Talk about a jack-of-all-trades, President Obama could certainly fit that description; and, like the rest of the saying goes, he is also master of none of them except possibly incompetence.

In approximate order starting from his campaign days, he has been Cheerleader-, Dummy-, Apologist-, Thug-, Divider-, Dictator-, Liar-, Incompetent-, Vacationer-, and now, Hypocrite-in-Chief. Oh, I know, some will expect an explanation for some of those, but those are topics for another day.

What is striking at the moment is the hypocrisy displayed by our “leader.” As he ramps up for the 2012 election—and yes, he is in campaign mode, make no mistake (has he ever left that mode?)—it would be well to remember some of the occasions when he has seemed to talk out both sides of his mouth.

Perhaps the most galling example of his hypocrisy is his penchant for telling leaders of other nations what they must do. In the span of a few short weeks, he stated both Mubarak of Egypt and Gaddafi of Libya must step down in acknowledgment of the will of their people. He has also condemned government violence directed against the people in those countries. It would be difficult to disagree with any of this if it came from someone who actually believed those words.

How can Obama dictate about the “will of the people” when he so cavalierly wrote off the protests of the Tea Party last summer?

How can he worry about treatment of citizens of other countries when he has been unconcerned (publicly, anyway, which is all the average citizen is privy to) about union thugs committing violence against peaceful Tea Party protesters or the plight of the citizens of our Gulf Coast who still haven’t been able to get settlement for their losses? How about his pompous announcement to lift the drilling moratorium while secretly dragging out approval of permits for companies to do so? This policy has led to the reported decrease in number of oil rigs in the Gulf from more than 30 to fewer than 10 and the continued loss of thousands of jobs for Gulf Coast citizens. Does this mean he is more concerned about foreign citizens than he is the ones he was elected to lead? Hypocrisy, pure and simple.

After the Tucson shooting, how about his call for civil discourse on the differences which divide us? It wasn’t long after that when he again shot from the hip, saying the Wisconsin governor’s attempt to curb collective bargaining was “an attack on unions.” This is the same divisive language he used to call the police “stupid,” and Tea Party members a vulgar name, all of which he neither acknowledged as being wrong nor apologized for during his call for “civil discourse.”

Lest we forget, this is the same man who was suspected of fomenting violence when he urged supporters to “argue with your neighbors … I want you to get in their face (sic)” and was never taken to task over his “If they bring a knife to the fight (over health care reform), we’ll bring a gun.”

Where was his voice calling for civility in Wisconsin? How about this: those are his union buddies, so it’s OK for them to act in an uncivil manner. In my view, it’s just more of his hypocrisy.

Then there are his statements in recent weeks about the United States being a “nation of laws.” Yet, when it comes down to it, he does not direct his Justice Department to enforce laws on immigration, voter intimidation, or the Defense of Marriage Act. It appears he believes that because he is President, he is the law or, at the very least, is free to pick and choose which laws his administration will enforce. What became of his pledge “to uphold the Constitution,” the supreme law of the land, the law he ignored by bypassing Congress to go to war in Libya?

There are many other examples, but there is not enough space to do them justice: The call for bi-partisan support during the State of the Union, something given only lip service for the two years his party controlled both House and Senate—and even still today; his attention to the economy and job creation, which peaked after the November mid-terms, then ebbed during the lame duck session and has now, he would have us believe, re-emerged; his plan to cut the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years despite his intentions to spend $1.6 trillion in 2011 alone; and, perhaps most egregiously, his recent “gift” of $3 billion to Brazil to develop their off-shore oil reserves. I would suppose this means drilling for off-shore oil is OK, just so long as it is not off the shores of the United States, which leads to his hypocritical policy on protecting the environment when he apparently could not care less if there is a BP-style oil spill off the coast of Brazil.

The proper coronation of Obama as Hypocrite-in-Chief came on Super Bowl weekend when the President’s party menu reportedly included bratwurst, cheeseburgers, pizza, and twice-baked potatoes. He says he would like America, especially America’s children, to eat healthy food, and this is the example he sets? Oh, wait, maybe it’s “Do as I say, not as I do” when it comes to his Highness the Hypocrite. As usual, his words conjure up “Sputnik moments;” his actions speak more to “Let them eat cake” moments.

Roy Zimmerman

Bainbridge, Ga.