The equipment shown above along with the teleprompter
are essential support for any Barack Obama presentation.
x
x
Barack Obama: State of the Union, an Exercise in Sanctimonious Indignation
Words cannot adequately express just how shocking Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address proved to be. In tone, attitude, and content, his speech was a horrible failure, a horrible reflection on the Presidency, and a presentation of intense dishonesty that goes far beyond any conventional notion of “spin.”
The message condensed from a rambling, bloviating pompous parade of verbosity to a more digestible morsel, is that the President clearly wants the world to know that he is dead on right about any issue he chooses to discuss, and that any initiative he has supported that is still pending or is not working are attributed to dastardly audacity on the part of which ever special interest he chooses to finger while often being disingenuously proclaiming his administration is above such interest peddling.
Look, we’re going to tell it to our readers straight in harsh terms the conventional media won’t, Barack Obama is a compulsive serial liar. His speech was full of lies. His own reason for being is based on big lies. Is Obama so tone-death that he only reads and hears what he wants to or does he think the public is too lethargic and disinterested that they won’t find out the extent to which he misrepresents the truth?
When a politician bases his approach on emotion which leads to a distorted idealistic view of the world that in his case is colored by an insanely egotistic point of view, reality is the first casualty and pragmatism is beyond his ability.
Start with his claim 2,000,000 people working who wouldn’t be thanks to the “Recovery Act” or “Stimulus.” There is absolutely NO data supporting that claim what-so-ever. He insisted the Stimulus was needed to keep unemploymenet under 8% and now it's over 10%. Call this lesson one in Obama-nomics.
The President would normally act respectful and deferential toward the Supreme Court in a formal setting like the State of the Union address, but shamefully, not only did President Obama take on the Supreme Court, his comments were quite simply bold faced lies when he said:
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
While making those remarks the camera caught Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alioto voicing to himself, “that is wrong.” For which the media savaged the Supreme Court Justice as if he had a “Joe Wilson” moment, like the South Carolina Congressman who yelled “liar” during a Presidential speech when the President did in fact lie. Justice Alioto was not addressing anyone and further was correct in his assertion since the majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, a moderate or swing justice, specifically asserted that their opinion would not in any way grant foreign companies any ability to contribute to elections. Among other things, Justice Stevens noted,
…we have never cast doubt on laws that place special restrictions on campaign spending by foreign nationals.
One has to wonder what would motivate the President to so obviously lie about a very important court decision. Was he ignorant about the details and did not review the contents of the decision in essence just hearing what he wanted to hear? Did the President clearly understand his comment was false and think he could convince a gullible public to believe his lie. Either way, the implications are extremely disturbing.
Once again, President Obama fingered lobbyists and special interests suggesting their influence is far too powerful and widespread but his administration alone has set such a fine example of keeping their influence away from the White House.
The President asserted:
To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly and to give our people the government they deserve.
That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why — for the first time in history — my administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.
If the Obama administration is so free of lobbyists, then why did SEIU President, Andy Stern visit the White House so frequently?
How then does Barack Obama justify his participation in closed meetings working on details of the Senate Health Care Bill with labor union officials that resulted in favorable provisions giving union members special consideration not given others with their health care benefits?
When examining both who works for his administration and who shows up for visits, his language runs shallow. Perhaps they are only considered lobbyists or special interests if their points of view run contrary to the Obama radical agenda.
Through out the speech Obama trumpeted his virtues, his attempts to govern openly, to fight special interests, to eliminate earmarks, and to freeze spending as of 2011. Somehow his words just don’t meet his behavior when the big money deals that have crossed his desk have so dramatically increased spending and what good is freeze after so many agencies have seen their budgets skyrocket. Why have there been over 300 lawsuits for public disclosure of records in just one year far more than any other President?
While basking in the glow of his own self-flattery the general tone of the speech was one of accusation and criticism of not just lobbyists and special interests, some of his harshest finger-pointing was directed at the Republican party accusing them as is the current Democrat drum beat of only seeking to negate not offer any ideas of their own. Of course, we’re well aware that Republicans have plenty of ideas worthy of consideration such as allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines and promoting health savings accounts while finding private sector, less complicated means of improving access to quality care without government control.
