The GOP controlled House is the only thing standing between America and a veritable dictatorship



Barack Obama has absolutely no intention of working with the GOP for the next two years despite any words to the contrary. Obama recently met with Congressional leaders for a grand total of one hour. Obama has spent the rest of his time berating Republicans all over the country.

A search for “Obama blames GOP” yields 39,500,000 hits.

A search for “Obama blames Republicans” yields 3,900,000 hits.

A search for “Obama blames..” yields 83,000,000 hits.

Obama has been warned by centrist Republicans that he is poisoning the well.

President Obama’s public shaming of congressional Republicans to act on a range of issues may be winning at the polls — but it risks alienating the people needed to reach bipartisan compromise.

While Obama has made a strategic calculation that he needs to marshal public support to push through his agenda, centrist Republicans warn the president and his allies could go too far with partisan events and campaign-style ads targeting GOP lawmakers.

One recent point of contention: Organizing for Action, Obama’s former campaign arm, made its first post-election foray into campaigning this week with ads pressuring swing-state Republicans to support new gun control measures.

Among the targets was Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is working to build support for a bill focused on cracking down on gun trafficking.

“The way to tackle this difficult issue is to continue to have a constructive dialogue. Obviously ads run against me are not what I would call constructive dialogue,” Collins told The Hill. “I personally have very little interest in the White House’s campaign activities on this issue. It’s just not a factor in my consideration.”

Obama needs Republican votes in the House to pass any legislation:

But to get anything accomplished Obama will need to convince the few remaining centrist Republicans to vote with him — and a public lobbying campaign could infuriate the many members not facing tough elections.

But that assumes working with the GOP to pass legislation now is the goal.

It’s not.

Barack Obama will spend the next two years demonizing Republicans at every turn and the monster he created, Organizing for America, will be the muscle. The real goal is 2014.

Obama has committed to raising money for fellow Democrats, agreed to help recruit viable candidates, and launched a political nonprofit group dedicated to furthering his agenda and that of his congressional allies. The goal is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats, strategists and others familiar with Obama’s thinking.

“The president understands that to get anything done, he needs a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives,” said Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “To have a legacy in 2016, he will need a House majority in 2014, and that work has to start now.”

Obama’s actions are not one of a person seeking cooperation:

So far, though, most of the proposals have little traction in the Republican-controlled House. Obama’s decision to squarely blame the opposition for across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester has also generated little goodwill across the aisle.

And it is clear Obama intends to continue to pound Republicans

Some Obama allies say the president views OFA as a way of marshaling — and extending beyond the traditional two years of a second term — his political power. The organization went largely dormant after his 2008 victory, mobilized only during late-inning pushes to secure health-care and Wall Street legislation.

Seeking major donations

This time is different. The group is already seeking $500,000 donations from major Obama campaign bundlers.

Within hours of Obama’s appearance Friday to talk about the spending cuts, OFA’s Jon Carson, a veteran of the first-term White House, sent out a mass e-mail declaring that “because congressional Republicans refused to act, devastating budget cuts known as the sequester are going into effect.”

John Boehner said that Obama intends to “annihilate” the GOP and he’s not alone.

Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell:

The president is obviously going all-out — but not to avoid the $85 billion in spending cuts, known as the sequester, set to kick in on Friday. Obama doesn’t want to make a deal with Republicans. His fear-mongering is part of a concerted plan that extends far beyond the sequester crisis: to obliterate the Republican Party as a viable force in American political life.

His self-righteous rhetoric obscures a bitter truth: Obama is not trying to unite the country. He’s waging a class-based battle for political gain. His goal is to win back the House for Democrats in 2014, giving him a united Congress for his last two years in office and allowing him to pursue the most expansive government in American history.

Listening to Obama, an ordinary American might assume that the Republicans were forcing these harsh spending cuts on the president. In fact, they were the president’s idea, part of a compromise to make the 2011 debt-ceiling deal. And as Bob Woodward reminded readers in an op-ed last on Sunday, that agreement did not include the “new revenue” (i.e., tax hikes) that Obama pretends he asked for then: “When the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts….that was not the deal he made.”

