March 1, 2009 – I could not watch Barack Obama’s recent speech before Congress on February 24. I tried, but after just a few minutes of watching, I gave up and went to do something else. So I did what I normally do, I waited until the text of the speech came out on the internet to take my time reading it, so I could think about what he said.

As I began to read through what Obama’s speechwriters had prepared for him, I was struck by the following statement, “What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more.”

I couldn’t agree more with what Mr. Obama said. The only difference is that my approach differs from his. You see, I am of the opinion that he, and the other 544 people who are the elected officials of our federal government, are the problem that this country faces. Therefore we the people of this country need to unite and boldly confront them and once again take responsibility for ensuring they adhere to the Constitution.

All the problems this country faces can be directly attributed to the action, or inaction of our government. Therefore, either our government is; a) incompetent and their ineptness is creating the problems facing our country, or b) purposefully creating these problems. There can be no other alternative. In either case, the government is to blame.

Charley Reese wrote an interesting commentary that I would urge you all to read. It is short, to the point, and it may help explain why I believe as I do.

Obama believes, and I agree, that this country needs to pull together although for different reasons. In either case, I just do not see it happening. This country is too divided along political and ideological lines to come together.

I remember when Bush was in office, there were people at work who would read my articles and compliment me on them. However, now that I am writing about Obama, these same people snub me and say “Get over it, Obama won.”

People fail to read what I have to say, they merely look at who I am saying it about. They completely ignore the content of my articles when I speak out against ‘their’ candidate.

I wish I could get them to understand that I do not care who is in office, if they don’t adhere to the Constitution I am going to speak out against what they do. I speak out against violations of the Constitution, and their hypocrisy, no matter who is in control, be they Democrat, or Republican.

We have all heard the term bipartisan, well I guess you could call me unpartisan, because I do not blindly support any candidate just because they are the nominee of ‘my party.’

Therefore, I would like to present my unpartisan look at Obama’s speech before Congress, given on 24 February, 2009. I hope that those reading will consider the facts of what I am about to say, and ignore the fact that I will be speaking out against the person, or political party they support.

A truly effective political speech has to begin by clearly stating something that is understood by those listening. That way the people listening are led to believe that the person speaking understands the problem, and that their proposed solution is, in fact, the only solution to the problem. To be effective, the speaker must mix bits of the truth, or half truths, in with the rest of their rhetoric. Therefore, to really understand what was said, one ought to be able to listen to what was said, not just react emotionally. In that way you can distinguish the manner in which truth, rhetoric, and outright lies are blended together seamlessly.

Three minutes and forty six seconds into Obama’s speech we find a very revealing truth. At that point Obama stated, “The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.”

In those words we find a truth that even I can’t argue with. The truth is that the economic crisis we face began in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th amendment and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, granting a privately owned conglomerate of banks the power to produce our nations currency. Our nations economy has been under attack ever since.

Yet Obama did not mention that. In fact, the very next words out of his mouth were, “We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of healthcare eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform.”

That is a perfect example of how an effective political speaker will tell you a truth, then steer your attention to another subject, regardless of whether it has anything at all to do with the initial truth.

Less than two minutes later, Obama said the following, “People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.”

There we have another truth, one which Obama followed immediately with, “And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.”

Obama states that critical debate and difficult decisions were put off. While that may be true, it is a half truth, and one that needs further examining. This is important, because Obama neglects to mention who put off these critical debates and difficult decisions.

On September 27, 2008, while Obama was campaigning for President he laid the blame for the economic crisis sweeping across the United States squarely upon the shoulders of George W. Bush, “We also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain…”

Obama wasn’t alone. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who during Obama’s speech, sat behind Obama with a smile that made her look like the character the Joker from a Batman movie, once told MSNBC, “I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions” When she was asked if the Democrats deserve some responsibility for this economic crisis, she responded with a confident, “No.“

So now we have an acting President saying that critical decisions were put off, and he clearly believes that the fault lies with the Republicans. We have a Speaker of the House who believes the same. Yet if one took the time to research the facts, what would they tell us?

While I despise George W. Bush I will be the first to acknowledge that under his administration the Republicans attempted to pass legislation which would reign in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Not once, but several times, and they were always stopped by the Democrats.

In 2003 the Republicans attempted to create a new agency within the Treasury Department to supervise Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. However the Democrats rallied together to stop it. They were led by Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, who said, “These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis…” Frank went on to say, “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Once again, in 2005, the Democrats rallied together to stop a bill, cosponsored by another man I despise, John McCain, which would have prohibited Government Sponsored Enterprises, (GSE’s), such as Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, from speculating on the mortgage based securities they put together. This was bad news for these Government Sponsored Entities, as this proposal would have cut off the majority of the profits garnered by GSE’s such as Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, as the majority of their profits came from speculation on the housing market.

Once again, Barney Frank said, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.” It seems that Congressman Frank, Democrat, was clearly opposed to any kind of legislation which would have curbed the questionable activities of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Yet Obama and Pelosi have the gall to blame Bush and the rest of the Republican controlled Congress?

Why would Barney Frank be so interested in doing this? Could it be that he has received over $40,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, or that he was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive?

Frank was once quoted as saying that family life , “…should be fair game for campaign discussion.”, yet no one seems to want to discuss his homosexual relationship with Herb Moses, an executive at Fannie Mae. Although that relationship has long since ended, he was on the House Banking Committee the entire time he was romantically involved with Moses. Is it a coincidence then that Frank was so opposed to any kind of legislation which would harm his lovers company?

