Obama’s State of the Union Message Tells Us Far More About the State of Obama.

by Barry Rubin

Significantly, President Barack Obama's discussion of foreign policy came only at the end of his State of the Union message. Obviously, domestic matters and especially the economy come first. Yet international affairs are not only vital but often have been the issues on which administrations are judged, no matter how unlikely that seemed at the time.

It is apparently considered impolite to point out that Obama has no previous experience and little knowledge of international affairs. And yet that fact affects the fate of the globe every day. The really interesting question is whether the State of the Union message showed any growth in his ability after one year in office.

Sadly, the answer is "no."

Here are the themes he expressed.

First, he implies that it is all George W. Bush's fault, having left him with two wars. Yet there is a strange point here that no one has noticed. These wars, except for Obama's long hesitation about making a decision on Afghanistan, have caused him little trouble or criticism in relative terms. On a list of administration failures during its first year, a long list of other items prevail which cannot be blamed on Bush: embarrassing gaffes, messing up on Iran and the "peace process," subverting allies in Central Europe, apologizing and undermining U.S. credibility with dictators, mishandling the Islamist terrorist prisoners, and so on.

Second, he insists that he's been doing a great job on security. Indeed, Obama suggests—in terms that would have brought a withering criticism of previous presidents—that no one should criticize him.

There is one sentence in this discussion that embodies much of what is wrong with Obama's concept of international affairs. On the surface it is banal but it is really of the greatest importance: "So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough."

This is part of Obama's confusion between personal or social life and international politics that is so common to the amateur in foreign policy. During recess, boys act macho, ranking each other in a pecking order, challenging each other to fight or back down.

Obama genuinely views the way that international politics works as equally silly, meaningless, unnecessary. He wants to cut through all that and show that everyone is in the same boat, he has no macho feelings about power, and he's ready to apologize and be part of the gang without leading the gang. It is a way to say: Why can't everyone just get along and be friends. I'll dispense with all these petty quarrels and start by renouncing all my own power.

This is sort of like the wimpy nerd coming up to a motorcycle gang and explaining his philosophy to them. Ok, that's a very exaggerated image but it gets the point across. At first, Obama's listeners are puzzled. Why would the leader of the world's greatest superpower talk like this? Perhaps it is a trick.

But then the reactions among foreign leaders and countries to Obama's policy can be divided into three groups:

Foes are not won over. On the contrary, the world's dictators and radical ideologies which are America's enenies conclude that some strange compulsion has paralyzed America so why not take advantage of it?

Dependents are frightened. If this man refuses to be strong or act tough who will protect me? I must give my lunch money to the bullies or somehow ingratiate myself with them or just defend myself as best I can.

Lazy friends are pleased. We love this man because either he won't demand that we do anything or if he does we can ignore him without consequences. But even some of them are starting to become concerned, like Britain, France, and Germany who want more action regarding Iran's nuclear program.

What Obama calls "schoolyard taunts" are what diplomatists for centuries have called power politics, leverage, containment, credibility, and so on.

Regarding security against terrorism, Obama speaks of "substantial investments," "disrupted plots," and filling "unacceptable gaps." Never being able to resist some schoolyard taunts at Bush, he adds that he has captured more al-Qaida fighters than his predecessor. No problem, he says, everything is under control and don't worry about it.

Yet people still are worried—and with good reason. After all, Obama was also saying everything was fine before the "underpants" bomber came along. His bomb didn't destroy the aircraft but it did blow up confidence in Obama's counterterrorist strategy. There is no mention of his treating terrorism as a criminal problem, nor of his very narrow focus on al-Qaida as the only terrorist group of concern, nor of his plan to try captured terrorists at courts in the United States, nor of how terrorists he has released have returned to the battle. If he ignores all the concerns people have, no wonder he can say there is no problem.

Obama continues, "We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula." Has Obama strengthened partnerships? Well, if he means alliances that is truly doubtful. Leaving aside the question of his personal popularity in polls I cannot think of a single country whose material relations are stronger. Nominally, of course, Western Europe greatly prefers Obama to Bush. But has this led to any actual results in practical terms? Again, no.

He claims success in Afghanistan, preparing the army there so he can bring the troops home starting in July 2011. Curiously, there's no mention of his own smaller version of a surge. U.S. combat troops in Iraq will all be out in August of this year. These are good steps and probably will be very popular at home.

Yet there is also that flash of utopian naiveté, a refusal to face up to the cost of doing so which bodes ill for the future: "We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans – men and women alike. " Yeah, sure. And as with the misleading claim about his successes against al-Qaida, there is that fascinating Obama inability to resist the temptation to tell easily exposed lies, claiming that other countries have increased their commitments in Afghanistan when in fact they refused his request to do so.

