Posted on February 12 by Amy Payne at the "Morning Bell" News Blog of "The Heritage Foundation" was a reference to that night's 5th State of the Union address by President Obama. It referred to Obama's "Bogus State of the Union Promises" over the past four years and how they panned out. It was not a positive, uplifting, or forward-looking report.
The following morning Heritage released a comprehensive "State of the Union 2013: Heritage Experts' Analysis" which took apart Obama's address bit by bit, examining the statements made as to their validity and credibility. As was the norm in past State of the Union addresses, Obama glibly promised the store but delivered little. The full text of Obama's address with video can be found HERE
Two paragraphs into Obama's address disbelief engulfed me, having heard earlier in the night that Obama would introduce new programs (investments) to stimulate the economy and create jobs (A fallacy in itself because government is unable to do either. It can only provide the conditions under which the Free Market System can flourish to grow and establish business ventures with resulting job creation.).
To top it off Obama said, "Nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime."
When does a misstatement knowingly pronounced become a lie? Might it be true that the culture of lying has become so entrenched in American political culture that any deviation is swiftly punished? For example, people who question any part of the theory of man-caused global warming are branded "deniers." End of discussion!
Robert Knight, a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for the Washington Times, sets forth this premise in this article, "The Allure of the lie." As explained by Knight, "Lying often is accomplished with euphemisms. Government spending is 'investment.' Raising taxes is 'revenue reform.' Torture is sanitized as 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' Global warming has morphed into 'climate change.' Gambling is 'gaming.' Defense of religious freedom is a 'war on women'. . ."
According to Knight, "The culture of lies depends heavily on cooked studies, weasel words and a compliant media that parrot them without examination." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/29/the-allure-of-the-lie/
Robert Knight, without question, has captured the present atmosphere in this nation that is rife with lies masquerading as truth. Knight's criteria for lies was more than met in Obama's 5th State of the Union address. Accordingly, it is not out-of-line to refer to Obama misstatements as outright lies, knowing that political correctness has been abandoned so truth can be spoken.
Obama's address covered many topics, but let's consider Obama's take on Global Warming. According to Marc Morano of "Climate Depot" in his February 13 post, "Obama fails climate science in his State of the Union address," the President offered up nothing more than the usual incorrect global warming platitudes. Related was how the president could not have been more wrong in claiming that "extreme weather" was "now more frequent and intense." Obama likewise failed to note that global temperatures have not increased in 16 years.
Morano goes on to present a point-by-point rebuttal of Obama's statements (with links given for verification) to refute that heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods are more frequent and intense than ever before; that Superstorm Sandy was linked to man-made global warming; and that we must act before it is too late to stop storms. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/19683/Obama-fails-climate-science
Obama, like many politicians, evokes children in trying to score points with the public. So it was when Obama said, "But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change."
MIT's Dr Lindzen has this to say about such a falsehood:
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age." http://cnsnews.com/blog/alan-caruba/slow-certain-death-global-warming-theory
What should be upsetting to the American people is this threat made by President Obama: "If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy." http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/282697-obama-vows-executive-climate-push-but-many-specifics-remain-absent
But will President Obama be blamed when the EPA moves ahead with setting standards for new power plant regulations that would effectively be a nail in the coffin for efforts to build new-coal-fired plants, or if he issues other negative energy mandates to circumvent Congress, all under the guise of Global Warming?
This is doubtful because during Obama's second term he was able to steer tens of billions of dollars into green energy projects through the 2009 stimulus law which resulted in Solyndra and other green energy boondoggles and taxpayers were the losers, not Obama. http://thebill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/282697-obama-vows-executive-climate-push-but-many-specifics-remain-absent
Here is the quandary that exists. Like Rush Limbaugh I also watch Frank Luntz's focus group on Hannity of the Fox News Channel. Those in the focus disagreed pretty much with everything Obama said but thought he gave a great speech, even those who had voted for Mitt Romney. They liked how Obama wanted everybody to work together to get along, they liked that he was going to tackle the deficit, they liked how he was going to create jobs, even though they disagreed with how he was going to do it.
The problem Republicans are now facing, if they wish to retain the House in the 2014 elections and some control over Obama's misguided and destructive policies, has nothing to do with re-branding the Republican Party, as incorrectly put forth by Karl Rove and other Republican establishment leaders, but it is how to handle the dichotomy which now exists between Obama's politics and Obama's role in these policies as perceived by the public
As those in Frank Luntz's focus group pointed out, many Americans don't associate the decline of this nation to President Obama. This same absence of blame was not enjoyed by past presidents. This is because President Obama is seen as a crusader who is even now on the trail promoting his State of the Union proposed policies. Because Obama is seldom as governing, he presents an aura of being above it all by pretending to run against his own agenda while at the same time telling the American people that he cares about them.
The Republican Party is facing a challenge for its survival. Is the Republican leadership willing or even astute enough do what is necessary to counter Obama's deceptive mood of operation?