As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Obama’s Inaugural Address: A Perversion of the Founders’ Vision

The great tension between liberalism and conservatism involves fidelity to the ideas of the Founders. Conservatives tend to think the Founders were right in their time, and also today. Liberals believe that the Founders were right in their time, but that their ideas need updating to the point of a complete perversion of their original meaning.

Obama premised his inaugural address today on the Founders, citing the famous second sentence of 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.”

But everybody knows that the Founders, who created the country on the bedrock of suspicion of centralized power, would never have countenanced today’s welfare state. And so liberals must do some revisions to the 18th century texts that supposedly guide our lives.

And therefore Obama continued:

Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time.

Uh oh. Look out. We’re going to bridge Jefferson’s words with “reality.” That means, of course, we are going to change Jeffersons words.

What Obama spends the next part of his speech – the most important part – doing is enunciating the liberal rationale for junking the intentions of the Founders and replacing them with their own.

To each according to his need? I suggest we cross that out.
To each according to his need? I suggest we cross that out.

It is a rationale for creating Socialism on the framework of freedom: That in order for values like equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be realized in modern society, government must act to safeguard them.

If government does not protect you with millions of pages of regulations, greedy capitalists will steal your freedoms; if government does not save man from his worst instincts, man will destroy the earth with non-biodegradable potato chip cannisters; if government does not pay to train workers and invest in the right technologies, people will be too stupid to do it on their own; and if government does not provide a safety net even for those who can succeed by themselves, then all people might not live the lives of the dreams.

Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin trusted the people with a Republic. Liberals say the people can no longer be trusted alone with such things.

And so, Obama says:

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.

Collective action meaning the government, not your local church . . .

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers . . .

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.

And you should get points just for trying.

If you work hard – even if you were making transistor radios and eight-track players – you deserve your reward:

We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship . . .

while the means will change, our purpose endures:  a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American . . .

Obama says we have to make hard choices to reduce the spending which has already nearly destroyed us.

And then, he adds, really, we don’t have to make such choices:

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 . . .

The only way to achieve Obama’s vision, then, is to raise taxes exponentially. The money for those who need the government’s pedestal to stand on must come from those who don’t.

Because, Obama insists, only through state control can we be made free:

The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us.  (Applause.)  They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.  (Applause.)

The Founders surely would have known that Social Security and Medicare, which steal money from current and future generations to help even those existing retirees who are not needy in their retirements, do indeed make us a nation of takers and sap our initiative.

Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it.

This is not what the Founders intended. But as Obama made clear to anyone who may have presumed him a moderate, it is exactly what you will be getting during the next four years.

85 Responses to Obama’s Inaugural Address: A Perversion of the Founders’ Vision

  1. “. . . preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.

    Is this ‘newspeak’?

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
    DEMOCRATS ARE PATRIOTS

  2. Thank you for that Keith.
    For the next 4 years anytime I have to talk about Dear Leader Obama I will stress the fact he is a SOCIALIST.

  3. He quotes the Founding Fathers but he takes their words and tries to make
    them fit his agenda and it won’t work. Anyone with a love of this country will
    see a pathetic ploy for what it is a man with no understanding of what this
    country is about but only sees things in his own narrow image.

    • Apparently half the US population doesn’t love their country, then. Brainwashed fools.

      “. .. preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action…”

      Talk about double speak. The very word “collective” sends a chill down my spine.

  4. well, the end of america, part two begins.

    to be individuals we must act collectively. if we refuse to act collectively, but as individuals, we are criminalized, so that all of us collectively can be individuals just like everyone else.

    and let’s keep pumping money into education so we can turn out basketball players who went to see Lincoln and were shocked at the ending when Lincoln was killed.

    barkleypontree.blogspot.com

  5. I suppose we could take some small comfort from the fact that he (or his speechwriters) thought it necessary to cloak Leftist Progressivism in tea party signage. That’s the closest thing to bipartisanship we’re gonna get… for the next four years.

      • @ Spook – Right you are. But then, just in my humble opinion (i.e., no rocks cast), you have said nothing, really… Heck, you may be a Noble Laureate, but if you prize your ability to cite history in nice bold, sweeping nothings such as the above – respond to this:

        Name one leader, Head of State, Dictator, Prime Minister, President, Director General, King, Queen, et al. that did ***not*** employ said tactics.

        Good luck.

        • Wow, missing the point, begging the question, and putting out a red herring–three informal fallacies for the price of one. Well done.

          The point being made was that even the bloodiest tyrants in history felt the need to appeal to the idea of consent of the governed; therefore, appealing to consent of the governed does not mean a leader actually HAS consent of the governed. Now, I ask you, what leader WOULDN’T appeal to consent of the governed? Any leader who did NOT appeal to consent of the governed would only be advertising that he LACKED consent of the governed, and would only invite violent removal by his subjects. Your putative challenge merely begs the question.

          The point LS was making was that even tyrants appeal to consent of the governed. You’re not even disputing that; you’re asking him to name a leader in world history who openly flaunted the will of the people. While it’s possible such a leader may have existed, that is not relevant to the point under discussion.

          Even tyrants feel the need to appeal to consent of the governed. Now, rather than sending LS on a wild goose chase through the history books, perhaps you’d care to explain why a tyrant would NOT appeal to consent of the governed, or, even better, why a tyrant would want to make a point of advertising that he lacks the consent of the governed.

          • “Wow, missing the point, begging the question, and putting out a red herring–three informal fallacies for the price of one. Well done.”

            “The point being made was that even the bloodiest tyrants in history felt the need to appeal to the idea of consent of the governed; therefore, appealing to consent of the governed does not mean a leader actually HAS consent of the governed.” *** – Quantum leap – My point exactly. He never really said anything… He just hung a broad statement out there. Let me make one. Every time you take a breath, a little kitten dies… OK, so…. Exactly… ***

            “Now, I ask you, what leader WOULDN’T appeal to consent of the governed?” *** – None. Thank you for restating what I inferred! ***

            “The point LS was making was that even tyrants appeal to consent of the governed. You’re not even disputing that; you’re asking him to name a leader in world history who openly flaunted the will of the people. While it’s possible such a leader may have existed, that is not relevant to the point under discussion.” – ***Precisely. I used fewer words, but you got it… I would suggest, no point was under discussion… Was my point… Just sayin’…***

            “Even tyrants feel the need to appeal to consent of the governed. Now, rather than sending LS on a wild goose chase through the history books, perhaps you’d care to explain why a tyrant would NOT appeal to consent of the governed, or, even better, why a tyrant would want to make a point of advertising that he lacks the consent of the governed.” – *** a) He wasn’t going to look anything up. b) I did… c) he / she wouldn’t…***

            Thanks for the assist. Enjoyed.

          • (Being a History major :-) Im just looking forward to History books that will the ‘truth’ about what a terrible “President” Obama was and how his left-wing/progressive policies & beliefs weakened the USA from 2009-2017.

          • Really Langley, looking forward to it? Would you not ***rather*** look forward to great things happening and things working out well? Even at the risk of being surprised?

            No? You would rather hope for the worst so you can gloat / bask in the moment? Tell me it ain’t so. I am all ears.

            Standing by.

          • “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
            – George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 5

          • But great things will not happen. It will be more jousting for four yrs. Mediocre. We will not come out a stronger nation, the dollar will not be stronger, interest rates will not sustain life for people with investments, blah blah, why waste keystrokes. We already know it will be a blah botch, accompanied by reams, scrolls, and avalanches of words!

  6. My head hurts and my heart is heavy. Inauguration Day is usually one of those days where I revel in the wonder and amazement of our country.

    Today, I feel sad. I feel like we’re losing something precious and no one understands the magnitude of the loss.

    • When the wicked rule the people groan, when the righteous rule the people rejoice. That is from the bible. I would not, did not listen to his speech for several reasons.First, I don’t believe a word he says and more importantly I believe with all my heart that he won thru vote fraud which makes it even worse.

    • I think there still is a small (and shrinking) contingent that understands what is really going on. The rest don’t care – they are the acutely disinterested and indifferent (eg, Obama voters) who believed the worse thing that could happen to the country was electing Romney (or some other “racist, right-wing freak”). Not enough people care – it’s as simple as that. They don’t care and they are pacified by Obama’s promises of equality, healing the earth or whatever he drones on about. It’s impossible to keep a democratic system going if the people care bear the responsibility to at least stay informed and give a crap about the consequences of their actions. If people cared, we wouldn’t have ended up with Obama for 2 terms.

  7. Yes Obama, there were no schools or roads in the time of the founding fathers, and math and science didn’t exist until Steve Jobs came along. There were just a bunch of uneducated hicks running around shooting guns. You saved us!

  8. The constitution isn’t a rigid blueprint for governing America, but a foundation for a changing time. It has been amended over the years to reflect a humane change in the matter of slavery, or to address wrongs that were once considered right..
    What can’t be changed without a revolution, is the freedom of person and the right to own property.

