The Past, Present, and Future Smear King

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Recall the insane levels that Liberals and the Ministry of Truth Media went to over George W. Bush Drinking and alleged drug use. (The Liberal media won’t).

The smear was in full tilt.

Huffington Post 1/4/2007: Fox News Reporter Kirian Chetry blurted out what she assumed was common knowledge among the media cognoscenti: that George W. Bush had used cocaine in his past and yet had politically survived the exposure of that (criminal) indiscretion. Her on-air colleagues scrambled to “correct” the record: no, no, no, the cocaine accusations against Bush have never been proven beyond a doubt–so let’s quickly shift the conversation away from Bush’s drug past and instead bring up, for one more go around, Bill Clinton’s admitted marijuana use alongside the recent revelation about Barack Obama’s possible cocaine use. Let’s blow some smoke in Bill’s direction, he never inhaled, ha, ha, ha.

Whew, that was a close one! Fox News surely didn’t want to open that door into Bush’s creepy closet, and they tried to slam it shut.

Then there’s: Here’s the passage from his (Obama’s) book, Dreams from My Father, where he discusses his drug use:
“I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though—Mickey, my potentional intiator had been just a little too eager for me to go through with that. Said he could do it blindfolded, but he was shaking like a faulty engine when he said it. Maybe he was just cold; we were standing in a meat freezer in the back of the deli where he worked, and it couldn’t have been more than twenty degrees in there. But he didn’t look like he was sweating, his face shiny and tight. He had pulled out the needle and the tubing, and I’d looked at him standing there, surrounded by big slabs of salami and roast beef, and right then an image popped into my head of an air bubble, shiny and round like a pearl, rolling quietly through a vein and stopping my heart… Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d be headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn’t been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then anyway. I got just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn’t make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmmate’s sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you’d met at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl.

Nobody asked you whether your father was a fat-cat executive who cheated on his wife or some laid-off joe who slapped you around whenever he bothered to come home. You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of dissaffection. And if the high didn’t solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world’s ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bullshit and cheap moralism.–Barack Obama Dreams of My Father.

Liberal Response: Crickets. They never even bothered. And besides if you brought it up, you were just a racist and wanted to keep this black man down and now it’s just silly, it doesn’t matter.

More Huffington Post 2007: What amazes me is that here we are, six years into Bush’s presidency, and the press still refuses to treat the longstanding stories about Bush’s cocaine use with the severity and scrutiny that such charges surely deserve, given the high level stakes involved. The issue is no longer simply how and why Bush has successfully dodged the topic for his entire political career. The story now should be why the press has treated him with kid gloves for so long.

But yet, Dreams of my Father was first published in July 1995 by Community Organizer Barack Obama.

Obama 1995: “In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

<<Crickets>>

Liberals won’t tell you things they don’t want you to know. Especially, if it’s a divide and conquer lie, half-truth, lie of omission or just plain old bullsh*t!

Then: These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ‘em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress. Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn’t care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing.”

2011: “And so tonight, it is my fervent hope that we can harness some of that unity and some of that pride to confront the many challenges that we still face.”–Obama the Day after Bin Laden was killed and a year before he “spiked” the football and took all the credit.

Then: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”- Obama 2008

Now: The Obama campaign added a section on “clean coal” to its website this week after House Republicans alleged that the president’s “all-of-the-above” energy plan neglected the fossil fuel.

“President Obama has set a 10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology,” the website now says.“The Recovery Act invested substantially in carbon capture and sequestration research, including 22 projects across four different areas of carbon capture-and-storage research and development.”  (The Hill)

Say Anything to get Re-elected. It’s not like the Liberal Media will care and no one in the Liberal Media will take you seriously if you do. They will likely HELP you do it.
They are not  going to asks questions that violate the Party Meme.

There were uproars about Sarah Palin on Magazine covers. Now we have an effectively nude woman on Time Magazine.

The Response From the Liberal Media: YAWN!

I ‘m still waiting for the “War on Women” response that because this cover is offensive it must be because of misogynistic rich white male Republicans. 🙂

Then there’s the smear of Romney as a bully 50 years ago in High School.

The family of the “victim” (who by the way is dead!) calls the whole thing appalling and the Liberal media yawns again.

Facts don’t matter. And so what if the “victim” is dead. Who cares. It’s all about perception, not reality.

They put it out so that they could get that tabloid-y reaction.

It’s like the kid that acts out in class for the negative reinforcement.

Vote for Me! I’m not a racist, misogynist rich white privileged kid bully.

Are you?

Al Sharpton: “It’s war on black people, it’s war on women, it’s war on immigrants… We have got to turn this around and start targeting in Missouri those legislators that want to roll back our right to vote!”

Don’t vote for Republicans- They are Mean, racist, misogynists who hate women, poor people,grandma,blacks,and hispanics. Want dirty air, dirty water and for you to “just die!” (to quote former Rep. Grayson).

Damn! They hate everyone except “intolerant” right wing religious whackos and “rich” white people.

And the Ministry of Truth will beat the drum 24/7. They’ll lead the parade.

But don’t you dare rise up against them or question their journalistic integrity. Oh, now your just being “divisive” and “partisan”. 🙂

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do,” he said, “it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” -President Obama in Tucson January 2011.

That is until I’m running for re-election and all bets are off.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

All Hail Big Brother!  Boo Hiss everyone else! Two Minute Hate all around!

And this is only the warm up act.

Means What it Says

Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks if the document still matters. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore.“Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think,” Stengel said on “Morning Joe.” on MSNBC

Larry Elder: “When the chief justice read me the oath,” President Franklin D. Roosevelt said to a speechwriter, “and came to the words ‘support the Constitution of the United States,’ I felt like saying: ‘Yes, but it’s the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy — not the kind of Constitution your court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.'”

FDR’s statement vividly illustrates the Big Divide between (most) Republicans and Democrats, free marketers and collectivists, Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman. It’s the line separating those who believe in the power of individuals from those who believe in the power of government — so long as they’re the ones in power. It’s the line that separates those who believe in the welfare state from those who not only believe that the federal government recklessly spends more than it takes in, but also spends it on things not permitted by the Constitution — and the country is worse off for having done so.

This is the tea party message (to the consternation of Democrats and squishy Republicans): The Constitution means what it says and says what it means. All this Constitution talk produces the inevitable backlash. Joy Behar, the learned Constitutional scholar, asked, “Do you think this Constitution-loving is getting out of hand?”

A Los Angeles Times columnist and I sat on a panel to analyze President Barack Obama’s last State of the Union speech. What, I asked, gives the President authority to place health care under the command and control of the federal government? She replied, that part of the Constitution that says to provide for the domestic tranquility.

She refers to a part of the preamble to the Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility … establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Many members of this “living, breathing” Constitution school claim authority for things like ObamaCare resides in the “promote the general welfare” part of the preamble. Using the “domestic tranquility” part was a first.

The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, anticipated the preamble-gives-government-permission-to-do-all-sorts-of-things-for-which-it-lacks-authority argument. In 1794, Congress appropriated money for charitable purposes. An incensed Madison said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Time Magazine’s recent Constitution cover story asks: “Does It Still Matter?” Its answer? Well, yeah, it sort of does, but then again, you know, not so much. After all, the Founding Fathers could neither foresee computers nor Twitter nor predict that Rep. Anthony Weiner would use both to implode his career. So, really, in the modern day, what’s the relevance of the old document crafted by well-to-do, slave-owning white males?

As the federal government got bigger over the next 200 years, and assumed responsibilities the Founding Fathers considered the job of individuals, families and communities — or of the separate states — Madison’s position withered. It’s now fighting for its life.

Soon, the 50 percent of voters who pay little or no taxes will march into the polling booth, many pulling levers, pushing buttons and punching chads to vote themselves a raise — at somebody’s else’s expense. If the Supreme Court permits the ObamaCare mandate, anything goes.

Constitution-shredders point not to our bloated federal government, the entitlement mentality or to the desire of politicians on both sides to promise things that the Founders feared would eventually produce an electorate with little or no financial skin in the game. No, the real villain is the dastardly Bush tax cuts! If only they had not been enacted, they tell us!

Why not blame the tax cuts signed by other presidents? President John Kennedy’s plan reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. President Ronald Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70 to 28 percent. President George W. Bush, by contrast, reduced the top rate from 39.6 to 35 percent, making him Scrooge-like in comparison.

The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” says the two Bush tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003, “cost” $2.8 trillion over 10 years (an average of $280 billion per year). In the last two and a half years alone, Obama has presided over the addition of almost $4 trillion in new debt, and this year’s deficit is an estimated $1.6 trillion.

Besides, liberals like the Bush tax cuts — at least for the lower 98 percent of workers. Since most Democrats want to preserve the Bush-era tax rates for all but the top 2 percent, the objectionable “cost” of the cuts becomes even more inconsequential to dealing with budget, deficit and debt problems.

So now what? We drifted away from the Constitution in fits and starts. It is how we must return to it. Voters must remember who talked the talk and walked the walk. This is a time when we change course, when people rediscover American exceptionalism and the wisdom of the Constitution and say, “Enough.”

If not, Greece awaits.

It’s all Greek to Washington… 😦

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay