Progressive Platitudes Prevail In Obama’s Big Speech





SOTU 2014

As expected, Barack Obama used America’s working poor as a political prop during his latest State of the Union address to Congress Tuesday night. His use of hollow rhetoric paid lip service to their plight, while promises of even more unilateral executive action on his part promise to make it even more difficult for those at the bottom of the economic ladder to provide for their families.

His imperial mindset was readily apparent during the monotonous speech, a theme wrapped up in his threat that “wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”

Of course, his real — and thinly veiled — objective is to expand opportunities for the federal government at the expense of American families. Despite his promise to “act on my own to slash bureaucracy,” it was obvious from comments later in the address that he is anxious to give federal regulators even more control over the lives of all Americans.

He touched on all of the hot-button leftist issues of the day, including amnesty for illegal aliens — or, in the parlance of a partisan politician, “immigration reform.”

Claiming “immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades,” Obama made his latest plea to “get immigration reform done this year.”

Obviously, he made no mention of the fact that these illegals, who he claims are all “here to fulfill their dreams,” apparently dreamed of living in constant violation of American laws. Nevertheless, his quest to create a permanent underclass of Democrat voters takes precedence over the law of the land.

He touted “four years of economic growth,” a development few outside of the Obama family realized had even occurred. The fact that he and his family can now take multiple lavish vacations each year on the taxpayer dime does not mean the rest of the country is similarly flush.

Using singular examples of individuals who ostensibly benefit from big government largesse, his message failed to resonate with the average citizen struggling to make ends meet in Obama’s economy. He suggested that he and Michelle “want every child to have the same chance that this country gave us” in one breath, while in the next sentence expressing support for policies that will guarantee the next generation remains saddled with unsustainable debt.

He transitioned into a familiar refrain, income inequality, by pressing for across-the-board minimum wage hikes. The plea came after his announcement of an executive order mandating that all federal contractors, such as those hired to “wash…dishes,” make at least $10.10.

Without exploring the obvious cost to employers, which will then inevitably be passed onto consumers, he urged legislators and private businesses to follow his lead. Using the example of a pizza parlor employer who decided to raise his employees’ wages to $10 per hour, Obama was able to squeeze in the pitiful pun that one worker in particular was able to make more “dough.” He expertly dodged the fact that this was a private employer’s decision and not, as he demands, due to legislative action or executive decree.

His disingenuous argument that millions of Americans are attempting to support entire families on one minimum wage income was in the running for the biggest misleading statement of the night. Of course, the competition was fierce.

Obama trotted out the tired feminist line that women “make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns,” offering no context for the intellectually dishonest statistic. In reality, women who understandably put family and other concerns above their career represent the vast majority of any existing disparity. Nevertheless, he declared the inequality “an embarrassment.”

Millions of viewers likely felt the same about a president who would use such propagandistic language to sell policies the majority of the nation rejects.

He peppered in generous references to leftist gems such as same-sex marriage, affirmative action, government-mandated nutrition guidelines, and, of course, fiat rule. Though his reliance on the TelePrompTer is always obvious, Obama spent much of the speech stumbling over his own words. Perhaps, the lingering notion that the vast majority of his audience actively opposes his policies was in the back of his mind as he proposed even more big government solutions to fabricated problems.

Unsurprisingly, a large portion of the address served as an attempt to salvage the monumentally unpopular ObamaCare law. Using a number of individuals as political tools, he strung together an argument that might be described as anemic at best.

For every beneficiary of his policies, countless more suffer under the America Obama has created over the past five years. Furthermore, the tax money he hopes to use to fund his wasteful social programs could actually help correct course if he would only allow more of it to stay in the pockets of those who earned it.





Progressive Platitudes Prevail In Obama’s Big Speech





SOTU 2014

As expected, Barack Obama used America’s working poor as a political prop during his latest State of the Union address to Congress Tuesday night. His use of hollow rhetoric paid lip service to their plight, while promises of even more unilateral executive action on his part promise to make it even more difficult for those at the bottom of the economic ladder to provide for their families.

His imperial mindset was readily apparent during the monotonous speech, a theme wrapped up in his threat that “wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”

Of course, his real — and thinly veiled — objective is to expand opportunities for the federal government at the expense of American families. Despite his promise to “act on my own to slash bureaucracy,” it was obvious from comments later in the address that he is anxious to give federal regulators even more control over the lives of all Americans.

He touched on all of the hot-button leftist issues of the day, including amnesty for illegal aliens — or, in the parlance of a partisan politician, “immigration reform.”

Claiming “immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades,” Obama made his latest plea to “get immigration reform done this year.”

Obviously, he made no mention of the fact that these illegals, who he claims are all “here to fulfill their dreams,” apparently dreamed of living in constant violation of American laws. Nevertheless, his quest to create a permanent underclass of Democrat voters takes precedence over the law of the land.

He touted “four years of economic growth,” a development few outside of the Obama family realized had even occurred. The fact that he and his family can now take multiple lavish vacations each year on the taxpayer dime does not mean the rest of the country is similarly flush.

Using singular examples of individuals who ostensibly benefit from big government largesse, his message failed to resonate with the average citizen struggling to make ends meet in Obama’s economy. He suggested that he and Michelle “want every child to have the same chance that this country gave us” in one breath, while in the next sentence expressing support for policies that will guarantee the next generation remains saddled with unsustainable debt.

He transitioned into a familiar refrain, income inequality, by pressing for across-the-board minimum wage hikes. The plea came after his announcement of an executive order mandating that all federal contractors, such as those hired to “wash…dishes,” make at least $10.10.

Without exploring the obvious cost to employers, which will then inevitably be passed onto consumers, he urged legislators and private businesses to follow his lead. Using the example of a pizza parlor employer who decided to raise his employees’ wages to $10 per hour, Obama was able to squeeze in the pitiful pun that one worker in particular was able to make more “dough.” He expertly dodged the fact that this was a private employer’s decision and not, as he demands, due to legislative action or executive decree.

His disingenuous argument that millions of Americans are attempting to support entire families on one minimum wage income was in the running for the biggest misleading statement of the night. Of course, the competition was fierce.

Obama trotted out the tired feminist line that women “make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns,” offering no context for the intellectually dishonest statistic. In reality, women who understandably put family and other concerns above their career represent the vast majority of any existing disparity. Nevertheless, he declared the inequality “an embarrassment.”

Millions of viewers likely felt the same about a president who would use such propagandistic language to sell policies the majority of the nation rejects.

He peppered in generous references to leftist gems such as same-sex marriage, affirmative action, government-mandated nutrition guidelines, and, of course, fiat rule. Though his reliance on the TelePrompTer is always obvious, Obama spent much of the speech stumbling over his own words. Perhaps, the lingering notion that the vast majority of his audience actively opposes his policies was in the back of his mind as he proposed even more big government solutions to fabricated problems.

Unsurprisingly, a large portion of the address served as an attempt to salvage the monumentally unpopular ObamaCare law. Using a number of individuals as political tools, he strung together an argument that might be described as anemic at best.

For every beneficiary of his policies, countless more suffer under the America Obama has created over the past five years. Furthermore, the tax money he hopes to use to fund his wasteful social programs could actually help correct course if he would only allow more of it to stay in the pockets of those who earned it.





The Startling New Way Big Brother Is Tracking Your Health





Photo credit: TexasGOPVote.com (Creative Commons)

As ObamaCare continues to eat away at the private American healthcare system that the rest of the world once envied, the federal government now has a hand in virtually all aspects of the medical industry.

The intrusion is well-documented and is not limited to any particular federal agency.

Among the most recent developments is the Environmental Protection Agency’s promise to scour social media posts for clues about potential outbreaks of disease. Apparently taking a page out of the NSA’s playbook, the EPA announced last week that it is seeking a contractor capable of scanning millions of Twitter posts for users posting specific symptoms.

According to reports, the agency is interested in tracking cases of acute gastroenteritis infections – or AGI – to determine where the disorder is most prevalent. In a public notice, the EPA offered a number of “search terms” for the prospective contractor to look for, including “[s]tomach flu, stomach bug, stomach ache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.”

The apparent mission involves comparing results from Twitter with studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control. Of course, the social media site is known to be the home of countless saboteurs and wiseacres who could easily skew results, thus invalidating any of the contractors’ findings.

Nonetheless, the EPA appears anxious to begin the project. Considering the emphasis on influenza, this could be an effort to further indoctrinate Americans with the ostensible benefits of the flu vaccine.

In any case, it is another step toward a society in which no information – especially personal health data – is immune from government snooping. Obviously, those posting their symptoms to Twitter have no expectation of privacy; however, it is doubtful many expect to have those posts dissected by federal contractors.

The incremental attack on privacy in the U.S. has increased in speed and severity throughout the Obama administration. As he implements his plan to bypass Congress whenever it suits him, the problems associated with an invasive government bureaucracy are sure to become more pronounced.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

Photo credit: TexasGOPVote.com (Creative Commons)





King Obama To Unilaterally Raise Minimum Wage





Photo credit: kyle.rw (Creative Commons)

It has been widely reported that a key aspect of Barack Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address will be income inequality. By stoking animosity among the various economic classes, fewer eyes will be on the fiscal disaster his administration has caused.

Building on his established reputation as an imperial president, Obama is expected to announce his latest decree during Tuesday night’s speech: a nearly 40 percent spike in the minimum wage for federal contract employees.

The current hourly floor of $7.25 will soon jump to $10.10, according to White House sources.

A recent statement indicates the goal is to “lower turnover and increase morale,” though no mention was made of the financial impact such an unwarranted, universal raise would cause among the taxpayers forced to foot the bill.

Obama intends this announcement to be a sign of things to come throughout the private sector, as well.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough cited “a proposal in both the House and Senate to do that … not just for contractors but for the federal minimum wage across the board.”

The action comes after a mere 32 legislators – out of 535 – signed a letter asking Obama to usurp even more power by issuing another fiat proclamation.

“We think $10.10 is the way to go,” McDonough said. “Nobody who works full-time and works hard at their job should live in poverty.”

Obama has made it painfully clear that he has no intention of compromising with Congress throughout the remainder of his second term. This unilateral move will further cement that promise.

With his eyes toward imposing the same minimum wage requirements throughout the private sector, it is obvious to almost everyone except Obama that such an increase will result in an unsustainable rise in operation costs for any business relying on unskilled labor.

Disregarding the fact that the vast majority of minimum-wage workers are not the sole providers in a household, Obama wants to saddle the poor with higher retail costs by ensuring high school kids make more than $10 per hour flipping burgers.

If the leftist mindset refuses to acknowledge the obvious result of such a policy, one wonders why Obama doesn’t set the minimum wage at $15, $20, or $100 an hour. After all, it’s just money.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

Photo credit: kyle.rw (Creative Commons)





Al Gore Thinks Killing Babies Will Save The World





By Al_Gore_at_SapphireNow_2010.jpg: Tom Raftery derivative work: Tktru (Al_Gore_at_SapphireNow_2010.jpg) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

As the de facto spokesperson for a scientific hypothesis far from being proven accurate, there is apparently no depth to which Al Gore will sink in describing the purported dangers associated with global warming. With each inane comment that escapes his lips, it seems a new standard is set regarding the disingenuousness and partisan pandering he is capable of proliferating.

Recent comments he made during the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, however, unequivocally prove he values his own climate theory above the lives of countless babies.

His statement focused primarily on Africa, which he said is contributing to global warming through its citizens’ unthinkable acts of reproduction.

Gore explained that he favors “empowering women and making fertility management ubiquitously available” as a step toward protecting “the future shape of human civilization.”

Of course, his euphemistic phrasing could refer to a number of procedures, whether abortion, sterilization, or something even more reprehensible. The radical left, of which Gore is a proud member, routinely disparages those who decide to heed the biblical advice to “be fruitful and multiply.”

Overpopulation, however, is an invented threat meant to stoke fear in an already apprehensive public. Even the left-leaning Slate.com published a recent article chronicling the earth’s stalled population growth, noting the approximately 7 billion humans currently alive will, given current reproduction rates, shrink to just half that number by the year 2200.

Still, this doesn’t prevent Gore and others from dictating what individuals in other nations should do with their lives. Dr. Lubos Motl, a Czech physicist, examined the utter fallacy of his position.

“It is impossible not to think that there’s some racism and stunning hypocrisy if a jerk who has produced four children is ‘working’ on the reduction of the number of newborn babies in a completely different nation,” he wrote.

While he conceded Africa certainly has its issues, Motl noted that they aren’t “caused by overpopulation” but are “mostly due to the insufficient sophistication of their economies….”

Gore, however, will likely never be convinced he is wrong. Apparently, inventing the Internet has given him an unshakable superiority complex. He now projects himself as the arbiter of international reproduction rates.

Along with Barack Obama, this Nobel Peace Prize winner definitively proves the tragic irony with which such a prestigious honor is often bestowed.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

Photo Credit: Tom Raftery, derivative work: Tktru, via Wikimedia Commons