On
Friday morning, John Boehner announced he will be resigning from his
position as speaker of the House, and from his congressional seat, in
October. Many conservatives greeted this news with unbridled adulation. Breaking the news to his audience at the Values Voter Summit on Friday morning, Marco Rubio sent the crowd into a frenzy, despite adding that he’s not “here to bash.”
How did it get to this point for Boehner? Where did it go wrong for the person who Vox’s Dylan Matthews claimed “did more to reduce the size of the federal government than any other politician in recent memory”?
We
can boil down conservative dissatisfaction with the speaker to two main
criticisms: (1) he did not resist President Obama’s liberal agenda as
fully as he could have, and (2) he did not articulate a conservative
alternative to Obama winsomely enough.
In
his nearly five full years as speaker, Boehner did much to slash
spending. But he also did much to avoid putting the kind of pressure on
Obama that conservatives clamored for. Recall that Boehner was
elevated to speaker during the 2010 midterm elections, widely regarded
as the high political moment of Tea Party sentiment. The resounding
message from conservative voters was that they wanted significant
pushback against the president’s agenda – not just in terms of winning
legislative victories, but in terms of vocalizing their deep antipathy
toward the president’s attempts to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."
Certainly
Boehner’s speakership generated outcomes that conservatives far
preferred to those achieved during the Obama-Pelosi partnership. But
Boehner was too much of a deal-maker, too much of a backroom tactician,
to satisfy the conservative political yearnings of the moment. Obama’s
presidency portended sweeping liberal changes, announced in lofty,
soaring language. Combating this program with backroom compromises was
never going to be enough. The people demanded visible resistance; they
got covert counterproposals instead.
But
it would be a mistake to leave it at that, for Boehner’s failure went
beyond mere appearances. There is a substantive point here about how
political aggressiveness can become electorally inspirational. The last
five years have provided example after example of conservative
disaffection with Washington’s Republican compromisers. Had Boehner
adopted a stronger policy of denunciation, an absolute refusal to
compromise, he might have engineered conservative victories – not in the
legislative sphere, which would have been repelled by Obama, or, until
recently, defeated by Harry Reid, but in the political sphere more
broadly, in the form of American approval.
Jonathan Chait writes:
“Boehner and the party leadership have resisted [shutting down the
government] not because they agree with funding Planned Parenthood, but
because this tactic has no chance of success.” But could it be that
there are ways of measuring success other than simply registering
whether a bill is passed or not? Could it be that the American people,
as a result of being exposed to an endless loop of the Planned
Parenthood videos, have come to see Obama’s refusal to strip funding for
the abortion provider as the cause of the shutdown? Why take the view
that Republicans will always endure the blame for a shutdown? This was
never even debated. It was accepted that Obama would never go for it,
so the Republican leadership – not just Boehner, but McConnell, too –
laid off. But this reveals a troubling lack of political imagination,
which brings us to the second criticism.
Boehner,
unlike Newt Gingrich in the mid-1990s, has lacked anything resembling a
political vision able to win over the American public. I have spoken
of Obama’s ability to present his policies in shiny packaging. There
was nothing of comparable political allure from Boehner, nothing
approximating a captivating ideological profile that could run counter
to the president’s project to reshape America along even more liberal
lines. In short, Boehner lacked the political imagination to succeed as
the president’s most visible legislative opponent.
It’s striking that Boehner, who played an important role in Gingrich’s "Contract with America"
in 1994, would fail to understand how important it is to captivate the
public. Gingrich’s Contract, issued under circumstances similar to the
opportunities Boehner himself enjoyed in 2011, was a sharp, forceful,
and dynamic alternative to Bill Clinton’s political agenda. By
contrast, 2010’s "Pledge to America"
came up well short of offering a lasting, winsome conservative
alternative to Obama. It was too defensive, too reactionary, too
negative. (Interestingly, it was penned by Kevin McCarthy, the current
odds-on favorite to assume the speakership once Boehner resigns next
month.)
John Feehery notes
that “Mr. Boehner knew how to cut deals and how to make good laws. What
he didn’t know how to do was reconcile an angry conservative movement
with an implacable liberal president. … But no political leader could
have brought those two forces together.” But why should it be the
Republican leader of the House’s job to “bring those two forces
together”? That assumes a liberal understanding of governance; for
conservatives, obstructing bad policies is arguably more important than
passing legislation. If conservatives are for smaller government, then
it follows they won’t be pursuing legislative changes with the same
expansive zeal that possesses their liberal counterparts. But crucial
to rightly understanding American electoral politics is that this
negative, or destructive, approach needs to be articulated properly and
winsomely if the conservative agenda is going to have success. The act
of demolition doesn’t naturally inspire; the people have to be shown how
an agenda that pushes back against government encroachment is the most
life-affirming program that there is.
This is where political imagination comes in. And Boehner, for all his accomplishments, did not have any.
Am I Still a Racist?
To see the emptiness of liberal/Democrat logic, try the following at the next dinner party.
If
I vote for Ben Carson, am I still guilty of being a racist, considering
the way you hurled that accusation at me when I told you that Obama was
a very bad choice because of his ideology and his acquaintances?
If
I vote for Carly Fiorina, am I still guilty of a war on women, given
that this woman has broken through the glass ceiling, overcome a deadly
disease, and still come out fighting?
If
you insist that the federal government fund Planned Parenthood even
after the uncovering of illegal sales of aborted body parts, I am
confused. Wasn't Obamacare supposed to provide universal coverage for
all Americans? Why, then, does the federal government need to continue
funding Planned Parenthood?
If
you vote for Bernie Sanders, will your house in Chappaqua be available
for the government's use if Sanders decides you have no right to private
property anymore? As Thomas Sowell has opined, "what exactly is [the]
fair share of what someone else has worked for?"
For
the environmentalists who maintain that we have no right to use trees
to produce paper towels for bathroom use, did you know that "dryers use
electricity which produces a 'carbon footprint' that liberals link to
global warming"?
By
the way, "if 11 million illegal aliens are supposed to assist the U.S.
economy, why didn't they help the Mexican economy before they left?"
Why
aren't you pounding the table extolling the virtues of Obamacare now
that premiums have skyrocketed, Americans cannot keep their doctors, and
small businesses are threatened with $35,500 in IRS fines for helping
employees with health costs?
Explain
the compelling reason why we returned five known terrorists for one
questionable American soldier, but we cannot get back kidnapped
Americans from the Iranians.
As
a pacifist, you extol the virtues of military reductions. How, then,
should we defend ourselves against ISIS when they promise to invade our
shores and conquer us?
Explain
Mr. Obama's immigration policy, where people "can illegally enter and
work for decades without filing income tax returns and then as an extra
bonus have the IRS allow them to qualify for up to $35,000 in tax
refunds."
Since
racism is a charge that Democrats constantly use, how do you justify
that Al Sharpton, a well-known race-baiter and anti-Semite, is an
advisor to Obama?
If "Obamacare is so great, why do Americans need a law to make them buy it and if they don't comply, they are fined?"
How
do you explain that "in the United Kingdom where there is a total gun
ban they have the second highest overall crime rate in the European
Union whereas the U.S. is not even in the top ten countries in the world
for violent crime"? These are 2011 FBI Crime Statistics.
Dinesh
D'Souza wonders, as do I, "why liberal tolerance extends to Marxists,
transsexuals, and Islamic radicals – but not to conservatives or
Christians[.]"
Please
explain why it is fair for Congress and the president to exempt
themselves from Obamacare, but then force it upon the American people.
John
Hayward has described "ObamaCare [as] so well-written its text must be
ignored, so healthy it's kept alive with exec orders, so affordable
everyone needs subsidies."
Another
logic puzzle for you: "People who say thugs is a racist expression are
making the false assumption that all thugs are black." How do you
rationalize this?
In
the brouhaha about Baltimore and alleged white racism, did you know
that one half of Baltimore's officers are non-white; the population is
63% black; and the mayor, city council, and police chief are all black.
Yet the depressing state of affairs in Baltimore is somehow about white
racism!
I
know that Democrats evince concern for human rights. But when "Iran
hangs homosexuals and China leads the world in the number of executions
without due process and Saudi Arabia stones women for being raped and
Lebanon exercises apartheid against Palestinians," the only country
singled out for opprobrium is Israel, which extends human rights to all
of the above. Please clarify.
Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz cannot seem to distinguish between Democrats and
socialists. Might it be because, according to "Saul Alinsky, the way to
create a socialist state is to (a) control healthcare to control the
people; (b) increase the poverty level because poor people are easier to
control; (c) increase the debt to unsustainable levels; (d) remove
people's ability to defend themselves by increased gun control; (e)
divide the people into the wealthy and the poor in order to produce
class warfare"? Obama has successfully accomplished most of these.
Sanders and Clinton promise more of the same.
Did
you know that the federal government now mandates that educators take
training courses to help prevent discrimination and harassment? Under
the heading of "Gender Identity and Expression," one learns that
"[g]ender identity is frequently defined as an individual's internal,
personal sense of being a man, a woman, a transgender person or a
different gender entirely."
Would you please explain what is meant by "different gender entirely"?
In
the same training, we are informed that "Tangible Employment Actions"
means "that the recipient of the harassment loses pay or experiences
some significant change in workload, assignments, or hours of work."
As
an adjunct instructor, I have lost hours of work, resulting in a
reduction in salary, and ultimately pension benefits, because Obamacare
has forced my employers to cut my hours. How is this not an abuse by
the federal government?
I
know that you have a visceral hatred "toward President Nixon[,] but
what's the difference between Nixon and Obama – could it be that the
press uncovered the crimes of one and covered up the crimes of the
other?"
In
an attempt to be affronted by the facts, you will state that only a
small number of Muslims are radical and wish to destroy Western
civilization. If there are a billion Muslims in the world, and 10-25%
avow that they wish to destroy America, that equates to 350,000,000
people. For those visual learners among you, "imagine a bowl of
M&Ms with [only] 10% of them poisoned. Would you eat a handful?"
Why
do you get riled up about the death of a lion but seem to ignore the
"fact that in the 1,400 year history of Islam, Muslims have murdered
over 270 million people" and continue to do so with impunity? They
murder Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Yazidis, and even Muslims
who disagree with them.
Which
time was Obama telling the truth: when he said he could not
unilaterally change the law because that is Congress's job and there is
separation of powers, or when he did unilaterally change the law – all
the while basking in the knowledge that he would be exempt from the
consequence?
Much
of the above comes from BreitbartOneVoice, Liberal Logic 101,
StandWithUs, RightWingRantsRaves, ThePatriotNation, Bookwormroom.com.,
UncleSam'sMisguidedChildren.com, RightFightofLeft, and Jan Morgan.
As George Orwell has said, "the further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those [who] speak it."
This
is one of those times when breaking news can shed a little more light
on the candidates. There have been quite different reactions among the
candidates to the news that John Boehner is resigning. Unlike Patrick
McGoohan's "Number 6," there really is no mystery as to why Boehner
resigned – he was too accommodating of the entire Obama agenda, be it
funding Obamacare or the illegal amnesty or now, in his final act, the
subsidizing of abortions and the sale of baby parts.
Here's how Jeb Bush reacted, commenting in English on Twitter:
John Boehner dedicated his life to public service. Bringing the Holy Father to Congress was a fitting cap to a great career.
Wrong.
He had a terrible career, participating in racking up huge amounts of
debt and enabling the Obama agenda. A symbolic visit from the pope
changed none of that. From his statement, it is clear that Jeb Bush
quite liked Boehner's accommodationist policies.
Now
here's how Ted Cruz reacted: he was hysterical with joy, actually
joking about Boehner's demise and calling for other establishment
politicians to get the boot.
"You
want to know how much each of you terrify Washington?" Mr Cruz asked
the audience of grassroots evangelical conservative at this annual
conference. "Yesterday, John Boehner was Speaker of the House. Y'all
come to town and somehow that changes."
"My only request," he quipped, "is, can you come more often?"
Clearly,
he didn't agree with Bush that Boehner had performed some great "public
service" by carrying the water for the Obama agenda.
As
for Marco Rubio's reaction: in a very serious tone, he said, "Speaker
Boehner announced he will be resigning." And while the crowd cheered
with joy, Marco, looking very uncomfortable, looked down and scowled.
As the crowd kept cheering for several moments, he looked upset, as
though he was about to cry. Check out the video,
especially around the 1:05 mark. It was as if, instead of being told
that a political enemy was leaving the field, Marco had just discovered
additional credit card debt he didn't know about.
Ben Carson gave a middle-of-the-road reaction:
"I
appreciate the fact that he has worked so hard for so many years. I
know that he is a person who is kind and tries to get along with a lot
of different factions," Carson said Friday to J.D. Hayworth on "Newsmax
Prime."
"However,
I believe that has not served the constituency well because a lot of
people have been sent to Congress over the last few elections for the
purpose of changing the direction and opposing the current
administration.
"That's not necessarily a good place to have somebody who just wants to get along."
