Looking for Reason

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. – Ronald Reagan

Month: April, 2012

Ready for more corrupt liberal duplicity and stupidity?

Well here goes… but first I want to expand on the comments in an earlier post (The Liberal Mind, is it Political Madness?), I want to say that in addition to not believing that all liberals are stupid or crazy, I also do not believe that everyone with a liberal viewpoint is evil, corrupt or wants to destroy America. In fact have a number of close family members and friends who are on the opposite side of the political fence from me. These are smart caring people, I just believe that they listen to too much of the biased main stream media and are thinking too much with their hearts.

One of those to whom I am very close, as well as love and respect highly (but will not identify) said during a recent conversation about  my study of the founding documents and the constitution , that it was as if these documents were “inspired”.

I was actually quite struck by the comment considering that this person staunchly supports Barack Obama and his administration. While I, on the other hand, agree with Ted Nugent who said recently that if people can’t see that this administration is, “wiping its a** with the Constitution you’re living under a rock some place”. Even now I’m a bit perplexed that someone could believe the Declaration and Constitution were inspired and yet support an administration that clearly has no regard for those principles.

There are countless liberals in positions of power, leadership and influence or who just have a loud mouth and a mouthpiece like Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin, that spout rhetoric which is completely devoid of any semblance of intellectual honesty, logic or reason, yet act as though they speak from some lofty moral high ground.

While liberals claim to be the party of tolerance, they typically display none, toward those who disagree with them. They cry out for civility and co-operation while being rude, crude or divisive and completely against compromise unless it’s giving in to their will. They claim to be all about fairness, equality, and helping the poor or disenfranchised, while their policies do little toward those goals, and most often have the opposite effect.

The latest example is enveloping rocker Ted Nugent who during a speech at the NRA convention two  weeks ago not only gave the earlier quote, but said that “if Barack Obama becomes the president in November, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” Those on the left had a collective mental breakdown, and claimed that the statement is a threat of violence toward the resident.

I find this all quite laughable considering that no one over on the left was the least bit disturbed when in a campaign speech in June 2008 and again at a Philadelphia fundraiser in January 2011; Obama said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Interesting rhetoric from a man who lectures on civil discourse, and doesn’t believe that free people should even be allowed to own guns.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz who continues to proudly display her partisan stupidity in public statements, has also ripped into Nugent’s comment, saying, “Mitt Romney surrogate Ted Nugent made offensive comments about President Obama and November’s elections this weekend that are despicable, deplorable and completely beyond the pale.”

Wow, really? Can anyone reading his statement please show me anything in it that amounts to a threat or has any violent overtone? I’m sorry I just don’t see it, and by the way neither did the Secret Service who interviewed Nugent about the comment less than a week later. Remember, it is a Federal crime for anyone to threaten Obama.

Los Angeles Times editorial writer Jon Healey told Democrats to relax, that Nugent is just a rock ‘n’ roller. “Nugent is no more a surrogate for Romney than the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is for Obama,” Healy said, adding “Just because someone with a microphone urges people to vote for a candidate doesn’t make him or her a ‘surrogate’ for the campaign.” I wonder if the DNC Chairwoman has the brains to grasp that.

Nugent’s reply to Wasserman Schultz’s comment was simple, “By no stretch of the imagination did I threaten anyone’s life, or hint at violence or mayhem. Metaphors needn’t be explained to educated people.” In a radio interview on the Dana Loesch Show Nugent explained, “I’ve never in my life threatened anyone’s life. I am incapable of threatening anyone’s life because I’m about positive change.”  The liberals once more are attempting to make something controversial out of a comment made by a conservative voice with a following, larger than any on their side.

My interpretation of his comment was that he fears that as an outspoken critic of the Obama regime, that under an unrestrained second term, he might well be jailed as a domestic terrorist or be the victim of another of Obama’s “extrajudicial killings” like that of another U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

So who’s right, the typical divisive ranting from the left, or a more reasoned explanation like the one I just gave? Considering Nugent’s statement that he has never threatened anyone in his life, and the fact that the Secret Service walked away considering the case closed, I guess once more logic and reason win out over the stupid rantings from the loud mouths on the left.




So what?

