Unity and Disunity
In 2008 President Obama achieved votes through a message of unity. "Change we can believe in." I find it very telling that the only way President Obama can achieve votes this time around is by creating disunity among the American electorate. He declares that there is a "war against women" by the Republicans. He pits the lower, and middle class against the "super rich." He squares "The working man" against evil "huge corporations." And then he declares that "Voting is the best revenge." Revenge against what? Against your fellow American's who see things differently than you?! Nothing like bringing the country together by tearing it apart to stay in office.
The disunity that he is projecting is so great it permeates other public arenas. Following Hurricane Sandy a reporter asked the utilities representative if they were dragging their feet regarding the restoration of power to a major Connecticut city because they were focusing more on the wealthier areas of the state (What liberal media?). This doesn't even make any sense! Cities are more densely populated. Restoring power to a city block brings in much more income from kilowatt hours than restoring power to a single big house. But this class warfare is what the country's "leadership" is spouting and it trickles down to all areas.
Questionable Definitions
One tactic that the Democrats are exercising to create this disunity is by using familiar words with unique definitions. A prime example is the term "access." President Obama and his liberal friends have been fond of phrase "The Republicans want to take away your access to birth control." Bing defines "access" (as it applies in this sentence) as "opportunity to use." The President defines "access" in this sentence as "paid for by the Federal Government." No Republican is going to remove birth control from the shelves of CVS and Walgreens around the country. That's removing our access. No Republican is going to prevent hospitals from offering emergency contraceptives to rape victims. That's removing access. Not paying for it is not removing access. It's removing government funded access.
Another unique definition was used by the President during the first speech when he was discussing his grandmother. He said of her, "[My grandmother] was fiercely independent. She worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice. And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare." Apparently, according to liberals. "Fierce independence" means complete dependence on the Federal Government. If his grandmother truly were independent, she would not have had to rely on anyone (or any program) because of her own responsible planning and saving while she was the VP of the bank. And this is the end goal of the Democrats. Complete and utter dependence on the Federal Government. They believe this is the answer to our country's issues. The problem is: dependence does not breed opportunity.
These are just a few examples of how President Obama is using questionable definitions (basically lying to the American public) in a attempt to cling to power.
No comments:
Post a Comment