Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 251 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

What Wasn’t In Barack Obama’s Speech

It was a very pretty speech that Barack Obama gave tonight. There was some substance that was very important and welcome. However, while everyone is celebrating and feeling rosy about change and hope again, I want to take note of some things that weren’t in the Obama’s speech:

- Barack Obama talked about not torturing, but he didn’t talk about steps his White House has taken to keep secret torture committed by the Bush Presidency.
- Barack Obama talked about closing the torture prison at Guantanamo Bay, but he didn’t say a word about closing the torture prison at Bagram in Afghanistan. In fact, President Obama’s lawyers have argued that prisoners alleging torture there don’t have any right to petition the U.S. government for redress.
- Barack Obama talked about clean energy, but he didn’t talk about how his White House is trying to get passage of funding for dirty old coal and expanded offshore oil drilling.
- Barack Obama didn’t say a word about ending George W. Bush’s Big Brother spying program. President Obama seems determined to keep the warrantless wiretapping, home invasions, office searches and electronic surveillance of the Internet going.
- Barack Obama said nothing about reforming the corrupt Office of Faith Based Initiatives. That office unconstitutionally directs public money to support religious activities. What’s more, the office gives money to support religious discrimination in hiring. During the campaign, Barack Obama promised that he would reform the Office of Faith Based initiatives to do away with such discrimination, but the fact is that Obama has expanded the religious kickback scheme to make them larger than they were under Bush, without any reforms whatsoever.

Don’t let Obama’s personality and speaking ability distract you. Keep your eye on the ball. There are some very important, and very disturbing, aspects in which the Obama Administration is not a change at all from the authoritarian, corrupt politics that were practiced under George W. Bush.

26 comments to What Wasn’t In Barack Obama’s Speech

  • George

    Go back to sleep D – Bag. Soon even you blindfolded Liberals who guzzled the Kool Aide will beg to have someone like Bush back again…

    • I would very much appreciate it, George, if you could identify when I “guzzled the Kool Aide”. See, I’ve been writing a balance of articles praising the positive aspects of Barack Obama and criticizing the negative aspects of Obama for quite some time now.

      Have you bothered to actually check that out, or are you just making assumptions about the kind of people we must be, given what your failed ideology says about the world, George?

  • Tom

    i don’t think so George – we’ll be cursing his name and continue to try to prosecute him for trashing our country til he’s dead.

    You jerk-offs with your “Kool Aide” line fell for that ol’ trickle down (like piss) economics bullshit that Reagan was toutin’ and the tax cuts for the rich and corporate Amerikkka that worked so well. Thanks a lot for being so goddamn stupid. Fuckin’ retard.

  • sq

    Ya, I agree with all this except the clean energy stuff.

    Congress is ridiculous. Cornyn has a new bill to keep track off all your web views.

    Scary.

    Of course that primate story scared all the congress critters so now they’re banning primates. Maybe we should ban snakes too and make people drive to work with helmet. Democrats want to nationalize our health records even though when we gave the histories to the doctor, we did so under privacy assurances. I hope no one has ever admitted to cheating on their wife, being depressed, admitted to illegal drugs, prostitution or whatever else at the doc’s office.
    Peter Schiff’s gave an impromptu rebuttal after watching Obama’s speech.

  • sq

    Jindal was no good. We should have just had Paul give the rebuttal.

  • J

    “failed ideology”
    What an interesting pronouncement! Kinda of like when someone who has an axe to grind puts water into the fuel tank of a new car, then stands back and says “this thing don’t work”!

    The only failed ideology is the progressive one. Just ask the Russians, The Cambodians, The Chinese who are now cumming out from under Mao. How many intellegent people were killed to make way for the progressive cultural revolution?

    Tom: please take you medicine, and wear your GPS traking device!

    • J, Mao, Russians, Khmer Rouge used authoritarian, anti-liberty techniques to force their vision of progress. That’s not at all what we’re advocating, and you would know that, if you’d actually read our articles, instead of just making assumptions. We argue for liberty, and against authoritarianism, no matter whether the source of authoritarianism is Republican or Democrat. That’s why we’re liberals – because our underlying motivation is LIBERTY.

      If you really don’t think that George W. Bush’s right wing authoritarian ideology is a failed one, then I’d love to hear you explain how the free-market faith has served to create a solid economy over the last decade. I’d love to hear you justify the torture, the big-government spying, the arbitrary imprisonment, the lies that have brought our country into war.

      I present to you the same challenge that I gave to George. When have we “guzzled the Kool-Aide”? You’re speaking in such broad political abstracts that you might as well lump us in with panda bears and coconuts as well as with Mao Zedong and the Khmer Rouge.

      Take a look at the article. Where do the issues the article speaks to support the Khmer Rouge, J?

      Please, put the script away. Talk to the actual substance of the article.

  • Jon

    I am no fan of GW Bush, and I am also no fan of using the authoritarian power of the government to redistribute wealth.
    Sorry that’s not liberal. That’s communism.

    • No, Jon, the redistribution of wealth is the job of government, as written in the Constitution: Regulating interstate commerce, collecting taxes, and using the collected taxes to promote the general welfare. It’s all written up right there. What makes it not authoritarian is that it’s supposed to be democratically established and maintained.

      When it becomes authoritarian is when our constitutional liberties, which enable us to main the democratic nature of the system, are removed. To keep the system from becoming authoritarian, threats to constitutional liberty, and not whining about taxes and spending, are where we need to focus attention.

      • qs

        I’m sure you want redistribution done at the barrel of a fun. Of course you know you need a strong standing army for such misuse of government. Decentralization of power and rule at the local level vs. the strong centralized government always trumps democracy as the founders understood this mostly.

        http://bureaucrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/socialism.jpg

        BTW- The income tax is unconstitutional.

        • QS, that’s plain nonsense. The income tax is established in the Constitution.

          Amendment XVI: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

      • Anonymous

        J. Clifford
        “When it becomes authoritarian is when our constitutional liberties, which enable us to main the democratic nature of the system, are removed.”

        I’m not sure I understand the point your trying to make here.”main”= “maintain” ?

        I agree with you about the liberties point, if indeed that is what you are trying to say. I would say that I am very much pro liberty, within the constraints of personal responsibility. However I think where you and I differ fundamentally is what role the federal government was intended to play in the funding of Social Programs.
        Before FDR and Johnson’s Great Society, which to me are misuses of the power of the Federal Governments power, there just wasn’t the broad spectrum of social programs we see today.

        I think your definition of “promoting the General Welfare” is a very broad and misleading interpretation. I see it more as roads, infrastructure, parks….. You see it apparently as a sweeping entitlement to fund anything that makes some people better off at the expence of others.

        • Yes, sorry for the typo – main was supposed to be maintain.

          General welfare is general welfare. What makes people better of in general, even if there are a few powerful people who have to pull a more appropriate weight, is categorized as general welfare.

          General welfare is not UNIVERSAL welfare.

          • Jon

            “General welfare is not UNIVERSAL welfare.”

            Please define that one. Maybe our differences are more attributable to differing terminology than different philosophy.

            • Universal welfare is what benefits everybody. It’s extremely difficult to address.

              General welfare is what benefits people in general, even though it doesn’t necessarily benefit everybody. It’s much more achievable.

              • Jon

                Ok, that is a concept that I can find a common ground with you on. The difficulty I have with the theme of “welfare” in general is that for many people it deprive them of an individual responsiblity.
                Rather like the advice Polonius give to his son Laertes, in Hamlet.

                LORD POLONIUS
                Yet here, Laertes! aboard, aboard, for shame !
                The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,
                And you are stay’d for. There; my blessing with thee!
                And these few precepts in thy memory
                See thou character .
                Give thy thoughts no tongue,
                Nor any unproportioned thought his act.

                Be thou familiar , but by no means vulgar .

                Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
                Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
                But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
                Of each new-hatch’d, unfledged comrade. Beware
                Of entrance to a quarrel , but being in,
                Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.

                Give every man thy ear , but few thy voice;
                Take each man’s censure , but reserve thy judgment.
                Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
                But not express ‘d in fancy; rich, not gaudy ;

                For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
                And they in France of the best rank and station
                Are of a most select and generous chief in that. .

                “Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
                For loan oft loses both itself and friend ,
                And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.”

                This above all: to thine ownself be true,
                And it must follow, as the night the day,
                Thou canst not then be false to any man.
                Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!

                It is much the same with accepting government largess. How do you address the issue of the Government adopting a parental role in Society as a result of the power of funding? I see an incremental subversion of personal liberty as a result of “Big Daddy” paying for everything.

                It seems to me that you are walking a razor’s edge in looking to the Government to address Social issues, without a corresponding loss of freedom and autonomy.

                Like my friend Robert Davi used to say..”like a snail sliding down the edge of a razor”.

  • qs

    Truman-

    The 16th amendment was never ratified. It’s a fake amendment used by activist judges to justify siezing your property.

    • Jim

      All legal arguments to that effect have been successfully countered multiple times by multiple courts, and are utter bullshit.

    • qs, that’s a silly libertarian myth. it’s based on the false idea that because there were some extremely minor typographical errors in the messages sent to Congress about the ratification of the amendment, the ratification didn’t count. thirty eight states ratified the amendment – and there weren’t even 50 states at that time.

  • qs

    BTW- I didn’t sign the Constitution. Haven’t you ever heard of consent to be governed?

    Even if the liberals pass more amendments to seize the property from the minority (tyranny of the majority), that doesn’t mean I approve of it or consent to the liberals robbing me. They’re just doing it because they control the guns and the military so they can do it by force.

    This is why I believe we need to break the government monopoly on force. They are always lying to us telling us they are here to protect us but it’s lies. If you actually arm yourself as competition to them, they will attack you and stomp you back down.

    I always felt this a good justification for the private ownership of nuclear weapons because it would scare the IRS agents away.

  • qs

    Well it’s true that the Articles were a better form of government.

    Jefferson called the Philadelphia Convention an assembly of “demi-gods.” Patrick Henry smelled a rat.

    The big government types all assembled in one room to establish the big-government.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>