Posted on 03/03/2009 7:04:11 AM PST by jessduntno
OP-ED:
I am trying to capture the spirit of bipartisanship as practiced by the Democratic Party over the last eight years.
Thus, I have chosen as my lead, the proposition: Obama lied; the economy died. Obviously, I am borrowing this from the Democratic Party theme of 2003-08: "Bush lied, people died." There are, of course, two differences between the two slogans.
Most importantly, I chose to separate the two clauses with a semicolon rather than a comma because the rule of grammar is that a semicolon rather than a comma) should be used between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction. In the age of Barack Obama, there is little more important than maintaining the integrity of our language - against the onslaught of Orwellian language abuse that is already a babbling brook, and will soon be a cataract of verbal deception.
The other difference is that George W. Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was merely mistaken. Whereas President Obama told a whopper last week when he claimed he was not for bigger government. As he said Tuesday night: "As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't."
This he asserted though the budget he proposed the next day asks for federal spending as 28 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), higher by at least 6 percent than any time since World War II.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Consider also his assertion in his not-quite-State of the Union address that:
"My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we're starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."
But, lamentably, a few days later, The Washington Post reported: "A senior administration official acknowledged yesterday that the budget does not contain $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Instead, the figure represents Obama's total efforts at deficit reduction, including tax hikes [of more than $1 trillion] on families making over $250,000 a year. It also includes hundreds of billions of dollars 'saved' by not continuing to spend $170 billion a year in Iraq."
Only a big government man would think of calling a trillion-dollar tax increase a spending cut or "saving." Technically, of course, it is true. A trillion-dollar tax increase will reduce spending by a trillion dollars for those private citizens who were taxed. And, from the perspective of the federal government, a trillion dollars taxed is a trillion dollars saved from the greed of the taxpayers who produced the wealth - and might well want to spend or invest it in non governmental activities.
But the foregoing are merely pettifogging numbers compared to Mr. Obama's bigger ideas about energy and health care.
Our president shares a fascinating idea about energy with most of what used to be known as the "small is beautiful" crowd. It is a curious phenomenon that one needs a very big government to enforce the beauty of small.
As Mr. Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, said last year: The price of electricity in America is "anomalously low." You see how much smarter that Nobel prize winner is than you. You probably thought you were already spending enough on electricity and fuel.
And sure enough, Mr. Obama explained last week that in order to make alternative energy sources wind, solar - perhaps eventually human muscle power? - economically competitive, he intends to raise the price of carbon-based energy until it is so expensive that even solar power will be such-a-deal.
This level of destructive irrationality cannot be accomplished in the private sector. It will take a very big government indeed to bring such inanities into being. (disclosure: being rational, I give professional advice to carbon-based energy producers.)
If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn't like America the way it has been since its founding - and it will take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don't know that, you don't yet know Barack Obama.
Tony Blankley is the author of "American Grit: What It Will Take To Survive and Win in the 21st Century" and vice president of the Edelman public-relations firm in Washington
What does the rule of grammar say about parenthesis that close but never open?
Nevertheless........BUMP!
He wasn't even that, when you get down to it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334
Shalom.
Funny how you never hear about stuff like that. That should have made the national news so that no one could not have heard about it.
Granted, Bush was fiscally irresponsible with his domestic spending.
Obama's first budget calls for spending at "28%" of GDP. That is called, fiscal insanity.
Okay, let's get this straight. Nothing drives me up the wall more than when good conservatives begin to espouse concepts that are a result of the incessant drumbeat of the BIG LIE! REPEAT AFTER ME: GEORGE W.BUSH WAS NOT "MISTAKEN" ABOUT WMD'S NOR WAS HE "MISTAKEN" ABOUT INVADING IRAQ.
It is true, rather, that we did not find weapons of mass destruction. However, we did not find evidence that there had never been a weapons program. In fact, we found PLENTY of evidence that there had been an active weapons program. We also found evidence that weapons had BEEN MOVED! Had we waited longer. . .those weapons would have been in place and USED AGAINST US.
Let's also remember that Saddam was acting GUILTY AS HELL. . .had expelled U.N. inspectors and was in complete violation of U.N. resolutions. Given all of these circumstances, Congress was unanimous (except for one nutjob)in giving Bush the authority to invade. It was NEVER based on the idea that WMD's would be found and that if they were not it would invalidate the basis of invading. The basis of the invasion was this: WE NEEDED TO KNOW UNEQUIVOCALLY, what was the status of Saddam's WMD program. The reason? Because not knowing meant our nation would be at a risk that would not be acceptable.
Also, remember these same EVIL DEMONCRATS. . AND THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE. . MAKE NO MISTAKE. . THEY ARE EVIL AND THEY ARE DEMONIC. . these same evil Demoncrats had started out, after 911, with the "what did Bush know and when did he know it" ruse. Then it was "Bush knew and did nothing.". . .remember?
Are chem-bio weapons not weapons of mass destruction? ... If you’re going to rant, at least get it right at the beginning. TONS of weapons of mass destruction were found and have been removed from Iraq, with tons of yelloow cake being moved to Canada for processing. Saddam had a nuclear weapons development program and it was only on hold, not fully dismantled. But nuclear weapons are not the only form of mass destruction weapons.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2122510/posts 26 replies
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2117840/posts 95 replies
I've been trying to get this story to circulate the net for six months now. For some reason, it never seems to get traction.
Shalom.
Anything but exonerating Bush. It is sad.
Obambi and his policies are killing the economy! Obambi and his economic advsors are a bunch of morons and idiots!
Bump!
Good point! Blankley seems to have caught the Potomac fever. On the other hand I like his opening about reaching out to the affirmative action fascists in the same way that they reached out across the aisle to Bush, sort of like the Texans at San Jacinto.
Maybe we should create a new name for Obama, from the key elements of his economic program.
I would suggest we use the first letter of each factor to form an apt acronym from:
Destructive Irrationality in Pursuit of Socialism, Hyperinflation & Infinite Taxation
Lets see now, D...I..P....S...H.......Yeah this is going to work really well.
I said “there was plenty of evidence”. ..my point was in reference to conservatives lamely and stupidly saying things such as “Bush was mistaken” about weapons of mass-destruction, as if it were fact. Bush was not “mistaken” despite never finding a fully assembled and ready to deploy WMD. My “ranting” was about that point. I did not belabor the point of the list of evidence that was discovered, because even if NO evidence was found. . .Bush was not mistaken for the invasion. . .It’s like in poker, if someone is bluffing and you call the bluff and he is holding nothing. . .YOU DID THE RIGHT THING. . .!
“Lets see now, D...I..P....S...H.......Yeah this is going to work really well.”
I like it...ROTFLM.AO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.