View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Brian Baker: Pondering a runaway presidency

Posted: July 24, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 24, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

In my last column (“The IRS is far from earning back our trust,” June 30), I discussed the arrogance and lawlessness of the Obama administration and its bureaucrats, practiced on a scale unprecedented in American history.

Now I’d like to address the ramifications, and what they might mean for the country.

Speaker of the House John Boehner is spearheading an effort by that chamber of Congress to sue Obama in federal court for exceeding his constitutional authority as president.

Some — notably Sarah Palin — are calling for Obama’s impeachment.

I think both approaches are doomed to failure at this point in time.

Both approaches require lengthy legal processes, and we’re less than four months away from the mid-term elections.

As such, I believe they’re distractions that are red meat for parts of the “base,” but will prove ultimately futile, and may even be politically counterproductive in the GOP’s efforts to secure a majority in the Senate.

Any impeachment process that starts now would go nowhere, as when the current 113th Congress is replaced by the 114th in January, if Obama hasn’t already been convicted by the Senate — an impossibility as the Senate is currently controlled by loyal Democrats — the process wouldn’t carry over to the new Congress and would have to start all over again.

A similar problem attaches to any lawsuit, in addition to which the courts are very leery of getting involved in matters of separation of powers jurisdictional issues.

Further, the House may have a major problem establishing “standing,” or defining an actual tort damage, as they retain the power to address Obama’s excesses through their exclusive constitutional power of the governmental purse strings, whether or not they want to use it.

Let’s assume for this discussion that the GOP retains the House and takes control of the Senate. Then what?

At that point, Obama would be the lamest of ducks, and there would be nothing at all to restrain him from indulging his imperial proclivities to their fullest extent; Obama Caesar.

If he’s ignored the Congress and the Constitution up to this point — and he has, blatantly — there would be no reason for him to hold back at all anymore.

Impeachment then does become a distinct possibility. But we should never forget about Obama’s anti-impeachment insurance policy: Joe Biden.

Can you imagine him as president? Talk about hopping from the frying pan into the fire!

But there are also other avenues to explore. Attorney General Eric Holder is still under a contempt citation; he should be impeached. Lois Lerner of IRS scandal fame can and should be prosecuted.

The Benghazi scandal should be aggressively pursued.

Heads should roll over the scandalous and corrupt actions that have taken place within the Veterans Administration resulting in the deaths of vets.

A GOP-controlled Congress can use the power of the purse strings to defund the EPA’s excesses (and it should).

Obama should be so mired in his scandals that his already-dismal approval ratings plummet even further. Public opinion is the one sure way, at least at this point in history, to hobble a runaway presidency and will have the added benefit of tarring the Dem/socialist candidate hoping to succeed him in the 2016 presidential election.

A GOP-controlled Senate will also then have the power to prevent Obama from appointing activist leftist judges to the federal court system, maybe one of the most important reasons for the GOP to take the Senate in November.

What happens if the Dem/socialists retain a Senate majority, you ask?

Buckle up, because we’re looking at a potential catastrophe for the next two years as that lamest of ducks will have no restraints at all to keep him from indulging himself to the fullest extent, free from worrying about suffering any real repercussions at all, because his Dem/socialist abettors and enablers in the Senate will continue to insulate him from the consequences of his actions, just as they’ve already been doing for years.

I’m not overstating when I say that I’m not sure the country can survive that eventuality. I hope we don’t have to find out.

Brian Baker is a Saugus resident.

 

Comments

chico: Posted: July 24, 2014 9:39 a.m.

Hopefully Congress grows a pair and uses the power of the purse.


therightstuff: Posted: July 24, 2014 10:07 a.m.

Thanks for another great column, Brian. If the GOP wins the Senate, I see Obama spending the last two years of his tenure in full-time campaign mode which seems to be the only thing this guy can do. He refuses to govern and work to find compromise with those who disagree with him as a strong leader would do. Instead, president "Selfie" loves to give speeches in front of adoring fans (media included) and mock his opponents rather than work with them for the good of the country. If there is no GOP Senate to limit his damage, I think you're right to warn about the serious threats of a pathological narcissist drunk with power.

Part of Obama's sad legacy will be proof that power corrupts....absolute power corrupts absolutely.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 24, 2014 10:33 a.m.

Thanks for the kind words, TRS. Much appreciated.

"President 'Selfie'".......


Hahahahaha!

That's hilarious!

Yes, if we can manage to get past the damage this guy has done to the country, it's EXTREMELY important that we learn from the experience, and make sure it never happens again.

The problem is, he hasn't been able to do this by himself. It's taken the aiding and abetting by his Dem/socialist cohorts to make it possible.

That leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the Dem Party itself has been (with very few exceptions) corrupted, maybe beyond redemption. When you watch the performance of an Elijah Cummings in the various proceedings surrounding the IRS scandal, and his absolute REFUSAL to make any kind of rational response to all the damaging information coming out about the corruption and concealment of evidence, you have to wonder if people like that have any ethics left at all. Two other words sum it up pretty well, too: Harry Reid.

And if there are no ethics left in our government officers, we're in a world of hurt.

Before our resident lefties start bleating and setting their hair on fire, I'm not saying the GOP is blameless. There are bad apples in that barrel, too. But not nearly to the extent we see on the Left side of the aisle.
.
.
. --edited.


OldReliable: Posted: July 24, 2014 10:56 a.m.

I agree with every bit of this op-ed. Well stated, Brian Baker. John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary - none of them would be any better than President Selfie.


therightstuff: Posted: July 24, 2014 11:11 a.m.

You're right about the culpability of today's Democrats. They're not even 'curious' about the IRS scandal as we learned just yesterday about another outrageous lie coming from their office with the so-called destroyed emails of Lois Lerner. Is there no Democrat out there with honor?

But the ones I hold most responsible were once called a free press. Rather than hold Obama accountable for his actions and behavior, they have abandoned their journalistic duties to become his biggest fans. Every piece of news for them has one filter - how will it effect Barack Obama. If a story like Benghazi will hurt him, they bury the story. If a story helps him like the alleged 8-million ACA sign ups, they will run the story without any fact-checking.

And for the posts that will be soon to follow with the "what about Bush?" meme, his administration proved to be a disaster as well. The difference as I see it is that America can recover from the war and the terrible economy his administration left in it's wake. The entitlement society and the cultural divisions Obama has created may never be overcome. --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 24, 2014 11:52 a.m.

Thanks, OR. I appreciate that.

Yeah, TRS, I'm finding this constantly evolving IRS debacle to be really, really instructive; not only as to the Dem/socialists' lack of integrity, but also their "accomplices" in the mainscream press, as you said.


philellis: Posted: July 24, 2014 12:03 p.m.

Bingo and Amen!!!*****


Nitesho: Posted: July 24, 2014 12:48 p.m.

BINGO AND AMEN ++++++++*********!!!!!!!!!!


CastaicClay: Posted: July 24, 2014 1:25 p.m.

The GleeOP is back in session. Continue to pat each other on the back telling yourselves how right you are.


hortonen: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:17 p.m.

Brian,

As usual, your column is well-written for your point of view. Yet, however well written, it reelects the magical thinking and make-believe of today's modern Right.

Brian, Obama is a president who, by nature of a committed, unrelenting "Party of No" has been forced to move by executive action to get anything done. Remember, this is the Congress that pushed America to debt default, costing millions, millions and inflicting tons of unnecessary pain on the American people simply as part of the "No to Everything" strategy. Plainly, as evidenced by this alone, this Congress is not for the common man, but simply against the Change Agent president.

Meanwhile, as you make your case for his so-called offenses:

When Obama has Benghazi with 4 dead, Bush had 9-11 with 3,000 dead. No impeachment for incompetence there.

When Obama had the boarder "crisis" (with no deaths) and related to a Bush era law, Bush had the bungled Katrina response with 1,300 dead. No impeachment.

When Obama shoots off drone missiles and holds his hand on Syria and Libya, Bush had 2 wars costing 6,000 American lives, 200,000+ Iraqi and other lives, and perhaps 50,000 more permanently damaged veterans plus a 1 trillion dollar price tag. All for…. nothing but western oil contracts. (No weapons found, you will recall.) And still, no impeachment.

