Smearing The President From Start, Unrelenting, Unfair and Immoral


The Pulse: The smearing of a president: From start, unrelenting, unfair
President Barack Obama answers a question during the third presidential debate at Lynn University, Monday, Oct. 22, 2012, in Boca Raton, Fla. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
AP
President Barack Obama answers a question during the third presidential debate at Lynn University, Monday, Oct. 22, 2012, in Boca Raton, Fla. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Michael Smerconish, Inquirer Columnist

This election has always been a referendum on Barack Obama. For some, not on matters of substance. They can’t have it both ways. It’s hypocritical to distribute a vicious, false narrative about him while fancying yourself a patriot and a great American. Vilify a sitting president of the United States with fiction and innuendo, and you are neither.

I objected when George W. Bush was the subject of undeserved hyperbolic criticism, but the baseless scorn heaped upon President Obama makes Bush’s detractors look diplomatic. The president, the office, and our nation deserve better.

It’s been unrelenting. The day after Obama took office, Rush Limbaugh told Sean Hannity he wanted him to “fail.” Later, Glenn Beck called the president a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred of white people.” Donald Trump’s birtherism took hold while words like socialist were uttered with increased frequency. And a prairie fire of falsehoods spread through the Internet suggesting, among other things, that Obama is a Muslim or refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, paving the way for Dinesh D’Souza’s fictionalized “documentary” 2016, which characterized Obama as fulfilling the anticolonial agenda of his father – a man he literally knew for just one weekend!

Among the usual memes used to undermine the president is the threat of some apocalyptic cataclysm, usually in the form of an assertion of federal power, like the seizing of guns. These predictions demand unthinking acceptance of the notion that the president, like a bizarre Manchurian candidate, is saving his nefarious agenda for a second term that might never arrive. By my count, the website Snopes.com has evaluated and debunked 103 of 124 Internet assertions about Obama.

Just before Hurricane Sandy hit, Ann Coulter called our sitting president a “retard,” Sarah Palin mocked his “shuck and jive shtick,” and John Sununu openly questioned Gen. Colin Powell’s weighty endorsement as being motivated by race. At least earlier in the campaign there was some effort at camouflage. Such as when Mitt Romney aired an anti-Obama welfare commercial that falsely suggested Obama supported handouts (“They just send you your welfare check”) when, in fact, Obama was accommodating requests of several governors, two of them conservative Republicans, to try new ways to put people back to work. A similar sentiment was expressed by Romney when he maligned the 47 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes, overlooking that 83 percent of that group are either working and paying payroll taxes or they’re elderly.

And, almost daily, there have been dire warnings about Obama, often with sirens, from the Drudge Report. Example: the Sept. 18 edition featuring a hideous picture of Obama (eyes closed) emblazoned with the all-capped quote: “I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN REDISTRIBUTION,” a 14-year-old excerpt that conveniently excised the future president’s explicit embrace of “competition” and “marketplace.” No wonder I routinely field calls from radio listeners who, with no hint of embarrassment in their voices, say things such as “I call him ‘comrade’ ” or “he’s not my president.”

Their best evidence? Obamacare – crafted by the same people who wrote Romneycare. Critics ignore that the Affordable Care Act is premised upon personal responsibility and was born in a right-wing think tank. Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning website of the Tampa Bay Times, called the idea that Obamacare represents a “takeover” of the health-care system the 2010 Lie of the Year. And while some have also labeled the president a “socialist” for signing the $831 billion stimulus, no one ever used such language when Bush acted similarly with the $700 billion TARP.

In the final days, the critics have turned to Benghazi, drilling down on the shifting narrative regarding the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, but ignoring that, as the Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 22, “The CIA was consistent from Sept. 13 to Sept. 21 that the attack evolved from a protest.” There’s another problem with the criticism. Romney now gets intelligence briefings, too. Perhaps that’s why he took a pass on this kerfuffle when Libya was the first question at the final debate.

So why the attention on the recent 9/11? Perhaps to deflect attention from Obama avenging the first 9/11. Most disturbing, the president’s critics have sought to diminish that achievement by treating his order as a no-brainer. As a candidate in 2008, Obama was roundly criticized when he said (to me and others) that he would act on intelligence regarding the al-Qaeda leader even if he were in Pakistan. To Bush that was “unsavory.” To John McCain that was “naive.” Hillary Clinton said this was “a mistake.” Joe Biden said Obama “undermined his ability to be tough.” And Romney regarded that pledge as “ill-timed” and “ill-considered.” Imagine the criticism Obama would have faced if the mission had failed.

