Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger’s Rules

Reveille?

January 18th, 2014 - 8:54 am

The best line of the day comes from “Obama’s Belated Defense of the NSA,” Andrew McCarthy’s reflection on Obama’s speech about spooks, spying, and national security yesterday.  No, it’s not his characterization, toward the end of his essay, of Obama’s behavior  as a “toxic mix of passive unseriousness and active harm.”  That’s the second-best line of the day, a grimly accurate summary of what this Potemkin President is all about. But the best line comes at the top, at the very beginning of McCarthy’s column: “It is very hard to take President Obama seriously.”

Bingo.  The architect of “the most transparent administration in history”; a man who repeatedly promised the public that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, period”; the fellow who put it about that the slaughter of four Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, was caused by an internet video; the guy who has twice raised his right hand and sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability while also (just last week, for example) announcing out of the other side of the orifice his intention to proceed with his agenda “with or without Congress” — how can you take this man seriously, where by “seriously” I mean, how can you trust him?

The brief answer is, “You can’t.” You can’t trust him.  He has willfully and repeatedly lied to the American people about all manner of things touching their vital interests. It’s almost comical, or at least it would be if Obama’s behavior didn’t intrude so blatantly upon issues of individual liberty, economic dynamism, and national security. Think about it.  One the one hand, Obama has spent the last five years governing as if he were a dictator. Any time he doesn’t like a law, he flouts it, “waiving” it without authority for groups he likes (Obamacare, for example, is the law of the land, except if you are a member of Congress or belong to a favored union). His Justice Department is dedicated to an agenda of racialist activism.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
No. 1. He's black. To a Lefty that's like being awarded the frickin' Medal of Honor.

No.2. He hides everything he does in anti-oppression narratives. How can he ever be wrong if he's anti-slavery, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-Islamophobia, anti-homophobia, anti-Jim Crow, anti-poverty, anti-pulling-the-heads-off-of-cute-little-kitty-cats?

He plays that stuff like a fiddle and then the hankies come out. What's over 2,000 extra-judicial, extra-national drone murders compared to kitty cats?
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Years ago Congressman, and convicted felon, Dan Rostenkowski from Chicago was in the news. A street interviewer asked a resident why voters in his area continued to support the criminal Rostenkowski. The resident replied, “we know that he is a crook, but he is OUR crook”.

For a majority of the electorate Obama is THEIR crook.

It’s really just that simple.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
The "why" is a cocktail of Propaganda so tightly wrapped that truth barely penetrates, a mendacity so deep that it is hard to accept...because what it reveals induces shock and disbelief rather than rage.

In fact, it is the disbelief that comes from all corners that acts as a governor on rage.

"Weekend warriors" who pose as defenders of truth and justice, melt into schoolmarmish scolds, tsk-tsking and tut-tutting about " hyperbole" and "exaggeration" and being "an hysteric".

The Zzzzpublican Party adds the dash of bitters to the cocktail. They can't articulate a message.

Ace of Spades has an essay today about Scott Walker saying pretty much that.

If a Republican had shredded the Constitution against leftists...the message would be blaring on every street corner in the world. It doesn't stick because the fact is... the truth...is unbearable.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (112)
All Comments   (112)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Those who supported this otherwise incompetent but skilled charlatan (including the vast majority of the social and news media) would find levels of anger and disgust appropriate to the perfidy and purblind incompetence of the man give rise to discomfiting questions on how they came to support so transparent an incompetent and corrupt liar in the first place. (Hint: Grossly irresponsible naivete coupled with willful ignorance of the man's background is the best place this inquiry ends up, and it's probably worse.)

Denial ain't a river in Egypt. Many prefer it to discomfiting self-examination.

Don't expect widespread recognition of the reality of Barack Obama from these people. They don't even want to think about it, let alone talk about it. They just want to move on.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't think it's because the criticisms don't have traction in the general public, I think it's instead because the media (at least outside of talk radio and FOX News) does not pay any heed to the criticisms and doesn't report those criticisms.

For those only watching MSM sources for news, you end up with a disconnect between the glowingly positive news reports on Obama and his policies (with the occasional "unexpected" adverse news on things like jobs, the economy, foreign policy, number of dead in Afghanistan, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc.)) versus how people are viewing their lives personally under his policies.