Obama, then, is not being truthful — nor is he making even minimal efforts to find a compromise with Republicans. It actually made news last week when the White House made a few perfunctory calls to GOP leaders.

Schoen and Caddell’s discomfort is palpable:

Obama has brought partisanship to a new low by creating a full-time political advocacy organization — Organizing for Action — funded by secret contributions from corporate elites. OFA’s founding is historically unprecedented. No president has ever affiliated himself with a national organization other than reelection campaigns. Obama has taken the Saul Alinsky organizing vision to a national level.

In earlier columns, we’ve described Obama as the most polarizing president in American history, but even we never imagined that he would be this divisive.

And they make a strong point:

Obama’s overreaching is much worse. He thinks he can do whatever he wants, even without Republicans votes.

Imagine if Republicans could not stop him. Imagine if democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. They would be the ultimate rubber stamp. You might not even find out what was in legislation after it was passed. Barack Obama would essentially be a dictator. Consider the following:

Earlier in the day, the president let his frustration over the stalled debt talks seep into an address on Latino issues, confessing that he’d like to “bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.”

He told the National Council of La Raza, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you.”

In Burma:

“Now, on other hand, as President, I cannot just impose my will on Congress — the Congress of the United States — even though sometimes I wish I could.”

Louis Seidman urges Obama to “give up” on the Constitution.

Nancy Pelosi was “proud” that Obama ignored the Constitution:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she is “very glad” and “proud” that President Barack Obama appointed a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) without putting them through Senate confirmations.

We have the Courts, you say? What if Obama decides to ignore the Courts?

In what appears to be the continuation of a showdown among the three branches of federal government, the D. C. Circuit ruled today that President Obama’s January 2012 “recess” appointments of three members to the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) were unconstitutional.

Yet Obama’s NLRB is ignoring that ruling. He is ignoring the Courts.

We face a doomsday scenario- a President disrespectful of the Constitution, an obsequious press, a rubber stamp Congress not inclined to do anything but enable Obama and the Court system ignored.


Not a dictator. Yet.

GOP control of the House is the only thing stopping a dictatorship. He won’t call himself a dictator, but he would be one in all but name. The 2014 election might be one of the most important elections in history of this country.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Obama is a tyrant and water is wet. The chin up pose was all I needed to see.

CURT Your thoughts on Jason’s #2?
Semper Fi Marine

@Richard Wheeler: Just a troll and comment deleted.

As the post in question is gone, my response might as well go also.

Greg One you can’t just shake your head at. Thanks Curt.
Wonder if The Dr. had any problem with that comment?

Will “Organizing for America” be like Air America? When I drive, I like to listen to talk radio, and I tried to listen to Air America, but all it was was hatred for George Bush and all republicans. I haven’t listened to it for years, and don’t know if it still exists.

from what I understand it wasn’t one hour, it was 7 count them seven minutes. You can barely order a latte and receive it in 7 minutes.

@Richard Wheeler:

Let me ask you, Rich- who is it that exhorts his followers to violence? Who said “I want you to get in their face!” Who said “I don’t want to quell anger!”

Who said:

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”

I wonder if you had a problem with that.

Dr J Strawmen You didn’t answer my clearly stated question re Jason’s statement that Curt rightfully deleted.

Obama was elected, he is the leader of the USA. If for no other reason, he deserves respect. He is the Commander in Chief of our military, disrespect to him means disrespect to the Joint Chiefs and everyone under them. Disrespect for him is disrespect for all who willingly serve under him, from the Joint Chiefs on down.

Some how I’m not over thrilled that the Boehner led house is our last resort from Dictatorship. He would shed a tear and then cave as he always does. I myself don’t think he’s caving, no he’s just falling back on his beliefs. Why can’t we get real men in our party and not sniveling weasels that cave at the drop of a hat.
Excuse my negativeness, but I’ve seen this act too many times.

