Posted on 04/22/2014 7:39:55 PM PDT by Daniel Clark
Vocabulary Fraud: Obama denies by redefinition
by Daniel Clark
While speaking to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, President Obama stated his opposition to state voter identification laws, a position for which no innocent motive exists. It wouldn’t have sounded good if he’d admitted he was defending voter fraud, so instead he redefined the term, so that he could pretend to oppose it instead.
“The real voter fraud is those that try to deny our rights by making arguments about voter fraud,” he said, apparently meaning that those who try to prevent voter fraud by requiring identification are themselves the frauds. Let’s think about that for a second, in English. Fraud is an exercise in deceit. Where’s the deception in requiring someone to produce a photo ID in order to vote? When you need a photo ID in order to cash a check, nobody calls that banking fraud.
Such a characterization would be a transparent attempt to enable genuinely fraudulent transactions. Obama’s attempt to shield voter fraud is just as thinly disguised. Symptomatic of his Big Brother complex, his redefinition is a direct contradiction: verification is fraud, and vice versa.
As long as he’s pinching ideas from 1984, he might as well redefine “freedom,” too. “As Democrats, we’ve let the other side define ‘freedom’ for too long,” he told this year’s Winter Meeting of the Democratic National Committee. “Freedom doesn’t mean the ability to ask ‘what’s in it for me.’” If the ability to act in one’s own interest isn’t “freedom,” then what is?
“Freedom is the knowledge that your future in this country is secure,” he said, adding that a secure future can only be provided by an omnipotent federal government. Freedom, he went on to explain, is having your health insurance provided by a central authority. Freedom is the ability to keep your house despite having no intention of paying your mortgage. It also turns out, absurdly, that freedom is the power to force a baker to produce a gay wedding cake against his will.
Although Obama categorizes amnesty for illegal aliens under the heading of “freedom,” he boasts a record of more deportations than any other administration. He justifies this claim by redefining the word “deport” so that it applies to people who have never taken up residence here. The “deported” now include many of those apprehended at the border, who are never really in the U.S. other than while in custody. These are offenders who previously would have been immediately returned to Mexico as part of the widely criticized “catch and release” policy. After 9-11, the Bush administration began charging and fingerprinting them before sending them back. Bush did not count these cases as deportations. Obama, by doing so, has superficially tripled his total.
Throughout the pre-Obama era, the federal deficit has been the difference between federal outlays and revenues for a particular year. The deficit has always been an annual measurement, to show how much is being added to the national debt from one year to the next. Now that we’re speaking Obamese, the deficit is a 10-year cumulative projection. If he can produce a new projection that comes in at $100 billion a year less than the last projection, then he can gloat that he’s reduced the deficit by $1 trillion, even though the results haven’t happened yet, and even though he is inflating that hypothetical outcome tenfold.
Contrary to liberal academic theory, you can’t change reality just by talking about it differently. Fraudulent votes, and not voter ID laws, threaten the integrity of our electoral process. Millions of illegal aliens continue to mock our country with their presence, abetted by an administration even less serious about the problem than its predecessors. Obama has already increased our national debt by 58 percent, despite his tall tales of having slain the fire-breathing deficit.
Most importantly, being subject to an authoritarian government is not freedom. Bureaucrats now aim to dictate every facet of our behavior, right down to our eating habits. Free expression of religion has become a right reserved for liberal-approved minorities, while Christians are increasingly prohibited from living in accordance with their beliefs. Obama himself routinely chooses to nullify certain laws through non-enforcement, thereby treating the will of the people as merely an unsolicited opinion.
Obama thinks he can take the infamously pungent “corpse flower” and call it a rose, and then have his regulatory wonks issue a report about how sweet it smells. If you disagree with that conclusion, then you are a racist.
Well? Why wouldn’t he also redefine you, while he’s at it?
-- Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.
“As Democrats, we’ve let the other side define ‘freedom’ for too long,” he told this year’s Winter Meeting of the Democratic National Committee. “Freedom doesn’t mean the ability to ask ‘what’s in it for me.’”
Wait, don’t liberals say that’s what “freedom of choice” (abortion) is all about??? A woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body??
Liberals truly do have a mental disorder.
” - - - While speaking to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, President Obama stated his opposition to state voter identification laws, - - - “
Here are four observational statements about themselves that Obama and his Pal Al may not yet be aware of:
* If you are afraid that others will take away your vote, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - you might be a racist.
* If you claim that the potential loss of your vote is due to greed, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - you might be a racist.
* If you don’t get your way all the time, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -then you might be a racist.
* If you say that someone is a racist, and do NOT back it up with facts, - - - - - - - - - - - you just might be a racist.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Just wow.
Mark
Brilliant stuff. Language distortion destroys reality unless we keep on top of it constantly. And why should we have to do this? Language is all-important in the infowars and culture wars. Don’t let them get away with it. Don’t lose heart. Continue the fight. Thank you, DC!
Someone said they have minds like a broken cuckoo clock. Bird comes out of the clock and squawks something and it has no relation to anything else the bird says. It merely fits the need of that isolated moment.
(Sorry, I posted mine earlier than I meant)
Think about all the things Barack Hussein Humpty Dumpty Obama (BHHDO) has said that could only make sense by some sort of redefinition...
Everything about Obamacare... From “crappy insurance plans” that people were perfectly happy with, to redefining dates actually IN the law, to changing his mind... Saying you could keep your plan, then you couldn’t, and only after it was cancelled could you keep it again! Basically, BHHDO has said, “The Law of Obamacare is what I say it is, at this moment, but is subject to change at my whim...” He certainly redefined the word “affordable!”
He redefined the numbers making up unemployment. He’s redefined the Census as a partisan political act.
He’s redefined the Presidential oath of office... Well, if not redefining it, he’s certainly ignored it, as well as much of the Constitution of the United Stated.
And he’s redefined political demonization, fanning the flames of class and race warfare. I’ve stated on FR before that it almost seems that BHHDO is an acolyte of Charles Manson, trying to bring about the class and race wars that the Tate/Labianca murders were supposed to ignite.
BHHDO was held up to be the savior of the earth, and the media swooned over him so completely, and he’s used them so thoroughly that the press is exhibiting a combination of “battered wife” and “Stockholm” syndromes.
I know that the working citizens of the USA certainly feel battered and abused by BHHDO.
Nark
He’s really claiming that blacks are too stupid to get ID’s. The politics are a secondary consideration.
Bravo, Daniel Clark.
That strikes me as an excellent turn of phrase.
Indeed, there is no purpose for opposition to voter ID than the intention of stealing elections. Period.
(That last ---- "Period" --- I use in mockery of the dishonest serial liar himself, Obama.)
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.