That's
a rather dry, intellectual sort of criticism of a politician who had
thwarted conservatives for years. Additionally, what "hard work" of
Boehner does Carson appreciate? Carson's reaction seems to treat
Boehner as someone who tried his best but wasn't good enough, rather
than characterizing him as an active enabler of the Obama
administration, which he was. Remember that everything Obama has done
since 2010 could not have been done if John Boehner had not agreed to
fund it. In that light, Carson's criticism seems rather tepid.
Donald Trump's reaction speaks for itself:
"I think it's wonderful, frankly. I think it's good," Trump told me. "It's time. I think it's time for somebody else to go in."
"We
have a country that's in such danger and such trouble, we don't have
the time to be politically correct," Trump said. "Speaker Boehner – some
people like him on a personal basis. Do people like him on a personal
basis, anybody?" the crowd answered "No."
"We
want to see the job being done properly," Trump said. "We want people
that are going to get it done and I don't understand – they get elected,
they're full of vim and vigor, they're gonna change things! They're
gonna get rid of Obamacare! They're gonna do all of these things!"
"They
come down to these magnificent vaulted ceilings that you see all over
Washington and what happens?," the former Democrat said. "They become
different people. They become different people."
You can see Carly Fiorina's reaction at the 45-second mark of this video.
She
says: "He is doing the right thing, stepping aside now, and I look
forward to a conservative leader for the House." Sounds great, right?
But just look at the video. Like Rubio, she looks terribly, terribly
uncomfortable, as if she had just announced her own firing from HP. Why
the long, glum face?
If she thought this were good news for conservatism, or the country, she would look happy, not really uncomfortable.
So
to recap, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump were excited to see Boehner go.
Ben Carson was sort of critical of Boehner. And the rest – Jeb, Carly,
and Rubio – just seemed kind of sad.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Presidential
candidate Ben Carson's latest comments on the Michael Brown shooting
defy logic. Following a Friday morning appearance with Missouri Lt.
Governor Peter Kinder and Ferguson Mayor James Knowles, Carson was asked by a St Louis Post-Dispatch reporter if he was in Officer Darren Wilson's shoes, would he have shot Michael Brown.
“It’s hard to say. I probably, knowing who he was, I probably just would have arrested him.”
Carson also said he would have waited for backup.
According
to the official report from the Department of Justice, Wilson was
waiting for backup when the 'gentle giant, ' still in bully mode from
robbing a convenience store and roughing up a clerk, attacked the law
enforcement officer inside his car.
Does Carson know the eyewitness accounts claiming Brown was surrendering with his hands up, turned out to be false?
A preponderance of evidence in the year-old Brown case indicates Wilson feared for his life. Here's a refresher for Dr. Carson:
From the DOJ report:
The
evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that
Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the
Supreme Court’s definition... Accordingly, under the governing federal
law and relevant standards set forth in the USAM, it is not appropriate
to present this matter to a federal grand jury for indictment, and it
should therefore be closed without prosecution
Wilson
was on duty and driving his department-issued Chevy Tahoe SUV westbound
on Canfield Drive in Ferguson, Missouri when he saw Brown and his
friend, Witness 101,2 walking eastbound in the middle of the street.
Brown
and Witness 101 had just come from Ferguson Market and Liquor
(“Ferguson Market”), a nearby convenience store, where, at approximately
11:53 a.m., Brown stole several packages of cigarillos.
Wilson
then called for backup, stating, “Put me on Canfield with two and send
me another car.” Wilson backed up his SUV and parked at an angle,
blocking most of both lanes of traffic, and stopping Brown and Witness
101 from walking any further. Wilson attempted to open the driver’s door
of the SUV to exit his vehicle, but as he swung it open, the door came
into contact with Brown’s body and either rebounded closed or Brown
pushed it closed. Wilson and other witnesses stated that Brown then
reached into the SUV through the open driver’s window and punched and
grabbed Wilson. This is corroborated by bruising on Wilson’s jaw and
scratches on his neck, the presence of Brown’s DNA on Wilson’s collar,
shirt, and pants, and Wilson’s DNA on Brown’s palm.
Dr. Carson's response is so unbelievable we have to wonder if he has seen the video of Brown robbing the store prior to his assault on Wilson. Earlier that day, while visiting Ferguson, Carson told a press gathering, “I
heard more than one time how the thing that really inflamed the
community was the fact that Michael Brown’s body laid out on the street
for four hours.”
