If you aren’t offended by it, you aren’t paying attention.

Finally, at least one small token gesture of respect for our Constitution. A Congressman actually had the guts and the sense of honor needed to walk out of Obama’s State of the Union address, where the President announced, in effect, that he was scorning the separation of powers in the government, and arrogating an absolute monarchy to himself.

From The Hill

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) said Tuesday night that he left President Obama’s State of the Union speech early after “hearing how the president is further abusing his Constitutional powers.”

“I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly-defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers,” Stockman said in a press release shortly after Obama’s speech ended. “Needless to say, I am deeply disappointed in the tone and content of tonight’s address.”

Stockman said Obama was promising to “break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree.”

“This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense,” the Texas congressman said.

Stockman also criticized Obama for refusing to admit “his policies have failed,” and for advancing a plan for more taxes and spending that is a “blueprint for perpetual poverty.”

Other Republican members had similar reactions to Obama’s promise to do by executive order what he can’t get done legislatively in Congress.

“Unfortunately, what I heard from President Obama tonight was hostility toward our foundational principles, condescension toward a co-equal branch of government, and a general aversion to common sense and bipartisanship,” Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) said in a press release.

“The president’s attempt to intimidate Congress by abusing executive power demonstrates a serious unwillingness to work with the coequal legislative branch of government,” Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) said in a statement.

And here is a comment from the brilliant and cogent Matt Walsh:

Last week, if you tuned into the Grammys, you were treated to a gaudy spectacle of pretentious elitists, wealthy drug addicts and godless Satanists patting each other on the back and congratulating themselves for another year spent dumping toxic waste directly into America’s soul.

If you watched the State of the Union address tonight, you saw the exact same sort of thing all over again. Except with less dancing. And more clothing (thank God).

America, I know you are bored by the State of the Union Address. It’s long, pointless, bland, and utterly hollow. The rhetoric is stale and the pageantry overwrought. Yes, you ought to be bored. But do you realize how insulted you should be?

[…] Jefferson thought an oral speech had “kingly” undertones, and too closely resembled a monarch dictating from his throne. For the next century, every other president followed suit.

It’s only in recent times that the State of the Union has become this sickening pageant of Washingtonian self-worship.

If you aren’t offended by it, you aren’t paying attention.

I’ve felt this way for a while, but never have my feelings been more pronounced than tonight. President Obama — after a year chock full o’ scandals, corruption, ineptitude, and failure — made his WWE-style entrance into the House chamber. He shook hands with the sycophants crowding the aisle, and soaked in the glow of a thunderous, fantastically undeserved applause.

Then he stood before them and lied, and they applauded. And he cited dozens of clichéd and fabricated anecdotes, and they applauded. And he repeated promises he’s already broken 5 times (example: “this needs to be the year we… close Guantanamo Bay!”), and they applauded. And he made plainly absurd statements about imaginary “gender wage gaps,” and they applauded. And he constructed fallacious straw men, and they applauded.

The State of the Union Address was indistinguishable from something you’d hear at a DNC convention.


  1. Comment by Sean Michael:

    I absolutely agree! Esp. with how Barry is abusing his powers and arrogating powers he has no right to!

    Sean M. Brooks

  2. Comment by John Hutchins:

    ” Today, all our troops are out of Iraq.” “While we’ve put al-Qaida’s core leadership on a path to defeat”

    I am not sure which planet the President (and Congress) believes they are on. On this one al-Qaida now, again, controls the province and cities in Iraq which we spent so much blood liberating from them.

    Splitting Iraq into three separate countries (and not disbanding the entire Iraq army) probably should have been done in 2003, but having al-Qaida be in control of one of those countries doesn’t appear to anything like putting al-Qaida on a path to defeat.


  3. Comment by Mary:

    They should all have left. They had, after all, been declared superfluous to the purpose of government, so what were they doing there?

  4. Comment by Montecristo:

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much…

    It is humorous to see a member of the U.S. Congress decry perceived executive abuses. After all, it was the incessant historical attempts of Congressmen to evade responsibility while simultaneously garnering political power for themselves which got us into the mess in the first place. It was not, for the most part, executive usurpation that got us where we are now, but rather the craven standard practice of Congressmen to legislate the government more authority while simultaneously delegating its exercise to the executive branch, that created this monster. If all that Obama had was the original cabinet offices and the secret service to “executive order around,” he could issue executive orders by the ream and nobody outside of a few bureaucrats would even be inconvenienced by them. Read the kind of legislation coming out of Congress today, the kind full of phrases like “the Secretary shall have the authority to appoint/declare/determine etc.” and then tell someone with a straight face that Congress is not the ultimate author of these abuses.

    Leave a Reply