Posted on 11/22/2015 6:11:30 AM PST by Kaslin
When was the last time President Obama tried to persuade you on something? Not as in he called you up and tried to talk you into a timeshare, but when was the last time he tried to talk the American people into supporting one of his ideas? Has he truly tried to sell us on anything?
The president does occasionally give a speech in support of one of his agenda items, but they tend to be in cities and at times that coincide with Democratic fundraisers. In other words, it's lip service; literally the least he could do.
The last time the president pulled the hard sell on the American people was Obamacare. He traveled; he gave speeches and regular interviews. He had the White House health care summit. He didn't convince the American people, they still don't want it, but he did get Congress to pass it.
After that, he quit.
Once the Democrats lost the House of Representatives, Obama lost any pretense about working with Republicans or caring about what the American people want or think.
To the extent the White House pretends to care what the public thinks, it's only when public opinion polls support what the president already wanted. They also tend to be on issues falling just below the WNBA on the list of things people care or think about.
Minimum wage: So few adults work for it that raising it is a meaningless abstract. Gun control: When the media isn't hyping it connected to an event it only occurs to activists whose livelihood depends on it. Climate change: Less popular than Martin O'Malley.
When public sentiment is against this administration, this administration returns the favor by ignoring it. Obamacare never has been popular, with a clear majority wanting either repeal or major changes to the president's "signature achievement." The White House never has considered these opinions at all except to belittle them.
So when it comes to pausing the intake of refugees from Syria and Iraq, President Obama has his mind made up. No poll, no fact, nothing is going to sway him.
To the minimal extent contrary opinions make it through the layers of protection in which the president lives, they are dismissed with snark and anger.
At his press conference in Turkey after the Paris terrorist attack, the president clearly was angry over having to speak on the subject. He walked through his prepared remarks like a child forced to recite a poem at a family Christmas. He actually referred to the murder of 130 innocent human beings as a "setback."
When question time came, Obama woke up, but only angrily. Snapping at the most favorable press corps since Leni Riefenstahl picked up a camera, the president wanted no part of it. Who were these people to question him?
No matter the issue, President Obama is comfortable only when lecturing. Pushback, even slight, is greeted like a microaggression at the University of Missouri.
The president prefers the warm embrace of an adulating crowd, interviewer or staffer. His inner circle is the buffer zone between reality and him. And he likes it that way.
How else to explain him finding out about his Justice Department forcing the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels or the IRS targeting of American citizens because of their political beliefs through "news reports"? Aside from the prospect his stories are lies, which is a real possibility and would reflect even worse on his character, the only remaining option is he's constructed a "safe space" around himself.
No foreign opinions or unsafe thoughts are allowed in the safe space; His Greek chorus of advisors have all the curiosity of a row of bobble-head figures on a dashboard going down a bumpy road. Diversity is only skin-deep.
The president has no interest in convincing, no desire to persuade and no need nor concern for offending. The destruction in his wake is not only to our economy and national security, it is to his own party and is it complete.
Aside from the office he currently occupies, Obama has been the greatest elector of Republicans the country has ever known. If Republicans could get their act together for more than 20 minutes at a time, they'd run a serious risk of winning the Oval Office too.
Unless and until that day comes, Obama still occupies the White House; and he still has his magic pen and phone. His willingness to bypass the Constitution, Congress, precedent and the will of the people means he will be an obstacle that must be overcome or at least contained.
Jan. 20, 2017, is coming, but it's not here yet. Until it is, congressional Republicans need to build on what the House did with its refugee bill violate the president's safe space. Obama remains personally popular; his agenda is not. The more Democrats are forced to either abandon him or marry his agenda, the better the prospects of destroying the president's safe space.
Making Obama use his magic pen to veto popular bills, supported even by Democrats, rather than decree laws into existence, will do more to keep the Democrats out of a third consecutive White House term than even nominating Ronald Reagan's ghost could.
If only we could count on Republicans to do the right thing. Maybe we're the ones who need that safe space.
Historically, if you go back to the November 1920 election....it was probably one of the biggest landslide Republican wins in a hundred years. It was a disaster for state Democratic candidates across the nation because of Wilson ‘illness’ and incompetence.
By November of 1932...it was paid back with the largest landslide election for Democrats over Republicans. The Anacosta Riots and poor handling by Hoover over the Wall Street episode paid the way for that.
Aiding and abetting is an additional provision in United States criminal law, for situations where it cannot be shown the party personally carried out the criminal offense, but where another person may have carried out the illegal act(s) as an agent of the charged, working together with or under the direction of the charged, who is an accessory to the crime. It is comparable to laws in some other countries governing the actions of accessories, including the similar provision in England and Wales under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.
It is derived from the United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
Where the term "principal" refers to any actor who is primarily responsible for a criminal offense.
For a successful prosecution, the provision of "aiding and abetting" must be considered alongside the crime itself, although a defendant can be found guilty of aiding and abetting an offense even if the principal is found not guilty of the crime itself. In all cases of aiding and abetting, it must be shown a crime has been committed, but not necessarily who committed it.[4] It is necessary to show that the defendant has wilfully associated himself with the crime being committed, that he does, through his own act or omission, as he would do if he wished for a criminal venture to succeed.[5] Under this statute, anyone who aids or abets a crime may be charged directly with the crime, as if the charged had carried out the act himself.[6] This is distinct from the concept of being an accessory after the fact, a charge distinct from being a principal.
dealing with accessory liability was passed in 1790, and made criminally liable those who should aid and assist, procure, command, counsel or advise murder or robbery on land or sea, or piracy at sea. This was broadened in 1870 to include any felony, and by it an accessory was anyone who counsels, advises or procures the crime. These early statutes were repealed in 1909, and supplanted by 18 U.S.C. § 550, a statute which included the modern language of "Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an offense is a principal."[7]
In 1948, § 550 became 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). Section 2(b) was also added to make clear the legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. It removes all doubt that one who puts in motion or assists in the illegal enterprise or causes the commission of an indispensable element of the offense by an innocent agent or instrumentality is guilty as a principal even though he intentionally refrained from the direct act constituting the completed offense.[8]
Subsection (a) of Section 2 was amended to its current form in 1951 to read, "Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal." Subsection (b) was also amended in 1951 to add "wilfully" and "is punishable as a principal."[9]
Too many Republicans run to the polls to vote for the "lesser of two evils"...
They fall for this:
...and wind up with this:
Only according to the Ministry of Truth (MiniTrue) and those who fear repercussions from it.
Persuasion? Hard sell? Convincing argument? No. What we get is no different than Adolf Hitler imposing, demanding, and dictating.
That's the problem right there. The minimum wage doesn't bump up just the minimum wage, it bumps up all the wages above it. Along with the payroll taxes associated with it.
DyckTater Hussein don’t need to sell nothing
He just says ObeyMe.
So he's a typical progressive: Ignore inconvenient facts and avoid opposing perspectives.
He even has the standard progressive counter argument down pat: "You're a racist!"
You said it.
Exactly right!!!
He is NOT in office to serve “the people” or “the USA”.
He’s there to make sure what was created is permanently deformed and broken - so that his successors can more easily implement their totalitarianism. That’s the goal for them.
One party - complete control over the masses. End of story.
Unfortunately, we CANNOT forget that with every thing he does, he pretty much has the blessing of the REPUBLICANS who were elected to OPPOSE him, yet have allowed him to continue the destruction of our Nation.
I think barry is scum, but I’m more angry with the Republicans who have done NOTHING to stop it.
The president and his allies have resorted to lashing out at the public over this issue.
But I don’t think it’s this issue alone that’s causing them to react the way they are. Obamacare is failing, the economy is performing poorly, and the public opposes many of hugs agenda items and they’re finally having to face this
NO! The problem is, aside from the income tax and min. wage being wholly unconstitutional and antithesis to the same: GOVT.
One that has grown so big and out of control, none dare care it what it is: Socialistic.
Where once Free Men reigned, now is run by Pajama-Boy and his ilk; taking from those that do to give that won’t (let’s leave the can’t out currently), where everything now requires ‘permission’ (be it permit, study, tax, fee, stamp, etc.) to accomplish.
This farce is a SYMPTOM, it is NOT the cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.