Carson
has to know what “inflamed” the community on August 9, 2014 were
outside agitators and their media shills pushing the fake ‘hands up,
don’t shoot’ narrative before the body was cold.
Is
Carson playing nice with leaders in the black community who are using
Brown's death to incite a war on police? Or does he honestly not
understand the facts surrounding the case? Both explanations do not bode
well for Carson.
Suggesting
Wilson should not have shot Brown in self-defense could be a
game-changer for Carson. The justifiable shooting led to burned
businesses, looting, riots and turned Ferguson, Missouri into a hotspot
for activists from Black Lives Matter to the CPUSA. The town is still
smoldering from the fallout.
So far the retired neurosurgeon has been able to smooth over a controversial statement
he made to Glenn Beck in 2013 that people in urban areas shouldn’t be
allowed to own semi-automatic weapons. And a few months ago he
stealthily avoided a serious backlash from his supporters after
receiving a warm welcome at one of Al Sharpton's decidedly race-stoking National Action Network events.
With radicals ratcheting up the war on police and firearm fatalities of police officers up 56% in 2014
from the previous year, will Carson be able to explain away what
appears to be a politically correct nod to race-obsessed troublemakers?
In the chapter entitled "The Arts of Selling" from 1958's Brave New World Revisited,
Aldous Huxley wrote that "[t]he survival of democracy depends on the
ability of large numbers of people to make realistic choices in the
light of adequate information. A dictatorship, on the other hand,
maintains itself by censoring or distorting the facts, and by appealing,
not to reason, not to enlightened self-interest, but to passion and
prejudice [.]" Which is why under the soft dictatorship of Barack
Hussein Obama, the American people may be hard pressed to make realistic
choices since they are far too susceptible to the distortions of
language.
Logical fallacies are really "weaponized irrationality" gussied up to catch people unaware. Ad hominem
attacks against an individual instead of the merit of an idea have been
a hallmark of this administration. In 2014 when attempting to persuade
the country on his immigration policy, Obama utilized the ergo decedo fallacy by attacking Republicans for their party position rather than for their argument.
Logical
fallacies have long been the lifeblood of dishonest politicians and in
Obama, we find an abundance of them. A favorite fallacy is the strawman,
which is an attack on a position that is not even held by the other
side. Obama's strawmen
have been those never-named naysayers Obama claims are "urging him to
sit on his hands at the White House and do nothing to address any of the
economic or national security problems facing the country." Some
telltale indicators that the straw man tactic is being used are the
words "there are those who say" or "some say" as in Obama's "[s]ome
people say that maybe I'm being too idealistic." Then there is the false choice embedded
inside another straw man as in his "You can't have 100 percent security
and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience"-- yet no
one ever asked for 100 percent of these things in the first place.
More currently, Americans who oppose
the Iran nuclear deal are "crazies." Those Jewish groups who still
cannot perceive the existential threat to America and Israel need to
recall that Islamic Iran allows lying to unbelievers in order to defeat
them. Taqiyya is saying something that isn't true while kitman
is lying by omission. Thus, to advance Islam, one gains the "trust of
non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them."
Coupled with his use of logical fallacies and his schooling in Islam,
Obama surely knows these tenets which is why he can blithely claim that
Iran will be compliant.
Demonizing conservatives as teabaggers is another ad hominem attack that eliminates Obama's need to actually defend his position since he has now demeaned his opponents. His intentional "targeting
of conservative and Christian organizations and individuals for
harassment, intimidation, and ultimately for political destruction"
shows his mastery of this fallacy. Furthermore, in 2012, when Mitt
Romney was talking about economic plans and policies, Obama attacked
Romney's profession, thus distracting the listener from Romney's
factual arguments. The other blame-it-on-someone fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc
has been in constant use by Obama as he blamed Bush, Israeli
settlements, and gun owners, rather than taking responsibility for his
actions.
When using a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, or appeal to antiquity, Obama twists the truth. Steve Hanke at Cato
explains that Obama, by referring to the Declaration of Independence,
made an "illegitimate appeal to ages past in order to justify his case
for collective or state action." Thus, "while invoking America's
founding documents . . . to justify collective action" Obama brazenly
and incorrectly makes parallels that simply do not exist.
In
2011 when our credit rating was downgraded, Obama referred to Warren
Buffet who said "If there were a quadruple-A rating, I'd give the United
States that." Yet this allusion has nothing to do with the burgeoning debt. It is an appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
-- but it is irrelevant what Buffet thinks of the credit rating and
serves only to muddy the real issue of a serious economic downturn for
the U.S.
Michael
K. Baranowski explains that when Obama was elected in 2008, the U.S.
imported 57% of its oil. By 2010, dependence on foreign oil was down to
under 50%, thus giving the impression that Obama had done a really fine
job of reducing dependence on foreign oil, a notion that Obama was only
too pleased to highlight. But the 44th president conveniently neglected
to state that such reduction in dependency had actually begun four years
before he took office. This is an example of a Post Hoc
fallacy that Obama used to take credit for something he had nothing to
do with. In the same vein, this fallacy can be used when someone does
not want to take credit for an event. Thus, an insignificant filmmaker
is punished for the Benghazi debacle, rather than the administration
owning up to the actual events which transpired.
The tu quoque
fallacy or appeal to hypocrisy is the "you, also" appeal that tends to
discredit the validity of an opponent's logical argument because after
all someone else has done a similar thing. It is the "wave it away"
approach. Thus, dismissing the ISIS bestiality that assails us every
day, Obama will cite the Crusades, which happened centuries ago -- thus
implying an equivalency. One can almost hear the banal schoolyard chant
committed by children who respond by saying “[s]o and so did it too" as
if that explains everything away.
Another
of Obama's favorite logical fallacies is that of oversimplification and
exaggeration. Consequently, the actual causes for an event are massaged
to the point where there is no longer a genuine, causal connection.
Consequently, in Obama's worldview if Republicans would only agree with
him, then everything would be better.
Then
there is the either/or false dilemma fallacy where "only two choices
are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists
between two extremes." According to Obama, either we sign this
not-so-terrific Iranian deal or we go to war. He has de facto eliminated
other possibilities such as continuation of sanctions or making
concrete non-negotiable demands. The most egregious is his claim that
American sanctions were some of the toughest and they really did have an
impact on Iran, when, in fact, he had actually opposed those very sanctions.
The Jewish proverb that "a half-truth is a whole lie" surely describes Obama's moral stance. His whining about the
nastiness of the [Iranian] pact's critics while at the same time being
unwilling to own up to the toxic tone and insults that he has employed
to pressure Congress to back the deal" is a constant theme.
Regarding climate change/global warming, Richard Larsen asserts that Obama uses the post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy which "confuses correlation with causation." Closely related
to this is the "regression fallacy, which ascribes cause where none
exists." This fallacy is created by failing to account for natural
fluctuations in global temperatures or other factors such as solar
activity.Obama and his ilk also employ the faulty generalization
fallacy, where a broad generalization about climate change is concluded
from weak premises, i.e., CO2 emissions hurt the environment. Moreover,
led by Obama, global warming "alarmists also rely heavily on the Argumentum ad populum,
also known as the bandwagon argument, where a proposition is claimed to
be true or good solely because many believe it to be so"
notwithstanding the many scientific and credible challenges to their
ideas. And the appeal to emotion ". . . compels us to be 'green' lest we
destroy the earth."
If
we cannot identify and comprehend the onslaught of logical fallacies
being employed, then we ignore the real agenda which is that of
"controlling, regulating, and taxing human activity."
Essentially, ObamaCare was a manipulation of peoples' emotions
in order to initially induce them to accept a set of claims as being
true. Americans were told they could keep their doctors and that health
insurance premiums would go down. Anyone daring to expose the
manipulations became an object of scorn and humiliation, via ad hominem
attacks. Yet the Obama White House knowingly mischaracterized the
healthcare plan. “More and more people, while hesitant to call the
President of the United States a liar are concluding, based on all the available evidence [that one is hard pressed to reach] any other conclusion [.]"
Obama is a pathological liar whether he engages in statistical fraud, i.e., the war on women,
or claims in a 2007 speech that Congress did not assist New Orleans
black residents during Hurricane Katrina. Yet, stunningly, Obama was one
of only 14 senators who voted against
the waiving of a provision that would have provided relief. He is a
breathtaking hypocrite who projects his own worldview and claims his
opponents are engaging in attacks, when, in fact, he is the one doing
the attacking. Hence, he can condemn Afghans
for releasing killers of Americans, but urges Israel to release
Palestinian killers of Jews. Thus, he can decry racism, but continually
"plays the race card in order to inflame racial tensions."
From contortions of logic to outright lies, Obama continues to "infect the body politic."
