The Obama Oligarchy – Year 5

Well here we are going into year 5 of the Obama oligarchy and I can’t help but be amazed at how liberals, who were once so principled in human rights, minority rights, fiscal restraint, advancement for the poor, and smart foreign policy have abandoned those positions possibly in light of their failures, but whom have also redirected their energies at demonizing any and all opposition, led by none other than their Leader.

It wasn’t long ago that their then future Leader was excoriating the current President for “taking out a credit card from China” and spending their grandchildren’s money for political expediency, and claiming that to be morally wrong and unpatriotic. Well that same Leader has now doubled the credit line on that credit card, wants even more credit, and claims it to be “investing” now in our future, with nary a peep from his loyal and devoted base. It wasn’t long ago that the Democrats who were in the minority claimed it to be their patriotic duty to oppose the majority and “fight” for what they believe in, claiming in to be the “heart of a democracy”. In fact their beloved pant suit politician once aggressively proclaimed:

It wasn’t long ago that 6% unemployment was considered too high, that 3% GDP growth was considered anemic and the beginning of a recession, and that “enhanced interrogations” were a violation of civil rights, but now we learn that they consider 8% unemployment to be an improvement, that 2% GDP growth is a sign of good things to come and that fatal drone strikes are the messy results of war.

In fact, we are learning quite a bit about our American leftists as this Obama oligarchy embarks upon its second term, none of which is very pleasant. One of our leftists here claimed that enhanced interrogations were a primary motivating factor to switch allegiance to a party that was more strident about protecting human rights, only to mildly disapprove of fatal drone strikes on 16 year old boys. We have also learned that other leftists who were once sticklers for the “rule of law” now have no problem with executive orders on issues like immigration that bypass Congress and create policy by fiat. We also learn that those same liberals who were against “wars of choice” and deposing world leaders, suddenly had a change of heart when those same actions were taken against Libya. And in respects to Libya, our liberals are curiously uninterested in learning the facts of the events that surround the death of our Ambassador. In fact when their favorite pant suit politician was asked about it, she claimed “what difference does it make”, and proceeded to enter into retirement amid fanfare of glowing accolades.

I am sure I missed quite a bit, so I welcome all of my conservative colleagues to chime in on how duplicitous, hypocritical, demagogic and shameless our liberals, and their ruling elite, have become.

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “The Obama Oligarchy – Year 5

  1. Retired Spook February 7, 2013 / 3:20 pm

    Cluster,

    Sorry about that. I should have emailed you and Mark to see if you had a post in the works.

  2. Cluster February 7, 2013 / 4:34 pm

    No worries Spook, more material is always better than less.

  3. 02casper February 7, 2013 / 7:58 pm

    Cluster,
    “One of our leftists here claimed that enhanced interrogations were a primary motivating factor to switch allegiance to a party that was more strident about protecting human rights, only to mildly disapprove of fatal drone strikes on 16 year old boys.”

    I always find it amazing how upset you and some of the other conservatives get if someone misconstrues something you write, yet you have no problem doing the same yourself.

    That said a couple of points:
    When I said that the use of torture was one of the reasons I was motivated to change parties, it certainly wasn’t the only reason. There were a number of others.

    Second, while, yes I am very much against killing American citizens through the use of drone strikes without due process, that by itself isn’t reason enough to change parties, especially since I have the feeling that a President McCain or a President Romney would have been fine with the same policy.

    • Cluster February 7, 2013 / 8:11 pm

      When I said that the use of torture was one of the reasons I was motivated to change parties, it certainly wasn’t the only reason.

      That’s why I said it was a “primary motivating factor”. After all, it was the first and only factor you mentioned. Just FYI

    • M. Noonan February 7, 2013 / 9:25 pm

      casper,

      Then tell us what is motivating you to support Obama? I can see it – ok, McCain and Romney, no go. Fair enough – even us here had plenty of exceptions with both of those men. But why Obama? Is 2% growth good? Is 8% unemployment good? Are wars in Libya and Mali really any better than wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? And Iraq is now falling firmly in to Iran’s orbit, and the Taliban are likely to be back in power in Afghanistan within weeks of our final withdrawal. Russia is flexing muscle, China is flexing muscle…heck, even North Korea is flexing muscle. We’re $16 trillion in debt and Obama doesn’t have anything resembling a plan to bring our finances in order – the sequester he now hates was merely a dodge put together; he appeared to figure that by getting us to agree to massive defense cuts that at the end of the day we’d agree to tax hikes to keep defense spending high…but we don’t want any wars while Obama is President because he’s simply too incompetent to win them…and, also, he’s going to hollow out the military no matter what the defense budget it.

      He’s an utter failure and entirely out of his depth…but you support him. Why?

      • 02casper February 7, 2013 / 10:23 pm

        M. Noonan
        “He’s an utter failure and entirely out of his depth…but you support him. Why?”

        Because he isn’t a failure and McCain and Romney are worse. If McCain were in power we would be in a depression instead of a recession and we would be at war in Iran, North Korea, and who knows where else. Who knows what would be happening with Romney. He had 4 or 5 positions on everything. You don’t like Obama, give us someone better.

      • 02casper February 7, 2013 / 10:31 pm

        Mark,
        I just read a biography of George Romney. Given his positions over the course of his life I would be proud to vote for him for president over any of those seeking the position over the last 36 years.

      • M. Noonan February 7, 2013 / 10:45 pm

        Casper,

        It is doubtful that McCain would have entered in to any armed conflicts – old men who have seen war just don’t tend to do that…young men who have no experience of it (like Obama) are much more likely to start a war…and, so he has…

        But what I’m wondering if what do you point to as a success for Obama…that we’re at 8% unemployment? That we’re sliding back in to recession? That we’re utterly bankrupt?

      • 02casper February 7, 2013 / 11:01 pm

        “M. Noonan February 7, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

        Casper,

        It is doubtful that McCain would have entered in to any armed conflicts – old men who have seen war just don’t tend to do that”

        McCain has never met a war he didn’t like.

        “But what I’m wondering if what do you point to as a success for Obama…that we’re at 8% unemployment? That we’re sliding back in to recession? That we’re utterly bankrupt?”

        If McCain were president we would be looking at 25% unemployment and I don’t agree that we are slipping back into recession.

      • Amazona February 8, 2013 / 2:10 am

        casper, you really need to stop depending on that cloudy old crystal ball you seem to consult for your proclamations, such as your assertion that if “… McCain were in power we would be in a depression instead of a recession and we would be at war in Iran, North Korea, and who knows where else. “

        I’ve read a lot of utter nonsense from you over the years but this is remarkable for the concentration of silliness. From the stupid comment “in power” to the bizarre claim that you know a McCain administration would have plunged the nation into a depression (depending at the same time on your claim that our economic situation now is only a “recession”) to the even more bizarre claim that “….we would be at war in Iran, North Korea, and who knows where else. ” it should embarrass you, if you had not already proved yourself to be incapable of embarrassment over the truly crazy things you so routinely say.

        And then, not content with just sounding like a lunatic, you need to sound like a vicious lunatic with the hateful sneer that “McCain has never met a war he didn’t like. ”

        Shame on you, casper. I have seen you drift from befuddlement to outright nastiness over the years, and it has not been pleasant to see you become downright vicious instead of just vaguely confused.

      • Amazona February 8, 2013 / 2:40 am

        “You don’t like Obama, give us someone better.”

        Romney was infinitely better than Obama could possibly be on his best day. You simply lie when you claim “He had 4 or 5 positions on everything..”, and you indulge in the beloved Lefty pastime of inventing different standards for different people at different times. The people you like simply “evolve”—-and sometimes evolve back to where they were before they evolved, as Obama did on gay “marriage”.

        You people seem to view elections as courtships, whereas I view them as job interviews. I wanted to hire the best person for the job, and that meant looking at experience and character and steadiness and a track record. Romney was so far ahead in all of these criteria Obama was not even in the running.

        But Obama won the American Idol segment of the vote, the giddy tingle-up-the-leg vote, and added to that he got the Hate Vote and the Race Vote and the Stupid Vote—-although many of you managed to fit into more than one category.

        You claim Obama is not a failure, yet you didn’t back that up with a single example of his success in anything. But as long as you can play the Lib game of simply redefining terms when you have to, you don’t have to.

        For some reason that completely escapes me, Obama just makes you FEEL good, and that’s all that matters.

      • Cluster February 8, 2013 / 7:58 am

        But Obama won the American Idol segment of the vote, the giddy tingle-up-the-leg vote, and added to that he got the Hate Vote and the Race Vote and the Stupid Vote—-although many of you managed to fit into more than one category. – Amazona

        LOL!! Hence the need for voter ID. I think people should declare whether they are voting out of hate, stupidity, or simply along racial lines.

      • tiredoflibbs February 8, 2013 / 11:40 am

        Speaking of voter ID laws –

        The Voter Fraud That ‘Never Happens’ Keeps Coming Back

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund

        Question: According to the left, how is asking for ID in order to vote an infringement or discrimination on the “right to vote”, but asking for ID to purchase a gun or ammo not and infringement?

        Proggies would make more sense if they were more consistent and had to logically defend their positions with logical arguments rather than the raw emotion they perpetuate.

      • Amazona February 8, 2013 / 8:24 pm

        What is interesting is that there is no Constitutional right to vote, while there IS a Constitutional right bear arms.

      • 02casper February 8, 2013 / 9:35 pm

        “Amazona February 8, 2013 at 8:24 pm #

        What is interesting is that there is no Constitutional right to vote, while there IS a Constitutional right bear arms.”

        Except there is a Constitution right to vote:

        AMENDMENT XV

        Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

        Section 1.
        The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

        and this

        AMENDMENT XIX

        Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

        The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

        and this

        AMENDMENT XXIV

        Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

        Section 1.
        The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

        One would think that a constitutional scholar such as yourself would have known that.

      • tiredoflibbs February 8, 2013 / 10:26 pm

        Actually cappy you have listed amendments to the Constitution that says a person cannot be denied the right to vote based on race, gender, age or inability to pay poll tax.

        Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly state that the people have the the right to vote as is does in the Bill of Rights that the People have the right to free speech, freedom of religion or the the right to keep and bear arms.

        It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by “the People”. Who comprises “the People” has been expanded by the amendments several times.

        Aside from the specific requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

        Words mean things. Again, please explain how asking someone for their ID to vote is an infringement, especially when states can provide a FREE voter ID and it is not an infringement to ask for an ID when purchasing a gun?

        How is asking a woman to attend counseling and waiting 2-3 days before having an abortion after the initial visit an infringement on her “right” to an abortion (again not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution) but requiring a waiting period, 1-2 weeks, after a purchase of a gun, not an infringement on the Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms?

      • Amazona February 9, 2013 / 10:22 am

        casper, you are too easy. There is just no challenge in finding ways you are wrong. It is, however, upsetting to realize that someone with such abysmal reading skills is actually in charge of teaching some of our young.

        “AMENDMENT XV

        Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

        Section 1.
        The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

        This is not a right to vote. This is a statement that no one can be denied the right to vote based on the following criteria: race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

        “AMENDMENT XIX

        Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

        The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

        This means that no one can be denied the right to vote because of gender.

        AMENDMENT XXIV

        Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

        Section 1.
        The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

        This means that the failure to pay a tax cannot be used to prevent someone from voting.

        HOWEVER, the “right to vote” itself is not a federal Constitutional right. If you say it is, find it and point it out.
        Actually, in point of fact, the determination of voting qualification is left to the states. The only time the “right to vote” is mentioned in the Constitution, in the amendments you listed, is in detailing the specific reasons that cannot be used to keep a person from voting.

        Let me explain this to you, “teacher”. A state may determine that a convicted felon cannot vote. The state has the right to do this because there is no inherent right to vote specified in the Constitution. The state may not, however, say that a person cannot vote because of gender, race, color, previous servitude, or the failure to pay a poll tax or other tax.

        “One would think that a constitutional scholar such as yourself would have known that.”

        Meow. You are quite the catty little thing, aren’t you?

        But the point IS, a teacher of the Constitution SHOULD have known that there is no Constitutional right to vote.

        tired beat me to it, proving that the average conservative is far more knowledgeable about our Constitution that some effete Lefty schoolteacher.

      • Amazona February 9, 2013 / 10:26 am

        Perhaps your school should offer a free remedial class to correct the many errors in your “teaching” so your students, the ones whose parents don’t already set them straight at home because they know you are an ideologically driven moron, can unlearn the crap you feed them.

    • tiredoflibbs February 7, 2013 / 9:43 pm

      cappy you have already stated here several times that you will not criticize obAMATEUR here on this blog.

      Since you are silent on his killing of Americans overseas without due process, you are at least consistent for once.

  4. Cluster February 7, 2013 / 9:26 pm

    I now support Dr Benjamin Carson for President!

    During his remarks, Carson came up with several solutions to some of America’s most pressing problems, including focusing on the importance of education.
    Carson also touched on the economy, saying that he thinks about the issue frequently. “We don’t want to go down the path of many failed nations,” he said, pointing out what he says is “fiscal irresponsibility” in our government.
    He seemed to offer the idea of a flat 10% income tax, which would prevent many successful people from taxing their money oversees [sic]. He cited “602 banks in the Cayman Islands” created as havens for those seeking to escape high taxes.
    “That money needs to be back here building our infrastructure and creating jobs,” he said.
    Carson’s remarks regarding what appeared to be his alternative to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) appeared to make the president uncomfortable at times, with Obama looking down and away as Carson began to describe specific suggestions.
    ACA is President Obama’s landmark health reform legislation that was passed in 2010. Carson has spoken openly in the past about alternatives to the law.
    “We spend a lot of money on health care, twice as much per capita as anyone else in the world, and yet not very efficient. What can we do?” Carson asked rhetorically. “Here’s my solution. When a person is born, give them a birth certificate, an electronic medical record and a health savings account [HSA] to which money can be contributed pre-tax from the time you’re born to the time you die.”
    Carson went on to say that accounts should be passed on to family members, so “there’s nobody talking about death panels,” in an obvious reference to the much debated “panels” discussed during negotiations and after passage of ACA.
    Regarding those who cannot afford health insurance, Carson suggested, “We can make contributions to their HSA each month,” he said, adding, “we already have this huge pot of money; instead of sending it to some bureaucracy let’s put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care.”

    http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/02/07/world-famous-neurosurgeon-calls-market-oriented-health-care-reform-fro

    • Jeremiah February 8, 2013 / 11:34 pm

      You already posted about him. Well, I posted the video here. This man is very intelligent, but I somehow doubt that anything he had to say made an impression on Obama. It just went in one ear and out the other.

  5. Jeremiah February 8, 2013 / 11:31 pm

    This guy here makes a lot of good points…smart as a tack….

Comments are closed.