THE GRADUATE

President BO is supposedly a Harvard graduate (although there is much discussion about whether he has ever produced any documentation of that).

Now, I think you have to be pretty smart to actually graduate from Harvard, or Yale (such as George Bush did) or UCLA or most schools of "higher learning."

Not only is President BO referred to as one of our most intelligent presidents, he is also reputed to have been a professor of Constitutional law.

So, why, then, did he make the following statement in his State of the Union address: "...drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're 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, if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else."

Does he have a different copy of the Constitution than I have? I do not find the notion "...that we are all created equal..." in the Constitution. I DO find it in the Declaration of Independence, however.

Maybe this "constitutional professor" thinks they are the same thing. Or maybe he just didn't proof read his speech before he gave it. Or maybe his speech writer did not know the difference.

Or, most troubling of all, maybe he thinks I (and you) are too stupid to notice.

Early in the speech he said, "So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new."

That was a true statement, we face the same anxieties we always face and more, especially since this unprepared, sophomoric, inexperienced buffoon is in the presidency. But it was his use of this phrase to somehow set the stage for his coming lies and "obamateurisms" (with appropriate H/T to Hot Air . Com), that distinguished it from an intelligent speech.

In the entire speech, President BO failed to connect with the actual human beings who make up the citizenry of this country.

He went on to say: "For these Americans...change has not come fast enough. ... They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness."

He continues to call out for bi-partisanship, while promoting an agenda that is immensely partisan, to the point of excluding members of the opposite Party (Republicans) from being a part of the deliberation process, most recently as it relates to health care "reform."

Not only that, but he continually chastised the House and Senate Republicans for not being bi-partisan, by which he means, according to his own definition, dropping their principles and following his dictates.

And instead of illustrating bipartisanship, he went on to blame everything on George Bush. He also condemned congressional bickering. I guess he does not realize that the majority of congress is Democrat.

Typical.

What a brilliant man!

He said we Americans wonder "...why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems."

He is not smart enough to realize that Washington DC IS the problem.

President BO stated: "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."

By that he means once again: "Republicans should agree with us, and help us shove this country toward socialism, thus placating the about 7-9% of those who want it."

Dummy!

In one particularly revealing statement, President BO said, "But when I ran for president, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular-- I would do what was necessary..."

Translation (verified by his actions and stated philosophies): "I don't care what the American people want, they're getting what I want to give them, like it or not."

President BO spoke of Americans "shar(ing) a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity," (presumably not a reference to our resilience in having to endure this negative, uninspiring speech).

Fact is, he demonstrates great strength in ignoring the wishes of the people, you know, the wishes they expressed, for instances, in sending Scott Brown to the senate, and Republican victories in governorships and future pending Republican victories.

The president vowed: "We do not give up. We do not quit."

In other words, no matter the wishes of the people, he is going to push through his agenda.

He said, "...Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent 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.

"I thought I'd get some applause on that one."

I wonder if this Harvard graduate is smart enough to know why he "got no applause on that one?"

Can he figure out that it is because EVERYBODY present knew beyond any doubt that the statement was patently FALSE?

"Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis."

For an allegedly smart man, this was a very stupid statement. Why on earth would he reward the entities he believed caused the problem in the first place? How dumb would that be.

But it was a good deflection from the actual cause of our economic woes: the congress, itself.

It was congress which, in 1977, passed the Community Redevelopment Act, the descendants of which FORCED banks to make loans to people who could not pay them back, with the guarantee that they would lose no money because the government would guarantee the loans.

Banks did NOT make those loans because they were "happy to comply" with the government's requirements (they have never been in the business of making bad loans...only good ones). They made those loans because they HAD to.

When those loans began to default, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suddenly found that they were unable to keep up with the government's guarantees and started to fail.

This Constitutional professor made this statement: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law..."

Judge Alito has been vilified for mouthing the words, "That's not true," at which point the cameras were conveniently focused on him and the SCOTUS. Nevertheless, what he mouthed was true.

Our brilliant, constitutional professor who is now president, seemingly did not know that the SCOTUS did NOT reverse a century of law, but an anti-First Amendment act called McCain/Feingold.

Then he had the audacity to instruct the Supreme Court do as he tells them and Congress to override what the SCOTUS decided by the force of law!

What does this brilliant man think has happened to the concept of the "separation of powers?" Has it just been pushed aside to satisfy his whim?

I have heard people say, "Just because you have a college education does not mean your have good sense or are smart."

This much is certain: You and I are smarter than Barack Obama will ever be as smartness regards the Constitution.

Unlike him, we have not set out to destroy it, and the country in the process.