Failure of Presidential Power Before Civilians
The President, in his Saturday radio address reveals a fundamental flaw with his leadership, and implicitly a concern he could be removed from office.
The President bemoans a bill he signed. If the President is not happy with the bill, as written and requiring a renewal, he cannot explain why he did not correct the deficiencies.
___ Leaders look in the mirror and solve problems. Why is the President complaining about a bill he signed?
___ Leaders take responsibility for their actions. Does the President have no explanation why he refused to veto a bill he was and remain unhappy?
___ Leaders define whether they will or will not control outcomes. Why is the President absurdly defining "success" in terms of whether someone else does or does not act?
___ Leaders solve a problem, they don't make excuses. If the President wants something to happen, does he have an explanation for not signing something that would achieve his objective?
___ Leaders solve problems, they don't blame others. It was foreseeable that another party might control Congress; does the President have an explanation why he signed something he's not happy with?
___ Leaders provide an explanation for their change in concern. The President has convinced some in the DNC to support his Judicial appointments and illegal Military Commission Bills; why is the President not confident he is unable to get the DNC to support the legislation?
___ Leaders provide credible options, implement solutions, and adjust. The President fails to discuss whether there are there are or are not good reasons why taxes should not be increased; as opposed to other methods of financing a rising debt. What is the reason the President signed into law something that he knew was not permanent?
The President's argument is convoluted. Put aside the bill for the moment. Consider for the moment you are this President: You would like the tax cuts to be permanent; however, you believe, rightly or wrongly, there there is a limit to how far in the future the Congress can make the legislation affect taxes. What do you do?
A. You sign a flawed bill that sets the deadline after you have the power to do something about it; or
B. You sign a temporary reduction, then right before the end of the Congressional term, you sign a renewal that kicks the deadline well past a future Congress' ability to affect.
If you're a stupid President, you'll choose A, and fail to exercise B, which provides you a method to kick the window of opportunity to the right. Here are some questions this President cannot credibly answer:
___ If you knew that there was a time limit to the tax reduction, why did you agree last year to a deadline, but not renew that deadline with this Congress?
___ What's the reason you failed to renew the tax language with a bill that would make the taxes permanent?
___ Why did you agree to a bill that did not have a provision that was favorable to your position?
___ Is there a reason you did not, as you did with the Military Commisssions Bill, wait until the last possible moment to sign a new bill, and kick the deadline as far to the right/in the future as was possible?
Change The Topic
Let's consider another version of the argument. The Simple Argument: Ignore the fact the President signed a flawed bill; and that the prospect of a tax "increase" is really a return to the previous tax levels.
The President absurdly commented in his radio address (paraphrasing), "They're going to raise taxes" without explaining why he would not use his veto power to prevent the DNC "plan" from being implemented.
This bill, as he signed into law, is an RNC-Presidential agreement. The President cannot credibly blame the minority party over something the President and majority agreed.
The President's assertion has no credibility. The only way the DNC will be able to do anything is if they have 2/3 of the votes to override the veto -- the same votes required to lawfully remove the President from office.
Rule: Higher taxes and/or a conviction in the Senate requires the same Congressional action: A 2/3 vote; can't have one without the other. If the President is concerned about a 2/3 vote to override his veto, his concern isn't taxes, but lawful removal from office with a lawful conviction.
The President's priorities as outlined in his radio address, and all public statements, are absurd. If the President's real concern is that the DNC may have 2/3 to override his veto, it is a waste of time to consider whether there will or will not be an increase in taxes; he would better spend his public time asking for assistance to defend him at the war crimes tribunal.
It's a separate issue what may or may not happen if the President is lawfully convicted for war crimes. We could speculate all day long which method of lawful execution the President may prefer. This is only up to the Article III court to decide, and the President's preference may have little bearing on his method of lawful execution.
The responsibility for the President's radio address lies with him. His comments, and concerns with taxes require too many convoluted conclusions to justify believing the President genuinely is concerned with higher taxes.
If all the variables were to go the way the President proposes, the issue is not whether the President and RNC will or will not have higher taxes, but whether the President and his alleged co-conspirators are lawfully impeached, removed from office, and subjected to adjudication for war crimes in an Article III proceeding.
The President fails to clarify whether his concern is with a 2/3 majority of the DNC in Congress. Whether the DNC does or does not raise taxes is meaningless speculation. It appears the President would rather talk about issues that might concern the voters -- an issue of taxes -- because the RNC base is incapable of responding to an issue the President is really concerned: The possibility of impeachment.
