Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 7 of 7     «   Prev   4   5   6   7
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #151 
Tell the Truth:  An Illegal Immigrant and all their children ARE CRIMINAL INVADERS!  PERIOD! Check out how Mexican Law treats illegal invaders. We ought to follow the Mexican example on immigration. (I can't say that about much else about the Mexican Govt.) Of course, if you can pay the mordita, you can stay, for now, pero manana posible mas dificil.

I stand with Lawyer 12.  Also I'm highly suspicious of WHY his status could not be changed to "Legal" in all that time.  Please remember "Legal" can be whatever some Libtard 'Judge' rules. "Lawful" is by the Constitution and operative Federal law says.  Get a grip here!  'Judges' have been making "UN-LAWFUL" (and creating 'precedents' that weaken or destroy REAL LAW!) decisions on immigration cases for 40 years that I know about, and I'm not a lawyer or advocate, just a simple tax-payer, a Texan by choice, a veteran, and a Constitutionalist sick and tired of the Socialist scam of loading the welfare system, and the voting rolls up with people that will support SOCIALISM!

This is important!  If this guy can practice "law" without being a citizen, do you think that helps  preserve  America or helps to DESTROY IT?

12: Please respond, am I right or just a Constitutionalist whacko?
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #152 
Okay, as a lawyer in California he has to take an OATH/AFFIRMATION that he would defend and protect the U.S. Constitution and also California Constitution.

How in the world can an illegal alien, who never became a Citizen, ACTUALLY FULFILL THAT OATH?  Sounds like a bunch of nonsense just to pass amnesty and use this as a test case to work.  Talk about lawlessness.  Are we sure we are not in the days of the Anti-Christ (just like Hitler did in 1930s through 1940s)?
Lauriemar

Registered:
Posts: 28
Reply with quote  #153 
I think the media really screwed this up, and yes, the media cannot be trusted.  Even Fox News labeled Mr. Garcia as an "illegal immigrant", when in fact, he is an "undocumented immigrant."  There is a big difference. 

As a long-time attorney here in California and one that is about as conservative as they come and a huge anti-Obama person, I have to say I feel the court made the right decision in this case.  It is STILL valid federal law that an illegal alien cannot practice law in the U.S.  What set this case apart is that Mr. Garcia's father had filed a visa petition in 1994 for his son and it has been pending all this time, due to the backlog in visa applications.  (Yes, our federal government really works well, huh?). 

At first, I was incredulous about this decision.  However, yesterday, I read the Supreme Court's opinion several times to make sure I understand the legal issues.  I also spent some time reading the briefs submitted by the parties.  Nowhere in any document does the term "illegal alien" appear.  The court basically determined that Mr. Garcia had taken all the proper steps to become documented and was of good moral standing to be admitted to the California State Bar.

At the very least, we have one less dude on welfare and another taxpayer, which we desparately need!
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #154 
I have seen reports that this Sergio Garcia has been applying for citizenship since 1994. He was a law student and now a lawyer.  There has to be a serious reason that he has not become a citizen in the past 20 years. I suggest that there must be a past criminal problem, or he simply refuses to take the Oath of Citizenship. There needs to be more investigation into this, but our "media" can not be trusted.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #155 

Practicing law while illegal

Following up on yesterday's post on the admission of an illegal alien to the practice of law in California, today's Times story had a few interesting aspects. The newly minted lawyer, Sergio Garcia (no, not the golfer from Spain) had this to say: "I can finally fulfill my dream and also leave behind a legacy so that an undocumented student 20 or 30 years from now will take it for granted that they can be an attorney." This confirms the fear that this case is not about his individual situation nor merely a short-term expedient until Congress (advocates hope) passes an amnesty; it's part of a strategy to permanently eliminate the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

Mark Krikorian says what's more, the court seemed to suggest that being an illegal alien is an identity which may not result in discrimination. From the Times:

The court went on to suggest that immigration status should not be considered any differently from, say, race or religion.

"We conclude that the fact that an undocumented immigrant's presence in this country violates federal statutes is not itself a sufficient or persuasive basis for denying undocumented immigrants, as a class, admission to the state bar," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote in her opinion. "The fact that an undocumented immigrant is present in the United States without lawful authorization does not itself involve moral turpitude or demonstrate moral unfitness so as to justify exclusion from the state bar."

Immigration expansionists sometimes complain when we say they support open borders. Though their disclaimers are unconvincing, most of them (other than the Wall Street Journal) at least deny it, saying "Of course a nation has the right to control its borders, but . . ." Yet in this case (as with driver's licenses, deportation, and other matters) the goal of the other side is indeed to prevent the federal government from being able to limit immigration at all. They'll concede security or criminal concerns (though their approach even there is frivolous) but the explicit agenda of the Chamber of Commerce/La Raza/Cato Institute/ACLU/Haley Barbour/Chuck Schumer/Grover Norquist/Nancy Pelosi axis really is unlimited immigration. Rather than arguing over fences and whatnot, this is where the immigration debate should be focused: Unlimited immigration -- yes or no? Your answer to that question answers most other questions regarding the issue.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #156 

"One of the most lawless acts yet committed by this administration"

Avik Roy says of all of the last-minute delays, website bungles, and presidential whims that have marred the roll-out of Obamacare's subsidized insurance exchanges, what happened on Thursday, December 12 will stand as one of the most lawless acts yet committed by this administration. The White House -- having canceled Americans' old health plans, and having botched the system for enrolling people in new ones -- knows that millions of Americans will enter the new year without health coverage. So instead of actually fixing the problem, the administration is retroactively attempting to force insurers to hand out free health care -- at a loss -- to those whom the White House has rendered uninsured. If ObamaCare wasn't a government takeover of the health insurance industry, then what is it now?

On Wednesday afternoon, health policy reporters found in their inboxes a friendly e-mail from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announcing "steps to ensure Americans signing up through the Marketplace have coverage and access to the care they need on January 1." Basically, the "steps" involve muscling insurers to provide free or discounted care to those who have become uninsured because of the problems with healthcare.gov.

HHS assured reporters that it would be "urging issuers to give consumers additional time to pay their first month's premium and still have coverage beginning January 1, 2014." In other words, urging them to offer free care to those who haven't paid. This is a problem because the government has yet to build the system that allows people who've signed up for plans to actually pay for them. "One client reports only 15 percent [of applicants] have paid so far," Bob Laszewski told Charles Ornstein. "So far I'm hearing from health plans that around 5 percent and 10 percent of consumers who have made it through the data transfer gauntlet have paid first month's premium and therefore truly enrolled," said Kip Piper.

"What's wrong with 'urging' insurers to offer free care?" you might ask. "That's not the same as forcing them to offer free care." Except that the government is using the full force of its regulatory powers, under ObamaCare, to threaten insurers if they don't comply. All you have to do is read the menacing language in the new regulations that HHS published this week, in which HHS says it may throw otherwise qualified health plans off of the exchanges next year if they don't comply with the government's "requests."

"We are considering factoring into the [qualified health plan] renewal process, as part of the determination regarding whether making a health plan available…how [insurers] ensure continuity of care during transitions," they write. Which is kind of like the Mafia saying that it will "consider" the amount of protection money you've paid in its decision as to whether or not it vandalizes your storefront.

There are other services HHS is asking insurers to offer for free. The administration is "strongly encouraging insurers to treat out-of-network providers" -- i.e., costly ones -- "as in-network to ensure continuity of care" and to "refill prescriptions covered under previous plans during January." But the issue of unpaid premiums looms largest.

It's unconstitutional to force insurers to cover people for free

The administration could pay insurers to cover up for its mistakes. But that would lead to criticism -- as it has in other instances -- that the White House is lawlessly throwing taxpayer money at insurers to, well, cover up for its mistakes. So, instead, they're asking insurers to pay for the mistakes.

But, of course, the cost of paying for those mistakes won't end up being paid by insurers, but by consumers, in the form of higher premiums.

The Obama administration's actions aren't merely illegal -- they're unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights says that no one can "be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

But it will be up to insurers to sue to protect their rights. Like battered wives, they are unlikely to do so. Companies like Aetna and Humana are so terrified that the administration will run them out of business that they are more likely to do what they're told, and quietly pass the costs on to consumers. The chaos and recriminations have made insurers like UnitedHealth, who have largely stayed out of the exchanges, look smart.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #157 

Obama's lawlessness "has reached an unprecedented level"


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #158 

Team Obama refuses congressional request

Justin Sink is reporting that Team Obama escalated its feuding with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), yesterday, telling him he cannot have physical copies of ObamaCare security documents because he might leak them.

Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has requested copies of six reports, citing criminal obstruction, prepared by a contractor that outline security vulnerabilities with the ObamaCare enrollment portal HealthCare.gov.

In an letter sent Thursday, the administration argued that because of Issa's history of selective leaks to the media, he can't be trusted with the materials.

"The committee's unwillingness to commit to undertake measures to address the security risks associated with further disclosure is troubling, particularly in light of reports that sensitive materials were disclosed through various investigations," wrote Jim Esquea, the assistant secretary for legislation at the Health and Human Services Department (HHS).

Issa's office blasted back on Thursday and accused the White House of overreaching in advising the contractor who prepared the report to not respond to the subpoena.

"It's an unacceptable violation of law and a dangerous precedent for any administration to tell a private company not to respond to a lawful subpoena," Issa spokesman Frederick Hill said.

At issue is a subpoena issued by Issa to MITRE, a contractor working to assess security issues with the ObamaCare website.

The administration has already allowed Oversight staffers to review the reports in a secure room, but is refusing to turn over physical copies.

Esquea says that the information contained in the documents "could be used to hack the system" and that they "may pose a risk to the confidentiality of consumer information accessible through healthcare.gov."

“As we have explained through staff discussions and in our prior correspondence, these documents are highly sensitive in light of the substantial harm that could result if the information contained in them were accessed by determined actors seeking to compromise the security and functioning of the website,” Esquea said.

Continue reading here . . .

Cross-posted in the "ObamaCare" thread . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #159 

Congressmen want to bring Obama to court for not faithfully executing laws

Daniel Halper is reporting that Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body "to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch." In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.

"President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President.  However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents," Rice wrote in a letter to fellow House members to ask them to co-sponsor this resolution.

"This resolution allows the House of Representatives to bring legal action against the Executive Branch and challenge recent actions, inactions, and policies."

The "legal action against the President" would be, according to an aide for Rep. Rice, "for ignoring Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution." Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states,

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #160 

The lawlessness continues

Keith Koffler says I guess, at some point, the ignorance of the law and the Constitution becomes so brazen that people hardly notice anymore. And so the White House can pretty much start doing whatever it pleases.

Last night, Barack Obama subverted a Justice Department investigation. Yeah, he did.

During the back rub of an interview he received from Chris Matthews Thursday night, Obama, while decrying the routine practice of journalism -- it focuses on too many bad things, he whined -- wandered into a declaration that the IRS targeted conservative groups for “bureaucratic reasons” --– as opposed to a criminal reasons -- and that agents weren’t intentionally singling out “TEA Party folks.”

If on the other hand, you’ve got an office in Cincinnati in the IRS office that I think for bureaucratic reasons is trying to streamline what a difficult law to interpret about whether non-profit is actually a political organization deserves a tax exempt agency , and they’ve got a list, suddenly everybody’s outraged.

By the way, Chris, I’ll point out that there are some so-called progressives perceived to be liberal commentators who during that week were just outraged at the possibility that these folks had been at the direction of the Democratic Party in some way discriminated against TEA Party folks. That is what gets news, what gets attention.

If this sounds like mere typical Obama indignation, let me remind you of something. The Justice Department is currently investigating whether crimes were committed by IRS officials in this affair.

Pretend you’re a career DoJ investigator who is trying to take the probe seriously, and you’re attempting to find out if there was criminal behavior as IRS agents zeroed in on the tax status of groups opposed to the reelection of the President of the United States.

Well, the boss just gave you your answer. So please, do stand down.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #161 
Was the ObamaCare "Law" written on rubber-bands?  Obama can twist, pull, and stretch it to any shape he wants?  Is he 'President" - who is required to enforce the law, or some tin-horn dictator that does whatever he wants and then blames his opponents for the failures that he caused, while raiding the Treasury for bribe money to smooth out the "glitches"?

The "glitches' are part and parcel, even the core, of the whole disastrous boondoggle!

Where are the GOP leaders on this?  McConnell is declaring war on the TEA Party, and Boehner was last seen crying over something.

