Indeed. [HT: The Blaze]
Tonight, apparently, His Imperial Majesty Barack Obama I — because the legislature has displeased him — will unilaterally impose his will on the country; and on the stupid American voters who don’t know what’s best for him.
The ironic part about this situation is that Democrats claim that Republicans want to impeach Obama because he’s black. But the truth of the matter is that the entire reason Republicans *won’t* impeach Obama is because he is black; no white male president could get away with the abuses of power Obama gets away with; not just on Amnesty, but on the abuse of the IRS to target political opponents, the unilateral exemptions granted under Obamacare, running guns to Mexican drug gangs. The Democrats would like nothing more than an impeachment trial that they and their media wing could turn into “Racist GOP Impeaches First Black President.” Obama’s approval ratings may be underwater with the citizenry, but his approval ratings in the media looks like North Korean election returns.
Given how crazy U.S. political culture has become – in other words, given that too many of today’s Republicans are not that much better than Democrats, who went insane years ago – it’s a bit hard for some of us to be pleased by any political news, even news of a Republican victory.
Still, let’s all try to be pleased. What’s the best news of the 2014 election? Let us know your thoughts in the comments. For starters:
- Gov. Scott Walker survives again in Wisconsin, by a margin of several points. As the saying goes, “This is what democracy looks like!”
- Sandra Fluke goes down in California. In Florida, also defeated was the execrable Charlie Crist.
- President Obama provides humor, refusing to give his victorious opponents the traditional congratulations, and seriously claiming that tonight’s election somehow didn’t repudiate him.
- Maryland went GOP, governor-wise. Wow.
- Maybe, just maybe, the silly “War on Wymyn, they’re banning tampons!” shtick is played out? Mark “Uterus” Udall lost in Colorado, and Wendy Davis even lost Texas women by nine points. Attacking the libertarian Koch brothers is another silly Democrat tactic that failed, and is hopefully played-out now.
UPDATES (some from comments or Twitter):
- Congratulations to Mia Love (R – UT), here celebrating with her family:
- At least for now, openly gay Republican Carl DeMaio clings to a 700-vote lead, in CA’s 52nd Congressional district. (50,000 mail ballots remain to be counted.)
- Tim Scott (R – SC) is the first black Senator to be elected from the South since Reconstruction. Congratulations, Tim!
Barack H. Obama, putting down the Bush administration for allegedly being unprepared for the avian flu:
UPDATE: Powerline points out Obama’s political desperation. He recently said this:
I actually believe that capitalism is the greatest force for prosperity and opportunity the world has ever known. And I believe in private enterprise — not government, but innovators and risk-takers and makers and doers — driving job creation.
It’s not that Obama is lying – there’s nothing new, in Obama lying about his own beliefs. It’s that he’s now lying to pretend some sort of admiration for capitalism. How are the mighty fallen! Remember him saying in better times how we’ve got to “spread the wealth around”? And wanting to tell business owners, “You didn’t build that!”
THE United States has reportedly warned Zimbabwe about its growing economic dealings with Russia…
According to Herald columnist Nathaniel Manheru, who is thought to be President Robert Mugabe’s spokesman George Charamba, the Obama administration threatened further sanctions against Zimbabwe over its ties with Russia…
The US imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe in 2003, accusing Mugabe of human rights abuses and electoral fraud…
Manheru said it was ridiculous for the US to refuse to lift sanctions against Harare and then demand support for its measures against Moscow…He wrote…“This is where I am tempted to tell the American government to go and hang, hang on a banana tree, bums up.”
In 2008, left-liberals told me – explicitly and with a straight face – that electing a brown-skinned President would make us more trusted and popular, in the Third World.
President Obama acknowledged Sunday that U.S. intelligence officials “underestimated” the threat posed by the Islamic State and overestimated the Iraqi army’s capacity to defeat the militant group…
Let’s be clear: Officials who were chosen and supported by Obama. The administration of Barack Hussein Obama underestimated ISIS.
Or else, we can make this entry #39,422 in the files of “Obama pretends that he hasn’t been president all these years”. In the interview, Obama goes on to also blame Iraq’s PM al-Maliki for the problems; never himself.
One more thing. Does Obama still have the U.S. backing the world’s evil dictators? It seems so:
Obama also acknowledged that the U.S. is dealing with a conundrum in Syria, as the U.S.-led military campaign against the Islamic State is helping Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom the U.N. has accused of war crimes.
“I recognize the contradiction in a contradictory land and a contradictory circumstance,” Obama said…
Bush practically would have been impeached, for saying that. (And Bush wouldn’t have said it because Bush did what he could, to push U.S. policy in the direction of overthrowing the world’s evil dictators.)
One more thing. Has Obama made it a thing of the past, that the U.S. might strike its enemies pre-emptively (or perhaps unilaterally, as the Left calls it)? Not so much:
Obama called the threat from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and other terror groups a more “immediate concern that has to be dealt with…” “…in terms of immediate threats to the United States, ISIL, Khorasan Group — those folks could kill Americans,” he said…
Both groups have been targeted by U.S. airstrikes in recent days…
Barack Obama: Just what the Left always *accused* Bush of being. And of course, the media lets him get away with it.
UPDATE: Some Democrats agree that it was the Obama White House, more than the U.S. intelligence community, which underestimated ISIS.
Former Rear Admiral Joe Sestak, a two-term Democratic member of the House of Representatives…appeared to surprise his MSNBC interlocutor when he noted that the only people who got ISIS wrong work in the Obama administration.
“If you remember back in January and February, the head — the general, the Defense Intelligence Agency, actually testified before the House and Senate that in 2014, ISIS would take over large swaths of territory,” the Navy veteran asserted. “In fact, at the time he testified, they had already seized Ramadi and Fallujah — 35 miles from Baghdad.”
A decade ago, Fallujah was a crucial victory for the Marines (some of whom gave their lives) against an earlier version of ISIS. I guess Obama threw it back.
UPDATE: A report that Obama was warned about ISIS in 2012. As Ed Morrissey puts it:
…the US intelligence community told him of the danger at the same time Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney during the presidential debates…for wanting a residual force in Iraq to prevent exactly what Romney warned would happen.
As ISIS runs amok in Iraq and Syria decapitating Americans and committing genocide, as Libya falls to Islamists, as American, British, and German citizens rush to join up with ISIS and prepare to bring home their savage ways, as Boko Haram slaughters entire African villages, the President of the United States dithers in denial.
You have to wonder if reality has yet caught up with any of Obama’s slavering fan-boys yet.
Hot Air reminds us how, in 2008, gay Trig-Palin Conspiracy Theorist Andrew Sullivan proclaimed that Obama’s face was going to make Muslims like America, and his magical genius would transform the political dynamic in the Middle East, create lasting peace, and raise America’s internal prestige to unprecedented levels of awesome.
What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
I wonder if this seems as idiotic to Andrew Sullivan now as it did to everyone with an IQ above room temperature in 2008.
So, yesterday, the Mohammedan savages of the Islamic State (ISIS) sawed off the head of an American journalist on live video, but no one on the left seems to care very much.
President Obama does not want to deal with ISIS and makes it clear that he does so only with the greatest reluctance. Some say this is out of fear of angering the far left base of his party, but that’s not it. It’s because just a few months ago, he was trash-talking ISIS as the “JV Squad” of Al Qaeda, whom he had put “on its heels” by personally making the “gutsy call” of taking out Osama bin Laden. (Because, you see, no other president would have had the guts to do that. [Well, Bill Clinton didn’t, and he bragged about his failure to kill Osama bin Laden.]}
No, Obama does not want to deal with ISIS because their barbarity is a reminder of his own disastrous foreign policy failure. To admit that this “JV Squad” is a problem would be admitting that he underestimated them, that his policies allowed them to become a threat. His ego simply will not permit him to confront his failure; that would require admitting that he failed.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry matches his boss for egocentric narcissism. He has very little interest in ISIS, his bailiwick is “Global Warming.” Not so much because he believes it is a genuine crisis as it is because he believes that his position will win him plaudits from the New York Times editorial page, the faculty lounge at Harvard, the international elites, and his fellow yachtsmen; the people that really matter.
