State of the Address—Failure

State of the Union—Leaderless

President Bush's State of the Union address may go down in history as one of the most destructive speeches in the history of the United States. Our nation desperately needed bold proposals for change and preparations for some very tough times ahead. What we got was a continuation of the status quo—conciliation with the socialists domestically and more globalism abroad.

Bush's address read more like a campaign stump speech on Medicare, prescription drugs, and education when Africa was not being mentioned. It came across as 2004 election preparations instead of an outline to prepare for the rest of this decade.

After Bush's introductory remarks, the second sentence of his address sums it up:

We have the opportunity to save millions of lives abroad from a terrible disease.

Bush's focus on Africa, stated at the very beginning, was like a jagged knife thrusting through the heart of America. We all have a feeling of compassion for those who suffer. However, could our founding fathers have possibly comprehended a State of the Union address where the second sentence talks of taking care of another nation? We face grave risks and we will not be able to help other nations if we don't start helping ourselves.

Why didn't Bush address the State of the Union instead of addressing the State of Africa?

What our nation needed was a vision of the future that would energize taxpayers, encourage those who lost their life savings in the stock market crash, and make all of us feel more secure in our nation and for our future. A State of the Union address should be the one time annually where a true vision for our future is outlined and proposed. What we needed was one, or more, great programs and visions to inspire the citizens. The only attempt was the hydrogen car proposal but Bush's time frame relegated it to a forgotten memory by week's end. Bush should have presented it like the Manhattan Project or Kennedy's "by the end of this decade" so it would have given the nation a rally point.

With gold and oil prices rising, a stock market crash, war with Iraq a few weeks away, the possible use of chemical weapons or worse, North Korea, and terrorists out to murder us, why would Bush's second sentence of his address be about sending billions to Africa?

Why didn't Bush announce a proposal, by decade's end, to find a cure for AIDS with $15 billion seed money to be given to American researchers? Would this have been wiser use of taxpayers' money—finding a cure for AIDS—instead of sending $15 billion to Africa for maintenance of AIDS victims?

Why did Bush not announce, by decade's end, a more comprehensive anti-missile system? Millions may die from a Chinese or North Korean ICBM by decade's end. Would this have been better use of the $15 billion instead of sending it to Africa?

Why did Bush not announce a withdraw from the United Nations? This would have given a real shot of adrenaline to our nation that we desperately need. The United Nations has proven that it is an anti-American organization from a security perspective, and that its sole goal is to drain our national treasury for various welfare causes. With Cuba, Libya, and Sudan sitting on its Human Rights Commission, the UN has de-legitimized itself.

Kofi Anan, just one week after Bush's address promising billions of dollars to other countries, said we need to "avert a major humanitarian crisis" in North Korea. His envoy Maurice Strong added that North Korea "will need some $250 million in aid, but the world community has put forth just $10 million." North Korea spends the bulk of its money on developing missiles, nukes, and bioweapons. It spends more per capita on its military than any nation on earth.

Do American taxpayers really want to fund North Korea who is preoccupied with an urge to go to war against us? I think the majority of taxpayers feel like Richard Perle does:

"It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests."— Richard Perle, Chairman Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, on France, Germany, and the UN

I wish Richard Perle could have delivered this one sentence during the State of the Union address, don't you?

Mr. President, why didn't you tell the nation what many of us know? The United Nations is an anti-American organization and we should get out of the UN and the UN should get out of New York City.

---

Bush's focus on Africa needs to be put into context with the following:

Why stop at Africa? Why stop at AIDS?

When the $15 billion is used up, what then? Do we cut off Africa cold turkey? Once started, it will never stop. Will inflation and inefficiency raise the next round to $30 billion? Why stop at AIDS? What about the heart crisis in Africa? What about the housing crisis in Africa? Bush already proposed $1 billion in food? Do we take the food aid to $15 billion also?

What about Asia? Will Asia start barking for their bones—$15 billion strong? What's good for Africa and Asia is good for South and Central America, correct? If we can give $15 billion to Africa, and illegal Mexicans are making America their flophouse, will Vincente Fox demand we give $15 billion to Mexico?

Was this really the State of the Union? Will it become the State of the Planet next year?

What was Bush saying when the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated?

At the very moment the Space Shuttle Columbia was disintegrating over Texas Saturday, February 1st, George Bush was delivering his Saturday radio address in which he said, "Today, I announced a new proposal for a $200 million famine fund to bring immediate assistance to Africa and other regions facing starvation." This is on top the "$1 billion dollars to meet emergency food needs worldwide" that he proposed in his State of the Union.

Why is NASA operating on a shoestring budget with outdated and risky technology? Why did NASA lose so many fine engineers over the last decade? Why do we give billions of dollars to Africa, billions of dollars to terrorist nations like Yemen, Pakistan, N. Korea, and the PLO when we don't even give our prime science and exploration agency enough money to operate in a safe fashion?

Why didn't George Bush offer a proposal to revitalize NASA, upgrade the technology, and set an inspiring goal for the next decade four days before the Columbia disaster? Could it be because NASA's $15 billion budget plays second fiddle to Africa's $15 billion AIDS plan, $1 billion food plan, $1 billion education plan, and the multi-billions given to terrorist nations?

We have had a $7 trillion dollar stock market crash.

This crash did not affect Africa much, it affected the lives of Americans. There are many who have seen a decade or more of investing for their future wiped out. Retirements that were once secure are no longer and some current retired citizens living off systematic withdraws from equity mutual funds are in danger of depleting their principal. How is a focus on Africa, with taxpayer money headed that way, supposed to raise the spirits of Americans who just saw their entire financial future trashed?

We have a $6 trillion dollar debt.

If a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) was used against the United States, it could cost one to two trillion dollars to recover from. With a $6 trillion dollar debt, growing deficits, half the public not paying taxes, and a boom in the birth rates of non-taxpayers occurring, and a Bush imposed illegal alien boom flooding our nation, we face a grave danger. The debt is growing to a point that we may not be able to recover from a WMD attack.

The debt should have some "elasticity" to it should a WMD attack to occur. A focus of this nation should be on reducing our debt so that there would be some "elasticity" to expand the debt to recover from a major war or WMD attack on our nation. By having such a high level of debt and the grave security danger we face, our financial system would snap as there will be no elasticity left. Who would buy our Treasury bonds under that scenario?

It may be warm and fuzzy to want to help Africa, but is now the time to spend $15 billion dollars there instead of on border security at home and to start a national goal of reducing our debt? All forecasts are made on our GDP growing at a certain rate. A long term war or the use of WMDs will, in a flash, change these rosy GDP projections. Reducing our debt, in preparation for a potential long term war or WMD use, should have been a major goal by the president.

Why wasn't it, Mr. Bush?

We have a civil war going on inside America.

Bush may not recognize this war but it is a grave threat to America. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the most socialist of the socialists nominated by Bill Clinton, was approved by the Senate with a 96-3 vote in the Senate. Ted Kennedy plans to filibuster the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals. How is it that a decent and good man like Mr. Estrada can be filibustered but a flaming socialist like Ruth Bader Ginsberg is allowed to be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice by near unanimous consent?

The State of the Union address was the perfect time to appeal to the nation to get the liberals to end their war against their own nation. It is no longer politics or one party against another. It is a war. Bush, avoiding reality, did not recognize that our nation is not only divided, but half of the representatives in Washington "serving our nation" are actually waging war against our principles.

Why didn't George Bush appeal to the nation to demand an end to the war being waged against our nation by the liberals and a return to traditional politics?

Tax slaves are getting restless.

Why didn't George Bush ask for abolishment of the income tax system and propose a national sales tax? The underground society of illegal aliens, hookers, pimps, drug dealers, and corrupt business people would end up paying taxes thus reducing the burden on the honest taxpayer. With $300 billion dollar deficits projected, war now and possibly war later, and Senators proposing a bill to have taxpayers pay for the free medical care illegal aliens are getting, the tax payers are getting restless.

Why would George Bush not give decent taxpayers some hope that the years of tax slavery will end?

We are getting older as a nation.

Ongoing terrorism and future wars, along with an aging population and rising expenses, pose serious questions that Bush never raised in his address. How do we pay for the retiring baby boomers Medicare and Social Security if we have a multi-trillion dollar cost of war? How do we pay for that even if we had no war? How do we pay for the illegal aliens when we could have trillions of dollars in war costs? How do we retain an effective fighting force over the next twenty years with threats getting greater but our population getting older? Will we need to reinstate the draft in order to prepare our nation for the threats facing us this decade and out?

Why did George Bush avoid comments on and preparation for the aging of our nation and its implications for national security and its financial and economic implications?

---

It was an astonishing event to see George Bush deliver such an impotent address when our nation faces some of its gravest risks ever. We needed a withdraw from globalism and an immersion into nationalism. Our nation was weakened further by the lack of leadership and vision by its president.

We needed bold changes and visionary plans for our nation from an inspiring leader.

We received conciliation with the socialists and more globalism from a conventionalist.

America's glory is no longer the future. America's glory is only in the past.

Your State of the Address, Mr. Bush—total failure.

Our State of the Union—leaderless.