NY Post: it’s party time for the bad guys in Obama’s final two-year “rampage”

Written by Allen West on February 24, 2015

Some of you may find this hard to comprehend or stomach, but if there were a choice between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, — I’d choose the fella from Hope, Arkansas. Now having been in the military at the time of the Clinton administration, I can certainly find plenty of policy issues for disagreement there. 

However, one thing about Bill Clinton, he knew how to pivot and be an adept politician. Who can forget how, after his midterm election debacle in 1994, in his ensuing State of the Union address he announced “the era of big government has ended.” And that was said with Al Gore and Newt Gingrich sitting behind him. At that point we saw bipartisanship — perhaps reluctantly so — but the result was balanced budgets, creation of surpluses, cuts to federal government agency growth, and welfare reform. Who would have thought it possible?

It was all because President Clinton, who had previously started out with big government liberal progressive aspirations, heard the American people and realized his “agenda” had been rebuked.

Now, compare that to Barack Obama who, on the Wednesday after the Tuesday November 4, 2014 midterm election defeat, stood in the White House and confirmed his savant status by saying he’d heard the voices of the two-thirds of Americans who hadn’t voted — huh? 

Don’t take my word for it, here’s the video clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lRnjNamD0iI#t=0

We’ve seen how he continues doubling down after that midterm election — including a very dangerous executive order on immigration, which by his own declaration — between 22 and 25 times — was unconstitutional. And we clearly heard Mr. Obama using the bully pulpit of the State of the Union address to boisterously admonish a new GOP majority House and Senate about his veto power.

So against that backdrop, the New York Post had a very interesting piece entitled “Obama is on a Rampage” saying, “He can’t bring himself to call Islamic terrorists what they are, but President Obama finally said something with which we can all agree. Speaking of his remaining time in office, he said: “Two years is a long time.” He can say that again — and did, attaching a scary promise about his plans for the twilight of his tenure. 

“Two years is also the time in which we’re going to be setting the stage for the next presidential election and the next 10 years of American policy,” he told wealthy donors in San Francisco. “So I intend to run through the tape and work really hard, and squeeze every last little bit of change.” 

It’s funny, the liberal progressive media is all up in arms about what former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani said about President Obama at a fundraising event — but we haven’t heard too much about these comments, have we? 

So will anyone be asking the White House press secretary or even the president what he means by setting the stage for the next ten years of American policy? I would think this a far more important issue than whether or not Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker believes President Obama is a Christian, don’t you? 

What does it mean to “squeeze every last little bit of change?” Sounds painful. I suppose the “fundamental transformation” of America isn’t quite done.

However, here is the contrast. President Clinton realized his agenda had been rejected and in turn responded, and look at the good created by a Democrat president and a Republican House and Senate. It was a good that benefited the American people. Yep, there were some things that didn’t go too well, mostly in the area of national security and foreign policy, but as James Carville stated, “it’s the economy stupid.”
And to this day, everyone credits Clinton — not a GOP majority House and Senate who governed as conservatives. Now, we have President Obama who articulated that his policies were on the ballot last November — you can see that here — and Americans responded by rejecting those policies. His response to the American people? I did not hear you as a matter of fact, I don’t care. Elections only seem to have consequences when Obama wins — not otherwise.

And so America, the democratic electoral process means little or nothing for President Barack Obama. We already know the Constitution means little, based on his defiant violations of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 4 and 11. 

So, here is a simple, almost rhetorical question. If you love America, should you not abide by its rule of law and democratic process? Just a question that teeters on the understanding of the difference between an elected leader and the potential for tyrannical dictatorship.

Here’s the assessment from New York Post writer Michael Goodwin, ” Instead of cleaning up the messes he’s created, Obama is hell-bent on making more of them. The word that comes to mind is “rogue.” As in, the president is going rogue. Like an elephant on a rampage, he’s breaking free of all constraints. That makes the next two years extremely dangerous. Not just for Americans, but also for people around the world who count on us for their security and well-being. 

It is party time for the bad guys. Imagine you are the head of Islamic State or al-Qaida. Or you are Vladimir Putin, the head of China or the ayatollah of Iran. You know Obama has spent six years shrinking America’s footprint and abandoning allies, leaving behind the vacuums you are filling. It’s already a bonanza, and his vow to double down over the next two years means you will never get a better opportunity to make more hay.”

“The potential danger is this, “the Putins, the mullahs and the terrorists will match Obama’s sprint to the finish with their own. The violence, chaos, millions of refugees and breakdown of sovereign states already under way could be just a preview of the coming dystopian future. From Eastern Europe to Asia to Africa to the Mideast, no populated spot anywhere would be immune from potential upheaval and collapse.”
Now for those of you who feel angered because I ask these questions and bring up these points — is your anger focused where it should be? If the American people reject national policies in an election, should one continue down that path of dismissive belligerence towards the electorate?

If the House and Senate composition is not considered representative of the voice of the people, are we still living in a Constitutional Republic? President George W. Bush accepted the results of the 2006 midterm elections and of course there was an increase in spending those final two years. And yes, he stood against the congressional onslaught and did the right thing in Iraq with the “surge” — only to be followed by someone who considered campaign promises more important than strategic security decisions — and whose prediction has come to fruition in Iraq?

Elections should have consequences. As we’ve seen in the history of our nation, be they Republican or Democrat, presidents have heeded the voice of the people. There is something very different with President Barack Obama — a malignant narcissism perhaps? Regardless, these two years will indeed be long since no one will seek impeachment of Obama, even if he meets with those who have affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood. 

The final words of the New York Post piece are quite disconcerting, “As those scenarios suggest, Obama’s promise “to squeeze every last little bit of change” out of the next two years could wreak havoc with the presidential hopes of Hillary Clinton and a platoon of Republicans. If they are wise, the candidates will draft their plans in erasable ink. With the Master of Disaster on the prowl, the worst is yet to come.”

Remember within the first seven months of George W. Bush’s first presidential term, the world changed on September, 11, 2001. That event was set in motion during the preceding Clinton administration. America, we’re gonna need a Churchill to follow this political agenda-driven Chamberlain.



Allen West