Obama’s absurdities and contradictions

I watched Obama’s inauguration, surrounded by liberal coworkers who, at the conclusion of his speech, remarked on his eloquence and applauded his brilliance. But to be honest, I left the speech wondering: what in the hell did he actually say? What was the core message in his long-winded diatribe? Could I detect a guiding principal or clearly see the course our government will take with Obama as captain?

I had to go back and re-read the speech and try to absorb it to get any meaning out of it. And as I studied its content, I was impressed—not with its brilliance—but with its sense of gloom, naiveté and inherent contradictions.

An estimated 2 million Americans had braved freezing temperatures in order to be witness to an historic event: the inauguration of America’s first black president. While the vast majority of Americans expected the event to be jubilant, and exaltation of the nation’s success, Obama’s tone instead was hesitant, and somewhat low spirited. Within seconds of starting the speech, he points out that inauguration speeches “have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.”

Clearly, Obama is referring to our current economic recession, and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, we are aware that this is true, but wouldn’t you agree that this is a gloomy way to start a speech when your success heralds a new, triumphant time for African-Americans?

Imagine for a moment that Martin Luther King had actually managed to reach that mountaintop he mentioned in his “I have a dream” speech, but instead of celebrating the successful summiting of the mount, instead he chooses to point out; “It’s damn cold up here, ya’ll!” Isn’t that kind of what Obama has just done?

Apparently Obama sensed the negativity with which he began his speech and attempted to counter it with this little jewel: “America has carried on … because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.” Contrast this with a statement he makes later:

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and
our ideals.”

Here, he is referring to the Patriot Act. So, which is it? Did we remain faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, or not? Apparently not, and Obama plans on setting it right. So we should clearly expect him to eliminate the Patriot Act and go back to pre-9/11 business as
usual attitudes.

Immediately after his “uplifting” introduction, he goes into details of the “crisis”: “Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

Is that to mean “terrorists”? Why can’t he say that? He later states:

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

I guess, taking the two quotes together, that Obama—being the son of a Muslim and partly educated in a Muslim school in Indonesia—is finally revealing that he thinks we will be safe from the Islamists if we just stop calling them names. What “mutual interest” do we have with Persian Islamo-Nazis who believe that they can provoke the return of the missing Imam by liquidating Israel?

Obama’s speech is littered with fascinating abstractions: “Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”

What is this mystical “new age”? Could it be a new era, marked by the arrival of “The Chosen One”? Will we need develop a new calendar? B.O. (Before Obama) and A.O. (After Obama)

Now, isn’t it widely understood that our economy is weakened primarily because of liberal social engineering attempts to provide “affordable housing” to anyone—even if they couldn’t afford it? The hard choices that need to be made involve personal responsibility, and admitting that the government can’t give away housing to everyone. To me, the crux of the idiocy in the speech centers on the next sentences:

“Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.”

Obama needs to learn that “confidence” is sapped because of the stupidity of members of his own party.

When the Democrats vote to give war authorization, but then immediately turn around and predict that we will lose, that we cannot win, and then slander our men and women in uniform, calling them storm troopers and baby killers, confidence is sapped. When socialist economic policies cause a collapse in the markets and the folks who want to be leaders run around screaming about Great Depressions, confidence is sapped. When the President-Elect continuously reminds Americans that our economy is struggling, but then says that he plans on running up multi-trillion dollar deficits for years, our confidence is sapped.

This reveals a very telling perspective of the liberals. They brutally criticized President Bush because he "failed to warn us" about the severity of the economic crisis. Bush repeatedly stated that there was a looming crisis in the economic sector, and as early as 2006 tried to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Democrats--spearheaded by that queer genius, Barney Frank--thwarted any attempt to reform those organizations. And when the economy began to unravel, Bush repeatedly made statements that we were headed for tough times, but his tone was positive.

So maybe the libs need to consider that it's not that Bush was unaware of what was happening, but he didn't want to sap confidence. Revolutionary thought, eh?

Ironically, Obama has tapped as leader for the EPA a no-growth socialist who believes that the United States’ consumption of energy is an energy injustice, and that developed nations must shrink their economies in order to right this wrong. Now, I don’t know how you can shrink an economy and still provide jobs, so it seems inevitable that—were we to follow the Obama theories of economic justice—the next generation will have to lower its sights.

Obama’s recipe for meeting our “serious” and “many” challenges is to choose “hope over fear”. Really? Hope doesn’t solve recessions: good policy does. Hope doesn’t win wars: good military strategy and logistics (and unflagging support) does. Hope does not feed the hungry: hard work and ingenuity do.

“Hope over fear” sounds like some sort of algorithm for disaster: “hope/fear=desperation”.

We don’t need plans made out of desperation, we need reasonable and logical analysis. It was not “hope” that helped Captain Sullenberger successfully ditch US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson river: it was courage, coupled with a brilliant and educated triage of the situation.

So, enough of your platitudes and insults to our intelligence: it's time to actually come up with policies, Barry.

The next theme that begs analysis started with this phrase:

“In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things…”

This sounds great. It appears that Obama is praising the hard working entrepreneurs who made the country powerful and wealthy. Taken with the statement that “greatness is never given…it must be earned”, it appears that Obama will promote personal responsibility, instead of a welfare state. But that hope doesn’t last long. Only a few paragraphs further, he states:

“The question we ask today is … whether [our government] works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.” So, now he suggests that the government has a responsibility to provide jobs with decent wages, healthcare, and a “dignified” retirement.

Really? Where in the constitution does it state that government must be a great Nanny?

Minutes previously, Obama had said that “We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.” Those founding documents include a constitution that limit the powers of the federal government, and which clearly states that any power not specifically mentioned in the constitution belong with the states. Whatever happened to the “ideals of our forbearers”, who stated: “that government is best which governs least”?

For an alleged legal scholar, Obama seems appallingly ignorant of the limits of government clearly stated in the constitution.

Obama made direct reference to the Declaration of Independence by mentioning the ideal that we are all created equal. As a reminder, allow me quote the statement: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Later, says: “…We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.” Why is this important? Because within the modern liberal philosophy is a dogmatic attempt to separate religion from government—except when it gets a liberal candidate votes. And it was the founding father’s firm belief in God that inspired them to clearly state that our unalienable Rights are “endowed” by our “Creator”. If we separate God from government in the way that liberals want, if we consider ours to be a nation of “non-believers”, then we must accept that our rights are not “endowed by [our] Creator”, but are instead granted by our government, and thus, can be rejected by the same government. It is absurd to have included “non-believers” in this statement, and completely unnecessary.

But there you go, it’s Obama being all inclusive. Except of course, he forgot to mention Buddhists, Wiccans, and doggon it, if you’re going to remain popular with the Hollywood nuts, you damn well better pay homage to the Scientologists.

Most frightening, to me, is the naïve comment he makes in this paragraph:

“…Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

This last phrase is one of the most laughably ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Security does not emanate from a just cause. If that were true, wouldn’t Black have been “secure” from slavery? Wouldn’t the Jews have been “secure” from Nazi ovens? Wouldn’t the American Indians have been “secure” from genocidal attack? How is security connected to “the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint” Neither humility nor restraint secured our future when we faced the Germans and the Japanese! Military Force secured our future. Period.

All in all, like I said, "not bad for a socialist".

But I have to say, this speech reminded me uncomfortably of the speeches made by Hugo Chavez. A lot of rhetoric, a lot of confusion, a lot of contractions, and a whole lot of starry eyed supporters drooling on themselves and saying, "wow, isn't he charasmatic?!"

They say the Devil knows how to dance...