This is nice (please notice my sarcasm) as I see a headline about Barack Obama and French President Nicholas Sarkozy discussing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a microphone accidentally still on.
After a G20 meeting the tuned-in microphone picks up the private conversation between Sarkozy and Obama where Sarkozy admits he ‘can’t stand’ the Israeli premier. Obama: You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!
Sarkozy reportedly also told Obama that he thinks the Israeli premier “is a liar.”
The conversation apparently began with Barack Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move. It’s nice to know where France really stands, cowards as usual.
The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared:
“I cannot stand him. He is a liar.”
Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”
The press heard this conversation but forget freedom of the press as journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments. A member of the media confirmed Monday that “there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue.”
These politicians set up rules for journalists to protect their true feelings while pretending to side with one country or another or call someone an ally when they are not considered that in the bigger picture.
Sarkozy and Obama are nothing but liars and cowards. It’s now nice to have it on record how they feel about the Israeli Prime Minister who is the only one of the three that has respect for the United States.
I guess Sarkozy doesn’t recognize a liar when he’s talking with one.
In the post from yesterday (below) I suggested an amendment to the US Constitution for term-limits for elected officials to Congress. But personal agenda focused politicians are only part of the problem in Washington and the Obama administrations use of “Czars” or unelected regulatory heads to set rules and laws without going through the Constitutional requirement of a legislative body is now on a fast track.
Republicans have vowed to stop the practice of regulation without representation but new legislation is required to stop the regulation practice coming from those respective agencies. Congress and the White House have historically delegated entirely too much power to agencies of the federal government turning it into quasi-legislative body without any political backlash or accountability.
This is not a new trend but Barack Obama is exploiting this agency abuse like no other occupant of the White House before and will use “Czar” power to bypass Congress at every turn, especially with Republicans in control of the House.
The US Constitution vested Congress with the responsibility to create laws and regulations, not to make hazy suggestions about what really might be beneficial for that law to be. There’s a developing movement to force members of Congress to take responsibility for the laws and regulations they pass, and also to compel Administrations to become accountable for the laws they create by means of regulation.
The Wall Street Journal reports that:
“Major” regulations are defined as those with annual effect on the economy exceeding $100 million, and over the past quarter-century both Democratic and Republican Administrations have averaged between 30 and 40 such rules a year. The Obama Administration promulgated 59 major regulations in 2009 and 62 in 2010. Another 191 are in the works, many of them based on little more than a vague Congressional order.
Further, the Dodd-Frank regulatory law requires 243 new rules by 11 agencies over a dozen years. In just 10 months since ObamaCare passed, Health and Human Services run by Leftist Kathleen Sebelius engineered new rules imposing a ceiling on insurance industry profits and price controls on private premiums.
At the EPA they are abusing the clean-air laws of the 1970s by raising carbon energy prices as a cap-and-tax surrogate.
And how about controlling the internet? Last month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposed “net neutrality” despite a federal court ruling that the action was outside its purview.
Congress needs to rein in the regulatory agencies and stop the abuse of bypassing the Constitution by the Executive Branch. Some in Congress seem to understand this concept but it’s taking real Conservatives to push the topic into the light of day.
A possible promising idea is a bill that would require Congress to approve major regulations and this concept has been included in the House GOP’s campaign “pledge,” and is codified in the regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (Reins) Act, sponsored by Kentucky’s Geoff Davis in the House and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint.
The Reins Act wold require an up-or-down vote (no Senate filibuster) on $100 million-plus economic regulations, which would only take effect if Congress passed a joint resolution and any President signed it. In effect, this would restore the Constitutional vision the Founding Father’s had for the United States.
The House of Representatives hold the “power of the purse” and the new GOP majority has promised it will not fund regulations that have not passed through legislative bodies.
The Congressional Review Act of 1996 provides a legislative fast-track for disapproving a regulatory measure. That bill involves both political branches as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution. But the Reins act is superior because it requires the active participation of Congress, rather than merely objecting to this or that.
It’s time to make government accountable to the people and provide the required representative government called for in the Constitution. It’s time unelected bureaucracies are stopped from determining the fate of entire industries and dictating individual behavior. The Reins Act provides the method of requiring Congress and regulations to become accountable to the people that elect them into office and should be passed into law with our “New Rules for Congress.”
Time to “Rein” in government. Indeed!
Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:
It’s time now, after many months of watching the Obama disaster before our eyes, to define what looks like “The Obama Doctrine”, his ideological belief system now put into practice.
First off, Barack Obama frequently downplays American Sovereignty. We have:
On the surface these treaties with an international flair may seem quite admirable on the surface but digging deeper into Obama purpose always reveals more. These treaties leak into American domestic affairs and not on the positive side.
Recently submitting its “Report of the United States of America” to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), whose dubious members include Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia, not necessarily stalwarts of human rights discipline.
In the report the Obama administration attacks Arizona immigration law which attempts to provide law enforcement where the Federal government is failing. This is not a human rights issue but the administration woefully portrays the Arizona law as an infringement on human rights. In the end, this attack upon Arizona is an attack upon American Sovereignty. Certainly, enforcing immigration law and border security upholds the US Constitution and is not violating anyone’s human rights.
Donald Rumsfeld used the term “light footprint” when the US invaded Iraq to liberate its people. Barack Obama wishes to reduce American power to “Soft-Power” to demonstrate to the world that American exceptionalism is nothing and we are all equals on God’s green earth. Upon taking office in 2009 Obama said “[if] countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”
However, French President Nicholas Sarkozy has a different view of the world:
“We live in the real world, not a virtual one… President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment… I support America’s ‘extended hand.’ But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges.“
Some like the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cannot be persuaded to lay down their arms under a doctrine of soft power and they prove that each day.
Further, Barack Obama wishes to Restrain American power by reducing its nuclear armaments. Sadly for Obama he states:
“Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.“
Obama actions speak louder than words. Funding has been cut for the F-22 fighter jet and the administration is now looking into terminating the development of the next generation Navy Cruiser with missile defense capabilities.
A strong and vibrant US Military is not only about fighting wars. Setting a perception to the world about American military power provides what Ronald Reagan emphasized – Peace through strength. American security is most reliably assured by having military forces that are fully trained, equipped and ready to deter or defeat the nation’s adversaries. If the world has a perception of American weakness it becomes a destabilizing force across the globe.
How can we forget Obama’s Apology Tour and his Top Ten apologies to the world?
10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington: “There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. … Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.”
9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA: “So don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks. Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes.”
8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas: “Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”
7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament: “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. … Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.”
6. Apology for Guantanamo in France: “I don’t believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure.”
5. Apology for the War on Terror: “Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. … In other words, we went off course.”
4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders: “I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we’ve made, that you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world.”
3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas: “While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. … So I’m here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration. The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.”
2. Apology to the Muslim World: “We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.”
1. Apology to France and Europe: “Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
Obama has only been able to portray the United States as weak. Jimmy Carter apologized to the world for America’s “excessive fear” of Communism. After Carter spoke the Soviet Union embarked on the invasion of Afghanistan and Iran took American’s hostage.
Woodrow Wilson demonstrated America as weak by proposing an “ethical” foreign policy and a “concert of nations.” America didn’t fend off World War I with Wilson’s weak America stance and we actually took on an isolationist policy during the 1920s and 30s which ultimately led to World War II. We waited to get bombed at Pearl Harbor before entering the war.
Other US Presidents held a different vision for America:
American exceptionalism shows an indispensable nation in the defense of liberty around the world. The Obama Doctrine demonstrates the opposite – nations will look elsewhere for help and our adversaries will see the United States as weak and powerless. The Obama Doctrine creates a more dangerous world by emboldening our enemies. Indeed!
Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:
Powered by A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Copyright © 2012 Liberally Conservative™ and Liberally Conservative.com™ are Registered Trademarks - All Rights Reserved
