Coward-in-Chief Obama Agrees With You Whether You’re For, Against Gay Marriage

The pretzel president.  That’s Barry Hussein.  He’ll say one thing, then say another thing that completely contradicts the first thing.  Then he’ll enact a policy which contradicts both positions.  And then he’ll brazenly tell you, “As I’ve said all along” as though you are some kind of drooling imbecile who can’t remember anything from two minutes ago.

Of course, that last description apparently suits the mainstream media quite well.  At least it does most of the time.

Fortunately, it doesn’t ALWAYS.  Once in a very great while, someone in the mainstream media actually holds the Obamaland rhetoric to account.

From the MSNBC transcript with senior Obama adviser David Axelrod:

GUTHRIE:  So let’s start with the news, the federal judge striking down the ban on same-sex marriage that California voters passed in 2008.  I think the American public could be forgiven if they’re a little confused about where the president stands on all of this. He has said he opposes same-sex marriage.  He has said during the campaign he didn’t mind what California voters were trying to do, trying to ban Prop 8.  Yesterday, though, the White House comes out and says, well, the president has spoken out against Prop 8 in the past.  He said he would work to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but that the Justice Department, since he’s been president, has actually litigated on behalf of that law.  So let’s just forget all of that in the past and ask you, where does the president stand today?  Does he still opposed same-sex marriage?

AXELROD:  Well, Savannah, let me just correct something in your rather lengthy litany of events there.

The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time.  He felt that it was divisive.  He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time.  So we reiterated that position yesterday.  The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control.  He’s supports civil unions, and that’s been his position throughout.  So nothing has changed.

GUTHRIE:  But David, can I just say, I’m looking at an interview right here that Jake Tapper of ABC did back in June of 2008, where Tapper asks him, “Does it bother you what California’s doing?”  And the president responds, “No.”

AXELROD:  Well, Savannah, I’m at a loss here, because I’m just sitting on a set, but I’d be happy to ship you the statements that the president made on — specifically on Proposition 8 and his opposition to it at the time.  So you’re working off of incomplete information there.

How DARE you correct your messiah, Savannah.  It doesn’t matter if he’s a dirtbag liar.  If Barry Hussein says two and two make five, then two and two make five.  If Obama lies, then his lie becomes your truth.  Understand?

Okay, here’s the Hussein-unapproved version of reality.  Obama interview with Jake Tapper, June 16, 2008:

TAPPER: OK, last one, and that is same-sex marriage is now going on in California.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.

OBAMA: Yes.

TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I’m a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we’re involved in a national conversation about this issue.

You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.

And so, you know, as president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government’s historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law. That’s what I’ll do as president.

TAPPER: Does it bother you, what California’s doing?

OBAMA: No.

Well, at least Obama wasn’t for it before he was against it, like previous Democrat slimebag for president John Kerry.  Not at all: Obama was against it before he was for it.  Big difference.

And if you don’t think so, it’s only because you’re a racist.

For the official record, this is NOT David Axelrod “misspeaking.”  This is David Axelrod, senior Obama official, continuing to enact the “official” White House position.  Let’s go back to the spot that Axelrod said:

“… and he opposed it at the time.  So we reiterated that position yesterday.”

Now who is this “we”?  Do you think that it was just David Axelrod and the snake he always keeps in his pocket?  No.  The White House came out and lied.  They came out and tried to correct the factual record, and whitewash what Obama had said so it would jive with his current line of crap.  Just like they always do.

It was a coordinated, preplanned Obama administration lie.

Why did Obama say he opposed gay marriage?  Because he’s a lying weasel who understands that if he were honest with the American people, they never would have elected him.  And why is Obama trying to whitewash that previous dishonest denial?  Because more and more Americans – especially independents – are abandoning him, and he has to build the support of his core base.

If Obama truly opposed same-sex marriage, as he has said, then why has he now appointed not one but two Supreme Court Justices who will – mark my words – vote for same-sex marriage when the case comes before the Supreme Court?  Obama told the nation a lie to get votes because he knew his actual views would never allow him into the Oval Office.