Where is the investigating committee and Special Prosecutor?
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #162 

Obama offers bribes to insurance companies with taxpayer money

The New York Times is reporting that Team Obama is offering more money to insurance companies as an incentive for them to let people keep insurance policies that were to have been canceled next year.

The administration floated several proposals on Monday to "help offset the loss in premium revenue and profit" that it said might occur if insurers went along with Barack Obama's request to reinstate canceled policies.

Millions of people have received notices saying their policies were being canceled because they did not comply with minimum coverage requirements of the new health care law.

In a notice published Monday in the Federal Register, the administration acknowledged that insurers had a valid concern: They may be stuck with sicker, higher-cost customers in the new insurance exchanges because healthier Americans will stay on their existing health plans for another year.

Facing a political furor over the cancellation of insurance policies, Obama announced on Nov. 14 that he would temporarily waive some requirements of the new federal law and allow insurers to renew "current policies for current enrollees" for a year.

Insurers criticized Obama's move, saying it could upset the assumptions on which they had set premiums for new insurance products providing coverage in 2014.

Many people with serious illnesses were excluded from the old policies. As a result, the administration said, people on those policies may be healthier than average.

If they do not enroll in the new health plans, the administration said, the average cost of claims for people in those plans may be higher than expected, and this increase in costs could lead to unexpected financial losses for insurance companies.

To reduce this risk, the administration said it could provide financial assistance to certain insurers through a program under which the government will share in their losses and profits for the next three years.

Any such assistance would come on top of federal subsidies that the government plans to pay insurers to make coverage more affordable for low- and middle-income people under the new law. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that those subsidy payments will exceed $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

The administration said it could not immediately determine the cost of the assistance for insurers because it did not know how many people would stay in existing plans or how many would decide to enroll in new policies that provide additional benefits and consumer protections, as required by the 2010 health law.

Robert E. Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, welcomed the proposal, saying, "We appreciate that the administration is taking steps to stabilize the market and minimize disruptions for consumers."

Continue reading here . . .

How can the insurance companies NOT support Obama's scheme -- $1 trillion PLUS? -- and that's your money!


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Deathdealer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 120
Reply with quote  #163 
This will only change if the Republicans gain the Senate--THEN there will be a hue and cry for change. IF a Republican manages to win the Oval Office, next you will hear how laws cannot be touched , citing them as sacrosanct and citing chapter and verse of the Constitution to support them. It is the ultimate shell game, where rules are only rules when those in power choose to observe them. It makes a mockery of some of the finest legislation every written, and makes our country look no better than the Third World Banana Republics run by juntas.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #164 

The lawlessness of Barack Obama


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #165 

I think this naked "Power Grab" PROVES that we need a Constitutional Amendment on Judges.  Since they are for life they should require 2/3 confirmation vote.  And should require a yes/no approval vote from the citizens the following election after their appointment and every 4 years after that.  Letting these "Progressive" socialist totalitarians get anti-Constitutional judges appointed for life with no checks and balances is suicide.

Since the Senate no longer represents the States, it can not unilaterally fulfill its function of acting as a check on Executive abuse and usurpation of power. We should also repeal the 17th Amendment and give the election of Senators back to the State Legislatures as originally intended. All these experiments with expanding "Democracy" are failures. 'Popular Elected' Senators pandering to the worst traits and desires of Low Information Voters, parasites, and Communists are destroying the dignity and purpose of the Senate. This proves it.

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #166 

An outbreak of lawlessness

Charles Krauthammer says for all the gnashing of teeth over the lack of comity and civility in Washington, the real problem is not etiquette but the breakdown of political norms, legislative and constitutional.

Such as the one just spectacularly blown up in the Senate. To get three judges onto a coveted circuit court, frustrated Democrats abolished the filibuster for executive appointments and (non-Supreme Court) judicial nominations.

The problem is not the change itself. It’s fine that a president staffing his administration should need 51 votes rather than 60. Doing so for judicial appointments, which are for life, is a bit dicier. Nonetheless, for about 200 years the filibuster was nearly unknown in blocking judicial nominees. So we are really just returning to an earlier norm.

The violence to political norms here consisted in how that change was executed. By brute force -- a near party-line vote of 52 to 48. This was a disgraceful violation of more than two centuries of precedent. If a bare majority can change the fundamental rules that govern an institution, then there are no rules. Senate rules today are whatever the majority decides they are that morning.

