Why is Trump, and not Obama, the so-called 'dictator'?
President Trump has been turned down by Democrats for a sensible border barrier, so he will declare a national emergency in accordance with a law Congress passed in 1976.
Somehow, following a law Congress passed gets Trump labeled as a dictator.
Here is the case for declaring a national emergency:
Tens of thousands of people die each year from drug overdoses and a huge percentage of those drugs comes across the porous southern border illegally. Here is one story, headlined: "Deadly blue 'Mexican oxy' pills take toll on US Southwest":
Aaron Francisco Chavez swallowed at least one of the sky blue pills at a Halloween party before falling asleep forever. He became yet another victim killed by a flood of illicit fentanyl smuggled from Mexico by the Sinaloa cartel into the Southwest — a profitable new business for the drug gang that has made the synthetic opioid responsible for the most fatal overdoses in the U.S."It's the worst I've seen in 30 years, this toll that it's taken on families," said Doug Coleman, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration special agent in charge of Arizona. "The crack (cocaine) crisis was not as bad.The fentanyl that killed Chavez was among 1,000 pills sneaked across the border crossing last year in Nogales, Arizona by a woman who was paid $200 to tote them and gave two to Chavez at the party, according to court documents.
Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, including gang members and other criminals, descend on our long southern border each year. They overwhelm our current ability to screen out and stop drugs, criminals and people with diseases.
President Trump tried to end DACA with an executive order since President Obama implemented that, with a new executive order and somehow complicit judges decided that only the first executive order was actually a law.
Trump then offered Democrats a more permanent solution on DACA in exchange for funding the border wall, stopping chain migration and ending the lottery system for immigrants and Democrats turned him down even though they have been in favor of those things in the past.
Trump has tried to get sanctuary cities and states to comply with immigration law and cooperate with ICE but he has been blocked by Democrats and complicit judges. Trump is essentially trying to enforce immigration laws Congress passed and is being thwarted at every turn.
Democrats have declared that illegal aliens crossing the border had to be stopped in the past, but have never followed through. Now, they are absolute obstructionists.
It certainly appears that after seeking many options, President Trump's newest tack -- to give the border guards and Homeland Security what they say they need to enforce the law and protect the citizens of the United States -- is a reasonable solution to invoke for the national emergency in compliance with the 1976 law.
Trump is being transparent in what he is planning to do and where the money is coming from and yet he is being labeled a dictator.
Trump will be sued to block the national emergency and some complicit judges will go along even though he is following the law. If Trump loses and we don’t get more protection at the border, Democrats will cheer and never Trumpers will say he didn’t keep his promise. If the American people are very unfortunate we will get a Democrat president in 2020, and we will end up with more drugs, more illegal immigration, more people dependent on government handouts and a march towards socialism. Heaven help us.
Now let’s contrast what President Trump is doing in compliance with laws that Congress wrote, and with what Obama did while he was in office when he was supported by almost all journalists and other Democrats.
President Obama repeatedly said that the Constitution didn't allow him to unilaterally change immigration laws but he did it anyway with his executive order on DACA. Democrats not only didn't care that he went around Congress and acted as a dictator, they supported the move.
Obama and the complicit Justice department decided that they weren’t going to enforce immigration laws and instead supported sanctuary cities and states as they defied the laws.
While the Obama administration supported cities and states that openly defied the federal law they were sworn to defend, they showed how insincere they were when they went after Arizona for wanting to enforce those same laws. Remember this headline? "Obama administration sues Arizona over immigration law."
The Obama administration on Tuesday sued Arizona over the state’s strict new immigration law, attempting to wrestle back control over the issue but infuriating Republicans who said the border required more security.
When Obamacare came up short of funds, President Obama didn’t go to Congress or declare an emergency. He just illegally diverted the money and Democratic congressional leaders at the time, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, and others, didn’t sue or care. Here's how the headlines went at the time, and this is a non-conservative news source: "Government Illegally Diverts Billions to Obamacare Reinsurance Slush Fund."
For 2015 Obamacare reinsurance, the administration will pay out $6 billion raised from a fee on private health insurance and an additional $1.7 billion that under federal law belongs to the Treasury department. Indeed, the decision by the Obama administration directly violates section 1341 of Obamacare which explicitly states “money shall be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury of the United States and may not be used for the [reinsurance] program.
After Obama was chastised for illegally diverting funds, that didn’t stop him. He just stole again from low-income housing. Again, Pelosi, Schumer and others didn’t care.
Remember this story?
Federal court litigation provides evidence the Obama administration illegally diverted taxpayer funds that had not been appropriated by Congress in an unconstitutional scheme to keep Obamacare from imploding.In 2016, a U.S. District judge caught the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department acting unconstitutionally and therefore put an end to the illegal diversion of taxpayer funds, but the Obama administration didn’t stop there.The Obama administration instead turned to the nation’s two government-sponsored mortgage giants – the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac” – to invent a new diversion of funds in a desperate attempt to keep Obamacare from collapsing.“Paying out Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” Judge Collyer concluded. “Congress authorized reduced cost sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget or since.”“Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”
It is dangerous to our freedom and prosperity when most journalists, instead of holding all powerful politicians to account, support one party no matter what they say or do and seek to destroy the other party with misleading and inaccurate articles. It degrades journalism to indoctrinate the public with misleading and false stories disguised as news. Well, here we are again, they are doing it again now, and not even a true matter of national security is stopping them.
IS BETOMATIC A CLONE OF BANKSTER-OWNED BARACK OBAMA, THE
LA RAZA SUPREMACIST WHO SURRENDERED OUR BORDERS FOR 8
YEARS AS HE AND HOLDER SERVICED THEIR CRONY CRIMINAL
BANKSTERS.
“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes. This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” – Karen McQuillan AMERICAN THINKER.com
OBAMANOMICS:
Further, nearly 60% think that the next generation will be worse off than they are. And few have any faith that the economic outlook for the country will improve in the near or distant future.
There are many parallels between “Betomania” and “Obamamania,” and O’Rourke has been called the “white Obama.”
He is married to the daughter of a billionaire, so if nominated, Democrats would have a hard time attacking Republicans for supporting a billionaire president without being accused of hypocrisy.
He also questioned whether the Constitution was still relevant, which makes one wonder how seriously he would take the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” should he be sworn in as president.
WORDS OF A PSYCHOPATH
"In his 2006 autobiography The Audacity of Hope, then-Senator Obama wrote, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” That is why Obama won the presidency, and should O’Rourke win too, that is why he will have won"
CRONY CAPITALISM
Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US
history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.
OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went to
the top 1% of the world’s wealthy.
PATHOLOGICAL LIAR BARACK OBAMA MOCKS TRUMP
Obama orchestrated the greatest transfer of wealth to the rich in U.S. history!
THE WALL STREET BOUGHT AND OWNED DEMOCRAT PARTY
SERVING BANKSTERS, BILLIONAIRES and INVADING ILLEGALS
THE CRONY CLASS:
Income inequality grows FOUR TIMES FASTER under Obama than Bush.
“By the time of Bill Clinton’s election in 1992, the Democratic Party had completely repudiated its association with the reforms of the New Deal and Great Society periods. Clinton gutted welfare programs to provide an ample supply of cheap labor for the rich (WHICH NOW MEANS OPEN BORDERS AND NO E-VERIFY!), including a growing layer of black capitalists, and passed the 1994 Federal Crime Bill, with its notorious “three strikes” provision that has helped create the largest prison population in the world.”
INCOME PLUMMETS UNDER OBAMA AND HIS WALL STREET CRONIES (THERE'S A REASON WHY GEORGE S OROS RUNS OBAMA'S BID FOR A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE).
Beto's Chances
One purported top contender for the Democrats’ presidential nomination so far has stayed on the sidelines: former Representative Robert Francis O’Rourke of Texas, better known as “Beto” O’Rourke. A rising star in the Democratic Party, even after his unsuccessful attempt to win Ted Cruz’s Senate seat last year, he has been the subject of numerous media puff pieces, and liberals are going gaga over him the same way they did over Barack Obama in 2008.
O’Rourke is a polarizing figure. To some, he is an optimistic, clean-cut, inspirational politician at a dark and foreboding time. To others, he is a living embodiment of the “how do you do, fellow kids?” meme; a 46-year old man trying a bit too hard to seem cool and appeal to youngsters, skateboarding onto stage and live-streaming his dental appointment on Instagram.
Though they laugh and roll their eyes as him, Republicans should not underestimate O’Rourke. He is a formidable campaigner, having visited all of Texas’s 254 counties during his bid for Cruz’s Senate seat. He has a dedicated and passionate base of supporters in Texas and the rest of the country. He raised an enormous amount of money, more than any Senate candidate in history. He came close to winning a Senate race in a solid red state, losing to Cruz by a mere 3 points. And that is another reason Democrats are so excited about O’Rourke: they have their eyes on Texas.
The state is slowly turning purple, thanks to immigration and residents of California and other blue states moving there. Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by only 9 points in 2016, while George W. Bush defeated John Kerry by 23 points in 2004. Texas voted for Trump by a smaller margin than did Iowa and by only a slightly larger margin than did Ohio. Republicans can no longer take Texas for granted, and Democrats believe they can win Texas if they run the right candidate.
