What's wrong with the truth?

Truth Teller

Romney is being attacked for telling the truth? What do people want a continuation of the lies? What about the act of sneaking a video camera into a private dinner? Does anyone feel violated by that?

Not surprisingly, the former community organizer elevated in 2008 by the American Idol audience to his dress up role as Leader of the Free World is not running for re-election on his many notable achievements, including: 

• Unemployment over 8% for 40+ months
• Unprecedented numbers of people on Social Security Disability, many of whom receive benefits fraudulently
• America’s debt downgraded for the second time 
• Record number of people on food stamps (the cited article notes “aggressive effort by President Obama's administration has helped build participation.” Can you say “Food Stamp parties and radio ads promoting particpation?)
• First ambassador murdered since 1979

And talk about a series of amazing coincidences, 1979 was also the year that Jimmy “King of the Useful Idiots” Carter was president, and it happened on the anniversary of 9/11! What were the chances?

I guess standing on a Chicago street corner with a clipboard and a bullhorn isn’t the best preparation for being POTUS, or even “Preezy of the United Steezy.”

Given the colossal, and very predictable, record of failure amassed by this inexperienced, narcissistic, smarmy empty suit, his only chance at re-election is to render his opponent an absolutely unacceptable alternative. Apparently, his campaign has settled on a strategy to make that happen; that is, catch Mitt Romney telling the truth. Last week’s media “controversy” was Mitt Romney’s completely correct and accurate characterization of the disgraceful performance by the Obama administration, wringing their hands, bowing and scraping over the possibility that someone in this country may have offended the tender sensibilities of people known for posting videos of beheadings online. 

 This week, the Left and the LSM are outraged by the truth about Barack Obama’s desire to make as many people dependent on government as possible. How dare people point out that he is an admitted believer in income redistribution! The nerve! Even though, the One has admitted it over and over, not that he needed to do so. He is a dyed-in-the-wool radical leftist. He has never been anything else. He has proudly trumpeted his tenure as a “community organizer.” What in the world does that mean? A “community organizer” is a person who arrives in a poor neighborhood to stoke the fires of entitlement, resentment and class envy, usually to enhance his own political fortunes, while leaving the poor people he claims to care about worse off than when he got there, despite the enactment of “programs” that throw more tax dollars down more social welfare ratholes. Barack Obama’s experience reflects that fact. 

In addition, in 2001, when Barack Obama lamented the failure of the Warren Court to be radical enough, what did he say?

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth,(emphasis mine) and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Just in case you need more evidence, there’s this speech from 1998, in which he says “I actually believe in redistribution” so “everyone will have a shot.” Sound familiar? Notice also the other mumbo-jumbo we hear from him today: “we’re all in this together.”

These speeches and his policies demonstrate how bizarre and ridiculous this latest alleged controversy is. Of course, it is simply a smokescreen to keep voters from seeing the obvious. 

Make no mistake. These “controversies,” and their accompanying “narratives” of the week, are driven by the Lame Stream Media working in cooperation with the other members of the Obama campaign. They are hoping to employ the Goebbels “Big Lie” strategy to cover up the truth about who Barack Obama is and his plans to complete his “remaking” (read destroying) of the country we grew up in.

The level of outrage by the Left is directly proportional to the amount of truth told about them. They hope to intimidate those who are closing in on their heinous agenda from actually talking about it.