When President Barack Obama and others on the left are not busy admonishing the rest of us to be "civil" in our discussions of political issues, they are busy letting loose insults, accusations and smears against those who dare to disagree with them.

Like so many people who have been beaten in a verbal encounter, and who can think of clever things to say the next day, after it is all over, President Obama, after his clear loss in his debate with Mitt Romney, called Governor Romney a "phony."

Innumerable facts, however, show that it is our Commander in Chief who is Phony in Chief. A classic example was his speech to a predominantly black audience at Hampton University on June 5, 2007. That date is important, as we shall see.

In his speech -- delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn't use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience -- he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit as they had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after hurricane Andrew hit.

Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does.

Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be "part of the American family." But the people in New Orleans -- predominantly black -- "they don't care about as much," according to Barack Obama.

If you want to know what community organizers do, this is it -- rub people's emotions raw to hype their resentments. And this was Barack Obama in his old community organizer role, a role that should have warned those who thought that he was someone who would bring us together, when he was all too well practiced in the arts of polarizing us apart.

Why is the date of this speech important? Because, less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined.

Truth is not a job requirement for a community organizer. Nor can Barack Obama claim that he wasn't present the day of that Senate vote, as he claimed he wasn't there when Jeremiah Wright unleashed his obscene attacks on America from the pulpit of the church that Obama attended for 20 years.

Unlike Jeremiah Wright's church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against -- repeat, AGAINST -- the legislation which included the waiver.

When he gave that demagogic speech, in a feigned accent and style, it was world class chutzpah and a rhetorical triumph. He truly deserves the title Phony in Chief.

If you know any true believers in Obama, show them the transcript of his June 5, 2007 speech at Hampton University (available from the Federal News Service) and then show them page S6823 of the Congressional Record for May 24, 2007, which lists which Senators voted which way on the waiver of the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans.

Some people in the media have tried to dismiss this and other revelations of Barack Obama's real character that have belatedly come to light as "old news." But the truth is one thing that never wears out. The Pythagorean Theorem is 2,000 years old, but it can still tell you the distance from home plate to second base (127 ft.) without measuring it. And what happened five years ago can tell a lot about Barack Obama's character -- or lack of character.

Obama's true believers may not want to know the truth. But there are millions of other people who have simply projected their own desires for a post-racial America onto Barack Obama. These are the ones who need to be confronted with the truth, before they repeat the mistake they made when they voted four years ago.

It is a shame Romney is really no different.

Where is the parallel evidence?

Romney goes to a $50,000 a plate dinner and tells the elite audience about how the teat-sucking masses are sponging off of their success. Then publicly backtracks after a video of his speech is released.

There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Romney making up claims that Obama apologised about Americas behaviour when the Libyan Ambassador was killed, when no such apology ever happened.

“It’s their administration,” he said. “Their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth, but also the words from his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. They clearly sent mixed messages to the world. And the statement that came from the administration—and the embassy is the administration—the statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to apology. And I think it was a severe miscalculation.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... z29ejrv2Mf

Oh, and let's not forget my favourite: Romney spray tanning himself 20 shades darker and dying his hair immediately before going to speak to a Hispanic audience.

They're. Both phonies. They both misrepresent the facts to support themseleves and their positions. They're both bought and paid for by special interests.

Here is what Romney said:

So now we're taking accusations from left wing bloggers as gospel. Got it.

There is some truth to this with every politician. It is a show to win votes.

There is being a typical politician and then there is stoking the fires of racism.

and how is what I summarised any different than that?

Obama's movites with that speech to a group of blacks had a more nefarious intent. So again, I don't see the parallels.

With the Republican mantra of "class warfare" over the past few years, I would think that the parallels are obvious.

Sorry but I agree with that mantra. When the top 5% pay 70% of the taxes and they are demagogued by Dems, that is class warfare. When almost 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes and Dems refer to the tax system as unfair for lower and middle class folks, that is class warfare.

We have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Romney's plan (on paper) will make it even more progressive. But he's only looking out for the rich.

