The 16th-century French writer Michel de Montaigne, who is generally credited with inventing the claim “Actions speak louder than words,” when he proclaimed, “Saying is one thing and doing is another.”
While there may be room for debate about the more current claim, there should be no debate that “saying one thing and doing another”. For example: a U.S. President who promises to reduce the national debt but increase the debt by $5 trillion in less than four years should be held accountable for not doing what he said he would.
There is an interesting parable about saying one thing and doing another to which I’ve added a modern day version:
28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ 29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. 30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered.”
The Parable of the Inconsistent President
What do you think? There was a U.S. President, who in January 2009, swore an oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
But later he changed his mind: usurped the constitutional provision the U.S. Supreme Court decides which laws passed by Congress are constitutional and refused to defend the “Defense of Marriage Act” Congress passed. Also, he usurped the power of Congress to enact legislation by issuing an Executive Order instituting the “DREAM Act” that Congress declined to enact.
Did the President knowingly and willingly violate his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”? Or was it because he lacked the ability required by the oath phrase: “and will to the best of my ability”?
Does it make any difference why President Obama refuses to honor his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? Does a President so callously contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution deserve to be re-elected? I say “nay”!
Finally, regarding the two sons, if asked: “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” Obama would answer, the second son; he told his father what the father wanted to hear just as Obama tells voters what they want to hear regardless of facts.
(End of parables)
Previously, I’ve said Obama believes his words speak louder than his actions. If Obama’s words don’t have the desired effect when first spoken, he will: make another speech; hold a press conference or regurgitate his words to selected “journalists” to keep an issue alive until his words are repeated ad nauseam and accepted as fact.
My dictionary defines “canard” as “an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story”. It doesn’t, but should state, “a favorite tactic by Democrats in presidential elections”.
The most recent example: Barack and Joe’s speeches at the Democrat National Convention. The Associated Press checked facts and reported at least eight of their claims during their speeches were not factual or truthful. Did that stop them for repeating the same canards after the convention? No, it didn’t just as fact checkers disproving earlier claims by the President and his minions that Mitt Romney: while at Bain Capital, outsourced jobs to other countries; broke SEC rules; didn’t pay income taxes for several years didn’t stop them from repeating those canards. Could it be that – Democrats are so accustomed to playing fast and loose with facts – they think whatever they say becomes fact and truth by virtue of them having said it?
There may be truth in the answer to that question, especially now that Obama has enlisted the services of a former Democrat President, Bill Clinton, to buttress Barack’s first-term claimed “achievements” and to promise, during a second term, Obama really will do all the things he promised he would do during his first terms but couldn’t because of George W. Bush.
It’s timely to resurrect this observation: “George Washington couldn’t tell a lie; Bill Clinton can’t tell the truth; Barack Obama can’t tell the difference.” The likely reason Barack can’t tell the difference is he, above all Democrats, believes whatever he says is truthful because Obama’s omniscience and omnipotence are beyond question.
Obama’s staunchest allies, in continuing and promoting disproven canards about Romney, are mainstream media, both electronic and print. After Romney correctly accused Obama of apologizing to Muslims as well as to other nations (especially frenemies Russia and Saudi Arabia), mainstream media attacked the messenger disputing both the factual claim while abhorring the timing when U.S. diplomats were being attacked by Muslim mobs to whom Obama had previously apologized. For those who doubt Obama’s apologetic streak, re-visit: his Cairo speech; the “diplomatic reset ceremony” with Russia conducted by Secretary of State Clinton; Obama’s bow to the Saudi King.
Regarding the waves of Muslim mob violence and embassy invasions in Libya and Egypt that began “coincidentally” 09/11/2012 – “The Houston Chronicle”, on 11/23/2011 published my letter responding to columnist Bill King’s 11/17/2011 op-ed item. The “Chronicle” headlined my letter: “Arab Spring skepticism” – “Muslim winter”.
“Bill King’s November 17, 2011 “Arab Spring signals coming Islamic renaissance” left me undecided whether King is overly optimistic or simply oblivious to the potential of the “Arab Spring” to become a “Muslim Winter” when newly liberated nations choose Islamic rulers who impose Sharia law.
Optimism is obvious in signs King recognizes: “recent political revolutions in the Arab world (deposing) three despots and (threatening) several more”; “… Islamic generations coming of age today (have) rejected extremism and violence”; “across the Islamic world, a great gender awakening is taking place”; “women Islamic scholars … are challenging male-oriented interpretations of the Quran”.
King concedes “revolutions can be hijacked by regressive forces”. One such force is the Muslim Brotherhood whose goals include a worldwide Caliphate under Sharia law. Earlier, Hillary Clinton and Obama “reached out to but didn’t endorse MB” as a factor in Egypt and, possibly, other tumultuous Arab countries.
King may be correct about “young people (being) ambivalent toward the West”. However, there remain dedicated, well financed and trained Islamic militants who view the West, especially the U.S., as “the Great Satan” to be defeated by any means possible. We need look no farther than Fort Hood, Texas for two Islamic militants who violated their military oaths — to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign — in favor of Sharia law.”
Make no mistake, militant Muslims and Islamic Jihadists are orchestrating the ongoing uprisings and deplorable assassinations of the Ambassador to Libya and other embassy staff. The “controversial video” is simply a convenient excuse to unleash mob violence on 9/11 to continue as long as Muslims are willing to further display the “peaceful, tolerant” aspects of Islam.
Apologies for and statements deploring the video are seen as U.S. weaknesses by fanatics who respect only power. Mitt Romney has every right; indeed he has an obligation to the nation to spotlight President Obama’s plans to reduce the size and weaponry of U.S. military while negotiating further nuclear disarmament with Russia during his second term when he “has greater flexibility” to further reduce U.S. military power and nuclear superiority.
For a more complete discussion of Obama’s tilt toward Islam and facts about the totality of Islam, you can access on this website Installment Four: “Obama Dividing by Religion” in three parts, each of which provides facts about Islam and Sharia law inside and outside the U.S.
Now, the liberal media want to completely disqualify Romney as a presidential candidate because of the video in which he said: “47 percent of US voters ‘believe they are victims’ entitled to government support and that ‘my job is not to worry about those people’. ‘I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives’.”
It’s interesting that Obama was the one who chose to divide the U.S. electorate into seven groups beholden to him in an attempt to lock in those votes but media attack Romney for responding to Obama’s actions and words. The media are engaged in a vicious game in which they parrot Obama platitudes and promises but seek to limit and discredit Romney’s responses. It’s an overwhelming exhibition of inept, unethical and unprofessional journalism.
I’m halfway through seven articles/installments about those divisions. “Installment Two – Obama Dividing by Economic Status” was posted August 12, 2012. It’s accessible on this website. Please read the entire article that includes questions and challenges for the electorate in this division. Questions included for: (1) welfare recipients, are you capable of rising above your situation and developing a work ethic to replace welfare mentality? (2) households who paid no FIT in 2008, are you now paying your fair share of FIT?
Rather than label Romney unsympathetic to those on the dole, the liberal media should investigate and report about Obama expansion of entitlement programs that now burden the U.S. treasury with: a national debt of $16 trillion, $5 trillion added on Obama’s watch; unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security totaling $120.6 trillion. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Reputable economists recognize the national debt and unfunded liabilities render existing entitlement programs unsustainable, Obama’s solution is NOT to cut entitlement spending but increase taxes on wealthy taxpayers. His logic is unassailable; there are a helluva lot more disadvantaged voters (many who attained their status on Obama’s watch) than wealthy voters.
Another Obama trait: never let facts get in the way of a good story so all he need do is continue telling good stories for liberal media to disseminate and, whenever possible, cudgel Romney with Democrat canards.
A fair and relevant question, has the U.S. fourth estate become a fifth column?