Connect with us

Guest Columns

Obama’s speech solves nothing



Obama, hypocrite in chief at the National Prayer Breakfast, and orchestrator of a bodyguard of lies

Barack Obama’s speech presents no solutions to our current problems. In fact, Mr Obama ignored the simple fact that the problems we are currently facing are the result of Mr Obama’s policies. Here are my impressions of that speech, in response to what points he makes, as he makes them.

A clarification

Before I begin, let’s be clear: Mr. Obama is not actually President. He is not a natural-born citizen. His father was a British citizen at Mr Obama’s birth; that fact precludes him from the office. A natural-born citizen is one born in-country to parents who are both citizens when he was born (think of a tripod). Therefore calling him President is inaccurate. (The real acting President is Richard Cheney, per Amendment 20 of the US Constitution.)

The Obama crisis

Barack Obama: racial healer or race war provocateur?

Barack H. Obama. Will he play the race card?

The economy is in crisis because Mr. Obama refuses to do what history shows will really repair the economy. The core problem is that Mr Obama is a committed socialist and believes that the “Government” can do everything, fix everything and supply everything. Thus the economy continues to stall and drift from recession toward a depression. People wisely refuse to risk the money they have since the Government is trying to take it all and redistribute it to the perceived victims of corporations; a basic tenet of the “Left”. The result is money and companies are driven out of the country. After all, people, and companies (stockholders etc), want to make money on the money they spend. They want to get some value for the money they spend. Everyone wants to get value for the money they spend.

The Progressives in control of the government continue to stack the deck, stopping people from taking care of themselves. The Progressives (from both Parties but primarily Democrats) created this political atmosphere with class and racial warfare to impose Socialism and control.

Congress should pass nothing that Mr. Obama proposes without reading it thoroughly. Mr. Obama lies regularly about what he really wants. The health care reform bill came loaded with unconstitutional provisions and more government control. Yet the rhetoric from Mr Obama and his allies promised beautiful Rose Gardens at little or no cost. As the Trojans learned: Beware Greeks bearing gifts.

Who creates jobs?

The government does not create jobs that produce wealth. When a company grows, because people want the products or services of the company, a company hires people when it makes sense. But in todays environment it does not make sense to hire one or two people if the current employees can do the work. Paying an existing worker overtime is cheaper and safer. Consider: the cost of an employee is not just the salary of the employee, but the total of the salary, benefits and taxes (FICA, Medicare, etc). At one time companies estimated the cost of employee at 1.5 times the Salary of the person. Now, with the taxes and regulations in the Health Care law, other taxes and benefits, the equation is more like 2.5 times the salary of the person. So paying a salary of $50,000.00 requires a gross income of $125,000.00 for that employee. Just to cover the cost of the employee. Is it any wonder that salaries are stagnant?


For a small company looking to hire someone it makes it much more difficult to justify; especially if the owner of the company is just getting by. When one adds in the excessive regulation, fake environmental laws/regulations and other requirements imposed at all levels of government, hiring a person is expensive. So the small business does not hire and the large business moves out of the country. For the large company it is cheaper and safer to move – they have to answer to their owners. The small company just folds.

What is wrong with our schools?

Our schools do not need more money. The problem is the schools are not teaching the children; they are indoctrinating them. Even since the Federal Government got its hooks into our schools our education system and the quality of education has suffered. It is time to let the teachers teach and to stop the indoctrination. And besides – where in the US Constitution did the States give the Federal Government authority to control the schools? Education is the responsibility of the States, local governments and the parents.

Mr Obama wants a centrally planned economy and that requires people to follow blindly. Which requires indoctrination. You can’t think for yourself in a Socialist system. Sadly, Progressives from both major parties have contributed to the central-planning aspects of today’s economy. Central planning destroyed the USSR and other places like Venezuela. Just because a Progressive Republican proposed something is not a reason to pass it.

Where are teachers facing massive layoffs? I have yet to hear of it actually happening. New York City has hundreds on furlough. Another of your lies? The places where teachers are losing jobs are because of because of Union rules that prevent getting rid of useless administrators and bad teachers. That is still not a federal problem.

The folly of temporary tax credits

Temporary tax credits will not improve the job environment. No smart businessman is going to make future plans on the basis of temporary credits. He does take into considerations attempts to increase taxes however. One has to since it means less income in the future. Tax rate reductions and the removal of bad regulations will. But Mr Obama offers more useless rhetoric and pabulum, nothing else. The tax rate increases are why businesses have left and jobs have disappeared. The company owners need to be able to take of themselves. Temporary tax rate reductions won’t create new jobs either. All they will do is allow companies to stay afloat for a little while longer.


Mr Obama offers more pabulum about tax credits. Now he wants to keep the 2001 rates in place, and tax others to fabricate government jobs for others. The spending in the “agreement” he speaks of, was nothing more than an reduction in the rate of spending growth. That’s another lie by Obama and the Progressive/Marxists. The Devil is in the details.

Obama’s destructive programs

He has advocated programs that he knows will destroy jobs. The wealthy already pay the fair share. In fact they pay more than their fair share. More class warfare and lies. Maybe it is time those that pay no income taxes and get money from the Government to give that money back and pay their fair share? Any takers?

Obamacare destroyed Medicare and Medicaid. Its authors designed it to impose federal-level control over the economy. More deception. People need to read the law itself. Say goodbye to Amendments 1, 4, 5, 8, 13, and 14 for starters. He just offers more class warfare – nothing new – just the recycled pabulum he has peddled for the last 3 years. Blame others both openly and implicitly.

The affluent gets breaks based upon investment. Progressives have been creating the inequities. That is to say: people like Obama. Most of those “loopholes” are valid business deductions. The others are gifts of the Progressives. Yet when “Conservatives” try to make the tax system fair what do we hear?

Obama insists on passing his plan

Let’s see the plan first – Obama lies and deceives on a regular basis. Anyone who takes the time to look at what Mr Obama says versus what he does can see the lies. Just more pabulum at this stage in his speech. Think of the oil companies. How many people do they employ? How much taxes do they pay? How much do the spend? When you sell TRILLIONS of dollars of products and make $0.09 on the dollar the profits look huge. But you also pay a huge tax bill. Don’t buy into this class warfare and lie.


It is the wealthy, those that have money, that create jobs and invest in jobs. They worked to make that money. Why should they be punished by having it stolen? So when you win that Lotto jackpot lets take 90% of it so the Government can redistribute it. Or maybe 99% or 100%. You didn’t earn it after all.

And he continues to push his Socialist utopia. If it was real don’t you think Venezuela would be an economic powerhouse and workers’ Utopia? The middle class is gone there. Mr Chavez destroyed the middle class. Isn’t Mr Obama proposing the same ideas? Government does this, Government does that. So much for helping the middle class. History says Mr Obama is going to destroy the middle class.

Why should we take Mr Obama’s word? Lets stop indoctrinating children and driving business out of the country by driving up the cost of living and labor. It was the Progressives that created the housing crisis by forcing banks to make those risky loans. History is such an inconvenience to Progressives. Reduce the tax rates and the excessive regulations created by Progressives and this crisis will resolve itself . Without Government interference and control of our lives.

Trade agreements? Wait a minute…!

Now he wants to pass trade agreements he and his allies opposed. Weren’t these agreements on the table back during the Bush-43 years.

Review of regulations?

Progressives created the problems and know only how to create state-controlled incentives. This is classic socialism, and it always fails. Socialism works until the system runs out of other people’s money. Look at what is happening in Greece. They have run out of other people’s money and the people have to start being responsible for themselves. They have to grow up and stop being spoiled children. And since when does a person give up the own self-interest for the greater good forever and to their own detriment?


Government regulation has hampered economic growth. Now Mr Obama wants to review regulations – yet attacks Gibson Guitar and runs guns into Mexico to justify more violations of the US Constitution.

Obama has destroyed the protections of the people’s liberties by destroying the Constitution. Now he offers more deception and diatribe about labor unions. Unions have become part of the problems today. Don’t think so? Take a look at Eastern Airlines. Their Unions put the company out of business.

Government must roll back to its proper role. Mr Obama wants to expand it and give it control that the Constitution does not permit. Read our Constitution and learn what it actually means. The contract is not hard to understand.

Obama invokes Abraham Lincoln

Abe Lincoln obeyed the U.S. Constitution. And as for the government-sponsored transcontinental railroad: that failed. The private railroads worked. Since when has a Government sponsored entity prospered. The Post Office hasn’t. The Federal Reserve has – but wait that is a private Banking cartel.

Spending, legitimate and illegitimate

More pabulum about legitimate spending to justify unconstitutional spending. Most of the items Mr Obama cites served military needs. Furthermore, the Democrats undermined Social Security. And the various local governments that opted out of Social Security years ago and created their own retirement plans have better retirement programs. And they are solvent. Not everyone is dependent upon Social Security. It used to be a voluntary system but the Democrats (i.e. Progressives) want to make people dependent upon the Government.


It is not the government’s job (nor within its capability) to create jobs. Government must get out of the way so that people can be successful. The people will create jobs, just like they always have. Allow people to create business and profit and they create jobs.

“The election is 14 months away”

Mr Obama is correct about the 14 months. We need to remove Mr Obama so that he cannot do any more damage to the country. His plan won’t solve anything, but as history shows, will make the problems worse. He refuses to use the policies and programs that work. He is a Progressive/Marxist and wants government control of everything.

Any bill proposed by Mr. Obama that contains revenue provisions would be unconstitutional. (Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 1).

All bills for raising revenue, shall originate in the House of Representatives,…

He is trying to get people to react without thinking. This is what we got the last time he did this – Obamacare – an unconstitutional law that is destroying our health care system. And that violates Amendment 1, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 and 16 and other provisions of the U.S. Constitution and 4 existing laws.

I would not trust any proposal by Mr Obama without reading it fully. He lies and openly deceives people. Nothing he proposes can ever be taken at face value. The Republicans should kill any proposal Mr Obama send to them and obstruct all of his attempts to impose more socialism and State control over the economy, the people of the Country, and destruction of the U.S. Constitution.


Obstructing for the proper and right reason is not wrong. Obstructing a person from walking in front of a moving train is not wrong. Obstructing a drunk from driving is not wrong. Obstructing a power mad Socialist bent on destroying our Country, depriving us of our Rights and destroying our way of life is not wrong either.

Editor’s note: Even the Associated Press doubts that Obama will ever pay for any of the things he described in his speech.

ARVE Error: need id and provider
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James F

Even if your claim that Obama is not qualified is correct, the relevant clause reads 20th Amendment, section 3 clearly reads:

“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;”

The Vice President elect on the 20th of January 2008 was Joe Biden. Due to the order in which they are sworn in Joe Biden was technically President for about 5 minutes.

Donald R Laster Jr

Biden’s election was null and void as well. Under Amendment 12 the President and Vice-President are elected as a team. Since Mr Obama is not a natural born Citizen the team itself was illegitimate and ineligible.

Originally, the top vote getter in electoral college was President and the 2nd vote getter was Vice-President. Amendment 12 changed the election from individuals to a team. The last legitimately elected Vice-President is Richard Chaney.

And John McCain and Sarah Palin were ineligible for the same reasons. John McCain is not a natural born citizen. He was born outside of the Country. To be a natural born citizen one must have all three legs of the tripod – born in the country, mother a citizen at time of birth and father a citizen at time of birth.

James F

Really? Read Amendment 12 carefully:

“The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;”

The crucial word is “distinct”. There are two separate ballots. One for the President and one for the Vice-President. They generate two separate lists, one for all persons voted for president and one for all persons voted for as vice-president. The same electoral college makes two “distinct” votes.

James F

Ooops that should be 20th of January 2009.

Interestingly enough if you want to quibble about semantics and presidential succession order, people have put together an argument that Condoleeza Rice was president for a minute making her both the first female and first African-American president. You can read the whole argument here link to My guess is that anyone wanting to present this argument before the Supreme Court would get an eye-roll from all nine justices and would be sent on their merry way. Barring some cataclysmic emergency America could probably survive 3 minutes without someone being “technically” president.

Donald R Laster Jr

It looks like an interesting argument. But I would say Bush-43 was still President. Just because the Vice-President switches first does not make him President temporarily. When Al Gore was sworn in as Vice-President Bush-41 was still President until Bill Clinton was sworn in. Each office switches independently.

The issue of whether an individual who does not meet the eligibility requirements is an important constitutional issue. Especially if you consider the power to sign bills into law, make appointments and other issues of Presidential authority. Since Mr Obama is not eligible to be President no bill he signs into law, judicial appointments, or other acts he does as President are valid. Think of what the health care bill does – it violates at least 20 provisions of the US Constitution.

Apply the issue to a position such as a boss in a store. If the boss is “A” and a person “B” comes in an claims to be boss and fires “C”, is “C” fired? If “B” is not eligible to act as the boss then obviously nothing “B” does is valid. Such behavior and actions are generally referred to as fraud.

And the Supreme Court admits they have been ducking the issue. But if Biden were to be President at least he meets all of the eligibility requirements to my knowledge. Mr Obama does not.

James F

Scenarios similar to what you have described have occurred on occasions, especially in the military, although it is more A appointed B incorrectly and B fired C. This lead to the creation of the de facto officer doctrine, Ryder vs. United States if you like reading case law. C is still fired whether B was suppose to be exercising the order or not because B was exercising the duties of the office they held. This is why military officers who disobey orders by claiming Obama is ineligible are court marshalled and never given the chance to question his ineligibility, it simply does matter whether the chain of command is legitimate just that they are giving orders.

You could advance this argument also be used for judicial appointments, however it is worth noting that the senate also votes on judicial appointments, giving the judges legitimacy.

As for bills section Article 1 section 7 reads:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

The president doesn’t actually have to sign a bill, by signing the bill it becomes law at most 12 days earlier, it would become law without their signature. Passage by both houses is sufficient for a bill to become law without a presidential veto. This may mean that Obama’s two vetos become law, interstate notarizations being a hot button topic I am sure this will have long term implications. Again the de facto officer doctrine could cover such a scenarios, in that the person was exercising the duties of the office and the office has those powers, even if the person was not entitled to that office.

On inauguration day I think one of two things happen either a) the Presidents term begins at noon whether he takes the oath or not, b) the US survives three minutes without a president. Keep in mind that Robert Gates was in a military bunker outside Washington at time with the nuclear football, any emergency he would have been tasked with dealing with it.

Donald R Laster Jr

Except Mr Obama is not President. He is not eligible since he is not a natural born citizen. That requires one to be born in the Country, the mother be a citizen of the country at birth and the father be a citizen of the country at birth. Mr Obama’s father is not and never was a citizen. Thus Mr Obama is not President since he is not eligible.

As a result nothing he does is valid under the US Constitution. Our Constitution establishes the rule of law – an invalid act is still an invalid act. We are operating in a Constitutional crisis condition. Instead of having rule of law, we have fiat rule of men. There has to be a President to present the law to.

Since B had no authority to act in the first place C is not fired. You seem to miss the point that B had not authority in the first place. He was a fraud claiming to have the authority. For C to be fired B would have to have authority to fire C which B never did.

And the primary issue of the article was Mr Obama is presenting the same failed policies that created the current economic problems. In fact, history says we are going in to a Depression. What is being done is what Hoover and FDR did and that resulted in a 10 year Depression.

James F

But there is the rub, he does have the authority of the president, because he was voted by the electoral college and the vote was certified by congress. So even if he is illegible he is de facto the president and hence the de facto officer doctrine may apply.

Donald R Laster Jr

The issue is that he is NOT eligible. The contact has specific requirements for President and he does not meet them. The electoral college vote is null and void. It is the classic case of corrupt acts. If the underlying act is corrupt what flows from it is invalid as well.

James F

But precedent says it is not. Ryder vs United States is a case in point. An incorrectly appointed judge court marshelled a soldier. Despite the fact that he should not have been hearing the case, the judgement was up held because the judge was fulfilling the office he held and there was no other irregularities in the trial.

Also if you want precedent that the congressional vote is final, you may want to look into the election of Hayes.

Donald R Laster Jr

You should go back and re-read Ryder.

link to

The defacto rule would not apply since Mr Obama is not eligible in any fashion. And the challenges have been going on since before he was unconstitutionally allowed to try for the office.

Bill Lewis

I can’t believe the arrogance of this President. He knows that this jobs bill is dead before it reaches the House. He is doing nothing but political rangling. He wants to present something so that the Republicans will defeat it and then he can say, “see, the evil republicans are standing in the way.” The main stream media will, of course, play right into it and the sound bites will reinforce his point.

Also, I think I’m the only person who picked up on a major point in the Presidents address. He stated, “What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?”. I scared my wife when I started screaming at the television. That man just said that the Constitution is just a suggestion. The rigid idea of what government can do IS the Constitution. There is nothing else he can be referring to! How dare he stand in from of the entire nation and the world and announce that he and his party believe that its just a suggestion? Did anyone else pick up on that.

James F

However Bill the constitution does allow for such things:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Obama was referring to the broader Alexander Hamilton view of that clause rather than the narrower James Madison view. Madison’s views were more inline with the tea-party movement, whereas Hamilton advocated for a view that is more at home amongst tax and spend liberals.

Terry A. Hurlbut

Yes, and Alexander Hamilton came close to engineering a military coup to take over the government in 1798. John Adams thwarted that by negotiating a settlement of a dispute with France under its “Directory” government. Years later, Aaron Burr did the nation a favor by challenging Hamilton to a duel and winning.

James F

He was certainly a character. Close to engineering a coup is over stating it somewhat. But he was also the author of most the federalist papers and hugely influential in how the constitution is interpreted, which was the topic of discussion. If you want to see how influential he was filp over a $10 bill.

Terry A. Hurlbut

Yes, I know: Alexander Hamilton’s face on the $10 bill. But Hamilton also raised the “Provisional Army” and was all set to march it through Virginia and into Ohio and on into Louisiana. And John Adams was very much afraid that Hamilton would turn against him.

He was the “General James Matoon Scott” (Seven Days in May) of his day. After reading Adams v. Jefferson, I thought to myself: wouldn’t this be a neat idea for a movie project. Seven Months in 1798.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x