"...to thunderous applause."

Do you remember that scene from Star Wars in which the Sith Lord, as chancellor, makes his case for assuming undemocratic powers, and the assembly wildly applauds? Senator Padame then makes the comment, "So this is how a Republic dies. To the sound of thunderous applause." Then Jimmy Smits looks all worried, remember?

I ask this question rhetorically of course, for I know my audience, and I know you recognized the quote before your eyes even left the subject line. Allow me to follow up on Titus' "hubris" post ... all due respect buddy, you haven't even scratched the surface of what this President "assumes" he can do.

The President, MY president, is landing in Las Vegas today to push for his $447 Billion "Jobs Act." It has no chance of passing the House, or even the Senate. Reason? Bipartisan opposition. So why is he wasting our time and clogging up McCarren International Airport for a Bill he can't possibly get passed into law? Maybe he doesn't care about "passing" it.

"We can't wait on congress to act."

The PoTUS actually said that. He is landing in Las Vegas in about 2 hours to make that case. His jobs bill is "stymied", so he is going to attempt to enact it ... himself. I kid you not.

"With his jobs plan stymied in Congress by Republican opposition, President Obama on Monday will begin a series of executive-branch actions to confront housing, education and other economic problems over the coming months, heralded by a new mantra: “We can’t wait” for lawmakers to act.

According to an administration official, Mr. Obama will kick off his new offensive in Las Vegas, ground zero of the housing bust, by promoting new rules for federally guaranteed mortgages so that more homeowners, those with little or no equity in their homes, can refinance and avert foreclosure.

And Wednesday in Denver, the official said, Mr. Obama will announce policy changes to ease college graduates’ repayment of federal loans, seeking to alleviate the financial concerns of students considering college at a time when states are raising tuition."
(source: HERE)

Do you see why it matters when he federalizes student loans? Why it matters whether or not to call an executive leader out as a socialist, or Marxist, often and early? This is a man who went on the record in the year 2000 with Chicago NPR describing our Constitution as "inadequate." A man who described our nation in 2008 as needing a "fundamental transformation." Well, here it is - he dislikes this pesky "Republic" system, and he isn't going to abide by it anymore. How big of a "change" is that? Pretty damned "fundemental" if you ask me.

There's more (and this is all dated from 10/14 through today):

"Obama told his advisers on the White House Jobs and Competitiveness Council in Pittsburgh on Tuesday that he is “not going to wait for Congress” to act on jobs.

“I’ve shown repeatedly my willingness to work overtime to try to get them to do something to deal with this high unemployment rate. What we haven’t seen is a similar willingness on their part to try to get something done,” Obama said on Thursday. “

“So my instruction to all the advisers who are sitting around the table is, scour this report, identify all those areas in which we can act administratively without additional congressional authorization, and just get it done.”
(source: HERE)

John McCain, a supposed leader in the upper House of OUR congress, went on to say that the GOP would do everything they could to stop him, but quote: "He will probably get away with it."

How many times? How many times must the PoTUS act in a way that leaves us slack-jawed and stunned before we stop saying, "Oh, he'd never do that."???

From 9/27/11:
"Republicans rebuked North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue after she suggested Congress suspend elections for two years so lawmakers can get to work stimulating the economy unencumbered by anxiety about what voters think."
(source: HERE)

Say Beverly hun, be a dear and say that again, only this time do it in German, just for kicks and giggles. No, you wouldn't want to worry about what voters think. This is a sitting governor. She is taken seriously. You should hear the audio - this was no joke, no kidding around, no hyperbole.

Just this week:

"Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”
(source: HERE)

That constitutes "dysfunctional", not agreeing with the Chief Executive. Jackson Jr. went on to describe this plan. He wants "direct hire" by the federal government of all unemployed persons, at "prevailing union wages." What do you think the price tage for that would be?

Did you know the PoTUS approved the kill order of an American citizen?

"American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior U.S. government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to U.S. officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a U.S. citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process."
(source: HERE)

His role is "fuzzy?"

Sounds an awful lot like plausible deniability to me. Search the Web, as many as 20 names are suspected to be on this "list." 20 Americans, with assassination orders pending by their own government. And Nixon's list was a problem?

The three of us are in what, the upper 2, maybe 1% of information consumers? Did you even know this panel existed? I didn't. Follow those links if you wish. They wont take you to Beck, or Savage or Drudge. They're much more wildly right wing sources than that, such as the NY Times, Yahoo News, and the UK's Daily Caller.

Here is the problem with ALL of this ... thus far the discussion, be it on television, radio, or at the water cooler, has been centered around whether this jobs bill will work. Whether we should spend more tax payer dollars. How much Jackson Jr.'s plan would cost. The infeasibility of it all working. Whether al-Awalki deserved it, etc, etc, etc.

THAT IS NOT THE NEEDED CONVERSATION.

The needed conversation is where does our Executive Branch get the authority for ANY of this?

How can he conduct his administration in this way and not have articles of impeachment brought? Where is any real opposition to the president's insistence that he need not answer to congress ... or perhaps even to voters!?

That female writer whom so cleverly came up with the 10 ways Bush was definitonally a fascist dictator, where is she now?

I don't have to tell you, but it bares repeating - history is replete with states who's chief executive went about installing "ministers", "commissars", or as we have, "czars" that are allotted make believe "administrative authority" based on the musings of a single man, a single leader. And they go about the business of circumventing Politburos, Reichstags, Parliaments and Congress's all in the name of "Getting things done."

This guy, this president, is at the border of the Rhine, spitting, cursing at the name of Versailles while eyeing Paris. And the opposition is busy debating whether the Audubon can be completed in two years, or three.

Let me ask you something. If this President wins reelection, do you believe he is above declaring a state of emergency, suspending congress, and simply implementing his policies as law? Bare in mind, we are now at a place where sitting congressmen are comfortable publicly suggesting that he do just that.

Perhaps this is a better question: do you believe this President is above doing that if he loses?