Obama is about to make history by being the first President to attempt to govern by fiat.

To you lefties out there in Lala Land, be sure to ignore this pictured progression because of Hitler and ignore the point of the chart - that each man picture (prior to Obama) was a dictator in his own right. Marx, of course, was not a murderer and Obama stands as a direct link to Marx. What each had in common with the others was 1) their use of a national youth movement and 2) each ran their countries as dictators do. That is the point of the chart. (Marx, of course, was not a political figure, a dictator. But his collectivist thinking is at the center of each of the others pictured on the chart including Mr. Obama.)

We begin with a reference article written in 1999 by folks at the CATO Institute detailing the problem with "executive orders.

Why are we looking to this question now? Because of a report in this New York Times article, published late yesterday, detailing plans for Obama to run his presidency as if he were a dictator. Here is a comment from that article:

WASHINGTON — With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities. . . . (end of Times text)

While the Times article correctly claims the use of executive order by previous presidents, namely Clinton and Bush, it fails to make the point that no president has ever used "executive order" to advance an entire agenda. Clinton and Bush used executive order to circumvent Congressional rejection of many of their staff nominees. "Mr. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 of them to full-time positions, while Mr. Bush made 171, with 99 to full-time jobs. Mr. Obama has yet to make any" according to the Times article. Obama has yet to use this power, mostly because he has not had the time.

The article suggests that Obama sees the gridlock in Congress and has decided to advance his agenda using other means. But, what is being called "gridlock" by the Times and Obama is, in reality, legislative defeat coupled with a refusal to admit defeat by the ruling party.

When the Media or a President complains about "gridlock," they are always describing a Congressional process that finds specific features of their agenda rejected by Congress via either majority party failings or legislative process. With this opinion in mind, we suggest that there is no such thing as "gridlock," only legislative defeat or legislative victory.

Obama got his legislative butt kicked in 2009. His response? To circumvent Congress and function as if he were a dictator. In the past, President's have used "executive order" to make staff appointments and put in place certain anecdotal legislation such as establishing a special use for lands in Utah.

While the Times article leaves one to believe that Clinton and Bush appointed a large number of personnel to "permanent" positions, that, in fact, is not true. All of their "permanent appointments" via executive order were later approved by Congress and that is how they became
permanent". It is a fact that personnel appointments via executive order can remain in place for the remainder of the current legislative year and no longer.

In fact, there is nothing that can be done by executive order that is permanent in and of itself. While that is true, it remains clear that Obama intends to "order in" his agenda rather than deal with Congress.

1. He has already been given unfettered access to the housing funds of Freddie and Fannie - as of legislative action taken in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve. He is free of accountability for his use of these funds for the remainder of his term in office. (you will want to review this WSJ article, the article at the Wall Street Pit, and a brief but revealing article in The Hill ). His volunteer army can be funded by this maneuvering receiving monies from Fannie or Freddie as ACORN Housing.

2. Reports in several of the news media are telling us that Obama is looking into the possibility of advancing his agenda via "executive with regard to Cap and Trade, Universal Health Care, and even taxing policy. He intends to function as if Congress did not exist. That other presidents have used and misused executive orders is not a hiding place for those who would defend Obama's concerted effort ("concerted effort" means that the man has help from others, he is not working alone) to make this country something it was not intended to be.

3. A second avenue available to King Obama is federal regulation. He can order the EPA, for example, to effect the same environmental issues that are failing in Congress. There is no permanence to this approach unless, of course, no one goes back and reverses these orders. If these orders stay in place for too long a period of time, they become systemic and, thus, almost impossible to reverse.

4. A third avenue allowing a president to function as a dictator is the simple act of ignoring parts of current law via a little known process called a "siging statement." Here is what the Times has to say about this:

Already, Mr. Obama has had to reconcile his campaign-trail criticism of Mr. Bush for excessive use of so-called signing statements to bypass parts of legislation with his own use of such tactics. After a bipartisan furor in Congress last year, Mr. Obama stopped issuing such signing statements, but aides said last month that he still reserves the right to ignore sections of bills he considers unconstitutional if objections have been lodged previously by the executive branch.

Midknight Review is stunned to learn of the procedures already in place that allow a Federal Abuser to function as if he/she were a dictator. While Clinton and Bush are cited in the Times article, Obama will be the first to attempt to govern by fiat using authority already in place -- J David Smithson, editor.
. .