Showing posts with label veracity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label veracity. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Obama As Dr. Evil


In response to the growing angst with his massive spending, Obama has ordered his cabinet to cut . . . .

$100 million dollars

It was apparent during the campaign that Obama was a con man. As Krauthammer made clear in his column on Friday, nothing has changed. Obama is still playing fast and loose with the truth, exaggerating and making outright lies with amazing facility. Then there came this latest symbolic gesture made by Obama the other day that he played up as substantive. To put the substance of this $100 million gesture in perspective, there is this helpful visual from the Heritage Foundation via Q&O:



And this also from Dale Franks at Q&O:

As the AP “Spin Meter” puts it:

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.

He’s all about the sacrifice.

Read More...

Friday, September 26, 2008

Obama, Selective Editing & Reality

Update: Videos corrected.

Here is the video Team Obama is passing around, using a carefully edited quote from Roy Blunt to falsely paint McCain as an unwanted obstacle to a deal in regards to the subprime rescue.



And here is the full quote from Roy Blunt:



And much of the MSM is painting McCain as running a campaign of half-truths and falsehoods? Hats off to ABC for picking this up.

(H/T Political Punch)

Read More...

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Testing A Theory Of Truth Detection


I thought this theory was a bit ridiculous when I read it - until I put it to the Clinton test. The theory comes from recent study, reported in the Telegraph, that found that people blink much more rapidly after telling a lie. This from the Telegraph:

Liars blink less frequently than normal during the lie, and then speed up to around eight times faster than usual afterwards.

The findings, reported in the Journal of Non-verbal Behaviour, means that blink rates could soon be used by professionals, such as the police and security forces, to tell when someone is being duplicitous.

Dr Sharon Leal, co-author of the study at Portsmouth University, said: "It is striking what different patterns in eye blinks emerged for liars and truth tellers.

"Such striking differences in behaviour between liars and truth tellers are rarely seen in deception research."

. . . Results show that when the questions were being asked and the answers given, the blink rate in the liars went down. In contrast the truthful group's rate went up, though this could have been down to test anxiety.

Afterwards, the blink rate of the liars increased rapidly, while that of the truth tellers remained the same.

Researchers believe the increased effort involved in telling fibs could be the reason why liars do not blink during the act of lying.

Dr Leal said: "Liars must need to make up their stories and must monitor their fabrication so that they are plausible and adhere to everything the observer knows or might find out.

"In addition, liars must remember their earlier statements, so that they appear consistent when re-telling their story, and know what they told to whom. Liars will be more inclined than truth tellers to monitor and control their demeanour so they will appear honest.

"The reasons why there is a flurry of blinks after the lie is not really clear. It may be that this flurry is a kind of safety valve, like a release of energy after the tension of lying."

Now with that in mind, take a look at probably the most famous lie of the last two decades in American politics, Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" speech. The speech comes in the last 40 seconds of the video below, but it pays to watch a lot of the lead up to get a feel for Clinton's normal blink pattern. He blinks fairly rarely. When he starts into his lie, his eyes stay open for a bit, but then he begins blinking with much greater rapidity as he continues with the lie.



Obama I am unsure of. He either has a naturally fast blink pattern or he is lying his veritable ass off in this response wherein he says that people are lying about his record on abortion.



Your call.


Read More...

Friday, August 8, 2008

Today’s Links – The Hanibal Lecter Edition: Psychology, Crime & Law - 8 August 2008


Today we take a stroll through the blogs and websites dealing with psychology, crime and law, all below the fold,.

The Behavioral Analysis Unit at the FBI recently released a very interesting report - Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspective For Investigators.

At the Crim Prof Blog, federal prosecutors are coming under ever greater threats of violence. Following a survey done after three murders of U.S. attorneys since 2001, 46 percent of U.S. attorneys said they had been threatened or assaulted due to their job, and 81 percent said someone in their office had been threatened. They are seeking weapons permits, special alarm systems for their houses and secure parking.

There is a fascinating post at the Psychology of Deception blog on a recent study of increasing cognitive load to provide more cues to veracity. In essence, having a person tell you their story in reverse order makes it significantly more likely that you will be able to determine whether they are telling the truth or not.

At Overlawyered, the Brits are considering show trials of energy executives who dispute the dogma of global warming.

In Britain, a police inspector blogs on three hoodies who tossed a woman onto a set of railroad tracks after she told them that they should stop smoking. Britain has become averse to punishing criminals.

Dr. Helen blogs on being prepared for disaster or crime – as opposed to blissful ignorance and living in a hermetically sealed bomb shelter.

In Psychology and Crime news – researchers studying bees in an attempt to sting serial killers.

Geographic profiling is explained at the Forensic Psychology blog.

White Collar criminal investigator Tracy Coenen blogs on California’s determination that YourTravelBiz.com is a giant pyramid scheme. As an aside, so is Social Security as its currently set up, its just that we can’t prosecute Congress for that one.

Sigmund, Carl & Alfred blogs on yet another left wing idea whose unintended consequences are to injure those they seek to help. This time its "fair trade" coffee.

White Collar Crime Prof blogs on the jailing of Detroit’s Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick for violation of bond by travelling to Canada, ostensibly on city business.

Read More...

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Gone But Not Forgotten

Gone from the news cycle the past two weeks has been Obama's racist, seperatist and anti-American preacher of twenty years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. When last we left off, Obama was repudiating remarks made by Wright at a National Press Club meeting, claiming that he had no idea what black liberation theology was and that he had never heard Wright utter such racist screed during his twenty years sitting in the pews of Wright's church, Trinity United. Stanley Kurtz has made it his mission to test Obama's veracity on this and is now convinced that Obama is lying to America.
____________________________________________________

This from Stanley Kurtz writing at the NRO:

Since repudiating his former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., at an April 29 news conference, Barack Obama has done everything in his power to minimize the nature of his relationship with Wright. Supposedly, Obama found Wright’s recent and controversial remarks at the National Press Club shocking, unfamiliar, and out-of-character. In fact, we now know that Wright’s controversial remarks were entirely in character, and that regular church attendance, and even limited familiarity with church publications, would have made Wright’s radical views entirely evident. Indeed, a bit of digging now turns up information that makes it next-to-impossible not to conclude that Obama has long been familiar with Wright’s radicalism.

As Obama himself notes in a 2004 newspaper interview, within the constraints of his schedule, he regularly attended weekly services at Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. In that interview, Obama characterized his relationship with Wright as that of a “close confidant.” We know that the doctrines of “black-liberation theology” are included in new-member packets, and are taught in new-member classes, which Obama and his wife attended. . . .

It is clear Obama was aware of Wright’s views; indeed, the specifically political character of Wright’s liberation theology is what drew Obama to Christianity.

Further, a careful reading of the 2007 run of Trumpet Newsmagazine — a church newspaper (and later a slick, nationally distributed magazine) that Wright founded in 1982 to “preach a message of social justice to those who might not hear it in worship service” — suggests that Wright’s theology and politics have more in common with black-nationalist sources (both Christian and Muslim) than with those of conventional Christianity. In particular, Wright is closely allied with a radical and highly controversial Catholic priest named Michael Pfleger, and with Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan. While his specific ties (if any) to Farrakhan are unclear, Barack Obama appears to be very much a part of the broader Wright / Pfleger / Farrakhan theological-political nexus.

In 2006, Barack Obama delivered the keynote address at a conference sponsored by Jim Wallis and the “religious left” magazine Sojourners. Obama spoke of his early sense of personal isolation in the absence of membership in a community of faith. “If not for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted that fate,” said Obama. The specifically political character of his new church is what drew Obama out of his skeptical isolation and into religion:

But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn to the church.

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of African-American religious tradition to spur social change. . . . the black church understands in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge the powers and principalities. . . . I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; it is an active, palpable agent in the world. It is a source of hope. . . .

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and affirm my Christian faith.

In other words, Obama’s membership at Trinity UCC resulted from his familiarity with Wright’s political views. Even Obama’s phrase “challenge the powers and principalities” is a particular favorite of black-liberation theologists.

We know from Obama’s own account in Dreams From My Father that Wright personally warned him, from the time of their first meeting, that many considered Wright too politically radical. Yet Obama not only joined the church, but also cooperated with Wright on political matters.

. . . In the course of their close, 20-year-long partnership, Obama and Wright must have had chances to meet and converse on a great many occasions. A recent one we know of came in late February or early March of 2007, when Obama and his wife, Michelle, were honored guests at “Legacy of a Liberating Legend,” a gala in tribute to the career and retirement of Jeremiah Wright. The gala is described in the “Teesee’s Town” column in the Chicago Defender of March 5/March 6, and is pictured in a feature story in the May issue of Trumpet. According to the Defender, Obama halted campaigning to celebrate with his “mentor,” Wright.

. . . Obama himself has appeared on numerous Trumpet covers, is featured in many stories, and was personally interviewed by a Trumpet reporter. The radical doctrines of black-liberation theology pervade this publication, just as they shape Wright’s sermons.

Trumpet frequently discusses the works of James Cone, the founder of black-liberation theology, who considers Wright and Trinity UCC to be the premiere exemplars of his system. (In the print edition of NR, I described Cone’s radical views and explained how the history and theology of Trinity UCC embody them. Some of this ground is also covered in an extended Investors Business Daily editorial; according to IBD, Obama “refuses to respond to even written questions about Cone and black-liberation theology.”)

The nature and status of this kind of Christianity is complex and controversial. There is a profound difference between “black-liberation theology” and Christianity as conventionally understood. Trinity itself recognizes this difference, to the point where Wright, his followers, and his theological mentors often present conventional American Christianity as both false and evil.

. . . It’s also clear that, in 2007, Wright was convinced that Obama would be a strong force in favor of Wright’s basic political agenda. In the ascent of politicians like Obama, Wright argued, “God has shown me that Uncle Toms do not have the last word.” For Wright, Uncle Toms include not only black conservatives like Clarence Thomas, but all blacks who forswear leftist politics. So Wright is expressing faith in Obama’s underlying sympathy with the hard-left agenda.

. . . Other articles on Obama are dotted throughout Trumpet. A piece in the May 2007 issue praises Obama for “his ability to help the hapless Democrats talk about religion and values.” Yet a reading of Trumpet can’t help but raise questions about how the Christianity Obama imbibed at Trinity UCC relates to Christianity as conventionally understood. From the standpoint of the black-liberation theology that informs Trinity’s worship, there is a yawning gulf between authentic, liberating Christianity and conventional American Christianity. According to the black-liberation theology’s founder, James Cone, Christianity as commonly practiced in the United States is actually the false Christianity of the racist Antichrist. Any Christianity not imbued with “liberating” leftist revolutionary zeal is dismissed by Cone as the work of “white devil oppressors.” While that sort of radicalism may seem an outdated relic of the late Sixties, a reading of Trumpet 2007 shows that, for Wright and his followers, little has changed since then.

. . . In the August 2007 issue, taking a leaf from Cone’s book, Wright himself goes after traditional Christianity with a vengeance: “How do I tell my children about the African Jesus who is not the guy they see in the picture of the blond-haired, blue-eyed guy in their Bible or the figment of white supremacists [sic] imagination that they see in Mel Gibson’s movies?” Authentic, politically liberating Christianity, says Wright, “is far more than the litmus test given by some Gospel music singers and much more than the cosmetic facade of make-pretend white Christianity.”

But if Wright is tough on white Christians, he is equally hard on the many black Christians who fail to share his vision. In fact, it’s clear from Trumpet, and from the broader literature of black-liberation theology, that Cone’s and Wright’s radical religion appeals to only a tiny minority within the black community. Wright bitterly denounces unliberated, non-Africentric, “‘colored preachers’ who hate themselves, who hate Black people, who desperately want to be white and who write and say stupid things in public to make ‘Masa’ feel safer.”

So Wright (like Cone) sees his own form of Christianity as profoundly different from Christianity as typically practiced by most American whites and blacks. For religious allies, Wright looks not so much to Christians, but to those of any religious persuasion who share his politics.

Also, while James Cone sharply dismisses even white liberals as unhelpful devils, Cone did hold out a legitimate place within black-liberation theology for white revolutionary radicals. Cone’s gauntlet has been boldly taken up by Catholic Father Michael Pfleger, a true Christian in Wright’s view.

Obama’s ties to the priest are clear. During his 2004 senate race, Cathleen Falsani of the Chicao Sun-Times interviewed Obama about his religious views (it is this article that revealed Obama’s as-often-as-possible attendance at Trinity, and called Wright a “close confidant”). According to Falsani, the future presidential candidate cited “the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn-Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years,” as a key source of spiritual guidance. The piece also includes words from Pfleger himself, praising Obama.

Pfleger is just as far as Wright is from the majority of American Christians. Although Pfleger is white, he heads a largely black congregation on Chicago’s South Side. Like Wright, Pfleger follows the black-liberation theology of James Cone. As the June/July 2007 Trumpet cover story opens, Pfleger is preaching a guest sermon at Wright’s Trinity UCC. Pfleger compares the average American Christian to the criminals who were crucified alongside Jesus.

As the story continues, we read: “And drum roll please. [Pfleger] also manages to weave into the midday homily at Trinity . . . his deep and abiding dislike for President George W. Bush. And with this mostly African American congregation, Pfleger is in good company.” In light of this, Trumpet author Rhoda McKinney Jones calls Pfleger “Afrocentric to the core.”

Trumpet goes on to highlight the politics of this “radical and revolutionary priest.” Not only has Pfleger pored over James Cone’s books, but, Pfleger affirms, “I got very educated by the [Black] Panthers — very educated.” According to Trumpet, Pfleger “counts the mighty as close confidants and friends,” especially Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, the Hon. Minister Louis Farrakhan, and Sen. Barack Obama. Trumpet also quotes Wright expressing his confidence in Pfleger.

The story goes on to highlight Pfleger’s chronic problems with the Catholic Church, which seems always on the verge of removing Pfleger from his congregation. Pfleger’s invitations to Louis Farrakhan to speak at St. Sabina, for example, have roiled the church. Jones relishes Pfleger’s attacks on Catholicism as commonly practiced. Pfleger is quoted describing the community of his birth as “in-bred, white, Catholic, democratic . . . and a bubble of fantasyland.” According to Pfleger, the Catholic Church has lost its way. He also rails against “prosperity-pimping” and “all this crazy and perverted theology that people are buying into.”

. . . Obama was a part of this nexus. Despite current attempts to rewrite history, Obama was close to Wright for years, and fully entangled with him, both theologically and politically. Pfleger’s influence over Obama, whose work as a “community organizer” had him in frequent contact with South Chicago’s churches, is second only to that of Wright. Obama has worked on a great many political causes with Pfleger, and Pfleger was a key early backer of Obama’s failed 2000 bid for a seat in Congress.

. . . The full story of Barack Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright has yet to be told. It is already evident, however, that Obama’s recent attempts to minimize that relationship are smoke and mirrors. Obama leans left — far left. He is not the moderate, bipartisan figure he claims to be. That is what his history reveals. The mentors who knew Obama best supported him because of their confidence that, given the inevitable political constraints, Obama’s success would best advance their shared hard-left agenda.

Read the entire article. The gulf between Obama's life and how he presents himself seems as wide and as deep as the Grand Canyon.


Read More...

Friday, April 18, 2008

The Central Issues Of Obama’s Candidacy

Obama is attempting to ride into the Presidency on an undefined promise of change and a claim to be able to magically heal the supposed divides of the nation, if not the world. He deflects reasonable concern about his lack of any substantive experience by proclaiming that he is possessed of "superior judgment." Thus, and as with all candidates, we need to take the measure of Obama’s judgment, his character, and his veracity in order to determine his fitness to lead us as President.

But as Obama and his supporters made clear today, they want all such topics off limits. Obama outrageously claims that these issues don’t matter:



It is the height of hypocrisy for Obama to call this "gotch’a politics" and unfair electoral tactics. Beyond the fact that these questions are central to assessing Obama’s fitness for the presidency, virtually Obama’s entire political career has been built on unfair electoral tactics and "gotch’a politics." His first foray into politics was won when he used his fellow lawyers to get his competition decertified and taken off the ballot. His subsequent elections have each been won only after huge "gotcha’" moments involving his competition. For Obama to claim the questions last night are either superfluous, unwarranted or unfair is hypocrisy and prevarication writ large.