The Obama Administration will do little to fight ISIS unless they do something really bad, like shoot a 292 pound thug who just robbed a convenience store, or their actions become an unignorable political liability to the Democrat Party. Until such time as that happens, ISIS can go on murdering and beheading as much as they please.
After the Black Panthers intimidated white voters on Election Day 2008, Eric Holder’s Justice Department wasn’t interested. When they were running guns to Mexican Drug Gangs? A phony scandal, not worth the DoJ’s time. IRS intimidating and harassing opponents of the President? Holder appoints a big Obama donor to lead the “investigation.”
But let some dude in Nebraska create a July 4th approach that offends our thin-skinned president, and Eric Holder jumps right on the case.
The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating a float that appeared at the annual Fourth of July parade in the small town of Norfolk, Neb. because the float featured a blue flatbed truck carrying a zombie-looking mannequin in overalls on the door of an outhouse labeled “OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY.” The Justice Department sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to Norfolk.
So, let’s post this “offensive” picture and see if we can get the DoJ sicced on us, why not.
[And since someone in the comments sent me the pic, step forward and take credit.]
[P.S. It was Annie.]
One might have been tempted to think the Obama Administration had hit rock-bottom when they called Bowe Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers liars and “swift-boaters*” for disputing the Administration’s official line that Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” (Maybe with the Taliban.) That seemed to be as low they could go.
Then, somebody went and tossed them a shovel.
An administration spokesman (for the Department of Housing and Urban Development) took to Teh Twitters and called those soldiers (the ones that didn’t desert and collaborate with the Taliban)… “psychopaths.”
Name-calling has been the administration’s modus operandi for dealing with critics since Day 1. Curious as to why the president is keeping his college records secret? You’re a “birther.” Skeptical about the president’s Draconian environmental laws? You’re a “climate change denier.” And the perennial catchall for any critic of the president’s policies… “racist!”
Administration insiders apparently believe that criticism of the Bergdahl Affair has nothing to do with honest disagreement about the wisdom of turning loose five of the Taliban’s top generals for one deserter. They honestly believe it all springs from personal animosity toward the president. “[All criticism in the Bergdahl matter] Obama aides say, is in their minds a proxy for the hatred toward the president.”
How simplistic this all is. There are no genuine arguments, only personal animus. Therefore, there is no need to argue in support of policies; simple name-calling of your opponents is sufficient.
* “Swiftboat” – verb. When knowledgeable people reveal an unpleasant truth about a Democrat that contradicts the official party narrative.
In one of the most tone-deaf statements in White House history (we’re making a lot of history here), the national-security advisor, on a Sunday talk show, described Bergdahl as having served “with honor and distinction.” Those serving in uniform and those of us who served previously were already stirred up, but that jaw-dropper drove us into jihad mode.
But pity Ms. Rice. Like the president she serves, she’s a victim of her class. Nobody in the inner circle of Team Obama has served in uniform. It shows.
The president, too, appears stunned. He has so little understanding of (or interest in) the values and traditions of our troops that he and his advisers really believed that those in uniform would erupt into public joy at the news of Bergdahl’s release — as D.C. frat kids did when Osama bin Laden’s death was trumpeted.
Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.
To Team Obama, Bergdahl and the rest of those soldiers were just kids who didn’t study hard enough and got stuck in Afghanistan.
Team Obama’s latest gambit — accusing Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers of “swiftboating” him – probably won’t play very well either.
UPDATE (from Jeff): It also doesn’t help that, by his own admission, Obama broke the law in making the Bergdahl swap.
A top aide to President Obama is now apologizing to Congress for not informing lawmakers, as required by law, that the White House was planning to trade…
(Democratic Senator Dianne) Feinstein said that it was “very disappointing” that President Obama decided not to alert Congress about the deal…Feinstein said that in previous conversations with Senators about the trade, “there were very strong views and they were virtually unanimous against trade.” “The White House is pretty unilateral about what they want to do when they want to do it,” she added…
Unilateral? Whoa, did someone say the President was being “unilateral”?!
In light of the VA scandal and the announcement of a unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan, President Obama felt the need to appear “pro-military” and so gave the commencement address to the military academy at West Point.
Obama is a master in the use of the straw man argument. He attributes outrageous positions to his opponents, so as to make his own positions appear reasonable. Usually, is the formulation “Some say we should wipe out the entire state of Nebraska with a series of carpet bombings and nuclear strikes. But I believe the smarter option is to not build the Keystone XL pipeline.”
His speech at West Point, which of course was not written by him, was replete with examples of the genre.
For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism. But a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable.
No one has ever advocated invading every country that harbors terrorists.
“I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed fixing, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.”
No one has suggested that the USA’s foreign policy should be based on intervening everywhere for the sake of not appearing week.
“Of course, skeptics often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong.”
Again, “unnamed skeptics” oppose multilaterialism and following international law.
“Those who argue otherwise – who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away – are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.”
Or they’re just paying attention. Obviously, the only people who note that Iran, Russia, and China have been emboldened by American weakness and fecklessness are only doing so for reasons of “partisan politics;” there is no such thing as legitimate, rational criticism of Mr. Obama’s flawless foreign policy.
“Your charge now is not only to protect our country, but to do what is right and just.“
Because until Obama came along, what the military did was wrong and unjust.
The man is not only a megalomaniac and a narcissist, he’s also a tedious bore.
The Preezy today vowed today to make Global Warming a “top tier” issue for the rest of his presidency. (Doubtless, this will be followed by his 178th “pivot to jobs” sometime later this month.) Earlier this week, the President of France, M. Hollande, (who is a Socialist, but strangely, follows the exact same economic policies as Mr. Obama, whom we are told is not a Socialist. It’s crazy, right?) expressed the opinion that Vladimir Putin has been emboldened by Obama’s weakness and fecklessness.
These two foreign policy stories are connected through the Nexus of Obama’s enormous ego. And although Global Warming isn’t intuitively a foreign policy issue, it is the paramount global issue in the mind of the Secretary of State.
And it’s not because they really think Global Warming is a horrific menace. It’s because, more than anything else, Obama wants another Nobel Peace Prize. He’s faintly aware that his first one was essentially a participation trophy. More than anything else, John Kerry wants one of those, too; a consolation prize for losing to George W. Bush. There are two paths to this for an American President/Secretary of State:
- Get a Middle East Peace Agreement, which worked for Jimmy Carter. This requires capitulation from the Israelis, since the Palestinians will never compromise. So, getting a Mideast Peace Agreement would be really, really hard.
- Hype ManBearPig, which worked for Al Gore and was really easy; all he did was produce a movie and “write” a couple of books.
So, Global Warming becomes the central issue of Obama’s administration. As with everything else in this administration, the most important thing in Obama’s foreign policy is to ensure that Obama receives adulation for it.
Vladimir Putin knows he never will win a Nobel Peace Prize, and so this liberates him to pursue a foreign policy based on the best interests of Mother Russia. And he cares even less about Obama’s #Hashtags than he does about the Nobel Committee. He sees a weak American president twice elected, and showing him that Americans, by virtue of electing a weak president, are a weak people from whom he has nothing to fear.
“All I would say is that those have zero percent chance of working. We’re committed to moving forward with those rules,” [Obama Advisor John Podesta] said. “We’re committed to maintaining the authority and the president’s authority to ensure that the Clean Air Act is fully implemented.”
Sadly, since the Senate under Harry Reid is a rubber-stamp for Obama policy, and the House GOP Leadership is as limp and useless as [INSERT Your Own Metaphor], Congress probably won’t do anything to stop him anyway.
A fawning Obama biographer says that the Lightbringer is disappointed with the world‘s failure to yield to His Awesomeness.
“The profile [of President Obama] that I published in the New Yorker was somebody that eerily, eerily seemed to be claiming himself–it was a sense of not giving up, but of deep frustration–that was the profile that I published in the New Yorker. Somebody frustrated and disappointed,” said Remnick, who has proven to be deeply sympathetic to this president. “And that’s what’s frustrating to me sometimes about Obama is that the world seems to disappoint him,” he continued to laughter from others on the TV set. “Republicans disappoint him, Bashar al-Assad disappoints him, Putin as well.”
And Valerie Jarrett once observed that Obama had been “bored to death his whole life,” because nothing he had ever done had seemed worthy of his talents. Boredom is not the mark of a Great Intellect, but a weak one. Highly intelligent people find in the world a neverending supply of subject matter to engage the mind. It’s the really mundane people who get “bored.”
…I suppose in a nation that twice elected this schiester as president, the question answers itself to a degree.
But consider this: All winter, government spokespersons wondered, in puzzled bewilderment given the complexity and enormity of the entire enterprise of doing something that hundreds of private corporations do thousands of times daily with the ease of a bodily function, just how many people had actually so far at any point in time signed up for insurance under the ACA’s myriad state health insurance exchanges. For months on end, Secretary Sebelius and her minions, White House spokes-individual Jay Carney, even the president himself were left in befuddled speechless deer-in-the-headlights slack-jawedness over a simple question: How many people have signed up?
Nary a straight answer because…well, that sort of information is just so darned hard to come up with.
Lo! And Behold! The very day THE VERY DAY! the ball drops and all who are to receive insurance (and who haven’t fallen into about 15,832 ‘exemptions’ magically bestowed upon the populace by the benevolent dictator and his czars) must have signed up, suddenly the Administration appears from behind a magic curtain to announce that 7,100,000
subjects citizens have indeed signed up for insurance. (Precisely ‘point-one’ more than their goal!)
Suddenly those impossibe-to-know numbers are well…right there at the fingertips of the president himself. Amazing, isn’t it, how reliable and precise are the Administrative Class?
Naturally we have an adversarial press, who after six months of having been given the Heisman Stiff Arm on their queries about numbers, will raise the flag on this fascinating turnaround. Right?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from Dallas tonight, seriously, for some reason…)
In China, in Syria, in Egypt, and now in Russia we’ve seen you make strong statements, issue warnings that have been ignored. Are you concerned that America’s influence in the world — that your influence in the world — is on the decline? And in light of recent developments, do you think Mitt Romney had a point when he said that Russia is America’s greatest geopolitical foe, if not Russia, who?
The president’s response is at the link, but it doesn’t matter because it’s a word salad. At no point in the president’s rambling, incoherent response does he come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. In it, he taunts Vladimir Putin by dismissing Russia as an insignificant “regional power.” And he goes on to say he is more concerned about someone detonating a nuclear bomb in New York City. But if Russia is not a threat, and if Al Qaeda, as the president has bragged many, many times, has been defeated. Who is going to detonate this nuke? Probably the Koch Brothers, Pro-Lifers, or the Tea Party, if I understand the Democrats’ view of America’s enemies properly.
Do we all agree that, notwithstanding his penchant for distant murder-by-disembodied-aerial-vehicle, not-as-surgical-as-you’d-wish-it-were, drone strikes (what I like to call a “passive-aggressive” military policy), the president’s favored foreign policy is a preference for ‘soft power’? Which is to say, don’t you think the Obama Administration’s approach to the world is to rely more on influence than on coercion? I think he (and Secretary of State John Kerry too) would say so himself. He’d much prefer (well, either of them would, I suppose) to rely on what he considers (ahem) his extraordinarily outsized powers of charm and persuasion to win over other heads of state, rather than the inelegant and clumsy use of force to dictate his way when it comes to what other countries do.
Contrast that with his approach to the issues with America’s healthcare system.
Although I disagree with the premise (a topic for another post altogether), President Obama and the Leftist technocrats with whom he finds common cause believe in the scheme of health “insurance” and feel the third-party payment system is good because healthcare (which for some reason they feel is synonymous with health insurance) is “different” and thus not to be entrusted to market forces…then again, the things in life that should be influenced by market forces is pretty limited anyway.
Anyway. From their perspective, the answer has always been that not enough of the ‘young invincibles’ were bought into the cockamamie scheme and thus not participating, pushing the cost up due to what’s called ‘adverse selection’. Not enough people willing to pay more into a system and voluntarily get less out means that the whole thing collapses under the weight of those who are taking more than they’re putting in. It’s not even economics…it’s basic physics.
Their answer to this was (and is) that more people need to abandon their own better judgment and personal motivations and jump right in. But how to achieve that?
Well, with a super-majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House in 2009 those who know better than you pushed through the ACA without a single Republican vote in either chamber. For your own good, they forced an unpopular (at the time, and downright detested now) gigantic overhaul of an enormous chunk of our economy. Let’s call that “hard power”.
Of course, we see what hath the ACA wrought: With higher premiums than before for young and healthy individuals, those needed to save the sinking ship are now even less inclined to climb aboard. So now the very solution to the problem (as the health-insurance-scheme supporters see it) is even farther out of grasp.
This struck me as ironic because now the president and his lickspittle sycophants in the press/Leftist Hollywood/sports/entertainment/etc. are reduced to begging, pleading, brow-beating, heavy-handedly imploring every 20-something to please, please, please sign up for health “insurance” through the exchange, lest the signature program of your benighted leader fall to pieces and all we’ve worked for (WE!, not me, this is about YOU and how important all that work YOU! did on the campaign for…well, yes, me, but anyway…YOU! did to get…well, yes, me, but anyway…elected so I could serve YOU, because after all, YOU are the ones YOU’VE been waiting for, and thank goodness I came along to make YOU feel special about needing ME…oh, I mean ‘me’, but anyway….) tragically succumb to the machinations of the awful powers of cynicism and the Koch brothers and Rush Limbaugh and the War on Women, and…okay, where was I going with this? Oh, right. Please sign up for health insurance and talk about it in your pajamas with your friends at your kegger parties…
The president is in an all-out campaign to get the least-likely people to sign up for health “insurance” to…sign up for health “insurance”. But if he’d done that when he was popular (and his ACA handn’t ironically increased the price of it), couldn’t he have avoided all this?
Consider: when he was elected, Barack Obama had an incredible amount of popularity and political capital (before his inauguration, his approval rating was 79%). With that, he had the power to influence and persuade. Let’s call that “soft power”. What’s ironic is that, had he chosen to use his soft power (and been successful), he may have been able to convince a ton of the 20-something sheep who voted for CHANGE! and HOPE! to actually do things (even things against their own better interest) through the influence of this “soft power”. Who knows? It may have actually kept the system afloat.
*(No, The system still would have eventually collapsed, of course, because the problem wasn’t ever that young people weren’t buying “insurance”, rather the dis-incentive for consumers to shop for, and for providers to offer prices commensurate with their actual value…well, you know how that story goes…)
This suave and persuasive dude who had just sailed into the Oval Office because he was too cool for the room and was able to exercise the lost art of subtlety was loved by damned-near everybody in the Country. He believed in The System. He realized (believed) that the problem with it was that not enough people were active participants in it. His solution? Heavy-handedly and by force, to coerce everybody into doing what he wanted them to do.
Way to go, Cowboy!
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Ranch)
On Wednesday, V noted how President Obama set aside his own Obamacare law and decreed a delay to the “individual mandate”. (The mandate that he previously told the Supreme Court was an absolutely essential part of Obamacare.)
Thursday’s example was Obama’s plan to decree overtime pay for some 10 million who had willingly been working without it, because they are salaried employees.
It’s not a good thing. First of all, anytime the government mandates pay increases, it costs real people their jobs. While some people might get more pay, others’ pay goes to part-time, or to zero. When Obama proposed his minimum wage hike last month, even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agreed that it would cost 500,000 jobs.
But the deeper problem is that, in Barack H. Obama, we have a President who increasingly abandons constitutional, legislative and democratic processes. Throughout his administration, in issue after issue, he has declared that the rules are now different because he says so. Whether it’s ripping off honest GM bondholders, Fast and Furious, hiding information about corrupt federal prosecutors, Obamacare or countless other issues, you never can tell when this President will suddenly decide on different rules.
With this overtime change, there is serious debate about whether the President has the legal authority to do it. Some say he doesn’t; some say he does. But that means his move is dubious. And however that might be – and I say, even worse – Obama’s move makes the government interfere, once again, in arrangements that freely consenting adults had agreed on. (Liberals may want government out of the bedroom, but boy, do they want government in everything, everyone and everywhere else.)
This is one more, little thread in the tapestry of America’s decline: we have become a nation ruled by “men, not laws.” And if you think that arbitrary government doesn’t make for an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that stifles the economy, think again.
UPDATE: Allahpundit has video, as he puts it, of Obama “in 2008 promising to roll back Bush’s executive overreach because he was a law professor and knew the Constitution ‘n stuff.”.
Rep. Trey Gowdy gives an appropriate response.
Some of us are old enough to remember the ABC Afterschool Specials, which were usually (but not always) some sort of teenaged melodrama wrapped around a pedantic message about kindness and understanding, or somesuch. I was reminded of them when I saw US Secretary of State John Kerry lecture former KGB Chief Vladimir Putin that “nice people don’t invade other countries.”
Invasion is not the act of someone who is strong. It is the act of someone who is weak. @FaceTheNation
— John Kerry (@JohnKerry) March 2, 2014
This is not the way modern nations resolve problems. There is still a right set of options. Not invasion. @FaceTheNation
— John Kerry (@JohnKerry) March 2, 2014
There is a naive belief in the Obama Administration that countries can be persuaded out of acting in their strategic interests if you tell their leaders they aren’t cool and the rest of the cool kids won’t like them. What works on the Republican Leadership is much less effective against the former head of the KGB.
Mrs. Bill Clinton, by the way, has gone full Godwin’s Law on Putin. I bet the former KGB Chief is shaking in his Bruno Magli jackboots.
And apparently America’s adversaries find the whole spectacle of President Obama stomping his feet and Secretary of State John Kerry wagging his finger effing hilarious.
“The low-IQ US president and his country’s Secretary of State John Kerry speak of the effectiveness of ‘the US options on the table’ on Iran while this phrase is mocked at and has become a joke among the Iranian nation, specially the children,” said General Jazzayeri, according to Fars News Agency.
General Jazzayeri pointed to Obama’s recent statements about the number of the US troops in the region, and said, “Obama’s statements about the number of the US troops in the region and the extent of their influence are completely inexpert remarks far from the reality, and these statements can be used as the joke of the year.”
I can’t imagine that word of the first drag show to take place on an American military base has done much to frighten the Iranian military either.
Meanwhile, the president is out today campaigning for Democrats under the slogan, “If you like your minimum wage job, you can keep your minimum wage job.”