President Obama thinks he should be a dictator

Remember when the left were all up in arms over President Bush’s “signing statements,” statements which gave the President’s interpretation of acts he was signing into law? Where will they be tomorrow night? From The Wall Street Journal:

Obama to Assert Unilateral Agenda
President to Seek to Use State of the Union Address to Shift Souring View of Leadership
By Carol E. Lee and Damian Paletta | Updated Jan. 26, 2014 9:27 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night will seek to shift the public’s souring view of his leadership, a challenge the White House sees as critical to shaping the nation’s policy direction over the next three years.

Mr. Obama will emphasize his intention to use unilateral presidential authority—bypassing Congress when necessary—to an extent not seen in his previous State of the Union speeches, White House officials said.

He also is expected to announce that some of the nation’s largest employers, including Xerox Corp., AT&T Inc., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Procter & Gamble Co., have signed a White House pledge agreeing not to discriminate against the long-term unemployed when making hiring decisions, according to a draft of the policy and interviews with several people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Obama will stress that he intends to take unilateral action on a host of other issues: infrastructure development, job training, climate change and education. Administration officials hinted broadly at the assertive new direction Sunday.

“We need to show the American people that we can get something done,” Dan Pfeiffer, a senior White House adviser, told CNN as part of a round of interviews previewing the speech.

More at the original.

President Obama’s problem is simple: though he was re-elected, so were the Republicans who hold a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, and the Republicans are not going to pass presidential policy into law any more than is absolutely necessary. And the Constitution gives them that power!

The result? President Obama, who so strongly criticized his predecessor, thinks that he ought to just be a dictator. Were Barack Hussein Obama a Republican, the left would be up in arms about this. But, since he’s a Democrat, they’ll meekly applaud.

31 Comments

  1. Because the Republican House has the power, does not mean they should use it as they have since January 2011.

    A citizen might hope for some sanity from their elected representatives once in office, but so far there has been very little if any.

    Then what is a President of the other party to do in order to govern this nation?

    The Editor offers no solution, only ridicule.

  2. Immoralist: Then what is a President of the other party to do in order to govern this nation?

    He can accept the fact that he is merely one branch of three in our government, and that the other two have rights equal to his own. The fact that he can’t get his way all the time does NOT give him the right to play dictator.

    That said, go away, LOSER!

  3. Then what is a President of the other party to do in order to govern this nation?

    Said President shouldn’t start off with a statement like “We won” inferring no one else has any input. Then instead of road blocking the other party’s input, sit down and compromise. In stead of rail roading a bill like ACA through Congress without ONE opposition vote for it perhaps it would behoove said President to step back and ask himself why are they universally opposed. Finally, to suggest he will use his pen and phone to become a virtual dictator is a treasonous threat against the republic.

  4. The moralist, who sounds rather similar to a previously banned commenter, although his IP address comes from Virginia Beach, wrote:

    Because the Republican House has the power, does not mean they should use it as they have since January 2011.

    A citizen might hope for some sanity from their elected representatives once in office, but so far there has been very little if any.

    The Republican majority faced the voters in 2012, and were returned to office. It sounds to me as though their constituents approved.

    Then what is a President of the other party to do in order to govern this nation?

    The Editor offers no solution, only ridicule.

    The Framers never intended for the President to “govern this nation.” They intended policy to be set by the Congress, and the President to run the government in accordance with the laws passed by the Congress. If the Congress does not choose to pass the laws that the President wants, that’s just too bad for him: his duty is administer the laws as they are written.

    I “offer no solution,” because I do not see the Congress not passing laws as a problem. Thomas Jefferson (supposedly) said, “That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves. If we are directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we will soon want for bread.” Henry David Thoreau wrote, in Civil Disobedience:

    I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

    I do not want a government which tries to manage the economy, because such almost always fails, and I do not want a government which picks winners and losers, and I do not want a government which takes from the man who has earned his living to give to those who will not. I want a government which fills the basic functions: the protection of the citizens from criminals, the provision of fire departments and public education, and the building of roads, and which provides for the defense of our nation. And I want all of those tasks to be performed by that level of government which is as close to the people as is possible.