What distinguishes an institution from a flash mob is that its rules endure. They can be changed, of course. But only by significant supermajorities. That’s why constitutional changes require two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of the states. If we could make constitutional changes by majority vote, there would be no Constitution.

As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.

Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass -- the Dream Act -- by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.

We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.

Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under ObamaCare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.

The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.

That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.

Remember how for months Democrats denounced Republicans for daring to vote to defund or postpone ObamaCare? Saboteurs! Terrorists! How dare you alter “the law of the land.”

This was nonsense from the beginning. Every law is subject to revision and abolition if the people think it turned out to be a bad idea. Even constitutional amendments can be repealed -- and have been (see Prohibition).

After indignant denunciation of Republicans for trying to amend “the law of the land” constitutionally (i.e. in Congress assembled), Democrats turn utterly silent when the president lawlessly tries to do so by executive fiat.

Nor is this the first time. The president wakes up one day and decides to unilaterally suspend the employer mandate, a naked invasion of Congress’s exclusive legislative prerogative, enshrined in Article I. Not a word from the Democrats. Nor now regarding the blatant usurpation of trying to restore canceled policies that violate explicit ObamaCare coverage requirements.

And worse. When Congress tried to make Obama’s “fix” legal -- i.e., through legislation — he opposed it. He even said he would veto it. Imagine: vetoing the very bill that would legally enact his own illegal fix.

At rallies, Obama routinely says he has important things to do and he’s not going to wait for Congress. Well, amending a statute after it’s been duly enacted is something a president may not do without Congress. It’s a gross violation of his Article II duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

A Senate with no rules. A president without boundaries. One day, when a few bottled-up judicial nominees and a malfunctioning health-care Web site are barely a memory, we will still be dealing with the toxic residue of this outbreak of authoritative lawlessness.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Madfoxx

Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #167 

King Barry will NEVER abandon Obamacare, it is his legacy, to abandon it would be the end of any legacy he has. If Obamacare fails his Presidency will go down in history as a huge failure. Funny because it most likely go down that way anyway.  

There is no way out for Obama, this is his swan song and it is so far off key it hurts our ears. 

So long legacy, move along, there is nothing to see here!
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #168 

Thus Spake Obama 

Mark Steyn says it is a condition of my admission to this great land that I am not allowed to foment the overthrow of the United States government. Oh, I signed it airily enough, but you'd be surprised, as the years go by, how often the urge to foment starts to rise in one's gullet. Fortunately, at least as far as constitutional government goes, the President of the United States is doing a grand job of overthrowing it all by himself.

On Thursday, he passed a new law at a press conference. George III never did that. But, having ordered America's insurance companies to comply with ObamaCare, Barack Obama announced that he is now ordering them not to comply with ObamaCare. The legislative branch (as it's still quaintly known) passed a law purporting to grandfather your existing health plan. The regulatory bureaucracy then interpreted the law so as to un-grandfather your health plan. So His Most Excellent Majesty has commanded that your health plan be de-un-grandfathered. That seems likely to work. The insurance industry had three years to prepare for the introduction of ObamaCare. Now the King has given them six weeks to de-introduce ObamaCare.

"I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this," mused former Vermont governor Howard Dean. But he's obviously some kind of right-wing wacko. Later that day, anxious to help him out, Congress offered to "pass" a "law" allowing people to keep their health plans. The same Obama who had unilaterally commanded that people be allowed to keep their health plans indignantly threatened to veto any such law to that effect: It only counts if he does it -- geddit? As his court eunuchs at the Associated Press obligingly put it: "Obama Will Allow Old Plans." It's Barry's world; we just live in it.

The reason for the benign Sovereign's exercise of the Royal Prerogative is that millions of his subjects -- or "folks," as he prefers to call us, no fewer than 27 times during his press conference -- have had their lives upended by ObamaCare. Your traditional hard-core statist, surveying the mountain of human wreckage he has wrought, usually says, "Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." But Obama is the first to order that his omelet be unscrambled and the eggs put back in their original shells. Is this even doable? No. That's the point. When it doesn't work, he'll be able to give another press conference blaming the insurance companies, or the state commissioners, or George W. Bush . . .

