Obama’s touchstones, breaking badder


“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency”.

Touchstone:

(assaying tool), a stone used to identify precious metals; or (metaphor) a means of assaying relative merits of a concept

1: a black siliceous stone related to flint and formerly used to test the purity of gold and silver by the streak left on the stone when rubbed by the metal
2: a test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of a thing
3: a fundamental or quintessential part or feature — merriam-webster

There’s nothing wrong with transparency and rule of law. Just that Obama has to pervert them to suit his personal needs like he does everything else. Then, you probably thought you knew what “transparency” meant.

But in this case, transparency actually now means the opposite: spying on citizens, concealing the truth about Benghazi, or lying when convenient –especially for political gain, Obamacare and its roll out, denying scandals as “phony scandals”, or that IRS was engaged in political activism. Or ignoring and dismissing a problem he previously railed against as a priority.  

So  transparency can mean denial of a problem and necessary cover-up that one even exists. Luckily, transparency is also alive and well in the Dep. of Justice — not. Holder was held in contempt of Congress for failure to comply. Now it can mean selective transparency when you want something known, like details of the bin Laden mission or CIA chief in Afghanistan, accusations about your political enemies, or spying and accusations on a reporter, or revenge for an unfavorable documentary. And feeling politically justified for it all — even the contempt.
 

Rule of Law: one does not have to return to Blackstone commentaries to define rule of law. It’s sort of self-explanatory. (Wikipedia)

The Oxford English Dictionary has defined “rule of law” this way:

“The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.”

The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, and not individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials. The phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote “Law should govern”.Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.

In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.”

O-translation: ‘whatever I say or decide the rule of law is at any particular time’.
 
Wikiquote

The term to “break bad” is American Southeast slang meaning to turn against one’s previously lawful lifestyle for one of criminal acts, usually at the cost of someone else’s life or well-being.

Obama could not abandon what he was never constrained by, so he’s ‘breaking badder’.

It sounded better than “cronyism, lies and corruption will be my touchstones.” Obama’s words fit his penchant for making factually inaccurate statements, then repeatedly lying to try to validate them. Benghazi and ObamaCare are text book examples. The border crisis demonstrates his lawlessness and insincerity for the “rule of law”.

RightRing | Bullright

Follow the yellow brick road


This is just some thoughts in progress. I decided to jot down a few notes. As the campaign comes into full swing, it is tough to keep track of all the shaking, rattling and rolling of just the politics.

I’ll be darned; it is the first election in ten years that is not about the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan. See, one more thing the Dems prove they can spin on a dime on. Its albeit irrelevant for them. And Obama’s unConstitutional Libya action, where he acted unilaterally without Congressional approval? Well, that’s a non-starter now, to Dems anyway. They couldn’t care less about that. To his weekly private meetings on assassinations, a resounding “we don’t care” from the crickets in Democrat Party. Oops, to add a slice of drama to their careless position, they celebrate it and hail him a hero like some ‘new wave’ foreign policy guru. Even though this guy has anything but a great foreign policy resume’. Nothing could prevent their attacks on George Bush though.

And then the leaks. Rather than condemn and criticize the leaks, Obama sighed and changed the subject. Especially as they attempted to bolster his credentials. (amazing how they could do that) Dems followed suit. National security was not a problem. Only a few Dems stepped up to criticize the leaks, while trying to deny the WH involvement. Obama issued a blanket rejection that the leaks didn’t come from “his White House.” In fact, he declared it “offensive” to even raise questions that they came from the WH. And the press and Dems once again said he addressed the matter and that was that. It was supposed to be over just because he said so and the Dems wanted it that way.

Per script they said the American people didn’t care about that stuff, it was all just politics.

And there was the response to Solyndra and losing 500 million dollars of taxpayer money in a whopping failure. Oh, right, what response? Something about Bush, yea that was it.

Then there is the response to Fast and Furious. Obama eventually stepped in to declare Executive Privilege on everything pertaining to Congressional investigation of Holder’s DOJ on it. From the crowd of Dems and even press, a yawn as they hit the snooze button. They called it a manufactured scandal. Only when the Congress acted to hold Holder in contempt did they consider it newsworthy.

Finally, Democrats’ heated response was to stage a walkout of Congress, in defense of Holder, and heap a healthy round of criticism on it. But a walkout? Then came cries of racism. Holder was the victim. However, Congress was the problem, one of politics, not the facts and scandal of Fast and Furious, according to Dems. One has to remember all these consistent inconsistencies, if only to recall all the places the Dems have been.

They still talk about Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby, or anyhing pertaining to so-called Bush scandals.That deserves all the criticism they can muster.