Three Speeches are Way Too Much!
By: Guest Authors
By: Dr. Phil Taverna
There ought to be a law. If the SOTU continues for more than 20 minutes start playing music or pull the plug on the presidentâ€™s microphone.
Obamaâ€™s State of the Union Address (SOTU) for 2011 was ripped apart by most pundits. There was not much good that came out of his speech. Of course the Obama lovers were inspired by the speech, but inspired to do what?
One of the biggest problems facing Obama in the next 2 years is his vocabulary. He fooled the people who voted for him the first time by using words that meant one thing to the voter and another thing to Obama and the liberal socialists. And letâ€™s face it he has no one to blame except his liberal policies. An â€œinvestmentâ€ in any other language is spending. Obama and his liberal congress had their shot at spending and by all accounts it has made things worse and now we have more debt than ever to pay. How much has the failed Obamacare cost us so far? Now he wants to include FREE contraceptives!
It seems odd the other day when he jumped into the fray of Egypt. Is he nuts? Egypt suffers from similar issues that we have in America. Obama made things worse in this country, why wouldnâ€™t the people in Egypt have a right to solve their own problems. They did not need any unsolicited comments from liberals like Obama or Hillary. Maybe some offer of help or sympathy might have been in order. How would Americans have felt if England or France took sides in our first civil war?
Obama in his SOTU speech said: â€œThe steps we’ve taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession â€“ but to win the futureâ€¦â€
By all accounts the economy has worsened. And here is a Harvard graduateâ€¦ What does win the future mean to you, Mr. President? A win for the socialists or the capitalists?
The examples throughout his speech were laughable. How many people know what sputnik represents? And it was our enemy USSRâ€™s accomplishment not Americaâ€™s accomplishment.
Simple questions that should have been answered by Obamaâ€™s speech are as follows: How many nuclear plants are you going to build in the next 5 years? Green energy is not going to do a thing without nuclear energy. Green energy may help the Chinese economy, but it will destroy the oil and coal industry in the USA. How many oil and coal jobs do you plan to destroy and sacrifice in the next 5 years?
If you are going to encourage the building of factories in the USA and not in China then how many are we going to build and when will they begin to generate revenue.
These questions were owed simple answers that should have been part of this empty speech. Twenty minutes would have been more than enough time for such empty rhetoric. But the 60 minute speech did give Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg a chance to take a coma like nap. If Judge Alito was present, he might have given her a slight nudge before her head reached her chest.
The Republican response was usual and customary. But it was the alleged Tea Party response that was the most telling. Bachmannâ€™s speech in response to Obamaâ€™s empty speech was patriotic to say the least. It was short. But it was to the point. As I surfed the channels the only thing the pundits could talk about was that she was looking at the wrong camera. If she was a man, would they have set her up to be looking at the wrong camera? These camera men and techies were professionals, didnâ€™t they know if she looked at only one feed that she would only be looking at one camera and not the others. SNLâ€™s rendition of this was very funny.
But letâ€™s look at the greatest speech of the night. Michelle mentioned about 6 things that we ought to do to right this ship. I like that. No smoke and mirrors. Lay it out what needs to be done specifically. OBama spoke for an hour and after an hour; the again presidential candidate left you with an empty palette of no ideas as to how to fix America.
And those 6 items should have been what the pundits were discussing, not Bachmanâ€™s camera angle.
Those 6 items or more were specific. And for the capitalist were the most important items necessary to turn this country around. My question to you is why didnâ€™t Obama after almost 4 years of this phony speech making, not address us with clear and concise objectives that need to be accomplished. Better yet, that would be accomplished. He used the term shovel ready, but it was all phony like his speeches.
And Mr. Obama there was no compromise in congress. The Democrats knew that if they did not go along with the Republicans in December, the Republicans would get the tax cuts passed in January without them. Mr. President that is not a compromise! It is a lie if you call it a compromise. If it was up to the liberal Democrats they would have raised everyoneâ€™s taxes because everyone deserves to sacrifice and pay more taxes.
The closing of Bachmannâ€™s speech was the most inspiring. She said:
â€œAnd thatâ€™s the hope we hold tonight as Americans. We will push forward to reclaim the greatness of our country and to proclaim the liberty upon which we were founded. And we will do so because we the people will never give up on this great nation.â€
All the pundits could talk about was how she said the founders were against slavery. Well they were against it for the most part. But the southern states would not have joined the union if slavery was on the table. Now that is a real compromise. And about 50+ years later slavery was nationally abolished.
Why do the liberal pundits want to tear down a conservative woman who offers us her ideas? Because thatâ€™s the only thing that liberals can do. Why not tear down her ideas. Good luck with that Chris. If Chris wants a chill to run up his leg, then he may want to re-read the Bachmann speech. And then have a debate on the issues that will help the country. Debate on stupid issues like camera angle and slavery does not sound as though Obamaâ€™s edict for civility has yet to reach the liberal pundits! This includes Dreyfuss as well. Uncivility by any other name does not make it civil.