"Nice quote. I think I'll use it." ... Did President Obama plagiarize parts of his state of the union address?

In his critique of President Obama’s State of the Union address, presidential historian Alvin Felzenberg recognized numerous instances of “recycled ideas” and “lines lifted” from other people’s speeches.  Felzenberg summarized his assessment: “Had the president submitted the text of his second State of the Union Address in the form of a college term paper, he would have been sent forthwith to the nearest academic dean.” 

The president, at least, was an indiscriminate, bipartisan “lifter.” According to Felzenberg, he used the words and/or ideas of Woodrow Wilson, Robert Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, Margaret Thatcher, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Franklin Roosevelt — without attribution.  In short, the speech was a “cutting and pasting” of some of the best lines of previous national and international leaders.  One of the best lines of Mr. Obama’s speech — that America is the only nation to have been “built upon an idea” — was a tribute that Mrs. Thatcher gave to an American audience at the Heritage Foundation in 1991.

In a line that got the most sustained applause of the evening, President Obama said, “I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.”  Felzenberg observes that not only did the president botch the quote (people change places with other people, not nations), he took the line from President Kennedy’s famous inaugural address — a speech most people with an interest in presidential politics know well.

Then there’s the humorous account of salmon being the responsibility of one department when in fresh water and another when in salt water.  Felzenberg points out that it’s amazingly similar to an incident Franklin Roosevelt wrote about concerning bears — some bears, according to FDR were property of the Interior Department while others belonged to the National Park System.

In the American Thinker, Jack Cahill reminds readers that this is not the first time that President Obama has been accused of plagiarism.  In the campaign of 2008, President Obama responded to Hillary Clinton’s accusation that Mr. Obama merely gave “pretty speeches.”  His response was remarkably similar to that of Deval Patrick in 2006 who responded to a similar charge.  Obama’s version was, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter, ‘I have a dream.’  Just words?  ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’  Just words?  ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’  Just words?  Just speeches?”

President Obama’s responded defensively in 2008 when a New York Times reporter asked about plagiarism, “I’ve written two books.  I wrote most of my speeches.” 

You can count on it; historians are working to check out the authenticity of those two claims.

Though not meant as an “official” response to the State of the Union, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann’s (R-Minnesota) address to the Tea Party following President Obama’s speech turned out to be exactly that.  Where the president spoke in generalities and used ceremonial, presidential-sounding rhetoric to sell his big government programs, Rep. Bachmann laid out the reality in rather stark terms.  She showed graphs dramatically illustrating the vast expansion of government spending and debt, as well as the contrast between the low levels of unemployment during the Bush years and the high levels during the Obama years.

Mrs. Bachmann’s remarks stood out for providing very solid suggestions for fixing the economy.  She advocated stopping the cap and trade system, support for a balanced budget amendment, reducing dependence on foreign oil, turning back 132 Obama regulations that cost more than $100 million, repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with free market solutions, reducing tax and regulatory burdens on job creators, and reducing the corporate tax rate.

Bachmann ended with a soaring peroration about the miracle of America, the greatness of our country, and the liberty that is the foundation of our government.  Of course, a major aspect of the power of Bachmann’s speech was the integrity of the ideas and the consistency with which Congresswoman Bachmann and the Tea Party Movement have held those ideas and embodied them in recommended legislation.

One of them is Reagan. The other one would like to be.

After the “shellacking,” what will President Obama have to say about the State of our Union?  He gives his annual report tonight.

President Reagan made Americans feel proud of our country.  President Obama makes Americans feel obliged to defend our country (from him).  In his inauguration speech, his stated vision was to “remake America.”  Since then, we’ve gotten a glimpse of what he wants to make us into — and Americans rejected his view of America this last election.

While his messaging since then gives the appearance that he gets what Americans want, his policies and agenda have yet to change.  People are more savvy now and won’t be fooled by a cloak of rhetoric that covers the old agenda of big-government-by-regulation, disrespecting American Exceptionalism, promoting sexual identity politics, or empty words about “reducing abortion.”

President Obama will face a new Congress and public, both who are extremely sensitive to Constitutional limits and fearful of government spending.  Americans are unified, and ready for politicians to cut spending, reduce government, and quit vilifying political opponents — three items, by the way, of which the opposite mark President Obama’s career and his last State of the Union, when he pushed ObamaCare and unfairly criticized the Supreme Court justices sitting in front of him.

President Obama has an advantage this year in that it is no secret what Americans want and what the majority in Congress recognize is their mandate.  But like Reagan, his audience will not trust without verifying.

President Obama will have to prove through his actions that he will reduce government spending, promote and defend America to the outside world, stop funding abortion, and respect the Constitution and our religious heritage.

Chinese President Hu Jintao

As I’m typing this, White House staffers are busy setting out Mrs. Obama’s finest china, polishing the presidential silverware, and arranging fancy table decorations.  

This evening, the President and Mrs. Obama will host a black-tie state dinner for Chinese President Hu Jintao and are reportedly prepared to woo the leader with promises of raising China’s profile in the global economy.  This comes on the heels of comments by Mr. Hu slamming the current international monetary system, in which the U.S. dollar is the main actor, as “the product of the past.”

While President Bush only held a lunch for the Chinese President in 2006 to signal American disapproval of China’s human rights record, President Obama is throwing a fancy dinner party.  In terms of protocol, which is highly regarded in Chinese culture, this dinner is a sign of great honor to Mr. Hu. But along with him comes his country’s record of forced abortions and persecution of Christians.

China continues to enforce a brutal one-child policy, under which women are often forced to undergo abortions — even into the last days of a pregnancy — or forced sterilization.  There are numerous stories of women being dragged off to clinics or their family members being jailed and tortured until the women agree to abort their children.  Family planning officials continuously monitor whether or not women are taking birth control and whether or not they try to have a second child.

While Christianity is spreading in China, it remains part of an underground network that must escape daily persecution by the government.  House churches meet in secret, and believers must remain cautious and vigilant to avoid imprisonment or worse.  The Gospel is spreading throughout China, making the government even more determined to squash its growth.

It is reprehensible to think that the U.S. government, to ensure continued Chinese financial favor, is willing to sweep the abhorrent issues of forced abortion and religious persecution under the red carpet.

Will same-sex “marriage” lead to polygamy?  That’s what may happen in Canada.

When the Canadian Parliament legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005, their Justice Department commissioned two studies on the issue.  Both recommended decriminalizing polygamy.

Stanley Kurtz, an expert on cultural issues, noted that, “Liberal legal elites are just using the ‘gay marriage’ movement … to get what they’re truly after: the slow-motion abolition of marriage.”

Canada is now dealing with a religious sect that practices polygamy.  The polygamists justify it by pointing to the Old Testament.

But the Bible records the good, the bad, and the ugly — and it clearly shows how damaging polygamy is.  Look at the strife between Sarah and Hagar, and how Solomon’s many wives turned his heart away to idols.

God was clear: A man shall cleave to his wife, not his partner or his harem.