Accepting all contexts, the Mexican drug gangs are justified in kidnapping and killing.  In the name of religion, Muslim extremists are justified in beheading those who violate Sharia law.  And, yes, the United States is justified in subscribing to the death penalty and exporting war to those who violate our sovereign territory killing innocent civilians. 

          As Obama has said, words, and the thoughts they express, really do matter.  In the above examples, the words and the actions in context are consistent with each other.  One gives credibility to the other.  Both the words and deeds lead in the same direction.  These words are valid and connect to the speakers intentions, his context.

          On the other hand, the words one chooses may also be a magnificent smoke screen, a beautifully orchestrated mosaic of propaganda deliberately designed to distract the listener from ones actual intentions.  Certainly the words do matter, but when one's words and actions are in direct conflict, the words loose all meaning.  Eventually it becomes the actions which carry the message, and only insiders understand the perversity of one's public image.  Words reveal thoughts, but words and deeds may be separated like cream from milk. 

          In the past few months Obama has stated each of the following in so many words:
          1.     He believes earmarks are inappropriate,
          2.     He will not raise taxes on 95% of Americans,
          3.     Programs in Washington that do not work will be eliminated,
          4.     The key to good government is transparency, and
          5.     During these times, all Americans must act responsibly.

          All these statements use words that one might expect from an honest leader, a prudent President, a fiscal conservative, a pragmatist, a republican, or a psychopath.  When the above statements come from a democrat on the extreme left of his own party, they resonate like the most profound form of baloney.  To expect an inexperienced novice from the democratic party to fulfill any of the above leadership goals believes in fairy tales.  If Obama matched these words with presidential policy, his liberal friends would abandon him like rats on a sinking ship.  By switching contexts he might even believe these words himself, but like an alcoholic or a psychopath, the words, like promises, are completely hollow.  

          It is clear that Obama is a wordsmith, an individual who deliberately uses nuance to disguise the actual meaning of his scripted appearances.  His teleprompter is carefully programmed to guarantee that he follow the public persona exactly.  What is generally understood from his words is consistently 180 degrees from his intentions, his motives, and his policies.  They are crafted to persuade those who hear only the words to respond with confidence to the image portrayed.  In essence such hollow words demean and belittle the intelligence and understanding of the public at large.  In so many words, many not spoken at all, most of the thoughtful folks in America understand exactly what Obama stands for. 

          Since the middle of 2008, another character arose from the masses and into the public spotlight, Bernie Madoff.  For years his statements to investors were no different from the above promises of a politician.  Bernie guaranteed a steady return on an investor's money year after year.  Because Bernie's business, like Enron, was all on paper, the annual reports, like the promises, were a piece of cake.  The money on paper grew like Topsy, and who in their right minds would sell an investment that was making the investor rich?  Even the wealthy were growing richer. 

          Unfortunately, the public is learning what happens when wealth is converted to paper, when a requested withdrawal of funds is denied, and when tangible assets are purchased through excessive debt.  Like all the words above, all paper is a promise, a contract between the parties involved.  While the economy has collapsed due to floating paper debt, now the government is continuing the same process by printing more paper and making more promises.  The debt incurred through government spending is eliminating wealth through liquidating real assets, lowering market values, and accumulating long term interest on debt for the next several generations. 

          The government can keep GM afloat by pumping water from GM's hull as it sinks.  Unless it fixes the hole in the hull, the pumping is endless.  With the prospect of continuous bail outs, is GM any different from Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme?  Will the government continue pumping billions into a sinking company because the unions endorse Obama and the democrats?  Will the government guarantee the unions' pension and benefit plans in spite of a bankruptcy? 

          Unlike the family, the government can take billions off budget, and play like it doesn't exist.  Our current legislative bodies can pass bill after bill based upon debt as far as the eye can see, and not even blink.  Yesterday's stimulus package may be small potatoes in view of tomorrow's government obligations.

          Change is desperately needed in Washington, and Obama is the least likely person whose leadership will provide that change.  Many, if not most of those at the controls in Washington, should be sent home to feel the pulse and take the temperature of the man on the street.  If the man on the street is honestly represented by those in Washington, it is by a hand full of freshmen representatives who have not yet learned how to deceive the public and distort the common good through irrational spending, as though running the country is a game of Monopoly. 

          It is only through carefully connecting Obama's words to his actions that a clear picture emerges.  What Obama says has little or nothing to do with what he plans or does in background.  On the stimulus he initially said his program would create 3.5 million jobs.  Then he changed this to save 3.5 million jobs.  He stated that his programs would not increase taxes on 95% of Americans, yet digging through the legislation reveals a monumental new source of revenue, cap and trade, which will increase the cost of living through price increases of everything for all Americans for generations to come. 

          Obama's words suggest there is a difference between taxes and revenues.  Hello! President Obama.  The current crop of democrats have never understood the connection between a decrease in taxes and an increase in government revenues.  An increase in confidence in investors, those with money,  results in confidence in the markets.  Obama is so enamored with punishing the wealthy that he is strangling the goose that lays the golden egg. 

          Increase the taxes on the evil rich, and everything will be fine, he says.  The wealthy already pay the lion's share of income taxes in the country.  So increasing their tax burden is supposed to encourage them to invest more in the economy, and build their confidence that investing in America is a wise choice (?).  To the contrary there are so many mixed messages coming out of Obama's mouth and his administration, that those who hear the words and verify the deeds are acutely concerned, as they should be.

          When Obama's words equate the daily ups and downs in the stock market with opinion polls of the public at large, such words display a serious ignorance and contempt for America's financial future, short term and long term.  The words indicate a callous disregard for the millions whose financial futures are invested in American businesses and industries.  Public corporations are owned primarily by America's workers who invested.  These are Americans' companies, and their futures may rise or fall based upon the confidence and reliability of all the country's governments, local, state, and federal. 

           Millions of Americans have their futures invested through stock ownership, retirement annuities, mutual funds, insurance funds, pension funds, and miscellaneous instruments too numerous to mention.  This wealth, which is owned largely by Americans, has been declining for many months.  Americans are not indifferent to the values represented by individual and mutual fund stocks in which they own a piece of the action. 

          In case Obama has not noticed, the stock market has declined steadily since his election, a vote of no confidence by America's stockholders, workers, and retirees.  A president who is indifferent to the stock market is completely out of touch with America and America's future.  A president who is indifferent to the man on the street's ownership in America's wealth is not adequately prepared to provide any effective leadership in this great country. 

          One of Obama's earliest actions as a freshman senator was to earmark a grant to Northwestern University Medical Center in Chicago where Michelle worked.  Shortly afterward his wife received an annual salary increase from $100,000 to $300,000.  While Obama, now president, proclaims his opposition to earmarks, his administration looks the other way as thousands slip through the legislative cracks.  Earmarks are fine when they are used to feather one's own nest.  This abhorrent practice is widely denounced by the man on the street, but our representatives fail to understand it.  Is the man on the street stupid, ignorant, or are their elected representatives?

          While Obama selects words imploring all Americans to act responsibly, his own record in the Illinois Legislature included voting present 130+ times on bills being considered.  Voting present confirms he was pulling the lever, but he refused to take a stand on each of these many issues.  Is this the record of a responsible person, a responsible legislator?  What words should be used to describe a legislator who ducks so many issues?   Responsibility is certainly not one of them, yet Obama lectures us on responsibility. 

          Obama's words are carefully crafted to produce change we can believe in on the surface, while in background he represents change that will profoundly convert America from an ownership society with the man on the street holding interest in all its institutions, to a society in which everybody is entitled to a free ride and nobody is willing to carry the load.  They will all retain the right to complain loudly when the ride is long and painful, and all our freedoms disappear.    

          One might hope that, at some point in the not too distant future, President Obama would honor at least one of his above stated goals.  In his failure to do so there is little hope for his words, which remain totally unmatched by any of his deeds.  When his public words are unfulfilled, is he any different from Bernie Madoff? 

          Exactly when will Obama's words actually mean what they say?  His words have quickly become the least reliable message of his administration.  It is best to discount Obama's words completely, and watch what he does carefully.        

          Hello!  Barack!   Bernie!