According to the Constitution, the president is supposed to report to Congress on an annual basis on the state of the country. That is the basis for the State of the Union address that get delivered every January. The nonsensical pomp and the standing ovations of the joint session of Congress is not required; it just developed over time. Recently, the annual speech has been more a listing of general ideas rather than the proposal of any specifics. Tonight, however, when president Obama delivers his last (Yah!) SOTU speech, he is going to do away with even that list. Instead, we are told, Obama will make a much shorter and more philosophical speech. In other words, rather than reporting on the state of the union, Obama will deliver a campaign speech to kick off 2016.
It makes sense that Obama would make the SOTU address more political. After all, under Obama the entire federal establishment has given up any pretense of being non-political. We had the supposedly unbiased IRS come down on conservative and Christian organizations just because of their political or social views, and there were no consequences. We had the Justice Department pursue police departments where rogue cops shot minority youths while keeping silent when minority youths attacked police. Again, there were no consequences. We had Homeland Security push to admit more Moslem refugees who cannot be vetted to see if they have terrorist ties while fighting to define terrorist attacks as something like "workplace violence" or the work of some misguided youths. Not only were there no consequences; there were congratulations. Politics beat out the requirements of law, the rights of ALL citizens and the safety of the American people. Right now, it's all politics, all the time.
It's also no surprise that Obama is not listing proposals. That would require him to come up with some, something he has not done for many years. We are in a war with ISIS; not even Obama would deny that. Nevertheless, there is no one in Washington who can describe in detail our strategy for dealing with that group of terrorists. The truth is that the USA does not have such a strategy other than waiting for a new president to take charge. It is not that this sort of inaction is new to this country. In 1860, president Buchanan stood by and did nothing as state after state seceded from the Union to join the Confederacy. Only once Abraham Lincoln took office was any action taken and the Union saved in the Civil War. Of course, that war took the lives of roughly 2% of all Americans by the time it was over. Had Buchanan acted when the problem first appeared, that death toll might have been substantially lower. Few people today remember Buchanan; everyone knows Lincoln. Most likely Obama is hoping that in the future few people will remember his inaction in the face of the growing threat of Islamic terrorism.
Obama also has not economic proposals aside from raising the minimum wage, something about which he talks but never proposes details. Surely, Obama will tell us about the great "recovery" we have seen under his leadership. He will ignore the reality which is that this has been the most lackluster recovery from a recession in modern times. Indeed, middle class incomes have yet to even make it back to where they were prior to the recession. The pro-Obama apologists in the media tell us that the last recession was different from previous ones and that recoveries from financial crises are always very slow. Don't get taken in by that lie. When the savings and loan industry went into crisis in the late 1980s, the economy slowed down. Once the problem was dealt with, however, growth came back rapidly. The apologists claims are just another lie in support of Obama.
I have debated whether or not to watch the SOTU address. I checked the TV listings and found that nearly every channel is showing the SOTU. Even so, there's a show on the great chefs of Canada on one of the minor cable stations. Most likely, I'll watch that. It may be boring, but at least it will be honest.
It makes sense that Obama would make the SOTU address more political. After all, under Obama the entire federal establishment has given up any pretense of being non-political. We had the supposedly unbiased IRS come down on conservative and Christian organizations just because of their political or social views, and there were no consequences. We had the Justice Department pursue police departments where rogue cops shot minority youths while keeping silent when minority youths attacked police. Again, there were no consequences. We had Homeland Security push to admit more Moslem refugees who cannot be vetted to see if they have terrorist ties while fighting to define terrorist attacks as something like "workplace violence" or the work of some misguided youths. Not only were there no consequences; there were congratulations. Politics beat out the requirements of law, the rights of ALL citizens and the safety of the American people. Right now, it's all politics, all the time.
It's also no surprise that Obama is not listing proposals. That would require him to come up with some, something he has not done for many years. We are in a war with ISIS; not even Obama would deny that. Nevertheless, there is no one in Washington who can describe in detail our strategy for dealing with that group of terrorists. The truth is that the USA does not have such a strategy other than waiting for a new president to take charge. It is not that this sort of inaction is new to this country. In 1860, president Buchanan stood by and did nothing as state after state seceded from the Union to join the Confederacy. Only once Abraham Lincoln took office was any action taken and the Union saved in the Civil War. Of course, that war took the lives of roughly 2% of all Americans by the time it was over. Had Buchanan acted when the problem first appeared, that death toll might have been substantially lower. Few people today remember Buchanan; everyone knows Lincoln. Most likely Obama is hoping that in the future few people will remember his inaction in the face of the growing threat of Islamic terrorism.
Obama also has not economic proposals aside from raising the minimum wage, something about which he talks but never proposes details. Surely, Obama will tell us about the great "recovery" we have seen under his leadership. He will ignore the reality which is that this has been the most lackluster recovery from a recession in modern times. Indeed, middle class incomes have yet to even make it back to where they were prior to the recession. The pro-Obama apologists in the media tell us that the last recession was different from previous ones and that recoveries from financial crises are always very slow. Don't get taken in by that lie. When the savings and loan industry went into crisis in the late 1980s, the economy slowed down. Once the problem was dealt with, however, growth came back rapidly. The apologists claims are just another lie in support of Obama.
I have debated whether or not to watch the SOTU address. I checked the TV listings and found that nearly every channel is showing the SOTU. Even so, there's a show on the great chefs of Canada on one of the minor cable stations. Most likely, I'll watch that. It may be boring, but at least it will be honest.
No comments:
Post a Comment