Previous post:

Next post:

Obama Already Busy Grabbing New Powers

by Keith Koffler on December 4, 2012, 7:24 pm

His reelection is less than a month old, and President Obama is already busy concocting new power grabs.

He wants to remove a portion of the power of the purse from Congress by granting himself the ability to raise the debt ceiling, subject to a two-thirds disapproval vote in Congress, which basically means he can raise it at will. If Bush had tried this, Democrats would be sobbing anguished tears all over the floors of Congress about the imperial presidency.

And the White House, in an unusual interference with congressional procedure, has weighed in with support for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s effort to roll back the filibuster, which currently requires 60 votes to end.

“The President has said many times that the American people are demanding action,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement to The Huffington Post. “They want to see progress, not partisan delay games. That hasn’t changed, and the President supports Majority Leader Reid’s efforts to reform the filibuster process.”

If Bush tried to move the worlds “greatest deliberative body” toward a simple majority vote to pass legislation while his Party controlled the place, he’d be derided by Democrats for trying to seize new power and ruin the Senate.

Oh, wait, they did that.

Hypocrites, one and all of them.

{ 5 trackbacks }

{ 21 comments }

Langley Spook December 4, 2012 at 8:06 pm

Washington DC = a political cesspool

Girly1 December 4, 2012 at 8:38 pm

Throughout history Communist leaders have seized power by promoting themselves as populists, and often completely hiding their own ideology
Dear Leader makes no attempt to disguise his agenda. Forward.!!!

srdem65 December 4, 2012 at 8:56 pm

This President, the lock-stepping Dems in office, the impotent Repubs, and the complicit MSM are making us all afraid of the future.

AFVET December 4, 2012 at 9:30 pm

I think it is about time that the American People seized power back from the government.
Time for the states to recall renegade senators.
Time to impeach the president, or at the very least threaten it.
He would just laugh it off, just like the Benghazi Affair disappeared, and Fast and Furious.
Classic Cloward and Piven tactics; overwhelm the system, bring it to it’s knees and then establish the desired one.
Cheat and steal your way to the goal, it’s OK.
Saul Alinsky; The ends justify the means.
Raum Imanuel, Never let a crisis go to waste.

All pieces of the puzzle coming together right before our eyes.

Darkangel December 4, 2012 at 9:53 pm

I pointed this out on another post, but it bears repeating.

The Democrats have to defend 19 seats in the mid-terms, compared to the GOP’s 13.

On the GOP side, only one state, Maine, voted for Obama. And Susan Collins, who’s up for re-election, is liberal enough to have been tagged as a RINO, so she may actually hold her seat.

On the Democratic side, SEVEN senators up for re-election are from states that voted for Romney. And given how power-mad Obama has shown himself to be in less than a month since his re-election, even some of the states that voted for him last month (to wit: Virginia, Ohio, possibly New Hampshire, perhaps even–going out on a limb–Minnesota) may break for the GOP in the mid-terms if Obama goes completely off the rails.

But let’s assume the 2014 Senate map mirrors the 2012 presidential map. In that case, the GOP loses Maine, but picks up seven other seats. That would be a net gain of six, which would give them control of the Senate. And that assumes ONLY that the 2012 map holds, which may overstate the Democrats’ position (Obama’s not on the ballot in 2014). These Democrats are also facing their constituents for the first time since passing Obamacare, and some of the tax hikes and other surprises for that monstrosity will have gone into effect by the time they stand for re-election.

The bottom line is that the Senate may well be the Republicans’ to lose come 2014.

So if Harry Reid wants to go nuclear, here’s what could happen as a result.

If the GOP holds the House in the mid-terms, and also takes control of the Senate, they will almost certainly not be in a charitable mood when the Senate convenes in 2015. So if the GOP refuses to let the Democrats filibuster–what’s good for the goose, don’t you know–then the Democrats will have no way to prevent a united GOP Congress from sending all manner of bills down Pennsylvania Avenue, just DARING Obama to veto them. If Obama concedes (unlikely), he becomes irrelevant. If he becomes President No, the GOP will–or at least SHOULD–run to the right in 2016 pledging to clean up Obama’s mess (and it WILL be a mess).

In the short term, Reid may well score a few garbage goals if he eliminates minority rights in the Senate. But if the GOP ends up with both sides of the Capitol after the mid-terms, and the Senate GOP decides to give Harry Reid a taste of his own medicine by not letting the Democrats filibuster anything, it’s President Obama that will ultimately pay the political price. He would have to either concede and become irrelevant (not going to happen–he’s a blind ideologue), or become President No and become the last obstacle standing in the way of a return to American prosperity. That’s not good for either Obama’s legacy, or the Democrats’ electoral chances in 2016.

Just2old December 5, 2012 at 6:19 am

Good analysis…lets hope. If obama selects Kerry for Sec State; that could open the door for Scott Brown in Mass in a special election.

mad as all get out December 5, 2012 at 9:49 am

i sure hope you’re right and this DOES com to pass!!

cincycinco December 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm

All of which assumes the elections aren’t rigged. Obama got 100%! of the vote in some places. I’ve never seen 100% of ANY group of people agree on ANYTHING, have you?

Even Hitler never claimed to get so much, with all the might and main of the Gestapo behind him. Do you suppose elections are easier to fix with digital voting machines than they are with jackboots? Surveys of wards in Pennsylvaina and Ohio would suggest yes…

Frederick December 4, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Perhaps the President be supportive of a Constitutional Amendment of term limits for members of Congress!?!? Lets allow Senators four terms and Representatives 12 terms for a maximum of 24 years in Congress (or even less).
We began term limits on our representatives here in Michigan a dozen years ago and the major benefit is the willingness of Representatives to at least listen to one another. But the best part is you can prevent entrenched officials.

Morten December 4, 2012 at 10:09 pm

2 terms is enough.

Darkangel December 4, 2012 at 11:13 pm

24 years is insane. 12 years on the Hill, max, no matter how you serve it, and then boom, that’s it. Done. And no serving ten years in the House and then running for the Senate. 12 years, finished. Done. Go home.

Eliminating Congressional pensions is also an idea whose time has come, especially with the revolving door in DC. It’s bad enough that these critters get paid with our tax dollars at the same time they’re plundering them. I know Congressional pay is in the Constitution, but if Madison could have foreseen modern-day K Street, he never would have put that in there.

Langley Spook December 5, 2012 at 7:36 am

I have been trying to figure out what “term limits” to put in place for the Congress for awhile.
I like your “12 years on the Hill, no matter how you serve”. Great idea.

Ive been working on my “Voter IQ” thesis, now I need to out-line my “Congress Term Limits” plan.

Scottso December 5, 2012 at 12:10 am

Don’t they realize that when they are inevitably out of power, the roles will be reversed?
they are just stupid.
republicans are just as stupid.

brstevens December 5, 2012 at 6:03 am

I am of the opinion that democrats believe this is the beginning of a golden age of rule for them, so they probably think they have plenty of time to enjoy “serving the people” before all of this bites them in the rear. Based on the way this past election turned out I can see why they’d think that. Dems and reps are stupid, but the voters are too.

MichelleIndependent December 5, 2012 at 2:04 am

Next to the word “megalomaniac” in the dictionary is Obama’s picture.

cincycinco December 5, 2012 at 1:37 pm

Also under “Narcissist”.

[from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, 1994, commonly referred to as DSM-IV, of the American Psychiatric Association. European countries use the diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization.]
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.[jma: NPD first appeared in DSM-III in 1980; before that time there had been no formal diagnostic description. Additionally, there is considerable overlap between personality disorders and clinicians tend to diagnose mixes of two or more. Grandiosity is a special case, but lack of empathy and exploitative interpersonal relations are not unique to NPD, nor is the need to be seen as special or unique. The differential diagnosis of NPD is made on the absence of specific gross behaviors. Borderline Personality Disorder has several conspicuous similarities to NPD, but BPD is characterized by self-injury and threatened or attempted suicide, whereas narcissists are rarely self-harming in this way. BPD may include psychotic breaks, and these are uncharacteristic of NPD but not unknown. The need for constant attention is also found in Histrionic Personality Disorder, but HPD and BPD are both strongly oriented towards relationships, whereas NPD is characterized by aloofness and avoidance of intimacy. Grandiosity is unique to NPD among personality disorders, but it is found in other psychiatric illnesses. Psychopaths display pathological narcissism, including grandiosity, but psychopathy is differentiated from NPD by psychopaths' willingness to use physical violence to get what they want, whereas narcissists rarely commit crimes; the narcissists I've known personally are, in fact, averse to physical contact with others, though they will occasionally strike out in an impulse of rage. It has been found that court-ordered psychotherapy for psychopaths actually increases their recidivism rate; apparently treatment teaches psychopaths new ways to exploit other people. Bipolar illness also contains strong elements of grandiosity. See more on grandiosity and empathy and its lack below.]The disorder begins by early adulthood and is indicated by at least five of the following:

Translation: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior that shows up in thinking and behavior in a lot of different situations and activities. People with NPD won’t (or can’t) change their behavior even when it causes problems at work or when other people complain about the way they act, or when their behavior causes a lot of emotional distress to others (or themselves? none of my narcissists ever admit to being distressed by their own behavior — they always blame other people for any problems). This pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior is not caused by current drug or alcohol use, head injury, acute psychotic episodes, or any other illness, but has been going on steadily at least since adolescence or early adulthood.
NPD interferes with people’s functioning in their occupations and in their relationships:
Mild impairment when self-centered or egotistical behavior results in occasional minor problems, but the person is generally doing pretty well.
Moderate impairment when self-centered or egotistical behavior results in: (a) missing days from work, household duties, or school, (b) significant performance problems as a wage-earner, homemaker, or student, (c) frequently avoiding or alienating friends, (d) significant risk of harming self or others (frequent suicidal preoccupation; often neglecting family, or frequently abusing others or committing criminal acts).
Severe impairment when self-centered or egotistical behavior results in: (a) staying in bed all day, (b) totally alienating all friends and family, (c) severe risk of harming self or others (failing to maintain personal hygiene; persistent danger of suicide, abuse, or crime).

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Translation: Grandiosity is the hallmark of narcissism. So what is grandiose?

The simplest everyday way that narcissists show their exaggerated sense of self-importance is by talking about family, work, life in general as if there is nobody else in the picture. Whatever they may be doing, in their own view, they are the star, and they give the impression that they are bearing heroic responsibility for their family or department or company, that they have to take care of everything because their spouses or co-workers are undependable, uncooperative, or otherwise unfit. They ignore or denigrate the abilities and contributions of others and complain that they receive no help at all; they may inspire your sympathy or admiration for their stoicism in the face of hardship or unstinting self-sacrifice for the good of (undeserving) others. But this everyday grandiosity is an aspect of narcissism that you may never catch on to unless you visit the narcissist’s home or workplace and see for yourself that others are involved and are pulling their share of the load and, more often than not, are also pulling the narcissist’s share as well. An example is the older woman who told me with a sigh that she knew she hadn’t been a perfect mother but she just never had any help at all — and she said this despite knowing that I knew that she had worn out and discarded two devoted husbands and had lived in her parents’ pocket (and pocketbook) as long as they lived, quickly blowing her substantial inheritance on flaky business schemes. Another example is claiming unusual benefits or spectacular results from ordinary effort and investment, giving the impression that somehow the narcissist’s time and money are worth more than other people’s. [Here is an article about recognizing and coping with narcissism in the workplace; it is rather heavy on management jargon and psychobabble, but worth reading. "The Impact of Narcissism on Leadership and Sustainability" by Bruce Gregory, Ph.D. "When the narcissistic defense is operating in an interpersonal or group setting, the grandiose part does not show its face in public. In public it presents a front of patience, congeniality, and confident reasonableness."]

In popular usage, the terms narcissism, narcissist, and narcissistic denote absurd vanity and are applied to people whose ambitions and aspirations are much grander than their evident talents. Sometimes these terms are applied to people who are simply full of themselves — even when their real achievements are spectacular. Outstanding performers are not always modest, but they aren’t grandiose if their self-assessments are realistic; e.g., Muhammad Ali, then Cassius Clay, was notorious for boasting “I am the greatest!” and also pointing out that he was the prettiest, but he was the greatest and the prettiest for a number of years, so his self-assessments weren’t grandiose. Some narcissists are flamboyantly boastful and self-aggrandizing, but many are inconspicuous in public, saving their conceit and autocratic opinions for their nearest and dearest. Common conspicuous grandiose behaviors include expecting special treatment or admiration on the basis of claiming (a) to know important, powerful or famous people or (b) to be extraordinarily intelligent or talented. As a real-life example, I used to have a neighbor who told his wife that he was the youngest person since Sir Isaac Newton to take a doctorate at Oxford. The neighbor gave no evidence of a world-class education, so I looked up Newton and found out that Newton had completed his baccalaureate at the age of twenty-two (like most people) and spent his entire academic career at Cambridge. The grandiose claims of narcissists are superficially plausible fabrications, readily punctured by a little critical consideration. The test is performance: do they deliver the goods? (There’s also the special situation of a genius who’s also strongly narcissistic, as perhaps Frank Lloyd Wright. Just remind yourself that the odds are that you’ll meet at least 1000 narcissists for every genius you come across.) [More on grandiosity.]

2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

Translation: Narcissists cultivate solipsistic or “autistic” fantasies, which is to say that they live in their own little worlds (and react with affront when reality dares to intrude).

3. Believes he is “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

Translation: Narcissists think that everyone who is not special and superior is worthless. By definition, normal, ordinary, and average aren’t special and superior, and so, to narcissists, they are worthless.

4. Requires excessive admiration

Translation: Excessive in two ways: they want praise, compliments, deference, and expressions of envy all the time, and they want to be told that everything they do is better than what others can do. Sincerity is not an issue here; all that matter are frequency and volume.

5. Has a sense of entitlement

Translation: They expect automatic compliance with their wishes or especially favorable treatment, such as thinking that they should always be able to go first and that other people should stop whatever they’re doing to do what the narcissists want, and may react with hurt or rage when these expectations are frustrated.

6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends

Translation: Narcissists use other people to get what they want without caring about the cost to the other people.

7. Lacks empathy

Translation: They are unwilling to recognize or sympathize with other people’s feelings and needs. They “tune out” when other people want to talk about their own problems.
In clinical terms, empathy is the ability to recognize and interpret other people’s emotions. Lack of empathy may take two different directions: (a) accurate interpretation of others’ emotions with no concern for others’ distress, which is characteristic of psychopaths; and (b) the inability to recognize and accurately interpret other people’s emotions, which is the NPD style. This second form of defective empathy may (rarely) go so far as alexithymia, or no words for emotions, and is found with psychosomatic illnesses, i.e., medical conditions in which emotion is experienced somatically rather than psychically. People with personality disorders don’t have the normal body-ego identification and regard their bodies only instrumentally, i.e., as tools to use to get what they want, or, in bad states, as torture chambers that inflict on them meaningless suffering. Self-described narcissists who’ve written to me say that they are aware that their feelings are different from other people’s, mostly that they feel less, both in strength and variety (and which the narcissists interpret as evidence of their own superiority); some narcissists report “numbness” and the inability to perceive meaning in other people’s emotions.

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

Translation: No translation needed.

9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

Translation: They treat other people like dirt.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

Guillermo Grande December 5, 2012 at 6:50 am

And thus spoke Obama “Do as I say”. The Pharisees and scribes have returned.

cincycinco December 5, 2012 at 2:04 pm

“So let it be written…So let it be done.” – Ramses II, “The Ten Commandments”.

Guillermo Grande December 5, 2012 at 7:36 pm

We keep you alive to serve this ship. Row well, and live.
Ben-Hur

cincycinco December 6, 2012 at 2:41 pm

“When I’m done with these Christians, history will doubt that they ever even existed” – Nero, “Quo Vadis”.

cincycinco December 5, 2012 at 1:58 pm

“We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of the citizens of the State.

We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries.

We demand a generous development of provision for old age.

We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land.

The schools must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State. We demand the education of specially gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

The State must apply itself to raising the standard of health in the nation …

We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it. The Party … does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession.

That all the foregoing requirements may be realized we demand the creation of a strong central national authority; unconditional authority of the central legislative body …”

Sound familiar? Sound like anything you may have heard in the last four years? Democrat National Convention platform? Washington, 2013?

No, Munich, 1920. NSDAP platform.
http://rexcurry.net/swastikaplanks.html

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” – George Santayana

Unfortunately, those of us who DO remember history will be forced to repeat it with them…