Don’t be surprised if President Obama announces this week that he “had no idea” his press secretary, Jay Carney, was telling whoppers in media briefings.

This would be in keeping with his ignorance about the Fast & Furious gun running, which enabled him to go to Mexico and say how terrible it was that drug cartel guns came from the U.S.

Remember, he also was in the dark about the failure to protect our ambassador and his staff in Libya; he didn’t know the IRS was targeting conservative political organizations or that his Justice Department was checking reporters’ telephone records.

If you believe any of this – as Justice Department and IRS personnel are donning Mussolini’s black shirts for a parade on Pennsylvania Avenue – you probably believe that in the Watergate scandal Richard Nixon was simply ill served by his underlings.

The fascist impulse always exists among true believers, and Obama only hires true believers. For such fascists, the end always justifies the means. Therefore, an inconvenient truth justifies a lie, a distortion, a cover-up.

The past year’s crop of administration lies is undergoing a familiar evolution.

First you have the initial lie, like the attribution of the Benghazi murders to an anti-Islam video. This is followed by “we were doing the best we could,” as in, “the situation was fluid and data were hard to come by.” (This is a real stinker in the Benghazi cover-up, as the nature of the Benghazi attack was known from the get-go.)

Next comes a desperate defense, which we may call “what you heard me say is not what I meant.” See Carney’s revision of his statements regarding the notorious Benghazi “talking points.”

As the net of truth draws tighter, agents are dispatched to declare that only low-level employees were involved. When that fails, they declare that so many persons and interests were involved that culpability is too diffused to pin down.

These ploys generally work pretty well, given the partisan, lazy and craven Washington, D.C., press corps. These are the “journalists” who were comfortable giving the Justice Department a pass on Fast & Furious and happy with the original Benghazi lie.

The media finally began to stir a bit when the IRS criminality came to light, and they actually awakened when their own ox was gored with the Justice Department’s Associated Press subpoenas.

There are variations in the evolution of lies and their defenses. We saw the “it’s not important” defense when Hillary Clinton asked of the talking points lie, “What difference … does it make?” And Carney even tried, “It was a long time ago.” (Please don’t tell me everybody in politics does this sort of thing. That places abuse of power on the same plane as minor venality or the denial of marital infidelity.)

Now that we have inescapable evidence of true abuse of power, we arrive at the liar’s last refuge: “I take responsibility, but I didn’t know.” (Add sotto voce, “And I won’t take the consequences.”)

It’s difficult to swallow the idea that Obama didn’t know about his administration’s abuses, or that he is determined to “get to the bottom” of them. However, let us exercise some mental discipline and assume for the sake of discussion that he really didn’t know.

It then must be asked: If the president was truly ignorant of these abuses, how did his administrators, who worship him, come to think they could get away with them?

The answer is simple, and if you examine your own experience you will see it is true. A chief executive’s staff – in business or government – reflects the attitudes of the chief. If the chief executive is open and honest, those who execute his program will be, too. If he’s covert and dishonest, his staff will assume that should go for them as well.

If the chief executive demonstrates contempt for the law and the Constitution, why should we expect anything different from the people he hires?

Obama’s fascists reflect his own fascist tendencies, which we have pointed out from the beginning of his administration. Lately, you could hear his statist proclivities in his commencement speech at Ohio State, when he said the loyal opposition was just trying to “gum up the works.”

To him, opposing views not only are wrong; they are intolerable. To suppress them, his staff has gotten the message: “Do anything you think you can get away with.”

The White House last week sent Howard Bashford to rebut the inflammatory testimony of the Benghazi whistleblowers.

Bashford, President Obama’s deputy associate undersecretary for media affairs, appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He led off by explaining the administration’s initial – and continued – assertion that the assault on our consulate was the result of a spontaneous protest about an offensive, anti-Islam video. A  transcript of his testimony follows:

Bashford: “We once – at one time we really thought – I mean we believed at one point during the incident that it was a spontaneous demonstration about an offensive video. And let me say as an aside that anybody viewing that video would recognize that it should have been offensive to Muslims and it was natural for us to conclude that Muslims in Cairo and later in Benghazi were offended, or would have been offended had they actually seen it.

“We were sure some Muslims were offended, and probably were offended to the extent that they would have demonstrated against the video, given the chance to see it. And somebody in a position to know – in the CIA, I think – said the Benghazi assault was such a demonstration. That authoritative surmise made our position true, as far as we were concerned – and we were concerned, deeply concerned, about the whole thing.

