In his speech at Shaker Heights High School, Obama proved — as Dennis Green might say — that he is who we though he was. In fact, Obama — under the guise of Champion to the Middle Class (he’s looking out for you!) — has essentially said that separation of powers, checks and balances, and, in effect, the Legislative branch itself, are mere nuisances that need to be circumvented, and that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution and Congress when the Legislative body refuses to do as he says.
That is, he has stated — now quite directly and clearly — that the Constitution is but a show piece, a ceremonial document to which the Chief Executive pretends to defer only until its constraints prevent him from acting in a way he wants to act, at which point, it is the “obligation” of the President to seize complete and total control of the reins of power, denying advice and consent powers to the Senate, denying the jurisdiction of the majority holders of the House to allow for an extended Senate recess, denying the legislature its role in passing laws (Obama has decided he will execute only those parts of the omnibus budget bill he himself signed that he likes, and the rest he will not; just as he has directed his Justice Department not to defend DOMA, even though it passed Congress and was signed into law by President Clinton), denying states the jurisdiction to protect their borders or enforce their voting laws, denying the people themselves the franchise by setting up commissions and bureaucratic agencies explicitly beyond the reach of the electorate and beyond the oversight of Congress; and doing so all in your name, claiming a popular mandate that doesn’t exist to justify the very behaviors that are laying the groundwork for a permanent tyranny.
One of the problems we in the US have is that we haven’t really seen tyranny up close, so we seem to think of it in cartoonish ways — a dictator in his camouflage fatigues and a Radar O’Reilly cap speaking from a balcony while the masses, ringed by a military protectorate, gather below and clap like trained seals — and as a result, we can’t believe it is actually happening here, now, in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
But it is. And Obama is telling you so. Harry Reid is telling you so. The activist progressive media is telling you so.
And what’s worse, I truly believe that at least some of the GOP, seeing the possibilities for such heretofore unprecedented usages of power, are content to wait their turn, to win elections and gain control of the kind of mammoth centralized government the Founders and Framers feared most, one that reinforces the institution of a permanent political class that will eventually be almost entirely beyond the reach of the people it ostensibly represents.
Obama is laying the groundwork for the dissolution of the Constitution. He is saying as much. So again I ask, is it okay, finally, to speak aloud precisely what it is this Marxist ideologue is doing? Or are we again to retreat to Wikipedia to challenge the nuanced historical accuracies of calling Obama a liberal fascist, or a Marxist, or a socialist, and so on — despite what we know about his mentors, his education, and his prior roles in community organizing and local government?
Listen to Obama claim the high ground, even as he is usurping full control over what is supposed to be a constitutional republic. Then listen to Mark Levin’s impassioned rebuke to Obama here.
And here.
Crazy-eyed extremist kook Michele Bachmann was right: we are at a perilous crossroads here. And this may be the last election we get to stave off the soft socialism that is everywhere being implemented in this country.
Once it takes root, the only way to remove it will be through the kinds of actions that no longer can be solved by men and women in power suits lunching collegially in Georgetown.
I think that Rick Moran passed a stone when you submitted this post.
Losing more slowly is still losing, and hoping the crocodile eats you last is hoping to get eaten.
dic·ta·tor
? ?[dik-tey-ter, dik-tey-ter] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
Once it takes root, the only way to remove it will be through the kinds of actions that no longer can be solved by men and women in power suits lunching collegially in Georgetown.
That’s scary and very, very sad.
I wonder if this is the driving fear behind the latest surge in gun purchases. Did you look at any of the comments on Yahoo over that story yesterday involving the 18 yr old mother killing a home invader? Yahoo is full of morons and liberals, but there wasn’t one negative comment, and about 5000 supportive ones. Interesting.
I think there’s nothing to do but arm yourself, prepare for inflation and grow your own potatoes, and wait for the next revolution. I really believe we are witnessing our own decline.
And what’s worse, I truly believe that at least some of the GOP, seeing the possibilities for such heretofore unprecedented usages of power, are content to wait their turn…
Too many of them, in fact; especially those at the top. One of the reasons I’m so committed to reforming the GOP is that if we don’t take it over, the opportunists surely will. Or, more accurately, if we don’t take it back from the opportunists now, they’ll never give us another chance.
They don’t want to put the Beast back in its pen; they just want their turn with the reins.
When the rule of law no longer holds, what then rules?
Tyrants always need some muscle backing and benefiting from their rule.
The rule of “I Won.”
Do not think that teh won has come to abolish the Constitution or the Founders; teh won has not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
He did run as a secular messiah, after all.
The rule of “I Won.”
That’s bad news for “you lost” then.
Especially if tommorow’s “you lost” is yesterday’s “I Won.”
Ms Fixit.
That’s because it was a chick. If I did that they’d all want to shave my balls with a rusty old Budweiser can they found in the woods.
Then force me to watch Nancy Grace.
Also, why is Tom Green standing behind Obama? I thought he was Canadian?
Obama is Canadian?
Now that explains everything.
ah, perhaps that’s the truth. I did think it odd the liberals were on board with that, but I guess feminists are ok with women blowing men apart with a 12ga.
Still – it’s better to live in a southern or red state, because in the coming years it’ll be safer. Relatively.
[…] awarded to Jeff Goldstein, proprietor of Protein Wisdom, for saying what way too many do not want to hear: One of the problems we in the US have is that we haven’t […]
When the rule of law no longer holds, what then rules?
See MissFixit at #5. It’s like Canada Bill Jones once said: “A Smith & Wesson beats four aces.”
#5 is also a good example of what happens (at least it’s what ought to happen) when your assailant brings a knife to your gunfight.
I’m waiting for him to suspend elections. That’s what dictators do.
If “Crazy-eyed extremist kook Michele Bachmann was right”, then what do you make of Mr. Crazy’s recent statement:
“By making ‘recess’ appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when Congress is not actually in recess, President Obama has acted in clear disregard of the Constitution.
And the President must be called to account for his actions.
It is disappointing that a former constitutional law professor does not understand that the President is not a dictator or a king who can simply ignore the Constitution whenever he feels frustrated by the system of checks and balances wisely put in place by our Founders.
I have opposed unconstitutional power grabs by Presidents of both parties throughout my Congressional career, and this consistency leaves me as the only Republican candidate with the credibility and the record to challenge President Obama on his continuous overstepping of his constitutional boundaries.
If the President insists on behaving in such a cavalier manner with regard to requirements set forth by the Constitution, then action by Congress may become necessary to rein in his flagrant contempt for the rules.”
– Ron Paul
What do I make of it? It sounds perfectly on point and constitutionally sound, then moves on into a campaign pitch: his suggestion that he is the only candidate with credibility to challenge Obama because he also challenged the Patriot Act or the NSA program, neither of which I believe unconstitutional, is simply a question beg; that is, to believe Paul, you have to believe the assertion. And it is the assertion that is acting as it’s own proof.
Other than that, it’s far better than some Establishment GOP views that indeed Obama DOES has the legitimate power to bypass advice and consent.
Furnace problems
You completed a few fine points there. I did a search on the issue and found the majority of persons will agree with your blog.
Wonderful spam! Lovely SPAAAAAAAAMM!
(SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM)