His Majesty, Barack I

With the completely unconstitutional imposition of the DREAM Act and, now, the absurd claim of Executive Privilege regarding the “Fast and Furious” scandal, a lot of conservatives and libertarians are furious with President Obama over his assumption of rather autocratic powers.  But I ask everyone to pause for a moment – one has to consider just what sort of government the United States has.  To do this, I think it best to refer to an outside observer of proven sympathy for the United States, Winston Churchill:

…The rigid Constitution of the United States, the gigantic scale and strength of its party machinery, the fixed terms for which public officers and representatives are chosen, invest the President with a greater measure of autocratic power that was possessed before the war by the Head of any great State…

Churchill was referring, in that instance, to Woodrow Wilson.  Keep in mind the time frame Churchill was using – this was the day of Nicholas II of Russia, Wilhelm II of Germany and Franz Josef of Austria.  And yet Churchill was asserting that these three men had, in practice, less autocratic power than was held by Woodrow Wilson.  And, he was right.  Churchill correctly perceived a truth about the the United States which to this day escapes nearly everyone:  the President of the United States, while his term lasts, possesses an immense amount of autocratic power.  Boiled down, in our President we have an elected king – limited in real terms only by three things:

1.  His term of office.

2.  His inability to appropriate funds without Congressional approval.

3.  The risk of impeachment.

Lincoln understood this – stating that he would maintain the contest with the South until he died or his term ended.   When in 1864 Lincoln looked to be the loser of the Presidential election he was yet determined to win victory between election day and the end of his term (which in those days ended in March, not January).  And he could have done it – Congress could have cut off funds for additional military power, but the military power he already had was sufficient and no power in the United States government could have prevented him from ordering Grant to continue, election results be darned.

The real lesson in Obama’s abuse of power is this:  always have a great deal of care whom is elected President.  Because you’ve got him for four years and while you can limit the amount of money he spends, you can’t really limit what he does with the money he is allowed to spend.  Jokingly, someone has written a list of 10 things Romney can do after he takes office in the manner of Obama’s DREAM Act – among them, cease enforcement of various environmental laws and of any tax rate above 18%.  It was put out as a joke, but it is also a reality.  Suppose Romney did tell the IRS not to prosecute anyone who failed to pay more than 18% of their income as taxes – what could anyone do?  Impeach him?  Impeachment has only come up three times in American history: with Andrew Johnson it was a GOP witch hunt against a War Democrat; with Nixon it was a Democrat witch hunt against someone they didn’t like; with Clinton we actually had a genuinely impeachable offense but Democrats ensured that it wouldn’t go anywhere.  Impeach Obama?  It would require the votes of 20 Senate Democrats to do it – short of committing rape or murder live, on television, do you think that there is anything Obama can do which would move 20 Senate Democrats to vote to convict?  Get real!

We elect a king every four years and then allow that king one more shot at an additional four years.  In office, he is mostly limited by his own conscience and sense of right and wrong.  A President who simply does not care about the law (or, as in Obama’s case, understand what a law is) is highly dangerous – as we can see with Obama.  For more than two centuries we have been extraordinarily lucky – even with a cad like Clinton or a twisted man like Nixon, there was still a sense of respect for the Constitution and a desire to live up to great predecessors – looming over all was the figure of Washington, who defined what a President is and offered a model for all who came after if they cared at all about the United States.  Trouble is, if we get someone who doesn’t care about the United States – who, in a real sense, has nothing but contempt for Washington and the edifice he raised – then we’re in a bad way.

Now there are some practical steps we can take – from re-asserting Congressional power to declare war, to putting more strings on what is done with appropriated money, to insisting that no US ground troops are deployed outside the United States except during time of declared war.  These and other measures can hem in a President a bit and ensure that he seeks Congressional cooperation before doing something.  But, fundamentally, unless we want to re-write our Constitution in to a parliamentary abomination (ie, where the head of government is the leader of the House of Representatives and the President is a mere figurehead), then we simply have to ensure that when we elect a person to the Presidency that we are sure he or she is fit for the job.  King Obama is the first man we’ve elected who is entirely unfit by temperment, training and education for the Presidency – and it shows in the way he is (deliberately or not is immaterial) wrecking the manner of American government.

So, rather than whine about what Obama has done, let us set to work with a will to oust him on November 6th and then lay the lesson to heart:  never be fooled again.

20 thoughts on “His Majesty, Barack I

  1. Bob June 20, 2012 / 11:15 pm

    What makes you think that Barack Obama can be ousted from his position as President in a “popular” election when he has more power now than he had in 2008?

