Tag Archives: Orwell

Coulter Bass Ackwards on Elections

Ann Coulter has uttered absurdities which would make even Homer Simpson blush.

Coulter = Homer Simpson

Coulter’s lies about caucuses and opened and closed primaries are easy to refute with a little logic and a few facts. Same with her lies about “voter-less” and “stolen” elections.

Erstwhile law-and-order zealot and federalism advocate suddenly hates both the rule of law and federalism. Why? Because they are thwarting Trump’s efforts to win the GOP nomination.

Suddenly, Coulter sees nonexistent “voter-less elections” and “stolen elections” where none exist. Moreover, she regards primaries as infinitely superior to caucuses and conventions, which she claims are somehow illegitimate. Coulter disparages the freedom that each state has under the Constitution to hold elections and select its delegates.

Coulter is more of a fraud[1] than Donald Trump.[2] To salvage Trump’s quest for the GOP nomination, Coulter engages in full-blown Orwellian propaganda.[3] Her column last week blasted Ted Cruz for following the rules and winning delegates[4]legally and ethically!

In that column[5] (and subsequent Facebook postings), makes Homer Simpson-blushing assertions which are utterly absurd and eminently disprovable.

“Voter-less elections” are not voter-less. Coulter claims that “state Republican parties disregard the voters and give all their delegates to Cruz,” except, the voters in those states elected the delegates. She alleges “procedural loopholes” and charges “corrupt backroom maneuvering” by “tiny groups of insiders.”

The facts are otherwise. Election laws in many of these states are similar to when the Party of Lincoln and Reagan was founded. Each state determines how it will hold elections: (open or closed) primary, caucus, convention. All eligible voters can be part of the process to support or become delegates.

Coulter defends Trump’s ineptitude by claiming, “Trump keeps winning elections, and Cruz keeps winning sneaky procedural victories.” Except, Trump also keeps losing elections and Cruz’s “procedural victories” are neither sneaky nor illegal.

Coulter claims that only primaries are “elections,” and that caucuses are somehow fraudulent.

A caucus is an election. People vote. Everyone who is an eligible voter is able to vote. Not without irony, Coulter favors poll taxes and literacy tests for voting, so, Coulter should prefer caucus voters, who tend to be more informed and more engaged voters.

Nevertheless, Coulter claims: “General election is winner take all; General election is NOT a little meeting of party insiders.”

Repeating a lie does not make it true. Caucuses and conventions are not little meetings of party insiders.

Coulter also asserts, “Caucuses & conventions are not ELECTIONS.”

Except, caucuses and conventions are elections! People vote. People vote.

According to Coulter, “GOP has to beat Hillary in an ELECTION, not a little meeting. Trump keeps winning all the ELECTIONS; Cruz wins little meetings. Who cares if those were the rules??? That’s not how to pick a winner!”

Each state, in its own way, selects its preferred candidate. That’s the way it has always been. The nomination is not being stolen from Trump. Rather, Trump is failing to win it.

Confronted with the reality that over 1.3 million people voted in UT, ND, WI, CO & WY and Trump lost all five, Coulter posted: “Only one of those, WI, was what we call an ‘election.’ Does Cruz think he beats Hillary by winning over GOP insiders?”

All were elections. “GOP insiders” did not steal those elections. Cruz won because more people voted for him.

Coulter hates the results so she fudges the facts.

Let’s remember: More Republicans have voted against Trump than for him.[6]

Remember, Trump did better in open primaries (where Democrats – who will vote Democrat in November – voted for Trump) and worse in closed primaries (where liberal spoilers were foiled).

Remember, a larger percentage of early-voters, than late-voters, voted for Trump. The more the electorate learns about Trump the less it likes him.

Donald Trump, Coulter’s current Savior,[7] is a Clintonesque RINO posing as a conservative populist. A Trump nomination would ensure a Democrat victory in this election.[8]

Update: In her April 20th column, Coulter reprised her absurd election-stealing charges, distinguishing between “elections, not party-rigged conferences or caucuses.” The truth evades those who dwell in lies.


[1]               See “No Better Than Trump!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dW.

[2]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[3]               See “Coulter’s Orwellian Opus” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-e0.

[4]               See “Coulter Hates ‘THE RULES’ That Thwart Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-e6.

[5]               Ann Coulter, “Ted Cruz: Tracy Flick With a D*CK,” 4/13/16.

[6]               See “Only Trump Can Lose!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dA.

[7]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[8]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

Propaganda Kills

Orwell’s Big Brother would be proud!

