It is Good to be the King?

Sometime between Øbama's election and inauguration, I remember this cartoon being featured on the Op-Ed page of Newsweek:

Now we understand why that rag was sold for $1, and is a shade of its former self (but a more honest shade, admittedly.  Beforehand, they pretended to be a collection of objective journalists.  Now it's more hard-left Op-Ed).  They didn't realize that "Hope & Change" was a euphemism for "Bait & Switch."

This, however, is a more fitting caricature:

And it just happens to dovetail nicely with an IBD Editorial podcast I was listening to today:  Acting Like a King Isn't Among the President's Duties (article).

"In Wednesday's Cleveland speech when he announced the CFPB and NLRB appointments, Obama said anyone who 'plays by the rules can get ahead.' Yet the president is playing outside the rules and pretending he's doing it as a favor for the country. His motives, though, are clear. He wants to wield power that exceeds what the Constitution delegated to the president.

"Maybe First Lady Michelle Obama wasn't acting when she said on a kids television sitcom that she enjoyed being called 'your excellency.' Maybe she was speaking for her husband, too."

 In a more recent TownHall article (Steven Chapman:  Czar Barack), Øbama's own words get turned against him, as his executive overreaches extend, even overshadow, those he criticized of the last administration, giving more credence that Øbama actually prefers the idea of an Imperial President than is opposed to it:

"as a candidate, [Øbama] suggested that emperors are for other countries. 'The president,' he insisted, 'does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'"

I know Lefties are notoriously weak in the history department, but come on, it's only been three years!

And Michelle Malkin catalogues a veritable rogues' gallery of the Obama solution to Rule of Law:  Executive Orders and Czars:

"Can’t delude legislators into adopting a $1.5 billion Kabuki summer-jobs makework boondoggle? Create an unfunded program through executive fiat.

"Can’t muster up a filibuster-proof majority for radical nominees? Czar-ify ‘em.

"Can’t get Congress to approve vast wild lands designations? Grab them under cover of a holiday lame-duck session.

"Can’t get the illegal alien bailout DREAM Act passed on Capitol Hill? Executive-order it.

“'So let it be written, so let it be done!'”

Extremist?

I get these emails from Obama For (sodomizing) America. I really didn't ask for them. All I wanted to do was give Obama a snarky question about how a Constitutional Scholar can have nothing published to his name, and in return, I get these "gimme" emails from the likes of Chairman Zero, his body man Love, the Wookiee, and Jim Messina.

It's interesting to see the sort of message being promulgated by the White House.  Here's one of the latest ones I've gotten:

Vidarebefordrat brev:

Från: "Jim Messina, BarackObama.com"
Datum: 3. jan. 2012 23.50.32 GMT-09.00
Till: Mad Hatter
Ämne: This is not a joke
Svara till: info@barackobama.com

Friend -- These Republican candidates spent in some cases more than a year -- in Mitt Romney's case seven years -- campaigning in Iowa to be the next president. But tonight, GOP voters there couldn't decisively get behind anyone. Who exactly leads the Republican race going forward isn't clear, but we do know two things: 1) The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

*snip*

"The extremist Tea Party."  I've heard this thrown around a lot.  "That Tea Party--it's extremist."  When I ask a Leftie to clarify "extremist," I usually get a lot of stammering.  They can parrot the punch-words and party lines circulating in their circles, but they can't back them up.

I'll tell you what "extremist" is--an extremist circumvents Rule of Law for the sake of an agenda.

- An Extremist will Violate the War Powers Act to engage in a conflict we have no national interest in, to score political points.

- An Extremist will Ignore the Constitution to install political appointees.

- An Extremist will Ignore Judicial Ruling on a matter unfavorable to his agenda.

- An Extremist will Circumvent the Legislative Process when his agenda is not pushed through.

- An Extremist will Arbitrarily Wave Off Items in a Law He Signed that he does not agree with.

- An Extremist will Confide in His Allies that the Constitution can be Circumvented.

You get the idea.  I'm telling you, Obama is a member of the Autocrat Party, not Democrat.

But here's another thing about "extremist" and "right-wing."  People who throw these terms around usually tend to be so far to the Left that even Woodrow Wilson looks Conservative.


The main disseminators of information in this country--Media and Academia, are demonstrably left-leaning.  And since both groups tend to move in ideologically incestuous circles (the likes of which would make the rednecks they like to mock blush), the lack of cross-pollination leaves them to conclude that their views are "normal" while all others are "extreme."

So, when I hear a Leftie--be it a Progtard, Occupooper, Demorrhoid, what have you--talk about the Tea Party as "extremist," I know it's because they really don't get out much.