Divide and conquer in SOTUS

Bold is out, achievable is in, and division is always on the menu.

Reports say Obama will not make any “bold claims” in his 5th SOTU. When has he not made bold, in your face announcements? But that is his forte.

I know this because AOL news says so. As adept as this pretender is at lying, you can probably take that with a half-grain of salt. Whatever he says, always expect the opposite.

BTW, it might surprise a few but I give him credit. Congratulations, Obama, for forcing people to talk about a serious issue. No, I don’t mean healthcare, or illegal aliens, or any of Leftists’ pet issues. He has done more to get people talking about the “s” word than anyone I know of. No, not sex but secession. I don’t remember the subject being so prominently mentioned before, having petitions in many states.

Well, I knew this guy could make history, just not the way he wanted. Mr. Popularity has made Big-Goverment pretty unpopular.

On a side note, what we can be sure will not be in the speech are explanations about his many scandals, we are told don’t exist. So anyone tuning in to see his latest denial on Benghazigate, greengate, IRS, or phonegate will be disappointed. Rather than “bold claims”, they say he’ll accentuate “the achievable”. There’s a pretty bold claim.

RightRing | Bullright

Politics of Big-Government, Schumer style

 

Schumer Calls for Using IRS to Curtail Tea Party Activities

Democratic senator says Obama should bypass Congress, use executive powers

BY: Alana Goodman | Free Beacon
January 23, 2014 5:38 pm

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) proposed using the Internal Revenue Service to curtail Tea Party group funding during a speech on how to “exploit” and “weaken” the movement at the Center for American Progress on Thursday.

Arguing that Tea Party groups have a financial advantage after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, Schumer said the Obama administration should bypass Congress and institute new campaign finance rules through the IRS.

“It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies—we must redouble those efforts immediately,” Schumer said.

“One of the great advantages the Tea Party has is the huge holes in our campaign finance laws created [by] the ill advised decision [Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission],” Schumer said. “Obviously the Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.”

The Obama administration proposed new IRS restrictions on campaign related activity by tax-exempt groups last November. The rules would crack down on “candidate-related political activity,” which includes advocacy “for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party” and communications that are “made within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) and clearly identify a candidate or political party.”

Last May, the IRS admitted to singling out Tea Party groups for increased scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. The scandal forced the resignations of IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and director of Tax Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner.

Schumer was one of several Democratic senators who sent a letter in 2012 calling on the IRS to investigate tax-exempt groups for allegedly engaging in political campaign activity. He was also the architect of the 2010 DISCLOSE Act, legislation targeting the Citizens United ruling that failed to pass Congress. Senate Democrats introduced a similar bill in 2012.

Schumer also proposed electoral reform in his speech. “Our very electoral structure has been rigged to favor Tea Party candidates in Republican primaries,” he said.

He argued that this is due to the political makeup of primary voters and gerrymandering by Republicans who “draw districts where a Democrat could never be elected.”

Schumer recommended a primary system “where all voters, members of every party, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a run-off.”

The senator claimed there was a divide between what he called “Tea Party elites”—namely, the Koch brothers—who support small government policies, and the “Tea Party followers,” who support government programs such as Medicare and public education.

He said the small government mantra espoused by Tea Party leaders is the “core weakness of the Tea Party, and one we can exploit to turn American politics around to the benefit of our nation.”

According to Schumer, many Tea Party supporters are drawn to the movement because of their concerns about a changing country that “white Anglo-Saxon men are not exclusively running” anymore.

“The Tea Party rank-and-file know it’s a different America,” said Schumer. “It looks different; it prays different; it works different. This is unsettling and angering to some.”

He also compared the Tea Party to the Prohibition movement, and argued that its policies were “the route of the Know-Nothings, Prohibitionists, Father Coughlins, and the Huey Longs, towards anger, negativity and even hatred.”

Schumer’s speech comes at a time when both the Tea Party and President Barack Obama are facing record-low approval ratings.

Just 30 percent of Americans view the Tea Party favorably, according to a Gallup poll released last month, while 51 percent view the movement unfavorably.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s job approval rating has plummeted to 43 percent on the heels of the botched Obamacare rollout, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. His disapproval rating is also 51 percent.

The political world that Schumer is obsessed over, however real, is one where groups of people organized albeit loosely might have an affect on the political process.  To combat that preconception, he calls for the government tentacles to take a more aggressive and active roll in politics than they already do. 

The solution is direct government politicking. More than even arbiters,  he sees government advocacy on behalf of Democrats as righteous. Yes, have government bureaucracy clearly advocating for one political Party if not individual politicians. He envisions a country where an activist government must assure partisan election  results – controlling the strings of power.

That is nothing new for big-government Democrats, just that now they can so openly advocate it rather than conspiring in back rooms to pursue it. The hypocrisy of his position is so obvious but that never stopped the Democrats before. So why not use their favorite government agencies to affect elections? They use it for anything else politically related.

And do it through executive authority. What’s wrong with that? They do all the other stuff with executive power. Between EPA, the DoJ, and the IRS, and stacked courts, with a president willing and able to use his pen to legislate, they can accomplish a myriad of items in their agenda.

But then he never sees government running errant of its duties out of reach for career politicos to exploit in their favor.  They see that as the purpose of government rather than representing the people, it derives its power from. It’s a formula completely inverted from the visions of the founders but that matters not to them nor does their hypocrisy. The problem is always the unbridled freedom of the people. Must stop that.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s killing field

Now if you were Obama and everyone around was pointing out all your policy failures, like your signature issue, then you could remind them that you are really good at killing people. So he told his aides, authors reported.

If his killing forte — and what gangster doesn’t have a flair for that — is a broader message to other would-be terrorists about the consequences, then it is also a glaring message to those at home who disagree with Obama on almost everything. On one hand, he wants people to get that message. On the other, he doesn’t know why people hold suspicion about the agenda and tactics of his global killing mission. Why shouldn’t he expect both sides to develop the same cynicism? He must set some record for being the first Nobel Prize-winner with a hit list to his credit.

Here’s an amazing contrast for the boastful killer. Strange how reports about IRS, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or even the signature ObamaCare effects of millions of people losing their insurance, catch Obama unaware until he sees it on the news like everyone else. He was mysteriously and suspiciously out of the loop for all the scandals and problems. Then he feigns outrage promising to get to the bottom of it — though never does. Yet when it came to bin Laden he was supposedly involved in every detail — but IRS, not so much.

He has a nose for details when it is politically convenient. But he can boast that he’s really good at killing people”. He just happens to be pretty good at killing the economy, jobs, the medical system, the American spirit and integrity of the office too. Maybe killing people just naturally goes with all that?