Obama’s attempt to set Tuesday as the day for his address to a joint session of Congress was so obviously political that he quickly backed off and agreed to Speaker Boehner’s rejection of that date. Michael Smerconish, who was filling in as host for the vacationing Chris Matthews, pointed out on the Hardball program that presidents are not empowered to order Congress to meet in joint session so that the president may address them. A request must be made to Congress, whereupon the common practice of finding a mutually agreed upon date takes place without public involvement. Once a date is chosen, it is announced publicly.
Smerconish and one of his two guests agreed that Obama’s choice of an open letter to the Speaker to initiate his request was unprecedented. Furthermore, they agreed that Rush Limbaugh was right when he said it was strictly a political move engineered to upstage the GOP Debate. That was probably the first time the words “Limbaugh was right” were ever uttered on MSNBC. Never let it be said the President did not fulfill his promise of audacity.
What should we expect to be included in this much vaunted address? It has been billed as a “Jobs” speech and it will be presented as a stimulus for private sector job creation. However, we expect the focus will be on jobs for government projects. Like FDR’s WPA and CCC Camps, they will be boondoggles that improve some roads and bridges but will do little to improve the general economy while sending the nation more deeply in debt. This is not the time to be replacing perfectly serviceable infrastructure. If money is spent it should be spent on re-invigorating the free market system where wealth is created, not where old wealth is shuffled about. These programs did not work for Roosevelt and they will not work for Obama.
A central point in the speech is likely to be a call for the creation of an Infrastructure Bank to fund government construction projects. This has all the potential of becoming a Fannie Mae for bridges and tunnels.
If we give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he really wants what he believes to be best for America, then we must conclude that our nation’s problem is Obama’s socialist roots. He knows nothing about how free markets work. He has no business experience whatsoever and sees government as the be-all end-all of everything. The President knows not and cares not how the wealth to run a nation is created. A nation may be imbued with wealth in its natural resources and scenic beauty, but it’s only in the private sector that wealth is created. Government only depletes it. A portion of that which is created is taken by government to provide essential services and hopefully to maintain the optimum environment where the creative process itself can prosper.
What Obama learned about economics he learned from his mentor and spiritual leader whose message is that it’s white man’s greed that runs a world in need. Barack was so moved by this message that he cried as he sat in the pew at the conclusion of the sermon and knew then what his mission in life would be. This, in Obama’s own words as told in Dreams from My Father. Even those who see nobleness in that dedication must acknowledge it is merely a mission of taking and giving; it is a mission devoid of creation.
There can be no doubt that Obama wants to bring down unemployment, which means to create jobs. If he knew how to do it he would have done it. He has been in office for 2 year and 7 months. For the first 2 years he had the benefit of an all Democratic Congress who supported every item on his agenda. The people he wants to help most are hurting the worst. The man is not stupid, he is just blinded by his ideology and his ideology is in no small way born of his rage. His heart is in expanding the government sector and not private industry whose profits he sees only as a garden of greed.
Obama is a victim of the image he created for himself with some nurturing from the media. The slogan of Hope and Change, mixed with the audacity to bring it all about was a promise to fulfill your dreams whatever they may be. It is not for negligence that hope — for what?, and change — to what? were never defined. Definitions are limiting; vagueness is not. It was left for each person to fill in the blanks with their own personal hopes and desires. You say voters are not that naïve? You say voters don’t believe politicians promises? You may remember the woman who was thrilled at Obama’s victory because it meant he was now going to pay off her mortgage. That woman had voted. She voted for the fulfillment of her own personal dream. Do you suppose she was the only one?
Barack Obama has broken more than promises. He has broken hearts as well. He has failed his own people. All because of his socialist roots.