Obama: Crossing the Rubicon

Obama as dictatorIn the year 49 B.C. Julius Caesar led his army across the Rubicon River in northern Italy. The river was the dividing line between Cisalpine Gaul and Italy proper. By crossing the river with a single legion, Legio XIII Gemina, Caesar deliberately broke the law. In doing so Caesar uttered the famous phrase “alea iacta est” – the die is cast.

Fast forward to November 20, 2014. Barack Obama crossed his own Rubicon with his announcement of amnesty to at least 5 million illegal immigrants.

His reasoning: Congress hadn’t acted so he did. Using the phrase ‘something must be done’ Obama violated his oath to faithfully execute the laws and instead is attempting to make the laws himself.

Using a variety of ginned-up legal opinions Obama and his allies have justified most of the amnesty under the guise of prosecutorial discretion. He claimed that he had the power to suspend deportation for millions of people when in fact prosecutorial discretion has always been used in a limited fashion.

He and his allies claimed that his amnesty was no different than amnesty dispensed by previous American presidents. In fact, most previous instances of amnesty were set against the backdrop of actual law that was debated and passed by the Congress.

Instead, Obama has simply created his executive orders out of whole cloth. He did it because he thinks that he can and no one can stop him. This is the way of the dictator.

Does this mean that Obama and future presidents can simply bypass the Constitution and the Congress because they don’t or won’t pass bills that he wants? It certainly would appear that way.

What’s next? If he signs an inadequate deal with Iran over their nuclear ambitions will he simply declare it a done deal and not send it to the Senate for ratification?

He recently sign a global warming deal with the Chinese. It will need to be ratified by the Senate but nothing seems to be forthcoming from the White House. Is it his intent to simply declare it a done deal and neglect to send it to Capital Hill.

This seems to be Obama’s new mode of operation for the last two years of his term in office. Bypass Congress at every opportunity and declare things settled because he said so.

The messy workings of democracy seem not to be to his liking. We saw plenty of this in the first six years of his Presidency. But mostly it was small stuff and he skirted the line between lawfulness and lawlessness.

However, with this giant amnesty, it seems that he has broken through to really big actions. If Congress does not push back and hard, he will simply continue along this same path of lawlessness.

 

With this travesty he has inserted himself back into the narrative despite a second midterm shellacking. The national narrative had gone the Republicans way and Obama simply was unable to stomach that. After all he is the President.

Let’s hope that the Republicans can gain control of this situation before it becomes too late. The fate of the nation and all of our futures depends on it.

Into the Abyss on Immigration

Obama Enemy of the ConstitutionTonight, Barack Obama with his phone and pen will attempt to supersede Congress by issuing an executive order on immigration. The order will delay deportation of up to 5 million illegals. Some of them will be allowed to apply for work permits but would not be entitled to federal benefits, including health care tax credits, under the plan.

All of this is taking place after Obama has spoken many times on his lack of authority over immigration. But the intense pressure that he is getting from the Hispanics within the Democrat coalition was too much for him to ignore.

The President has been warned both by Speaker John Boehner and soon-to-be Majority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell that his executive action will have significant consequences on legislation and appointments in the upcoming Congress.

But Obama seems oblivious to their warnings. Perhaps, he is hoping that the Republicans will overreach and cause severe blowback from the public if they punish him too severely. Or perhaps, he just wants to secure his legacy with this executive order.

However you look at it his executive order is a clear violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers that the Framers wrote into the Founding Document. After all, they had just completed a revolution against the King and the way the Constitution was written reflects that fact.

But over the last century Presidents have attempted to secure increasing power at the expense of the Congress and the Courts. And they have been successful in doing so.

Barack Obama is just the latest President who has successfully accrued more power and he sees this executive order as just one more attempt.

What can Congress and the Courts do in the face of a President who is hell-bent to go his own way?

First, the Congress can impeach the President and remove him from office. Don’t expect this to happen for a number of reasons. It was tried with Clinton and failed in the Senate.

Current members of Congress simply lack the political will to impeach a President who has been elected twice. On top of that the cries of racism would be overwhelming. Let’s face the left toss around accusations of racism on a mere whim. Can you imagine the outcry if their darling was impeached?

Then we have the courts. Unfortunately this avenue is time-consuming and the case would linger well after Obama leaves office. Also, we have the question of standing and the will of the courts to rule on a political dispute.

Finally, the only way that will be realistically available to the Congressional Republicans will be the one that the Framers intended to be used in situations such as this: the power of the purse.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote for Politico that Obama is “not a monarch” and Congress can’t allow him to succeed:

The Constitution designs a system of checks and balances for our nation, and executive amnesty for immigrants here illegally unilaterally decreed from the White House would seriously undermine the rule of law. Our founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of unlimited power within the executive branch; Congress should heed those words as the President threatens to grant amnesty to millions of people who have come to our country illegally.

Here’s where the situation gets sticky simply because there are a number of ways that the Republicans can proceed.

To start, on December 11th the Congress must pass a Continuing Resolution or a Budget Resolution to fund the government. If they don’t they federal government will begin to shutdown. And as we all know the Republicans will be blamed whether it’s their fault or not. It’s simply a fact of life in Washington: shutdown=Republicans fault.

You just know that Harry Reid will demand a so-called clean CR with the government funded until the end of the fiscal year next October.

However, conservatives both inside and outside of Congress have written a resolution that they would like to see passed by the Congress.

The Concurrent Resolution Of Congress they are pushing for a vote on cites Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution which reads: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” The resolution reads:

And whereas it is the Constitutional right and duty of the Congress of the United States to exercise vigilance in protecting this sovereign legislative power from any encroachments by other branches of government or any other source whatsoever; And whereas Barack Obama, the President of the United States, may issue a purported Executive Order that has the effect of changing the law and policy of the United States relative to the status of millions of illegal aliens currently residing within the United States; And whereas his argument that he must act because the Congress has not acted regarding the status has no valid standing in law under the Constitution.

The resolution concludes by saying that Congress considers whatever executive action about to be taken “null and void.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy has suggested three avenues of response to Obama’s executive order: appropriations, potential litigation, and advice and consent.It remains to be seen which one they choose or will they choose all of the above.

 

 

 

 

Will Amnesty Kill the Democrat Party?

smirking obamaBarack Obama is on the verge of committing what he once described as impossible without the passage of a new comprehensive immigration reform bill. He plans on providing a blanket amnesty to a certain class of illegal immigrants.

Preliminary indications are that the White House will defer the deportation of people in the country illegally whose children are American citizens or have permanent residence green cards. That could affect some 3.3 million undocumented immigrants, according to some estimates.

These people would receive work permits and Social Security numbers and could travel freely within the US without worry that they will be seized by law enforcement and kicked out.

He cannot grant illegal immigrants permanent citizenship or green cards. He can only use his law enforcement discretion to promise to defer prosecution for their status.

There is one catch to all of this talk of amnesty. It isn’t permanent. Since he is doing it by executive order, the minute that a new President takes over Obama’s orders are no longer in force.

All of the immigrants involved in his program are at once illegal again. They would be subject to arrest and deportation. They could then be sent back to their country of origin.

The more you dig into the upcoming ‘amnesty’ order the clearer it becomes that one of the Democrat Party’s main constituencies, union workers, will be threatened with extinction.

The no-longer illegal immigrants will be able to work and they will work for less. This downward wage pressure will affect the union workers. It’s been over a decade without any real rise in spending power of wages and the natives are getting restless.

It appears that the working-class Democrats may soon be working-class Republicans. If the last election is any indication the Republicans are gaining more voters from the ranks of union workers than from anywhere else.

Amnesty is very unpopular across the nation. An ABC News and Washington Post poll said that 80% of Americans actually want stricter border measures to reduce the influx of illegal immigration. This poll included 93% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, 83% of independents, and even 61% of Hispanics.

Another core Democrat constituency, African-Americans, will be directly affected by the coming ‘amnesty’ order. As the President continues threatening to use an executive order to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, unemployment in minority areas of Chicago continues to increase. According to the Canada Free Press, 92% of black teenage males have no job.

The new immigrants and black Americans will be directly competing for low-paying jobs in a tight job market. It’s a cinch that they are not in favor of ‘amnesty’. In fact there has been a serious questioning of the Democrat Party in the African-American community.

When one looks at those opposed to ‘amnesty’ within the Democrat coalition this question begins to be asked. Is Barack Obama intentionally trying to ‘kill’ his own party?

 

 

A Canadian Top Ten List About America

A Canadian Top Ten List About AmericaCanadian’s Version of David Letterman’s Top 10
Just makes you wanna shake your head in disbelief.
This is Canada’s Top Ten List of America’s Stupidity
 Of course we look like idiots ….. because we are.
Number 10 Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate Obama campaign fund-raising event.
 Number 9 Only in America …could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a  black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black 40+% of all federal entitlements goes to black Americans – 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics!
Number 8  Only in America…could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
Number 7 Only in America…can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
Number 6 Only in America…would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’  become American citizens (probably should be number one).
Number 5 Only in America….could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as EXTREMIST’S.
Number 4 Only in America…could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
Number 3 Only in America…could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company(Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
Number 2 Only in America… could you collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year – for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.
And Number 1 Only in America…could the rich people- who pay 86% of all income taxes – be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.
I received this list from my good friend and former business colleague Mary Donovan who lives in the Paris of the Midwest, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Stupid is as Stupid does

Jonathan GruberThat famous line from Winston Groom’s Forest Gump illustrates how the liberal elitists think of the rest of us. Professor Jonathan Gruber, an MIT Economics professor and co-architect of both Romneycare and Obamacare was recorded calling the American people stupid on several occasions.

In fact, Gruber opined that the only way Obamacare passed muster in the Congress was due to a tissue of lies surrounding it.

It turns out that we can’t insure more people for less money. In fact, only the naive felt that it was possible. The rest of us felt that the very proposition was absurd on its face.

‘Bending the curve” downward on health care costs was attempt to pull the wool over the American people’s eyes. It’s worth noting that polling has shown that the American people have opposed Obamacare since its very inception.

Gruber also pointed out that under his plan young people would be forced to pay higher premium to subsidize the health care costs of those with chronic conditions. Of course, they lied about that too.

After all, what would the 20 and 30-somethings think about an administration that punished them for being young and healthy? I’ll tell you what. They would have punished Barack Obama and the Democrats at the polls.

Gruber also pointed out that Romneycare managed to secure a $400 million grant from the federal government in order to operate. So much for ‘Well, Romneycare works’. In fact, it only work if subsidized by the taxpayers of the other 49 states.

Gruber’s explanation for this blinding candor was the usual baloney. On MSNBC, he told Ronan Farrow that he “spoke inappropriately” when he made the comments, which surfaced this week in an online video.

The comments in the video were made at an academic conference. I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments.

 

That didn’t account for the fact that he stupidly made them in front of a camera and a number of other videos have surfaced that illustrate that this ‘smart’ guy is really quite stupid.

Just one day after this apology a second video has surfaced.

There are yet more videos from Gruber as he brags how the put one over on the American public and the federal government in the case of Romneycare.

The academic elitist’s attitude of the intelligence personifies his entire class’s attitude about the American people. We should have realized that fact when Barack Obama talked about people ” clinging to their guns and religion”.

Now the media is running for cover by simply not reporting on the story of the year. The Big Three networks have run a total of 2 minutes of reporting and that was on CBS. For ABC and NBC this story doesn’t exist. This also holds true for CNN.

But why should we be surprised. The Big Three networks and CNN stopped being journalists some time ago. They are simply propagandists for the left and the Democrat Party. They believe that they can ignore this important story because the American people are too stupid to ask for it.

And the political left has made it appear that they don’t even know Professor Gruber. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the Hose, praised his work on the bill but recently denied even knowing who he was. I guess that she never heard of Google and YouTube.

Yet, official logs show Gruber visited the White House  more than a dozen times during his work on President Obama’s signature health care law. He received roughly $400,000 in taxpayer dollars for his assistance in crafting the Affordable Care Act.

Come January when the new Congress convenes they will begin to dismember this horrible piece of legislation. Hopefully, enough Democrats will be ‘too stupid’ to join the Republicans to override any Obama vetoes. Then we can create a new health care act that us ‘stupid’ Americans can be proud of.

 

 

One-Sided Climate Deal

Climate dealmakersWe woke up this morning to find out that Barack Obama has ‘bargained’ away the American economy for exactly nothing.

Obama announced Wednesday that the U.S. has set a new goal to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by between 26 percent and 28 percent over the next 11 years as part of a climate change agreement with China.

His Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, did not pledge any reductions by any specific date, but rather set a target for China’s emissions to peak by 2030, or earlier if possible. Xi also pledged to increase the share of energy that China will derive from sources other than fossil fuels.

So while we dramatically reduce our emissions the Chinese get to continue increasing their emissions willy-nilly until 2030 at which time our economy will be wrecked while their economy will be booming due to cheap fossil fuels.

The President then had the nerve to say:“This is a major milestone in the U.S.-China relationship. It shows what’s possible when we work together on an urgent global challenge.”

Let’s take a look at that statement. First of all, it is not a “an urgent global challenge” to anyone but Obama and the environmental left. The challenge for Americans is to put food on the table and heal the U.S. economy.

But Obama doesn’t see it that way. His goal seems to be to destroy the U.S. economy and end our use of fossil fuels.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) was clear where he and his caucus stands. “This unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs.” 

The naive Obama believes that our example will spur other nations to follow our example. One of the first things that we learned in political science was the theory of enlightened self-interest.

Nations will only carry out actions that are in their self interest. This wrong-headed plan is not in America’s self interest. The Chinese must have laughed themselves silly.

The strange part of this deal is that Obama waited until the Democrats lost the Senate. This type of treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. With a possible 54 vote majority come January this treaty has a snowballs chance in hell of being ratified.

Or does the President think that he can govern by decree as he has intimated that he will on immigration?

The Democrats are living in another dimension

Head in the SandAs Obama and the Democrats come to terms with their stunning and in some cases, overwhelming defeats at the polls on Election Day you would think that they might re-think their strategy for future elections. But don’t bet on it.

It would appear that their use of abortion and its cousin, the War on Women, appears to be the only arrows in their quiver. That and their ridiculous reasons for losing badly around the country.

Let’s start with Senator Mark Udall of Colorado or as his opponents refer to him, Senator Uterus. He based his entire campaign on unrestrained abortion. He told the voting public that they had the right to unlimited abortion without exception. Cory Gardner won by about seven points.

How about Joni Ernst’s victory over Bruce Braley? Ernst was the perfect candidate for Iowa, especially after Braley disparaged the senior Senator from Iowa, as just another farmer. This in a state filled with farmers. Then he added insult to injury for going after Ernst as a women. Ernst won by 8.5 points in a contest that one poll said was dead even.

The list goes on. The Democrats have since turned around and said that the lost due to the Ebola scare. In Texas Communications Director Zac Petkanas of the Wendy Davis campaign told the Wall Street Journal,

The losses that you are seeing in very blue states are simply amplified in states like Texas where there is already a structural advantage for Republicans. Another challenge, [Petkanas] said, was that Texas was at the center of two issues — immigration and the Ebola scare — that helped drive Republican voters to the polls.

Then, of course, what election shellacking would be complete without the incredible logic of Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader. Get this logic:

Many of the people who would ordinarily support us didn’t register to vote, and many of our supporters who did register didn’t bother to cast a ballot. Ergo, their vote was suppressed.

