Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

New York Post ^ | October 26, 2014 | Paul Sperry

[betty boop]

He’s the Staller in Chief — President Obama has punted almost every hot-button issue past the key midterm elections on Nov. 4.

Obama has postponed decisions on a raft of contentious issues related to ObamaCare, Gitmo, immigration and his Cabinet.

This is partly to protect Democratic candidates and hold onto the Senate. But it’s more than that. Obama plans a number of radical moves later this year when the administration believes the media, and the public, are paying less attention.

This includes a forced transformation of our neighborhoods, a huge influx of immigrants and billions of dollars in additional taxes.

Will midterm voters really be fooled? Probably not. Republicans are expected to hold both the Senate and the House starting in the next term. But whether anyone can stop the executive actions Obama quietly plans is another matter.

In fact, the president is hoping you don’t even notice.

[xzins]

My election thoughts from an earlier thread:

Perry, Sessions, and Cruz.

Cruz is my favorite candidate but I will be satisfied with either of the other two. I didn’t understand the author holding out so long on Huckabee, who is soft on amnesty, but disqualifying Scott Walker immediately for the same reason. Perry will also lose immediate support due to his amnesty stance. He can’t be the final choice.

Our candidate must be: Pro-God (free exercise), Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Pro-Natural Marriage, Pro-Israel, and Pro Real Security Defense to include Border/Coast/Visa Control.

Cruz fits.
Sessions fits.

We don’t know about Carson. Santorum’s day has passed.

I have no doubt that Perry, if he catches a tailwind will attract big money. Sessions will not attract campaign level money. I don’t think Cruz has the connections yet to attract huge money. The same with Marco Rubio. Christie, Huckabee, Walker, Kasich and the other talked about governors all will attract huge money if they catch a tailwind. Rand Paul will attract his dad’s moneyed backers inititally. Bush, of course, will instantly have all the money he needs. Additionally, Christie, Bush, and Paul are the media’s favorites, so they’ll get free air time and consideration.

I see the early primaries to narrow it down to Cruz, Perry, Christie, Bush, and Paul.

All are better than Obama, Clinton, Warren, or any other liberal.

There are only two, however, who are closest to the evangelical ideal: Cruz and Perry.

Cruz should be the nominee. There is no doubt. But it boils down to money. We will vote for him early with our money or we’ll never get to vote for him in the polling booth.

[roamer_1]

BRAVO!

If we, collectively, continue down the path of accepting what God has called an Abomination, and the Murder of Unborn Children, called Abortion, then the answer is a resounding YES, we are finished as a country.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. -2 Chronicles 7:14

[roamer_1]

If the next Senate is GOP-controlled, there is at least a chance of holding 0bama accountable for his acts in violation of his constitutional Oath of Office. If it's Dem-controlled, then you get a total whitewash; and Washington business goes on "as usual."

I will rise in mild, though direct opposition to your position, BB.

Consider first that 'business as usual' includes the Republicans and their machinery - Removing and replacing the deck chairs changes nothing at all.

The matter is resolved in my mind by one inescapable fact: It is, and has always been, a matter of mettle. Now, more than ever, since this lumbering behemoth of a government has cast off it's stays, the antivenin that desperately needs to be injected, is men of good conscience. To attempt to repair the breach will require statesmen, not mere politicians. Men of principle and purpose, who cannot be bought for a price, and who are never swayed by the vagaries of the populist.

It is the perennial excuse that we must win (for whatever reason de jure), and in order to win, we are begged incessantly to ignore the fecklessness of the candidate. It is this very action that has filled the Republican party with feckless politicians. One gets more of what one endorses, after all... It is a wonder to me that people expect a spine out of leadership, when all that they have voted for is the spineless.

Many would look to Cruz as a savior, pinning all hope upon a hero, when what desperately needs to be remedied is that there are so very few like Cruz that we can entrust. Cruz should not be exceptional, but rather, the norm. Not very long ago, there was a fair contingent of like-minded men, now there is not even a handful. That is our fault. Correcting that is what will fix things, nothing else. Elect statesmen. Men of conscience. Were there such men in the House alone right now, their obstruction would have already been sufficient to quell the efforts of the little tyrant.

Liberalism advances not by merit, but only because there is no opposition to it. There is no opposition to it because the voter is duped by this ever-present drumbeat toward quantity rather than quality. As for me, I would trade all the feckless dreck we have given ourselves for but fifty tried and true.

Judgement begins in one's own house. Start now.

[xzins]

Dear Brother Roamer, there is very little in your post with which I would take issue. However, let me adjust perspective in one area.

Strategy on a legislature must necessarily be different than strategy on a chief executive. Rather than electing one person to preside, we are variously around the country electing hundreds of candidates. What this means is that we will win some, and we will lose some within our own group in the same way as we win some and lose some with the democrats.

So, how do we get a Cruz? There is only one way. We win a primary election. Texans did that with Cruz and gave us what is probably America’s most insightful legislator.

However, in contrast to an executive, a legislator is part of a body. If that body is 99-1 against him, he will never advance anything. If that body is with him 51-49 on some things, then we will occasionally win. That is the nature of a body as opposed to an executive who just decides on his own what he will do.

The bottom line is that a good, solid legislator is surrounded by folks nearer and more distant to his own views. Those who are nearer in some areas, even though they are people we might not have preferred, are still partners with us in many areas. In those areas, it is to our benefit that they vote with us.

There has probably never been a legislature 100% occupied by people with whom we would side. The very nature of a legislature requires forming coalitions, blocs, and interest groups.

So, while my congressman isn’t everything I want him to be, I know that he’s going to vote 88% of the time in the way that I’d prefer. In those times he needs others to side with him....and I might consider them not up to his level. But that doesn’t change that they just voted for something I support.

And that’s the thing to focus on: the product that comes out or that can potentially come out. There is no potential for that result to happen for a lone wolf legislator, so I will give assent to those who aren’t everything I would prefer them to be.

The place to change them is in a primary, and even that is out of my control if they are from a different district or a different state.

We must see the nature of a legislature and admit as voters how much of it — the vast majority — is out of our hands, and, therefore, we must think in terms of coalitions.

[roamer_1]

Strategy on a legislature must necessarily be different than strategy on a chief executive. Rather than electing one person to preside, we are variously around the country electing hundreds of candidates. What this means is that we will win some, and we will lose some within our own group in the same way as we win some and lose some with the democrats.

So, how do we get a Cruz? There is only one way. We win a primary election.

I am well aware of this so called strategy, and it is precisely why I am a Republican no longer - You see, I am not obligated in any way to vote for party, nor will I ever again toe the party line, because as it turns out, it isn't a strategy at all, else there would be more evidence of it's success. What it has brought us FRiend, is representatives (pretty much the whole lot) who are without a principle to share amongst them all. What could possibly prove this strategy to be well founded?

You were right earlier (I believe on this thread) when defending social conservatives, to say that they had a moral obligation before God... I will never ever vote for anything other than a moral candidate, with strict guidelines pretty much following the Judeo-Christian Ethic. It does not matter whether a president, a representative, a senator, or judge, or mayor, or dog catcher. There IS NO COMPROMISE on social values, period. It doesn't matter whether primary or main elections, or any other reason whatsoever. If you think it is my job to vote for such as Romney, an abortionist supporter of gay marriage, you have another think coming, whether he won the primary or not. It is an utterly false sense of obligation which I resoundingly reject. A person of low moral character is never 'better' in the long run, or the short run, or at all.

Likewise in the election now facing us - What good is it to elect yet another bunch of spineless, vacuous, vacillating idiots, simply because they won the primary? That is exactly why the current bunch have their butts in those fine leather chairs in DC right now!

No, the same applies no matter what. If they stand for nothing, they will fall for anything. If they are not good men, of outstanding character, founded upon the principles that I hold dear, then all they will do is add to the problem, regardless of their affiliations.

Thank you for your kind reply brother, but you have not changed my resolve on this matter in any part at all.

[entropy12]

The cruel and hard truth is that if any candidate who can not win a republican primary, has less than 5% chance of winning in the general. So before we all reach a consensus strategy, please keep that reality of elections in the back of our heads.

Another hard and cruel truth..Any 3rd party has less than 2% chance of winning a national election. It is like pissing in the wind. But sometimes it does feel better to piss in the wind on a cold day. It does make you feel warm for a few minutes.

[roamer_1]

The cruel and hard truth is that if any candidate who can not win a republican primary, has less than 5% chance of winning in the general. So before we all reach a consensus strategy, please keep that reality of elections in the back of our heads.

So what? I care not a whit. if the man is of good sense and moral fiber, I'll vote for him (regardless of party)... Because IF he is of good sense and moral character, he will do what is right, and all the overhead everyone moans and cries about is simply moot.

Another hard and cruel truth..Any 3rd party has less than 2% chance of winning a national election.

Ahh, so you think Rove's 'Where else they gonna go?' is right?

I'll tell you tight now he's wrong. I ain't going where he thinks I will. Bet money on that.

[marron]

I totally understand the need to vote for the lesser of two evils when the lesser evil is essentially a decent man.

But if the lesser evil is an open-border guy, who is soft on the sanctity of marriage, and soft on abortion, and soft on Israel, then I’m not sure what is the point.

If the GOP runs a guy who isn’t strong on those issues when those issues are so obviously self-evident then we’ve already lost. The bad guys have two horses in the race and whichever horse wins, they win.

If that is the bargain, then get your affairs in order because darkness is falling.

So if you care about this country, do not send up an open-borders guy for president. Just don’t.

[entropy12]

It is indeed a huge problem if the lesser evil is an open-border guy, who is soft on the sanctity of marriage, and soft on abortion, and soft on Israel etc.

Fortunately only a very few candidates fit that description.

Being a LEGAL immigrant myself, who had to jump through many hoops to acquire my citizenship, I am totally and unequivocally opposed to immediate Amnesty to illegals.

However...the so called Amnesty is not a uniform proposition.
The overriding principle for me is that any illegal with no other law breaking record for minimum 5 years in USA, must go at the end of line of those waiting legally AND pay all past taxes AND pay a fine. Which automatically puts them in a waiting line for several years. After their number comes up, they receive the green card, like all others waiting legally. The green card is permanent resident visa. After receiving green card I had to wait 3 more years to become eligible to apply for citizenship. So that would be a minimum wait of roughly 8-10 years.

[entropy12]

I am not telling you to go anywhere. Last thing I want to do is thumb my nose at you. Because you are a valuable fellow conservative.

My only point is to be a realist, and make a logical decision, and not an emotional decision.

Nothing in life is perfect. I accepted jobs which were not perfect. But it was the best available job at the time. Even my spouse thinks I am not perfect, but my pluses must outweigh my minuses because she has stayed with me for 25 years.

Life is full of compromises. If we wait for the perfect to arrive, death will arrive first.

[roamer_1]

My only point is to be a realist [...]

There is no reality in which voting for a man of immoral character is of any use.

[...] and make a logical decision [...]

There is no logical reason to vote a man of immoral character into power, nor a vote to leave him there, nor a vote to replace him with another of the same ilk.

[...] and not an emotional decision.

Emotion is tied to that big rhinestone 'R'.

Life is full of compromises. If we wait for the perfect to arrive[...]

Ahh, the old 'perfect is the enemy of the good' argument - The only problem with that argument is in the moving of the goalpost for what is indeed 'good'. I have no problem at all in voting for the good. But men of immoral character are not good.

[...] death will arrive first.

Death is already here. Wake up.

[entropy12]

Death is not here. I am hopeful the country has woken up. Our better days are coming. Yes, I agree I could also not vote for someone of immoral character. In this cycle, I have only one such on my list...the nominee in MS. Who are on your list?

[xzins]

I’m from Ohio. You are from Montana. If Ohio or Montana aren’t able to primary weak representatives and remove them, then how do we get what we want out of a legislature that cycle. In our own area, we have failed to support the conservative cause.

A legislature is different. You bring up Romney, but he was running for executive, not legislature.

If we can’t in Ohio or Montana give direct aid to Cruz, then we’ve got to give him some kind of aid. So, we fail at the primary. What’s the next best step to help Cruz get some good things done?

A legislative strategy is different AFTER we fail at the primary strategy.

I have absolutely zero ill will for anyone who voted 3rd party against Romney or didn’t vote for president at all because of Romney. He was a wasteland, and he wasn’t worthy of our votes in the final analysis because he ran a stupid campaign.

Personally, I have no ill will toward anyone over how they use their vote. It’s their vote. They can use it however they want. I can question their strategy, though. I question those who use the same strategy with the legislative as they do with the executive. A legislative half-victory can block a bad executive from doing a lot of damage.

[MHGinTN]

I use a probably weak calculus, but it is all I have : I am convinced that Democrats will NEVER listen to my conservative demands/requests upon the legislature, because Democrats not only do not hear the still small voice of God, they would spit in His face if He spoke to them; I can only hope and pray that republicants might apply conservative values at some point since many of them can be touched by God's still small voice.

Perfection is the enemy of 'coalition' and to apply perfection requirements to legislatures is to give up the field to the enemy of the good.

[xzins]

Perfection is the enemy of 'coalition' and to apply perfection requirements to legislatures is to give up the field to the enemy of the good.

That is a really good line. Thanks. I'll probably borrow it in the future if you have no objections.

Looking for perfection is a group 535 people big is asking for a whole lot more than is normally found this side of the Pearly Gates.

Our calculus when dealing with a legislature must be different. And you are correct: any calculus that counts on democrats being on the side of independence is flawed from the get-go.

[marron]

Your description of a possible and workable amnesty is only workable if the border has been secured. I haven’t seen anyone who favors amnesty to be willing to actually secure the border.

They will talk about it, but pretty soon the conversation devolves into a discussion about technology that spends a lot of money but doesn’t actually close the gate. They will not close the gate.

And they will not defend closing the gate publicly.

As much as I loved GW Bush, I watched how he twisted and turned to avoid actually securing the border. Even with a law requiring a fence, and a budget to build the fence, he refused to build it.

When the pressure mounted to “do” something, send the national guard to the border, he finally deployed the guard. Then we found out that they were doing clerical work, not border work. Another con. Obama has done much the same thing.

I don’t want to talk to anyone about anything resembling amnesty if they haven’t first built the fence, because we’ve seen this before. It is a sleight of hand. You get the amnesty, but the border remains open.

Name for me the amnesty guy who will build the fence; there isn’t one.

[entropy12]

Absolutely and unequivocally correct! No proposal is worth a dammmm if borders are not secure AND overstaying legal visa is not brought under control.

Bush disappointed me on 3 items:

1) Not securing the borders

2) Not securing our voting system

3) Adding another entitlement (prescription drugs)
to an already overburdened system.

For that matter even Reagan disappointed me in not exercising veto power more often over spending bills. Spending nearly tripled during his 8 years...absolutely no excuse!

[entropy12]

To add one more even more important issue to your dialog,

Once the democrat gets elected, he/she becomes an INCUMBENT for next election cycle. Statistics clearly show incumbents win 9/10 times. It becomes much more difficult to dislodge an incumbent democrat. It is 4 times easier to dislodge a RINO during the next primary cycle compared to removing the incumbent democrat.

[entropy12]

Note that something like 40% of illegals came on a LEGAL tourist or student visa and did not leave.

[MHGinTN]

VERY ... Good ... point! I believe a republicant is more likely than a democrat to listen to angry conservatives.