Archive for June, 2012
Are you, like me, finding it difficult to keep track of the many, many contradictions, inaccuracies and flip-flops that President Obama has stated regarding the economy, immigration, marriage, foreign policy, the debt, healthcare, lobbyists, etc. over the past four years?? The following article by Mr. Hanson seeks to provide a concise and condensed version of the President’s numerous inconsistencies which, I believe, gives further proof that Obama’s distortions and fabrications disqualify him for the respect and trust of the American people as the leader of these United States.
I would encourage comments from anyone who is planning to vote for another four years of Obama and would like to hear their rebuttal of the statements attributed to Obama in this article. I may be a “nut” but I am a reasonable and rational nut!!!
June 27, 2012 4:00 A.M.
What matters is the progressive intent — not some supposed objective truth.
By Victor Davis Hanson
A sign of an undisciplined mind is serial lapses into self-contradiction, or blurting out a thought only to refute it entirely on a later occasion. For a president to do that is to erode public confidence and eventually render all his public statements irrelevant. That is now unfortunately the case with Barack Obama, who has established a muddled record of confused and contradictory declarations.
Last week, the president invoked executive privilege to prevent the release of administration documents related to the Fast and Furious operation. All presidents on occasion use that tactic, but rarely after they have put themselves on record, as did Senator Obama just five years ago, damning the practice as a de facto admission of wrongdoing. Does President Obama remember his earlier denunciation — or why he thought a special prosecutor was necessary to look into the Scooter Libby case, but not the far greater mess surrounding Eric Holder?
About the same time, President Obama offered de facto amnesty for an estimated 800,000 to 1 million illegal aliens. Aside from his circumvention of Congress and his casual attitude toward his own constitutional duty to enforce the laws as they are written, Obama had on two earlier occasions stated that he not only would not grant such blanket exemptions from the law, but also legally could not. That was then, this is now — the middle of a reelection campaign?
Candidate Obama derided George W. Bush as “unpatriotic” for borrowing $4 trillion over eight years; what term might President Obama use to characterize his own record of borrowing $5 trillion in less than four years? “Extremely unpatriotic”? In his first year in office, Obama announced that he would deserve just a single term if the economy had not improved after his agenda was reified. What then is he to say to that earlier Obama when 8 percent unemployment is now in its 41st consecutive month, GDP growth is flat, and we continue to borrow $1 trillion per year?
As a candidate, Obama promised to play by the rules of public campaign financing, only to renounce that pledge when he was well on his way to raising $1 billion. Obama did not just promise to shut down Guantanamo and cease renditions, preventive detention, and military tribunals; he also denounced them in such venomous terms that his later embrace — or indeed expansion — of all these protocols was not so much hypocritical as surreal.
President Obama does not like filibustering in the Senate; Senator Obama apparently felt differently when he was in the minority and tried to stop a vote on the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. The list of the Obama about-faces and obfuscations grows weekly — the revolving door, lobbyists in the White House, the new transparency, opposition to super PACs, attitudes toward Israel, huge savings from Obamacare. And we are at a point now where no one can verify anything from the president’s past, given that his own memoir was largely mythographic — details about his family, friends, and girlfriends made up to enhance his preferred narrative of racial oppression. If a writer will fudge on the very details of his own dying mother’s seeking to obtain health care, then he will fudge on almost anything. And if the Birthers were unhinged for suggesting that Obama was born in Kenya, what are we to make of Obama himself allowing just that untruth to appear on his literary agent’s biography of him for over a decade?
What explains these weird disconnects? There are many contributory factors. First, Obama is a quintessential postmodernist, who believes that there is no abstract “truth,” only floating narratives that gain credibility by their aims — false if for ignoble reasons, true if spoken for egalitarian purposes. Obama would argue that his literary fictions were not actually fictions given that they served the cause of exposing racial bias — it is the intent that matters, not the details. The larger truth is that Barack Obama suffered angst because of his biracial identity; how, when, and where all that happened is immaterial.