Then, we have the President himself in total denial at his post-election press conference where a succession media questioners asked what he would be doing differently over the final two years of his term.

Instead of accepting the defeat graciously he pointed out that he wasn’t on the ballot despite his pre-election statement that his policies were.

This is a regular Obama ploy, denying that he said something when he most obviously did. You used it with his now infamous red-line in Syria.

He then went ahead and claimed that the two-thirds of the electorate that hadn’t voted actually supported him. Why? Because he said so.

Doesn’t he realize that his once-powerful party is in danger of becoming a regional party? With 32 of the 50 governorships now in Republican hands the bottom up, take-back-our-government policies will eat away at the Big Government preferred by Democrats.

And who paved the way for this precipitate decline of the Democrat Party? Why Barack Obama and his insane policies.

The President preaches energy independence yet he won’t allow the Keystone XL pipeline or drilling on Federal lands.

He talks about clean air and water. Yet, he has allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to impose the most restrictive rules possible, killing growth and job creation.

He has allowed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (soon to be in the minority) to embargo hundreds of House bills, many of them enabling job creation and business growth.

So Obama will continue on his merry way with his phone-and-pen strategy of unconstitutional governance despite warnings from both Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader-in-waiting Mitch McConnell that his actions will ‘poison the well’ and jeopardize his legacy.

Obama and the Democrats seem to have snatched the “Stupid Party” crown right out the Republicans hands. Now let’s let them keep it.

To my readers: over the past two weeks you haven’t seen anything from me. You see, I was in the hospital for part of the time with a serious health issue. I’m on the mend now and hope to be with you for a while. Thanks for your continued support.

 

 

 

A bad case of mission creep: The U.S. Secret Service

Secret Service BadgesThe United States Secret Service has been in the news with adverse publicity for the last several years. It might be time to take a hard look at this powerful agency and examine its various missions. It seems that since it was moved from the Treasury Department to Homeland Security bad things have been happening to the Secret Service.

First, a little background on the agency. The United States Secret Service was created by an act of Congress on July 5, 1865 as a division of the Treasury Department. Its first and only mission was the suppression of currency counterfeiters. The U.S. Marshals Service did not have the manpower to investigate all crime under federal jurisdiction, so the Secret Service began to investigate everything from murder to bank robbery to illegal gambling.

The division soon became a catch-all unit for everything from domestic intelligence to counterintelligence. After the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, Congress informally requested that the Secret Service provide presidential protection. A year later, the Secret Service assumed full-time responsibility for presidential protection.

They shed some of these responsibilities when the Federal Bureau of Investigation was created in 1908.  Many of the agency’s missions were later taken over by subsequent agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Marshal Service(USMS), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Currently, the Secret Service has responsibilities that include:

  • Financial Crimes, covering missions such as prevention and investigation of counterfeiting of U.S. currency and U.S. treasury securities, and investigation of major fraud.
  • Protection, which entails ensuring the safety of current and former national leaders and their families, such as the President, past presidents, vice presidents, presidential candidates, visiting heads of state, and foreign embassies.

The first questions that need to be asked are: Should the Secret Service be split into two since the two missions are totally unrelated? Should the Financial Crimes unit be returned to its rightful place at the Treasury Department where coordination with the other financial agencies would be closer?

This seems like a no-brainer in terms of organizational efficiency but quite often efficiency is not what government does best. I suspect that the higher-ups at the Secret Service would fight any change that diminishes their power. It would probably hold true for entrenched bureaucrats at Homeland Security who might see it as threat to their department. But that’s another post for another day.

The main area of mission creep has come about in the Protection Division. Where once they were assigned to protect the President and his immediate family, the division now protects almost every high federal official. Here’s the list of current protectees:

  • The President, the Vice President (or other officer next in the order of succession to the Office of President, should the vice presidency be vacant), the President-elect, and the Vice President-elect
  • The immediate families of the above individuals
  • Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes except when the spouse divorces or remarries. From 1997 until 2013, legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former Presidents and their spouses to a period of 10 years from the date the former President leaves office. President Barack Obama signed legislation reversing this limit and reinstating lifetime protection on January 10, 2013.
  • The widow or widower of a former President who dies in office or dies within a year of leaving office for a period of one year after the President’s death (the Secretary of Homeland Security can extend the protection time)
  • Children of former Presidents until age 16 or 10 years after the presidency.
  • Former Vice Presidents, their spouses, and their children under age for up to 6 months from the date the former Vice President leaves office (the Secretary of Homeland Security can extend the protection time)
  • Visiting heads of states or governments and their spouses traveling with them,
  • Other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad, as directed by the President
  • Major presidential and vice presidential candidates
  • The spouses of major presidential and vice presidential candidates (within 120 days of a general presidential election)
  • Other individuals as designated per executive order of the President
  • National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security

In today’s era of terrorists blanket protection seems necessary but the Secret Service has perhaps carried things too far. I have a real problem with protecting major presidential and vice presidential candidates plus their families. These modern campaigns raise enough money to pay for their own protection and they should.

Currently, Hillary Clinton who is running a stealth campaign for the Presidency has Secret Service agents protecting her while shew’s on her nation-wide book tour. Can you image what that costs? Her husband is also protected by the Secret Service while he travels around the country campaigning and making speeches. It also holds true for George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. Can’t they afford their own protective details rather than making the taxpayers foot the bill.

Plus, there are a number of other individuals and events that can be designated for protection by the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security. Secret Service protection has become a sign of power in Washington and it needs to be investigated by Congress.

Are lies and racism the Democrats last ditch tactics?

If you tell a lie...It has started to dawn on the Democrats that they are going to get another ‘shellacking’ on Election Day. They have now turned to their last ditch tactics: lies and charges of racism. And remember they are very good at both.

In North Carolina a flyer was found on cars parked at a Fayetteville, NC church for Sunday service. The flyer had a picture of a lynching. The words on top of the picture were Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) Doesn’t Win. Obama’s Impeachment will Begin!”

The Hagan campaign has yet to denounce this blatant effort at fear-mongering based on race. And they won’t because the Democrats see it as ‘good’ politics. They will press this for all its worth because if they black vote doesn’t go their way they’re toast on Election Day.

In one neat package you have the Big Lie and Race. Striking fear into the hearts of African-American voters has been a Democrat tactic for almost 50 years. The message is simple: ‘If you don’t vote for us, the Republicans will take all of your rights away’.

According to Erick Erickson the tactic was used in Georgia in 1998. Two weeks before the Georgia general election, flyers began circulating in black communities around metro Atlanta with pictures of burning crosses and KKK members. The text in the flyers claimed Georgia would see a return to that if black voters did not vote, especially if they didn’t vote for Democrats.

According to Erickson the hyperbole reached a low point when just a few years ago, Congressman Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and then Mayor Shirley Franklin of Atlanta participated in an advertisement for John Eaves, the Democrats’ candidate for Chairman of the Fulton County Commission. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) claimed that if Eaves lost, Republicans in charge would be more dangerous than fighting off firehoses and “the dogs in the street” in the Civil Rights era.

And now the Democrats have their backs to the wall. If they lose the Senate then Obama’s Presidency is all but over. He must cooperate with a Republican Congress in order to accomplish anything. He can only push the executive order thing so far before the Republicans react with vehemence.

The possibility of Joint Committees of Investigation must chill the members of the Obama administration to their marrow. Everything from Fast & Furious to Benghazi to the IRS will be under the microscope. And the ultimate aim will be indictments for those who transgressed and lied about it.

Over the next two weeks expect a full court press by Democrats as the spew lies and accusations of racism against any and all Republican opponents. With or without it they stand to lose 6 to 10 seats in the Senate. Brace yourselves.