“Because at the time we thought it was true, it’s logical that it should have been true five days later, when Ambassador Susan Rice went on all those television shows and asserted it as fact, and if it was true five days later, it must have been true 14 days later when President Obama repeated the offensive video story – that is, the video was offensive, not that the story was offensive – repeated the story at the United Nations.

“You ask if it wasn’t a lie? I find the very idea mean-spirited. We know some people in right-wing talk radio have said the offensive video story was a lie, and that is a characterization we find unduly harsh. It may have been that the story wasn’t currently true when the president repeated it, but remember, it was in our view true at one time, so the president was merely telling an outdated version of the truth.

“Later, other facts became true, in the sense that they were facts that were unavoidable, and I think it only fair to point out that we have since endorsed the later version of the truth, so to say we lied when in fact we are current with the truth is logically impossible.

“What’s that, Mr. Chairman? Stand down? Who ordered the Tripoli relief team to stand down? Now, how much sense does that make? You stand up; you don’t stand down.

“You say somebody gave the team a ‘don’t go’ order when it was already at the airport? We’ve heard that allegation and we’ve looked at the matter from every possible angle, and all we can figure is somebody in the team asked if they should return to the airport terminal, and somebody else – we can’t imagine who – said, ‘Don’t! … Go!’ The team misinterpreted this as a don’t-go order.

“It was a natural misunderstanding and we’re very sorry about the confusion. But you have to understand: It was a very confusing situation.

“Excuse me? Oh, no, congressman. It had completely slipped our mind that it was Sept. 11. We – meaning President Obama and his entire senior staff, including the secretary of defense and the secretary of state – we were all so caught up in our drive to rebuild the middle class that nobody even looked at the calendar. You know, every day is Labor Day at the White House. We’re always laboring – yes we are – to serve the American people. Ha ha.

“No, Sir. How could we connect the assaults in Cairo and Benghazi with Sept. 11 if we didn’t know it was Sept. 11?

“Did we hinder the so-called whistleblowers’ testimony? Certainly not. Didn’t the president say he was unfamiliar with the entire idea? Even if somebody did hinder their testimony – and I’m sure nobody did – the president would be much too busy to know about it.

“What? No! Not ‘too busy fundraising.’ It’s clear you’re politicizing the whole issue.

“Besides, Benghazi was a long time ago. As Secretary of State Clinton said earlier, at this point in time, what difference does it make?

“I beg your pardon? The truth makes a difference to Americans? If that is true, how do you explain the last election?”

We’re sure it will be most comforting to President Obama that Robert Redford is trying to help rehabilitate the image of Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

The old Weather Underground bombers remain the smug, self-righteous twits they were back in the ’60s and ’70s, when they were blowing up dozens of targets, including the Pentagon, banks and corporate offices, police stations, legislators’ offices and other symbols of the establishment.

Now comes Redford, starring in and directing “The Company You Keep.” I doubt the movie will make it to the lone motion picture theater in our mountain retreat. However, if reviews are to be believed, it portrays aging Weather Undergrounders as the same kind of smug, self-righteous twits they were back in the ’60s and ’70s – just like Ayers and Dohrn.

You remember this pair. They live in Obama’s Chicago neighborhood, and he hardly knew them, except when they launched his first electoral campaign from their home.

Anyway, the new film suggests opportunities for a number of sequels:

“The Company You Reap.” Robert Redford plays an elderly Jeffrey Skilling in a film showing that the disgraced Enron executive’s stock manipulations were done with the best of intentions.

“The Company, You Creep.” Robert Redford plays the grandfatherly Kim Jong-il, laboring manfully right up to his death to save the people of North Korea from the materialistic fate of his neighbors to the South.

“The Company You Weep.” Robert Redford rejoins “Company You Keep” costar Susan Sarandon in this tear-jerker examination of the Robin Hood-and-Marian-like career of bank robbers Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker.

It even is rumored that Sarandon’s agent is shopping the script of “The Company You Reich” around Hollywood. It’s the story of how the love of Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler for the Aryan race went a little over the top.

Jury of peers: Why are so many people upset that California’s state Assembly had passed a bill that would allow noncitizens to serve on juries?

A defendant is supposed to be tried by a jury of his peers. It seems to me the bill in question, by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, merely recognizes the fact that so many of California’s criminals are noncitizens … illegal aliens, even.

In fact, Assembly John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said so explicitly. He declared, “This isn’t about affording someone who would come in as a juror something, but rather understanding that the importance of the jury selection process of affording justice to the person in that courtroom.”

OK. That quote from the Associated Press sounds like English-as-a-second-language, but you get the point.

However, if the Legislature is going to “expand the jury pool” by forcing the responsibilities of citizenship on alien residents, shouldn’t we expect it also to extend them the privileges of citizenship? Like voting?

Oh, wait. A lot of noncitizens already do that.

On top of things: President Obama told the assembled media this week, “I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody’s been blocked from testifying” about the Benghazi debacle.

Well, OK. Stuff from Fox News – the only agency that thinks the country should know the truth about this scandal – probably doesn’t make it into the chief executive’s daily news summary. And it’s unlikely that the folks at the CIA and State Department are going to bother him with such trivia.

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton so aptly put it, “What difference does it make?!!!”

Filibusterer in Chief: Say what you will about our president, he’s a stem-winding talker. In last week’s entire news conference he took only about a dozen questions. He limited the number by chattering on at length, with his most prolix response totaling more than 1,300 words. A couple more approached and exceeded the 1,000-word mark.

It’s a good way to limit reporter access. The longer you talk, the less likely you’ll have to answer a really difficult query – not that the White House press corps is likely to make one.

Oh! California!

“Progressive” continues to gain new, boundary-breaking meaning in the state Legislature. Take Assembly Bill 5.

This bill, introduced by the ultra-compassionate Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, is titled “Homeless Persons Bill of Rights and Fairness Act.” While we have no quarrel either with rights or fairness, we must wonder whence such rights derive.

Without reference to the Declaration of Independence’s “Creator,” AB-5 declares that “everybody in the state” has a right to “access to income sufficient for survival, regardless of employment status or criminal justice background …”

You assume correctly that the latter background does not refer to persons who have passed muster under California Police Officer Standards and Training.

The proposed law would make it legal for bums (that heartless term!) to “rest” on public sidewalks, benches and the like. Just so there’s no confusion, “rest” is defined. It is “the state of not moving (including) but not limited to, sitting, standing, leaning, kneeling, squatting, sleeping or lying.” Somehow, Ammiano has neglected to include “hanging by the knees” and that ultimate state of not moving: dead.

Begging would be protected under the bill, too, although the practice should be called the less-judgmental “soliciting donations.” And AB-5 would make it illegal for cops, public or private security personnel to harass, arrest or “subject to criminal or civil sanctions” folks who are praying, meditating or generally “practicing religion” in “public spaces.” Clearly, Ammiano has fumbled here, for his bill omits the words “except Bible-believing and anti-abortion Christians.” But that can be amended later.

The act is meant to protect people who are homeless due to their low incomes. However, it is not explained why the bill says “low income” means having an income “at or lower than twice the federal poverty level.” This means a single citizen could knock down nearly $23,000 a year and still be impoverished under the bill. For a family of four, the figure would be slightly more than $47,000. You explain it.

AB-5 is long and ponderous. Its verbiage accords the homeless some “rights” you didn’t know you had, like the right to conceal your immigration status.

Nevertheless, Ammiano has shown his willingness to compromise by abridging his list of rights “to engage in life-sustaining activities” that “must be carried out in public spaces because of homelessness.” He has eliminated the right to urinate at will.

Not to be outdone by a San Francisco lawmaker, a state Senate Democrat, Bill Monning of Carmel, is advancing his party’s dogma that California (indeed, the entire country) can gain rights by giving up rights.

His Senate Bill 622 would impose a penny tax on every fluid ounce of sweetened beverage purveyed in the Golden State. The reason: We’re too fat.

Monning, who could himself stand to lose a few pounds, maintains the “obesity rate” in California is approaching 25 percent. (This certainly must be true in the Assembly, where Speaker John A. Perez accounts for that proportion all by himself.)

Monning’s bill would deposit the new tax revenues – minus administrative costs, of course – in a new “Children’s Health Promotion Fund.”

The reasoning is the same as in every “because-it’s-good-for-you” measure the state has adopted since 1992′s trend-setting motorcycle helmet law. It goes thus: You get fat; you get sick. You get sick; you drain public resources. So, we’re going to force you to be healthy. (The state will define “healthy.”)