Obama once really did lament that he could not legally offer amnesty, only to do just that; similarly, the use of executive privilege for a President Bush is not the same thing as for a President Obama. A statement can be judged true or false only by its ultimate objective — and in Obama’s case all his untruths must be true because they were intended to serve a progressive end.
Second, Obama understands that he is a symbolic as much as a real president. Name a controversy — Fast and Furious, the Secret Service scandal, the GSA mess, the serial leaking of key national-security secrets — and he assumes that critics will eventually be tarred with the brush of racial bias for daring to bring that scandal up and thereby help derail the nation’s first African-American president. Similarly, the fact that Obama is part African, has adopted the patois of the inner-city black community, and has allied himself with the identity-driven grievance industry is felt to offer exemption from charges of hypocrisy. So one can both damn fat-cats and endlessly play golf with them. The 1 percenters are culpable, but not so culpable that one would stay away from Martha’s Vineyard or Vail. In Obama’s mind, his minority status and left-wing politics trump any appearance of disingenuousness; he can slur the wealthy in the abstract while courting them and living like them in the concrete. And in our topsy-turvy world, to cite such hypocrisy is racist, whereas using race to seek exemption is not. We see how identity politics collides with truth all the time in America. In the Tawana Brawley case, the Duke lacrosse scandal, and the details surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting, the point was not necessarily distinguishing fact from fiction, but being careful not to lose sight of the larger quest for racial justice.
Third, Barack Obama was as senator and remains as president a casual ad hoc thinker, an activist rather than a learned and informed leader. He assumes that how he speaks matters rather than what he says, as if months later when critics look at his contradictory transcripts they will remember only how he enthused the crowd by dropping his g’s or inserting a melodic “hope and change” or “make no mistake about it” fillip. At any given moment Obama can declare that he will cut the deficit by half by the end of his first term, that the private sector is doing fine, or that his administration has been a proponent of more gas and oil drilling. Emotion and enthusiasm are for him; detail, consistency, and accuracy are for others.
The media play an unfortunate role as well. Obama has never developed the normal politician’s fear of journalists, who customarily try to dry-gulch a politician by quoting back statements at odds with his record. Instead, Obama assumes that in a press conference or an interview, no one will remind him that he once criticized the use of executive privilege, opposed gay marriage, ruled out de facto amnesty by fiat, or denounced the revolving door. Obama rightly sensed that the more he damned Guantanamo as a candidate, the more his base would rally to his cause — and even more would they keep mum when as president he chose to keep the detention center open. Journalists simply empowered his habit of speaking off the top of his head by a conspiracy of silence. Deep down, Obama supposes that if he says something entirely opposite from what he once said, or something so preposterous that it cannot possibly be true, or calls the Falkland Islands the Maldives, no journalist would dare to press him on the disconnect — given the possible harm to the liberal agenda of our first African-American president.
But after nearly four years, the game is about up. If the president lectures the Europeans with another “make no mistake about it,” they will assume there are lots of mistakes about it. If he says “in point of fact” to Vladimir Putin, then Putin can be sure there are no facts at all. If Obama addresses the American people with “let me be perfectly clear,” then they assume he most certainly will be anything but transparent and concise. And if Obama compares a current event to one in his own past, then we can be sure that the earlier event never took place.
Obama’s critics may not be judicious or even quite accurate in calling him a liar, since he does not consciously and by deliberation craft mistruth. Rather, he simply is a story-teller, a novelist, a fabulist who says nice, interesting things for his own benefit, and on occasion thunders out promises in mellifluous cadences, without any worry whether they are true or false, or whether they confirm or reject what he said a bit earlier. What Barack Obama wants to be true, he says to be true; and we lesser folk can sweat the details when it is usually not.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom
Referencing a previous blog post regarding the bias of the mainstream media, the following article cites twenty-nine questions posed to President Obama and signed by forty percent of United States Senators. When the President announced that he will not enforce laws against illegal aliens aged 16-24, he should have been called out for this blatant abuse of the Executive Office by the very journalists whose duty it is to serve as a monitor of power. It is encouraging that twenty senators (perhaps realizing how irrelevant the President has made them) are finally finding the gumption to demand that the President explain himself in a lot more detail. When the President places himself and “privileged” illegals living in our country above the law, he needs to be reigned in immediately or we, as a nation, will find ourselves being governed by a Hugo Chavez type clone.
Phyllis Schlafly (Townhall Columnist) June 16, 2012
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a good friend of the Constitution and We the People, has sent President Obama a powerful letter co-signed by 20 senators. The letter spells out many unlawful aspects of Obama’s recent announcement that he will not enforce U.S. laws against young illegal aliens and will reward their illegal status with residency and work permits.
Grassley doesn’t mince words in his letter. He accuses Obama of taking an action for which he lacks legal authority, is contrary to his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” is an affront to representative government and the legislative process in bypassing Congress, and is an inappropriate use of executive power.
Grassley points out that Obama has full knowledge that his action was unlawful. Just last year, Obama stated, “This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”
Here are a few of the 29 questions, slightly paraphrased and condensed, which Grassley asked the president to answer.
Why has your position on your legal authority changed? Did you consult with attorneys about this and get a legal opinion and, if so, please provide copies of those legal opinions and emails? How will you treat the parents and others who deliberately violated federal immigration law by illegally bringing these young people into the U.S.?
What criteria will you use to decide who gets work permits and who doesn’t, and what will be the status of the illegal aliens after the expiration of the two-year span of your executive order? Will the implementation cost of this gigantic program be paid by those who benefit, or will it be loaded onto the U.S. taxpayers?
Obama supporters try to justify his illegal order by claiming that the young people were brought into the U.S. through no fault of their own. Then we must assume that the fault belongs to the parent or whoever brought the kids, so those persons should be deported and allowed to take their children with them.
Although Obama bragged that his executive order would make our policies “more fair” and “more just,” Grassley prefaced his litany of legal and fiscal questions about Obama’s executive order by citing its fundamental unfairness. American citizens of ages comparable to the illegals who Obama is rewarding, ages 16 to 24, are suffering 17 percent unemployment, and another 32 percent of American citizens aged 18 to 29 are underemployed.
Grassley wrote: “It is astonishing that your administration would grant work authorizations to illegal immigrants during this time of record unemployment.” No wonder Obama wouldn’t answer a reporter’s question as to why he favors foreign workers over American.
Obama argues that he has the authority to stop deportations of illegal aliens and reward them with work permits because he was using “prosecutorial discretion.” But prosecutorial discretion is properly applied only on a case-by-case basis to deal with extenuating circumstances, not for cancelling prosecution of a million people.
Obama’s action is an open invitation to fraud and lies. For example, Obama says his plan is for illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and are still under the age of 30. Will the young illegal aliens Obama is favoring be required to prove their age with verifiable documents, such as birth certificates, school records, W-2s, tax returns, or affidavits under penalty of perjury?
Obama’s estimated figure of eligibles is 800,000, but the Pew Hispanic Center says it will be 1.4 million. The bipartisan amnesty of the 1980s was estimated to top out at 1 million, but wholesale document fraud coupled with the lack of enforced sanctions increased the number to 3 million.
Obama undoubtedly thinks he will benefit from the mainstream media’s continued failure to report the many costs to U.S. taxpayers of tolerating the influx of illegal aliens. According to Victor Davis Hanson, California is a showcase of the problem: taxes are the highest and rising, 70 percent of the last 10 million new Californians are on Medicaid; public schools have plunged to 48th and 49th in English and math test scores; and 50 percent of college freshmen need to take remedial courses.
