"It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit"--Noel Coward
Yesterday's interview by Bill O'Reilly of President Obama showed more defense than the Denver Broncos had at the game. In the ten minute interview that aired before the Superbowl, O'Reilly asked a series of pointed questions, which, I believe, were quite relevant, but the answers Obama gave were nothing more than the typical filibuster you expect to hear from him. They did not answer even one of the questions posed, and what came out of the "confrontation" was an attack on Fox News and O'Reilly. This was a perfect example of Saul Alinsky's Rule number 5 (in his "Rules for Radicals") which states: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Unfortunately, O'Reilly had no choice but to be respectful to the Socialist in Chief, and his comebacks were more powder-puff than hardball (excuse the expression--it was not intended to give Chris Matthews any credit). If you would like to see the interview on the Fox News Network along with Howard Kurtz's thoughts go here
When O'Reilly asked Obama if he believed his promise to the American public that they could keep their present healthcare and their doctors, he said that he had "regrets," and added quickly that he had said that already. Then Obama told a lie (how surprising) that they had to change the original law to accommodate all the new "folks" who needed to get on the program. Turns out there were no changes in the law, but what can you expect; his lips were moving.
If you watched the interview closely, and I mean this literally, you could see micro-expressions or "tells" that indicated probable lies. Just listen to O'Reilly ask tough questions and watch Obama's right cheek. I saw this at point 3:07 in the interview and at other times as well.
At point 4:01, when answering a question about Benghazi, Obama flashed a broad smile and almost laughed when speaking answering O'Reilly about Susan Rice's claim regarding the Muhammad video. This may have upset a few people beyond just me.
But at 4:26 Obama claimed that they were doing everything they could to protect the men in the Benghazi compound. If that was everything they could do to protect an Ambassador's life, it is now clear as to why Obama has accomplished nothing more than dividing the country since he has been in office.
The remainder of the interview will be on Fox News tonight on Bill O'Reilly's show. He calls it the "No Spin Zone," but all I saw so far was spin in the form of filibuster. I suspect what Obama will do, if he feels he needs to do it again, is to use Rule 12 of Alinsky's Rule for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." He has done it with Fox News before and has been doing it to conservatives, Christians, and anyone who disagrees with his socialism.
Tweet
Yesterday's interview by Bill O'Reilly of President Obama showed more defense than the Denver Broncos had at the game. In the ten minute interview that aired before the Superbowl, O'Reilly asked a series of pointed questions, which, I believe, were quite relevant, but the answers Obama gave were nothing more than the typical filibuster you expect to hear from him. They did not answer even one of the questions posed, and what came out of the "confrontation" was an attack on Fox News and O'Reilly. This was a perfect example of Saul Alinsky's Rule number 5 (in his "Rules for Radicals") which states: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Unfortunately, O'Reilly had no choice but to be respectful to the Socialist in Chief, and his comebacks were more powder-puff than hardball (excuse the expression--it was not intended to give Chris Matthews any credit). If you would like to see the interview on the Fox News Network along with Howard Kurtz's thoughts go here
When O'Reilly asked Obama if he believed his promise to the American public that they could keep their present healthcare and their doctors, he said that he had "regrets," and added quickly that he had said that already. Then Obama told a lie (how surprising) that they had to change the original law to accommodate all the new "folks" who needed to get on the program. Turns out there were no changes in the law, but what can you expect; his lips were moving.
If you watched the interview closely, and I mean this literally, you could see micro-expressions or "tells" that indicated probable lies. Just listen to O'Reilly ask tough questions and watch Obama's right cheek. I saw this at point 3:07 in the interview and at other times as well.
At point 4:01, when answering a question about Benghazi, Obama flashed a broad smile and almost laughed when speaking answering O'Reilly about Susan Rice's claim regarding the Muhammad video. This may have upset a few people beyond just me.
But at 4:26 Obama claimed that they were doing everything they could to protect the men in the Benghazi compound. If that was everything they could do to protect an Ambassador's life, it is now clear as to why Obama has accomplished nothing more than dividing the country since he has been in office.
The remainder of the interview will be on Fox News tonight on Bill O'Reilly's show. He calls it the "No Spin Zone," but all I saw so far was spin in the form of filibuster. I suspect what Obama will do, if he feels he needs to do it again, is to use Rule 12 of Alinsky's Rule for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." He has done it with Fox News before and has been doing it to conservatives, Christians, and anyone who disagrees with his socialism.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment