Obama’s dream turns into our Nightmare

229 replies [Last post]
S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Bingo KC you hit the nail on the head

DM likes to tell us it is not about race BUT..... then she goes it makes it about race. So there you are...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
KC

From the reception he received today from LEGAL Hispanic voting Americans - they got the point by giving our President standing ovations. It will be a close election, based on how the voting citizens analyze NOW in five months.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Can't wait to see, DM...

...what our king will decree next! Perhaps he'll abolish the 2-term limit and anoint himself king for life; why diddle with this silly 'election' and 'voting' stuff. If you're going to ignore the Constitution, you might as well ignore all of it! ALL HAIL KING OBAMA (because it's the right thing to do...)!!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Executive privilege
kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Not addressing that, DM...

...that will unfold if being used for a nefarious purpose. I am speaking to ignoring the Constitution on who sets immigration policies, and it ain't him.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Check out the history of immigration reform

The Republican party is on record for holding up the immigration proposal initiated by George W Bush's guest worker program. The Dream Act had bi-partisan support until Obama was elected and the right wing (Republicans and Democrats) followed Norquist and McConnell's lead to do nothing under the Obama administration.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Takes two to tango, DM...

...still doesn't justify trampling on the Constitution. Maybe President Romney should just eliminate the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments because he thinks 'it's the right thing to do...'. Would that be ok, just because opposition in Congress didn't want it in a timely enough fashion for him?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
The Dream Act

failed because of public response to congress--you know--something called citizen input! That means they actually listened to their constituents and voted accordingly. If you don't know that, it's because you didn't pay attention.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Dream Act AHG

The DREAM Act failed because the Republican Senators filibustered it and would not allow it to be brought up for a vote.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Jeff C & The Dream Act

You suppose thousands of phone calls & emails to the Senators had anything to to with the filibuster? Too many saw it as outright amnesty and were dead set against that. Hey, I happen to agree with the idea of helping those kids who were brought here and have done well (I call it tempering justice with mercy) but there was a right way to do it and a wrong way. The POTUS chose the latter.And maybe, just maybe, it wasn't too smart to roll it into the Defense authorization Bill--but hey, thinking probably was "nobody says no to Defense).

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Not really AHG

I think the Republicans were against it because Obama was for it. They have sworn to make Obama a failed President and they will do absolutely anything to bring that about no matter the harm to anyone nor, as they proved during the debt limit fiasco, no matter the harm to the country.

Obama essentially implemented Rubio's plan before Rubio introduced it in the Senate. Now the Rs along with Rubio, are opposed to it. There is not a single thing stopping Rubio from introducing his legislation except that he is a gutless wonder who won't oppose his political party.

Obama is the one showing leadership and has totally outfoxed his opposition. Mitt is completely flummoxed and has no idea what to do. Meanwhile, Obama has surged in Florida because his lead among Hispanics has jumped ten points since he announced his new policy. Obama's spread over Mitt among Hispanics is now 24 percentage points according to the latest Quinnipiac poll.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Ahh JeffC....

"I think the Republicans.....have sworn to make Obama a failed President..."

You give us way too much credit.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
JeffC, how is circumventing the Constitution and established...

...law from elected officials 'leadership'? Wouldn't that be more like 'dictatorship'? If he declared all homosexuals who are HIV-positive must leave the country, because 'it's the right thing to do', that would be ok, ignoring Constitutional rights & laws protecting homosexuals? So you're for that, then, right?

Just man up and call it what it is - a blatant grasp for the Hispanic vote in November. I'm surprised he didn't offer financial aid to those Hispanic youth who are 'good', and their families, of course. Good 'ol Chicago backroom tactics brought to the national level...wonderful. I wonder if dead Hispanics will be voting for him, too, should many state voter ID laws be struck down...he wouldn't have to spend so much on those votes!

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
What kcchiefandy?

If you can't argue facts change the subject.

I cited the specific paragraph in the law that allows Obama, the Secretary of Homeland Security and/or the Secretary of State to defer prosecution of any illegal immigrant they wish.

So how is it circumventing the Constitution if the law gives the administration the specific right to defer.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Yes, congrats, JeffC...

...you are, or would be, a good lawyer to cite that recent law, and it appears to read, to me, for CERTAIN cases, NOT 800 MILLION PEOPLE. We've already been down this road, so just 'Heil Obama' and move on; he's bought these votes already, like a good, corrupt, Chicago politician that he is.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
I'm not a lawyer kcchiefandy

Although you meant 800 thousand. I saw a Pew Research paper this morning which estimated that the number of kids affected would be slightly less than 1.4 million.

Yes it was certainly political. Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" Croupier: "Your winnings, sir."

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Thousands, yes, JeffC...

...pardon my 'angry' typing! Thank you for acknowledging the politics of the situation; I really like your analogy! The illegal alien situation was bound to become a political hockey puck, and it has...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Oh Democrats wanted Bush not to fail right Jeff?

""Would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" asked an August 2006 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. The result? Ninety percent of Republicans wanted Bush to succeed, versus 7 percent who did not. Among independents, 63 percent wanted the President to succeed, compared with 34 percent who did not. What about Democrats? Forty percent wanted him to succeed, but 51 percent did not."

Come on Jeff these old tired talking points are a little ridiculous don't you think?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Deleted by poster

.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Executive Privilege is used in matters of National Security

Tell me what has Fast and Furious have to do with National Security?

EP CAN NOT be used to hinder the investigation of potential Criminal acts nor can it be used to keep an Administration from suffering an embarrassment.

executive privilege
Definition
ex·ec·u·tive priv·i·lege
NOUN
1.
government right to secrecy of documents: the right of the president and other government officials in the executive branch to refuse to reveal confidential material if this would interfere with the administration's ability to govern.

There is no legal standing here DM. How would revealing who knew what and how guns were "walked" across the Border without any controls "hinder" the ability to govern?

Well there is one way... President Obama knew of the operation and approved it. Revealing that would open the administration up to potential impeachment proceedings.

Come to think of it.. this is precisely why EP was invoked.

btw- When Bush came up with the Dream Act most Americans went slightly nuts over it and said a resounding NO... So the Politicians backed off.

Contrary to popular liberal belief Americas want their Borders secure not wide open so anyone can come over including Terrorist.

"A new national public opinion poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly oppose passage of the DREAM Act and believe that amnesty for illegal aliens should not be addressed by the lame duck Congress. The poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) during the week of November 22."

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
S. Lindsey...

...you are barking at a tree. Its roots are deep and it will not bend to your feeble assaults. For those who have given their fealty to the King, they cannot be swayed by argument or fact; their King is their King. Calling him out only strengthens his supporters to defend him, to rally to his flag. All that is wrong is from the acts of others; their King can do no wrong; he is the Savior, their Alpha and Omega, his will be done.

Pardon the poetic waxing...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I know KC I know....

I guess I like the punishment.

Just once I would like a Progressive to at least semi-acknowledge the Constitution as a immutable object instead of something to use when it suits them.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Immutable?

Really? For over 200 years , the interpretation of the words of our Constitution has seen great change - without changing the principle of the meaning of those words.. My vote counts just as much as yours! :-)

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM there is a process by which the Constitution may change

Executive orders and Executive Privilege is NOT it.

I know you guys believe it should change with the times but there is a reason we are the greatest Nation on Earth. It is our Constitution.

Yes your vote counts just as much as mine... but just think DM my vote cancels out yours... It's a GREAT Country isn't?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Legislation by poll?
Quote:

The poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) during the week of November 22."

Thank heaven we don't legislate by poll! Americans have the most powerful tool for governance in the world and less than 60% use it - THE VOTE!. We elect persons to reform a broken immigration policy in this country - and for DECADES we cannot get this done! The my way or the highway/ refusal to sit down and work together will be the downfall of this country. A question: do some Americans feel that the 13th, 14 th, and 15 th amendments deprived them of their entitlements?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
I agree with you, DM...

...the refusal of Obama to work with the Senate & vice-verse is not good; why he then circumvents them and DECREES actions that are illegal is beyond me. As many say, he is in WAY over his head; he never should have run for office and perhaps waited until he was more experienced.

Please answer (you or someone) your question; I've got to run. I suppose because it sets apart a class of people? I know only the rudiments of those amendments. TTYL.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
A question

I've noted that some here have suggested the repeal of some amendments to our Constitution. Any answer to this question?

A question: do some Americans feel that the 13th, 14 th, and 15 th amendments deprived them of their entitlements? If so - why?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Obama -Way Over His Head?

• Brought to justice the man responsible for killing over 3000 humans on US soil.
• Began the process of bringing home military personnel from war - the greatest voluntary force in the world
• Began the correction of an economic disaster
• Passed the Romney/Obama Healthcare bill - which is bringing relief to Americans who have been paying for others free-health care in our ER rooms throughout the country.
• Coordinated an intelligence system that has reportedly stalled the progress of Iran and North Korea in obtaining WMD.
• Regained the respect of world leaders in attempting to work with global leaders in solving global economic and social problems.

• A weakness - tried to work collaboratively with a non-cooperative group of people in Congress - some whose stated mission was to make sure he served only one-term. (This included some Democrats) The American people suffered. Knowing the Constitution - looks like he's going to do what he can to make sure the American people don't suffer any longer from Congressional inaction.

Just a few more months until November!! AT LEAST REWORD THE TALKING POINTS FOR YOUR REBUTTAL!! LOL!

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
AAAA HAHAHA

Wheeeew ... Thanks I really needed a laugh this morning!
You were being sarcastic ? ... Right?

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Veritas -

The resident race whore forgot a few points. The fact of the matter is that this 'president' is probably the worst one in American history. He is devicive, deceitful, dishonest, disrespectful, and flat out un-American.

- Obama's $825 Billion Stimulus failed ko keep the unemployment rate below the 8% he promised and is nowhere close to the 6 % he predicted it would be at by now.

- PROMISE: Obama Promised His Plan "Would Save The Average Family $2,500 On Their Premiums." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks Of Senator Barack Obama's Plan To Fight For Working Families And Take On Special Interests In Washington, Indianapolis, IN, 6/20/08)

FAILURE: FactCheck.org: ObamaCare Is Actually Making Health Care “Less Affordable.” “At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year's premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made -- that the health care law would 'lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.’"

- PROMISE: In 2008, Then-Senator Obama Claimed His Investments In Green Energy Would Create 5 Million New Jobs. OBAMA: "And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power, and solar power, and the next generation of biofuels -- an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced."(Sen. Barack Obama, Acceptance Speech Remarks At The Democratic National Convention, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

FAILURE: The Failure Of Obama's Green Jobs Programs “Gets More Embarrassing By The Day.”“The green jobs subsidy story gets more embarrassing by the day. Three years ago President Obama promised that by the end of the decade America would have five million green jobs, but so far some $90 billion in government spending has delivered very few.”

- PROMISE: President Obama Promised That His Housing Program Would Prevent 7 To 9 Million Families From Foreclosure. "And we will pursue the housing plan I'm outlining today. And through this plan, we will help between 7 and 9 million families restructure or refinance their mortgages so they can afford--avoid foreclosure." (President Barack Obama, Remarks On The Home Mortgage Industry In Mesa, Arizona, 2/18/09)

FAILURE: Obama Has Only Helped 1.7 Million Avoid Foreclosure Of The 9 Million Homeowners He Promised. "President Obama pledged at the beginning of his term to boost the nation's crippled housing market and help as many as 9 million homeowners avoid losing their homes to foreclosure. Nearly three years later, it hasn't worked out. Obama has spent just $2.4 billion of the $50 billion he promised. The initiatives he announced have helped 1.7 million people."

-PROMISE: Obama Pledged To Cut The Deficit In Half By The End Of His First Term. OBAMA:”And that's why today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office." (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Fiscal Responsibility Summit, Washington, D.C., 2/23/09)

“President Barack Obama Plans To Cut The U.S. Budget Deficit To $533 Billion By The End Of His First Term ...” (Hans Nichols, "Obama Plans To Reduce Budget Deficit To $533 Billion By 2013," Bloomberg, 2/21/09)

One White House Official Told Politico "We'll Cut It At Least In Half.""Under White House projections, this year's inherited budget deficit of $1.3 trillion will be cut to $533 billion by fiscal year 2013, the end of the first term. ‘So we'll cut it at least in half,’ the official said." (Mike Allen, "Obama Vows To Cut Huge Deficit In Half," Politico, 2/22/09)

FAILURE: Even If Every Part Of Obama's Deficit Reduction Proposal Was Enacted, The Deficit At The End Of His First Term Would Still Be $1.33 Trillion, Over Double What He Promised. (“The President's Plan For Economic Growth And Deficit Reduction; Table S-3,” Office Of Management And Budget, 9/19/11)
.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Grizz - cut and paste.

Good cut and paste. Just what one expects from you.

Fred Garvin
Fred Garvin's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
They are called FACTS

The FACT of the matter is, Obama is a failure and will lose the election in Nov 2012. He will lose because of he has failed to uphold American law and is an enemy to this country

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Fred it is only the beginning....

We have had so many scandals in the Whitehouse in the last three years, between what he has said he will do to what he really did that between now and November it is going to be a bloodbath.

The Mill stone that I HOPE stays around his neck is Holder. Keep him there the longer he stays the more scandals he produces.

DM like the rest of them are scared. They see their Socialist utopia dream slipping away and are grasping at any rope thrown.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Veritas

Clever rebuttal. NOT ! LOL.

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
DM

No need to rebutt delusion..
But just for you
FACT
Troop withdrawal: All US Forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush. The U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq was completed on 18 December 2011 early Sunday morning.. Bush not Obama..( Obama is often caught taking credit for his predecessors policies)

ECONOMY: 
Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.
 
Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama's first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama's first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama's deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.

And none of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under very rosy projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.

""The Associated Press surveyed 36 top experts on money and markets from across the political spectrum last week. 

Just half of the 36 rated the President’s policies as “fair”; more than a third called them “poor.” Only five described Obamanomics as “good,” and none dared call it “excellent.”

Also grim: The consensus among the experts is that unemployment will stay stubbornly high, dropping from its current 8.6% to no lower than 8.4% by Election Day."" AP
 
60% of Americans now disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy.

Passed Obama care: By lying or either he is too dumb to realize the difference between a penalty and tax.  Not to mention now becoming  largest middle class tax increase in U.S history. Because It is a tax Justice Roberts sided with the liberal justices and Obama's own attorneys argued the case on the basis of the mandate being a tax.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=301115

Tried to cooperatively: LMBO

I can continue... But
Not even worth my effort.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Veritas

FACT: Afghanistan?
ECONOMY: Inherited two wars; An unprecedented number of wounded war veterans to care for; A teetering global economy - and yet we still stand. What is the plan to keep us going in the right direction other than repealing Romney, Obamacare?
POLLS: Those with liberal leanings poll mainly liberals and vice versa. Someone thought that McCain would win.
It will be interesting to see how the debates go- and how the independents view Romney. Game on!

Sorry Veritas - but my healthcare has not gone up. Americans will judge on what is. - not the Republican perscription pad.
LOL

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
DM

You definitely are delusional!!!
"Unprecedented number of wounded war veterans to care for" did you forget about WWI , WWII , Korea and Vietnam. (Granted even one is too many). Heading in right direction....Really... and You think Obama has anything remotely to do with America surviving ... laughable.
And I am an independent!

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Immigration Policy

If the current administration had been serious about immigration policy, they could have passed it in tandem with that 2,000 page AHCA! Remember, total control of Congress & the White House 2009-2011. Ah, but since they were already in control, they didn't see any political gain in sight and put all the effort into another issue. And there is a good chance that issue will get at least one thumb down from SCOTUS next week. Maybe that's what happens when you draw to an inside straight!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey
Quote:

Tell me what has Fast and Furious have to do with National Security

You tell us. An agent of the United States is dead. Our government is involved in many activities that involve American citizens lives that are in great danger. Maybe you have inside information that Fast and Furious has nothing to do with national security. We have some members in our government and individuals who have shown that they would go to any length to gain political leverage. This is the first time that this President has used EP, There are ways for this information to be seen without it going public. We have accomplished much since 9/11 in keeping our country safe. If you take the time to read the intelligence reports that have been made public, you will see that Iran and North Korea have been stalled in their attempts to gain nuclear weapons by covert actions of our government. Do you have information that will tell us that Fast and Furious has nothing to do with national security? Please share. This will be an interesting campaign debate. Your Romney should do quite well with this issue.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM Criminal acts are not covered by Executive Privilege

I know you guys are trying hard to cover for Obama but just ask Nixon he would have told you it doesn't work. Why didn't it work for Bush #1 on Iran Contra? The Democrats sure refused to allow that option then so why is an illegal gun smuggling campaign with the intent and purpose to sway American opinion a National Security issue?

Because it isn't one... BTW DM I am not the one asserting that EP was used properly that's you so stop trying to turn the argument around and YOU give us a reason why smuggling guns into Mexico with no controls no operational security to give them to the Cartels with the knowledge they WILL be used to KILL people.

The obvious results were that this Administration bungled the operation and Border Patrol Officer Brian Terry was MURDERED.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Nice try

You don't know . There is a way to find out without making it a political football and putting more lives in danger. But you'd rather play. (Rove, Valerie, and who knows how many others)

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM I do know.

There is no "legal" reason for asserting EP here.

There are NO National Security implications... PERIOD.

