Lame Duck Presidents Should Be Made More Lame

A follow-up to last night’s post: Mark Levin, prompted by how Obama and his stooges have conducted themselves since the election, last night proposed a Constitutional Amendment sharply limiting the power of an outgoing President between an election and the Inauguration of the next POTUS.

I concur although I’m not sure of the best form of such an amendment.  Levin’s proposal of a shorter lame duck period has problems.  For one thing, what if there is a lengthy election dispute as in 2000?  But the UK seems to do just fine with an immediate transition. 

I do think a provision that no new executive orders or regulations can be issued without 2/3s approval of both houses of Congress would be good.  I also reluctantly see the need to limit pardon power in the lame duck period.  Ideally, an ethical POTUS would make just but unpopular pardons as he departs.  But a corrupt and unaccountable POTUS can do too much damage . . . which is what I expect from Obama this coming week.

We can thank Bill Clinton especially for the need for a Constitutional Amendment.  The manner in which he and Hillary left the White House in 2001, particularly his pardons, was beyond despicable.  Yet, thanks to the Democrat “News” Media and predominantly Democrat faux historians as well as Establishment Republican cowards helping the rest of us to forget (Well, curmudgeons like me never forget.), the two suffered no lasting political consequence.  She was elected Senator and came too close to being elected President.

Thus, the Clintons showed that a DemocRAT POTUS can do pretty much whatever he wants as he leaves with little if any lasting harm to his reputation and standing.  (We would never be allowed to forget if a Republican POTUS so departed scandalously, of course.)

Which is one reason never to elect a DemocRAT as President ever again.  But we are not that rational of a country.  So a Constitutional Amendment is needful to protect us from outgoing DemocRATS and from ourselves.

When the Clintons Left the White House

If a couple wants to spend some time at your house, you may consider what kind of guests they were during their previous visit.  If they and their friends, say, messed up your computers, smeared glue on your desk, left obscene messages about you, and generally vandalized your house, costing over $10,000 in damages, you perhaps, maybe, may not invite them back.

So why are we even considering letting the Clintons back in the White House?

And isn’t it funny that the Democrat News Media (But I repeat myself.) is silent about how the Clintons left the White House.  Isn’t that something to consider in letting them back in?

(Note that the linked New York Times article is from 2002 and is complete with lame Democrat spin, of course.)

Oh, and that’s not the only aspect of how the Clintons left the White House in 2001 about which the Noos Media is strangely quiet.

To be continued.

The Clintons Try to Rig Elections . . . Again

After I posted on DemocRATS trying to rig the 2016 election for Hillary, she doubled down in a speech to mostly-Black Texas Southern University by calling for automatic Universal Voter Registration, in which just about anyone on a government list, such as for welfare or drivers licenses, would automatically be registered to vote.

But I’m sure her support of this has nothing to do with race-baiting, enabling vote fraud and stealing elections:

The problems with universal voter registration are numerous and obvious. Many states' lists include vast numbers of illegals, including some states which allow illegals to obtain drivers licenses; because many homeowners have more than one home, there will be duplicates; because so many people are on so many separate federal and state government agency lists, there will be duplicates; and because so many lists exist with little or no cross-checking capability, all of these duplicates are likely to go uncorrected. Add to this the fact that Dems hope to extend voting rights to felons, and the whole thing begins to look like a nationwide Democrat voter registration drive facilitated by taxpayers.

And that is putting it nicely.

This a good time to recall that the Clintons have a history of election rigging.  When Bill was President, they pushed the Motor Voter Law.  Yes, the one that required that those applying for welfare are given voter registration cards; the law that makes it more difficult to remove deceased or moved voters from the rolls, among other provisions.

Also recall that Bill was very busy in 1996 importing Democrats by speeding up citizen applications, which resulted in an increase in Democrat voters . . . and in serious errors in the naturalization process.  But, hey, priorities!

The Clintons cannot be trusted. . . . Yes, I can end the sentence there.  But to be specific, the Clintons cannot be trusted with elections, period.

And Queen Hillary is already at it again in trying to rig elections to “elect” her dynasty . . . again.

----

Knee Update: Apologies if my post is low on details.  Not-so-fun adventures with my knee yesterday have worn me out.  I got it reexamined and should hear more today or Monday.

Obama, Democrat Party Should Denounce Boston-Chicago Attacks on Chick-fil-a

Last night, I was thinking that the fascist attacks on Chick-fil-a by the mayors of Boston and Chicago are providing the Democrat Party and Obama with a golden opportunity to do the right – and politically smart – thing. 

Obama and allies should follow the good example of Bill Clinton (I never thought I’d write that phrase.) and have a Sister Souljah moment.  They should denounce government attempts to ban Chick-fil-a.  I think they would gain a great deal of political good will if they did so, just as Bill Clinton did.

And I was going to write as much this morning.  I thought I would be breaking new ground.  But Mark Hemmingway beat me to it.  Oh well.  Brilliant minds and all that.

My post yesterday should suffice in spelling out why I think it would be the right thing to do.  Why it would be politically smart as well?  Obama and the Democrat Party have fueled, especially of late, the largely correct perception that they owned by the political Left.  The actions of the fascist Democrat mayors only make that situation worse.  And even many who support gay marriage oppose their attacks on Chick-fil-a.

Obama and allies have a golden opportunity to appear reasonable and not part of the extreme Left Chick-fil-a banning crowd.  And what an opportunity for his teleprompter!:  “Here in America we cherish freedom of speech, even the freedom of speech of those with whom we deeply disagree.  We don’t try to use the power of the government to silence people.  That’s not America, and that’s not American.  Real tolerance is a two way street in America.  I disagree with the CEO of Chick-fil-a on the issue of gay marriage.  But it is my pleasure and duty as President to defend his right, and the rights of all Americans, to disagree with me.  Now some may disagree with me for saying that.  So be it.  We are America where freedom of speech is sacred and always will be – always must be.”

See how easy that is? I did that off the top of my head.  It practically writes itself.  And people would love it.  Even an Obama-hater like me would give him points for doing the right thing.  It could be the Sister Souljah moment he needs.

Now why the heck am I, of all people, giving Obama and the Democrats free advice?

Because I think they are indeed too wedded to the Left to have the vision and the guts to do it.  We shall see.


Update: In the headline, I thought "denounce" and wrote "renounce". Wake up, Mark! Corrected now.

BREAKING: Obama Violates Clinton-era Welfare Reform Law

I am so weary of the constant law-breaking of our lawless President that I will keep this brief.

The Obama Regime is now ignoring key work requirements of the Clinton-era Welfare Reform law.  Details of the official policy directive are here.

This gutting of long-standing welfare reform not only is bad policy, it is a willful violation of the law . . . again.

Is there any law this man will not break to pander for votes?

MORE:

From Herman Cain on Facebook just now:

Let's give credit where it's due: Bill Clinton signed legislation that attached serious work requirements to welfare. I wonder what he thinks about what President Obama just did to one of his most worthwhile achievements.

Obama, That Great Advocate of “Lean Government”

Back when Bill Clinton was president, I switched channels or turned the sound off when he came on. He always came off as a juvenile delinquent who could tell the most outrageous lies with a straight, but smug face. And it infuriated me off so much, I stopped listening to him for my health’s sake.

But when Obama tells his lies, they are so over the top, he often makes me laugh rather than say unseemly things to the television. I've got to hand it to him - that man can say anything.

A case in point was his big speech yesterday. The whole thing was something of a lie since it was billed as an economic speech. It turned out to be a campaign Republican-smearing stump speech. And it was full of the usual Obama/Democrat themes, complete with comical straw men, scaring on Social Security, and class warfare.

But what made me nearly fall off my chair laughing was the following line:

I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient. I believe government should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others.

This from the man who crammed the so-called Stimulus and Obamacare down our throats? This from the president whose budget deficit approaches $1.5 trillion? This from the Dear Leader who is reducing our economic choices through his failure and tax hikes?

Like I said, Obama will say anything. Bill Clinton could portray himself as a paragon of honesty and chastity, and it would not get any more absurd.

By the way, organizers had trouble filling up the venue for Obama’s stand-up routine . . . even on a college campus.

Tea Parties and the Arrogance of Obama and Clinton

Another benefit of the Tea Party protests I forgot to mention yesterday is that they have smoked out just how arrogant Democrat leaders are. Thousands protest mainly to ask that they be left alone and that their children not be saddled with ruinous national debt and taxes. That’s not asking for much. The response from Obama, Pelosi and their ilk? Ridicule and smears.

Recent statements on Tea Parties from Obama and Bill Clinton are typical. Charles Krauthammer sums up their arrogance well.

On Obama saying those ungrateful peons who protested on April 15th should “be saying thank you”:

I think it was Obama with his usual condescension — except he ratcheted it up to Code Orange into snootiness — where he looks down his nose at the gun-and-god crowd, the lumpenproletariat, as he sees it. And he ridicules them because they're not grateful enough to him. . . .

And I think it is in his character to ridicule — this is a man on the day he won the Democratic nomination said that day would mark a day on which the earth began to heal and the oceans recede. So he does not have a low opinion of himself.

On Bill Clinton once again using the Oklahoma City bombing to smear the Right:

I think it's disgusting. It's a replay of what he did — his administration did — after Oklahoma City. Remember, that happened shortly after he got crushed in the mid-term elections, the Gingrich revolution, that he began his comeback by exploiting Oklahoma City and implying — and having his minions imply — that it was a result of Newt and Rush and all the agitated, angry white males, as it was called by the media at the time. This is a replay.



When there was dissent in the Bush years, he was called a Nazi, Cheney a war criminal, and there was actually a play on the assassination of George Bush — you didn't hear a word from him or others about agitated language.



When a Republican is in power, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. And when a Democrat is in power, dissent is near treasonous and a call to mutiny and insurrection. This is really disgraceful.

I couldn’t say it better myself.

There is nothing like a little opposition to bring out the arrogance of those who worship their own power. The opposition of Tea Partiers to the Obama regime has exposed that arrogance in spades. And for that we should be thankful . . . to the Tea Party movement.