had in good faith trusted their government, were instead paid in devalued paper money.

And what was the reaction of the American people to the evil, immoral, and tyrannical acts of FDR? Like people in other parts of the world who were suffering under dictatorial rule — Russians, Germans, and Italians — most of them reacted like sheep — meekly going along with their own slaughter and, in many instances, ardently supporting it. Having lost the sense of self-reliance which had characterized their ancestors — having lost their faith in freedom and themselves — having lost their faith in God Himself — the American people proceeded to relinquish to Caesar the power to direct their lives and plunder their fortunes, just as people throughout history had done.

Sure, continue to contain and work towards a coup. As bad a regime Saddam's was, the fact is he wasn't really able to hurt anyone beyond his own borders and most of his country hated him.

It's not a perfect solution for sure, but far better than the path that was chosen.

-spence

he was funding terrorist organizations...OUTSIDE HIS BORDERS

in every country suffering under a dictator' oppression "most of his country hated(hates) him.," this is the exactly the case...you are so naieve...


in the late 90's when it served the dems/left NBC was running stories on Saddam with his picture side by side with Hitler's during their news cast and making all of the comparisons.....SOMETHING CHANGED????? From Hitler to Santa Clause in like 4 years...

"contain and work toward a coup"...let's see...Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, shall I continue....where exactly has the "contain and cause a coup" ever worked? how about "contain and ignore the threat and suffering" that's the UN model.... which is why we have NK and Iran as a current pain in the A#$.....

There's no evidence of this that I've ever seen.

The closest argument is that he was donating money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but this is clearly more motivated by a desire to be seen as a compassionate leader by the Arab street rather than generating more terrorism.

Not always. In many dictatorships the brutal leader is seen by their people as a protector. In Iraq I think this was less so, hence the need for such obsessive security. Saddam's grip on his people was pretty weak.

In the late 1990's there was a big neo-con push to depose Saddam which generated a lot of attention. Nobodies saying he was a good guy, the issue is if he was a bad enough guy to warrant a mostly unilateral invasion. In the late 1990's the opinion from Clinton and the US Congress was a resounding no.

The only reason he was a bad enough guy this time around is because the Bush admin fabricated the link to 9/11.

What changed? Our leadership changed, not Saddam.

Much of the containment issues we have been having are a direct result of our policy positions actually empowering those who which we contain.

N. Korea is a great example. You can't label someone as "evil", declare you're not going to talk to them and then have a hissy fit when they don't follow your every command. It just doesn't make any sense.

-spence