However, Barney Frank was not alone when it came to opposing restrictions upon Fannie and Freddy. Senator Christopher Dodd, (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee is also among those who received huge campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. According to OpenSecrets.org, Senator Christopher Dodd received a grand total of $165,400 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

While that alone should prove that Senator Dodd would at least be inclined to show preferential treatment towards financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, there is more. In 2003 and 2004, Senator Dodd was exposed for having received loans from Countrywide Financial in a program for VIP’s that waived points, lender fees, and company borrowing rules for prominent people.

Dodd believed that this was merely a courtesy, and not at all related to his position on the Senate Banking Committee. Is it possible for a man to be that naive? More importantly are the American people that naive for believing him?

So, when Obama states that critical decisions were put off, he need look no further than his colleagues in Congress for the blame. These facts alone would cause me to question whether any recommendation or proposal that Obama makes regarding the solving of this economic crisis. Unfortunately, there is more.

The whole housing crisis, which was caused, as Obama said because, “People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.”

Again, it appears that Obama, and those who accept what he says, once again need a refresher course in the facts.

It was under pressure by to boost home ownership among minorities and the poor, brought on by the Clinton administration, that financial institutions, including Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, began to disregard traditional credit standards when it came to giving out home loans.

As early as 1977 the Democrats were pushing to give minorities and the poor the ability to own their own home. Representative George Miller, (D-CA) sponsored the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Community activists rallied together to place pressure upon Congress to pass this legislation.

One of those groups of local community activists which believed in equal rights in lending, was ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. One of the leaders of a Chicago ACORN group, Madeline Talbott, once bragged about “dragging banks kicking and screaming” into questionable loans. Not only did ACORN force banks into lending money to those who might not be able to repay them, ACORN also found a profitable position acting as advisors to banks seeking regulatory approval.

What does all this have to do with Obama’s speech the other night? Well, prior to Obama becoming an Illinois State Senator, he was a community activist in Chicago who had ties to Madeline Talbott. In fact, Talbott was so impressed with Obama, that she asked him to train her personal staff.

In the early 90’s, Barack Obama conducted leadership-training seminars for up and coming ACORN organizers. This was at the same time that ACORN was beginning to put pressure on local banks to agree to the sub-prime mortgages which led to the housing crisis. You can’t tell me Obama did not know how the training he was providing was going to be used.

Even if you think Obama may have been unaware, at the time, that his training was to be used to pressure banks into giving out sub-prime mortgages, why did Obama later, continue to funnel money to ACORN through the Woods Fund, on whose board he just happened to sit? Obama was a supporter of ACORN and it was groups like them that forced Congress into pressuring investors, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to give out the sub-prime mortgages that led to the housing crisis.

I could go on and on about Obama’s speech, but I won’t. What I hope to do is to get you to think about the hidden facts behind the smooth sounding rhetoric of a political speech, not matter who it is that is speaking.

The day after Obama’s speech I heard many people talking about how well he did, and how much they agree with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Let’s put aside the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is that kind of authority given to either the Congress, or the President, what about this act bothers me?

First of all it is the cost. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill would cost America $92 billion in 2009, $225 billion in 2010, and $159 billion in 2011, totaling $604 billion by 2019.

These people in government toss around numbers like a billion dollars like everyone is made of money for them to spend at will. Think about this, if you were alive at the time Christ was born and began spending $1000 a day, you would not have spent a billion dollars yet. If you started counting seconds right now, it would take you roughly 31.7 years before you got to one billion.

Our national debt stands at over $10 trillion right now. That means that we, the taxpayers, are on the hook for the money that our government has BORROWED to fund its operations. Our national debt goes up by approximately $3.6 billion dollars PER DAY.

On top of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Obama just released a $3.55 trillion budget for 2010. His new budget has plans to double the amount of money the U.S. sends overseas in the form of foreign aid. For crying out loud, we are in an economic crisis, and he wants to just GIVE AWAY more of our money? What the hell is he thinking?

In a speech given at the White House, after unveiling his budget plan, Obama said, “I‘m determined to bring the change that people voted for last November. And that means cutting what we don‘t need to pay for what we do.” Well here’s a suggestion Mr. Obama, we don’t need to be sending billions overseas in the form of foreign aid!

I know that there will be people who will stand behind their president, no matter how obvious it is that he is going to make things worse. Unfortunately there are those who will believe that, if we survive four years of Obama, that the Republicans will be able to do any better.

History has shown us that our government has done nothing but expand. It has grown in both the size, and the scope of its powers, and would be completely unrecognizable by the founders who drafted our Constitution.

Unfortunately, nothing will change as long as people continue to have faith that our government is capable, or has any intention, of solving the problems this country faces. Until people begin to take the time to read behind the lines of what their elected representatives are saying, nothing will change. People will blindly follow them as our situation continues to worsen. Maybe someday they will wake up to the fact that they have been screwed. The question is, will there be anything left to salvage of what was once a mighty nation when that time comes?

It appears that you just can’t fix stupid.

~ The Author ~
Neal Ross can be reached for comments at bonsai@syix.com. Visit Neal’s Blog at http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal

The Ross Archive on The Federal Observer