Reflections From a Murky Pond

Once again Obama has had an appointment with failure. Once again the boy willfully violated the constitution in his quest for the trappings of authority, and once again the SCOTUS shot him down like a rabid dog.

The SCOTUS, in ruling upon Noel Canning v. NLRB, unanimously held that Obama’s appointment appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were invalid and an unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional authority.

That’s right! All nine Supreme Court Judges, even the Liberal ones, ruled against his illegal actions.

My fellow Americans, the SCOTUS in affirming the rulings of the lower courts in this matter, has solidly and bluntly put forth the legal ruling that Obama directly and willfully violated the Constitution of the United States of America and, in so doing, directly and willfully violated his Oath of Office.

I believe that this qualifies as “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. A 9-0 SCOTUS ruling definitely makes Obama’s guilt a legal fact as opposed to a matter for prosecution and question. Can we now moved to the boy’s impeachment, please?

Tags: America | Constitution | Constitutional Law | Failure | Impeachment | Obama | Politics | Separation of Powers | Tyranny | US Supreme Court

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 26th, 2014 at 12:34 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Obama has, of late, been talking tough and making threats to act independently of Congress to enact his agenda for domestic policies through various executive orders. To many the boy is coming across as and angry, trash-talking would-be tyrant. To others, mostly those who believe they’ll benefit from his agenda, he’s likely coming across as a dynamic reformer who seeking to succeed despite the efforts of his – and theirs – avowed enemies.

Obama’s Year Of Action

But the thing is that Obama may talk a lot and quite severely and defiantly, as if he strives to be the tyrant and take power and rule over America without interference from Congress, but his actions, or lack thereof, mean that this is just posturing – all presentation and little performance.

But then Obama has always talked like he wanted to turn longstanding traditions upon their heads as it were and create his own paradigm. In this case he just seems to be twisting President Theodore Roosevelt’s famed adage, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick,” into his own lamentable, “Speak loudly, and carry a small twig.” – at least when it comes to Executive Orders (EOs).

No, Obama doesn’t seem to actually be the type to stand up and openly defy both Congress and the constitutionally mandated Separation of Powers in order to achieve something…anything. At the very beginning he started out that way but one of his first EOs, directing the NIH to develop revised guidelines on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, was overturned in federal court because it was illegal and he backed off on such things. Since then most, though certainly not all, of his EOs having been non-meaningful and within the limits the Constitution sets for his powers as POTUS.

The primary exception to this is the boy’s misuse of the War Powers Act to wage foreign wars at the bequest of foreign governments without the approval of Congress.

No, if Obama is a tyrant or would-be tyrant, he’s not going to be an open and honest one. His strong words are nothing but jabberings meant to inflame the Liberals and further polarize them against normal, mainstream Americans and the politicians that they elect to serve them. Instead, what tyranny the boy can enact will be performed without EOs and by various departments in the Executive, e.g., the IRS, the FBI, and the EPA and will be done in a manner that ensures that Obama has plausible deniability of any involvement.

Even this may be case of be giving Obama too much credit for planning and manipulation. His sin may be nothing but creating a climate of hyper-partisanship, intolerance, hatred, and desperation within the Executive – sort of a case of, “Won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?” with the IRS, FBI, and EPA playing the parts of sirs Reginald FitzUrse, William de Tracey, Hugh de Morville, and Richard le Breton and American Conservative groups and businesses playing the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket.

Tags: America | Congress | Constitution | Executive Orders | Failure | Politics | Separation of Powers | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 8:25 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

The upcoming Congressional vote on whether or not to give Obama permission to embroil America in Syria’s civil war may well come down to a test of loyalty for his followers and fellow travelers within the beltway.

Many, even among the Democrats in Congress, can find no earthly reason for the US to engage Assad’s government aside from protecting Obama’s nonexistent credibility.

Congresswoman (D.C. Delegate) Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) made this point bluntly clear in a recent interview.

Del. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA): I happen to believe there has to be a response. I do, I do believe in crimes against humanity need to be addressed, and I am, I can’t believe that the only way to address it is a slight bombing which will somehow punish somebody or deter somebody. I don’t know if there’s some way other than a military way to address this.

BILL PRESS, HOST: You’re kind to join us this morning, Congresswoman. Let me just ask you one final question before we let you go. If, as you said, if the vote were held today, the president would probably not win it. If he doesn’t win it, a week from now, do you think the president will be justified in taking action on his own, you know, unilaterally with Congress having voted against it?

HOLMES NORTON: No, oh boy, no. I think it’ll be like the red line trap. He said if the red line you cross it. I think once you say, “I’m going to Congress,” you can’t say, “Okay, I’m going to do it anyway.”

PRESS: Yeah, yeah, I don’t…

HOLMES NORTON: So I think he’ll be in real trouble if he then does it anyway. No president has done that.

PRESS: It’s not an easy decision for any of you, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

HOLMES NORTON: Oh, and I’d like to say, Bill, that if he gets saved at all, I think it’ll be because, it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage.

PRESS: Yeah, right.

HOLMES NORTON: At the, at the moment, that’s the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it.

That pretty much sums up the overall position of Congress. The only reason that Obama might get Congressional permission for his latest foreign adventure is that many don’t want to maim or destroy the boy’s cult of personality, irrespective of the what the costs of maintaining it are to our nation.

I’m afraid, however, that I don’t share Del. Holmes Norton’s confidence that Obama would abide by “No” vote by Congress, especially if the House votes “no” and the Senate votes “yes” or even comes close to voting in favor it. There’s always the possibility that the House could vote against a US military strike and Obama could go forward with it anyway. Obama and some others have already argued that the boy would have the constitutional authority to order strikes without Congress’ authorization, though how they come up with idea beggars reason.

Remember also that Obama is still begging for foreign authorization for striking Syria in aid of Al-Qaeda and the other jihadis rebelling against Assad’s government. As with Libya, this is all the boy’s ever felt he needed to send in American troops.

Tags: America | Civil War | Congress | Constitution | Cultists | Holmes Norton | Obama | Politics | Separation of Powers | Syria | US House of Representives | US Senate | War

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 10:36 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

So, in a move that was unexpected and shocking to many, Obama has decided to not take any military action against Bashar Hafez al-Assad’s Syrian government without first seeking approval from Congress. Some claim this is a historic moment in modern US history.

President Barack Obama, according to background briefings by his aides, reached a fateful decision late Friday afternoon as he strolled along the White House lawn with his chief of staff Denis McDonough. Contrary to every expectation by his national security team, Obama concluded that he should ask Congress for authorization to bomb Syria.

The full reasoning behind the president’s turnabout remains murky. He may have wanted to share responsibility for a risky strategy to punish the barbarous regime of Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people. Obama may have recognized the political dangers of attacking another Middle Eastern country without popular support at home.

And the president, a former part-time constitutional law professor, may have also belatedly recalled the wording of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution that grants Congress the sole power “to declare war.”

But whatever Obama’s underlying motivations and however the Syrian vote plays out on Capitol Hill, the president’s decision to go to Congress represents an historic turning point. It may well be the most important presidential act on the Constitution and war-making powers since Harry Truman decided to sidestep Congress and not seek their backing to launch the Korean war.

I have to disagree with this optimistic interpretation of the events. Yes, it’s true that Obama’s decision to seek Congress’ permission to use military force in a foreign adventure is step backwards from the “imperial presidency” that has become more and more common since the latter half of the 20th century. It would certainly be historic if Obama had first sought Congressional permission before waging a foreign war. He didn’t though.

The boy first sought authorization from foreign powers. They, however, rejected him. It was only after Obama realized that he had no treaty obligations to twist and fold into a paper diaper to cover his ass that he decided to abide by the US Constitution and seek our Congress’ permission to take action against the government of Syria and further involve America in their civil war.

That’s hardly a rollback of unlawfully assumed Presidential powers. That’s just Obama being afraid of impeachment and/or assassination.

Perhaps it is historic in the sense that it’s a historic setback for a US President to seek foreign approval and allies in a punitive military strike against a group that used WMDs against anyone, especially its own populace and utterly fail to receive it. That’s the only way, however, I can really see this as a historic moment in American politics.

Then again, perhaps it is also a historic moment in the sense that now a sitting POTUS has used the horrific deaths of civilian men, women, and children as a campaign mechanism for a political party and personal aggrandizement. More so, it might be historic that many will not find this objectionable, disgusting, and firm grounds for reprisal.

If, however, this is the course of history, it does not bode well for the future.

Tags: America | Assad | Congress | Constitution | Constitutional Law | Crime | History | Obama | Politics | Separation of Powers | Syria | US Military | War

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 3rd, 2013 at 9:06 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

There are two common methods employed by criminals and those who pander to criminals to excuse their criminal behavior. These are respectively claiming that no crime was actually committed and blaming others for their criminality.

Obama is quite skilled at blending these two excuses into a single narrative. The boy is amazingly competent at this, if at nothing else that humans would consider of worth.

I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security, but where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.

The Narcissist-in-Chief sound so reasonable and even noble as he shucks and jives his way around the simple fact that a great deal of the time, “I will take whatever administrative steps that I can…” is just a dog-whistle for his usurping authority that he as POTUS doesn’t have. He cannot levy taxes, no matter how he renames them and he cannot fail to enforce and fully execute the laws that Congress enacts. Yet those are the “administrative steps” that the boy consistently resorts to whenever Congress fails to do as he wishes.

This is just an attempt on Obama’s part to normalize and legitimize his rampant criminality. Frankly, it’s no surprise that Obama identified with Trayvon Martin; it’s just sad that he never, as of yet, met his Zimmerman.

Tags: America | Crime | Obama | Politics | Separation of Powers

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 1:56 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.