Obama

His Majesty, Barack I

Mark Noonan20 Comments

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.

Hey, Obama: Where is My Hoover Dam?

Mark Noonan11 Comments

Interesting news story:  Voyager 1 is now on the very edge of the outer solar system and will soon enter inter-stellar space, the first man-made object to do so.  Clearly, a milestone in human achievement.  But here’s the kicker – its actually an achievement of the 1970’s, as Voyager was launched in 1977.  That got me thinking – our government has been wasting bags of money for the past 80 years, but we’re always getting less and less from it.

Think of it like this:  when FDR started us on our path to bankruptcy, we at least got the Hoover Dam; the Civilian Conservation Corps (any of you camping enthusiasts out there can probably name a half dozen camping/fishing spots which were created by the CCA); Mt Rushmore.  For Ike’s bags of money spent we got the inter-state highway system.  For JFK’s profligacy we got the Moon shot.  It all started to go wrong with LBJ; his building of the Great American Bankruptcy got us the “Great Society” and Vietnam.  Nixon just went from bad to worse – spending still shot up and we lost Vietnam and got millstones like the EPA.  And on and on it went – until, now, we’ve got Obama…who has spent at least $3 trillion more than would have been spent if McCain had been elected, and what did we get for it?  Solyndra.

Our liberals are spending more money than ever and we are getting less and less for it – just more government; more payoffs to cronies; more bailouts for the well-connected.  We, the people, are more than used to getting robbed blind by liberals…but at least we used to get something useful thrown in.  Like the Hoover Dam and the Moon shot; in other words, things which useful people can either use or at least glory in.  Can you imagine the shivers of horror among liberals if anyone suggesting building another Hoover Dam?  Carving another mountain in to a grand, American monument?  If, on the other hand, you offered to re-carve Mt. Rushmore in to a Gay Pride display, liberals would allow it – with no more than 10 years of bureaucratic red tape between proposal and first action.

Small minded, cowardly, little cretins who’s only concern is their place at the trough – that is modern, American liberals.  That, by the way, is what was rejected in Wisconsin.  That, also, is what the battle is ultimately about – will America shake off the chains of liberalism and rise to new heights of glory, or will we go on our knees and, fearful of doing anything, die a slow, painful death?  Will we, that is, take the path of least resistance until the whole United States is Detroit?  Or will we recover our courage and not only save America, but even return Detroit to its glory days?

Obama offers us nothing but more bureaucrats and more money for his cronies – Romney offers us a return to American greatness.  A return of an America which can, indeed, put a man on the Moon.

My choice is made; and never have I had an easier one.

Syria: How Global Power Works

Mark Noonan10 Comments

Like this; from the New York Times:

With evidence that powerful new weapons are flowing to both the Syrian government and opposition fighters, the bloody uprising in Syria has thrust the Obama administration into an increasingly difficult position as the conflict shows signs of mutating into a full-fledged civil war.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Tuesday that the United States believed that Russia was shipping attack helicopters to Syria that President Bashar al-Assad could use to escalate his government’s deadly crackdown on civilians and the militias battling his rule. Her comments reflected rising frustration with Russia, which has continued to supply weapons to its major Middle Eastern ally despite an international outcry over the government’s brutal crackdown…

Meanwhile, the report goes on to note that the rebels are being armed by the Turks with assistance from other Muslim powers.  Here’s what is actually going on:

No one outside of the precincts of the West gives a hoot about the sufferings of the Syrian people.  We here in the United States are disgusted with the mayhem and slaughter but people who are not like us don’t care – they only look at the mayhem and slaughter and think, “can I gain any advantage out of it?”.  No amount of moralizing by Obama and Clinton or anyone in the West will make the least impression upon the Turks, Russians, Iranian,  Saudis or anyone else who is so far involved in the war in Syria.  In fact, they’ll probably view such statements as a sign of weakness – figuring that if we really had a pair we’d intervene so we can grab what advantage we want out of the situation.  Holding back and lecturing all concerned is, in the view of such people, the act of cowards.

Russia and Iran want to maintain their Syrian ally.  Iran because it allows Iran to keep up pressure in Israel while also allowing Iran to project power in to the center of the middle east.  Russia because Syria is on Turkey’s southern flank and puts the Turks between two fires if any Russo-Turkish conflict arises…plus it sticks a finger in our eye and Putin (utter fool that he is) thinks that Russia’s proper role is to oppose the United States (the truth is that Russia can only survive in alliance with the United States, but Putin is just too blinded by his Great Russian nationalism to see this).  In service of this goal the Iranians have shipped thugs to Syria for the purpose of massacring Syrians who oppose the Assad regime (probably the very same thugs the Iranians use to massacre Iranians who oppose the Mullah’s regime in Teheran…so, they’re likely experienced killers who no how to choke off a rebellion).  Russia won’t send troops but is clearly sending arms – and in spite of bland words to the contrary, is sending arms which are useful in fighting the increasingly competent Syrian rebels.

Turkey would love to turn Syria in to a satellite State – the Turks, after all, were the imperial overlords of Syria for more than four centuries and while we here in the United States might not know it, the Turks understand that controlling Damascus is just as important as controlling Baghdad if you want to dominate the middle east (this is why Iran continues to press their power in Iraq along with trying to sustain their ally in Syria).  The Turks also have a very long history of enmity with the Russians (there have been, I think, 9 Russo-Turkish wars over the centuries) and so would love to reduce Russian influence in the area.  Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other States in the area have a vested interest in curbing Iranian influence – and taking out Iran’s key ally in Damascus is worth a lot in Saudi eyes.

Our problem is that we have as President and Secretary of State two people who appear to have zero knowledge of how the world works.  Obama and Clinton seem to think that there is, somewhere, a genuine desire in Syria and in the other players to end the bloodshed.  There isn’t.  There is a desire to win.  Assad wants to win.  The rebels want to win.  Iran wants to win.  Russia wants to win.  Turkey wants to win.  Saudi Arabia wants to win.  All of them won’t win, of course – but they are all fighting for victory as they see it.  We, under Obama and Clinton, don’t want to win – we don’t even know what we want other than an end to the violence; an admirable desire, but violence can be ended in good or bad ways.  Obama and Clinton are ensuring that when the violence ends there is sure to be one nation which won’t have won:  the United States.

Proper American policy in this matter is not to get involved in Syria – we have no dog in that hunt, unless we could grab Damascus and keep it.  That would involve a major military offensive too fraught with risks right now to be envisioned.  So, nothing to do in Syria – but we do have a strong interest in completely ending Syria’s (and, thus, Iran’s) role in Lebanon.  Syria’s armed forces are, naturally, being concentrated on the rebels.  I’ll bet their forces in Lebanon are thin on the ground:  the opportunity is for us eject them completely – ending Syrian domination and at the same time vastly undercutting the ability of the Iran-backed terrorist groups to operate there.  It is a certainty that Lebanon’s Christian population wouldn’t be adverse to a change in Lebanon’s status – certainly in the southern regions of the country, which we are most concerned about as it borders Israel.  A bit of thought and effort and some coordination with Israel and the thing could be done…by the time Syria is able to respond, it would be too late.

Will we do this?  Not a chance – Obama doesn’t even see it.  I doubt that anyone in his Administration does.  So, we’ll get more liberal hand-wringing while the Russian and Iranians battle it out with the Turks and Saudis and the winner of that not only gets Syria, but Lebanon thrown in to the bargain.  Just monumental stupidity brought about by rank ignorance on the part of our leadership.

 

Obama Losing African-American Support?

Mark Noonan4 Comments

Last week, in an update to an open thread, I linked to an article which shows that under Obama black Americans have suffered greatly, with black unemployment rising to ruinous levels.  I asked, rhetorically, if these conditions will really cause black Americans to once again award 95% of their votes to Obama.  My thinking was, yes, it would.  Though I expect black turnout to be lower in 2012 as a percentage of the total vote than 2008, I fully expected a repeat of the overwhelming support for Obama.

Perhaps I was wrong – this poll (PDF) by the Democrat-leaning PPP shows Romney gaining the support of 20% of North Carolina African-American voters.  To be sure, the polling sample of black voters is small; about 200 respondents.  But, still – my goodness!  If Romney can really win 20% of the black vote then not only is Obama doomed but about 2o or 30 House seats suddenly become “in play” for the November election (the Democrats have about that many House seats which are theirs by gift of a 90%+ black vote in favor of the Democrats…if that drops a bit, the Democrats lose the seat).  It is  poll results like this which must be costing Axelrod many a sleepless night.

Count on it that Obama will sweep the African-American vote by an overwhelming majority – but if there is really any movement to Romney then it is going to be a stunning political change.  Maybe, at the end of the day it will take a black liberal to destroy African-American loyalty to the Democrats?

As an aside, the overall poll shows Romney up 48-46 over Obama in North Carolina – in line with the “battleground” status of North Carolina for 2012.  On the other hand, the polling sample is 44% Democrat, 36% Republican.  Almost certainly on November 6th the turnout will be more in line with 40%+ GOPer and no better than 35% or so Democrat…meaning that you can add at least 5 points to Romney’s total in this poll.  I never believed stories that North Carolina was competitive for the Democrats in 2012 and I’m more certain than ever it won’t be – watch for the Democrats to pull the plug on the State right after the convention.

The Moment Obama Lost?

Mark Noonan30 Comments

From Powerline, quoting Obama:

The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments…

Three days ago the voters of Wisconsin rejected the notion that the people should pony up ever more so that government be flush with cash…and now Obama is asserting that if the GOP wants to be helpful, the way to do it is to get the people to pony up ever more so government can b flush with cash!  This goes beyond stupid – this is an egregious rejection of basic reality.  Whatever else the people might want, more government isn’t it.

If we can’t beat Obama, now, then we might as well close up shop for good.  He’s just proven himself to be completely out  of touch and in opposition to the direction Americans want to go.

Gingrich Gets it Right

Mark Noonan165 Comments

From CNN:

“I am not for a narrow victory,” he said. “I am for crushing the left in every single way.”

Gingrich was, of course, Matt’s first choice for nominee – he was my 2nd or 3rd (Santorum was always my first).  For me, Romney was a bit back there in the pack but always with the understanding that the crucial necessity is to ensure that Obama leaves office on January 20th, 2013.

The capstone for getting rid of Obama came, in my view, just recently – when it was revealed that in 1991 he was described as being born in Kenya.  Naturally, the Obamatons leaped to in action when this came out and called it a “mistake”.  But I don’t buy that – I call it a lie, instead.   Here is the key to Obama:  he’ll say or do anything to advance himself.  Back when he was just starting out being from an upper class, white Hawaiian family just didn’t cut enough liberal ice – being a foreign born son of a radical anti-British communist!  Well, that did the trick quite nicely.

From “composite” girlfriends in his autobiography (which, it would seem, millions of liberal pinheads bought but few read) to joining Wright’s racist church, Obama has merely crafted a narrative for himself as best suited his immediate needs.  And the cruelty with which he tosses aside old friends like Wright (say what you will about Wright, but have some sympathy:  for 20 years Obama and Wright were close and then Wright got in the way of the newest narrative, and he had to go) is just another indicator of the wrongness of Obama.

I don’t really know what Obama is up to – he’s up to radical leftism, but with what goal in mind, I don’t know:  I suspect there isn’t one in the traditional, political sense.  All we’re seeing now is yet another narrative, this one designed to get Obama re-elected.  After that, he’ll just go on to the next narrative – whatever makes him continue to rise up the ladder in his own estimation.  The trouble is that we need a President – someone who cares less about himself and more about the United States.  A re-elected Obama will not just pursue stupid, destructive policies, but he’ll also ignore any problem which can’t lead to more glory for Obama – and that is a recipe for national and global catastrophe.

Gingrich sees this – and sees more:  Obama must go, but the left as a whole must be crushed.  Our only task as conservatives, patriots and Americans from now until November 6th is to beat these people.  Because if we don’t, we’re going to pay too high a price for failure.

::::Sniff:::::

Leo Pusateri97 Comments

So… Ol’ Joltin’ Joe Biden gets taken out to the woodshed for just forcing poor, hapless, Barack Hussein Obama to come out of his closet for gay marriage–earlier than he had planned…

This announcement was so unplanned, in fact, that merely hours after the announcement was made, I get a fundraising email from the Obama campaign:

Image

Which has a link, that takes you to this: Image

Yep… that was no doubt a heartfelt, unplanned, sincere, off-the-cuff, “aw shucks, ya got me” courageous coming out of the closet moment for Barry, wasn’t it?

And “Rufus” is so beside himself-just so— :::sniff::: happy.. brings a tear to your eye, don’t it?

Criminy.

Obama Ad: Romney Wouldn’t Order Osama Raid

tiredoflibbs21 Comments

Hmmmmmm….. very interesting claim.

Now for some reality:

CIA MEMO REVEALS ADMIRAL HAD CONTROL OF BIN LADEN MISSION

ObAMATEUR had his A$$ covered.  If it worked he, of course, would claim credit – which he has.  And predictably, if it failed, the Admiral would have taken the blame.

Hey, obAMATEUR needed some “victory” for his administration, which is the only reason he went for it. Look at his other decisions concerning terrorists and terrorism, uh excuse me “freedom fighters” in their “man-caused disasters”. He fumbled the economy, the recovery and almost everything else.  Now, it comes to light that his so called “gutsy call” was pure unadulterated BS (not to mention it took 18 hours to make the decision in the first place).

The desperation from the White House is getting thick.  But leave it to obAMATEUR to politicize the actions of our brave men and women who carried out the dangerous attack while he sat in a conference room watching the feed. He, then takes full credit and the narrative is written on his “gutsy call” while all along he had his a$$ covered if the raid failed and he played politics with the lives of our soldiers.

Pathetic.

UPDATE:

ObAMATEUR Criticized Clinton for Using Bin Laden to Score Political Points

And I am sure his actions against Romney is something totally different.  I am sure his spokes-idiots will squirm around this question if the repeaters errrr…. reporters have the guts to ask him about this blatant hypocrisy.  Speaking of spokesidiot, it seems one is adept at spin and damage control to the pResidents blatant lies and hypocrisies, with at little lying on his own.

Nothing surprises me anymore……. but as I said before, obAMATEUR has very little positive record to run on.