For the record, Hope n' Change is tickled pink there are laws which protect the physical safety of presidents, whether they're popular or not. And like every other freaking law on the books, including those related to immigration, we think those laws should be vigorously enforced.
Why? Because laws which have been enacted by our legally-elected representatives in Washington reflect the voice and will of the American people, tempered with the Constitutional wisdom of our nation's founders. No one should be above the law or be dismissive of the process by which laws are created or repealed.
Which brings us to His Royal Highness, The Most Excellent and Almighty Barack Hussein Obama - Hallowed Be Whichever Name He Is Currently Using.
Laws mean nothing to him. Nothing.
Not the immigration laws he just told Eric "Lapdog" Holder to stop enforcing. Not the laws which make it illegal to give guns to Mexican drug cartels. Not the laws which make it a criminal offense to leak classified intelligence for your own political gain.
Not the laws against tax fraud which Obama threw to the wind to let Tim Geither run all of our finances through his faulty TurboTax software. Nor the bankruptcy laws that Obama shredded in order to shaft GM's bondholders and give a multi-billion dollar political payoff to the United Auto Workers.
The laws against voter intimidation and hate crimes were quick to be discarded by this president when the New Black Panthers threatened voters and used racial epithets at a polling place. Laws against non-citizens voting in a presidential election? They're on the books - but Obama is going to war with Florida to keep them from being enforced.
And now, as Obama begins a frantic effort to buy votes, people are wondering what laws they should stop obeying in hopes of taking advantage of the president's growing "wheel of fortune" anti-law election giveaway policies.
Hey, don't pay your mortgage bills - Obama might forgive your debt! College loans? Hey, screw the legally required payments - Obama is hinting at fiscal amnesty for students! Thinking of giving up marijuana? Don't be stupid - word on the street is it's on the Choomer-in-Chief's "do not enforce" shortlist! And the list goes on and on...
What we're talking about here is chaos. Anarchy directed from the Oval Office. Because Barack Obama intends to win reelection even if it means burning this country and its laws to the ground.
And Hope n' Change is against that, in the strongest possible way. Because when this is no longer a nation of laws, then it sure as hell isn't the nation that generations have fought and died for.
Barack Obama should be made to answer to the American people (via Congressional action) right now whether he supports our system of laws and will demand that the Department of Justice actually enforce them. And our elected representatives must stand up now to say that unilateral declarations from the Whitehouse will not be allowed to derail our Constitutional balance of powers.
We can't wait until election day to get this settled. Because it is the election process itself which the president is actively, aggressively, and illegally working to subvert.
-
30 comments:
I agree, all the intel points to a setup for a "controversial" election day.
The mighty have always believed that laws are for little people. Obama isn't the first offender, but he certainly may be the most egregious. If the peaceful transition of power is circumvented, what have we left? Not a pretty thought.
Let them eat tacos.
I take responsibility for the preceding post -- PIMF ...
Doug Powers also takes Obama and his weasel-whisperer Plouffe to task on this outrage.
@Velcro- You have a magnificent gift for understatement.
@Angry Hoosier Dad- I prefer laws and the peaceful transition of power. The two are inseparable - which is the point I'm trying to helpfully share with the president.
@Gang of One- Well, there's no need to add hot sauce to those tacos; I'm hot enough already. And I'm amazed that Plouffe can say that this sudden amnesty is "not politically motivated" without bursting into flame, being hit by lightning, or being turned into a pillar of salt. Or a pillar of something else that starts with "s" and ends with "t."
An imperial presidency, on steroids
The president's recklessness with regard to his understanding of his powers is growing in inverse proportion to his standing in the polls. As he falls farther and faster, and as crack-ups pile up, from "the private sector is doing fine" to his mistake-by-the-lake speech in Cleveland, he reaches wildly for any handle on which to hold and any special interest to which goodies can be delivered.
Same-sex marriage? You bet. The Dream Act? Why not? Recess appointees when the Senate isn't in recess? But of course.
A desperate and angry president can't even handle a boorish reporter without visible pique? Whatever happened to the maxim that the essence of good taste is never to be offended by bad taste?
Not with this president, not in this bunker, not during this campaign or, God forbid, after his re-election.
"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."
I expect this particular constitutional tsunami to simply wash over congress and leave nothing but sand and seashells in its wake. I long ago lost faith in he "new breed of conservatives" who entered congress in 2010. When exercising selectivity for this supposed new breed, they apparently once a gain selected for spinelessness. Case in point: why is Holder being given additional time with Fast & Furious documents when his department is clearly in contempt of congress; is clearly corrupt and subverting law to Øbama's whim? They fear the call of "racist" more than they love the rule of law, that's why. You'll see no calls for censure or impeachment, of this I'm certain...
@Alan Markus- Nice link and good article. Our "constitutional scholar" of a president has tossed that noble document out the window in favor of self-proclaimed monarchy.
