By Lloyd Marcus
March 14, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Incredibly, Obama continues to boldly go where no other president has gone before. Apparently, none of the rules apply to him. Without consequence, at will, Obama ignores laws and the Constitution to implement his progressive/socialist agenda.

America's first black president has morphed into America's first king. All hail King Obama, our supreme ruler. Think about this folks, King Obama has put together his royal court of an unprecedented 32 czars who only answer to him. His czars consist of people who have socialist and communist leanings, many simply do not like America. King Obama's czars, without congressional over sight, set new rules and regulations for our lives; boldly ignoring laws and the U.S. Constitution.

Given Obama's unprecedented government overreaches, when we vote him out in 2012, will His Royal Obamaness surrender the Oval Office? Just kidding. Such a concern is a bit over the top. Right? Right?

Meanwhile, displaying an amazing total disregard for the sanctity of freedom, guess who cheers on Obama's every unprecedented lawless “power grab” and dis of the Constitution; the despicable liberal media.

Most of the mainstream media are liberals promoting their progressive/socialist agenda while calling it journalism. A liberal black presidential candidate was their dream come true. Obama's skin color was a gift from the liberal gods; the ultimate political trump card.

The Left exploits Obama's black skin color as their “Weapon of Mass Intimidation”; a coat of armor insulating him from all opposition and reasonable critique.

Any supplicant daring to question or oppose His Royal Obamaness is forced to endure the liberal media's “shock and awe” battery of accusations of racism and violent intentions.

Is it unfair to say Obama governs more like our king rather than our president? You be the judge.

Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. King Obama basically said “screw that! I'm implementing it anyway.”

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is the law. King Obama said “I don't like that law and we are not defending its constitutionality.”

A federal ruling said King Obama's deep offshore drilling moratorium in Louisiana is illegal and ordered it lifted. Again, King Obama simply ignored the federal ruling.

Federal immigration law is much tougher than Arizona's new Law. The Arizona law says if someone is stopped for a traffic violation or suspected of a crime, they must show proper ID. Well dah! All Americans are required to show ID in such situations. King Obama wants members of a special ethnic group to be protected from such inquiry. Thus, King Obama has declared the Arizona law racist and is suing Arizona for enforcing “federal law.” King Obama views illegals as potential future new democrat voting supplicants.

King Obama wants to force health workers to perform abortions whether they like it or not. The “Conscience Rule” protects health workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other medical procedures that go against their moral and religious beliefs. King Obama is working on rescinding that law.

If we have learned nothing else from the passing of Obamacare against the will of 70% of the American people we learned, legal processes be damned, whatever King Obama wants, King Obama gets.

And, let us not forget that King Obama fired the CEO and took over a private sector auto company. Thus, the birth of King Obama Motors.

And what about King Obama's seige of the banking industry. After accepting TARP money, a bank chairman read the tea leaves of things to come; government running his business and dictating salaries. He requested to pay back the TARP money with interest. King Obama denied the bank chairman's request and threatened "adverse" consequences if he persisted.

The new Black Panther Party is guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia. King Obama refuses to press charges against the new Black Panthers; now get this folks, because they are black. His royal enforcer, Attorney General, Eric Holder, who is black, told the House Appropriations subcommittee that the New Black Panther voter intimidation case demeans “my people.”

Holder went on to explain that the suffering of African Americans seeking the right to vote in the South in the 60s far surpass the intimidation white voters recently endured in Philadelphia. So much for any pretense of King Obama dispensing equal justice to all Americans. We're talkin' Affirmative Action justice.

King Obama is systematically taking control of every aspect of our lives. Cramming Obamacare down our throats was a huge step toward achieving his goal. Please read, “20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms.”

Exempting themselves, liberals are notorious for making rules for us supplicants. Queen Michelle Obama recently feasted on high calorie greasy bar-b-que spareribs while seeking to federally mandate/regulate menus and portion sizes in schools, restaurants and etc.

Bottom line, King Obama is out of control. In 2012, We The People MUST raise up with pitchforks of votes to end King Obama's tyrannous reign. American as we know and love it could be lost. Defeat is not an option.

As Vice Chair of The Campaign to Defeat Obama in 2012, I sincerely covet your support.

We are gathering “One Million People To Defeat Barack Obama 2012.” Please join us!

Please sign and encourage your friends to sign this petition.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

© 2011 Lloyd Marcus - All Rights Reserved

Self proclaimed Black Unhyphenated American, Lloyd Marcus is a featured columnist on American Thinker, Renew America, Canadian Free Press and numerous other Internet websites. A speaker, activist, singer/songwriter, recording artist and entertainer, Marcus was a featured act on the historical 2009 Tea Party Expressed Tour. The finale event was the Sept. 12th Taxpayers March and Rally in Washington DC where Marcus performed for a million people.

His appearances include FoxNews, CNN, PJTV and numerous TV and radio programs. He emcees and performs his patriotic original songs at rallies and special events across America. He was the featured entertainment at the 2009 Free Republic National Convention. Marcus' mission is to use his God given gifts to spread the "truth" that Conservatism is best for all Americans. He resides in Central Florida.

An elected official, Marcus is Chairman for Precinct 424, Volusia County Florida. He is also Creative Director for the Republican Executive Committee of Volusia County.

Lloyd Marcus, Singer/Songwriter of the national "American Tea Party Anthem." President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of Color)

E-Mail: mr_lloydmarcus@hotmail.com

Website: LloydMarcus.com

Quote:
OMG! I Love It!

Quote:
Hello everyone! Peter, Evelyn and Robert you are sure coming up with some good ones, keep them coming. I just love this forum.....

Here is one I found that doesn't need any other comment...

Larry Elder

Anti-Iraq War Bush-Haters Squirm to Justify Libya

Email Larry Elder | Columnist's Archive

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said in December 2007.

What a difference a change of job title makes.

"Let's just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates three weeks before President Obama ordered a no-fly zone over -- and other military action against -- Libya.

Like many anti-Iraq War/Bush-is-a-warmonger critics, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., supports the Libyan action. Bush-hater Rachel Maddow of MSNBC rationalized that unlike the bloodthirsty President George W. Bush, you see, Obama ordered the military into action under a different "narrative" -- that is, reluctantly and without zeal. Understand?

The non-unilateralist Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, unlike Bush, sought no congressional war resolution. Obama, therefore, ordered military action against Libya "unilaterally" -- without the congressional approval that he once argued the Constitution demanded.

As Obama further explained in his December 2007 statement, "In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." So a president, according to Obama, does not need congressional authority -- provided the action involves "self-defense" or "stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

What is the "actual or imminent threat" to America posed by Libya?

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, spooked bleep-less after our invasion of Iraq, surrendered his WMD. The dictator admitted Libya's complicity in the bombing of the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie and paid financial settlements -- after which the U.S. removed Libya from the list of terror-sponsoring states. The U.S. imports less than 1 percent of its oil from that country. What threat to national security?

Fast-forward to March 2011. Rebels threaten to topple Gadhafi's brutal regime. But the dictator fights back, and unless stopped by outsiders, his military appears poised to put down and slaughter the rebels. Enter Obama. "We cannot stand idly by," he said, "when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

Obama thus approves this act of war -- for (SET ITAL) humanitarian (END ITAL) purposes.

But Iraq's Saddam Hussein created a far greater humanitarian nightmare. "The Butcher of Baghdad" slaughtered, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- far more people than were killed in Bosnia and Kosovo, where President Clinton ordered military force for humanitarian reasons. Yet, when weapons hunters found no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, the dwindling number of pro-war Democrats turned against the war -- never mind the sickening sight of thousands of Iraqis found in shallow graves.

If U.S. foreign policy dictates intervention during humanitarian crises, why stop with Libya? Why (SET ITAL) start (END ITAL) with Libya?

The list of brutal thug leaders is long. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives under un-free, often brutally repressive, governments, and another billion or so people have only partial freedom.

Humanitarian in-harm's-way deployment of the military is treacherous and unpredictable. Consider Somalia ("Black Hawk Down" Battle of Mogadishu in 1993); Lebanon (241 servicemen, mostly Marines, killed when terrorists blew up their barracks in 1983); and Bosnia/Kosovo (President Clinton promised troops out by Christmas 1995).

The purpose of the military is to act on behalf of our national security. We are not the world's hall monitor. Bush-hating Iraq War critics used to say stuff like that -- along with "war is not the answer."

Now, let's revisit the reasons for the -- as pre-President Obama called it -- "stupid" war.

Obama, like virtually everyone else, assumed Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD while actively pursing a nuclear capability. President Bush sought and obtained congressional authorization. He called Saddam's Iraq a "grave and gathering threat" to our (SET ITAL) national security. (END ITAL)

Ninety percent of Americans, in the dark days following Sept. 11, 2001, expected another attack within a year -- except perhaps this time with chemical or biological weapons. From the "oil-for-food" program, Saddam stole money, possibly re-routing it to terrorists. He financially rewarded families of homicide bombers. We learned, following the Persian Gulf War, that he was much closer to achieving nuclear capability than previously thought. Saddam kicked out the U.N. inspectors sent in to verify the promised dismantling and destruction of the weapons.

That Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD, having used chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own people, was not in dispute. All 16 U.S. intelligences agencies thought so "with the highest probability." France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, China, Israel -- and even Saddam's own generals -- assumed Iraq possessed WMD. Even U.N. weapons inspector and Iraq War critic Hans Blix thought Saddam likely possessed these weapons. As Blix admitted at a 2004 University of Berkeley forum: 'I'm not here to have gut feelings. But yes, in December 2002 (three months before the invasion) I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.'"

Call Libya the Obama doctrine: non-national security, non-congressionally approved military attacks are perfectly legitimate for humanitarian reasons. Except not for Iraq under President George W. Bush -- who awaits his apology.