They created, ran and then ignored a out of control gun smuggling program without oversite or even the knowledge and consent of the Mexican Government.

The all to predictable results was the Murder of a Police Officer.

DM you can continue to provide cover you would rather play the political game then discover the truth but their blood is on your hands too.

If this was a Republican President you would be here screaming for a jail sentence..

Hypocrite thy name is Davidsmom..

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

We are so fortunate to have an expert on national security right here in Fayette County. I'm sure Romney will be using you as an advisor after he wins in November! NOT You (Lindsey) are certainly playing it to the chest by not letting us know exactly what the truth is . Insinuations just don't hold up in court. No one reading this thinks that a 'David's Mom' in Fayette County has any inside information - but covert operations cannot be revealed by the Attorney General. We'll see that the Fast and Furious operation was not initiated under this administration. Obviously it is a political football. My only concern is that more citizens who put their lives on the line in covert operations are not hindered or killed because politicians want to make 'political points'. We'll see how this will play out. I think 'W' used EP during his administration. Nixon, etc. George Washington, etc., etc., etc. A great lesson for history students. Not a hypocrite - just enjoy watching you guys support the Republican Party (regardless). Sometimes this discussion is just too one sided - and needs a little diversity. LOL!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Sarcasm noted DM

Still doesn't break the argument however because you know deep down in your little socialist heart that this is all BS and it got a Police Officer killed.

Keep on that plantation DM wouldn't want you to stray to far now would we?

DM all Presidents have and can use EP... The difference is when it used to protect an Administration from embarrassment or even Criminal actions.

EP cannot be invoked unless matters of National Security... Now I will ask you again (although I know you will not answer) What does Gun Walker/Fast and Furious have to do with NATIONAL Security?

Did it secure the border? No

Did it involve an element of the Mexican Military stopping an invasion? No

Did it garner some intelligence of Terrorist activities? No

Did the CIA use agents to infiltrate the Cartels? No

So tell me DM were is the National Security interest here? There's not one and no spin cycle by you or Media Matters can make one up.

Heck even the Democrats in DC are running from this one.

"“I assure you that if I find that he, with knowledge and premeditation and foresight, was totally irresponsible, then he should leave,” Gutierrez said.

Outgoing Caucus Chairman Charlie Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas, said Holder’s high-ranking position in some ways exempts him from responsibility. Nobody could possibly expect somebody at the top of a department as large as Justice to know the day-to-day details of controversial operations, Gonzalez said. Nevertheless, he expects more of Holder than the stonewalling Congress has received thus far."

Former DoJ attorney J. Christian Adams declares the assertion of privilege flat-out illegal, quoting from a statement by former House Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner, speaking about Espy (cited as Sealed Case) as well:

It continued: “Moreover, the privilege disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred.” In Re: Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 746 (D.C. Cir. June 17, 1997, No. 96-3124).

The First Circuit agreed. It found that, where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, “the privilege is routinely denied,” on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this context does not serve “the public’s interest in honest, effective government.” Texaco Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs, 60 F.3d 867, 885 (1st Cir. 1995); see also In re Comptroller of the Currency, 967 F.2d at 634 (“the privilege may be overridden where necessary to ‘shed light on alleged government malfeasance.’”)

The Department literally asserted this privilege in the face of Congressional contempt proceedings. It clearly cannot argue that there is no reason to believe that government misconduct occurred. The assertion of the privilege was therefore illegal.

Precedents in this case are clear DM...EP cannot be used if misconduct or criminal acts have been potentially committed and the administration cannot hide behind EP to stymie investigations into the misconduct.

DM Courts have already ruled on this. This is going to be a major embarrassment and potential criminal issues.

One thing you should never do is tie your dingy to the Titanic odds are it is not going to end well.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
S. Lindsey
Quote:

One thing you should never do is tie your dingy to the Titanic odds are it is not going to end well

You taught us well on that one - with your dingy tied to the Bush fiasco. We're still trying to recover! Thanks for your research. When the criminal acts are uncovered - we'll know that your predictions are correct.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
LOL, DM!!

Still blaming Bush! Good God, even this inept administration has FINALLY stopped that schtick! 3 1/2 years of NO approved budget, quadrupled national debt, no plan of attack except to grow the government to attempt a fix, and now all this. These inept boobs need to go back to their day jobs and let someone else try; they've failed - miserably. Not that's it's all their fault, but they've led us nowhere, and will lead us nowhere 4 years from now - they'll start a government agency to track it, though, I'm sure...

Oh wait, HE did kill OBL...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
It's all she has KC

Heck it's all they have now.. They can't run on their record so....

Yes DM we will see those Criminal acts exposed.. once Obama's improper use of Executive Privilege is overturned and Holder is forced to turn over ALL of the documents.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

Oops! Foiled again by reality.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
President/Congress

We'll see how history portrays the 'cooperative' attitude of the two political parties for the past 4 years. Many Americans are making changes within their organizations - because the stench of 'racism' is still smelling up the American way of life in our country. I agree - "not that's it all their fault" - but you can't look at a problem without considering it's source if you hope to correct it.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Obama is the one that is dividing the country

Obama is the one that began the partisanship with his "I Won" statement to Republican leaders during his first week in office. He made it very clear to them that he was not interested in anything that they wanted to say. He gave them no respect, so now he is reaping what he sowed.

Now he goes and complains that no one will work with him. What a friggin cry-baby. He continues to make demands and refuses to negotiate with anyone from the other side. It's his way or the highway, and if you don't agree with him, then you're accused either of racism or being devisive.

This lame 'president' couldn't even get a budget passed - Everyone voted against it.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Does 'Cash for Clunkers' apply...

...to administrations? If so, I'd like to trade this one in for a more efficient model and get some taxpayer $$$ for it! :)

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Obama/Romneycare upheld!

Wow!

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
OBAMA GIVES THIS COUNTRY THE BIGGEST TAX INCREASE

IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. DOES ANYONE NEED ANY OTHER REASON TO VOTE THIS SKANK OUT OF OFFICE?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
But But But

Obama said:

“If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, your taxes will not go up.” (quote from President Obama, 2008)

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Cy and the AHCA

Very simple--beginning in 2014, if you don't buy Health Insurance, then you will have the IRS on your case! As Senator Rubio said, the SCOTUS only determines the Constitutionality of the Act, NOT whether it's a good idea or not! Look for Congress to repeal parts of the Act.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cy

Actually, some taxes may go down with everyone sharing the cost of healthcare in this country. Did anyone consider with an emphasis on preventative care, there just may be fewer 'sick' citizens? I guess some want the 'freedom' to continue to pay for those citizens getting free care in our ER's. Thanks Romney, Obama, and Kennedy!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Moelarry curly

And affordable healthcare for all of our citizens!! Ethical lawmakers can work this out! You're fortunate if you don't have a Pre-existing condition or a child over 21 without a job! We had to pay for those idiots who had car accidents with no insurance. I hope you enjoy good health until the day you make your transition- but in case you do have a health problem later, you'll be grateful you don't have to pay the entire cost of healthcare because you have insurance -and I'll be happy that your healthcare is not myt responsibility. Peace.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
LEGAL Hispanics?

How do you know all of them were legal? Did you see the government issued i.d. and/or green card of each and every individual? How do you know that some of them weren't criminal illegals that should be deported according to Federal law?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Ah the input of the bear

Are you saying the members of this organization need to prove they are Americans?

A Congress that is doing the peoples will?

AGH: What is the latest approval rating of this Congress? Fascinating retorts!

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Another non-answer - just what we have come to expect from you.

You stated that they were legal. I merely challenged that statement as you would have no way of knowing whether they were criminal illegal aliens or not. Get a grip.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
the knowledgeable bear

. . and you're living up to your usual researched answers.

http://www.naleo.org/

Are you now saying that the members of this organization are illegal or criminals? These are the elected officials from the Hispanic AMERICAN community that Romney is 'pandering' to. NALEO is the National Association of Latin Elected Officials. Not all Hispanics are illegal.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Wrong Again!

Not all of the people in the audience were elected officials, and more likely than not, some of them were probably in the country illegally.

Romney is reaching out to all Americans, just not a select few based on race like Obama does.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
the four legged one
Quote:

Not all of the people in the audience were elected officials, and more likely than not, some of them were probably in the country illegally.

If it talks like an ignorant racist; acts like an ignorant racist - it just may be an ugly bear!

Quote:

Romney is reaching out to all Americans, just not a select few based on race like Obama does.

Romney was the guest speaker at NALEO the day before! Both candidates will speak to all Americans - (except possibly the KKK)

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
White Knight with White Hand

Again, Romney is reaching out to all Americans. Obama only reaches out to those whose votes he can buy by promising them taxpayer dollars.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
That is grizz if he first isn't trying to get it from them...

He is a true life cartoon: "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"

That should be his mantra for 2012.. To heck with that hopey changey thingy go with...

"I will gladly pay you in January for a donation today"

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM - So this is how democracy dies......

To the sound of thunderous applause! - Queen Amidala of Naboo

If everyone were rich and successful, who would vote democrat? THEY NEED AN UNDERCLASS to work the class warfare angle to stay in power! And when they dont have a big enough one they create a permanent one through generational welfare and when thats not big enough for them to keep a majority they invite them in from other countires and promise them handouts too. When are you going to realize the democratic party doesnt help anyone but themselves?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault-democracy

To answer your question: when the current democrats and republicans in this Congress realize they are there to work for the American people and not for those who help them leave the office as millionaires. When will you wake up and stop being led around by the nose because you feel some sort of 'privilege' in this country? This Congress has a single digit approval rating. Sad.

Queen Amidala - Star Wars is my childrens' generation. Sorry, I don't see the relevancy to the comparison.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM- I do feel privileged to be American, dont you?

I dont understand how your comment has any bearing on what i said. I despise the current congress. never said or indicated otherwise. I absolutely agree with you. We are never going to get quality representation as long as being a politician is a path to wealth in this country. The only way to fix it i can think of is A) one term limits B) a 30-50K/yr salary. Why does a congressman make more money than a teacher or a seargeant in the army? Both of those jobs require more training, education, and qualifications to hold. You can be a felon and have never graduated high school and still be a congressman. try being a teacher or joining the coast guard with THAT resume. C) do both. When people realize you wont get rich doing it ( being a congressman), lawyers ( the vast majority of people who run for office) will go back to practicing law since that will make them more money, and only people who SERIOUSLY care about the job will run for it. It will bring it back to what the founding fathers origionally intended, citizen statesmen. But this just leads me back to what i was actually talking about. The democrats, specifically Obummer in this case, pander to the hispanic vote by promising some illegal immigrants (just wait, it will be all of them if he wins again) a reprieve from prosecution so as to gain the votes of impoverished peoples that will be reliant on the giant welfare state he is helping to create and will therefore be beholden to hizzonner. This is not in dispute. It is not my opinon. This is a fact. There is no other rational explanation. He wants to get re-elected and I dont blame him for that at all, but I can disagree with the way he's going about it. Why else would he direct his AG to sue florida for trying to get illegals off their voting roles? Why would he say, "you were brought here illegally, your very existence in this country is breaking the law, but I dont mind. please stay." Listen DM, I can buy your "it's not the kids fault" rationale for a bit, but the ones who have graduated school? Have jobs? They definitely know they are breaking the law as adults and are therefore culpable. Who brought them here or when is irrelevant. If my parents stole a car for me and I was driving it around knowing it was stolen, I'd still go to jail. Why aren't Illegals held to the same standard as citizens? If you can be tried as an adult at 14 for murder, you can damn sure be deported at 18. Intent follows the bullet as they say.
Maybe Im missing something, but I dont think so. Please explain to me exactly how im being "lead around by the nose" (and who exactly is doing it) because I want a country where the rule of law is not ignored at will by the prez.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault

You've made excellent points. I see Romney as doing the same pandering to whomever he is courting. I see the Republican Party actually split as never before. I see the US in a critical global position that is over Romney's head. I see the 'controllers' of the Republican Party putting us in the same economical situation that got us in this mess in the first place. Having observed how power is used at the state and federal level, I am fearful of the one term limit. Why? That puts unelected staff having the experience and power to get bills passed. They will be subject to the same under the table payments that has corrupted our law makers. The word 'ethics' in government is becoming a joke. In our country, many revere the words of our Constitution, as long as it applies to those they 'like' or approve of. Inalienable rights except for slaves and women at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. We've come a long, long way in moving towards applying 'words' to actions/manifestation of the meaning of those words.
I feel that those who were never denied any privilege as an American have little true understanding of the privilege of total citizenship. My cousins who made it to Canada have been able to vote in every Canadian province. I would have had problems voting in Georgia in the 60's. I am sickened how we have used the services of citizens of other countries to do our 'dirty work' and allowed them to work and raise families in our country, and make it almost impossible for them to obtain the privilege of citizenship.
I do believe that ethical men and women (Americans) can reform our immigration policy within the next four years. I feel tcan be done without the input of the Roves and Kochs and their Democrat counterparts. For years I worked in a working class Hispanic community. Not every man standing on a corner willing to work was illegal. There were incidents where citizens of this country were taken across the border. (just as every black person in the north was not a runaway slave when RETURNED to the south). The removal of Hispanic names from the voting lists in some states a few months before a national election smells. I am proud of the changes that have been made in this country since the writing of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. I feel privileged to live in the state of Georgia as a full fledged American citizen.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM- lets not forget our history
Davids mom wrote:

Inalienable rights except for slaves and women at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. We've come a long, long way in moving towards applying 'words' to actions/manifestation of the meaning of those words.

This country wasnt perfect when it was founded. its not perfect now, but its a damn sight better than anywhere else, even Canada. The attitudes towards slaves and women in 1776 are horrible by todays standards, but at the time, that was common all over the world. that doesnt make it right, but Im so fed up with liberals in this country who make it sound like america practically invented slavery. Its time to stop beating that dead horse. We also werent the first to stop slavery, but we were one of the first. There are some places (most notably in africa) where its still practiced today, but america always gets blamed for it.

Davids mom wrote:

I feel that those who were never denied any privilege as an American have little true understanding of the privilege of total citizenship.

I feel the same way about my military service. i feel like unless youve put on a uniform and stood a post, or left your family behnd to go to some third world craphole where everyone wants to kill you as i have done 3 times, its hard to truly appreciate being a citizen. But I also know in my heart thats wrong. its wrong for me to assume that just because you werent in the military you cant appreciate your citizenship, and thats something i need to work on. But its just as wrong for you to assume that just because someone hasnt been racially opressed they cant truly be total citizens. And that something you need to work on.

Davids mom wrote:

My cousins who made it to Canada have been able to vote in every Canadian province. I would have had problems voting in Georgia in the 60's. I am sickened how we have used the services of citizens of other countries to do our 'dirty work' and allowed them to work and raise families in our country, and make it almost impossible for them to obtain the privilege of citizenship.

Who cares about your canadian cousins? they arent americans. Nor, do i believe-did they possess the american spirit, or they would have stayed and fought for their beliefes, not run off to canada. you stayed here, so it either couldnt have been that bad, or it was worth fighting for. my guess is a little of both. And youre right, citizinship IS a priveledge, not a right. And breaking the law just getting here is not a good way to start off earning that priveledge.

Davids mom wrote:

There were incidents where citizens of this country were taken across the border. (just as every black person in the north was not a runaway slave when RETURNED to the south)

Yes, those things have happened, but once again you commit the cardinal sin of thinking that bad things only happen to minorites. I dont know, but I fear ( i hope im wrong), that the reason you think this is because you believe america to be a fundamentaly racist country. However, contrary to liberal propeganda, bad things happen to whites too. Lest you forget, one of the reasons for the war of 1812 was the british habit of stopping american merchant ships, and taking americans with a british accents off with them as a british naval deserter. Im going to go out on a limb here and say that there probably werent too many blacks and hispanics with british accents in 1812. That means it was happening to whites. We also forget that before 1700, there were more irish slaves (not indentured servants, slaves) in america and the west indies than african by far. Whats even more interesting to note is that whites were sold into slavery by white europeans (the brits) and blacks were sold into slavery by black africans. Kinda hard to call that racist dont'cha think? and irish slaves were one tenth the price and it was not a crime to kill them. Also, slave owners would rape the irish women, because their children would be slaves as well. Sex and free slaves? what a deal! this practice was eventually outlawed, but only because it was so successful it cut into slave traders profits, not because they cared about white women being raped. The truth is, like most unpleasant things from our past and present, its has to do with money, not race.
Im truly pleased to hear you say you are proud to be American, as am I. But were not going to have much to be proud of any longer if we continue to support a prez who decides on a whim which laws he will enforce and which he will not, completely circumventing the constitution we both cherish.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault

So why can't you join some in celebrating our progress in race relations ? Thanks for sharing your analysis of history. History is ' in the eye and experience of the beholder'.

By the way - my cousins (family members) arrived in Canada via the 'underground railroad' . I'm old- but that was before my time. Family history says they lost one member to a beating, and a daughter was sold. They felt they had to go.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM- what has immigration got to do with race relations?

the whole point of this thread was the fact that Obummer circumvented the congress and the constitution and directed his AG's not to enforce the law. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, apply the law in very specific ways that are politically advantageous to him. I.E., not deporting illegal aliens who were brought here as children.
DM - you seem like a really smart person, but your achillies heel is that you see everything through the lense of race. Everything. You may not mean to, but you do. Maybe if i was black and lived through the 50's and 60's, I would too, but that doesnt make it right, only understandable. Its part of the reason you constantly get so many negative responses to your postings on here. Not everything is about race, especially not granting illegals temporary immunity/amnesty.
I also disagree with your comment that history is in the eye of the beholder. History is truth and fact. Peoples perceptions and experiences may alter those facts in their mind to fit situations or preconcieved notions, but that desent mean they are correct.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault

Did you learn English as a second language? I stated almost 7 years ago, I joined this discussion to discuss race!!
It has been proven that 'history' is not always based on truth and fact. In English history, George Washington is considered a traitor. We refer to him as the Founder of Our Country! (Through the eye of the beholder). I will continue to express my views in this discussion where most are proud 'southern' Republicans. The 'talking points' of the Conservative position are posted on the web for all to see. Some of these points refer to issues only and are based on sound conservative principles. Some are based on denigrating our current President and what some consider to be his exclusive base. (Blacks, Hispanics, Union members, the poor). I hope this was not intentional, but that makes it appear that today's Republican Party favors 'white' Americans. To those who ask what does immigration have to do with 'race relations' - ask any Hispanic American. What is sad is that there are Hispanics and Blacks who are conservative - and are made to feel alienated by some comments made by some Republicans. Your assumption that my Canadian cousins left the US during my lifetime is interesting. Black families, like 'white' families enjoy researching their roots and why they came to or left our USA. For your information , there were hundreds of thousands of free Negros in our country before the Civil War. The institution of Jim Crow laws made those citizens second class in some parts of our country. I celebrate our progress. If you want to pretend that this history doesn't have an impact on our present and future, fine. We did not progress without the assistance of our 'white' American brothers and sisters. - many of them who have families here in Fayette County and are proud of that history. They are not sick of hearing about it - and are proud to share it!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault-Cardinal sin?
Quote:

Yes, those things have happened, but once again you commit the cardinal sin of thinking that bad things only happen to minorites

Cardinal sin? I don't think so. Whites who joined blacks in marches and sit-ins and jail received the same ignorant response from some Americans. I know from personal experience that whites have suffered injustice in this country . You don't have to go all the way back to the Irish.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM- yes, cardinal sin

I know bad things have happened to white people in history. Im the one who mentioned it to YOU. You claim to know this too, but that fact is suspiciously absent when you go on your tears about injustice this and racisim that. Its just frustrating to see you argue every single topic with your race relations blinders on.

my_choice
my_choice's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/17/2012
Do you know?

Having lived in several countries, I can honestly tell you that the US is certainly NOT " a damn sight better than anywhere else" for the majority of people. And, frankly, just because you have been forced to go to another country being in the military, that really doesn't mean you have lived there.

I get so sick and tired of you military this and armed forces that, and we wouldn't be here if it weren't for the military... blah blah blah. I have lived in places where they weren't so afraid they needed to go and invade another country.

So, to all you conservative a$$holes, here's the a few words from a liberal who runs a company, pays for his employees health insurance, and feels a need to pay back to society that helped him create a company and be successful:

You're rhetoric is so full of sh!t that i am sick of hearing it - you are a bunch of whiners who just want to hurl insults. Well, here is a liberal that won't take your crap anymore - you can all go live on a compound in a big circle jerk and congratulate each other on how righteous you all are.

PLEASE do this, nd leave the rest of us to not have to deal with your constant vitriol. I have now figured out that the majority in this part of the world are all born here and ended staying or returning here because they just can't handle being in a place where their bullying behavior is ignored on not tolerated.

Stay here! Have Barlow become Commissioner! Whine about liberals and see where it gets you a$$holes!

And, this is my last word - NOT YOURS! Ha!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Wow such an eloquent post my_ choice such lanugage

full of choice tidbits of nonsensical points that I literally could spend hours on it.

So I will give it the time it truly deserves... ok done.

Oh one more thing... It is your choice.. Leave if you hate it so much here.. We won't miss you.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
S. Lindsey & My Choice

Steve you forgot to mention what a sterling piece of analysis MC has done in just 2 1/2 months here! Don't you just know that MC has a bunch of happy & productive employees--if indeed there are any at all. And if there IS a company, bet somewhere in the 'startup' background are some conservative financial wizards--or a lottery win! And the anti-military rant tells me that MC probably hasn't served but if he/she did, gained little from the experience.
'

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I know AHG I just love how Libs hate Capitalism

while profiting from it at the same time...

What's that I smell....ah yes... hypocrisy.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM - Queen Amidala

was the character who spoke the line in the movie. I was not comparing you to her. I used that quote to answer your comment about hispanics applauding Obummers announcement of his letting some illegals stay free from prosecution. Of course they were going to applaud. Did anyone think they would boo?

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Ok Lindsey how about you explain

specifically how Obama is "violating the Constitution." Here is his duties as outlined:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Since he is delineated the "power to grant reprieves and pardons," it would appear that he most certainly DOES have the power to grant a temporary "reprieve" from deportation. I'm sure you, being the legal and Constitutional expert that we all know you are, can intelligently and legally explain the actual violation of his Constitutional duties. Please be specific, inquiring minds want to know.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
'Reprieve' for TWO YEARS, and for 800,000 people???

Well, Birdboy, how about he give 'reprieve' to the 17th Amendment and get rid of those pesky Republican Senators and replace them with Democrats, so he can do whatever he wants? Heck, give 'reprieve' to the whole US from the constraints of the Constitution for 2 years?

In 1993, a resolution in the House suggested that, "The President shall only have the power to grant a reprieve or a pardon for an offense against the United States to an individual who has been convicted of such an offense."

Common sense does apply occassionaly in D.C.; geez, get a grip, you & your King...

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Really Leprechaun Lover

reprieve or pardon obviously doesn't apply to suspension of the 17th Amendment. That is simply a stupid statement. It shows no "common sense." Geez...YOU get a grip.
By the way, anyone wonder about say.... Waterboarding.... you know... the interrogation technique that Bush not only used, but publicly supported. You guys all remember... even though it is considered "torture" by most authorities (including John McCain). Or the clause in the Patriot Act that suspends Habeus Corpus? Where is the call for "Remember the Constitution" on those? How do you spell Republican? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!

cogitoergofay
cogitoergofay's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/11/2006
Birdman is right on waterboarding

Birdman is right on waterboarding...Bush and Obama will each be remembered as quite mediocre Presidents. Probably the biggest blot on each of their presidencies will be the excesses taken with respect to "enemy combatants". Guatanamo Bay will forever be remembered as a heinous excess. If you cannot use your interrogation methods on American soil, you should not use them anywhere. And Birdman (and John McCain) are right--- waterboarding is torture and Americans do not torture. Neanderthals like Lynn Westmoreland joke about it ("I voted for torture") but that is function of a too limited education. See the fictional movie "Unthinkable". In it a government rep says precisely that--- America does not torture. On the suspension of habeas corpus, well, uh, Abraham Lincoln did it so....Never mind.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
No, Birdy, you missed the point...

...of a sitting POTUS illegally (or we shall see, anyway) doing as he will, w/o the inclusion of Congress. To his defense, tho, Lincoln did it, as did FDR, and I believe Teddy R., too, during the Pullman strikes (can't remember if that was him; have to check). Wasn't the Patriot Act approved by CONGRESS? Note the word 'CONGRESS'; your King didn't. Waterboarding had DOJ approval and a history of approved usage, but I'll give you that one, Bush did ok it.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Leprachauan man

You're right that Congress passed the Patriot Act, but why weren't all you Constitutional geniuses screaming for a Supreme Court review? It was a heinous violation of our most basic rights to speedy trials, facing our accusers, etc. Yet where the outcry? And the waterboarding? I was a 20 year military guy. My son is career military. Does our former President's support of any form of torture not put our military in even greater danger? Are we not "just like them?" Now, don't get me wrong....I am a HUGE Vince Flynn and "Mitch Rapp" fan. But our President should NEVER publicly support torture.
But the DOJ "approved it?" So???? The DOJ, legal team, etc. also "approve" the President's actions regarding direction of limited resources for enforcement. So????? Hey... limited resources.... prioritize your forces. Even some of the most beloved right wingers said he was "doing the right thing."
My only point in all this is with so many REAL issues, why not simply hold civilized, informed, intelligent and RESPECTFUL dialogue? Just because we disagree doesn't make either of us right. But if we could discuss our differences in a respectful manner we could solve many problems. You would likely find we may not be far apart. But the hateful assumptions and accusations thrown simply gets everyones "backs up" and prevents any type of honorable debate. Believe me, when you insult me I simply shut you down. If you want to win me over, show some respect.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Well, Birdy, I hear you...

...and in times of war the Constitution has been, to a degree, abused; I mentioned a few of those times earlier. It was deemed, by Congress, that given certain, specific instances that residents & citizens could be held if determined to be in the interest of national security (yes, you may roll your eyes now). Without it, we would not have uncovered NUMEROUS US-based money-producing networks that were funding Al Queda & others, or would not have caught a 'dirty bomber' coming from Canada; I could go on a bit longer about what it has allowed us to stop or intervene in.

A pol advocating torture is never - IMHO - a good idea, whether it happens or not. We'll continue to be walked on, abused, and killed in the world community by governments & groups who don't have a problem in that arena, as we'll take it as long as the 1.5% of this nation that bear the burden by giving their life & limbs. The 'kinder & gentler' approach plays well here in the CONUS; it gets pretty much ignored outside our walls. BTW, I was 26 years Army and buried 2 Soldiers who were blown apart by a psychological torture weapon known as the IED.

As a personal apology, I was a bit smarmy in my first response to you.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Real fast real simple

Birdman.. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
The President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. By circumventing the law Obama has violated his oath to do so.

The President can not grant a pardon to Criminals WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Since the Criminal act of crossing our border has yet to be charged he therefore cannot order a law enforcement entity to ignore law. KC in the above post is correct.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
But Lindsey

Obama isn't "establishing" immigration law. He is simply prioritizing the prosecution of the law. Look I know you hate Obama.... so what. And I know he is using technicalities to prosecute the law. But the truth is he is NOT violating the Constitution. Get real. If he DID, Boehner and the gang would have Impeachment proceedings already underway. I'm not telling you to like the guy, I'm only saying to quit making absurd charges. Is it really that hard to simply oppose his policies? If you're such a Constitutional Scholar, why didn't you oppose the Patriot Act or Waterboarding? Are you so afraid that you're willing to suspend the Constitution out of fear? You know, I agree that Obama has made some mistakes. But so far I see NOTHING that Romney promises to help the Middle Class. He has NO plan, NO budget cutting proposals, NOTHING. He waivers hourly. He even came out and said that he would cancel Obama's EO and replace it with a better Permanent law doing the SAME THING! This after advocating Self Deportation! Am I supposed to vote for a guy like this? How about some real, solid, backbone from the guy! Is he really the BEST the Republican Party can find to represent them? How sad!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
The President cannot pick and chose what laws he likes

birdman. No matter what you think.

Trying to shift the argument to me is a Non sequitur your premise is that the President can order certain Bureaucracies to just not enforce a LAW is ILLEGAL and VIOLATEs the Constitution and his oath thereof.

The concept is really simple.

Not my problem if you are unable to grasp it.

Here let me try to help you: Show me where is the Constitution the Presidents power resides to ignore existing Law and direct inter-Governmental Bureaucracies to do the same?

Be careful the oversteps you grant to your ideological partner because someday you may have a President that might take those "powers" and create oversteps you will not like.

btw-I don't expect anything from the bunch of cowards in DC right now. It will take another House cleaning for us to send them a message. This usurpation of Constitutional law by Obama will, like most things he has done, be overturned by the Courts. He is being sued after-all over this one as well.