Recently in All Hail His Obamaness Category

Glenn Reynolds linked to a number of bloggers live-blogging the State of the Union address last night.

One of his readers brought up an interesting point:

Reader Rob Lain emails:

Others have probably done this already, but I just ran these numbers:

Obama SOTU 2010 First Person Singular Pronoun Count

"I" - 96 times
"me" - 8 times

Bush SOTU 2008 First Person Singular Pronoun Count

"I" - 39 times
"me" - 2 times

Think this may wind up correlating to their relative contributions to the national debt, when all is said and done?

I dunno, but what's funny is that I think Obama was restraining himself here . . . .

I went back further and looked up Ronald Reagan's first State of the Union Address in 1982. His First Person Singular Pronoun Count is as follows:

"I" - 36 times
"me" - Once

Quite a difference between Obama's first SOTU Address and Reagan's. Both faced similar economic problems. Both faced foreign policy difficulties. But it appears to me that the focus of Obama's first SOTU Address was himself and not the rest of the nation, unlike Reagan.

The other big difference between the two? Obama is an orator. Reagan was a communicator.

I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.

He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.

On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)

As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.

I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.

And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.

After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)

I. GOT. BORED.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........

UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

It has become quite apparent that our so-called representatives in both chambers of Congress have ceased to represent us and instead have gone off in a radical direction that will, in the end, cripple America with crushing debt, destroy an imperfect but working health care system that rivals that of any place else on the planet, erode even more of our rights, and create economic roadblocks that will do nothing but further weaken our ability to compete in the world's marketplace. It is the nightmare of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged come to life. With all of this in mind, is it any surprise a large majority of Americans are so angry with Congress and their Leftist Overlord?

We're trying in every way legally and officially possible to make clear that we don't want the radical meal we're being forced to eat. We fervently do not want to "fundamentally transform" America. But there is such a huge disconnect from our world to our representatives'. It's as if we are ghosts whom they can't see or hear! When someone refuses to listen, going so far as to ignore you, don't you shout louder? Doesn't it anger you? When you're attacked and belittled because you have to shout to be heard and you're still ignored, doesn't that infuriate you? These people miss that we passionately don't want what they want. The more they refuse to hear us, the more we try to make them. We are not going away.

We're justly and increasingly angry because our reps not only refuse to hear us, but they also chastise us for wanting to be heard. How else would they expect us to react when we feel so helpless and hopeless? No matter what we want, say, or do, our government is going to force us to eat a meal we never ordered. In addition, we keep saying, "no, we don't want this," but they keep putting affirmations in our mouths and proceeding with their radical agenda anyway. We are not enjoying the governmental rape of our country. We said "no," and "no" means "no" in every language. Why doesn't this matter? Every poll reflects the president's rapidly declining approval rating -- for good reason. And still, Robert Gibbs flippantly dismisses it. How are "we the people" supposed to feel? Certainly we do not feel happy, or even just mildly upset, about being disregarded. Far-left ideologues who supposedly espouse "compassionate" causes have no compassion for how we feel, nor do they have a clue that we are an angry mob of their own creation.

I certainly feel angry, particularly with my Congressional Representative, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH1), who has shown a penchant for dismissing any of her 'constituents' who do not ascribe to her particular political beliefs. On more than one occasion she is alleged to have referred to those of us non-Democrats living in her Congressional District as not being her constituents. That's funny as I thought everyone living in her district was her constituent, whether we agreed with her politics or not. So much for being our representative. Instead she represents only her own points of view and the hell with the rest of us. (I have a feeling Ms. Shea-Porter will have a very rude awakening come next November when she's booted, bag and baggage, from her seat.)

Obama's falling poll numbers certainly indicate a lot of our anger, particularly when his approval rating after a little over 11 months in office is worse than George W. Bush's after eight years.

Yet there's another twist that might make we angry Americans even angrier: Pelosi and Reid's move to short-circuit the normal conference process, where differences between House and Senate versions of a given bill are hammered out. Instead, reconciling the differences between the two health care reform bills will likely be done behind closed doors, out of the public eye, with little input from members of either house. In other words, the fix will be in.

When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. "We have to defer to the bigger picture," explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children's health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate's version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been "cut off at the knees" but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way -- without appointing an actual conference.

Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were "ping-ponged" -- i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. "We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue," said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.

But serious dialogue isn't what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a "ping-pong" game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.

