Regardless of station in life, faith, or philosophy, unfulfilled expectations are the greatest cause of anger, frustration and discontent on the planet. That's true whether those expectations arise in the interaction of husbands and wives, parents and children, teachers and students, employers and employees, businesses and customers, leaders and the led, or politicians and their constituents. Mr. Obama apparently doesn't grasp this fundamental truth of human nature.

Resolving the "friction" of unfulfilled expectations requires a straightforward recognition of personal responsibility for commitments -- perceived or real -- that have not been satisfied, and a determination by the parties involved to do better in the future. My experience with this process with my wife, children, and colleagues usually begins with an acknowledgement of mistakes or errors I have made and includes the words, "I'm sorry" or a similar phrase.

When Mr. Obama was campaigning for president he promised "hope" and "change." A majority of the American electorate believed these nebulous ideas would make life better for us and our children. We now know better.

 Current poll numbers -- the lowest for any Chief Executive at this point in office -- reflect the unfulfilled expectations of millions who voted for him. Yet, the president's first State of the Union address indicates he still doesn't get it.

 Absent from Mr. Obama's lengthy lecture to the assembled masses last Wednesday night was any recognition of personal failure, error or even the hint of an apology. Instead he ascribes blame to his predecessors, political opponents, even the Supreme Court for all our problems. Apparently apologies are still reserved for our nation generally -- and are delivered in front of "blame America first" audiences overseas.

 Worse, the president's efforts to deflect responsibility for his party's political reversals, our current economic travail, national security threats and foreign policy setbacks leads him to be disingenuous at best and downright deceptive at worst. Thankfully, not everyone gathered in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday night was willing to timidly "go along to get along."

When Mr. Obama accused the Supreme Court of reversing "a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections," Justice Samuel Alito could be seen mouthing the words, "that's not true." The justice is right, for the court has done nothing to remove longstanding prohibitions on foreign entities -- be they individuals or companies -- from contributing to our election campaigns.

Some argue our tolerance for dissembling on domestic political matters -- limiting campaign contributions, legislation to create jobs, raising taxes, increasing government spending and debt, imposing government-run health care, or increasing regulatory controls on free-enterprise -- is a longstanding tradition. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama carries the practice into issues of national security.

He boldly claimed "leadership" and "engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people" and "Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation." Yet, the administration's belated support for pro-democracy movements from Honduras to Iran; abandoning a U.S. missile-defense shield in Europe; insistence on shipping terrorists from Guantanamo to the U.S. while returning others to the battlefield; and treating terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad -- the chief 9-11-01 plotter, accused Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Hasan, and Umar Abulmutallab -- the Christmas Day "underpants bomber," as common criminals; all make his assertions ring hollow.

The same applies to Mr. Obama's call for Congress to "repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are." The Commander in Chief apparently wants us to ignore that it's not love of country that's the problem. Simply put, a warrior ethos is incompatible with illicit, same-sex eros in the ranks. It's not "who they are" - it's what they do.

This cynical effort at resurrecting a campaign promise to use our military for radical social engineering raises expectations in the Democrat "base" that their leader can somehow prevail in implementing their agenda. Yet, like so many of Mr. Obama's pledges, it is unlikely to happen absent a dramatic sea-change in the American body politic.

The 1993 law -- Section 654 of Title 10 U.S. Code -- was mislabeled "Don't Ask -- Don't Tell" by the media and the Clinton administration. In fact, a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress found "no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces" and codified that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," holding that active homosexuals in the ranks would pose "an unacceptable risk to the standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Unless the O-Team can show irrefutable evidence that changing the law somehow improves "military capability" in the midst of war, even this Pelosi-Reid Congress will have to reject such blatant pandering to the far left fringe. That will undoubtedly anger some who have not yet learned how to avoid disappointment with Mr. Obama: keep expectations low. He is sure to live down to them.