(Update: Obama has now refused to take part in a CBS debate that had been scheduled before the North Carolina primary. It appears that he wants nothing to do with further debates.)

That said, let’s review what was raised last night and why it matters:
______________________________________________________

Bittergate

Charles Gibson questioned Obama on Obama's recent comments made before a rich, liberal crowd gathered in an "off the record" venue in San Francisco:



Obama claimed that he misspoke, but then he immediately reaffirmed the substance of his "bittergate" comments. He tied people’s economic situation to whether they are overly concerned with their rights under the Second Amendment, as well as with moral, ethical and religious issues. He questions their judgment, stating in sum - albeit more tactfully than he did in San Francisco - that Americans concerned with these things are unable to distinguish what really matters. What does this say about how he will treat their concerns as President? What does his belittling of their values say of his judgment?

Are we to accept, just by way of example, gay marriage and severe regulation of our right to own weapons in return for socialized Obamacare and a few other middle class entitlement programs? Are our values and ethics for sale in Obama's view and, if so, what does that say about his own? When it comes to choosing Supreme Court judges, will Obama use his judgment to choose justices likely to uphold the traditions important to those small town people he calls bitter? Or will he choose judges with a socialist agenda who espouse the theory of a "living constitution?" - i.e., a theory that allows judges to act as a supra-legislature and create new rights - or gut old ones, such as the 5th Amendment limitation on government's ability to take private property - based on their personal beleifs. Obama's explanation of his "bittergate" remarks clarifies most, if not all of those questions.

Gun Rights, Obama’s Position On Handguns & The 1996 Survey

As part of Obama’s claim to superior judgment, he asserted last night that he has "never" supported a ban on handguns - and that his "writing" never appeared on a 1996 survey indicating that he did support such a ban at the time. By making this claim in light of all the surrounding circumstances, Obama again asks us to make a blind leap of faith and accept, on his bald assertion, a counterintuitive conclusion. It raises questions of character and veracity that transcend the policy issue of restriction on gun ownership.

In 1996, when he was first running for elected office, an influential local political organization asked Obama to complete a survey on his positions as an integral part of their process to determine which candidate to endorse. The completed survey ascribed to Obama a series of very far left positions on a variety of hot button issues, one of which was support for a total ban on handguns. After the survey came to light, Obama’s aides said he "never saw or approved" the questionnaire. They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who "unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position." That was plausible.

But then additional facts emerged. Obama, it turned out, had met with the organization and was interviewed directly upon the basis of his answers to the survey. Further, the day after the interview, Obama filed an amended survey with a hand-written comment in the margins. Once this came to light, according to the Politico, "[t]hrough an aide, Obama, . . . did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved — or even read — the latter questionnaire." That is the type of legalistic defense that Bill Clinton could appreciate. As several members of that local political organization admit today, Obama’s claims in this regards are simply "unbelievable."

Now in the latest twist, Obama not only disclaims any knowledge of the answers on which he was quizzed, but even claims now that the handwriting isn’t his on the amended survey.

The important point here is not that 12 years ago Obama supported a total ban on handguns, though it is of some significance. The critical aspect of this whole situation is that Obama is prevaricating to keep his carefully created reputation for "superior judgment" from being called into question. And by taking this tack, he calls not only his judgment into question, but adds issues of veracity and character.



Rev. Jerimiah Wright

Once it came to light that Obama, the would-be great uniter, was heavily influenced by, spent twenty years with, and donated substantial sums of money to a virulenty racist, anti-American preacher, it created a cognitive dissonance of epic proportions. It was of a magnitude that, were it a white candidate in the same scenario, his candidacy would have been crushed within days of the matter becoming public – no questions asked by anyone of any race. It is a dissonance that so clearly goes to Obama’s character and judgment that it must be answered. And it is a measure of the hypocrisy of our left wing media that no one has yet vetted Obama’s frankly unbelievable claims of ignorance in regards to Rev. Wright.

Once a few of Rev. Wright's racist sermons were made public - what we saw on Fox was in fact a highlights reel sold by Rev. Wright's Church - Obama tried an ever changing litany of excuses to quell the issue. Only after these excuses failed and his poll numbers were tanking did Obama decide to give a speech on the "larger issue" of race in America. He started that speech by referring to slavery as "original sin" - thus tagging every white now alive in America and all yet to come with responsibility for slavery. That is not a particularly uniting theme. Indeed, it is the theme at the heart of race baiters and seperatists. The remainder of Obama's speech got little, if any, better.

Our left wing press proclaimed the speech historic and asserted that Obama had fully put to rest the issue of Rev. Wright. But for those of us with critical faculties not predisposed to the vacuity of identity politics, Obama's speech was in no way a reasonable explanation of why he adopted Wright as his mentor and supported him with church attendance and donations for twenty years. It did not explain how Obama was so moved by a blatantly racist sermon condemning "white greed" that he chose it for the central theme of his book, the Audacity of Hope, published in October, 2006. Nor was his speech in any way a larger dialogue on the issue of racism. It was a series of excuses buttressed with a completely unbelievable claim that he had no idea Wright was a racist during his 20 years he sat with his family in Wright's pews. Contradicting earlier assertions, Obama now admitted that he had heard a few "controversial" remarks from Rev. Wright over the many years. Obama caveated that by saying that he completely disagreed with the remarks and that the remarks were excusable becasue of Wright's background and public works.

Hillary Clinton hit the nail on the head in her response to Obama on this issue. And if Obama wants us to accept his incredibly unbelievable excuses, he needs to have Rev. Wright release his transcripts for 20 years of sermons - the whole sermons, not merely the sanitized versions.



William Ayers

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse fully explores the extent and the importance of Obama’s voluntary association with the unrepentant anti-American terrorist, William Ayers. As Rick presciently asks:

What would any other politician have done when he or she discovered that a terrorist was sitting on the same board as they? Wouldn’t just about anyone else have said “no thank you” to such an invitation?

Moreover, Obama displayed a very skewed sense of moral relativism, equating Ayers, a man who bombed government buildings and is proud of his past terrorist acts, with Senator Tom Colburn, a doctor who believes abortion is morally wrong and has sponsored a bill to treat doctors performing abortions as murderers.



Tony Rezko

Obama’s extensive relationship with a major fundraiser-cum-felon Tony Rezko didn’t even make it into the questioning last night, but it is yet another issue that goes to Obama’s judgment and veracity. Again, see Rick Moran for the full explanation.

Flag Pin and Patriotism

I would consider this a non-issue had Obama not made it one. In October, 2007, Obama told a reporter:

. . . right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest, instead I'm gonna try to tell the American people what I believe what will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

That is not Obama's only act that seems to smack of a disdain for patriotism. Several months ago, Obama refused to put his hand over his heart while our national anthem was being played. Admittedly, these are mere symbolic acts. But symbolism is used to make a point. Taken together, it would be reasonable to infer that Obama sees some things very fundamentally wrong with our country and its 200 plus years of traditions. That is quite troubling in a man who wants to "change" this country in some undefined way. Under these circumstances, it is quite valid to raise these issues and test those inferences. In other words, if Obama is going to make symbolic acts, than we as a nation have every right to find out the meaning he is trying to convey by those symbolic acts.

Here is the anthem video:



And here is Obama last night:



Conclusion

One’s character is determined by how one habitually responds to things within one's environment. To put it in the words of P.B. Fitzwater, "character is the sum and total of a person's choices.” It is only by looking at character and veracity that we can judge how a man is likely to act in the future – whether in accordance with deeply held principles that define his character, or with prevarication and expediency that define a weak and self-serving character. And it is only by reviewing a person’s past acts as well as their current beliefs that we can get a feel for the soundness of their judgment. Character and judgment are the crucial considerations in choosing a leader who will face a myriad of challenges, many we cannot forecast today, over the period of the next four years as President.

The questions Obama was asked last night are central to assessing his character and judgment. It tells us volumes about his fitness to lead us as President that he does not want us to ask anymore questions on those issues.

Read More...