ABC's award winning and retiring reporter, Ann Compton, telling C-Span, Obama "gets what he deserves" when it comes to news coverage.

You will want to read the full story at News Busters, here,   because,  for certain,  you will not find this story anywhere else,  not even at ABC. 

We discuss the "why" to H Obama's preposterous lies told in the Australian presser, on Saturday.

Editor's notes:  In a story carried by World Net Daily, here,  and posted on the Left leaning news portal,  Memeorandum,  we have the charge of "sociopathic" leveled against H Obama by Rush.  Most would expect Rush Limbaugh to say such things about Obama.  My question is this:  is "sociopathic" just name calling on the part of the iconic radio host,  or is there reality to the label?  

Personally,  I do not believe "sociopathic" is the word best describing what we are watching in the life of H Obama.  That word has this definition:  

1. a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Lack of conscious?  Yes.  Antisocial?  Maybe.  

Speaking as a family counselor, I believe the word that catches Obama's reality is "pathological" as in "pathological liar."  


Understand what a pathological liar is. Basically, a pathological liar is someone who tells lies habitually, chronically and compulsively. It has simply become a way of life for this person, to make up things for a variety of reasons and eventually, the truth becomes uncomfortable while weaving whoppers feels right to them. This kind of lying tends to develop early on in life, often as a response to difficult home or school situations that seemed to resolve better if the child lied. It's a bad habit, not a manipulative trait––this is how to differentiate a pathological liar from a sociopath who does seek to manipulate.  (Source:  http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Pathological-Liar)

Obama,  at a presser on Saturday,  in Australia,  lied his backside off,  something he does on a more-than-regular basis,  and he does so for no good reason.  Read the account,  below,  and think about Obama's response.  Does anyone believe that he was totally in the dark about the Gruber story?  I mean,  it has been the lede story for a week or more.  During the same period of time,  Obama's Fallup rating has reached a new low of 37% approval  . . . .  in part because of the Gruber revelations.  So,  why this obvious lie?  It is Obama's way of saying,  "This story is unimportant to me,"  so he wants us to believe that he is not even following the story.  But that was not the only lie.  He followed this up with pretending that Gruber was unknown to Obama.  The man was not a part of the Obama staff,  or so Obama claims.  H Obama's point?  He wants us to believe that this is all news to him,  that Professor Gruber was not even a part of Obama's staff.  Problem:  staff or not,  Gruber visited the WH 19 times, that we can prove,  and sat in a planning session with three other financial advisers and Obama.  We have H Obama,  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid,  on video,  touting the expertise of Dr. Gruber, by name and proudly so.  

In the same presser,  H Obama goes on to argue that the ObamaCare process was open and honest,  fully transparent in spite of the fact that no one read the bill before its passage.  In fact,  only 2700 pages of this bill was voted on.  Since its passage,  another 20,000 have been added to the text of this bill.  So,  of course,  there was no transparency.  Again,  the damn thing was even written at the time of its signing.  

So why the lies?  Well, if "pathological" applies,  lying is a learned trait,  a default response used to end the debate.  And,  it works for Obama.  Who stands up and challenge him beyond the "first question?"  No one.  With the lie,  Obama silences those who do not have the courage and/or the facts at hand,  to pursue the discussion.
____________________

From WND:  President Barack Obama was scorched Monday as a “sociopathic” liar and “lying con man” by radio host Rush for denying he misled the American public to get his signature health-care plan known as Obamacare passed.

During a news conference in Brisbane, Australia, Obama was asked by reporter Ed Henry of Fox News: “At your Burma townhall a couple of days ago, you tried to inspire young leaders by saying, ‘governments need to be held accountable, need to be responsive to the people.’ I wonder how you square that with your former adviser, Jonathan Gruber claiming you were not transparent about the health law because in his words the American people, the voters are stupid. Did you mislead Americans about the taxes, about keeping your plan in order to get the bill passed?”

“No, I did not,” Obama responded. “I just heard about this. I get well-briefed before I come out here. The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/limbaugh-unloads-obama-is-a-sociopathic-liar/#TbJK0ayIIDoEEZcR.99

Stephen Hayes writing in the Weekly Standard, pins a comprehensive summary of the failed administration of Barack Obama.

