By Arthur Piccolo
News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Fri. May 29, 2014: This week I think I will bundle a number of examples of the failed Obama Presidency to pick and choose from as you like.
I will limit this potpourri to three so as not to overwhelm you with Gloom.
Let’s begin with an issue explained well in a New York Times editorial today, keeping in mind even The Times, originally a Big Fan of Obama, has been ever more critical of this Presidency in order to be truthful and to try to maintain a decent level of integrity for themselves.
So here is Thursday’s editorial titled: “Adding Delay to Immigration Failure.” Let me offer some excerpts and then explain the even larger meaning …
“President Obama asked the homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson, in March to review the administration’s immigration enforcement policies. He was under intense pressure from immigrant advocates, frustrated at Congress’s inaction on reform, who were imploring him to act on his own to end or slow the pace of deportations. Now he’s backing off and asking Mr. Johnson to delay the review.”
“Mr. Obama has deported more people more quickly than any other president. When he said he would look for ways to make his deportation machinery “more humane,” that promise was a delaying action. He now wants to give Congress one more chance to work out compromise legislation, and he doesn’t want to give Republicans any excuse to block it.”
“There is something ridiculous about the president’s fear of halting a legislative process that has been motionless for nearly a year. And it’s infuriating for him to insist that doing more through executive action to protect families and reset the system’s warped priorities — as he did in halting the deportations of thousands of young people brought to the country as children — is impossible or too politically dangerous.”
That is more than enough.
Here is the larger issue about this flawed President.
Obama is seeking nothing more than political advantage in everything he does as President. It has been his modus operandi since January 20, 2009, while at the same time conning naive Democrats – not the Elites in DC his real constituency – but conning the millions of other Democrats and progressive independents into believing he is standing up for principles and being progressive in his agenda. It is nothing but BS.
Obama has employed this recalcitrant immigration policy because he does not want too piss off Republicans and this show a lack of any integrity on his part.
Now let me turn to today’s second example of this same Obama duplicity.
Guantanamo.
In an interview on national public radio on Wednesday in answer to the interviewers questions about Guantanamo still being open, Obama was so compelling in saying he so much wants to get rid of Guantanamo that it is an outrage to the very core of American values to keep hundreds of individuals locked in prison without any charges against them at all, but making it sound like he would but he can’t free them. More BS!
Obama does not release them and send then all back to their country of origin because of politics. He does not want to be accused by Republicans of releasing so called terrorists but to listen to him you do not get that impression at all.
Just the opposite.
President Obama wants us all to believe he would never allow individuals who have been convicted of nothing and who there isn’t even enough evidence against to try them for any crime at all that he would never allow them to be kept in prison for year after year with no hope of release but that is exactly what Obama is doing refusing to release them even though he says he would never do anything so illegal but he is!
Now to the third part of this potpourri.
Obama’s Justice Department and the case of Credit Suisse.
For this one I will turn to the very well respected Economist magazine. The sub-title of their article on 5/24/14 is “A big financial firm pleads guilty to a criminal charge and lives to tell the tale.”
Let me quote from their article …
“Over the past year, however, Eric Holder, America’s attorney-general, has faced widespread criticism for suggesting that the broader costs of holding financial firms criminally liable could, in effect, make them “too big to jail.”
“Pressure to secure a conviction grew in February after a Senate committee released a damning report on Credit Suisse’s activity.”
“This case shows that no financial institution, no matter its size or global reach, is above the law,” said Mr. Holder at a press conference announcing the criminal plea by Credit Suisse. But what, in this case, does the law require as a consequence? In principle, the firm might have lost all-important licensees to operate in the state of New York and America in general. Instead, as part of the intricately negotiated deal, regulators agreed not to withdraw any of its licensees or restrict its operations.”
And this …
“Another group to have been spared the worst of the investigation are the clients who dodged taxes: Credit Suisse has not handed over their names. “It is a mystery to me that the US government didn’t require as part of the agreement that the bank cough up some of the names,” said Carl Levin, the senator who heads the committee that published the damning report in February. In theory, the impediment was Swiss bank-secrecy laws, but they were waived for UBS, which revealed the owners of 4,700 accounts. That is not the only way in which America’s legal reckoning with banks since the financial crisis has been opaque and inconsistent.”
Here is the point sanctimonious Barack Obama in this matter likewise in which he bemoans what the banks are allowed to get away with has his Justice Department gives this criminal bank Credit Suisse a “free pass. They were caught aiding and abetting indeed encouraging thousands of wealthy Americans to avoid billions of dollars in U.S. taxes.
What is their penalty? Big Deal – a sizable fine otherwise known as the modest cost of doing illegal business. But as the Economist details, not even one of the senior executives paid any price, let alone no one being indicted for criminal fraud. And get this; Obama did NOT require Credit Suisse – are you ready for this – they did not have to turn over the names of the guilty Americans who used Credit Suisse to avoid sizable taxes they owed.
Again this is the way the Economist put it …
“Another group to have been spared the worst are the clients who dodged taxes: Credit Suisse has not handed over their names. “It is a mystery to me that the U.S. government didn’t require as part of the agreement that the bank cough up some of the names,” said Carl Levin, the senator who heads the committee that published the damning report in February.”
It is NO mystery at all. This is the way Barack Obama operates no matter the issue. He does whatever is politically expeditious for him while telling all of us a very different fictional story to make us believe otherwise.