Obama was a liar from the very moment he announced his candidacy for president.  Let’s go back to his Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT:  Before you go, you know there’s been enormous speculation about your political future.  Will you serve your full six-year term as U.S. senator from Illinois?

SEN.-ELECT OBAMA:  Absolutely.

In the most massive and far-reaching policy enacted in more than sixty years, Obama’s lies were all over the place.  Obama – who had promised that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 a year – assured Americans that his health care mandate was not a tax increase.  But now he is admitting that the $6 TRILLION in mandates over just ten years is in fact a tax increase as he faces lawsuits from 20 states arguing that the mandate to force citizens to purchase insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional.  Thus Obama told not one but two lies: that he would not raise taxes on middle class Americans, and that his mandate was not a tax.

These aren’t just lies; they are massive lies straight from the pit of hell.  They are the lies of a fundamentally and profoundly dishonest man.  Not only are the mandates a tax increase on the backs of middle class Americans, but it is in fact the largest tax increase in the history of not only America but of the entire human race.

It’s not a question as to whether Obama has lied.  It’s a question as to whether the man has ever told the truth.

At some point, if you have any capacity of honesty whatsoever in your being, you’ve got to get sick of Obama’s lies, and his incredibly cowardly weakness.

Obama As Joker And Typical Hypocritical Liberal Outrage

Pictures of Obama as “the Joker” above the label “socialism” began popping up around the L.A. area.

Needless to say, liberal outrage was swift to follow.

It didn’t matter that liberals had already come up with the idea themselves to attack George Bush.  Nor did it matter that this was the work of one anonymous person, versus the fact that the “Bush-as-Joker” project was created by a major mainstream media outlet in Vanity Fair.

The blatant hypocrisy in crying “FOUL!” over the picture of Obama as Joker never even enter into the liberal mindset that saw no problem in the picture of George Bush as the Joker.  Hypocrisy is such a part of them – the very atmosphere they breathe – that they appear as completely unaware of their hypocrisy as a fish is unaware of the water around it.

Noel Shepperd at Newsbusters demonstrates the outrage from the mainstream media surrounding the “Obama-Joker” stunt that somehow never managed to materialize when a major media outlet portrayed Bush as Joker.

Oh, the OUTRAGE (pronounced in identical cadence to the “Oh, the HUMANITY” famously uttered by Herbert Morisson at the explosion of the Hindenburg):

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.

Hutchinson is challenging the group or individual that put up the poster to have the courage and decency to publicly identify themselves.

“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery,” says Hutchinson, “it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”

“We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama.”

And how long did you think it would take for some leftist goon to depict it as an act of racism? I mean, after all, we ALL know there is a long historic association between “the Joker” and the negro, going all the way back to when Cesar Romero played the role on the the campy Batman program in the 1960s.

Who could have missed the obvious anti-black racism of that role?  No one I know, anyway.  And, of course, when Jack Nicholson reprised the role in one of the more recent Batman movies, I remember everyone saying, “There they go with that racism again!”

I am now immunized from any charge of racism.  I have a knee-jerk response: “That is a terribly racist thing of you to say, you racist bigot.”  When charges of racism are unleashed like a flood, it simply turns into water flowing off a duck’s back.  The real racists are the people who keep leveling the charge for partisan ideological effect.

I think my favorite pseudo-outraged piece by the pseudo-intellectual Lost Angeles Times is this one:

Reading into the Obama-as-Joker poster … or not

11:50 AM, August 5, 2009

There’s nothing like a controversial political caricature to get people talking, blogging and tweeting.

But when it comes to understanding those same cartoons — as opposed to rehashing, reblogging and retweeting them — context is key.

The New Yorker magazine’s infamous cover illustration of Barack and Michelle Obama in radical drag, bumping fists in the Oval Office as an American flag burns in the fireplace, is understood to be a parody of conservative paranoia, not an attack on the first couple. But put that same image on the cover of the Weekly Standard and the illustration takes on a vastly different meaning.

In this respect, the image of President Obama in Heath Ledger Joker-face is especially disturbing because it is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise. The image seems to have emerged from nowhere and was created by no one. Deracinated from authorial intent, Obama-as-Joker becomes a free-floating cipher that can be appropriated and re-appropriated by everyone.

