February 3, 2014

In case you missed it

… and honestly, why the hell wouldn’t you have, Bill O’Reilly — whose politics are to “conservatism” as FOX News is to TEA Party boosterism — did his yearly big “get” interview with Obama the Boy King, and when asked by O’Reilly about the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the President responded in a way that we’ve become accustomed to, as RSM notes:  it didn’t happen, and the debate on the issue is therefore over.

The government investigated itself, found itself not guilty, is outraged that anyone would even notice such a pattern, much less reveal it, and has declared any further investigation essentially off limits, while treating any new broaching of the subject as a kind of paranoid distraction, part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary will soon be forced to deal with as she sneaks into the Presidency.

Obama has taken the same tack with respect to global climate weather change warmingcooling:  he has declared the science settled, and will now act unilaterally where “Congress” won’t to save the world from all the hideous masses infesting it.  Too, he has dismissed the idea publicly voiced by Senator Ted Cruz that he is governing as an Imperial President as “not serious,” even as he has spent the last several weeks telling us that he has every right — and every intention — of governing as an Imperial President.

But reality is no longer an independent entity that exists as things are outside of the rhetorical frames set up by leftists to create it.  So all Obama need do to change reality is declare reality changed.  And voila!  The debate is over, and the left’s position is enshrined as unassailable, permanent fact.

And the GOP seems to accept this formulation, because they too believe the American people too stupid to see beyond masquerades and contrived rhetorical framing devices; and also because they don’t much mind the building up of centralized federal power.  Why would they?  Even out of power, they’re growing rich off of it — and part of their wealth comes from playing the role of the party that fights the very power they gleefully and consistently accede to.

But I’ll shut up now. I hear my position has been making a bit of headway with some of our opinion-driving betters, and I don’t want to risk alienating them by saying something indelicately yet again.  These types tend to be very fickle and not a little vindictive, in my experience.

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:37am
10 comments | Trackback

Comments (10)

  1. Gotta give a nod of the head to the prestidigitator’s equivocation inherent in the “not serious” charge of an overreaching executive and the “not serious” effect of an actual overreaching executive: on the one hand, a claim [i.e., lie] to the effect “it’s not happening” [i.e., who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or my lying mouth?], and on the other hand, a claim that tyranny is an unserious “not big deal”. But then, in a nation of slaves, what, really, is the difference?

  2. Tyranny is never a big deal for the tyrant.

  3. I don’t know why Obama does not just go all out and deny that there is even a city called Benghazi in some mythical country called “Libya” . Fox just made it all up.

  4. Communism good, capitalism bad, comrade.

  5. If I’m not mistaken, that Salon piece is by the same “Communism Rocks!” imbecile that wrote that Rolling Stone “5 Demands for Youth” article a few weeks back. (You know, “free govt. healthcare and education, guaranteed jobs-for-life*, an end to personal property…”)

    —-
    * Which sounds more like a prison sentence than a laudable goal, to me.

  6. I sent the Salon article to my friend, who lived the first 15 years of his life in (iron curtain era) Bucharest. I’m sure he has many misconceptions about communism, the sort that could be cleared up by a douchey young American leftist.

    I glossed over it quickly, so as to avoid contamination from the stupid. But I saw him ‘debunking’ the “110M killed by Communists” thing by pointing out that most of the people Stalin killed were fellow communists, not the Kulaks. I suppose those don’t count.

    Which is good to know, so that when the Ayers disciple in the WH decides its time to follow through and kill off those 25M Americans to usher in the Brave New World, he’ll only be killing Americans and it presumably “won’t count” either!

  7. In case you did miss it (at the theaters), and could possibly again now: Zero Dark Thirty makes a cable-tv network debut at 8:00pm tonight on Encore.

  8. I had one them, whatchyacallits, insight, the other day while deep within comments to an article on immigration, the flash started with a question that answered itself: who is he talking to? In that case Boehner, or however he spells it, and this case Obama, and they are both talking to somebody else and we are listening in.

    Boehner was talking indirectly to his contributors who want cheap labor (I keep hearing this but I never met one that said that personally, they write things about needing tech people and more PHDs but that is suspect) And Boehner must do the kabuki for them to show them the tidal wave of resistance, to point to the thousands of comments against it. I honestly felt that while reading thousands of comments, they are part of the show. Pile on.

    I’m very good at this e.s.p. intuition thing sometimes, no really, I’m right like half the time.

    And Obama is talking to somebody else. O’Reilly is talking to himself, apparently. At this point both are like the massive Hollywood egoists, oddly terribly delicate, that celebrate their own being, would blow themselves right there, or each other if it got to that, I meant to say just now both must hear their own names constantly, like my sheepdogs that would always stay close as can be and always need your hand to be ON them, if only touching their ear.

  9. Bill O’Reilly is a self-promoting hack.

    And Duh!1 is vermin. At best.

    Enough said….

  10. Richard Fernandez singing Jeff’s song:

    [M]aybe the problem with the modern world is that we’ve become too reliant on words; too dependent on spin. We’ve defined war, al-Qaeda and even unemployment out of existence. And we’ve redefined UKIP and Japan into modern day Hitlers. Therefore the problem is solved.

    Is it really? The description formerly applied to those who had lost contact with reality was “mad”. Who was it that said “whom the gods wish to destroy they first put on funemployment?”

Leave a Reply