King Barack?

During President George W. Bush’s tenure as POTUS there were many Liberals who liked to deride him by calling him, “King George,” and were often found whining and gnashing their teeth over his “Imperial Presidency.” Those were doing so claimed that their issue was that President Bush was expanding the powers of the Presidency, largely through the profligate use of Executive Orders to bypass the will of Congress.

One is forced to wonder if any of these myrmidons of the Left will have enough courage of their convictions to complain about “King Barack” in the same or at least similar manner?

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we’ll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office.  More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket.  That’s why I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad.  This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem.  The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission.  So I’ll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.

— King Barack Hussein Obama
2010 State Of The Union Address

On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, the US Senate declined to approve and pass a bill that President Obama wanted passed into law. His response was, on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 – the next day – to boldly and very publicly declare that he would defy and bypass the entirety of the Legislative branch of the US government and create his desired fiscal commission by Executive Order.

King Barack indeed! I guess he’s been listen the filth, Valerie Jarrett, too much and has decided to take power and rule.

If the Left actually had any principles, there would be outrage over this. There won’t be though since the Left has very few, if any, principles.

Tags: | | | | | | | |

12 Responses to “King Barack?”

  1. Charles Sifers Says:

    Couldn’t have said it better. Check out my comment on the SOTU, in the notes of my FB page.

  2. jonolan Says:

    Thank you, Charles, and I did check out – and responded to – the note on your FB page.

    Since you’re coming in via FB, if you later decide that you really like Reflections From A Murky Pond, you could use my FB Application to add a small box to your profile to help you stay current.

  3. Ryan Mason Says:

    You don’t mention at all the reasons why some people may have bestowed the nickname of “King George” onto President George W. Bush. I was never one of that ilk, but the truth remains that Bush and Cheney expanded the executive branch to Constitution-breaking levels. He wasn’t a king, but the point was that he was overstepping his legal bounds as president with the authorization of wiretapping Americans and the implementation of torture on terror suspects.

    To my knowledge, issuing an executive order is well within the legal limits of the executive branch, so long as the order itself is legal. Bush’s actions and Obama’s actions are not even remotely in the same realm. Regardless, if your argument is that Obama’s executive order itself is against the law, then why do you paint Bush to be falsely accused and wrongfully betrothed with the “King” moniker when he’s just as guilty then of the same infraction? If Obama’s actions are out of line, then you shouldn’t be defending Bush against the “myrmidons of the Left” and instead calling him out for the exact same things. To not do so is hypocritical.

  4. jonolan Says:


    Why should I bother attacking Bush. He’s out of office and there are still plenty of others eager to still do that, yourself obviously included.

    You’re right though; Bush’s actions and Obama’s actions are not even remotely in the same realm. Bush never used an Executive Order to directly defy Congress and nullify the result of their votes. He also never issued a Executive Order that applied to actions of other than the Executive, which Obama recent declaration might do.

    You can’t twist this one just because you hate Bush and like Obama, though I’m sure you and the other Leftists will keep trying.

    Since Bush was wrong in your minds for doing what he did, Obama has to be claimed to be wrong as well or your – unsurprisingly – lacking in principles and it’s just amoral, partisan politics as usual. The weight of hypocrisy rests on the sagging shoulders of those who first complained about Bush and now fail to do so about Obama.

  5. zhann Says:

    While I agree with Mason that Bush’s actions and Obama’s aren’t even within the same league, my knowledge of executive rights seem to be lacking in this area. Do you feel what he did wrong because of a legal issue, or a moral concern?

    I know little of the legislature in question here, but it seems all Obama did was to allow a commission to be formed, am I correct?

    Please note, I am not trying to argue a point here, I am simply seeking clarification at this point. Of course, I reserve the right to argue a point in the not so distant future if I feel the answers justify argument 😉

  6. jonolan Says:

    Personally, I don’t strongly feel that Bush or Obama “did wrong” by their use of Executive Orders. I feel that the Left is wrong, unprincipled, and hypocritical for deriding Bush over it but lauding Obama for it.

    As to the legal scope of executive orders – that’s a matter of great contention among legal scholars and politicians within the Beltway. The limit of the scope of such things is not precisely defined, being based heavily upon the terse wording of Article II, Section 3, Clause 4 of the US Constitution.

    He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

    Indeed, the only firm decision made on the topic was by the SCOTUS in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that limited the power of the POTUS to seize private property without either specifically enumerated authority under Article 2 of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress.

    Essentially, President Truman tried to fully nationalize the US steel industry and the SCOTUS told him he couldn’t do that except in execution of a law passed by Congress, which was nonexistent.

    The only other executive order that has been overturned by the courts was in 1996 when Clinton tried to prevent the US government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.

    Perhaps though the best example of how far a President can go with an executive order – apparently unless his name is Bush – when there is a perceived threat to America is President Abraham Lincoln who used executive orders to control the press, suspend the right of trial and the right to be confronted by accusers, and other constitutional rights during the Civil War.

    Do Lincoln’s actions sound familiar to you, zhann?

  7. Ryan Mason Says:

    I wasn’t saying that you should deride Bush – clearly you have no desire to challenge him or his policies – only that I find it hypocritical to attack Obama for something that Bush did while essentially defending Bush for being harassed all the time by liberals. Again – if one of their executive orders is against the law, then so be it and that should not be allowed. When Clinton overstepped the law with an executive order in 1996, it was overturned. The same could be done if Obama’s order is as egregious as you say it is.

    Regardless, I never outright defended Obama with impunity. I only pointed out the lopsidedness in your issues with Obama. You blame liberals for not blaming Obama, but you’re just as guilty of the same type of bias in not blaming Bush.

  8. jonolan Says:

    You miss my point, Mason. I didn’t particularly blame Bush his actions involving executive orders and I don’t particularly blame Obama for his – though it’d be interesting to see how he would justify an executive as furtherance of a law Congress passed when Congress rejected the bill in question.

    I blame the Liberals for blaming Bush and not similarly blaming Obama.

    Get it?

  9. Elizabeth Parker Says:

    I agree! Politics is all hypocrisy. While the left criticized all aspects of the Bush presidency, as soon as Bomama was elected so many people told me that we should all support him simply just because “he’s our president”- it’s the most un-American thing I’ve ever heard. Dissent is the essence of America, especially when it comes to protecting our system of government and our rights from the whims of a tyrannical president.

  10. jonolan Says:

    Welcome, Elizabeth. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

    You’ve the sad right of it; politics is all hypocrisy, or, at the very least, political attacks are so since almost all politicians are equally venal. It’s just gotten worse and more blatant in the last 6 years or so.

  11. Elizabeth Parker Says:

    It does seem that each one gets worse than the last. I read this and thought of this post:

    “Obama Can Blame Bush All He Wants, But His Budget Is Even Worse”

  12. jonolan Says:

    Yes, that – both your comment and the article – pretty much sums it up.

    One thing though, Obama is the first one to continue to incessantly blame his predecessor for everything. Others, Bush Jr. included, blamed their predecessors at first, but then stopped after the had taken some steps to “correct” the situation. Obama just keeps on blaming and blaming and blaming everyone else.

    One wonders what his childhood was like and if his grandmother made too many excuses for him and let him off when he failed because it just wasn’t his fault, him being a mixed-race orphan and all…

Leave a Reply