The State of Obama Address

I haven’t written on this blog in some time, but last night’s “State of Obama” speech led me to respond in the manner I would have hoped the conservative opposition might have responded.

First, he is an effective speaker – his delivery is fine, even though he was noticeably more subdued than in past speeches or on the campaign trail. It is the content, however, that gives me pause. We were hoping for a move to the right, not a mere head fake. Such a move would have been understandable and appropriate for a politician who was not so narcissistic that he cannot see the obvious. Instead, we got a less-than-impassioned defense of failed policy.

Defiant He tried to offer a defiant tone, but his defiance was only of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the will of the people. The Supreme Court’s recent decision was a strong defense of the First Amendment, which no fair-minded constitutional scholar could fault. Every election of substance since his inauguration has been a clear statement of opposition to his big government, big spending, leftist policies. Does he not see that the people overwhelmingly disapprove of his primary goals of healthcare “reform” and cap-and-trade initiatives? Is it not clear to everyone that these major moves toward a socialized command economy are anathema to all but those who would trade liberty for security?

Resolute His “we don’t quit – I don’t quit” line was more recalcitrant, truculent, and naïve than it was resolute. This kind of willful ignorance in the face of the obvious would be laughable if he weren’t holding the job he holds. It is strangely incongruent to use America’s history of resolution in the face of great threats as a basis for policy initiatives designed to destroy that fiber, and leave us all dependent social democrats hoping for favors from the government.

Mea Culpa Even here, where he has obviously screwed up, losing key elections and watching key initiatives die a slow death while he fails to show real leadership, he can’t bring himself to admit that he failed. He offers instead that “he failed to explain it well enough.” That is no admission, and it doesn’t fly anyway. Does he think voters don’t know what his cobbled-together policy will do to this country? His alibi is much like the guy who robbed the grocery store saying, upon his conviction, that he did nothing wrong – he simply didn’t explain to the jury well enough why he needed that money more than the store owner.

Populist Whenever a politician is losing ground, there is always the populist approach. This elitist Ivy Leaguer vainly attempted a Trumanesque approach, against Wall Street and in defense of the middle class. As to the former, he has surrounded himself with former Goldman Sachs and Wall Street executives who have protected these greed-mongers from the effects of their own failures, at the expense of taxpayers. By giving huge bailouts to political cronies on Wall Street, he has saddled future generations with the cost of their gambles and patent disregard of risk. And his keystone agenda items promise to saddle the middle class with more taxes, more costs, fewer jobs, and a failed healthcare system – hardly a defense of middle class security or prosperity.

Patriotic It is this affront, when Presidents throw out their obligatory statements about the strength, decency and courage of this country and its people, that most offends me. As a soldier, I was prepared to fight and even die to defend those great principles upon which this country was founded and thrived. But there is no copyright on the use of patriotic phrases, so politicians who would intentionally destroy all we have built not only trot them out, but are actually “offended” if their patriotism is questioned. Does he not know that we did not succeed by punishing the producers, nor by failing to protect our vital national security interests both here and overseas? Does he not understand that we rose to world prominence by renouncing the repeated attempts of elitists to socialize every aspect of our economy and social policy? He says he wants to “carry the dream forward”, but I would ask – just what dream is he talking about? That America will take its place as yet another weak or failed social democracy? He says he will “never accept second place for America”, so I ask – is third place better? Fourth? We have lost freedoms sufficiently in this country under his watch that we now rank below the top ten countries in liberty and freedom – what is it that he thinks we should accept – a failed state, soaked with debt and defaulting, in order to pay for his dreams of wealth distribution and government largesse? Having defended the principles of individual liberty, a market economy, and small government most of my life, I am both afraid of and offended by “patriots” who would give all that away for their own grandiose visions of statism. His is not the America I defended, and it is not the America I want.

Side note: Southern Girl apologizes for neglecting Bless Our Hearts. It is not intentional. Life has snuck up on the both of us--and we had to choose our priorities. Unfortunately, Bless Our Hearts fell to the bottom of the list. We both hope to improve our presence in 2010.

Dinner With the President: A Parable

I received this email this morning (author unknown). Thought provoking to say the least.

Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.

I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.

The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen.

"Sorry about that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry."

"I don't appreciate..." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp.

"And his brother Eric is very thirsty." said the President.

I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don't want to seem unkind.

My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.

"Eric's children are also quite hungry."

With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.

"And their grandmother can't stand for long.."

I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for m y coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President.

"Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."

I wanted to shout- that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.

"Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a sub-prime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do."

My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops.

"By the way," He added,=2 0"I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars."

I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his crème brulee. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair. He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost? I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us.

What had I done wrong?

As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.

"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.

Budget Spending vs. Budget Cuts

For those of you that are visual learners...

Seriously?

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money." -Senator Everett Dirksen

Keeping Score

As if Pelosi keeping a list isn't bad enough...

Now, we have the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES quoted saying, ""Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."

"'Don't think we're not keeping score, brother.' That's what President Barack Obama said to Rep. Peter DeFazio in a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus last week, according to the Associated Press." Read the rest of the article here.

So, to add on the list of ridiculous actions this man has set into place in the 2 months he has been in office, we can now officially add, "act like a HIGH SCHOOL student" to the list.

Seriously? I am sure this was said "tongue in cheek" but probably came across more as a threat, if his demeanor that he has demonstrated stayed steady. However, I am just reminded of high school students "keeping a list" of who is in and who is out. Who made the leader of the pack mad this week?

I'd say this is something we need to keep our eyes on, though. Five of the Deomcrat Senators listed come from red states, the heart of fly-over land (North Dakota, Nebraska, Arkansas and Louisiana)...and tend to be more moderate as their constituents tend to be more conservative. If these guys start changing their tune and voting FOR what their constituents are adamently against, it WILL be time to exploit them and let the residents of their states know they are not there for the good of the people they were voted to represent...but simply in Washington as puppets for the Obama administration.

We CAN NOT let this man bully our representatives around. If they can't stand up to him, well, we need to bring people into office that will.

Obama Decision to Move Census to White House

I'm starting to feel like I'm reading history books. Obama's latest move is to take the U.S. Census to the White House.

Moving the Census to the White House "It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering."

Click here to view the entire article.

Why do so many people NOT have a problem with this?!? Why do people honestly feel it is ok to give all the power to one party? When that happens, we as a people lose our voice. Our voice is then "decided" for us--often times without factoring in what is important to us. Often times, the only consideration is what pet group did what for what politician...

How Can an Average Joe Think This Stimulus is Ok?

I am deeply disturbed with that fact that there are people that are ok and even support this current proposed stimulus. MILLIONS of dollars are allocated to projects that, while good in theory, have NOTHING to do with stimulating the economy. They do not need to be bundled under such a title. It is misleading and a "loophole" to get pet projects continuous federal aid.

There are over 300 pages in this bill and line for line, a bunch of items have been snuck in that benefit a politician or two’s special interest groups.

Also, President Obama has stated (more than once) that this bill would not immediately stimulate the economy. If that is the case, why is it such an emergency to get it passed? Why not sit down--and DO YOUR JOB, acting as the leaders of this nation, and figure out what will REALLY stimulate this economy rather than fast tracking spending. Forget your pet projects and special interest groups and figure out SOMETHING (and include regulations in there, too).

50 De-Stimulating Facts

I’ve also heard many a “Obama Supporter” state that “we don’t need the Republicans, they’ll be extinct.” My answer to that is: the day that we as Americans accept that ONE party is correct is the day that we lose our title "most powerful nation in the FREE world." Because we will no longer be free. That is why there has always and should always be multiple parties in this nation. So that one group can't decide what is best for ALL OF US with absolutely no opposition.

That's called dictatorship (communism, socialism, fill in the blank). So, the kool aid drinkers need to drop the "we don't need Republicans"...we will always need someone to oppose the radical democrats, just as we will always need someone to oppose the radical republicans. Checks and balances.

If everyone just sits back and says "well I vote that way because it's 'closest' to how I believe" we'll always be stuck with the crooks that are currently running this country.

It's time now--to take a stand and get honest, hard working "Joes" in Senate seats and in the House. It's time NOW to start getting the likes of Pelosi and Reid out. It won’t happen overnight, and will have to start at a local level, but if we all join together, we can reform this nation the way it needs to be done.

And back to the original topic: Seriously, how are some of people honestly NOT bothered by this stimulus plan. It is anything BUT a stimulus. If you have children, look at them. THEY (and their children) will be the ones paying for our mistakes if this bill goes through. Can you honestly look at them and put that burden on them?

Questions for Obama Supporters:

For those of you that are telling posters to refer to Obama as President Obama...did you offer the same respect for Bush?

Why are you not angry that he has failed to keep more campaign promises in two weeks than most Presidents fail to do in a four year term?

Why are you not angry that he has hired CRIMINALS (or at least nominated them)?

Why are you not angry that he has now verbally separated the United States into two categories: the Prominent and the Ordinary. The Prominent being POLITICIANS. What gave them the right to be Prominent?

Have you even taken the time to skim over the "Stimulus" package he is trying to "rush" through Congress?

When he himself has told us this plan will not stimulate the economy immediately...why "rush" it through as an emergency. Why not spend some time creating a bill that can actually STIMULATE the economy in less than a year's time?

Why are you not appalled at the pork in the bill?

How does rebuilding the projects stimulate the economy? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but do the people that live in the projects already NOT contribute to the economy? The government is already paying for them.

Why do those "Progress" signs not freak you out?

Civil Disobedience

While doing my daily blog stalking I came across a post at Blonde Sagacity that made me grin from ear to ear.

Civil Disobedience. The blog "Where's The Change" suggests stamping "Tax Cheat" on American Dollars that bear Tim Geithner's name. Hmmm. Now, while I don't think it's so much Civil Disobedience as just a nuisance to a certain "Secretary of Treasury," I do think it is a FABULOUS idea.

It probably wouldn't cause much of an uproar, but could you imagine, if every dollar was marked "Tax Cheat." That would at least let our Government know that we are on to them...

Obama was right in one thing. It IS time for a change. He's just not showing us any.

Oh Lord. He Doesn't Walk On Water?

So...one of my favorite blogs to go visit is Margaret and Helen. The blog is authored by two ladies that have been best friends for sixty years and counting and let me tell you. They DESPISE all things conservative.

I have never posted a comment on their blog (well, until today), but enjoy their bantering back and forth and reading up on the evils of conservatism--(the target of the moment is Ann Coulter as Helen is currently reading Ann's book, "Guilty.") They really are HILARIOUS.

While reading Helen's current review of Ann's book I came across this statement, "It appears that Obama doesn’t walk on water. He actually admitted that he made a mistake in handling the nomination of Tom Daschle as his health and human services secretary. Can you believe that? A President who admits he made a mistake when he makes it rather than years later when he is leaving office and trying to fabricate a legacy. It gives me hope that whoever classified Ann’s books as nonfiction will one day also admit their mistake."

I'm going to go ahead and break this down a little bit.

It appears that Obama doesn’t walk on water: wow. That was a shock.

He actually admitted that he made a mistake in handling the nomination of Tom Daschle as his health and human services secretary.: Ok, let's set the record straight. Obama said he "screwed up" on Tuesday night AFTER Daschle withdrew his nomination. He didn't say it Monday or Sunday or Saturday or in December or January...he said it AFTER it was brought to America's attention that Daschle believed he didn't best fit the job at hand because of his prior mistakes.

A President who admits he made a mistake when he makes it rather than years later when he is leaving office and trying to fabricate a legacy. Obama has yet to take credit for any of the crap we've seen come through these past TWO weeks (because it has only taken two weeks to see what criminals "We The People" have elected into office). He won't even take full credit for the Stimulus Bill (you know, because those pesky House Repubs don't like it). To date, 11 lobbyists (that lobbied in the past year for companies that hold special interests in the same governmental department they will now be working)...check out Zelda's comment on Blonde Sagacity for reference. Three people (possibly more, but I don't feel like doing research at the moment) that have been nominated (by Mr. President himself) for positions in either the White House staff or Cabinet have failed to pay taxes at some point in their lives. One of the three is now the Big Guy at the IRS. Explain that one, Mr. President.

Oh sweet, deluded women. When will you see this man for what he is? A Chicago politician (or better known as Chicago Criminal), that has no problem looking the other way...or hiring criminals because "he owes them." I like how Moogie P summed it up in her recent post.

And with that, I'll finish this post with an Obama quote:

Tuesday, 2/3/09: "Ultimately, I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics," Obama said. "And I don't want to send a message to the American people that there are two sets of standards -- one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes."

But Mr. President, you already sent us the message of double standards. Or need I remind you that the guy you made BOSS of the IRS had back taxes, too??? Or of the lobbyists you said you would not hire. Or of the other people you have appointed (Killefer withdrew as well) that seem to have a problem with paying taxes...

Spare me the bull shit, Mr. President.

Paris rejects 'Obama-style' stimulus program

This weekend I posted about how Great Britain is starting to see the light when it comes to giving Parliament too much power.

This morning, I open my Outlook to find an email in my inbox titled, "Obama too liberal for France?!?" (click the post title to see the article)

Ok--is that a joke? Have we seriously just elected a President that is too liberal even for the liberal Parisians?

"It would be irresponsible to chose another policy, which would increase our country's indebtedness without having more infrastructure and increased competitiveness in the end," [Prime Minister Francois] Fillon said in a speech in Lyon.

It would be IRRESPONSIBLE to spend more money when we're already in so much debt. What a crazy idea.

Maybe we SHOULD follow the example of other countries (before we make our own mistakes). After years of socialism and liberalism, I think some countries are finally starting to see that the choices they've made could possibly be more trouble than they are worth.

THE COWORKER: "It's getting hard for me to hate France with Nicolas Sarkozy as their President."

Amen Coworker, Amen.

Limbaugh on Limbaugh, The Coming Socialist Tsunami

Targeting Rush: Saul Alinsky Would Be Proud

In his eight full years as the recipient of endless vile, often-delusional slander, President George W. Bush rarely grumbled, much less counterattacked his tormentors. Yet before he completed his first week in office, President Barack Obama -- a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky, who is to left-wing radicalism and social agitation what Karl Marx is to communism -- declared war on Rush Limbaugh.

This was a calculated move by a man who professes to be open to all ideas but apparently brooks no dissent. He not only does not tolerate dissent well but also really doesn't even like to be questioned, as we saw during the campaign, when he accused the normally fawning press of grilling him for merely asking a follow-up question.

We caught another glimpse of this last week, when he showed irritation at the White House press corps for daring to ask him a policy question after he had decreed that the sole purpose of his visit was to press the flesh.

But Obama's effort to target Rush is not just his ego at work. He has begun a full-court press to advance his extreme left-wing agenda and was angling both to garner enough Republican support to insulate himself against future accountability for failure and to validate his self-styled image as a bipartisan uniter.

That's why he invited a group of Beltway conservatives for dinner, in a move reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's "listening tour" -- as if discerning observers believe that listening, as opposed to projecting an image of openness, was either Clinton's or Obama's purpose.

That's why he surrounded himself with big-business CEOs as he unveiled his misnamed "stimulus" package. That's why he often throws meaningless, abstract bones to conservatives in his speeches while having no intention of diluting his specific concrete liberal policies.

Obama is savvy enough to realize he can't eliminate all dissent. But he's enough of an Alinskyite to know that marginalizing and demonizing his strongest opponents could intimidate the fainthearted into supporting or withholding criticism of his policies and increase his chances for success.

Perhaps Alinsky would couch Obama's strategy in different terms, but it is essentially a divide-and-conquer approach.

Make no mistake: The goal is to single Rush out and pick him off.So Obama is trying to parlay his extraordinarily high approval rating to lay a foundation for his shock troops in the press and the party apparatus to discredit and eventually compromise or silence Rush.

As if in conspiratorial lockstep, the media are dutifully responding with round-the-clock distortions and deceitful context manipulation of Rush's clearly articulated statement that he hopes Obama's socialist blueprint for America fails, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is circulating a petition denouncing him.

These are part of their larger goal to emasculate Rush and other conservative radio hosts through the Unfairness Doctrine. Unhappily for them, their plan has backfired so far, as it obviously led to a counteraction, which, in turn, arguably contributed to the consolidation of Republicans in unanimous opposition to Obama's trillion-dollar mega-pork scheme.

But this is no time for Republican gloating -- obviously. Obama is far from dispirited or deterred. He has only just begun. His plan did, after all, pass the House with solely Democratic votes. It has a good chance to sail through the Senate, as well.

For those on the right who still cling to the fantasy that Obama is a bipartisan centrist, I refer you to his recent statement that FDR did not do enough by way of government spending to end the Depression, his decidedly pro-abortion executive order and pronouncement celebrating Roe v. Wade, his Web-documented commitment to the radical homosexual agenda, his announced closure of Gitmo and termination of enhanced interrogation techniques, his planned discontinuation of missile defense systems, his actions on carbon emissions and fuel efficiency in deference to the global warming hoax, his shameless apologies for America to the Muslim world, his arrogant carving out of exemptions for his own staff and appointees from ethical rules he is now otherwise imposing, his groundwork to shut down political criticism, and his government-expansion-on-steroids, non-stimulus pork bill.

The inevitable explosion of federal debt this legislation would cause is reason enough to oppose it, even if it were likely to stimulate the economy. But even some liberals are disputing its potential to stimulate. The hastily crafted bill, with its corrupt funding of ACORN and other favors, is a disgracefully irresponsible effort to expand the public sector, diminish the private sector, empower the autocrats, and further divest us of our individual liberties -- all at the expense of present and future generations.