1/23/13

There has been some controversy about Obama’s second inaugural address. On domestic matters, Republicans and conservatives see it as a partisan declaration of his program—a progressive road map—a socialist vision.

In the immortal words of Captain Louis Renault in the movie Casablanca, “I am shocked, shocked…”

What did they expect? Obama is the most partisan, aggressive, rude, president that this country has had, I think ever, certainly in living memory. But he has been that from day one and actually from before day one. So why should there be any surprise now?

He gave a good speech declaring his clear intentions and stating what he believes in—why should that be a surprise? Or a reason for criticism? Reagan’s second inaugural address, while much kinder and pleasant, clearly stated his belief in small government. Why should Obama not state his belief in big government?

On foreign affairs, there is an interesting situation and very few people are talking about it. True the president dedicated only a small part of his address to it but that is understandable, given who he is.
The question, more than how big a part of the address was it, is in two very illuminating statements:

  • “We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East.” Really? That is news to me. Where was he in Iran in 2009? Where is he in Syria? Where is he in Libya? Why is he not supporting the only true democracy in the Middle East—Israel? And on and on. This is simply a lie. It is the only part of his address that he did not mean. THAT is important. The president told us exactly what his plan is as far as domestic issues are concerned, but he simply misled us when it comes to foreign affairs. Why? Because his real intention is a complete withdrawal of America from the world stage. He does not really mean that America will support democracies. No. America will support no one—the world is on its own.
  • “…because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity, human dignity and justice.”

Wow. What can one say to a statement like this? The emphasis, by the way, is mine. I wonder if the president and his speechwriters know the significance of this phrase. If they do—WOW. There are no words left in my arsenal to even begin to state the significance of them using this phrase. The shameful phrase that became the code word for appeasement of brutal atrocities. If they did not know the significance, for Goodness sake if you Google this phrase, you get a WIKIPEDIA entry devoted to this phrase as the first result, if they did not know the significance—then they are clearly ignorant, dilettantes, and have no clue about world affairs. I prefer to think that they did not know the significance. I already stated many times that this president is a novice and ignorant when it comes to world affairs (not that he is any better on economic matters…) but to think that they did know and decided to use it with intent…WOW!