Posted by
ConservaTease on Monday, March 02, 2009 12:26:38 AM
During President B. Hussein Obama's State of the Economy speech last week, I listened in wonder at the audacity of his words. Words, to our President, don't have any value, weight or meaning.
He uses the words of his opponents to paint a pretty picture of American virtue that he does not believe in. Obama ignites the optimism that is part of the American psyche, while directing it toward un-American goals.
It's akin to using honey to catch flies.
To have the audacity to say things such as "Not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't." And yet in the very same speech, announce trillions of dollars in new government spending. Only a socialist would consider selling the virtue of small government through a monumental increase in big government.
So what would happen if we took some of the visionary lines from Obama's speech and replace euphemisms like "America", "USA", "nation" and "private sector" with the word "government"? And what if we replaced the word "government" with "America"?
We would force the truth out into the light of day, proving that the honey he uses as bait is filled with a kind of poison, meant to destroy American capitalism and the freedom of men.
Would Americans support Obama if he had said this: (Replacement words appear in [brackets].)
"But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the [government] will emerge stronger than before."
"Those qualities that have made [government] the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this [government] to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more."
"As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put [the government] back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in [America] –- I don’t."
"Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the [government] –- jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit."
"Well, I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders -- and I know you don’t either. It is time for [government] to lead again."
"None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is [the government]. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what is necessary to move this [government] forward."
With the word "government" used, instead of "America", these statements become true and factual. The bloated government budget Obama recently announced proves that it is government power, government jobs and an increase in the role of government within our economy that is his vision for our future.
Isn't it a shame that America's own President doesn't have the vision to see the real culprits in the crisis he is manipulating. Government bureaucrats and government policies, used to coerce and control the private sector, have led us to the brink of an economic Depression.
Instead, Obama attacked the faceless "banker" -- those architects of evil that socialists and communists love to demonize. It would be refreshing, during a speech that was marketed to the masses
as "Reaganesque", to have placed blame at the foot of the government.
So let's replace the word "banks" with the word "government" during the blame-capitalism portion of Obama's speech, to find out what Reagan would have said, had he been speaking to the American people last week:
"So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping [government] right now,
especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions.
I promise you –- I get it."
Reagan would have spoken to us about the true causes of this economic crisis. He would not have promised to grow the government and place private industry under it's control. Reagan would have declared that the federal government is the problem. He would have pledged to roll back the government, which always strengthens the individual, the economy and the country.
But a socialist believes in spreading government, not opportunity. In empowering government, not individuals. Therefore, it would have been fitting for Obama to end his speech with this:
"Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the [government]."