This past Tuesday night the president gave his final State of the Union Address. Not only was his address shorter than most (around 55 minutes) it also focused jointly on our nation's status along with calling on it's citizens and politicians to work together and attempt to eliminate "the rancor and suspicion between the parties" that "has gotten worse instead of better" citing that "It's one of the few regrets of my presidency". He also questioned, in line with the philosophy of a joint party effort, how we all could help our economy, solve technological and medical problems, reduce the severity of climate change, avoid becoming the world's policeman and how we may learn to reason together and leave behind the non-productive gridlock of Washington. He further cautioned us against any politics that discriminated against religion and supported carpet bombing civilians to try to eliminate a perceivable threat.
Sounds like statements that any reasonable, level headed, common sense individual could agree upon..... Right?..... Not hardly, my fellow Observer. Even though this was his final address, conservatives and opponents of his initiatives still couldn't bring themselves to show even the slightest recognition of respect for his last 8 years of service by applauding any of his statements. Even when they suggested actions that would benefit us all... when they weren't party driven or one sided. People still found fault in his words of a united effort for all. Not only did they find it, they commented on it with the kind of negativity that can only be found in modern day politics. Jeb Bush tweeted "Middle class income has declined $2000 under Obama's failed policies." Donald Trump showed his discord by telling his followers "The SOTUA speech was one of the most boring, rambling, and non-substantive I have heard in a long time." Ben Carson played the foreign policy failure card by posting "While President Obama is complaining about global warming 10 of our American sailors are held in Iranian custody." By the way, far be it from me to point out that the sailors were only held for a short time, after entering Iranian waters without cause, were not mistreated, were released the day after Carson's tweet and were treated exactly the same way Iranians would have been treated if they sailed into our waters... probably better. Brandy new House speaker Paul Ryan, who seemed totally disgusted by having to sit behind the president all night by the look on his face, #GrumpyPaul, stated in a response to the president's unnamed jabs at Trump and Cruz and their followers by saying in his address that it was "un-American" and "wrong-headed" for those "promising to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea, that was threatening America, under control." that although he agreed with the president, bringing up primary politics in a State of the Union Address, during the primaries and criticizing the other party "sort of degrades the presidency.". To be fair to speaker Ryan, Joe Biden, who was sitting next to him, seemed way too happy for anyone sober. #IThinkJoesOnSomething
I am by no means a supporter of the president and especially his wife with her soup kitchen jogging suit and sneakers included, but this is exactly what he was talking about. So let me get this straight. The president can't talk about primary politics during the State of the Union Address, but it is perfectly acceptable for the opposing party to do just that and bash the current president, party and record in their response to the address. This year they chose South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley to respond. Probably to show their disapproval for how presidential poll frontrunner Trump is depicting their party's position with his radical immigration proposals. Being that she is the first woman governor in her state and the first Indian American governor, who is also the daughter of immigrants, she was the perfect choice to try and undo all the "Donald" damage. In her response she did agree with the president's statements about immigration reform, not prejudicial drastic measures, but she still called out the commander in chief for our failing economy and falling short of his goals and his "soaring words". What was much more disturbing in her response, besides the fact that she doesn't open her mouth a lot when she talks....I don't know how she won her election with all those "lying through her teeth" memes on social media I'm sure that were out there.... But I have to say, she does have nice teeth and should show them off, just not as much as she does..... maybe... Oh Yeah... the disturbing part... was her claiming that "We are facing the most dangerous terrorist threat our nation has seen since September 11th."....and here we go again, my loyal reader.
Fifteen years later, numerous other terrorist actions and factions cranking out on a horror show assembly line worldwide and we are still facing "the most dangerous threat" we've seen thus far every time some new nutjobs show up with their guns, masks and unpronounceable names. What neither party is talking about or accusing each other of, is the control our government has over us created by the fear they instill in the public by getting us to give up our freedoms little by little in exchange for their security theater measures, such as the Patriot Act, every time one of them cries Al Qaeda. What every opposing party does claim is that most of the blame for our lack of security or too much of it, depending on whose in office and what party is griping, is the misuse of the presidential directive power that so many feel has increased due to the Patriot Act and other legislation like it. A common misconception brought on by propaganda used by both parties to criticize the executive branch and make it the repository of all our country's problems. Congress and the Senate aren't to blame... no, no, no, no, no ... it's all the presidents fault with that ridiculous executive order. In truth, the Patriot Act did increase certain government powers, but mostly to the NSA and surveillance protocols.
Another popular incorrect belief is that the presidential directive is something new that came around the same time as the attacks. It isn't. It can be traced back to George Washington. He issued 8 of them. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order. FDR's New Deal was also. Critics also cite that the current administration is among the top users of this power. Nope.... not even close. Compared to the all time leader Franklin Delano Roosevelt with 3,522 orders, followed by Woodrow Wilson with 1,803 the current president is not even in the top ten with a meager 224. Obama isn't even the highest in the last 35 years. He's beaten by Ronald Reagan with 381 and George W. Bush with 291 orders being pen whipped into law without congressional approval.
What is true about the executive order is that every opposing party has continually denounced whatever president was in office for using them, have promised to overturn the ones that tick them off and promise that if they become president to use the power the right way and not abuse it. But ask any of them if they will abolish the power if they are elected and you'll get more "Ummms" and "Uhhhs" than there are in a Dan Malloy speech.
The biggest problem with presidential directives is that overturning them can be tricky at best. Congress can't technically override an executive order by a direct vote the way they can a veto, but can pass a bill changing or cancelling the order in a manner that they see fit. The president will no doubt veto the bill, then congress can override the veto and implement the changes to the directive... unless... the president "pocket veto's" the bill, let's it die on his desk, the process starts all over again and the order stands as law. Congress can also choose not to fund the directive and the supreme court can declare a directive unconstitutional. The only easy political way to overturn an executive order is to have the president overturn it. An example would be Obama quashing George W. Bush's order on limited access to presidential records that he implemented in 2001. Legislation has been introduced in the past and recently to make it harder for any presidential order to be overturned, but because the actual action of an executive directive is not outlined anywhere in the constitution there is no constitutional precedent to allow it or deny it. Constitutionally it does not exist, except in the oval office. It's very hard to revoke or modify legislation that never existed in the first place, but is wielded like a rapier during the Crusades by those that have the power to use a power that doesn't exist. If you followed all that you probably have a better understanding why congress doesn't do much about executive orders except whine about them. I'm glad one of us does.
At this past Thursday's GOP debate, along with apparently having a difficult time understanding that Obama is not running again, I heard every single one of the candidates on the dais tell us that our country is not safe. Not safe from terrorists. Not safe from atmospheric detonations that can knock out our electrical grids. Not safe from cyber attacks, dirty bombs, biological weapons or radicals in the back of pickup trucks. I would offer one more thing that we as a nation are not safe from.... them. They all claim that the current administration has endangered us by not acting enough against terrorist threats. That danger is around every corner and that we need to be vigilant and vote for them because they are the only ones that have the guts to protect us from the big bad foreigners and those two guys that just got married last weekend. I will add that the liberals are a little less doom and gloom as they caution us that the conservatives go overboard on security and that they will make sure that they will provide us with the security we actually need without it being overwhelming, but make no mistake...we do need it because the threat is out there. I submit that they are both blowing smoke up our running scared skirts. They are playing to our fears and we are willing to give them anything they want if there is the chance to keep our families safe. The sad truth is that there is none. Security theater is just that... theater... a show... an illusion of safety that doesn't exist but has a real monetary cost and a damaging prejudicial public mindset attached to it and has statistically been shown to cause people to make uninformed, non-productive political decisions that last for years. We also have learned that the feeling of security actually increases the risk. No politician, executive order or congressional act can protect us from a radical.... anything.... and they know it. The only thing that we get from buying into their terrorist prevention bill of goods is their ability to persecute us a little easier. Their ability to render judgment against us via a drumhead trial. The ability for them to keep tabs on all of us, our actions, our movements, our dialog through our cell phones and computers. All in the name of security that doesn't exist, from an enemy that we ourselves created by our own policies in the way we do business abroad and meddle with other countries by imposing our morals and economics on them. That's what both parties won't tell you. That's why radicals hate us. That's why they want to blow us up. If politicians are only interested in security illusions, practicing politics based on prejudice, promoting fear, believing that bombing thousands of civilians just to dispatch a few dozen that our government deem a threat to us and blatantly refuse to bridge party lines and come together on initiatives or ideals that will better our world... then what exactly are we voting for this coming November? Strictly an Observation. If you'll excuse me, I have to work on my truck.
View my other articles, posts and Like Strictly an Observer on Facebook
View all Strictly an Observer articles on Tumblr
Strictly an Observer is on Pinterest
Strictly an Observer is on My Space
Follow Strictly an Observer on Twitter
Follow Strictly an Observer on Google+
Contact Strictly an Observer. I welcome all correspondence.
