His black skin provides Obama perfect political cover, similar to an impenetrable suit-of-armor, providing the Left with a unique golden opportunity to implement all of their unsellable liberal utopian fantasies. The best interest of the American people even takes a backseat to the Left’s and Obama’s obsession with appeasing our enemies.
Marcus pretends to go back five years to show how “Team Obama (the MSM and Democrats) believes protecting their golden child and his agenda despicably trumps American lives.” In the process, he shows just how committed he himself is to telling blatant lies.
He begins with the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which he says Obama voted against “three” times.
The law would authorize hospital staff to provide medical assistance and try to save the lives of babies who miraculously survive abortions. Before the law, hospital staff was legally forced to simply place the baby into a room until it died. To secure the radical feminist vote, Obama insidiously voted against allowing staff to assist these feisty infant survivors; acceptable collateral damage to furthering his political ambitions.
In fact, as The Washington Post fact checker points out, Obama told the Christian Broadcasting Network in 2008,
I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born — even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.
The claim that Obama denied rights to infant abortion survivors gets four Pinnochios. Yet Marcus blithely repeats it as if it is true. Remember, right wing demagogues don’t have to prove anything they say is true. It just is because they want it to be.
Marcus is also angry Obama’s DOJ did not treat Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev like an enemy combatant. Tsarnaev is an American citizen. He has Miranda rights. These were read to him. Presumably, Marcus would want his on Miranda rights upheld.
Then we come to the Benghazi embassy attack, and Marcus lists all the old lies we’ve heard so often before, attempting to build a case against Obama based on claims that just aren’t true. He says,
In a nut shell, the Administration denied Ambassador Stevens’ desperate pleads for extra security before the attack. Following the attack, the Administration blatantly lied to the American people about the cause of the attack.
But as The Hill reported last year, “Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011.”
Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.
In a nut shell, the Republicans in Congress denied the Obama administrations pleas for embassy security, but Republicans cut embassy security funding. You won’t find Marcus admitting this, however.
And of course, the obligatory jab at Hilary Clinton:
In a cold calculated act of political deceit, Secretary of State at the time Hillary Clinton lied to the parents of the victims while looking them in the eye and shaking their hands. Hillary vowed to punish the guy who made an anti-Muslim video, knowing full well that the attack had nothing to do with a video.
Sadly, the Republicans have succeeding in obfuscating the truth here, even to the extent that FactCheck.org can’t see that a “terrorist attack” is an “act of terror,” claiming on their Benghazi timeline for Sept.12 that, “Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism.'” How the two could be different things is anybody’s guess, but it is widely pretended by the so-called liberal mainstream media that they are.
I suppose, if as George F. Will and others have claimed, nonconsensual rape isn’t really rape, when it is, in fact, the very definition of rape, an act of terror isn’t really a terrorist attack even when it is, in fact, the very definition of a terrorist attack.
Unfortunately for Republicans, their Benghazi hoax has been fully exposed and Fox News is paying the ratings price for repeating the lies.
This is the modern Republican Party for you. So completely immune to facts that even the dictionary and the English language is powerless against it.
In the end, Benghazi is what Republicans do to make themselves feel better about Hilary Clinton.
And no attack on President Obama would be complete without an attack on Obamacare. Marcus claims,
While we have not yet experienced the true horrors of Obamacare once it is fully implemented, Obamacare is wrecking havoc on American lives.
In fact, Obamacare is working, as 17.8 million people enrolled in the coverage provided by the ACA, and the uninsured rate has hit its lowest point since 2008. Far from harming people, as do, for example, Republican lies about Obamacare, the ACA actually helps millions of Americans, including my son, by removing lifetime caps on coverage. Obamacare is so successful, in fact, that even people in the South want it, and some Red States, now that they have it, want to keep it.
All Lloyd Marcus of the “We got nothing” Party offers are more old and oft repeated and just as often refuted old lies, like “As Sarah Palin warned, there will be death panels, rationed care and diminished care.” None of these are true. The only death panel to be found is the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which thinks it has the right to decide Americans can’t have healthcare, even when the ACA is the law of the land.
Marcus claims that “Obama ignored the law which required that he give Congress 30 days notice before transferring detainees out of Guantanamo” but even FactCheck.org can’t prove that’s true, and concludes that “Whether the White House’s interpretation is correct remains a matter of debate in the legal community.”
Marcus ends with a Tea Party paean to racism, saying,
What has emboldened Obama to continuously boldly go where no white president has gone before? The answer, his black skin suit-of-armor. Despite Obama’s multiple crimes and misdemeanors against the American people and the Constitution, serious opposition to the first black president is simply not an option for many in the GOP and MSM.
In other words, black skin is somehow an advantage:
It is plain to see the pattern of behavior of Obama and his minions. They protect Obama and further their agenda at any and all cost while engaging in maximum exploitation of his skin color for perfect political cover. Therefore, because Obama is black, Americans suffer and die.
Marcus may wish he had proven his case against President Obama, but if your premise is false, the argument which follows isn’t worth the ink used – real or virtual – to make it. And Marcus has followed his false premise with a bevy of already disproved lies.
Far from being an indictment of President Obama, Marcus’ column is an indictment of his own intellectual honesty and integrity, and it says far more about the emptiness of the Tea Party’s case against the president than it does about Obama himself.