Monning avers that “in 2006, overweight and obesity-related costs in California were estimated at almost $21 billion” and that “there is overwhelming evidence of the link between obesity and the consumption of sweetened beverages,” not to mention anything else containing calories.

California business is as unhappy with Monning as it is with Ammiano. Typically anti-progressive.

Of course, not all business is so reactionary. We find an article in the Baltimore Business Journal explaining that developers and real-estate agents nationwide are dropping the term “master suite” from home descriptions.

They say it’s too “male,” for one thing, and for some it conjures an image of a southern plantation slave holder. Now it’s to be “owner’s suite.” An “owner,” you see, could be a woman. On the other hand, owners also could be masters. Therefore, it remains residually objectionable. At least, some organization will make an effort to find it so.

Informed of the Boston bombings, President Obama immediately told his Secret Service guards, “Inform the foursome ahead of us! We have to play through!”

Oh! How mean spirited!

But we intend only to counterbalance the fawning over our chief executive in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

“We did not have to reach out to the president. The president reached out to us,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, in words thematically like those that followed Obama’s stroll on the beach following Hurricane Sandy.

It’s as if praise is in order when he does what he ought to do. Let us remember that the Jersey shore is still a mess, and the billions of dollars allocated for cleanup and rehabilitation have been shamefully mismanaged.

Now he has pledged to bring the bomber or bombers to justice. We’ll see. With this administration, racial and ethnic factors seem to be weighed in the balance.

Let’s all be offended: Meanwhile, the National Association of Black Journalists is less concerned about the maiming of Boston Marathon spectators than it is by the description of a potential suspect as “dark skinned.”

NABJ called the words “offensive,” saying, the organization “in no way encourages censorship but does encourage news organizations to be responsible when reporting about race, to report on race only when relevant and a vital part of a story. Ultimately this helps to avoid mischaracterizations which might encourage potential bias or discrimination against a person or a group of people based on race or ethnicity.”

Very well. CNN called a suspect “dark skinned,” but CBS took pains the next day to describe him as “a white man.” Indeed, it turns out the suspects in question are as pale as a fish belly.

Now, almost everybody can be offended. However, Native and Asian Americans may be miffed at being left out.

On the positive side: We viewed the film “42″ last week and were reminded of Jackie Robinson’s greatness. Biographical stories that accompanied the movie’s release noted his leadership not only on the field of play but in business and society at large.

As a child in the ’50s, I had no idea what Robinson had to endure, but I learned during the World Series of 1956, from a neighbor up the street. I was a Little Leaguer who idolized the Brooklyn Dodgers’ center fielder, Duke Snider. I didn’t much care about the team’s light-hitting third baseman, playing out the last games of his baseball career.

A series game was on the radio at a friend’s house, and when I cheered a Dodgers’ run, my friend’s father told me sternly, “You don’t want to root for the Dodgers. They’re the (African-American’s) team.”

Of course, he didn’t say African-American. He unselfconsciously employed the “n-word,” a term that would have resulted in dire consequences if my parents ever heard me use it. When questioned about our neighbor’s epithet, Mom and Dad explained about the Dodgers and Jackie Robinson. It made an impression, though I was more interested in the series’ outcome, and devastated when Don Larsen threw his perfect game for the Yankees.

When I was more socially conscious, during the civil rights era, Robinson’s sacrifice came into sharper focus. “42″ does him justice. Go see it.

Economist Art Laffer said last week – regarding the “sequester” budget cuts (which aren’t really cuts) that he could not believe a federal administration would deliberately take actions to hurt the American people. What a sweet man!

Now, back to the real world:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement cut loose more than 2,200 “detainees” before sequestration, including many “Level One” offenders. (Let’s just call them felons.)

Still, ICE declared, “Priority for detention remains on serious criminal offenders and other individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety.”

We asked ICE official Howard Bashford why “detainees” were cut loose before budget cuts were made.

“Our top priority is public safety,” he said, “and we can’t assure public safety if we overrun our budget.”

Asked why not, he said, “Because.”

As for the freed felons, Bashford said, “They aren’t serious offenders. In fact, some of them are downright funny – if you get to know them.

“They don’t pose a significant threat – a threat maybe, but not a significant threat. Besides, they remain under supervision.”

Pressed to define “supervision,” the ICE functionary said, “We know the neighborhoods where they hang out. If they really need supervision, we’re fairly sure we can find them.”

The Bill Clinton test: California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has a bill in the legislative hopper that would give homosexuals the right to insurance coverage for infertility.

Never mind that same-sex couples are inherently infertile. In fact, the homophile community implicitly recognizes this fact, as its cultural vernacular refers to heterosexuals as “breeders.”

Nevertheless, Ammiano’s Assembly Bill 460 declares, “Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”

And just so there’s no confusion (no confusion?) the bill provides this definition: “…’infertility’ means either 1) the presence of a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed physician and surgeon as a cause of infertility, or 2) the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year or more of regular sexual relations without contraception.”

It is not explained why a homosexual couple would use contraception in the first place, nor does it define “regular sexual relations.”

We are left with the image of Ed and Bill, weeping and wringing their hands as a compassionate physician, tells them, “Really, neither of you is to blame.”

Perhaps insurance companies will be able to avoid provision of such coverage by employing the Bill Clinton test. You know. What was going on wasn’t really sex. It was just an exercise involving the reproductive system.

Ammiano, as a “gay” San Franciscan, frequently submits bills to “protect” the LGBTQRSTUV community. Previously, he submitted legislation requiring public schools to assure that transgender students would be able to participate in sports and use the restrooms that fit their self-defined sexual identities.

Can you escape the image of Buck, a 220-pound linebacker, using the girls’ lavatory? Could happen.

More San Francisco brilliance: State Sen. Mark Leno, who competes with Ammiano in the drafting of hare-brained legislation, wants to enable cities and counties to extend that “last call” for booze by two hours, to 4 a.m.

He reasons this would make California more competitive with places like New York City and Las Vegas, where alcohol flows more freely. He says this would stimulate the economy.

He said, “Given that we compete, not only nationally but internationally, for conventions and visitors, we are at a disadvantage because our cities don’t have this option,” he said. “That’s all it is. It imposes nothing on anybody.”

Leno didn’t say so, but as California drunk drivers already kill 3,000 or 4,000 people annually, wouldn’t it be a boon to the funeral industry?

Smear? What smear? The Los Angeles Times headlined its analysis of the Mitch McConnell office bugging “Anatomy of a Smear.” The column by Robin Abcarian discussed the content of the illegally obtain discussion, which was a brainstorming session about actress Ashley Judd.

Judd, you will recall, was considering a run for McConnell’s U.S. Senate seat. She dropped the idea, probably concluding, like McConnell’s staff, that she was an easy target, based on her own pronouncements.

Although the Times’ headline mentioned “smear,” Abcarian never did. She merely noted – as did the McConnell people – the potential candidate’s vulnerability. Journalists are at the mercy of the copy desk once they let go of their stories. Headline writers are increasingly comfortable about inserting their own prejudices.

However, the episode merits an entry in the Blind Partisan’s Dictionary:

Smear: n. – as defined by the left wing, the use of a candidate’s own words or actions to impeach his qualifications for office. Also see, “mean-spirited.”

An ABC reporter already had queried Handleman’s boss, Jay Carney, about the costs of presidential golf, and now Handleman faced a vicious attack from Telemundo’s Doroteo Arango.

“What is it costing the taxpayers to transport and protect the Obama kids for a spring-break vacation at Paradise Island in the Bahamas?” he demanded.

“What is it costing the taxpayers to transport and protect the Obama kids for a spring-break vacation at Paradise Island in the Bahamas?” he demanded.

Handleman blanched.

“When are you people going to stop focusing on these minor expenditures, when the big issue, the cost of the sequester, is costing the poor and middle class millions of dollars?” she asked. “Besides, when the first family travels, they always use Priceline – or is it Kayak? Anyway, the president always looks for the cheapest accommodations.”

“How cheap?” Arango persisted. “Reports have them staying at the Atlantis Resort, one of the most expensive hotels in the world. Are the Obamas at least paying the for the rooms and meals?”

“Honestly!” sputtered Handleman, stamping her foot. “Doesn’t the first family deserve some privacy?”

There were murmurs of “nope,” “no” and “uh-uh” from the assembled journalists. A voice rose above the hubbub asking, “What about the White House tours?”

“That again?” said Handleman. “The tours themselves aren’t costly, but their Secret Service protection is. We have to make our cuts where they will have the least impact on the economy.”

