When It Comes To Deceit and Deception, Obama Is A Pro

For people like Barack Obama and David Axelrod, deceit and deception are the norm they live by. Truth is as foreign to them as speaking Swahili.But, they are very, very good, like all those on the Left, at bending ans distorting the English language. Long ago the Left recognized that words like Marxism and communism and socialism worked against them in American politics and so they were replaced with liberalism and progressivism. Today, because people are fed up with too much “government spending”, those words have now become “government investment”. That takes the sting away and the ignorant and intellectually lazy think that sounds like something good. Sometimes, however, Obama looks away from his teleprompter or tries to ad lib and his  Marxism shows when his mask slips a little. One example was during the 2008 campaign when he was talking to “Joe the Plumber” and he said we needed to “redistribute the wealth” a little. Republicans have been up Obama on wealth redistribution ever since. So, as Daren Jonescu has observed, Axelrod has given Obama a new term, “shared prosperity”. Jonescu explains the difference:

“Spread  the wealth around” sounded like the casual remark of a tone-deaf authoritarian,  someone used to speaking to rooms full of like-minded leftists.  The  problem lay chiefly in the word “spread”: so impersonal, it gives the impression  that someone — Obama obviously meant government — should just  forcibly disperse the successful citizen’s property to others,  willy-nilly.

Government  will spread your wealth around.  Aside from completely addle-minded,  entitlement-besotted slugs, what American would approve of reconfiguring America  in accordance with such a principle?

Four  years on, Team Obama has refined the message considerably, or at least kept the  spokesman on script.  First of all, the impersonal external force implied  by the word “spread” has been replaced with the modern moral euphemism  “sharing.”  Obama puts it this way:

[…]

So  the stakes are clearly set out: Obama intends to complete his fundamental  transformation — here dubbed a “new vision” — of America, turning a nation  that, at least in theory, defends the right to private property, into one in  which private property is phased out.  But don’t worry — none of this will  be done in a way that ought to offend anyone.  For this isn’t a matter of forcing you to give up your property.  This is about  “sharing.”  In other words, your sacrifice of natural rights is no longer  represented as a compulsion from without.  It is now a moral imperative:  successful Americans ought to be willing to “share.”  That is to say, if  you do not accept this “new vision,” you are morally  culpable.

Better  yet, notice how the new, improved version of the Obama manifesto has set its  sights higher than his earlier, crassly expressed concern for mere  “wealth.”  This time, they are coming for your “prosperity.”  (That  the word “property” is neatly hidden within “prosperity” is just one of  progressivism’s cute little inside jokes — like this year’s emphasis on the  word “forward,” which the brains of this outfit know all too well has a long  communist pedigree.)

So, you se that the Marxist-Communist-Socialist-Liberal-Progressibe wordsmiths are working over time to mislead the sheeple.  When it comes to deception, they are the pros.

When deception isn’t enough, they can always fall back on deceit or as we common folk say, “they lie”. Remember how ObamaCare was not a tax and if you liked the insurance you have, you could keep it? How about when he tells people on the campaign trail that we can’t go back to the policies of the ten years previous to his term that got us into this mess in the first place. Yes, he conveniently forgets to tell the people about Carter’s Affordable Housing Act put on steroids by Clinton and pushed during the Bush years by Democrats like Frank and Waters to lower the lending standards of banks so that people who could not afford a homes could buy them anyways.

No, Obama wants people to believe that Wall Street caused the financial crisis when all they did was take advantage of it, and not always legally. It has been reported numerous times that Obama’s biggest campaign contributors are from Wall Street. How many of these Wall Street crooks has the  Obama administration put on trial and put in jail? Jean-Claude Groulx asks the question “Who really unchained Wall Street?” He has come up with some of those interesting but pesky facts. He compares what Obama and Holder have accomplished with their predecessors Clinton and Bush.

GAI  [Government Accountability Institute] details how the George W. Bush and Bill  Clinton administrations both actually took down financial criminals – unlike the  Obama administration.  Between 2002 and 2008, for instance, GAI points out  how a Bush administration task force “obtained over 1,300 corporate fraud  convictions, including those of over 130 corporate vice presidents and over 200  CEOs and corporate presidents.”

“Clinton’s  DOJ prosecuted over 1,800 S&L (savings and loans) executives, senior  officials, and directors, and over 1,000 of them were sent to jail,” GAI  adds.

But,  despite having “promised more of the same,” especially in the wake of the 2008  financial crisis, the Obama administration’s DOJ has not brought criminal  charges against a single major Wall Street executive.

The  Bush and Clinton administrations’ track records on prosecuting white-collar  crime, and the Obama administration’s failure to do so, Schweizer said, is  “evidence that this has less to do with some sort of partisan or philosophical  issue.”

And the number of convictions were:

Bush  – 1,300 convictions;

Clinton  – 1,000 convictions;

Obama  – Zero attempts.

The author goes on to note that a GAI report shows that  Holder and his upper echelon at the DOJ all use to represent the Kings of Wall Streets before taking jobs in government.

So, the deceit and deception go on and the sheeple…well, they are sheeple. Don’t misunderstabd. The Republicans have been guilty of theor share of deceit and deception, also. But, compared to Obama and the Democrats, the Republicans are amatures.

Well,  that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?