Sunday, August 15, 2010

Trading the Bus for a Fiat

During his campaign for president, Barack Hussein Obama analogized a bus, driven by the Republican party and the previous administration, as having lost its driver and that he was needed to grab the wheel and stop us from going off a cliff. Since his victory at the polls and ascension to the Oval Office, the new president has decided to abandon the public transportation motif and chosen to go it alone in a sports car. His modus operandi now is to rule by fiat.

With one party rule since his election, Obama and his party have become an oligarchy, inflicting their whims on a vast majority that vociferously declares that it does not want them. It is a dangerous trend, for while they are staying within the lines and following the law, they are quickly learning that there is really no reason to maintain that path.

The hubris and arrogance demonstrated by the ruling elites has been staggering, and the clear contempt exhibited by alleged representatives such as Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) toward their constituents, frightening. The actions of the Legislative and Executive branches has been appalling, passing new laws that were obviously unpopular, and the derisive comments at meetings with the people a testament to that contempt.

The Obamas' opulent lifestyle in the face of a shattered economy and incredible joblessness is an absolute insult to the American people. The hypocrisy of his admonitions in contrast to his own deeds is nothing short of majestic, telling us to tighten our belts as he lives the life of which Robin Leach reported.

Now, the only thing being reported is news about Lindsay Lohan's arrest and subsequent trial, while the "press" completely ignores the blatant corruption in Washington. It seems the only interest by the media in Charlie Rangel and his thirteen ethics violations, for example, is a desire to hear him complain how it is the Republicans' fault that he is in trouble. The lack of intellectual curiosity by the media is astounding.

There is also a troubling lack of true opposition from the Republican party, save for a few stray members of Congress who have spoken out. Thus far it seems that there is little standing in the way of the Democrats' runaway "progress", and barely a whisper of the disastrous and escalating debt, despite the plaintive wails from the Left when George W. Bush ran a measly $400 billion debt. The media, in the face of a $13 trillion debt seems to give Obama a "Heckuva job, Brownie", something for which Bush was excoriated during the Hurricane Katrina debacle.

Perhaps it could be argued that the Republicans are merely standing aside and allowing the Democrats to commit Hari Kari, letting them take as much rope as they need, only to sweep into Congress in November. That is a hope for change I can cling to, but only if the Republicans handle it better this time around.

Hopefully, they have learned the same valuable lesson that we have.

Sphere: Related Content

4 comments:

finding my way said...

You use many descriptive words to show your contempt of our President. What exactly are the things you have contempt for? And why do you have contempt for them?

You seem to want this to be a struggle between one side and the other. Aren't we all in this together?

Do you have a plan to make right, what is wrong with this country? Are your disagreements based on anything solid or are they just a resistance to change?

Jennifer Ailis Connors

Woody said...

From your opening sentence you demonstrate a myopia that only allows you to see an attack on the president. My complaint is with the Democrat Party as a whole, and what they have done since 2007.

However, if you wish to focus on Obama's culpability, I draw your attention to your comment on the Constitution in another post comment, and ask if you are familiar with the document.

Our president has lamented that the Constitution only addresses what the Constitution prevents the federal government from doing and complains about what it neglects to mention what the federal government "must do on [our] behalf."

While the Founders designed the Constitution purposely to limit the governments' powers, Obama has deliberately usurped those restrictions time and again, along with his cohorts in both Houses.

I do not have my own "plan to make it right", but agree wholeheartedly with those who do, the people insisting on a return to Federalist principles. Change for the simple sake of it is inherently dangerous.

finding my way said...

Since I can only see things clearly that are waved or held in front of my face, I re-read your post.

I will concede that your post was directed at both the President and the Democratic Party.

Your post also uses numbers to justify your opinions. I have a love/hate relationship with numbers. Numbers alone never lie, how they are used can be misleading or worse. So I will concede your numbers also.

Because I can’t be absolutely sure what your intentions were, I have a few questions.

You use the term “fiat” in a clever, change from public transportation to sports car sentence. Are you implying that President Obama rules by arbitrary decree?

You mention oligarchy and a vast majority of vociferous opposition. Did you mean that the President and a few around him are ruling for themselves, the minority?

In that same paragraph you say that this vast majority is learning that there is no reason to stay within the boundaries of law. Am I correct in that description?

You then state your opinion that, the Executive and Legislative Branches have been contemptible and appalling, acting with a staggering amount of hubris and arrogance. In that same paragraph, you mention Rep. Pete Stark. I assume you are referring to his belief that the war in Iraq was illegal?

Another opinion of yours is that the Obama families lifestyle of the rich and famous is a slap in the face to suffering jobless people in this country. Do the Obama’s spend more on travel, compared to other Presidents?

Okay, now on to your reply to my comment.

I covered my nearsightedness.

I am not a constitutional scholar, but I say again our constitution insures the rights of the minority, and gives us a guideline for how the majority should rule.

I have not heard or read everything the President has said, so I won’t comment on how he feels about the constitution, though it would be nice to have a copy of those remarks.

We could debate our founders intent forever, one thing is true though. The constitution was designed to strengthen a weaker form of government.

I don’t have a plan either. I am not registered with either party and I try to keep an open mind. As for the Federalist principles, I agree with Hamilton on many things. Fiscal responsibility being number one. I would love to know exactly what Federalist principles, you would like a to return to?

And finally, I want you to know what I think.

The President was elected by an arguably large majority.

Both Houses of Congress were elected into office by the people. The ratio of one way of thinking to the other has a direct correlation to the ratio of the peoples way of thinking.

We….. Both of us should give that way of thinking a chance.

Woody said...

You use the term “fiat” in a clever, change from public transportation to sports car sentence. Are you implying that President Obama rules by arbitrary decree?

Good choice of words. Implied is correct, since Obama is essentially ruling by arbitrary decree. Congress (the Legislative Branch) is supposed to be a check on the President (Executive Branch), but Obama is telling Congress what bills he wants them to offer for his signature. They, in turn, dutifully oblige. It is a collaborative effort by the few.

Did you mean that the President and a few around him are ruling for themselves, the minority?

See above response.

In that same paragraph you say that this vast majority is learning that there is no reason to stay within the boundaries of law. Am I correct in that description?

No, the people are the vast majority to which I referred. The few ruling elites are learning that they can basically inflict upon the people whatever they choose. See Health Reform. When they tell constituents plainly that they are not concerned with the Constitution, that is stepping over the line.

You then state your opinion that, the Executive and Legislative Branches have been contemptible and appalling, acting with a staggering amount of hubris and arrogance. In that same paragraph, you mention Rep. Pete Stark. I assume you are referring to his belief that the war in Iraq was illegal?

I cannot imagine the basis of your assumption, but no, that is not what I meant. I meant arrogance and contempt for his constituents, such as telling one that he wouldn't "waste his urine by peeing on his boot", or asking a Minuteman, "How many people did you kill today?" before the man even asked a question.

Do the Obama’s spend more on travel, compared to other Presidents?

I can only offer my best guess, but that would be "yes". The cost comparison is irrelevant, however. When the economy is in the tank, unemployment is near 10%, and the President is telling the people to tighten their belts, it is incomprehensible that he would live so extravagantly, particularly on their tax money.

If you'd like to know what Obama thinks about the Constitution, you can hear his own words here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck