RTCS

Views on the News

Views on the News*

December 14, 2013

 

Obama is not a pathological liar, he is an ideological liar who can justify deceit because the “ends justifies the means.”  Stated simply, Obama lies because the true objectives of his fundamental transformation of the United States are incompatible with American democracy and tradition.  Like communism, the collapse of the Obama Administration agenda is inevitable, not solely as a result of its many flawed policies, but because it lacks an ethical dimension in regard to individual rights, justifiable criteria for its use of state coercion and, in particular, a respect for the truth.  Barack Obama's devotion to the Machiavellian dictum of "the ends justify the means" and lying as an instrument of government policy have been the tools of political extremists throughout history.  It is acceptable to use bad or immoral methods as long as you accomplish something "good" by using them.  In other words, in order to achieve what you consider as an important aim, it is acceptable to do something bad.  Obama does not necessarily believe what he is saying, but by saying it, he confirms the purity of his intentions through advancing his statist goals and revolutionary dreams.  The scope and gravity of the lies perpetrated by this administration e.g. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and ObamaCare would have, long ago, been sufficient to force the resignation of a Republican president.  Yet Obama and his people remain in office and are yet to be held accountable.  Obama has always had the protection of his liberal base, the Democrat Senate and the mainstream media all of whom have dismissed or downplayed the scandals and have impeded aggressive investigations into them.  The collapse of the Obama agenda is coming and one can only hope that political leaders and journalists regain a respect for the truth before the country also collapses.

(“Obama is not a Pathological Liar, He is an Ideological Liar” by Lawrence Sellin dated December 9. 2013 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/obama_is_not_a_pathological_liar_he_is_an_ideological_liar.html )

The bulk of the U.S. population, particularly likely voters in 2014, have reached the point where they no longer believe anything President Obama says, which coincides with what may be the lowest level of confidence in the U.S. Congress.  Its Democratic members all voted for ObamaCare without reading it and the harm it is doing to millions of Americans, along with its total lack of constitutional legitimacy, will likely see those running for election and reelection in the 2014 midterms defeated.  No President in the last 100 years has generated such a deep sense of distrust.  Distrust” because that differs from just disagreeing with a particular President’s policies, and “distrust” in the context of what people believe no matter their political affiliation.  What we all know now is that President Obama cannot be trusted when he speaks about anything whether it is his signature legislation, the Affordable Health Care Act, or his rejection of decades of U.S. policy toward Iran that began in 1979 when they seized our diplomats in 1979.  In the United Nations and in Congress, sanctions were applied that were, until his recent announcement, working effectively to influence its determination to make its own nuclear weapons.  All that effort has been undermined by a process conducted in total secrecy because Obama knew it would be rejected.  Obama is the fulfillment of a long effort by the former Soviet Union, begun in the 1920s, to transform our society from one whose values and policies led the world in the effort to oppose communism even as it and European allies embraced socialist programs that are now threatening theirs and our economic stability.  “Social justice” is the term adopted and exercised through “political correctness”, a philosophy that paints the U.S. as a heartless, rapacious, racist, capitalist nation more to be hated than admired.  Political correctness played a major role in the election of a virtually unknown first term Senator from Illinois because Americans wanted to demonstrate to the world that a black man could be elected President.  The failure of the Republican Party to strongly advocate the traditions and patriotic beliefs of Americans led to his reelection.  From the earliest days of his first term, Obama has publicly attacked America in ways no previous President ever did.  In April 2006, in a speech delivered in Strasbourg, France, Obama said, “America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive (towards Europe)” when, in fact, America had twice come to the aid of Europe, first in World War One, and saving it from the worst totalitarian threat in World War Two.  At home, Obama has striven to fulfill the “politically correct” policies of dividing the nation ethnically, emphasizing the national and religious differences that have existed in a culture of tolerance that earlier accepted waves of immigration of those who were eager to assimilate and become “Americans” as opposed to those who arrive, now often illegally, and demand the rights of native-born and nationalized Americans.  Even among “low information voters” the awareness of the many Obama administrations scandals is beginning to exercise some influence.  From Fast and Furious to the Benghazi lies, even those who pay little attention to the government are growing aware of the massive waste of money the stimulus represented and the increase of U.S. debt, the failure to pass a budget for five years that the Constitution requires, suspicious huge purchases of ammunition by Homeland Security, and, of course, ObamaCare.  They may not understand what these scandals mean, but they sense something is very wrong with America.  Hopefully enough Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and independents will wake from their stupor and demand action.

(“Obama’s Moment of Truth… About His Lies” by Alan Caruba dated December 10, 2013 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59762 )

It is not crazy to talk about impeaching Obama because of his systematic Presidential lawlessness, but there is little chance of removing the President from office.  Impeachment is the intended constitutional remedy for systematic presidential lawlessness; it is, practically speaking, the only remedy.  The President is willfully undermining the constitutional system that he swore to preserve, protect, and defend.  He presumes to rewrite, and dramatically alter, the laws he vowed to execute faithfully, not once in a blue moon but as a deliberate scheme of governance.  Obama boldly promised supporters that he would “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”  Most of Obama’s unconstitutional usurpations are happening in broad daylight.  He brags that his “waivers,” i.e., his unilateral amending, repealing, or non-enforcement, of statutory provisions show him to be far-seeing and pragmatic, not lawless.  Just as there is no mystery in Obama’s disregard for the Constitution, there is no secret about the Constitution’s answer to executive imperialism. The Framers recognized that Presidential abuse of power carried the greatest potential to wreck the republic.  The Framers armed Congress with two responsive weapons: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment.  The power of the purse is not a practical check on Obama.  The Constitution assumes that the different branches of government will protect their institutional turf.  The Framers calculated that, faced with a Democrat President who usurps legislative prerogatives, a Democrat congressman would see himself, first and foremost, as a congressman. Valuing the duties of his office over party loyalty, he would join with other legislators to rein in executive excess.  Today’s Democrats, however, are less members of a party than of the movement Left. Their objective, like Obama’s, is fundamental transformation of a society rooted in individual liberty and private property to one modeled on top-down, redistributionist statism.  Since statism advances by concentrating governmental power, Democrats, regardless of what governmental branch they happen to inhabit, rally to whatever branch holds the greatest transformative potential. Right now, that is the Presidency, so congressional Democrats do not insist that the President must comply with congressional statutes.  Democrats want the President to use the enormous raw power vested in his office by Article II to achieve statist transformation. If he does so, they will support him. They’ll get back to obsessing over the “rule of law” if, by some misfortune, the Republicans someday win another presidential election.  The party that controls the House has full primacy over taxing and spending, every bit as much as the party that controls the executive branch has plenary control over prosecution decisions.  In theory, then, nothing in government can happen unless the House, with ultimate power over the purse, agrees to fund it.  If a corrupt administration uses the IRS as a partisan weapon to audit and harass its detractors, the House can refuse to fund the IRS, or other parts of the executive branch, to quell executive overreach.  When conservatives in the House or Senate urge that Republicans use their command over the purse to stop Obama’s excesses, Republican leadership turns on those conservatives with ferocity rarely evident in their dealings with the President.  With Democrats energized by Obama’s lawbreaking, and Republicans paralyzed by the prospect of government shutdowns, there is no realistic prospect that Congress will starve Obama of funding. That leaves impeachment as the sole remaining constitutional safeguard against executive imperialism.  High crimes and misdemeanors,” the Constitution’s standard for impeachment, are the misdeeds of high officials.”  Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one. Thus the quasi-legal component, proving high crimes and misdemeanors, is the easy part. As a practical matter, fundamental transformation cannot occur without high crimes and misdemeanors being committed against the constitutional order that is being transformed. That’s the whole point.  President Obama is intentionally and sweepingly violating his oath of office. He is not faithfully executing federal law; he picks, chooses, “waives,” and generally makes up law as he goes along. He has willfully and materially misled the American people - his ObamaCare and Benghazi lies being only the most notorious examples. He has been woefully derelict in his duty to protect and defend Americans overseas.  His administration has used the federal bureaucracy to usurp Congress’s legislative powers and to punish political enemies.  Obama has presumed to make recess appointments when Congress was not in recess. His administration intentionally allowed firearms to be transferred to Mexican drug cartels, predictably resulting in numerous violent crimes, including the murder of a Border Patrol agent. His administration, and, in particular, the Justice Department, has routinely stonewalled lawmakers and frustrated their capacity to perform agency oversight, to the point that the attorney general has been held in contempt of Congress. The Obama Justice Department, moreover, has filed vexatious lawsuits against sovereign states over their attempts to vindicate their constitutional authorities (and, indeed, to enforce federal immigration laws), while the Justice Department itself adheres to racially discriminatory enforcement policies in violation of the Constitution and federal civil-rights laws.  This is not an exhaustive list of Obama abuses, but you get the idea. If the only issue were commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, the Constitution requires only one for impeachment, not the Obama pace, which is more like one per week.  Because impeachment is a political remedy, its most essential component is the popular political will to remove a President from power.  The charges against Bill Clinton plainly satisfied the “high crimes and misdemeanors” threshold, and he was clearly guilty of them, but the American people obviously did not want Clinton removed over them.  It doesn’t matter what can be proved. The question is how convinced the public is that a President’s continued hold on power profoundly threatens their safety, prosperity, and sense of what kind of country we should be.  There is no political will to remove the President; and absent the political will to remove the President, he will remain President no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up, and absent the removal of the President, the U.S. will be fundamentally transformed.

(“Impeachment Lessons” by Andrew C. McCarthy dated December 7, 2013 published by National Review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365742/impeachment-lessons-andrew-c-mccarthy )

 

* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news.  I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning.  Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections:

· Politics at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/intro/politics.php

· Language at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/intro/language.php

· Welfare at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/Culture/welfare.php

                                      

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.ReturnToCommonSensesite.com