President Obama’s Inaugural Address was well delivered and, as we have come to expect from him, quite eloquent. It had the usual obeisance to the traditions of American democracy and the virtue of relative brevity. Yet there was nothing in it that showed that he had learned a thing in the four years since he first took the oath of office.
The address was a clarion call for the country to get behind the liberal agenda he supports. Fair enough. But, like much of what has come from the White House since November, it illustrated that this president was not interested in compromise or listening to any views but his own. If this speech is to be treated as sign of what will come, the next four years will be filled with more bitter partisan argument and ideological intransigence from the president. Even as many Americans were reveling in the feelings of unity that this ceremony engenders in all patriots, President Obama was throwing down a gauntlet to his foes and saying that he will redouble his efforts to demonize Republicans.
The president had a lot to say about gay rights and global warming, but for those wondering if he had any new ideas about working with his opponents in an era of divided government, there was little sign that he cared do so. He ignored the problems of a weak economy, instead merely saying that it was recovering. Those looking for an indication that he intends to address the deficit—the greatest long-term threat to our continued prosperity and security—got no comfort. Indeed, the president seemed to say that entitlement reform was a nonstarter in a second Obama administration and that class warfare will be a constant. His hypocritical attack on those who engage in name-calling, which he views as the preserve of Republicans, was a graceless note coming from a man whose campaign devoted itself to smearing his opponent last fall.
Looking abroad, President Obama may believe that his second term will be one in which there will be no more war. Unfortunately, the Taliban and al-Qaeda may think differently. So, too, may the leaders of the Islamist regime in Iran whose efforts to get to get a nuclear weapon may have more to say about the success or failure Obama’s second term than anyone else. His mention of “engagement” was particularly ominous, since it was his foolish attempt to make nice with Iran (prominently mentioned in his first Inaugural Address) that wasted most of this first term and brought us even closer to nuclear peril.
But the main takeaway from this speech is that the president isn’t prepared to give an inch on his desire for more spending and taxing or to contemplate the reform of Medicare and Social Security that would allow those programs to endure. If his first term was marred by anger and arguments in which the president rarely treated the opposition as either legitimate or worthy of consideration, the second term may be even worse. The bottom line here is that a re-elected Obama is determined to take this country to the left with a big-government liberal agenda and will not consider any alternative. Elections do have consequences, but no one should think this will or should be accepted by Republicans.
A wise president would take the lessons of the past four years and adjust his policies and shift away from the ideological blinders that he came into office with. But Barack Obama is not such a president. The speech had all the signs of hubris that often lead presidents into the arrogant assumption that they can as they like in their second terms. That leads more often than not to disaster. He may think he can take us back to the era before Americans realized that liberalism was a god that failed. But those who see this backward-looking and extremist stand as a threat both to our liberty and our future should take it as a reason to redouble their efforts to oppose his plans.
Learned nothing and forgotten nothing; America has a Bourbon "president". How lucky can a country get?
Was there some event in DC today? n n
Liberals had a clam-bake.
Well, it's our goose that is thoroughly cooked.
The first four were just a warm-up
Interesting. Nothing new under the sun. And that goes for Obama's hatred of us, as well.
There were certainly very important political differences between Caesar and his many opponents; but Julius Caesar was undeniably a true Roman who loved his city and its empire without question. As for Obama and his royal consort, not so much. n nThis says something about the liberal/Progressive politicos who so enthusiastically support Obama.
The first four were just a warm-up. Prepare for the shock and awe of the next four: n1. Israel will be pressured relentlessly to sacrifice existential security in order that the American president should be honored with another Nobel Prize for 'peace'. n2. The Muslim Brotherhood, given birth with White House approval will continue building an Islamist Caliphate in the region and world in spite of its traditional Islamist oppression of women, children, gays, and religious minorities prescribed under Sharia Law. n3. Most significantly, President Obama will end all speculation as to his true religious beliefs by making Haj, the Muslim religious pilgrimage to Mecca, before the end of his second term. In this manner he will pointedly declare that the war on terror is effectively over.
The Reagan parallels are getting to be a bit irritating. When Reagan ran for president he was quite clear as to who he was, what he wanted to do and where he planned to take the nation. There was no pretense, no mask, no cover as to his view of government or what he was going to do if elected. n nNo so with Mr. Obama who has been less-than-honest about what he wants to do with his powers. I'll suggest that had he told us who he really was and what he wanted to do a la Reagan in 1980 that he'd still be an relatively obscure senator from Illinois. n nMr. Obama is not a bad man. But in a profession filled with cynics he may be the most cynical of them all. n n
he is an empty chair on a trojan horse n nwhile we are mesmerized by the empty chair, we overlook the detritus filling the horse
Obama is who he is. But he isn't an usurper, or a freak, but twice-elected chief Executive and the GOP has one house. The diatribes against the blood-sucking poor and the class envy against the welfare class didn't work. If the GOP wants to frame the issue of the fundamental solvency of our nation on the theme of class warfare against the parasites past may be prologue.
The "poor" aren't blood-sucking, but they let themselves be used against everyone else by the blood-sucking welfare barons.
He is a bad man.
He's an empty suit who's goal is to fully implement Alinsky's rules for radicals and present the opportunity to billy ayres and bernie dorhn their wetdream of killing 25,000,000 million Americans in a NorthAmerican Gulag.
Er, no. n nHow can he be both an empty suit and a Pol Pot-like murderer? n nIn any case, let's try to return to this planet when we discuss him.
Just my 2 cents–imo Jewish advocacy for Israel can't be served by continuing to be part of wider political campaigns that call into question the essential legitimacy of a President who now has been convincingly elected to a second term. Yes a point-by-point objection to MIddle East policies will be grounded in a wider critique, and a wider critique has its value. For many of us his priorities are willfully short-sighted. But I've listened to the "a threat both to our liberty and our future should take it as a reason to redouble their efforts to oppose his plans" calls to the barricades for four years as well as the promises that the result would be the casting of the false idol down into the dust.
What, exactly, is Obama supposed to have "learned"? n nThat a "voting present" curriculum vitae gets you nowhere in national politics? That saying obnoxious things in a not-so-private setting about "bitter clingers" will lose you elections? That completely mishandling fiscal matters and ending your first term with the same dreadful unemployment rate as you began it will cost you? That obviously evading and dissembling about what happened to an American ambassador and three other countrymen in a terrorist attack will end your political career the way the Ayatollahs ended Carter's? That the "uniter" of his first inauguration couldn't run the relentlessly divisive and negative campaign that he ran and win re-election? That the public that allegedly reviles the news media would see past the decade-long smoke screen they've covered him with and send him home? n nYou're the one who hasn't learned anything. n nAt every stage of his life he's been given a pass and now, finally, he's twice been given the passes of all passes, to the presidency of the United States of America, for achieving … nothing. nAnd you think he has something to learn other than these things that got him elected twice to the highest office in the land? n nYou're dreaming. You don't understand this cat at all. For someone for whom fulfillment of his own personal ambitions is the be-all and end-all, he's learned all he needs to know. He and his supporters have what they want; their opponents don't. I would love to think that, knowing he's completely undeserving of his station in life, he secretly loathes himself, but forget it — he's a narcissist to the bone. n nHe has all he needs for high office in these United States, our politics being what they are. He looks good. He smiles nicely. He reads speeches from a teleprompter in a commanding tone of voice. He and his minions will shade the truth or lie outright, and get away with it. The reviled news media who love him, as it turns out, aren't nearly as reviled as they should be and still are able to protect him from the consequences of his commissions and omissions. And the Stupid Party persists in being the Stupid Party and makes him look like he can beat the world. (If only.) n nSure, there may be a reckoning, but not the kind you're thinking. He will continue to attack the Republicans and the Republicans will continue to be blamed. He could be caught red-handed in a variety of high crimes and misdemeanors and still ride out this term, because an electorate that elected the first African-American to the presidency will not stand for impeachment, the news media would explain it all way in the same way they explained Clinton's perjury away, and the Republicans, remembering 1998, wouldn't attempt impeachment anyway. n nOur economy could get far worse. We could suffer a string of major international humiliations like Benghazi. A mushroom cloud could appear over an American city. But those wouldn't be his problems; they would be our problems. He'd waltz on to his retirement. n nThe beachfront home in Hawaii awaits. Only 1,461 days to go. He'll make it. Will we?
Great comment. n nWe completely fail to understand Obama. He defies gravity, and it does not compute. n nIt is not rational, and we never till this man came along felt our counrty to be irrational. n nIts really quite disturbing. n nSlow motion train wrecks usually are.
Ahh, he is THEIR Teflon President. It worked for Reagan, up to Nicaragua. It's still working for Obama.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far 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 America. 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."
We conservatives have lost the election for president, but we are still 48% of this country. Stop whining about Obama and work on convinciing some of the 52% that the conservative vision is truer, and more compassionate, than the liberal (neo-socialist) vision. We, all together, the 48% and the 52%, are the government (via our local, state, and federal representatives). The government is not "them" but "us" (to rephrase Pogo). Stop oiling your guns, and start communicatiing, thoughtfully and charitably, to your neighbors about "our God-given rights"–and responsibilities, and limitations.
I agree that Obama is trying to bring us back to the past. What we need to do as conservatives is not panic, not overreact, not be vindictive, and not start mouthing off at the 70% of the minorities who support him (in order of support: blacks, Hispanics, LGBT's, the highly educated, and the Jewish community), which is totally unproductive, and even counter-productivre. What we need to do is try to address those communities with empathy, insight, and wisdom, seeking to win their hearts and minds with facts and good arguments, including faith convictions. That is the Reagan way, and that is the way conservatism can start growing again.
Sure, but it's too late. Time to start developing some exit strategies.
It's cold in Canada… and they have universal healthcare administered by federal Conservatives, and they've had gay marriage for years. n nI'd suggest Mexico.
Internal exits–federalism, secession if necessary.
That was settled in 1865, Adam. n nIn our nation, secession = treason. Doesn't go over too well.
Yes, I know leftists think that political arrangements, once they meet their approval, can be deemed settled for all of eternity. But since we can't keep borrowing 40 cents for every dollar we spend, and will not stop either spending or borrowing, I figure something's got to give. There will be a crack-up. I would like as many people as possible to be ready when it comes. Home schooling, concierge medicine, gated communities, educational institutions that refuse federal subsidies and thereby federal mandates–all are preliminary exit strategies. Resistance to the upcoming hate speech laws regulating what we can say, for starters, about Islam and gay marriage, and to mandated violations of religious conscience–exit strategies. Cooperative self-help in the face of federal animus towards all this, and towards attempts to police neighborhoods in the wake of the federal refusal to enforce the border and the likely rollback of 90s policing strategies–exit strategies. Not to mention barter and alternative currencies when inflation explodes. Resistance to attempts to confiscate guns. Etc. All of these exit strategies will serve the purpose of survival and flourishing of individuals and communities, and need not even be particularly political. All will be sharply resented by the feds. The terms of the conflict are getting set. The actual political forms it will take are yet to be determined. Nothing need be proposed yet, other than careful attendance to our basic rights.
Ahhh… then you'll want to move to a certain compound in Idaho. Good luck!
And good luck with your cliches and stereotypes. Then again, why would you need it–they are echoed all around you.
There's also a place just E of Spokane, I understand. You might feel comfortable there too. n nPls say hi to Rev Butler.
Don't give up. It's not until the fourth time that you repeat the joke that it becomes funny.
You bet. Here we go again. Ready? n nIt is in the nut plantations of the extreme right (the Minutemen, the Doomsday Cultists, the Survivalists etc etc etc) that we see the sad spectacle of psychosis on the march. n nThese characters have been with us for a long, long time. It is the same mentality that frightened itself over the Mayan Calendar, Y2K, The End of Times in 2000, The End of Times in 1000, the Millerites, Waco, Rev Harold Camping, and on and on. n nThey feed on Revelation, and the End Times are always — always — coming right around the corner. Strangely, they never do! n nWatch out, Adam. These cultists will end up making you look frightened and, well, just a little ridiculous. n nAnd that's no joke at all.
But the end of progressivism and the entitlement state, even if it means the end of the constitutional or liberal democratic political order in America, won't mean the end of the world. I think pretty much all political orders so far have lasted for a while until they no longer did. Life goes on, and people find new ways to arrange things. We can only try to arrange them as best we can. One thing for sure, though, is that whatever can't go on, won't. And I haven't studied the subject in any detail, but I am absolutely certain that no Ponzi scheme has long survived the point at which more is owed out than is still coming in. And the Ponzi scheme we call Social Security, Medicare and the rest has passed that point.
Here you are correct. Every empire has its dawn and its sunset. Ours will be no different. Consider the Etruscans, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans, the HRE, the Moors, the British, and elsewhere the Mongols, the Russians, etc etc — and we see the inevitable pattern. n nToday, it is China's turn, joined shortly by India. n nOn our own continent, it is Canada in a special regard. They are the next energy superpower, with vast resources in their oilsands, and their natural gas. They have just begun to exploit them. On top of that, Canada has more fresh water than all but the Russians. n n50 years from now, we will recognize the fleeting nature of our command, and the absolute necessity of understanding and dealing effectively with our counterparts — and here, the Canadians particularly. n nThose who simply run off to hide in the woods contribute nothing to our future. They do no better than run from our past.
Well, you're the one who keeps talking about woods. Every "exit strategy" I mentioned several comments up can be, and some of them (alternative educational, security and health arrangements in particular) currently are, practiced right in the middle of our greatest cities. The question is, what "contributes"–for the leftists, it's centralizing everything in the state; for conservatives and libertarians, it's the spontaneous self-organization of voluntarily cooperating individuals. At this point, it's the only relevant distinction.
Great fun! You have returned to the New Left of the Sixties, with its plans for counter-community and alternative institutions. n nThat strategy (your strategy today) became much the impetus behind so much of the counter-community movement of that era, in which it was gentle hippies with long hair and disdain for straight society. If you read the Port Huron Statement of that era, you will find it all in there — and a thousand other sources. n nYour "(alternative educational, security and health arrangements in particular)" is exactly what they were talking about in the 60s. n nWhat goes around… 50 years later, Adam, you have become the New Left. Amazing.
There was a strong libertarian streak to the New Left, before it got absorbed into statist leftism in the 70s and 80s. But I'm not so sure about "security," much less "economic" arrangements–the New Left foundered badly in vague utopian socialist and pacifist ideas–let's subtract their hatred of the military and police (or, more generally, the willingness to use force and the assumption that you will have to do so against criminals and enemies) and the free market and corporations, and, voila, the New Left emerges as a new libertarianism. More Hayek and Mises than Port Huron–but the New Left was certainly a thousand times more intellectually generative than their sterile, decrepit successors.
What Mr Obama seems to have learned is that Sen McConnell wasn't joking. n nIn November of 2010, he famously declared, "Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term." -Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) n nMcConnell was foolish as hell to show his cards back then. Ever since, Obama has thrown those words back at him, and at us, as 'proof' that the Republicans weren't willing to compromise about anything, ever, that would help the President. n nMr Obama has a long memory. Mr McConnell has a big mouth. Damn fool.
"There is no way I can survive another four years of this," you wrote. n nDon't be silly, and don't be so hysterical. Get out there, and join The Birthers. They've had tremendous success.
Obama does not consider himself a 'student' who has anything to learn. He considers himself a teacher and a prophet who's purpose it is to teach the rest of us about what is required to achieve his utopian vision: by practicing "collectivism". Isn't that what Stalin believed? Didn't tens of millions of people die when Stalin imposed that belief on the people of Russia, Ukraine, etc.? His belief system was acquired while sitting on the knee of Frank Marshall Davis. Since then he has been unteachable so let's not delude ourselves that he is capable of learning anything.
I wish that journalists on the right would stop pretending that Obama is ever eloquent. Clever word-smithing by his crew of frat boy juvenile speech writers is not real eloquence. It is flowery garbage and entirely formulaic.
Obama has an impressive ability to win elections and portray himself as a highly accomplished intellect as well as a savior of the nation's economy and its moral rectitude. This is despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary by any realistic measure as to all of the above. Still and all