It's not a matter that said criticisms are not sinking in with the general public - as evidenced by his low polling numbers and his so far bad year (and it's only January) - it's a matter of perception on the part of individuals who are not tuning into FOX or talk radio and think they are isolated cases and their neighbors are doing so much better than they are personally.

At some point however, those negative viewpoints will manifest and I predict that the democrat candidates in this year's election cycle are going to be the recipients of that manifestation on the part of the general public.

When the lid finally comes off, it's gonna be ugly.

About the only thing that can save them now is the Republican leadership - and they are doing their level best to accommodate.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Why does criticism of Obama never seem to get any traction?" In part, I believe it is because Obama is such an adept con artist. I recall (in a social psychology course) a pair of researchers who developed a "Mach scale". Mach stands for Machiavelli. Those who score high on the scale (the high Machs) are master manipulators and liars. Low Machs are at an extreme disadvantage if pitted against High Machs. In fact, in one study (depressing to consider) when telling a lie, High Machs are deemed far more truthful than Low Machs. Even when telling the truth, Low Machs are apt to be perceived as less than truthful, while High Machs are judged "more truthful." The High Mach scorers have three advantages 1) they remain emotionally aloof, detached 2) they are highly resistant to social pressure; they will not be swayed by opponents 3) they are much better at deception.
A Wiki article on Machiavellinism and Machiavellian intelligence notes the following behaviors:
"Blaming and forgiveness;
Lying and truth-telling;
Making and breaking alliances;
Making and breaking promises;
Making and breaking rules;
Misleading and misdirection."
I believe each one of these behaviors, as demonstrated by Obama, should be duly noted and recorded (put it into a campaign ad and maybe some in America will wake up).
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
[At 105+ comments, is this just frustrated venting, or could any starts on halting it all or partially improving anything still be possible?]
Informed and thinking people have to accept that the _____-in-WH cannot be trusted in anything that has to do with American or Western Civilization's better interest.
He and his sycophants/enablers can be depended upon to always do both the wrong and usually the worst thing. Fractionating the origins and proofs of it all have been at the point of diminishing returns for months or years ... The Mall Memorial vindictive school yard brat spasm, "X", "Y", "Z" ad nauseum.
Support a truly conservative, win capable U.S. Senate candidate, anyone? l
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
America will get what it deserves. In spades. Being dumb lazy high and uninvolved is not what a superpower does.
It wasn't always like this. The future of America is Mexico.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I am really at something of a loss."

Oh Shirley you jest.
1. He's black
2. He's black
3. He's black
Repeat, printer, until the page is full.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
"There is much ruin in a nation"...Adam Smith
But Obumbles means to plumb the depths and find out just how much.
We are getting pretty deep, right now. Can we survive the rest of his term?
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Mr. Kimball's premise is incorrect.

Obama's approval rating has taken a 9 point hit in the last 6 months. It's now down to 42%. If Obama's approval rating had been 42% in November 2012 instead of 50.5%, Romney would be President today.

So clearly, some message did get through. But the message that got through was the failures of Obamacare. Why? Because health care is something that affects every American personally. And because everybody who ever uses a website could understand instantly how bad the Obamacare website was.

All those other things you mentioned--Benghazi, the IRS, foreign policy--do not affect average Americans personally.

In fact, the way conservatives framed the IRS thing backfired on them. If the IRS was selectively targeting conservatives, then all those Americans who aren't conservative concluded that this has nothing to do with them.

And after the Iraq War, most Americans have tuned out foreign policy, and they especially are disinterested in anything that could get us sucked into more military action overseas.

The type of Republican who can appeal to this new mood is somebody like Rand Paul, who takes a jaundiced view of foreign military interventions. Not somebody who waves the banner of "global prerogatives," implying that the U.S. has a divine right to wage war around the world without protest from the voters.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
" If the IRS was selectively targeting conservatives, then all those Americans who aren't conservative concluded that this has nothing to do with them."

Really ? The "framing" was the problem and a huge proportion of Americans being stupid enough to not realize that the executive branch of the government using an adjunct like the IRS to stymie and even destroy its so called conservative "enemies" is a problem ?

