Saturday, Dec. 10, 2016    Login | Register        

Obama versus Obama

Thomas Sowell's picture

Many voters will be comparing Mitt Romney with Barack Obama between now and election day. But what might be even more revealing would be comparing Obama with Obama. There is a big contrast between Obama based on his rhetoric (“Obama 1”) and Obama based on his record (“Obama 2”).

For example, during the 2008 election campaign, Obama 1 spoke of “opening up and creating more transparency in government,” so that government spending plans would be posted on the Internet for days before they passed into legislation. After he was elected president, Obama said, “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

This Obama 1 sounds like a very good fellow. No wonder so many people voted for him.

But then there is Obama 2. He passed a mammoth ObamaCare bill so fast that even members of Congress didn’t have time to read it, much less the general public. It was by no means posted on the Internet for days before the vote, as promised.

The Constitution of the United States requires transparency as well. When people are nominated by a President to become Cabinet members, the Constitution requires that they be confirmed by the Senate before they can take office, so that facts about them can become known before they are given the powers of their offices.

Although President Obama complied with this requirement when he appointed Cabinet members, he also made other appointments to powerful positions created by Executive Orders — people aptly called “czars” for the vast, unchecked powers they wielded, in some cases greater than the powers exercised by Cabinet members.

These “czars” never had to be confirmed by the Senate, and so had no public vetting before acquiring their powers. We had unknown and unaccountable rulers placed over us.

Another aspect of transparency was the Constitution’s requirement that Congress pass a budget every year. The Democratically controlled Senate during the Obama administration has not passed a budget for three consecutive years.

Passing a budget makes the administration tell the public what it will pay for, what it will have to cut to reduce the deficit — and how big the deficit will be if they don’t cut anything. By not even passing a budget, Obama 2 and his party are in effect saying to the public, “It is none of your business.” Transparency?

In his oath of office, Barack Obama swore to see that the laws are faithfully executed, as all Presidents do. But that was Obama 1. Once in the White House, Obama 2 proceeded to explicitly waive the enforcement of laws he didn’t agree with.

The immigration laws are a classic example. Failing to get Congress to pass some version of amnesty, Obama 2 simply issued an Executive Order exempting certain classes of illegal immigrants from the immigration laws on the books.

Too many people have gotten sucked into a discussion of whether it is a good or a bad thing for people brought into the country as children to be exempted. But the whole reason for Constitutional government is to have all three branches of government agree on what the laws of the land shall be.

Obama 2 has decided instead that if Congress doesn’t do what he wants, he will do it by himself through Executive Orders.

If any President can unilaterally change the law, we are not likely to have the same freedom under rule by presidential fiat as under Constitutional government. This is especially dangerous in a President’s second term, when he need no longer have to consider what the voters want. With a couple more Supreme Court appointments he can permanently change the very nature of American government.

One of the most dangerous examples of a lack of transparency was inadvertently revealed last March when Obama 2, unaware that a microphone was on, told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that, after he is reelected, and never has to face the voters again, he will have the “flexibility” to make a deal with Russia on missile defense systems.

In other words, Obama will be able to make a deal with a country that has been America’s most implacable and most formidable adversary for more than half a century — a deal he couldn’t make if the voters knew about it before the election. Think about that chilling prospect, and what it reveals about the real Obama.

[Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is] COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


meanoldconservatives's picture

On the Sunday after the recent September 11th attacks in Egypt and Libya, Barry sends U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to five different news shows to lie and say that those attacks were a direct result of an inflammatory video. Weeks later it comes out that they knew 24 hours after the attacks that they were actually terrorist attacks, as Libyan officials had immediately claimed. So, that means she was out lying more than 72 hours after they knew.

Then, Netanyahu asks to meet with Barry when coming to the U.N. meetings due to his ongoing concerns over Iran. Regrettably, Barry has no time to meet with him due to fundraisers with Jay-Z and Beyonce and appearances on The View and Letterman. He supposedly was more than willing to squeeze in a phone call sometime though.

So, when Netanyahu was scheduled to speak to the U.N. of course Barry was busy shopping for a pocket TelePrompTer in advance of the upcoming debates and had to miss that too. Reportedly, he asked Hillary to attend on behalf of The White House. Only problem is neither Hillary or Pinocchio Rice hung around for it. Both apparently went to lunch instead with some foreign ministers. You would think after Barry disses Israel, he would make sure no other possible slights would emerge. But not Dear Leader and his Secretary of State. The arrogance and naïveté of Barry and his administration is staggering.

S. Lindsey's picture

After The administration came out and admitted the attack was a Terrorist action or what was it the Obama camp called it.. a man caused disaster or something like that..then Obama goes to the UN and said it was the Video again..

Looks like another lie starting to unravel.

<cite>"In fact CBS News reports that witnesses say there was no anti-American protest that day at all. None. Just a coordinated attack against an American target by a terrorist group on 9/11.</cite>

<cite>So what was the White House’s response when caught red-handed by the facts? Carney promptly announced that they’d been saying the same thing all along: “It’s self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” he said with a shrug."</cite>

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

kcchiefandy's picture REALLY think Obama's base cares about this?? They could be slaughtering babies (oh, wait, they are TRYING to do that w/ their abortions for all platform) and as long as there are free cellphones, et al, to be had, nobody from that camp give a $h1t that some ambassador & crew in some faraway country they couldn't find on a map was murdered. There was 10X the liberal media coverage about the NFL replacement refs than on this story; foreign policy is dead with this administration, especially during an election year - they KNOW what's them.

. .and this kind of response is just gaining Obama points. Thank you! 'Them'. Well you and GP refuse to acknowledge who 'them' happen to be. The 47%?

<strong> (Illinois just scored!!!) Penn State is really showing the 'guts' that they have in this game. Proud of them!!</strong>

That 47% includes veterans, seniors, etc, etc, etc. Not many of 'them' are interested in 'free' phones or ABORTIONS. Choice does not 'read' <cite>abortions for all.</cite> (Government in a woman's body?) Maybe, just maybe if men had to go through a pregnancy- they would understand why this is more than 'slipping on a condom' issue. 'Life is sacred" - and it takes both a man and a women to create it on earth. But the woman seems to be taking full responsibility in this country. Interesting.

The Ambassador was part of Obama's 'base'. . . and believe me, we care when an outstanding young man like this is taken from us - regardless of his political affiliation. The response of the Libyan people show that this man was accomplishing his mission. . ..hence his assassination by the terrorists.

NUK_1's picture

I mean, really? LIBYA? We get the honest and common-sense explanation from LIBYA immediately while Obama, Clinton and Rice are lying their butts off for over 2 weeks? I'd mention Jay Carney also, but he's such a joke without a shred of integrity that it goes without saying the he's going to lie and spin anything possible. What a disgusting puke he is even as far as Presidential mouthpieces go.

BUT...BUT..BUT...there was a "protest" against a film! These protestors came armed with mortars and RPG's and also knew exactly where the "safe house" was that Stevens was killed at a mile away from the "consulate." right now, there is considerable dispute that there was ever any kind of "mob" or "protest" to begin with and you sure can't count on the WH to ever reveal the truth on this since they are already knee-deep in their BS.

Had Bush been Prez during this...the media would be going completely berserk right now, and rightfully so. This is a disgrace: first being the death of Americans for no reason at all and the total lack of security, second being the complete lies told by this administration who went into "Blame America" mode immediately, and third, the continual lies to try and cover this up even further with no "investigation." A real travesty and pathetic that the media isn't burying the administration over this except for CNN who showed some guts.

Somebody or some group somewhere, would already have paid for this attack with their lives!

Really? Like he did with Bin Laden? Interesting thoughts.

Did show guts - and asked important questions. I would love to have the answers to those questions. I don't agree with your 'Blame America' immediately position. (But different perceptions for different folk) After 9/11 - many thought the lack of communication between our intelligence agencies had been improved and/or solved. This incident shows that there is still need for improvement. I understand the FBI was not allowed to visit the 'crime scene' for at least a week. What was the CIA doing? (and all of the other 'operatives' that we supposedly have on the ground).

I carefully investigate their purposes and 'truthfulness'. They are being sued by Shirley Sherrod for their part in the 'lies' regarding her situation earlier. They would not have been in this situation if they had done a more thorough investigation. Hmmmmmmm. It's hard to decide just who you're going to trust these days. . . so many lies going around.

Cut Defense but don't let anyone know they are going to be laid off! -GP

Ad space area 4 internal