In 2008, referring to then Senator Barack Hussein Obama's Presidential run, former President William Jefferson Clinton exclaimed, "Give me a break! This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." However, Bubba Clinton's own fairy tales can be more fanciful than those of the Bubbas Grimm. (Despite his hundreds of millions, Bubba doesn't seem to own mirror. Tch! Poor guy!)

One of President Bubba Clinton's favorite hoodwinks strategies was putting an excuse or two for signing a bad bill in his back pocket before signing a bill likely to disappoint the left. (Of course, disappointing the left was a bigger issue then, when fewer were dembots.) Win win (for him): If you liked a law, heck, he'd signed the bill. What more can anyone ask of a President? If you didn't like a law, he would reach into his back pocket and pull out one or two of his fabricated pre-fabricated excuses for having signed it; and a considerable segment of the left would give him a pass. One such excuse was "The bill passed Congress by a "veto-proof majority!"

First, Say what? Second, So what?

Like many of Bubba Clinton's fairy tales, the veto-proof majority fairy tale seems plausible on the surface, but is fantasy: A "veto-proof majority" does not exist. Even if 100% of the members of both houses of Congress vote for a bill, the President nonetheless has unrestricted Constitutional authority to veto the bill. Therefore, the only reason that a President adds his or her imprimatur to a bill is that, for whatever reason, the President wants the bill to become law. (Duh?) Moreover, the existence of enough votes to override a Presidential veto cannot be determined unless--wait for it--the President actually vetoes the bill. It isn't a matter of simply counting noses.

Any Presidential veto has an impact, on both voters and legislators, especially legislators from the same political Party as the President. (Of course, a President's pressing members of his own Party to vote for a bad bill so he can pocket a fake "veto-proof majority" is a particularly cynical and selfish form of D.C. kabuki--and, as best I know, Clinton invented it.) For example, "More often than not, the mere threat of presidential veto is sufficient motivation for Congress to modify the bill prior to its final passage." Perhaps most impressive: The percentage of all Presidential vetoes (pocket and regular) overridden since President George Washington is a measly 4%! More about Presidential vetoes:

This authority is one of the most significant tools the President can employ to prevent the passage of legislation. Even the threat of a veto can bring about changes in the content of legislation long before the bill is ever presented to the President....

The regular veto is a qualified negative veto. The President returns the unsigned legislation to the originating house of Congress within a 10 day period usually with a memorandum of disapproval or a “veto message.” Congress can override the President’s decision if it musters the necessary two–thirds vote of each house. President George Washington issued the first regular veto on April 5, 1792. The first successful congressional override occurred on March 3, 1845, when Congress overrode President John Tyler’s veto of S. 66.

The pocket veto is an absolute veto that cannot be overridden. The veto becomes effective when the President fails to sign a bill after Congress has adjourned and is unable to override the veto. The authority of the pocket veto is derived from the Constitution’s Article I, section 7, “the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case, it shall not be law.”

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidential-Vetoes/Presidential-Ve...

A Presidential claim of signing a bill because it passed Congress by a "veto-proof majority," though fake, unfortunately fools people. As so often happens, telling a Big Lie takes comparatively few words and seconds, while refuting a Big Lie often takes much more time and effort on the part of the refuter. Which, I suspect, is a major reason that so many Big Lies persist so long. And which, I suspect, is why I write essays to which I and any other wannabe refuters need only link.

But enough about the "veto-proof majority" Big Lie fairy tale! I have just learned what I hope is interesting information about a far more delightful fairy tale, Carlo Collodi's The Adventures of Pinocchio, first published in 1881 in the (still) picture-book city of Pescia (Tuscany), Italy.

According to extensive research done by the Fondazione Nazionale Carlo Collodi in late 1990s and based on UNESCO sources, it has been adapted in over 260 languages worldwide.[1] That makes it the most translated non-religious book in the world,[1] and one of the best-selling books ever published.[2] According to Francelia Butler, it remains "the most widely read book in the world after the Bible".[3]

I hope that, like me, you are glad to know that The Adventures of Pinocchio is encouraging children all over the world to be truthful, for their own good: Unlike Bubba Clinton, most children are not Teflon^TM-coated and, unlike Bubba Clinton, they therefore may suffer adverse consequences from telling falsehoods.

___