Obama's Second Term

[philunderwood]

Waiving Freedom

By Thomas Sowell

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Among the objections to ObamaCare, one that has not gotten as much attention as it should is the president's power to waive the law for any company, union or other enterprise he chooses.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides for "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans. To have a law that can cost an organization millions of dollars a year either apply or not apply, depending on the whim or political interest of the President of the United States, is to make a mockery of the rule of law.

How secure is any freedom when there is this kind of arbitrary power in the hands of one man?

What does your right of freedom of speech mean if saying something that irritates the Obama administration means that you or your business has to pay huge amounts of money and get hit with all sorts of red tape under ObamaCare that your competitor is exempted from, because your competitor either kept quiet or praised the Obama administration or donated to its reelection campaign?

Arbitrary ObamaCare waivers are bad enough by themselves. They are truly ominous as part of a more general practice of this administration to create arbitrary powers that permit them to walk roughshod over the basic rights of the American people.

The checks and balances of the Constitution have been evaded time and time again by the Obama administration, undermining the fundamental right of the people to determine the laws that govern them, through their elected representatives.

You do not have a self-governing people when huge laws are passed too fast for the public to even know what is in them.

You do not have a self-governing people when "czars" are created by Executive Orders, so that individuals wielding vast powers equal to, or greater than, the powers of Cabinet members do not have to be vetted and confirmed by the people's elected representatives in the Senate, as Cabinet members must be.

You do not have a self-governing people when decisions to take military action are referred to the United Nations and the Arab League, but not to the Congress of the United States, elected by the American people, whose blood and treasure are squandered.

You do not have a self-governing people when a so-called "consumer protection" agency is created to be financed by the unelected officials of the Federal Reserve System, which can create its own money out of thin air, instead of being financed by appropriations voted by elected members of Congress who have to justify their priorities and trade-offs to the taxpaying public.

You do not have a self-governing people when laws passed by the Congress, signed by previous Presidents, and approved by the federal courts, can have the current President waive whatever sections he does not like, and refuse to enforce those sections, despite his oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

Barack Obama, for example, has refused to carry out sections of the immigration laws that he does not like, unilaterally creating de facto amnesty for those illegal immigrants he has chosen to be exempt from the law. The issue is not — repeat, NOT — the wisdom or justice of this President's immigration policy, but the seizing of arbitrary powers not granted to any President by the Constitution of the United States.

You do not have a self-governing people if President Obama succeeds in having international treaties under United Nations auspices govern the way Americans live their lives, whether with gun control laws or other laws.

Obama's "citizen of the world" mindset was revealed back in 2008, when he said "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that every other country is going to say okay."

The desire to circumvent the will of the American people was revealed even more ominously when Barack Obama said to Russian President Medvedev — when he thought the microphone was off — that, after he is reelected and need never face the voters again, he can be more "flexible" with the Russians about missile defense.

There are other signs of Obama's contempt for American Constitutional democracy, but these should be more than enough. Dare we risk how far he will go when he never has to face the voters again, and can appoint Supreme Court justices who can rubber stamp his power grabs? Will this still be America in 2016?

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?tag=debt

Election summary – time to move on

Published November 8, 2012. | By Bruce McQuain.

OK, look, I’m done with the election. It’s over. Romney lost. Time to move on.

Most of us who follow politics understand the reasons and have a pretty good idea of why he’s going home and the Obama’s are staying in the White House. Short version: They let the left define the election issues. It was a masterful job of distraction aided and abetted by a complicit media (hey, “60 Minutes”, you have NO credibility anymore). Period.

Guess what those issues weren’t? The winning issues: Jobs. Economy. Debt. Deficit. ObamaCare. Benghazi. Fast and Furious.

Result? Lost.

Lesson: Don’t let your opposition define the issues. A lesson as old as politics. Romney’s campaign blew it. It allowed the left to make it about “lady parts”, abortion, contraception, Bain Capital, class warfare and racism. They made being successful something of which to be ashamed. And, of course, a couple of idiot GOP candidates at state level who came off like jackasses talking about “legitimate rape”, etc. who made it even worse (because the complicit media made their stupidity national stories — unlike jobs, the economy, debt, ObamaCare, Benghazi and Fast and Furious.).

And that scared the usual suspects enough to turn out and vote (ye olde and reliable low information voters in swing states who scare easily) and dampened GOP turnout (didn’t even get the number out that McCain got for heaven sake).

That’s the election in a nutshell.

So?

So, now we put that behind us and deal with the inevitable aftermath.

~McQ

[Ritty77]

You know, Romney got about 2.5 million less votes than McCain.

I was very confident that our side needed no extra motivation to vote other than Obama himself. It's mystifying that they didn't turn out to remove this president.

I hope those who didn't vote and those who voted for Obama get what they've asked for.

[leisuresuitlarry]

The ones that voted for Obama deserve a swift kick in the ass (if not more). I hope we, who have to suffer with the President for another term, do not pay a high price for the shortsightedness-of some.

[twinder]

Interesting perspective on Romney, the GOP and the election results.

politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/divided-gop-resulted-in-obama-victory/#ixzz2BdsRqdGg

[relenemiller]

I know that I can come here and not get bashed...

This election broke my heart, my spirit and my hope in our country. I found out that 74% of Christians didn't vote. I also found out that 50% of registered voters, nation wide didn't vote.

Combine those figures with the load of urban vote, the increasingly alarming amount of progressive additives since the last general election, the single woman vote and the Hispanic vote, hard core Democrats and the unions...Obama got another free pass.

People are oblivious to truths about him and so many voted race. Regardless of what anyone says, this election was about race and the nanny state. No one thinks anymore, they simply lock in step.

My young 23 year old son said, "Mom, Obama held his most radical agenda for the second term." I mentioned that to someone at the GOP headquarters to someone who's been doing this for years and he said my son probably has more wisdom that many people his age and older...

I am not going to go on the SG and place myself in the jaws of gloaters because I know that it will only provoke others and myself....They are waiting for my reaction. I'm not going to give them the satisfaction..

[philunderwood]

The coalition of people wanting free stuff, those believing government will provide help in the form of increased unemployment benefits, student and other loan or mortgage assistance, food stamps and other programs and those fearing they’ll lose SS and other entitlements, are a large segment of the voting public. Democrats capitalize on this and the MSM reports, or fails to report, in a manner that enhances the belief government is the answer. Add to this the useful idiots who believe Capitalism is evil and want to equalize outcome in the name of fairness and you have a problem Republicans are failing to overcome.

Four more years of this will have one of two consequences INMO; either the above coalition will be too large to overcome, or things will be so bad few will vote for a Democrat for many elections to come. There’s also the possibility things will collapse and then it’s anybodies guess what will happen.

It’s enough to make a guy glad to be 77 with most of his life behind him.

[twinder]

I don't know how true it may be but I read on one of the blogs that come to my email (not even sure how they found me, I don't subscribe to any) that in Florida, Ohio, and Colorado, there are many counties that have thousands more votes cast than they have registered voters. I'm beginning to become cynical about our election process. I've heard so many people tell me that they didn't vote because it doesn't matter. I'd like to reach out and slap them but it wouldn't make them change their minds.

I even have a member of the Fire Company who stated that they voted for Obama because he couldn't trust a Mormon. I'm dumbfounded. Same person lost three jobs over the last five years and the last two were directly related to the Obama economy. He always complained about Obama and the Dems and then he votes for them because Romney is a Mormon.

Unbelievable!

[relenemiller]

Guys,

The over one million person spread between the two on popular vote is not a small percentage. A spokesman from the local GOP said that the "gut feeling" is that Obama has no plans to leave the WH...not even in four more years. He replaces probably one, if not two SC judges...and issues an executive order that there will be no more elections held...He becomes leader of this country and who is going to stop him? The Senate? The House? Please tell me how this is not do-able when then SC interprets the law, not applies it.

[relenemiller]

BTW, did anyone read Newsweek's front page or hear about it today? Unbelieveable commentary something about goodbye whites??? And Newsweek is liberal....I believe we are headed for a civil war. The irony is that Obama doesn't like blacks, either...outside of those who are muslims.

[relenemiller]

GOP, You're Old, You're White, You're History!

That's what Newsweek said at the top of a Pic of Obama with a staff in one hand and what appears is the robe of Moses.....

I can't copy and past...well I don't know how to insert a link, but if you key it in, you will see the front cover.

[philunderwood]

The world isn’t going to come to an end in the next four years. On the optimistic side, O doesn’t have to play to his base any longer and may work on his legacy by moving to the middle and working with congress to improve the nations finances and other problems. Exchanges with the liberal loyalists would be fun if that were to happen.

[Ritty77]

Nov 9, 2012 20:19:21 GMT -5 relenemiller said:

GOP, You're Old, You're White, You're History!

That's what Newsweek said at the top of a Pic of Obama with a staff in one hand and what appears is the robe of Moses.....

I can't copy and past...well I don't know how to insert a link, but if you key it in, you will see the front cover.

He's dressed as Napoleon, I think.

[Ritty77]

Nov 10, 2012 8:49:13 GMT -5 philunderwood said:

The world isn’t going to come to an end in the next four years. On the optimistic side, O doesn’t have to play to his base any longer and may work on his legacy by moving to the middle and working with congress to improve the nations finances and other problems. Exchanges with the liberal loyalists would be fun if that were to happen.

That's a small possibility, Phil, but I hope so.

He didn't win this election; those that didn't vote handed it to him.

[relenemiller]

Thanks Keith for doing that for me. Thanks for noticing the correct armor also

I believe that Phil is hopeful, while Keith is a realist.

Sorry guys, he's not interested in working with anyone. Perhaps it is the male in you gentlemen who can't be discerning. He didn't do it the first time, when the election could have been at risk, he sure isn't going to do so this time. Phil, you've always spoken to the difference between what one perceives reality and what it really is (just paraphrasing you).

Did anyone on here see 2016? It wasn't commentary or fiction. Almost the entire production?documentary was based on O's deep seated allegiance to his father. It gives one a better understanding of what he wants for this country and not what the people want. If you haven't seen it, please take the time to do so. Same as the movie, Agenda!

Phil, no one knows when the Lord is coming back...not even you! And, even then, he isn't going to destroy the world..that comes post tribulation....but we both know that's another subject.

[philunderwood]

My comment above wasn’t un-realistic. I only posted it to counter some of the pessimism. That’s what Clinton did during his second term and it’s possible O will do the same, although I’m not holding my breath until it happens.

It no doubt causes discomfort among the true believers to consider O might move toward the right a bit. ;D ;D ;D

[relenemiller]

Phil, I love you dearly...but O is incapable of moving to the right, when he's moved to the left so far, and will take this country right over the cliff. As to we the believers.....? We are resigned to accept God's will in this. We do not understand what He is doing....but we are resigned He knows best.

[philunderwood]

Reality doesn't need to win Electoral College

By Mark Steyn

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Amid the ruin and rubble of the grey morning after, it may seem in poor taste to do anything so vulgar as plug the new and stunningly topical paperback edition of my book, "After America" – or, as Dennis Miller retitled it on the radio the other day, "Wednesday." But the business of America is business, as Calvin Coolidge said long ago in an alternative universe, and I certainly could use a little. So I'm going to be vulgar and plug away. The central question of "Wednesday" – I mean, "After America" – is whether the Brokest Nation In History is capable of meaningful course correction. On Tuesday, the American people answered that question. The rest of the world will make its dispositions accordingly.

In the weeks ahead, Democrats and Republicans will reach a triumphant "bipartisan" deal to avert the "fiscal cliff" through some artful bookkeeping mechanism that postpones Taxmageddon for another year, or six months, or three, when they can reach yet another triumphant deal to postpone it yet again. Harry Reid has already announced that he wants to raise the debt ceiling – or, more accurately, lower the debt abyss – by $2.4 trillion before the end of the year, and no doubt we can look forward to a spectacular "bipartisan" agreement on that, too. It took the government of the United States two centuries to rack up its first trillion dollars in debt. Now Washington piles on another trillion every nine months. Forward!

If you add up the total debt – state, local, the works – every man, woman, and child in this country owes 200 grand (which is rather more than the average Greek does). Every American family owes about three-quarters of a million bucks, or about the budget deficit of Lichtenstein, which has the highest GDP per capita in the world. Which means that HRH Prince Hans-Adam II can afford it rather more easily than Bud and Cindy at 27b Elm Street. In 2009, the Democrats became the first government in the history of the planet to establish annual trillion-dollar deficits as a permanent feature of life. Before the end of Obama's second term, the federal debt alone will hit $20 trillion. That ought to have been the central fact of this election – that Americans are the brokest brokey-broke losers who ever lived, and it's time to do something about it.

My Hillsdale College comrade Paul Rahe, while accepting much of my thesis, thought that, as an effete milquetoast pantywaist sissified foreigner, I had missed a vital distinction. As he saw it, you can take the boy out of Canada but you can't take the Canada out of the boy. I had failed to appreciate that Americans were not Euro-Canadians, and would not go gently into the statist night. But, as I note in my book, "a determined state can change the character of a people in the space of a generation or two." Tuesday's results demonstrate that, as a whole, the American electorate is trending very Euro-Canadian. True, you still have butch T-shirts – "Don't Tread On Me," "These Colors Don't Run"... In my own state, where the Democrats ran the board on Election Night, the "Live Free Or Die" license plates look very nice when you see them all lined up in the parking lot of the Social Security office. But, in their view of the state and its largesse, there's nothing very exceptional about Americans, except that they're the last to get with the program. Barack Obama ran well to the left of Bill Clinton and John Kerry, and has been rewarded for it both by his party's victory and by the reflex urgings of the usual GOP experts that the Republican Party needs to "moderate" its brand.