Below is the ending of a Stephen Hayes' article.  I am saving it as a trophy,  to be passed on to my grandchildren.  This man's failure is a monument to the Progressive/Utopian Movement,  an unAmerican effort to destroy historic "America" from within.  It is comprised of those who despise our history and resent the fact of our national success.  This article is a "trophy" in that it is actually a testament to the relentless effort of the Conservative Nation.  Hail to this great nation and the inevitable return to the principles and values commissioned by our Founders.  You will want to take time to read this excellent,  excellent, article.  Click "here" and begin at the beginning ~ editor.  

(From the Weekly Standard):  The disapproval of Obama is widespread. A New York Times/CBS/YouGov poll released on October 9 found that Obama’s disapproval ratings are higher than his approval ratings in 43 of 50 states. Obama’s approval rating is above 50 percent in only three states.

Here, then, is the great irony of the Obama presidency: Barack Obama will be a transformative president, but not in the way he imagined when he spoke to the Reno Gazette-Journal a year before he took the oath of office. Rather than restore faith in government, the Obama presidency has all but destroyed it. 

Despite himself, Obama has made the case for limited government more powerfully than his opponents. The biggest question in American politics over the next two years is a simple one: Can Republicans take advantage of it?

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

When will Blacks understand that they are only being used by the Democrat Party to win elections?

73 share

40 is our goal

for reader participation

Tim Mak / The Daily Beast:

Democrats Pay Black Staffers 30% Less  —  Campaign staffers who are people of color routinely get paid less than their white counterparts, and are often given less glamorous jobs.  How an antiquated understanding of race relations results in minority staffers getting the short shrift.

Editor's notes:  They are further down the wage scale than before Obama.  They are less employed than before Obama.  They are less honored within the Democrat Party than before Obama.  Because of Obama's opposition to charter schools and parental choice, black youth have fewer educational choices and remain less successful,  educationally.  The current immigration crisis takes jobs away from Blacks,  more so than any other ethic group.  And,  all this,  the result of policies of the First Black President,  a man who surrounds himself with black staff.  There is no greater irony in American politics,  today,  than the First Black President governing with help of members of the black community,  and, yet, a leader who has done next to nothing for his ethnic constituency.  

The one existential issue that is most consistent in the life of B Hussein Obama, is his remarkable duplicity.  He accepts credit but never blame,  charging Bush, for example,  for the economy and Iraq when things are going poorly but claiming credit when the news is good.     

He prefers a lie to truth,  yet,  exemplifies little ability to manage his lies,  seldom looking at the long term results.  ObamaCare is the perfect example of this last point.  Never once,  during 2009 - 2012,  did this man tell the truth about his only major piece of legislation   . . . . .     not once.     I say "prefers,"  because I believe turning to the lie is a pathological circumstance in his life,  a man who used the lie to win friends and influence people;  raised without a father,  by a mother who had no sense of direction in her life.  hence,  her atheism.  "The lie" worked for him over the years.  He appears to be the king of the hill in high school,  dating and running with the beautiful people,  the whites,  until he entered college.  Once there,  he realized that color and ability to talk,  when combined,  served purposes that extended his influence and power, and,  so,  he became "black."  Unfortunately,  he learned his "blackness" from the rebel crowd typified by Jeremiah Wright.  Over the years,  he became an angry black man,  while having had nothing to do with the black issues of the civil rights movement,  or the meanness of the Southern Democrat hatred for blacks.  His anger,  today,  is the result of an academic bias to the white man and the cultural/plantation circumstance that was taught him.    

At any rate,  implicit promises of "hope and change,"  solely based upon the color of his skin,  drove blacks to him to the point of writing songs of worship,  song to tunes once dedicated to Jesus.  And, now,  at the end of his political life as an American politician (he may continue on the world scene if he pays homage to the power brokers at that level,  as he has done,  domestically),  disillusionment within his own ethnic community is becoming more and more of a reality.   He has no time left,  in 2014, to get anything of merit done,  and only 2015 before national politics,  without him,  becomes the dominate news of the day.  For the first time in his adult life,  he is faced with personal failure,  and has no idea how to handle the matter.  He has failed and cannot solve the problem with "bullshit,"  and he is lost.  

He came into power,  thinking his election and the related super-majorities in Congress would be enough to complete his dream without the cooperation of anyone else.  As it turns out,  he was defeated in this effort,  by ambitious members of his own party,  not the least of which were Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  The confusion and ineptitude we so often attribute to Obama,  is as much a fault of his party's leadership,  as it is an indictment on his person.   His refusal to prioritize Black domestic needs at any level,  is one of his poorest presidential monuments.  As a result,  we have the above headline.  

Obama, who once bragged, "America is not a Christian nation," has run-away approval with American Muslims, the convoluted Jewish lobby, non--Christian and atheist populations . . . . you know, those who think our Founders were traitors to the Utopian Dream.

29 share - strong interest

c

Why is Obama talking to Mexico about immigration problems? The answer may surprise you.

19 share

Summary statement:  We now know that Obama cannot do what he wants to do with executive orders,  his threats to aside.   

 Question

Let’s start with immigrant fact #1:  the young people crossing the border,  today,  do not qualify to remain in the US under Obama’s Dream Act,  having the force of law via an executive order.  That order was time-stamped to end in late 2011.

Fact #2 : Nor, do they qualify for “deferred deportation” under the same executive order.   

As a result of these facts,  we have this news item coming out of the Washington Examiner: 

President Obama told his Mexican counterpart in a phone call Thursday that immigrants crossing into the U.S. illegally won’t qualify for legalized status or deferred deportation, including children.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/19/obama-tells-mexico-illegal-immigrant-children-wont/#ixzz35B5sz700 

Why this change of direction?  How is it that Obama’s threat to use his pen and phone to circumvent congress,  not the solution to the current problem?  Why aren’t these young people covered under his executive ordered “Dream Act?” 

Why did Obama’s executive ordering,  fail in this case? 

Answer

While I do not know all of the ins and outs of executive orders and their use,  I believe the “time-stamp” (as I call it) was used by Obama to escape the complaint that he was legislating new law.  With a start/stop date,  Obama can argue that his was not legislating,  that his order only offered a temporary solution to a problem that was critically needed in terms immediacy and scope. 

Too date,  as a conservative editor who,  admittedly,  opposes H Obama’s Marxist/collectivist policies (not all of his policies are “collectivist,” btw),  I have found very little evidence that Obama has or can “legislate” a law that is comprehensive and permanent.  If for no other reason,  he cannot create cash flow for such legislation outside of the monies already allocated for other federal programs and agencies.   In other words,  he can only steal from Peter to pay Paul;  he cannot steal from the federal reserve to pay Paul. 

Think about it:  he has been threatening the legislative use of executive order,  since the second year of his presidency,  but with nothing to show for this threat.  Why the failure?  Because he does not have such power  -  he does not legislate because he cannot legislate. 

We should not dismiss the fact that he wants to use his presidential powers in a dictatorial way.  He wants to rule the nation,  not serve as its president in the traditional and accepted sense.  But he wants what he cannot have,  and in his effort to rule,  he has caused the Democrat Party serious – if not irreparable – harm.  

While his conversation with the Mexican president may demonstrate a change in direction,  the probability is far greater that we are looking at more “smoke and mirrors,”  from this rogue president.  In his time in the spot-light,  he has shown no tendency to back off he personal agenda for the country  -  whatever that might include. 

What is safe to say,  at this point,  is that the children will continue to come to this country,  that his open-borders policies as to enforcement and amnesty will continue,  as well.  Understand that Obama has shown no concern for the survival of Establishment Democrats.  We make a huge mistake in thinking that his angst is limited to the GOP or the Tea Party types.  His willingness to prosecute even those in the Compliant Media who seem to be modestly critical, on occasion,  is added evidence that his personal agenda is more important than his party-politic.  He is not a Democrat.  He is a revolutionary. 

As you stand in the shadow of his past deeds, and, actually listen to his agenda as defined by his wife (immediately below),  you will know of his anarchist/revolutionary commitment to a degree that is undeniable: 

 May of 2008:   MICHELLE OBAMA, speaking Puerto Rico: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."

Seriously,  who but a rogue revolutionary talks this way?  You simply cannot find a similar presidential “mission statement” written into our national history.  He is the first,  and, we hope,  the last.  It is a mistake to roll Hillary into the mind set.  While she is more one world than we would care for,  she is not of the revolutionary mindset of the Obamas.  But I will not argue this point,  here.    

Back to our theme:  What flies in the face of Obama’s “anarchistic to new order strategy,”   is the two term limit to his presidency.  I do not believe he has the time to tear down traditional America and reconstitute this nation to his liking. 

I believe that – if he had in mind,  a national popularity rating that would give me more time – that possibility  (more time as president by whatever means) is gone. 

In the end,  his chief accomplishment will be the confusion and structural mess he leaves in his wake.