Time to Pivot Away from the Economy Again

Win or lose on the vote to attack Syria, Obama's going to be needing yet another blank check from the American people during the upcoming Sept and Oct showdowns for reauthorization of the gravy train that keeps Obama's fundamental transformation of America going.  The debt will hit the current ceiling of $17T in Oct, but that will no doubt take a back seat to our new war.  Keep in mind the debt (not counting the other $70T we've already pledged in the form of social security, Medicaid/Medicare, etc.) is more than 4 times the approx. $3.5T the government spends in total each year.  Imagine if your credit card were 4x what you spent last year, more like 6x what you earn in a year (based on revenues, not GDP), and you had an additional mortgage for about 25 times your salary.  Reckless government spending was a big deal when Bush was President and it should be a big deal now, too!

About six weeks ago, right after his $100-million dollar visit to Africa, where he pledged $7B in aid for green energy initiatives (which is coincidentally the amount we can't afford for a double-layer fence along our Southern border, based on an average cost of $4M per mile), the President gave a big speech about how he wanted to take the spotlight off the "phoney" IRS and NSA scandals plaguing the White House and instead focus again on the economy.  The push more-or-less fizzled out during his family's annual vacation to Martha's Vineyard.  Now, it's clear the economy will have to wait once more.  And I'll bet that once Syria is decided, they'll want to figure out immigration next.  So, clearly, another couple years of limitless spending seems the most likely result.

The Obama admin's new refrain is that they won't accept any more debt ceiling fights.  Afterall, Congress approved the spending, it's up to them to pay the bills.  See, the new entitlement costs of Obamacare, the endless increases in food stamps and other handouts, and whatever it would cost America to absorb tens of millions of illegal immigrants into this welfare state - none of that is Obama's fault - it's Congress's fault for being stupid enough to go along.  The debt accrued by the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War were Bush's fault - but the debt accrued by Obama is Congress's fault.  This could have some bearing on why Obama suddenly wanted Congress's authorization before kicking off a new war.

Green Shoots of a Constitution Comeback

Obama's aboutface yesterday on seeking Congressional approval for an attack on Syria was a victory for the Constitution.  Never mind for a moment Obama's anti-Constitutional caveat that he might attack even if they say no.

One poll shows that America is pretty evenly divided on whether we should take military action against Syria (42% yes vs 50% no), but are overwhelmingly (80%) in support of Congress making that decision rather than our authoritarian President.  (The notion that Obama would attack despite a Congressional no vote is outrageous.)  This poll gives me hope that Americans across the political spectrum at the very least agree that our government should act within the confines of our Constitution, even in times of a popular President and a very unpopular Congress.  As examples of extra-Constitutional power grabs by previous administrations, this administration, and future administrations pile up, I hope more and more people will gradually come to the conclusion that order needs to be restored - I highly recommend Mark Levin's new book detailing how the Constitution provides for its framework to one day be reaffirmed:  The Libery Amendments.  Like Obama, Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar, but he looks for ways to restore our liberties that are enshrined in it rather than ways to sidestep checks and balances to the various branches and effect "fundamental transformation".

The only reason the Constitutional limits of the President's power with regards to military action on other countries are controversial and ambiguous today is not that the Constitution is unclear, but that legal precedents over time have eroded how the Constitution is interpreted.  The Constitution basically says that only Congress has the power to declare war and then it's the President's job to orchestrate it.  The President is only authorized without Congressional approval when national security is at stake.  It is obvious that the Founders intended for Congress to decide matters of war except in situations where America was under attack and waiting for Congress to decide would put the nation or our national interests in danger.  That includes situations where our allies are under attack.  To see a time when Obama failed in his role as President, just look at Benghazi.  In that situation, our sovereignty was literally attacked when our consulate was stormed and our ambassador was killed.  The lack of any military response to defend against the attack or retaliate against the perpetrators is hard to reconcile.

Instead, you'll hear the official interpretation of Obama's authority as basically being whatever he wants to do for 60 days plus another 30 days to pull out.  Well, you know what gives him that authority?  It's not the Constitution - it's the War Powers Resolution of 1973!  Just because a law has 40 years of legal precedence does not make it Constitutional.  You frequently hear about how the Bill of Rights is under attack - same thing.   Anyway, these same people will say that raining cruise missiles on Syria is not a declaration of war even though it's abundantly clear that if anyone rained cruise missiles on us, it most certainly would be.

And through all this, during this sideshow, Obama continues to unilaterally dictate fundamental policy. He just released a new executive order giving legal amnesty to the parents, or primary caregivers, of U.S. citizen children, e.g. anchor babies.  I'm sure the burden of proof is on us to prove that someone claiming to be a "caregiver" isn't.  Talk about a loophole.  I don't see why "undocumented" nannies who are caregivers for the kids of US citizens wouldn't apply, too.  The Constitution does not give him the power to unilaterally define and preferentially enforce laws!  Obama flaunts the authoritarian powers he has assumed, Congress and the judiciary stand idly by, and the people who re-elected him apparently are onboard - for now.  I think a big reason is because the "reputable" mainstream media is, too.  If an intellectual on NPR with a British accent says it's the right thing to do, then it's more or less accepted as fact.  You've gotta read the Liberty Amendments.  Don't worry, it doesn't make you a Tea Party extremist - after all, it's #1 among Non-Fiction books on the New York Time's Bestsellers list.

Syria - What's In It for US?

"Hey guys - we're the US government and we're here to help."  Yeah, right!  As if the Syrians will have a warm place in their heart for America now or ever.  So it's not friends we're trying to make - I think it's fair to say that the Syrian rebels (that include factions of Al Qaeda, by the way) would just as soon saw off our heads after Obama's surgical strikes as now.  This time we have no coalition or U.N. resolution.  Russia and China say don't go - so we're just going to piss them off.  I heard today there's a big pipeline in the works between Europe and Asia that goes through Syria, so those guys may have a bunch of money at stake.  Syria and Iran say they'll rain missiles down on Israel if we attack, so it potentially endangers Israel.  Plus, who knows what attacks Islamists will launch in the West or in the U.S. in retaliation?  So what exactly is the upside?!  I just don't see one unless this is really all about justice for people senselessly slaughtered in the Middle East - hardly a rare occurrence.  I guess there's one other upside:  Obama can save some face and be tough about a "Red Line" he declared a year ago.  Either way, it seems like a risky mission and I think they should strip Obama of his Nobel Peace Prize the way they decrown Miss America when she gets caught smoking pot or committing some other lapse of judgment.

Personally, I think we should be bringing our military home rather than getting involved in anything.  I think Obama may have even campaigned on that.  But as long as we're playing World Cop, let's choose our side a little better.  So far, we're 0 for 5 as far as I can tell.  In Libya, Egypt I, and Syria, we backed radical Islamists, e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood or even Al Qaeda, believe it or not.  But when secular-seeming protesters fought against their regime in Iran and Egypt II, our position was to stay out of it.  In the case of Syria, there is no good side and we have nothing to gain by being involved.

The only inspirational thing in this debacle I saw was how Parliament in Britain got together, debated the issue, and voted to sit this one out.  How civilized of their prime minister to appeal to their Parliament before committing their nation to an act of war!  I mean, it's not like this is an emergency where the sovereignty of the British or the U.S. was directly attacked or anything.  Imagine Obama getting this mad when a bunch of Islamic extremists attacked our consulate in Benghazi and murdered our ambassador!  That at least would have made some sense.

So let's hope we don't needlessly spark anything bigger than it already is and thank you Ted Cruz for the wonderful tweet yesterday (below).  He's one of us!

Phoney: Hope and Change

I guess the big ears should have been the first clue that something was wrong in 2008.  It's remarkable to consider the other similarities between Bush and Obama:

- Both are responsible for doubling the national debt.  For Bush, it went from roughly $4T to $9T.  Now at $17T, it's pretty obvious that we'll hit $18T.  That means that each accumulated more debt than all of the presidents before him combined.

- Both massively grew the government and entitlements.  Bush established the Homeland Security Dept and expanded Medicare.  Obamacare is just one example of Obama's expansion - a new entitlement program destined to collapse just as sure as our existing entitlement programs, not to mention all the new agencies and regulations to implement it.

- Both are absolute disasters when it comes to the economy.  Bush popped the mortgage bubble and Obama has nothing to show for the trillions in stimulus money he's squandered on his green energy and union cronies.  It's true Obama has recovered some of the jobs that were lost in the Great Recession, but I read recently that for every 8 jobs created under Obama in 2013, 7 of them are part time!!

- And now we see that Obama's every bit as willing as Bush to pull us into new conflicts in the Middle East.  Except unlike Bush, he doesn't bother to seek Congressional approval.

The only difference between Bush and Obama is the liberal media treatment of the two and it's incredible how liberals don't seem to mind the hypocrisy.  In fact, just yesterday, I was hearing all about the justification for Obama to attack Syria.  Suddenly it's controversial where I live to oppose getting involved in a new war in the Middle East!  Look at these next two cartoons - what happened to Hope and Change?  Who knew in 2008 that change would mean doubling down?  In Bush's second term, we had a lame duck President.  In Obama's second term, we have a lame duck Constitution.

There are so many similarities in the outcomes with Democrats vs establishment Republicans in power.  The only politicians interested in unraveling the mess we're in are the Conservative Tea Party Republicans - that's why they're vilified.  If you think they're extremists on the fringe, then you've fallen for the liberal media narrative.  Was there anything extreme or right-wing about the American Revolution or the Constitution when you learned about them in school?  As far as I can tell, Tea Party Conservatives have two unifying aims: 1) Balance the Budget and 2) Restore the Constitution, which our government is completely unmoored from.  We agree on social issues, too - they should be left to the states.