The truly dismal state of the unionYou can read Curl's entire opinion here.
by Joseph Curl
There is one person — one American among the 300 million of us — who is not to blame for the state of the union. Everyone else, each of you, in some small or large way, bears some share of the blame, but not this guy. Not one little bit.
This guy is Barack Obama. He is not the least bit to blame for the dismal state of the U.S. economy. George W. Bush is, for sure, and that evil Dick Cheney, oh, no doubt. House Speaker John A. Boehner — evil, too — is, of course, to blame. But guess what? So is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and every Democrat in the House and Senate.
Now, President Truman made it very clear: The buck stops with him. No passing the buck for that guy. But Mr. Obama blames everyone but himself. Mr. Bush, he says, left the nation in a ditch, a deep ditch, and he’s been digging out since he took office. And Congress? Those guys are just plain awful, he says. So mean. Wah, they won’t do anything I want done! Mr. Obama feels so sure about it that he’s basing his re-election campaign on bashing Capitol Hill.
But with the president delivering his State of the Union speech to Congress Tuesday night, let’s pause here to take as hard look at the real state of America, by the numbers, using only cold, hard facts.
One commenter had this to say... "[Obama] may be at fault, but we are to blame."
I couldn't agree more. What's worse, in my opinion, is the complete and utter hypocrisy of the left, especially media, who for eight years blasted Bush at every opportunity, yet bends over backward--"don't ask, don't tell" style--in their efforts to not blame Obama for anything. Is it appalling to watch these so-called "journalists," the so-called "watch-dogs" of government and self-avowed intellectuals, fawn over Obama, and reeking of bias.
These leftists can preside over their bastardized "independent" media if they choose, but we can choose to not to believe a thing they say (I'm not saying we shouldn't watch; it's important to know what the enemy is up to), because this is still America. Not the one that was given us by our founder, but the one we have allowed others to reshape. There is no constitutional provision whereby we must accept this; no law on any book that declares we have to let others redefine for us the nature, form and function, nor principles of this once proud republic.If the left wishes to live in a socialist society they should move to Europe. If they want to make this nation into a fascist society, I say "Fight." And I denounce anyone as a traitor who says government should control every aspect of our lives and economy.
There is no good reason to reelect Barack Obama... except in the minds of those who do not like the America into which they were born.
We used to say, "America's got it's share of problems, but we're still the freest nation on the planet." Well, I'm not so sure of that anymore. But reelect Obama and we're done. End of story.
And maybe it has to be that way. God, after all, is not dead. He hasn't been on vacation. Nor has He taken His eye off what's been happening down here for a single second. America IS on the decline, and, quite frankly, I don't see any way any of us, let alone a republican president, can stop it. I am not, however, going to throw in the towel. As the above commenter also stated:
We must join together, rise and FIGHT for liberty, as our forbears did, or it will perish from the Earth.
I would rather see a limited period of suffering and sacrifice in order to restore Constitutional government and prosperity than generations of slavery in a world that no longer knows freedom.
I would rather die as an old man in a free and prosperous America, but
I would die on my feet, for I will NOT live on my knees!
'I will not live on my knees'..... To government, no. To God, yes.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"let’s pause here to take as hard look at the real state of America, by the numbers, using only cold, hard facts."
ReplyDeleteI like that line, it gives the appearance that Mr. Curl is an unbiased logician. phooey!
Since the 1800's pirate attacks on the high seas have declined, the global population has gone up though. Without context you might assume that pirate attacks before the 1800's stabilized the earth's population.
Facts without context are useless.
The first piece of context for all Mr. Curl's "facts" is that when Pres. Obama was elected the nation was beginning the second worst economic collapse in its history. By the time he was inaugurated the recession was a hare's breath from depression. So any economic measure from his date of election will be skewed by the hole that was dug in the first 6 months of 2008.
If you look at jobs, the stock indexes, business investment, any economic measure after Pres. Obama's policies began to be enacted, then Pres. Obama's three years tops Pres. Bush's eight years.
Remember back three years ago when "the Obama government took over the auto industry"? Remember how the conservative party line was that GM wasn't too big to fail? How's that lookin' now? This last year GM was once again the world's largest auto manufacturer.
