Yet he had the gall and hypocrisy to swear an oath on the Bible and throw the 'God' word around a few times in his speech - fully stripped of all biblical content of course. When he does one day stand before his maker and his judge he will have an awful lot to answer for. Indeed, if he really wants the blessing of God, then why does he keep promoting that which brings about the opposite response from God.

He used his speech as yet another opportunity to push his militant social engineering agenda, including another push for homosexual marriage. He was typically dishonest and morally bankrupt in the way he presented all this. He said:

"It is now our generation's task to carry on what those pioneers began, for our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well."

Sorry BHO, homosexuals already have complete equality as everyone else in America. Indeed, I am in exactly the same boat as they are. I cannot marry another man, just as they cannot marry someone of the same gender. We are all completely equal here, with no unjust discrimination whatsoever.

But his is the same baloney the militant activists have been pushing for years - baloney which I cover very carefully in my book, Strained Relations. Clearly, no other president in American history has so radically turned on the time-honoured institutions of marriage and family.

But wait, there's more. It even gets worse. In one of the more despicable attempts at historical revisionism, he actually made this whopper: "We the people declare today that the most evident of truth that all of us are created equal - is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth."

Martin Luther King, like so many other famous black civil rights leaders, would be nauseous to hear their worthy cause besmirched by comparing it to the campaign to legitimise sodomy. As I documented in my book, to compare the struggle for real equality between blacks and whites with the attempt to destroy marriage is rejected by most black leaders.

Indeed, even Jesse Jackson told a group of Harvard Law School students back in 2004 that "gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution, and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote." And a niece of King, Alveda King, has long denounced Obama for his appalling pro-abortion views, something her uncle would never have countenanced.

But what is especially revolting about his statement is his attempt to equate the struggle of women's rights (Seneca Falls) and black civil rights (Selma) with what was nothing more than an ugly riot by militant homosexual activists who attacked outnumbered police (Stonewall).

That is the height of deception and arrogance. Ben Johnson explains a bit more about what Stonewall was really all about: "In his second inaugural address, President Barack Obama hailed a riot in which homosexual rioters, some dressed in drag, pelted police officers with bottles and attempted to set them on fire for raiding a mafia-controlled gay bar....

"The Stonewall Riots took place on June 28, 1969, after plainclothes New York police officers raided a rundown gay establishment, which the Mafia ran without a liquor license, on morals charges. Slightly after 1 a.m., the Greenwich Village streets around the Stonewall Inn filled with homosexuals, who pelted police with bottles. They slashed police car tires, attempted to overturn cars, and chased the police back inside the bar. 'We had maybe six people and by this time there were several thousand outside,' remembered Seymour Pine, a deputy inspector with the Morals Division, who led the bust. 'The other side was coming like it was a real war. And that's what it was, it was a war...It was as bad as any situation that I had met in during the army.'

"When not threatening police, the crowd confronted them, chanting: 'We are the Stonewall girls/ We wear our hair in curls/ We don't wear underwear/ We show our pubic hairs.' Their actions, though, were deadly serious. 'Our goal was to hurt those police,' said rioter John O'Brien. 'I wanted to kill those cops for the anger I had in me...It gives back a little of the terror they gave in my life.'

"The protesters - joined by Black Panthers and antiwar protesters - broke the windows, then burst through the door. Howard Smith, a reporter with The Village Voice who was holed up inside the bar with the police and several homosexuals, saw lighter fluid sprayed inside the establishment. 'I actually thought, as all of them did, that we were going to be killed,' he said. By morning, much of the establishment had been burned or wrecked. Sporadic hostilities continued for days, culminating in the formation of the Gay Liberation Front."

Yet incredibly this ugly and horrific rioting is held up by the POTUS as something to emulate, champion and promote, and to be equated with genuine reform movements like the civil rights campaign for blacks. To celebrate moral depravity and social anarchy, while denigrating great historic reform movements, demonstrates what an appalling president this guy really is.

But we also should note his politics. It is simply more flawed big government liberalism. As Charles Krauthammer said in an interview: "There's not a line here that will ever be repeated, but I think very important historically because this was really Obama unbound. And I think what's most interesting is that Obama basically is declaring the end of Reaganism in this speech. Remember, he once said that Ronald Reagan was historically consequential in a way that Bill Clinton was not. And what Obama meant is that Obama had changed the ideological course of the country.

"In 1981, in his inaugural address within two minutes, Reagan had declared that government is not the solution, government is the problem. Today's inaugural address was a rebuke to that entire idea. This speech today was an ode to big government. It was a hymn to big government. In his refrain, the three we the people's, he said, number one I'm going to defend what liberalism has achieved in the 21st century - where he mentioned Social Security. Medicare, Medicaid. So, I'm not going to let any of that be chipped away. And then, second, he said the vision for the future is climate change and green energy, this is going to be his new expansion of liberalism in the new century. And then the third element was his expansion of civil rights, where he talked about immigrants and gays and even shoe-horned the gun rights under the rubric of security.

"He outlined the liberal agenda, the big government agenda in the future. And Brit [Hume] talked earlier, remarkably there's absence of any mention of the economy, of deficits, of what outsiders would say is the great challenge of our time headed in over a cliff, a real cliff of debt into a sort of a Greek future. There is nothing of that in this speech. Obama had zero interest in that and this was a declaration that his interest is to restore us to the liberal ascendency of 60 years, that Reagan stopped. He gave us these three decades and Clinton, in the middle of the three decades, said in his '96 State of the Union address, the era of big government is over. This speech was a declaration that the era of big government is back, I'm the man to do it."

Yes quite so. Nothing could be further than a view of government as articulated by Reagan which sees the state as the source of our problems, than the statist agenda of BHO who sees the government as the solution to all our problems. In this of course he is in great company: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao all likewise thought that the state was the be all and end all of human existence.

Farewell America, farewell freedom, and farewell the US Constitution.