As reported by ArcaMax.com, according to the word-watchers at Global Language Monitor, the media tracking and analysis firm of Austin, TX, the top 10 most used words/phrases since President Obama's inauguration are:

Gee, I'm a little surprised. I mean, some of those make sense to me, based on what I've been seeing and hearing since January 20th, just 231 days ago (can you believe it?), but others surprise me so far as a "top 10" list goes. And I guess one thing that surprises me the most is some of the words left out, rather than some of those included.

I would've thought any "top 10" list of most-used words/phrases since Obama's inauguration would include (in no particular order -- well, except for the first three, of course):

...on pushing ObamaCare through Congress. Well, as Dirty Harry once said, "Go ahead, make my day." 

Falsely claiming, once again (or is that, still?), that the Republican "Party of No" won't be nice and "play bipartisan" by joining them in passing Obama's massive makeover/takeover of the American health care/insurance system, various Democrat "leaders" are now -- rather over-dramatically, I might add -- "threatening" to "go it alone" and use reconciliation, AKA "the nuclear option," to force ObamaCare through the Senate and down the throats of the American people -- say, "ahhhh" -- whether they want it or not. And polls increasingly show that they do not want it. (Hmmm, I'm getting confused now. Is that fascism yet or just more socialism by Obama and the Democrats?)

First, aside from President Obama publicly mouthing words of bipartisanship but privately reminding Republicans "Hey, we won," the Democrats in Congress, and especially in Princess Pelosi's House, have been the "Party of We're Not Listening."

It was Democrats who took it upon themselves to exclude Republican participation and "go it alone" in passing a $787 billion stimulus plan without reading it, a "plan" which hasn't stimulated much of anything, of which only about 10 to 15 percent has been spent even now going on seven months later and most of that not in the states most in need of job stimulation, while ignoring and shutting out Republicans who were offering an alternative plan which would have created twice as many jobs, in half the time, at less than half the cost.

It was Congressional Democrats who "went it alone" in passing a bloated budget, which also went unread, which was packed with over 8,000 pork projects and which was quickly signed behind closed doors by a Democrat president who had "promised" he would take his Sharpie and go line-by-line through any spending measure to eliminate earmarks and other waste.

It was Congressional House Democrats who "went it alone" in passing H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act, also called the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, otherwise also known as the clean energy cap-and-tax bill, otherwise known as global warming -- uh, sorry, climate change -- legislation, and otherwise also known as a manufacturing base destroyer, a small business crippler and a potentially huge individual American family energy tax.

At least this time they had an excuse for not reading the bill before voting on it, because they introduced 300 pages of amendments (which were not even integrated into the bill as required, much less read in toto by anybody) at 3AM of the same day on which they insisted on voting on and passing it.

(Is it just me, or does it seem that any time anybody is in that much of a hurry to do something, like this 111th Congress has been the whole time, it may be because they're afraid somebody is going to figure out they're doing something they shouldn't be doing and they just want to hurry up and get it done before anybody can stop them? Ah, no, that's just me, being my cynical old self again, right?)

The fact is, "bipartisanship" to the Democrats only means voting along with what they want to do, however and whenever they want to do it. And, truth be told, knowing they had the votes to approve almost anything they wanted to, they have only wanted so-called bipartisanship "for show" anyway, to give them the "political cover" of Republican participation in case something goes wrong.

Although White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel did recently say, in a stretch of logic meant to put lipstick on a pig (remember Obama saying that about something Palin said during the campaign?), that basically anytime Republicans didn't actively object to whatever the Democrats were doing, that was bipartisanship. No, it ain't, Rambo Rahm, and, just like with your boss Obama and much of what he says, just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. You can't just "make up" new meanings for words as you go along and "redefine" things just to suit your own purposes of the moment. After all, it was your boss Obama who repeatedly said during the campaign that "words matter." And that means that their normally accepted meanings also matter. (Well, maybe, as we've found out since you all actually got into the White House, except for such words as "transparency," "open and accountable government," "no lobbyists in my government," and, oh yeah, "bipartisanship.")

As I said, the Democrats, knowing they have enough votes in both the House and Senate to pass almost anything they want to without Republican participation, much less support, have not only been excluding Republican participation while falsely claiming that Republicans are just being obstructionists but Obama and the Democrats have also been severely overreaching, some might say unconstitutionally so.

Now, at over seven months into the Obama presidency and with Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress responsible for (a) continuing TARP bailouts and government takeovers of private industry, (b) a massive stimulus plan which hasn't stimulated, (c) the largest and one of the most pork laden budgets in our history, (d) the House passage of Waxman-Markey as a huge energy tax in exchange for the least amount of real climate change benefit, and (e) a quadrupling of our deficit spending in mere months, no one -- I repeat, no one -- can any longer credibly blame Bush for the economy, or much of anything else, for that matter.

Obama and the Democrats own it now. The honeymoon and the hiding behind Bush are over. It's time for Obama and his Congress to lead and to govern on their own. Stop telling us all the time what your predecessors did wrong and show us what you've got.

And if Obama and the Democrats continue to overreach, as they already have so far, for example by using reconciliation, which is a Senate procedure for dealing solely with budget matters and not intended to be used for major pieces of legislation, to ram through ObamaCare, which is definitely a major piece of legislation affecting one-sixth of our total economy, and especially if they do it over Republican objections and against the will of the majority of the American people, they will own that, too. And they will have no one to blame but themselves, which means we will have no one to blame but them also. So, go ahead, Mr. President and the Democrat controlled 111th Congress, overreach again. In other words, again as Dirty Harry said, "Do ya feel lucky, Punk? Well, do ya?"

What's that old saying -- Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? And what's that other old saying about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves? Well, Obama and the Democrats have the power. So, like the kid at Mickey D's might ask you about fries with your order, would you like some more rope to go with that? We'll try our very best to have all your nooses ready by 2010.

(Subtitle: Anybody else getting unsolicited emails from the White House lately?)

Well, I am evidently one of the "chosen ones." Within the last month or so, I have received an unsolicited email from Barack Obama and two unsolicited emails from his senior advisor David Axelrod. (I'm secretly waiting and hoping for a personal billet-doux from Rahm Emanuel next. That would give me a trifecta.)

The emails are individually and singly (not one in a multiple listing) addressed to my email address, greet me with the salutation of "Good Morning" or "Dear Friend" and have the WH logo at the top and the standard 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address info across the bottom.

Now, I can assure you that they didn't get my email address from any of their campaign supporter lists or from any nice letter I've sent the White House lately, but I'm not going to be paranoid about where they did get it -- just curious. It is a little Big Brother-ish, though. 

So, it is just me being "targeted" because I'm already on Obama's "enemies list" and they're trying to persuade me to "come over," or have many -- any -- of you also received these emails? Are they sending them to some of us, or are they sending them to all of us? And if it's only some of us, how are those some being "chosen"?

I now know that at least some other people are receiving these, because Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett was recently alerted to it by some of his viewers and is now pursuing an answer from Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about how people are selected to receive them (and good luck to you with that, Major).

Finally, it all makes me wonder just how desperate the White House is to "get its message out." And why.        

WH Email #1
Subj: My Supreme Court Nominee  
Date: 7/14/2009 10:38:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Good Morning,
Subject: Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
From: Barack Obama

WH Email #2
Subj: It's time for a reality check  
Date: 8/10/2009 8:29:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: The need for health care/insurance reform and sources to use for the "truth"
Encourages visiting the new www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck web site and helping to "spread the truth" to family, friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod

WH Email #3
Subj: Something worth forwarding  
Date: 8/13/2009 7:56:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about health insurance reform, and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now  
Encourages visiting www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck and forwarding email to friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod

[Subtitled: Ah, those delightfully doofus (and dangerously delusional) Democrats]

With angry constituents showing up in increasing numbers at Democrat (and some Republican) town hall meetings across the country and demanding to be heard about their growing dissatisfaction with a host of Obama Administration and Congressional issues, rather than just being passively preached to about the Democrat talking points gospel of Obamacare, the Democrat so-called "leadership" is going on the attack, or I should say, counter-attack. Herewith, some of their "reasoning."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, that crusty curmudgeonly princeling of the senate, grouses and grumps that town hall attendees are just trying to "sabotage" health care reform. Well, Harry, first of all, which of the at least five so-called health care/health insurance reform "plans" currently floating around in Congress do you think they're trying to sabotage? Or are you talking about what at least the House of Representatives (not your Senate, Harry) has voted on so far, the euphemistically named but seriously flawed and certainly far from final H.R. 3200, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"?

