Official Lies

Government is bad for personal freedom. That argument is premised upon the truism that everything government does interferes with freedom because it either prohibits or compels. Everything it owns it has taken from others. Much of what it says is divorced from the truth. President Obama, like President George W. Bush, has argued that his first job is to keep America safe, and if he impairs personal freedom in the process, that is a small price to pay for safety. Many of my colleagues in the media on the left and right have bought this argument, notwithstanding its fallacies.

Until now.

This past week, we learned that the IRS has targeted for additional scrutiny the tax exemption applications of groups with whose messages it disagrees. We also learned that the Department of Justice obtained the personal telephone records of hundreds of reporters and editors employed by the Associated Press without a search warrant issued by a judge. And during this past week we learned that the White House, the Department of State and the CIA all engaged in a conspiracy of disinformation so that the official version of events of what caused the murders of four Americans at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, would not impair Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012.

The common threads in all of this government secrecy and lying are a general rejection of government’s moral obligation to tell the truth, a disturbing yet brazen willingness to evade and avoid the restrictions the Constitution has deliberately built around government, and a glib admission that the government can do as it pleases so long as it can politically get away with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But the president’s people were terrified that the murder of our ambassador to Libya during the 2012 presidential campaign might impair Obama’s re-election chances. So they and he tried to rewrite history, and the more they and he lied the more they and he needed to lie to cover up their original lies. Would you retain an employee who lied to you about the deaths of innocents and lied more to cover up the original lies?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to the Constitution, the president’s first job obligation is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. According to the Constitution, that means preserving Americans’ freedom first and safety second. Freedom is our natural state and is the ultimate natural right. Safety is a need that we ourselves can provide when unimpeded by the government. If the president keeps us safe but not free, he is not doing his job. Do you know anyone who feels freer or even any safer because the government trampled personal freedoms and so far has gotten away with it?

To read the entire article please go to: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0513/napolitano.php3#.UZl7Zat4Y9o

I am having a very difficult time understanding many of my “fellow Americans”.

I look around me and see the “American Way” quickly becoming something I am less than proud of.   I see that corruption in our federal government has risen to extreme levels that I never thought possible.

Radicals, socialists, communists, crooks, thugs and automatons pervade the highest levels of our government.

I see a huge power shift from the people to our corrupt government.

I see Black Panther bullies given a pass for outlandish intimidation of voters at a polling place.  By the way, my concern has NOTHING to do with race, it has only to do with America and our law.  I wonder how Mr. Holder would have handled guys in white sheets intimidating black voters in Mississippi?  (I would hope he would stow them under the jail as he should have done with the Panthers. Now I have insulted both the panthers and the clan.)

I see a health care law enacted that creates many more problems than it solves and a US Army unit training in Georgia to handle “domestic unrest” with in our own borders.

I see terrorists being called ill instead of hateful and Americans who cherish traditional American values being ridiculed and mocked.

I see presidential promises broken with a wink instead of an apology (and America winks back).

Speaking of apologies, I see POTUS apologizing to the world for everything that is good in America.

I see our government trashing our relationships with our closest allies and sucking up to those who hate us.

I see our economy being trashed and our children’s future being squandered.

I see what has been a worthless media, rising up and becoming a malignant force that seems to be bent on our destruction.

And our congress! when did it become the enemy of America?

I feel like Rip Van Winkle!

It seems that bad has become the new good and good has become outdated, uncool, and stupid. (Props to Isaiah the Hebrew prophet for warning us this would happen)

The point is, I see these things and think: Germany, circa 1936, Argentina, circa 1955 (or North Korea, circa today).  Whereas, millions of my fellow citizens, see a great new hero who is leading America to its glorious destiny.

And, when I try to talk to one of these citizens who refer to themselves by the euphemism “progressives”,  I begin to see how much trouble we are really in.  Trying to talk to these “progressives” about our founders and the constitution or freedom and its price, is worse than trying to talk to a fence post.  At least the fence post can generally be counted upon to be free from body odor and refrain from spitting on you or clubbing you to death with nonsensical sound bites and mantras.

It is more like trying to teach a pig to fly.  It is a complete waste of time and it annoys the pig.

In reading this, you may conclude that I hate Mr. Obama, but that is not the case.  I hate what he is doing to the America i grew up in.  The one that was created and preserved by the blood and sacrifice of my ancestors.  The one that I have served and struggled to pass on to my posterity.

But I do not hate Barack Obama.

I believe he is simply being himself and doing what he sincerely thinks is best for himself and those he cares about.  There are no surprises with Mr. Obama.  He is exactly what he seemed to be before he was elected and he is behaving exactly as he told us he would (for example: why should he prove he is ineligible for this great job when he can get a pass and keep feeding at the trough?).

When he reminded Republican law-makers that “Elections have consequences” shortly after his inauguration, he was simply setting the tone for his presidency.  He brought his friends and associates with him to Washington just as Jimmy Carter (the last president whose stupidity we almost didn’t survive) did.  It just so happens that rather than being a bunch of “crackers” (and I mean that in the kindest possible way.  Some of my best friends are from Georgia) Obama’s cronies are a bunch of thugs, crooks and radicals (ooops, now I have insulted Chicago).

I don’t hate Barak, I just want the USA to survive him and get back on track.

And I should say this:

Our country has been off track since long before Mr. Obama bounded onto our stage.  In fact, we have been the proverbial “frogs in a pot” for decades.

We have been steadily pursuing a slide down the slippery slope we started in 1962 when prayer was first banned in schools.  This slide was certainly accelerated in the decade beginning in 1965 during which we sacrificed 50,000 American lives in a futile war in Vietnam for which we had no clearly defined objective and no commitment to “win” (whatever that meant to the politicians), then again in 1973 when Roe v. Wade paved the way for the legal slaughter of over 50,000,000 unborn babies so far.

I thought the slide was over when Ronald Reagan was Elected in 1980.  Unfortunately, that merely just a pleasant delay, but it made me feel optimistic about our country again after the Carter fiasco…er… administration.

When you think about it, If the Obama regime serves as a wake up call to a sleeping American populace (who have been enjoying the warming water in the pot for at least five decades) before we actually boil to death, Mr. Obama could be the best thing that has happened to America in fifty years!

First let me make it perfectly clear that Mr. Jones and I disagree violently on how to run this country and how to solve the problems that face us.  Therefore, I am happy to see that he is no longer serves in an official capacity in our government.

Having said that, I must say that I respect Van Jones. He has not attempted to deceive us. He seems to have always been up-front and candid about his radical views.  He is what he has said he is and even though we disagree, this country thrives on respectful differences.

Mr. Jones is not the problem and never has been. Mr. Obama who appointed him to the position is the problem.

Jones was appointed in hopes his radicalism would slip by the American people as he was appointed to a position of great power and influence, but unlike those filling other similar positions as authorized by our Constitution, Mr. Jones was spared the process of senate scrutiny and approval. This flies directly in the face of the checks and balances built into our Constitution.

Mr. Jones is not a deceiver; Mr. Obama is.  Notice also, when Mr. Jones’ candor shined the light on Mr. Obama and his radical agenda, Mr. Obama dropped his friend like a hot potato.

Mr. Obama invited us to judge him by those with whom he has chosen to surrounded himself. The deeper we look into that the more frightening this national nightmare becomes.

In the 1997 movie, “Liar, Liar”, actor Jim Carey’s, character, Fletcher Reede is arguing a case in court when his opponent makes a very good point he objects:

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it’s devastating to my case!

Liberals cannot argue the substance of issues because their policies make no sense. When questioned about these policies they resort to any number of strategies:

1. Insulting the questioner’s intelligence
2. Calling the questioner names
3. Discrediting the questioner
4. Rambling
5. Violence
6. Denying any opposing voice

First case in point, CIA Director James Woolsey evades questions on the Iraq war by insulting Jan Helfeld:

California Democrat Rep. Pete Stark is an expert in these callow tactics. Here is what Michelle Malkin has to say about the congressman:

——-Foul Language Warning——–

Longtime readers of this blog are well aware of California Democrat Rep. Pete Stark (Raving Mad)’s unhingedness.

He has called a Republican opponent a “c**ksucker”, left a profanity-laced message on a constituent’s voicemail, and suggested on the floor of the House that Republicans are sending men and women to Iraq “to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

He’s an unrepentant basket case — and everything that’s wrong with Washington.

Here’s fresh proof from an independent TV documentarian Jan Helfeld, whose Socratic interviewing techniques cause Stark to engage in another trademark tirade. Helfeld asks Stark about the national debt and the economy. Stark tells him repeatedly to “shut up,” sneers at Helfeld’s lack of an advanced economic degree, and ends the interview by bolting from his chair and telling Helfeld to “Get the f**k out of here or I’ll throw you out the window:”

This next example is of self-appointed funny guy, judge of intelligence, and bestower of labels, Bill Maher.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid provides so many examples of these school-yard tactics.

harry-reid

thehill.com reports the following:

Town hall protesters are “evil-mongers,” says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

Reid coined the term in a speech to an energy conference in Las Vegas this week and repeated it in an interview with Politics Daily.

Such “evil-mongers” are using “lies, innuendo and rumor,” to drown out rational debate, Reid said.

CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen and Janine Garofalo bash tea party participants nationwide:

Here Congressman Charlie Rangel insults Governor Sarah Palin:

Here is another example from Senator Reid, this time rambling:

I wonder what Bill Maher would say about Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

In this video Glenn Beck shows how the left-leaning media works to try to marginalize and silence those opposed to ObamaCare.

Finally, the liberals show us the “proper” way to express an opposing view: