April 18, 2011
Losing the legitimacy to govern
Tony Gallardo

A few weeks ago, we were awash with the Obama administration and his acolytes in the media bleating about the legitimacy to govern, as in "Mubarak/Gaddafi has lost his legitimacy to govern," or "He has lost legitimacy with the people." We were then told that these men had to step down or be forced out of power. Lefties lectured us that this loss of legitimacy was justification for bombing the smithereens out of Libya.

"He has lost his legitimacy to govern." That's a catchy phrase, don't you think? It has a nice ring to it.

Suppose someone closer to home has lost his legitimacy; I am thinking of you-know-who, the current occupant of the White House. It's true that he hasn't bombed or strafed us or anything, but isn't there another standard we could use to determine this legitimacy thing?

Consider that he has broken not a few, nor even most of his campaign promises, but every single one. Employment and underemployment, health insurance premiums, and gasoline prices are higher, more people are uninsured, the debt and deficits are higher, we are now in three, not two, or zero wars, Guantanamo Bay is open, not closed, we are trying terrorists in military tribunals, not Manhattan, Americans are more, not less divided, there is less, not more transparency in Obamaland, and on and on it goes.

Listening to his speeches...er...teleprompter readings as I did on Wednesday causes my brain to ache. He is for and against everything simultaneously. He says the government should live within its means and proposes more spending, he lauds the Republicans for putting forth a budget which he himself has repeatedly failed to do and then says the Republican plan will cause people to die and 50 million to be without insurance. He wants a strong economy and proposes tax increases.

There is a word that comes to mind with this kind of thinking, if indeed we can call it thinking; loopy.

Even the oceans have dissed him by refusing to lower their levels as he commanded. The Japanese can attest to that.

Now, about this legitimacy thing; I am not proposing that we sic the U.N. or NATO or the French on him or anything. But can we not now at least admit that as president, he is an abject failure and has lost all legitimacy?



Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com...gitimacy_to_gover.html at April 18, 2011 - 08:07:08 AM CDT

There are a lot of smart people out there on the internets.
why post such drivel as is found in "the american thinker"

or do you realy think that was brilliant?

Tahoe has lost the legitimacy to post.


-------------------------
That boy's got somethin' wrong with his medulla oblongata.

I admit that he is an abject failure. See, that wasn't hard.

 

-------------------------

Brujo, gdudewe, martinA and WG - the white Al Sharptons of NSR.

April 18, 2011

Obama Ignores Spending Bill's "Czar" Ban

President Obama "is planning to ignore language in the 2011 spending package that would ban several top White House advisory posts," signing a statement in which he says has no obligation to comply, Politico reports.

"The anti-czar language in the spending bill marked a victory for Republicans and conservative pundits, who accused the administration of giving unelected bureaucrats too much power within the White House. But the language didn't appear to have any immediate impact on Obama's staff. Energy and climate adviser Carol Browner resigned earlier this year; health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle was promoted to deputy White House chief of staff; Obama's urban affairs adviser, Adolfo Carrión, left the White House to become a regional director for the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and the White House said auto and manufacturing adviser Ron Bloom wouldn't be affected by the language."

http://politicalwire.com/archi...ng_bills_czar_ban.html

You guys (Streets and Pap) have me confused.  Seriously.

So, if Obama made a bunch of promises to liberals that he would be the opposite of Bush, and then got elected, but is now going back on all those promises.....

that bothers you?

I can't imagine, seriously, why Republicans are so upset with Obama.

Is it because he continued the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, kept the bush tax cuts, extended No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act, and agreed to funding cuts?

Just what is it that you guys want?  I bet you have no clue.

You know what your biggest problem is?  You'll never be satisfied with anything.  You guys were up in arms about liberals when Bush was in power and had the entire Congress in his majority, passing every spending bill in sight.  You called the left communists and traitors for questioning all that spending (and that includes you, TPap...don't bullshit us and say you complained about all that spending.  And Fish, you were pulling out Bible quotes left and right to justify all that bombing and invading.  Don't try to have us believe it wasn't a religious crusade as far as you're concerned).

You called us traitors because we insisted, correctly, that Iraq was based on a complete and total lie.  You believed that no expense was too great when it came to "fighting for freedom" in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and Afghanistan had very little to do with it (try Saudi Arabia).

To this day you will cross your arms, shake your heads back and forth, and stomp your feet while shouting "NO" when someone suggests that a half a TRILLION dollars PER YEAR of military spending (on war...I'm not counting domestically) had nothing to do with the national debt crisis.

The fact is that there is no possible system that will satisfy you outside of complete and total fascism.  You guys are always on the wrong side of history.  Heck, even when the Democratic Party was full of racists, and changed, you guys jumped ship and went Republican (1964--Civil Rights Act).

The Republican Party isn't the Party of no or Hell-no.

It's simply the party of anger.

You were on the wrong side of history about 9-11 (Bush was warned specifically and let it happen....but Rove convinced America that it was Clinton's fault, even though he hadn't been president in almost a year).

You were on the wrong side of history about Afghanistan (the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and trained in FLORIDA, yet because their bearded hero was in a cave in Afghanistan, that's all you needed).

You were on the wrong side of history about Iraq, and at this point your only words should be, "Damn, we were completely wrong on that."

You were wrong about the Bush tax cuts.  Ten years now.  Ten years.  It didn't work.  There was no "trickle down" and trickle-down economics are a proven failure.  You won't admit it.  To this day you still say, "the rich provide the jobs," when that's complete and total crap.  The small businesses of America (think DaKine Diegos) provide most of the jobs, and their owners are rarely rich.

You were wrong about No Child Left Behind, and it's miserable standard that 100% of all third grade students would be at or above average in standardized test scores when statistically that's impossible.  You can't have more than half of the kids above average.

You were wrong about the Patriot Act.  The Fourth Amendment wasn't just put in place as a suggestion.  It was meant to be followed.

Again, the Republican Party isn't the Party of No or Hell-no.

It's the party of Mean.

The party of Anger.

The party of Fear.

But never....EVER...the party of Hope.

The only difference between today's Republican Party and Hitler's Nazi Party is that this time Jews are invited to join.

Get over yourselves. 

Stop fucking up society and do something positive for once to help others and your country.

 

Or at least be honest and build a huge monument in DC honoring Benedict Arnold, Alexander Hamilton and Joseph McCarthy.

-------------------------

Bulgarian women are the best!

Edited: 04/18/2011 at 08:48 PM by SeniorVerdades