President Obama lied to the nation in his latest state of the union address, not his first lie, but surely one of his biggest ones. The state of the union is not strong; it is terrible. by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
President Obama lied. It was not his first time, nor will it be his last time. But it was one of the biggest possible lies. The state of union is absolutely not strong. Anyone with a smidgen of intelligence and critical thinking capability knows that in almost every conceivable way the US is in terrible shape.
Watching his overly long state of the union speech was a waste of time and very annoying. It just provided yet another basis for all the pundits and commentators to talk endlessly about it, without, however, ever noting or emphasizing the one big lie. Like the President, everyone is spinning to spread their chosen propaganda.
Imagine if the President of the USA stood up in front of Congress, the whole nation and the world with the courage to tell the truth: the state of the union is terrible, about the worst in over 100 years. And that is why Americans had to wake up, pay attention, sacrifice and join together to make things much, much better and the hell with conventional politics driven by the worst special interests and the rich.
By telling the lie that the state of the union is strong, Obama removed the necessary motivation for Americans to get their distracted and delusional minds oriented in the right direction. The nation needs to shift into crisis mode.
What if he turned around at some early point, looked straight at the Speaker of the House and said something like: this man has all the wrong ideas and is the enemy of the vast majority of Americans! Would the Speaker have cried?
What if he had the guts to speak about need to remove the power of corporate interests, especially within the financial sector?
What if he had the honesty to describe the stunning decline of the middle class?
Obama is a master of great-sounding generalities that ultimately mean nothing, nor define a specific set of legislative and executive actions. Just as Republicans are frequently criticized for not providing enough details, especially about cuts in federal spending, so does Obama practice the same con game.
The ugly truth is that China and other nations are beating the crap out of the US in just about every conceivable way and nothing the US is currently doing has the ability to change this situation and win the global competition. Just as Americans have watched once great companies disappear (Remember Polaroid?), they need to wake up to the downfall of their own country. All the talk about jobs is just another monumental deception, because there is no way that millions of new, good paying jobs will be created for many years.
In stark contrast to the empty rhetoric of Obama, at about the same time a remarkably honest report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that provides incredibly honest criticisms and explanation of exactly what caused the economic meltdown that millions of Americans are still suffering from was ignored. If President Obama respected its findings, he would have used them as the basis for detailing his actions against the entities responsible for the Great Recession. Here is a sample of the report's important views:
"The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire. The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble."
The financial industry has gotten away with murder and ended up profiting enormously. No mystery because it and groups affiliated with it spent more than $3.7 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions from 1999 to 2008.
And imagine if the President would have had the guts to talk openly about the incredibly awful financial predicament of most states!
Nothing defines our delusional democracy more than a president providing delusional thinking to mostly delusional citizens. Make no mistake; this is an epidemic of bipartisan delusion. This is what makes America exceptional. A once great nation is sliding down the toilet and most everyone, especially politicians, are lying endlessly as it does, as if the nation's decay should be ignored rather than honestly combated.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 19
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Joel S. Hirschhorn is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: January 26, 2011 02:58:11 PM
Joel,
If you believe that for one moment ANY President during a State of the Union Address would have the guts to tell the Nation that we are in the worst crisis since the Civil War, you would be deluding yourself. The purpose of the Address has always been a forum for the President outline his legislative agenda prior to turning in his proposed budget for the next fiscal year. In order to convince Congress to actually give the budget serious consideration, the last thing he needs is for the Members to think he's given up.
Part of the President's job is to increase the morale of the American people. For that he needs to frame everything in terms of challenges and opportunities. Framing the debate in a negative light only breeds hopelessness, which would then lead to political instability.
Posted By: choop26
Date: January 26, 2011 03:42:44 PM
I believe Joel is right on the money, while it is Mr. Gee who, like so many, is deluded. The STOU has not "always been a forum for the president to outline his legislative agenda, prior to turning in his proposed budget for the next fiscal year." The original intent, and actual intents of the address into the early 20th century is to, get ready for this...report the state of the union! I suggest reading some of the great presidents' addresses. Here's a link to one by Andrew Jackson http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/41.html. Read it...that my friends is a state of the union address. He lights into congress and reports news both dismal and great in a near journalistic style. He has no concern about the effect on the morale of the people.
In fact, honest reporting would be the very best thing for the people. Did we worry about the morale of the people when we were attacked by Japan, or the terrorists? No, we were GALVANIZED. It's the sleepy mentality of current leadership that's sucking away the morale of the people. We need to be shocked by our nation's realities. We need to be kicked out of our recliners, roll up our sleeves, open our minds, and demand our leaders to be honest and faithful.
This SOTU address was like eating wet toast. It didn't have to be. Obama could have just as well turned to the speaker and speak as honestly as he did to the Supreme Court last year.
And Mr. Gee, he has given up, they all have. they are trapped within their own greed. A trap they could but will never spring. And to talk about political instability? I humbly offer that the monopolization of the congressional electoral system, and the enslavement of our agent, the national legislature, are only a couple of the many examples of not only an unstable national government, but a government that is INSANE with greed.
So I implore you Mr. Gee, to wake up from your own delusionment and help us. A convention of the states is the only remaining constitutional tool we have left to force reform. Please don't tell me you have bought into the mythologies of an Article V convention. You want to talk about delusion?
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: January 26, 2011 04:33:58 PM
The core question is what does the nation really need? Is it more lies and platitudes, or is it painful truth? Is is false patriotism or is it tough love? We desperately need massive amounts of behavioral changes. What does it take for a person to change - to lose weight, to stop smoking or to curb debt-driven spending, for example? It takes facing the truth, no matter how painful. The nation must face the truth that the US has already lost many battles if it is to gather up the energy and determination to make and demand massive changes in institutions and politicians. Obama says the future is ours to win. Fine. But first he must face reality and agree that we are now in a losing position. If we are already winning, then nothing he says has any validity.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: January 28, 2011 08:25:12 AM
To "choop26",
You are correct that in the Andrew Jackson era, it was important for the President to report the State of the Union to Congress. However, in this era of the 24-hour news cycle, by the time the President steps up to the podium, the news has already been reported, interpreted, and spun by everyone in the media. So if he got up there to speak about the news, the address would take several hours and he wouldn't be telling us anything that we don't already know.
Regarding the need to be "shocked" by our nations realities - again, the news media and the thousands of pundants out there do that already. In fact, I believe that we have grown so accustomed to being "shocked" that we have grown numb to anything short of a 9/11 attack. That numbness then translates into apathy. What we need is for our elected leader to inspire us to action and not to be just another talking head telling us that we're all going to hell if we don't get off our lazy butts.
With regard to our government's enslavement to greed, on that we can agree. Whether we need an Article V Constitutional Convention, I'm not quite decided yet if that would be a solution or if it would result in further political instabilty.
In the final analysis, the State of the Union Address is "Political Theater". It always has been since the days of George Washington. Even the 1st President recognized this fact when he gave the first one to Congress in 1790. The President tells Congress (and the People) what he wants them to hear. He tells it with language that is carefully chosen in order to maximize its effect in the 24-hour news cycle. There is no room for an honest assessment from the President - we have our own eyes and whatever pundant you choose to listen to for that.
Posted By: choop26
Date: January 31, 2011 04:31:38 PM
Hello Bill. I have to disagree with you. The STOU is still supposed to be what it is. It's not about the president reporting news. The fact that the state of the union is news has no bearing on the role of the president. Since you refer to the modern era as having altered the role of the president's address, I again invite you to read some of the addresses of the past, this time in the modern era. Take a look at Eisenhower's. Pick some others. I agree we are numbed by the reports of pundits, but they're just pundits. We shouldn't be so by the president, and that's my point. Other president's have made it theatre, but many others have clearly risen above the background noise and if not startled, at least drew the rapt attention of the country. The STOU has not always been political theatre. Prior to Woodrow Wilson, presidents submitted their report, without visiting Congress. Washington only went once, for his first, where, instead of an address, he was treated as a fellow legislator and subjected to questioning that flew him into a rage.
As far as an Article V convention, it is the only Constitutional means the people have left to force congressional reform. I argue that we need a dose of political instability.
On a personal level, just curious. I'm a Civil War researcher, and once interviewed a woman whose father was a Confederate soldier in a Florida unit. The man's brother was commandant of the prison in Salisbury, NC. These men's surname's were Gee. Any relation? These were brave Georgia boys.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: February 1, 2011 02:46:15 PM
To "choop26",
I don't think we have a disagreement. I'm simply stating the way it is, and you are stating the way it is supposed to be. My argument focuses on how the President's role has evolved since the days of Eisenhower. I would even argue that ever since Ronald Reagan delivered his first STOU, the address is nothing but Political Theater.
To answer your personal question, the Gee surname in Georgia is one of three major unrelated branches of the family name. I believe mine is connected to the Gee's of Yorkshire, England of which Sir William Gee was a member of Queen Elizabeth's Court. A patriarchical DNA project is working on proving the link, but thus far it's just speculation. What we know for sure is that the family migrated from upstate New York and was on the Oregon Trail at the time of the Civil War.
