Losing the legitimacy to govern

Tony Gallardo
A few weeks ago, we were awash with the Obama administration and his acolytes in the media bleating about the legitimacy to govern, as in "Mubarak/Gaddafi has lost his legitimacy to govern," or "He has lost legitimacy with the people." We were then told that these men had to step down or be forced out of power. Lefties lectured us that this loss of legitimacy was justification for bombing the smithereens out of Libya"He has lost his legitimacy to govern." That's a catchy phrase, don't you think? It has a nice ring to it.

Suppose someone closer to home has lost his legitimacy; I am thinking of you-know-who, the current occupant of the White House. It's true that he hasn't bombed or strafed us or anything, but isn't there another standard we could use to determine this legitimacy thing?

Consider that he has broken not a few, nor even most of his campaign promises, but every single one. Employment and underemployment, health insurance premiums, and gasoline prices are higher, more people are uninsured, the debt and deficits are higher, we are now in three, not two, or zero wars, Guantanamo Bay is open, not closed, we are trying terrorists in military tribunals, not Manhattan, Americans are more, not less divided, there is less, not more transparency in Obamaland, and on and on it goes.

Listening to his speeches...er...teleprompter readings as I did on Wednesday causes my brain to ache. He is for and against everything simultaneously. He says the government should live within its means and proposes more spending, he lauds the Republicans for putting forth a budget which he himself has repeatedly failed to do and then says the Republican plan will cause people to die and 50 million to be without insurance. He wants a strong economy and proposes tax increases.

There is a word that comes to mind with this kind of thinking, if indeed we can call it thinking; loopy.

Even the oceans have dissed him by refusing to lower their levels as he commanded. The Japanese can attest to that.

Now, about this legitimacy thing; I am not proposing that we sic the U.N. or NATO or the French on him or anything. But can we not now at least admit that as president, he is an abject failure and has lost all legitimacy?


A few weeks ago, we were awash with the Obama administration and his acolytes in the media bleating about the legitimacy to govern, as in "Mubarak/Gaddafi has lost his legitimacy to govern," or "He has lost legitimacy with the people." We were then told that these men had to step down or be forced out of power. Lefties lectured us that this loss of legitimacy was justification for bombing the smithereens out of Libya

"He has lost his legitimacy to govern." That's a catchy phrase, don't you think? It has a nice ring to it.

Suppose someone closer to home has lost his legitimacy; I am thinking of you-know-who, the current occupant of the White House. It's true that he hasn't bombed or strafed us or anything, but isn't there another standard we could use to determine this legitimacy thing?

Consider that he has broken not a few, nor even most of his campaign promises, but every single one. Employment and underemployment, health insurance premiums, and gasoline prices are higher, more people are uninsured, the debt and deficits are higher, we are now in three, not two, or zero wars, Guantanamo Bay is open, not closed, we are trying terrorists in military tribunals, not Manhattan, Americans are more, not less divided, there is less, not more transparency in Obamaland, and on and on it goes.

Listening to his speeches...er...teleprompter readings as I did on Wednesday causes my brain to ache. He is for and against everything simultaneously. He says the government should live within its means and proposes more spending, he lauds the Republicans for putting forth a budget which he himself has repeatedly failed to do and then says the Republican plan will cause people to die and 50 million to be without insurance. He wants a strong economy and proposes tax increases.

There is a word that comes to mind with this kind of thinking, if indeed we can call it thinking; loopy.

Even the oceans have dissed him by refusing to lower their levels as he commanded. The Japanese can attest to that.

Now, about this legitimacy thing; I am not proposing that we sic the U.N. or NATO or the French on him or anything. But can we not now at least admit that as president, he is an abject failure and has lost all legitimacy?