Mark Alexander over at The Patriot Post wrote up a critique called State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution, which I partially reposted along with my own comments.

In the wake of Barack Hussein Obama’s first State of the Union address, much of the critical analysis from Republicans posited that he should do “this” instead of “that.”

Unfortunately, when there is no more constitutional authority for a president to do this rather than that, Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from Democrats since both parties are then advocating unlawful extra-constitutional policies.

Exactly. There is a reason the Tea Party movement is the most popular ‘party’ in America at this time.

Obama’s SOTU teleprompters fed him a steady stream of poll-tested rhetoric, none of which comports with the authority granted the Executive Branch, unless, of course, one subscribes to the adulterated “living constitution” as amended by judicial diktat.

Predictably, Obama offered only Socialist solutions to all ills, and not a single suggestion that individual responsibility or the private sector economy should shoulder that burden, at least not without government “incentives,” a.k.a. centralized social and economic planning.

In 6,200 words (second longest SOTU after Bill Clinton — two narcissists who just can’t hear enough of themselves), Obama referred to himself repeatedly, and alleged that he was the anointed spokesman for “we,” the American people, more than 100 times.

On the other hand, he mentioned the Constitution only twice.

Unsurprising, as Obama is a progressive, and progressives view the Constitution with contempt; it’s just an old document that gets the way of ‘progress’. Of course, progressives never tell you to what ends they are progressing.

…Accordingly, Obama mentions freedom only once, and made absolutely no reference to liberty.

Likewise, liberty gets in the way of the statists’ plans.

Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for these key proposals from Obama’s SOTU:

1. The power to further centralize regulation of our economy.

2. The power to completely regulate our national health care system. (Note: both the Democrat and Republican proposals lack constitutional authority). Obama even repeated his claim that the American people are just not smart enough to get on board: “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.”

This has been a common theme that shows the arrogance and condescension of Obama. It’s not that the People have not heard or understood his proposals. Quite the contrary, they understand it all too well, which is why they largely reject it.

3. The power to further regulate and tax the production of CO₂.

Obama reiterated his claims that the current recession was caused by “Wall Street,” and then went on to insist that the only hope for ending the recession was government “investment,” a euphemism for taxing money out of the private sector, taking bureaucratic handling fees out, then giving it to political constituencies.

The government cannot create jobs, much less anything else of value.

Obama also repeated the blatant lie about lobbyists not being in his administration.

To correctly interpret Obama’s SOTU, you need only filter everything he says through his foremost pledge that the his administration’s charge is the “fundamental transformation of the United States of America.”

That is a line Obama lifted from the primary architect of his Socialist platform, Robert Creamer, who had earlier proclaimed, “If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy.”

It always amazes me when Obama supporters deny that he has any socialist leanings or sympathies. Especially when there is a mountain of evidence to support that claim, and exactly zero that denies it.

It’s likely that you’ve never heard of Bob Creamer, because Barack Obama is very adept at concealing his association with his Marxist patrons.

In his younger days, Obama was not concerned about such associations: “I chose my friends carefully,” he wrote. “The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

But when he announced his aspirations to become a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama began to cover his tracks. He stopped associating publicly with Leftist colleagues and mentors such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer and others.

Creamer is a member of Obama’s Chicago mob, a fellow “community organizer” and disciple of Saul Alinsky. Like all of Obama’s Chicago benefactors, Creamer believes that he is above the law, or, more appropriately, that he is the law in today’s age of the rule of men. But like Tony Rezko, another of Obama’s slick Chicago political backers, Creamer was caught with his hand in the till and was convicted of a felony (bank fraud) back in 2004 when Obama was a state senator. Creamer got a softball sentence, though: five months in a minimum-security facility for white-collar criminals and another 11 months of house arrest.

With all that time on his hands, Creamer authored a book, “How Progressives Can Win,” which, along with Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” serves as the template for Obama’s campaign to “fundamentally transform” America.

Obama didn’t use the word “transform” in his SOTU, but he did insist that government must “lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth,” under the pretense of “reform,” in order to “give our people the government they deserve.”

There is nothing wrong with the old foundation, considering it is what made this country the most powerful and prosperous in the world to begin with. Listen to Obama’s words very carefully and you’ll notice some disturbing insinuations and patterns.

…Leading up to his SOTU, Obama endeavored to portray himself as a fiscal conservative: “We can’t continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences, as if waste doesn’t matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that’s what we’ve seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation.”

This is subterfuge.

If he is so concerned about wasted tax dollars, why not return the money to the American people where it belongs? I can guarantee he and every other politician are very concerned about the next election.

Obama endeavors to portray himself as a constitutional conservative: “We will lead in the observance of … the rule of law. … Don’t mock the Constitution. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t suggest that it’s not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It’s worked pretty well for over 200 years.”

This is deception.

He will certainly pay lip-service to the Constitution, but then support legislation that runs over it.

Obama endeavors to portray himself as a resolute commander in chief. Regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom he decreed, “Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” On Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, he declared, “After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.” On the treatment of captive terrorists, he says, “I will restore America’s moral standing.” On the Long War with Jihadistan, Obama claims, “The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.”

This is farce.

Obama is a dangerous neophyte in matters of national security, and he shows no signs of improving.

North Korea and Iran have only accelerated their nuclear programs since Obama has taken office. He sets artificial and possibly pseudo-deadlines for Gitmo and Iraq. He’s indecisive with Afghanistan, and he tries to reach out to enemies by first stepping on our allies.

If Republicans really want to defeat Obama’s Leftist agenda, they need to adopt the tried and true conservative message founded on Essential Liberty. Only then can they truly take control of the debate. …refocus on First Principles and govern accordingly.

Republicans can best distinguish themselves from Democrats by, first and foremost, honoring their sacred oath to “support and defend” our Constitution.

Absent that, they are only Democrat-lite and that’s not much of an improvement.