Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Second Inaugural Blues
By Aaron Goldstein on 1.22.13 @ 6:09AM
The next four years are going to be even longer than the last four.
Here are a few observations about President Obama’s second inaugural address and what we can expect to follow over the next four years.
To begin with, it is not only Obama’s second inaugural of the past four years, but his second inaugural in as many days. Obama, of course, was formally sworn in on Sunday at the White House. But his actual address and the pomp and circumstance associated with it was reserved for the following day. In other words, Obama just had to make Martin Luther King, Jr. Day about him. But after all this time could we really expect anything less from Obama?
The second inaugural address itself was largely full of the sort of platitudes that could have been uttered by the president of a high school student council or perhaps the President of the Harvard Law Review. But there were also segments that highlighted Obama’s socialistic beliefs:
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. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.
In other words, you didn’t build that.
It had more than its share of straw man arguments such as when Obama said “we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.” Who exactly believes that? I suspect that if I were to pose this question to Obama he would respond by saying “the few.” That’s socialist code for the rich.
Not surprisingly, Obama spoke of “the few” a few times:
• The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob.
• For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.
• We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.
As you can plainly see, Obama has picked his target, frozen, personalized and polarized it and isn’t about to let go. Of course, if he did his political triumphs would probably be few and far between. This is what makes Obama so dangerous.
It is also why Obama can with a straight face say, “We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.” He didn’t make any hard choices about either during his first term. But aside from conservatives, who is going to call Obama to account? The mainstream media? Let’s not kid ourselves. As long as Obama is in office, their function is to take dictation from him. So what makes anyone think it’s going to be any different this time around?
So when Obama says we cannot “treat name-calling as reasoned debate,” just remember that exactly one week before his second inaugural address he accused Republicans of holding the economy hostage. Obama routinely used such language against Republicans throughout his first term such as when he referred to them as “hostage takers” in December 2010 during the Bush tax cut compromise negotiations. In light of the fact that three American hostages were murdered by al Qaeda linked terrorists in Algeria, it makes Obama’s use of term look childish. This is why I give about as much credence to Obama lecturing the nation on civility as I do to Lance Armstrong’s apology for using performance enhancing drugs.
Sadly, it does not surprise me that Obama would speak of responding “to the threat of climate change” while saying nothing about Islamic fundamentalist terrorism as three Americans will be coming home in body bags thanks to terrorists acting in solidarity with al Qaeda. From where Obama sits, bin Laden is dead so Algeria, Benghazi, and Fort Hood don’t matter. Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is just another “man caused disaster” that has been allocated a lower priority than climate change. It’s both a sad and dangerous state of affairs when the French take Islamic fundamentalist terrorism more seriously than the White House does.
Does anyone get the feeling that the next four years are going to be longer than the last four years? If you do, then you are feeling the second inaugural blues.
To read more about Obama's bullshit 2nd inauguation speech, click here.
To read another article by Aaron Goldstein, click here.
Posted by Brett at 4:22 PM