“Why not cut something out of the Department of Education?” a reporter asked. And another chimed, “What about the National Endowment for the Arts?” Others shouted, “Why are you still hiring in a lot of departments?” and “How about conference travel?”

“We’ve explained this time and again,” said Handleman. “Cutting government jobs would exacerbate the unemployment problem. Hiring more government employees reduces the unemployment rate.

“So, you see, we shouldn’t ever lay off a government worker. And they work hard. Why, just the other day, I saw one carry a memo clear across the hall to his boss’ office, and another spent an entire month organizing a brain-storming session on how to be more productive. Several hundred people attended that conference, and I’m sure it resulted in a jump in efficiency.

“Of course, we had to fly everybody to Disney World to get them away from the distractions of the capital – money well spent.”

“So, you never ought to cut government?” said Arango.

“Never, never, never,” answered Handleman. “And as for first-family travel and vacations, if there were a first-family vacation, that would only serve to prime the economy, putting money into hotels, restaurants, transportation … ”

“If that’s the case,” said Arango, “why aren’t the Obama kids vacationing in the United States?”

Handleman stammered, “I … I can explain a foreign trip, though I’m not confirming there was a foreign trip. A U.S. vacation would be less safe, what with immigration releasing so many criminal detainees.”

The room dissolved in chaos as the press corps rose as one, demanding “facts,” “dollar figures” and “transparency!”

This is fantasy, of course. You’ll never see the pusillanimous Washington press corps rise up in indignation.

Fox News is not perfect: No news organization is. But I have some expertise in media and can say that among the broadcast and cable news outfits, it is the most balanced. For example, when the broadcast networks filter presidential pronouncements – with bulletins interspersing features on healthful snacks – Fox News shows the entire speech.

And Fox takes notice of details that escape other journalists. For example, it noted California lists convicted felons among the “disadvantaged workers” who must constitute 10 percent of the work force for the state’s $68 billion high-speed rail boondoggle. This puts criminals in the same category as union apprentices and military veterans, among others.

Next, in this Democratic Party-controlled state, watch a push for inmate voting rights.

Howard Bashford looked troubled. When I asked him what the problem might be, he said, “Whenever I see and hear Barack Obama speak, a specter billows up from my memory like a malevolent balloon. It’s the specter of Richard Milhous Nixon.”

I allowed that certainly would be troubling but said, “Certainly, our 44^th president bears no physical resemblance to the 37^th. Obama is taller, arguably better looking, of African-American lineage, and a Democrat rather than a Republican.”

“Yet every time I see him, I keep seeing that face and hearing that name: Nixon! Nixon! Nixon!” Howard exclaimed, clenching his fists as if preparing to ward off the image.

I asked him to go over the matter calmly and to search his subconscious for clues as to the source of this dreadful apparition. We sat down at a handy sidewalk cafe, and he was silent as I ordered us a couple of zebra mochas.

After he had stewed quietly for a few minutes more, he began: “I first conceived a distaste for Nixon when I was too young to understand the nuances of public policy. However, like many a kid, I could recognize a phony when I saw one. I saw one during the Kennedy/Nixon debates leading up to the presidential election of 1960.”

Hearing this, I whipped out my smart phone, and with a few more hints from Howard was able to employ the Internet to track down the actual dialog. Charles Von Fremd of CBS News asked the candidates about former President Harry S. Truman’s salty language at a Democratic Party banquet.

Truman had said, “If you vote for Nixon, you ought to go to hell.”

Kennedy basically laughed the matter off, but Nixon said, “One thing I have noted as I have traveled around the country (is) the tremendous number of children who come out to see the presidential candidates. I see mothers holding their babies up so that they can see a man who might be president of the United States. I know Sen. Kennedy sees them, too.

“It makes you realize that whoever is president is going to be a man that all the children of America will either look up to or will look down to. And I can only say that I am very proud that President Eisenhower restored dignity and decency, and, frankly, good language to the conduct of the presidency of the United States.

“And I only hope that should I win this election, that I could approach President Eisenhower in maintaining the dignity of the office, in seeing to it that whenever any mother or father talks to his child, he can look at the man in the White House, and whatever he may think of his policies, he will say, ‘Well, there is a man who maintains the kind of standards personally that I would want my child to follow.’”

Howard read over the quotes and nodded.

“The insincerity was palpable,” he said. “Later, of course, we learned that Nixon was quite comfortable with the old ‘expletive deleted,’ not to mention with unalloyed criminality. His problem was, he telegraphed his phoniness. His intonation, his facial expression, his body language all signaled: ‘Look out! A lie is on its way.’”

“So,” said I, “that’s another way Nixon is different from Obama. You still haven’t explained why the incumbent should set you off the way he does.”

“Bear with me,” said Howard. “I think we’re getting to it: Obama doesn’t telegraph his insincerity. His intonation, his body language, his facial expression are those of a liar quite superior to his predecessor of Watergate fame. It helps explain his election victories.

“He can stand before Congress and the American people and say, ‘I’m going to cut the deficit,’ and appear quite sincere. He can say his medical industry takeover is going to make health care less expensive and not betray his contrary knowledge. He can declare himself a friend of Israel while undercutting our only true friend in the Middle East, and not reveal a single, poker-player’s ‘tell’ about his true beliefs.

“He can tell us he knew nothing about gun running to Mexico, or civil rights bias in his justice department, or the communism of his “green czar,” or his ignorance of dereliction in Benghazi.

“He can stand behind a lectern in a factory and tell the workers that he – who never held a real job in his life – understands them and is on their side. He can do, and has done, all these things, and people buy his line, because he is so smooth.”

“Again,” I said, “unlike Nixon.”

“But there you have it!” said Howard excitedly. “Nixon was transparently smarmy; But smarmy is as smarmy does. And that’s why Obama conjures up ‘Tricky Dick.’

“He is the master of crypto-smarm.”

With that, Howard drained his mocha, thanked me for my nonexistent help in tracing the source of his disturbing apparitions, and went happily about his business.

California’s senior senator: The way Sen. Dianne Feinstein snapped when asked a civil question by Texas’ junior Sen. Ted Cruz, we’d like to suggest a new appellation for her: Sen. Dianne Thinskin.

Members of the president’s Cabinet were stunned last week when our chief executive entered the room. He was clad in a brilliantly white cape and cassock, and had a white skull cap on his head.

Barack Obama spread his arms and pirouetted, spun to a stop and asked, “How do you like me now?”

For a long moment, there was silence. Then Attorney General Eric Holder began to applaud, followed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, then Health and Human Services’ Kathleen Sibelius and finally the rest – if somewhat tentatively.

Finally, Vice President Joseph Biden spoke.

“Chief,” he said, “that’s a swell looking outfit, but … I mean … What’s the point? You aren’t even Catholic.”

“It’s Valerie Jarret’s idea,” said Obama. “We all know my approval numbers have been slipping, and she figured this would give me a big boost in the polls.”

“But,” said Biden, “that’s a Catholic outfit, and …”

“That’s not the point,” said the president impatiently. “The new pope is Catholic, but it wasn’t just Catholics who were excited about him. The whole world seemed to embrace him. Talk about a love fest!

“Nobody has to call me ‘holy father,’ but I figure that when I step out on the White House balcony in this getup, the people not only will love me again, they will get behind the big declaration I plan to make.”

“What will that be?” asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

“The pope is infallible, right?” asked Obama.

“Well, he is in matters of morals and doctrine,” replied the vice president.

“OK, then,” said Obama. “As a progressive, my morals are superior, and nobody is more doctrinaire than I. So I should be infallible in all matters political. And I will declare it to be the case – by executive order.

“There aren’t enough votes in Congress to override one of my executive orders. This one will lend new weight to my arguments when I declare that my opponents should compromise and come around to my viewpoint.”

“There’s a problem,” chimed in Secretary of State John Kerry. “Papal infallibility has the imprimatur of a majority vote of Catholic bishops. … I believe it was around 1870. I don’t want to be a naysayer, far from it. But I think you have to have some sort of vote, the way the bishops did.”

There was a general murmur of agreement, and the president pondered the idea. Then he said, “Bishops, eh? Well we could substitute senators. They act like bishops anyway, and since we control the Senate, I should breeze through.

“Think of what it will mean for the legislative process: Any time there’s a stalemate, I step out on the balcony and the people go nuts. Any time there’s a scandal – are you listening, Eric? – I step out on the balcony and all is forgiven.

“It’s win, win win!”

