Category Archives: Obama
Messin’ with Obama
Last week, in Minnesota, President Obama complained that Republicans were “messin”” with him and “calling him names“. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a president say that before. Well, maybe one time. Here‘s President Obama last year.
The constitutional lawyer-in-chief added on Monday that the failure of Congress to get on board with his agenda would be justification for him to further go it alone.
Messin’ with Obama
This came after a week of of being rebuked by the Supreme Court for executive overreach.
Supine Senate
The Supreme Court came to the rescue of the Supine Senate with a 9-0 ruling against President Obama. Unable to get confirmation for three appointees to the NLRB, King Barack simply declared the Senate in recess. He then made recess appointments which don’t require senate approval.
Justice Breyer stated the obvious in the majority opinion. Namely, Congress, as an equal branch of government, “is in session when it says it is”. Constitutional Scholar Jonathan Turley called the ruling a shot across the bow for the president’s go it alone strategy.
Supine Senate
Kimberly Strassel says it came to this because “Congressional Democrats watch supinely as the president treads on their powers.”
West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd —onetime Senate majority leader and fierce defender of congressional power—would have laid down on train tracks to protest Mr. Obama’s recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess.
“Having been supine for years in the face of these encroachments, Congress is stirring”, says Dr. Krauthammer in a column titled Government by Fiat.
The Republican House is preparing a novel approach to acquiring legal standing before the courts to challenge these gross executive usurpations. Nancy Pelosi, reflecting the narrowness of both her partisanship and her vision, dismisses this as a “subterfuge.”
She won’t be saying that on the day Democrats lose the White House. Then, cheered on by a suddenly inflamed media, the Democrats will no doubt express horror at such constitutional overreach.
Boots on the Ground
President Obama is fond of insisting he won’t put boots on the ground. Even when no one is asking. But now he’s putting 275 pairs of “boots on the ground” to protect American assets as the Iraqi army melts away before ISIS terrorists. Here’s Dick Cheney in a controversial WSJ op-ed last week:
Watching the black-clad ISIS jihadists take territory once secured by American blood is final proof, if any were needed, that America’s enemies are not “decimated.” They are emboldened and on the march… When Mr. Obama and his team came into office in 2009, al Qaeda in Iraq had been largely defeated, thanks primarily to the heroic efforts of U.S. armed forces during the surge. Mr. Obama had only to negotiate an agreement to leave behind some residual American forces, training and intelligence capabilities to help secure the peace. Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
Cheney goes on to call Obama a fool. It’s hard to argue.
In the face of this threat, Mr. Obama is busy ushering America’s adversaries into positions of power in the Middle East. First it was the Russians in Syria. Now, in a move that defies credulity, he toys with the idea of ushering Iran into Iraq. Only a fool would believe American policy in Iraq should be ceded to Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terror… American freedom will not be secured by empty threats, meaningless red lines, leading from behind, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies, or apologizing for our great nation—all hallmarks to date of the Obama doctrine. Our security, and the security of our friends around the world, can only be guaranteed with a fundamental reversal of the policies of the past six years.
On the other hand, Kirsten Powers, still blames Bush.
She says none of this would have happened if Saddam Hussein were still around. “At least he was secular by Arab standards”. That’s hard to argue too. Note for next cartoon: Saddam – “Miss me yet?”
Personally I’m 0 for 2 on wars with Iraq. I was against the first one. When Saddam invaded Kuwait I figured both sides wanted to sell us oil and it wasn’t worth breaking things and killing people over which one got to do it. Besides, April Glaspie may have given Saddam reason to think he had a green light on rape and pillage in Kuwait.
As it turned out, Saddam had been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction before the first Iraq war. In light of that , and in the shadow 9/11, I was in favor of the second Iraq war. That put me in the same boat as Kerry, Hillary, and most of the rest of the Democratic leadership. The difference is I didn’t switch sides when WMD weren’t found in Iraq. Once you’re in a war it’s still better to win than lose. That’s where I admire Bush – that and his ability to draw pictures in the bathtub. He didn’t give up on the sacrifices made in Iraq, even though just about everyone else did – Dems and Republicans alike. He found Petraeus and won the war.
War is Ending
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) apparently did not get the memo from President Obama that “war is ending”. ISIS is too violent even for al Qaeda. The group is leaving a trail of heads, removed with dull knives from policemen and soldiers, as it storms though Iraq toward Baghdad. Not a problem. As Daniel Henninger said this week,”Barack Obama is fiddling while the world burns”.
Barack Obama is fiddling while the world burns. Iraq, Pakistan, Ukraine, Russia, Nigeria, Kenya, Syria. These foreign wildfires, with more surely to come, will burn unabated for two years until the United States has a new president. The one we’ve got can barely notice or doesn’t care.
Carbon Cuts
President Obama made another end run around Congress in order to end the basis of all life on earth.
A 30% cut in carbon emissions from 2005 levels and must be achieved by 2030, or else.
Not a big deal says Robert Samuelson. Carbon emissions are already declining without EPA orders.
By 2012, CO2 emissions had already dropped to 2,023 million metric tons, a decline of 379 million metric tons. That’s 53 percent of the 2030 target. All of this has occurred without federal regulation of greenhouse gases.
The proposal’s real significance is that, if blessed by the courts, it would create a complex and costly regulatory apparatus that, in the future, might govern much of the U.S. economy.
China and India will more than make up for any U.S. cuts. But if you’re going to do it, Samuelson thinks the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to tax them.
If you want less of something, tax it… But there’s little public taste for this. Indeed, support for any anti-global warming legislation is weak. In 2009, when Democrats controlled the House and Senate, they could not pass a bill.
So Obama resorted to regulatory fiat: The EPA sets emission limits under the Clean Air Act. The proposal is hugely complex. Each state receives a target that can be met in many ways, subject to agency approval. This will be challenged in court and, if upheld, will strain the EPA’s administrative capacity. Winners and losers would be determined as much by political pressures as by market forces. It would be a bonanza for lawyers, lobbyists, economic consultants and public relations advisers. Whether it would affect the world’s climate is more questionable.
Krauthammer says the whole thing shows Obama is operating under his own constitution.
