Our Bogus POTUS: Government is not the problem, it's the solution ... to all that ails us

The Era of Big Gubmint is back... and how!

Our Bogus POTUS came out swinging yesterday. In his inaugural address, Obama had not a single word of inclusion for the 61 million peope who voted for Mitt Romney. There was not a crumb of kindness for those who neither supported nor donated to his cause. For those of us who are not black, not gay, not Latino and not on the teat of Big Gubmint, there was Nothing that would speak to us... other than the requisite flag-waving and patriotic melodies. 

I didn't think I could feel any more alienated in my own country, but Obama is not your typical black president. He is incredibly hostile toward at least half the nation... my half, the half where jobs are still being lost, wages are going down, taxes are going up, businesses are being shuttered and an unprecedented, unsustainable, untenable, unimaginable national debt is being piled on the generations to come.

Obama revealed starkly leftist priorities - to preserve, protect and defend the dole and "engage" with, not oppose, our enemies. He slapped the Founders and mention of the Declaration onto this package and thought he could sell it. And sell it he did, but only to the clueless.

* * *

I watched Charlie Rose last night, speaking with presidential historians, and was shocked and distressed at the extent to which they've drunk Obama's kool-aid. Joseph Caro was especially disappointing, as he proceeded to pull one of Obama's straw men out of his hat, talking at length about how we cannot even conceive(!) of the U.S. without a safety net, without Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- as if that were an actual conservative proposal, which it is not and never has been.

Thank Gd, Bob Woodward appeared to be an exception to the staggering cluelessness of the discussants gathered by Rose. Either he gets out of the intellectual ghetto of progressivism from time to time, or he has yet to be corrupted by contact with presidential power... or both.

Speaking of corruption, we now recall that Obama met with presidential historians several times during his first term.

 

.... On the evening of Tuesday, June 30, 2009 — just five months into his administration — Barack Obama invited a small group of presidential historians to dine with him in the Family Quarters of the White House. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, personally delivered the invitations with a word of caution: the meeting was to remain private and off the record....

... one subject was uppermost in his mind: how could he become a “transformational” president and bend the historic trajectory of America’s domestic and foreign policy? 

[....]

In the wake of the shellacking the Democrats took in the midterm elections in 2010, Mr. Obama held a second dinner with the historians, which was devoted to the question of how he could “reconnect with the public.” 

A third dinner took place in July 2011, shortly after Mr. Obama and his team botched the budget-deficit negotiations with Congress, and the United States government lost its Triple-A credit rating for the first time in history. It revolved around the theme “the challenge of reelection.”

My apologies to Jodi Kantor who is cropped out of this display -- due not to our ideological differences but rather to my lack of technological expertise :)

 

If you read the Edward Klein report on these White House meetings and then hear what the participants now say on Charlie Rose, you may notice - as I did - that they have advised Obama to do thus-and-such and are now praising his presidency for having accomplished the same. You'll see the same buzzwords, phrases and thoughts in both. 

I'll quit here because my Otrauma is flaring up. Bob Woodward not withstanding, I'm getting that telltale "we are doomed" feeling again.

 

 

Comments

[Mannie Sherberg]

Charles Krauthammer called the coronation speech "a hymn to big government." Ben Stein called it "a trivial speech in a serious time." Both are correct -- but I think Stein's evaluation was the more comprehensive. This was an astonishingly trivial speech -- a puny, piddling, small-potatoes speech that left out everything that's most important. The unalloyed leftism -- the hymn to big government -- was to be expected; Obama drank the Kool-aid at a very young age -- and we've all known for a long time that it's still coursing through his system. What wasn't to be expected was the utter failure to mention the cardinal fact of our time: that America is at war with a worldwide totalitarian ideology that may well prove more lethal than either Naziism or Communism -- and that we must therefore, before anything else, make sure we win that war. What wasn't to be expected was Obama's complete silence on this truly existential threat. And what wasn't to be expected was his channeling Neville Chamberlain and talking about "peace in our time." Imagine: the president of the United States quoting the most infamous, the most ignominious, the most shameful four-word phrase in all of modern history and using it to describe what he intends for us. Is he that tone-deaf? Does he know nothing about Munich? Yes, this was a hymn to big government, a paean to the confiscation of wealth, a psalm of praise for entitlements and never-ending nannyism. But above all else, it was a delusional denial of reality. And all of this comes just a day or two after the report that General Mattis may be turned out to pasture because he's a hard-liner on Iran. We have much to be worried about.