Surely, the Obama “State of the Union” address should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed his political career. That it was a work of intense self-glorification and fault-finding in anyone who has shown the slightest resistance to his every suggestion is classic Obama. That he has made bold claims not supported by his actions is exactly what we’ve come to expect from the President who campaigned again and again that health care legislation would be negotiated openly and broadcast on CSPAN and proposed all bills would be posted on the Internet for public reaction before signing, but participated in closed door, Democrats only, health care deliberations and demanded immediate passage of extremely expensive legislation with short deadlines where we were shocked to find even the most prudent representatives on Capitol Hill would not have time to read the bills before voting them on to the President for his signature.
The State of the Union is a presentation given on a world stage. Foreign Policy concerns were all but absent and more critically so were considerations about waging an all-out fight to defeat terrorism and prevail in our conflicts worldwide. In his shameful short remarks on national security, his first impulse was to scold those who have attempted to escalate the need for more attention on the War on Terror calling them “schoolyard taunts.” Then while selling his approach to fighting terrorism, how quickly he mentions “WE have prohibited torture…”
We have prohibited torture! Enough already. This is some of the most disturbing of the rhetoric implicitly directed at the past administration suggesting that the Bush administration sanctioned and administered torture. The debate on waterboarding is a legitimate discussion, but one need read the accounts, the chain of command, how much attention was given, and the extent to which such actions were closely monitored and supervised when any form of “enhanced interrogation” was utilized against brutal terrorists some of whom were directly involved in genocidal attacks on our country.
For Obama to assert anything on how his administration has handled national security is laughable especially in light of the Christmas Day bombing episode in the skies over Detroit where were it not for the terrorist’s failure to successfully ignite his bomb, hundreds would have died.
Obama’s address was given in the shadow of testimony from Lee H. Hamilton, the Democratic co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission who was harshly critical of the administration’s effort noting the administration’s inability to understand and process intelligence data effectively.
In summing up the Obama “State of the Union,” the message Obama seemed to be suggesting is, if there’s anything that’s not working right, don’t blame him. Look at all the horrible people who don’t listen to him or dance to his tune in every way. Given the long list of villains he chastised, we’re shocked that he didn’t have some words to say about Balloon Boy’s mother and father for their insane hoax to attempt to land roles on reality television. Of course, “reality television” is about as oxymoronic as concepts like fiscal restraint, transparency, and openness in government are in the context of the Obama administration.
It’s all about me, with well over 100 first person pronoun references through the course of such a long, tedious speech.
Words cannot adequately express just how shocking Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address proved to be. In tone, attitude, and content, his speech was a horrible failure, a horrible reflection on the Presidency, and a presentation of intense dishonesty that goes far beyond any conventional notion of “spin.”
The message condensed from a rambling, bloviating pompous parade of verbosity to a more digestible morsel, is that the President clearly wants the world to know that he is dead on right about any issue he chooses to discuss, and that any initiative he has supported that is still pending or is not working are attributed to dastardly audacity on the part of which ever special interest he chooses to finger while often being disingenuously proclaiming his administration is above such interest peddling.
Look, we’re going to tell it to our readers straight in harsh terms the conventional media won’t, Barack Obama is a compulsive serial liar. His speech was full of lies. His own reason for being is based on big lies. Is Obama so tone-death that he only reads and hears what he wants to or does he think the public is too lethargic and disinterested that they won’t find out the extent to which he misrepresents the truth?
When a politician bases his approach on emotion which leads to a distorted idealistic view of the world that in his case is colored by an insanely egotistic point of view, reality is the first casualty and pragmatism is beyond his ability.
Start with his claim 2,000,000 people working who wouldn’t be thanks to the “Recovery Act” or “Stimulus.” There is absolutely NO data supporting that claim what-so-ever. He insisted the Stimulus was needed to keep unemploymenet under 8% and now it's over 10%. Call this lesson one in Obama-nomics.
The President would normally act respectful and deferential toward the Supreme Court in a formal setting like the State of the Union address, but shamefully, not only did President Obama take on the Supreme Court, his comments were quite simply bold faced lies when he said:
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
While making those remarks the camera caught Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alioto voicing to himself, “that is wrong.” For which the media savaged the Supreme Court Justice as if he had a “Joe Wilson” moment, like the South Carolina Congressman who yelled “liar” during a Presidential speech when the President did in fact lie. Justice Alioto was not addressing anyone and further was correct in his assertion since the majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, a moderate or swing justice, specifically asserted that their opinion would not in any way grant foreign companies any ability to contribute to elections. Among other things, Justice Stevens noted,
…we have never cast doubt on laws that place special restrictions on campaign spending by foreign nationals.