Is there any wonder why things like the TEA party movement have been growing? Is there any wonder why confrontations between members of Congress and the public have been becoming more heated and less polite? Why are the Democrats so surprised when far too many of them have been ignoring their constituents back home, ignoring their wishes, ignoring their phone calls, letters, and e-mails, and following the lead of Pelosi and Reid, neither of whom has the best interests of the American people at heart. Instead they have their own Leftist Utopia-driven agenda that has nothing to do with what the American people want or need.

And the anger grows.....

Do you want to see the future of the US under the policies Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are trying to impose upon us? Then check out this video, courtesy of PJTV.

After 50 years of leftist policies and politics, Detroit has gone from the peak to the valley, having shrunk in population by 50%. Is that's what in store for us under leftist leadership for the rest of the country?

As the picture in this post says, "Do you miss me yet?"

I thought this quote was pretty good:

"I think the point of the comparison is this: Bush endured 8 years of wall-to-wall, 24/7 liberal bashing from multiple networks. Meanwhile, Obama was coronated and has enjoyed wall-to-wall adoration from the same multiple networks. If Obama's numbers, 11 months in, already approach Bush's after EIGHT years, then, baby, you've got serious problems."

Obama's tumbling poll numbers certainly aren't helping his administration, particularly when Democrats are saying they miss Bush.

This does not bode well for the Teleprompter/Teleologist/Apologist-In-Chief.

Could the falling poll numbers be one of the reasons Pelosi and Reid are trying so hard to ram through legislation a majority of Americans don't need, don't want, and don't have the means to pay for?

I must admit I've missed Steven Den Beste since he pulled the plug on USS Clueless a few years ago. When he resurfaces from time to time his postings are poignant and to the point, just as they have always been. His latest is no different.

In his new screed he ties together ancient Greek philosophies, modern Western society, and our Teleologist-In-Chief.

It does not bode well for the U.S. at all.

I know Nancy Pelosi doesn't think much of the Constitution, seeing it as an obstruction to creating a truly socialist state much like that of the old Soviet Union, but even she must realize that certain portions of the ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill she rammed down the throats of the House are unconstitutional. Not that she'll let that stop her. After all "the people" must be coerced into doing things she and her fellow socialists have decided is for the good of all, even if it will have just the opposite effect.

Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be "an unprecedented form of federal action," adding: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the (Commerce) Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the Commerce Clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" -- e.g, drivers can be required to buy auto insurance -- "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.

When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." He was serious.

Nancy's reaction to the question illustrates either her ignorance of what the Constitution actually says or her willful choice to ignore it in favor of her own agenda and the American people's rights be damned.

Should the awful and onerous ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill become law I hope it will be challenged on constitutional grounds and struck down for being overreaching and in violation of the Constitution. But we can't count on such a thing happening. Therefore we must strive to let our Senators know how displeased we are with this legislation because we know its a disingenuous attempt to do an end run around the people's wishes, a flagrant attempt to violate the Constitution, and a blueprint for medical and financial disaster.

Is it just me or does it appear to anyone else that every time President Obama leaves the US the stock market goes up?

While I'm at it, I might as well add insult to injury in regards to the the recently passed Pelosi Health Care Destruction bill.

While she has crowed her success into forcing the passage of an onerous and deceptive bill the American people don't want, at least one liberal has the courage to state exactly what Pelosi's health care reform legislation is really all about: making the American people more dependent on the US Government against their will...and not for their own good.

[John] Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

"Making the United States a more equitable country?" Who decides what is 'equitable'? And is equality as Obama and his minions define it really a good thing?

The answer to this last question is 'no', for Obama's equality has nothing to do with equality of opportunity and everything to do with outcome. We've seen such equality many times, both in the past and present, and it's nothing anyone should aspire to because all it really means is equality of misery.

Everyone will be equal...except of course the ruling elite. Nothing will be denied to them because, after all, they are more equal than the rest of us.

In making health care reform a misplaced priority, he and Pelosi and Reid have shown us what it is they really want to do is to make sure we are all good little proles on the hook to the 'benevolent' dictatorship that is The State. They have come to believe they know what's good for the masses better than we do, therefore they must control every aspect of our lives. Such is their arrogance. But like all statists their beliefs have one major flaw: they are no better at running our lives than they are their own. In fact, they are totally incapable of making our lives better by the means they have been pushing for all these decades. [/rant]

As more than one commenter to the Cassidy piece noted, the last thing we want to do is to be like everyone else.

We are the EXCEPTION. Who cares if the rest of the world has universal health care? The United States of America has been the exception since it was first created. What is sad is that we have idiots in our government who do not believe in American exceptionalism and think that we need to be just like the rest of the world. Did the founding fathers believe that we needed to be like Europe when we declared independence? NOOOOOOO!!! Why should we become like them now?

Look, we don't want a government run system that will give us mediocre care and only give the best care to the rich, famous, and the Washington elites. We want to be able to have choice. The healthcare legislation that the Democrats are trying to pass will not give us choice. It is designed to make private insurance obsolete and eventually put everyone on a government run system.

We already know how well such a system will run. Examples abound, both here and in other countries, showing us that they work well...if you aren't sick or hurt. Otherwise all bets are off. Do we really want a system like that?

Here's yet another story about how great ObamaCare/PelosiCare will be for the average American:


Some may say that this example and the one I posted yesterday are atypical of what occurs under Canada's socialized medical care system. But I know far too many friends north of the border that tell me it is all too typical. I've heard the same thing from friends in the UK about the NHS as well.

(H/T Instapundit)

If you want a preview of what ObamaCare/PelosiCare is going to be like, take a look at this:


The only problem we'll have is that we'll have no place to go to get the care we want, unlike our Canadian brethren do now. Hmm, maybe some of the more enterprising physicians in the US will move their practices offshore to one of the Caribbean islands in order to give the care we Americans will soon be deprived of by the oh-so-caring US Government.

(H/T Instapundit)

It appears the Obama Administration has finally figured out that the Hondurans did have the legal right to oust former President Zelaya.

After making all kinds of noise about the supposed "coup" and how the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court removing Zelaya under their own constitution and laws were somehow wrong, the Obama Administration now concedes their actions were lawful and will magnanimously allow them some say in their own affairs.

Gee, isn't that just swell?

So much for "smart diplomacy."

Received via e-mail:

No further comment required.

Now that Obama has gotten his way in regards to Honduras and the return of Chavez protege Zelaya to the presidency, I have to wonder what he will do should Zelaya impose a Chavez-like socialist dictatorship, abolish the Congress, eliminate freedom of speech, muzzle the press, tear up the Honduran constitution, and 'disappear' his political opponents?

I have no doubt our own Chavez fan will praise Zelaya's actions and make some kind of noise about "correcting past American wrongs" by allowing a representative democracy to fall into the hands of his socialist brethren.

The White House war against Fox News has made it quite apparent the Obama Administration is channeling the late Richard Nixon.

For some time now I've seen protest signs, blog posts, and comments in a number of forums equating President Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler. As I was reminded the other day, there's no way Obama is an incipient Hitler. Such claims are demeaning and insulting. But that's only because President Obama is...

...Neville Chamberlain.

As Bill Whittle tells us, "It is the men Liberals label as warmongers that make the peace, and those they call peacemakers that bring the wars."

And so it is with Obama, abandoning our allies in Eastern Europe with his cancellation of the missile defense shield, leaving them to the predations of Russia and Iran, while coddling up to those same adversaries in the hopes of peace.

Chamberlain, seen as a peacemaker, did the same thing back in 1938, handing Czechoslovakia over to Nazi Germany in return for promises of peace. A little over a year later the Nazis invaded Poland and the world was at war. Hitler's promises meant nothing. Chamberlain's assurances of "peace in our time" became the ashes of a funeral pyre piled with bodies of over 50 million war dead.

Obama may come to learn the same thing, only this time it could mean the nuclear annihilation of Israel and a good portion of the Middle East. He's also dithering on Afghanistan. In the mean time American troops and those of our allies in the area are fighting and dying while they wait for him to make up his mind.

At this point Obama needs to be a hawk, not a peacemaker. The situation demands it.

Well now, these are strange times. However, I can't say I've ever come across anything quite like this...

Fox News is "operating basically as talk radio," President Obama suggested in an interview airing today.

So, he's saying now that Fox News isn't a news station? It's "operating as a talk radio", but not news? Last I knew, most of talk radio dealt directly with news and commentary on said news. Well now... Let's see if we can't dig a bit deeper into this interesting idea...

"I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama told NBC's Savannah Guthrie. "And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet that's another but it's not something I'm losing sleep over."

How's that $787 billion stimulus workin' for ya? For three New England states it's not helping all that much.

So far the stimulus has saved or created 20 jobs in Connecticut, 28 jobs in Vermont, and 22 jobs in New Hampshire. As Jim Hoft put it "Obama would have done better if he would have opened a McDonalds in each state."

The most I've seen of the billions in stimulus spending so far are the signs along a couple of highways touting that certain projects have been paid for via the ARRA stimulus bill.

At least the sign makers are making a buck from all this stimulus money.

When (now) President Obama was running for office, he took the word "change", and made it his mantra. Today he may have taken his furthest step yet

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

Throughout his first few months in office, he took great care to change (reverse) any and all decisions of his predecessor. He immediately outlawed "harsh interrogation tactics", something that had been defended by both in office previously. Former President George W. Bush fought to keep Guantanamo Bay open, President Obama closed it down immediately. Today demonstrates yet another massive change from the Bush-era policy on marijuana (and drugs in general), Obama issued a statement today effectively stating that it was no longer federal policy to enforce laws (relating to medical marijuana) that conflicted with federal laws. Fourteen states have legalized "medical marijuana" so far. Until now, despite it being legal according to the states law, "patients" that were found to be in possession of marijuana were prosecuted just as if there were no "legalization" laws in place. This was done because of the way the US legal system is set up. While there are laws on states books, there are also essentially Xeroxed copies on federal law on many issues. Hence, a state may legalize a substance within itself, but according to the federal law, said substance is still illegal (since the state would still be under federal jurisdiction). This gives federal agents legal footing to prosecute actions, even though they may be legal in the state itself.

When I read this article, the US marijuana policy is not what is going through my head. Personally, despite one's feelings on marijuana in general, I find this to be a significant article. Not at all because of marijuana, but because I believe it is a huge step forward in state's rights. Personally, I believe the founding fathers were greatly in favor of states being able to express disagreement with the federal government. Historically, when states (or any significant group) rights are trampled or threatened, succession or revolts happen. For instance, most think the civil war was about slavery, it was not. The federal government was attempting to dictate what states would be free, and slave states. The states did not agree, and began to secede. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued (Lincoln freed all slaves in the Union, whether or not the state agreed), it became an all out battle between several states and the United States government. The Civil War was about whether or not the states had the right to make laws that contradict that of the federal government. Slavery was just the catalyst for that issue.

Even looking at the founding documents, it is clear to me that the founding fathers greatly favored states rights over that of the federal government. A quick glance over the second amendment (the right to bear arms) gives ample proof of their belief in states rights. Despite what many on the left would like you to believe, the document was not written "so we could have guns to hunt and shoot skeet with". The amendment was passed so that if worse comes to worse, citizens could take on a tyrannical government. If the document was followed in the spirit in which it was written, we would be able to buy hand grenades at our local department store. The second amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Clearly, this is not referring to "hunting" or "recreational shooting", this is referring to citizens standing against tyranny..

That said, I would like to state for the record I do not believe that fully automatic weapons, rpgs, and hand grenades should be purchased freely at any local or major retailer. Clearly, laws governing 2.5 million (the rough estimate of the 1776 population) should be different than the laws governing 320 million. However, the principles should not. The citizens should have a way to express and act on disagreements with the government (in this case, by passing legislature in the state). Again, I do not connect the real significance to this article to marijuana. Whether one thinks it should be completely legal, prescription, or completely illegal is a debate for another day.

I firmly support the states rights to make their own laws, after all, does this not follow the general law of democracy? If a state wishes to make a certain substance legal, by all means, they should be able to do so. However, they should (and will) suffer the consequences of doing so - whether those consequences be positive or negative. Should this prove to be an unworthy venture, then by all means, they should be able to undo their ruling using the same system they used to put it in place (democratic voting process). This, in my opinion, is the source of the beauty of the land of the fruits and nuts. We were built a great nation on the foundations of debate and free exchange of ideas, not legal scare tactics to keep any that oppose silent. I have the right to say whatever I want, and you have the right to tell me I'm wrong. It's what this country was founded on, and the way things should be.

The folks over at COTErack have gathered a number of videos of Anita Dunn confessing to Obama's control and manipulation of the Lame Stream Media during his Presidential campaign, her disdain of Fox News, and her abiding love for "philosopher" Mao Zedong. (Scroll down)

I know I'm a bit late piling on to Ms. Dunn, but she hasn't received anywhere near the abuse she deserves.