Gunpowder Treason, Guy Fawkes, Patriot Act, Bill of Rights and V for Vendetta

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 13th, 2013

Politics 101

Robert Catesby, Guy Fawkes and other Catholic Conspirators conspired to Blow up Parliament

King Henry VIII had a problem with Rome.  He didn’t like that the Pope wouldn’t annul his marriage to Catherine.  And he did not like the Pope interfering with his absolute rule of England.  So he told the Pope to mind his own beeswax.  The Pope then excommunicated Henry from the Catholic Church.  Henry said fine.  And established himself as the head of the Church of England.  And turned England Protestant around the 1530s.  Causing all English men and women to live happily ever after.

Well, not quite.  There were a lot of people who wanted to remain Catholic.  And they were pretty adamant.  Just as the Protestants were pretty adamant about remaining Protestant.  Which led them to, of course, hate each other.  A white-hot hatred at that.  For they wanted to kill each other.  And often did.  The Catholics were cautiously optimistic about King James VI of Scotland moving south to sit on the English throne as King James I of England.  Who promised to relax the anti-Catholic laws.  But, alas, he did not.  The brutal Catholic persecution continued.  So some Catholics got together to do something about that in 1605.  And the rest is, as they say, history.

“Remember, remember the fifth of November.
The Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.”

Robert Catesby and some fellow Catholic conspirators conspired to blow up Parliament.  To teach those Protestants a lesson by killing them.  The lesson being that it was wrong to kill Catholics.  Well, the plan was so long in the making it gave the conspirators time to think.  And some began to think that what they were going to do might be bad.  So someone feeling overly anxious about what they were about to do leaked information of the plot.  And they caught poor old Guy Fawkes in the cellar with all of the gunpowder they were going to use to blow up Parliament.  Long story short the gunpowder treason and plot failed.  And most of the conspirators were killed resisting arrest.  Or executed.  But the conspirators were on to something.  As England would be consumed by civil war from 1642 to 1651.  To settle the question whether England would be Catholic.  Or Protestant.  The Protestants won.  But some time later some Protestants, the Calvinists, thought they weren’t Protestant enough.  And for speaking up they were persecuted.  So they hopped a boat and ultimately came to a place we call the United States today.

George W. Bush was the Brilliant Mastermind behind the Treason and Plot to Transform the U.S. into a Dictatorship

Ah, the United States.  The land of the free.  And the home of the brave.  After winning our independence from Great Britain the United States became that shining city on a hill.  Where people came to escape persecution.  Where Catholic and Protestant can live harmoniously together.  And where there is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  Enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.  And the Bill of Rights.  Which provided strong safeguards to our liberty.  Protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government.  Like that we just won our independence from.  So we can have our freedom of religion.  Even for the Catholics.  A free press.  The right to peacefully assemble.  The right to speak our minds without fear of governmental retribution.  And protection from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause and a warrant narrowly specifying the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.

But then came along George W. Bush.  And his Patriot Act.  A conservative Christian.  And the next thing we knew they were warrantless wiretaps on international calls to terrorists.  There was rendition.  Secret CIA prisons in foreign countries to hold and interrogate terrorists.  Guantanamo Bay.  Where we held enemy combatants captured on the field of battle.  Who fought under no national flag.  And who were not signatory to the Geneva Convention.  The United States held these international outlaws in Guantanamo Bay outside the American legal justice system.  And we even water-boarded three terrorists.  The Bush administration even went so far as to use drones to kill terrorists in foreign countries without due process.

According to those on the left George W. Bush tore up the Bill of Rights.  The brilliant mastermind behind the treason and plot to transform the United States into a dictatorship.  This same man they belittled relentlessly for being an idiot and a fool.  This was the guy that was so shrewd and conniving that he was going to become the next Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler or Adam Sutler.  This devout Christian who lived by the Golden Rule.  Who used the powers of the Constitution to protect the people of the United States from further terrorist attacks.  Which he did.  The American homeland did not suffer another terrorist attack following 9/11 during his 8 years in office.

Despite winning the War on Terror President Obama increased the Domestic Spying of U.S. Citizens

But the left hated him.  They attacked him relentlessly.  On television.  And in the movies.  Even making movies on how to kill him.  The political opposition tried to shut him down.  And basically did when the Democrats won both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm election.  Taking obstructionism to new heights.  And the mainstream media didn’t even hide their liberal bias.  Because the assault on our civil rights was so great.  They saw parallels between the Orwellian future of Adam Sutler’s England in the movie V for Vendetta and the Bush presidency.  Helped along with a lot of imagery of the Bush presidency nuanced throughout the movie.  V’s speech to London was not only an indictment of the Sutler chancellorship.  It was an indictment of the Bush presidency.

But really, now, which presidency does this speech ring more true?  The Bush presidency?  Or the Obama presidency?  Which presidency has been more active in preventing the political opposition from speaking?  It wasn’t the Bush presidency that used the power of the IRS to shut down free speech.  It was the IRS under the Obama presidency that shut down the free speech of the Tea Party.  Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Though President Obama is not adding more prisoners there.  For he has stepped up drone strikes.  Killing terrorists overseas instead of bringing them back to the U.S. for interrogation.  As well as a few civilians who were unfortunately standing near a terrorist during a drone strike.  Even killing Americans on foreign soil without first reading them their Miranda rights.  Something George W. Bush didn’t do.

And then there’s the collecting of metadata from all our phone calls.  Without a warrant narrowly specifying the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.  And project PRISM.  The monitoring and storing of Internet activity.  Some of this domestic spying under the Obama presidency may even exceed the authority of the hated Patriot Act.  President Obama has increased the domestic spying from what the Bush administration did.  Despite President Obama winning the War on Terror with the killing of Osama bin Laden.  Which was a campaign theme of the 2012 election.  The president had delivered a knockout blow to al Qaeda who was now on the ropes and in retreat.  Yet with this victory in the War on Terror President Obama increased the domestic spying the government was doing on its citizens.  Why?  For the same reason the IRS harassed the Tea Party?  To suppress the political opposition?  All of this domestic spying failed to stop the Boston Marathon bombing.  And these guys were all over the Internet.  So if they’ve increased this domestic spying but are not using it to stop terrorists like the Boston Marathon bombers (or the Foot Hood terrorist, the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, etc.) what are they using this data for?

So I ask again.  Which presidency does V’s speech ring more true?  The God-fearing George W. Bush who tried to protect the people?  Or the ‘consolidate power by any means necessary’ President Obama?  The president that gave us Obamacare against the will of the people.  A program to be enforced by the hated IRS.  Who have their own armed enforcement officers.  Obamacare also forces Catholics to provide birth control and abortion pills to their employees.  Against their conscience.  Making Obamacare anti-Catholic legislation.  Similar to the kind that inspired the gunpowder treason and plot.  Of which Guy Fawkes participated in.  And who was the inspiration of V.  Giving us the answer to our question.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama is Killing more People in the War on Terror than George W. Bush

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2013

Week in Review

Under George W. Bush the Americans committed great atrocities.  It embarrassed terrorists at the Abu Ghraib prison.  Including things like forcing these terrorists to form a human pyramid.  In the nude.  Much like a fraternity hazing.  Though without the drinking and sex that typically follows admission into a fraternity.  And American soldiers, including at least one woman, posing for pictures with some of these terrorists at the end of a leash.  But the atrocities didn’t end there.

Allies in the War on Terror took some terrorists into secret prisons.  Where they were interrogated with enhanced interrogation techniques.  Also known as torture.  Even the U.S. used some enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorists in their custody.  Water boarding as many as three terrorists.  Including one that gave up the name of a messenger used by Osama bin Laden which led us to his compound.  But the atrocities didn’t end there.

The Americans held terrorists in a military prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.  Freelance terrorist captured on the battlefield fighting for no organized state.  And therefore not subject to the Geneva Convention.  Terrorists that just travel to wherever they can as long as they can kill Americans.  The Americans captured them.  Imprisoned them.  And, worst of all, denied them access to the American criminal justice system.  Giving them trials by military tribunals instead.  While those on the Left wanted to give them full protection of the American criminal justice system.  Including the mastermind of 9/11.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Who the Left wanted to try in lower Manhattan.  Not far from Ground Zero.  And called George W. Bush a war criminal for not extending the full protection of the American criminal justice system to these terrorists.  For we are Americans.  We don’t torture people.  Or deny them their rights.  Even when they have no rights for they are not military personnel fighting under the flag of a nation signatory to the Geneva Convention.  But unaligned lawless mercenaries.

President Obama, on the other hand, has a way to deflect this criticism.  He just kills people without trial or due process.  Even if they are American-born.  And he labels any innocents caught in the cross fire as terrorists.  Because if everyone is a dead terrorist then there is no detainee problem or collateral damage.  A very efficient solution.  Death.  And when it comes to killing terrorists President Obama has many tools to use (see Stop Calling It The Drone Memo by Kelsey D. Atherton posted 2/11/2013 on Popular Science).

The United States uses a whole arsenal of tools to carry out the targeted killing policy detailed in a recent DOJ memo. Why is everyone focusing on drones..?

While it’s true that drones are the best-known tool for carrying out targeted strikes, they are only one of many methods by which the United States attacks individual terrorists from afar. Here are some others:…

The AC-130 is a type of gunship built on the body of a troop transport that has been in service since Vietnam…

Tomahawk cruise missiles, in use since the 1980s, are also part of the targeted killing program…

Another way the U.S. does targeted killings is with special forces…

We may talk about the “drone war” and debate the drone memo, but we’re not really looking at the use of a specific technology. Instead, the “drone debate” is about policy, and how the United States chooses to attack its enemies in the War on Terror. Fancy as modern drones may be, it’s the policy that makes this kind of war new.

Surprisingly, these assets are still in use even after the war criminal, George W. Bush, used them.  In fact, you’d think this was a laundry list of killing tools for George W. Bush.  Or Ronald Reagan.  Not the beloved President Obama.  The guy that had Hillary Clinton press a reset button with the Russians to show our kinder and more loveable side.  But no.  This is President Obama’s list of killing tools.  Who’s killing terrorists just as President Bush killed terrorists.  Even taking it up a notch with those drone strikes.

President Obama is killing more people with his drone strikes than President Bush did.  Including a lot of innocents standing too close to terrorists when those bombs fell out of the sky.  Some of the innocent dead even included children.  Making the locals hate the Americans even more than when George W. Bush was president.  Where the locals are saying that President Obama’s drone strikes and his indiscriminate killing policy are tools for terrorist recruitment.  Just as the Left said Abu Ghraib, enhanced interrogation techniques, denying rights to outlaw terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and not giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed his day in court were tools for terrorist recruitment.

There are degrees of hate.  People hate cancer more than they hate washing the dishes.  So one would assume that some things make people hate Americans more than other things.  And one would have to believe that a bomb falling out of the sky killing innocent children would make people hate Americans more than water boarding three terrorists that no one knew about until the Left told the world about it.  So we can conclude that President Obama’s policies are recruiting more terrorists than the war criminal George W. Bush.  Even though President Obama said George W. Bush was everything that was wrong with U.S. policy.  A policy that only intensified under the Obama administration.  Yet the Left continues to love President Obama.  While they continue to hate George W. Bush.  Even though President Obama is even ‘more’ George W. Bush when it comes to his kill policies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2012 Endorsements: Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 1st, 2012

2012 Election

Workers Enthusiastically Supported the Nazi Party because it had the Word ‘Workers’ in It

Adolf Hitler joined the German Workers’ Party (DAP) in 1919.  The party platform included nationalist, anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist policy positions.  As well as being anti-Semitic.  A socialist party where everyone was equal.  Unless you were a Jew.  Something Hitler could wrap his arms around.  As he would blame the Jews for Germany’s loss in World War I.  A war in which Hitler served as a messenger.  Even got awarded for bravery.  And he would later blame the bad German economy on the Jews as well.  Having a scapegoat is very important if you want dictatorial powers.  For you have to attack someone as you really can’t run on a platform of wanting dictatorial power so you can oppress your people.  The DAP became the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP).  And Hitler designed the party banner.  Creating the swastika.  And the Nazi Party.

Now there isn’t a whole lot of difference between socialism and Marxism.  They are both about sharing the wealth and both are anti-capitalist.  The real reason Hitler hated Marxism is that they were a strong contender for power in Germany.  Power that Hitler wanted for his National Socialists.  And for him.  Which he consolidated by scapegoating, lying and using his personal charisma.  Another important quality for one aspiring to be a dictator.  To create a cult of personality.  Hero worship.  You have to be able to charm the masses so they don’t look that close at your policies.  Or your record.  Germans voted Hitler into office.  He didn’t seize power.  They fell in love with him.  But they had no idea what they were voting for.  World War.  Genocide.  He just moved them so much that they were willing to trust him fully.  Even when some began to learn about what was happening at the death camps or what the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing squads) were doing on the Eastern Front they told themselves that the Führer was doing what he had to do to protect the German people.  Or, at the least, they blamed these atrocities on excesses of the SS and not their beloved Fuehrer.  Or simply chose not to believe these reports.

The Nazis created an employment boom coming off of the Great Depression.  With massive public works projects.  And an aggressive rearmament program to prepare for World War II.   The war economy made industry hum.  Paid for with funds confiscated from enemies of the state.  And through massive monetary expansion.  That is, they printed a lot of money.  Causing a lot of price inflation which raised the cost of living for the working German.  Businesses were buried in red tape.  The Nazi state controlled everything.  Including the private sector.  Complying with Nazi regulations took up about half of all communications for those in business.  As one task could require up to 40 forms.  Probably in triplicate.  The Nazis shut down small businesses and small corporations.  Wanting to deal only with big industry.  So they could better control the businesses.  And the workers.  Business people once warmly supported Hitler during the ascent of his power only to discover later that Hitler was ruining German industry.  Making them to regret their previous support.  As did the workers.  Who enthusiastically supported a party that had the word ‘workers’ in it.  Only to see higher prices.  Lower wages.  Longer hours.  No collective bargaining.  No right to strike.  High income taxes.  Compulsory contributions for sickness, unemployment and disability insurance.  Union dues (for a union that represented the state, not the worker).  As time passed they even lost the ability to quit their job.  Or change jobs.  Being forever chained to the job the state chose for them.  Which worked well to maximize industrial output.  And to prepare for war.

After 9/11 George W. Bush kept America Safe from another al Qaeda Attack while he was in Office

America’s problem with radical Islam probably dates back to the Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979).  Then came the United States Embassy Bombing (1983) in Beirut.  And then the Beirut Barracks Bombing (1983) that killed 241 Americans.  Who were there in a peace-keeping mission during the Lebanese Civil War.  To be neutral referees between the warring Muslim and Christian sides.  Where the Muslims felt that although the Americans claimed neutrality in the conflict they leaned Christian.  Hence the bombing of the Barracks.  There was no real American retaliation for the attack.  As they weren’t certain who was responsible.  With other threats to American forces President Reagan eventually abandoned the mission and pulled out US forces.  One person took great interest in this American response to terror.  Osama bin Laden.  Who learned the following lesson.  When Americans suffer casualties they quit.

Islamist attacks (and plans for attacks) against American targets increased during the Nineties.  Perhaps the most shocking being the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.  An attempt to topple the Twin Towers that failed.  Then came the New York City Landmark Bomb Plot (1993).  The Khobar Towers Bombing (1996).  The United States Embassy Bombings (1998).  The Millennium Attack Plots (2000).  The USS Cole Bombing (2000).  Then 9/11.  An attempt to topple the Twin Towers that succeeded.  Until 9/11 we treated all of these events as criminal offences.  Not acts of war.  We talked about bringing these people to justice.  In a court of law.  Despite bin Laden having declared war against the United States back in 1996.  Well, after 9/11 George W. Bush declared war against Osama bin Laden.  And his terrorist organization.  Al Qaeda.

Bush attacked bin Laden’s safe haven in Afghanistan.  Chasing him underground.  Bush invaded Iraq.  In part to pressure Saudi Arabia to crack down on the Wahhabi in their kingdom financing al Qaeda as the Saudis feared Iran filling any power void in Iraq.  Which made American success in Iraq important to the Saudis.  (The Wahhabi hated the Saudi Royal family as much as they hated America.  While the Saudis had to tread lightly around the Wahhabi lest they provoke a civil war in the kingdom).  It worked.  Bush captured Islamist terrorists and sent them to a detention center at the US Naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Interrogating them for intelligence.  As enemy combatants.  Not as people with American Constitutional protections.  Which helped to thwart future terrorist plots.  Causing the Islamist world to hate George W. Bush with a passion.  But he kept America safe from another al Qaeda attack while he was in office.

If Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden were Alive Today they would likely Endorse Barack Obama and Joe Biden

Things changed under President Obama.  Who also hated George W. Bush.  Blaming him for the Muslim hatred against America.  So he tried to offer a softer, friendly face to the Muslim world.  He stopped using the term ‘War on Terror’.  He wanted to try some 9/11 terrorists in the civilian court system in New York City.  Instead of by military tribunal.  He said the US would no longer torture people.  And promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.  When a radical Muslim in the US Army killed fellow soldiers on an Army base because of America’s ‘crimes against Islam’ the president called that workplace violence.  Not terrorism.  A lot of these things the Islamists liked.  But President Obama also killed indiscriminately with unmanned drones.  Anyone killed that wasn’t on the kill-list was deemed an enemy combatant.  So collateral damage of innocents was greatly reduced.  By simply calling everyone killed an enemy combatant.  And by killing all terrorist and terrorist-adjacent people there were no prisoners to house.  But there was also no intelligence to gather.  Which had its drawbacks.

Years of interrogations and intelligence gathering eventually located Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.  When advised President Obama gave the ‘go’ order to kill him.  So in one day the president killed bin Laden.  Defeated al Qaeda.  And ended the War on Terror.  Something the president likes to say over and over again.  A never ending spiking of the football.  This relentless bragging and the unmanned drone attacks inflamed the Islamist world.  Providing a great recruiting tool for al Qaeda.  Possibly being the impetus for the attacks on the American embassy in Benghazi.  Which was left poorly protected.  Even after the American ambassador requested additional protection.  Especially around the anniversary of 9/11.  But someone in the Obama administration denied the request because President Obama had killed Osama bin Laden.  And defeated al Qaeda.  And having to beef up security in Benghazi would have gone against that narrative.  So they didn’t.

So if Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden were alive today who would they endorse in the 2012 election?  Well, Hitler would have liked the Democrat attacks on rich people.  Seeing that as good scapegoating.  He would be impressed by the cult of personality around President Obama.  Though it wasn’t as good as his.  He would like the attack on capitalists and the massive government interference into the private sector.  And the high income taxes and regulations.  As well as those public works projects.  Those roads and bridges.  No doubt Hitler would have liked a lot of what he saw in the Obama administration.  Though, perhaps, he would be confused as the ultimate purpose of this massive power grab.  And Osama bin Laden?  Well, he hated George W. Bush.  President Obama may have killed him but it was all that War on Terror stuff that brought the Americans to him in Pakistan.  He would prefer the Obama light touch over the Bush hammer.  And he’d probably prefer his people getting killed by drones instead of being captured and pumped for information.  Like the guy that gave up a name that eventually led the SEALs to his hiding place.  And he would just love the opportunity to speak in a US court.  Something that just wouldn’t have happened under Bush.  Finally he would have liked the naïveté and arrogance of President Obama.  Which would have given him a target-rich environment.  Like Benghazi.  If Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden were alive today they would likely endorse the Democrat candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama: Too Liberal for the Country; not Liberal enough for his Base

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 10th, 2010

Obama the Bridge Burner

In business, and in life in general, it is wise not to burn your bridges.  It pays to hold your tongue.  Unleashing a verbal tirade may feel good at the moment but it doesn’t make you look good.  It makes it difficult to salvage anything good out of a bad situation.  And more times than not burning a bridge will come back to haunt you.  For today’s enemy may be tomorrow’s ally.

President Obama is a smart man.  He may be pompous and arrogant, but he understands politics.  And when it comes to bridges, one would expect that he’d be prudent.  During the recent debate over extending the Bush tax cuts, however, he hasn’t.  Instead, his approach has been to basically say ‘flame on’ to friend and foe alike (see From Audacity to Animosity by Peggy Noonan posted 12/9/2010 on The Wall Street Journal).

President Obama was supposed to be announcing an important compromise, as he put it, on tax policy. Normally a president, having agreed with the opposition on something big, would go through certain expected motions. He would laud the specific virtues of the plan, show graciousness toward the negotiators on the other side—graciousness implies that you won—and refer respectfully to potential critics as people who’ll surely come around once they are fully exposed to the deep merits of the plan.

Instead Mr. Obama said, essentially, that he hates the deal he just agreed to, hates the people he made the deal with, and hates even more the people who’ll criticize it. His statement was startling in the breadth of its animosity. Republicans are “hostage takers” who worship a “holy grail” of “tax cuts for the wealthy.” “That seems to be their central economic doctrine.”

As for the left, they ignore his accomplishments and are always looking for “weakness and compromise.” They are “sanctimonious,” “purist,” and just want to “feel good about” themselves. In a difficult world, they cling to their “ideal positions” and constant charges of “betrayals.”

Waaa!  Waaa!  Waaa!  I hate you.  I hate you all.  I’m taking my legislation and going home.

The leader of the free world has spoken.

Dropping the ‘F’ Bomb on the President

And just how angry are those in his base?  Pretty darn angry (see Profanity, Anger Spill Over in House Democratic Caucus Meeting by Anna Palmer posted 12/9/2010 on Roll Call).

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f— the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

Not quite the ‘You lie‘ uttered by South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson during Obama’s 2009 health care speech to the House.  Actually, “f— the president” seems a bit worse.  That’s some pretty strong language.  In fact, it would probably be harder to find stronger language. 

Dropping the ‘f’ bomb on the president.  I doubt a Republican ever said that about Ronald Reagan.  Then again, members of Reagan’s party respected him.

Closing Gitmo was a Slam Dunk

This is the problem when you try to govern to the wishes of 20% of the population.  Pleasing this 20% just pisses off the other 80%.  And then the 80% votes against you at the midterm election.

Poor 20%.  And things don’t look like they’re going to get better any time soon (see House acts to block closing of Gitmo by Stephen Dinan posted 12/8/2010 on The Washington Times).

Congress on Wednesday signaled it won’t close the prison at Guantanamo Bay or allow any of its suspected terrorist detainees to be transferred to the U.S., dealing what is likely the final blow to President Obama’s campaign pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba.

Closing Gitmo was a slam dunk.  So what happened? 

Well, no nations wanted to take the prisoners.  The American people weren’t all that keen on trying them in the U.S. legal system.  And releasing them wasn’t a good idea because many just became terrorists again (see Gitmo Recidivism Rate Soars by Thomas Joscelyn posted 12/7/2010 on The Weekly Standard).  It turns out that Gitmo was a pretty darn good place to leave these bad guys after all.  Obama no doubt rues that campaign promise.

Obama Fails to Deliver Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, Too.

But that ain’t his only failed campaign promise.  There was going to be immigration reform.  Or, rather, amnesty for illegal aliens to increase Democrat voter turnout.  But this appears to be stalling, too.  And this in a lame duck congress that his party still controls (see Democrats delay action on young immigrants bill by Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press, posted 12/9/2010 on Yahoo! News).

The Senate moved Thursday to delay a politically charged showdown vote on legislation carving out a path to legal status for foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally, putting off but probably not preventing the measure’s demise.

Facing GOP objections, Democrats put aside the so-called Dream Act and said they’d try again to advance it before year’s end. They’re short of the 60 votes needed to do so, however, and critics in both parties quickly said they won’t change their minds in the waning days of the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Some days it’s just not good to be a liberal Democrat trying to govern against the will of the American people.

Damned if he Does; Damned if he Doesn’t

And some days it’s just not good to be stuck with a Barack Obama (from Noonan above).

The Democrats’ problem is that most of them know that the person who would emerge, who would challenge Mr. Obama from the left, would never, could never, win the 2012 general election. He’d lose badly and take the party with him. Democratic professionals know the mood of the country. Challenging Mr. Obama from the left would mean definitely losing the presidency, as opposed to probably losing the presidency.

That’s the problem with lying to win elections.  The truth eventually comes out.  And it has.  The moderates and independents have long since learned that Obama is no moderate.  But if he wants to remain president, he’ll have to learn how to become one pretty darn fast.  And lose what’s left of his liberal base in the process.

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,