Then there's nothing left to talk about.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Most people don't know that it happened. The news has been reporting it as a mere bureaucratic screw-up that the new updated rules will all fix. They don't report that the new rules basically prohibit certain viewpoints, and generally haven't bother to read them.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
The biggest problem with that story is that the charge, at best, is that IRS was denying a tax-exemption for non-political non-profits to groups that were clearly political.

Convincing people that's the second coming of East Germany is an awfully tough sell.

BENGHAAZZIII!!!1!!1!!
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Which just means you haven't read the existing rules either. The idea that there was an existing prohibition on nonprofit groups being political was invented after the targeting in order to retroactively justify it.

The new proposed rules aren't prohibiting it, either; they are merely prohibiting such groups from advocating reduced government. Advocating for expanded government is still completely acceptable.

It is also becoming a beautiful example of how thickets of law are used to shut down free speech and the peaceful petition of grievances.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
"To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare...However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity."

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations

I've read them. You haven't. Try again.

BENGHAAZZIII!!!1!!1!!
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
And again you are ignoring the context of those rules in that political activity is defined as supporting specific politicians, as opposed to specific policies. It is under that structure that groups such as Planned Parenthood operate.

Are you honestly saying that PP is less political than the Tea Parties, or are you rather saying that limiting government interference in our daily lives is somehow less related to the social welfare than abortion? Is advocating against political corruption a social welfare effort or a purely political one?

This is why the thicket of laws strips people of their basic rights. People become bound up in the red tape of how they may "legally" express their opinions that their ability to express any opinion becomes destroyed.

On the other hand, I am trying to have a rational debate with someone who ends every post by yelling about an entirely different scandal, so I'm probably wasting my time.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Are you honestly saying that PP is less political than the Tea Parties..."

Bad comparison...PP is primarily a provider of health services...the primary activity of tea parties is politics. You may not like PP...but legally they are not like the tea parties.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
PP lobbies for and receives federal funding. So far as I know, no tea party group lobbies for or receives federal funding. You are correct, PP is not like the tea parties.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
There IS a world of stupid out there, y'know.
One can hardly overestimate the exact extent.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Barry is untouchable because of the in-the-tank media repeating the mantras of his infallibility and the oldest trick in the psychobabbilist notebook--concoct a lie and repeat it copious time to the basically uneducated and low information voters and they'll believe it's true.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Reading the comments here it seems to get down to to the tactics of the Democratic Party being superior to the tactics of the Republican party. There's another factor which may be more apparent to an outsider, this is a view from Australia. It's luck or maybe providence. Someone up there likes him. Obama seemed about to lose his 2nd election then along came the hurricane. The first election he won had the luck of the financial crash and no matter what way reality intrudes into his dream, Benghazi, IRS, NASA etc he slides out smiling. Uncanny luck like this would also make him and his devotees feel that they have divine power on their side and I'm pretty sure they do. Hopefully VDH is right and divine power is about to shift it's finger to the smite button. Please, let it be soon.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not quite mate, Obama has not got his hands on the evil Bushitler's magic weather machine used to destroy all those unfortunate black people in the 9th ward of New Orleans.

Nay, if the hurricane had happened on a Republican president's watch it would have been used to beat him about the head-and-shoulders. The liberal press simply spun it the other way. Obama was a hurricane hero on the basis of his brief grip-and-grin visits, his getting jiggy on camera with Governor Christie and a few of those "soaring" speeches.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
There's that...
and they cheat.
It has been a long-term problem in the US. Nixon beat Kennedy. This is a well studied and proven fact. But Republicans don't make enough of a fuss about it.
When a Pubbie wins a close election, they just keep finding lost ballots until the dem pulls ahead, and then immediately stop counting.
Many, many instances. All the very same outcome. The Republican NEVER wins.
One must win by more than the margin of cheat.
Too much country club in the republican party. Too much gangster in the dems. They should be investigated as a criminal conspiracy, under the RICO laws.
But no pubbie will ever be as brutally partisan as Holder.
It will just never happen.
So we will die.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Democrats haven't won. Ignorance has won.

Democrats have been influencing and controlling "public education" in America to that end for something like 4 decades.

You might have some of the same problem in Australia, only I think your most recently elected PM has offered a reality check.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All