Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘President’

Mainstream Media Scream: NBC ‘surprised’ Obama not on list of greatest leaders


http://washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-media-scream-nbc-surprised-obama-not-on-list-of-greatest-leaders/article/2546188

By Paul Bedard | MARCH 24, 2014 AT 2:03 PM

This week’s Mainstream Media Scream features NBC‘s “Today” hosts expressing surprise that Fortune Magazine’s new list of the 50 greatest leaders didn’t include President Obama.

From the Thursday, March 20 “Today” show on NBC:

Savannah Guthrie: “We are back now at 8:14 with ?What’s Trending Today.’ And this morning, Fortune magazine is releasing its first list of the world’s 50 greatest leaders. The issue’s out tomorrow. We’re going to get an exclusive look right now at who makes the list. Bill Clinton comes in at number five and makes the cover. There are a lot of other notable names here.

“Tell you what, though, there may be some talk about one leader who did not make the list, the leader of the free world, President Obama. Fortune tells us he was not overlooked, he just did not make the cut.”

Natalie Morales: “In the top 50.”

Matt Lauer: “Yeah, that’s surprising.”

Media Research Center Vice President of Research Brent Baker explains our pick: “Another example of how out of touch the media elite are from the rest of America. Obama’s approval rating is cratering, well below 50 percent, as his foreign policy experiences setback after setback. Yet Guthrie and Lauer are surprised he’s not automatically considered one of the world’s ‘greatest’ leaders.’ ”

Community Organizer Two

Rating: Three out of five screams.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

Is Obama President, King, Dictator, or Tyrant?


 http://patriotupdate.com/articles/obama-president-king-dictator-tyrant/#KP3dh9GFrjru4ffd.99

Written on Friday, March 21, 2014 by

obamacampaigning

President Obama is breaking all precedents in steamrolling a complacent Congress as he governs by executive orders. With Obama, we the people has been replaced by me the president.  In recent speeches, the president has been forthright in saying that in every case where he can act without Congress he will do so.  Not only is this an extraordinary statement coming from a man who is supposed to have been a professor of Constitutional law, it shows a dangerous disregard for government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Ever since the U.S. Constitution was established as the law of the land, there has been tension—some would say power struggles—between the executive and legislative branches of government.  In fact, this tension is a necessary part of the checks and balances our Founders put in place to ensure that each branch of government plays its assigned role without encroaching on the prerogatives of the other branches.  If the president gains too much of the upper hand over Congress, the voice of the people is replaced by the voice of just one person: the president.  If Congress gains too much of the upper hand over the executive branch, we have government by committee, and nothing gets done.  Consequently, it is important to maintain the proper Constitutionally-prescribed balance between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Barack Obama knows this. He probably taught the concept when he was moonlighting as a professor of law.  But knowing about a concept and complying with it are two very different things.  In President Obama’s defense, working with Congress can be a frustrating experience.  Congress can be ponderous, self-protective, parochial, self-serving, and excruciatingly slow to act.  It is governance by committee with all of the shortcomings inherent in that concept.  President Obama is hardly the first person to be elected president only to find that his hands are often tied by an unresponsive Congress.  I am sure that many of his predecessors would have loved to simply by-pass Congress and—like him—govern by executive order.  But most had the good sense to understand that governing by executive order is one of those concepts where the solution is worse than the problem.

When the President of the United States by-passes Congress by issuing executive orders or by using the regulatory process—things Barack Obama does frequently—he undermines the concept of we the people that is the foundation of our form of government and of the freedoms Americans have traditionally enjoyed.  Congress, with all of its warts and blemishes, is still composed of the representatives of the people.  By-passing the elected representatives of the people is the same as by-passing the people.  Rulers who by-pass the people are dictators, kings, and often tyrants, but they are not presidents. Barack Obama was elected president, not dictator nor king, but by governing through executive orders and bureaucratic regulations, he is behaving like one or the other, or both.

