Obama’s “gimmick” recess claim “chumps” all America

January 6, 2012

Obama’s Constitution a little different than the Founders’

Yesterday evening I clicked through to a story on the Politico-44 blog who’s headline: Brooks: Obama more liberal than I thought , regarding New York Time’s “conservative” political columnist David Brooks admission that Barrack Obama was far more “liberal” than he had previously thought.  (Brooks’ swooning over then candidate Obama was just one of many “conservative” voices at the time that drank too much of the Kool Aide and led an unsuspecting public down the path to fiscal disaster and Constitutional dismantling.)

What really got me though was Brooks’ statement:  “I still like him and admire him personally……”   It is the question that has been nipping at the heels of common sense and logic since Obama first began showing his true colors.

Just who are these people who “still like….and admire” Obama personally while watching him day after day govern directly against the will of the majority of the American people and thumb his nose at the Constitution, the rule of law, and precedent at the same time?  How can anyone still LIKE a person who does that?

Brooks makes a living in “one percent” tax bracket acknowledging a known truth over three years AFTER the fact while the Corner has been pointing such out on a spare time budget since the very beginning.

If that’s NOT FAIR, I don’t know what is.  Now……where do I file my EEOC complaint with big brother?

It prompted me to post the following comment:

Geoff Caldwell · Top Commenter · Owner at Caldwell’s Corner

How anyone can still “like personally” a man that is single handedly trying to dismantle one of the greatest documents ever written because in his own narcissistic mind he thinks he’s smarter than the founders belies all logic and reason.

Reply · 254 · Unlike · Unfollow Post · 13 hours ago

Once in a great while, those of us who do this on a regular basis string a few words together to form a thought that just “gets it”.  In a sentence or two, captures the mood of the people so succinctly, one after another they read it and go “Yeah, THAT’s it.”

My one sentence last night evidently captured that mood as it is still the top comment and thread on the post.  But what’s really refreshing about the thread is that when you get past the Obamabots dutifully promoting Dear Leader’s propoganda, it is a collection of thoughts and words from across the American spectrum.

Those thoughts and words that are both angry and worried when it comes to Obama’s disregard for Senate precedent and Congressional Constitutional authority to set its own rules.

White House press secretary, Jay Carney yesterday referred to the Senate’s “pro-forma” sessions as but “gimmicks” that the President had every right to ignore to do the will of the American people when they, the Congress wouldn’t.

While the White House position makes good political sound byte and plays well with the focus groups on Chicago’s south side, it makes for absolutely terrible policy and precedent for future generations.

Just a few short years ago, then Senator Obama and his Democrat allies were using the very same “gimmick” to thwart President Bush from making “recess” appointments.

President Bush COULD have displayed the arrogance and disregard for the Constitution that Obama did Wednesday, but history shows he did not.  While he too (Bush) disliked the “gimmick” he also understood just how dangerous the road he would be taking the country down if he acted alone as an “exalted executive”.

But as we all know.  Barrack Obama is no President Bush.  Barrack Obama is a result of decades of mentoring by the likes of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.  Barrack Obama’s political strategy and tactics is ripped straight from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” where the end always justifies the means, no matter the consequences.

Yes, I truly question how anyone in this country who respects the rule of law, the importance of precedent, and the greatness of the United States Constitution could still “like personally” the man who is doing everything within his power (and some power he doesn’t even have but is doing anyway) to dismantle the very foundation upon which this great nation was built.

That one paragraph above is why when asked time and time again by the lunatic left why I don’t show “proper” respect to the “President” I quite comfortably reply:  “respect is earned, it is not given and so far Obama’s own actions show nothing but disrespect for the country and its institutions he is supposed to be supporting.”

One man’s Congressional “gimmick” is another man’s “check” on the usurpation and amassing of extra-Constitutional power.  It is that one document and it’s fully intended to be used checks and balances that has from our founding separated America from Banana Republic status.  America is not a country that when Democrats are in the minority the law works one way and when they are in the majority it works another way.

Those “gimmicky” checks and balances protect the minority, restrain the majority, and secure freedom and liberty for all, not just the political in power at the moment.  It is not a “concept” that Obama can just brush aside because he disagrees.  It is a fundamental founding principle that he will soon learn, he should have never taken so lightly.

And dare you take my little collection of words but sour political grapes, consider the two commenters below from a  RealClearPolitics comment thread last night.  Pay particular attention to the number of Democrats deriding “real” recess appointments, let alone the bomb that would have exploded had Bush done what Obama just did:

mamwati 48 minutes ago

I hope and pray that thoughtful leaders of both parties in Congress, aware of their oath of office, are talking about the incredible implications constitutionally of what the President has done. If they wish to maintain the integrity of that document, the representative branch and the future of this country, I hope they speak and act loudly, in unison and soon. These are scary times America. Very scary.

3 people liked this.

Resist%2C+We+Much%21 50 minutes ago

THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Recess appointments ‘the wrong thing to do.’ “‘It’s the wrong thing to do. John Bolton is the wrong person for the job,’ said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of Foreign Relations Committee.” (“Officials: White House To Bypass Congress For
Bolton Nomination,” The Associated Press, 7/30/05)

OBAMA: A recess appointee is ‘damaged goods… we will have less credibility.’ “To some degree, he’s damaged goods… somebody who couldn’t get through a nomination in the Senate. And I think that that means that we will have less credibility…” (“Bush Sends Bolton To U.N.” The
State Journal-Register [Springfield, IL], 8/2/05)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): ‘An end run around the Senate and the Constitution.’ “I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the President from doing an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with his controversial nominations.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.15980, 12/19/07)

REID: ‘They are mischievous.’ “Also, understand this: We have had a difficult problem with the President now for some time. We don’t let him have recess appointments because they are mischievous, and unless we have an agreement before the recess, there will be no recess. We will meet every third day pro forma, as we have done during the last series of breaks.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.7558, 7/28/08)

REID: Recess appointments an ‘abuse of power.’ “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) denounced the appointment as ‘the latest abuse of power by the Bush administration,’ adding that Bolton would arrive at the UN ‘with a cloud hanging over his head’ because he could not win confirmation.” (“Bush Puts Bolton In UN Post,” Chicago Tribune, 8/2/05)

REID: A recess appointee will have ‘a cloud hanging over his head.’ “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) denounced the appointment as ‘the latest abuse of power by the Bush administration,’ adding that Bolton would arrive at the UN ‘with a cloud hanging over his head’ because he could not win confirmation.” (“Bush Puts Bolton In UN Post,” Chicago
Tribune, 8/2/05)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): ‘Troubling.’ “When you have an appointment that is this critical and this sensitive, and the president basically says he’s going to ignore the will of the senate and push someone through, it really is troubling.” (“Bush Sends Bolton To U.N.” The State Journal-Register [Springfield, IL], 8/2/05)

DURBIN: ‘Could easily be unconstitutional.’ “I agree with Senator Kennedy that Mr. Pryor’s recess appointment, which occurred during a brief recess of Congress, could easily be unconstitutional. It was certainly confrontational. Recess appointments lack the permanence and independence contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6253, 6/9/05)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Recess appointments an ‘abuse [of] the power of the presidency.’ “‘It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate,’ Kerry said in a statement …” (“Recess Appointments Granted to ‘Swift Boat’ Donor, 2 Other Nominees,” The Washington Post,

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ): “…bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress.” (“President Sends Bolton to U.N.; Bypasses Senate,” The New York Times, 8/2/05)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered…” (“Dem Baucus Joins GOP In Blasting Obama CMS Recess Appointment,” The Hill,

Of course, the above are irrelevant because THE SENATE IS NOT IN RECESS.

Oh that darn “gimmicky” Constitution, whatever shall Obama do with it?

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments are closed.


October 2021
« Jul