Brian, the "offenses" pot you're stirring contains a thin and shallow soup - but a broth, really, and you and your compatriots are whipping and beating this watery stuff as though it will rise and turn to a creamy, wonderful full blown indictment of an in tire presidency. This is the marching-orders, talking-point strategy that began with a make believe birth certificate scandal and has been unrelenting ever since. Brian, these "rants" are old and tiresome, worn out, and are the thing of Fox news titillating their ever-decreasing angry geriatric audience, fading into their memories of a magical "Gipper-land."

Meanwhile, the true scandal of all this six-year running "No-ism" is "What could have been accomplished for the benefit of all Americans had the Party of No worked for the good of the common American? What had they agreed to modify or work to improve Obamacare, instead of staging 40 meaningless votes to repeal it? What had they worked to craft a beneficial immigration package? My, how we need this, but we're stuck in the status quo by "the Party of No."

Eventually demographics and economics will finally overpower the gerrymandering that keeps these No-Sayers in office.

Until then, the grown ups have to use their executive pen to do what is necessary to keep us moving ahead.


hortonen: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:18 p.m.




Finally, Brian. No, your America will not fail during the next two years under Obama. True, that almost happened, during the closing months of the Bush presidency as banks collapsed, stock markets plummeted, and the world feared for its economic life. Yes, we almost lost our whole country then. President Obama inherited that mess and, over six long years has worked to clean it up with almost no Congressional support.

Don't let your negativity overwhelm your view of what America is or can do or can become. We are great and getting greater, and you should look up and appreciate the good that, despite all our problems, is still happening in America today.


hortonen: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:19 p.m.



Finally, Brian. No, your America will not fail during the next two years under Obama. True, that almost happened, during the closing months of the Bush presidency as banks collapsed, stock markets plummeted, and the world feared for its economic life. Yes, we almost lost our whole country then. President Obama inherited that mess and, over six long years has worked to clean it up with almost no Congressional support.

Don't let your negativity overwhelm your view of what America is or can do or can become. We are great and getting greater, and you should look up and appreciate the good that, despite all our problems, is still happening in America today.


hortonen: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:20 p.m.


Finally, Brian. No, your America will not fail during the next two years under Obama. True, that almost happened, during the closing months of the Bush presidency as banks collapsed, stock markets plummeted, and the world feared for its economic life. Yes, we almost lost our whole country then. President Obama inherited that mess and, over six long years has worked to clean it up with almost no Congressional support.

Don't let your negativity overwhelm your view of what America is or can do or can become. We are great and getting greater, and you should look up and appreciate the good that, despite all our problems, is still happening in America today.


stevehw: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:38 p.m.

"If he’s ignored the Congress and the Constitution up to this point — and he has, blatantly — there would be no reason for him to hold back at all anymore.

Impeachment then does become a distinct possibility."

What specifically do you think he has done that violated the Constitution? Not a general statement, let's hear some specific, factual examples.

I do hope the Republicans go ahead with this lawsuit idea, though. Heck, I think they should go for impeachment...Sarah Palin is all for it, right? LOL!


projalice11: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:40 p.m.

hortonen three great post deserves three BINGO'S


Nitesho: Posted: July 24, 2014 3:32 p.m.

"What specifically do you think he has done that violated the Constitution? Not a general statement, let's hear some specific, factual examples. "


Lazy liberals....

I can link it for you Steve, I just can't understand it for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2014/01/13/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations-of-2013/


Nitesho: Posted: July 24, 2014 3:35 p.m.

Bingo lady, do you ever add anything to a discuss other than being a cheerleader for the liberals?

All I see is Bingo this and Bingo that and your inability to use special characters correctly.

Do you have your own thoughts or do you just give your fellow liberals a nuru massage while drinking the koolaid from a fire hose? --edited.


17trillion: Posted: July 24, 2014 3:41 p.m.

Lois, you know Horton's 3 posts were the exact same don't you? You just "BINGO'D" 3 posts saying the exact same thing, which says much about your attention span, or lack of.

Party of NO? Thank God! Can you imagine 6 years like 2009 and 2010?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 24, 2014 3:51 p.m.

Horton: "Brian, Obama is a president who, by nature of a committed, unrelenting 'Party of No' has been forced to move by executive action to get anything done."


Horton, show me the ONE Article in the Constitution that authorizes the President to do that.

And therein lies the Achilles heel of the Dem/socialist methodology: it's based in some mythical "presidential power" that doesn't exist, and is nowhere authorized nor envisioned in the founding document and rule book for our government.

Because of that everything else you and your lefty cohorts write is just so much chaff in the wind, annoying but something to be ignored.

Then, of course -- and as always -- the completely irrelevant continuation of the "it's all Bush's fault" mantra.

Bubba, when Bush was in office I had a lot of fun taking shots at his idiotic policies too, though I'm sure for reasons vastly different from yours.

News flash, Gary: Bush has been GONE for years now. Time for your ObaMessiah to stand on his own two feet and take some responsibility -- for ONCE -- for his own actions.

Further, you want to go digging back into history? Why stop at Bush? Let's look at Dem Carter for the demolition of our standing in the Middle East. Or how about Dems Wilson and FDR for the creation of the idiotic idea that the Constitution is some strange document that magically "evolves" to accommodate socialist policies?

No, Horton, your guy Obama is the Campaigner-In-Chief who's mostly AWOL from his job, but when he does deign to show up he doesn't show the slightest interest in doing his job by the rules.

He's Obama Caesar, just as I wrote.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 24, 2014 4:40 p.m.

Anyone planning on attending the first meeting of the SCV Debaters Club at 7:00pm tomorrow night at the Habit in Granary Square? Should be great fun....


Nitesho: Posted: July 24, 2014 5:06 p.m.

"Anyone planning on attending the first meeting of the SCV Debaters Club at 7:00pm tomorrow night at the Habit in Granary Square? Should be great fun...."

I may go.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 24, 2014 5:41 p.m.

Woot. 'Way to go Nitesho. C'mon, guys. It will be fun. Even though we may not agree politically, all posters here have sharp minds and a passion for their beliefs. That will make for lively discussion...


BrianBaker: Posted: July 24, 2014 5:56 p.m.

I'll give it a whirl, unless something pops up.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 24, 2014 6:02 p.m.

My picture's on my blog site:

http://theviewfromtheisland.wordpress.com/

How's anyone gonna recognize anyone else?


Nitesho: Posted: July 24, 2014 6:15 p.m.

I'll have the I love Bingo shirt on with the name tag "Hello, My name is Indy"


tech: Posted: July 24, 2014 6:23 p.m.

Can't make it as it's my son's 19th birthday, guys.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 24, 2014 6:28 p.m.

I will go early and get a table. I will be wearing a T-shirt that says "but first, the science: C + O2 -> CO2"


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 24, 2014 6:29 p.m.

tech- bring him....


therightstuff: Posted: July 24, 2014 6:39 p.m.

Hortonen: """When Obama has Benghazi with 4 dead..."""

Hortonen, can you explain why Barack Obama and his administration told the American people for two weeks that Benghazi was over a video when they knew the whole time it was a terrorist attack?

No one has yet been able to answer this honestly.


philellis: Posted: July 24, 2014 7:45 p.m.

Hortonen's posts remind me of WIndy. Re Debater's Club - this is the first I have seen this. I'll have to consider going - last time a similar group got together it was fun


BrianBaker: Posted: July 24, 2014 8:13 p.m.

TRS: "No one has yet been able to answer this honestly."

Hell, no one has even bothered saying where he WAS!!!!!

He was quick as hell to take the credit -- legitimately owed to Seal Team 6 -- for "killing bin Laden".


But 4 Americans, including a sitting Ambassador, get wiped out by Islamo-fascist terrorists, and where is that gutsy leader of men, that military genius who "killed bin Laden"?

Who the hell knows?

He was MIA. AWOL. Asleep at the switch when that "3 AM phone call" quite LITERALLY arrived. Nowhere to be found, evidently. I guess it wasn't a high enough priority to make his "To Do" list.

Evidently, as much as I can piece together the conflicting stories, the State Department people were running around like headless chickens with no guidance as Hillary ALSO seemed to be MIA. The military area commander was getting real-time video from drones clearly showing a paramilitary attack with mortars and other crew-served weapons, and needed guidance from on high. The CIA had personnel in theater, but couldn't activate without -- wait for it -- authorization from higher up the food chain. Second-level presidential "advisors" were running amok, asking pointless questions -- all of which take time to answer -- and avoiding making any decisions about what to do.

The situation was utter bedlam and confusion. A circular firing squad, with Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other guys in the middle.

This is EXACTLY when you need someone who can make a COMMAND DECISION. That's why the President is the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF!

And where was he?

Who the hell knows. AWOL, that's where.

This guy is an absolute disgrace.


stevehw: Posted: July 24, 2014 8:18 p.m.

'Horton: "Brian, Obama is a president who, by nature of a committed, unrelenting 'Party of No' has been forced to move by executive action to get anything done."


Horton, show me the ONE Article in the Constitution that authorizes the President to do that.'

So do you think a President cannot issue Executive Orders to Executive branch agencies? Is that your specific example of him doing something unconstitutional?


stevehw: Posted: July 24, 2014 8:24 p.m.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2014/01/13/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations-of-2013/

Seriously? That's the "violating the Constitution" that you think Obama did?

You must have been positively apoplectic when Bush was in office, all that suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, etc., etc.

Somehow, I doubt that was the case.


stevehw: Posted: July 24, 2014 8:28 p.m.

"And where was he?

Who the hell knows. AWOL, that's where."

Yeah, at least we *knew* where Bush was while 5,000 American soldiers were getting killed, and a couple of trillion dollars was being wasted.

He was playing golf..."Now, watch this drive!"


Indy: Posted: July 24, 2014 8:29 p.m.

Much of what I see written by this hard core religious conservatives is pretty much a review of the ‘innuendo and speculative’ based talking points that are ‘promoted’ by Fox new ‘anchors’.

So why waste any time on them . . .

A better approach is to see what Obama has actually done while ‘on the job’:

- Passed sweeping heath care reform that GOP has talked about for 40 years and did nothing

- percentagewise more Americans are insured for health care than prior to Obama taking office

- Seen the stock market fully recover from disastrous conservative ideology positions practiced by Bush W

- Reversed job loss to the point that we’ve got more people working than when he entered office . . . including ‘years’ of constant job growth

- Getting us out from two ill-conceived and poorly planned wars by Bush/Chenney financed on the backs of our children

- Trying to deal with climate change legislation that is fought vigorously by republicans as a proxy group for the fossil fuel industry

So this is all well and good but what are republicans doing?

- Shut down the federal government costing the economy tens of billions of dollars

- Threatening to default on our national debt bond holders

- Fighting to keep people in poverty as they refuse to raise the minimum wage even for inflation

- Fighting to put people into homelessness as republicans defeat any long term unemployment insurance to address the 2007 republican catastrophe in our economy

- Fighting to cut food stamps for the poor using biblical scripture recitals in the house over the ‘virtues’ of hard work

- Fighting to keep people from voting as their voter suppression strategies are put forth in republican controlled states

- Fighting to penalize ‘green energy’ as if fossil fuels were limitless

- Fighting to cut taxes for the wealthy to further accelerate the concentration of wealth

- Fighting against ‘equal pay for equal work’ for women

- Fighting against reproductive services for women in republican controlled states

- Fighting the Medicaid expansion for the poor people in republican controlled states

- Fighting against the ACA even though 74% of the republicans that have ACA polices like them

- Fighting against even taking ‘votes’ in the House

- Fighting to create more filibusters in the Senate’s history

- Fighting to cut funding for our nation’s embassies and consulates

- Fighting against veteran benefits for our returning soldiers

- Fighting to cut IRS funding to properly enforce our existing tax laws

It just goes on and on . . . and yet, the poster believes the public will vote a majority of republicans in the Senate?

It’s hard to imagine the GOP has support from anyone . . . but indeed their ideology base that votes on ‘values and beliefs’ over ‘rational thought’ is whom they wish to use to chart our nation’s future.

You’ll have to chance this fall to remedy this obstructionism that is paralyzing our nation.


Indy: Posted: July 24, 2014 8:38 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Hortonen: """When Obama has Benghazi with 4 dead..."""

Indy: And let’s finish Gary’s sentence that the poster ingnores “…, Bush had 9-11 with 3,000 dead. No impeachment for incompetence there.”

I go further and give you the list of Bush W:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13333916-number-of-embassies-attacked-during-the-bush-years-before-benghazi-many

Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?

Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another
nine injured?

How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?

There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.

Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.

In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.

In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.

Indy: Interestingly the GOP tried to cut funding for the embassies and consulates as this was all going on . . .


Therightstuff wrote: Hortonen, can you explain why Barack Obama and his administration told the American people for two weeks that Benghazi was over a video when they knew the whole time it was a terrorist attack? No one has yet been able to answer this honestly.

Indy: For a really excellent recap of the Libya incident and one that discredits completely the ‘innuendo and speculation’ recited by this poster, read: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)

It answers ‘every question’ . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: July 24, 2014 9:33 p.m.

Stevie-boy: "'Horton, show me the ONE Article in the Constitution that authorizes the President to do that.'

"So do you think a President cannot issue Executive Orders to Executive branch agencies? Is that your specific example of him doing something unconstitutional?"


The challenge is on the table, stevie. Show me the ONE -- or ANY -- article of the Constitution giving the President the authority to act like your ObaMessiah does.


In fact, for your own education and edification, why don't you research Andrew Johnson, and see why HE was impeached. You'll see absolutely striking similarities. In fact, almost identical charges. He managed to avoid conviction by ONE vote in the Senate.

If your Fearless Leader can simply rewrite legislation whenever the whim strikes him, like your guy does, we don't even need a Congress. We can just put that laurel crown on his furrowed brow and streamline the whole process, can't we? Let him "Executive Order" to his heart's content, without any need for pesky dealings with a bunch of other people who don't like his policies.

In precise language, that's called a "dictatorship".


BrianBaker: Posted: July 24, 2014 9:35 p.m.

Oh... I just read your other two bleatings, stevie.

AGAIN with the "Bush did it too!" whining? Are you guys all just One Note Johnnies?

I already dealt with that drivel.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 24, 2014 9:39 p.m.

HAhahahahahahaha!

And then Captain Irrelevant, also carrying the "Bush did it too!" torch. Do you guys have a tag team going?

It was silly when Horton and Stevie wrote it, Captain, and it didn't ripen with reuse.

As to your list of the ObaMessiah's "accomplishments":

For a guy who's always sneering at "Fox news", you sure are good at reciting the talking points of the mainscream media, the vast majority of which are meaningless generalities and gross misrepresentations.

But carry on. I'm always up for a good chuckle.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 24, 2014 9:42 p.m.

To aid you Dem/socialists ion your research, here again is the link to the National Archives page for the Constitution:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html


Now... cite the Article giving any President the plenipotentiary powers you ascribe to him.


Nitesho: Posted: July 24, 2014 9:45 p.m.

Steve. It's well known that Bush stopped playing golf after 911. I think your getting confused with Obama playing golf while soldiers died.

And I was just as livid at Bush as I am about Obama. I don't you can even muster the courage to speak out against dear leader.


therightstuff: Posted: July 24, 2014 10:07 p.m.

Notice how the Obama wh0re's can't defend Obama, just blame Bush. Truly pathetic.


Indy: Posted: July 24, 2014 10:09 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: For a guy who's always sneering at "Fox news", you sure are good at reciting the talking points of the mainscream media, the vast majority of which are meaningless generalities and gross misrepresentations.

Indy: I’m like the old Jack Webb character Sgt. Friday on Dragnet . . . ‘just the facts’ . . .

And we’ll be exploring all of that list as we get close to November . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 24, 2014 10:13 p.m.

Indy: """For a really excellent recap of the Libya incident and one that discredits completely the ‘innuendo and speculation’ recited by this poster, read: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013) It answers ‘every question’ . . ."""

What 'answer' does David Brock give for why Barack Obama and his administration told the American people that the murders in Benghazi were from a spontaneous reaction to a video for ***TWO WEEKS*** when he knew within 24 hours that it was actually a terrorist attack?

Please, no personal attacks or childish labels, just answer the question. If you read it, please tell us David Brock's explanation. Thank you.


therightstuff: Posted: July 24, 2014 10:18 p.m.

Indy: """I’m like the old Jack Webb character Sgt. Friday on Dragnet . . . ‘just the facts’ . . ."""

We noticed you didn't provide a single link for your 'facts'. Truly embarrassing. All we have is your far-left spin which is as real as Sgt. Friday on Dragnet.


therightstuff: Posted: July 24, 2014 10:20 p.m.