One measure of an effective president is that he understands the governing process and is sufficiently adept politically that he can work with Congress to implement his programs and make good on his campaign promises.  Some presidents have had the political skills to accomplish this and some have not.  Barack Obama falls into the latter category, but where he differs from his predecessors is that he has made no effort to learn the way Congress and Washington, D. C. work.  Rather, if he cannot get what he wants when he wants it—regardless of whether the American people want it—he simply by-passes Congress using executive orders or bureaucratic regulations.  What makes this tyrannical situation especially dangerous is that at a time when our country has a president who thinks he is a king, we also have a weak, complacent Congress that lacks the fortitude to stand up to him.  As a result, government of the people, by the people, and for the people has been replaced by government of the president, by the president, and for the president.

Community Organizer Two

Really? More Emotional Blackmail?


Let me get this straight;

  • Jack Lew, part of the Obama White House, came up with the idea of sequestration and President Obama thought it was a great idea, and supported it so much, that he got it passed;
  • President Obama is quoted as saying that with this law, he could force the Republicans to vote for legislation he know the Republicans would not like because they would not want the cuts to defense to happen;
  • He made sure that the cuts would be determined by the President, not the Congress (meaning that all the emotional blackmail is based on his own thinking, not any real plan or proposal);
  • Now he is claiming that IT IS THE REPUBLICANS THAT WANT FIRST RESPONDERS NOT TO GET PAID, MILITARY PERSONNEL NOT GET PAID, POOR CHILDREN NOT FED, AND EVERY BUNNY RABBIT SLAUGHTERED AT SUN DOWN (oops, that last one just slipped out, although it is consistent will all his ridiculous claims).
  • And so on, and so on, and so on.

Can anyone explain to me the psychology of a person who inspired the idea, backed the idea, promoted the idea, got the idea accepted and put into the law, and now blames those that oppose him as the culprits behind it all? Please help me understand.

“Absolutism”


28 January 2013 / 12 Comments

images-2

A nation should be concerned when it seems its leader has tired of the grueling work of democracy.

One of the most remarkable and frightening aspects of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was his dismissal of his opposition – presumably the House Republican caucus – as “absolutists” who are without “principle.”

They are mucking up Obama’s agenda, and he won’t have it.

“For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay,” Obama said. “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect.”

Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism – “government by an absolute ruler or authority.” That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.

Once the president’s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.

This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat – whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.

Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?

The press, which avidly buys into the notion that much of the House Republican caucus is beyond reason, will lend a sympathetic ear to Obama as he struggles with the forces of darkness.

That reporters have been tapped to assist with Obama’s incipient GOP demonization campaign was made clear this week by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who in the handful of days since the inaugural, has already repeated the “absolutism” charge twice.

Read More:  http://www.politico.com/

THANKS A LOT SANDY


The aftermath of Sandy defies description.

  • Three feet of Snow in West Virginia;
  • Several inches of sand covering everything several miles inland in New Jersey;
  • The front of a building in New York City completely blown off;
  • A wind-blown fire wiping out 80 homes;
  • Millions of people without power, safe drinking water and uncertain sewers;
  • Transportation interrupted, especially flights.

I have prayed, and I hope you have been too, for the victims of this historic storm. Such devastation boggles the mind and the cost of recovery will be staggering, especially because we’re broke as a nation.

However, Americans have always rallied behind our fellow citizens who are suffering and in need. We will respond again. Already all the forces of good and caring are at work meeting needs and bring comfort. No, I am not including the government.

I have no doubt that needs will be met, rebuilding will happen and “normal” will one day be reestablished. However, I am extremely concerned about a disaster no one is talking about, and “normal” may never be realized again has a result of that disaster. I am referring to the Presidential Election coming up next Tuesday. The storm has opened wider that opportunity for Leftist voting shenanigans.

With all the arguments over Voter Registration, Voter I.D. and Voter Fraud, this natural disaster has provided and added opportunity to make the corrupt more powerful. Consider the national debate;

  • The Left opposes Voter I.D. because they curry the favor of people who are here illegally. I.D.s exposes the fraud.
  • In Florida, over 50,000 people that are on the voting registration rolls are deceased. How many do you think will rise from the dead and vote?
  • The introduction of early voting has given the Left more time to encourage fraud by multiple votes from some people.
  • The Left has already manipulated the Military Vote into nonexistence because they know the Military votes predominately Republican.
  • California has already announced they will not be counting the mailed in ballots, as they did in 2008, because they claim it won’t make a difference in the outcome.
  • The U.N. has been invited again to “observe” our voting because the U.N. has been told that Republicans repress the vote in certain areas prohibiting poor and elderly people from voting.
  • With the power off, some areas will have to go to paper ballots opening the doors for screams of voting irregularity should the Left loose. Yes, it has been reported that the lawsuits have already been drawn up and ready for filing should Mitt Romney win. You’ve also heard how the Left has already arranged riots in strategic areas should Mitt Romney win. That will open the door for Marshall Law to be established, and the election deemed null and void.
  • Like in California, the Registrar of Voters has admitted that many citizens are registered in multiple cities and can’t do anything about that person from voting in each location.
  • There is no way to determine the number of illegal votes in the States that have not passed Voter I.D. laws.
  • Like I said, opened doors more even more voting shenanigans, especially should the election be extended because of Sandy’s destruction.

For conservatives in California elections are becoming a farce. For over 50 years the Left files lawsuits if measures don’t go their way. The courts are so corrupt and Left, that most of the time the Left wins. More and more I hear people say, “Why vote when the Democrats go to court and get the election overturned.” And here the Left is the one always screaming about voter repression. California leads the nation in voter repression because the Left always wins in court when we do not vote their way.

For my house and me, we will vote. We refuse to give up. The drums of revolutionary war are getting louder every day. Will we see a revolution in our day? I’m not sure anymore. I am not armed, and that worries me.

Hopefully God is hearing our prayers asking Him to forgive our sins and heal our land. However, our nation has reached levels of inequity that dwarfs Biblical Israel. They were rightly judged for their turn from God. America deserves the same. Is there a remnant of believers big enough for God to withhold His hand? I don’t know. I am praying He heals instead of punishes. What are you praying for?

Libya commemorates 9/11


Editor’s Choice: http://www.humanevents.com/

Libya commemorates 9/11

By: Ann Coulter
9/12/2012 05:36 PM

When President Obama intervened in Libya last year, he claimed that “it’s in our national interest to act” to remove a tyrant who — in response to Bush’s invasion of Iraq — had just given up his weapons of mass destruction and pledged to be America’s BFF. Apparently Gadhafi neglected to also tell Obama, “I’ve got your back.”

Obama said: “We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms … our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for the governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.”

The Libyan mob was the equivalent of our founding fathers! (If you overlook the part about it being a murderous Islamic mob.)

Meanwhile, Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, said: “The people we are fighting for in Libya, the backbone of that movement, are former mujahedeen from around the world.” We are “enabling people who may not be formally aligned with al-Qaida but who want the same things to grasp ever closer to power.”

Scheuer said the media had taken “a few English-speaking Arabs who are pro-democracy and a few Facebook pages out of the Middle East and extrapolated that to a region-wide love of secular democracy,” adding, “It is as insane a situation as I’ve ever encountered in my life.”

No wonder Obama’s running for re-election on his foreign policy expertise!

Among Republicans, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum all called for aggressive action against Gadhafi, including enforcement of a no-fly zone.

Santorum cited Reagan’s 1986 bombing of Libya (after Gadhafi had killed American servicemen in Berlin), saying, “If you want to be Reaganesque, it seems the path is pretty clear.”

Gingrich took all sides, first demanding: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.”

Then, two weeks later, he said: “I would not have intervened.”

Only Mitt Romney and Haley Barbour resisted calling for aggressive action against Gadhafi, with Romney merely criticizing Obama’s deer-in-the-headlights response, and Barbour stating more directly, “I don’t think it’s our mission to make Libya look like Luxembourg.” No offense, he said, “but it is not ever going to look like what we’d like.”

The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman exulted that the Arab peoples “have come up with their own answer to violent extremism and the abusive regimes we’ve been propping up. … It’s called democracy.”

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius praised Obama’s major shift in strategy in seeing the Libyan uprising as a “positive development” and refusing to provide aid to the embattled dictator. “My own instinct,” he said, “is that Obama is right.”

French liberal blowhard Bernard-Henri Levy announced that “Libya will go down in history as the anti-Iraq. Iraq was a democracy parachuted in by a foreign power in a country which hadn’t asked for it. Libya was a rebellion which demanded help from an international coalition.”

The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette editorialized: “Most of the world is rejoicing because of the historic success in Libya. We’re glad it was accomplished by Libya’s people, not by a U.S. invasion ordered by right-wing American politicians.”

I note that the American ambassador in Iraq has not been murdered and his corpse dragged through the streets. I also recall that, a few years ago, when Muslims around the globe erupted in rioting over some Dutch cartoons, one Muslim country remained utterly pacific: George W. Bush’s Iraq.

Apparently U.S. invasions ordered by right-wing American politicians are the only ones that work in the Middle East. Fake uprisings orchestrated by Muslim fanatics are less propitious.

Learn your history, Americans. The American Revolution was not the revolt of a mob. It was a carefully thought-out plan for a republic, based on ideas painstakingly argued by serious men in the process of creating what would become the freest, most prosperous nation in world history.

The much-ballyhooed “Arab Spring,” with mobs of men gang-raping American reporters, firing guns in the air and murdering their erstwhile dictators, is more akin to the pointless bloodletting of the French Revolution.

That godless antithesis to the founding of America is the primogenitor of the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s slaughter and America’s periodic mob uprisings, from Shays’ Rebellion to today’s union thugs in Madison, Wis., and Occupy Wall Street.

Americans did win freedom and greater individual rights with their revolution. By contrast, the French Revolution resulted in bestial savagery, a slaughter of all the revolution’s leaders, followed by Napoleon’s dictatorship, followed by another monarchy, and then finally something resembling an actual republic 80 years later.

Violent mob uprisings have never led to a functioning democratic republic.

George Washington Gives Model of Presidential Leadership


– The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation – http://blog.heritage.org

George Washington Gives Model of Presidential Leadership

Posted By Rich Tucker On September 6, 2012 @ 10:48 am In First Principles |

The old joke about baseball in the District of Columbia was that Washington is “first in war, first in peace, and last in the league.” This slyly played off the age-old description of George Washington himself: “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

This year’s Nationals are running away with their division, so the joke finally feels dated. But George Washington himself remains a timeless hero who still deserves the full devotion of the American people.

First in war? “Through force of character and brilliant political leadership,” writes Heritage’s Matthew Spalding, “Washington transformed an underfunded militia into a capable force that, although never able to take the British army head-on, outwitted and defeated the mightiest military power in the world.” Spalding’s essay about Washington [2] has just been reissued as part of The Heritage Foundation’s series on people who’ve shaped American political thought [3].

First in peace? “As our first President, Washington set the precedents that define what it means to be a constitutional executive. He was a strong, energetic President but always aware of the limits on his office; he deferred to authority when appropriate but aggressively defended his prerogatives when necessary.”

First in the hearts of his countrymen? True then: “The vast powers of the presidency, as one delegate to the Constitutional Convention wrote, would not have been made as great ‘had not many of the members cast their eyes towards General Washington as president; and shaped their ideas of the powers to be given to a president, by their opinions of his virtue.’”

True now, as another presidential election approaches: “We take for granted the peaceful transferal of power from one President to another, but it was Washington’s relinquishing of power in favor of the rule of law—a first in the annals of modern history—that made those transitions possible.”

George Washington twice voluntarily surrendered power to return to a peaceful life on his Mount Vernon estate. The ruler he helped vanquish, King George III, called him “the greatest character of the age.” The capital city he gave his name to is renowned as the defender of freedom and opportunity.

As John Adams put it, Washington’s example “will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read.”

More than a century after Washington died, Woodrow Wilson [4] attempted to refound the United States on progressive principles. His experiment is still going on today. That explains why Washington remains so crucial: His guiding principles came from the written Constitution and Declaration of Independence, not some unwritten, “living” constitution.

Let us learn the first President’s lessons and move toward a more Washingtonian governance.


Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/06/george-washington-gives-model-of-presidential-leadership/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/rotunda-capitol-7-1-11.jpg

[2] Spalding’s essay about Washington: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/american-statesman-the-enduring-relevance-of-george-washington

[3] American political thought: http://www.heritage.org/issues/political-thought

[4] Woodrow Wilson: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/woodrow-wilson

Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: