Comrad Obama: Dictatorship In The Making

There is very little humor in what are the illegal actions of our dictator President, especially as it pertains to the abortion known as Obamacare. None the less, I had to at least chuckle when I saw that one of Herr Obama’s fellow dictators discovered the lie that is Obamacare. 

As noted above, our boy Adolph is legitimately pissed off as are millions of American citizens! None the less, our Commie bastard President marches steadfastly forward towards leftist commie goals, Constitution or the people be damned. I have a few items I’ve found and want to share, but first we’ll let Judge Jeanine once again say exactly what I feel needs to be said. One note here:  There is also included a talk with Ann Coulter who mentions in effect that “the first black president” will never be impeached. As we are now Politically Correct as well as openly racist if one ever cites FACT when discussing this President and his unlawful execution of his duties, I’m afraid she is right.

 As Judge Napolitano says in the statement below, “ neither Congress nor the American public have the guts for it”. One must wonder how sad this country has become that we do not have the stomach to stand up for what is right!

“The only way to stop President Barack Obama from nullifying duly enacted laws is impeachment, says Judge Andrew Napolitano. The problem is, neither Congress nor the American public have the guts for it”:  Judge Napolitano.

Rush as always hit the nail on the head in his statement below. Not only is his changing of the law illegal as he is in effect rewriting established law, but in fact is as Rush says “Stalinism”. Then again, lefties out there aspire to such lofty ideals as five year plans and “equality: (better known as leftist bulllshit!).

"For two days in a row, Rush Limbaugh has warned his huge radio audience that President Obama’s behavior was increasingly “lawless,” at one point going so far as to call it “Stalinism.”

On Wednesday afternoon, Limbaugh addressed the news that companies would now be required to swear to the Internal Revenue Service that they weren’t hiring or firing employees based on the impact they thought the Affordable Care Act might have on their bottom line.

“This is absolutely lawless,” Limbaugh declared. “It is against the law. (…) They cannot turn staffing decisions into crimes, and this is exactly what they’re doing. Businesses make decisions all the time on the basis of avoidance of costs here and costs there, labor costs, tax costs. They do it all the time.”

Limbaugh didn’t mince words: “This is way beyond a banana republic now. This is Stalinism.”

Now of course there are folks out there who would call me strident in my open display of disgust and dislike for this President (You know, the “Constitutional Professor” who never misses the chance to remind us peons “he understands” it so much better than the rest of the citizenry). And for the record I will humor them. Yes, I despise the man. I despise his Attorney General who also refuses to uphold the laws. I despise the Representatives and Senators who happily stick their heads up Obama’s ass and thank him for the honor of doing so. And while we’re at it, I especially despise the RINO and entrenched politicians when push comes to shove will always vote for the status quo. Really, at the moment no one wants to get me started on that one. The scum that comprise the Political Elite is the cancer eating away at our basic foundations and this President along with the leaders of both houses are all “ONE” in that regard.

Yet, there are voices of reason out there. Take for instance Jonathan Adler:

“Whatever the stated reason for the new delay, it is illegal. The text of the PPACA is quite clear. The text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides that the employer mandate provisions ‘shall apply’ after December 31, 2013. The Treasury Department claims that it has broad authority to offer ‘transition relief’ in implementing the law. That may often be true, but not here. The language of the statute is clear, and it is well established that when Congress enacts explicit deadlines into federal statutes, without also providing authority to waive or delay such deadlines, federal agencies are obligated to stay on schedule. So, for instance, federal courts routinely force the Environmental Protection Agency to act when it misses deadlines and environmentalist groups file suit”.

We’ve heard lately that even someone as left leaning as Alan Dershowitz has stated his discomfort with  Comrade Obama and his illegal actions. Below is a great interview with Jonathan Turley with Megan Kelly. Again, Mister Turley would probably never be considered “conservative”, but he is a brilliant person who is willing to call it like it is. Unlike President Bozo, let’s hear the words of a true Constitutional Scholar”:

MEGYN KELLY: Jonathan Turley is a constitutional professor and attorney at the George Washington University law school. Professor Turley, great to see you, I'm a big fan of you and your blog.

JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you.

KELLY: Let me ask you about this because in that sound bite we played before we went to commercial, you said the framers would be horrified because everything they did was to create balance between the branches of government and we've lost that.

TURLEY: Well, I'm afraid it's quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.

And what we've been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that's what the president is doing. I think that we've become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.

KELLY: We heard a lot of objections when President Bush expanded the powers of the presidency from the left and from the media. They haven't been raising the same objections now that we have a Democrat in The White House. And you say they do so at their own peril.

TURLEY: I'm afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama's policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.

KELLY: Why is it so dangerous? What' so bad that will come of this?

TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don't believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we're beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, 'I'm going to ignore this,' or, 'I'm going to shift funds that weren't appropriated by Congress into this area.'

The president's State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it's dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we've never seen it to this extent.

KELLY: What is supposed to be done about it? You know, I know in your testimony before Congress you cited Ben Franklin who believed that the other branches would work in their own self interest to try to reign in a president who got drunk on his own power, or however you want to put it. You know, Congress doesn't have -- they can withdrawal money, they can move to impeach, they can file lawsuits --which they've done -- I mean, what are they supposed to do?

TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds it’s powers, they're just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.

But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.

I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn't matter what party held the White House. But what we're seeing now is the usurpation of authority that's unprecedented in this country.

KELLY: JonathanTurley.org, I recommend it. Thank you so much for being here, sir.

Charles Krauthammer points out not only the illegalities but also the fact that “no one seems to care” whether the dictator wanna be does what he wants or not:

Generally speaking, you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law, lawlessly. I mean, this is stuff that you do in a banana republic. It’s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants and any provision. It’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes, and these are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election, and it’s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do. … It’s not incompetence. Willful breaking of the constitutional order — where in the Constitution is the president allowed to alter a law 27 times after it’s been passed? — Charles Krauthammer

I will leave this today with the words of Allen West. For those lefties who get their panties in a wad every time me and those of a conservative ilk write or say anything, let me remind you that Allan West along with Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas and so many others are courageous defenders of this country and it’s ideals. These are men that I admire for their brilliance as well as their convictions, men who have over the years stood up to “being the wrong kind of black” as even now those on the left denigrate as them as such.

“I’m afraid it’s quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.

And what we’ve been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that’s what the president is doing. I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. 

We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period. I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do. 

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics. 

A system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don’t believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we’re beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, ‘I’m going to ignore this,’ or, ‘I’m going to shift funds that weren’t appropriated by Congress into this area.’”