Obama SOFTU: Doubles Down On Failed Policy And Tyranny

[_bcspace]

WASHINGTON — Confession: I looked and looked for Rep. Steve Stockman in the House chamber tonight and couldn’t spot him.

His office says he walked out on the president’s State of the Union speech.

“Tonight I left early after hearing how the President is further abusing his Constitutional powers. I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly-defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers,” Stockman said through an aide.

The rest of the statement:

Needless to say, I am deeply disappointed in the tone and content of tonight’s address.”

After five years in office Obama refuses to admit his policies have failed. He instead demands we double down on the bitter class warfare that has left Americans jobless and hopeless.

Obama’s plan for higher taxes and more spending is a blueprint for perpetual poverty. The last thing America needs is more of the Democrats’ class warfare that has left our economy a barren landscape.

Even worse, Obama has openly vowed to break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree. This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/stockman-walks-out-on-obama.html/#cxrecs_s

[_MeDotOrg]

Even worse, Obama has openly vowed to break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree. This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense.

Here are the number of executive decrees for each President since Harry Truman:

Harry S. Truman Total: 907
1st Term 504
2nd Term 403

Dwight D. Eisenhower Total: 484
1st Term 266
2nd Term 218

John F. Kennedy Total: 214

Lyndon B. Johnson Total: 325

Richard Nixon Total: 346
1st Term 247
2nd Term 99

Gerald R. Ford Total: 169

Jimmy Carter Total: 320

Ronald Reagan Total: 381
1st Term 213
2nd Term 168

George Bush Total: 166

William J. Clinton Total: 364
1st Term 200
2nd Term 164

George with. Bush Total: 291
1st Term 173
2nd Term 118

Barack Obama Total: 168
1st Term 147
2nd Term 21

...and from a (Not exactly in the President's Camp) Forbes Op/Ed piece:

Republicans and conservatives have complained loudly lately that President Obama has been resorting to non-democratic and unconstitutional governance; imperiously ignoring the so-called “will of the people” by issuing a cascade of new executive orders. According to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Mr. Obama is acting “like a king” by issuing his recent executive orders on gun control. Conservative author and radio talk show host Mark Levin contends that Obama’s executive orders are “un-American” and even “fascistic.”

If so, then certain Republican presidents – including Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan – must be classified as even more monarchical, un-American and “fascistic” than Barack Obama.

But what are facts when you have hyperbole?

[_subgenius]

as usual the Libs rely on idiocy....and exclaiming the "apples to oranges" only when convenient.

It is not the number of executive orders that are the issue, but rather the nature of them.

For example, LBJ issued an executive order Designating Certain Facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and of the Department of Defense, in the State of Florida, as the John F. Kennedy Space Center
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11129

hardly the same as Obama granting to himself the authority to approve the dispensing of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_D ... tive_order

so parading the number of executive orders (FDR had over 3k of them) as the issue is simply waving the banner of an idiot....so, business as usual for an Obama supporter.

[_Analytics]

as usual the Libs rely on idiocy....and exclaiming the "apples to oranges" only when convenient.

It is not the number of executive orders that are the issue, but rather the nature of them.

For example, LBJ issued an executive order Designating Certain Facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and of the Department of Defense, in the State of Florida, as the John F. Kennedy Space Center....

If Obama issued an executive order designating a post office in Arkansas as "the Bill Clinton Post Office," you'd be here moaning that he has no enumerated Constitutional authority to do such a thing.

Hyperbole aside, if Obama is literally guilty of issuing illegal executive orders, then Congress has the legal obligation to impeach him. How come you aren't infuriated with them for not doing so?

[_Kevin Graham]

It is not the number of executive orders that are the issue, but rather the nature of them.

Yes, meaning, orders we like are OK, and orders we don't like are tyrannical. That's the only consistency in Right Wing criticism.

[_MeDotOrg]

hardly the same as Obama granting to himself the authority to approve the dispensing of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security.

so parading the number of executive orders (FDR had over 3k of them) as the issue is simply waving the banner of an idiot....so, business as usual for an Obama supporter.

I wonder if you read the full text of your link on Executive Order 13603:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_D%20...%20tive_order

The National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order (Executive Order 13603) is an order of the United States's President signed by President Barack Obama on March 16, 2012.[1] The purpose of this executive order is to delegate authority and address national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950.[2] Executive Order 13603 provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials and services to promote national defense.[3]

Contrary to a few initial claims otherwise, the Order appears to update long-existing directives that have been issued as far back as the Truman Administration and makes no claim to allowing the federal government to confiscate private property.[4][5]

And from Factcheck.org

the Texas congresswoman (Kay Granger), made false claims about an executive order that Obama actually signed in March. Writing in a constituent newsletter, Granger claimed that Obama’s “National Defense Resources Preparedness” order amounted to martial law, adding that it was “unprecedented” and “above the law” and lacked congressional oversight.
The order was none of those things — and Granger said as much in a subsequent statement. Since the Korean War, Congress has granted the president the authority to ensure that national resources — such as the food supply and various industries — will be available to meet national security needs in times of war and other emergencies. That power is granted under the Defense Production Act, a law that dates to 1950 and must be reauthorized by Congress every few years. (The act expires in 2014.)
Like presidents before him, Obama issued an order updating the resources covered under that act, which allows presidents to delegate authority to various federal departments and agencies. For example, Obama’s order authorizes the secretaries of Defense and the Interior “to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.”
President Bill Clinton issued a similar executive order in 1994. Some people misunderstood that order as well, prompting the Congressional Research Service to write that Clinton’s order “has nothing whatever to do with declarations of martial law. It has no effect at all on continued powers of Congress or the federal courts during periods of war or other national emergencies.”
Granger removed the newsletter from her website. And she took back almost all of her claims in an April 30 newsletter “clarifying” her position.

Like I said to bcspace: "But what are facts when you have hyperbole?"

[_Kevin Graham]

I wonder if you read the full text of your link on Executive Order 13603:

ROFL!

So subgenius wants to make it look like he's relying on objective data when in fact he is really just blindly accepting bogus claims produced by his favorite Right Wing media sources.

So he links the wiki article. It is a short article consisting of a paragraph of 80 words, which clearly refutes the claim he was making!

This is classic.

And precisely why I dismiss his and bcspace's bogus articles as soon as I realize they come from the same cesspool of Right Wing propaganda. It is almost as if they're trying desperately to avoid telling any truths at all.

[_Gunnar]

I wonder if you read the full text of your link on Executive Order 13603:

ROFL!

So subgenius wants to make it look like he's relying on objective data when in fact he is really just blindly accepting bogus claims produced by his favorite Right Wing media sources.

So he links the wiki article. It is a short article consisting of a paragraph of 80 words, which clearly refutes the claim he was making!

This is classic.

And precisely why I dismiss his and bcspace's bogus articles as soon as I realize they come from the same cesspool of Right Wing propaganda. It is almost as if they're trying desperately to avoid telling any truths at all.

That's exactly the same impression I often get, especially when reading Subgenius' posts. I will grant, though, that bcspace occasionally says things that are at least somewhat rational, when not specifically trying to defend the more absurd LDS truth claims, nor his apparent advocacy of extreme, unrestricted, no holds barred, free market capitalism. I rather suspect that I would probably like bcspace if I had the chance to get to know him personally--despite our disagreements with each other.

[_MeDotOrg]

I think the thing that bothers me the most is the knee-jerk dismissiveness:

"as usual the Libs rely on idiocy" and "...parading the number of executive orders (FDR had over 3k of them) as the issue is simply waving the banner of an idiot....so, business as usual for an Obama supporter".

The assumption is that if you are an Obama supporter, ergo you are a liberal, ergo you are an idiot. It's a circular, self-perpetuating, and fact-free argument.

I think a lot of this comes from the fragmentation of news sources. Nowadays it is quite possible to receive news from only those sources that reinforce your own preconceived notions.

People say that our system is dysfunctional. But if you turn that argument on its head and ask "who benefits from a dysfunctional system?", then I think you begin to get some answers.

Rage sells. TV and radio are very aware of this, and program accordingly. Do you want to educate people or do you want to arouse visceral passions? Too often, the decision is made to get people pissed off (better for ratings), rather than look for a solution. Compromise, which is essential in a democracy, is seen as a dirty word. So left leaning news outlets always prominently display the most idiotic comments of the right, and right wing web sites do the reverse. Everyone can be smug because their preconceived notions are never challenged, but only reinforced.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" are not intrinsically good or evil. It may be good to be conservative in your consumption of red meat and liberal in your consumption of vegetables. The important thing is not the word 'liberal' or 'conservative', but trying to develop healthy eating habits, right? Personally I prefer the terms left and right.

One of my all-time favorite movies is Network. Paddy Chayefsky's script is amazingly prescient about America's relationship with politics and the media. The anchorman of the fictional UBS television network, Howard Beale, gives an impassioned on-air speech that rings true today:

I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job, the dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter, punks are running wild in the streets, and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it.

We know the air's unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit and watch our tee-vees while some local newscaster tells us today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.

We all know things are bad. Worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything's going crazy. So we don't go out any more. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we live in gets smaller, and all we ask is please, at least leave us alone in our own living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my tee-vee and my hair-dryer and my steel-belted radials, and I won't say anything, just leave us alone.

Well, I'm not going to leave you alone. I want you to get mad -- I don't want you to riot. I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to write your congressmen. Because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the defense budget and the Russians and crime in the street. All I know is first you got to get mad. You've got to say: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more. I'm a human being, goddammit. My life has value."

Amazingly prescient. And all this while the internet was a still a twinkle in DARPA's eyes.

When people feel that their society is running away from them, they feel impotent. When they feel impotent they feel rage. We are encouraged to feel rage by the media. But rage doesn't solve our problems, it exacerbates them. And the more we see the 'other side' as being intrinsically evil, the more intractable our differences become. So nothing gets done, so we feel impotent. The cycle begins again.

We live in a world of hyperbole, a world without reflection. After the President's speech, Lindsey Graham said "the world is literally about to blow up." Really? Literally? Acorn will Obama's army of brownshirts. The Affordable care act is slavery. The world is treating the rich like Germany treated the Jews in the 1930's. No parallel is too tenuous. And if, for example, it turns out there are no 'death panels', it's just water off a duck's back. Truth doesn't matter. Spinning a comfortable narrative for your viewers matters. Just move on to the next talking point, because rage is the important thing.

[_Quasimodo]

We live in a world of hyperbole, a world without reflection. After the President's speech, Lindsey Graham said "the world is literally about to blow up." Really? Literally? Acorn will Obama's army of brownshirts. The Affordable care act is slavery. The world is treating the rich like Germany treated the Jews in the 1930's. No parallel is too tenuous. And if, for example, it turns out there are no 'death panels', it's just water off a duck's back. Truth doesn't matter. Spinning a comfortable narrative for your viewers matters. Just move on to the next talking point, because rage is the important thing.

Very astute! +1.

For the Right, truth and reality are much less important than winning the next election. Emotions are more important than wisdom in winning those elections. Thus, we have the Tea Party.