Scipio the Metalcon

Metal Steve - Heavy Metal Conservative with Issues

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly of Obama's Coronation
devil horns
Couldn't you just feel all the Hopeyness and Change-itude in the air? Yeah, neither could I. I'm not even talking about the flub, which was probably more a problem with Chief Justice John Roberts than President Hope N. Change. But I want to go over some of the events. I didn't watch the speech; I just heard snippets from the radio station I stream in here on my computer. It doesn't have anything to do with Obama; I've never watched an inauguration (it's usually because I'm working on the days they have them). But I have read the speech. Some have said it was good, others were not so charitable since it really didn't seem to be one of Obama's best. Like the other speeches of his that I've read, it must have sounded better than it reads.

The Good

There was one good part to The One's speech:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

That was it. That's the entirety, in my opinion, of the good parts of the speech. Most of the other things he mentioned that would be considered good were probably given by every other President, and aren't worth going into in detail. Other than the above sentence, and the usual platitudes, there wasn't much in it that I saw as positive. Considering the events and things that happened later, this was it.

The Bad

There was plenty that was bad. I don't know where certain conservative pundits believe this speech was alright; having read it, the speech keeps getting worse when I re-read it than I would have figured. It's almost like that horrible race speech he gave last year.

In many respects, the speech was depressing, and it started near the beginning:

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. 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.

Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. 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.

These are the talking points of the Democrats for the last eight years, whether it was true or not. It should also be known that much of these issues were caused by President Hope N. Change and the Democrats, something nobody would expect him to mention.

It gets worse:

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.

Remake America? What is he talking about? If anything, America needs to find politicians more interested in adhering to the U.S. Constitution than some kind of nationwide make-over of the country.

Now, I get the government involvement in roads and bridges, but the federal government building electrical grids and digital lines? When in the world was that part of the federal infrastructure? I mean the digital lines in place are descendents of the phone lines put in by the monopoly that used to be known as AT&T, before the government rightly broke it up in order to induce competition (and lowered phone costs for everyone). Plus, the country's electrical grid is already under a group of non-competitive monopolies subsidized by state governments, and this has already caused problems as governments interfere in keeping the electrical companies from being able to modernize.

Restoring science to its rightful place? Where, pray tell, is the rightful place for science? Where the government says it should go? How is that American? Imagine Thomas Edison having to wait for a government bureaucracy to tell him to invent the incandescent lightbulb, or Alexander Graham Bell the telephone. We'd still be reading by candlelight and waiting for the Pony Express to deliver messages from our loved ones from across the country. Now if Obama is talking about getting government, especially agenda-driven leftist Democrats in Congress, out of the way of true scientific discovery, great. Somehow, I doubt this is what The One is talking about.

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.

It doesn't seem to be working so far.

And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

What, in the image of Obama's buddy Bill Ayers? We've already got enough America-hating leftist agitprop in schools and colleges and universities, and The One wants to expand it.

Now, here is where he goes after conservatives:

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.

Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

It isn't we who have forgotten what this country has done; in fact, it is conservatives who have to correct those who constantly berate this country simply to play on the fears of all Americans in order to get elected to office. It isn't conservatives who say America can't tolerate too many big plans, provided it is done by regular private people, in the spirit envisioned by the Founders, not by an over-reaching government.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

This is nothing but a joke. Other than a very few, those who manage the public's dollars are endlessly re-elected, and nobody can accuse them of being able to spend wisely or reform their bad habits. In fact, you can bet that with the Congressional "leadership" in place, ethics will continue the vacation it's been on since January, 2007. Obama isn't any different; look how he helped Gov. Rod Blagojevich get re-elected in 2006, look how often he's supported the policies of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and the Daley Democratic Machine in Chicago and Illinois. Do you see how often these kinds of people get held to account? They're like Fidel Castro.

It is amazing that on a day where President Hope N. Change wants to present unity, he is terribly divisive and condescending. But like a good liberal, Obama talks about talking about doing things; George W. Bush actually did try to be a uniter, but was let down by the Clintonista holdovers and back-stabbers that is a hallmark of members of the Democratic Party.

Earlier in the speech, President Change said the following:

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

So what does he do? Proceed with the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics by attacking George W. Bush:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Obama used Lincoln's Bible during his swearing-in ceremony, and has mentioned that FDR is one of his heroes as well. And what did they do? Lincoln suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War and threatened to throw the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in jail, not to mention putting in total incompetents to lead the Union Army for most of the first two years of that war. FDR rounded-up 180,000 people of Japanese descent and threw them into relocation camps, and his actions were backed up by his Supreme Court. Of course we know why these Presidents did what they did; yet, one never hears any criticisms of FDR (I do know liberals who hate what Lincoln did) that are on the same level of harshness as those criticisms of President Bush. Even LBJ's complete mismanagement of the Vietnam War, which was far more deadly to Americans, doesn't rate the same harsh criticisms of GWB. LBJ's Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara is still alive, and nobody considers calling him a war criminal or tries to have him put on trial, despite the fact that he authored the hated Pentagon Papers and put in the failed war policies that led to the deaths of thousands and thousands of civilians. Of course, FDR and LBJ (and McNamara), like President Hope N. Change, were Democrats. Heh. Go figure.

Notice also that BO doesn't bother mention some of the alliances that George W. Bush gained for the United States, nor of the prudent use of power in attempting to contain Iran and Syria. But hey, this is all about Hopeyness and Change-itude, right?

By the way, here's something that could be considered quite a bit of hypocrisy coming from the incoming administration if true:

President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of waterboarding and harsh interrogation techniques by ordering the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners, according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the plans.


However, Obama's changes may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said.

And yet, BO is putting in Bush-hating Clintonistas who may want to pursue the Bush administration for doing the same thing.

Right now is a good time to mention another item that President Change implemented. I don't know if Obama put in total idiots to run, or if they are holdovers, but check this out:

The new White House website unveiled by President Barack Obama’s team Tuesday includes a shot at former President Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

Here's the web page in question, although I don't know when the Obama-webtards will scrub it and replace the page with something new. But here is what it says under "Katrina":

President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.

President Obama swiftly responded to Hurricane Katrina. Citing the Bush Administration’s ‘unconscionable ineptitude’ in responding to Hurricane Katrina, then-Senator Obama introduced legislation requiring disaster planners to take into account the specific needs of low-income hurricane victims.

President Obama, the campaign is over. You won. Move on.

(Just so everyone remembers, President Change and Vice President Shush both voted against an amendment to a bill which would have provided money to Louisiana that would have helped the city of New Orleans. They did vote on a different amendment to the same bill; the money to build the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. Like good liberal hypocrites they went after Gov. Sarah Palin when she was John McCain's running mate; the liberal mainstream media joined in the Palin-bashing and gave the two liberals a pass.)

This next bit in the speech is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard any President say, and I've heard them say a lot of dumb things over the years (going back to "I am not a crook"):

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

This almost sounds like an attempt to bail out Gov. Blagojevich.

The Ugly

There wasn't anything really ugly in the speech. But there was ugliness at the "ceremony". I hate to keep harping on it, but I wonder what the hell President Hope N. Change means when he says the U.S. is entering into some utopian post-racial period, despite the fact that he keeps engaging with old-time race baiters. I guess Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton were unavailable for their special type of "speechifying"; so, we have the Rev. Joseph Lowery:

We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right.

And the liberals say Rick Warren is controversial?

Come on, you can't fool me; you're feeling the Hopeyness and Change-itude now, right?

But what would complete an Obama coronation inauguration? Another round of Bush Derangement Syndrome from The One's worshipers supporters as they sang the "Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Goodbye" song to George W. Bush as he left for Texas. It completes a cycle of disrespect for the United States by the leftists as they greeted then-President Bush by throwing eggs at his limo during his first inauguration eight years ago. George W. Bush left the Presidency with more grace and dignity than the despicably immoral Bill and Hillary Clinton, and it appears he entered office with more grace and dignity than President Hope N. Change.


So is this what we can expect from President Hope N. Change for the next four years? Even when Obama was recounting some of the battles Americans have fought in since the Revolution, he didn't bother to mention the troops he is in command of in Iraq, nor those he believes are fighting the war he says he wants to complete in Afghanistan. It seems all President Change is going to do is try to deflect all the problems he can't solve on George W. Bush. Well, it don't work that way, baby. It's all his now; the economy, the war, everything. And the people won't stand for failure by an administration that has built itself up to be more important than sliced bread. And through it all, ol' Obama doesn't seem to realize what George W. Bush has given him, things Bush didn't have in 2001:
  • Obama is fighting a decimated Al Qaeda that is holed up in small corners of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  • Obama doesn't have a Saddam Hussein to deal with.
  • Obama has a new major U.S. ally in newly democratic Iraq.
  • Obama doesn't have a Yasser Arafat to deal with.
  • Obama has a new major U.S. ally in India.
  • Obama has friendlier allies in western Europe, and new allies in Eastern Europe.
  • Obama has a major U.S. ally in a resurgent and less corrupt Colombia, which challenges U.S. enemy Venezuela.
Sure Obama has a major recession to deal with, which wasn't helped by former President Bush. But Bush had a recession and then 9/11, and the country got out of it by letting the people, for the most part (except for those damned airline bailouts), keep more of their money.

But it seems President Hope N. Change is in permanent campaign mode. For the first time in his political career, he will actually have to govern. As long as he doesn't try to screw up the nation, I hope he does well. Based on what was said today, I don't have much faith that this will be the case. And when he wants to mess up the United States, I hope he fails miserably, and pays for it politically in four years.

You are viewing scipio62