Duplicity and the tactic of deniable plausibility . . . . its an Obama speech tactic. Most of us called it "talking out of both sides of one's mouth." Obama thinks it is smart, rhetorical strategy.

Out of the New York Daily News,  we have this duplicitous remark from our resident Word Game King:

  

Obama says, “The vast majority of law enforcement officers are doing a really tough job, and most of them are doing it well and are trying to do the right thing,” Obama said during a one-on-one interview with BET Networks that aired Monday. “But a combination of bad training, in some cases, a combination in some cases of departments that really are not trying to root out biases, or tolerate sloppy police work; a combination in some cases of folks just not knowing any better, and in a lot of cases, subconscious fear of folks who look different — all of this contributes to a national problem that’s going to require a national solution.”

“This country is at its best when everybody is being treated fairly. We have a history and a legacy of people not being treated fairly in all kinds of walks of life  . . . . . . .   

Editor's review:  Before going into my review,  make note of the two phrases highlighted above,  one at the very beginning of our except and the other,  near its ending:  “Vast majority”  does not translate into “a national problem.”  In fact,  it is the very opposite.  If the “vast majority” are doing a good job  (and that is the context ),  then the national circumstance is one of a police force working well within the law and in avoidance of bias driven activity.    

As the headline to this post suggests,  talking out of both sides of the mouth,  is an Obama strategy.  While presenting him as someone who has no core beliefs,  in his mind,  the strategy gives him the ability to say,  "I support the police.  Just look at my speech.  In fact I lead with that opinion."  He can say this while,  at the same time,  denigrating the police forces of our nation,  declaring their bias to be a national problem.  This is called "plausible deniability" and he believes he wins the debate when using this tactic.  

The reader/thinker,  needs to consider the subtle side of this comment.  By that,  I mean to focus on Obama's practiced ability to say one thing,  and mean something almost totally "other."  In the case his concern for the middle class,  he seems to target all minority concerns,  when,  in fact, ethnicity has less to do with his thinking,  as our Resident Revolutionary, than with enthicities who are more at odds with the founding principles of this country [as written into our traditions,  our founding documents,  and the early years debate of our Founding Fathers].  GOP Blacks are "uncle toms" to this man  (Obama).  Jews,  although "Democrat" as a constituency,  are of no concern to Der Slickster.  And, while he may be sympathetic to the unfair treatment of the American Indian,  you do not see him involved in their circumstance,  at all.  The Oriental population is another ethnicity with no place on his docket of daily activity.  

But,  if you hate the early history of this nation,  or our founding principles  (free speech,  state rights,  freedom of religious expression,  liberty and justice for all),  as does Islam and the Sharpton Blacks,    "you're in" with Skinny.    

Seriously,  when was the last time you listened to Obama direct his stooges at the DOJ to go after inequities in the Jewish American community?  Or, the native Indian community,  or any other ethnicity we could name  . . . . . . . .    other than the Muslims and rebellious Black Community?     Please note that most blacks are not "rebellious," btw.  

There is nothing this man says that does not incorporate a two-sided application.  Trust in such a person is impossible.  And speech becomes a weapon used to advance his Marxist driven agenda.  

Point of post?  The man is dangerous because there is always an unspoken alternative "truth" to what he says.  In this case,  he has joined the Louis Farrakhan's of the world,  and is "ginning up" anger with our only line of defense against Chaos.  The cops must be considered the enforcers of the law.  What they say,  we must do.  Can we disagree?  Of course,  but not at the time they give their orders.  More than this,  to bad mouth the police as if they were a national problem,  is to undermine our peaceful society,  and encourages the punks in our world,  to rise up and enforce their version of ,  "no justice,  no peace."  

Al Sharpton has become a leader in our national politic when,  in fact,  he should be in jail and Obama's leadership,  has grown increasingly darker  (as in "joining the dark side").