Another reason he could win the nomination: Democrats are nostalgic for Obama, and O’Rourke reminds them of him. There are many parallels between “Betomania” and “Obamamania,” and O’Rourke has been called the “white Obama.” O’Rourke also reminds Democrats of a Kennedy, another reason for his appeal. He even has the same first and middle names as John F. Kennedy’s younger brother, Robert F. Kennedy.
Liberals want to forget that Trump ever existed. They want it to be the Obama years forever, and they think if the right candidate is elected, the country can get back to business as usual and the enormous rifts that have been growing in our country will simply disappear. O’Rourke often laments the divided state of America and talks about how he wants to unite the country. O’Rourke and his supporters don’t realize that uniting the country is a forlorn hope. We can’t “bridge the divide” when half the country thinks MAGA hats are equivalent to KKK hoods.
Twenty years ago, O’Rourke might have been a shoe-in for the nomination. But times have changed. He is a white male in a party increasingly hostile to white males and which seeks and celebrates greater diversity in its leadership. John Kerry may be the last white male Democrats ever nominate for president.
Aside from hatred of white males, there is another reason Democrats prefer their nominee be nonwhite and/or a woman. As president, any criticism of Obama from the Right was dismissed as rooted in racism, and likewise any criticism of Clinton during her presidential bid was dismissed as rooted in misogyny. So long as Democrats run candidates not white males, they can dismiss any criticism of them as rooted in some form of bigotry.
If O’Rourke runs for president, Democrats lose this perceived opportunity. Even if he isn’t nominated for president, O’Rourke could be chosen as vice president to keep his supporters behind the ticket. In keeping with tradition, O’Rourke is an Irish Catholic -- for some reason, all recent vice-presidential nominees have been Irish Catholics: Joe Biden, Paul Ryan, Tim Kaine and Mike Pence (although Pence converted to Evangelical Christianity).
Discounting his race and gender, O’Rourke still faces obstacles to getting the Democratic nomination. He is very much an establishment Democrat in an increasingly progressive party, although he has publicly taken progressive positions, such as defending the NFL protesters and advocating for the impeachment of Trump. He is married to the daughter of a billionaire, so if nominated, Democrats would have a hard time attacking Republicans for supporting a billionaire president without being accused of hypocrisy.
Perhaps most importantly, O’Rourke has twice been arrested. In 1995, he was arrested for attempted burglary for breaking into the University of Texas at El Paso, but the charges were dropped. Three years later, he was arrested fordriving while intoxicated, after crashing into a truck and attempting to flee the scene. In an op-ed, O’Rourke acknowledged the incident, calling it a “serious mistake for which there is no excuse.” However, during a debate with Cruz, hefalsely claimed, “I did not try to leave the scene of the accident.”
But a controversial past doesn’t always rub off on a candidate. Obama associated with a communist professor who planted bombs and a pastor who said, “God damn America,” and it didn’t seem to hurt his candidacy. The Gore campaign revealed close to election day in 2000 that Bush had a DUI, yet he still won. And up until his death in 2009, Democrats still admired the “Lion of the Senate” Ted Kennedy, despite the Chappaquiddick incident.
O’Rourke has many weaknesses, and his popularity may be less than we are led to believe. Last Monday, Trump and O’Rourke held dueling rallies in El Paso.
Video screen grab via RCP
Trump’s rally was attended by more people than O’Rourke’s rally, despite El Paso being his home town. If O’Rourke can’t get more people to attend his rally than the president’s in the city where he was born and lived his whole life, is he really much of a threat to Trump? Perhaps he’ll run for John Cornyn’s Senate seat instead and lose that race as well.
There is also the question of his preparedness for the office of President of the United States. In January, O’Rourke gave a lengthy interview to the Washington Post. Aside from being totally opposed to a border wall, he had little to say on the issues aside from “I don’t know” and “I don’t necessarily understand.” He also questioned whether the Constitution was still relevant, which makes one wonder how seriously he would take the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” should he be sworn in as president.
Last month, a website called draftbeto.org, which wants to do just that, released a short video in support of a Beto candidacy.
Much like O’Rourke himself, the video is full of meaningless platitudes and contains no concrete policy proposals.
But what if that’s what the American people want? What if voters don’t want someone with concrete policy proposals, but someone who makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Did Obama win because of the issues, or because he promised Americans “hope and change?” Did Trump win because of the issues, or because he promised to “make America great again?” Elections have been decided by whichever side can best sell their candidate since at least the “Tippecanoe and Tyler too” campaign in 1840.
O’Rourke is an empty suit that parrots liberal talking points, and supporters project their views onto him. He is popular because of this, not in spite of it. In his 2006 autobiography The Audacity of Hope, then-Senator Obama wrote, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” That is why Obama won the presidency, and should O’Rourke win too, that is why he will have won.
Thomas O’Malley can be contacted at thomasomalley861@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment