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

Category: Obama Corruption

The Dictator Obama does it again!


Is anyone out there surprised? Obama has once more displayed his arrogance, and contempt for the constitution and the rule of law. Within hours of the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the core portion of the Arizona Immigration law allowing law enforcement to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants, Obama has once more decided that his administration is above the law and has announced that it will not enforce it!

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that the Obama administration was “suspending a key program that allowed state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.” Of course this is not the first time Obama has taken this course, with every law or ruling that goes against his personal agenda, he simply ignores it, refuses to enforce it or as with his June 15th executive order, makes law where none existed before, something even he has admitted that he lacks the constitutional authority to do!  [See him here] With his continued flagrant disregard for the Constitution that he swore an oath to “protect and defend” how can anyone even consider electing this wannabe dictator again?

The SCOTUS is scheduled to rule tomorrow on his signature bill commonly known as Obamacare, if as most suspect it will be at least gutted, and hopefully overturned completely, will he once again choose to circumvent the court and order the Department of Health and Human Services to push forward with implementation? My bet is yes he will, let’s watch and see.

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.

Rob

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.

 Rob

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.

ANYONE BUT OBAMA 2012!

–  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.

Will an Obama second term bring the end of our republic? I believe so.


My gripes with the Obama Administration are legion, but now the latest in a disturbing series of Obama’s “Oops! Did someone hear that?” moments should strike terror in the hearts of those who love this country, values that it was founded upon, and concern for what Obama is planning behind closed doors.

You may recall LAST November French President Sarkozy professed his disbelief of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and called him a liar. Obama replied that he has it worse because he has to work with the prime Minster on a closer basis. Now on Monday, Barack Obama while meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and apparently unaware his microphone was still on, had the following exchange with Medvedev…

Obama: This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir. I understand you.

This is a very disturbing exchange since it is obvious they were leaning in toward one another not intending to be overheard. What does Obama need more flexibility on from Putin that he can’t be up front with the American people about, especially before the election? Could it be something that he knows would be so unpopular that it would be certain to doom his reelection? After all the years of the cold war, we now have a resident that is discussing our missile defense system with the Russian President! This after also proposing an 80% reduction in our nuclear arsenal, at a time when our enemies are expanding theirs.

Furthermore, what other secret deals is he planning in this most transparent administration (that’s what he said wasn’t it?) that haven’t been caught on an open mike?

Ronald Reagan won the cold war not by disarming and showing weakness, but just the opposite. We won the cold war with the motto of peace through strength. Obama is showing the same stupid mentality that  the gun grabbers do.  They erroneously believe that if there are fewer guns then there will be less crime.  They totally ignore the statistics that prove the opposite is true. When you take away guns from the law-abiding, the criminals are more brazen knowing their victims are unarmed, the result, crime goes up. In places where gun laws are more lax and it’s easier or even required to own one, the crime rate is lower than average. Now Obama wants to take us back to the pre-Reagan era and show the world that we’re weak and unarmed.

This comes also on the heels of the recent charge by Joe Miller, the 2010 Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Alaska that Obama is refusing to put a halt to a State Department giveaway of 7 oil rich Alaskan Islands, in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia.

Three of the islands are at the west end of the Aleutian chain and were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia. The other Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The point here is that all of these islands are part of Alaska, a sovereign state and the State Department has no authority to redraw a boundary and give away Alaskan land to the Russians. Although relations with the former “evil empire” have improved since the Cold War, there is no doubt that Obama’s bone headed policies could have devastating and far-reaching consequences we can barely imagine now.

This man must be stopped, his czars fired, his Executive orders revoked and the unconstitutional Federal bureaucracy corralled back into the bounds of the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Unfortunately, those in Washington D.C. have lost sight of that nation conceived in liberty and that we are all equal, not because some politician or piece of parchment says so, but because, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “…to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

This is where our liberty comes from, from the laws of nature and natures God.”, no man or group of men is better or worse than any other. We are all equal, and Obama’s divisive tactics and policies, now combined with the possibility that if reelected he would disarm us and turn over our technology to Russia? If you thought George Bush went off the deep end as a lame duck President, wait till you get a load of Barack Obama unleashed. There will be nothing recognizable of our once great republic in another 4 years.

Turnoff your TV news, turn off  NPR radio, and get online and read the NEW Media see what the Mainstream isn’t telling you. Haven’t you noticed that when they publish a story that doesn’t show Obama in a favorable light, they ridicule the source, marginalize the opposition, and make it look like such a waste of their time?  This is straight out of the Saul Alinsky’s, “Rules for Radicals”. Mr. Obama’s community organizing play book, and the MSM is doing are doing their best to play by those rules too. Look  how they portray the Tea Party. These are everyday Americans from all walks of life who want only a to return to smaller government, and lower taxes. Yet the MSM calls them racists, clowns, rednecks or worst of all,  Tea Baggers”. This is a gross reference used gay men to describe oral sex, “tea bagging”.

When the Sheriff of Maricopa County was presented with a petition with 250 signatures to look into Obama’s birth certificate, he assigned a volunteer cold case posse at no tax payer expense which after a 6 month investigation, found probable cause to suspect that the Long form Birth Certificate posted on the Whitehouse website is a computer generator forgery. As is his Selective Service registration card. Despite presenting extensive evidence that a crime has been committed and several video displays of how the forensic tests were completed. None of the media present asked a single question about the evidence, or its ramifications. Instead the reporters attacked the Sheriff, and his investigators, questioning their motives for the investigation, instead of being out chasing murders or the like.  He pointed out that he had received a request to look into the allegations that the LFBC was a forgery nothing more. “If there is suspicion of a crime and it’s brought to my attention, then I don’t just throw it in the trash.” the Sheriff said “I look at every case that’s brought before me.”

Besides the Alinsky like ridicule of the reporters present, the media silence since has been deafening. In 1998 Congress held impeachment hearings against Bill Clinton over his perjury in a civil trial, yet Obama has committed over 20 impeachable offenses thus far in this term, and has done so with complete impunity. Silence from the media and most of congress, with only a few idealistic freshmen trying to make waves, but they are basically told to sit down, shut up and let big boys handle this.

I beg you to bypass the MSM, and take a fair-minded look at what Obama has done in these 3 plus years. Ask yourself are you better off today than you were 3 years ago? How’s that Hope & Change working out for you? It hasn’t been so hot for me, gas prices were about $2.80 a gallon when BHO took office, now there over $4.00 in many areas. The news media wanted to lynch Bush when prices went from about $1.50 to the $2.80 on his watch. That was an 87% increase in 8 years. Prices under Obama have risen 120% in only three, that’s about 11% per year under bush, and 40% per year under Obama. Oh wait, what did he say? That’s right it’s Bush’s fault!

This man points blame for his failings and takes credit for others accomplishments.  This man has no honor.

Please just take a look for yourself, don’t depend on the media, don’t depend on what I say here, look for yourself and ask your self if you can afford another 4 years of Obama unbridled. Can our republic withstand the socialist agenda, the divisive rhetoric, and the downright stupid foreign policy? I don’t believe we can. Look, I don’t blame you for not being happy with the current crop of republicans candidates either, but for all their faults none will destroy the republic as I believe Obama will.

Please look into your hearts, look at his record with an open mind and some intellectual honesty, if you do so you simply can not possibly believe that Obama is good for America.

Rob