Coolidge/Obama: A Study In Opposites

     In response to a recent heckler at the White House President Obama said, "You're in my house." While walking one morning in Washington President Coolidge's secret service man pointed at the White House and jokingly said, "Who lives there?" President Coolidge responded, "No one. They all just come and go." And so the cornerstone is laid upon which great presidents are erected and construction of much lesser ones is never begun. Humility. The humility of Calvin Coolidge that informed him that he only occupied an office that was greater than any man who was graced by the honor of serving in it.
     President Obama has presided over a federal government that has had record deficits, record budgets, and will, by the time he leaves office on January 20,2017, double the national debt. President Coolidge not only cut the budget, eliminated any deficit, but also paid off a third of the national debt at the time with the surplus he created by cutting taxes. An amazing feat after just 5 1/2 years in office. He accomplished this shrinking of government all the while giving breathing room for private commerce to create one of the most prosperous economies in this country's history.
     President Obama siphons over a billion dollars a year in taxpayer money to run the White House and keep him and his family on never-ending, lavish vacations. President Coolidge paid for his White House staff and even the food for State dinners out of his $75,000 a year salary. The economy that President Coolidge enforced on the federal government he lived in his personal life. President Obama gives new meaning to the term profligate spending, both in government spending and spending on himself and his family.
     President Coolidge use to say that legislation must give administration time to catch up. He would be appalled at the tens of thousands of regulations imposed on the country by President Obama, and the multi-thousand page legislative bills. President Coolidge knew that a too robust federal government could only hinder commerce and be a drag on free enterprise. President Obama thinks the grease that lubricates the wheels of commerce is government interference through a regulatory structure that oversees every aspect of the economy's interactions between buyer and seller.
     When President Obama leaves office he will retire to a multi-million dollar estate with a generous pension package worth millions of dollars paid for by hard working taxpayers. President Coolidge upon leaving office moved with his wife Grace back to the same rented house they had lived in since the early days of their marriage. It was only after the crowds who "stopped by" to see the former president got out of hand that he purchased a modest home with a little more room. The former president lived on money he had saved all his life and on fees garnered from writing magazine articles.
     The stark difference between Barack Obama and Calvin Coolidge is not just a matter of differing management styles. It is the difference between a government that works for the people by allowing the people to work for themselves, and one in which the people work to sustain a government that no longer works for anyone but those who occupy its seats of power.
    

Clinton Inc. Vs. Obama Inc.

     Anyone who even pays a cursory attention to politics has heard about the Clinton machine. It is said by some to be so powerful and wide-spread that it will be able to impose Hillary Clinton on this nation as its next president. Even though this same machine was not able to accomplish the same task in 2008. But never mind say the purveyors of the Clinton power machine as some kind of political perpetual motion apparatus.
     It is true that the Clintons have not only been able to raise enormous amounts of cash to fund a presidential campaign, but up until recently they have had an almost exclusive lock on the highest echelons of the Democrat Party. But the Clintons' power, to the extent that it is still relevant, has been centered in the halls and vestibules of the national party, very 20th century. It is a model that has served them well for most of their careers, but the political model, at least for the Democrat Party, is changing.
     The new model of political power is embodied by the Obamas. Barack Obama has not only maintained a tight control over national Party politics, but he has developed a community organizing network that spans the country. He will leave office in January 2017 with billions of taxpayer dollars having funded an organizational behemoth that makes Bill and Hillary look like pikers. If Barack Obama wants a couple hundred protesters in Mt. Vernon, Ohio, he can have them virtually in a matter of minutes. with professionally made signage and advanced community organizing strategies.
     With most of the constituencies of the Democrat Party, the Obamas are the future and the Clintons are a distant political memory. The fact that Hillary Clinton is trying to gin up support for her 2016 presidential aspirations by invoking what she and many Democrats see as the glory days of the 1990s, is not going to play well in a Party that is becoming more dominated by the Obama radicals than the Clinton centrists. Even the Washington Democrat power structure has been molded by Barack Obama to suit his purposes. Through two disastrous mid-term elections which saw Democrats cede majorities in both Houses of congress to the hapless Republicans, Barack Obama has cleansed his Party of most moderates that might not be loyal to him and his agenda.
     Barack Obama has already said that he is going to stick around Washington after his term is up. He is not going sightseeing, but will be an active force in Democrat Party politics as well as public policy decisions of the next administration, whether it is Democrat or Republican. And with the national network of community organizations he has built, funded by billions of dollars from the stimulus, son of stimulus, green energy loans to bankrupt companies, etc., it will be a force with which to be reckoned for many decades to come.
    

Is Barack Obama A Secret Muslim

     Many on the Right firmly believe that Barack Obama is a secret, or not so secret Muslim. The theory goes that the president's Islamic leanings have caused him to go easy on radical Islamic terrorism and is the reason that he will not utter the words Islam and terror in the same sentence. In fact, the votaries of this Obama-as-Muslim theory also say the president is trying to destroy America from within and make it fertile ground for the Islamic caliphate.
     The videos one can watch on YouTube purporting to show President Obama "admitting" to being Muslim show the president speaking positively about the faith. Not exactly proof of matriculation into said faith. I speak positively of Judaism, but that does not make me a Jew. I guess the difference is that we are actually at war, or at least should be at war, with the most radical parts of Islam. It is analogous to if President Roosevelt spoke kindly about Nazis during WWII.
     But is the current president's seeming respect for our enemies a result of faith or ideology? Sometimes the two blur into one line and it is difficult to judge which is which. But in the case of Barack Obama, I think I can say with certainty that his remarks that allegedly support the Muslim Faith are more a product of Leftism than of Islam. Many of the tenets of Leftism and Islam are similar and some of the goals remain shockingly symbiotic, but the two diverge in the realm of subtlety.
     Where the radical Islamist beheads, burns, and tortures his victims, the radical Leftist seeks to destroy his opponents by mitigating the general public's ability to think critically and reason rationally, therefore eliminating the need to actually execute opposition. President Obama's faux support of Islam the faith is simply the practice of Saul Alinsky's marginalizing your political opposition. What better way for Barack Obama to marginalize conservatives than with the hammer and sickle of applying political correctness to the acts and personage of this country's enemies?
     The way it works is that the Leftist morally equates the acts of our enemies with that of the dominant culture of our own country. Hence the statement by President Obama at the recent National Prayer breakfast where he equated the current acts of barbarism committed by radical Islam with the Christian crusades of a thousand years ago. But it could have been the acts of any faith or group that Mr. Obama thought he could use to silence conservatives, or any political opposition for that matter.
     The real truth I have seen in action over the last six years is that Barack Obama has no particular love or connection to blacks, Hispanics, or Islamists. He is a classic narcissist who will take any position or defend any group in order to advance his personal agenda of the accumulation of power and influence. A narcissist wants the love and admiration of everyone, and those who do not give him that unconditional adulation are automatically his enemies. He does not see political opposition, only devotees and enemies. And he will align with anyone or anything that will lead to the destruction of his enemies. 

Why Reagan Was Great, And Obama Is Not

     This week marked the second to last State of the Union speech by Barack Obama that the nation must suffer through and endure as the clock of mercy slowly ticks out his time in office. The State of the Union address has become just one in a long list of this great country's traditions that Barack Obama has de-elevated from the heights of the republic's decency to the depths of sleazy showmanship.
     The actual show in the House chamber that is perpetrated on the traditions and values of our great constitutional republic by this president is bad enough, but the pre-game and post-game shows that are imposed upon an innocent and once free people are the height of the tyranny of impropriety. And through all three stages, pre-game, game, and post-game, President Obama shows a complete lack of presidential decorum and grace exhibited by most of his predecessors, and required by the stature of the office of President of the United States of America.
     The presidency of the United States as drawn by the Framers of the constitution is an annoyance to this president, not an honor. I wish those who voted for this malcontent community agitator would have known that they were not voting for a president but for a churlish defender of infantilism. Barack Obama does not speak the language of America, but the language grievance against America. He does not seek common ground with his political opposition, or even the majority of Americans, but rather the ground of Leftism that has been so thoroughly salted with the failed ideas of Stalin, Mau, Castro, et al, that even the weeds of Liberty can not take root, let alone its flower of prosperity.
     I heard this week the clanking rhetoric of Barack Obama, and juxtaposed against it, I also heard segments of Ronald Reagan's State of the Union from the same point in his presidency that President Obama is in currently. The difference is the stark contrast between a man who was deferential to congress and one who is derisive of that body. It is the difference between a man who spoke of the three words that make the United States Constitution exceptional over any other, i.e. "We the people." President Reagan affably and aptly explained in just a few words that those three words meant that the American people get to tell their government what it can do and can not do, not as Barack Obama believes, the other way around.
     Where Ronald Reagan had humility, Barack Obama has hubris. Where Ronald Reagan had the largess of magnanimity, Barack Obama possesses the pettiness of arrogance. Where Ronald Reagan felt a love of his country so great that he wanted to preserve it, Barack Obama loves his own greatness above all else, even the very founding of the country he now "leads." Barack Obama never wanted to be president, he wanted the presidency to be his. Ronald Reagan understood that the office is greater than the man who contemporaneously holds it.

"Obama The Magic Negro" Strikes Again

     When Los Angeles Times columnist David Ehrenstein, a black journalist and political pundit, published an article in the aforementioned newspaper entitled "Obama The Magic Negro" in March of 2007, he had no idea how right he was. Even though Mr. Ehrenstein's reasoning was faulty, his conclusion was right on-the-money. His theory was that Barack Obama was magical because he appeared out of no where to assuage white guilt by allowing them to vote for, in the words of Joe Biden, "a clean articulate black man." But the real magic of Mr. Obama is not in the result of his presence on whites, as Mr. Ehrenstein suggested, but in how he performs this and other "magical" tricks.  
     A case in point is his slight-of-hand in distracting Americans from the alacrity with which constitutional rights are being eroded, with the hysteria over Ebola. While the crazies are preparing to make war against an "out of control" government to resist being sent to "FEMA camps," which we all know is the reason that Barack Obama deliberately spread the Ebola virus in the U.S. (I say with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek) the Mayor of Houston is assaulting the Constitution with vim and vigor unmatched in the modern era.
     Mayor Annise Parker, an openly lesbian woman, recently demanded that the pastors of Houston's churches hand over their sermons containing any references to gays. It stemmed from a new city ordinance that forces public restrooms to accommodate transgender and wannabe transgenders, which the pastors have refused to abide. The Mayor, and her supporters, are claiming that since the churches have tax exempt status they are restricted from engaging in political activity. Gee, I wonder why this law does not apply to Leftist groups like the NAACP.
     The Houston case is demonstrative of the Left trying to re-categorize issues of faith as political issues so that they can control free speech and the free exercise of religious faith. It is also illustrative of the brilliance with which Barack Obama has distracted the nation with his left hand of crisis and scandal, while he quietly rips away God-given rights protected by the Constitution with his right hand. The real fear of the Ebola "crisis" is not the numbers of persons that will ultimately be infected, or the institution of martial law and FEMA camps being turned into "death camps," but it is the fundamental changes to our system of government that will be implemented in "fighting" the crisis.
     After all, Barack Obama from the beginning said he wanted to "fundamentally transform America." That transformation comes at the expense of freedom, Liberty, and the very founding of this country. But almost as importantly, that transformation is being achieved by distraction and the slight of hand masking the political magic of Barack Obama.
    

The Tan Suit Diaries

     There has always been a question in my mind since the election of 2012 how Americans could re-elect as president a man who so badly executed the job that he knocked Jimmy Carter out of the worst president in history category. But after a Face Book post I read today, I have a little clearer picture of how that happened, and how it may keep the Republicans from gaining the majority in the Senate in this Fall's mid-term election and the presidency in 2016.
     The Face Book post in question shows President Obama in a tan suit and makes the connection of the color of that suit to dictators and totalitarians throughout history wearing the same color. And here I thought those ideologies were based on a philosophy and belief system, it turns out oppression and tyranny has no other basis than the color of a man's clothing. It is this kind of nonsensical blather coming from those on the Right that drives people in droves to President Obama and the Democrat Party.
     It was the belief by many that while Barack Obama may have been a complete failure as a president, the Right was populated with persons who judge on the color of a suit, engage in questions about the president's birth certificate 4 years after his first election, and proffer the wasting of political energy to bring about an impeachment of Barack Obama, which has less than a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.    
     Barack Obama has brought economic malaise to the United States through crushing regulations, security malaise to most of the world through a feckless foreign policy, and a general constitutional malaise through his lawlessness. And the thing that really upsets some on the Right is the color of a suit he wore to a press conference. No wonder Republicans have been losing elections, and will continue to do so as long as their message borders on conspiracy theory rather than solid conservative principles that work.
     In addition to the tan suit, the birth certificate, the running for a third term, and myriad other delusional fantasies of some on the Right, is a picture of a student ID, supposedly Barack Obama's when he attended Columbia University. The ID is stamped "Foreign Student." I do not know if this ID is authentic or not, it does not really matter. What those propagating this "evidence" fail to understand is that Mr. Obama is in his second term. They can use all their energies to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is from another planet and it would not remove him from office at this point.
     Those on the Right would be wise to make the case against President Obama and the Democrats' policies which have ruined this country's economy and made the world much less safe. Making an issue of the color of his suit is diverting attention away from the important issues, which maybe is exactly what President Obama was trying to do. Ah Ha, now there is a conspiracy theory. Barack Obama deliberately wears a tan suit in order to change the subject from a world on fire and a slothful economy to the color of his suit. Any of you conspiracy theorists sitting in your parents basement in your underwear scouring the Internet for the next big conspiracy are free to use that one with my permission. You can even name it, "The Tan Suit Diaries."

The Morally Inverted World Of Barack Obama

     "There has never been so little violence in the world as there is now." These words, spoken as part of a recent speech by President Obama, are not evidence of a deluded mind, a flimsily constructed lie, or even an out of touch ideology. These things are all true to a certain extent, but more importantly these words are exemplary of a historically out of proportion hubris from a man who believes in his ability to make what is not, is, simply by saying so.
     Democrat Adlai Stevenson once said that when "America stumbles, the world falls." And so it has been under the non-leadership of Barack Obama. The current president was inaugurated with an Iraq well on its way to becoming a self-governing, stable nation. Egypt was under the control Hosni Mubarak, a dictator, but who kept his country's peace with its neighbors and terrorists in check. Libya was ruled by the iron fist of Muammar Khadafy, who in turn had been militarily neutered by George W. Bush. Ukraine was enjoying a Russian-free existence. There was no ISIS, 150,000 Syrians were still alive that have since been killed in that country's violent war, and Israel had no questions about the friendship and support of the United States.
     Barack Obama and the rest of the Leftist intelligentsia mistakenly think that the projection of American power is the cause of conflict around the world, instead of the absence of that power leading to the encouragement of world conflict. The president's wager that if America backed out of a dominant role in influencing world events there would be less violence, has come up snake eyes in a big way. We now see what the world looks like without strong American leadership, and like it or not, the United States has an obligation to promote the values of liberty and civilization, especially in parts of the world where those principles are anathema to those in control.
     It is Barack Obama's inability to see evil in the world, except when he can wrap it in the U.S. flag, that has contributed the rise of Islamic radicalism. This flawed and dangerous thinking was in evidence in the campaign of 2008 when he answered a pointed question from Pastor Warren about what he considered evil, and Mr. Obama said poverty in America's streets. It is the desire on the part of Barack Obama to equate half a century of failed Leftist policy with the concept of evil, and apparently give a pass to the truly evil of the world, that is the most obtusely dangerous quality I have ever seen in a president.
     In the morally inverted world of Barack Obama there is no evil except the United States. There is no earned wealth, only enforced poverty on the many by the few. And there can be no world peace when America is strong in practicing its founding principles because those values are corrupt and evil. Also in Barack Obama's morally inverted world, evil men are not evil but just responding to the nefarious nature of American foreign policy. And finally, in Barack Obama's morally inverted world, big government is necessary for fighting manufactured evil domestically and limited government is employed to fight the real evil of those around the world who would subjugate our liberty to the dark sewer of their ideology.

Sarah, I Love Ya, But You Are Wrong On Impeachment

     I respect and admire Sarah Palin a great deal for her fidelity to the principles and values prescribed by the founding documents of this great country. I have also watched her with great veneration for her political ability in articulating those values. That is why I have grown very solicitous lately with her insistence that congressional Republicans begin impeachment proceedings against President Obama. Not because I think there are no violations by this president that rise to the legal definition of impeachment, but because as it has been stated, impeachment is not so much a legal remedy as it is a political one.
     There just is not the political support among the population of American citizens to travel the road of impeachment with wild-eyed Republicans hoping to accomplish God knows what with an effort that is guaranteed for failure. The House of Representatives leadership must draw up articles of impeachment that must then be supported by a majority of House members. So far, so good. The Republicans control the House with a comfortable majority. But then those articles of impeachment must then be prosecuted by the Senate, which even under Republican control, would need a two-thirds majority vote of support to impeach. If that miracle somehow happened, then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America would have to agree to hear the charges and decide in favor of impeachment.
     We already know that Chief Justice Roberts has no stomach to mitigate the agenda of the first black president, let alone impeach and remove him from office. Even attempting an Article 5 impeachment would require so much time to get implemented in every state, that Barack Obama will be long gone from office before the state legislatures could vote on impeachment. And even if they could do the deed before he left office, the proponents of impeachment would need three-quarters of the state legislatures to support their position in order for them to succeed. Considering that just over forty percent of the state legislatures are Democrat, and assuming that the rest voted for impeachment, there would still not be enough support to impeach the president.
     An impeachment movement against President Obama would be a political disaster for Republicans and a civic one for the country. Barack Obama, who is failing in popularity, would recover his lost support through a Republican impeachment attempt. The process would end in defeat for the impeachers, while garnering the president a lifeline out of the sea of political disaster in which he is currently drowning. Impeachment would have the added benefit to the president of allowing him to claim the congress is not working for the American people, but for their own partisan agenda.
     With the border crisis, the economic crisis, the unemployment crisis, the foreign policy crisis, the budget crisis, and the entitlement crisis, impeachment should not even be on Republicans' radar. Sarah Palin has been right about so many issues, she was bound to swing and miss on one sooner or later, and impeachment is that issue. Hers and Republicans energy would be better spent articulating conservative principles that will save the Republic, rather than trying to impeach a president that will be out of office in a couple of years anyway. The real fight is not with Barack Obama, but with the ideology of Leftism, which is what really needs to be impeached and removed from the American culture.

The Success Of Obama Nation

     In the interim between the time that Barack Obama was elected president in November of 2008, and when he was inaugurated in January of 2009, conservative radio talk show pioneer, Rush Limbaugh said he hope the newly elected executive would fail. Those on the Left with more larceny in their hearts than love of the truth, deliberately misinterpreted Mr. Limbaugh's statement to mean he hoped the country would fail just to sabotage the first black president. They, like everyone else who heard Rush's comment, knew that he, like many conservatives, felt that President Obama's successful implementation of his agenda would mean failure for the country.
     Once again Rush was right. President Obama's success in manipulating monetary policy through his marionettes at the Federal Reserve in order to reward his Wall Street campaign donors with a market infusion of over three trillion dollars, has insured failure for the Average American trying to participate in the economy. President Obama's success in raising health insurance rates and deductibles into the stratosphere and essentially reducing the work week of millions of Americans to under thirty hours, and his successful public intimidation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to twist himself and the law into a pretzel to give ObamaCare the undeserved status of "constitutional," has caused a failure in what was the best health care industry in the world.
      President Obama's successful creation of a regulatory state to replace a thriving free market, has insured failure for the 95 million Americans who are now without full time employment. President Obama's success in expanding the food stamp program, nearly doubling it in 5 years, has caused a failure in the American people to see hope springing eternal from this once great country. President Obama's economic policies producing chronically high unemployment, the lowest labor force participation in almost forty years, and Gross Domestic Product growth at or near historic lows, has lead to a failure in the self-reliance that built this country, and has insured increased dependence on government.
     Whether one agrees with Rush Limbaugh or not, it can not be denied that he has used constitutional consistency for the better part of thirty years when putting forth his analysis. Many of his contemporaries on Right-Wing radio have not been so consistent. They run the gambit from the scared moderates like Michael Medved, who still defends the President as only incompetent, to Glen Beck who began Barack Obama's first term saying he was giving him a hundred percent approval rating, then jumping on the conservative band wagon only after others paved the way in criticizing the president. Then there are those on talk radio who think that broadcast excellence comes wrapped in a package of invectives aim at other hosts, as Michael Savage does.
     The success that Barack Obama has had in remaking America has been exemplified by the recent border crisis. Many on the Right still believe that the invasion of our Southern border is borne of President Obama's incompetence, and not his deliberate attempt to grow government at the same time he grows the Democrat party voter base. Barack Obama has been wildly successful in implementing his agenda, while convincing his political opponents on the Right that he is merely in over his head. This is what success for Barack Obama looks like, it is why that lone voice cried through the hysteria of an "historic" election to say, "I hope he fails."

President Obama's Lack Of Greatness

     Last week's seventieth anniversary of the D-Day invasion which turned the tide of World War II in favor of the United States and her allies, and rang the first bells of demise for the Nazis and their allies, also was illustrative of the stark difference between our current president and great presidents of the past. Namely Ronald Reagan. But when comparing Barack Obama to his previous 43 predecessors, he stands alone in his lack of greatness. And a comparison between Ronald Reagan's fortieth anniversary of D-Day speech and Barack Obama's recent seventieth anniversary speech is a glaring example of this lack of greatness.
     Ronald Reagan in his D-Day speech spoke of the "boys of Point du Hoc" and  "the men who took the cliffs." Barack Obama spoke of an Afghanistan war veteran sitting with the first lady at one of his State of the Union shows. Where Ronald Reagan spoke of democracy being "worth dying for" because it is "the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." Barack Obama spoke of buying a veteran at the celebration a hamburger because, "what could be more American."
     Hearing Ronald Reagan's fortieth D-Day anniversary speech last week, and re-reading it for my self several times, illuminates for me the true faith and belief that he had, not only in the greatness of America, but in all those who would employ the "use of force in liberation, not in conquest." Even when Barack Obama swerves into patriotic rhetoric, it is a meandering maneuver meant to placate the patriotic, not join them in commitment and dedication to the exceptionalism of America. An example of this behavior is when Mr. Obama refused to wear the U.S. flag lapel pin during the Democrat primaries for the 2008 presidential election because he felt it would alienate him from his base in the party. But once he was their nominee, he wore it in order to appeal to a wider swath of Americans in the general election.
     To Barack Obama, patriotism is a political tool used to cajole the patriotic, and dispensed with afterward like an old shoe that has served its purpose. To men like Ronald Reagan, the fidelity to liberty and honor were daily habits and lifetime avocations. Another example of the kind of honor that great men have that is absent from the character of our current president is the statement General Eisenhower wrote before D-Day, and never had to make. It was a note he kept in his breast pocket in case the invasion was a failure, in which he gave honor and praise to the troops and took all the blame for the failure upon himself.
     If Barack Obama would have been Ike in 1944, the statement in his breast pocket would have taken credit for his daring decision to land troops on the beaches of Normandy. Just as he did with the killing of Osama Bin Laden. An additional statement would have been in the breast pocket of Barack Obama on that day if the invasion failed, blaming its failure on Republicans. And that is what greatness in a man comes to, the ability to motivate honor and duty to a cause greater than self, standing in the shadow of success, and alone in the spotlight of failure. This is a quality sadly missing from Barack Obama, and sadly so not only for the United States of America, but for the world in need of that kind of leadership.

The Legacy Of A Souless President

     I just figured out the difference between real men of honor and Barack Obama. It is that men of honor build their respect upon a foundation of accomplishments and conduct that becomes the purest definition of probity. Barack Obama has, throughout the entirety of his adult life, reviled the practices of rectitude that bestow respect upon a man, and has chosen to impose respect through titles he has managed to usurp from far better men than himself. Encapsulated in the vacuous suit worn by the president is all the substance of a puff of air.
     The preceding description of our current president was best exemplified by his recent speech at West Point to the best of our best. As hard as Mr. Obama tried to elicit the applause from the cadets that was so copious and vociferous for both President Bushes and Ronald Reagan, he could not attain  enough applause to even drowned out the sound of the flapping wings of a butterfly. The cadets instinctively know, as do many other Americans, that one can not simply place lipstick on a pig and call it a date.
     One of the effects of Barack Obama's vapidity will haunt this republic for decades, and even generations. It is that by the end of his second term, many young minorities will have spent the entirety of their lives, or a good portion thereof, listening to a president exemplify the vice of dishonesty, instead of the virtue of honor. They will have been raised on the bitter herb of self-loathing for their own country as it was originally founded, and taught to use their minority status as a weapon against those who refuse them what they believe to be their entitlement of imposition on society.
     The deleterious effects visited upon the United States by Barack Obama go beyond a flaccid economy and impotent foreign policy. The real shame of his presidency is the fundamental way in which he has changed America. No longer is truth expected from the next generation, because it has been banished to the sewer of political expediency by this president and his sycophantic gnomes in the media, academia, and entertainment. And the young, even though they may not consciously study the politics of the day, are nonetheless influenced by it in their behavior and character.
     How many teens of the 1990s de-moralized oral sex because President Clinton had engaged in the activity in the Oval Office, one of the most sacred and reverent symbols of our nation's rectitude. Not unlike Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama has dismissed all reverence and honor from the sentinel of our national pride. And it has been replaced with the dark, dreary, and dank rotting nothingness that is the asepticism of the Leftist ethos. This is the legacy bequeathed to a free and moral people by an empty and soulless president. 

The Soft Treason Of Political Folly

     The Obama administration's deal with the Taliban to release five of the most impressive terrorists from Guantanamo in exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl, is like trading a Reggie Jackson rookie baseball card for the stick of gum that originally was packaged with it. In fact, watching the Obama administration's jubilation over such an obvious victory for our enemy is analogous to people of the time applauding the Hindenburg for those who survived its inferno. Never before in American history has a president been either so totally obtuse or so entirely complicit in working against the interests of the United States, both options having their foundation firmly planted in dereliction of duty.
     Whether one thinks that Sargent Bergdahl was captured and held against his will as a prisoner of the Taliban, or as the note he left behind would indicate, he deserted the U.S. military for which he had shown so much contempt, the potential loss of life directly attributable to the release of the Taliban dream team is quite assuredly a victory for our foes. Mr. Bergdahl already has cost the lives of six of his comrades who went in search of a man that they knew was a deserter. The men who served with Sargent Bergdahl, many of them expressing their loathing for the man in emails to retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, were well acquainted with his sympathies for our enemy.
      I think there is little evidence that this young man is some kind of hero to traditional American values. But he does represent the values of the age of Obama, where duty, honor, and sacrifice are not so important as political theater and a rebuke of traditional U.S. military prowess. After all this is the age of manufactured heroes and the vilification of real heroes. Everyday we witness this administration and others on the Left attempting to destroy good men who uphold the sanctity of traditional American values, while they venerate those who represent the antithesis of those values.
     There is so much wrong with President Obama's "deal" with the Taliban. There is of course the price he has unwittingly put on the heads of American soldiers and civilians, a price which will encourage their kidnapping in the future. Furthermore, President Obama's actions may well be found illegal, having not involved the advice or permission of Congress. Additionally, Secretary Hagel was caught in a bald-faced lie when he said they had to act quickly because of Bowe Bergdahl's rapidly deteriorating health. But the most egregious aspect of this clumsy and juvenile affair was the Rose Garden appearance by the president and the deserter's parents.
     The president of the United States, while our country is at war with radical Islam, has the parents of a deserter at best and a traitor at worse to the White House, where the father sports an Islamic beard and asks for the blessings of Allah in Arabic. It is analogous to FDR having the parents of a Nazi sympathizer to the White House in 1944, and the father giving the Nazi salute and saying "Heil Hitler."  If nothing else it shows a complete and utter disrespect for all the innocent victims of Islamic terrorists and the brave men and women of the United States military who have given their lives to defeat this nefarious enemy.    
     Really, when all the other aspects of this "deal" are considered, from the ludicrous to the dangerous, the one that sticks in my crawl is the empowering of our enemy by our own president and the total disregard it shows for the armed forces under his command. Barack Obama has shown himself unfit to be Commander In Chief with this one action, an action that many, including myself, consider to be the soft treason of political folly.

A Case For Impeachment

     According to the Constitution, a president can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." The object of this post is not to argue the chances of a successful impeachment of President Obama. Success being defined as articles of impeachment being passed by the House of Representatives, those articles being prosecuted by the Senate of the United States, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court finding in favor of that prosecution. That scenario has as much chance of becoming reality as Joe Biden has of getting a clue. No, my contention is that even with a snowball's chance in hell of success, Republicants should attempt it, if for no other reason than to make a stand for liberty and against tyranny. The process would also slow down the implementation of President Obama's radical agenda.
     Actually, the Republicants should have challenged President Obama on legal grounds from the start of his presidency. The General Motors bailout, which included a violation of contract law with the federal government transferring equity from legitimate bondholders to the president's union buddies, was a blatant violation of the constitutional mandate of that law. I think that a president's violation of 200 years of civil law qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors." The President repeated the same behavior with his numerous programs to bailout mortgage borrowers who were in default, or in danger of being in default, on their home loans. He placed the federal government in the role of unilateral modifier of private contracts between lenders and borrowers.
     President Obama also committed fraud when his administration cut and pasted the signatures of experts they hired to assess the effects of shutting down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP oil spill. The experts' original report did not support the administration's desire to shut down the rigs, so they pasted the signatures from the original study to their own that did support it. To add fuel to the fire of lawlessness and deceit, President Obama blatantly disobeyed two different federal Judges' orders not to shut down the rigs. I think that behavior qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors."
     And then there is ObamaCare, which in its passing alone qualified for the most egregious forms of bribery, graft, and corruption. But the almost two dozen ad hoc changes to the law by the president without the support of congress, certainly qualifies for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Maybe the American people have been so dumbed down by the deliberate conspiracy of the Left with the U.S. education system over the last 5 decades, that they do not realize that the constitutional responsibility of the president is to execute the laws, not write them on the fly to support his political agenda.
     Even with the preceding evidence against President Obama in favor of impeachment, the piece de resistance is his conspiring with a foreign leader against the interests of the United States. The conspiracy happened prior to the 2012 presidential election when he told then Russian president Medveded to transmit to Vladimir Putin that he, Obama, would have more "flexibility" once he was safely reelected. The comment was picked up when President Obama thought he was off-mic. If conspiring against your own country with a foreign leader does not qualify for "high crimes and misdemeanors," well then I just do not know what does.
     There are many more examples of the complete lawlessness of this president that would certainly qualify him for impeachment. The ones mentioned here are only seasoning to the main course of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If the Republicants do not mount an articulate and reasoned prosecution of Barack Obama's deliberate assault on the United States Constitution, then history will judge them to be complicit in the cowardly act of dismantling liberty for future generations.

The Irrelevance Of Low Approval Rating

     Some on the Right are given solace by a recent Fox News poll that shows President Obama's approval rating at the lowest level of his presidency, a George W. Bush-like thirty eight percent. And while some conservatives are gleeful over Barack Obama's low popularity, I am disappointed that they are seemingly clueless that, in the words of Hillary Clinton at her infamous Benghazi hearing, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
     My fellow conservatives, and others on the Right, must realize that Barack Obama is not running for anything again, so low poll numbers mean nothing. Some may say that with low poll numbers the president, any president, can not muster support for his agenda in congress. As he has so brazenly stated many times, President Obama does not need the support of congress to advance his agenda. Between the Affordable Care Act and Financial Reform legislation, he has the bones of a government monster that he can infuse with eternal life with the help of bureaucracies that now make laws. Add to this formula the president's unbridled willingness to use executive orders, and the democracy of Jefferson and Madison lies struggling for breath under the heavy boot of tyranny.
     ObamaCare was passed by Democrats in congress as a 2,000 page behemoth piece of legislation, but has grown to over 20,000 pages with regulations added by the Department of Health and Human Services and other bureaucracies. Financial reform, also known as Dodd/Frank, has similarly been made obese by laws masquerading as regulations passed by bureaucrats and not by the people's representatives in congress, per the constitution. And if President Obama does not need congress, he certainly does not need the approval of the American people. So approval ratings and job performance reviews by the citizens of this country are completely irrelevant at this point in his tenure.
       Another reason that low approval ratings for Barack Obama do not matter is that they virtually go unreported by the media. I remember during the second term of George W. Bush, when his approval rating dropped below forty percent, it was headline news every day in the main stream media. Which in itself is illustrative of media bias, disproving those who say there is none.
     In the words of Aldous Huxley, it is a "brave new world." A world in which a community organizer slacker has "fundamentally transformed" a representative republic into a bureaucratic oligarchy. And far from being opposed and fought until the dying breath, this oligarchy has been joined by members of the "opposition" party who care more about poll numbers and elections than they do about girding their loins in the battle for liberty.

The Saran Wrap President

     To a great extent the Left has been successful over the past few decades in retraining many Americans to see the source of their rights as government and not God. In doing this the Left has also removed the individual citizen's responsibility to liberty, and their obligation to oppose that which infringes upon that liberty. The Left knows that a population that see its government as the well into which they dip their ladles of freedom and extract rights for themselves, has no need of a constitution. And without adherence to a limiting principle like the constitution, government will grow powerful enough to revoke even the God-given rights bestowed on all people who yearn to be free.
     There has never been an American president who is as willing as Barack Obama to redefine the very founding of this country, and place himself above the constitutional principles of representative government and the sanctity of God-given rights. Recently, in a publicized portion of a cabinet meeting, the President said he would use his pen to issue executive orders to impose equality, i.e., income redistribution, amnesty, and "fairness." The last principle being defined as anything which destroys the American spirit and places more emphasis on government.
     There are those that have claimed Barack Obama is a complex and deep individual. But over the past decade that he has bullied his way into the national spot light, he has been as transparent as a piece of Saran Wrap. I recall when he was running for president in 2008, a radio interview surfaced from the early 2000s where he expressed a desire to replace the constitution, because of its limiting principle on government, with what he called a "redistributive model." This is the same interview in which he called the United States Constitution, the greatest document of individual liberty ever conceived by the mind of man, a "charter of negative rights."
     It has been clear all along that the Saran Wrap President was not hiding his desire to reshape the very founding of this great country from liberty-centric to government-centric. The Founding Fathers abhorred the idea of a nation driven by a centralized government, thus limiting it to the enumerated powers given it by the people through the constitution. The Saran Wrap president and his minions of mindless mavens have twisted the founding principle that the peoples rights come from God and the government's rights come from the people, to the completely opposite proposition. In the world of Barack Obama, rights come from a divinity, only that divinity is government and its demigods are the fallen angels of liberty like himself that now do the bidding of tyranny and oppression.
    

Barack Obama's War Against The Commercial Bus Industry

     The latest executive edict from "Dear Leader" is a mandate that all commercial buses must have lap and shoulder restraints for every passenger. This over-reaching attempt to punish yet another industry with higher costs has been implemented, according to the Obama administration, to ostensibly save about 20 lives a year. A figure that represents forty percent of the approximately 50 persons who die in commercial bus accidents every year in the United States. The cost to the commercial bus industry could reach into the tens of millions of dollars in additional procurement and installation costs, not to mention maintenance costs on the new equipment.
     Apparently the President is not concerned with the lives of school children or anyone riding public transportation, these two classes of buses having been exempt from the decree. According to the National Health & Transportation Safety Administration, there are 400 deaths a year due to bus accidents. One hundred and thirty seven are children riding school buses, about 213 are a result of public transportation bus accidents, and only 50 deaths a year are attributable to the commercial buses that are subject to the new edict.
     When one delves further into the data, it shows that riding a commercial bus is actually safer than riding in  a car. There are approximately 45 deaths per every 100,000 bus accidents, but a whopping 251 deaths for every 100,000 car accidents. This chasm in the statistics exists even with the ubiquitous nature of seat belts and shoulder restraints present in cars, further mitigating the President's argument to force their installation in commercial buses.
     Contained within the latest proclamation from King Barack is language that ensures easier access to litigation against commercial bus companies, yet another pay back to the trial lawyers for their unyielding support of the current regime. Just to remind the reader once again, this latest dictate does not apply to public transportation or school buses, violating the sanctity of Equal Protection Under the Law. Which seems to be the modus operandi of the man who preaches the false gospel of equality and "social justice."
     This latest edict is illustrative of President Obama's disconnect from reality as it applies to matters of business and economics. Apparently when Barack Obama was matriculated in the Leftist seminaries known as the university system in this country, he did not learn that additional frivolous costs placed on businesses results in a reduction in the quality of services, higher prices, or both. But then it would not matter to an authoritarian narcissist like Mr. Obama, who revels in his constitutionally illegitimate power to impose ridiculous regulations on better men than himself, and micromanage an economy that he has never worked in or contributed to in any significant way. 
    

The Obama Lost Decade

     This Friday when the jobs numbers are released to the public for the month of December, the expectation is that the economy added some 200 thousand jobs. This, of course, will be hailed by the main stream media and others on the Left as an achievement by the Obama administration on par with Sir Edmund Hillary conquering the icy slopes of Mount Everest. And while 200 thousand jobs added in a month would be a positive sign for an economy just beginning to emerge from the depths of a recession, it is far less than adequate for an economy that is headed towards its fifth year of recovery.
      I have written before about this administration's pathetic hubris with regards to what they call "an improving job market." The fact is that the average monthly job growth for the United States since the end of World War II is somewhere north of  200 thousand. In periods of recovery from the many recessions the nation has endured in that same time frame, monthly job growth typically reaches half a million new jobs or more. During the Reagan recovery in the mid to late 1980s, some months saw job growth approaching a million. Barack Obama himself promised monthly job growth of half a million by the end of his first term, just one of the many promises broken by this president for which he is not held accountable.
     Americans have now suffered more than half of what is shaping up to be an Obama lost decade. With devastating effects that include, but are not limited to, substandard Gross Domestic Product growth rate, real unemployment around 15%, a doubling of food stamp recipients, a record 90 million working age adults unemployed, and economic malaise that has transformed this engine of world economic growth into a pathetic, slobbering, grasping transient looking for a handout.
     The United States has had at least seven substantial recessions in its post World War II history, none lasting as long, cutting as deep, and inflicting as much economic hardship as the Obama recession. Not only have none of us under the age of 70 ever lived through such rampant unemployment and anemic economic growth for such an extended period of time, but we have also never had an administration that seems not to care. In fact, this obtuse administration plays with their mathematical models borne of some twisted fantasy of academia, instead of the economic realities of an economy in which none of them have ever had to earn a living.
     By the time Mr. Obama leaves office in January of 2017, the damage done by his economic policies will require at least another two years to repair, rounding out the Obama lost decade. And while he and members of his administration will brag about having "transformed America," they themselves will never be touched by the grief and misery that that "transformation" wrought on a free nation. It is ironic in so much as the man who promised hope only brought hopelessness to millions of Americans. He will have increased poverty more than any president of the modern era, reduced the standard of living and brought about the decline not only of the United States' stature in the world, but a giant step backward in the delivery and quality of medical care for the average American. Such is the accomplishments of a man who entered the presidency as the least accomplished person to ever hold that office.

Since When Does The Support Of The Governed Matter To Obama ?

     President Obama's approval rating in a recent CBS poll dipped to 37%, a level at which the main stream media tried to convince the American public that President Bush was no longer able to fulfill the duties of his office because he had lost the confidence of the American people. Of course, President Bush's low approval rating was only accomplished after four years of non-stop bludgeoning by the main stream media. President Obama has gotten his all on his own, the main stream media having carried his water for the better part of five years now.
     Conservatives have been jubilant at the prospect of Barack Obama's approval rating plummeting. I have heard some say it is the beginning of the end for the President. I do not know what that means to a President who has already won re-election, and can not run again. And if these conservatives are alluding to next year's mid-term elections, I do not see any indication or evidence that Democrats in congress will suffer from a low approval rating by the President. If that were true, then the opposite would also be true, and the Republicants would not have been able to take control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term election at a time when President Obama enjoyed an approval rating over 60%.
     The Democrats may lose control of the senate next November, but it will be vis-a-vis their support for the train wreck that is ObamaCare and not the President's low approval rating. The recent invoking of the nuclear option by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, essentially eliminating the 230  year tradition of the filibuster, is a result of the Democrat leadership seeing a possible loss of the senate next Fall. It is also due to fear of Republicants like Ted Cruz who are actually serious about their duty to the constitution. Make no mistake, the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republicant party is gaining strength, and scaring the hell out of the Washington establishment on both sides of the aisle.
     At this point in Barack Obama's term he has no concern for, or sense of duty to, the approval of the governed. The reason is twofold. One is that with essentially no filibuster in the senate to slow down his agenda, he is free to impose his will with a much lower level of congressional support than any president in the past. The second reason is the signaling of acquiescence by Republicant leadership, who have publicly stated that they refuse to allow another government shutdown for any reason, even to fight for the constitutional integrity of this republic. It is a republic that is currently at a crossroads, to the left is tyranny and to the right is liberty. The path taken depends on how We The People use our dwindling constitutional power to retake the authority granted to us by our founding documents before we become totally subservient to our Washington masters.

Three Words On The Obama Legacy

     Great Presidents like Ronald Reagan leave to history a treasure trove of succinct and thoughtful quotes. Quotes that inspire, educate, and provoke thought and debate. Quotes that express some spark of jewel from the crown that is the founding values of this great nation. I challenge anyone to relay a great quote by our current president. For a man who uses more words to say anything than anyone else, Barack Obama has not produced one memorable quote for history. In fact, Barack Obama is as empty and vacuous now, after almost five years of being President, as he was in 2008 when he was originally campaigning for that position.
     My previous statements above not withstanding, Barack Obama will leave a legacy of words upon exiting the White House in January of 2017. The words of Barack Obama's presidential legacy will be discrimination, race, and intimidation.
     More than any other president in our history, Barack Obama has aimed to use the power of the federal government to discriminate against those that have, in favor of those who have not, in order to effect the fulfillment of some twisted Leftist distributive model for society. That word, discrimination, more than any other, defines the policies and actions of Barack Obama and the modern day Left. The discrimination based on a person's possessions is the cornerstone of wealth redistribution, and the modus operandi of the Obama regime.
     Mr. Obama's legacy will also include a healthy dose of the word race as a means of effecting societal change that places Leftists like himself in charge of everyone and everything. Barack Obama and his ilk see America's account with humankind to be in deficit from its past mistakes with race. And they see their mission as the self-appointed collectors who will make this country pay on an account that will never be satisfied in full. The Obama Left has used race to great effect in encouraging blacks to think of themselves as victims of this nation, and any opposition to keep silent out of fear of being labeled a racist.
     The third word of the Obama legacy is intimidation. Leftists like Barack Obama know that, stated honestly and forthrightly, their ideas and policies would not gain the support of the majority of Americans. So they must coerce and intimidate in order to get their agenda implemented. So President Obama, early in his presidency, sent community agitators to the homes of AIG executives as a warning to the financial services sector to cooperate with the meddling in their business of people in government who know nothing about their industry. This President also used the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate conservative groups away from practicing grassroots politics that may have removed Barack Obama from the White House in 2012. And, he publicly intimidated the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court into deciding in his favor on finding his signature health care law constitutional.
     Barack Obama will exit the White House in just over three years, never having blazed his oratory in the annals of great and inspiring words of history. But in addition to leaving this country with a severely obese federal government that must borrow almost forty percent of what it spends, Barack Obama will leave the American people with the bitter taste on their tongues of discrimination, race, and intimidation.  

Barack Obama Channels Franklin Roosevelt In Court-Packing Scheme

     Scarcely nothing else but the Hindenburg called ObamaCare has dominated the Conservative airwaves, and weighed heavy on the minds of the health insurance-buying public the last few weeks. And as important as the government take-over of one sixth of the Unites States economy is, one of the mechanisms that will allow future government control is quietly being battled by Senate Republicants. The kind of banana republic behavior in which the Obama administration is engaging now has not been seen to this extent since the 1930s and the Roosevelt presidency. I am of course speaking about court packing.
     In the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt did not take kindly to the fact that the Supreme Court found some of his policies unconstitutional. So he tried to increase the number of Supreme Court justices and "pack" the additional positions with those that would be amenable to his socialist agenda. Currently, President Obama is trying the same strategy with the D.C. Circuit Court, considered to be one of the most powerful in the country, second only to the Supreme Court of the United States. Many important and Constitutionally substantive cases are heard by the D.C. court, and President Obama wants to transform it into a rubber stamp for his radically Leftist policies.
     The D.C. Circuit Court at present has four Republican-nominated justices and four Democrat ones. President Obama wants to add four more justices, which of course will be fellow travelers with him on the road to the socialist Utopia in which all Leftists believe. There is no other reason to add justices to this particular court, because as it is the most powerful Circuit Court in the country, it is also the most under worked. The D.C. Court hears only a third of the cases of the average U.S. Circuit Court. And while his additional nominees to the court would need Senate confirmation, this would be a fait accompli with the Democrat majority in that body and Republicants like John McCain being unwilling to filibuster any of the President's judicial nominees to any court.
     Mr. Obama's attempt to pack the very influential federal court in D.C. is illustrative of the way in which Leftists operate out of necessity. The President knows that in poll after poll the American people have rejected his policies in large numbers. So in order to pass his unpopular agenda he must resort to racial intimidation, as was the case with the Supreme Court's decision on his unconstitutional health care law, or court packing, as is the current modus operandi of his administration. These kinds of tactics also illustrate that those on the Left realize they would never win elections and would forever be relegated to the margins of public life in America, if they were honest about their true agenda. The Obama administration's attempt to quietly pack the D.C. Circuit Court is something about which every freedom-loving American should be outraged, and every dedicated public servant in Congress should be fighting to their last political breath to stop.