Tuesday, January 22, 2013

President Obama's Haunting Anti-Liberty Inaugural Speech



I have now read President Obama's second inaugural speech for the third time. The speech haunts me. In very clever language the speech lays out a plan for a more centralized government, for more interference by the government in the affairs of individuals. The speech is about government as the solution to society's ills.

The President does this, though, while early on in his speech hailing the Constitution, which attempted to put a limit on government. He then quotes from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
He then proceeds in the remainder of his speech to rip apart the Declaration's call for Liberty.

But even before his mention of the Constitution and the quoting from the Declaration, in the very first paragraph, after greetings to the "Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens," the speech is haunting. In the first paragraph that begins the President's message, he speaks of that arrogant notion American exceptionalism:

 What makes us exceptional, what makes us American, is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago[...]
Few realize it, but the concept of American exceptionalism came about as a result of a battle between two communist factions. Wikipedia explains the history well:
 In June 1927 Jay Lovestone, a leader of the Communist Party in America and soon to be named General Secretary, described America's economic and social uniqueness. He noted the increasing strength of American capitalism, and the country's "tremendous reserve power"; a strength and power which he said prevented Communist revolution. In 1929, the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, disagreeing that America was so resistant to revolution, called Lovestone's ideas "the heresy of American exceptionalism"—the first time that the specific term "American exceptionalism" was used.
The term has been advanced most recently by the neocons, not surprising since their roots can be traced back to the Trotskyite movement.

Thus, at the very start of Obama's speech, one has to wonder if Obama understands the communist roots of his chosen notion of an "exceptional" America. If he does, then, indeed, he is sending us a very chilling message.

In paragraph 4 of his speech, he said to the nation:
Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. 

This is a very clever sentence. "A never-ending journey," he says to "bridge" the words of the Declaration to "reality." But is it really "a never-ending journey"? He attempts to answer this by saying:
 Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free.
This is true. Half-slave and half-free is not liberty for all. But, if there are no slaves anymore, what could Obama possibly mean when he talks of a "never-ending journey"? Wouldn't the words in the Declaration meet reality when all men are free? The President apparently thinks not. In a twisted view of the Declaration, he sees less free, more government interference, as part of his "never-ending journey."

He went on to say:
 Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.
What is this talk of "we"? Railroads, highways, schools and colleges all started out in the private sector. It was only through crony deals with special interests with private agendas that the government was brought into the picture. If the president means crony elitists in cahoots with government, as the "we," then he is correct. If he is somehow attempting to link the "we" of government interference, with the Declaration of Independence and citizens of America, he is a con-man.

And then he completely exposes his anti-liberty views:
Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.
Ah yes, free markets with rules, that is, liberty with chains.

And he moves on with a great attack on private charity:
Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life's worst hazards and misfortune.
Americans are not uncaring. The president insults Americans when he states that government by gun must force Americans to be charitable. It is another deceptive myth that the president likes to repeat often, Further, the "misfortune" that the president speaks of is not misfortune in the way private individuals think of it. It is the president as part on the Entitlement-Crony Complex in operation. It's about buying votes and splitting up lucre.

And after heaping all this government interventionist stuff on us, he takes a break to throw smoke in our eyes and claim he is not talking about central planning:
Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society's ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.
But, he quickly returns to his real theme, more government planning:
 But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action
Oh yeah, so much for the Declaration of Independence. "Times change."

The central planner goes on:
 No single person can train all the math and science teachers, we'll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

What a bizarre first phrase: "No single person can train all the math and science teachers." Who anywhere, ever , said that a single person will have to train all the math and science teachers?

He goes on in that paragraph to state that somehow this must be done as "one nation." He means by  "one nation," the government. And he does so without telling us why math and science teachers, road builders. networks and research labs, wouldn't emerge under liberty, in free markets, without the interference of government.

And, while he is all about calling for central planning, he slips in a bit of class warfare:
For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.
He does not explain that the growing wealth of a few, while others search for low-paying jobs, is because of government regulations that protect those who already have wealth (especially those with crony wealth who have ties to the government) and make it difficult, if not impossible, for others to compete against crony wealth.

The president goes on:
 We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher.
Who is this "we" that the president is again talking about? It is, of course, the great central planning mechanism  the government.  Note also the call to "reform our tax code." This is really a call for tax hikes. Tax code reform always ends up being about higher taxes through the closing of "loopholes." What we need is lower taxes, not tax reform.

