To my mind, the analysis in the article misses the point because it doesn’t start from the proper understanding of the Obama crowd.
The best starting point in understanding Obama is still “Radical-in-Chief” by Stanley Kurtz.
Obama is a radical masquerading as a conventional politician. Therefore approaching the analysis by trying to find an explanation for his actions in considerations that would be paramount to a conventional politician is not a useful approach.
The same is true of Holder and the radical racists and leftists that operate under his protection in the Justice Department.
If we go back to Alinsky’s way of thinking as a touchstone to understand Obama, what would Alinsky advise?
Alinsky would urge a tactic of provoking confrontation and amplifying grievance.
He would use the media to isolate and demonize the Republicans in Congress who are trying to use the traditional Constitutional procedures to keep Obama and his administration in check.
The first step in the media strategy is to cement in the public mind that this is in essence just a partisan squabble.
The next step is to portray the Republican opponents as being oppressive and overreaching and abusive. This helps to delegitimize the constitutional procedures used by the opponents.
In order to break the Constitution, one must maximize the tensions and contradictions inherent in the system in order to reach a breaking point.
Obama is practically begging for Congress to attack him for improperly usurping power beyond that legally permissible for a president.
He has declared that there are laws he will not enforce (DOMA) and recently unilaterally exempted entire classes of persons from Congressional law (Obamnesty).
He has now found an opportunity to challenge the very basis of Congress’ power to oversee the executive branch.
Why does Obama want to challenge and break the Constitution?
Congress could have impeached the clown for Libya. They could have impeached the clown for blocking oil production in the Gulf of Mexico in defiance of a court order. Obama has no authority for his amnesty, he can be impeached for that, it is clearly unconstitutional. He should have been impeached for his GM redistribution to the Unions. There are more examples.
Why is nobody rushing to fight this bozo?
Obama wants a fight, it is part of his fundamental plan. Some FREEPERs think he is arrogant, some think he is stupid, some think he is incompetent but nobody seems to have the correct, obvious answer.
To get the right answer, you have to figure out WHO IS OBAMA WORKING FOR? OBOZO is always on the wrong side of every issue, always. How could he get everything wrong unless it was why he is POTUS? Saying it another way, who put Obozo in power to destroy the USA?
In order to break the Constitution, one must maximize the tensions and contradictions inherent in the system in order to reach a breaking point.
Obama is practically begging for Congress to attack him for improperly usurping power beyond that legally permissible for a president.
He has declared that there are laws he will not enforce (DOMA) and recently unilaterally exempted entire classes of persons from Congressional law (Obamnesty).
He has now found an opportunity to challenge the very basis of Congress’ power to oversee the executive branch.
__________________________________________________________________
I have read the above lines several times and unfortunately I have to agree with it. I do believe however that the strategy is flawed. Yes, we have dumbed down society so that they can’t take care of themselves, dumbed them down so that they don’t know the laws that govern our republic, but I’m thinking that they will not like someone ignoring their elected representatives in congress. I may be wrong but the next election will tell us if I am. If the people keep the House under Republican rule say goodbye to Mr. Obama and Alinsky. If Republicans take the Senate then Democrats are in a world of hurt.
I do believe that the press will taste the blood in the water and want to be the first to break the story. Yes they want to protect Obama but breaking the story of the century is just too much for a reporter to pass up.
The information Obama is protecting has to be damming. If not for the Executive Privilege Holder would have laughed at any action taken by congress against him. The Executive is a different branch of government, they can’t enforce anything against Holder, Holder is the one who executes the laws and Holder should have just laughed at congress at least until after the elections. I don’t believe there is enough time before the election to get the Supreme court to rule against Holder. Certainly in an impeachment trial the Democrat controlled Senate would not convict. So why the Executive Privilege? I think it has to be Alinskys rules. The One is trying to create a constitutional crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen since Fort Sumter. I don’t know what will happen but I do know that a lot depends on the press, that gives me a bad feeling.
Yes, he is, and you know, it just might work for him.
You make the essential point - that "Obama" is not incompetent, he's trying very hard to do a good job and for the most part succeeding - its just that the job he's trying to do is to destroy the USA as it existed prior to his presidency, and if you rate him using conventional criteria you won't understand him at all.
Since he's a breaker, removing him or limiting the damage using tactics within the system that he despises may not work.