President Obama began his speech by invoking JFK. "The Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress." Indeed, it would seem that it has only been through back-room partnerships that the Constitution has been undermined. The checks and balances that our founding fathers so carefully crafted in our Constitution only work when each branch does act as a friendly adversary to the others.
Keeping with the theme of the event, President Obama said, "there is much progress to report." He said, "after a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home." This seemed to me a shocking statement, at least as bizarre as former President Bush standing on an Aircraft Carrier claiming that the war in Iraq had ended, and we were victorious. I can only assume he wanted to get such a bold and erroneous statement made early and up front, before the average attention span faded, and he could get on with the actual details. Some folks just really wanted to hear that our troops are coming home, for others he said much later in the address, "America will complete its mission in Afghanistan and achieve our objective in defeating the core of Al Qaeda". He outlined a high level plan for withdrawal. In the end, for anyone who knows anything about our occupations of other nations, it should have been clear - not everyone will ever be coming home.
"Together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis." President Obama spoke of
our expectations for government. He said, and was applauded for saying, they "expect us to put the nation's interests before party."
I had to chuckle at that. I have no such expectation. In fact, if the party system has any merit at all, it is that the party platforms are meant to outline principles to guide elected officials, or at least inform them. The President seems out of touch with the expectations I do have for
them.
Such as the expectation to uphold and protect the Constitution. Does anyone else still have
that expectation?
The President said, "we must do what we have already promised." He, of course was talking about entitlement programs. But what about the promise to ensure the blessings of Liberty? What about the promises that were made in The Bill of Rights?
What about the promise to only use those powers enumerated in the Constitution? If we are going to be keeping promises now - I think we should go back to the foundation and see where we may have misstepped
along the path of Liberty.
He spoke of tax reform. He promised the achievement of what could easily be seen as conservative goals, through tax reform. For example, he said, "... Now is our best chance for bi-partisan comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit. We can get this done. The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms and more time expanding and hiring. ... [a more equitable or 'fair' tax code] ...a tax code that lowers incentives to move jobs over-seas and lowers tax rates for businesses and manufacturers that are creating jobs right here in the United States of America. That's what tax reform can deliver. That's what we can do together."
Can tax reform really achieve these things? Can any tax reform achieve such goals, or only the President's intended reforms? I think revoking the Income Tax might have an impact on those worthy goals identified, but I don't think that is what the President has in mind. Since the majority of Income Tax collected is actully going to pay the interest owed to the Federal Reserve - we would have to abolish the Income Tax and the FED at the same time. That would be some true tax reform that would benefit small businesses. But again - I don't think this is what President Obama has in mind here.
I think most Americans would like to see the return of local jobs. I also think that as long as we watch and wait for others to deliver it to us - we will be waiting for a revolution that will never arrive.
The dream of economic equality is only a dream for those who don't have money. For those who have worked to earn fortunes, it is a nightmare. Imagine playing a game of Monopoly - and then - because someone was winning, the rest of the players decided to take all of the top player(s) money. It would ruin the game. But in real life, those hotels are owned by someone who is providing a service to the public. Taking their money is the use of force. It is, in short, theft.
I could easily see the President's comments on tax reform being heralded by Protectionists. The notion of more American jobs is a good one - but the ends do not justify the means. The only thing stopping American job creation is fear. A small business can be started on a shoe-string budget. Sure, having loads of working capital helps - but it isn't a requirement. The President's every word hinges on a precept that government is the solution. This premise is unsound.
Even the president's ideas concerning small business growth and development are corrupted by his fallacious notions of the proper role of government. In his vision of the future, small businesses tie their wagon to the star of departments within the executive branch of government. In alluding to an economic plan, he said, "Last year we created our first Manufacturing Innovation Institute in Youngstown, Ohio... There's no reason this can't happen in other towns. So, tonight I'm announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs, where businesses will partner with the Department of Defense and Energy that turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs. And I ask this Congress to create a network of fifteen of these hubs and guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is made right here in America. We can get that done."
Clearly, this will result in agendas for small businesses being set by their benefactors (the State). Why not provide incentives for banks to loan more money to start-ups? Why not cut taxes across the board, so everyone has more money to start new small businesses? No - from the President's point of view - the people need government to set their direction. Clearly what we need, from the President's point of view, is an expansion of the Military Industrial Complex and Big Brother into the lives of the small business owners across the nation. What a nightmare.
I'm in the process of building a small business myself. It isn't easy. Times have been hard and money is tight. I would love to get my hands on some of the funding that the President is proposing. But at what cost? No Sir, Mr. President, you can keep the money you have taken from the people who are generating wealth. I'll build up through the winning of customers.
The President all but threatened the entire nation to promote his notions about climate change. "If Congress won't act soon," he said, "I will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take now and in the future to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy." While I actually applaud the notion of community preparation, I pray it doesn't involve FEMA Camps.
President Obama also mentioned something called an Energy Security Trust. I'm not quite sure what this is - but I'm sure we will find out more about it as time goes on.
In typical Big Brother style, Obama took to issuing the continent a new goal. "I'm issuing a new goal for America", he said. "Let's cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next twenty years." I wonder how the executive branch intends to enforce such things in my home? I'm being facetious here - because I have actually read snippets of proposed legislation that provide for 'home inspections' to ensure we are using mandated light bulbs and energy-star compliant utilities.
The President believes it is the role of government to ensure that colleges keep costs down. In the Land of Obama, the government controls all costs. He believes that the government needs to be smarter - but that everyone else needs to work hard. He corrected himself as he said, "everyone who is willing to work... everyone who is willing to work
hard, has a chance to get ahead." I have always been a fan of the saying - "work smarter - not harder". But, each to his own.
Being a CISSP (Certified Information Systems Security Professional), and leading
CyberCede, a company that specializes in Information Security and Privacy, I am always interested to hear the President talk about Cyber Threats. He said:
"America must also face the rapidly growing threat from cyber attacks. Now, we know hackers steal people's identities and infiltrate private emails. We know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets. Now our enemies are also seeking to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions, our air-traffic control systems. We can not look back, years from now, and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy. And, that's why earlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber-defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security our jobs and our privacy."
From research I have done regarding the Presidents new Cyber-Warfare Executive Orders - they are going far beyond "information sharing" and "standards development". He brought John O. Brennan, his chief counter-terrorism advisor guiding him in using drones to bomb countries we are not currently at war with, to the table for this one. Brennan also happens to be Obama's nominee for Director of the CIA. A preemptive strike in our society is called "assault". In the realm of nation states - it has another name:
Aggression.
The President did impress me, at the very end of his speech. I was impressed by his use of the phrase "
these United States". He used the phrase near the end of his speech, and then in his closing blessing. I wrote a college paper on the difference between
these United States and
the United States. It has been a long-time catch phrase for me concerning States' Rights. But again, I understand that while he may be saying things that sound pleasing - he isn't interested in State's Rights as much as he is interested in Nation Building. He can say we don't need big government, we need smart government - but in the end, they equate to the same thing. I would love for him to prove me wrong.