Anarchy has been termed democracy in action. Rioting, looting, and arson have been termed components of free speech. And murder has now been called justice.

Yesterday, two innocent New York City police officers were assassinated by a racist thug who is himself a victim of propaganda. The officer were not “executed” – execution implies they were tried and convicted of a crime.


On Fox & Friends this morning, former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani said it is “shameful” that politicians are using propaganda to separate the community from the police.

former NYPD commissioner Bernie Kerik blames the race hustlers, claiming that they “have blood on their hands.”

Indeed, they do.

Remember, the meme of “hands up, don’t shoot” is a racial myth! It never happened. yet it has been used to justify all manner of injustice and to foment racial division.

The racist cop myth is being used to disguise the real causes of legitimate grievances within the black community: fifty years of failed liberal policies.

NYC Mayor de Blasio’s policies have allowed protests to turn into anarchy as “protestors” call for the death of cops. The “protestors” got their wish.

Fox News contributor Peter Johnson actually equated police officers turning their backs on de Blasio with the step-father of Michael Brown calling for Ferguson to be burned to the ground. Johnson said that both were “emotional responses” to their respective situations.

Wrong answer. One was a peaceful show of disagreement with the mayor, the other an out-of-control call for mob violence.

“Dead cops!” Apparently only “black lives matter.” Cops of any color do not. And those who contend that all lives matter are condemned, shouted down, attacked, and killed.

Nevertheless, with anarchists in the streets and violence overtaking America, President Obama contends that we are in the midst of a “healthy conversation” about race.


Every single investigation into the Ferguson shooting – including the exhaustive federal Justice Department investigation – exonerated Officer Wilson and determined that the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot narrative was a lie.

Even though this false racial narrative – this myth – has been proven false, many media, political, and cultural elites continue to promote this false narrative and attack those who expose it as a fraud.

That false racial narrative plays into the fears of those who are race-obsessed or who have been indoctrinated into believing racial stereotypes, which is ironic given they accuse others of racism.

Obama Targets Israel

Is Barack Hussein Obama “the first Jewish president” as some contend?

A lengthy feature in New York Magazine quoted White House counsel Abner Mikva, who claimed in 2008, “When this all is over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.”

The columnist concluded, “’The first Jewish president?’ Maybe not. But certainly a president every bit as pro-Israel as the country’s own prime minister – and, if you look from the proper angle, maybe even more so.”


If President Obama is so pro-Israel then why is he so anti-Israel?

Obama Anti-Israel

Author and columnist Ken Blackwell disagrees. In the wake of Obama’s Jakarta trip, Blackwell wrote:

“With his remarks in Jakarta, Indonesia, President Obama made history once again. Sadly, it’s a most unenviable title. I believe he is the most anti-Israel President in U.S. history.”

“He used his Jakarta platform to complain about Israel building apartments for her growing population. Where? In Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.”

“To make matters even worse, Jakarta is a city no Israeli is allowed to enter! The symbolism of saying what he said in the country and city where he said it is simply atrocious.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R – MN) concurs, calling the “first anti-Israel president in American history.”

Bachmann recognizes the flawed nature of Obama’s worldview, explaining, “In their fantasy world, a smaller, diminished, less powerful United States is somehow supposed to bring about global tranquility.” Mocking Obama, she said. “Well Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, we want our 1980s foreign policies back. Peace through strength!”

For Obama, America is the problem. For Obama, Israel is the problem.

An Obama acolyte recently reversed reality, using an Orwellian formulation, to assert that “to be pro-Israel is to be in favor of liberating the country from its occupation of Palestinians.”

To be against Israel is to be for Israel reminds me of the infamous claim “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

Proposed Sanctions Against Israel

Now Obama is considering sanctions on Israel.

Weekly Standard investigative reporter Steve Hayes finds it remarkable that the White House is “refusing to deny that the United States is considering sanctioning one of its closest allies facing an existential threat, daily threats, from Iran but you have the White House on Capitol Hill lobbying now against any additional sanctions [against Iran] because it’s going to blow up those negotiations that constitute the threat Israel is facing. The levels of idiocy on this I think are befuddling.”[1]

As JihadWatch notes, “While he hands Iran approval for its nuclear program on a silver platter, Obama is apparently considering sanctions against Israel. He turns allies into enemies and enemies into allies – the latter in his eyes only, not theirs.”