The New Domino Theory

The New Domino TheoryThose of us of a certain age will remember the famous domino theory of power politics in Asia during the 1960s. The theory basically said that we needed to stop the Communists from gobbling up the countries of Southeast Asia by setting a red line, if you will, in South Vietnam. The red line cost us over 54,000 killed with many more wounded.

We lost that war because support on the homefront collapsed after the Tet offensive which we actually won inflicting over 50,000 dead on the Viet Cong insurgents. But this what Ho Chi Minh wanted. We killed a good portion of the Viet Cong which cleared the way for the North to eventually sweep the country in 1975.

Thousands of South Vietnamese fled their homeland but found a new one right here. Unfortunately, things did work out so well for the Cambodians or the Laotians. The murderous Pol Pot took over Cambodia. The combined effects of executions, forced labor, malnutrition, and poor medical care caused the deaths of approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population. In all, an estimated 1 to 3 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) died due to the policies of his four-year premiership.

The Laotians suffered the same fate. From 1953 until 1975 Laos was the scene of a civil war between the Communist Pathet Lao (including many North Vietnamese of Lao ancestry) and the Royal Lao Government in which both the political rightists and leftists received heavy external support for a proxy war from the global Cold War superpowers.

Perhaps the most dramatic event that took place during the takeover of Laos by the Communists was the evacuation of the Hmong tribes from the country. The communist Pathet Lao had threatened to exterminate them “to the last root.” CIA case officer Jerry Daniels organized an airlift of 3,500 Hmong leaders and their families from Laos to Thailand . Eventually, an additional 40,000 Hmong walked overland to freedom in Thailand and ultimately to the United States.

History has a way of repeating itself. The left has always denied the validity of the domino theory but now their denials have become fainter as we are seeing it happen again. But this time the dominoes have begun falling not by the actions of our enemies but actions that are being carried out by an American President, Barack Obama.

Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate who promised to end the war on terror and remove all of our troops from the Middle East. He wanted to change the domestic policies in America without the distractions of foreign adventures. After all, how would he pay for his domestic policies while our military was spending vast amounts of money overseas?

At first he attempted to close our prison at Guantanamo Bay and move the terrorists to prisons in the continental United States. He was thwarted by both the Congress and public opinion.

He then began a legalistic game with the Prime Minister of Iraq over the status of forces agreement for American troops who would remain in Iraq. President George W. Bush had signed an agreement that called for the removal of all U.S. troops by December 31, 2011. The Obama administration insisted on a new agreement that needed to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that he could sign for Iraq but Obama insisted on a positive vote from the Parliament. When it was not accomplished all U.S. troops were removed from the country.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan the very same train of events began to start but fortunately we had willing partners who have signed a status of forces agreement with the complete approval of their leaders.

In North Africa Obama saw an opportunity of ridding the world of a number of dictators. He practically forced our former ally Hosni Mubarak from power only to see him replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. We have now come full circle with a new military commander as President of Egypt. Except now the Russians have moved into a position of importance in this most important of Arab nations.

In Libya we joined our allies but not in a lead position to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi. The result is a failed state and four dead Americans in Benghazi. The Syrian red line on chemical weapons proved to be a threat that he didn’t carry out. He finally outsourced the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile to the Russians.

Meanwhile like a kettle waiting to boil ISIS began to build an army in western Syria. Using money generated from captured oil fields ISIS began to steamroll their enemies to a point that the now hold vast stretches of Syria and Iraq. They have captured most of Iraq’s Anbar province with its oil fields. THe oil wealth has been turned into $100 million a month in revenue. They captured large amounts of Iraqi military equipment that had been given to them by the United States. They even captured jets and other military aircraft.

They now style themselves the Islamic State and they have challenged all comers to attack them. But Obama has drawn a new red line in the sands of the Middle East. He has proclaimed that no American ground troops will be used against the Islam State, only air power. Where did he get his military education? Oh yes, he doesn’t have one. The United States is in the hands of an ungifted amateur and many will die because of him as the dominoes continue to fall.

 

 

1 2 3 72