The fact is, when the prez or any of you talk about the prez's health care, uh, sorry, more recently renamed health insurance, reform "plan," there is no "plan" yet. At most what you have is about five differing versions of something embodying most of what are Obama's "goals" for health care/insurance reform. Goals ain't plans, Harry. (Example: Obama still has the goal of closing Guantanamo, but we've yet to see a plan -- even a workable cart-before-the-horse one -- to actually do that.) And once you do get it down into a single plan, with or without Republican participation, if that plan includes things like single payer and a massive government makeover/takeover of the best health care system in the world, especially without tort or insurance rate reform but with rationed care, especially for the elderly, and federal funding of abortions, then you're damn right there will be people at those town hall meetings trying to sabotage it. And I will be one of them.

Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, says many town hall attendees are too well dressed to be "sincere." Is that because they're not wearing red ACORN or purple SEIU union T-shirts, Babs? From what I've seen, the people attending the town hall meetings are wearing everything from suits and ties to T-shirts and jeans. Most look like they came to the town hall meeting from work. Don't you try to dress well, Barbara? And aren't you sincere? Just askin'.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who is both the princess of power in the House and the botox queen (wow, double royalty!), thinks she's seen people with swastikas at town hall meetings. Look out, the skinheads are invading our town hall meetings! Why, they're even crowding out some of our own paid, bussed-in union thugs! How about one person with a crossed-out swastika at one meeting, Miz Nancy? Oh my! But far be it from ME to accuse YOU of exaggerating something just to try and make a point. Or were "those swastikas" at a TEA Party protest, which Democrats also try to deny and decry? How does that work, exactly, where you deny something and then decry its existence? Of course Nance also has said the CIA lies to Congress but has yet to offer any proof of that, either. I guess just claims and allegations are enough nowadays. 

Back in April, President Obama, who as the president of the United States is someone who can have several someones find out anything he wants to know, any time he wants to know it, was dismissive of thousands of TEA Party protesters at hundreds of venues across the country, saying he didn't know what all that was about, except he saw someone waving a tea bag around. (Whattaya think now, Mistah Prez?)

Since then, various Dems and their lamestream media handmaidens have derided TEA Party protesters and denied their authenticity, yet decried their obviously growing numbers. So, lemme see now, (a) they're not authentic, (b) you don't understand what they're all about, but (c) you decry and disparage their activities anyway? And how come when Bush was prez, disruptive liberal "free speech" (read: shouting down any speaker with a conservative point of view) was a sign of "patriotism," but now concerned citizens gathering to demonstrate to their elected representatives their dissatisfaction with a runaway government is not only somehow "unpatriotic" but should also be "ignored"? Don't you have to be at least a little schizophrenic to do all that, all at the same time? Or is that just another example of Dems trying to have their cake and eating it too?

But, speaking of cake, Senator Richard Durbin, D-IL, seems to take the cake among all the Democrats lately. Senator Durbin seems to think the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy has been reactivated (if it ever was dormant, eh, Senator? -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink.) and that there is nothing authentic about the people or their anger at recent town hall meetings: They're all Republicans, or at least all conservatives. They're organized and funded by the GOP, or some other Obama-unapproved and unapproving special interest group. They're all bussed in just to disrupt the meetings and prevent a fair discussion of health care/health insurance reform. They're right-wing fringe nutjobs who don't really represent mainstream America. They just want to be disruptive and get on YouTube. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Hey, Dickey, I know you've been a senator for a long time, but either (a) you are desperately disconnected from what's going on in this country right now, (b) you are perniciously paranoid about what you do know is going on, or (c) you want us to think you're just little Dickey Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, and just really dumber than dirt. Either that, or you think we are.