“An insinuation, which a man who makes it does not believe himself, is equal to lying. It is the cowardice of lying. It unites the barest part of that vice with the meanest of all others. An open liar is a highwayman in his profession, but an insinuating liar is a thief skulking in the night.” — Thomas Paine, “To the Opposers of the Bank“, 1787
How does one “insinuate”? Look it up:
Insinuation: in·sin·u·a·tion [ in sìnnyoo áysh’n ] noun
1. an indirect or covert suggestion or hint, especially of a derogatory nature: She made nasty insinuations about her rivals.
2. covert or artful suggestion or hinting, as of something implied: His methods of insinuation are most ingenious.
3. subtle or artful instillment into the mind.
4. the art or power of stealing into the affections and pleasing; ingratiation: He made his way by flattery and insinuation.
5. Archaic. a slow winding, worming, or stealing in.
The president specializes in definition four, n’est-ce pas? His strength is in this particular form of insinuation. He has no greater gift than that of insinuating himself into the “affections” of those he targets: grandmothers to youth, industrialists to environmentalists, talking heads to low information voters. He wiggles his way into their affections, minds and beliefs and — one way or another — he gets them to do things for him that they would never think of doing for any other.
So what is his “art”? Just exactly what does he do? How is it that he can be so much to so many; yet be nothing at all to any of them if they look closely enough. He is the magician of double-speak, the Pied Piper of thought, the attorney of ill repute. A pariah of unimaginable deception, he has no soul to worry about a conscience and, having none, looks for those whose owners are not paying attention and whose souls are available for the taking. Stealing in, he tells them what they wish to hear, promises them their wildest dreams, but with subtlety and ruse to enable them to read into his words, seeing there what they wish to see and hearing the promises they seek. To wit:
Asked about what, as president, he’ll do for common sense enforcement on “licensing and registering gun owners”, the president said:
“I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.” — 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Jan 15, 2008
Please note the question “licensing and registering gun owners“; and the answer “unscrupulous gun dealers“, “gun ownership“, “cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms”? Please note: If he’s after the “gun dealer” that dealer is licensed and monitored by the state; doing a legal, lawful business. So who is he targeting there? Also note that firearms cannot abuse themselves. It’s the people the president is referencing not the guns; the owners of the guns. But it isn’t clearly stated as such. Hints and word-smithing, half of this and half of that. None of it the full truth; none of it a total lie. It’s what everyone wants to hear at just the right time. Insinuation?
Want to know what he thinks about how big is your pie and whether you have to share it? How much do you get to keep of your own effort’s earnings? The president looks at it this way:
“I think that one of the things that we all agree to is that the touchstone for economic policy is, does it allow the average American to find good employment and see their incomes rise; that we can’t just look at things in the aggregate, we do want to grow the pie, but we want to make sure that prosperity is spread across the spectrum of regions and occupations and genders and races; and that economic policy should focus on growing the pie, but it also has to make sure that everybody has got opportunity in that system.” — New York Times, April 28, 2009
He’s not taking away from the rich their efforts’ earnings, he’s just “growing the pie” so that more people can have more stuff. He doesn’t say that the efforts of others are going to earn them their bigger slice of pie, he just says that he’s going to “grow the pie”. The details are left out so everyone can imagine whatever their version of a bigger pie is for themselves.
He thinks everyone thinks their country is special. That’s not surprising. What is surprising is that he insinuates that America is not special because everyone thinks that their own country is, therefore leveling the exceptionalism field:
“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” — Washington Times, July 1, 2009
Note that he believes that there is no such thing as exceptionalism unless we all have it? Why should America be any more exceptional than France, Albania, Chile, Uganda? After all, is not nationalism what makes countries special and, therefore, all countries having countrymen who love them, all countries are exceptional? America no more so than Tahiti. Yet, his followers and worshipers believe he said that he believes in American exceptionalism. His words examined prove otherwise. America, in his eyes, is average.