Ugh...More Indy: """Much of what I see written by this hard core religious conservatives is pretty much a review of the ‘innuendo and speculative’ based talking points that are ‘promoted’ by Fox new ‘anchors’."""

Can you tell us what the Fox News anchors are saying that is factually inaccurate?


Indy: Posted: July 24, 2014 10:46 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Much of what I see written by this hard core religious conservatives is pretty much a review of the ‘innuendo and speculative’ based talking points that are ‘promoted’ by Fox new ‘anchors’."""

Can you tell us what the Fox News anchors are saying that is factually inaccurate?

Indy: I suggest that anyone who doesn’t swallow the Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’ go to this station, listen to the ‘anchors’ and then go to normal news agencies and see if you sense the bias.

A good example was the recent Appeals Court diversion where one court upheld the ACA while another didn’t based on the single sentence in the act.

Listening to Fox ‘anchors’ you’d have thought the world was ending . . . and then just as suddenly, once of the ‘innuendo and speculation’ recitals were spoken . . . and the public can see the minor issue, the nonsense just magically stopped . . . much like Hannity when he had Bundy on his show naming him a ‘great American hero’ then the ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ came forth and Hannity silence on Bundy was deafening . . .

In any event, when the SCOTUS ‘approved’ the ACA, separated the state exchanges making them optional, they’ve already ‘ruled’ on the issue in the Appeals court making the extension to the federal exchange acceptable by approving it’s usage.

I don’t expect mindless ‘talking heads’ or biased ‘news anchors’ to grasp that . . . one reason they just shut up . . .

But as we get to November, let’s keep in mind the fanaticism by the Tea Party led republican party as they work as hard as they can to keep the poor from getting health insurance . . . after 50+ votes in the House to repeal or degrade the ACA, these frivolous lawsuits are just more of the same insanity to hurt the poor . . . all based on religious conservatives biblical ‘beliefs and values’.


projalice11: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:04 a.m.

Indy I applaud you again ..

"Pondering a runaway presidency" should read a pondering a do nothing House of Reps

Current minimum wage turns five today passed by the Democrats in July 24, 2009
with nary an increase in that time due to the GOP no-doers..

$ 6 billion dollars of increased wages would of been added into the economy ..

Hey guys tell Boehner to stop wasting millions of our tax dollars on this
frivolous lawsuit, and get to the "real issues facing our nation"

Tell all your GOP cronies to "restore integrity ans accountability to our elections"

Also tell them elections aren't for sale to the highest bidders especially from Citizens United ..








chefgirl358: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:12 a.m.

Great column Brian! I couldn't agree more and I hope beyond hope that we never have to find out either. I truly believe Obama is THE single worst thing ever to happen to the US, or at least in the top 3.


therightstuff: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:21 a.m.

Indy: """I suggest that anyone who doesn’t swallow the Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’ go to this station, listen to the ‘anchors’"""

Nice try slick but let's try again. Please TELL US what Fox News is reporting that is factually inaccurate.

Also still waiting for David Brock's explanation of why Obama and his administration told the American people the murders in Benghazi were from a spontaneous reaction to a video for TWO WEEKS when they knew within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack.

What are you waiting for?


therightstuff: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:27 a.m.

Indy: """go to normal news agencies and see if you sense the bias...I don’t expect mindless ‘talking heads’ or biased ‘news anchors’ to grasp that . . ."""

Only a true Obama wh0re would consider MSNBC as 'normal news'


BrianBaker: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:34 a.m.

"Indy: I’m like the old Jack Webb character Sgt. Friday on Dragnet . . . ‘just the facts’ . . ."


Actually, I'm thinking you're more like the old Gracie Allen character on "Burns and Allen". She was a ditz spouting inane buffoonery, livening up the show with her nincompoopery.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:41 a.m.

Chefgirl, thank you for those very much appreciated kind words.

Yep, I agree. Obama Caesar is definitely up there. Right up with the Civil War and the Brits invading DC during the War of 1812.

With a "leader" like him, who needs actual enemies?

There's at least one guy who's very happy: Jimmy Carter. He's no longer the "worst". He's been bumped down to #2 worst.


stevehw: Posted: July 25, 2014 1:35 a.m.

I'll ask again, and maybe you can answer plainly:

Do you think it is unconstitutional for Presidents to issue Executive Orders to Executive branch agencies?


stevehw: Posted: July 25, 2014 1:39 a.m.

BTW, you must be positively ashamed of Ronald Reagan, given that he issued more EOs than any other president since Eisenhower.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 25, 2014 2:14 a.m.

Dude, it's YOU and your cohorts who have to answer the question:

Name the Article in the Constitution that gives any president the powers you grant to the ObaMessiah.

Name just ONE.

C'mon, stevie. Just one.....

Name ANY Article in the Constitution granting any president the power to rewrite the laws duly passed by Congress and enacted into law.

Name ANY Article that gives him the power to grant "waivers" or "exemptions" to any person or group without congressional approval; or to "extend deadlines" that are black letter law without congressional approval. Or to ignore immigration law as he sees fit at any politically opportune moment. Or to obstruct justice, or ignore Congress's duly authorized inquiries, or a whole host of other offenses.

And please don't try to fall back on that lame "prosecutorial discretion" meme. He's not a "prosecutor"; he's an "executive", and there's no such thing as "executorial discretion" in the law or the Constitution.

In fact, according to Article 2, Section 3, "... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...". Something that seems to have escaped his attention. THAT is the limit of his powers under the Constitution. He can't just ignore or rewrite them on the fly as it suits him. He has NO "discretion" in the matter.

You also don't seem to understand what EOs are for. They are NOT a cheap excuse thrown out for ignorant people to drink the Kool-Aid about as a way around the duly enacted laws. They ARE to facilitate the actual EXECUTION of the laws as written. So a president may well write a boatload of EOs, but if their effect isn't to rewrite or negate actual enacted law, and their purpose is to FACILITATE the actual execution of the law AS WRITTEN, they're perfectly acceptable and proper.

Your guy is megalomaniac. I've referenced the Turley articles before. I won't do it again here for the attention-challenged. Just go back and look at my last Guest Column. It's all right there.



therightstuff: Posted: July 25, 2014 9:55 a.m.

Steve, we noticed you taking shots at Bush, Reagan and Eisenhower but you just can't bring yourself to question the Chosen One.


ricketzz: Posted: July 25, 2014 10:07 a.m.

Bill Clinton was as bad as either Bush, worse than Reagan in a lot of ways. The USA died a few days before Xmas, 2000, when 5 robed dictators stopped the recount and pronounced their friend President. I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that has only gotten worse since.

There is no United States. There is no EU. There is ExxonMobil. There is General Electric. The new world order is corporate rule over People and their laws. Putin and the BRICS are all we have between us and complete subjugation to fascism.


tech: Posted: July 25, 2014 11:54 a.m.

"BTW, you must be positively ashamed of Ronald Reagan, given that he issued more EOs than any other president since Eisenhower." - stevehw

Simplistic. The number is irrelevant. If an EO circumvents the separation of powers, Constitutionality is the issue, Steve. --edited.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 25, 2014 11:54 a.m.

Reminder: tonight at the Habit in Granary Square, 7pm. First meeting of the Signal Debaters Club!!!

Come for an hour (or whatever) of discussion and getting to know one-another. I will ask for one ground-rule: attack the ideas but not the people! Personally, I am very impressed by all of you and the intelligence and passion by which you present your ideas.

Phil- you gotta come...


tech: Posted: July 25, 2014 11:59 a.m.

"Putin and the BRICS are all we have between us and complete subjugation to fascism." - ricketzz

Putin as a bulwark against fascism? LOL!


stevehw: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:19 p.m.

"Steve, we noticed you taking shots at Bush, Reagan and Eisenhower but you just can't bring yourself to question the Chosen One."

Wrong. I think I pointed this out last time somebody (you?) said this, and it was confirmed by others. I've criticized Obama on a number of points.

With regards to EOs...it's amusing how the *Republicans* were insisting that Obamacare (or various provisions of it) be delayed, then when Obama delayed them, they cry foul. No complaining when Bush or Reagan uses them, but a Democratic president? IMPEACHMENT! I expect the next trick from their bag will be about signing statements...A-OK for a Republican president (as we saw with Bush); I'm waiting for them to claim they're unconstitutional when Obama uses them. (Incidentally, I don't think *any* President should try to use them).

EOs have been around since Washington, and only TWO have been ruled out of bounds by the courts.

That dog don't hunt.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:27 p.m.

I'm planning on being there, AR.

My curiosity has been piqued.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:41 p.m.

AGAIN, stevie, no President has EVER used EOs to rewrite laws they don't agree with like this guy. EOs in and of themselves are fine when they're used to IMPLEMENT the laws as passed and enacted properly, as has already been stated. You're trying to compare apples and kumquats. THAT'S the dog that don't hunt, bubba.

Just like I said in the column: Obama Caesar.

Your guy's already been taken to task about his constitutional ... "shortcomings", let's say -- in regard to his unconstitutional NLRB appointments. He also lost the Hobby Lobby case. Those are only the tip of the oncoming iceberg.


Indy: Posted: July 25, 2014 1:48 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: indy: """I suggest that anyone who doesn’t swallow the Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’ go to this station, listen to the ‘anchors’"""

Indy: """For a really excellent recap of the Libya incident and one that discredits completely the ‘innuendo and speculation’ recited by this poster, read: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013) It answers ‘every question’ . . ."""

Indy: Yep . . .


Indy: Posted: July 25, 2014 1:52 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Indy: """go to normal news agencies and see if you sense the bias...I don’t expect mindless ‘talking heads’ or biased ‘news anchors’ to grasp that . . ."""

Indy: Yes, really good advice . . . especially important to get perspective on current events beyond the contrived ‘innuendo and speculation’ put forth as a proxy for ‘actual news’.

There’s plenty of media not owned by the RNC/GOP . . . . so sample their ‘news’ . . . see if it ‘conforms’ to the ideology based ‘recitals’ used as news at Fox.


Indy: Posted: July 25, 2014 1:56 p.m.

Notice how the conservatives here ‘ignored’ these items:

- Shut down the federal government costing the economy tens of billions of dollars

- Threatening to default on our national debt bond holders

- Fighting to keep people in poverty as they refuse to raise the minimum wage even for inflation

- Fighting to put people into homelessness as republicans defeat any long term unemployment insurance to address the 2007 republican catastrophe in our economy

- Fighting to cut food stamps for the poor using biblical scripture recitals in the house over the ‘virtues’ of hard work

- Fighting to keep people from voting as their voter suppression strategies are put forth in republican controlled states

- Fighting to penalize ‘green energy’ as if fossil fuels were limitless

- Fighting to cut taxes for the wealthy to further accelerate the concentration of wealth

- Fighting against ‘equal pay for equal work’ for women

- Fighting against reproductive services for women in republican controlled states

- Fighting the Medicaid expansion for the poor people in republican controlled states

- Fighting against the ACA even though 74% of the republicans that have ACA polices like them

- Fighting against even taking ‘votes’ in the House

- Fighting to create more filibusters in the Senate’s history

- Fighting to cut funding for our nation’s embassies and consulates

- Fighting against veteran benefits for our returning soldiers

- Fighting to cut IRS funding to properly enforce our existing tax laws

In fact, these items are the ‘outcomes’ of conservative ideology . . . these are their positions on which they will run in November . . .

We’ll keep these items ‘fresh’ in the minds and hearts of the guest readers . . . as we approach ‘election day’.


Indy: Posted: July 25, 2014 2:01 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: AGAIN, stevie, no President has EVER used EOs to rewrite laws they don't agree with like this guy.

Indy: Be careful with the ‘selective’ memory of this religious conservative that habitually ignores reality . . . and even the actions of his own party.

As Stevewhw noted: EOs have been around since Washington, and only TWO have been ruled out of bounds by the courts.

What, 200 plus years and just two? Wow . . . . blows Baker’s hyperbola right out of the water.

What we should be asking is why the House refuses to vote on legislation . . .

Or why the Senate Republicans fail to govern and maliciously abuse the filibuster.

We should be suing all republicans in congress for not doing any governing . . .

Or simply vote them out of office in Novemeber . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: July 25, 2014 2:17 p.m.

The Captain: "What, 200 plus years and just two? Wow . . . . blows Baker’s hyperbola right out of the water."


Dream on, Captain. Read the rest of my response. CAN you read?


therightstuff: Posted: July 25, 2014 2:45 p.m.

Indy: """There’s plenty of media not owned by the RNC/GOP . . . . so sample their ‘news’ . . . see if it ‘conforms’ to the ideology based ‘recitals’ used as news at Fox."""

Yep, you'll find plenty of anti-GOP bias in the rest of the media. Can you please provide samples of what Fox News is reporting that is factually inaccurate?

All we're getting is your "innuendo" - Got any facts or are we back to your ideology-based recitals about Fox News?


therightstuff: Posted: July 25, 2014 3:45 p.m.

Indy: """Notice how the conservatives here ‘ignored’ these items:"""

We noticed you had no links or websites to back up your claims. We've learned to ignore your "innuendo and speculation"


tech: Posted: July 25, 2014 3:48 p.m.

For your review, Steve:

The president's power grab
Obama is not a dictator, but there is a danger in his aggregation of executive power.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/09/opinion/la-oe-turley-obama-separation-of-powers-20140309


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 25, 2014 8:05 p.m.

BB and Niteshow and anyone else coming to the Habit tonight- I have a major conflict that just came up. I will try to come by but it is not looking good. Can we reschedule for next week?

So sorry about this. It is a medical issue...


CaptGene: Posted: July 25, 2014 8:17 p.m.

I would love to go tonight but can't. Hope you all have fun!


therightstuff: Posted: July 25, 2014 8:30 p.m.

"""Reminder: tonight at the Habit in Granary Square, 7pm. First meeting of the Signal Debaters Club!!!"""

Just saw this and too late to make plans. I've suggested this before and think it's a cool idea. What would be REALLY fun is to meet and talk and only at the end of the meeting reveal names. We may discover that posters we totally disagree with on everything are actually very likeable. Sorry I can't make it tonight but open to a future date. Tell us how it goes.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 25, 2014 8:30 p.m.

Awright, looks like tonight's meet and greet is falling apart. Guess I'll pass, then.

Maybe next week?


Indy: Posted: July 25, 2014 9:49 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Notice how the conservatives here ‘ignored’ these items:"""

We noticed you had no links or websites to back up your claims. We've learned to ignore your "innuendo and speculation".

Indy: Wow . . . the government shut down . . . the threat to default on the national debt . . . and you’ve not heard of this?

The refusal to raise the minimum wage in congress is also common knowledge as well as the religious conservatives on the floor of the House citing biblical scripture to cut food stamps to the poor.

Just because these items aren’t on Fox . . . .doesn’t mean the GOP isn’t doing them . .

But again, we’ll be working on these as we move to November . . . and the internet search engines will be just ‘humming away’!!!

Stay tuned . . .


Indy: Posted: July 25, 2014 9:52 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """There’s plenty of media not owned by the RNC/GOP . . . . so sample their ‘news’ . . . see if it ‘conforms’ to the ideology based ‘recitals’ used as news at Fox."""

Yep, you'll find plenty of anti-GOP bias in the rest of the media . . .

Indy: What the poster fails to grasp is that the ‘news’ is showing that religious conservative ideology is failing . . . calling that bias is just nonsense.

I do feel your pain, however, realizing your party is just failing the public . . . from the voter suppression, to cutting services to the poor, to threating the solvency of our federal government, obstructing legislation in congress without even taking a vote!!!!

I wish I was making this up . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 25, 2014 10:33 p.m.

Indy: """Just because these items aren’t on Fox . . . .doesn’t mean the GOP isn’t doing them . . ."""

Then give us your sources. I don't mean the hyper-partisan crap on MSNBC or Media Matters. I mean REAL news.

And while you're at it, please tell us what Fox News is reporting that is factually inaccurate. Sooooo hilarious that you can't do it. The joke is on you yet again, Indy.


ricketzz: Posted: July 26, 2014 10:30 a.m.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force dated 2001, renewed annually, gives the President way more power than he is using. He is also granted extraconstitutional wartime authority by the NDAA. Presidents always push the limits of their office; its part of their job. When Congress stops doing their job the president's power goes up. Your Dictator is my guy responding to conditions brought about by a do-nothing Congress. He is not trying to be an emperor.

We have been in a kind of Marshall Law since October 2001. Maybe Issa should investigate that.


therightstuff: Posted: July 26, 2014 11:16 a.m.

Indy: """I wish I was making this up . . ."""

This guy makes up stuff up all the time. What's stopping you now?


tech: Posted: July 26, 2014 6:02 p.m.

Your entire last post is a non sequitur, ricketzz.

What on Earth does the AUMF have to do with, say, the unilateral extension of the employer mandate in Obamacare without authorization from Congress to alter the law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists


Indy: Posted: July 26, 2014 10:04 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Just because these items aren’t on Fox . . . .doesn’t mean the GOP isn’t doing them . . ."""

Then give us your sources. I don't mean the hyper-partisan crap on MSNBC or Media Matters. I mean REAL news.

Indy: What channels of ‘real news’ do you accept?

Therightstuff wrote: And while you're at it, please tell us what Fox News is reporting that is factually inaccurate. Sooooo hilarious that you can't do it. The joke is on you yet again, Indy.

Indy: Again . . .

Why did the Fox news channel sue for the right to lie?
http://www.law-forums.org/why-did-the-fox-news-channel-sue-for-the-right-to-lie-t25159.html
by hackett » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:15 am
Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company's production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida's whistle blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle blower law did not apply.


Indy: Posted: July 26, 2014 10:06 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """I wish I was making this up . . ."""

This guy makes up stuff up all the time. What's stopping you now?

Indy: I know how painful it must be to realize that much of what you believe is based on falsehoods grounded in ‘innuendo and speculation’ as recited on Fox.

But there is hope . . . . simply change the channel.


therightstuff: Posted: July 27, 2014 12:01 a.m.

Indy: """"But there is hope . . . . simply change the channel."""

Dude...you're really creeping us out with your Foxophobia. It's not only every day but it's getting to be every post. Perhaps YOU should change the channel.

Like all Obama wh0res, you hate that they expose his corruption and yet you cannot deny it. I keep asking for how they're being factually inaccurate and all you can do is squirm.

It may be frustrating as hell for you but for the rest of us, it's highly entertaining. Please....keep it coming!


ricketzz: Posted: July 27, 2014 10:54 a.m.

Laws are generally written in broad strokes. The Administration decides how to best roll-out something this large. HHS is the lead agency.

When there are not enough resources to fully enforce all the laws the cops have to decide where to apply the few resources they have. No court would find they illegally picked which laws to enforce.


tech: Posted: July 27, 2014 2:15 p.m.

What? No answer on AUMF, ricketzz?

Mandatory sentencing law wasn't written in broad strokes. Nor was the Obamacare employer mandate effective calendar date. Or that PPACA premium subsidies were confined to health care exchanges established by states.

All of those instances had clear, unambiguous and specific instances of law detailed directly by Congress.

Here's a primer that clearly outlines how law passed by duly elected members of Congress and signed by the Executive Branch works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0aVD79mcwE


BrianBaker: Posted: July 27, 2014 2:51 p.m.

"When there are not enough resources to fully enforce all the laws the cops have to decide where to apply the few resources they have. No court would find they illegally picked which laws to enforce."


(((((((((((((( sigh )))))))))))))))))

Jeez, ricketzz, on top of apparently never reading or watching the news, you don't even bother actually reading the comments you're responding to.

This isn't an issue of "enforcing" anything.

The issue here is that the Golfer-In-Chief is taking it upon himself to completely REWRITE the existing laws, such as "granting waivers" and "extending deadlines", and granting "immunity" to illegal aliens, all without any authority to do so at all.

You want to analogize to the cops and the courts? Okay, here's the PROPER analogy: because the cops and courts are really really busy, some judge or governor decides that no more felonies will be charged or prosecuted until after the next election. Further, he unilaterally decides that no one will get prison sentences anymore because the jails are overcrowded.


Now THAT'S the proper analogy.
.
.
. --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: July 28, 2014 9:51 a.m.

Being in the country without papers is not a crime. Illegal is not a noun.

You say Obama uses prosecutorial discretion to advance ideological goals. I say "it's good to be da king". The purport and intent of the "exchanges" rule is that people who buy policies through their old insurance broker doesn't get a subsidy. Exchanges vs brokerages. Not state exchanges vs federal. That's how it's applied and how it was scored by the CBO.

Don't pretend to be the holder of hidden knowledge by hyperlinking to a YouTube video. Mornings are too magical to ruin with TV. I do watch a lot of CSPAN after 9A, when the HOR is in session.


Indy: Posted: July 28, 2014 3:59 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """"But there is hope . . . . simply change the channel."""

Dude...you're really creeping us out with your Foxophobia. It's not only every day but it's getting to be every post. Perhaps YOU should change the channel.

Indy: Dude, if you can’t figure out how to change the channel, ask for help!

Therightstuff wrote: Like all Obama wh0res, you hate that they expose his corruption and yet you cannot deny it. I keep asking for how they're being factually inaccurate and all you can do is squirm.

Indy: Real ‘Christian’ like . . . no?


tech: Posted: July 28, 2014 4:22 p.m.

If you didn't watch the YouTube video of the CSPAN testimony, then you missed an opportunity to learn from a former prosecutor and a professor that's a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. You'd also understand your assertion of prosecutorial discretion is invalid, ricketzz.

It absolutely is about state vs. Federal exchanges and the subsidies they entail. See: Halbig v. Burwell & King v. Burwell.

I say "it's good to be da king". - ricketzz

I take it you accept being straddled and ridden, forfeiting the rule of law and freedom.

“Necessity is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves.” - William Pitt the Younger

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams


therightstuff: Posted: July 28, 2014 7:07 p.m.

Indy, you're really getting desperate. Since you obviously cannot prove Fox News is reporting anything that is factually inaccurate to support your post by post obsession, I love you're NEW response.

Duuuuhhhh.....you're not a good Christian!

Is that honestly the best you've got? Dude, give it up.


therightstuff: Posted: July 28, 2014 7:10 p.m.

Indy: """What channels of ‘real news’ do you accept?"""

On television, I often watch Megan Kelly (and sometimes when she reports the news)

On radio, my favorite is Michael Medved.


projalice11: Posted: July 28, 2014 8:41 p.m.

"Impeachment is the final fantasy for obsessive hyper-partisans. But some Democrats are exploiting the craziness as a fundraising call to arms."

"All's fair in love and war"


therightstuff: Posted: July 29, 2014 12:35 a.m.

projalice translation: If Republicans do it, they are evil incarnate. If Democrats do it, hey, it's only fair.

This is what a Democratic wh0re looks like.


ricketzz: Posted: July 29, 2014 9:04 a.m.

Fox News can't get 3 sentences out without some kind of deception. There is obviously a running narrative to take the uptight right-wing pro-war stance on everything. They say Global Warming stopped 16 years ago for starters. Their parent corporation, owned by a pathological liar and perennial burglar Keith Rupert Murdoch, who is a Nazi and a power tripper; and by a Saudi prince. Neither of these people have a clue what the real world is about, but they create the illusion of one anyway. It is Propaganda.


ricketzz: Posted: July 29, 2014 9:12 a.m.

Holding up a lawyer as an example of anything other than what's lower than pond scum doesn't impress me. The written law is corrupted. Corrupted by lawyers.

What seems to have vacated your environs is any semblance of common sense. Nobody wanted to punish the common people of the idiot Red State Koch led governors. The rule is to keep people who buy on the "open Market" from getting the tax breaks.


therightstuff: Posted: July 29, 2014 11:49 a.m.

"""Fox News can't get 3 sentences out without some kind of deception."""

You got hard evidence or is this just more far-left hysteria?

Obama loyalists hate Fox News because they don't drop to their knees and suck up to Obama like all the other media does. If Fox fell in line with all the other media wh0res, liberals wouldn't have a problem with it.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 29, 2014 2:50 p.m.

Ricketzz: "Being in the country without papers is not a crime."

Yes, it is. US Code Title 8 Sect 1325 makes it a crime punishable by up to 6 months for a first offense, and 2 years for a subsequent offense.

Why do you insist on continually flouting your abject ignorance on so many topics?

"Illegal is not a noun." Um... the relevance of that statement is...?

Are you referring to the term "illegal alien"? Then you're grammatically correct; "illegal" is the adjective describing the noun "alien".

"You say Obama uses prosecutorial discretion to advance ideological goals."

No I don't. What I DO say is that a president doesn't enjoy any such thing as "prosecutorial discretion" because he's not ... wait for it ... a PROSECUTOR.

Dude ... really ... you need to pay attention.



17trillion: Posted: July 29, 2014 4:09 p.m.

"Holding up a lawyer as an example of anything other than what's lower than pond scum doesn't impress me. The written law is corrupted. Corrupted by lawyers"

Obama is a lawyer. Bill Clinton WAS a lawyer before he was disbarred. His enabling frigid wife is a lawyer as well. But I guess since they are the favored, it doesn't count.


Indy: Posted: July 29, 2014 4:44 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: This is what a Democratic wh0re looks like.

Indy: Do ‘real’ Christians write like this?


Indy: Posted: July 29, 2014 4:45 p.m.

Ricketzz wrote: Fox News can't get 3 sentences out without some kind of deception. There is obviously a running narrative to take the uptight right-wing pro-war stance on everything. They say Global Warming stopped 16 years ago for starters. Their parent corporation, owned by a pathological liar and perennial burglar Keith Rupert Murdoch, who is a Nazi and a power tripper; and by a Saudi prince. Neither of these people have a clue what the real world is about, but they create the illusion of one anyway. It is Propaganda.

Indy: Why did the Fox news channel sue for the right to lie?
http://www.law-forums.org/why-did-the-fox-news-channel-sue-for-the-right-to-lie-t25159.html
by hackett » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:15 am
Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company's production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida's whistle blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle blower law did not apply.

Enuff said . . .


Indy: Posted: July 29, 2014 4:56 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "Holding up a lawyer as an example of anything other than what's lower than pond scum doesn't impress me. The written law is corrupted. Corrupted by lawyers"

Obama is a lawyer. Bill Clinton WAS a lawyer before he was disbarred. His enabling frigid wife is a lawyer as well. But I guess since they are the favored, it doesn't count.

Indy: Personally, letting a ‘lawyer’ run an organization is not a good idea.

Having used them during my business days, they were great for reviewing contracts but had no ‘business sense’.

Most of them are economically ignorant . . . having no training there.

Bill Clinton sadly ‘sealed the crash in 2007’ with his approval of the Financial Modernization Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Services_Modernization_Act ) that removed the protection ‘regulations’ created after the depression to keep banks from over speculating and creating bubbles in the markets. It was conservative Senator Bill Gramm’s bill . . .

Bush W could have dealt with this as the bubbles were forming (good to note that during the years of Bush W prior to the 2007 crash, home mortgage debt was increased by more than the entire history of mortgage lending . . . ) but his chances were like the proverbial snowball in hell with lobbyist owned congressmen of both parties.

I agree that Obama being a constitutional law professor hasn’t really equipped him either for understanding economics as we saw during his SOTU speech that promised ‘unlimited growth’ on a ‘fixed rock in space’.

And now he’s supporting the TPP trade deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership ) that will increase unemployment in the US while driving down wages to even more unlivable levels.

And now Hillary steps up . . . sad that we can no longer find reasonable republicans like Eisenhower but the extremist of both parties now call the shots with their lobbyist money.

Not sure if the US can persist under the ‘rule’ of lawyers . . . need more rational thinking types like engineers . . . or even business types that see ‘everything’ and are not lobbied off.


CaptGene: Posted: July 29, 2014 5:49 p.m.

Indy Nile continues to try and peddle the same old internet myth about Fox news. What a sad pathetic little partisan. It takes about a five second search to find that, as expected, Indy Nile is dead wrong...again.

"Clearly, the story that FOX News got a court ruling in favor of its right to “lie” in its news broadcasts has become something of a talking point among the cable news channel’s detractors. There’s only one problem – the story as popularly told is completely false, and is based almost exclusively on hysteria, hyperbole, and half-truths."

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/11/03/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth/

Oh, and Indy Nile's site that "proves" his fantasy about Fox? Even though it has the ever so official sounding name "law-forums", it's just a blog. Not one bit of what is reported there is backed up, pure BS. What would you expect from Indy Nile?


therightstuff: Posted: July 29, 2014 6:45 p.m.

Capt, the story Indy keeps circulating about Fox News is as credible as the David Brock crap he keeps shamelessly peddling about Benghazi. You know, the 99 cent pamphlet that even HE hasn't read? No matter how much proof you show this guy about his disgraced sources, he keeps re-posting them. We try to save him the embarrassment but he's a total train wreck.


therightstuff: Posted: July 29, 2014 6:48 p.m.

"""Fox News can't get 3 sentences out without some kind of deception."""

You can't get 3 sentences out without talking about Fox News.

I keep asking for evidence but all I get in response are personal attacks. You guys really need professional help for your paranoia.


projalice11: Posted: July 29, 2014 11:49 p.m.

JUDGE OKs Clippers sale..

Yeah for Shelly Sterling ..


ricketzz: Posted: July 30, 2014 11:00 a.m.

You have been referred to MediaMatters dot org several times. Would you prefer we cut and paste for you? All MediaMatters does is quote Fox News, etc., verbatim. No edits. Full context. See for yourself.


CaptGene: Posted: July 30, 2014 2:35 p.m.

From Mediamatter.orgs website:

"About Us
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation
in the U.S. media."

They admit their bias on their website.


Indy: Posted: July 30, 2014 4:58 p.m.

C(omedy)aptG(old)ene wrote: Indy continues to try and peddle the same old internet myth about Fox news. What a sad pathetic little partisan. It takes about a five second search to find that, as expected, Indy Nile is dead wrong...again.

"Clearly, the story that FOX News got a court ruling in favor of its right to “lie” in its news broadcasts has become something of a talking point among the cable news channel’s detractors. There’s only one problem – the story as popularly told is completely false, and is based almost exclusively on hysteria, hyperbole, and half-truths."

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/11/03/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth/

Indy: And who is the ‘Center for Competitive Politics’?

“The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) is a Section 501(c)(3) non-profit organization headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. The CCP's mission statement is "through legal briefs, studies, historical and constitutional analyses, and media communication, to educate the public on the actual effects of money in politics, and the results of a more free and competitive electoral process." It was founded in 2005 by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith and Stephen M. Hoersting, formerly an aide to Smith and later General Counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee.[1]”

So we’ve got a attorney for the republicans in Hoersting . . . but what about Smith:


Indy: Posted: July 30, 2014 4:58 p.m.

“Bradley A. Smith (born 1958) is an American jurist and legal scholar, and the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School. He served as Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) between 2000 and 2005 and is best known for his writing and activities opposing campaign finance regulation.”

Makes sense, somebody against ‘campaign finance regulation’ would look the other away from Fox . . . but the capper is this: “Smith's ability to write for a general audience soon attracted the attention of politicians and think tanks in Washington. The libertarian Cato Institute published a Policy Analysis by Smith in 1996 (largely a shorter, less documented version of his Yale Law Journal article of the same title) which was widely distributed in Washington. Smith became a popular witness before congressional panels, both for his contrarian views and his ability to simplify complex issues for ease of consumption. The pro-reform Brennan Center for Justice would eventually refer to Smith as "the most sought after witness" to make the case against reform in Congress. Having gained the attention of Republican leaders in Congress, in 1999 then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, on the recommendation of Senator Mitch McConnell, sent Smith's name to the Clinton White House as the Republican choice to fill an upcoming Republican vacancy on the bipartisan Federal Election Commission, which oversees enforcement of campaign finance laws.”

So no surprise that this group ‘tempers’ the malfeasance by Fox . . . even used as a ‘witness by republicans . . . biased? Short sighted? Blinded? You decide . . . it’s comedy gold!


Indy: Posted: July 30, 2014 5:02 p.m.

C(omedy)aptG(old)ene wrote: From Mediamatter.orgs website:

"About Us
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation
in the U.S. media."

They admit their bias on their website.

Indy: Gee . . . an organization that is “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation”.

That’s a public service to get the distortions out of our political discourse!

Ricketzz wrote: All MediaMatters does is quote Fox News, etc., verbatim. No edits. Full context. See for yourself.

Indy: Great!

Another ‘show stopper’ for Fox is Jon Stewart!

I can understand why partisan conservatives hate him since he displays their hypocrisy.


therightstuff: Posted: July 31, 2014 1:32 a.m.

"""All Media Matters does is quote Fox News, etc., verbatim. No edits. Full context. See for yourself."""

You guys on the far-left fringe crack me up. You use a disgraced outfit like Media Matters to prove to try to prove your point about media bias.

And when you ask for examples of where Fox News is factually inaccurate, all you get is...duuuuhhhh....see for yourself. Rather than backing up their outrageous claims with evidence, they demand you to prove what they're saying is untrue.

Truly embarrassing.


ricketzz: Posted: July 31, 2014 9:34 a.m.

How is Media Matters for America "disgraced"?

I told you they lie about AGW every time they talk about it. They cherry pick only the facts that appear to bolster their alternate reality. Lying by omission is still unacceptably deceptive.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/


projalice11: Posted: July 31, 2014 12:47 p.m.

Pondering a run away Congress:

"On the final day before a five-week summer break, Congress was leaving a long list of unfinished business after 18 months of bitter partisanship."

Another year and half wasted +++

Par for the course +++




Indy: Posted: July 31, 2014 5:20 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: And when you ask for examples of where Fox News is factually inaccurate, all you get is...duuuuhhhh....see for yourself. Rather than backing up their outrageous claims with evidence, they demand you to prove what they're saying is untrue.

Indy: Gee, a site set up with ‘enough’ material to create a site that illustrates the distortions by Fox . . . and just a ‘click away’!

http://mediamatters.org/

I don’t know if it gets any better than that . . . in any event, switch the channel . . . go to more mainstream media outlets that don’t ‘taint’ their news with partisan ideology framing.

You’ve feel better about yourself . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 31, 2014 11:48 p.m.

Indy, sometimes you're stuff is so outrageously stupid that I can't tell if you are really that nutty or if it is meant tongue-in-cheek.

Recommending Media Matters as an expert on media bias is like recommending the Three Stooges to condemn slapstick comedy. Of course, when you've become dull to hypocrisy maybe you don't see it. Poor Indy.

Your obsession with Fox News has become all consuming. Dude, get help.


ricketzz: Posted: August 1, 2014 10:56 a.m.

Stupid is as stupid does.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=Fox+News+Viewers+Worst-Informed


therightstuff: Posted: August 1, 2014 3:35 p.m.

If duckduckgo says it's true, it must be true.

You're right ricketzz...stupid is as stupid does.


ricketzz: Posted: August 2, 2014 10:36 a.m.

duckduckgo is a search engine that doesn't track you. Friends don't let their friends use G00g1e. The bias is in the search terms.

There are also studies that show that people who self identify as "conservatives" have physically abnormal brains and that religious people are just plain less intelligent than atheists. I can go on for days if you like. I am trying to be nice.


CaptGene: Posted: August 2, 2014 6:16 p.m.

Talk about drinking the KoolAid®!

What a doofus. Some people will believe anything.


ricketzz: Posted: August 3, 2014 10:36 a.m.

"Researchers also noted that Democrats had larger anterior cingulate cortexes, which are associated with tolerance to uncertainty, while Republicans had larger right amygdalas, which are associated with sensitivity to fear."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/conservatives-and-liberals-have-different-brains-studies-show/

"Here are some. Highly religious countries:

Are poorer.
They are less urbanized.
Have lower levels of education.
They have less exposure to electronic media that increase intelligence.
Experience a heavier load of infectious diseases that impair brain function.
Suffer more from low birth weights.
Have worse child nutrition.
Do a poor job of controlling environmental pollutants such as lead that reduce IQ."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs


CaptGene: Posted: August 3, 2014 1:07 p.m.

As usual, cricketzz didn't bother to continue reading after he found the part he thought made his case. If he had bothered to continue reading he would have found that even the psychiatrist quoted said: "...the studies are not representative of all Republicans or Democrats, given that researchers are weaving different small studies together to draw conclusions, and several different opinions designate whether someone is liberal or conservative.
“It’s important to keep in mind that this is a big, multidimensional space,” Appelbaum said"

Followed by:

"He also said someone’s brain makeup doesn’t necessarily predispose that person to think one way or another politically, calling it a “chicken or the egg issue.” In fact, it’s possible that a person’s political thinking can change their physiological traits"

That is a worlds away from "...people who self identify as "conservatives" have physically abnormal brains"

But then again, we are talking about the hyperbolic ramblings of a guy that is known for hyperbole, and who ironically has admitted to having an abnormal brain!


ricketzz: Posted: August 4, 2014 11:24 a.m.

I am not going to dig deeply because you are too out of it to have heard what is mainstream news elsewhere. I just said it to get a reaction. But there are multiple studies that say self identified "conservatives" run on emotion and fear. This implies anxiety disorder as a common co-morbidity. The chicken v egg still applies at this point. But there is hope you weren't "born this way". Nature v Nurture.

How about self-identifying as a American, able to use a varied palate of ideologies, as events require? We limit ourselves when we join exclusive clubs.


therightstuff: Posted: August 4, 2014 11:26 a.m.

"""But there are multiple studies that say self identified "conservatives" run on emotion and fear."""

Got a link?


CaptGene: Posted: August 4, 2014 12:40 p.m.

ricketzz: "I just said it to get a reaction"

So what else is new? My reaction was to point out that you "study" does not say what you think it says. Maybe someday you can post something that is fact based, I won't be holding my breath.


ricketzz: Posted: August 6, 2014 10:14 a.m.

I will post a couple links.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/08/brain-scans-lean-left-right/

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=brain+differences+conservative+liberal


CaptGene: Posted: August 6, 2014 1:04 p.m.

From the Fox link (emphasis mine):

"The political differences between liberals and conservatives MIGHT run as deep as the brain, researchers suggest"

"Cognitive neuroscientist Ryota Kanai of the University College London and his colleagues REASONED that such fundamental differences in personality MIGHT be seen in the brain"

"Our research SUGGESTS..."

"Kanai did caution against taking these findings too far, as there are many uncertainties about the associations the researchers saw. For instance, which came first — the brain structures or the political views?"

"It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions,"

Basically, you have posted another link that destroys your theory. Do you never learn? And, again with the search page "link" are you really that lazy?


ricketzz: Posted: August 7, 2014 9:34 a.m.


"Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds
Are people born conservative?
Published on April 19, 2011 by Nigel Barber, Ph.D. in The Human Beast

Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.

The results are not that surprising as they fit in with conclusions from other studies. Just a year ago, researchers from Harvard and UCLA San Diego reported finding a "liberal" gene. This gene had a tiny effect, however, and worked only for adolescents having many friends. The results also mesh with psychological studies on conflict monitoring.

What It Means
There is a big unknown underlying these findings. Supposing that the size of one's amygdala really does increase the likelihood of being a conservative. Is the size of the amygdala determined at birth, or does it perhaps increase with frightening childhood experiences, such as authoritarian parenting and corporal punishment?

Similarly, one might ask whether the gray matter difference is affected by exposure to educational challenge, social diversity, or childhood cognitive enrichment."
- http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds


CaptGene: Posted: August 7, 2014 11:26 a.m.

I'm surprised an award winning journalist didn't spot the author's bias right off the top: "Liberals had more gray matter..." Of course, maybe you did and were willfully ignorant of it since it fit your narrative.

And yet, even your obviously biased article has to admit:

"There is a big unknown underlying these findings"

Your persistence with trying to legitimize your ridiculous "abnormal brain" assertion at least answers my earlier question; clearly, you never learn.


ricketzz: Posted: August 11, 2014 10:18 a.m.

"...at least in the anterior cingulate cortex." Not more gray matter overall. Gray matter is over-rated; I have very little.

Bias is everywhere. We use our awareness of bias to weight an author's statements and always have. Anyone who claims to be free of bias denies human nature.


CaptGene: Posted: August 11, 2014 11:24 a.m.

ricketzz: "We use our awareness of bias to weight an author's statements..."

No kidding. Which is why I pointed out the obvious bias of the article you posted. To your credit, you didn't try and deny it. As always, you have failed to make your case.


ricketzz: Posted: August 14, 2014 11:03 a.m.

Facts have no bias. They are delivered by imperfect messengers who do. If you'd follow me at Twitter you'd see. I refuse to conform. The Prisoner formed my opinion of modern fascism in 1968. That's right. The world is going to hell and I'm watching cutting edge psycho-drama on PBS. Smothers Brothers/Glen Campbell Show was as political as I ever got in the '60s because I couldn't find a worthy cause.

"At all times do your best to fold, spindle and mutilate" -Deteriorata



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...