Last week I mentioned that I’d take a Bill Clinton over a Barack Obama any day. After Clinton’s midterm losses in 1996 he abandoned the Far Left ideology — and look what he accomplished with a conservative Republican-controlled House and Senate. Obama on the other hand has tripled down on his progressive socialist ideology and agenda, and will do whatever he can to hold onto the Senate because it gives him the key to an even bigger prize.
As The Hill reports, “President Obama said Monday he needed Democrats to keep control of the Senate to ensure his Supreme Court nominees were confirmed, openly speculating to a crowd of donors that one or more of the high court’s justices could soon retire. Obama told donors that a faction within the Republican Party “thinks solely in terms of their own ideological purposes and solely in terms of, how do they hang onto power? And that’s a problem. And that’s why I need a Democratic Senate.”
You just gotta be kidding me. The king of ideological political power speech says the GOP “thinks solely in terms of their own ideological purposes?” And what does Obama do? Well, down South we have a saying about that, ” the pot calling the kettle black.” Oh wait, is that racist?
Regardless of the horrific situations in the world and here in America, it seems Obama can always find time to do two things: play golf and fundraise. Who are these useful idiots who willingly surrender their monetary resources to this empty suit?
Obama knows the key to liberal progressivism isn’t so much in the legislative process, it’s about activism in the U.S. Court system. Obama’s vision of separation of powers means using the legislative branch to strengthen the executive and judicial branches. And at any turn, just bypass the legislative branch if it does not do your bidding.
You can bet that if after the first Tuesday in November, the GOP wins a majority in the U.S. Senate, before Christmas holiday recess and the ending of the 113th Congress session, Harry Reid will reverse his unilateral altering of the filibuster rule back to the original 60-vote threshold. Talk about hanging on to power and ideological purposes — such blatant hypocrisy.
And if the GOP were to entertain returning the rule back to the simple majority as Reid did, you will hear screaming like never before. And we all know the real intent behind the change in that rule anyway — to ramrod through Obama’s lower judicial nominees — progressive socialist activist judges.
We already know Obama and his leftist acolytes are fit to be tied over the Supreme Court decision on the Hobby Lobby case. And of course they probably won’t be able to reverse that decision by way of legislative process – but that’s not going to stop them. Somehow, if they’re not able to leverage their lies into a midterm election cycle winning issue they will seek reward in the judicial system.
Just last month, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said “the consequence of that Supreme Court ruling [Hobby Lobby] is, it will allow bosses to interfere with what the President believes should be the freedom that any woman has to make her own decisions about her health care.”
Please pay attention to what Mr. “Not So” Earnest claimed, in that President Obama believes private sector bosses are interfering with a woman’s freedom to make healthcare decisions — hardly the truth! The case ruled against only four out of 20 types of birth control available. Those four are de facto abortion inducing and are therefore against the religious beliefs of certain closely-held companies — a very narrowly defined court decision.
What Obama wants in his final two years is a rubber stamp Senate for his judicial appointments that will firmly support an end run around the legislative branch — and control, complete power over the Supreme Court. Because he’s still “brooding” over the Hobby Lobby case.
It’s rather interesting to compare Barack Obama of the first two years, and the Obama of today. Obviously those first two years, he relished being in power and able to ram through whatever he wished. But unlike Bill Clinton — or even Ronald Reagan who had a Democrat House and Senate – the Obama of today is incapable of governing, and certainly incapable of leading, unless it is from behind.