Imperial, Lawless Obama Threatens More Unilateral Action

Creators Syndicate ^ | January 17, 2014 | David Limbaugh

[jazusamo]

This week, once again, we heard President Obama defiantly pronounce that he has no intention of letting a little thing like constitutional checks and balances get in his way and interrupt his royal prerogative.

"We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help that they need," said Obama. "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone."

What other president has ever talked like this?

I thought Democrats had an aversion to "unilateral" executive action. Wasn't one of their pet peeves against President George W. Bush that he acted unilaterally in attacking Iraq? Never mind that this was a complete fabrication, in that Bush assembled the largest coalition of nations he could to join us in the effort.

Oh, this is different, you say, because Bush was allegedly acting unilaterally on the international stage? Well, apart from the fact that he wasn't, why should that bother liberals more than a president's acting unilaterally on domestic issues?

I'll tell you why: Liberals are more concerned about whether leftist foreign governments like us than they are about whether a president is acting within the scope of his constitutional authority.

In Bush's case, even if the false allegations that he was "going it alone" had been true, he secured a joint resolution of Congress before commencing "shock and awe."

Before contrasting Bush's actions on foreign policy with Obama's on domestic policy, let's recall how Obama operated in a comparable foreign policy situation. When he decided — unilaterally — to take military action in Libya, he did not even bother to consult Congress, much less get its approval, before initiating his intervention...

[jazusamo]

Amen to that.

[2ndDivisionVet]

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[Mears]

"We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ------- Wow !!!!! That says it all. .

[jazusamo]

He was most certainly right and I pray that same mistake won’t be made here.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Art.] I'll tell you why: Liberals are more concerned about whether leftist foreign governments like us than they are about whether a president is acting within the scope of his constitutional authority.

David, David, David. Please.

These elaborations of thought serve no purpose except to confuse ourselves.

The reality is, those guys are Progs -- Neostalinists, hardcore, completely false outside their cell meetings.

Our FRiend is right: "Complicity" is the word. It isn't confusion, it isn't misplaced priorities or bumfuddled good intentions. It's premeditated evil, cooked up and plotted out and prepared for lo, these 100 years, and now they are well into the implementation phase.