Topic category: Elections - Politics, Polling, etc.
Taking Political Stock on Monday Morning The blatant dishonesty of The New York Times, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton
It is common knowledge that The New York Times, President Obama, and Secretary Clinton are consistently dishonest. A review of recent events illustrates some of their typical dishonesty. The Times with its deliberately dishonest portrayal of Donald Trump's experiences with women; Obama with his campaign speech at Rutgers University's commencement, and Clinton with her mouth moving, a sure sign that what is being said is dishonest.
The New York Times biggest lie of the weekend:
Reports that The New York Times and Washington Post tasked dozens of their "reporters" to dig up dirt on Donald Trump is not surprising. Acting as the Democratic Party's biggest Political Action Committee (PAC), the "usual suspects" in news media are panicking over the likely prospect of a sweeping Donald Trump victory in November.
Compare this interest in Trump's past to the "ho-hum" approach taken to Bill Clinton's sordid past and Barack Obama's unknown past -- a past that included ten years of tutoring by an avowed Communist, stints in three left-wing institutions of higher learning, no serious job history, and a general mystery concerning Mr. Obama's views on serious matters.
Of course, the Trump treatment is a fair reflection of the treatment Sarah Palin received. Sniveling "reporters" digging into every aspect of their target's life, and then, when nothing of substance is found, the material gleaned is abused to misrepresent reality and smear the target. That's pretty much the approach left-wing media uses to destroy reputations of honorable people who step forward out of a sense of duty to their country.
And when Times reporters came up empty, they simply reverted to the Times' standard procedure when it finds itself unable to corroborate the "party line". The Times simply lied by contorting beyond recognition the information it had gathered from those interviewed. Rather than cast Trump in the positive light portrayed by their sources, the Times concocted a grossly distorted and very negative view of their source information that was gathered under the false pretense of writing an honest, objective story that would not be a "hit piece".
In other words, true to form, the Times lied to those interviewed, and then lied to its dwindling number of readers.
Obama's commencement dishonesty:
Barack Obama is a little man. Not just in stature, but in ethics, honesty, and decency. He cannot help himself. Self-absorbed and self-impressed, he offers distorted views of life as guidance to graduates.
Speaking to graduates of Rutgers University, Obama delivered a political speech that was short on substance and long on dishonesty.
Obama uses a strategy common in argumentation. He accuses those he views as his enemies of doing the very things he does. His use of that strategy serves to obscure his own misdeeds while tarnishing the images of those he accuses.
The accusations need not be honest, so long as they are repeated again and again. Some will begin to believe them merely on the basis of having heard the accusations multiple times.
Obama, never referring to Donald Trump by name, distorted Trump's border wall proposal by not applying it to the problem Trump would solve with such a wall by making it more difficult for drugs and illegal immigrants to be smuggled into the United States. Instead, Obama dishonestly pivoted to a host of unrelated international problems and then claimed "A wall won't stop that". But nobody ever claimed a wall would stop the litany of issues Obama spouted.
Obama went on to make a complete ass of himself in a thinly-veiled attempt to give credibility to his deeply-flawed views of science by claiming "It's not cool to not know what you're talking about. That's not keeping it real or telling it like it is. That's not challenging political correctness. That's just not knowing what you're talking about." Warning that rejection of facts and science would imperil the future, Obama is firmly in the quicksand of his unscientific stance on climate change.
If anyone in this nation takes real science loosely, it is the cadre of government-funded pseudo-scientists Obama relies upon (and directs) who practice political science rather than real climate science. This they achieve by altering the actual US temperature data record by artificially raising more recent records while lowering records of 80 to 100 years ago! This national disgrace goes unreported simply because it supports the left-wing dogma designed to increase government control of energy. Obama's energy policy amounts to billionaire "investors" being paid handsomely with contracts for high-cost immature alternate technologies (wind and solar being the leading candidates) and, in return, those billionaires fund left-wing activities and politicians' election campaigns.
Saying Hillary Clinton is "dishonest" is like saying the sun is hot. Dishonesty is in Clinton's very nature.
Note the distinction between being a liar and being dishonest. Clinton has perfected the art of not lying while misleading by being dishonest.
For example, when asked whether she ever had classified material on her personal non-secure email server, Clinton responded that there was never anything marked classified on her email server. Notice that Clinton's response did not answer the question. It simply pivoted to a related fact (classified material was not marked), hoping the listener will confuse the two and take her response as a denial. We have probably all seen Clinton's email exchange with her State Department associate that ended with her instruction to remove classified markings and email a classified document to her! That evidence alone would be enough to put most people in jail.
When asked about the FBI investigation, Clinton alluded to the activity as a routine security review.
But the FBI does not perform routine security reviews. They investigate suspected criminal activity. That was made abundantly clear when the Justice Department refused an FOIA request for documents related to the email probe by stating that they do not release documents that are a subject of law enforcement investigation. Which means that Ms. Clinton is under investigation for criminal activity.
Based on information already publicly disclosed, it is clear to any reasonable person that Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, deliberately abused her privileged position by communicating classified information on more than 2,000 different occasions, some of the messages so highly classified that most FBI investigators lacked the clearance to review it.
The relative ease with which Clinton's email server could be accessed by foreign agents made her illegal activity a serious breach of national security amounting to espionage.
It is entirely likely that email exchanges between Ambassador Stevens and Clinton regarding concerns about the lack of adequate security at Benghazi contributed to the plan of attack that cost Stevens and three others their lives. Other classified material found on Clinton's server is thought to have identified a key high-ranking member of the Afghan government as a CIA informer. That informer was subsequently assassinated.
But, according to Clinton, "What difference does it make?"
And yet, Clinton refuses to admit she is the target of a criminal investigation.
Clinton's criminal activities go back throughout her public life. While the Governor's wife in Arkansas, Clinton was up to her neck in Whitewater development fraud. She conveniently lost files of the Rose Law Firm with whom she was employed. She conveniently made a huge profit on her only commodity trade. She was in charge of counter-attacking women who stepped forward during her husband's "bimbo eruption" debacle that began with Paula Jones and ended with Monica's semen-stained dress. All the while, Hillary worked diligently to smear all those who stepped forward to testify to Bill Clinton's perversions, charges that included rape.
Then there were her memory lapses when testifying to the special prosecutor. It seems Ms. Clinton has a serious memory problem when she cannot conceive a suitably dishonest statement to dodge the questions being asked of her.
Clinton is dishonest to her core. Yet that seems not to matter to those who continue to promote her nomination campaign.
The New York Times, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton. What do they all have in common?
Dishonesty. And they are in the camp of the Democratic Party.
It is no wonder Democrats are working diligently across the nation to grant felons the right to vote.
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.