One has to wonder what would motivate the President to so obviously lie about a very important court decision. Was he ignorant about the details and did not review the contents of the decision in essence just hearing what he wanted to hear? Did the President clearly understand his comment was false and think he could convince a gullible public to believe his lie. Either way, the implications are extremely disturbing.
Once again, President Obama fingered lobbyists and special interests suggesting their influence is far too powerful and widespread but his administration alone has set such a fine example of keeping their influence away from the White House.
The President asserted:
To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly and to give our people the government they deserve.
That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why — for the first time in history — my administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.
If the Obama administration is so free of lobbyists, then why did SEIU President, Andy Stern visit the White House so frequently?
How then does Barack Obama justify his participation in closed meetings working on details of the Senate Health Care Bill with labor union officials that resulted in favorable provisions giving union members special consideration not given others with their health care benefits?
When examining both who works for his administration and who shows up for visits, his language runs shallow. Perhaps they are only considered lobbyists or special interests if their points of view run contrary to the Obama radical agenda.
Through out the speech Obama trumpeted his virtues, his attempts to govern openly, to fight special interests, to eliminate earmarks, and to freeze spending as of 2011. Somehow his words just don’t meet his behavior when the big money deals that have crossed his desk have so dramatically increased spending and what good is freeze after so many agencies have seen their budgets skyrocket. Why have there been over 300 lawsuits for public disclosure of records in just one year far more than any other President?
While basking in the glow of his own self-flattery the general tone of the speech was one of accusation and criticism of not just lobbyists and special interests, some of his harshest finger-pointing was directed at the Republican party accusing them as is the current Democrat drum beat of only seeking to negate not offer any ideas of their own. Of course, we’re well aware that Republicans have plenty of ideas worthy of consideration such as allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines and promoting health savings accounts while finding private sector, less complicated means of improving access to quality care without government control.
Surely, the Obama “State of the Union” address should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed his political career. That it was a work of intense self-glorification and fault-finding in anyone who has shown the slightest resistance to his every suggestion is classic Obama. That he has made bold claims not supported by his actions is exactly what we’ve come to expect from the President who campaigned again and again that health care legislation would be negotiated openly and broadcast on CSPAN and proposed all bills would be posted on the Internet for public reaction before signing, but participated in closed door, Democrats only, health care deliberations and demanded immediate passage of extremely expensive legislation with short deadlines where we were shocked to find even the most prudent representatives on Capitol Hill would not have time to read the bills before voting them on to the President for his signature.
The State of the Union is a presentation given on a world stage. Foreign Policy concerns were all but absent and more critically so were considerations about waging an all-out fight to defeat terrorism and prevail in our conflicts worldwide. In his shameful short remarks on national security, his first impulse was to scold those who have attempted to escalate the need for more attention on the War on Terror calling them “schoolyard taunts.” Then while selling his approach to fighting terrorism, how quickly he mentions “WE have prohibited torture…”
We have prohibited torture! Enough already. This is some of the most disturbing of the rhetoric implicitly directed at the past administration suggesting that the Bush administration sanctioned and administered torture. The debate on waterboarding is a legitimate discussion, but one need read the accounts, the chain of command, how much attention was given, and the extent to which such actions were closely monitored and supervised when any form of “enhanced interrogation” was utilized against brutal terrorists some of whom were directly involved in genocidal attacks on our country.
For Obama to assert anything on how his administration has handled national security is laughable especially in light of the Christmas Day bombing episode in the skies over Detroit where were it not for the terrorist’s failure to successfully ignite his bomb, hundreds would have died.
Obama’s address was given in the shadow of testimony from Lee H. Hamilton, the Democratic co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission who was harshly critical of the administration’s effort noting the administration’s inability to understand and process intelligence data effectively.
In summing up the Obama “State of the Union,” the message Obama seemed to be suggesting is, if there’s anything that’s not working right, don’t blame him. Look at all the horrible people who don’t listen to him or dance to his tune in every way. Given the long list of villains he chastised, we’re shocked that he didn’t have some words to say about Balloon Boy’s mother and father for their insane hoax to attempt to land roles on reality television. Of course, “reality television” is about as oxymoronic as concepts like fiscal restraint, transparency, and openness in government are in the context of the Obama administration.
It’s all about me, with well over 100 first person pronoun references through the course of such a long, tedious speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment