Author: jetbrane

I am doing my best to ignore the Obama orgasm, and yet it is almost impossible to get completely away from the “never met a lie we wouldn’t tell” media. Consequently, I have heard that Obama is going to extensive lengths to invoke the specter of Abraham Lincoln. Obama is using the Bible to be sworn in that was used by Lincoln when he took the oath of office. Also there is the reality that he took a Lincolnesque train trip from Illinois to Washington DC. There is even word that at one of the festivities after the inauguration they are going to eat the same type of food served after Lincoln was inaugurated on China that is a replica of that used in 1861.

Now, I know I am cynical to a fault but I find myself asking what is the meaning of this Lincoln parroting. Is Obama cleverly signaling that he, like Lincoln’s dispossessing of the South in favor of Northern industrialists, is intent on dispossessing one part of the population in the interest of another? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is intent of trampling on the civil rights of Americans who oppose his policies? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is going to grow the power and authority of the centralized state? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is going to institute the draft? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is intent on spending outrageous sums of money on internal improvements?

There are other similarities between Lincoln and Obama. The rhetoric of each is (was) mesmerizing. They were (are) both inexperienced lawyers from Illinois upon taking office. They each had (have) a cursory attachment to Christianity all the while explicitly denying its essence. They each had remote relationships with their Fathers.

Lincoln was great for America if you belonged to the special interest group that he represented. If you weren’t part of that group then Lincoln was death.

Or maybe Obama just likes stovepipe hats.

In defense of the departing Bush William Duane Yelley wrote,

“How soon we forget what Bush went through. Constant attacks on our assets stopped after 9/11. We don’t have Osama but he can’t stop running. The liberal cry (lie) of no WMDs ignores the 40,00 munitions, 690 tons of chemical agents and 3,000 tons of chemicals to produce agents found and the 500 plus WMDs found since 2003.

Inheriting a budget that had been “deferred” by the previous administration and unsound housing and economic policies he attempted to reverse since 2001 has given him the reputation Clinton deserves. Giving Bush the credit for private financial failures only indicates our country is ready for socialism.

It’s a good thing we had a man with testicular fortitude who could care less what the liberal media said than the alternatives.”

Bret responds,

1.) Even the Bush administration concedes they were wrong about WMD in Iraq. That dog won’t hunt. Their intel was wrong and invading Iraq was a major error that some of us warned about at the time.

2.) That Clinton was worse than Bush is no reason to recommend Bush. Read Hayek’s book ‘Road To Serfdom’ to see why the worst rises to the top in Totalitarian States. Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II have been pond scum rising to the top. (And by the way, everyone should keep in mind that it is Ronald Reagan that we have to thank for the Bushes. Apart from Reagan there is no way Bush I gets elected and so no way that Bush II has the skids greased for him to the top. Thanks Gipper.)

3.) Bush did not try to reverse Clinton’s housing policies. See,

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/080928_rove.htm

From Carter forward the politicos have been on this mad rush to multi-culturalism and diversity. The housing industry has been one way they’ve been trying to destroy American brand identity in favor of political correctness brand identity.

4.) Bush does share the credit for helping creating a housing bubble that burst, as the Sailer article proves, and he will share credit for socializing our financial markets with his foolish bail-out.

5.) Bush was a liberal idiot. The Liberal Media is a idiot. Their differences lay in the fact that Bush was Fascist while the media is more international socialist. The fact that the media has criticized Bush does not prove that Bush is not a liberal.

6.) Josef Stalin had testicular fortitude also. I’m not sure that is a particularly noble attribute when you’re as glaringly wrong as Bush has consistently been.

It is a curious trait of the human creature to get all nostalgic at the changing of the guard. Bush’s departure ought not to gin up nostalgia but rather disgust. Disgust for his “No Child Left Behind” idiocy, disgust for his prescription medicine for Senior’s bankruptcy, disgust for his attempt to give amnesty to 15 million illegal aliens, disgust for his locking us into socialism with the bailout, disgust for the Iraq war, disgust for his role in the minority mortgage meltdown, disgust for the “Patriot Act,” disgust for muscling up the position of chief executive thus setting the table for a even larger tyrant, disgust for Bush’s signing statements that basically turned all legislation into whatever he wanted it to mean, disgust for garbled syntax, trying to dress Harriet Miers in a black robe, inviting an Imam and a Rabbi to the 9/11 pantheon “worship” service, and for working so assiduously to surrender our sovereignty as a nation (North American Union). And finally disgust because for eight years we’ve had to put up with looking at a President that looks like Alfred E. Newman.

The Bush II presidency has been shameful, and the fact that any Christian desires to get all sentimental about seeing him leave office is quite beyond me.

Now B. Hussein Obama will be even worse but there is very little to nothing to go all nostalgic over regarding the Bush administration.