@Anonymous- I think you've just quoted the Oval Office desk sign which has replaced "the buck stops here."
@Emmentaler- Obama, Holder, and the Left are are playing the "Get Out of Jail Free" Race Card. Which not only shows their embrace of racism, but their disdain for black citizens who might actually suffer from real racism.
@Alan Markus, et al -- The following quote explains a great deal of the madness we are witnessing:
"The greatest irony of the post-modern Left is not just their incoherent marriage of Nihilism with intense moral indignation and self-righteousness, but their habit of hanging this mess on Nietzsche and Marx -- Nietzsche, who saw Nihilism as the greatest danger and challenge of the age and who dismissed "that cheapest of propaganda tricks, a moral attitude," and Marx, for whom moral scruples were artifacts of bourgeois consciousness and who would have despised the sneering bureaucratic elitism of the privileged and parasitic academic class that most assiduously promotes Marxism -- on top of Nietzsche again, who disparaged "the commune, the most primitive of all social forms."
What makes sense of this, however, and what the Left, Nietzsche, and Marx all have in common is clear enough: the worship of power. A command economy appeals to those who believe they should govern everyone and everything with absolute power, who can then also say anything, however absurd or self-contradictory, and then simply require, by law and force, in the purest Orwellian fashion, as we already see nascent at American universities, that everyone believe it."
Enklinobarangus
Even more damning and compelling ...
Obama and those who finance his cause are industriously working to render the Constitution null and void. If Obamacare is allowed to stand, nothing he does will be outside of the law. He will be the LAW of the land - limited government will be replaced with unlimited government intervention in all aspects of our lives - he must be defeated to prevent the greatest threat to America since Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt.
Even from his own mouth, Obama said he does not have the authority to suspend deportations.
One of the oldest dead white guys, Aristotle sez: No rule of law, no government.
Got it?
Where is congress? Why is there NO ONE to challenge what this SOB is doing? Has everyone completely gone to sleep or are they all too scared to stand up to his crap? *sigh*
"When the wicked rule, the people mourn." I'm in deep mourning.
While attending a local Tea Party rally in 2009 keynote speaker Alan Keyes made the comment," I know what you're thinking, We'll get them back at the next election. He continued... What makes you think there's going to be another election? " Now I know what he was talking about.These are very dangerous times we live in.
I spoke without really thinking about this...it's not up to congress to take care of the jerk in chief, it's up to the American people to take care of IT come November. I pray to God that we can indeed take care of IT and boot him right out of the whitehouse (if his big head will fit through the door!).
This year's union song:
So look for the Raaaaacist label
on evry Pres-i-dent you buy!
Late at night I have thoughts. Scary thoughts. Crazy thoughts. And then I read the comments here and realize that maybe I'm not so crazy after all.
Or maybe I am, but at least I'm not the only one. Thank you, Stilton.
Belatedly signed,
Hog Whitman
I actually would like to know who IS responsible to stop a president who goes completely off the ranch? I'm being serious here, as I really don't know.
Say BO comes out tomorrow and declares the 2nd ammendment void and sends the national guard out to start collecting guns. Now we can't exactly wait until an election to vote him out, can we? There has to be something in the checks and balances system that gives SOMEBODY the authority to stop a rogue president. Whoever the hell that is needs to wake the eff up and shit or get off the pot!
Darrell Issa is doing a great job of putting the heat on that slimeball Holder. Maybe he needs to set his goals a bit higher?
Fletcher Christian to the foredeck please... paging Fletcher Christian...
ObamaCare is really unpopular. So if the Supreme Court doesn't toss it, does this mean that President Romney can just not enforce it too? And will he get such accolades from the media for doing so?
@Gang of One- Great quotes and links. Thank you!
@Irene Peduto- I couldn't agree more. If the "commerce clause" insanity is allowed to stand by the Supreme Court, then there is literally no limit on governmental power over our lives - making the Constitution moot. This is not an "unintended consequence" of Obamacare; it is the goal of Obamacare - which has always been about power and redistribution of wealth, and never about healthcare.
@BS Footprint- Aristotle? Wasn't he some guy who married Jackie Kennedy?
@Cookie- I'm with you: I'd like to see something like righteous hysteria taking place in the GOP leaders instead of just a bored shrug. I genuinely don't understand their cowardice. Or maybe I just don't want to.
@Kevin Cox- I agree with West, and have been saying something similar to people who (understandably) aren't too excited by Romney. I'm not sure we'll get a shot at another election in 2016 if we don't kick the anti-Constitutionalist out of office ASAP.
@Kyle Kiernan- I don't think any president in my lifetime has been as bad for black Americans as Barack Obama.
@Hog- Nope, you're not crazy. But it is disorienting to keep hearing politicians and alleged journalists telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes.
@Colby- That's a great question... and one people should be asking seriously right now.
@Hog- Mutiny on the OBammy!
@John the Econ- Wouldn't it be great if things were that simple? But unfortunately, simply choosing to "not enforce" Obamacare wouldn't undo the already-spreading damage and root-rot in our healthcare system.
By the way, there are currently reports that if the SCOTUS throws out the mandate, insurance rates will immediately go up by 20% to cover all the unfunded "perks" Obama is requiring the insurance companies to provide, and insurance companies will be able to deny coverage to anyone with a preexisting condition. Which sort of boils down to Obamacare meaning higher costs for the suckers (like me) who've always paid for insurance, no coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and out of control costs to taxpayers for the uninsured who will continue to use emergency rooms. What a nightmare.
@Cookie: No, you were entirely correct in your first post. The first time Øbama stepped on the separation of powers, the house should have been in his face, and then drawing up impeachment papers if he didn't back down. Unfortunately, that occurred under Bela Pelosi, that player of the most horrible creatures. That nothing has been done to date precipitated my tsunami comment above. No spine; in fear of public opinion. Protecting their re-election chances by avoiding that racist label. Sound anything at all like what the supposed "tea party candidates" campaigned on? No. Not to me, either.
And, to your second post: that we have to deal with such blatant disregard for the rule of law - such egregious behavior through an election (and the Keyes comment mirrors my fears exactly - you can never be assured that there will ever be another election, even in good times), is the travesty here. No-one in Washington except those military personnel stationed and assigned there are fulfilling the oath they took to the constitution and laws of this country - particularly that illegitimate child in the white house.
@Cookie and Stilton -- Here you go:
"The modern Republicans lack the courage of their (presumed and sometimes expressed) convictions. They usually praise the New Deal and make no real effort to restore Constitutional government. This has effectively made them co-dependents and enablers for the Democrats. Ronald Reagan at least promised to abolish the Department of Education, but then didn't, and didn't even seem to try very hard to do so. George W. Bush even vastly expanded the power and funding of the Department in his "No Child Left Behind" act. The complaint of the Democrats, of course, was that the Department still didn't get enough power or funding (nothing, to be sure, will ever be enough), while at the same time the act made some moves towards requiring competent teachers -- anathema to the Teachers Unions. But it is local control and educational choice (vouchers, etc.) that will keep the schools honest, not ultra vires Federal control."
Here is the rest. Scroll down a slight ways...read it all for it is good.
Stilton,
Oh yes! We need to take the question seriously and act. But to belabor a point, I seriously do not know who is responsible for challenging a president who is blatantly breaking the law of the Constitution. Whoever that person is needs to be getting inundated with letters, emails and phone calls. I want to do my part, but who to send the letters too....?
John the Econ,
Romney has said numerous times that he will issue Obummercare waivers to all 50 states. Fine and dandy, Mr. R, but what about those states that don't WANT waivers? I am frevently hoping and praying that the SCOTUS will pitch the whole damn thing straight to the dumpster. That would cause some chaos, as Stilton pointed out, but there would be no scrambling by the dickweeds in DC to patch up what is left and stick THAT down our throats. If there is anything worse than Obummercare, it's Frankencare.
@Colby -- from the same essay I linked to:
"In one key area the social conservatism of Republicans undermines a principle that otherwise should be a matter of prime commitment for them. The issue concerns the drug laws. All Federal laws prohibiting certain drugs are unconstitutional. This used to be well understood. When Congress wanted to prohibit opium in 1913 or marijuana and cocaine in the 1930's, they wrote the bills as tax laws (Catch 22 laws where it was impossible to legally pay the tax -- laws whose dishonesty raises a different question), since it was universally believed that the Federal Government did not have the authority to simply prohibit some kind of drug. The Supreme Court had ruled the opium law Constitutional on the grounds that it was a tax law. The prohibition of alcohol was effected by a Constitutional Amendment (the 18th, repealed by the 21st Amendment). Nevertheless, by the 1960's, the use of the Commerce Clause to regulate all activities that might "affect" commerce, led to the idea that the Federal Government had the authority to pass laws about anything -- since anything could be construed to "affect" commerce in some way.This was actually the end of Constitutional Government, since it meant that the Federal Government was no longer a government of limited and enumerated powers but a government of absolute and unlimited powers."
Stilton: When it just looked like Obamacare would pass, my insurance co-pay went from $180 to $320/mo. in ONE YEAR! An increase of 77.7%! I don't think the word "affordable" means what they say it means. Taking back our language should be one of our first priorities... right after we reestablish honesty and truth.
Stilton, you sly devil - you managed to hack the Obama site. Has to be you - no one else could come up with something like this:
Obama Event Registry
Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?
Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.
Setting up and sharing your registry page is easy—so get started today.
Post a Comment