Obama’s Rule by the Pen

“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need,” Obama said Tuesday as he convened his first Cabinet meeting of the year. He said he would instruct his department heads to “use all the tools available to us” to assist the middle class.

“I’ve got a pen, and … I’ve got a phone,” Obama said. “And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward” to keep the economy moving forward.

Now wait a minute. I thought the United States had three branches of government: The legislative branch to write and pass laws; the executive branch to execute those laws; and the judicial branch to interpret the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of those laws.

Obama is implying that he has the power to make laws, not merely execute them.

He would probably reply, “There are already laws in place. I’m just using the executive branch to enforce them.” If so, then why is there even a question of waiting for Congress to pass new laws? If he’s already entitled to do these things, why must he threaten Congress with executive action rather than simply taking it?

This is a recurring theme of Obama’s administration: Congress, you had better pass a law that I like, and now — or I’ll simply pass it myself.

This is not what the Constitution of a nation with separation of powers — among three distinct branches of government — permits. Obama’s words and actions are the actions and words of a dictator.

The fact that Obama has not–at least yet–permitted himself the full scope of a dictatorship does not alter the fact he’s relying on the very same principle as a dictator, all the same.

Imagine a President of opposite political views making such statements, much less putting them into practice.

Imagine, for example, a President saying, “Congress had better repeal the Affordable Care Act now. Otherwise, I’ll pull out my pen and pick up my phone.” Or, “Congress had better cut spending and taxes now. Otherwise, I will be using all tools available to me.” Impeachment proceedings would only be delayed by the deafening chatter of an outraged media.

It’s not Obama’s policies and positions that are the most outrageous. It’s his approach to the Presidency and his casual, arrogant and even sinister denial of our three-branch system of government that’s the real story of our times.

And it’s widespread indifference to — or even applause for — this attitude and approach that represents the biggest danger to freedom as we know it.

A lot of Americans cheer this attitude thinking, “Obama’s going to take care of me. Good for him. It’s about time someone watches out for the little guy.” But those with this short-sighted, foolhardy attitude fail to see how they’re paving the way for dictatorship. Once you permit a President to write his own laws (that you happen to like) with a whim and a pen, then you’ve paved  the way for that same President — or perhaps the next one — to write laws you do not like. Today, your “right” to the products of another’s efforts could tomorrow be another’s claim to the product of your own.

Generally, when someone offers you something for “nothing” and seeks to take care of you financially or otherwise, it’s control and domination they’re after. What are we to think of someone who seeks to take care of you with the money of others? Financed not only by others, but by generations yet to be born, if even then?

By yawning at, or even applauding, Obama’s codependent tyranny, the majority who would probably still vote for this man today have no concept of what they’re giving up.

A wonderful expression says, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” It’s meant to imply that ideas are more powerful than force, since it’s ultimately ideas that cause human action (including use of the sword). Obama has turned this expression on its head by implying that his pen is mightier than anything for the mere fact that he holds it.

We’re living under the blossoming dictatorship of a petulant child. Is this what the largely forgotten nation of Jefferson, Madison, Paine and John Locke has come to? What does it say about the generation of Americans who squandered a forgotten heritage of individual rights? Just remember: it’s happening on all of our watch.

  • mkkevitt

    The 3 branches of gvt. & the checks & balances didn’t stop passage of legislation (they’re not laws) from which presidents sign executive orders violating rights. They permitted it, long ago. Thoroughgoing guys like Obama weren’t needed. The way was paved by the less consistent, even the much less consistent, for the more consistent, & now, Obama. Not only was the moral basis of freedom merely implied, allowing conflicting & opposite interpretations, but the Constitution, with its 3 branches & checks & balances, gave a free pass for paving the way to statism. Right now, I’m merely saying that, without bothering to back it up, here. But I’m saying it now, here, anyway. Now, I specify just one thing: the interstate commerce clause.

    The pen is mightier than the sword? That’s because all humans, by their nature, have ideas, and no human action, by its nature, takes place except as an expression of an idea. Some ideas never get expressed in action beyond intellectually. Those ideas, no matter how good and ‘powerful’, are worthless unless expressed physically, not just intellectually. If they’re not expressed physically, less good ideas will be. They and the actions expressing them, will be worth indefinitely more than better ideas left unexpressed in physical action, rendering them worthless, unless or until they’re physically acted upon.

    Under altruism, all ideas are, in principle, bad, not just less good. This is why the 3 branches of gvt. & the checks & balances haven’t worked. The ‘baby boomers’ & their progeny have REJECTED, not squandered, their heritage. These ’60’s hippy yippies are the most consistent. They thoroughly & explicitly embrace altruism & reject egoism & the valid concept of rights. The 3 branches & the balances work as well for altruism as they do (or would) for egoism. This is why our heritage has come to a ‘blossoming’ of dictatorship. Our heritage must be made TRUE & CONSISTENT, thoroughly & explicitly, with its very essence in egoism & all the fundamentals of philosophy, in writing, & acted upon, physically. Mike Kevitt

  • mkkevitt

    I’ve edited the 2nd. paragraph of my comment below (or above, which ever it turns out to be), of 2 days previous to when you might happen to read this. Read it, if you’ve a mind to. If you read it pre-edit, please read it again. Thank you. Mike Kevitt

  • chartliner

    Political power flows from the barrel of a gun… Mao Zedong. Without guns the government could not force people to pay direct taxes (income taxes) which the founding fathers were opposed to. The whole system is going to crash and burn, the debts are unsustainable as economist Martin Armstrong has detailed… see armstrongeconomics.com