Obama – Netanyahu Rivalry

President Obama has had a stormy and icy relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu throughout his presidency. As CNN notes, they have squabbled “over peace talks, wars in Lebanon and Gaza, settlements and Israeli military action in places like Iraq and Syria.”

CNN concludes:

“For Obama, the Iranian nuclear challenge is another crisis to be managed, and a test case of his doctrine that the United States should be prepared to talk to its enemies. But people familiar with Netanyahu’s worldview say he believes history has handed him the role of delivering the Jewish state from an existential threat posed by Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.”

But there’s far more to it than that. There are distinct ideological and (dare I say it) theological differences between these two heads of state.

Obama is Pathologically Pro-Islam

Is Obama really pro-Israel? The first Jewish president? Hardly.

Obama has Muslim roots and Muslim sympathies. Throughout his political career, Obama has defended and extoled Islam at every turn, while expressing either disdain or hostility toward Christianity and Judaism.

Obama finds a strange moral equivalency between Israelis conducting defensive strikes and Palestinians engaging in terrorism. Strikingly, Obama always sides with the Palestinians and actually blames Israelis for the deaths of civilians used as human shields by Palestinians.

Throughout his presidency, Obama has insisted on a Middle East peace process but taken the side of the Palestinians, insisting that Israel stop its settlement program – as a precondition to those very peace talks. Obama also favors a suicidal return to pre-1967 borders.

Despite the fact that the Palestinians have consistently broken its cease-fire agreements with Israel, Obama blames Israel.

Obama opposes Israel in large measure because of his Muslim roots and because Israel is an American ally who shares American values.

Americans have supported Israel since its birth in 1948. Obama – hailed the first Jewish president – has broken with that long tradition and is risking both the demise of Israel and civilization as we know it.


Obama’s America – Fundamentally Flawed” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1h.

Obama’s Muslim Roots and Sympathies” at http://t.co/3FIt1xmLqV.

Complete timeline of Obama’s anti-Israel hatred at http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/20/a-complete-timeline-of-obamas-anti-israel-hatred/.


[1]               Steve Hayes, Special Report, FNC, 12/5/14.

Obamacare’s Orwellian Birth and Inevitable Collapse

Obamacare was born in ideological sin and is destined to die a catastrophic failure just as every socialist endeavor deserves to experience.

Orwellian constructs were crucial to foist Obamacare on the American people.


In retrospect, the truth is obvious. But, in his legendary dystopia, 1984, Orwell described a system of propaganda techniques which work to serve the purposes of Big Brother, the ruler of a totalitarian, centralized, bureaucratic big government controlling every facet of the lives of its subjects.

From the beginning, the Obama administration promulgated a series of Big Lies: if you like your insurance/plan/doctor/hospital/etc., you can keep your insurance/plan/doctor/hospital/etc.


Newspeak ruled the debate. Is a penalty a tax? Can the government require its citizens to buy a product – Obamacare – that it does not want? How are individual and employer mandates operative in a free society?

Doublethink was essential to get people to believe the impossible: that millions of more people could enter the system and receive better care at a lower cost despite adding layer upon layer of additional bureaucracy.


Gone down the memory hole, the debacle that was Hillarycare in the 1990s. Also dispatched to oblivion, the high quality of American health care and the poorer quality, higher cost, and rationing of socialized healthcare in other nations. Further, the abject failures of centralized planning and socialized governments worldwide wherever implemented were either forgotten and ignored.


But – as this system invented and implemented by elite central planners who glibly and arrogantly think that they know better than American citizens how those citizens should live their own lives – now, that Americans are experiencing the effects of Obamacare, they don’t like it.



Alyene Senger, “Ten Broken Obamacare Promises,” Heritage Foundation, 12/18/13, at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/10-broken-obamacare-promises.

John Hayward, “Grubermania continues: it’s awesome how Ted Kennedy ripped you off, isn’t it?” Human Events, 11/14/14, at http://humanevents.com/2014/11/14/grubermania-continues-its-awesome-how-ted-kennedy-ripped-you-off-isnt-it/.

Orwell: Ebola, ISIS, and Immigration

The Obama administration inhabits an Orwellian world in which the concepts of the dystopian novel 1984 thrive.

Words, under Obama, take on a reversal of meaning. Often to deadly effect.

The most transparent administration in American history cannot even admit to a smidgeon of corruption.

Remember “War is Peace?” Obama claimed to have ushered in a new era of global tranquility.[1] Now we have “Weakness is Strength[2] and “Poverty is Prosperity.”[3]

Truth itself has become malleable, like a ball of wax, in the hands of this administration. They cater to a generation raised on moral relativism, subjective truth, and historical revisionism.

