Tag Archives: unconstitutional

NEWS TO MUSE: Being Bibi; using polls to influence; the Chevy Chase presidency and political correctness v. the Constitution

Bibi beats Obama

Make no mistake about it.  President Obama’s people were behind a major effort to unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Obama’s own doubletalk was designed to scare Israeli voters into believing that Netanyahu’s re-election would hurt the Israeli-American alliance.  Operatives, clearly aligned to Obama, and paid for by Obama’s financial backers, such as George Soros, were on the ground working against Netanyahu.  (This may result in a congressional investigation).  The Obama anti-Netanyahu sentiment was reflected in the post election comments by the President’s personal Rasputin, David Axelod.  When exit polls suggested a win by Bibi, Axelrod ranted, “Tightness of exits in Israel suggests Bibi’s shameful 11th hour demagoguery may have swayed enough votes to save him. But at what cost?

Polling  or wishful thinking

Speaking of the polls.  Was the failure of the polls to predict the Israeli election outcome yet another example of polls leaning to the left only to be upset by the reality of the voting booth?  We see this often in American elections.  It was also evident internationally during the Reagan administrations when the American left was rooting for a Daniel Ortega Sandinista victory in Nicaragua.   In a remarkable similar situation to the Israeli election, the polls showed an easy victory for Ortega.  Left wing organizations were also on the ground working for the Communist leader against Reagan’s policy.  Ortega was buried in a “surprise” election landslide.  I do know that some polls are corrupt enough to be rigged, but I think most liberal pollsters have a tendency to include too many left wingers in the polling samples.  They then save face by alleging a “last minute shift” or “surge.” That is a bogus excuse.  Within the last month of an election, most voters a locked in.  They do not change their vote.  Even the so-called independents are pretty much decided before Election Day.

The Obama’s channeling the Griswolds

In a 2008 pre-presidency interview, candidate Barack Obama promised the American people of workaholic president.  He said “The bargain that any president strikes with is, you give me this office and in turn my, fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure is gone, I am giving myself to you.”  He added “that people should only run for president if they’re willing to make that sacrifice.”

Is this yet another example of a man who will say anything and mean none of it?

Obama and family have given new meaning to the term, “imperial presidency.”  The President seems to enjoy the trappings of the office more than the responsibilities.  The Obamas have logged a record breaking 38 vacation trips (exceeded only by the seemingly endless sequels of Chevy Chase’s National Lampoon vacation movies).  That averages to more than 6 vacations per year, not counting the many official business trips with time for play.

The extent of the Obama’s sense of privilege was evident when the President and Michelle left from the same location at approximately the same time for the same destination and they travelled in two different White House jumbo jets.

Your and my vacations have one thing in common with the Obama’s – we pay for all of them.  No need to budget when rich Uncle Sam is footing the bill.  So far, these pleasure trips have cost you and me officially more than $40 million.  I say “officially” since there are untold additional millions that are not charged as vacation expenses.

This does not include his 219 days on the golf course.  That comes to 10 percent of each year on top of vacations.  The president is also known to be off the deck during a lot of major events.  When as his whereabouts at moments of crisis, Obama engages the press in a White House version of “where’s Waldo”

The Lincoln-style rocking chair was the icon piece of White House furniture during the Kennedy presidency.  For Roosevelt it was the wheelchair.  In that spirit, I propose the Lazy-Boy lounge chair as the most appropriate symbol of the Obama presidency.

Liberal gulag politics.

This is really scary.  The hard core left in American politics it in full assault on free speech – among the most sacred of our Constitutional liberties.  We have long believed in a quote attributed, correctly or wrongly, to Voltaire “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  Over the years, the Supreme Court has protected virtually all speech – even speech offensive to the sensibility of the general public.

Under liberal oppression and political correctness, however, that concept is being declared null and void.

Not long ago, New York Governor Cuomo said that conservatives have no business in New York.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stated that those who question global warming should be jailed.  More recently Al Gore said that people who question global warming need to suffer severe consequences.

People who violate the rules of liberal political correctness are to be subjected to criminal punishment, or at least committed to re-education (so-called diversity) programs.  Obama & Company attack critics as racists, malcontents, enemies of the state and even terrorists.  The very agencies of the American government, such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice, are all corrupted to oppress opinion.

In the radical liberal world, you can be profane, pornographic, sacrilegious, and obscene.  Political correctness does not apply to attacks on Republicans, conservatives, southerners and those who “cling to their guns and bibles.” Liberalism, like all authoritarian beliefs, views disagreement as a form of philosophic apostasy.

All this smacks of the old Stalin/Mao approach, where disagreement with the powers that be is viewed either as criminal or mental illness.

NEWS TO MUSE: Meaningless opinions, meaningless delays, meaningless oaths and meaningless Internet benefits

Rand Paul wind CPAC straw poll.  So What?

For the third year in a row, Rand Paul has won the CPACE straw poll.  The news made it seem like he won the Iowa primary.  Paul got 25 percent of the vote with new comer, Scott Walker, close behind with 21 percent.  When winning a poll is based on a plurality rather than a majority, it really needs to be questioned.  I mean, 75 percent of the attendees at CPAC voted against Paul.  That does not seem like a meaningful victory to me.  Also, in a field of more than 10 candidates, the guy with the biggest hard core supporters wins.  It is also understood by political pros that any poll that creates a horserace between more than ten candidates is … to put it in a word … meaningless.

Watching the GOP wiggle on the hook.

Did you wonder why the Democrats refused to support a three week DHS funding bill in favor of a one week delay?  Easy answer.  Since the Democrats have Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans boxed in on an increasingly unpopular tactic, and they know the press will hype the drama of last minute maneuvers, why give the GOP a break from the bad press?  Also, this consumes a lot of the media attention in the week that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in the Capitol Building making Obama and the Democrats look bad for negotiating with terrorists – specifically Iran.

So, what parts of the United States Constitution does President Obama intend to uphold?

When President Obama raised his right hand and took the oath of office, he must have had his fingers crossed. By imperial decree, the President thinks a range of popular bullets should be banned from manufacturing, selling and owning.  This essentially makes the guns that use them wall decorations.  This sounds more like undermining rather than defending the Second Amendment, as he swore to do.  In his campaign, he claimed to be a strong defender of the right to own guns.  But now we know he is liar – maybe pathological.  Too harsh, you say?  Think back.  There was the promise of greater transparency.  His opposition to gay marriages (which David Axelrod revealed as a premeditated lie).  Then there was keeping your doctor and lowering your premiums (a premeditated lie revealed by Jonathon Gruber).  Remember his criticism of George Bush’s use of Executive Orders?  He promised to end excessive spending in Washington.  Yep! He promised fiscal responsibility.  He said he would improve the floundering image of the United States around the world.  He said he would end the war in the Middle East.  The only thing he ended was the United State winning.  Then there was that whopper about “post racial America.”

Netting the Internet

President Obama looks back to FDR’s New Deal to come up with a bad deal for users of the Internet.  In typical liberal double talk, we are to believe that the Internet will be freer and fairer with our federal government promulgating hundreds of pages of regulations.  This is liberal thinking.  We have more freedom if and elite group of Washington bureaucrats make up the rules for us to live by.  Under a misnamed policy of “Net Neutrality,” federal regulators will decide how we use the Internet.  And, this is not some new policy.  They basically made copies of the 1930s Rooseveltian regulations that made a government monopoly of our telephone services.  If you think that was a good idea, remember that none of the amazing things we can now do with phones happened until we ended that old monopoly.

DAILY OBSERVATION: Obama is Now a Two Time Offender. Or, Maybe Three Time.

In a previous DO, I noted the distinction between the President’s authority under “prosecutorial discretion” and breaking the law.  In issuing documents to allow illegal aliens to work he has broken the law.  On my Facebook, I asked how Obama’s action is any different than some sleaze ball in the ‘hood printing up fraudulent work visas?  The law has not changed.  Is that local crook also merely nullifying the law?

Now there is a second obvious superseding of the law.  In ordering the Department of Homeland Security to “establish a new program” to allow the undocumented to stay free of prosecution and deportation (under Obama’s authority of prosecutorial discretion) and to issue work documents (new law, ergo unconstitutional), the President has now committed Count 2 in unconstitutional action.

Creating such a major program requires the action of Congress AND the funding by Congress.  Such multi billion dollar program needs to get an impact analysis by the Government Accounting Office.  It needs an analysis regarding the impact on job numbers.  We are talking about millions of new job seekers.

Then there is a possible Count 3.  Is it the President’s intent to aid and abet fraudulent voting?  There is no secret that the President, most Democrats and a lot of pundits see Hispanics as a hopefully captive voting block, like African Americans.  Personally, I think they may be surprised, but that for a future blog.

We can stop all the pretense about illegal registration.  The number of fraudulent votes in controlled Democrat regions is well known — from multiple balloting, unqualified voters, abuse of the absentee (now early) ballots, bribes for votes, ghost voters and even the dead. Many of the illegally arriving immigrants, including the gangbangers and drug cartellians, are being placed in the care of the big city Democrat machines — Chicago, New York, etc.  Part of their initiation to America will be the learning the ways of illegal voting.

This is historic and well established.  So, where does Obama come in?  Even though Obama does not grant voting rights (a constitutional breach too far), he does provide them with all the necessary, arguably illegal, documentation to register to vote. As sure as Obama is lying when his lips are moving, you can rest assured that a goodly number of those covered by Obama’s personal version of amnesty will be casting votes in 2016.  Wanna bet?

DAILY OBSERVATON: Obama’s Immigration Move is Style Over Substance – and Unconstitutional

There is no secret why President Obama acted now.  He had reneged on addressing immigration at least two times in the past.  He was locked in by both his unfulfilled longtime and pre-election promises.  If he did not act, the ire of the Latino community would have put his popularity numbers in the bottom third percentile.

Where he miscalculated is the shellacking he took in the election.  He lost the Senate, and the national agenda is about to be taken over by Republicans.  He was going to get the GOP immigration bills on his desk – the bills that Harry Reid had blocked in the Senate.  They will be more popular with the public, provide a permanent repair of the broken immigration system and give the Latino community a certainty Obama denies them.

The President made a grand symbolic gesture that produces little change.  He is scamming the Latino community by promising security while giving only a temporary, perishable and highly dubious fix.

While he does have traditional presidential authority over “prosecutorial desecration” (deciding not to deport), he has no authority to change the law with regard to employment.  It is against the law for illegal aliens to take jobs, and it is illegal for anyone to hire them.

Ordering the government to give documents suggesting employability status to Illegal aliens is clearly beyond his constitutional power.  It is still illegal for businesses to hire undocumented workers.  Obama is either violating his oath to uphold the Constitution or he is aiding and abetting criminal activity – or both.

Illegal aliens have no more long range security than they had before Obama’s desperate action.  They have no access to citizenship.  No guarantee against future deportation. No guarantee of jobs.  Perhaps he thinks they are too stupid to notice that lack of change.

Rather than provide clarity and certainty, the President has further muddied the waters and provoked unnecessary public discord with a constitutional crisis. He has further fouled the environment of political discourse and negotiation.  He has again proven his gross ineptness.