Thursday, October 18, 2012

Is Obama To Blame ?

Today's post is one that I've been thinking about and "Ruminating" on, as my buddy Dale likes to say, for quite some time. Since early voting has started, I decided it's time to stop rolling it around in my head and "get it on the record." It's gonna be one of those that some people like and one that really pisses some off. However, the purpose of it is not for anyone to like it or hate it. It's purpose is to get people thinking. It will also be my last one involving politics for a while.

With 2012 being a presidential election year, people are once again clamoring that "it is the most important election in the country's history." Is it ? We hear the same thing every four years, and we could argue until we are blue in the face whether or not it's true. For the last four years, we've heard Obama blame all the country's ills on former President Bush. We heard the Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives blame everything on the Republicans. We've then heard the Republicans turn around and blame it all on the Democrats. It's been politics at its finest, or its worst, depending on how you want to look at it and which side of the aisle you're on. The question is, though, whose fault is it ... really ? I'm gonna give my opinion on that question below.

Official photographic portrait of US President...
Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Folks who have been reading my blog for a while know that I have never been a fan of Mr. Obama. Many of my past posts make that perfectly clear. I didn't vote for him four years ago and won't this go around, either. Since he supports higher taxes, bigger government, socialized medicine, more gun control, and wants more control over Americans every day lives, I suspect that the only thing he and I would agree on is the fact that both of us like sports.

Furthermore, in prior posts, I've also made it clear that I'm no fan of Mitt Romney, either. In many ways he is a big government Liberal / Progressive just like Obama. Additionally, he has a habit of flip-flopping on issues. In fact, he flip-flopped on each of the following issues just before or right around the time he got presidential aspirations. They include :
  • gun control - Romney went from anti-gun to pro-gun. As Massachusetts governor, he signed into law some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, including a permanent "assault weapons" ban.
  • abortion - Romney went from pro-choice to pro-life.
  • taxes - as Massachusetts governor he signed into law one tax increase after another. Now, while running for president, he wants lower taxes.
My opinion is that Romney "formally" changed his position on these issues just to get elected president but actually still holds his original position. He knew that no anti-gun, pro-abortion, tax-loving Republican would ever win the presidency.

Additionally, while Massachusetts governor, Romney initiated, supported, and signed into law the state's version of ObamaCare. In fact, ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare. Romney has stated, while campaigning for president, that he oppposes, and would work to repeal, ObamaCare, but yet he stands by the Massachusetts version of it. His reasoning is that socialized medicine is o.k. on the state level but not on the federal. Say what ?

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts,...
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, 2008 US presidential candidate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I suspect that many don't know that recently, on "Meet the Press," Romney announced that he is flip-flopping on another issue, too. According to a report in NewsMax magazine titled "Romney : I'll Keep Parts of ObamaCare", he now says that after originally promising to repeal all of ObamaCare, he now only wants to repeal part of it. He wants to keep the parts protecting people with pre-existing conditions and allowing kids to stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26. Now, I support preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. However, I do not support letting "kids" stay on their parents insurance until they're 26. They should get off their butts, go get a job or open a business, and get their own insurance. Stop living on mom and dad's dime. You're 26 for crying out loud ! Once again, Romney has flip-flopped on an issue. With all his flip-flopping, I don't think the dude can be trusted to keep his word.

As for the blame game that's been going around - Obama at Bush, Congressional Democrats at Congressional Republicans and vice versa - it's time for it to stop. In my opinion, there is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, Bush should get some of it as his administration was the bailout "initiator." The blame for the housing meltdown and current recession can be laid on Bush, Obama, and presidents going all the way back to Jimmy Carter and their applicable Congresses **. During Carter's administration, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed into law, and signed by Carter, forcing banks to give home loans to people with poor credit. No Congress or presidential administration afterwards made an effort to stop this government overreach. Therefore, they are all responsible for millions of Americans currently being out of work and losing their homes and businesses. Yes, all of them. The Community Reinvestment Act should never have became law. Never.

** During the rest of this article, any time you see the term "Congress," I am referring to the entire U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, all 535 members, combined.

As for Obama, let's take a quick look at some of his first term "accomplishments." They include :
  • ObamaCare is now the law of the land.
  • His administration has refused to allow the expansion of domestic oil drilling, contributing to higher gas prices.
  • The Patriot Act has been re-authorized, and even expanded infringing on Americans privacy even more.
  • He has hired 30+ czars to help implement his agenda.
  • The federal debt is now over $16 Trillion.
  • He has appointed two ultra-Liberal Supreme Court Justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Now, back to my original question and title of this blog post. Is Obama to blame for the mess the country is in ? The answer is ... no, not entirely. He is to blame for some of it but not all of it. Before you say, "Sheepdog, you're off your rocker again." Allow me to explain my reasoning below. Also, please know that I don't say this in order to support Obama in any way. I just want to make the point that the blame is not 100% his.

The country's founders set up our system of governance with a Constitutional implemented system of checks and balances. Each branch (executive, legislative, and judicial) of the federal government is set up to keep the others in check, so that none of them become too powerful and get out of control. Each branch is specifically delegated certain roles and powers that MUST be followed. The problem is that the three branches aren't following their Constitutional duties anymore, and the biggest culprit is Congress.

Yes, you heard me. Most of the blame for the country's problems can be placed on Congress. For instance, think about Obama's "accomplishments" above and consider that :
  • Congress could have shot down ObamaCare. 
  • Congress could have pushed domestic oil-drilling forward, whether Obama wanted it or not.
  • Congress could have killed The Patriot Act and its overreach into Americans' privacy.
  • Congress could have said, "No czars." 
  • Congress could have cut spending, but they've even refused to pass a budget for the last several years.
  • Lastly, Congress could have voted down Kagan and Sotomayor, but chose not to. In fact, Sen. Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, defended his vote to confirm Sotomayor by saying, "Elections have consequences." In other words, Obama won, so he can do what he wants. Do what ? He needs to go if he's not gonna do his constitutional mandated job. He's a joke.
Additionally, part of the blame for ObamaCare can be placed on The Supreme Court, also. They had an opportunity to shoot down the biggest unconstitutional power grab in the country's history and chose not to.

By now, somebody's probably thinking, "Hey Sheepdog, what about all of Obama's executive orders ? Those are on him." Ummm - not completely. There is no explicit constitutional provision that grants the president the authority to issue executive orders. There is only a brief open-ended phrase about "executive power" which Congress and The Supreme Court have allowed presidents to expand and abuse for years. What many don't know is that presidential executive orders can be squashed or overridden. Congress can pass a law to override an executive order and / or the courts can strike one down if they feel it is an overreach. In fact, both President Truman and Clinton had executive orders struck down. Therefore, Congress and the courts could keep Obama's executive orders in check, but they have chosen not to. As with everything else mentioned above, at least part of the blame for Obama's abuse of executive orders is on the legislative and judicial branches for not doing their jobs. They should have smacked his hand a long time ago.

In summary, here is where I'm going with all this. I'm not trying to tell anyone who to vote for as far as the presidency goes. Each of us has to do what he or she thinks is right. As for me, I won't support Obama and will have a hard time pushing the button by Romney's name. I'm considering going the Independent route for president for the first time ever. However, I'm still undecided.

English: President Barack Obama speaks to a jo...
English: President Barack Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The point I really want to make is that Congress is not performing their constitutional mandated duties, and that's the reason Obama and others have been out of control. Congress is too busy collecting their fat salaries, enjoying their nice benefits, playing the blame game, and trying to figure out how to get re-elected instead of doing the job they were elected to do. Usually, when someone doesn't do the job they are paid to do, they get fired. It's time to fire nearly all of Congress. There are a few good members left, but they can probably be counted on your fingers.

Four years ago, the Democrats praised Obama as being "The One" to solve all of the country's problems. Now, Republicans are blindly, due to party loyalty, heaping the exact same praise on Romney. I would encourage them to be careful. I believe Romney is dangerous for the flip-flopping reasons mentioned above. He is simply another big government progressive.

I believe that if Americans choose to elect Romney as president, then they need to take things a step further when they go into the voting booth. We need to vote out all the left-leaning, Liberal, Progressive members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. Then, replace them with people who will actually exercise their duties and preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. It is necessary in order to keep the progressive Romney in check if he wins, or keep Obama in check if he gets re-elected. If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet against Obama, though. The fact is that if we don't replace the members of Congress who are derelict in their duties, then mark my words, absolutely nothing will change, and things could actually get worse with Romney. No problems will be solved, and just like with Obama, within a year of Romney taking office, the ones who voted for him will have a severe case of buyers remorse.

Think I'm wrong ? Well, think back to my October 21, 2010 post where I expressed my concerns about then candidate and now current Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam. I stated that I didn't believe he was a conservative, and therefore, would not vote for him. I also said I hoped I was wrong about him. People told me I was wrong and didn't listen to me. Now, Tennesseans everywhere are having buyers remorse. Why ? Well, less than two years into Haslam's first term, he has gone after the state's teachers, screwed gun owners by opposing the Safe Commute Bill, and also appointed a Shariah finance expert to his cabinet. That's just for starters. I could go on and on.

I nailed it on Haslam, although I hoped I was wrong. I hope I'm wrong about Romney, too, but I don't think I am. So, mark it down - just like with Haslam, you heard it from The Sheepdog first.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck .........
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments: