State of the Union Lies

A PORTRAIT IN ABJECT FAILURE

by Sharon Rondeau

Obama mentioned “I” 96 times in his State of the Union address last night.  That says it all.  The historic address was nothing but a narcissist’s glance in the mirror and denial of what he saw there.

Instead of taking responsibility for an economy devastated from the meddling of community organizers and dishonest politicians in the financial industry over more than two decades in which he himself participated, Obama was defensive and lacked credibility.  A majority of the country’s citizens doubt that he even has the constitutional authority to  have made such a speech, and his words were nothing but empty rhetoric revealing a complete misunderstanding of all that is American.

Remember Obama’s goal to “fundamentally transform” America?  He talked a lot about that last night in regard to education, the economy, small businesses and banks, and the role of government in people’s affairs.  He made it clear that he has not abandoned his ultra-liberal positions  by calling for yet more spending on the part of government disguised as aid  to small businesses despite the fact that the economy continues to worsen as government expands like a balloon getting ready to burst.

Obama was painfully laughable when he said, “It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress.”  What about all of the overseas donations to his campaign which couldn’t be traced?  What about Muomar Qaddafi calling Obama “his son”?  What about “he’s-just-a-guy-in-my-neighborhood” Bill Ayers, who may yet stand trial for the murder of a police officer in San Francisco in the ’70s?

When Obama said “we have to take action…to do our work openly,” it prompted me to say, “Then show me your birth certificate!”

It made no sense when Obama said, “One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse and a government deeply in debt…So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.”  In the next breath, he said, “But the devastation remains.”  How could the worst be over yet still with us?  Who wrote his speech?  Did the teleprompter skip?  And how does he know the worst is over?

Obama tried to blame his predecessor for the national debt, yet Obama borrowed and spent more in the first eight months of his occupation of the Oval Office than all previous presidents combined over the last 233 years.  By even mentioning government debt, he made a complete fool of himself.

“Hope” was mentioned a lot, but Obama has not been able to deliver on his campaign of “hope and change.”  He stated last night, “In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency, that embodies their strength.”  If Obama really believed that, he would have shown his original, long-form birth certificate and other documents when doubt about his eligibility first arose and as citizens in courts across the country demanded it over the last 18 months.  He wouldn’t have sealed all of his school and college records, medical records, state and U.S. Senate records, and passport files.

He wouldn’t have nominated Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle, both tax cheats, for cabinet positions.   His “Safe Schools” czar, Kevin Jennings, is a homosexual who has advocated the most perverse sexual deviancy in a public school setting.  And the ornaments with the face of Mao Tse-Tung on the White House Christmas tree showed whom he  really admires, along with Anita Dunn, his former communications assistant.

Obama stated that he “hated” the TARP bill passed under President Bush.  However, he justified the stimulus bill he passed in February 2009 by stating “if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today.”  So he’s saying the TARP bill was unpopular, yet he had to pass another, bigger bill to do the same thing?  Apparently Obama does not understand that a financial meltdown, the likes of which most of us have never seen before, began two years ago, causing double-digit unemployment, millions of layoffs, and record numbers of people applying for food stamps, triggered by people from his party who had to start telling the banks how to loan money and to whom.

He claimed that by extending unemployment benefits to those already out of work, he helped the economy. In what way does that help the economy? And “saving” jobs? That is Obama-speak for helping his union cronies. He admitted it when he mentioned “teachers and other education workers…cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders.”

Obama then claimed, “Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.”  Where in the Constitution is government authorized to “create the conditions necessary” for anything other than national security and coining money? Not that Obama cares about the Constitution, for if he did, we would not consider him an Usurper today.  For someone who supposedly taught constitutional law at the college level, Obama shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge of it.

Obama talked about “sheer grit and determination” being the thing that saw a lot of businesses through the recession, but he’s totally out of touch with reality. It takes more than determination to get through tough times if you’re in business. It takes money, which comes from an economy unfettered by government mandates and meddling. It takes banks that make loans to people based on their qualifications to repay the loans, not on bullying carried out by community organizers who threaten them if they don’t.  While thousands of businesses across the country have folded, he pretends that things are improving as real estate values continue to plunge.

He then proposed taking $30B “to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat,” which amounts to more government intrusion into the economy.   Obama is proposing yet another bailout; he’s just trying to present it in flowery terms to make it sound palatable to the American public.

Suddenly Obama is interested in railroads.  Could it be because railroad workers are unionized?  A very small percentage of Americans use our rail system; why, then would there be a need for an $8B expenditure on a new one?  Or is this payoff for more of his union supporters?

Obama’s plan for education includes “reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science…”  However, Obama’s plan, the CCSSI, upon which The Post & Email reported on January 27, 2010, mentions nothing about science.  It is aimed at standardizing, but not necessarily improving, “mathematics and English language arts.“

On the topic of terrorism, Obama stated: “Since the day I took office, we’ve renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation.” If that was the case, why did the U.S. Treasury Department just remove the names of thousands of Hamas members from a list used by banks around the world to keep funding out of the hands of terrorists? Why did Obama sign Presidential Determination #2209-15 designating $20.3M to provide relocation to Palestinians from the Gaza Strip? Is that his idea of how to make America safer?  Apparently people who have participated in Islamic terror against the Israelis are good for us, too.

On national security, Obama said, “Let’s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future – for America and for the world.”  But what does he have in mind?  Perhaps a good way to start would be to admit the presence of terrorists among us, as in the Ft. Hood massacre.  And perhaps the people in his administration should stop labeling Christians and believers in the Second Amendment “domestic terrorists.”  Just last week, the State Department lifted a ban on a U.S. visa for Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

When Obama announced, “Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there’s a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent,” it rang hollow as many recalled his broken promise to post every bill online for at least five days so the American people could scrutinize it before a vote occurred.

Obama is a complete failure in every sense.  He has failed to prove that he meets the constitutional requirements to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief.  He has failed to support our troops by altering the Rules of Engagement (ROE) early in 2009 so that American lives were senselessly lost in the interest of protecting Afghan civilians, even if it meant that terrorists went free, which they did.  He has shamelessly peddled his class warfare and destruction of the private sector as a means to bring “social justice” to America, the kind of justice that Saul Alinsky and Hugo Chavez promote.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.  It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.  The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.  Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” — Author Anonymous