Conservatives over the last three years have been wrong on every single one of the major economic challenges. Perhaps ya'll are better on foreign policy?
Nope.
Pres. Obama has produced a tougher sanctions regime on Iran than anything a conservative president has ever accomplished. And the rest of the world supports him. He's strengthened our ties in Indonesia and the South Pacific. He's killed terrorists in Yemen. Wound down our occupation of Iraq and returned our military focus to Afghanistan. And oh yeah...killed Osama bin Laden.
If I were president and had done all that, I'd recite list every time I met a Republican Seantor or Representative followed by, "In yo' FACE!"
This isn't to say I'm over the moon with Pres. Obama and his administration. I have gripes and complaints about his tenure in the White House, but they are over issues and policies where Pres. Obama chose a more centrist approach.
"If the left wishes to live in a socialist society they should move to Europe. If they want to make this nation into a fascist society, I say "Fight." And I denounce anyone as a traitor who says government should control every aspect of our lives and economy."
ReplyDeleteYou don't actually know what socialism and fascism mean do you? They're just epithets you've picked up from the echo-chamber.
Over the last 20 years someone convinced all the conservatives that political liberals have some sort of connection to modern culture.
Ya'll have somewhere this secret belief that Nacy Pelosi, Barack Obama, & Harry Reid are auditioning young brainless bimbos to choose who the next Snooki, or Paris Hilton or Kardashian sister will be. Then liberal house interns sit up all night in crib sessions writing violent, curse filled rap-songs about how much fun it is to live off food stamps. While progressive grade-school teachers underline words in children's text books to brainwash them into homosexual orgies.
In reality politics has nothing to do with these sorts of cultural changes. Politics actually follows these trends. Today's inclusive teachers are only expanding on the ideas that their parents taught them about non-discrimination. Today's gay-rights activists are following the path laid down by the women's rights activists of yours and your parents generation. Did moral progress end with the changes ya'll fought for?
When conservatives had a philosophy they could articulate a theory of governance of gradual change, retaining the components of social order that serve to raise up civil society.
Today's conservatives have no such philosophy, they only have obstruction.
After the nation's second-greatest economic disaster, conservatives still pitch the same political policies (less regulation, concentration of wealth in the top, smaller social safety nets) they did 20-30 years ago.
Even as there are fewer and fewer forests, animals, fish, clear streams, and natural oceans, conservatives have not changed their stance on environmental policies. Conservatives should be leading the charge to find energy resources that don't leave the Appalachian Mountains looking like Mars.
It should have been conservatives saying, "Manufacturing jobs are the backbone of the American middle class, How can we save those millions of automotive industry workers?" Obstruction of unions was more important to today's party Republicans than actual conservative policy.
Pres. Obama is a middle aged father with two daughters, he worries about America's moral decline as much as you.
"You don't actually know what socialism and fascism mean do you?"
ReplyDeleteOf course I do, and I didn't use them out of turn; or place, or for good reason for that matter.
"Pres. Obama is a middle aged father with two daughters, he worries about America's moral decline as much as you."
Phooey. Define first just how Obama defines "moral decline." I'll bet it's very different from the mainstream.
Furthermore, if you'll take another look, I did italicize "opinion" below the main selection. And your pirate thing? For someone chiding me about context, that paragraph had NO context whatsoever to the post.
Paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 of your first comment... your rebuttals of Curl's "facts"? Not so much rebuttals as apologies (and I don't mean the 'I'm sorry' kind... excuses might be a better word, I guess, but I'll stick with 'apologies'. I understand my usage here as well).
"Conservatives should be leading the charge to find energy resources that don't leave the Appalachian Mountains looking like Mars."
Hyperbole. Where are the Democrats? Why aren't THEY leading the charge? Oh, that's right! Lobbyists!
The charge Obama is leading, however, is akin to Custer's charge at Little Big Horn. Here (the U.S.) he refuses to allow the Keystone pipeline which would bring ten thousand jobs, minimum, forcing Canada to consider building the pipeline to the Pacific and selling its product to China. Meanwhile he approaches Brazil about helping their country develop the vast stores of oil off THEIR coastline, only to be turned down... they're going to let CHINA do it.