@john: That’s just crap. Show respect to one who disrespects our Armed forces, because if we don’t were disrespecting our Armed Forces. Convoluted is one word that comes to mind.

@Richard Wheeler:

Dr J Strawmen You didn’t answer my clearly stated question re Jason’s statement that Curt rightfully deleted.

Sure it needed to be deleted. Is there any doubt about that? Nevermind that during the Obama campaigns, volunteers for OFA were told to hit conservative websites and post such hateful, and stupid, comments. Do you know for sure it wasn’t one of Obama’s lackies that actually posted that?

People are right to be concerned that Obama will usurp more power that rightly belongs in our Courts and/or in our Congress.
It is a lengthy process to overturn his consistently anti-business policies.
But it has been done (look into cellulosic ethanol requirements/penalties) and is continuing to be fought (look into ObamaCare and abortifactants).
It is sad that usurpation takes two to peacefully tango.
There have been abdications from the Congress (no budget) and the courts.
So, Obama keeps expanding his power to fill the ”vacuum.”

Considering who is in charge of the House and the Republican party, I wouldn’t hold my breath on them standing firm on anything.

Acting extra-Constitutional is never right, no matter who is holding power at the time. Some people group the entirety of, say, Presidential memos under a single umbrella. I don’t. The executive branch has the right to declare how they view a law, passed by Congress, and applied towards the Constitution. That, to me, is using foresight to prevent a Constitutional crisis from occurring, where Congress believes one way and the executive branch views it another. At the point the law is “clarified” by the President, then the ball goes back to Congress’ side of the court for true clarification on it, or acceptance. No problem there.

The problem comes when Executive orders are issued beyond any law being passed. When directives, direct from the executive branch, are enacted by fiat exec. authority. When this happens, the Constitution is perverted, or brushed aside, in an act of tyranny, regardless of the actual content of the order or directive. Good law, passed illegally, or enacted wrongly, is just as bad as bad law passed in accordance with the Constitution. That is something everyone here should agree on.

And Obama hasn’t been the only one to do so. To suggest that is to place blinders on yourself, cheering for one side only because they are on “your side” politically. But those who extol the virtues of Bush, while ignoring his extra-Constitutional actions, are just as guilty of blind support as those who deny Obama has acted above and beyond his station.

Reto5 As author of post DrJ let comment stand without ANY reaction from him. I simply ask why? Believe me, I’ ll accept any response to my question—Thanks
BTW It was deleted after I brought it to Curt’s attention.
Semper Fi

@Richard Wheeler:

Did it ever occur to you that Dr. J might not have the ability to removed posts from a thread he put up?

@Richard Wheeler: Only I can permanently delete a comment. No one else on this blog has the authority.

@Richard Wheeler:

Rich, just so you will know how dumb your “outrage” is concerning Dr.J, post topics do not get put up immediately upon submission. I would imagine that it’s the same for site authors, such as Dr.J, as it is for myself. Mine usually go up the day following after I submit them. On top of that, I do not “live here” on FA, sometimes going days between site visits. Now, that is likely different that Dr.J, who likely checks in daily, however, I seriously doubt that he leaves the site up on screen full time either. The point is, he likely did not even notice the posting immediately prior to it’s deletion. Now, he might of, but that still isn’t reason to condemn Dr.J for not commenting on, or deleting a posting(especially with no deletion ability, as per Curt).

I think you are just tilting at windmills, Rich, in your questioning Dr.J about some reader comment.

Reto5 RE#17 It absolutely occurred to me and Curt confirmed it. It also occurred to me that as AUTHOR he might comment on a poster calling for the assassination of The President.

@Richard Wheeler: Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. The comment was only up for a few hours before it was deleted.

Are you trying to insinuate that DrJohn wants Obama assassinated?

Curt and J.G I understand and I assure you I am insinuating nothing. I have merely asked for the author’s opinion of the poster’s comment on his thread.
In #8 he ignores my question and turns to straw.

@Richard Wheeler:

I want to know why you want my opinion of an idiot’s comment. I agree with Curt. Period.

Are you somehow suggesting I desire someone’s assassination despite my post speaking of the importance of an election?

This is the poison of liberals. Someone does something unethical and you twits attack the innocent. It’s the same with guns.

The law breakers commit the crimes and you half-wits come down on those who respect the law.

@Richard Wheeler:

It absolutely occurred to me and Curt confirmed it. It also occurred to me that as AUTHOR he might comment on a poster calling for the assassination of The President.

So now the authors are responsible for the comments? Hey, Rich, it’s not me calling for violence. Your President does that, as I have amply shown.

@johngalt: I was asleep.


Rich likes to apply the “Silence connotes acceptance” theory to controversial commentary.

I’ve pointed out to him before how wrongheaded that thought process is, but it seems that he continues.

Dr.J Certainly, I never said you were responsible for Jason’s comment. I asked for your opinion.
You’ve chosen not to offer one—that’s cool GOOD MORNING from So.Cal. Enjoy the day.

@Richard Wheeler:

In #8 he ignores my question and turns to straw.

Pot, kettle, I think you get the picture, Rich.

By the way, I hate the idea that everyone using some sort of comparison model on issues is automatically labeled as having used a “strawman argument” or “fallacy”. It has gotten to the point that whenever some comparison is attempted, regardless of factual evidence, that all someone has to do is yell “strawman!” to refute a point being made.

There are valid reasons why a comparison argument should be used, and allowed, in a debate or discussion, especially when the comparison is an apt one. To simply shout “strawman” anytime a comparison is made is just pure laziness, in my opinion.


Apparently, you aren’t allowed to sleep, Dr.J. You must be on, with FA running in the foreground, every minute of every day, particularly when you have posted a topic, so that you can comment on everything that everyone says, the minute after they post it.

@Richard Wheeler:

So I take it from your silence that you endorse Obama’s incitement to violence.

DrJ I absolutely agree with your analysis of “the use of strawman”
Fact is, I only started deploying it recently after it was used on me so MANY times—“-if you can’t beat em—”
I think initial question, if fairly and honestly asked, should be answered. That done, the responder’s questions should be answered. Sound logical?

Example I absolutely do not endorse Pres. Obama’s incitement to any form of violence.
Your turn re Jason’s comment


Obama was elected, he is the leader of the USA. If for no other reason, he deserves respect. He is the Commander in Chief of our military, disrespect to him means disrespect to the Joint Chiefs and everyone under them. Disrespect for him is disrespect for all who willingly serve under him, from the Joint Chiefs on down.

John, do you think respect for the President began in January 2009? I remember Harry Reid calling Bush a “loser.”

That from the leading democrat in the Senate.

As for the kind of respect the left accorded Bush, I offer you this.

@Richard Wheeler:

I called him an idiot, didn’t I?

@Aye: Rich likes to apply the “Silence connotes acceptance” theory to controversial commentary.

I wonder if that theory includes all of Obama’s dithering for months?

Dr J. Apologies I missed your #23. Think I was asleep.
I don’t always believe silence connotes acceptance..
There is always “Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it.”

J.G It was YOUR analysis of strawman use in #28 that I was responding to in my #31. Not Dr.J Thanks

@Richard Wheeler:

Fair enough. Thanks

@john: John, I beg to differ. People earn respect by their actions, not the position they hold. So you respect Jessie Jackson because he was a representative? What about the slew of IL governors? I have had commanders who could not lead their way out of a wet paper bag. I showed them respect because of their position, but I never respected them. There is a big difference.

@Richard Wheeler:

I figured so, as I also figured that having four people at once commenting to you confused you.

@john: Wrong. As a Vet I know only the military is required to follow his orders. Only the military may not openly disrepect him.

I wish Americans would rid themselves of this notion the Obama is the CIC of the whole USA. He is not.

@john: #10
You want us to respect a president who, when he was running for the office, wouldn’t wear the American flag pin, and wouldn’t say the Pledge of Allegiance. Have you forgotten about that? What would you say about a REPUBLICAN running for the office that refused the same? I know you won’t answer that question.

@jainphx: #11
It’s called term limits.