The reality is that there is much to be admired in the president and his rise to power. Replace Kenya with Poland or Germany, and you’d have observers rightly saying that only in this country could such a career path be possible. He is a loving husband and father who, with the first lady, is ably raising two daughters in the glare of the White House. He is an intellectual heavyweight. And his personal ethics have been above reproach.

Real patriots vote for or against candidates based on substance, not smears.

1 Not-So-Simple, Pretty Funny Question for the 73% of White Evangelicals Who Will Apparently Be Voting for Romney


By Frank Schaeffer

1 Not-So-Simple, Pretty Funny Question for the 73% of White Evangelicals Who Will Apparently Be Voting for Romney
A question that deserves an answer before election day.

According to polls 73 percent of WHITE evangelicals will be voting for Mitt Romney.

If the polls are correct here’s the question I’d like to ask evangelicals using their own style of language/concerns/theological thinking as applied to their choice:

What’s the explanation for the fact that white American Evangelicals made the allegedly philandering lying ignorant braggart lapsed Roman Catholic Dinesh D’Souza their anti-Obama hero, embrace a pro-choice Mormon bishop who promoted abortion and Planned Parenthood in MA, are working to elect a job-destroying tax-avoiding lying flip-flopping-tell-anyone-anything-they-want-to-hear Swiss bank account collecting draft dodger running with a disciple of the God-hating, Jesus-mocking hater-of-the-poor Ayn Rand, for their presidential candidate and look the other way as a crazed ultra-Zionist many Israeli Jews fear billionaire casino owner who is being investigated for allegedly making billions off the dirtiest Chinese gambling Communist Party-controlled outfit in the world funds the enterprise, at the very same time as Franklin Graham sold his ailing father Billy’s soul and denied core evangelical theology by taking Mormonism off the Billy Graham organization’s list of cults in order to help the Mormon pagan-ritual-performing, Trinity-denying, casino-money-grubbing billionaire-coddling, earth-destroying global-warming denying Mormon bishop win respectability for his dead-Jews-baptizing-polygamy-rooted-reality-denying-interplanetary Masonic lodge-embracing faith in an election against an exemplary modest faithful husband good father compassionate smart black evangelical Christian President whose major accomplishments include saving the economy, ending a war, killing our greatest enemy, giving health care to children and the poor and the “least of these” and who has tried to reduce the number of abortions by helping women escape poverty in a reenactment of the lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan?

Go figure.

Further Revelations of Hypocrisy By “Family Values” Manslut Dinesh D’Souza | Pathetic Right Wing Two-Faced Deceiver Dinesh D’Souza


D’Souza Accused Obama of ‘Attacking the Traditional Values Agenda’ Just Before Sex Scandal Revelations
Submitted by Ariella

Last week, conservative pseudo-intellectual Dinesh D’Souza was featured on a conference call for Rick Scarborough’s 40 Days to Save America. D’Souza said Obama is “attacking the traditional values agenda” by supporting marriage equality and abortion rights, arguing that “Obama doesn’t like traditional Christianity because he identifies it with colonialism.” However, D’Souza’s rhetoric about “traditional morality” may be undermined by the fact that at a recent conference he reportedly shared a hotel room with a woman other than his wife, whom he introduced as his fiancée. D’Souza later admitted to getting engaged to his girlfriend even though he is still married, but denies sharing a hotel room with her at the conference.

Why is Obama on the social issues — and I’m thinking here of abortion, I’m thinking here of gay marriage — why is Obama so aggressive in attacking the traditional values agenda? I think the reason for it is because when Obama thinks about colonialism, about the British and the French who went abroad to conquer other countries, or earlier the Spanish and the Portuguese, I come from a part of India that was a Portuguese colony at one time, I think for Obama colonialism is identified not just with the soldiers but also with the missionaries. Remember it’s the missionaries that went alongside the conquerors, the conquistadors, came to the Americas and worked on converting the Indians and later missionaries went to China, India and Japan. So I think this is the problem, Obama doesn’t like traditional Christianity because he identifies it with colonialism. Obama’s own Christianity is more of a Third World liberation theology, a very different kind of Jeremiah Wright type philosophy, summarized in the idea that America is the rogue nation in the world.

Later, D’Souza said that politics are driven by a moral and spiritual divide that only God can change, grateful that we don’t have “an absentee God like Obama’s dad.”

Ultimately there’s a political divide in this country but underneath that is a moral divide, and underneath that is a spiritual divide. I think that the deepest problems facing America and the West in the end are not political, they are spiritual. This is why it makes sense even as we debate policy issues, even as we debate moral issues, to turn to the maker of the universe, this maker of the universe that isn’t just an absentee God like Obama’s dad, a kind of absentee father who got things going and then took off but a God who cares about each one of us and certainly about our country.

Update: In a recent interview with pastor Jack Hibbs, D’Souza reiterated his theory that Obama supports abortion rights and marriage equality because he has a “pathological hatred for traditional Christianity” because it is a symbol of colonialism and that Democrats are eager to discredit his film because if Obama’s worldview is understood, nobody will vote for him:

Update II: The Daily Beast is now reporting that D’Souza has resigned as president of The King’s College, the evangelical school he has led since 2010.

It was not immediately clear whether the board’s decision was driven by the allegations of the affair, or by dissatisfaction with D’Souza’s leadership that had been building at the college for months. At the meeting Thursday, [Chairman of the Board of Trustees Andy] Mills did not discuss the board’s conversation about D’Souza or give reasons for his departure. Representatives for the college did not respond to requests for comment.

According to several sources at the college, members of the King’s faculty and board alike had grown hostile to D’Souza’s presidency over what they saw as a failure to earn his reported million-dollar salary. D’Souza has spent much of the past few months promoting his documentary, 2016: Obama’s America, and his high profile in the media was seen as rarely benefitting the college. It may even have been seen as a detriment: According to a former staffer familiar with the college’s public relations, King’s employees have been explicitly tasked with disentangling D’Souza’s extracurricular activities from the college’s reputation. D’Souza became a non-presence on the college’s official Facebook page throughout 2012, which staffers say was no coincidence.

The Fall of “Family Values” Hypocrite Dinesh D’Souza | Conservatives and Christians Living Their Lies


Jaweed KaleemJaweed.Kaleem
Dinesh D’Souza Resigns As President Of King’s College Amid Scandal
Dinesh D Souza Resigns
Prominent conservative author and Obama critic Dinesh D’Souza has resigned from the from the presidency of The King’s College, an evangelical Christian liberal arts school based in Manhattan, the college’s board of trustees announced Thursday.

The sudden departure comes after days of controversy over accusations of marital infidelity against D’Souza, who reportedly attended a recent event on Christian values with a woman who was not his his wife of 20 years and shared a hotel room with her. (The story of D’Souza’s relationship to a woman, Denise Odie Joseph II, was first reported by WORLD magazine).

Andy Mills, chairman of the college’s board of trustees, made the announcement on Thursday afternoon to students, faculty and staff.

“God has a mighty future for Dinesh, but there are some things he has to go through first,” Mills said, according to the Empire State Tribune, a student newspaper at the college. “I have to admit, I got a bit over-enamored with him,” said Mills, who emphasized to students that much of the college’s funding does not come from D’Souza’s high-profile connections. Mills will take over as interim president, a position he has twice held before.

“After careful consultation with the board and with Dinesh, we have accepted his resignation to allow him to attend to his personal and family needs. We thank him for his service and significant contribution to the College over the last two years,” Mills said in a statement in which he asked for prayer for D’Souza.

The event where the controversy arose happened on Sept. 28 in North Carolina and was called Truth for a New Generation. On Tuesday, D’Souza, who had been president of the college since 2010, said in an interview with the Associated Press that he and his wife, Dixie, were “living in a state of separation for two years” and said he did not share a hotel room with Joseph II, who he said was introduced as his fiancee at the event. ”

“Obviously, I wouldn’t have introduced her as my fiancee if I thought we were doing anything improper,” D’Souza told the AP. He added that they had canceled their engagement. A college spokesman added that Mills had known about the separation for at least two years.

D’Souza’s former positions include being a policy analyst for president Ronald Reagan’s administration. He is best-known for his controversial criticisms of President Barack Obama, such as the film “2016: Obama’s America,” which was based on his earlier book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage. His 2007 book, What’s So Great About Christianity, propelled him into being a sought-after Christian public speaker.

According to The Daily Beast, D’Souza may not have been the most popular president during his term. The news website reported:

…members of the King’s faculty and board alike had grown hostile to D’Souza’s presidency over what they saw as a failure to earn his reported million-dollar salary. D’Souza has spent much of the past few months promoting his documentary, 2016: Obama’s America, and his high profile in the media was seen as rarely benefitting the college. It may even have been seen as a detriment: According to a former staffer familiar with the college’s public relations, King’s employees have been explicitly tasked with disentangling D’Souza’s extracurricular activities from the college’s reputation. D’Souza became a non-presence on the college’s official Facebook page throughout 2012, which staffers say was no coincidence.