Failed Presidency: Many Failures Without A Solution
The President’s single comment on taxes and his failure to mention his veto is an important point. The implications of this comment are stunning, and the attached failures are equally impressive:
A. Unusual Changes in RNC Loyalty
The President fails to explain how the RNC, which has otherwise voted as a block, would suddenly shift policy, and join the Democrats to override the Presidential veto.
B. Incredible, Unconstitutional Outcomes
The President fails to explain, even if the DNC were to control both houses, how the DNC would pass legislation that the President opposes.
C. Perplexing Forecasts
The President incorrectly argues that the DNC position, however it is misconstrued, will prevail, despite the DNC having insufficient votes to override a veto.
D. Refusal To Embrace His Agreements
The President misconstrues the political issues to have the American public incorrectly believe that the President and DNC will not come to an agreement on a solution. Once the President agrees with that solution, the solution is a policy of the US government, not the Democratic party.
What the President says in October 2006 is meaningless. The President has the responsibility to exercise his executive authority and solve the problems he created. It is not the responsibility of the DNC to save the President from the foreseeable consequences of his reckless, illegal policies: War crimes indictments.
The DNC has no responsibility to commit to any policy until there is fact finding to establish what is going on, the state of affairs, and the relative risks and benefits of various policy options. To date the RNC and this President have, despite control over both chambers of the Legislature and the Executive Branch, have failed to articulate, much less implement a credible strategy to employ successful combat forces to achieve American national security interests.
The DNC is not responsible to run the Executive Department; however, if the President is interested in creating false impressions that the DNC will or will not do anything; the President has the responsibility to clearly articulate to the American public the following points:
___ How does the President propose the DNC will do anything without the President's consent?
___ How does the President explain why he will not use his veto power to prevent flawed legislation from being enacted?
___ How does the President reconcile the inconsistency between the two inconsistent RNC arguments: (1) The RNC will maintain control of both chambers in Congress; yet (2) The DNC might suddenly, without explanation, take control of 2/3 of the chamber in both houses, thereby giving them the ability to override a veto.
Either the President is:
A. Disingenuous
Lying about whether he believes the RNC will win, and maintain control of either house:
___ Does the President have an explanation why he is using a non-sense explanation?
___ If the President was confident of victory, why is he relying on non-sense arguments?
___ If the President was sure the public will do the right thing, why does the President feel there is a need to use absurd, speculative arguments which would require his cooperation for those outcomes to occur?
B. Ignoring the Veto Power
He is falsely stating a speculative outcome he knows is not possible given his veto power:
___ What is the basis to believe the speculative forecast of something that is only possible if the President agrees, cooperates, and refuses to exercise his power?
____ Why should anyone believe the President is serious about "unitary executive theory of government" if he is not willing to discuss his veto power?
C. Inconsistently Acting on Public and Private Concerns
Publicly pretending he will have a victory in the election, while privately believing the DNC could control 2/3 of the seats in both chambers:
___ Does the President have an explanation for his inconsistency?
___ If the President is not being consistent, why should the RNC be trusted with power?
D. Unable to Prevent The Breakdown of RNC Discipline
Creating the false impression that the RNC voting block, which consistently refuses to support the DNC, will suddenly shift alliances, break ranks, and join the Democrats in overriding a Presidential veto.
___ What is the President's explanation for the breakdown in the RNC discipline?
___ Will the RNC members of Congress have a good reason to defy the President?
___ Is the present refusal of the RNC candidates to be seen with the President indicative of their imminent defection, and cooperation with the DNC to impeach the President?
___ How can the President claim that the DNC will do or not do something, and override a veto with 2/3 concurring; yet he claims the DNC does not have enough votes to impeach, which also requires 2/3 to override his veto?
___ If the President is confident that both chamber of Congress will have sufficient votes to override his veto, and have 2/3 control, how can he be confident he will survive a 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove the President from office for illegal activity?
E. Failing To Consider DNC pragmatism
Incorrectly asserting that the RNC will win, and maintain control; while privately believing that the DNC will capture sufficient seats to (1) ignore the President; (2) Avoid prosecution for not protecting the Constitution; (3) Do things which will be disasters, and suffer no losses in 2008; (4) Take extreme positions which the President, and RNC voting block will not opposite.
___ What evidence does the President have that the DNC will do things that will jeopardize their chances of successfully wining the White House in 2008 and maintaining control through prudent use of policy?