  5. I do not want a government which tries to manage the economy, because such almost always fails, and I do not want a government which picks winners and losers, and I do not want a government which takes from the man who has earned his living to give to those who will not. I want a government which fills the basic functions: the protection of the citizens from criminals, the provision of fire departments and public education, and the building of roads, and which provides for the defense of our nation. And I want all of those tasks to be performed by that level of government which is as close to the people as is possible.

    A very sober and cognizant reply. I would however, remove “public education” from the to do list. When we allowed any government above the most local to enter education we allowed the politicians to decide what was taught. We see today how well they’ve done. The concept of “public education” repels me for some reason. Perhaps it’s my distrust that it will remain local or perhaps it’s my feeling that the concept removes the obligation of parents to educate their kids.

    I went to public school like most of you guys here but my family took a very hands on approach to my sister and my education. They identified my dyslexia at an early age. Not doctors, not teachers, mom and dad. They insisted we learn an instrument so when my sister wanted to play the piano she was given a violin. When I wanted a violin, you guessed it a shiny piano was moved into a corner of the living room. We had to learn a language. Jeannie wanted Latin, got French. You can guess the rest. But we had to perform to my parents standards not the School District of Philadelphia’s, not the state’s board of ed and not the Dept of Education in DC. ( I don’t think the feds were involved when I was a kid and I don’t know why they are now). Frankly, my parents didn’t give a rats ass what those entities and bureaucrats thought. We moved on when THEY said we move on , no sooner and no later.

    Now, comrade Moralist who IS in fact said person as anyone can tell by the smug yet antagonistic way he enters a conversation, would probably agree with any and all programs, mandates , taxes, regulations and penalties any regulatory body would impose on the people. That’s why I call him “comrade”. I am definitely not the brightest bulb in the pack but even I can tell comrade Moralist is comrade Perry. The only thing an IP address from Virginia Beach proves is that leftists of all ages are deceitful liars and will circumvent any and all rules they would themselves impose on others.

  6. Because the Republican House has the power, does not mean they should use it as they have since January 2011.

    The “Republican House” as you so disdainfully put it has the exact same power as any Democratic House would have and they have the duty to use said power the way their constituents who VOTED them into office has instructed them.

  7. I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

    Has this theoretical statement ever been demonstrated either before Thoreau’s time or after? If so, please enlighten me, as I am unaware.

    The Framers never intended for the President to “govern this nation.” They intended policy to be set by the Congress, and the President to run the government in accordance with the laws passed by the Congress.

    The Framers never imagined that there would be a Congress as uncompromising and dysfunctional as the one we’ve had since the day President Obama, a black man, took office. And he was reelected by a majority, no less, indicating what the expectations of the majority of Americans were, such as immigration reform, jobs, withdrawal from our wars, and assistance to those in or near poverty.

    … and I do not want a government which takes from the man who has earned his living to give to those who will not.

    This an oft used cannard which has no basis in fact for the majority of those at or below the poverty level, since about 75% of those poor families have one or more employed workers, many of whom earn wages which border on slavery.

    These are moral issues which must be addressed. What nation of any merit can possibly ignore the poor families in their midst?

  8. Has this theoretical statement ever been demonstrated either before Thoreau’s time or after? If so, please enlighten me, as I am unaware.

    Of course you’re “unaware” because you are willingly blind, you fool. Unless you favor a government that governs more….like Nazis…like commies….wait! That’s why I call you “comrade”. You are a tyrant, totalitarian, a despot. Honestly, you really don’t see that Thoreau’s statement is not “theoretical” but really common sense?

    The Framers never imagined that there would be a Congress as uncompromising and dysfunctional as the one we’ve had since the day President Obama, a black man, took office

    Sure they did you dumb fuck. That’s why they created a “Constitutional Republic” instead of a democracy run by the lowest common denominator…YOU. And black or white, red or yellow does not matter. What matters is FREEDOM for every American. You racist pig…every thing with you is about color. The only color you are is RED!

    This an oft used cannard which has no basis in fact for the majority of those at or below the poverty level, since about 75% of those poor families have one or more employed workers, many of whom earn wages which border on slavery.

    If they border on slavery it’s because you and your ilk treat them as slaves. Like the “liberals” in Congress who have interns they pay ZERO. Why don’t you open up your home to them? Take down your community gates and give them YOUR MONEY? Who are you to preach to the rest of us that WE are the bad guys? All the while you live well healed and suck money you NEVER earned out of those who are working now to put food on their table. You own your home. You have your IRA’s. You have your government pension. But the rest of us, including your own grandchildren are supposed to support you. You’re a pig and a communist. Sell your house, divest your funds and forgo your Social Security ….then I’ll believe you “care”. Right now, you’re just a communist pig sucking the marrow out of the bones of every other American whilst claiming “Morality”. Fucking liar and a pig. And please, don’t ignore the “Poor families” in our midst. I don’t. June and I gave $183,000 to charity last year. What did you do you lying hypocrite?

  9. As a disclaimer, I gave about $140,000 to Veterans projects and the rest went to June’s personal charities. It may sound a tad lopsided but she and I have different priorities. She gives a lot to Christian funds and I tend to support more…..warriors. Perhaps, in heaven, God will tell me I was wrong. Somehow I doubt that.

  10. A Moralist who sounds an awful like a previously banned commenter wrote:

    The Framers never intended for the President to “govern this nation.” They intended policy to be set by the Congress, and the President to run the government in accordance with the laws passed by the Congress.

    The Framers never imagined that there would be a Congress as uncompromising and dysfunctional as the one we’ve had since the day President Obama, a black man, took office. And he was reelected by a majority, no less, indicating what the expectations of the majority of Americans were, such as immigration reform, jobs, withdrawal from our wars, and assistance to those in or near poverty.

    I would like to see, from you, a quote from one of the Framers, in which he indicated that the President should rule by decree if the Congress would not agree to pass the laws he wanted.

    We’ll have yet another election ten months from now, in which the Republicans will, again, win a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives, and will, it looks right now, narrow the Democrats lead in the Senate. Larry Sabato, the University of Virginia political science professor to whom the media go for election analysis, puts the odds at 50-50 that the Republicans win control of the Senate.

    Of course, we know what your reaction would be if Mitt Romney were President, with the Republicans controlling the Senate, but the Senate blocking everything Mr Romney wanted; you’d be telling us that that was the purpose of our bicameral legislature!

  11. The Immoralist wrote:

    … and I do not want a government which takes from the man who has earned his living to give to those who will not.

    This an oft used cannard which has no basis in fact for the majority of those at or below the poverty level, since about 75% of those poor families have one or more employed workers, many of whom earn wages which border on slavery.

    These are moral issues which must be addressed. What nation of any merit can possibly ignore the poor families in their midst?

    Trouble is, the “solutions” you and your party would impose would create more dependency on government, not less. After half a century of the “war on poverty,” we have as many poor people today as ever, because you guys have all been wrong!

    You cannot give people money that they haven’t earned, and think that will make them more productive workers; you cannot ease the pressure on people to work, and get them to work harder.

    The President wants to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. Now, what will that do? It will take millions of workers who make above the minimum wage now, and make minimum wage workers of them! If there is a $2.85 increase in the minimum wage, do you think that the guy currently making $12.00 an hour will go to $14.85, or will he stay closer to $12.00? If you know anything about economics at all, you’d realize that he’d stay closer to $12.00, leaving him above the new minimum wage, but closer to the minimum wage than he was.

    The President’s policies would cluster more people toward the bottom of the economic scale! But liberals can’t figure that out, liberals can’t understand that.

  12. Walter Williams, as comrade Perry would say, a black man had this to say in his column today:

    Part of the progressive agenda is to create hate and envy. One component of that agenda is to attack the large differences between a corporation’s chief executive officer’s earnings and those of its average worker. CNNMoney published salary comparisons in “Fortune 50 CEO pay vs. our salaries” (http://tinyurl.com/c2b24rv). Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf’s annual salary is $2.8 million. CNN shows that it takes 66 Wells Fargo employees, whose average salary is $42,400, to match Stumpf’s salary. It takes 57 Wal-Mart employees, who earn $22,100 on average, to match CEO Michael Duke’s $1.3 million. At General Electric, 44 employees earning $75,300 a year match CEO Jeff Immelt’s $3.3 million salary. For people with little understanding, such differences seem patently unfair. Before touching on the fairness issue, let’s look at some high salaries that progressives ignore.

    Forbes lists the “Highest-Paid Football Players 2013″ (http://tinyurl.com/kw4dv3d). Drew Brees, quarterback for the Saints, earned $40 million. If the average Saints organization employee earned $45,000, it would take almost 900 of them to match Brees’ salary. Patriots quarterback Tom Brady earned $31.3 million, and Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant earns $23.5 million for playing basketball. It would take the earnings of more than 1,200 workers making $45,000 a year to match the earnings of Brady and Bryant.

    But the “unfair” salaries of sports players pale in comparison with movie stars. According to Forbes’ listing of the highest-paid actors (http://tinyurl.com/k3p8djs), Robert Downey Jr. earned $75 million from June 2012 to June 2013. Channing Tatum: $60 million. Hugh Jackman: $55 million. Let’s suppose the cameraman working with Downey earned $60,000. It would take the salaries of 1,250 of them to equal his salary. Oprah Winfrey’s 2012 salary came to $165 million, thousands of times what the earnings of people who work for her are.

    Though sports and Hollywood personalities earn multiples of CEO salaries, you’ll never find leftists and progressives picketing and criticizing them. Why? The strategy for want-to-be tyrants is to demonize people whose power they want to usurp. That’s the typical way tyrants gain power. They give the masses someone to hate. In 18th-century France, it was Maximilien Robespierre’s promoting hatred of the aristocracy that led to his acquiring dictatorial power. In the 20th century, the communists gained power by promoting public hatred of the czars and capitalists. In Germany, Adolf Hitler gained power by promoting hatred of Jews and Bolsheviks.

    Williams goes on to point out that if GE could hire a CEO with the same business skills for $100,000 perhaps they would. If the team could hire a Drew Brees for $100,000 perhaps they would. But they wouldn’t! Do you know why comrade? Because in a free country a guy like me would swoop in (recognizing good talent) and steal them away by offering them $200,000. That’s a lesson in economics you commies never understand. Nobody, nobody other than in a union shop is paid more than they are worth. And the day they can not justify their pay, they’re fired.

    So the next time you start your moaning about income inequality tell it to Opra, Brees, and Ironman, ya dumbass.

  13. Give a man a fish, and he will eat for today, teach a man to fish, then the Gummint will require a fishing license; tax his tackle and gear; limit the size, what he can catch and put certain fish as off limits; tax and license his boat; and harrass him while on the water to see what he caught. So, give me a fish :-D

  14. I love that one Yorkshire. You can believe it will be repeated at the bar of the Club today. Yes, I’ll give you credit!

    Hoagie: Take the credit and have fun with it. It’s something like it I heard a few years ago. York.

  15. The President’s policies would cluster more people toward the bottom of the economic scale! But liberals can’t figure that out, liberals can’t understand that.

    I keep telling you – it’s not that they don’t understand, it’s that THEY JUST DON’T CARE !! Left wingers didn’t care that cancelling the Keystone Pipeline also cancelled thousands of good paying jobs. And why? Because, in large part, it didn’t affect them personally. Left wingers tend to be snooty elitists, clustered in fields like academia and the media, and so why should they be expected to relate to guys who wear hard hats and bring lunch boxes to work?

  16. so why should they be expected to relate to guys who wear hard hats and bring lunch boxes to work?

    Because those are the very guys that make America hum. They also vote, you know. I’ve spent most of my life as an employer not an employee and I have a firm respect for men I’ve known much more successful than myself because of their work ethic. That said, the employees I’ve had the privilege to know, employ and work beside are some of the finest men and women I’ve ever known. They work hard and they play hard. They go through life’s ups and downs and keep on pushing. They never surrender. We have the greatest businessmen in the world but without the greatest employees in the world nothing gets done.

    These elitists need to know that the real businessmen and the real workers are only gonna take being ripped off for so long then they just stop. We cannot survive when 50.1% of the people can vote money from the other 49.9%. And all those crony’s and politicians in the middle steal our money from our treasury, our future and our children just to buy more votes.

  17. Hube
    Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 15:04

    LOL! The language of “Moralist” is Perry, Editor. Ban his butt immediately!

    (BTW, a more accurate moniker would be “Moral Relativist,” Per.)

    It must be lonely down there in his Gap Hole with no one but a transgender-wannabe and depressive neurotic librarian from New Zealand for what is only very occasional company.

    One of you fellows, who believe that your can trust Perry with your e-mail and as a result, possibly your name and address, go over there to the Gap Bridging website the “Editor” has provided for him, and leave a few pitying comments.

    Of course that excludes you Hoagie, since we know that Perry tried to malevolently insinuate that you were guilty of felonious financial irregularities, without any evidence or even cause whatsoever. And it would be absurd for you to have any further dealings with such a person.

    And you too Hube are excused, since Perry repeatedly expressed an interest in ruining your academic career over your lack of collectivist sensibilities and allegiances, if he could only gather enough personal information on you to do so.

    And ropelight, you too are excused, since Perry unjustly and paranoiacally accused you of some shenanigans having to do with his e-mail; and you could hardly be expected to reveal yours to him, given his manifest malice and conscienceless vindictiveness.

    John of course wants nothing to do with him as John cannot abide liars. And I see no reason for indulging a perseverating human street organ which endlessly pumps out the same pre-programmed collectivist tunes no matter what the topic.

    So, I guess that leaves … I don’t know who …

    Say, and speaking of corroding communist calliopes, Pete Seeger died the other day.

    I wonder why so many of the type, from Lenin on, wish to look like … well, like Anton LaVey?

  18. Though sports and Hollywood personalities earn multiples of CEO salaries, you’ll never find leftists and progressives picketing and criticizing them. Why? The strategy for want-to-be tyrants is to demonize people whose power they want to usurp. That’s the typical way tyrants gain power. They give the masses someone to hate. In 18th-century France, it was Maximilien Robespierre’s promoting hatred of the aristocracy that led to his acquiring dictatorial power. In the 20th century, the communists gained power by promoting public hatred of the czars and capitalists. In Germany, Adolf Hitler gained power by promoting hatred of Jews and Bolsheviks.

    I don’t see much demonizing of individuals by progressives, be they CEO’s, athletes or entertainers, rather it is the general values/morals which promote such discrepancies without giving due regard to the needs of the poor, disabled, and unfortunate. It was not this way post WWII until about the “80′s. In our income disparity, we have now exceeded the last peak in 1928, after which came the Great Depression and resultant chaos. A few generations ago, the elites like the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Vanderbilts, Watsons, and now even the Buffets, the Gates, and the Zuckerbergs and others, they all gave/are giving back.

    I just don’t think that the values deficits which produced the post 1928 social catastrophes and are being repeated presently are healthy at all for our nation. The government cannot change this, only individuals can.

  19. we have now exceeded the last peak in 1928, after which came the Great Depression and resultant chaos.

    And we have the biggest gap now since even the 90s. And guess who’s been in charge. Imagine that.

  20. rather it is the general values/morals which promote such discrepancies without giving due regard to the needs of the poor, disabled, and unfortunate.

    Really? Are you suggesting we do not have hundreds of programs coast to coast addressing the “needs of the poor, disabled and unfortunate”? Or do you insinuate the ability of Oprah to generate 165 million in income is somehow a “value/morals” problem? Like had she not made that money it would have magically appeared in the pockets of “the poor, disabled and unfortunate”.

    And just so you know, there is nothing stopping you from writing checks and handing them out to “the poor, disabled and unfortunate” all you want. You can start today if you like.

  21. Really? Are you suggesting we do not have hundreds of programs coast to coast addressing the “needs of the poor, disabled and unfortunate”? Or do you insinuate the ability of Oprah to generate 165 million in income is somehow a “value/morals” problem? Like had she not made that money it would have magically appeared in the pockets of “the poor, disabled and unfortunate”.

    No, I am suggesting that now, the state of the economy being still weak with too few jobs, now is not the time to cut back on unemployment insurance and/or food stamps. We can pay for these emergency benefits by more judicious cutting of our still bloated defense budget.

    Oprah does give back, big time, so regarding her there is no “values/morals” problem. It would be great if her example were followed by others like her.

    And we have the biggest gap now since even the 90s. And guess who’s been in charge. Imagine that.

    That’s just it: The dysfunctional elements of our government are in charge by default, doing little to nothing about this growing income gap problem and the concurrent increase in those living in poverty. Must we wait until chaos and violence mushroom, before we act?

  22. The Moral relativist wrote:

    No, I am suggesting that now, the state of the economy being still weak with too few jobs, now is not the time to cut back on unemployment insurance and/or food stamps. We can pay for these emergency benefits by more judicious cutting of our still bloated defense budget.

    And what are they cutting in the Defense Department? They’re cutting retirement benefits for servicemembers who earned them, they are cutting commissaries for underpaid servicemembers, and the President’s cockamamie order to increase the minimum wage for federal contractors will just add costs to contractor-run base service units, which means higher costs for military personnel.

    Instead, we keep extending unemployment benefits, creating a class of people with atrophied skills, making themselves unhireable, who have no incentive to take a job which doesn’t pay significantly more than the eternal unemployment benefits.

    In June, North Carolina cut the duration of benefits from a maximum of 63 weeks to a maximum of 19 weeks. The state’s subsequent employment growth outperformed not only its neighbors—Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia—but also the rest of the United States. Neighboring states had durations of unemployment benefits ranging from 63 weeks in Tennessee to 40 weeks in Virginia.

    More at the link.

  23. DNW, it wasn’t about email. Perry accused me of employing professional investigators to obtain his personal information. Which, of course, I didn’t do. I don’t give a tinker’s damn who the ignorant, mean-spirited, old half-wit is, never have.

    His accusation was a clear psychological projection of his own nefarious instincts. Perry was always trying to collect personal info to use against opposition commenters. And he was never shy about twisting it to impugn motives or as a basis for making threats to employers. Time and again he’s shown himself to be a low-brow bully and a wouldbe blackmailer which amply demonstrates an altogether loathsome personality and more than justifies his banishment, here and elsewhere, no matter how many phony IP addresses the immoral old reprobate hides behind.

  24. And what are they cutting in the Defense Department? They’re cutting retirement benefits for servicemembers who earned them, they are cutting commissaries for underpaid service members,………..

    That’s the leftist way. Just like sequester when instead of looking for waste, fraud and abuse they cut off access to the White House, national monuments etc. Heaven forbid they cut Obama’s next vaca from 11 million to a measly 4 million or Mooochelles birthday party back to 200 from 500. No, no, no they must hurt as many of “the little people” as possible to prove how powerful and needed they are. You could call them “Moralists”.

  25. Dana, for God’s sakes, just BAN THE DAMN TROLL ALREADY!

    If you had cockroaches in the house, would you invite them onto your dining room table, or just get out a can of RAID?

Comments are closed.