One of the most remarkable elements is something not in the speech. The word "Israel" is not even mentioned. There is no commitment to its security expressed and nothing about the peace process. This is revealing in two ways.

First, Obama has admitted that he made a mistake on the issue, the only foreign policy mistake he has ever mentioned. His response now is to ignore the issue altogether, not in his government's daily activities but in terms of his main commitments. Remember that type of response for it might come to characterize other issues. For example, suppose Obama fails—as he clearly will—to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Will he then turn away from that problem as well, banishing it from his agenda?

Second, everyone knows that Obama's commitment to Israel has been widely questioned. A good politician would go out of his way to say something to show—truly or falsely—how much he does care about it. That isn't how Obama works. He is not the kind of president to whom other countries can turn to for a feeling of security and support. And that sense of worry is applying now to many other countries in Latin America, Central Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and elsewhere who know that they cannot rely on the president of the United States to protect them against their enemies.

If Obama were to be honest--and effective--he would admit that Israel did almost completely what he asked while the Palestinian Authority (PA) defied him. Israel froze all the construction on the West Bank (it has never defined east Jerusalem in that way) and expressed willingness to go to talks with the PA. The PA has refused to negotiate for five months after Obama asked it to do so. Yet for Obama to pressure the PA to go to the table--the normal route in such situations--is unthinkable for him. So he has no way out of his failure. And Israel's "reward" for its major concession? Not even to be acknowledged in Obama's main annual speech for the first time, I presume, in decades.

In contrast, what Obama is fond of, and spends more time—practically twice as much--on then any other foreign policy issue at all, is his vision of world nuclear disarmament. Even his treatment of the Iran issue comes in this context. Obama—and this is another weakness of his—gets lost when he thinks of something he feels is terribly clever. In this case, believing he can best deter Iran and North Korea by saying the United States should also give up its nuclear weapons.

Does anyone in the world take this seriously?

To hear him say it, America's enemies are trembling:

"These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences."

In a sense, all he had to offer was a schoolyard taunt: You'll be sorry! After so many previous such statements, this comes across as a very empty threat indeed. A different kind of president would have used the State of the Union speech--the timing of it would have been perfect--as a platform to announce that America was switching gears from failed engagement to tough sanctions. The members in both parties would have roared approval. He would have a mandate and the message would have been clearly heard in Tehran. But such an approach would never have occurred to Obama.

And that's why America's enemies aren't trembling but laughing and sneering.

This is the speech of a man who is arrogantly convinced of his own brilliance and who basically believes that no one has a right to criticize him. He thinks that he can ignore or rewrite the rules of international affairs. It reveals both a temperament and a set of ideas totally unsuited for dealing with the world as it is.

What I find most fascinating of all about Obama is that despite all the externals—his early personal history and skin color most obviously—used by himself and others to boast that he understands other peoples, Obama is altogether incapable of grasping that others in the world think and act differently from himself.

That's partly due to his ideology but also to his mistaken belief—ignoring the fact that he is a Hawaii-raised, Harvard-educated member of a very insulated elite whose life has been largely one of uninterrupted rewards mostly showered onto him as gifts--that they are just like he is.

May he, and we all, be very lucky in the next few years.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Caning of SCOTUS Exposes Obama’s Lack of Prime Time Sophistication

Tolerating dissent does not appear to be one of this president’s strengths
CanadaFreePress.com
By John Lillpop Thursday, January 28, 2010

President Obama slithered to a new low on Wednesday by lashing out at the US Supreme Court during his State of the Union address.

The assembled justices, representing an equal branch of government, were not afforded equal time to rebut the president, although Judge Alito begged to differ with the fallen messiah and made that fact abundantly clear by mouthing his dissent.

Tolerating dissent does not appear to be one of this president’s strengths; nevertheless, this is still America and Alito showed remarkable restraint by not shouting out “YOU LIE!” at our befuddled leader.

In addition to being tacky and down right rude, Obama’s outburst shows an embarrassing lack of maturity and good sense.

After all, Obama has an agenda for change that would displace many institutionalized American values. Implementing massive change is certain to provoke legal challenges, including cases that will inevitably wind up before the very justices that Obama was slamming so passionately.

Why would any president with even a lick of common sense choose to publicly humiliate the people who could very well make or break his presidency?

What was the motivation? Was Obama simply providing a sassy punch line for leftist nut balls in Congress to cheer?

If so, that would be a pity. Democrats hold the White House and majorities in both houses and yet the only thing to cheer is a presidential caning of the Supreme Court?

Clearly, President Obama is not ready for prime time. He needs to reboot his entire political career and pronto.

Perhaps a stint of taking coffee to the Clintons is more in line with your capabilities at this time and would enhance your political acumen, Mr. President?

Finally, it appears that the issue of Obama’s birth certificate can be safely put on hold, at least temporarily.

Instead, let’s demand to see his High School diploma!

With all due disrespect Mr. President!

Messiah of funny money in politics, King of the sludge fund cesspool

CanadaFreePress.com
By JB Williams Thursday, January 28, 2010

The official state of our union is disarray… thanks almost exclusively to you and your less-than-American belief system and equally anti-American cohorts in congress.

Had your elitist political friends not forced banks to make bad loans under your Community Reinvestment Act, which labels banks not willing to make bad loans “racists,” the mortgage industry would not have made bad loans and the securities the government sold, supported by a book of bad Fannie and Freddie backed loans, would not have ended in financial calamity for the entire US economy.

But to suggest in your state of the union speech - “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” – after coming to power on an unprecedented and vulgar amount of corrupt international special interest funding, is just plain insulting!

You spent more to become president than any president in US history, more than four times your opponent, and every penny of it came from “special interest groups,” more than $200 million of it from still unknown overseas sources.
Barack Obama: Messiah of funny money in politics

You said it right here - “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities.” But you, sir, are the Messiah of funny money in politics, the king of the sludge fund cesspool. To even suggest otherwise, makes you a bold-faced liar as well!

You won’t even release your college records so that people know who paid for your very expensive Ivy League education, much less disclose to the American people the source of hundreds of millions poured into your quest for power.

If you want to attack special interest funds in politics, you had better begin with the biggest offenders of all…

Since 1989 – the single largest special interest donor group has been the labor movement. When they say “workers of the world unite,” they ain’t kiddin’… Six of the Top Ten biggest political war chests belong to the labor movement, accounting for more than $188 million in campaign donations, not counting related 527 and PAC contributions, 99% of it given to Democrats.

There is no larger special interest group in American politics today, which explains why Obama’s idea of “creating jobs” as if pulling a rabbit from a hat, is limited to government funded projects given to union bid only contractors.

But running a close second are trial lawyers, who also give more than 96% to Democrats happy to allow trial lawyers to destroy the constitutional republic for purposes of profit. Then we have the big finance guys like Goldman Sachs, which gave over 80% of their donations to Democrats since 1989.

In fact, not one of the Top Ten special interest groups in the United States today tilts towards Republicans.

So, when Obama is accusing the high court of allowing huge sums of funny money to enter politics, he must be talking about Democrats and their long history of huge sludge funds from the biggest special interest donors in America.

George Soros is a household name in the states and much of the world. He is famous (or infamous) for not only making money by breaking the backs of little people and threatening to bankrupt national currencies, he’s also known for using his billions to influence elections like no other political donor in world history.

Where is the Republican/Conservative George Soros?

We know Soros, Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance wealth and Hollyweird mogul Steven Bing, all of whom spend huge sums in support of the international socialist movement aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America and the labor movement DNC.

But who are the conservative BIG MONEY folks? Where are they? Where are those Friends of Abe Hollywood conservatives when it really counts? How far down the list of BIG special interest donors do we have to go before we find big special interest donors behind the Republican Party?

Here’s the answer to that question – The American Medical Association of doctors and nurses rank #15 on the list of special interest donors and they give 60% to Republicans since 1989 – to the tune of $26 million.

But you have to go all the way down to #35 on the list to find a heavily RNC special interest donor, the National Rifle Association at $17.3 million since 1989, 82% of it given to Republicans. Of course, 94% of gun control lobby funds are used to finance Democrats.

A full list of the BIG special interest money in politics is available here.

So, with all due disrespect Mr. President - - just how stupid do you think the average American voter really is sir? (Besides socialists, I mean…)


JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB Williams’ website is jb-williams.com/

JB Williams can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com

Older articles by JB Williams

January 27, 2010 State of Dis-Union

William Tate
Given Barack Obama's polarizing effect on the country, perhaps his speech tonight should be called the State of the dis-Union.

Nevertheless, the Obamedia is hyperventilating over Obama's next teleprompter-reading session. Not wanting to get left behind the breathless MSM pack--and stuck wading through their, uh, droppings--here are some humble predictions for tonight's speech:

-It will be numbingly long. So long that Obama will have to take a cigarette break in the middle.

-Led by Joe O'Biden, Democrats will spend so much time on their feet applauding that they'll wear holes in the souls of their Guccis. Not to worry, the worn footware, generally adult sizes 9-11, will be donated to homeless Haitian children.

-Obama will refer to himself over 130 times, about once every 30 seconds of actual spoken time, while asserting that the speech really isn't about him. To his credit, Obama will for the most part restrain himself from using the royal, we.

-He will use the word, fight, almost as frequently. In fact, Obama will say fight so often that an international panel of linguists will declare the word overused and devoid of meaning.

-Seeking to prove himself a true populist, Obama will rip off his $200 silk tie halfway through the speech and open his shirt collar ... inadvertently revealing the gold Nobel Prize medallion he's wearing underneath.

-Obama will take responsibility, but not blame, for some of the mistakes he's made the past year. He will then ask for a do-over. Hillary Clinton will then take responsibility, but not blame, for her failed presidential campaign and demand a do-over.

-In an attempt to prove himself a budget hawk, Obama will declare a spending freeze, announcing he will cap White House arugula purchases at pre-Fiscal Year 2013 levels.

-It's tradition now that special guests be recognized to personalize important policy points and tug at heartstrings. Obama will point to two invited guests and explain how failure to pass Cap-and-Trade could cost them their future well-being. George Soros and Algore will briefly put down their cellphones to acknowledge Democrats' applause.

-Attempting to deflect criticism that his use of a teleprompter in a sixth-grade classroom proves that he is over-reliant on the device, Obama will deliver the whole address from memory.

Naaaah. That one won't happen.

-William Tate is an award-winning journalist and author

AMERICANTHINKER.COM

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 Reaction to Obama's State of the Union address

Some reaction to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address on Wednesday:

___

"All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible and high quality. But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government." _ Gov. Bob McDonnell, R-Va., delivering the Republican address.

___

"President Obama struck the hopeful themes tonight that resonated in his campaign. The American people want security restored." _ Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.

___

"After all the anxiety and hardship people are facing because of double-digit unemployment and a continued sluggish economy, at this point, it's not what the president says, it's what he does." _ Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

___

"President Obama's call to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' marks the beginning of a new era of equality and justice in America. The military's 'don't ask, don't tell policy' is an unfair, outdated measure." _ Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

___

"President Obama asked Congress to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. ... At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy." _ Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

___

"President Obama rightly focused the bulk of his speech on getting Americans back to work and cutting the deficit. These must be our top priorities in 2010." _ Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

___

"The president talked about jobs tonight. This is a welcome change in focus after the president and his administration spent nearly an entire year pursuing a partisan health care plan that would have spent trillions of dollars we don't have rather than on a plan for getting Americans back to work." _ Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

___

"The president's announcement that he will create by executive order a bipartisan fiscal commission to tackle the nation's long-term budget crisis sends a clear signal that the Obama administration is committed to addressing this problem." _ Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

___

"The American people were looking for President Obama to change course tonight, and they got more of the same job-killing policies instead." _ House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"Tonight, President Obama presented a vision to the American people of a stronger union, a new foundation for prosperity and a thriving middle class. Working together, we will adopt a bold agenda for our economic growth." _ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

___

"I am pleased to hear the president say he is going to do whatever is necessary to help create jobs and reinvigorate the economy. It's pretty obvious the stimulus package did not help reduce unemployment, so we need to go in another direction." _ Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

___

"President Obama gave the Senate the clear direction to pass clean energy and climate legislation that puts the needs of the American people first _ our national security, our jobs, and our health. ... Now it is time for the Senate to act." _ Maggie L. Fox, president of the Alliance for Climate Protection.

___

"In the same speech that President Obama tells the nation he's committed to fiscal responsibility, he unveils several proposals estimated to cost the American taxpayer billions. This makes it very hard to take President Obama's newfound commitment to fiscal responsibility seriously." _ Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

___

"As President Obama made clear tonight, we cannot walk away from health care reform, we cannot walk away from the millions of families desperate for that security. This nation can _ this nation must _ meet this challenge now." _ Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern.

___

"He's made a bunch of promises over this last year, including one tonight that I liked about more tax relief. But we've all heard these promises before, and he simply hasn't delivered." _ Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

___

"The president's address has lent us all hope _ hope that the administration is finally heeding our concerns. It's about time. For too long, Washington has not paid enough attention to our real challenge: getting Americans working again." _ Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo.

-------------

TOWNHALL.com

And, Now, for Some Good News! (Response to State of the Union Address)

After the State of the Union speech and the instant analyses on television and the punditry that follows on newspaper’s editorial pages and, of course, on news/opinion websites and countless blogs and forums, the tendency is likely to dwell on how it portends more of the same bad policies.

It is obvious to the “experts” and to the general population that this President and Congress has burdened the nation with an insane amount of debt, something in the area of $330,000 for every man, woman and child. Babies born today will arrive with that burden. That’s not what American’s voted for in 2008. That’s not what they wanted or expected in 2009.

That, however, is what they got and what they will continue to get in the contemptuous nonsense that pours forth out of the White House like an infected wound. However, the triage of the American economy and future began in Virginia, in New Jersey, and in Massachusetts. The next bailouts you will read about between now and next November will be Democrat members of Congress announcing they will not run again.

“Après moi le déluge” is attributed to the French king, Louis XV (1710-1774) who bankrupted his nation and would cost his grandson, Louis XVI, his head in a revolution (1789-1799) that went so badly that Napolean eventually took over and annointed himself Emperor. If only Barack Hussein Obama had the old king’s grasp of economics and history.

The Tea Party movement is the modern equivalent of the American Revolution that went quite well, albeit taking some seven years to wear out the British resolve to hold onto its colonies. Within six months, the new nation had signed agreements with Great Britain to get trade going again though, in 1812, there was another disagreement involving a bit of military conflict. Since then, we have been good friends through thick and thin.

I cite all this history because the history of America, along with a careful analysis of its demographics, its population, native-born and naturalized, portends that, once we get past the megolomania and Marxist ideology of the current pretender to the throne…oops, I mean to the Oval Office, America is ideally poised to dig itself out of its current financial difficulties.

And that, dear reader, is the good news!

An excellent analysis of the current and future demographics of the United States appears in an issue of World Affairs. It is titled, “Undying Creed: The Acceleration of Our Exceptionalism”, written by Joel Kotkin, a scholar at the New America Foundation.

It is important to keep in mind that America has had some really bad and mediocre Presidents in his short history. We are dealing with only the 44th one and he, like several of his predecessors will be assigned to the chapter titled “What Were We Thinking?”

Kotkin has looked at the population trends around the world in places like Europe, China, India, Japan and South Korea, and come up with some very interesting conclusions. Unlike these nations, the American population has a higher rate of fertility, assuring new generations to be raised with values that have led to what is called our national “exceptionalism.”

Americans work hard. Harder, in fact, than most other nations and the reason is that we believe that hard work will lead to a better life, not one on the dole from the government. We attract skilled labor from nations that don’t offer as much opportunity as we do. And, while our population is expected to add at least 100 million people by 2050, it will not consist of a largely aging population in places like Europe and the Far East that will outnumber its more productive members. Even our older people will continue to work well beyond “retirement” age and are likely to become a rich source of volunteerism.

By contrast, China’s one-child policy will, by 2050, leave it with a rapidly aging population. Russia is already on the precipice of both a diminishing and aging population. Japan, too, has an aging population and no real diversity.

Then, too, Americans like raising children, have a strong, commonly shared moral code, and religious values. According to a recent Pew Global Attitudes survey, about sixty percent of Americans think religion is “very important.” A Marxist will never understand this.
America’s economy is simply more resilient

While we just avoided a total financial meltdown (largely by infusing billions into several banking institutions—-eagerly paying it back) the real beneficiaries have been the many local banks that avoided the high risk loans and other investments. All across America they are having the assets of failed banks transferred to their administration as the government steps in to avoid the horrors that befell Americans in the 1930s. This also accounts in part for the slowdown in credit and loans by both large and smaller banks as they get themselves back to normal, prudent banking standards.

Contrast the Recession’s impact with Japan whose “rate of decline in Gross National Product was three times that of the U.S., while Germany and Britain contracted by twice as much.” America’s economy is simply more resilient. We have lost a great number of jobs, but they will return more swiftly than in other nations. If, of course, the government gets out of the way!

By 2050, Americans will look different. The infusion of Asians and Hispanics will lead to a new kind of American civilization that will exist “across the entirety of human cultures and racial types. No other advanced populous country will enjoy this kind of ethnic diversity.”

Kotkin predicts that America “will probably not be the hegemonic giant it remains today, but the America of 2050 may well evolve into the one truly transcendent superpower in terms of our society, technology, and culture.”

By the time 2010 ends, President Obama will have been politically neutered. Power will shift to a chastened Republican Party whose new leaders will renew the fundamental principles of conservatism and redirect national priorities from the ideologies of liberalism to a pragmatic determination to meet our present and future needs.

John Quincy Adams said, “Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.” We have seen courage in the town hall meetings, in the Tea Party events, in elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. We have it in spades!

Editor’s Note: You can read Joel Kotkin’s article here

Alan Caruba Most recent columns

Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs. His latest book is Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy.

Alan can be reached at acaruba@aol.com
Older articles by Alan Caruba

President's speech barely addresses security concerns of Americans

Obama tries to take credit for success in Iraq despite opposition to troop surge
By Move America Forward Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Sacramento, Calif. – Move America Forward, the nation’s largest grassroots pro-troop organization took offense last night as President Obama tried to take credit for the success of the Iraq War when he was a bitter opponent of the successful troop surge implemented by President George W. Bush. Obama proclaimed “I promised I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. “

Shawn Callahan, Executive Director of Move America Forward, said “Without the surge America would have left Iraq with the war lost to the insurgents. If Obama had been in charge of the Iraq war, it would have been lost along with the needless loss of potentially thousands of innocent Iraqis who would have been at the mercy of the terrorists and criminals. Americans would be further at risk with a more emboldened terrorist network.

“It is reprehensible for the President to take credit for a war his predecessor won. Then-Senator Obama criticized the Iraq war, called it a dumb war, said our troops would fail and that the surge would make things worse. History has proved him wrong, and yet he still tries to somehow take credit for our troops’ success without even congratulating them on the good job they have done.”

His speech offered only a few minutes to the subject of national security after speaking at length about a multitude of other issues that Obama felt were more important despite the fact that the country is at war. President Obama also failed to address security in several other ways:

* The President failed to recognize America’s “war on terror.” His Administration continues to treat terrorism as a police action despite the threat against America by a group of extremists who have declared war on us.
* The President makes no mention of Guantanamo Bay, nor does he acknowledge that his own Administration has found terrorists held there who should be detained indefinitely.
* The President talked tough about nuclear disarmament with respect to North Korea and mentioned Iran, but his pandering around the world has brought no success in stopping their nuclear ambitions.
* Obama refused to address complaints that the Christmas bomber is being treated as a criminal defendant with full constitutional rights instead of an enemy combatant who should be in the hands of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

Move America Forward Most recent columns

Move America Forward, Supporting our troops and their missions in the war on terror

State of the Union Address - Responses

John Kerry Sen. (D-Mass.) :

Tonight's address promised a seismic shift in the climate and energy debate.

President Obama reaffirmed that comprehensive climate and energy independence legislation is a top priority for his White House and threw the weight of his presidency behind a principled compromise that prices carbon to reduce pollution, invests in new energy, and also embraces nuclear, clean coal, and even drilling.

These are core elements of the plan Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman and I are working on every day. The inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that this issue has stalled is dead wrong. This is not and never has been a partisan issue, and Senators Graham, Lieberman, and I will continue building consensus on both sides of the aisle with all those willing to engage to create jobs, advance our security interests, reduce pollution, and make America more competitive. We’ve made more progress in the past year than we have in the past decade on this issue, and we can cross the finish line. We can surprise a lot of people as we work towards 60 votes in the Senate. Comprehensive legislation will not only speed economic recovery but will also put our country on the path to sustainable long-term economic growth/

______________________________________________

James J. Zogby President, Arab American Institute :

What the President didn't talk about.

When I read the President's remarks about his frustrations with Arab-Israeli peace-making in his interview with Time Magazine's Joe Klein, I was concerned. When he didn't mention this effort at all in tonight's speech, I felt even greater distress. I hope he's not getting ready to walk away from the process. This would be a huge mistake. In the Time Magazine interview the President suggests that he underestimated the difficulties in moving Israelis and Palestinians forward. Harder than health care? Harder than energy reform? Than banking reforms? While the President correctly indicates that he's ready set down markers and meet these challenges head on, he should demonstrate the same resolve and fighting spirit in the effort to move Israelis and Palestinians to a solution that he has acknowledged is in our national security interests.

____________________________________________________

Rory Cooper Dir., Strategic Communications, Heritage Foundation :

Tonight, President Obama did what he does best. He stared into two pieces of glass and delivered an emotional campaign stump speech that has no hope of solving our economic or national security dilemmas. But different from previous speeches, this one seemed to have dozens of authors as it contradicted itself and his policies often and emphatically. He said he didn't want to re-litigate the past, when the primary focus of the address was exactly that. He said he didn't want to penalize bankers, right after he gloriously announced his punitive tax on bankers who have paid back the U.S. Treasury in full with interest.

He said he wanted to control spending, and then rattled off a laundry list of liberal investments (free money!). He asked for alternatives to health care reform, ignoring that conservatives have been offering them up by the dozens all year. He said he hadn't raised taxes, which simply is not true. He envisioned government subsidized railroads, jobs and industry. And he intimidated and scolded the Supreme Court who sat there by duty taking it. That was not a very presidential moment, nor calculated very wisely.Reduce...

He spent maybe ten sentences on terrorism 40 minutes into his speech after a year where Fort Hood and an airliner over Detroit were attacked. Terrorism simply is not a priority for this president still, and it shows. His continued need to treat terrorists as constitutionally protected Americans strains credibility and is indefensible.

I’m sad to say the state of our union is not strong. The people are strong, and vocal, engaged and informed. But the government is not responding to their strength in equal measure. Instead of looking for a message to pivot, the President needs a fresh set of ideas, domestic and foreign. And fresh ideas do not include an inconsequential spending freeze that was rightly laughed at. The President didn't even mention entitlement reform, the 800lb gorilla in the room, which is the only responsible path towards a sound fiscal future and a true health care reform.

According the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, America is now less free than Canada economically, and for the first time in the history of the Index, the U.S. has fallen out of the “free” category. This is a big deal that is accelerated by the President’s policies he discussed tonight. Instead of creating jobs and economic growth, the President continues to foster liberal ideas that stifle investment and cause great uncertainty.

The American public is getting used to seeing the President deliver a speech from a teleprompter. Even thirty or so school kids were recently forced into this position when he visited a small classroom last week. He really brought a teleprompter! The President needs to look past the glass and start a conversation with America on how we can get back on track. Tonight, he did not accomplish such a feat.
________________________________________________

Richard Albert Professor of Law, Boston College :

It was utterly shocking to hear the President decry the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which lifted restrictions on corporate and union expenditures in political campaigns. By emphatically urging Congress to pass a bill reversing what he views as the Supreme Court's misguided judgment--"a bill that helps to right this wrong," in the President's own words--the President undermined two sacred institutions in American constitutional government: the separation of powers and judicial independence.
__________________________________________________

Scott Stanzel Pres., Stanzel Communications, former Dpty. WH Press Secretary :

Tonight in a lengthy speech, President Obama gave lip service to market-based approaches to strengthening the economy (like trade and tax relief, which he and his party vehemently oppose in practice). He inappropriately condemned the justices of the Supreme Court sitting in front of him by criticizing their recent judgment reaffirming free speech. His remarks, while well-crafted, will be remembered for being forgettable. There were no bold proposals or signature lines. He may be a prisoner of his speaking prowess, as a well-delivered speech which lacks provocative thinking and doesn’t shatter high expectations is quickly discarded.
_________________________________________________

David Mark Moderator :

Aaron David Miller
Public Policy Scholar
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Judging by the substance of the president's State of the Union address, Barack Obama's first year has been a teachable moment -- for him.

Despite the self-justifying kudos for his own policy and his commitment to health care, energy, and climate change, the white flag is up. And the president has surrendered to the reality that moments for transformative change in America are truly rare, and this isn't one of them.

The "we can do everything and i am the agent of change to remake America approach" has given way to a welcome focus on the economy, the middle class, and jobs. That focus on jobs is right, necessary and critical if the president wants to keep his. And the downsizing that was evident in the president's very practical suggestions to address unemployment and growth may well prove over time to be a victory for the president (and for us). A year in, Barack Obama is learning that campaigning and politics is often about what people want; governance in America -- if done right -- is about what they can actually get. and now more than ever that means putting Americans back to work, keeping them in their homes and secure.

____________________________________________________

Karen Kerrigan President, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council :

I was disappointed. For a President who needs bipartisanship to get meaningful legislation through the Congress to help our economy, the speech had a divisive edge. Too much sarcasm and too many jabs despite his opening line thats Americans deserve a government that matches their decency. It was totally inappropriate and tasteless to scold the Supreme Court -- some of the Justices bristled at this move. The President got it wrong on what went wrong with his health care bill -- the more he "explained" it, as I recall, the less popular it became. This was not the speech I was expecting -- I thought for sure it would be more humble, more bipartisan and offer market oriented ideas and incentives for creating jobs and getting our economy going again. Small businesses will have a mixed reaction to his proposals. If enacted, some of the measures may help some, but his insistence on moving forward with the massive health care bill (roundly rejected by the voters of Mass.), cap-and-trade legislation and tax increases on small business owners will keep them hunkered down. So much for creating jobs.

_____________________________________________________

Craig Shirley Reagan biographer and president, Shirley and Banister Public Affairs :

Jimmy Obama


This so-called speech by President Obama tonight will go down in as one of the worst in American history. Attacking the American citizenry while championing government bureaucrats was Jimmy Carteresque. Shameless.

You may call this State of the Union, "Malaise II."

Please permit the use of a personal pronoun, but I have never in my life ever heard the Congress actually laugh in derision at a president as they did tonight when he tried to lecture then about budgets, nor has anyone ever heard such a partisan attack on the opposition party, nor such a galling and puerile attack on the members of the US Supreme Court.

With his excessive self-absorption and whining about what he claims he inherited from George Bush, the US Constitution affords Obama a choice to leave office. All he need do is send a letter to the Secretary of State.

But I wouldn't recommend it.

___________________________________________________

Bradley A. Smith Professor, election law and campaign finance :

This was a very partisan, unpresidential SOTU, but there is one particular on which I will comment. The President said: Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.

Here the President is referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v .Federal Election Commission, the case in which the government claimed the authority to ban books. The President's statement is false.

Foreign nationals, which is specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election." They are also prohibited from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ." 2 United States Code Section 441e. This is demogoguery of the worst kind by our President.

State of the Union: How did he do?

Jan Baran Attorney, ethics, lobbying and election law :

Is he finished? I never thought I would miss Bill Clinton's long SOTUs but I do. At least there was a warmth and conviviality. The rhetoric tonight was sterile and flat. While all such events are contrived tonight seemed especially forced. The oddly nodding and grinning Joe Biden and a frenetic Nancy Pelosi projected artificiality. Speaking of "tax cuts" the President looked smarmy knowing he was referring to spending by those who had enough money to buy clunkers, homes, or storm windows to earn tax credits. When claiming he hadn't raised taxes he thought he was fooling everyone who knows he will do nothing about the automatic tax increases in interest, capital gain and estate taxes that take effect in 11 months. The invocation of green jobs did not assure those who had no jobs. He seemed to be striving to recapture the campaign magic which now looks familiar and unconvincing. He did nothing to help himself or independents who have lost confidence in his now disappearing promise. The ghost of Jimmy Carter may soon strut onstage.

Obama's State of the Union address

Obama: 'I never suggested that change would be easy'
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 1/27/10 10:54 PM EST


Politico.com
January 27, 2010


Here are the full remarks as prepared for President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address, released in advance by the White House:

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For two hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It’s tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable – that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history’s call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in ten Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades – the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They’re not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I’ve witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana and Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children – asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can’t afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope – what they deserve – is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories and different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared. A job that pays the bills. A chance to get ahead. Most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids; starting businesses and going back to school. They’re coaching little league and helping their neighbors. As one woman wrote me, “We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.”

It is because of this spirit – this great decency and great strength – that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.

And tonight, I’d like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there’s one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it’s that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn’t just do what was popular – I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

So I supported the last administration’s efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.

To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn’t keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That’s why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That’s right – the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster. But you don’t have to take their word for it.

Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act.

Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.

Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn’t be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do – in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides its time she became her own boss.

Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and are ready to grow. But when you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they are mostly lending to bigger companies. But financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country.

So tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help our nation move goods, services, and information. We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it’s time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America.

The House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same. People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

But the truth is, these steps still won’t make up for the seven million jobs we’ve lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America’s families have confronted for years.

We cannot afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from last decade – what some call the “lost decade” – where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious – that such efforts would be too contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for awhile.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question:

How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China’s not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany’s not waiting. India’s not waiting. These nations aren’t standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.

Well I do not accept second-place for the United States of America. As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it’s time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

One place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks, I’m interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. We can’t allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

The House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back.

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history – an investment that could lead to the world’s cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year’s investment in clean energy – in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.

Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that’s why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.

This year, we have broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform – reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to inner-cities. In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle-class. That’s why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on Middle-Class Families. That’s why we’re nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving every worker access to a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That’s why we’re working to lift the value of a family’s single largest investment – their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments. This year, we will step up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.

Now let’s be clear – I did not choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics.

I took on health care because of the stories I’ve heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who’ve been denied coverage; and families – even those with insurance – who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying, we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we’ve taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care. And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make our kids healthier.

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office – the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress – our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for them.

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I’m finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber.

As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed. There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it’s not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It’s a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that’s been subject to a lot of political posturing.

So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.

I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I’m proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That’s why I’ve called for a bipartisan, Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The Commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.

I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger. But understand – if we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery – all of which could have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let’s try common sense.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can’t stop there. It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don’t also reform how we work with one another.

Now, I am not naïve. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over two hundred years. They are the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent – a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.

So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together. This week, I’ll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. And I would like to begin monthly meetings with both the Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can’t wait.

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who’s to blame for this, but I am not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future – for America and the world.

That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security, and swifter action on our intelligence. We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of Al Qaeda’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed – far more than in 2008.

In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans – men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform — in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world – must know that they have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. That is why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades. That is why we are building a 21st century VA. And that is why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.

Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people – the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April’s Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.

That is the leadership that we are providing – engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We are working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bio-terrorism or an infectious disease – a plan that will counter threats at home, and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.

Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.

In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America – values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren’t Republican values or Democratic values they’re living by; business values or labor values. They are American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions – our corporations, our media, and yes, our government – still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people’s doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there’s so much cynicism out there.

No wonder there’s so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change – change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change – or at least, that I can deliver it.

But remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what’s best for the next generation.

But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn’t be here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going – what keeps me fighting – is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism – that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people – lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, “None of us,” he said, “…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail.”

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, “We are strong. We are resilient. We are American.”

It lives on in the 8-year old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti. And it lives on in all the Americans who’ve dropped everything to go some place they’ve never been and pull people they’ve never known from rubble, prompting chants of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!” when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.

We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don’t quit. I don’t quit. Let’s seize this moment – to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.

Thank you. God Bless You. And God Bless the United States of America.