    I didn’t hear or read all of MrO’s speech, but what Keith has mentioned here are things that can be legislated without destroying our foundation. If the Dems want more money, they have every right (constitutionally) to take what they want, and we have every right to throw them out of office.
    Of course we build roads, schools, and Americans have never berated the government for these things. Of course we allow special tax credits for R & D because if we didn’t, a company couldn’t afford to spend the time and money before they might or might not make a profit.

    What makes us angry and scares us is the casual way Congress and the President spend money we simply don’t have to give to their own special projects that benefit the chosen few.
    What I sense is MrObama wanting to redirect tax monies as he sees fit without any accounting or approval by Congress. The other things he talks about are social issues that can’t be legislated.

    • Of course. But Obama has proven to be remarkably adept at skirting the legislature with Executive Orders/Actions and the sheer force of punitive regulation. Add to that a Department of Justice that enforces federal law at whim.

        • Bonds had their run and still have a play in a a decently-sized portfolio. Me? I like the stock market – trading at all time highs.

          Wait… Forgot where I was posting… Damn him! He is directly responsible for my surge in wealth and I hold him 100 PERCENT accountable! The nerve he has!

  9. The immaturity and ignorance displayed by “liberals” is breathtaking. Their beliefs are the beliefs I espoused when I was 18 years old: everything is relative; everything needs to be changed; a world with no borders; guns are evil, on and on. You could certainly forgive me as an 18 year old, but how can an adult man relate to and respect a 50 year old man espousing the ideas of an adolescent? What is it? Arrested development? Denial of reality? Regression? What the hell is it?

    • @Jeff1000 – “Arrested development? Denial of reality? Regression? What the hell is it?”

      Ignorance knows no boundary, as evidenced by your post.

    • Good questions. It’s hard to understand that there isn’t one, single, solitary Dem in Congress that wants to address our national debt, that wants to tackle the entitlement programs, or to halt spending on futuristic dreams. If there is one, or more, they must be hiding under their desks for fear of being outed as, well, anything they call the Repubs.

      • Srdem65, are the Dems afraid of him? Does he have some unknown, weird hold over them? I don’t understand why there isn’t someONE who will say enough is enough.

        • I have long agreed with you MarjoJimbo! Where are the moderate dems. Do they have children, grandchildren that they fear may inherit the wild spending of this regime? I can’t believe that they are all in “touch” with Obama policies!

  10. Keith – A nice piece of work. I hope you are picked up in the etherworld…

    At the end of the day, “this commentary” has been written many times during the last 2,500 years. I want to focus on your closing / concluding comments.

    “Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it. “This is not what the Founders intended.”

    My takeaway? The gist of this opinion piece is sweepingly inaccurate, pays no attention to the realities of economic systems in current geopolitical terms, bastardizes history with respect the positions of the “founding fathers” as if they were holding hands while knitting, and presumes “political and economic positions” dead people would have today. Typical of any Op Ed – so no harm no foul. Well done.

    In many ways, ironically, this opinion piece is guilty of having all the same qualities you blasted today – rewriting and taking history out of context, patently inaccurate economic conclusions, odd political juxtapositions, and drawing connections and conclusions with crayons. I suspect, it will be warmly received by most readers on this Blog. On that score, again, well done.

    RT

  11. You forgot one important point Mr. Koffler, Barack Hussein (did he drop the middle name?) Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Which constitution is the question however…

  12. I have no problem with ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ from the Declaration, but did Obama make no mention of the Constitution? The Constitution is the law of the land, not just a felicitous phrase. Obama, the Democrats, and the liberals are all willing and eager to change the Constitution or even to do away with it. I have always itched to quote Robert Bolt from A Man for All Seasons on this site, so here it is:

    And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you, where would you hide, the laws being all flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man’s laws, not God’s–and if you cut them down . . d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

  13. Same rehashing of his twisted socialist ideology.
    I’m still astonished that anybody buys or believes his bull-feces, that is except for his worshippers.
    If I had ever taken LSD, I’m sure this is what is ment by a bad trip.

    • Hi CiscoKid

      “Same rehashing of his twisted socialist ideology.” – The ideology is not twisted. It indeed is subject to a myriad of issues like any other model. And, no, I am not a Socialist and do not favor that system. I am a blackhearted capitalist.

      “I’m still astonished that anybody buys or believes his bull-feces, that is except for his worshippers.” – Astonished? Really? If you remain in a state of astonishment, consider re-framing the root basis of your political belief systems… if you have any…

      “If I had ever taken LSD, I’m sure this is what is ment by a bad trip.” – I like it that you did not try LSD, but can “imagine” with such clarity what a bad trip may be like. Your powers of deductive reasoning, though unexplained, must be very powerful. And, I like the analogy. At least bad trips have endings…

      Thanks for sharing CiscoKid.

    • From what you’re saying, Keith, maybe old Bob Welch and his Birchers were right about Eisenhower being an agent of the Communist Conspiracy. The Interstate Highway System, consolidating the New Deal despite strong Congressional majorities to roll it back, income tax rates of 90%+ at the top end, all that guff about the “military industrial complex.”What do you think, Keith?

  14. I flipped on The Five and of course, this stuff was on–more straw men than a hay field. I was sneezing and I don’t even have hay fever! What transparent nonsense. Did you see the shot of Michelle actually sneering at Boehner sitting next to her…very classy.

  15. Obama is working hard to get his face on Mt Rushmore. Know any other nation (present or in historical) where the “leader” is always wanting his picture out there — statues of himself — mass media coverage — no disagreements, disapproval or dissenting voices allowed? Know any other nation (present or in history) where only the laws the leader likes are enforced ? Know any nation (present or historical) where the “leader” divides the country one against the other and decrees laws that are against the country’s constitution?
    Obama works and has worked fewer days and hours than any other president in our country’s history. But claims the need for golf and vacations because he works so hard.
    Maybe his black half should meet his white half and make friends.

  16. “….that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”

    If I am required to act that totally negates the idea that I am free.

    People who believe such idiocy are in power.

  17. Absolutely sickening. How this tool can claim to be and have people refer to him as a Constitutional Scholar is mind boggling.

    Can we resurrect McCarthy, we have commies in our midst.

  18. Obama is not a socialist, he is not even a liberal. I know because I am one. His extension of Dubyas policies on war, torture, and bank bailouts proves this. So some of us on the left submit to you and other Republicans that Obama just finished Bushs 3rd term and is now serving his 4th. The fact that ” he talks pretty” is not in line with his actions. If you have time please elaborate exactly how Jefferson was a proponent of capitalism? How or Why do you think Obama is a socialist?

    What do Obama and Bush have in common?
    How quick they fall on their knees to their corporate masters….

  19. Keith,
    I was surprised and saddened to see the racist comments from some of your friends. Seems to me they could make a point without name calling
    racist hateful rhetoric. If they actually had a foundation for what they say/believe then they could explain without the name calling, racist comment
    s or hate filled diatribes…

  20. […] “What Obama spends … the most important part [of his inaugural speech] doing is enunciating the liberal rationale for junking the intentions of the Founders and replacing them with their own. It is a rationale for creating Socialism on the framework of freedom: That in order for values like equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be realized in modern society, government must act to safeguard them. If government does not protect you with millions of pages of regulations, greedy capitalists will steal your freedoms; if government does not save man from his worst instincts, man will destroy the earth with non-biodegradable potato chip cannisters; if government does not pay to train workers and invest in the right technologies, people will be too stupid to do it on their own; and if government does not provide a safety net even for those who can succeed by themselves, then all people might not live the lives of their dreams. Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin trusted the people with a Republic. Liberals say the people can no longer be trusted alone with such things. … Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it. This is not what the Founders intended.” –columnist Keith Koffler […]

  21. […] “What Obama spends … the most important part [of his inaugural speech] doing is enunciating the liberal rationale for junking the intentions of the Founders and replacing them with their own. It is a rationale for creating Socialism on the framework of freedom: That in order for values like equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be realized in modern society, government must act to safeguard them. If government does not protect you with millions of pages of regulations, greedy capitalists will steal your freedoms; if government does not save man from his worst instincts, man will destroy the earth with non-biodegradable potato chip cannisters; if government does not pay to train workers and invest in the right technologies, people will be too stupid to do it on their own; and if government does not provide a safety net even for those who can succeed by themselves, then all people might not live the lives of their dreams. Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin trusted the people with a Republic. Liberals say the people can no longer be trusted alone with such things. … Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it. This is not what the Founders intended.” –columnist Keith Koffler […]

  22. hey there and thank you for your information – I’ve definitely picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical issues using this site, as I experienced to reload the web site a lot of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and could damage your quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I’m adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much more of your respective exciting content. Ensure that you update this again very soon..

Obama’s Inaugural Address: A Perversion of the Founders’ Vision

The great tension between liberalism and conservatism involves fidelity to the ideas of the Founders. Conservatives tend to think the Founders were right in their time, and also today. Liberals believe that the Founders were right in their time, but that their ideas need updating to the point of a complete perversion of their original meaning.

Obama premised his inaugural address today on the Founders, citing the famous second sentence of 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.”

But everybody knows that the Founders, who created the country on the bedrock of suspicion of centralized power, would never have countenanced today’s welfare state. And so liberals must do some revisions to the 18th century texts that supposedly guide our lives.

And therefore Obama continued:

Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time.

Uh oh. Look out. We’re going to bridge Jefferson’s words with “reality.” That means, of course, we are going to change Jeffersons words.

What Obama spends the next part of his speech – the most important part – doing is enunciating the liberal rationale for junking the intentions of the Founders and replacing them with their own.

To each according to his need? I suggest we cross that out.
To each according to his need? I suggest we cross that out.

It is a rationale for creating Socialism on the framework of freedom: That in order for values like equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be realized in modern society, government must act to safeguard them.

If government does not protect you with millions of pages of regulations, greedy capitalists will steal your freedoms; if government does not save man from his worst instincts, man will destroy the earth with non-biodegradable potato chip cannisters; if government does not pay to train workers and invest in the right technologies, people will be too stupid to do it on their own; and if government does not provide a safety net even for those who can succeed by themselves, then all people might not live the lives of the dreams.

Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin trusted the people with a Republic. Liberals say the people can no longer be trusted alone with such things.

And so, Obama says:

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.

Collective action meaning the government, not your local church . . .

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers . . .

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.

And you should get points just for trying.

If you work hard – even if you were making transistor radios and eight-track players – you deserve your reward:

We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship . . .

while the means will change, our purpose endures:  a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American . . .

Obama says we have to make hard choices to reduce the spending which has already nearly destroyed us.

And then, he adds, really, we don’t have to make such choices:

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 . . .

The only way to achieve Obama’s vision, then, is to raise taxes exponentially. The money for those who need the government’s pedestal to stand on must come from those who don’t.

Because, Obama insists, only through state control can we be made free:

The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us.  (Applause.)  They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.  (Applause.)

The Founders surely would have known that Social Security and Medicare, which steal money from current and future generations to help even those existing retirees who are not needy in their retirements, do indeed make us a nation of takers and sap our initiative.

Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it.

This is not what the Founders intended. But as Obama made clear to anyone who may have presumed him a moderate, it is exactly what you will be getting during the next four years.

85 Responses to Obama’s Inaugural Address: A Perversion of the Founders’ Vision

  1. “. . . preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.

    Is this ‘newspeak’?

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
    DEMOCRATS ARE PATRIOTS

  2. Thank you for that Keith.
    For the next 4 years anytime I have to talk about Dear Leader Obama I will stress the fact he is a SOCIALIST.

  3. He quotes the Founding Fathers but he takes their words and tries to make
    them fit his agenda and it won’t work. Anyone with a love of this country will
    see a pathetic ploy for what it is a man with no understanding of what this
    country is about but only sees things in his own narrow image.

    • Apparently half the US population doesn’t love their country, then. Brainwashed fools.

      “. .. preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action…”

      Talk about double speak. The very word “collective” sends a chill down my spine.

  4. well, the end of america, part two begins.

    to be individuals we must act collectively. if we refuse to act collectively, but as individuals, we are criminalized, so that all of us collectively can be individuals just like everyone else.

    and let’s keep pumping money into education so we can turn out basketball players who went to see Lincoln and were shocked at the ending when Lincoln was killed.

    barkleypontree.blogspot.com

  5. I suppose we could take some small comfort from the fact that he (or his speechwriters) thought it necessary to cloak Leftist Progressivism in tea party signage. That’s the closest thing to bipartisanship we’re gonna get… for the next four years.

      • @ Spook – Right you are. But then, just in my humble opinion (i.e., no rocks cast), you have said nothing, really… Heck, you may be a Noble Laureate, but if you prize your ability to cite history in nice bold, sweeping nothings such as the above – respond to this:

        Name one leader, Head of State, Dictator, Prime Minister, President, Director General, King, Queen, et al. that did ***not*** employ said tactics.

        Good luck.

        • Wow, missing the point, begging the question, and putting out a red herring–three informal fallacies for the price of one. Well done.

          The point being made was that even the bloodiest tyrants in history felt the need to appeal to the idea of consent of the governed; therefore, appealing to consent of the governed does not mean a leader actually HAS consent of the governed. Now, I ask you, what leader WOULDN’T appeal to consent of the governed? Any leader who did NOT appeal to consent of the governed would only be advertising that he LACKED consent of the governed, and would only invite violent removal by his subjects. Your putative challenge merely begs the question.

          The point LS was making was that even tyrants appeal to consent of the governed. You’re not even disputing that; you’re asking him to name a leader in world history who openly flaunted the will of the people. While it’s possible such a leader may have existed, that is not relevant to the point under discussion.

          Even tyrants feel the need to appeal to consent of the governed. Now, rather than sending LS on a wild goose chase through the history books, perhaps you’d care to explain why a tyrant would NOT appeal to consent of the governed, or, even better, why a tyrant would want to make a point of advertising that he lacks the consent of the governed.

          • “Wow, missing the point, begging the question, and putting out a red herring–three informal fallacies for the price of one. Well done.”

            “The point being made was that even the bloodiest tyrants in history felt the need to appeal to the idea of consent of the governed; therefore, appealing to consent of the governed does not mean a leader actually HAS consent of the governed.” *** – Quantum leap – My point exactly. He never really said anything… He just hung a broad statement out there. Let me make one. Every time you take a breath, a little kitten dies… OK, so…. Exactly… ***

            “Now, I ask you, what leader WOULDN’T appeal to consent of the governed?” *** – None. Thank you for restating what I inferred! ***

            “The point LS was making was that even tyrants appeal to consent of the governed. You’re not even disputing that; you’re asking him to name a leader in world history who openly flaunted the will of the people. While it’s possible such a leader may have existed, that is not relevant to the point under discussion.” – ***Precisely. I used fewer words, but you got it… I would suggest, no point was under discussion… Was my point… Just sayin’…***

            “Even tyrants feel the need to appeal to consent of the governed. Now, rather than sending LS on a wild goose chase through the history books, perhaps you’d care to explain why a tyrant would NOT appeal to consent of the governed, or, even better, why a tyrant would want to make a point of advertising that he lacks the consent of the governed.” – *** a) He wasn’t going to look anything up. b) I did… c) he / she wouldn’t…***

            Thanks for the assist. Enjoyed.

          • (Being a History major :-) Im just looking forward to History books that will the ‘truth’ about what a terrible “President” Obama was and how his left-wing/progressive policies & beliefs weakened the USA from 2009-2017.

          • Really Langley, looking forward to it? Would you not ***rather*** look forward to great things happening and things working out well? Even at the risk of being surprised?

            No? You would rather hope for the worst so you can gloat / bask in the moment? Tell me it ain’t so. I am all ears.

            Standing by.

          • “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
            – George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 5

          • But great things will not happen. It will be more jousting for four yrs. Mediocre. We will not come out a stronger nation, the dollar will not be stronger, interest rates will not sustain life for people with investments, blah blah, why waste keystrokes. We already know it will be a blah botch, accompanied by reams, scrolls, and avalanches of words!

  6. My head hurts and my heart is heavy. Inauguration Day is usually one of those days where I revel in the wonder and amazement of our country.

    Today, I feel sad. I feel like we’re losing something precious and no one understands the magnitude of the loss.

    • When the wicked rule the people groan, when the righteous rule the people rejoice. That is from the bible. I would not, did not listen to his speech for several reasons.First, I don’t believe a word he says and more importantly I believe with all my heart that he won thru vote fraud which makes it even worse.

    • I think there still is a small (and shrinking) contingent that understands what is really going on. The rest don’t care – they are the acutely disinterested and indifferent (eg, Obama voters) who believed the worse thing that could happen to the country was electing Romney (or some other “racist, right-wing freak”). Not enough people care – it’s as simple as that. They don’t care and they are pacified by Obama’s promises of equality, healing the earth or whatever he drones on about. It’s impossible to keep a democratic system going if the people care bear the responsibility to at least stay informed and give a crap about the consequences of their actions. If people cared, we wouldn’t have ended up with Obama for 2 terms.

  7. Yes Obama, there were no schools or roads in the time of the founding fathers, and math and science didn’t exist until Steve Jobs came along. There were just a bunch of uneducated hicks running around shooting guns. You saved us!

  8. The constitution isn’t a rigid blueprint for governing America, but a foundation for a changing time. It has been amended over the years to reflect a humane change in the matter of slavery, or to address wrongs that were once considered right..
    What can’t be changed without a revolution, is the freedom of person and the right to own property.

    I didn’t hear or read all of MrO’s speech, but what Keith has mentioned here are things that can be legislated without destroying our foundation. If the Dems want more money, they have every right (constitutionally) to take what they want, and we have every right to throw them out of office.
    Of course we build roads, schools, and Americans have never berated the government for these things. Of course we allow special tax credits for R & D because if we didn’t, a company couldn’t afford to spend the time and money before they might or might not make a profit.

    What makes us angry and scares us is the casual way Congress and the President spend money we simply don’t have to give to their own special projects that benefit the chosen few.
    What I sense is MrObama wanting to redirect tax monies as he sees fit without any accounting or approval by Congress. The other things he talks about are social issues that can’t be legislated.

    • Of course. But Obama has proven to be remarkably adept at skirting the legislature with Executive Orders/Actions and the sheer force of punitive regulation. Add to that a Department of Justice that enforces federal law at whim.

        • Bonds had their run and still have a play in a a decently-sized portfolio. Me? I like the stock market – trading at all time highs.

          Wait… Forgot where I was posting… Damn him! He is directly responsible for my surge in wealth and I hold him 100 PERCENT accountable! The nerve he has!

  9. The immaturity and ignorance displayed by “liberals” is breathtaking. Their beliefs are the beliefs I espoused when I was 18 years old: everything is relative; everything needs to be changed; a world with no borders; guns are evil, on and on. You could certainly forgive me as an 18 year old, but how can an adult man relate to and respect a 50 year old man espousing the ideas of an adolescent? What is it? Arrested development? Denial of reality? Regression? What the hell is it?

    • @Jeff1000 – “Arrested development? Denial of reality? Regression? What the hell is it?”

      Ignorance knows no boundary, as evidenced by your post.

    • Good questions. It’s hard to understand that there isn’t one, single, solitary Dem in Congress that wants to address our national debt, that wants to tackle the entitlement programs, or to halt spending on futuristic dreams. If there is one, or more, they must be hiding under their desks for fear of being outed as, well, anything they call the Repubs.

      • Srdem65, are the Dems afraid of him? Does he have some unknown, weird hold over them? I don’t understand why there isn’t someONE who will say enough is enough.

        • I have long agreed with you MarjoJimbo! Where are the moderate dems. Do they have children, grandchildren that they fear may inherit the wild spending of this regime? I can’t believe that they are all in “touch” with Obama policies!

  10. Keith – A nice piece of work. I hope you are picked up in the etherworld…

    At the end of the day, “this commentary” has been written many times during the last 2,500 years. I want to focus on your closing / concluding comments.

    “Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it. “This is not what the Founders intended.”

    My takeaway? The gist of this opinion piece is sweepingly inaccurate, pays no attention to the realities of economic systems in current geopolitical terms, bastardizes history with respect the positions of the “founding fathers” as if they were holding hands while knitting, and presumes “political and economic positions” dead people would have today. Typical of any Op Ed – so no harm no foul. Well done.

    In many ways, ironically, this opinion piece is guilty of having all the same qualities you blasted today – rewriting and taking history out of context, patently inaccurate economic conclusions, odd political juxtapositions, and drawing connections and conclusions with crayons. I suspect, it will be warmly received by most readers on this Blog. On that score, again, well done.

    RT

  11. You forgot one important point Mr. Koffler, Barack Hussein (did he drop the middle name?) Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Which constitution is the question however…

  12. I have no problem with ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ from the Declaration, but did Obama make no mention of the Constitution? The Constitution is the law of the land, not just a felicitous phrase. Obama, the Democrats, and the liberals are all willing and eager to change the Constitution or even to do away with it. I have always itched to quote Robert Bolt from A Man for All Seasons on this site, so here it is:

    And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you, where would you hide, the laws being all flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man’s laws, not God’s–and if you cut them down . . d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

  13. Same rehashing of his twisted socialist ideology.
    I’m still astonished that anybody buys or believes his bull-feces, that is except for his worshippers.
    If I had ever taken LSD, I’m sure this is what is ment by a bad trip.

    • Hi CiscoKid

      “Same rehashing of his twisted socialist ideology.” – The ideology is not twisted. It indeed is subject to a myriad of issues like any other model. And, no, I am not a Socialist and do not favor that system. I am a blackhearted capitalist.

      “I’m still astonished that anybody buys or believes his bull-feces, that is except for his worshippers.” – Astonished? Really? If you remain in a state of astonishment, consider re-framing the root basis of your political belief systems… if you have any…

      “If I had ever taken LSD, I’m sure this is what is ment by a bad trip.” – I like it that you did not try LSD, but can “imagine” with such clarity what a bad trip may be like. Your powers of deductive reasoning, though unexplained, must be very powerful. And, I like the analogy. At least bad trips have endings…

      Thanks for sharing CiscoKid.

    • From what you’re saying, Keith, maybe old Bob Welch and his Birchers were right about Eisenhower being an agent of the Communist Conspiracy. The Interstate Highway System, consolidating the New Deal despite strong Congressional majorities to roll it back, income tax rates of 90%+ at the top end, all that guff about the “military industrial complex.”What do you think, Keith?

  14. I flipped on The Five and of course, this stuff was on–more straw men than a hay field. I was sneezing and I don’t even have hay fever! What transparent nonsense. Did you see the shot of Michelle actually sneering at Boehner sitting next to her…very classy.

  15. Obama is working hard to get his face on Mt Rushmore. Know any other nation (present or in historical) where the “leader” is always wanting his picture out there — statues of himself — mass media coverage — no disagreements, disapproval or dissenting voices allowed? Know any other nation (present or in history) where only the laws the leader likes are enforced ? Know any nation (present or historical) where the “leader” divides the country one against the other and decrees laws that are against the country’s constitution?
    Obama works and has worked fewer days and hours than any other president in our country’s history. But claims the need for golf and vacations because he works so hard.
    Maybe his black half should meet his white half and make friends.

  16. “….that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”

    If I am required to act that totally negates the idea that I am free.

    People who believe such idiocy are in power.

  17. Absolutely sickening. How this tool can claim to be and have people refer to him as a Constitutional Scholar is mind boggling.

    Can we resurrect McCarthy, we have commies in our midst.

  18. Obama is not a socialist, he is not even a liberal. I know because I am one. His extension of Dubyas policies on war, torture, and bank bailouts proves this. So some of us on the left submit to you and other Republicans that Obama just finished Bushs 3rd term and is now serving his 4th. The fact that ” he talks pretty” is not in line with his actions. If you have time please elaborate exactly how Jefferson was a proponent of capitalism? How or Why do you think Obama is a socialist?

    What do Obama and Bush have in common?
    How quick they fall on their knees to their corporate masters….

  19. Keith,
    I was surprised and saddened to see the racist comments from some of your friends. Seems to me they could make a point without name calling
    racist hateful rhetoric. If they actually had a foundation for what they say/believe then they could explain without the name calling, racist comment
    s or hate filled diatribes…

  20. […] “What Obama spends … the most important part [of his inaugural speech] doing is enunciating the liberal rationale for junking the intentions of the Founders and replacing them with their own. It is a rationale for creating Socialism on the framework of freedom: That in order for values like equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be realized in modern society, government must act to safeguard them. If government does not protect you with millions of pages of regulations, greedy capitalists will steal your freedoms; if government does not save man from his worst instincts, man will destroy the earth with non-biodegradable potato chip cannisters; if government does not pay to train workers and invest in the right technologies, people will be too stupid to do it on their own; and if government does not provide a safety net even for those who can succeed by themselves, then all people might not live the lives of their dreams. Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin trusted the people with a Republic. Liberals say the people can no longer be trusted alone with such things. … Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it. This is not what the Founders intended.” –columnist Keith Koffler […]

  21. […] “What Obama spends … the most important part [of his inaugural speech] doing is enunciating the liberal rationale for junking the intentions of the Founders and replacing them with their own. It is a rationale for creating Socialism on the framework of freedom: That in order for values like equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be realized in modern society, government must act to safeguard them. If government does not protect you with millions of pages of regulations, greedy capitalists will steal your freedoms; if government does not save man from his worst instincts, man will destroy the earth with non-biodegradable potato chip cannisters; if government does not pay to train workers and invest in the right technologies, people will be too stupid to do it on their own; and if government does not provide a safety net even for those who can succeed by themselves, then all people might not live the lives of their dreams. Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin trusted the people with a Republic. Liberals say the people can no longer be trusted alone with such things. … Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it. This is not what the Founders intended.” –columnist Keith Koffler […]

  22. hey there and thank you for your information – I’ve definitely picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical issues using this site, as I experienced to reload the web site a lot of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and could damage your quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I’m adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much more of your respective exciting content. Ensure that you update this again very soon..