    • neocon1 June 21, 2012 / 5:51 am

      he wont be ousted he will lose the election. If he refuses to leave he WILL be ousted.

      marxism 101

      1. flood the country with illegal peasants…..check
      2. give them everything for NOTHING……….check
      3. dumb down the education system…………check
      4. put large demographics in the large citys on welfare and OPM…..check
      5. have 47% of the population pay NO federal taxes…….check
      6. tell them they are poor because of rich white pubbies…..check.
      7. push atheism and homosexuality on to the populace…..check
      8. abort whole generations…..check
      9. elect some fraud know nothing never was empty suit on platitudes…..check
      10. reap the consequences……check

      • Bob June 21, 2012 / 1:32 pm

        So what? I’m not sure that enough voters or political officials with some authority really care about these matters, and every really serious critic of Obama has been personally “silenced”, and the media fully supports him.

      • Robin Naismith Green June 21, 2012 / 1:47 pm

        As one of the forker posters here you are included in the ban on all forkers after the Brimstone link to prohibited content. This would have happened even if you had not responded to it and tried to continue it. //Modrators

      • neocon1 June 21, 2012 / 4:01 pm

        begin impeachment now, are you listening GOP?

      • tiredoflibbs June 21, 2012 / 8:26 pm

        Wow, James – tommy-boy, sasan, etc. etc., it is obvious you believe everything your read on the Internet!!!!

        Hint: the world is not flat, even though the Flat Earth Society website says otherwise.


    • Mark Edward Noonan June 21, 2012 / 8:24 pm

      Because the people – in their broad majority – are coming to hold Obama in as much contempt as he has for them.

      • Bob June 21, 2012 / 8:40 pm

        I think that according to most established polls that the majority of voters “like” Barack Obama.

      • neocon1 June 21, 2012 / 9:37 pm


        in the inner citys maybe, in the real world?
        Pfffffyttttttt the guy sucks big time.

      • Mark Noonan June 22, 2012 / 11:57 am


        I doubt much the polls of “likeability” – too nebulous and with a million people leaving the Democrat party and a half dozen senior elected Democrats opting to stay away from the Convention, I don’t see much actual evidence in action of people liking Obama.

        But, in a different sense, I can see that – I still like him; in fact, I’ve got an affinity for him. Not saying that I ever would have become President, but if a couple different sequences in my life had gone otherwise, I’d be just like Obama. I see a huge amount of myself in him – we are, after all, near contemporaries in age and a lot of our growing up was similar (though there are periods in there were I may have known more non-white people than Obama…very likely I knew more poor and middle class people than he did). It is by grace of God that I didn’t become a person who would deliberately lie in his own memoirs. And I hope that Obama eventually accepts God’s grace and becomes a person who can no longer do that.

        Obama is doomed to be crushed this November – like him or not, the people have tuned him out and are ready to restore American greatness.

  2. Bob June 22, 2012 / 1:14 pm

    I think that you are somewhat naive in your appraisal of Barack Obama’s efforts to secure an election. I think that his efforts go far beyond lying. I hope that you have more respect for the law than he apparently does. And so far no one has enough authority or courage to challenge him regarding his disregard for our laws, particularly the laws of our Constitution. Democracies of the people are hard to establish and to maintain, as we’ve seen in the various riots and civil wars of various nations in the mideast. And individuals in power seldom give it up “gracefully”, particularly when they have little respect for the people or the legal processes that put them in power. Barack Obama does not “serve” as a “graceful” President, so I don’t expect him to submit to a “graceful” election process.

    • Mark Noonan June 22, 2012 / 10:46 pm


      The whole point of my post here is to point out that a President can pretty much do what he wants – and that is built in to the Constitution. Of course, our Founders never imagined that we’d create such a gigantic edifice of power as the federal government is today. But from the moment Washington first took the oath, we had someone in this nation who could to a very large number of things without let or hindrance from anyone. The practical limitations on the President are those I’ve listed and there are no others outside of the conscience of the office-holder.

      The ultimate weapon against an out of control Executive is, of course, the impeachment power of Congress – but party politics (which Washington did warn us about, and a large part of that warning could have been because he perceived the total power available to his office) ensures that only in extraordinary circumstances will impeachment become even possible – it either takes an opposition party with 67 Senators (as well as a House majority) or a scandal so large and inescapable that even the President’s own supporters will turn on him (this is what impelled Nixon to resign – when he found out that there weren’t 34 GOP Senators willing to vote in his favor…had Nixon retained assurances of that number of GOP Senators, he never would have resigned).

      The real power of Congress is the “power of the purse” – Congress does not have to pass a budget or a continuing resolution and can leave the President high and dry at the start of whatever fiscal year is next coming: without Congressional authorization, the President can’t spend a cent and without being able to spend money, a President simply cannot do anything. Of course, if a President orders his Treasury Secretary to keep spending money the only recourse of Congress would be to impeach…and getting 67 Senators to agree would be difficult (but not impossible – anyone in the President’s party who has any foresight at all would realize that allowing a President to get away with that would destroy Congressional power…and thus the next time the other side got in, it would work out very badly; trouble is in 2012 that I doubt that more than one or two Democrats in Congress fully understand this…meanwhile, Pelosi is actually cheering on the President is destroying the House she once lead).

      So, the ultimate sanction is the people – a President can survive just about anything except the loss of an election. This is because even if he decided to ignore the election results, the fact would remain that on the following January 20th he would no longer legally be Commander in Chief and at least 99% of the military and the overwhelming bulk of the law enforcement system would cease to pay heed to anything he did…and the person who won doesn’t have to go to DC to be sworn in…he can swear himself in and at that moment most of the force available to the government would transfer its allegiance to his orders.

      And this is why great care needs to be taken in selecting a President – we, the people, dare not let ourselves slip again like we did in 2008. Never again must we allow ourselves to be bamboozled by someone like Obama. In this, there is much to condemn about McCain – solid and ardent patriot he is, he yet decided not to clearly define for the American people just what Obama amounted to. He didn’t want to go “negative”, in keeping with this long standing views on politics…but when the safety of our republic is at stake such personal considerations should have been set aside…now, McCain still might have lost, but at least there would be no question of what we were getting…and even the dawning realization of what was coming might have helped the GOP keep to at least 41 GOP Senators, and thus the power, when it was most crucial, to stymie the worst of Obama.

  3. Bob June 22, 2012 / 11:42 pm

    What about the Clintons? I think that they know some things about Barack Obama that they have not been willing to disclose. I think that recently Bill has tried to be somewhat critical of Obama’s actions, but he seems to be quickly brought “back into line”. The composition of Congress and the election of our President are determined by a “popular” election of individuals, and I’m afraid that this legitimate process may not be strong enough to overcome the “power” of Barack Obama who can “pretty much do what he wants”, which includes disregarding legislative bills of Congress and hiding personal records regarding his student records. Barack Obama has been very effective in hiding any of his “scandals” from Congress, the Democratic party who pushed through his nomination in 2008, the national media, and the courts, and he seems to also be effective in blaming Bush and the Republicans for the financial problems that concern us all as he seeks to increase and sustain the support of his loyal “fans” in his special groups of voters in the big cities of the key states where the results of this election may be decided for Congress and the presidency. He doesn’t even need 51% of the popular vote in order to retain his position and his power! It is time for at least one State election Board or Commission to force Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to prove that he is a legitimate candidate for the office of President of these United States. The time to “stymie” Barack Obama is now before the election in November!

    • Mark Noonan June 23, 2012 / 3:59 pm

      Oh, just drop that – it isn’t a matter of Obama having to prove he was born in the United States it is that his critics have to prove he was born elsewhere. Doesn’t matter what anyone wants to say about the Hawaii birth certificate – unless you can dig up a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama then the legal position is that he is what he says he is: an American citizen by birth (and even if you find a Kenyan birth certificate you still have to get ’round the fact that he was born to an American mother).

      The only way to get rid of Obama is to defeat him at the polls and that is the sole effort we should make.

    • Amazona June 23, 2012 / 9:18 pm

      Mark, with all due respect I think the casual dismissal of the questions of Obama’s birth is a very bad idea.

      I strongly disagree that all he has to do is claim to be born in Hawaii to settle the matter. It is his responsibility to prove that he was, and so far his “proofs” have been quite feeble.

      I had my purse stolen two weeks ago. Just to get a new drivers license, with two old passports to show that the person in the photos is the person in my chair with that name, I have to PROVE who I am—birth certificate, marriage certificate to explain the name change, SS card. I am not trying to convince anyone of who I am so I can occupy the position of the president of the United States. I am merely asking that the information in the records, which has already been verified by several agencies, be consulted.

      Why should I be held to a higher standard than the President of the United States?

      As for his mother being an American, there are questions about whether or not she met the law in place at that time regarding the number of years spent as a resident of the United States prior to his birth, and her age at that time.

      What bothers me the most is the attitude toward people who ask very legitimate questions, about issues of grave importance to the Constitutional government of the nation. A choice to accept one story or another is not the same as proof, and I am absolutely baffled by the attitude that asking for proof is, somehow, a character flaw or something malignant.

      I never questioned Obama’s birthplace or statements about it till I learned that he had spent years and a LOT of money fighting efforts to look at the records. That may not have caught your attention, but it sure was a red flag for me.

      Then some things that were belligerently presented as ABSOLUTE PROOFS were shown to be indicative but far from proof—the COLB was originally designed and so titled till the original law was removed from the Internet as being specifically for PEOPLE BORN OUT OF STATE. When the State of Hawaii made the brilliant decision to substitute it for a copy of a birth certificate, they created a situation in which the same document was intended to prove two completely opposite things, which made a COLB meaningless unless one looked back to find out how and why it was generated—to prove Hawaiian residency for a child born out of the state or as a substitute for a birth certificate for a child born in the state.

      There is absolutely nothing wrong, kooky, or nuts about asking which. But the hysterical reaction and attack mode generated by this simple and logical question served only to raise another, which was “Why is it so important to NOT examine this further”?

      The much-vaunted birth announcements were NOT placed by the hospital but sent to the papers by the health department when a birth was registered—either by a COLB for a child born out of state or by a birth certificate for a child born in the state.

      This much confusion and conflicting information on anything else would have people demanding enough additional information to be able to sort it all out, but this is verboten territory when it comes to Obama, and people just decide what they WANT to believe.

      • Mark Noonan June 24, 2012 / 10:56 pm

        The presumption is to believe unless otherwise indicated – Obama, while present at the event, has no personal recollection of it…but he says he was born in Hawaii and the only way you can controvert that is to find evidence showing he was born elsewhere. If you lack that, then your default position has to be in agreement with him.

      • Amazona June 24, 2012 / 11:31 pm

        Mark, in a social situation I would agree with you. But no one else in the country gets official status without proof, even for relatively insignificant issues such as the legal right to drive a car, and I believe that the standard of proof has to be higher for the highest position in the land.

        The issue is complicated by the evidence pointing to Obama himself claiming Kenyan birth for many years, before deciding to run for the presidency. I recently heard that there are 17 different times or places where he provided biographical information stating that he was born in Kenya. Even if we accept the excuse that he lied to gain some sort of status, similar to the same kinds of decisions made by people like Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren, the introduction of a foreign birthplace BY OBAMA HIMSELF has to set up a serious enough question to demand conclusive proof of Hawaiian birth.

        And why did he fight, so long and so hard, to not have to present any form of proof?

        The questions were created by Obama himself, and I think he has an obligation to answer them. For example, he could have said, whether it was true or not, that he had represented himself as having been born in Kenya because he had been told this was the case, and that he had since learned that this was just a family legend but in fact he was born in Hawaii and provided the birth certificate to prove it.

        But he chose to engage in a variety of deceptive and evasive tactics, each of which only added to the series of legitimate questions.

        Even if he were to actually believe he was born in Hawaii, if he was given false information by his mother or grandparents that would not make it true. For many years I represented myself as owner of a house in Denver. My husband owned it before we married, and when we refinanced it I was supposed to go on the deed as well as on the mortgage. When filing an insurance claim we learned that in the confusion of the paperwork of the refi, the “sign here, sign here, sign here, sign here…” process, my husband signed a document without carefully reading it, a quitclaim deed which erroneously quitclaimed the house from him to him, not to him and me. It was an honest mistake, but it did not mean I legally owned the house. He was sure I was on the deed, he had also represented the house as being in joint ownership, and he was completely surprised to find that I was not.

        And the Constitutional demand for specific citizenship requirements is of much more import than the ownership of a house.

        It is a shame of this nation that Obama was allowed to run and be elected and be inaugurated without having this question settled once and for all.

      • Amazona June 24, 2012 / 11:36 pm

        By the way, Mark, I agree with you when you say “The only way to get rid of Obama is to defeat him at the polls and that is the sole effort we should make.” Obama and the American Left have so successfully set up a maze of emotional minefields that the cost of pursuing this with the intent of removing him from office would be too high.

        But once he is gone, we need to do what should have been done five or six years ago, dig up the facts, lay blame where it belongs, and prove to ourselves and to the world that we ARE a nation of laws, that no one is above the law, and that our Constitution does define our law and our government.

  4. Bob June 24, 2012 / 11:23 pm

    Mark, Of course Barack Obama doesn’t remember the event of his birth. But it is very interesting that there is no one on record who “witnessed” his birth in Hawaii. And all of the air line records for travel into Hawaii for the reported week of his birth all all missing. And all of his records as a college student, which were created before the place of his birth became a legal issue, he has hidden from access by any officials. And anyone who questions his birth in Hawaii is labelled by the media and his fans as a “birther”. And I think that his grandmother, who indicated that she was present at his birth in Kenya, is dead. When documents that would be considered “evidence” are being hidden, no one has to accept “agreement” with him as a suspect in a possible legal case as a “default position”. I think that the legality of his claim has yet to be conclusively established.

Comments are closed.