But this Orwellian Newspeak is lethal!


Ebola, ISIS, and unfettered immigration are literally on our doorstep – and Newspeak prevents us from defending ourselves.


The President, his administration, and leading Democrats have repeatedly lied, claiming, “The border is secure.” The crisis of unaccompanied minors and adults from Mexico this summer belies those claims. But using their false claims for justification, the Left refuses to build a fence – the most obvious solution to the unbridled influx of illegal aliens.


According to Obama, “We’re leaving behind a stable and self-reliant Iraq.”[4] But Obama withdrew all of our troops, creating a vacuum into which ISIS plunged. By not preserving the integrity of the Iraqi border with the presence of American troops, the ISIS crisis was created. Thanks in large measure to Obama, the world is in flames (even as his people proclaim global peace).


America was Ebola-free, and, just weeks ago, Obama promised that it would remain so. But Ebola is invading America with the vengeance of Montezuma.

Obama refuses to defend America from illegal aliens by building a fence. He refused to preserve the hard-fought peace we achieved in Iraq by keeping an American presence in Iraq to keep that nation secure. Now Obama refuses to build a figurative fence of quarantine around America by issuing a travel ban from countries devastated by Ebola.

CDC’s Tom Frieden said, “A travel ban is not the right answer. It’s simply not feasible to build a wall – virtual or real – around a community, city or country.” But, of course, it is. Quarantines have been used for centuries to stop the spread of deadly contagions.


In all three crises, the same mindset pervades. In each instance, Obama and the Left denied there was a problem: the border is secure, ISIS poses no threat, Ebola can never invade America.

In each instance, Obama and the Left refused to contain the situation: no fence to stop illegal aliens from entering the United States, no troops in Iraq to preserve the victory we won, no travel ban to prevent the spread of a deadly plague-like virus.

In each instance, Obama and the Left were wrong and their current strategies to fix the problems are wrong-headed.


In addition to Newspeak – a redefinition or falsification of language – the Left also engages in doublethink – believing two contradictory things at the same time.

Even as thousands of people were crossing our southern border with impunity, the Left was claiming the borders were secure. Even as ISIS was invading Iraq and capturing whole cities and territories, Obama was calling it a JV team. Even as Ebola was ravaging much of western Africa – with many neighboring nations imposing stringent travel bans – Obama said that Americans don’t have to worry.

And still, Obama won’t build a fence – the most secure way to keep invaders out (it works for Israel).

And still, Obama won’t protect Americans from ISIS, in this case by stripping militants of their passports.

And still, Obama won’t issue a travel ban on Ebola-stricken nations – the most basic and effective way to contain this scourge.

If we continue to allow our leaders to employ these Orwellian techniques of Newspeak and doublethink to achieve their goals, then we are likely to see Orwell’s dystopia come to life before our eyes.


[1]               See “Obama Channels Orwell” at http://t.co/m6A636uORL.

[2]               See “Obama: America is Stronger Than Ever” at http://t.co/3dxkSeF8fj.

[3]               See “Obama’s Economic Colossus!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-4H.

[4]               See “’Hope & Change,’ and Other Orwellian Clichés” at http://t.co/v6fgItffhm.

Defending One Joe Biden “Gaffe”

Even Republicans Join the Word Police

Joe Biden – first as Senator, then as Vice President – continually makes gaffes. Many are irrational or insensitive. Often, they fall into some politically-incorrect faux paux category.

Recently, Biden used the word “Orient” to correctly identify a geographical area.

The Word Police piled on. And so did the RNC.


“Orient” – Insensitive?

In complementing someone he met, Biden said, “You know, on the way back from Mumbai to go meet with President Xi in China, I stopped in Singapore to meet with a guy named Lee Kuan Yew, who most foreign policy experts around the world say is the wisest man in the Orient.”

According to ABC News, “The word ‘Orient’ is considered widely outdated and could be perceived as offensive, or insensitive, especially when used in reference to people.”

The RNC blustered: “Vice President Joe Biden’s insensitive remarks are offensive to both Asian-Americans and our Asian allies abroad.”

But why is it insensitive?

The dictionary says “Orient” and “Oriental” – used in the way Biden used it – is archaic.

The primary meaning for “orient” is “to cause to face or point toward the east.” This is geography. The Orient is east of the Western nations. Japan itself is called “the land of the rising sun.”

(Do we now stop calling the “West” the “West?”)

Oriental is also a picturesque, not pejorative, term which conjures up positive images. A few years ago, some Scottish friends took a trip on the Orient Express, having a wonderful time.) Moreover, people often eat at oriental restaurants (and will use the generic term “oriental” if unsure of the specific cuisine the group might like: Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc.

“Occidental” – NOT Insensitive?

The Western counterpart for “Oriental” is “Occidental,” which, wouldn’t you know, refers to western nations and peoples. Just as “orient” derives from the rising sun, “occident” derives from the setting sun. “Occidental’s” primary meaning is “a member of one of the occidental peoples; especially: a person of European ancestry.”

However, “Occidental” is not archaic.


Orient/Oriental – referring to “Eastern” (Asia) (rising sun) – is both archaic and insensitive.

Occident/Occidental – referring to “Western” (Europe) (setting sun) – is neither archaic nor insensitive.

In our multiculturalistic world, some cultures are more equal than others. One can denigrate the West with impunity. But using a descriptive geographic term – one which has been accurately used for ages – to identify the East has become repulsive to some.

We can blame that on the Sixties’ counterculturalists and their intellectual progeny who insist on cultural equivalence between cultures, in theory, yet exalt all other cultures above Western culture, in practice.

Perhaps the Word Police should ban all words related to “orient,” lest we offend anyone else. Every school and workplace should have orientation classes for new students or employees. Oh, that’s right, they already do.

Perhaps the Word Police themselves are disoriented.

American Exceptionalism is in the Eye of the Beholder

(The Sixties Coulter-Culture is Alive and Well and Seeks to Fundamentally Transform America into its Long-Sought Utopia)

For most Americans, the United States has been a force for good in the world (albeit imperfectly). To them, “American exceptionalism” speaks to the best that America has become, to the American can-do spirit which is both resourceful and generous, and to America’s reliance upon a providential God who has mightily blessed her.


For others, particularly those embracing the Sixties’ countercultural ethos, “American exceptionalism” epitomizes the dark side of Americanism. For them, America has not been exceptionally good or constructively influential but, rather, exceptionally evil, creating the chaos that we see in the world at this very moment.

President Obama’s Vision

Hence President Obama’s determined zeal to disengage America from the world, to – as author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza suggests – constrain America and its own self-interests rather than constraining the evil which would destroy us.[1]

For those who think like Obama, America is the problem, not the solution. For them, America should retreat from world affairs.

Obama and those who agree with him are wrong in a number of ways. First, America has truly been a force for good in this world, particularly when it has sought both God’s righteousness and His blessing.

Second, no matter how much they deny it, evil exists. Evil exists to do evil. Evil will never be satiated.

Third, retreating from evil never works. Evil will never be appeased. Retreat merely leaves a power vacuum in which evil can enter and thrive. Obama’s leadership vacuum is directly responsible for many of the worldwide crises so evident today, especially the empowerment of ISIS.

Obama views America as fundamentally flawed, hence his calls to fundamentally transform America. Thus, he offered “hope and change” and other Orwellian clichés. The Obama administration first denied the existence of a “war on terror,” them redefined terrorism, arguing that the real terrorists are American patriots. Even now, he opposes so-called “right-wing terrorists” more than he does Muslim jihadists.

Failing to recognize evil where it does exist (all the while believing real evil only exists in America), Obama resists accepting undeniable comparisons between Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler.

Wanting to believe the Russian “reset” worked, that his continuing world apology tour strengthens America, Obama actually claims “America is stronger than ever!

Unconcerned with what is best for America, Obama swapped five jihadist leaders for one deserter, and he created the chaos on our southern border due to his failure to grasp the meanings of simple terms like “citizenship” and “national sovereignty” and a diminished or jaundiced view of what it means to be an American.

As a direct consequence of his worldview and his foreign and domestic policies, President Obama has succeeded in fundamentally transforming America and the world.

Obama’s success derives in no small measure from a compliant media and political leaders who are in agreement with his worldview and also the employment of a wide variety of propaganda techniques, including Orwell’s infamous Newspeak.

Steve Deace on Newspeak

In an excellent Townhall commentary, Steve Deace shows how the counterculturalists of the Sixties have redefined basic terms, adapting timeless meanings to suit contemporary purposes. His entitled his essay, “The American Exceptionalism Dictionary,” presumably to suggest that – were words to mean today what they have always meant – we would not be in the many predicaments in which we find ourselves today.

Deace highlights four particular terms which have come to mean the opposite of what they once did, using Webster’s 1828 definitions as a foundation.

Rights” were once based on law and conformity to an accepted “human standard of truth, propriety or justice” but have become entitlements, primarily based upon one’s membership in a particular aggrieved group (racial, ethnic, gender, etc.).

Laws” were once objective, established, and applicable to all but are now evolving, subject to the whims of judges and politicians.

Morality” was once based on settled moral or spiritual principles which were considered absolutes, whereas moral relativism has become so exalted that “morality” is now defined as “An ancient word used only by those on the wrong side of history.”

Tolerance” once meant openly permitting a belief or action without constraint, but now requires “acceptance, validation, and participation in that which you don’t agree with.”

Fundamental Transformation

President Obama has transformed America and the world through, in large measure, through his rhetoric and, as highlighted here, his redefinition of words which were once objectively understood but now are subjectively misappropriated.

Deace concluded his column with two paragraphs worthy of including here:

“God, the ‘governor of the universe’ as ‘father of the Constitution’ James Madison referred to Him, spoke the universe into existence with mere words. Words declared our independence from tyranny. The redeemer of wayward mankind is literally the Words of God made flesh.”

“There is a reason those who plot to undo American Exceptionalism have worked so hard to capture the language. And we won’t preserve liberty for future generations until we take it back.”

Photo Credit: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/two-cheers-for-american-exceptionalism.


[1]       Dinesh D’Souza, Drive at Five, WMAL, 8/25/14.

“Hope & Change,” and Other Orwellian Clichés

Candidate Obama promised hope and change without defining either. He received a Nobel Peace Prize for what he would do and he was hailed a political Messiah. That was an Orwellian “big lie” heralded amidst a number of derivative lies, such as the stimulus was a success and Obamacare works.


The most recent derivative lies include these pretzel-twisted contortions:

  1. The world is a more tranquil place. (Read: “Peace in our time.”) White House press secretary Josh Earnest claimed, “I think that there have been a number of situations in which you’ve seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way, that has substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved the, uh, you know, the – the tranquility of the global community.”
  2. The reset with Russia worked. (Read: “Hey, dude, the Cold War is so 1980s.”) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claims, “What I think I demonstrate in the book, is that the reset worked.”
  3. The border is secure and there is no border crisis. (Read: “The Emperor’s clothes are magnificent!”) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), among many on the Left, claimed “The border is secure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), alleges, “It’s not a crisis, it’s an opportunity.”

You will remember that it was not so long ago that the Obama administration was touting Iraq as a success story, too. Obama bragged, “We’re leaving behind a stable and self-reliant Iraq.”

Another – continuing – derivative lie remains politically operative: Bush is to blame.

Obama and his cronies blame the Bush administration for the collapse of Iraq and the establishment of an ISIS caliphate, despite the peaceful and stable situation Obama inherited from Bush. Obama left a power vacuum in Iraq which ISIS capitalized on.

Obama and his cronies blame the Bush administration for Putin’s invasion/annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine when it is Obama’s weakness which has emboldened Putin’s imperialistic ambitions.

Obama and his cronies blame the Bush administration for the humanitarian crisis on the border when it is Obama’s own immigration policies and unilateral executive orders which precipitated the crisis.

This all stems from Obama’s deeply flawed view of America and his consequent inability to decisively lead the nation. Obama’s indecision arises from internal confusion. Obama facetiously claims, “I’m not partisan!” despite the reality that no one is more partisan than Obama.

During his entire presidency, reality has bludgeoned his worldview. Ideologically, he cannot change course or change policy. Psychologically, he cannot admit error and pursue another approach.

Words are all that remain. Lies, misdirection, altered definitions, threats, bold bluffs, polemical attacks, humor. All designed to enable Obama to stay the course and refute the reality that Obama is to blame.

Obama Channels Orwell

Newspeak and doublethink are Orwellian hallmarks of the Obama administration and its allies. They have elevated Newspeak to a new level.

1984 Orwell quote

Hillary Clinton recently infuriated the public by first claiming that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House and, later, that they were “not truly well off.” This is on a par with Obama’s claim that “[raising the debt ceiling] does not increase our debt. It does not grow our deficits.”

Peace in Our Time

Obama called America’s withdrawal from Iraq a victory (some victory), took a victory lap over the Bergdahl exchange (what a deal!), and defined rampant, autocratic, and blatantly illegal actions by the IRS as “not a smidgeon of corruption.”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest claimed, “I think that there have been a number of situations in which you’ve seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way, that has substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved the, uh, you know, the – the tranquility of the global community.”

But the world has hardly been less tranquil since world War II, turmoil in the United States rivals that of the Sixties, and America’s economic outlook and sense of insecurity exceed that of the Carter administration.

The Dog Ate My Hard-Drive

Regarding the ever-growing wealth of scandals, Obama and his praetorian guard insist that there’s no there, there. Don’t look behind the curtain, there’s nothing there. As one critic put it, “The dog ate my hard-drive.”

But the public knows better. Yet the enablers continue to distort the language to support their hero. Bob Beckel is representative of those Obama defenders. He said, “You call them scandals, I call them mistakes.”[i] Some mistakes. Cover-ups – Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, VA, etc. – are “mistakes?”

Rather, these (and others) are all scandals and they are crimes. Let’s call them what they are: crimes.

Clear Meanings are Obscure

Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “state exchange” means “state exchange.” Obamacare backers contend there was a “drafting error” or the health care law is ambiguous in meaning. They assert that “state exchange” = “everybody.”

Too many liberals have difficulty understanding what words mean when those meanings conflict with their agendas. Here, they claim the meaning is debatable, ambiguous, difficult to fathom, hard to decipher.


If those words – “established by the State” – don’t mean what they say, then there is no point to making any laws at all because any laws created will mean whatever the ruling elite want them to me. Nothing more, nothing less. The Red Queen speaks. The Constitution has become a ball of wax.


[i]       Bob Beckel, Hannity, FNC, 6/16/14.

Cosmos: A Cosmic Lie

Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey is the Obamacare of science. Proponents of universal health care promised the impossible: insuring tens of millions more people who would get better coverage at less cost. Those impossible claims proved, well, impossible to deliver.

Like Obamacare, Cosmos tells tall tales. It presents a worldview asserted to be scientifically sound – proven to be true – despite the impossibility of science to ever prove its accuracy.

The Big Lie


The Big Lie is a propagandistic term invented by Hitler, who wrote that people are inclined to believe a “colossal” lie because “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

Satan’s biggest lie is denying the existence of God even though the heavens and the earth testify to His existence and glory. The host and producers of Cosmos have fallen for that lie and they present several colossal lies of their own in this series: among them, the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution.

Cosmos treats those two theories – both of which deny the existence of a Creator God – as if they were scientific fact despite the fact that science is literally incapable of ever proving those theories to be true.

Why are those theories unprovable? Because no one living here today was alive at the birth of the universe or the birth of life. Science observed neither event and can never recreate either event.

In explaining the existence of a creation without a Creator and of life without a Life-giver, Cosmos upends reality.

Moreover, in denying the existence of a Creator and a Life-giver, Cosmos contends that the Earth is insignificant and humanity is inconsequential. As a direct consequence of those conclusions, animal rights activists, population control proponents, and the environmental movement wage war on mankind in the interests of saving the planet and non-human life from human beings.

Godlike Powers

The very first words of the series reiterate Carl Sagan’s famous epigram: “The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

Those pseudo-religious words are catchy, but are they true?

Sagan’s words mirror and mock the biblical identity of the God he denies. Revelation 1:8 says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

But could Sagan be right? “The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

How could anyone possibly know? In order to know, one would have to have experienced the cosmos in all of its fullness from beginning to end – every second of every particle in every portion of the cosmos.

Only God could do that!

But the producers of Cosmos can’t see that because in accepting Sagan’s assumption, they deny the very existence of the spiritual realm, a realm which cannot be measured or quantified.

Objectivity Redacted

Choosing to deny even the possibility that there might be a Creator is a theological decision, not a scientific one.

The Cosmos host, Dr. Tyson, offered “a simple set of rules: test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail, follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything.”

Sounds great. But science cannot observe the origin of either the Earth or of life. Science cannot replicate either. Science cannot do what Tyson claims it should do.

Tyson repeatedly asserts “question everything,” without questioning his own worldview, assumptions, and conclusions.

Tall Tales

Using slick visuals to capture the imagination, Cosmos tells one big lie after another – all unprovable, untestable, unbelievable. (Except, people tend to believe big lies because they seem too big to be wrong.)

One such tale is that the infinite universe sprang from the infinitesimal. Tyson claimed, “Our entire universe emerged from a point smaller than a single atom. Space itself exploded in a cosmic fire, launching the expansion of the universe and giving birth to all the energy and all the matter we know today.”

This is the wonder of creation without the wonderful Creator.

Which requires greater faith: a staggeringly immense universe of beauty, intricacy, structure, design, and order purposefully created by a wise God out of nothing – or, out of nothing, everything spontaneously and randomly appeared, with design, with order, but without the existence of a higher being?

Consider, what science does observe is entropy: order decaying into chaos – the exact opposite of how the cosmos should be if the Big Bang and evolution were true.

Where did the order come from? Why is it decaying now? Science cannot say, though Christians know.

Another Tyson tall tale: “every living thing is a masterpiece written by nature and edited by evolution.”

Tyson has excised the Creator from the equation, transforming a personal and providential God into an impersonal and mindless process – evolution in nature.

Notice the poetic structure of his scientific claim. Tyson has imbued nature with the ability to write, and evolution with the ability to edit, the “masterpiece” of the cosmos.

Cosmological Faith

Yet another Tyson fantasy: “Our ancestors worshipped the sun. They were far from foolish. It makes good sense to revere the sun and stars because we are their children. … We are made by the atoms and the stars [and] our matter and our form are forged by the great and ancient cosmos of which we are a part.”

The Big Lie on steroids. We are “children” of the stars? We “are forged by the great and ancient cosmos?” Poetry? Yes. Scientific? No.

Stripping God out of existence, evolutionists imbue nature with divine power. They deny the existence of the One who created everything out of nothing but they have faith in evolution and in nature. However, the whole of creation testifies to the existence of a Creator, not the absence of one.

Science and Faith

Cosmos not so subtly likens Christianity to primitive pagan religions. Contrary to history, Cosmos presents faith as inalterably opposed to science, whereas, Christian faith has actually been the inspiration and motivation for many of the major scientific advances of the past millennium.

But Cosmos substitutes the Christian faith of the founders of science for a faith in something that is not science (while calling it science). It has faith in materialistic theories of the universe, not in science.

Claiming Christianity has always opposed science and martyred its leaders, Cosmos attempts to demonize and silence people of faith, even likening us to Nazis and calling us “science-deniers” (equivalent to Holocaust-deniers).

It is their denial of God and of the spiritual realm which animates their unscientific, materialistic worldview. In denying the spiritual dimension, they negate the meaning and purpose of life. If God does not exist, then man is unimportant. Cosmos actually dwells upon the non-special nature of humanity.

One wonders why this so appeals to them? Could it be that the absence of God and the insignificance of man absolves them of accountability?

If there is no God, then there is no moral law.

If there is no moral law, then there are no absolute values.

If there are no absolutes, then we can live life as we choose.

The Cosmos Right Side Up

But Cosmos has it backwards!

The biblical paradigm reveals that all of creation testifies to God’s existence and to His glory. Yet, despite the unfathomable power, wisdom, and glory of a God who can create out of nothing a universe that seemingly has no end, that God chose to fashion human beings in His image so that He might have fellowship with us.

The universe did not randomly materialize out of nothing by itself and life did not appear by chance on our planet for no purpose. Rather, the Creator brought the cosmos into existence to proclaim His existence, and He breathed life into us that we might worship Him and have eternal fellowship with Him.

The Big Lies of the big bang and evolution obscure the incredible truth that God has revealed through His creation, His Bible, and Jesus Christ. Those lies deprive people of the knowledge of God and of the relationship that He wants to have with them.

Far from the purposeless human existence propounded by Cosmos, we should rejoice every day for the gift of life that God has granted us and the relationship that we can now have with Him.

Now that is a cosmic truth.

Update. Nine Scientific Facts Prove the “Theory of Evolution” is False.

Scientific Fact No. 1 – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 2 – Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 3 – Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches

Scientific Fact No. 4 – Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 5 – Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 6 – DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 7 – Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 8 – Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 9 – Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Resource: Answers in Genesis special section on Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation-debate/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey.

Update: Scientists discover God.

Update: Science concedes Earth must have had a Creator.

Best-selling author Eric Metaxas wrote in the Wall Street Journal article “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God” (Dec. 25, 2014): “In 1966 … astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion – 1 followed by 24 zeros – planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion – 1 followed by 21 zeros – planets capable of supporting life. … But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. … As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis – 0 followed by nothing. …”

Eric Metaxas continued: “What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. … Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: ‘In light of new findings … we should quietly admit that the early estimates … may no longer be tenable.’

“As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero. … In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. … Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life – every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? … At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? …”

Eric Metaxas ended: “Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that ‘the appearance of design is overwhelming’ … Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said ‘the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator … gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.’”