After five years of being rebuffed by his detractors, perhaps because his positions are mostly perceived to have little or no real virtue, President Obama now threatens to use executive order to get what he wants. While it’s true that executive orders are not law and they can be changed by future executive orders, in the meantime they might as well be law and result in presidential dictatorial power via executive order.
More and more I see a man approaching desperation. I also see a situation that will sooner or later bring reality to the American people in that virtually all questions have answers and all “ends” will eventually tie and facts, like truth, cannot be hidden or ignored forever.
Throughout Obama’s tenure, situations and questions have gone unanswered, and too often his administration’s position has failed to make sense: like Fast and Furious, Benghazi and blatant lies about the Affordable Care Act. One particularly troubling unanswered question is a little talked about issue regarding Executive Order 3-16-2012. What is its purpose and why was it deemed necessary?
Other issues abound as well: What about the fact that during Obama’s tenure, the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us has widened? Is the income redistribution mantra he supports really about making things better for the middle class?
It’s true that the stock market has rarely been higher and that the economy is growing. But is the growth based on a foundation of stone or a foundation of cards? Will the growth sustain when the billions — recently reduced to 65 — in monthly stimulus money now flowing into the bond market ceases? We’ll see.
In the State of the Union, Obama said, “It’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency.” I could not agree more. But perhaps that change should start at the president’s desk. Obama’s credibility took a serious hit resulting from the untrue comments about the ACA. In addition, it’s now fact that Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey briefed Obama as the attack was occurring. However, it is not proven fact that Panetta said the attack was terrorist generated. But imagine the conversation: “Mr. President, our embassy in Benghazi is under attack.” Then imagine how the words “by whom” were not asked. Regardless, the administration went to the public with a story about a video being the root cause.
The result of the all-too-often issuing of untrue statements is that clear-thinking people now have little choice but to view the accuracy of what Obama says with significant skepticism.
But in fact, it may be worse. In my view, Obama’s behavior has the earmarks of a man with a hidden agenda. And if so, that would answer most of the unanswered questions. What I suspect Obama and his think-a-likes envision is a United States majority population heavily dependent upon and essentially controlled by the government — in large part via health care and other freebies. And since trying to manage that situation with current government structure would likely prove too unwieldy, what else is there? Perhaps reviewing executive orders would provide insight to a potential answer. Look up Executive Order 3-16-2012 and decide for yourself.
Perhaps I’m wrong about Obama’s ultimate mindset. But in view of the bevy of blatant lies and the absence of any other make-better-sense scenarios, I see little else to consider.
Our option now is to vote for people who do not support the big-government-is-the-only-answer positions that Obama is steadfast in believing.
— Al Phillips lives in Prineville.