Barack Obama

Obama is trying get around the Senate to enact a U.N. climate deal

There’s no ambiguity about the process by which the United States can enter into a treaty. The Constitution, in Article II, Section 2, states that a president “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

The ratification process is a very specific limitation on presidential power, one that provides a legislative check on the executive branch. But President Barack Obama can’t be bothered by the constitutional process. The New York Times reports that, in his latest move to get around Congress, President Obama’s State Department is negotiating a climate deal at the United Nations to update a 1992 treaty with new emission reduction targets (emphasis added):

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.
[…]
American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

Obama, Corporate Inversions, and Grotesque Hypocrisy

Last month, I put together a list of six jaw-dropping examples of left-wing hypocrisy, one of which featured Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.

He made the list for having the chutzpah to criticize corporate inversions on the basis of supposed economic patriotism, even though he invested lots of money via the Cayman Islands when he was a crony capitalist at Citigroup.

But it turns out that Lew’s hypocrisy is just the tip of the iceberg.

It seems the entire Obama Administration was in favor of inversions just a couple of years ago. Check out these excerpts from a Bloomberg story.

Obama Lecture on Playing by the Rules is Utter Hypocrisy

In a recent weekly address, Barack Obama uttered ten words which every conservative in the nation immediately recognized as absolute truth in a constitutional republic which provides for separation of powers among the branches and levels of government. To quote, Obama stated “You don’t get to pick which rules you play by.”

His statement was made regarding the growing trend of “inversion,” whereby U.S. multinational corporations merge with foreign companies and move their headquarters overseas in order to avoid the double taxation that the United States levies on its companies, a burden suffered by the corporations of no other industrialized nation, which therefore puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

The irony of those words, coming from THAT man, should be lost on no one with an IQ above room temperature.

Obama, more than any president in American history, has shown complete and utter contempt for any constitutional restrictions on his power, and openly mocks and taunts those that express deep concerns for his brazen disregard for the tradition of compromise (as ugly as the process is to get to that end point) that has guided our government for more than two centuries.

Obama talks about having “a phone and a pen,” a reference to his numerous Executive Orders which often bleed over into powers reserved for the other branches of government. Obama has repeatedly claimed this year that he will act unilaterally when Congress refuses to give him his way, and when Congress protests such abuse of power, he glibly responds, “Sue me!”

Hillary Clinton’s big criticism of Barack Obama is that he didn’t go to war against Syria

Back in June, Cato Institute Vice President Gene Healy shed some light on Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy record. No, we’re not talking about her cataclysmic failure in Benghazi or any of her other mistakes during her time in Foggy Bottom.

Healy’s warning was that Clinton — throughout the course of her national profile as first lady, U.S. senator, Secretary of State, and, now, Democratic presidential nominee in waiting — has never met a war she didn’t like. She helped present the case for the Iraq war and the ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorist elements — ties, by the way, that didn’t exist.

More recently, Healy notes, Clinton urged President Obama to intervene in Libya. And, of course, the Obama administration joined the NATO campaign in 2011 to depose the North African country’s dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. The intervention in Libya — which is, basically, in the midst of an internal conflict so violent that both the U.N. and the U.S. have evacuated staffers from their embassies — is generally thought to be one of this administration’s foreign policy blunders.

Clinton was also supportive of U.S. intervention against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. President Obama, however, didn’t take that step, largely due to congressional and public opposition to yet another war.

But Clinton is now criticizing President Obama’s approach to foreign policy, an approach she helped craft during in four years as his secretary of state. In an interview with The Atlantic, Clinton criticized the White House for not throwing its full weight behind the Syrian rebels fighting Assad’s regime:

Intervention comes in all shapes and sizes: U.S. spent over $32 million in failed soy farms in Afghanistan

Afghanistan soy farmers

Interventionism is pretty bad. Disguising it as economical jumpstart measures with honorable goals is just as bad.

You might be used to referring to intervention solely as policies related to military involvement overseas, but often enough, the U.S. government involvement in the economical lives of other nations is linked to what the government officials, not entrepreneurs or seasonal investors, see as a viable project.

Because knowledge regarding prices and production is dispersed, meaning that not all agents are fully aware of all conditions signaling when it’s time to invest and produce, and when it’s time to lay low, government officials often miss the mark in a big way when attempting to determine what kind of interventionist policy they want to embrace next.

The United States government has ignored these lessons too many times in the past, but most recently, its brutally foolish assertiveness has cost taxpayers $34 million.

Over the past four years, the U.S. has been investing in a campaign to change how Afghans eat, and a major part of the project is associated with aiding the country by helping its farmers to grow soy.

Top taxpayer dollars were used to sustain an effort that involved getting the U.S. into growing soybeans in Afghanistan in the hopes that the crops were a viable commercial crop that would also help Afghans to fight some of its malnourishment issues. Soybeans, some U.S. officials thought, will raise the level of protein in their diets and lead to an agricultural jumpstart, helping the struggling country’s economy to flourish.

Unfortunately, the project was doomed from day one. The first 2011 crop failed. Any other harvest after that also failed to produce enough soybeans, making the project impossible to be carried out.

Hey, Barack Obama, businesses are moving overseas because of a terrible tax climate made worse by you

There’s been a lot of talk lately from President Barack Obama and administration officials about “economic patriotism.” They say that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to move overseas to escape paying the corporate income tax.

“Even as corporate profits are higher than ever, there’s a small but growing group of big corporations that are fleeing the country to get out of paying taxes,” President Obama said at a stop in Los Angeles on Thursday. “They’re keeping, usually, their headquarters here in the U.S. They don’t want to give up the best universities and the best military and all the advantages of operating in the United States. They just don’t want to pay for it. So they’re technically renouncing their U.S. citizenship.”

Earlier this month, President Obama suggested that Congress (read: Republicans) lack “economic patriotism” to work with his administration on issues the country faces. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew dropped the same term in a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) as he urged Congress to pass legislation to end corporate inversions.

“What we need as a nation is a new sense of economic patriotism, where we all rise or fall together. We know that the American economy grows best when the middle class participates fully and when the economy grows from the middle out,” Lew wrote in the letter to Wyden. “We should not be providing support for corporations that seek to shift their profits overseas to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.”

Obama is pointing his finger in the wrong direction: He’s now blaming Americans’ rejection of his awful agenda on Democrats

Filed under “this is so sad, it’s funny,” it seems Barack Obama has finally lost his golden touch when it comes to campaigning. Sure, he’s still feeding the liberals pablum, and getting dollars.

However, when it gets down to the point where he’s starting to insult the intelligences of the people that supposedly support him, it’s only a matter of time before the donation well will run dry. He’ll always be able to get money from the masochistic liberals that will take anything, including abuse, as long as they’re getting attention from Obama. As for everyone else? This isn’t a good position to be in heading into a mid-term.

It will be very bad for Democrats in November if enough Republicans manage to first pay attention to this nonsensical line Obama is delivering, and second, bother to use it as a roadmap on the campaign trail. T. Beckett Adams did a very good job of reporting precisely what Obama has been saying to the people that were foolish enough to spend thousands of dollars to hear him insult them.

Yes, it was a lot more of the blame game, but now instead of just blaming Bush and Republicans, Obama has taken to blaming Democrats.

“And so the midterms come around, and lo and behold we’re surprised when John Boehner is the Speaker of the House. Say, well, how did that happen?” the president said. “What happened to [Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.]? What happened was you all didn’t work. That’s what happened.”

#IAmUnitedLiberty: How college helped Jeff Scully light the torch for liberty

Jeff Scully

Note: This is one in a series of profiles of UL contributors and friends and how they became involved in the “liberty movement.” Share your story on Twitter using the hashtag #IAmUnitedLiberty.

In the fall of 2007 I stepped onto the campus of Rutgers-Camden for the first time. I didn’t have the slightest idea which career field I wanted to enter, which major I would choose – heck, I hardly knew where my classes were.

What I did know was what my major shouldn’t be; everybody told me to stay away from a Bachelor of Art’s degree because they “don’t mean anything.” I struggled for a long time deciding what career field I wanted to enter. Eventually, I went with my heart and made the best decision of my life which would eventually result in moving to and working in Washington, D.C.

I took courses from several different majors, trying to get a feel for what I wanted to do. During my first semester at Rutgers-Camden, I took an intro to political science class. I hardly had an interest in politics as I thought that those who were interested in politics either wanted a cushy job in government, or even worse, become a politician for a living.

Ted Cruz releases report on the 20 times the Supreme Court unanimously slapped down an Obama power grab

President Obama’s frequent referrals to executive orders may not materialize as often as they have in other stances in history, but his thirst for presidential overreach has caused enough concern amongst defenders of the Constitution.

What puts President Obama at the top of the list of statesmen who happen to have shown disposition in seeking more power than what is given to them is not only related to executive orders. Obama’s appointed officials, who are hand-picked by the president to run powerful cabinet offices and often bypass Senate confirmation, are also great examples of how Obama can use his presidency to stretch the power of the executive, creating thus menacing precedents.

According to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the Supreme Court has rejected at least 20 cases involving personal freedom. In order to ensure the public is aware of the many instances President Obama’s opinion was reportedly struck down, Cruz released reports on the administration’s efforts to expand federal government.

His latest, and fifth, report covers most of everything.

According to Cruz, the consequences that would have taken place in case President Obama’s arguments had passed could result in substantial changes to the U.S. law system. Cruz’s team has released a report on the matter, and it carries a list of power overreach stories.

While the Supreme Court has rejected Obama’s arguments, which could have been easily used against you and me if he had had his way, the release offers a look into what the U.S. could like in the future if the rulings had been different.

Rules for Liberty

Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff

Don’t hurt people, and don’t take their stuff. That’s the philosophy of liberty in a nutshell. Everyone should be free to live their lives as they think best, free from meddling by politicians and government bureaucrats.

To me, the values of liberty just seem like a commonsense way to think about political philosophy. The rules are easily understood, our aspirations for government are modest and practical, and our designs on the lives and behavior of other people are unpresumptuous, even humble. The rules are pretty straightforward because they treat everyone just like everyone else: simply; they are blindly applied like Lady Justice would; across the board. No assembly required.

I am not a moral philosopher and I don’t particularly aspire to be one. That said, I have stayed at more than one Holiday Inn Express. That makes me at least smart enough to know what I don’t know. So the rules that follow represent my not-so-humble attempt to boil down and mash up all the best thinking in all of human history on individualism and civil society, the entire canon of Judeo-Christian teachings, the spontaneous evolution of common law, hundreds of years of English Whig, Scottish Enlightenment, and classical liberal political philosophy, lots of Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith and Ayn Rand, a smattering of karma, and, like any morally relevant updating of a time-tested ethos, at least a few hat tips to The Big Lebowski. All of this in six convenient “Rules for Liberty.”

 


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.