I have no interest in the traditional straw clutching – oh, it was the weak candidate... hard to knock off an incumbent... next time we'll have a better GOTV operation in Colorado... I'm always struck, if one chances to be with a GOP insider when a new poll rolls off the wire, that their first reaction is to query whether it's of "likely" voters or merely "registered" voters. As the consultant class knows, registered voters skew more Democrat than likely voters, and polls of "all adults" skew more Democrat still. Hence the preoccupation with turnout models. In other words, if America had compulsory voting as Australia does, the Republicans would lose every time. In Oz, there's no turnout model, because everyone turns out. The turnout-model obsession is an implicit acknowledgment of an awkward truth – that, outside the voting booth, the default setting of American society is ever more liberal and statist.

The short version of electoral cycles is as follows: the low-turnout midterms are fought in political terms, and thus Republicans do well and sometimes spectacularly well (1994, 2010); the higher-turnout presidential elections are fought in broader cultural terms, and Republicans do poorly, because they've ceded most of the cultural space to the other side. What's more likely to determine the course of your nation's destiny? A narrow focus on robocalls in selected Florida and New Hampshire counties every other fall? Or determining how all the great questions are framed from the classroom to the iPod to the movie screen in the 729 days between elections?

The good news is that reality (to use a quaint expression) doesn't need to swing a couple of thousand soccer moms in northern Virginia. Reality doesn't need to crack 270 in the Electoral College. Reality can get 1.3 percent of the popular vote and still trump everything else. In the course of his first term, Obama increased the federal debt by just shy of $6 trillion and, in return, grew the economy by $905 billion. So, as Lance Roberts at Street Talk Live pointed out, in order to generate every $1 of economic growth the United States had to borrow about $5.60. There's no one out there on the planet – whether it's "the rich" or the Chinese – who can afford to carry on bankrolling that rate of return. According to one CBO analysis, US government spending is sustainable as long as the rest of the world is prepared to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. We already know the answer to that: In order to avoid the public humiliation of a failed bond auction, the U.S. Treasury sells 70 percent of the debt it issues to the Federal Reserve – which is to say the left hand of the U.S. government is borrowing money from the right hand of the U.S. government. It's government as a Nigerian email scam, with Ben Bernanke playing the role of the dictator's widow with $4 trillion under her bed that she's willing to wire to Timmy Geithner as soon as he sends her his bank account details.

If that's all a bit too technical, here's the gist: There's nothing holding the joint up.

So, Washington cannot be saved from itself. For the moment, tend to your state, and county, town and school district, and demonstrate the virtues of responsible self-government at the local level. Americans as a whole have joined the rest of the Western world in voting themselves a lifestyle they are not willing to earn. The longer any course correction is postponed the more convulsive it will be. Alas, on Tuesday, the electorate opted to defer it for another four years. I doubt they'll get that long.

[Ritty77]

[philunderwood]

Obama’s “tax negotiations” are no such thing

Published November 16, 2012. | By Bruce McQuain.

Obama has strained to make everyone believe he is open to “negotiations” on the tax rates in dispute that are leading us inexorably to this “fiscal cliff” everyone is talking about.

The word “negotiate” implies compromise. You give a little, he gives a little, you reach a deal neither really likes but both can live with.

He has no intention of giving anything. Why should he? He can’t run for a third term. He has nothing to lose if he stands his ground. Nope, the only one’s who have anything to lose in this one are the usual deer-in-the-headlights suspects. And, of course, Obama has someone else to blame:


By taking an absolutist line, he’s basically gambling that Republicans will be more reasonable than he is and will blink. But if they don’t blink and we go over the cliff, from his point of view so what? Mr. Obama then has an excuse to blame Republicans if there’s another recession. Meanwhile, he pockets the higher tax rates that take effect on January 1 anyway, and he can then negotiate a budget deal next year without having to make any tax concessions.

He pleases his left wing for which higher tax rates are a secular religion, while pinning one more defeat on Republicans. Lest you think this is a conservative fantasy, it’s more or less the tax cliff strategy that Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington advocated on Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” and that labor leaders lobbied for at the White House on Tuesday.

So, as we wander toward Taxmageddon, fear not, either way it goes, Obama figures he wins. So why try?

Indeed.

Why negotiate?

~McQ