Tuesday, January 26, 2010

The Failed Presidency of B. H. Obama

The Failed Presidency of B. H. Obama
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

A conservative friend, early on in the presidential campaign of Obama, informed me that the man was an empty suit. There was no "THERE" there, my friend insisted. I was assured Obama was, and is, running a con game on the American people.

Now that I, along with all of America and the world, have had a chance to observe the man in action (actually, that should be "INACTION"... about the only action we have seen from him is his mouth moving during those hundreds of speeches he made over the past year) I have to admit there was more than a little truth to what my friend said. So far as getting anything done, well, what did he DO?

There can be no question Obama's presidency is a failure. In my opinion Obama is a phony. He ain't that smart and he ain't that articulate. Take away the TelePrompTer and the man is clueless.

I have been a public speaker practically all my life and I must tell you, speaking with notes is quite different than speaking extemporaneously, without notes, off the top of your head, so to speak. (No pun intended.) The use of a TelePrompTer basically requires that you show up for the event and that is about all there is to it.

A well-written speech can make anyone look exceptional. The President, all presidents, have a battery of speechwriters to do just that. One of the best, in my humble opinion, is Peggy Noonan. The lady has a way with a phrase, any phrase. If I learned that Ms. Noonan had written a speech -- I wanted to hear it. She is THAT good!

The American Thinker, in a piece by Geoffrey P. Hunt entitled: "Another Failed Presidency" said the following: "... It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. ...” You can read the entire article, and we encourage you to do just that,

It is a shame there is no constitutional mechanism by which Obama can be removed from office before he does even more harm to the country. Alas, there isn't.

But what if there was? Back in August of 2007 Robert Dallek wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post entitled "Ouster By the People." He proposed a constitutional amendment which would allow a national referendum to decide whether to remove a President and Vice-President by voting "Yes" or "No".

In the article Mr. Dallek said the following: "Such an amendment would need to set a high bar for removal and include a process that would be the greatest possible expression of the popular will. This could best be achieved through a recall procedure beginning in the House and the Senate, where a 60 percent vote would be required in both chambers to initiate a national referendum that would be open to all citizens eligible to vote in state elections. The ballot would simply ask voters to say yes or no to removing the president and vice president from office immediately. Should a majority vote to recall both incumbents, the speaker of the House would succeed to the presidency and, under the provisions of the 25th Amendment, would choose a vice president, who would need to be confirmed by majorities in the House and the Senate." Mr. Dallek concluded by saying: "The nation should be able to remove by an orderly constitutional process any president with an unyielding commitment to failed policies and an inability to renew the country's hope."

Mr. Dallek was lamenting the "failed presidency of George W. Bush" at the time. What is truly frightening about such a "law" is the current Speaker of the House of Representatives is... Nancy Pelosi! I'd vote "NO!" Yes, I admit it! I'd vote to keep Obama rather than place the country in the hands of Madam Speaker. You may read the entire article

(By the way, there are eighteen states that allow recall elections for removing a sitting governor.)

Obama has made it clear to Americans that the office of President has become far too powerful. His appointing "Czars" to by-pass Congress, and carry out his wishes, smacks of abuse of power. I am still not comfortable assuming Obama's Czars are constitutional. I have been waiting for someone to challenge the Czars in court, but I know of no such litigation.

Obama has shown disdain for the constitution, he has embarrassed a huge portion of the country by bowing to foreign leaders, and making that world-wide “Apology Tour” in which he spoke ill of America while on foreign soil. That was unforgivable.

By delaying a decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan, in my opinion, he was directly culpable in the deaths of American servicemen during the months he delayed those reinforcements. Those were wasted American lives.

Obama has placed America in unbelievable debt. America is so deeply in debt that our grandkids and great grandkids will be stuck with the bill. It will take generations to pay it off.

The Obama Regime knows that if it expects to get anything done he must do it now -- before the Mid-Term Election in November. The handwriting is on the wall. Consider what happened in Massachusetts. It was a referendum on the Obama Regime and it is the bellwether of things to come for the Democratic Party.

Obama has secured his place in the history books. America's first black President. Other than that, well, there's not much to tell, really.

J. D. Longstreet


Frank said...

Well considering Obama had the guts to do the unpopular things to stabalize the economy, using alot of political capital to do so I give the guy credit for what he actually did do. He stabilized the economy and presided over the biggest gain in the stock market in the first year of any president since before WWII. Somehow that little fact gets missed by the MSM including the terrorist network FOX.
Unlike his predicessor this man believes what he is doing will benefit the country in years to come. This guy has a bigger set than any Republican president I ever saw. I see your debt clock, funny when I was ranting about Bush's spending you guys were no where to be seen....
As for his "apology tour" if Bush hadn't done so much to disgrace this country there would have been nothing to apologize for.
How do you like the morons appointed by your side walking all over teh voices of the people by allowing corporations to buy candidates? You need to be talking more about impeaching the gang of 5 in the supreme court, if you are really interested in democracy.. Sadly as I learned in this last year most Republicans are American in name only because nothing they have done have been in the best interests of Americans.

Frank said...

Another thing Ronald Regan had Czars.....

Longstreet said...

The Supreme court's decision means that our government cannot limit the ability of associations of citizens to spend money on campaigns.

It was a clear victory for free speech. Why? Because it declared that government cannot limit the right of corporations and unions – the "associations of citizens" – from spending freely to support or oppose candidates in elections.

The Court struck down the part of the McCain-Feingold law that censored corporate-funded political ads within 60 days of federal elections and within 30 days of primaries. You may remember that I predicted, at the time McCain-Feingold passed, that if it was tried in the Supreme Court it would be ruled unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Court. I am no great wit, but I saw this one coming.

The Court DID leave in place the prohibition on corporate donations directly to candidates and on the ability of corporations to coordinate their activities with candidates.

The Court DID reverse an earlier high court ruling that allowed government to prevent corporations, nonprofits and unions from spending money independently to influence the outcome of an election.

Make no mistake about it, this ruling makes it easier for a candidate from the Middle Class to run against an incumbent. That McCain-Feingold law gave incumbent politicians in Washington humongous advantages over middle-class citizen running against them. I mean, just consider this: incumbents have millions of dollars worth of advantages such as: taxpayer-funded staff, traveling and mailing privileges... and that just scratches the surface.

Think about it a moment. Wealthy politicians, loaded with their own money, can spend unlimited amounts of their own money. They don't have to worry about raising money, especially raising money in small sums. Until this Court ruling, thay had a huge advantage.

There is no way this Court ruling is "un-American" or a "threat to our democracy" as at least one "Progressive" Senator has said.

Now, if the Congress wanted to allow real reform, they would make it legal for individuals, and associations of individuals, to give as much money as they want to candidates and/or campaigns. Some have suggested that the donor would have to post his contribution on the internet daily.

In any event McCain Feingold clealy "abridged" free speech and THAT is definitely unconstitutional.

Oh, The difference between Reagan’s Czars and Obama’s Czars is that -- Obama is a Marxist. Reagan was a former Democrat turned Republican. Reagan was not liberal, not socialist, not progressive, not Marxist, not communist.

Frank said...

Czar's have nothing to do with socialism, they were the rulers the Bolshevics (Spellin) over threw. Obama is no Marxist, he is a capitalist pig. That is why I am so upset with the republicans, they promised me he was a socialist, I do not see it. I mean I am all in for a socialist democracy, What is wrong with putting the working middle class first? We bail out the poor, pay the majority of the tax dollars, we need some good well funded programs for ourselves. I would have seized the banks, Jefferson warned about private banks. I would outlaw the health insurance industry. I would have put Chrysler and GM under the Dept. of labor, I would outlaw all the "dumping" of foreign garbage on our markets, I would then use the profits of the American industry to support the government and hand out tax cuts.
On to the Supreme court, the constitution says, "we the people" not "We the corporations" the constitution does not and should not apply to a "fictitious person" which is what a corporation is. Political adds should have to tell the truth then, not some made up crap like the "Swift Boat Liars" or the stupid "Willie Horton adds". Lie and stretch the truth just to get someone elected, bad deal for America. The people in this country are stupid, they are easily manipulated by propaganda, look at the entire Fox "News" network. Can't say anything good about Obama, never critical of Bush, Clinton could do no good, come on, Obama has a mess to fix, Bush didn't do all bad, there are a couple things I agreed with that he did. If we can't be honest and critical when people screw up, Obama should not have spent so much political capital on the "bail outs", he should of had a "New Deal" type jobs program. When people are hurting and hungry and unemployed you give them a job and a purpose. Had he done that I think health care would have been a breeze, and yes I support making insurance more affordable, medicare well funded with premiums by me in my 40's could cut your premiums when you need it most (Grandpa)....

Oh and if Reagan wasn't a progressive, does that make him regressive? (small attempt at humor)