He then once more insults Americans, who are quite capable of providing charity on their own:
We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. 
All central planning all the time, from the "needy" to healthcare. And what does he mean reduce the cost of health care?  What could that possibly mean other than in the president's mind cutting back on some payments on various drugs and services.

The president then said:
 The commitments we make to each other: through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.
But there are takers. The takers are the government operatives. They take from us and redistribute the wealth, and those on the receiving end are, indeed, softened up, not strengthened. It is creating a dependent society. A society dependent on government for basic services.

The president also made this ominous comment about international affairs.

We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.

Here we are back to paragraph one and American "exceptionalism,"  and the neocon view that the US should be the only superpower, the Empire, if you will. Haven't we learned enough blowback lessons, so that it should be clear the US should stay out of other countries affairs? And if we are so gung ho about democracy, shouldn't we stand by Iran and its democratic government? Instead of, say, the monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Is it really about democracy? It appears not. It is more smoke. It is about the US Empire, its behind the scenes cronies desiring global control.

Then, of course, while Obama hints at more violence abroad from the Empire, he obviously believes that there is nothing that those that live in the heart of the Empire should fear.  He wants our guns:
Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.
And there you have it, from start to finish, with a bit of smoke thrown into the air, to confuse at just the right moment, the president's speech was about moving away from the Declaration of Independence and closer to more government control, more power to the state.

In the end, Obama's speech is about this, government controlled Americans with very armed government around every corner.


20 comments:

  1. Wonderful post, Robert. I will be sharing this one on Twitter and my blog.

    The speech was doubtless the best propaganda they can produce. It's easy for us to see through, but sadly most don't. It's so disgusting I refused to watch or read anything about it yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Its an inauguration speech, full of horse shit, a sermon delivered to the statist congregation. why make yourself miserable by reading it again and again. Barry was hardly going to whip back the curtain.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A classic political economy analysis is to distinguish between the individual, society, and state. It is very obvious that Obama views the state as the embodiment of society. It's not merely a collectivist view, but rather a statist view. From even his first speech, his stated goal has never been to defend the size of government, but rather to show that the state is the Way.

    More so now than ever, it's important to get the word out that the state is not society. That it is separate and distinct from society and that all of human interaction and cooperation is not within the context of the state.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Salman Khan doesn't need government to educate millions of math and science students.

    "We" don't need the federal government at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But...but...the roads! Who will build the roads? /sarcasm.

      Delete
    2. Haha. Yes, all us libertarians are posed with that question, right? My immediate thought to that response is always the idea that middle-class people might have been able to afford small airplanes by now, if they hadn't been looted for over 100 years.

      Less roads in existence? Maybe we'd have hovercrafts. We'll never know.

      Delete
  5. It's about following Agenda 21, hence "the journey." We'll be hearing more about this in Davos from the World Economic Forum.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, the smoke was so easy to see through. I was doing exactly that while I tried to hold back my barf reflex as I listened to that jerk prattle on with asinine analogies and absurd anachronisms.

    To the point: Everything you said was obvious to those that know how to think and see the light. The whole totality of his demagoguery was on complete display with this freakish lecture. It was the most anti-American lecture since the days of Khruschev.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The collectivist/statist gang is kicking individualist butt. Obama is gloating. The liberty movement needs some serious retooling.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Excellent post and analysis.
    There is but one word that decribes all...TOTALITARIANISM...!!!
    I btw...forecast the exact same thing would occur a few years ago and was scorned and heckled. Now look whose laughing.
    We all need to retain our sharpness of mind and keeness of eye...because the lies and deceipt will devour our spirit.
    Surely this damn road to serfdom can take a deviation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sic Semper Tyrannis !

