All those Americans who hoped that in victory a magnanimous President would move toward reconciliation of a divided people were bitterly disappointed by Barack Obama’s inaugural speech. Posted on 01/29/2013 7:47:31 AM PST by Kaslin
All those Americans who hoped that in victory a magnanimous President would move toward reconciliation of a divided people were bitterly disappointed by Barack Obama’s inaugural speech.
In yet another partisan campaign speech, Mr. Obama suggested that he holds all those who disagree with his views to be malevolent saboteurs who must be run over.
Did he characterize the profound differences of opinion on the role of government as inspired by love of country? No. He essentially told America that he holds nearly half of the nation’s citizens in utter contempt. Such arrogance is not leadership; it is so short-sighted as to be destructive.
In his second term Mr. Obama is surrounding himself with sycophants more interested in political dominance than a fair hearing of other perspectives. Instead, he will make bitter and acrimonious war on all those who worry about borrowing $4 billion a day or Constitutional limits on the separation of powers or limitations on the scope, cost and reach of an ever-expanding and ever more expensive government.
He is hardly serving the American people with this attitude because, election results notwithstanding, most Americans are worried about the reach of government. Not because some goals are unworthy of a great nation but because government programs often produce exactly the opposite of noble intentions. Thus, well meaning but ill-designed poverty programs produce more poverty, over-regulation produces a crippled economy and the “Affordable Care Act” produced an acceleration of healthcare costs.
It is unlikely that these sobering truths will penetrate the walls of partisanship and ideology that now surround this President. Instead, he defines (and infuriates) his policy opponents as hard-hearted and greedy cavemen, bereft of any vision of a better America. This is the kind of tactic that worked well in his campaign but which will fail spectacularly in governing.
Most Americans—including most conservatives—are more than willing to lend a “hand-up” if it means that fellow citizens will find their legs underneath them again. This is, after all, enlightened self-interest whereby a rising sea lifts all boats. But most Americans see that our government either cannot or will not distinguish between those helped by a “hand-up” and those who have come rely upon a “hand-out”. The effect is a weakening of the national character.
The perverse and real-world effect of ill-considered and naïve government “generosity” is the erosion of the American work ethic and increasing citizen dependency. This reality, recognized and finally addressed with welfare-to-work rules during the Clinton Administration, has been contemptuously rejected by this President. In doing so he has treated the common sense of most Americans (reflected in overwhelmingly bi-partisan legislation) and the actual record of success and failure with equal contempt.
Barack Obama will make much of the need for “investing” in our future. But most Americans have come to understand that we don’t get anywhere near a dollar’s worth of value for every hard-won dollar we pay into the growing federal behemoth. When we actually acknowledge that every “investment” is made with borrowed trillions of dollars, the very definition of a “sound investment” is turned on its head.
We read about a $20 shrub moved out of the way of a rebuilt freeway in San Francisco at a taxpayer cost of at least $250,000. We read about the dream of alternative energy subsidized by taxpayers at a cost of billions of dollars that proved to be failed investments because our government ignored any reasonable prudence or due diligence examining actual market conditions. These are economic headwinds of our own creation.
When we talk about “opportunity for all,” we should be talking about all of us. That means we should be thinking hard right now about the future--our children and our grandchildren and even those who follow them. So while the intent may sound noble, spending money now that our offspring (and our economy) will be required to suffer later is hardly enlightened. It is an assault on our future health as a nation.
Concern about unsustainable debt and spending is an entirely legitimate subject that is overdue and worthy of a full-throated national debate. The outcome of this needed debate deserves and requires “consent of the governed” far beyond a 52 percent margin in an election and it deserves more than taunting from his bully pulpit. This badly needed debate won’t happen as it should with a President who has so insulated himself from any other points of view and who, with every new speech, puts his office above discourse and compromise.
The feeling is mutual.
All he is interested in is islamicizing this country. Everything he does will contribute to that goal. He will not leave this office until that has been accomplished or is well on its way.
Obama => “anti-christ on deck”
Very much so
The left is actively setting up Satan’s kingdom,
that is unarguable.
Obozo is not intelligent enough to be the Anti-Christ. He needs the media and his puppet masters to assist him. The Anti-Christ will not need help, being already the great deceiver. Obozo looks foul and feels foul to all those with eyes open. The Anti-Christ will look fair to all, but feel foul only to followers of Christ.
Then he’s either the “John the Baptist” of the anti-christ,
or the vessel waiting to be indwelt...
In the minds of the Framers of the document, the "We, the People" line is what it is: an assertion "by the People" of their sovereignty over every individual who would be elected to serve in either the Legislative, Executive, or Judiciary branches of their government.
Given the Framers' intent, does it seem to be proper for a President, in an official Inaugural Address, to appropriate those words?
Just asking.
Arrogance is not leadership but it’s his redistribution plan.
It’s why things are in such a mess with massive debt but the liberal progressive love it.
Their motto Hate America first.
Ha! Thats the same thing that the German Generals said and the Riechstag Members said about Hitler. And look what happened there. I know it is Taboo to compare the two but there are just to many similarities between them. Hitler was a nobody from Linz Austria, he was not German. Obama is not a US Citizen,(I believe he was born here)yet he lost his Citizenship when he was adopted by Sotero and moved to Indonesia. Boths Fathers were absent, in the case of Hitler his father was there but absent in his raising. Both were great Orators which hyptnotized crowds with their speech. Both promised to fix the countries prestige in the world and fix the economy. Hitler acheived that where as Obama hasn’t and Hitler wanted no opposition and Obama thinks that same. Hitler sent people to camps and murdered them for disagreeing. Obama has set the stage for that. In all Obama is more similiar to Hitler then he is to Moa,Stalin and the rest of the Communist dictators. Flame away.
Hitler was in control of a country that was homogeneous, and ripe for manipulation. Obozo does not have that advantage.
Yet Obama is taking complete control. His threats and actions are very similiar to Hitler in the 20s and when he became Chancellor in the 30s. Also there is not alot know of Hitlers early life before he showed up in Vienna. Just as we don’t know anything of Obamas life in the missing years in the 80s. To much in common. Actions speak louder then words. We do have resistance here with the local sheriffs vowing not to enforce unconstitutional orders. But how long can they hold out if the crackdown happens? This is all history repeating itself.
Actually, quite a bit is known about Hitler’s background and life. He was the fourth of six children, with the first three having died in infancy. The family moved around a lot. His father was a failed farmer, who entered into a successful career in the customs bureau, and wanted Adolf to follow in his footsteps. At age 8 Adolf took singing lessons, and sang in the church choir. After the death of his younger brother, Adolf’s behavior changed and fights between him, his teachers, and his father ensued. I could go on. But, there is much much more known about Adolf Hitler than there is about Obozo. Hitler’s school and academic performance is known. His interest in art and architecture, and two failed attempts to enter the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. Hitler’s service in the Bavarian Army, and his decorations earned in WWI. There is much information about Hitler from birth to his arrival in Vienna, his WWI service, his entrance into politics, his arrest, and his ascent to power, and his fall. Obozo? The only information that exists about Obozo is that which he has claimed. There are no family members who have gone on record. No one who has described his early life or ascension to power. He’s an enigma.
That right there conveys a mortal contempt for the American People. Mortal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.