Tag Archives: Politics

Mr. Obama, the Democrats, and a painful lesson


Since the beginning of September, we have all been bombarded by the “news” coming out of Washington about how the Republicans in the House of Representatives are blocking the government’s abilities to pay its financial obligations.  The Democratic Party, with the assistance of the left-leaning media, began to lament that it was the extreme right of the Republicans in the House, those Tea Party Conservatives, that were ecstatic for a federal government shutdown.  Since those early days in September, we have heard stories about Social Security benefits, Veterans’ health care and benefits, and everything else being held up because of the extreme right that simply will not compromise with the President.

Just in the last two weeks, the stories included national monuments and parks being closed – and its now taking more federal manpower to keep them closed and unwanted American trespassers out than it did to just keep them open. We have heard about World War II veterans being faced with arrest when they attempted to visit an outdoor open air memorial that was dedicated to their service at a time when our nation asked them to exchange the carefree days of young adulthood for the horrors of war.  We have heard stories of Medicare and Medicaid payments being delayed to health care providers, and in some cases, these providers are owed hundreds of thousands of dollars by a system that constantly does not make its payments on time.  And while all this drama is unfolding on the national stage, President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that there will be no compromise on the nation’s fiscal crisis.  Since this moment, the mainstream media has tried to portray the Republicans within the House of Representatives, under the leadership of Speaker John Boehner, as being extremist, obstructionist, and blocking the will of the people, and even has gone so far to demonize Republicans by calling them terrorists, blackmailers, hostage takers, and so on.

If the truth is told, Mr. Boehner has just as much right to be obstructionist as Mr. Obama and the Democrats have a right to pursue their party’s agenda.  Yes, Mr. Obama was correct in ;ate 2009 when he predicted further Republican losses because of their lack of support for the Affordable Care Act.  After passing the legislation without any bipartisan support, Mr. Obama stated that elections have consequences.  No, he was not correct, the Republicans did not lose representation, but gained control of the House and made some minor gains in the Senate.  The mid-term election of 2010 did have consequences – America rewarded the Democrat Party for their blatant game of partisan politics by giving control of the House to the Republicans; the bulk of those new Republicans identifiable by their Tea Party or Conservative positions.  It was the first signal to the White House and Democrats that moving forward, a general consensus acceptable to both parties would have to be met to get additional legislation through.

 Now brings us to the current crisis.  Mr. Obama is demanding that not only the Affordable Care Act be fully funded, in spite of its obvious shortcomings, but that the debt ceiling be suspended indefinitely. According to the Obama Administration, this is the only reasonable course of action for the nation.  Even the mainstream media has reported that the Republicans in the House are willing to compromise, providing that the administration delay the implementation of the individual mandate until next October – the exact same delay that has been given to employers.  Since the passage of this hallmark legislation, the administration has given exemptions and extensions to political allies and supporters while demanding the American public comply with the full provisions of the law.  In reality, the executive branch has no such authority to pick and choose which people can be given an exemption – the law must be equally enforced.  This is not the first law enacted that the Obama administration has either ignored or interpreted powers for itself that never existed.

48 Days Personality Profiles

Boehner and the Republicans in the House of Representatives do have the legitimate right to refuse the president’s demands and agenda.  According to Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, the legislative branch is divided into two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Yes, although rudimentary political factions did exist during the days that the drafting of  the Constitution did happen, there is no mention of party or party affiliation within the document.  This was intentionally done to prevent the emergence of factions that had occurred within Parliament and as a means to protect the concept of the democratic-republic. No president is entitled to enact their agenda just because their party is the dominant party and in control of the presidency and Congress.  It is not a “simple majority rules” construct and is designed to assure that the rights of the minority are also protected.

Continued on next page.

Mr. Obama, an unwilling public, and American history

obama-01For the last few weeks, since the chemical weapons attack in Syria, worldwide attention is now being paid to the developing situation.  Earlier last week, Mr. Obama’s planned coalition of nations he had hoped would back American efforts to contain the Assad regime has slowly began to crumble one nation at a time.  First, the British Parliament, on August 29th, 2013, made a historic vote that Great Britain has only had happen one other time and in 1956 – Parliament has rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s push for military action in Syria.  Since then, it has become clear to the world that Germany, Italy, and other European Union and NATO member nations will also not support action in Syria.  According to Reuters, it now appears that France’s National Assembly quite possibly follow the example of the British Parliament.

Facing a difficult sell to both Democrats and Republicans within our own Congress, it appears that there is sufficient opposition to military intervention in Syria coming from both parties within the House of Representatives to prevent the passage of any bill designed to authorize the use of military force.  Even if enough support was farmed out of the Senate, without the concurrence of the House,  it would be unconstitutional for the president to conduct military action without the approval of both chambers.  On Friday afternoon, there was even discussion and doubt that there would be 60 senators that would vote to authorize the use of military force.  As I have been listening to the various talking heads, students and faculty members on campus, and in discussions with neighbors, there are several consistent reasons why military action in Syria does not have the support that the American public gave for the post-September 11, 2001 invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.

(1689 – 1755)

If there is any time that Montesquieu is appropriate, it is at this time where we face a serious decision about what our role in Syria should be.  Over the last six weeks, and before this latest chemical weapons attack, the world has witnessed the use of poisoned gas that have been deployed in smaller scale attacks.  Personally, given the amount of evidence this latest attack was by rebel forces, I believe it is safe to say that both sides – the governmental forces under Assad and the rebel forces – have used these weapons of mass destruction.  I believe that most Americans probably have similar feelings about who should be held ultimately responsible and accountable for the use of these horrendous weapons. I also believe it has many Americans asking themselves that if the government forces of Assad and/or the rebel forces would be willing to use this kind of weapon on their own countrymen, what is to prevent them from using the same weapons against U.S. forces in the region?

Americans are also war weary.  Since 2001, the nation has been fighting the forces of Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Bush did have the consent of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, both House and Senate for military actions and operations in both regions.  Mr. Bush further complied with the War Powers Act of 1973, a law that has been widely debated by both legal and constitutional scholars as to if it is actually constitutional.  Within the last few years, we have seen Mr. Obama ignore Congress and the requirements of the War Powers Act through a sustained air and cruise missile campaign in Libya.  It was well known even at that time that the American public was unwilling to support even a limited military campaign against any foreign power where a direct threat to the United States is not clearly visible.  With the current situation in Syria most Americans do see a human tragedy in the making, but it does not warrant the American public to see that tragedy as a direct threat to the United States.

Americans are hearing the same promises made about Syrian intervention as it has heard about other interventions that grew beyond a limited military action. Americans also were told that collateral damage would be avoided as much as possible to avoid civilian casualties.  Although these are noble gestures, and lofty goals, there has never been a war in the history of the world that did not have some form of collateral damage.  In a war between two nations or even two factions within a single nation, there will be collateral damage.  There will be the death and destruction of innocents.  General William Tecumseh Sherman (U.S.A.) said during the twilight of the Civil War that “war is hell.” It does not matter how many precision guided bombs you use, how many smart rockets you launch, there will always be collateral damage.  There is always a possibility of escalation and broadening of the limited military action into a wider conflict. Limited military actions and conditional wars are never victories but almost always met with either nothing really being permanently changed or a worsening situation.  The American public has learned this lesson all too well:  The Philippine War, the Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the deteriorating situation in Iraq.

Continued on second page.