Clearly, the poster — which has already mutated into countless variations on the Internet — communicates a virulent hostility to Obama, but in a vague and flailing way. It can mean anything and it could mean nothing. (The latter seems more likely than the former.) In some versions of the image, the word “socialism” has been appended to the poster. But as media outlets like CNN have pointed out, the Joker (as portrayed by Ledger in “The Dark Knight”) was a rabid anarchist, which doesn’t jibe well with the accusation of socialism.

Like Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster, the mystery “artist” behind the Joker prank has borrowed and altered an existing media image of the president for his or her own creative ends. (It’s from a cover shot of Obama featured on Time magazine.) In many ways, the Obama-as-Joker picture can be viewed as the evil twin of Fairey’s “Hope” — one is laudatory and arguably hagiographic while the other is mean-spirited and demonic. Maybe one day, a publicity-savvy museum will mount the two of them side-by-side in an exhibition on the malleability of the digital image.

Understandably, some people have latched on to the poster’s white-face significance. Is the creator saying that the president is pretending to be someone he’s not? Again, it’s impossible to know for sure. The Joker was a garish parody of a clown, and a clown can be any race — the white makeup doesn’t necessarily have an ethnic subtext.

At one extreme, the poster suggests that Obama is a psychopath who is completely out of control and running afoul of the law — which he clearly is not. For a cartoon or parody to work, it must have at least one toe placed firmly in the realm of reality — a credible starting point from which to launch into the free-for-all ether of comedy.

The most that can be said about Obama-as-Joker is that it’s a prank that the Joker himself would have been proud of. It has exploded like a cultural grenade — an act of cultural terrorism? — and has left meaningless chaos in its wake.

— David Ng

First notice the complete omission of the Vanity Fair attack against Bush.  Mentioning it would obliterate Ng’s thesis, so he simply doesn’t mention it.  But isn’t the fact that it was done to Bush part of the overall “context” in understanding why it might be done to Obama?  Why bother yourself with revealing something that would only serve to demonstrate how truly full of crap you are?

Then there is the reference to the New Yorker cover featuring Barack and Michelle Obama “in radical drag.”  It’s not the Obama’s we’re mocking, it’s conservatives.  So it’s okay.  You see, it’s perfectly acceptable to fabricate a straw man by which to mock and attack conservatives.

Whether Vanity Fair or the New Yorker, the point is the same: if you’re a Joseph Goebbels-modeled propagandist, as long as you’re not negatively depicting your fellow Nazis, pretty much anything goes.  The left is always able to create a self-serving “context” to declare what is and is not in bounds.  “Joker-Bush” is perfectly acceptable; “Joker-Obama” is immoral, dangerous, and racist.  Says we.

Then there’s the dismissal of “Joker-Obama” on the grounds that Heath Ledger’s Joker was an anarchist – and Obama is clearly not.  Let’s put aside the fact that “the Joker” has been around for a loooooooong time prior to the Heath Ledger movie role, and that it is frankly asanine to define the meaning of the Joker strictly within the Heath Ledger-created “context.”  Let’s put aside that Cesar Romero’s Joker and Jack Nicholson’s Joker were just thugs (as in “Chicago thugs”) with an unusual pigmentation.

Was George Bush an anarchist?  You see, that’s why any analysis that really wanted to take itself seriously needed to mention the Vanity Fair “Joker-Bush.”  If Bush wasn’t an anarchist, and the left used the Joker anyway, then how is it somehow suddenly intellectually stupid for the right to use the same motif?  Other than the fact that Goebbels never turned his propaganda against the Nazis?  What about the simple playground rules that if you punch me in the mouth, I get to punch you back?

In any event, the Lost Angeles Times writer concludes that Obama as Joker “is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise.”

I’ve got two things to say to that.

First of all, it there is absolutely no related context, then why is everybody talking about it?  Why didn’t they talk about Bush-as-Joker the same way?  Good satire simply has to have some direct relationship with the object of the satire.  And the closer to reality the satire comes, the more powerful it is.  If there’s no connection, the joke is literally lost.  So I would ask the Lost Angeles Times, why is it that some lone guy put up a poster of Obama as the socialist “Joker” that struck a powerful chord, while a giant magazine published a nationally distributed cover that failed to strike anything?

And secondly, I would submit to you that there very much IS a context.  And that context is that President Obama, like the Joker, is “changing” society in what will be an incredibly destructive way.  Like the Joker, who loved to mar traditional societal representations with his own image, Obama is out reshaping and distorting and perverting our society into his own, yes, socialist image.  I can’t help but think of that elderly woman who got so tired of seeing Obama that she sold her televisions.

Joe the Plumber heard Obama talk about “spreading the wealth around” and responded by saying, “That sounds like socialism.”  And Joe the Plumber was right: it DID sound like socialism because it WAS socialism.

The Obama campaign came out in a fury that he was not a socialist, and that his policies were not socialism.

Then after Obama won election, the leftist magazine Newsweek triumphantly exclaimed:

And Earl Ofari and David Ng want to tell us it is somehow “mean-spirited and dangerous” to simply state the truth?

We’re seeing what is being done with the “Joker-Obama” poster to what is being done with the “manufactured anger” over health care town hall meetings.  Just as it was the left that FIRST attacked George Bush as “the Joker,” it was also the left that began using the tactics that liberals are ascribing to conservatives confronting Democrat politicians over health care.  An article written back in 2001 records how the left would show up and simply shout down conservative speakers such as David Horowitz, Ward Connerly, Dinesh D’Souza, and many others.  They weren’t even allowed to clear their throats before they were shouted down.

This is part of the larger category of how the left used to say “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” (usually erroneously attributing it to Thomas Jefferson) when Bush was president, only to depict conservatives as being obstructionist and immoral for protesting President Obama’s policies.

This tactic of blatant hypocrisy is only successful because the mainstream media are themselves major participants in that leftist hypocrisy.

Hopefully, by pointing out these blatant acts of mainstream media hypocrisy and pseudo-outrage, we can turn the spotlight of legitimate criticism on them, rather than on the false target of conservatives.

Are Conservatives Lonely On The Internet?

Am I the only conservative who often feels rather lonely on the internet?

There isn’t much in the way of official statistics out there. We have internet campaign donation figures that show Democrats are raising far more money online than Republicans.

I came across a study that found that far more liberals get their news from the Internet than do Republicans. And liberals are far more trusting than conservatives on the media across the board.

When I first started blogging – and I dare say to this very day – I have received far more comments from liberals than from conservatives. Which is kind of weird, considering that my blog is https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com. And the phrase “from a conservative perspective” immediately follows my blog title. It’s not like I’m trying to hide who I am or anything.

I’ve learned a few things.

I’ve learned that married people are far more likely to be conservatives than liberals.

I’ve learned that conservatives are far more likely to be raising children than liberals.

And both institutions leave a lot less time for surfing the internet, don’t they?

There also seems to be a rather clear bias on the Internet against conservatives. Recent stories have come out that Google has been actively discriminating against conservative sites.

But we conservatives have got to hang in there. If we don’t, we will lose the field.

An example is education. By and large, religious people – Christians especially – have been virtually shut out from academia. How did that happen?

Well, they largely did it to themselves. What we find is that for decades, even generations, Christians gave both their time and their money to their churches and to the mission fields, and secular humanists gave their time and their money to universities and to activist organizations such as the ACLU.

As a result, universities – following the money – took on a more and more secular humanist and liberal bent. Christians funded missionaries and preachers and secular humanists funded teachers and lawyers. In spite of the fact that universities in America were overwhelmingly founded by Christians for Christian purposes, universities betrayed their origins and turned against the very people who created them. There has recently been an increasingly successful effort by religious people to take back the field of education amongst all the pagans and infidels, but there is a long way to go.

Conservatives need to keep their foot in the door regarding the Internet, or we will find ourselves shut out. And once the door is closed – as was the case in education – it is very hard to force it open.

I hope you conservative bloggers keep fighting the good fight!

Just so you know, liberals are more likely to be unhappy, and more likely to be angry, according to studies. So that might explain all the vicious and mean-spirited comments you get.

So just remember this: you only have to be around liberals for a little while: they have to live with themselves all the time.