Lies, Hypocrisy and the Liberal Way

The tenets of liberal philosophy seems to be geared around, if not outright lies, then mere deception, and hypocrisy. In a Townhall.com post I gave a view into the liberal playbook: Deceive, Defame, Decry, Deny. Add to that list "Do as I say, not as I do."

Currently, the media is (still) fawning over Obama, comparing him to Lincoln for meeting with rivals and reaching across divides to build his cabinet. In Ann Coulter's recent column she says: "I don't recall the media swooning when President George W. Bush reached out to rivals, such as Sen. Teddy Kennedy, who was asked to co-write Bush's education bill. In fact, the way I remember it, Bush is liberals' most hated president ever (only because they can't remember George Washington or they'd hate him, too)." While this is a good example of the selective liberal lens being applied, there are others as well.

• I recently saw a "pin" on Facebook that said "People who compare Obama to Hitler are douchebags." Now, aside from offending the douchebag lobby, haven't liberals been comparing Bush to Hitler for, say, 8 years. When the Nazis were rising to power they used strongarm tactics to silence the media and get their propaganda published. It was Obama's campaign, not Bush's or McCain's, who censured a Florida radio station for violating the unwritten rule that the media shall not ask tough questions of Obama's policies. It's the liberal media who launched full scale investigations, some illegal, into the background of Joe "the plumber" who merely asked a question about an Obama policy that he felt was going to affect him greatly (and Obama sought him out, not the other way around!). One lunatic on a San Francisco radio station even said he wanted Joe killed. It is Obama who wants a national civilian security force just as well trained and well funded as the military, but has yet to explain what exactly they will do. Hitler formed a civilian defense force, well funded and trained, to skirt the Versailles treaty that banned Germany from having a military. Look how that turned out. The point here is that liberals are hypocrites. It's OK to compare republicans to Hitler, but to dare to do so to the anointed liberal-in-chief makes one a "douchebag." Do as I say, not as I do.
• Tolerance is a central tenet of liberal theology...as long as it's the conservatives who have to be tolerant. If you're liberal, it's OK to beat an elderly woman who supported prop 8 in California and form a wall so media and help can't get to her. It's OK to vandalize churches, force people from their jobs and disrupt church services to voice dissent about prop 8. Gay marriage has been voted down in 30 states (31 if you count California voting it down twice) but the vocal minority can't accept the results. One dissenting opinion I read on a blog said the violence that is now spreading is the natural result that comes from "living under the jackboot of oppression." (Note the Nazi reference!). Gays can do pretty much anything they want in this country except get married. There are civil unions and legal trusts that give them all the same rights as a married couple, with the exceptions of getting spousal benefits from an employer. This, while inconvenient, is not oppression. The millions of women in Africa who undergo forced genital mutilation are oppressed. Gay people who cannot marry are inconvenienced. There IS a difference, and it does not warrant violence. Prop 8 passed by a margin of 52% to 48%. This is roughly the same margin that put Obama in office, so I guess it's OK for the anti Obama crowd to go wilding until that decision is overturned? Good to know.
• Abortion activists oppose any law that requires ANY restriction on abortion, including common sense rules like parental notification for minors seeking abortion or a waiting period before the abortion is performed. One can't get a tattoo without parental consent unless over age 18. One cannot buy a handgun unless there's a waiting period and a significant background check. There is, by some calculations a murder commit ed every 22 minutes in America. If you do the math (((24 hours *60 minutes)*365 days)/22 minutes) you get 23,891 murders per year. Not all of those murders are commit ed with handguns. There are approximately 1,200,000 abortions performed every year. Which kills more people, abortion or hand guns? Which one is more tightly regulated?
• Free speech is another thorn in the side of the liberal. Being debated today is the "fairness doctrine." (with liberals, anything that restricts freedoms will be labeled "fair"). As defined in Wikipedia, the Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. The FCC abolished it in 1987. Today, conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves, and Fox News trounces the competition daily, and this is a concern for the liberals (who own print "journalism" almost exclusively and own every other demographic on cable and network TV, aside from FNC). The liberals have Air America, which is a commercial failure. This is the free market at work. Nancy Pelosi's book was outsold by Tori Spelling and Ernest Borgnine's autobiographies. Not subject to the fairness doctrine, but again, the free market at work. The reason conservative talk radio and FNC dominate is because that's what the people WANT to listen to. Force stations to put other formats on the air and people will change the station. The solution is to reinstate the so called "fairness doctrine." If you can't beat 'em, shut 'em up. To the liberal, that's what free speech is all about. Where's the ACLU on this one, defending private broadcasters from the tyranny of government?
  

I can list several other examples but I need to get to work. Suffice it say that when it comes to free speech, free elections, and moral issues, liberals are all about doing the right thing - as long as the right thing is what they agree with. Otherwise, anything goes. For the conservatives this behavior is "hate speech" or "fascism" or "using the jackboot"; for liberals, it's called tolerance.

It's no secret to anyone who knows me that I voted against Obama. He is now the most thoroughly unqualified person to be president, getting elected on policies that have proven to be failures under Jimmy Carter, that have been proven wrong by the scientific community and that by his own admission will bankrupt entire industries and not just make us pay more in taxes, but will cost us hundreds of dollars more per year for our energy. He's also going to turn the abortion spigot on full blast so there will be fewer people in 20 years to pay for his increased entitlements so in a generation America will be as deep in the hole as France is today.

My vote wasn't one of party loyalty; rather it was based on beliefs. Before the election I took a quiz which, upon completion, compared my answers to the policies of Obama. My beliefs differed from Obama's on 48 of 48 issues. Sadly, according the Zogby and USA today polls from which the quiz questions were compiled, the majority of Americans differed with him on 48 of 48 issues as well, but we still elected him. It makes no sense. Some questions were broken out by income bracket, and even the low income respondents differed with him on 46 of 48, with the only 2 agreements being on raising top marginal tax rates and increasing entitlements. I just don't know what happened.

Three days after the election most pundits are saying that Obama, like Clinton, will go more centrist than left. So far his cabinet picks don't show much in the way of change or inspiring hope, but they are pretty consistent with his past (Chicago politics of reciprocity all the way). What's funny is the things I point out below make conservatives gasp and make liberals clap. I hate to say it, but I think Pat Buchanan was right - he will either make good on his many promises and be at odds with the majority of America (the rejection of gay marriage in California of all places - twice - serves as proof that America IS center-right) or he will move to the center and be at odds with his party. Either way there will be blow back. I liked Ann Coulter's take on it. She said "As Republicans we need to reach across the aisle and show the new Democratic president the same respect that the democrats and the media have shown the current Republican president. Tomorrow, if not sooner." In that vein, here's the post:

McCain, in the third debate, was reticent to call Obama a liar. However, as Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics. Obama deploys all three.

ACORN
Here, in his own words, is his explanation of his relationship with ACORN: "Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names. It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved."

Here's what he's not telling you1:

• In 1992, Obama directed Project Vote - an arm of ACORN that also encouraged voter registration. This means he's intimately familiar with their tactics.
• Around the same time, Obama began teaching classes for "Future Leaders Identified by ACORN." This means he taught their future leaders - and guess what? 2008 is the future to those 1992 trainees.
• In 1995, Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois for its supposed failure to implement a federal law designed to make voter registration easier, and thus increasing the likelihood of voter fraud. This means that not only was he aware of their tactics, but he went to court to ensure that they could practice them!
• Obama also supports them in a fiduciary manner:

1. He joined two well-known boards with strong ties to ACORN - the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation. Under Obama's watch, the Chicago ACORN branch received thousands of dollars in grants from both organizations.
2. $832,000 given to Citizen's United, Inc to fund Acorn's "Get Out The Vote" campaign. Given all this support, don't be surprised if he claims ACORN as a dependent on his taxes (since he repeats so often that he hates paying them.)
3. Obama accepted the endorsement of ACORN in 2008. In a press release touting the endorsement on his official campaign website, Obama says: "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career."
   

So here is a real clear example of what Obama says being different from what Obama does. At it's most benign, he's practicing the "sin of omission" - lying by not telling all of the truth. But - a sin of omission is still a sin! He may not have directed ACORN in this instance of voter manipulation, but he doesn't tell them to stop either. He's an accessory after the fact, he denies the depth of his involvement, therefore, I file this under the category of a "LIE."

Taxes
"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama said, adding, "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." This is his famous response to Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher's question about his tax policies.

Obama has repeatedly thrown out this notion that he is giving 95% of Americans a tax cut. The facts do not bear this out. 30% of Americans, either by virtue of low income or the number of dependents, do not pay any taxes. You can't provide a reduction on $0.00. You can give a rebate, which is not a tax cut. He uses (successfully it turned out) semantics and statistics to fool people. What's even funnier that when Bush pushed through his $600 rebate for the 2007 tax year, Obama railed against it, as did his wife, saying rebates do not work. Michelle Obama asked what Bush expected people to do with the money - go out and buy earrings? (That tells you the kind of shopping she does! But Palin being a shopaholic - oooh, that's bad.) But when the rebate is Obama's idea, even if it's $100 less, well, suddenly it's a good thing.

Currently the 5% of income earners in America pay 80% of the income taxes collected annually. The top 10% pay 90% of the tax revenues. 30% don't pay income tax. That means that 60% of the population pays 10%. If the tax revenue were a dollar, and there were twenty people paying it, one person would pay $0.80, one person would pay $0.10, twelve people would pay less than $0.01, and 6 people would pay nothing. But in Obama's mind, that one person paying the $0.80 is not paying enough. This set up is, in his mind (and in his words), the "tragedy of the civil rights movement" - that the supreme court didn't mandate wealth redistribution. Never mind that the supreme court is there to enforce existing laws, not create new ones. This is the real Obama, and this is what we can expect of him - legislation that despite what he says to the contrary, will punish success.

Tomorrow - I'll talk about the deceptive "Freedom Of Choice" act that he promised will be the first piece of legislation he signs into law.

1http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/10/mccain_memo_attacks_obama_on_a.html

The man makes me want to start smoking cigars

This guy is funny. Too bad more people didn't see his video before the election. Don't play out loud if the f-bomb can get you in trouble.

Things that make me go "hmmm..."

The Freedom Of Choice Act (has passed the house, will be debated in the Senate, and Obama has promised Planned Parenthood it will be the first piece of legislation he signs into law) provides that any woman of any age can get an abortion, even a minor without parental consent. At the same time, you can't get a tattoo without parental consent unless you're 18.

You have to wait five days (a "cooling off" period) to get a handgun - which might be used to kill someone - but you can get an abortion at will, with no waiting period, which kills someone every time.

You can't shoot an intruder in your own home unless your life is being threatened (and Obama wants to change that law to reduce your legal protection if you do shoot someone) but you can get an abortion if your financial or mental health, not physical health, will be threatened.

Will we have to reap the whirlwind?

From Rich Band of Investorplace regarding the plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 (this doesn't even touch on the tax increases the RePO team - Reid-Pelosi-Obama - will enact):

According to the most recent Heritage Foundation Report, the results will be shocking…

• One million jobs lost each year from 2010 – 2014
• More than $100 billion lost in economic output during the same time period
  
• An epic slowdown in wage and salary growth, and along with it the…
  
• Evaporation of consumer spending

These are but a few of the dire predictions coming out from the financial pundits. We know for a fact that a lower tax rate stimulates the economy (look at the Irish miracle for proof) but against this Obama wants to cut off tax breaks for oil companies and those companies that export jobs overseas. If only it were that simple. Those added costs of doing business will be passed on to the consumer, so instead of trickle down economics we will have trickle up poverty. Those who can least afford increases in energy costs will be affected the worst...of course phase two is to take money from the people who are successful and give it to those people who are most affected by the manufactured spike in prices. That's right - Obama wants to punish companies for being successful, and when the poor get hit by the backlash, he'll penalize individuals for being successful. Jeremiah Wright called it the US of KKK A. We may as well call it the USSA - the United Socialist States of America.

I realize this is melodramatic, and I hope these predictions are wrong, but if they're right no one can say we didn't see it coming and no one that voted for Obama - that's you Mom and Dad - can complain about it. You all knew these issues were out there and chose to ignore them, so play the hand you're dealt. You heard it here first!