Friday, September 17, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesSee something...........Say something.

See something………..Say something.

“…the Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly…”

Barack H. Obama

July 22, 2009

 

Within the past week, the President of the United States has made at least two disturbing statements about the political system in the United States, and, apparently,  how he wishes it were not the way it is, even to the point of how he is tempted to use whatever means he thinks he has at his disposal to get around it.  In a speech to the National Council of LaRaza, Barack Obama expressed an inner urge to reform the immigration system of the United States, and other things, all by himself:

Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting.  I promise you not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works,”

Then, in addressing the debt crisis drama being played out in the nation’s capitol, Obama said this:

“If we do not come to an agreement, we could lose our country’s AAA credit rating. Not because we do not have the capacity to pay our bills. We do. But because we did not have a AAA political system to match our AAA credit rating.

So the President is of the opinion that the United States of America does not have a Triple A political system?  Well, well, well.  He need not have felt it necessary to remind us what he thinks of our country…..and the patriots who populate it.  We have known about that going back at least as far as his remarks on the eve of his election that “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming America”, and thence to his ridicule and calling out of such icons as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and  on to his spokesmen’s churlish and quarreling behavior toward the mainstream media outlet Fox News. And along the way, discovering past speeches and videos of Obama touting fondly the virtues of the redistribution of wealth, the very antithesis of the American foundational system.  Still, it’s pretty stark and derisive, isn’t it, for a President to say that if he and his party do not get their way on budgetary and appropriations matters it is because of the inadequacy of our political system? And to blatantly state that he lusts in his heart to go around the legal system and the separation of powers of the US Constitution to grant amnesty, open the borders and flood the country , more than it already is flooded, with illegal aliens,  aka Democrat voters?

The mindset and formation and construction of Obama have been there for any who wish to avail themselves of not only what Obama himself has offered, but also that by chroniclers such as D’Souza and Kurtz.  We know all this.  We know about the ‘dreams of his father’ and his mothers’  left- wing associations and the Frank Marshall Davis’s and the Jeremiah Wrights and the Bernadine Dohrns and the Bill Ayers’ and the Columbia years, and the ‘community organizing’.  So,  having all that background,  we cannot just ignore, or laugh off, or excuse some  any  of these  bizarre (for ordinary Americans) pronouncements from the Chief Executive. To do so would be irresponsible.  At least as irresponsible, if not more so, as the comments  of the man himself, as supposedly the leader of the ‘free world’ and the most powerful man in that world.  For we, the common people, are ultimately the ones Franklin quipped would ‘keep the Republic’, or not.

And neither can our representatives and spokesmen in DC and elsewhere ignore them or excuse them.  For as they go about their business of making the laws and overseeing the enforcement of same, they must be aware of what the Obama regime sees as the preferred method of governing.  The evidence so far is  that this method is the assumption of more and more power, gradually or  more rapidly as conditions allow.  And they cannot ignore the urgings of Obama’s allies and abbettors, such as South Carolina’s James Clyburn, a member of the House Democrat Leadership, and others,  for him to attempt to  usurp and mangle the Constitution in order to secure funding for the furtherance  of rule by regulation, or dictat,  and the funneling of  ‘walking around money’ to sympathetic groups.  Oh yes, we know whereby SEIU, ACORN, Natural Resources Defense Council and others get ‘coddled’.  And that’s proper subject for more investigation and commentary by the Kurtz’s and the D’souzas and the Breitbarts and the Malkins of the world.

What matters now as the budget impasse approaches it’s denouement, and then on into the election season, is that Obama’s every word, every deed, every Executive Order, even unto every facial tic, be publicized and scrutinized for hints of desperation.  For as his poll numbers, now at an abysmally low mark of 40% approvability, fall into the range of unelectability, the frustration he has expressed til now may vent itself by acts  exceeding those for which his Departments and Agencies are already currently under investigation by Congress.  For ourselves, we can only say that we have already had enough.

 

bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

4 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

4 COMMENTS

  1. One of my most favorite sayings and well Barack Hussein Obama no doubts wishes that Newsweek had been correct in that we are all socialists now but when We The People fought back against that slander he knew the game was over and his dreams of IMPERIALISM were over!

  2. Just as a quick example, I think the EPA’s new pollution rules restricting air quality over the states is a way to vastly increase the power of the feds over the states.

    And BO’s henchmen in the media agree with his dictatorial power dreams.

    Citing the strange bedfellow Charles Krauthammer as a level head on the issue, [CNN host Fareed] Zakaria called the Tea Party’s opposition to raising the debt ceiling “fundamentally anti-democratic” and hoped the President was “seriously exploring” the 14th Amendment escape hatch to passing a budget.

  3. And another example from the media sycophants:

    Eugene Robinson at the WaPo:

    That’s why I’ve never understood, throughout this whole endless tragicomic melodrama, how President Obama could possibly let that happen. It seems to me that definitive action — unilateral, if necessary — to prevent the nation from suffering obvious, imminent, grievous harm is one of the duties any president must perform. Perhaps the most important duty.

    Neither Obama nor anyone else in the White House wants to talk about possible doomsday scenarios, except to warn that Social Security checks might not go out on time. This is understandable. There’s no incentive for Republicans to give an inch — which would anger the Tea Party base — if they believe Obama, in the end, will ensure they never have to face the consequences of their intransigence. In any event, there will probably be some kind of deal. Won’t there?

    Time grows awfully short. It’s not clear, at this point, whether House Speaker John Boehner can even get a short-term “cut, cap and balance” bill passed. A hard-core Tea Party caucus of perhaps 30 members won’t vote for a debt ceiling hike under any circumstances., which means he needs Democratic votes. Such aisle-crossing usually comes after give-and-take negotiations, but Boehner says he won’t give.

    Something will probably work out. But if it doesn’t, it seems to me that Obama has no choice but to act.

    Many legal scholars believe Obama could cite the 14th Amendment and assert that it requires him to make sure the nation’s credit is never “questioned,” which would obviously be the case in a default. Another theory holds that the president has the implicit power to take extraordinary measures in the face of impending national crisis. This isn’t in the same league as Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus as the nation careened into civil war. But one could argue that the principle is the same.

    Who knows how the courts — ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court — would react? With outrage? With deference toward presidential power? With traditional reluctance to intervene in political disputes between the two elected branches of government? It would matter, eventually. But while legal briefs were being prepared and arguments honed, Obama would have raised the debt ceiling on his own authority — and the crisis would have been averted.

    Can you imagine if we were in these same circumstances and GWB was the President and Obama was in the Senate voting against the debt ceiling extension? Oh, yes, that’s right. You don’t have to imagine it, we were there. And the media led the cheer section for Obama’s bravery in confronting the free spending ways of GWB.

  4. Gene Robinson is a lunatic who won a Pulitzer Prize and who wants to send a thrill down Chris Matthews’ leg, but all aspersion-casting aside, we have always had commenters urging Presidents do this or do that, we have never had a President publicly state a desire to be dictator. Robinson says raising the debt ceiling doesn’t hold a candle to suspending habeas corpus in a time of insurrection -uh, dunderhead, President trying to take a right reserved to Congress ABSENT an insurrection is a big Joe Bidening deal.

  1. One of my most favorite sayings and well Barack Hussein Obama no doubts wishes that Newsweek had been correct in that we are all socialists now but when We The People fought back against that slander he knew the game was over and his dreams of IMPERIALISM were over!

  2. Just as a quick example, I think the EPA’s new pollution rules restricting air quality over the states is a way to vastly increase the power of the feds over the states.

    And BO’s henchmen in the media agree with his dictatorial power dreams.

    Citing the strange bedfellow Charles Krauthammer as a level head on the issue, [CNN host Fareed] Zakaria called the Tea Party’s opposition to raising the debt ceiling “fundamentally anti-democratic” and hoped the President was “seriously exploring” the 14th Amendment escape hatch to passing a budget.

  3. And another example from the media sycophants:

    Eugene Robinson at the WaPo:

    That’s why I’ve never understood, throughout this whole endless tragicomic melodrama, how President Obama could possibly let that happen. It seems to me that definitive action — unilateral, if necessary — to prevent the nation from suffering obvious, imminent, grievous harm is one of the duties any president must perform. Perhaps the most important duty.

    Neither Obama nor anyone else in the White House wants to talk about possible doomsday scenarios, except to warn that Social Security checks might not go out on time. This is understandable. There’s no incentive for Republicans to give an inch — which would anger the Tea Party base — if they believe Obama, in the end, will ensure they never have to face the consequences of their intransigence. In any event, there will probably be some kind of deal. Won’t there?

    Time grows awfully short. It’s not clear, at this point, whether House Speaker John Boehner can even get a short-term “cut, cap and balance” bill passed. A hard-core Tea Party caucus of perhaps 30 members won’t vote for a debt ceiling hike under any circumstances., which means he needs Democratic votes. Such aisle-crossing usually comes after give-and-take negotiations, but Boehner says he won’t give.

    Something will probably work out. But if it doesn’t, it seems to me that Obama has no choice but to act.

    Many legal scholars believe Obama could cite the 14th Amendment and assert that it requires him to make sure the nation’s credit is never “questioned,” which would obviously be the case in a default. Another theory holds that the president has the implicit power to take extraordinary measures in the face of impending national crisis. This isn’t in the same league as Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus as the nation careened into civil war. But one could argue that the principle is the same.

    Who knows how the courts — ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court — would react? With outrage? With deference toward presidential power? With traditional reluctance to intervene in political disputes between the two elected branches of government? It would matter, eventually. But while legal briefs were being prepared and arguments honed, Obama would have raised the debt ceiling on his own authority — and the crisis would have been averted.

    Can you imagine if we were in these same circumstances and GWB was the President and Obama was in the Senate voting against the debt ceiling extension? Oh, yes, that’s right. You don’t have to imagine it, we were there. And the media led the cheer section for Obama’s bravery in confronting the free spending ways of GWB.

  4. Gene Robinson is a lunatic who won a Pulitzer Prize and who wants to send a thrill down Chris Matthews’ leg, but all aspersion-casting aside, we have always had commenters urging Presidents do this or do that, we have never had a President publicly state a desire to be dictator. Robinson says raising the debt ceiling doesn’t hold a candle to suspending habeas corpus in a time of insurrection -uh, dunderhead, President trying to take a right reserved to Congress ABSENT an insurrection is a big Joe Bidening deal.

Must Read