Dropping pebbles of thought into our conservative echo-chamber

Posts tagged ‘propaganda’

Letting the DNC Rewrite History

Former President Bill Clinton’s scheduled speech tonight at the DNC convention reminds me of just how often we, as conservatives, have allowed the Democrats and the liberal media (redundancy!) to dictate the narrative and rewrite history.

Seriously, I have been hoping for a long time to see this trend change, but even with social media taking a large chunk out of the dinosaur news networks, we are still allowing the liberals to get away with an insane amount of propaganda.

Maybe it is because I am old enough to remember how things were when they actually happened.  Our newest set of voters was still in diapers during Clinton’s last term.  The Democrats work to take full advantage of the naiveté of youth, which is why they target younger voters and deceive them.  What disturbs me most is that all too often conservatives go right along with the deception unwittingly.

But I fully remember Bill Clinton’s first election.  This is because I actually supported Clinton.  Don’t hate me!

It was a definite year of discovery for me.  It was the year that I discovered first-hand how blatantly deceptive the liberals can be.

I was young.  The 1992 election wasn’t my first, but it was close to it.  I was angry at George H. W. Bush for his myopic “family values” platform.  Ross Perot had some good sound bites, but I thought the guy was a bit of a lunatic (and it turns out that I was right).  Bill Clinton was the “cool” candidate, much like Barack Obama was portrayed in 2008.  Hell, he could play the saxophone!  He went on popular shows like Arsenio to prove it.  Even most conservatives will still say that Clinton is a likable guy on a personal level.

But, in reality, Bill Clinton was Barack Obama 1.0.

Clinton’s first campaign was very much like Obama’s.  The Democrats pilloried Bush for going back on his pledge to not raise any taxes, even though it was the Democrats in Congress that placed that poison pill into an unrelated bill that Bush felt he could not veto.  Clinton promised to lower taxes and bring us all together as a nation.  He gave us empty platitudes.

What we got instead was almost IDENTICAL to Obama’s first two years in office.

As soon as Clinton got in, he and his Democrat allies in Congress passed one of the largest tax increases in the history of the country.  Then Bill and Hillary went to work to push a universal health care plan, dubbed “Hillarycare”.  The only difference was that they did not have a super-majority in Congress, like Obama.  The nation recoiled at Clinton’s actions.  They were so incredibly unpopular that Republicans swept the House and Senate races to gain control for the first time in 54 years.  The sweep was nearly identical to the one in 2010.

Citizens of the United States had developed a clear case of buyer’s remorse.

At that point, there were only two differences between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Without the presence of Ross Perot in the elections, Clinton would never have come close to winning, either time.  He never managed a majority of the popular vote.  But Clinton did something else that Obama failed to do; after he got his clock cleaned in the mid-term elections, Bill Clinton decided to portray himself as a centrist.

Today, we have liberals like Barack Obama going around telling the country that his ideas are the same as Clinton’s, and that those ideas worked.  And he is allowed to get away with it.

Not even conservatives will call him on it.

But the truth is that the ideas that brought us prosperity in the 1990’s were not so popular with Clinton.  He fought against them tooth and nail, and went so far as to wage a war with the Gingrich-led Congress that would shut down the government.  If Clinton had gotten his way, and had retained control of the House or Senate, we likely would not have seen so much prosperity, even with the technological boom.  Clinton went kicking and screaming against ideas like welfare reform (vetoed three times), until he was forced into a political position where he had to sign such ideas into law.  He then turned around and portrayed ideas like welfare reform and a balanced budget as hallmarks of his administration, with the liberal media in full cooperation.

But those ideas did not originate from Clinton, he opposed them at the outset, and he only came to get on board when it became politically expedient for him to do so.

The boom in technology was enough to spur our economy to great heights, not because of Clinton’s policies, but despite them.  In fact, Clinton ignored several pitfalls that caused our economy to take a large downturn near the end of his administration.  Several companies were cooking the books.  Many of the prosperous internet corporations had no physical inventory of which to speak.  When the bubbles burst, Clinton didn’t care.  He was on his way out.

The media blamed George W. Bush for Tyco, Enron, WorldCom, and the like, but those crimes were all committed under Clinton’s watch.  Apart from that, Clinton’s administration had more high level corrupt scandals than even Obama’s.  They made Nixon look like a choir boy.  But the dinosaur media covered for him, and portrayed him as an enigmatic superstar.

And we let them.

And now we are letting them tell everyone how successful Clinton was as a President.

Why..?

Because we allowed them to create that narrative and let it become ingrained as common knowledge.

We even went along with it to a degree, and we’re paying the price now.  Obama is able to fool much of the populace with this narrative.

We’ve got to stop letting this happen.

Advertisements

Obama Chokes on Chick-Fil-A

I absolutely love Chick-Fil-A.

My original affection for the fast food chain has little to do with the recent controversy centered around the topic of traditional marriage.  We don’t have many of them in my area, so it is a treat when I get to eat there.  The food is always great, and I’m a huge fan of waffle fries..!

Yes, I am a life-long fast food junkie, and since Chick-Fil-A is rarely available to me, it has always been elevated a little higher than the other chains I frequent.

This recent controversy just elevates them higher in my eyes.  They handled the entire situation wonderfully, with grace.  By all accounts (including my own) people who went to support them during the height of all of the drama had a very pleasant experience.  The planned boycott and protests against them fizzled.  Angry activists were greeted with the same warm kindness and service standards set for those who came in support.

Now, according to Scott Rasmussen, 61% of people hold a favorable opinion of Chick-Fil-A.

That’s bad for Barack Obama.

Obama’s former Chief of Staff and current Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel was clearly on the wrong side of this debate when he sought to deny the right of Chick-Fil-A to operate in “his” city.  It’s no stretch at all to see that Obama and Emanuel have very similar ideologies, or to think that Obama would have held the same position in Emanuel’s place.

Now, I am not naive enough to think that all of those people who see Chick-Fil-A in a positive light are opposed to homosexual marriage, but it is likely that most of them are.  Given Obama’s recent flip-flop of his past flip-flop-flippity-flopping on the issue, this does not bode well for him.  Because Obama has changed his position so many times, he loses a good deal of credibility.  Moreover, his switch in position came at a time when the LGBT community was threatening to withhold campaign donations from him; a very crass and cynical political move.  Nevermind that Obama isn’t proposing any actual policy change, or the fact that he was only paying lip-service to the LGBT community.

The real problem for Obama is that same-sex marriage has lost every time the people are allowed to vote on the issue, despite polling that would have indicated otherwise.

The Obama campaign is reading its own polls, and they’re believing them.

If we were to take polling at face value, along with exit polling, we would have had Presidents Al Gore and John Kerry, and there would have been no overwhelming Republican sweep of congress in 2010.  Most pollsters today care less about accuracy and more about propaganda.  The polls are crafted as a means to sway opinion rather than to gauge it.  They stack the deck by over-sampling Democrats, and by polling all registered voters instead of restricting themselves to those who are likely to vote.  Sometimes they don’t even bother to try to keep things that accurate;  they poll anyone, registered to vote, or not.

The fact that Obama “came out” in support of same-sex marriage indicates two things;  he was desperate for campaign cash, and his handlers are buying into their own polling.  That’s dangerous ground upon which to tread.

That so many people approve of Chick-Fil-A in the wake of what the media so desperately hoped would be a giant scandal can only be a bad thing for Obama.

Should I Feel Sorry?

Joe Soptic lost his wife to cancer.  I felt bad for him.

Joe Soptic

Now I don’t.

Maybe I am wrong for saying so, but I really don’t feel much sympathy for him anymore.

The only person I feel sorry for in all of this mess is his wife.

Cancer is an ugly thing, and it takes the lives of far too many people.  The difference between Soptic and other survivors of those lost to that horrible condition is that they don’t run around blaming others for the sum of all of their woes, much less specific people.

In what represents a new low in modern American politics, the Obama campaign has coordinated with one of its super-PACs to create one of the most heinous pieces of propaganda that I have ever personally witnessed.

In most circles (even most liberal circles) this ad has been rightfully scorned.  But even within the past hour, I witnessed Donna Gentile O’Donnell, advisor to Democrat Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, actually come out to defend the ad, saying that it was appropriate and did not cross a line.

What’s worse is that I couldn’t tell if she was lying, or if she really believed what she said.

Either way, it is a sad indictment of the current state of American politics that anyone like her could come anywhere near a position of political power.

I’d feel a lot more sympathetic to Soptic being used as a tool for people like O’Donnell and Stephanie Cutter (Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager, and coordinator of these attack ads), except that he is a completely willing tool.  A tool in every sense of the word.

Instead of condemning Mitt Romney and blaming him for the death of his wife, Soptic ought to be out singing Romney’s praises.  The steel mill where Soptic worked was in a death spiral, and set to close down, when Bain Capital purchased a controlling interest in it.  If anything, Romney provided Soptic with several years of employment that he otherwise would not have had.

Romney had stepped down from an active role in Bain Capital a full two years before GST issued layoffs and closed that mill, and a full seven years before Soptic’s wife became ill and was diagnosed with stage four cancer.  Ironically, since Romney’s departure, Bain has been run by Obama bundlers and supporters of the very people currently using Soptic for their own political gain.

And what of Soptic’s union?  When Soptic was layed-off, did they not have any responsibility to him?  Or, were they just interested in him when he was still able to pay union dues?

This whole episode is just disgusting, and it shows how filthy and low Obama and the Democrats really are.

So much for “Hope and Change”.

Nothing Right-wing About Neo-Nazis

In the wake of the recent Wisconsin Sikh Temple shootings, the airwaves were filled with so-called journalists rushing to the air to proclaim that the shooter was a “far-right extremist” and a white supremacist.  Something that troubled me about this initial rush was that it was based upon information from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) which should never be taken at its word for anything.  But there I was, watching as even Fox News jumped on to their bandwagon.

In this case, I would have to say that the SPLC was right.  This guy does appear to have been a white supremacist and a Neo-Nazi loon.   But it still troubles me that sensationalism takes precedence over all else, especially after we’ve seen what can happen when people like ABC’s Brian Ross rush to the air with information they haven’t bothered to verify.

And now we all get to hear how this guy was supposedly a right-winger.

Well, what was right-wing about him?

The original Nazi movement certainly wasn’t right-wing.  Far from it.  Every aspect of that old and thankfully dead movement holds common hallmarks with the modern left.

So, what is new, or “neo”, about the skinheads that makes them right-wingers?

About the only thing I can see in common is that they like guns.  But then, socialist dictators on the left LOVE guns, as long as they’re the ones holding them.

For the life of me I can not think of a single other thing that these people have in common with the American right at any moment in our history.

For people to assume it is so would be the result of left-wing propaganda that dictates that only white people are racist and all racists are right-wingers.  That’s the lie told often enough that it has become accepted as so-called common knowledge.  The American left learned much from Goebbels, it seems.

But the American right did not create the KKK that these Neo-Nazi freaks call brothers.  The left did that.  The left to this day works to segregate people by race, and has done so throughout their entire history.  Keeping people from actually joining into the American melting pot is the only thing that allows them to retain any power.

This needs to be challenged when it happens, and it dismays me that no one in the media raised any objections, apart from some that I saw on Fox News’ The Five, when Bob Beckel started in on how this shooter was a right-winger, and the other hosts objected to his characterization.

We have got to stand against this kind of thing more vociferously, because letting the charge go by without challenge is to confirm its validity in the minds of the public.

That’s just unacceptable.

Krauthammer Wins Battle With White House

The man the White House loves to hate

Anyone who has followed President Barack Obama at all with even an ounce of objectivity knows that he has a serious problem when it comes to honesty.

In fact, this president has been so pathological with his deceptions that a list of instances where he has been honest would be a much shorter one to create, and those rare moments of truth are nearly always political miscues that he and his campaign would prefer never to have happened.

Among his latest and greatest hits is the whole “I didn’t really say what you quoted me saying even though I quoted myself saying it in my own campaign ad” fiasco, which has the Obama campaign in full damage repair mode.  Sadly enough, the Obama campaign is so cynical that they have released another series of ads that says the exact opposite of the entire speech that was met with such a negative reaction.  Really, it was Obama’s version of the “I’m Not a Witch” ad, made famous by Christine O’Donnell.

What is more sad is that many people will believe him, and his sycophantic supporters will likely go right along with the deceit, willingly.

But the newest “how stupid does he think we are” moment, for me, came just yesterday.

Syndicated Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer wrote an article in which he rightly points out that the Obama administration returned to the British Embassy a valued and respected bust of Winston Churchill soon after Obama moved into the White House.  This was never a secret.  Anyone paying attention to politics at the time knew about it.  It made national news everywhere except for the lap-dog media.

Apparently, the Obama administration saw their chance to re-write history–again.

Dan Pfeiffer

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer wrote a rebuttal to attack Krauthammer, saying that his claims were “ridiculous” and “100% false”.  Mediaite covered this part of the story in a Friday afternoon piece.  Within two hours they received confirmation from the British Embassy that Krauthammer was indeed correct.  The bust of Churchill had been returned to the British Embassy and currently resides in the British Ambassador’s residence in Washington, DC.

Krauthammer asked for a retraction and an apology from Pfeiffer:

Not going to happen, Charles.  A brilliant man such as yourself would know that they will never admit to spreading falsehoods.  They will either ignore it and hope it goes away, or they will double down on the stupid.

The real question is, why does this administration feel the need to make such an obvious lie?  The only answer I can propose is that they are so thin-skinned that they can not bear any criticism of their actions, no matter how accurate the criticism may be, or, perhaps their reaction is in direct proportion to the accuracy of their critics.

Either way, we have got to rid ourselves of this craziness and send Obama packing back to Chicago in November.

Update – Apparently Pfeiffer has apologized!  I stand corrected.  According to the brief blurb I saw from Charles in passing on Fox a bit ago, he received a mea culpa from Pfeiffer.  He was almost as surprised as I am.  Who knew..?

Update #2 – Okay, so apparently Pfeiffer’s apology was not quite so genuine as I thought.  Yes, he did send Krauthammer an email apologizing, but…  The email was sent quietly so as to attract as little notice as possible.  Pfeiffer’s “rebuttal” is still up at the link I posted above.  He did include an addendum to “explain away the confusion”, which, in liberal terms apparently means to lie your ass off while spinning as much as humanly possible.  Pfeiffer portrays the whole incident as an innocent misunderstanding.  He claims that the bust of Churchill was lent to the Bush administration at the start of his term and they sent it back with all of the other art from Bush’s Oval Office.  In reality, as Krauthammer originally wrote, the bust was sent to us as a show of solidarity after the events of September 11, 2001, and the British were less than pleased that we unceremoniously returned it.  They were offended, and rightfully so.

Honestly, I have to return to my original belief that Pfeiffer’s only intent in all of this was to deceive and run cover for his boss.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: