Boy King or Boy Dictator?

Obamakingx300Tom Lester is an occasional contributor to this site. His contributions are always insightful and bring a different perspective.

This latest deals with the tyranny that Obama assumes he is entitled to subject the rest of us to. The Boy King, as Mr. Lester refers to him, believes he has the right to change this country to his own personal vision of Utopia. Our feckless representatives in Washington are cowards for not confronting him over this usurpation of power.

Why don’t we just repeal the Constitution to make his actions legal? Better yet, why don’t we uphold it?

Every elected official in Washington takes an oath to defend the Constitution. That oath says nothing about ignoring it or repealing it. The oath demands they enforce it. All have committed impeachable offenses by not doing so. Violation of this oath is cause for removal from office. This procedure should start with Mr. Obama and then eliminate most (all?) Congressmen and Senators!

Mr. Lester’s comments are on the State of the Union Address. The imperial nature of Obama was apparent.

The Constitutional, Non-Constitutional Boy King

What’s your favorite food?  Imagine if you could be fed that food for the next thirty days, morning, noon and night.  It would likely soon depart your list of favorites.

About seventeen years ago the song “Macarena” made its debut and enjoyed endless playing on radio, television and clubs throughout America.  It had a habitual, catchy rhythm that people could repeatedly be heard humming.  After about the ten-thousandth playing, however, even the catchiest tune can become an irritant.

Tuesday evening, February 12, the President delivered the State of the Union speech to the joint session of Congress and to the American people.  I had already reached the point of severe skepticism with Barack Obama and his rhetoric.  No one can deny his oratory skills and too many applaud his words which to me are altogether truly void of any substance.  It’s not particularly hard to deliver a good speech when one gives the same speech verbatim over and over.  I have now found myself with the same sentiments as a good friend and great mentor who two years ago, half-jokingly, half-seriously, commented that he could no longer watch Obama’s television appearances fearful of his inability to refrain from throwing his shoe at the screen.

I long ago reached the point where I knew in advance the President’s words would be delivered with his favorite oft-repeated phrases such as “balanced approach” and “investment in the future.”  Those words mean, for the uninformed and ignorant, he wants to raise taxes and spend that money on his pet social justice projects.  Never mind that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy, both morally and financially.  The message embedded in his speeches is always that the Federal government must continue to grow unabated, financed on the backs of the “rich”.

So about nineteen or twenty minutes into the State of the Union Address, I couldn’t quite believe my ears.  I taped the address and went back to confirm what I heard.  The words were, to me, a concise and clear message of a narcissistic, power-hungry demagogue.  Those words were chilling and foretell the desires of a person who is drunk in his quest for power.

The President in talking, or lecturing, on global-warming made the statement, “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.  I will direct…  I will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take now and in the future to reduce pollution, to prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable forms of renewable energy.”  The message was clear.  He wants to resurrect Cap and Trade and will attempt to insert himself as the creator and executor of laws through executive orders.

Our United States Constitution seems pretty clear, written in language that even a former college professor, billed by the mainstream media as a Constitutional scholar, can understand.  My last reading lead me to believe it provided for three distinct branches of the Federal government: the legislative, the executive and the judicial.  It seems also clear that the document also defines the role of the legislative branch to make laws and that function is not afforded either the executive or the judicial.

Yet, our Boy King has proclaimed that if the legislature will not enact the laws he wants on climate change, that he will make those laws.  Not surprising since the number and scope of executive orders, some 144, on several issues have already usurped the oversight role of Congress in the past four years.  Such action is eerily reminiscent of The Enabling Act of 1933 which allowed another leader the power of a dictator.

Does Obama want to become the American Dictator?  A dictator is defined as a ruler with total power over a country, a person granted absolute emergency power, or a person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere.

No one can truly ever know the undefined and unexpressed goals or ulterior motives of another.  We can only judge if the actions are consistent with the words.  I’ve made that judgment and you must do the same.

Tom Lester

Related Posts

2 Comments

  1. Obama’s words and actions are nothing original. I doubt he’s ever had a thought some wacko mentor didn’t plant in his pea-brain; but I digress. FDR first accomplished this when he destroyed the last vestige of checks and balances by bringing the SCOTUS to heel; threatening to pack the court. After the Supremes had declared his New Deal programs unconstitutional, in effect he said he would make them irrelevant by packing the court. Unconstitutional actions suddenly became Constitutional because nine oligarchs didn’t have the moral integrity to stand up to him.
    Fast forward to the Kenyan dictator. He twists words, lies unashamedly and does what he wants because neither the House nor Senate has the moral integrity to impeach him as they should. And obtw, it is intuitively obvious to the casual observer (my geometry teacher’s favorite expression) that he despises the Constitution.
    My father’s generation went to their graves venerating FDR, never accepting the concept that he had done irreparable harm to our nation. Just so, this generation will not turn its back on the Boy King. After all, whatever imperfections that remain in his imagined utopia are Bush’s fault. To think otherwise would be racist.

Post a Comment