Obama’s empty inaugural address offers nothing but more blind leadership.
(Page 2 of 2)
Obama said, “But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American.” But all of your programs, Mr. Obama, reward no effort, or lack of effort. Instead, throughout your presidency, you have vigorously pursued maximum dependency, with apparent political calculation in mind.
Obama cited the. ringing words of the Declaration of Independence, saying, “That is our generation’s task — to make these words, these rights, these values — of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — real for every American.” (Emphasis added.) But those who don’t pursue can’t get. That is reality.
Obama conceded, “We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time.” But then he said, “The commitments we make to each other through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security — these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.” Please provide some sophist, Progressive apologist to explain precisely how “they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”
For it is precisely Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security that are inadequate to the needs of our time, that provide increasingly inadequate benefits to the poor and seniors. But you and your Democrats, with your domestic Brezhnev doctrine, refuse to even consider any changes that would modernize these programs and demonstrably make them better, for the poor, seniors, and taxpayers.
Obama proclaimed, “The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition: we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries — we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality …. “
But Obama is precisely ceding to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries and maintain our economic vitality. That technology is oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. We are not going to power new jobs and new industries and maintain our economic vitality dancing on sunbeams and riding the wind, with energy “industries” that can only survive on corporate welfare.
Finally, Obama’s signature line, much celebrated in the Marxist media, was, “But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”
But what has changed that means that the free market capitalism at the root of American Dream no longer works? What new challenges exactly is he talking about? And how does government action address those challenges?
But that line should be sufficient to earn the Marxist Obama at least the moniker “collectivist.” But what collective action is Obama talking about? That vague term does not specify an agenda. It evokes the government takeover of everything. Maybe that is the agenda of Obama and the New York Times. Somehow the New York Times expects to be immune from that. Maybe because it is already openly run by Democrat party activists.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?