As Americans we are repulsed by the thought of eating dogs, cats or even horses, but it is common place in other cultures. Hindu’s worship cows and likely find it repugnant that we eat them as a matter of course. When I was a teenager (before it was outlawed) I was given horse meat once, though unlike Obama I have no recollection of how it tasted or its toughness. The only memory I have is the surprise I felt when told what I had just eaten, and thinking it wasn’t bad.

Now someone has made an issue out of  the fact that in chapter two of his book Dreams from My Father  Obama says “I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy).”  Big deal!

My point is anyone who’s read my blog up till now knows that I have lost any respect I may have ever had for Barack Obama. I have also said that my point of writing this blog was to try to shed some reason on the topics of the day. So I have to ask, is this all the media and bloggers have to worry about these days? I have no desire to defend anything Obama has, is or will do, but there are mountains of issues to work with that are far more important than Obama eating dog meat as a kid. Let’s move on to some of those shall we?


The Tyrant in the White House

(This post was actually written a week ago, but I neglected to “Publish” it till now)

When will the people of America wake up and realize that Obama is leading us to the edge of a cliff and the gullible are following like lemmings ready to plunge off into the abyss of socialism? Their liberal hypocrisy is endless, and their desire to corrupt the very foundation of our once great nation is on a path to completion. We have a man in the White House who last October basically declared congress irrelevant when he said “We don’t have to wait for Congress, we’re just going to go ahead and act on our own,” while indicating that he planned to issue executive orders weekly for the remainder of the year. On average he did just that, issuing 9 Executive Orders between October 31 and December 19th, 2011.  In addition he has issued 7 more so far this year. In the span of only five months he has continued to usurp more unconstitutional power, sixteen times.

On April 2nd he likewise lashed out at the Supreme Court decrying that it is an “Unelected” body and chastising them for even considering the possibility that they might “overturn a duly constituted and passed law”.  So congress is irrelevant and the unelected Supreme Court shouldn’t even think about overturning unconstitutional laws, which he worked so hard to get passed. I ask you, what is left? As I see it we now have a totalitarian state with Barack Obama as its supreme commander. Who needs three independent branches of government when we have the omniscient and omnipotent Barack Obama to tell us how to live, how to think, and what to buy?

 Can you name another leader who has managed to get the national media to follow in lock step, fawn over him as a messiah and cover any attempt to question his legitimacy? Has any other leader had school children being indoctrinated to sing songs about him? How about one who has written an autobiography that is used like a bible to promote his life and thinking? I can think of one, and that the risk of being dismissed as a quack, it was Adolph Hitler. I don’t expect you to take my word for it, or accept my point of view, I want you to use your own ability for critical thinking and look at the facts for yourself. Simply Google “Hitler’s rise to power” and see for yourself.

Take an honest look at the highlights of Hitler’s rise to power, look at the things he promised the people of Germany to put him in power in the first place. Then compare that to what Obama is doing, including his complete disrespect, or dare I say hatred, of Israel. He has bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, (and others) while denigrating the right of Israel to make its own choices in dealing with its neighbors and its enemies. He barely veils his support of Islam and Arab countries, and his disdain of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. For instance, remember when Obama told Netanyahu he wanted him to redraw his borders to the pre-1967 lines, to give the (non-existent) Palestinians their own homeland?

 Can you imaging the leader of another country telling a U.S. President to redraw our borders to some historic line and give a piece of the U.S. to some made up group of people as their homeland? Once more Obama displays his audacity…  no arrogance, to believe that he has the right to tell another world leader what to do. This man is a tyrant and megalomaniac of the highest order, and anyone who believes he has done anything to deserve another term just isn’t paying attention.


The Liberal Mind, is it Political Madness?

It is typical with liberals to keep certain things in the forefront so they have a cause to champion. As former Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel once said “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste“. Such crisis’ after all give liberals more opportunity to push their particular agendas. For instance, if some nut goes on a rampage and kills a bunch of people, or if someone of light skin kills someone with dark skin, then the liberals start screaming for more laws to control guns. This is despite all the evidence that murder rates fall when gun control laws are repealed and vise versa (See here). You see liberals have a cause, and statistics be damned, they won’t waste a good crisis opportunity to try to shove their mindless views down everyone else’s throats.

Although I have one of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes at the top of these blog posts, I don’t believe that Ron was completely correct. While I do believe that a significant number of liberals are at least somewhat ignorant, the problem is that facts, are ignored or ridiculed and scientific data skewed to make political points without regard for the truth, and most liberals just mindlessly believe the crap the media spoon feeds them without question. A prominent psychiatrist by the name of Dr. Lyle Rossiter published a book titled, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” and while I haven’t read it, I suspect that he may be on to something. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that all people with liberal beliefs are brain-damaged, mentally ill, or stupid. I am curious however, why so many leftists who hold political power are always trying to tear down our great country in the name of “Equality” and “Fairness”, and their followers fail to question it.

There is nothing fair about their methods or goals, and it sure as Hell isn’t about equality. Obama and his ilk want to play Robin Hood, to steal from those who have and give to those who don’t. It’s not that most of those folks aren’t capable of doing better for themselves, but rather they are too lazy to do otherwise when Obama will take care of them. Don’t believe for a moment that there is any anything noble about this either, he has a plan and it’s to buy votes from those lazy bums, and he’s doing it with your money. If you don’t believe that, you aren’t paying attention.

I can only imagine the shock on the left when documentary film maker Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of ultra-liberal “Queen Nancy”, made a short film about the welfare bums in New York and aired it on Bill Maher’s TV show (see a clip here). While I may disagree with her politics, I admire the fact that she has the intellectual honesty to show the entitlement mentality that the liberals have fostered. “I’m here for the Obama bucks” one man said or when asked why he will vote for Obama another replies “because he’ll give me stuff”. Did you see any of this on the 6:00 O’clock news? I didn’t think so.

The latest figures from the IRS (for tax year 2009, released in Oct. 2011) show that the top 1 percent of tax payers accounted for 36.7 percent of all individual federal income taxes collected, while earning only 16.9 percent of the adjusted gross income (AGI). The rest of the top 5 percent paid an additional 22 percent, for a total of 58.7 percent of individual federal income taxes for by only 5 percent of earners. The top 25 percent of wage earners, (those who make over $66,000 per year) foot 87.3 percent of the tax burden, and the top 50 percent carry 97.7 percent. The bottom 50 percent of all wage earners account for only 2.3 percent of the total individual income tax revenue collected by the IRS. In 2009, about 47% of households, that’s about 71 million, did not pay any federal income tax at all.

Obama displays his Robin Hood mentality and a complete lack of  intellectual honesty when he claims that the rich are not paying their fair share, while nearly half of all households pay no income taxes at all. When the top one percent of earners pays over one-third of the total individual tax revenue collected, that’s unfair. It’s time we revise the moronic tax code in this country and have everyone pay a share.

I could go on and on here, but history is pretty clear that liberal policies result in a weak economy, higher dependency on government handouts, and an overall expansion of government bureaucracy, with its inherent degradation of freedom. Conservative and/or libertarian policies on the other hand, tend to result in lower taxes and smaller government which promote greater freedom and a bigger, healthier economy. I believe that’s good for everyone no matter their income level. It is also clear to me that our Federal government has become an oligarchical body with right and left arms, that work together to expand their own power at the expense of “We the people”. They also fail to hold one another accountable by refusing to prosecute unconstitutional acts or outright fraud against the rule of law.

November is coming, so let’s end the political madness in Washington D.C. and vote against every sitting incumbent Democrat, Republican, or whatever who hasn’t lived up their oath of office to “… to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.” and believe me there are precious few who have. Ronald Reagan asked this in 1979 and I’m going to repeat it here until the elections in November…  Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?


War on women

Back on March 22nd I offered a post titled “The Unwavering Hypocrisy of the Left” where I pointed out how liberals point fingers and accuse those on the right of wrong doing while doing the same and often worse themselves. Here we are a mere three weeks later and another perfect example of this has blown up in the faces of the left. So much so, that even Obama is doing his best to distance himself from the controversy.

Those on the left criticized Sarah Palin for not being a stay at home mom, especially having a special needs child. After accepting the nomination as the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2008, Kim Gandy the then president of the National Organization for Women said “It would be best for everyone if Sarah Palin would just stay home and raise her kids,” Really, this from the president of NOW? Oh wait, Palin is a Republican woman, she doesn’t count where the ultra-liberal NOW is concerned.

Fast forward 4 years and we have Ann Romney who chose the opposite path, and is now out campaigning with and for her husband. Along comes a Democratic strategist by the name of Hilary Rosen to make an asinine statement like “Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.” Hey, I’m no fan of Mitt Romney, and I know precious little about his wife, but once more I’m stunned by the hypocrisy here. I dare say that if you were to tell any stay at home mom that she never worked a day in her life you’d be setting yourself up for a bloody nose. Yet I hear no outcries from the left or NOW. Oh wait yes the current president of that illustrious organization has made a statement, Terry O’Neill said that Ann Romney lacks “life experience” and “imagination”.

As I said I don’t know much about Ann Romney, and I can’t speak to her imagination, but I would certainly believe that any woman who has raised five sons to adulthood, and been the First  Lady of Massachusetts for four years would have plenty of life experience. Is this woman really so self-righteous that she believes that she is qualified to make such statements about someone? Has this woman ever met Ann Romney or know anyone who does know her? The liberal mind never ceases to amaze me, I can only wonder if someone stuck a vacuum hose in their ear and sucked out all ability for reason, logic and intellectual honesty.  With the controversy surrounding the remarks by Hilary Rosen, if O’Neill had an ounce of any of those, she should have had sense enough to keep her mouth shut.

Finally we have Barack Obama who charges a “Republican war on women” because they balk at the idea of government subsidized contraception, while he seems to have is own war on women going on. According to the “2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff” issued by the White House [See additional article here] it turns out that Mr. Obama pays his female staff a median average of 18% less than his male staff. Demetrius Minor writing on townhall.com quotes Ann Sulivan of Time Magazine as saying the Obama administration is described as a “boy’s club” and suggested that the president has a woman problem. It is reported that senior women staffers are seen and not heard during policy meetings. I believe that the men are likely paid 18% too much, rather that the women being not paid enough. The way liberals are always screaming about the inequality of salaries between men and women, and Obama endlessly pointing fingers at Republicans, perhaps he needs to get is own house in order before he casts aspersions.


Obama Rhetoric vs. The Facts – Once more Obama loses, when confronted with hard data

It never ceases to amaze me the crap that Obama spews as fact, and his loyal followers accept as gospel. For instance, on Tuesday April 10th, he told a group of students at Florida Atlantic University, in Boca Raton, Fla.  “Some people who are running for a certain office right now – who shall not be named – they’re doubling down on these old broken-down theories,” he was referring to what he and other liberals call “trickle down economics”. As I’ve pointed out before, one of Obama’s mentors, Saul Alinsky the author of “Rules for Radicals” said “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”. This is one reason you often see the left making belittling statements about that which they disagree. The other and I believe most prevalent, is that many lack the intelligence to put forth a reasoned argument so they resort to ridicule or avoidance of the subject entirely.

 The problem with their ridicule of supply side economics, the real name of this economic policy, is that it is all a lie. While Obama claims it’s a “broken-down” theory, history proves otherwise. When compared to the Ford-Carter years of 1974-1981 and the Bush-Clinton years of 1989-1995, the Reagan years of supply side fare much better. Here are some numbers to consider from a CATO Institute Policy Study from 1996. 

  • Economic growth during the Reagan years averaged 3.2%, while only 2.8% before and 2.1% after.
  • Inflation, Interest rates and unemployment fell faster during the Reagan years, than before or after his presidency.
  • The median family income rose $4,000 during the Reagan years, after experiencing no growth before, and a nearly $1,500 decline afterwards.
  • By the end of the Reagan presidency the economy was nearly one-third larger than when it started.
  • The claim that “The rich got richer, while the poor got poorer” is another huge liberal lie. By 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans making over $50,000 per year than in 1981, yet there were only 2.5 million more Americans making in excess of $75,000 per year. Further the number of those making less than $10,000 fell by 3.4 million.  

 It seems pretty clear from just these few facts that supply side works and lowering the tax burden stimulates the economy better than the stifling effects of the reverse. The only period from the 1950’s to the time of the study that did better than the Reagan supply side years was the latter half of the 1960’s. The Kennedy income tax cuts of 30% that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5% annual growth. Basically supply side before it had a name.

 So does Obama’s claim that supply side is a broken down theory hold water? Hardly, the broken down theory is that you can tax yourself to prosperity, or build up the poor by tearing down the rich. What Obama fails to understand, or purposely avoids because it’s not consistent with his agenda, is that it is the rich who create the jobs, not government. It is the rich who run businesses that drive the economy and produce the goods that people consume. The government doesn’t create anything but deficits, draconian regulations that hinder business and job growth, power-hungry elites and an ever-growing contingent of lazy welfare bums who feed off the productivity of others.   

UPDATE: for more proof watch this


The “Nullification” of law

I wrote as part of a recent post titled “Is Barack Obama a Megalomaniac?” about Obama’s inflammatory remarks directed at the Supreme Court over their review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, AKA “Obamacare”. I touched briefly on his idiotic contention that to overturn an act of congress would be “unprecedented” and why that’s the case.

It got me thinking about another way that unjust laws may be nullified that I don’t believe most people are aware of. Have you ever heard of the concept of Jury Nullification? This is a basic right of the jury that is older than our republic itself. The basic idea is that even if the jury agrees that the evidence shows a defendant has broken a law, the jury has the right to disagree with that law and therefore find the defendant not-guilty based on the belief that the law itself is unjust or illegal.

I remember the last time I sat on a Jury, after the trial was complete and the judge was giving us his instructions, in addition to explaining the law and how it applied to the case he also told us that we had to follow the law whether we agreed with it or not. Having been previously aware of the jury’s right to nullification, I was both perplexed and upset by this instruction. Although it wasn’t an issue in that case, I was instantly struck by that instruction, and wondered when the jury lost its right of nullification.

Well later research showed that it hasn’t. You see once again this is an example of the government overstepping it’s preceived authority over “We the people” and trying to prevent us from exercising our rights, when those rights go against the will of the government. You see the modern court system doesn’t approve of this right and thus attempts to prevent juries from using nullification to ignore unpopular laws.

In order to get their way, they make up rules to slant things in their favor. Most courts today prohibit the defense from even telling the jury it has the right to nullification. Therefore when the judge instructs the jury that it must apply the law as it is explained, if they are unaware that the very instruction is a lie, then they can only act in this limited manner.

I am convinced Obama, as a former “senior lecturer of constitutional law” (not a “professor”, as he often claims), would be aware of this precept of law every bit as much as he would have known that his statement on April 2nd was as empty as his suit. So, the next time you are called to sit on a jury, remember that you as a citizen of these United States have the same power as the Supreme Court to nullify an unjust law.

If you’re interested you can read more about it here.


“It’s your money or your life,”

How many times have you heard those, or similar, words in some Hollywood movie or TV show, while watching the bad guy point a gun or knife at an innocent victim? Well, Libertarian’s believe that for the Federal Government to tax us for anything that is not provided for in the Constitution is armed robbery. “What?” you may ask, how can you call paying taxes armed robbery?

Let me explain, the Constitution describes the basics of our republic, as well as the functions and limited powers thereof. While one of the delineated powers of congress is to “lay and collect taxes”, those are only authorized to pay for the duties and functions described therein. So now we have this bloated Federal Bureaucracy that far exceeds its limited powers, and collects more in taxes than King George demanded which resulted in the war for independence.

You’re probably still wondering though, how I can claim that any of this is armed robbery, right? Okay, stop paying your taxes, and see what happens? Men with guns will come looking for you, to take that which you didn’t voluntarily hand over. So we now have men with guns, coming to take more than they are constitutionally authorized to take from you. Sure sounds like armed robbery to me.

So why am I bringing all of this up? Well, I’ve long known that the Democrats are guilty of a couple of thing that never seem to change, first is an insatiable thirst for our hard-earned money, and second an unshakeable belief in global warming. Recently Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) combined both into a single statement when he said in a press conference It’s your money or your life, We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we’re going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it.” [emphasis added] (see the video here)

His comments were in regard to the fact that since 2006, 97 Illinois counties have experienced weather related emergencies, and hybrid cars and your money are the obvious answer. This man is an idiot; could he really believe that driving a hybrid is going to stop tornadoes and summer heat waves? Despite what the Democrats and environmentalists would have you believe, there is no scientific proof, let me repeat that… no, nada, none, zero, zilch – scientific evidence that man is having any noticeable effect on the climate.  

Every scientific study put forth by the climate change alarmists has been falsified. Every single one, yet they continue to spew forth the same old worn out arguments and disproved theories as evidence of their silly hypothesis. Next time you hear Al Gore, or one of his ilk tell you that the science is proven, laugh, because any real scientist knows that’s a joke. Almost nothing in science can be proven, the only exceptions are what are known as “Physical Laws of Nature” i.e. the law of gravity, the laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics. These are considered by science as “Laws” because they are pretty much set in concrete.

Everything else is a theory or hypothesis, and if even a single experiment disproves it, then it’s thrown out in search of another one to explain the observed phenomena. As I said above, there has not been a single theory set forth to try to “prove” manmade global warming that has stood this test. There is one unalterable truth about it however, and that is that it has nothing to do with the climate, but rather more government control over our lives.

I’m going to leave you with two quotes from Albert Einstein that I admire. First in reference to what I explained above about trying to prove anything scientifically, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; however a single experiment can prove me wrong.” And my personal favorite, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former”.


Is Barack Obama a Megalomaniac?

Merriam-Webster: MegalomaniaA delusional mental disorder marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.

Let’s examine a few of Obama’s words and deeds and try to draw a reasoned conclusion on this question. The examples we can draw from go back to before the 2008 election; however I think we can paint a pretty clear picture with just three recent examples.

We’ll start with Obama’s September 2011 order allowing the killing of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, without benefit of any criminal charge or trial, a blatant violation of the man’s 5th amendment right to due process. The killing, accomplished by a missile fired from a pilotless drone over Yemen, was not done as a response to any physical act of aggression against the United States or its citizens. Furthermore the killing was not limited to al-Awlaki, but also killed his 15-year-old son, another constitutionally protected U.S. citizen.

Surprisingly little was made of the incident by the liberally biased mainstream media, but on March 5th 2012, without mentioning al-Awlaki specifically, Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech at Northwestern University, near Chicago, that amounted to a defense of, and justification for the policy behind the Obama administration’s “war on terror” and what he described as “extrajudicial killings.” Really? Now I consider myself to be quite constitutionally literate, but can someone please point out to me where there is a constitutional provision for “extrajudicial killings”, because despite my best efforts I can’t seem to find it.

It’s clear that there was plenty of evidence that al-Awlaki was involved in a number of terrorist plots aimed at the United States, and I have no regret that al-Awlaki is no longer a threat to our security. However, Obama has far exceeded any semblance of executive authority with this “extrajudicial killing”. Plainly that’s just semantics, an attempt to make politically palatable what was nothing less than murder by executive order. If that doesn’t send a chill down the spine of any red-blooded American, nothing will. Obama has stated repeatedly that he believes that the foreign combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are entitled to trial in an American court of law. How then can he justify killing an American citizen who was never indicted, and in the process kill the man’s son, without the benefit of just such a trial? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, but I’m sure perfectly logical to a megalomaniac.

Let’s move on to the January 12th, 2012 “Recess” appointment of two cabinet level bureaucrats. While the Senate was in pro-forma session (a closed meeting of limited duration), Obama inferred that since the Senate was unavailable it was therefore in recess and inappropriately used the “recess clause” to confirm his own appointments.

Let me explain briefly for those who do not have a full understanding of the constitution and its principles. Our republic is based on the concept of a separation of powers. We have three co-equal branches of government the Executive (President), Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (Supreme and inferior courts). This provides a system of checks and balances, meaning that no one branch can wield exclusive or dictatorial powers over another branch or area of government. The recess appointment clause was provided because there were times when congress could be in recess for long periods of time and it may be necessary to fill important vacancies during that time. However, it was purposefully included to prevent a single person from having monarchial power to make unrestrained appointments without oversight. Once more Obama believes he is above the constitution, and the Senate let him get away with it.

In the Federalist Papers number 51, James Madison wrote “But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” In other words there needs to be a mechanism to prevent exactly what Obama did! Later in the same paragraph Madison wrote “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Barack Obama is clearly no angel and fully resists all constitutional controls placed upon him. My first two examples plainly bear this out.

Finally there are his disturbing statements this past Monday in regard to the Supreme Courts review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare”. Obama’s remarks of April 2nd. can only be attributed to a leak of the results of the initial vote of the court on the merits of the case. Had he not been informed that the court had voted to strike down the unpopular law, what possible reason would he have to lash out as he did?

Obama told reporters “I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary event by overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress,” [emphasis added]. Let’s first examine his claim that overturning the law would be “unprecedented”. The idea is beyond ridiculous, and a true “Constitutional Law Professor” would certainly know it. Since 1789 the Supreme Court has struck down over 150 laws as unconstitutional, 53 of them in the past 30 years alone. So much for unprecedented, but why make such a statement in the first place? If not to hoodwink the more mindless of his minions, then perhaps it’s because he thinks his s**t doesn’t stink. Additionally, there’s the statement that “Obamacare” was passed with a “strong majority”, when in fact it passed by a thin margin of 212 to 219 a mere 7 votes. Hardly a “strong majority”, but I digress.

Then there are his remarks about the court being an “unelected body”, and that overturning the law would amount to “judicial activism“. The court has always been an unelected body, and he has appointed two of those nine justices (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) himself. That’s in addition to his countless other appointed bureaucrats and czars, who impose their will upon the rest of us with little option for redress or appeal. So what is his point, or more importantly, his intentions if the court dares overturn his signature law?

While I won’t argue any derision of judicial activism, the truth is that courts at all levels have been guilty of  it for years. Yet isn’t it interesting that in 2009 when a federal judge overruled a “democratically” approved amendment to the California State Constitution, to ban same-sex marriage, there was no cry from the White House, the media or anywhere else on the left, about judicial activism? I suppose that such activism is acceptable when it suits your agenda. In reality judicial activism is never okay; but in this case it’s an irrelevant argument, since overturning a clearly unconstitutional measure is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “Activism”.

I suppose we’ll have to wait and see what “his highness” does in June when the Court’s final decision is set to be announced, but his comments were clearly intended to influence the independent actions of the court, and that is almostunprecedented” in our history. Only fellow wannabe dictator FDR has likewise attempted to usurp power beyond that authorized by the constitution, as well as attempt to manipulate the court. In 1937 FDR threatened to expand the court from nine to  fifteen justices by adding a “co-justice” for every one of the six  justices over age 70. That would have given him a majority and made the Supreme Court his obedient servant. Will Obama attempt something similar if he loses this battle?

I’d like to share an example of exemplary executive behavior that I’m convinced Obama will not follow. In 1952 in the shadow of a looming strike by steel workers, President Harry S. Truman attempted to nationalize the steel industry and avert the strike, that fight went all the way to the Supreme Court. Before the court ruled on the case, a reporter asked Truman if he would respect the court’s decision. Truman replied “Of course I would. Of course I would.”  The reporter then asked “Well then, as far as you are concerned, the system of checks and balances goes on unimpeded?” to which Truman replied “Why certainly – unimpeded. I have no ambition to be a dictator.”  What a marvelous contrast to the actions of the current resident of the White House!

These are only three recent examples of a long list of things that I believe show a distinct pattern of megalomaniacal behavior on the part of one Barack Hussein Obama. Forget the “Birther” issue, forget Democrat vs. Republican, forget black or white, Hell forget everything else; just ask yourself two questions…  “Are these the actions of an honorable leader?” and “Can I in good conscience allow a man with no demonstrated concern for the constitution or the rights of others, an unrestrained “lame duck” term in office?” I hope your answer to both questions is a resounding NO!

I don’t much like the current field of candidates the Republicans are offering, but I am certain that none of them will attempt to destroy our country, our liberty, or our very way of life, the way this megalomaniac will.


–  Rob

UPDATE:  Although this is sort of old news (December 2011) I came across this article and video while reading another related piece. According to the guests on the MSNBC  show Morning Joe, Obama sees our 18th. century republic as “as a stumbling block that’s getting in the way of his greatness” . More proof that he’s a megalomaniac? You decide.