    ReplyDelete
  10. ... This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840. From Wikipedia.
    While I do not accept Wikipedia as the final word in defining American exceptionalism, the term precedes debates among Communist factions by over a century. Nor would I accept the Neocon exceptionalism, placing the US as exceptional as the preeminent ruling superpower.
    American exceptionalism is the liberty, stability, prosperity and benevolence derived from a minimalist government, enabled by a citizenry capable of individual self governance. Only that religion based upon the Bible is the basis of the morality which serves as the personal moral restraint, enabling political liberty.
    The French Revolution, which sought to emmulate the American Revolution, failed. It quickly deteriorated into a reign of terror finally resolving in the dictatorship of Napoleon. Its failure to accomplish stability and liberty was rooted in the absence of a religious anchor to a moral foundation. Unfortunately for the 18th Century French, the Church and Monarchy were seen as enemies of 'liberty, equality and fraternity'. By tossing the baby out with the bathwater, the French revolution was doomed from its outset.
    Our (neocon) mission of spreading liberty and democracy is impossible without first establishing the self restraint of morality, which in turn cannot be sustained without an anchor in a transcendant, unchanging being and the religion that binds heaven and earth!
    As a nation, we as a people are more than Biblically illiterate, but now scornful of this foundation of our Republic. The writings of Locke and Blackstone presumed a Biblical worldview, expressed anew within the influence of the Enlightenment. Our culture is Postmodern, ie rejecting of reason in favor of emotion. As we have taught/lost at least 2 generations to reject absolutes in favor of a relativistic, evolving Truth, we are now bereft of both underpinnings of our republic, Biblical religion and reason. Without respect for the laws of nature and nature's God, and unguided by reason, we elect demogogues who appeal to the desparate feelings of the moment.

    We are condemned by the worship of the work of our hands, particularly the handiwork done by a God-rejecting majority at the voting booth.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If this article represents mainstream Republican views then it is clear why there is not a Republican president at the moment. Minimalist government is all very well when times are good, but its failure to provide a safety net for the vulnerable when times are bad, is the reason a more interventionist president has been elected. It seems to me that the Republican party is going to have to moderate its views and show some compassion for the poorer members of society if it wants ever again to see a Republican occupy the White House

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I notice you post anonymous. So typical for left wing weenies. The right does believe in a safety net but not multi- generation cradle to grave handouts. We all know a relative who didn't have a job and laid on the damn couch for a friggin year saying they couldn't find work. Then, one day, you get fed up, throw them out, and guess what? Miraculously, they have a job. The easier you make it for people not to work the more people who will take you up on it. It is called common sense. We all go through hard times. Been there done that, but some need a kick in the ass to get motivated, and 3years of unemployment just makes people lazier and lazier. We are no different than animals. You feed a stray, they forget how to hunt

      Delete
    2. Nothing shows compassion like Obama's drug war in the US or his drone war in the mid east or his Fast and Furious Op in Mexico that have left countless poor people miserable and dead.

      Obama assassinating a 16 year old US citizen? That just screams compassion, doesn't it?

      Delete
    3. Typical robot. Time are good when there is a minimalist government. Statistics show that as the government grows so does unemployment. There's a reason large companies have moved out of this country and it's called taxes and regulation. For you environmentalist please note that only about 3 to 5% of all regulations have anything to do with the environment. The rest are usually government report and intrusion into your business.

      Since I own a business I'm targeted by the new taxes and I figured as a single filer my taxes will increase to about 62% this next year. My answer to that is to close my doors at the end of 2013 and stop working. That means more unemployment..... and less money to spend on good and services.

      Delete
    4. Another lefties weighs in. Here's the deal and statistics prove me correct... when government grows so does unemployment, inflation and devaluation of the dollar. Government sucks up spendable income from the middle class, devalues the dollars that poor have, and eats up business profits like a sucking black hole.

      I own a business and at the end of 2013 I'm shutting my doors. I provided jobs for a number of people, along with healthcare and an safe and clean work environment. My accountant figured out that with the new "rich" tax rate (I'm a single payer) and the state tax rate, which is also increasing, my new rate burden is about 61% of what I make. That's not only unfair it's criminal. I refuse to pay anymore to a government that paints me as greedy, villainous, and uncaring.

      You can blame Republicans all you want, but it still does not change FACTS. Our education system has been hijacked by the federal government (used to be run by states) and it's so bad that our children are graduating without being able to read, our health care is about to deteriorate further with Obamacare which will cost much more than he says, and our country is completely divided by political party, by race, by religion, by social status, and by how much money someone has. That is a sad commentary for any President.

      I wish you all well, I'm getting out while I still have a few freedoms left to enjoy.

      Delete
  12. I have learned to listen to what the president and the media omit rather than what they say. There was not one word about jobs or the economy or the deficit. Mr President, THESE are the problems. Work on them and you will be amazed at how so any of the others will take care of themselves. Stronger economy, more jobs, less welfare, more self esteem, higher grades, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well James, you should have waited for the State of the Union speech. There was plenty about jobs, the economy and the deficit in that. Also, thankfully plenty of recognition of the need to review gun laws and also, again thankfully, a recognition that climate change is a serious problem and meaningful measures are needed to combat it.

      Delete