___ Is the President aware of something that would justify the DNC taking action?
___ How much additional money is required to clean up the mess this President created in both Iraq and Afghanistan?
___ Is there a solution this President has that he wants to share with the public that might resolve the problem he has created?
___ Does the President continue to, as Nixon did, point to a phony "secret plan" without offering those details to win the popular vote?
___ Does the President have a reason that he is not sharing the information that might otherwise inspire RNC voters to remain confident in the President?
Judgments
The President is concerned that he could lawfully be removed from office. The only credible way to explain the President's false, public concern with higher taxes is if the DNC might have 2/3 votes in each house to override a veto, and lawfully remove him from office.
The President is publicly creating the illusion of a problem. The only way that speculative outcome could occur is if the President were to face a 2/3 vote in both houses to override the veto.
The President is not concerned with higher taxes. he is concerned that, given time, the Senate may be convinced to, as they would in overriding a veto, could lawfully rally 2/3 of the Senate to remove the President from office.
The President’s public statement -- that he is concerned the DNC may or may not raise taxes -- is not credible. They are a scare tactic to distract attention from his failed, reckless leadership which could lawfully be prosecuted as war crimes.
What You Can Do
1. Raise the 2/3 Votes Issue-Requirement
Challenge the President. Make him explain why he is concerned the DNC will have 2/3 of the votes in both chambers to override his veto.
2. Ask About The Implicit Inconsistency
Make the President explain why he is publicly, implicitly concerned that the Senate would have 2/3 of the votes to defy any Presidential veto.
3. Ask Why The President is Not Treating RNC Membership, Voters Professionally
Make the President credibly argue before his party faithful why he is publicly concerned about something that would not be possible, unless the President is concerned about something he is not sharing with his membership.
4. Make the President Clarify His Confusing Remarks
Challenge your colleagues in the RNC to consider whether the President is more concerned with 2/3 of a vote going to raise taxes, override a veto; or whether his larger concern is that the same 2/3 voting block might lawfully impeach and remove from office those who weld not be able to be pardoned for war crimes.
5. Make the President Explain Why He Should Be Believed
Put aside the issue of taxes, for the moment: Force the President to explain how he plans to solve the problem using any available amount of money. There is little before us to suggest that adding more money to a flawed process is going to work. The President has no reasonable basis for anyone to conclude otherwise.
6. Make the President Explain The Failed Use of American Military Force
Make the President explain why he believes any threatened or use of force has any credibility given the abysmal failure of the use of force to suppress insurgents in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Make the President explain why, in the wake of this failed use of force, any civilian around the globe should take American threats seriously.
7. Make the President Explain The Weakness of American Military Forces Before Civilians
Force the President to explain whether he believes US combat troops are weaker, and more willing to assent to force than a civilian population. Does the President worry that US combat forces are incapable of employing military force to force any civilian population to cooperate with war crimes, Geneva violations, and illegal war fare?
8. Make the President Explain His Implicit Loyalty to Insurgents Over Americans
Make the President explain why he believes that Iraqi insurgents should be negotiated with in secret, but that the DNC cannot be similarly approached. Does the President b3elieve that only insurgents and those who have prevailed over weak US combat forces should be given attention; or is there a reason that the President is discussing with insurgents settlement issues, while he refuses to similarly approach the DNC on a similar good faith?
Conclusion
President implicitly fears impeachment, and has no solution to his failed Presidency. His only option is to fan the flames of insurrection, illegal rebellion, and war crimes. This President, even if faced with the prospect of a civil insurrection in Iraq or Afghanistan, has a demonstrated track record of failing to successfully employ force to maintain civil order.
Even if this President has a plan to implement martial law in the United States, he has no track record in Iraq or Afghanistan of translating his plans into credible results to protect the Constitution. Whether this President hopes to incite a rebellion and revolution to justify illegal use of military power against civilians is an irrelevant argument: Although he may believe he has no other option, his demonstrated recklessness and incompetence send every signal these plans could not possibly be put into effect.
The President has failed to successfully incite a revolution. He remains in rebellion, and has illegally waged unlawful war. He is a war criminal. He has no hope of victory, unless he continues to confuse Americans. Even if Americans choose to support illegal warfare, and nonsense Executive power, the states retain the inherent power to lawfully protect the Constitution, prosecute the President, and lawfully move to end the illegal rebellion by this RNC party.
Foreign fighters remain poised to bring the battle to America to resolve what this President refuses to accept in the courts: He is a war criminal, and has run out of lawful options to defy the Constitution.
He wished this.
posted by Constant @ 12:46 PM
<< Home