The problem with Obama and his environmental base's logic, is the oil is going to be drilled, extracted, etc., no matter what WE do to cut ourselves off at the knees, energy-wise; their not saving the environment one iota. On top of this Obama is going to trot his ignorant self out tonight and tell the nation we need to develop more of our OWN energy sources to become more energy dependent. Surely, there has not been so ignorant, so cynical a president in the history of this ONCE great nation.
Four more years of this man will kill America.
Typo: 2nd to last paragraph:
ReplyDelete"their not saving"
'their' should be 'they're'
I hate it when I misspell like that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Ben can provide details showing us the bills authored by Obama, or those to which he affixed his name, that would have reversed or slowed any of the economic decline he claims is the result of right-wing activities. I'm referring of course to his time as US Senator from Illinois, during that two year period after the 2006 mid-terms, wherein he and other Dems took control of Congress and all gov't charts show declines beginning. It wouldn't matter if the bills in question passed, but only which ones supported by him would have made any difference in what he "inherited" when he, damn our misfortune, gained the White House?
ReplyDeleteAs to our certain demise before his arrival, I have yet to hear how that would have played out had we not gotten Bush's final bailout plans. Had we allowed market forces to play out the situation unhampered by gov't interference, would we really have gone into a depression? And what the hell have we been in if not some level of economic depression/recession/oppression?
"Remember back three years ago when "the Obama government took over the auto industry"? Remember how the conservative party line was that GM wasn't too big to fail?" They WEREN'T. Why were they not allowed to fail and go into bankruptcy where they would have had to restructure the way they are supposed to? Those union buddies needed to be stroked. That's why. It doesn't matter that bankruptcy restructuring has turned around companies before and made them more efficient to boot. The auto bailout was unnecessary.
I wonder if Ben can provide details showing us the bills authored by Obama, or those to which he affixed his name, that would have reversed or slowed any of the economic decline he claims is the result of right-wing activities. I'm referring of course to his time as US Senator from Illinois, during that two year period after the 2006 mid-terms, wherein he and other Dems took control of Congress and all gov't charts show declines beginning. It wouldn't matter if the bills in question passed, but only which ones supported by him would have made any difference in what he "inherited" when he, damn our misfortune, gained the White House?
ReplyDeleteAs to our certain demise before his arrival, I have yet to hear how that would have played out had we not gotten Bush's final bailout plans. Had we allowed market forces to play out the situation unhampered by gov't interference, would we really have gone into a depression? And what the hell have we been in if not some level of economic depression/recession/oppression?
"Remember back three years ago when "the Obama government took over the auto industry"? Remember how the conservative party line was that GM wasn't too big to fail?" They WEREN'T. Why were they not allowed to fail and go into bankruptcy where they would have had to restructure the way they are supposed to? Those union buddies needed to be stroked. That's why. It doesn't matter that bankruptcy restructuring has turned around companies before and made them more efficient to boot. The auto bailout was unnecessary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNot only was the auto bailout unnecessary, it was criminal--whatever laws were or weren't strictly broken or adhered to. The investors got shafted while the union received partial ownership....
ReplyDeleteFollowing the 2009 bankruptcy negotiations between Delphi Corporation, General Motors, and the Department of Treasury’s Automotive Task Force, many non-unionized Delphi workers received devastating cuts to their pension plans while unionized retirees were made whole. To date, GM has received more than $70 billion in taxpayer funding to sustain the company. Under the Obama administration, the federal government acquired a 60-percent ownership of GM as a result of the company’s bankruptcy proceedings. The United Auto Workers Union received a 17.5 percent ownership in the auto manufacturer. Wicker and Boehner expressed concern that not all Delphi retirees’ pension plans were treated equitably in the GM bankruptcy proceedings and have called on the administration to be more transparent about how pension decisions were made.
The auto bailout may be dressed in the letter of legality, but it is criminal through and through beneath the tie of respectability.
Of course he isn't.
ReplyDeleteJust ask him.
BZ