Sunday, April 15, 2012

Obama's Damnable Lies

WND

It has always been considered inappropriate, even downright rude, to call the president – any president – a liar. But when it comes to President Obama, it has now reached the point where it’s simply unavoidable.

Case in point: Obama’s rhetorical jihad against Paul Ryan’s budget plan, even though it is a decidedly tame and timid blueprint when viewed in the context of our nation’s staggering $15 trillion debt. 
Forget the fact that this Ryan roadmap doesn’t balance the budget for decades. Or that its supposed “draconian cuts” are not cuts at all – they are merely limits upon how much our already gargantuan-sized government will grow over the next 10 years (federal spending would still substantially increase, but from $3.6 trillion to $4.8 trillion, not nearly enough for Obama or the Democrats). And on Medicare, it would introduce an element of choice – although not for 10 years – and, again, limit its growth.
None of it mattered to Obama, who spared no modicum of over-the-top hyperbole in assailing the Ryan plan as nothing short of Armageddon.
In an April 3 speech in Washington, to a luncheon sponsored by the Associated Press, Obama warned darkly that the GOP “will brook no compromise” on “a radical vision” it is “peddling” that will gut education, allow businesses to pollute more and result in cops and firemen being laid off, among various other horrors too diabolical to contemplate.
Moreover, he said he was not talking about individuals, groups or factions within the Republican Party, but the party itself. As he put it: “This is now the party’s governing platform.”
How pathetic. And how unseemly that a president who campaigned on uniting the nation has nothing to offer now but white-hot anger, unmitigated hatred and bitterly drawn divisions fueled by the most fiendish of bald-faced lies.
So much for “hope and change.”
Ryan didn’t mince any words responding to the president’s scurrilous attack. In an interview on Fox News, he said Obama was “lying.” No euphemisms about Obama “being disingenuous” or “not being truthful with the American people,” as you so often hear in discussions about presidential prevarication. Instead, he called it what it was – lying.
But this was by no means an isolated case of presidential perfidy. On birth control, he acted just as deviously, by first of all demanding that religious groups provide insurance coverage under Obamacare for services that they find morally repugnant, including abortion and sterilization – and, secondly, by portraying these groups as unreasonable when they refused to accept his phony “accommodation” (which it really wasn’t).
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who had been assured by Obama that his health policies wouldn’t violate fundamental Catholic teachings, was flabbergasted by this one-two punch. He made it clear that Obama had personally lied to him and stabbed all Catholics (as well as other religions and groups which find this edict objectionable) in the back. He also summarily rejected the “accommodation” as a political ploy.
All of this led the normally restrained, and eminently reasonable, Peggy Noonan to write in the Wall Street Journal of the birth-control debacle: “Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest – not wrongheaded, dishonest – charges that those who defend the church’s religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.”
In other words – more lies from Obama, damnable lies.
Then came his brazen attack on the Supreme Court. After Obama, and liberals in general, were gobsmacked by three days of brutal hearings in which his health law was ripped to shreds by the justices and shown to be supremely unconstitutional, he did what he always does in such cases. He went on the attack. But, once again, his assault lacked any factual basis whatsoever.
“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama offered in a blatant attempt to intimidate the court.
Unprecedented and extraordinary? Had the former constitutional law professor never heard of Marbury vs. Madison, or know anything about the court’s history of judicial review since that ruling in 1803? Well, of course he had, so clearly he was lying again.
And as for that “strong majority” claim, it was another lie. Although Democrats enjoyed a 75-seat House majority at the time, Obamacare passed by just seven votes. In the Senate it was put through via a parliamentary maneuver (a trick), and it passed without a single Republican vote to boot!
Thankfully, at least on this one issue, Obama was called out on his lies by the 5th Circuit Court – which has the authority to do so – and forced to answer through his Department of Justice for this bizarre statement. Of course, the DOJ couldn’t defend Obama’s lies and had to admit in writing that the Supreme Court’s right of judicial review is, in fact, “beyond dispute.”
Remember, though, that Obamacare was rammed through Congress on a host of lies – “You’ll be able to keep your current plan if you choose,” “You won’t pay higher insurance rates,” “It won’t drive up the deficit,” etc. And not to mention the original cost projection, which has since doubled even before it all starts kicking in! Remember, too, that it was forced through on a slew of sleazy backroom deals like the Cornhusker Kickback, et al.
Lastly, we must look at Obama’s decision to purposely interject himself into the Trayvon Martin case. As with the arrest of his friend professor Gates in 2009, when Obama prematurely (and mistakenly) concluded that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly,” he weighed in on the Trayvon tragedy, absent any of the facts, with an authoritative statement about the need for our entire nation to do some soul searching. He even personalized the incident and, in so doing, ratcheted up an already highly charged racial atmosphere by observing that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon.
To be sure, there is a political calculation to all these comments (lies), and ostensibly to everything Obama will say and do through the November election. The attacks on the budget are part of his class warfare strategy of dividing this nation along economic lines, fostering class envy and promising to redistribute wealth (as he did way back when in his encounter with Joe the Plumber) to win over the “99-percenters” and get them to the polls on Nov. 6.
As Peggy Noonan also astutely observed: “Obama said [in his Washington speech] he does not back ‘class warfare,’ does not want to ‘redistribute wealth,’ and does not support ‘class envy.’ It’s been a while since an American president felt he had to make such assertions.”
Meanwhile, the birth-control edict and subsequent “War On Women” narrative is designed to gin up the women’s vote, and his Trayvon remarks were aimed at boosting the black vote.
It’s no surprise therefore that many political pundits are predicting Obama will run the nastiest, dirtiest and most patently dishonest presidential campaign in U.S. history. In fact, they are pointing out that it has already begun.
But, then again, what else has he got?
Certainly not a record he can run on, nor anything to show for all those promises of a bipartisan and post-racial presidency predicated upon hope and change.