That is class warfare.

And Romney would ensure they pay even less... Against the middle class who would be paying more in Romney's "proposals"

I find it hard to endorse a guy for president who says its not his job to worry about 47% of the US population.

Oh, and let's not forget my favourite: Romney spray tanning himself 20 shades darker and dying his hair immediately before going to speak to a Hispanic audience.

The makeup artist, 25-year veteran Lazz Rodriguez, said the candidate simply sat down in his makeup chair with a deep, natural tan.

"What they [bloggers and commenters] have done is all a bit sad to me," Rodriguez told Univision.

"I also don't want this to jeopardize a career I've worked so hard to build in this field," he said. "He was tan from being out in the sun on the campaign trail -- that's the only possible explanation.”

Univision News managing editor Fernando Vila noted on Twitter that there is “no evidence of foul play” in the selection of Romney’s powder.

All politicians say what they have to say to get elected. Just like Obama wasn't this savior that his supporters hoped he would be, if Romney wins he isn't going to be all things to all people.

I'd also like to know where Degs got the idea that the middle class is paying more. If anything it sounds like Romney went back on his word that the upper class won't pay more because he is removing things they can deduct. Too much spin and vague info from both sides on this subject to confirm anything.

I tend to agree with what Rich is saying about the intent of Obama in that speech. He wants to get people angry so that its not just about siding with him but hating the other side. Seems a bit above simple campaign rhetoric.

Romney's 47% comment was dumb only because he either applied a number that was inaccurate or didn't follow up that number by further explaining that not all people getting money from the government fit the dependency description. However, he was simply pointing out that Obama's campaign successfully made these people think they will lose all benefits if Romney is elected and therefore it will sway their vote. He should have used the number at that point. He can't spend all day debunking it because playing defense makes him look guilty of the allegations.

The numbers I saw (I believe from the cbo) said that the average middle class family will wind up paying $2000 more a year under Romney plan and the upper class would wind up paying far less. I'm not going to search for it on my phone.

What Romney said about 47% of Americans was that:

"my job is not to worry about those people...I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Explain it away however you want. Not worrying about 1/2 of Americans is unpresidential and quite offensive.

And he wonders why he comes across as obtuse and does not relate to the average person????

Before and after pictures....

The numbers I saw (I believe from the cbo) said that the average middle class family will wind up paying $2000 more a year under Romney plan and the upper class would wind up paying far less. I'm not going to search for it on my phone.

Not worrying about 1/2 of Americans is unpresidential and quite offensive.

And he wonders why he comes across as obtuse and does not relate to the average person????

Looked it up. All the CBO said was that you can't guarantee growth by reducing rates and it creates a deficit issue. No mention of an increase.

I think you're quoting a left talking point.

Not to mention I could easily take the first picture and Photoshop to make Romney look darker than Obama if I wanted.

And it would take less than 5 minutes to do so.

For a guy who likes facts, you do quite a bit of insinuating.

Didn't insinuate anything, just poked a bunch of holes in your argument.

Here's a tip, get your info from reputable sources rather than left wing (or right wing for that matter) blogs.

The only major news outlet that reported on this story did so to debunk it.

Just because he was a left wing blogger does not mean he was making anything up. You are the original "attack the post, not the poster" advocate. Why not attack what he said, not insinuate that he (and so many others) are making things up, just because they are left or right wing.

I've seen the photo he posted, and several others from the night and earlier. They show him spray tanned. Until proven otherwise (e.g., someone shows evidence of photoshopping), that is valid evidence and hinting that it might be photoshopped is nothing more than insinuation.

I don't remember if you hinted at photoshopping, and I am not about to go back and re-read the entire thread, but that is an example.

Just because he was a left wing blogger does not mean he was making anything up.

I've seen the photo he posted, and several others from the night and earlier. They show him spray tanned. Until proven otherwise (e.g., someone shows evidence of photoshopping), that is valid evidence and hinting that it might be photoshopped is nothing more than insinuation.