The most telling line, the one that encapsulates the gulf between the boundless fantasies of the faculty-lounge utopian and the messiness of reality, was this: "What we're also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy." Gee, thanks for sharing, genius. Maybe you should have thought of that before you governmentalized one-sixth of the economy. By "we," Obama means "I." Out here in the ruder provinces of his decrepit realm, we "folks" are well aware of how complicated insurance is. What isn't complicated in the Sultanate of Sclerosis? But, as with so many other things, Obama always gives the vague impression that routine features of humdrum human existence are entirely alien to him. Marie Antoinette, informed that the peasantry could no longer afford bread, is alleged to have responded, "Let them eat cake." There is no evidence these words ever passed her lips, but certainly no one ever accused her of saying, "If you like your cake, you can keep your cake," and then having to walk it back with "What we're also discovering is that cake is complicated to buy." That contribution to the annals of monarchical unworldliness had to await the reign of Queen Barry Antoinette, whose powdered wig seems to have slipped over his eyes.

Still, as historian Michael Beschloss pronounced the day after his election, he's "probably the smartest guy ever to become president." Naturally, Obama shares this assessment. As he assured us five years ago, "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors." Well, apart from his signature health-care policy. That's a mystery to him. "I was not informed directly that the website would not be working," he told us. The buck stops with something called "the executive branch," which is apparently nothing to do with him. As evidence that he was entirely out of the loop, he offered this:

Had I been I informed, I wouldn't be going out saying, "Boy, this is going to be great." You know, I'm accused of a lot of things, but I don't think I'm stupid enough to go around saying, "This is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity," a week before the website opens, if I thought that it wasn't going to work.

Ooooo-kay. So, if I follow correctly, the smartest man ever is not smart enough to ensure that his website works; he's not smart enough to inquire of others as to whether his website works; he's not smart enough to check that his website works before he goes out and tells people what a great website experience they're in for. But he is smart enough to know that he's not stupid enough to go around bragging about how well it works if he'd already been informed that it doesn't work. So he's smart enough to know that if he'd known what he didn't know he'd know enough not to let it be known that he knew nothing. The country's in the very best of hands.

Michael Beschloss is right: This is what it means to be smart in a neo-monarchical America. Obama spake, and it shall be so. And, if it turns out not to be so, why pick on him? He talks a good Royal Proclamation; why get hung up on details?

Until October 1, Obama had never done anything -- not run a gas station, or a doughnut stand -- other than let himself be wafted onward and upward to the next do-nothing gig. Even in his first term, he didn't really do: Starting with the 2009 trillion-dollar stimulus, he ran a money-no-object government that was all money and no objects; he spent and spent, and left no trace. Some things he massively expanded (food stamps, Social Security disability) and other things he massively diminished (effective foreign policy), but all were, so to speak, preexisting conditions. ObamaCare is the first thing Obama has actually done, and, if you're the person it's being done to, it's not pretty.

Obama promised to "fundamentally transform" America. Certainly, other men have succeeded in transforming settled, free societies: Pierre Trudeau did in Canada four decades ago, and so, in post-war Britain, did the less charismatic Clement Attlee. And, if you subscribe to their particular philosophy, their transformations were effected very efficiently. But Obama is an incompetent, so "fundamentally transformed" is a euphemism for "wrecked beyond repair." As a socialist, he makes a good socialite.

But on he staggers, with a wave of his scepter, delaying this, staying that, exempting the other, according to his regal whim and internal polling. The omniscient beneficent Sovereign will now graciously "allow" us "folks" to keep all those junk plans from bad-apple insurers. Yet even the wisest King cannot reign forever, and what will happen decades down the road were someone less benign -- perhaps even (shudder) a Republican -- to ascend the throne and wield these mighty powers?

Hey, relax: If you like your constitution, you can keep your constitution. Period. And your existing amendments. Well, most of them -- except for the junk ones . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #169 

Charles Krauthammer calls Obama Lawless


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #170 

Barack Obama's lawlessness

Peter Wehner is reporting that both Charles Krauthammer and Ramesh Ponnuru have spoken about the lawlessness of Team Obama. Examples include (but are not limited to) unilaterally delaying implementation of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate, issuing health-care edicts that undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, making unconstitutional "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, refusing to enforce current immigration laws related to illegal immigrants who were brought to America as children, and waving welfare work requirements.

This is all part of a pattern in which Obama enforces laws he likes and refuses to enforce (or unilaterally alters) laws he disagrees with. I suppose the temptation to act as a potentate is understandable; but it also happens to be illegal. Barack Obama, after all, has the constitutional duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (see Article II, Section 3 for more).

One of the reasons there isn't a firestorm of protest against the president's contempt for the rule of law is that that apart from a few honorable exceptions, the press doesn't care and therefore isn't covering this story. Let's just say that if the same kind of violations had been committed by presidents with the last names of oh, say, Bush or Reagan, you can be sure the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, Politico, CNN's Anderson Cooper, NPR, and the major news networks would all be covering the story.

The problem here is that a dangerous precedent is being set by Obama. To understand why, consider the words of Thomas More to Roper in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons:

And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?   

Barack Obama is doing his part to cut down from coast to coast the laws he doesn't much care for. He does so because he's a progressive who believes the ends (advancing a liberal agenda) justifies the means (lawlessness). But unfortunately in the future the winds will come -- and when they do, and when Americans cannot stand upright in them, it may dawn on some folks that our contempt for the rule of law was nurtured and flowered during the Obama era.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #171 

Obama don't need no steenkin' lawyers

Byron York says in an interview after his speech Wednesday in Galesburg, Illinois, Barack Obama was asked if he consulted White House lawyers before unilaterally delaying the employer mandate in ObamaCare. Since Congress, in the Affordable Care Act, specified that the mandate is go to into effect at the start of next year, reporters from the New York Times asked if the president investigated whether he had the legal authority to put it off without going through Congress.

Obama didn't exactly answer the question. But judging from what he said, his answer was: No, I didn't consult White House lawyers because I know a lot more about the Constitution than the Republicans who are complaining about it. And besides, they don't think I'm legitimately the president, anyway.

"People questioned your legal and constitutional authority to do that unilaterally -- to delay the employer mandate," asked the Times' Jackie Calmes. "Did you consult with your lawyer?"
 
"Jackie, if you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security," Obama began.

"No, but specifically -- " Calmes interjected.

"But where Congress is unwilling to act," Obama continued, "I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people."

At that point, Obama explained that if Congress doesn't like what he's done, then lawmakers can try to do something about it. "I'm not concerned about their opinions," the president said. "Very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers." And some Republicans "think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency."

This is Obama's complete answer:

And if Congress thinks that what I've done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they're free to make that case. But there's not an action that I take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret. But ultimately, I'm not concerned about their opinions -- very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.

I am concerned about the folks who I spoke to today who are working really hard, are trying to figure out how they can send their kids to college, are trying to make sure that they can save for their retirement. And if I can take steps on their behalf, then I'm going to do so. And I would hope that more and more of Congress will say, you know what, since that's our primary focus, we're willing to work with you to advance those ideals. But I'm not just going to sit back if the only message from some of these folks is no on everything, and sit around and twiddle my thumbs for the next 1,200 days.

A moment earlier, Obama likened his move to "the kind of routine modifications or tweaks to a large program that's starting off." Criticism of his exercise of executive authority in this matter, he suggested, is more the result of a "frenzy" among Republicans than anything he has done.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #172 

Team Obama ignores the law -- bribes to Egypt can keep flowing

Mark Landler is reporting that Team Obama has concluded it is not legally required to determine whether the Egyptian military engineered a coup d'état in ousting President Mohamed Morsi, a senior administration official said Thursday, a finding that will allow it to continue to funnel $1.5 billion in American aid to Egypt each year.

The legal opinion, submitted to the White House by lawyers from the State Department and other agencies, amounts to an escape hatch for Barack Obama and his advisers, who had concluded that cutting off financial assistance could destabilize Egypt at an already fragile moment and would pose a threat to neighbors like Israel.

The senior official did not describe the legal reasoning behind the finding, saying only, "The law does not require us to make a formal determination as to whether a coup took place, and it is not in our national interest to make such a determination."

"We will not say it was a coup, we will not say it was not a coup, we will just not say," the official said.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #173 

Item reserved for links to other items . . .

A domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution       

Obama tears up the Constitution

The biggest cover-up in American history

Obama’s abuse of executive orders

The word "Illegal" nears extinction in Obama administration  

Above the law?

More to follow -- starting today . . .

 

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved