It is not a time for pessimism. It is a time for optimism, for renewing our faith that good can indeed triumph over evil.
For evil is what we Americans face today. We have had lousy presidents before - incompetent wimps like Carter, moral alley cats like Clinton, strange ones like Nixon, sleazy ones like LBJ - but never an evil president. Until now.
After Zero threatened the Supreme Court on Monday (4/02), Rush Limbaugh called him " a thug" - recalling that Bill Clinton labeled him "a Chicago thug" during his 2008 primary campaign against Hillary. He is, true enough. He's established a Gangster Government, detailed in David Freddoso's book Gangster Government: Barack Obama and the New Washington Thugocracy.
But he's more than some thuggish Chicago Mafiosi. There is evil in his soul.
His is a Fraudulent Presidency. Everything about him is a fraud - from his birth certificate to his Social Security number to his recordless background to his pretending to have been a Professor of Constitutional Law. He taught one course on the 14 th Amendment at the University of Chicago Law School as a Senior Lecturer. Nothing else on the Constitution - his other courses were Alinsky claptrap like "Racism and the Law."
He was neither an Assistant nor Associate much less a Full Professor - and never published one single article (on constitutional law or any other subject) in a professional law journal, not one as Editor of the Harvard Law Review nor in his years as lecturer at UCLS.
Virtually everything he says is a lie. His attitude toward the truth is Marxist and Moslem. For a Marxist, "truth" is a bourgeois concept; since the end (achieving power in a society) justifies any means, it is moral to manipulate words in any way to reach the goal. For a Moslem, taqiyya (lying, dissimulation) to infidels is fully moral in order to gain power over them. (See Marx and Mohammed from September 2005.)
His pathological hubris and narcissism convinces him he can get away with constant prevarication, especially as he has the Enemedia to protect him. This week, however, he stepped in it so badly that even the White House Press Corps is laughing at him.
Zero actually said, at a press conference Monday (4/02): "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Since such a step been precedented hundreds of times since 1803, and Obamacare was passed by a bare House majority of 219-212 with not a single Pub vote and 34 Dems voting no, the firestorm of criticism and ridicule forced him to walk his comments back the next day:
"We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce - a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre New Deal."
This is a true OMG moment. The entire claim for Obamacare's constitutionality is based on the Commerce Clause, the right of the federal government to "regulate" interstate commerce. Lochner (Lochner v. New York) was a SCOTUS decision in 1905, sections of which were overturned in the 1930s - and it had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause. It was adjudicated on the basis of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment.
And the only part of the Constitution Zero ever taught a course on was the 14 th Amendment! Yet he doesn't know the landmark Lochner cases were about the 14th, not Interstate Commerce?!? What kind of a fake-professor ignoramus is this guy?
The criticism of Zero across the board - with even Zero's mentor at Harvard Larry Tribe saying he "obviously misspoke" - and the hilariously idiotic walk-back has a lot of Washington folks thinking this week has been worse for Zero than last week, which they judged to be his presidency's worst (see last week's HFR).
There's a frosting of sugary hypocrisy on this cake of disaster. On the very day (Monday, 4/02) Zero was stupidly threatening the Supremes, saying they had no authority to overturn a law passed by a "strong majority" of Congress, his Assistant U.S. Attorney General Stuart Delery was in federal court in Massachusetts arguing for the court to overturn DOMA - the Defense of Marriage Act.
DOMA - the federal law defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and codifying non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes - was passed in 1996 by a House vote of 342-67, a Senate vote of 85-14, and signed into law by President Clinton. That's a strong majority. Yet Zero wants it overturned.
Zero's threats and anger over the possibility of Obamacare's obliteration were so unhinged that all Capitol Hill suspects someone leaked the results of the Supremes' deliberations last Friday (3/30). There is now little doubt who that someone is: Justice Elena Kagan. She has been a close confidante of Zero's since they both taught at UCLS in the early 90s. As his Solicitor General in the White House, she was a major supporter of Obamacare - causing demands she recuse herself.
She has refused, and now, upset over a majority of her colleagues set to overturn Obamacare, she revealed their decision in a private conversation with Zero. This is evidently a first - a sitting Justice leaking a Court decision in advance to a President. In the 1930s, FDR's chief political operative, Thomas Corcoran - the legendary Tommy the Cork - was often able to sniff out a decision in advance through his vast web of connections, and give FDR a heads-up.
FDR had Tommy the Cork. Zero has Elena the Leaker, earning the contempt of her colleagues thereby.