Liberals are always re-writing history, so why not geography?

August 8, 2013
By

Obama and Teleprompter appear on Leno

Liberals and progressives have been re-writing major portions of American history for decades. If the facts don’t line up with your agenda, change them so they do.

Want to win the black vote? Re-write history to erase Republican successes on civil rights while white-washing—did that sound racist?—your party’s connections to the Klu Klux Klan.

Want to raise taxes? Re-write history and tell Americans that Bill Clinton’s 1993 increase of personal income taxes on the top bracket—which had a very negative effect on the economy—resulted in 23 million jobs being created. You also rewrite the part that shows that this job growth didn’t occur until Clinton agreed with Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans about cutting the capital gains rate in 1997. Actually, you don’t rewrite that part, you just leave it out.

Want to grant to homosexuals rights that have never existed in the history of mankind? Re-write history to show homosexuals only in a positive light, while re-writing the definition of marriage at the same time in order to destroy it.

Want the right to murder your unborn child without restrictions? First, re-write the definition of abortion by calling it a “women’s health” issue, then re-write the history of abortion to include made up numbers about “coat hanger” abortions.

Want to join Obama in embracing radical Islam? Re-write American history to include the contributions made by Muslims “throughout our history” while simultaneously dismissing America’s Christian heritage.  

There are many more examples, but get the idea.

But is there something else you can do besides re-write history? You bet! You can re-write geography.

Want to defend your failed economic policies? If you’re Obama, you re-write the geography of the Gulf of Mexico like he did with his appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

JAY LENO: You mentioned infrastructure. Why is that a partisan issue? I live in a town, the bridge is falling apart, it’s not safe. How does that become Republican or Democrat? How do you not just fix the bridge? (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know. As you know, for the last three years, I’ve said, let’s work together. Let’s find a financing mechanism and let’s go ahead and fix our bridges, fix our roads, sewer systems, our ports. The Panama is being widened so that these big supertankers can come in. Now, that will be finished in 2015. If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida — if we don’t do that, those ships are going to go someplace else. And we’ll lose jobs. Businesses won’t locate here.

This isn’t the first time Obama has re-written the geography of the Gulf in defense of his economic policies. He’s done it on two other occasions this year. And to think, these cities previously resided on the Atlantic Ocean. 

On occasion, these geographic re-writes have been misunderstood as “gaffes” by the general public. Not to despair. The media—another liberal and/or progressive part of the Democrat machine—will be there to do a re-write of their own if it protects their agenda. In the Tonight Show situation, the AP’s Russ Bynum did the honors.

“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. — if we don’t do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we’ll lose jobs,” Obama said.

Geographical re-writes have been a part of the Obama playbook for most of his political career. As a presidential candidate in 2007, he did it frequently.

He redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

In front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

When explaining why he was trailing in the primaries to Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, he said explained it this way. “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

Liberals and progressives have been re-writing history to fit their agenda for decades now. So, why not geography?

 

What others had to say:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Donate

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Strident Conservative and receive notifications of new posts.

Follow me on Twitter

T-Shirts For Conservatives

prog

WWJD About The Border?

Supplies For The Conservative Revolution

Get Adobe Flash player