Obama’s pitch to illegal aliens is one more unlawful, unilateral, dictatorial action added to his administration’s 21 specific violations of law that were itemized in an amazing document issued a few weeks ago by the Attorneys General of nine states.
Obama’s gambit to admit illegal aliens will not help our country. It is clearly designed to help Obama attract a bloc of voters to re-elect him in November, and that’s no excuse for violating the laws of the United States.
Finally……………….someone in Congress is showing some courage………I watched a portion of the committee hearing today and when I heard a replay of this audio I seriously wanted to stand up and cheer!! Now how sad of a commentary on the status of our nation is that?? South Carolina you may be very proud of Representative Trey Gowdy and I pray for more such courageous voices.
Where in the world are our so called “journalists”??????? I am talking specifically about those from the traditional major news outlets…………NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN and those in the major printed news outlets………….NY Times and the Washington Post for example. We have a President who has been continuously and purposefully overreaching his executive duties, discarding the rule of law and promoting a quasi-dictatorship and no one even seems to care. I would say they are complicit in this usurpation of power by the President and his “collectivist” friends.
According to the Pew Center Project for Excellence in Journalism:
The central purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society. This encompasses myriad roles–helping define community, creating common language and common knowledge, identifying a community’s goals, heroes and villains, and pushing people beyond complacency. This purpose also involves other requirements, such as being entertaining, serving as watchdog and offering voice to the voiceless.
The Pew Center identified nine core principles to describe the theory of journalism:
- Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth
- Its first loyalty is to its citizens
- Its essence is a discipline of verification
- Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover
- It must serve as an independent monitor of power
- It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise
- It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant
- It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional
- Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience (able to voice their differences with their colleagues whether in the newsroom or in the executive suites)
Cries of racism have been spewing forth from the mainstream news media over the weekend after criticism of the President’s granting of immunity for those immigrants under the age of thirty who are in this country illegally. No matter where we all stand on this particular issue, we have a system of laws enacted to protect the citizens (the voters) from the seizure of power by one branch of government. Please follow the links and listen to what the President has said in the recent past and compare it to the actions he took on Friday. How can this not be viewed as an unlawful assumption of power. If we are not ruled by laws voted on and debated in the Congress (no matter how messy and lengthy that may be) then we are being ruled by the dictates of one man who has deemed that he “can not wait for Congress” and so he makes a unilateral decision, and believe me if he gets away with this (as he has with his Executive Orders), this Constitutional Republic ceases to exist! Please click on the audio link below:
Lawless and He Knows It
Bob Beauprez is a former Member of Congress and is currently the editor-in-chief of A Line of Sight, an online policy resource. Columnist for Townhall:
Even he knows better, or at least he should. That man, Barack Obama. After all he claims to be a Constitutional Law professor. But, on Friday, the President blew it.
I understand that there are at least as many different ideas of how to fix the illegal immigration problem as there are Members of Congress. So, it comes as no surprise that the President also has some thoughts on the subject – particularly as the election draws near.
But, when I heard him announce his executive order which changes existing law, I bristled. The Constitution is very clear about separation of powers; the Congress makes laws, the executive branch administers them.
Obama knows it, too. In September 2011 in response to pressure to take this same action he said, “this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally in just not true…there are laws on the books that I have to enforce…we live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”
Earlier in 2011, Obama said the same thing to La Raza; “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. But that’s not how our system works.” And, on Univision he said, “Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”
What changed since then? Did I miss an Amendment to the Constitution?
No. Barack Obama just trampled on it – again.
I knew our country was in for a rough ride from the moment that I read a February 18, 2009 news report that Obama’s newly appointed Department of Justice, Eric Holder said this:
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”
He then proceeded to dismiss the case against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation causing a Justice Department attorney to resign in protest over orders from the Obama administration (Holder) to dismiss the case. J. Christian Adams, now a Virginia attorney, stated that, “There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases” and that there is an atmosphere of reverse racism in the Department and that voting rights cases against white victims would not be pursued.
Holder, during his three and a half years as DOJ, has made a mockery of the rule of law.
“He has stacked the Justice Department with politically motivated lawyers and enforced civil-rights laws in a racially biased fashion, for example dropping a solid voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panthers. He has asked a prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogators for alleged crimes that had already been investigated. He has tried to move Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for a civilian trial. He has claimed voter-ID laws are tantamount to Jim Crow.” (Editors of National Review On Line).
And…………………………….. it is further reported by Renew America that Holder has argued
“that senior DOJ officials knew nothing about gunwalking tactics used during or about Operation Fast and Furious in general until after Border Agent Brian Terry was killed in December 2010. The problem is, multiple memos about Fast and Furious were addressed directly to Holder as early as July 2010 and wiretap applications show Holder’s Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer knew about the extensive details of Fast and Furious and approved gunwalking six times starting in March 2010. Not to mention, Holder’s now Chief of Staff Gary Grindler’s handwriting is all over an official ATF Fast and Furious Powerpoint presentation given in Phoenix March 2010.”
The following videos highlight the abuse of power, the lies (under oath) and the contempt for the laws of our country by the Attorney General of the United States. If we understand, as the Founders believed, that the rule of law is “the lifeblood of the American social order and basic civil liberties”, then we must hold everyone from the President on down to that very same rule of law or endure the erosion of our liberties.
Click link to view fundraising ploy:
I received an e-mail from the Obama campaign this week with the usual ploy of enticing me to contribute at least three dollars to help fund the campaign, after which I would then be entered into a raffle for a chance to be flown to New York to have dinner with Anna Wintour (who??) and President Obama at Sarah Jessica Parker’s home. The e-mail continued, “We don’t have the special-interest and high-dollar donor advantage that Romney has. Barack Obama has you, and we are bound and determined to fight back on behalf of a country where everyone gets a fair shot and a fair shake.” Well, I then saw the above televised ad with Anna Wintour (and I now know that she is the editor of Vogue whose character was portrayed as the devil in the movie “The Devil Wears Prada”)…………………and once you hear her voice in the ad and see the video clip below, you will no doubt understand the hypocrisy of the Obama charade which continues to be perpetuated about his concern for us “folks” who “cling to our guns or religion…………..as a way to explain our frustrations.”
It is becoming increasingly difficult to address all of the critically important moral and political issues that appear on the horizon every morning when we wake up and “put two feet on the floor”, but of all of the issues confronting us, I believe it is the value that we, as a nation, put on each and every human life from conception until natural death that will ultimately determine the future we will be handing to our children and grandchildren. Lila Rose is a true heroine to me……………….I wish that I had her courage and strength to fight as she does for mothers and their unborn children. If Planned Parenthood (or any abortion facility) can recommend an ultrasound to determine the sex of the unborn, doesn’t that conclude that they are acknowledging that the unborn is not just a clump of cells, that the unborn is a child with an identity (girl/boy)…………..is it then okay to terminate (murder) that girl/boy simply because the parent wants a different gender???
Is it okay to terminate for any reason at 24 weeks gestation (the cutoff for Planned Parenthood abortions), when the earliest baby to survive a premature birth was born at just 21 weeks, 6 days?? Is it okay at 12 weeks?? 8 weeks?? 4 weeks?? 4 days?? 4 minutes?? What is the difference?? Pray for Lila Rose, pray for distraught mothers, pray for the unborn, pray for us all.
Posted by: ST on May 31, 2012
The House on Thursday rejected a Republican bill that would impose fines and prison terms on doctors who perform abortions for the sole purpose of controlling the gender of the child, a practice known as sex-selective abortion.
The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 3541, was defeated in a 246-168 vote. While that’s a clear majority of the House, Republicans called up the bill under a suspension of House rules, which limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass. In this case, it would have required more support from Democrats.