Has any sitting president ever had it so bad? Obama thinks not:"I just want to make a little commentary about the media here, if you don't mind. When Congress included in last year's budget a whole bunch of earmarks, you remember there was a week worth of stories about how terrible these earmarks were. You remember this, Chip — a week worth of stories — 'oh, these earmarks, this is what's blowing up the deficit, this is terrible,' blah, blah, blah."
[Interesting. We say: "Obama, you're breaking your promise to curb earmarks." Obama hears: "Blah, blah, blah."]
Obama goes on:
"And yet, as I said before, that was less than 1% of that entire budget that had been signed. When we find $17 billion worth of cuts in programs, what do the same folks say? They say, 'Oh, that's nothing.' (Laughter.) 'Now, that's not even — that's not even — that's not significant. That's not important.' Well, you can't have it both ways. If those earmarks were important, then this money is important, too."
Reaction from Allah Pundit:
"Of course...he didn’t really 'cut' any money at all; he just reallocated it to other programs. Combine that with the fact that the total budget was revised upwards this week by another $89 billion — more than five times the amount of the cuts we’re all supposed to be so impressed with — and the more apt comparison here is between 1% in earmarks and, er, -2% in 'cuts.' Good work, Barry."
More commentary on the same speech (wherein Obama starts talking like a tea bagger), this time from Ace of Spades...
Obama: "The long-term deficit and debt that we have accumulated is unsustainable. We can't keep on just borrowing from China, or borrowing from other countries because part of it is, we have to pay for — we have to pay interest on that debt."
Ace of Spades: Shut up, really?!
"He's talking up 'spending cuts' even as he spends more and more. And he's selling his universal health care rationing program as some kind of savings, because, somehow, this will drive costs down. Or somethin'.
"I think we sort of know where this is headed. He's going to pull the old con man move of talking around a possibility, until it ultimately starts occurring to people 'Hey, maybe we need to raise taxes on ourselves!'
"At which point Obama will exclaim, 'Wow, what an interesting idea! ...Golly Gee Willickers, that sure seems to make a tremendous amount of sense! Sorta cuts the Gordian Knot right in half with a decisive chop, doesn't it? You really are a very smart person, you know that? Here, have a cookie.'"
More
Poll: By 3-to-1 Majority, Public Says It's Time for Obama to Stop Blaming Bush and Start Taking Responsibility.
Liberalism: Cruel, Corrupt, Unjust, Wasteful, Deluded
11 comments:
4s: Obama's using the "Big Lie" strategy.
Good post RightKlik. This Presidency is going to be a race you know. How much damage will this insane radical cause before the voters throw him out on his big old Dumbo ears?
Thanks for stopping by my brand new blog!
Jingoist: Thanks.
I hope they DO kick him out.
"New York Times contributor Lisa Belkin wondered if women might finally become the majority of American workers, suggesting that such a development would be a "silver lining" in these dark times."
(from the "feminist" article)
Heh. Only when men start having babies.
Doesn't _anybody_ think about the next generation? How they get "made" and how they get turned into productive citizens???
If you haven't read Mark Steyn's "America Alone", you should do so. To be honest, I thought it would be directed differently than it is - he points out the facts of decreasing birth rates in the western world.
And he's an enjoyable read...
About that next generation...
Keep this in mind:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/05/islam-poised-to-overwhelm-christendom.html
Suek: I do enjoy Steyn's writing, but I haven't read "America Alone" yet. I'll be sure to look for it.
It's a real shame that lefty Statists have been so successful in denegrating the work of raising families. There is no higher calling.
Thanks for the link.
>>It's a real shame that lefty Statists have been so successful in denigrating the work of raising families.>>
It's an interesting issue. The Statists need to destroy the family as the basic unit of society in order to establish itself as the sole authority. It needs to destroy religion in order to establish itself as the sole arbiter of right and wrong. In doing so, it reduces humankind to simply an elevated rational animal. However, the sole purpose of any animal is to reproduce. When you remove the basic family unit which provides the nurturing substrate for the offspring, when you remove religion which teaches the concept of duty, right and wrong - you remove the impetus to reproduce.
Making babies and raising children is tough. Without a reason to do so, why would anyone choose to take that path? No helpmate in a stable relationship, no expectation of reward - even emotional...what's the point?
If the State wants citizens, let the State make them.
"If the State wants citizens, let the State make them."
It's looking like a brave new world every day.
I started reading Mark Levin's Conservative Manifesto today...there are some very interesting points about the Statists' interest in destroying traditional institutions--including the family.
But then, as you've pointed out, when the State destroys the family, it will have destroyed the very foundation upon which it has been built.
Is Levine's "Conservative Manifesto" a book or an article? If the latter, do you have a link?
I've bought his "Liberty and Tyranny", but haven't gotten very far yet. Maybe if I'd stay off the blogs...!
Hah. Did a search...
One and the same.
Suek: I'd say it's definitely worth the read. But I'm only in the 4th chapter... I too need to take a break from the blogs...
Post a Comment