Emperor changes more "laws" by decree

Once again the emperor, with a wave of his magnificent hand, has changed U.S. law.

Well maybe not so much "changed" as "suspended."  Yeah, that's it.

Cool, huh?  This new "imperial" government is so much more efficient that our old one--the clunky one established by the Constitution, in which congress passed "laws" and presidents were directed by the Constitution to see that those laws were "faithfully enforced."

Of course that meant that if a president didn't like the effects of a law, he had to work with congress to amend or repeal it.  Our modern community organizer immediately saw the problem here:  That made it much harder for him to do what He wanted to do.  And it required icky, inefficient things like compromise. What nonsense!

A strong community organizer learns that you never compromise.  After all, when you've got 150 angry protestors blocking the lobby of a bank you've targeted for concessions, why on earth would you compromise?  You've got a knife to the business's throat.   Do muggers negotiate?  Of course not.

The emperor's supporters--the Left--have wanted normal relations with Cuba forever.  One of their slogans years ago was "End the blockade of Cuba!" even though there's never been a blockade by the U.S. on Cuban trade.  (For those under 40, a "blockade" is when one nation stations ships outside the ports of another and threatens to sink traffic to or from those ports.)

Other nations have always been free to to trade with Cuba, and have always done so.  And even our laws allowed the sale of food and medicine to Cuba.  But nothing else without specific permission.

Now, there may well be some good arguments for normalizing relations with Cuba.  If so, let's hear 'em.  Discuss thoroughly for several weeks, to allow enough time for any hidden agendas to be revealed.  Then if most people agree that this is a good idea, change the law.  At least that's how things were done before the reign of the emperor.

Eh, much better to just decree and jet off to a vacation where you can avoid pointed questions until the "stupid" public (Gruber's description) forgets about the whole thing over Christmas.

Sure glad we had that election six weeks ago, eh?  The one where voters sent a strong signal to Democrats that they were very displeased with the direction that party--under their president and leader, the emperor--was taking.  Cuz if voters hadn't sent that strong message, the emperor might do something really outrageous.

Like change more laws by decree.

Obama, June 13th: "The U.S. won't send troops back into combat in Iraq" Yesterday: "Uh, just kidding."

Last June 13th the Huffington Post ran a one-minute clip of the emperor--looking vewy impewial standing in front of his marine helicopter--absolutely assuring his subjects that "The U.S. won't send combat troops back into Iraq." 

The scrupulously non-partisan CNN joined the adoring chant: "Obama says no combat troops to Iraq."

ABC: "Obama rules out sending combat troops back into combat in Iraq." 

The NY Times noted that "he ruled out using ground forces."

Of course we all know by now that the emperor's promises have expiration dates.  In this case the emperor has sent U.S. ground troops back to Iraq. 

That's the same Iraq that he crowed so loudly about removing all our troops from just three years ago.

It's just a hoot how the Democrats and Liberals and Leftists are all breathless with the emperor's glowy promises just six months ago--"Obama promises he won't send ground troops back into combat in Iraq."  And now just six months later--whoops, there we are!

I keep waiting for the HuffPo or anyone on the Left to suddenly wake up and say "Wha...?  I think that man may have broken his promise to us!"  But of course that won't happen.  The guy will continue to say one thing and do the opposite, or do something and deny doing it, and the Democrats will all swoon! over how great the creases in his pants look, or similar nonsense.

It's actually funny.

Would't be if the Resident was a Republican, of course.  But then we didn't expect consistency.

Just out of curiosity:  After Ogabe sent U.S. ground troops back into Iraq, what did he expect they'd do if they were attacked?  Cuz, you know, he sent 'em into a combat zone where shit like that routinely happens. 

I suspect he'd say "Well I ordered 'em NOT to shoot back but they did anyway?  So those who disobeyed orders will be punished."

Socialism's path summarized

In general, free markets manage themselves pretty well:  Supply and demand find a way to equilibrate, both via prices and new suppliers entering tight markets to make money by satisfying a demand for goods or services.  That ol' "invisible hand" is amazingly skilled.

Of course totalitarians of every stripe--socialists, statists, fascists, whatever--absolutely can't *stand* to let people run their own affairs.  They insist on controlling--first just a few things but ultimately every aspect of the economy.

Problem is, they don't know how to manage *anything*--particularly something as complex as an entire economy.  So when things start going south (inevitably), they issue orders or decrees that end up worsening the problems they themselves created.

Socialists/communists/statists/"progressives" ALWAYS go this route:

1.  "Most of our supporters are poor.  We'll fix that by giving them money, which we'll get by taking it from The Rich.  Yeah, dat's da ticket!  Problem solved!"

2.  "Wow, who knew there were so MANY poor?  Or that they'd need SO MUCH?  So when the total needs of the poor for government money exceed revenue, do we reverse course?  Not at all--we'll simply print more money...LOTS of money.  Cuz we wanna "help da people."  

3. After printing LOTS of money, surprise!  Lots of cash chasing too few goods means prices go up!  Wow, who could possibly have seen *that* coming?  We socialists issued a decree that should have made things all better, and somehow this happened.  It's unfair!  And illogical!  It must be because businessmen are cunningly holding back their goods to make more money!  Yeah, dat's it!! 

4. When prices skyrocket, do you admit you made a mistake by printing so much money and cut the money supply?  Not even close! You impose PRICE CONTROLS--which creates a black market by those evil people on the street (who have common sense but no PhD in socialism) so people can get things they want or need, even though they have to pay hugely inflated prices.  No one is forcing either buyer or seller to do this, yet they freely agree to such deals--a lot.  And you can't *stand it,* because it threatens your control.  So you pass a law jailing anyone who buy or sell at more than the government-decreed price.

5. After you impose price controls--ordering businesses to sell controlled items at artificially low prices--the controlled items sell out immediately, and the shelves/stores are empty.  Now what?  Do you realize how stupid you are and stop doing what you're doing?  No way!  You blame the Yankees and businessmen for refusing to supply goods at the decreed, artificially low price.  How dare they refuse to give away their products for less than the cost to produce them?! 

6. After stores go out of business, and businesses that made consumer goods close because they can't make ends meet at the State-decreed price, most of the business class starts leaving the country.  Now what??  Do you realize the productive folks are bailing out, and that your moronic supporters can't run a complex factory, and end price controls?  Hahahahaha!  Of course not!  You declare victory for socialism and move everyone out of the cities to the farms to grow food for the party members.

7.  Eventually your supporters kill a lot of people.  But of course it's not socialism's fault!  And most certainly not YOUR fault.  After all, you did all the right things.  It was just greedy businessmen, or the American CIA, or "counter-revolutionary forces," or the bourgeoisie who sabotaged you.
 
This exact scenario is playing out right now in Venezuela.  Oh, wait--you probably think I just made that up because I oppose statists and socialists.  Actually the link is to the WaPo.

The absolutely hysterical thing is, the Post's editors and reporters totally support Barack Hussein Obama doing exactly the same thing here.  They report--if reluctantly--on the woes of socialism in Venezuela but embrace the same policies here.

What the hell do they think ObamaCare is if not socialism?

Venezuela reminds me of someplace farther north...

Venezuela’s legislature voted to hand its socialist president sweeping decree powers Tuesday.  [By contrast, here in the U.S. the president already changes or violates laws by decree, without consulting congress, and congress simply smiles.]

President Nicolás Maduro supposedly wanted more powers in order to take stronger action to "solve" widespread food shortages and shockingly high inflation.

Maduro blames the country’s economic woes on private businessmen conspiring with agents of the U.S. government.  [In the U.S. the president blames Republicans by calling them racists and economic terrorists.]

Maduro is expected to continue a crackdown on private businesses in the country that began earlier this month. Calling businessman “barbaric” and “capitalist parasites,” he ordered the arrests of dozens of them and forced others to slash prices on plasma TVs and other household appliances.  Not surprisingly the order was wildly popular, with people swarming the stores.

[Here it's Obamaphones, and letting people use their EBT card to pay for tattoos, hair styling and liquor.  And problems are the fault of the "evil one-percenters."]

Chavez used a similar tactic to win reelection last year, giving away Chinese appliances such as refrigerators to buy votes.  Maduro found a cheaper way, simply ordering businesses to sell their goods for less.  [Here in the U.S. the president simply orders taxpayers to pay double for new health insurance, and uses the extorted funds to give health insurance to the poor.  Very Venezuelan.]

Last month Venezuela’s inflation rate was 54.3 percent, as the country experienced its worst shortages of toilet paper, cooking oil, and other basic goods in years. Economists say government actions like the recent appliance order and currency controls have drastically reduced private investment.

[What?  Government actions can reduce private investment?  Would cutting private investment, like, maybe cut the number of new, non-government jobs created by businesses?  Unbelievable!]

"These policies will likely have dire implications for Venezuela’s future.  A majority of the people.will  expect the state will provide for them,” said an analyst.

[Here in the U.S. roughly 40% of the citizens pay no income tax and depend on government handouts to live.  But hey, no problem.  Cuz they vote Democrat.  Woohoo!  Keep them policies comin'!]

Update, from the WSJ:

Critics also note Venezuela has for years refused to publish details of how it spends money held in state-run funds created during the Chavez era, even though required to by the country's main anti-corruption law, calling into question why he would need special anti-graft powers.

Expenditures that do not require legislators' approval have grown so large that investors, such as those who hold Venezuelan bonds, struggle to quantify state spending and have to make their own calculations of the budget deficit.

Government ministries have not responded to repeated requests over the last year seeking details of spending via off-budget mechanisms that include a fund called Fonden, which has received more than $100 billion.

 Wonder what we'd find if "Organizing for America" was audited?