Obama's partisan 'disinformation' campaign

 Obama weighs in on tech censorship.  Like all dictators, he wants his views to prevail; his "truth" to rule.

Byron York:

In what way? Nearing the end of his speech, Obama gave an extraordinarily telling example of how his plan might work. "It is possible to broaden our perspectives," he said. To illustrate that, he cited a recent study by researchers who paid a group of regular Fox News watchers to watch CNN instead for a month. "These were not swing voters," Obama said. "These were hardcore Hannity-Carlson fans. And what the researchers found was that at the end of the month, people's views on certain issues, like whether voting by mail should be allowed or whether electing Joe Biden would lead to more violence against police — on some of these issues, their views had changed by 5, 8, 10 points. These people didn't suddenly turn into liberals — I'm sure they still don't like me — but at the margins, they had reshaped their perspectives in meaningful ways."

There it is. Perhaps social media companies could do something similar. Perhaps they could play the role of the good guys, CNN, in changing the views of people who watch the bad guys, Fox News. Or, to be more open about it, perhaps they could play the role of Democrats in changing the views of Republicans. And for those who believe that is precisely what social media companies are already trying to do — well, perhaps they could do even more. That is Obama's vision. "Now is the time to pick a side," he said. "We have a choice right now: Do we allow our democracy to wither, or do we make it better? That is the choice we face."

In less than 90 seconds, Obama defended Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to send and receive classified information, downplayed the severity of the Ebola virus, defended the migrant caravan trekking north toward the U.S., and attacked President Donald Trump.

“In 2010, they said Bill and I were setting up death panels to kill your grandma. Remember that? In 2014 they said Ebola is going to kill all of us, shut the borders. In 2016, it was Hillary’s emails. They were all wound up about that. Now in 2018m they’re telling you the existential threat to America is a bunch of poor refugees a thousand miles away. They’re even taking our brave troops away from their families for a political stunt at the border,” he added, with the crowd cheering him on.

Obama, without a whiff of self-awareness, went on to claim Republicans and Trump have been “shamelessly lying.”

This short clip of Obama has it all:

- Mocks Ebola outbreak that killed thousands
- Mocks press for caring about Hillary's e-mails.
- Mocks Trump for cell phone use
- Says "a bunch of poor refugees" not a threat
- Says Trump moving troops to border is "a political stunt"

Wow pic.twitter.com/rn9qqxUUeP

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) November 2, 2018

The Ukraine Was a Test Case of American Foreign Policy Moralism Vs. American Foreign Policy Realism, and Realism Won in a Rout

It's not moral or ethical to encourage people to go to war, that you have their back, and then sit by while they get killed.  Long, but worth reading the whole thing.

America has a limited appetite for war. Americans will go to war, but they do reach a point of exhaustion with war after some number of years.

It is silly to pretend this fact away in order to count oneself as "idealistic." People who ignore reality are not "idealistic;" they're just cowards afraid to face reality.

The fact is that Americans are tired of war and it is dangerous to write checks on America's war-fighting account that it might not be willing to cover.

The fact is that one of America's two main political parties is always willing to be part of a war at the Fun Part of the war -- the declaration of war part, the first-easy-victories part -- but which abandons every war it votes for when it sees any small political advantage in doing so.

Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and many other Democrat Senators voted for the War in Iraq. Within three years, they were screaming that Bush "lied us into war" and that we must withdraw immediately.

It is insane to pretend this away. If you know Democrats will give you initial support for a war they'll happily vote you into, when doing so grants them political advantage, and then savagely turn on that war the moment they get political advantage from that, it is lunacy to even count them as allies in war.

By the way: The NeverTrumpers who sometimes claim "At least Hillary Clinton would have been better on foreign policy?" Yes, of course. The same Hillary Clinton who voted for the War in Iraq to show how tough she would be as a president, and then agitated to abandon troops in the field when she realized that opposing the war would boost her chances of becoming president.

Yeah, we need that kind of patriot as President, rather than the unamerican, immoral Trump.

And this ...

In 2008, Obama campaigned on the idea that he would somehow both withdraw from Iraq and yet also "win" Iraq by withdrawing.

I was incensed by this; it was so obviously, transparently a lie and a dodge. He wasn't planning to "win" anything; he just wanted to bug out. I was angry at the media for never challenging his "Win by Withdrawing" claims and pissed off at Americans for believing this bullshit.

But they voted him into office anyway, and by decent margins. I realized that Americans weren't really tricked by Obama; rather, Obama told them a lie that they knew was a lie but they wanted some "out" to pretend they were honoring the sacrifice of the already-dead while also bugging out of Iraq.

So Obama pretended he would "win" the war in Iraq, and the American public pretended to believe him.

Protesters demanding Obama sign community benefits agreement make voices heard

Getting smart, the residents of Chicago no longer believe Obama's promises.  Want it in writing.

Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans

The Obama administration is anti-science.

It Wasn’t Me: Obama Blames ISIS On Bush, Climate Change and the 2nd Amendment

In his final address to the troops as commander-in-chief, President Obama took the opportunity to cap off his eight-year presidency by blaming President George W. Bush, climate change and the Second Amendment as reasons why ISIS nutballs seem to keep popping out of the ground like daisies. Because, of course, the rise of a radical Islamic terrorist group can’t possibly be the fault of Obama’s failed policies.

Obama took aim at Bush pretty early on in his speech, setting the former president up to take the fall for ISIS even before the group ever existed in its current form.

“And in shaping our response, we refused to repeat some of the mistakes of the 2003 invasion that have helped to give rise to the organization that became ISIL in the first place,” Obama said of his counterattacks against the group, which appear to have worked about as well as pouring napalm on a forest fire.

But lest the never-ending crutch that is the Bush administration fail to serve as an adequate excuse for why crazy Muslims are chopping people’s heads off right and left, Obama also pointed to a changing environment to explain radical terrorism.

“Sectarian conflicts rage. A changing climate is increasing competition for food and water,” Obama declared, basically likening violent zealots to a couple of lions fighting over a watering hole. Really, it’s not their fault.

Aside from a president who hasn’t been in office for nearly a decade and a whole mess of CO2 in the atmosphere, the right of the American people to keep and bear arms also holds some responsibility for why we can’t simply eliminate ISIS.

According to Obama, “We will not achieve the kind of clearly defined victory comparable to those that we won in previous wars against nations. We won’t have a scene of the Emperor of Japan and Douglas MacArthur in a surrender. And the reason we won’t have that is because technology makes it impossible to completely shield impressionable minds from violent ideologies. And somebody who is trying to kill and willing to be killed is dangerous, particularly when we live in a country where it’s very easy for that person to buy a very powerful weapon.”

Yes. Yes, gun rights -- this must be the problem! Because terrorists never think to, you know, attack a bunch of people with a knife.

In fact, just about everything under the sun can and should be blamed for the rise of ISIS other than Obama himself and, of course, the untouchable religion of Islam. Because terrorist groups that commit atrocities in the name of Mohammed and Allah are after all, nothing more than “false prophets [who] are peddling a vision of Islam that is irreconcilable with tolerance and modernity and basic science.”

At least, thus sayeth Obama.

But of course, if none of these excuses satisfy in justifying the past, one can always just point to future failures and make excuses for those, too.

“Now, to say that we’ve made progress is not to say that the job is done,” Obama said in his speech. “We know that a deadly threat persists. We know that in some form this violent extremism will be with us for years to come.”

Basically, it’s not Obama's fault that ISIS exists and that they haven’t been put down like rabid dogs. And don’t expect it to change anytime soon, because...coal plants. Or something.

Obama Blames Libya and Syria on British PM David Cameron

Nothing is ever his fault.

Barack Obama has sharply criticised David Cameron for the UK’s role in allowing Libya to become a “shit show” after the fall of the dictator Muammar Gaddafi, in an unprecedented attack on a British leader by a serving US President.

Mr Obama said that following a successful military intervention to aid rebels during the 2011 Arab Spring revolt, Libya was left to spiral out of control – due largely to the inaction of America’s European allies.

In a candid US magazine interview, Mr Obama said: “When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong… there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.”

His part of the plan went great. Qaddafi was killed. That's when the plan came apart because Barack's problem is that he trusted the Europeans too much.  Don't be surprised if he ends up blaming Benghazi on Cameron.

And then there's his Syrian Red Line. Poor Barack could not make good on his treat because of the British:

Mr Obama also said Mr Cameron’s failures had affected his decision not to enforce a “red line” over President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons during the Syrian civil war. The President had planned a strike against Assad’s forces in August 2013, following a deadly sarin gas attack by the regime on civilians in a Damascus suburb. The strike was called off at the 11th hour. One “major factor” in the decision, the President said, “was the failure of Cameron to obtain the consent of his Parliament” for military action.

The only surprise in this list of blame-shifting is that he didn't blame George Bush.

FLASHBACK: Obama Promises No Vacations For Himself As President [VIDEO]

WHAT A KIDDER!

Glenn Reynolds: THAT ONE HIT THE EXPIRATION DATE IN NOVEMBER OF 2008

This is how he sold himself and this is what his followers bought.