06 April 2012

Something You Won't Read About


On the "objective" history blogs . . . those who read various WBTS and history related blogs have, in recent months, seen the "experts" correcting the Tea Party folks and constantly pointing out how conservative politicians abuse use American history to support their policies (which they do but, for the most part, they do it legitimately). What you NEVER read from these "objective" pseudo-historians are the same criticisms toward those on the left. Why? Because they're not objective nor are they really interested in historical accuracy. In other words, they're frauds.

They've got one message and that is, we're going to make sure that we cut people's taxes even more – so that by every objective measure our deficit is worse and we will slash government investments that have made this country great, not because it's going to balance the budget, but because it's driven by our ideological vision about how government should be.  That's their agenda, pure and simple. ~ Barack Obama
Right. Not liberty, not freedom, not the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, not our unique and triumphant history, not the entrepreneurial spirit of hard-working Americans. No, big government spending has made the country great. And, by extension, bankruptcy will make us even greater. Complete story here.

And then there's this - President Obama recently tried intimidating the federal judiciary with this public comment:

Ultimately I am 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.

Unprecedented? Really? Evidently, a federal court has decided to take the President's challenge and, at the same time, offer the former law "professor" a history lesson:

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom . . . Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

Whoa, that sounds like a throwdown to me. Obama's playing with fire and he has a real chance of getting burned by the judiciary. But his embarrassing display of ignorance on a historical subject in which he's supposed to be an expert will *NOT be mentioned on the lefty history-related blogs. It just doesn't fit their template.

(Another related piece here. )

*I deliberately held this for several days giving those who claim to be objective, non-partisan historians time to point this out to us. I knew they wouldn't. They're frauds.


5 comments:

Brock Townsend said...

A blithering idiot.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

That's ok - he got a scorching smack down from the Federal courts - they gave the sophmoric bunch of clowns a homework assignment - 3 page, single spaced to be precise. ;o)

Brock Townsend said...

Which they complied with, though a tad short on the third page I believe and not surprising coming from our Marxist-In-Chief and his useful idiots.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Yes, they did. If I'd been the judge, I'd have rejected it and responded, "my order said 3 pages - and that's what I meant" - then issued a contempt charge.

Brock Townsend said...

Agreed.