WHAT ELSE IS A MONARCH TO DO WHEN CONGRESS JUST WON’T LET HIM HAVE HIS WAY?
“Yes we can!” No you couldn’t. ”Pass this bill!” No they didn’t. “We can’t wait!” Neither can we - for you and your sorry regime to move out of the White House in 14 months.
While the boy king has mused multiple times about how much easier “things” (destroying America) would be if he were only king -not to mention the times he has actually behaved like one - the failure of his miserable “jobs bill” was apparently the last democratic straw for our would-be potentate. Said the pretender-to-the-throne last week:
“We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.”
Let us play a short game of “connect the dots,” shall we? Barack Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he announced his silly “jobs bill.” He knew it didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of even sniffing passage. Hell, he didn’t even want it to pass; passage would have denied him yet another opportunity to play “pin the blame on the Republicans.”
(It occurred to me as I was writing this that “pin the tail on the donkey” is ironic; is “donkey” defined as “Democrat” or “jackass” in this instance?) Anyway, remember – this guy’s singular purpose is reelection.
Furthermore, the sole intent of his latest disingenuous campaign trip around the country – during which he extolled sock-puppet Obamanites to ”help me get this thing passed” was a complete crock of crap as well; the only objective of this blatant charade was to once again position the evil Republicans as standing in the way of yet another brilliant Obamabill that could have changed America as we know it – all for the (socialistic) good, of course.
So, where does this leave us? Captain Queeg must now do what any supreme commander worth his weight in strawberries would do; he must rule by edict. That lovable little lad, Jay Carney admitted as much Monday:
The boy king will “continue” to act “administratively” without congressional authorization to “benefit the American people.” as part of the White House’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign.
“He [the boy king] fully understands that the kinds of things that are contained within the American Jobs Act require Congressional action, require laws being passed…but he can also act independently or, rather, administratively, [Freudian slip] and exercise his executive authority to benefit the American people in other ways. And he will continue to do that.”
The incredulity of that statement is mind-boggling: Carney is telling us that Barrack Hussein Obama – and Barack Hussein Obama alone - knows what is in the best interest of the American people – following crushing defeat of a bill that he knew would not pass before he announced it. (Just as he “knew” – in his infinite wisdom – that it was time to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, and that it was up to him alone to determine against whom existing immigration laws should be (selectively) enforced.)
By the way, “American people” can be defined here as “American people who will vote for me if I support this initiative.”
As was reported by The New American last week, Lord Obama plans to circumvent the legislative process by issuing executive orders and other directives - at least one per week for the remainder of the year. (So let it be written, so let it be done.)
“This isn’t just a figurative slap in the face to both Congress and the rule of law; this is a kick in the groin,” according to American Thinker’s Mark J. Fitzgibbons. “The President, after all, is only to recommend [to Congress] consideration of such measures as he shall judge ‘necessary and expedient’” and to take care that the ‘laws be faithfully executed,’ according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. ‘All legislative powers’ are vested in Congress, says Article I. From a legal standpoint, therefore, Obama may only prod and plead with Congress to enact his agenda; he may not enact it by fiat.“
Little Jay sees things differently:
“He is simply acting to help the American people, whether it’s with their mortgages, their student loans, their access to vital drugs, assisting businesses to speed up the process by which they get a, you know, contracts – with their payments from the federal government. These are all measures he can take administratively, and he will continue to take them.”
Therein lies the supreme arrogance – and desperation of the Obama Regime to remain in power; the court jester is telling us that Obama’s opinion as to what’s good for “the American people” is beyond reproach - democracy be damned; the boy king will act as sovereign when all else fails.
When a failed president cannot run on his record; when he surmises (correctly) that merely attacking the opposition (his enemies) will not suffice; he must pull out all the stops; he must become king – and hope that there are enough loyal subjects left to pick up the pieces next November. Let us hope (and work like hell to make sure) that there are not.
^
Besides, he was right about his stimulus package, huh?
The Sage
Steve
E the Wise
DFV the Scribe
hairybeast
Mo K.
Sting the Away
Rudy
Voice of Reason
Anthony Rogers
Vérité
Isaiah's Cry
danagall
Hal Jordan
The Rat
Aquinas Shrugged
jackcurtis
a west texas view
pino
Cultural Limits
Regalo Di Spine
Tokyo Tengu
Short Little Rebel
AWOL Civilization
SeePamBlog
rogueoperator
provider4many
jimmullen1
thomaspaine2nd
badoracle
ljponders
weeicemon
Daniella Nicole
plainansimple
It’s worth noting that, over the past 80 years, Obama has issued the fewest number of Executive Orders. He has issued an average of 31 per year, less than the past thirteen presidents.
It’s also worth noting that, over the past 80 years, this president is more committed to wealth redistribution than all other presidents combined.
Debatable.
Name ONE who comes even close…
Which metric(s) are you using to determine the various levels of “[commitment] to wealth distribution”?
Rat-logic is laser light in this dark: His mightiness the Prez is now campaigning against the Republicans AND the Congressional Democrats who won’t buy his snake oil. (Not that they’re not snakes, but they’re afraid of their voters.)
Now if the Supremes come down against ObamaCare, he’ll be able to run against the whole American government, excluding himself.
In the meantime, what does a king do when he no longer trusts his nobles?
That’s an easy one: Do a Stalin, a nice purge will do the job. Also I smell a Caesar. Caesar ignored the Roman Senate and acted in “the best interest of the Roman People”. Sound familiar? In the end Caesar declared himself dictator thus destroying the Roman Republic. How is this going to end? I don’t know but it could end badly for our republic.
The reason people don’t see it is that we received this in small dosages over a period of a century until we became desensitized to this sort of thing.
In the meantime, what does a king do when he no longer trusts his nobles?
Leper colony?
With all due respect…:)…a more apropo historical figure comparison might well be the English Prince Regent of the late 18th/early 19th centuries. Bonaparte at least knew how to win on a battlefield and con the pope at the time to crown him (let’s face it, Napolean had a Charlemegne complex). O’idiot would do either. The Prince Regent only knew how to party and spend his father’s money.
Just sayin’.
Yep, although he’s got a bit of Queeg in him too.
I meant Obama wouldn’t do either.
Teaches me for commenting after a long rehearsal with a French conductor (he was actually quite entertaining).
I seriously believe that while Obama ‘s local intent is to dismantle Capitalism, his broader intent is to rule the World…seriously. His initial presence on the world stage was to apologize for us, then to use words to unite us all as Citizen’s of the World…then destabilization, then IMF…Nobel…I smell a diaper parading around as King Wannabe.
Mostly the standard stuff – some of which, when considered individually, don’t appear to be all that bad, but when looked at cumulatively tell a different story.
ObamaCare is as much about wealth redistribution and control by the federal government as it is about healthcare.
The assault on big business and the desire to eliminate capital gains taxes for all intent and purposes.
His ridiculous “the rich need to pay their “fair share” mantra; when is enough, enough?
His position on illegal aliens, as it relates to amnesty, ObamaCare, and various other types of government “support.”
His continual use of class warfare tactics are designed to fire up the Kool Aid drinkers, which he knows is at least partially responsible for the increased “activity” by unions, the goofy OWS protesters and more.
“Metrics” or not; this president is, again, the most socialist-leaning of them all. He makes George McGovern look conservative.
Well, you need some sort of quantifiable metric if you are to claim that Obama is the “most” of anything. It’s the basis of comparison. Otherwise, it’s just baseless rhetoric. But we’ll tread onward.
First, your claims on “ObamaCare” are not founded in reality. But I welcome you to state your case if you believe it to be true. Second, there is no “assault on big business”. In fact, profits are up significantly. And Misters Cain and Perry have both recently come out in favor of eliminating capital gains taxes, so I’m missing you on that point.
Third, raising the tax rate a couple of percentage points on the highest brackets is hardly Socialism. It’s simply a progressive tax system. In fact, New York City has had a “millionaires tax” for some time now without their secession from the US to join Castro’s Cuba.
And finally, both sides are guilty of fanning the “class warfare” flames. So the argument is moot.
Keep in mind that claims of “Socialism!” and “wealth redistribution!” have been common in our national history. At each point in history, something, according to one group or another, has been leading the country into ruin. Medicare, Social Security, alcohol, even racial integration of schools were all touted as leading the country to destruction.
And yet…….still here.
Well, well, well. Someone likes to make up their own reality instead of living in the real world. We’ll play the unwinnable game of trying to deprogram you of your statist lies, but this is a task even Sisyphus would balk at.
1. The government incrementally seizing one-sixth of the U.S. economy is “wealth redistribution” and “control.” Even a caveman can understand this, to riff off the ad slogan.
2. If “profits” are up, how are we defining “profit”? The government bailing out businesses? Inflation via the money supply? Stimulus? Green job subsidies? Ethanol subsidies? Take away growth of unproductive desk jockey government jobs, the lean-on-your-shovel ready union jobs, and the advertisement of the “stimulus” program, and that leaves actual “profits” of zilch, and actually, huge losses in virtually every sector of the economy. This reality is reflected in stagnant GDP figures.
3. There is nothing “progressive” about incrementally strangling the job creators in the productive economy. We already had a “progressive” income tax system, and in case you haven’t noticed, it has failed miserably. The tax stratification was even more pronounced in the Great Depression, when FDR jacked up top bracket rates to around 70%, triggering another market crash in 1937. But I’m not going to try to pound a square peg in a round hole. If you don’t understand that the rich create jobs and profit more when their money is being put to work, and they enjoy things more when they are buying things, then I am not going to waste my time on this point.
4.The right does not engage in “class warfare” arguments. In fact, those on the right make the converse argument: class warfare is a figment of people’s imagination, at least in a more or less free market economy. However, we are going towards less of one. You cannot seriously argue that what we have been seeing in this country lately is anything even close to free market capitalism. Where are the private property rights? Where is the sound money? Where is the allowance of firms to succeed or fail on their own merits, i.e. free and fair competition? There isn’t any. And that is why upward mobility is being killed by elitists and statists like yourself.
Leftists unwittingly are supporting policies that recreate feudalist class stratification. That is why it’s called “the road to serfdom,” baby.
“RogueOperator”, there seems to be quite a bit of animosity there. I’m all for discussion, but not for hostile antagonism.
1. The government is not “seizing” anything. The health care law increases regulation but still relies on the free market.
2. Profit as, well, profit. It is a narrowly-defined term and not exactly ambiguous. And profits are up.
3. The 1929 market crash occurred when the top rate was 25%. And the top tax rate in the 1950s was 91% and no market crash occurred. Recessions can’t quite be tied directly to income tax rates.
4. The whole “job creators” meme has been overplayed, similar to the “government takeover of health care” slogan. Only 1.9% of small business owners qualify for the top two tax brackets.
The condescension is outstanding; part of why I do this, you know; never tire of it. Your president has never understood the difference between campaigning and governing; wasn’t he supposed to be the savior (lower-case “s”) to “reach across the aisle” and work with “the other side?”
Along with his desire to remake America in the (failed) European model stands his commitment to class warfare; but then again, they go hand-in-hand, don’t they?
Spare us future “education.”
The President doesn’t need Executive orders. He just does what he wants, whether in the DOJ, DHS, or other executive branches (like his refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act). He refused to obey a court order forbidding his moratorium on offshore drilling. And the fact that his “czars” have not been confirmed by the Senate, which is constitutionally granted the right to “advise and consent” to executive branch appointees. But that’s just being a good little progressive-statist hack, so that doesn’t really count as being authoritarian.
Bush issued more signing statements than all other presidents combined. He ignored the law when Congress told him stop waterboarding suspected terrorists, not convicted terrorists, SUSPECTS. According to Cheney in his autobiography, Bush intended to invade Iraq even if Congress said no. He was ready to be impeached.
Why are 25% of US children hungry? Because the Republicans in Congress refuse to stimulate the economy in the hopes of defeating Obama in 2012. Sorry it won’t work. The GOP does not have a viable candidate, and you can’t defeat someone with no one. You will have Barack Obama around for 4 more years.
Too far gone to debate, huh?
We aren’t keeping score as to “who issued the most signing statements” now, are we? (Previous comments in the thread have already addressed this.) Waterboarding was not – and is not – illegal; your self-righteous president banned its use in 2009.
Isn’t it hysterical how the loons define tax increases as “stimulating the economy?” Please give us ONE EXAMPLE of an an economy being “stimulated” by tax increases? Cutting spending and reducing deficits? Now, we’re talking.
Nice job with the “25% of children hungry” nonsense, but I’ve got a feeling liberal scare tactics aren’t going to work in 2012.
Waterboarding is illegal in US civil and US military law, in 1968 US soldiers were court martialed and convicted, in 1983 the Reagan DOJ won a conviction of a Texas Sheriff for waterboarding his prisoners. The judgement was upheld on appeal.
It is also illegal under international law.
It is not definitively illegal under U.S. law. Period. You guys can obfuscate and try to connect all of the dots you wish; it is NOT illegal.
As for international law? Too bad, huh?
Spending money is stimulating the economy. If the wealthy are not spending, then tax away some of their savings and spend it to stimulate the economy. Cutting spending and reducing deficits will prolong the recession or make it worse.
If your child or your parents living on a fixed income were going hungry, you would be concerned too. Try seeing the world as it is as experienced by the less fortunate. Too many of them live in the USA and they all can’t be sent back to Mexico because most of them are US citizens.
Democrats’ definition of “spending money” and the definition of “spending money” in a free economy are two entirely different propositions.
“Cutting spending and reducing deficits will prolong the recession or make it worse.”
This is a PERFECT example of why I opened my last comment to you with “too far gone to debate.”
So in your household, if you were to get behind on your bills and reach the brink of bankruptcy, you would “keep spending” and increasing your debt to “fix it,” huh? Wow.
The silly notion of “taxing away some of their savings” is awesome. Two points: The wealthy already pay a disproportionate percentage of their income to wealth redistribution. Second, the Obama Regime could take 100% of the income of the rich and it wouldn’t fix this mess. This is reality, not liberal political lies. (If you need a refresher, visit the footer of my personal blog for a bit of education.)
I believe, as does an overwhelming percentage of “the rich,” that we must always help the less fortunate who cannot (vs. will not) help themselves; this argument has NEVER been about that. What it HAS been about, at least from me, is this:
No government – or economy – can exist by balancing the costs of those who will not work – and the cost of a cradle-to-grave society on the backs of the “wealthy.” It has never happened in the history of civilization.The “rich” in this country, for the most part, are NOT the Wall Street “villains” that the OWS loons wail about; they are honest, hard-working small-business owners who employ in excess of HALF of America’s workers.
Secondly, the liberal elites have used ‘political lies’ (liberals saying things they know aren’t true for the sole purpose of patronizing the less-than-informed for political gain) FOR DECADES. Scare tactics and placating minorities are their only means of remaining in power.
Listen, this is like a Christian and an atheist, or a pro-lifer and pro-”choicer” debating; at the end of the day, the ball is never moved an inch. Trust me; I’ve been down this road many times; it’s a complete waste of time and energy.