The Cabinet members began to discuss the idea among themselves, in a number of conversations around the table. At last they seemed satisfied and by common consent told the president to proceed with his plan.

“We could hold a ceremony!” suggested Napolitano. “We’ll get a bunch of citizens – black, Latino, white, Asian – to stand behind you, just the way you do when you hold a press conference.”

“And we could get around that First Amendment ‘establishment clause’ by having them sing a secular hymn,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Something like, ‘We Are the World.’”

“You could do a national tour,” said Holder, “just like you do when you don’t really want a dialog with House Speaker John Boehner. Folks would lap it up!”

“I have an idea!” said Joe Biden. “When Pope Francis stepped out on the balcony at St. Peter’s Basilica, the first thing he did was perform an act of humility. You could do the same kind of thing! You know, bow to the people and kind of ask their blessing – their guidance. Yes! An act of humility would be just the thing!”

And the president replied, “Let’s not get carried away.”

Students, here is your mid-term examination for our class in basic economics. It is brief, but a true test of your understanding.

Question 1:

You are an entrepreneur in the business of selling can openers. Recently, difficult economic times have caused customers to buy fewer canned goods, reducing demand for your product. Thus, your revenues have dropped. In response you:

a) Raise the price of your can openers to recoup the lost revenue.
b) Reduce your can opener output and invest in other product lines.
c) Liquidate your company and retire to a tax-sheltered Caribbean island.
d) Anything but “a.”

Clearly, scholars, the best answer would be “d.” Let us move on.

Question 2:

You are a member of a government agency that sets tax rates, for instance, on gasoline. Recently, difficult economic times have caused consumers to buy less gas. In response you:

a) Raise the price of the commodity to recoup lost revenue.
b) Raise the price of the commodity to recoup lost revenue.
c) Raise the price of the commodity to recoup lost revenue.
d) Raise the price of the commodity to recoup lost revenue.
e) Raise the price of the commodity to recoup lost revenue.

That’s right, kids. The key words here are “government agency.” The so-called laws of economics do not apply to government agencies. Well, they actually do apply, but once you join a government agency, you think those laws do not pertain to you.

In California, where the price of a gallon of regular gasoline has topped $4, consumers have done the rational thing: They have curtailed their travel and are buying less gas. As a result, state gas tax revenues are not meeting and will not meet projections.

Remember, in government, projections are reality. Therefore, the state’s Board of Equalization is raising the price of gas 3.5 cents (effective July 1) to make up for the shortfall. (Well, the board is increasing the tax and gasoline sellers will increase the price, passing the cost through to you.)

This will boost the excise tax on gasoline to 39.5 cents a gallon. It’s important to specify that this is an “excise tax,” because the Golden State also levies a 10 cent sales tax. To the consumer, these are indistinguishable, but the difference is important to state government, which takes the lion’s share, leaving the sales-tax dime for local government projects.

So, students, add it up. How much per gallon do Californians pay in gasoline taxes?

a) Just 39.5 cents
b) Only 10 cents
c) Perhaps 49.5 cents
d) None of the above

Yes! It’s “d,” “None of the above.” For we have forgotten to include the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. Therefore, citizens lucky enough to live in California will pay 67.9 cents per gallon in taxes. And they will pay this regardless of the effects of actual market forces. You know: supply and demand.

If prices drop and consumption rises, they’ll still pay 67.9 cents per gallon in taxes. If prices rise and consumption drops further, they’ll pay 67.9 cents per gallon in taxes.

The Board of Equalization expects its new, 3.5 cent levy to raise a half-a-billion dollars in the year beginning July 1. And those dollars will flow into state coffers – unless consumers continue to act rationally and purchase less gasoline.

Knowing government agencies as we do, we expect that rational consumer behavior will mean another irrational tax increase.

Back at it: Yours truly has been absent from this space for a few weeks, due to the installation of a new hip. I might have taken another week or two off, but for the above-mentioned Board of Equalization action on the gasoline tax.

That was one shot of adrenaline. Another shot came from President Obama and his efforts to make the sequester “cuts” as hurtful as possible to the American people. He’s trying to recover now from his overreach – no volunteer-led White House tours! – but he’ll continue his efforts to blackmail the citizenry into believing that a reduction in government’s rate of growth is a draconian cut.

He’s a liar, of course, but so are most Republicans – and the news media – who also keep referring to nonexistent “cuts.”

The one bright spot last week: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.