At the National Prayer Breakfast four years ago, trying to sound pro-life, he shocked the world with the statement:
“There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being.” — National Prayer Breakfast, February 5, 2009
His “Christianity” coming to the fore as he spoke and his soul stirred to become as GOD would have it: accountable, responsible, compassionate, concerned. He mentioned the word GOD so he must believe in Him! Raise the flag of Christianity high, we have a “Christian” president. Never mind the fact that he never specified which God; his words were “There is no God”. How many gods are worshiped worldwide?
With that statement he also insinuated himself into the beliefs of some that he cares about the child still inside the womb. Jaws around the world hit the floor as he hinted at the possibility of himself being pro-life. He flittered around the idea, but did not profess it. People were allowed to read into his words what they wished to be true; not what actually was. His history forgotten, his previous votes dismissed: today he is pro-life! However momentarily the belief in his desire to save babies, for a moment, he was “one of us”! Those who fell for it believed, still remember that belief and use it to this day to stoke the fires of presidential worship.
On government spending:
“Many of my plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime–by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less–because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.” — Speech at 2008 Democratic National Convention, Aug 27, 2008
The secret is that he’s not just saying he’ll save money, he’s also insinuating that the problem is the “corporate loopholes and tax havens”. He’s found the problem. He’s going to fix it via hard decisions so that we can meet future challenges. Wonderful, isn’t he? Ignore the fact that he’s blaming corporations for government spending. That’s a trick he has used quite often and folks just ignore the fact that the two do not go together. Too bad his cost savings were just lies and his words weren’t worth the paper they were written on nor the breath expended to say them. It served his purpose, though. It helped him get where he wanted to go so that he could do what he wanted to do. That’s the important thing.
“One of the great strengths of the United States is… we have a very large Christian population – we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” — Speech in Turkey, April 6, 2009
All inclusiveness is de rigueur when you’re trying to make everyone love you. All things to all people: what else would do for a man besought by ego and whose appetite for control is insatiable? All religions are covered by him; all religions are believed by him; whichever is convenient at the moment. His true beliefs are not open to scrutiny, speculation, nor example. He puts on the show and that’s what counts because it helps him get what he wants.
On the health care plan that is now going to bankrupt America if not stopped:
“I emphasize how important prevention and cost savings can be in the Medicare system. Many of the reforms in my healthcare plan will reduce costs not just for the overall system, but also for Medicare. We’re not going to make some of these changes unless we change how business is done in Washington. The reason we can’t negotiate prescription drugs under the Medicare prescription drug plan is because the drug companies specifically sought and obtained a provision in the Bill that prevented us from doing it.” — 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate, Dec 13, 2007
Note the insinuations: 1) “Prevention and cost savings” are focused on so that must be a good, reasonable thing. 2) Medicare is protected and costs reduced for that government program, thus saving taxpayer dollars. 3) Drug companies are bad and it’s probably the Republicans who helped them be bad. Republicans are not mentioned by name, but by inference since the drug companies “sought and obtained a provision in the bill”, therefore under the Bush presidency, it was the Republicans’ fault. Insinuation.
In the president’s world, insinuation in the fourth definition is his modus operandi. It is his very soul (if he has one). It is how he gets what he wants and it is his tweedling, Pied Piper tune that makes the masses without brains follow him. In his world, he is “The Great One”, “The Mighty and Powerful”, “The Wizard of Wise”. He is, in fact, the Great Manipulator. America: who needs it? ‘Tis he who matters; no matter what America wants, needs, deserves. That he can ignore. His will be done: tell them when to bow down and how far to bow and they’ll do it.
Remember when you hear the president speak to listen to the insinuations he is presenting. His statements are often exclusively insinuations preventing future “nailing down” of anything he says. He insinuates this or that, but he doesn’t outright state it as his own words. As long as he is able to manipulate the listener into hearing whatever it is the listener wants to hear, the president is pleased. He didn’t say that; they read into his words. He says whatever it takes to stay in power, to keep his supporters believing in him, to keep the worship alive, that’s the important thing and what matters.
“Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1820
The president wrote when he was in third grade that he wanted to be president. He has achieved that goal but, considering his words and actions, how rotten is his thieving soul?