l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 April 24, 2012 by Warner Todd Huston
Obama is an autocrat. Were we a South American nation he’d be our Hugo
Chavez. He is not interested in democracy, our republican form of government
, or listening to other’s opinions. And he most certainly is not interested
in allowing the American people to see their will reflected in their duly
elected officials. It’s his way or the highway. Period.
All this is the subject of a recent New York Times piece that, even as it
notes Obama’s wild grabs for personal power, tries its best to give cover
to a president that has decided that he has no need to work with Congress
and intends to bypass both the courts and our elected representatives to put
his radical agenda into place.
With its typical, hypocritical partisanship on full display, the Times, the
same paper that repeatedly called George W. Bush an imperial president, is
now bending over backwards to excuse even more egregious behavior from its
Obammessiah.
In fact, the first paragraphs of the two stories liked above are telling in
how the Times regards the two presidents and in how the actual issue of
executive overreach is a but a device in stories meant to sell readers on a
picture of the man, not the issue.
Let’s take the first paragraph of the 2006 piece on Bush (my bold):
You would think that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain would have
learned by now that you cannot deal in good faith with a White House that
does not act in good faith. Yet both men struck bargains intended to restore
the rule of law to American prison camps. And President Bush tossed them
aside at the first opportunity.
Now let’s look to see how the Times characterizes Obama’s imperialism:
One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House
strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides
recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive
power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.
So, in 2006 the Times felt that Bush could not be trusted to work in good
faith with Congress because he was a tyrannical, autocrat, yet today, with
Obama grabbing far, far more power unto himself than Bush ever dreamed of
doing, his actions are excused away because he has to get around that darned
ol’ “Congressional obstructionism.”
The current Times piece goes on to introduce several “experts” that
similarly excuse away Obama’s outrageous usurpation of power as no big deal
, common, typical actions of presidents through history.
All this flacking for Obama’s outrageous misuse of his executive privileges
by the Times — and its corresponding previous outrage over the same by
Bush — is typical of how the left only uses issues to its advantage. It
shows how actual truth doesn’t matter a lick to the left. One would think
that executive overreach is executive overreach. If executive power grabs
are wrong, then why would it matter from which political party the tyrant
hails?
But executive abuses are not what The New York Times cares about. The issue
is merely a conduit to express its opinion of a president. Hence, in 2006
Bush’s executive overreach was evil while today it is excused away because
“Obama faces stiff Congressional opposition.”
A great resource on the destruction that Obama has wrought on our Republic
is Phil Kerpen’s Democracy Denied, a book that details Obama’s attempt to
bypass our democracy, our Congress, and you, the voters. In it, Kerpen warns
that Obama is using his powers to create regulations to undermine Congress
and “radically transform America.”
Regardless, the Times loves Obama’s radicalism and so his abuse of his
executive powers is OK in their book… or paper, as it were. |
|
