printIf the media cared to cover the two Democratic candidates fairly, you’d hear more about Obama’s lies. But it so happens that the mindless ones don’t even bother with the appearance of an even reportorial hand with respect to the two.
Hillary’s “A Thousand Arabian Nights” about Serbia have been cast as the tall tales of a pathological liar. Barack’s beefing up his community activist’s résumé—he was never a professor—that’s merely a white lie. (I myself have referred to him by his undeserving honorific, professor.)
Barrack’s false claims-making concerning his “Camelot connection,” and the way in which his parents met—these episodes of amnesia have been framed as an “overstatement” by the Washington Post.
The less than truthful speech Obama gave at Selma is worth attention, replete as it is with his stock-in-trade strident race rhetoric. With respect to this particular biographical tidbit, slavery, colonialism, white hypocrisy, and black victimization (the stuff of Afrocentrism) are front-and-center in his address. Less so the benevolence that brought the elder Obama and other African students to the US.
A presidential candidate is stretching the truth on the campaign trail in the quest for votes? Say it ain’t so!
I think it was Hayek who theorized that centralization of power guaranteed the very worst of humanity would be drawn to it like a mice to cheese. Hoppe, Higgs and others have arrived at the same conclusion. This presidential campaign illustrates the theory brilliantly. If only it were wrong.