The Boehner Manifesto: How To Do Nothing And Look Constitutional?

By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor

The Antagonists
The Antagonists

I think it was Winston Churchill who reminded us that the “supreme virtue” of government is action. In fact, the greatest of  modern British prime ministers, who often marked his staff memoranda in red with the words “Action This Day,” counseled that ” I never worry about action, but only inaction.” Action in recognizing problems. Action in mobilizing support and action in addressing the causes of human suffering and improving the lives of those over whom you have power and authority.

On this side of the Atlantic, the framers understood this seemingly obvious facet of government. Jefferson wrote, “The purpose of government is to maintain a society which secures to every member the inherent and inalienable rights of man, and promotes the safety and happiness of its people.” Protecting individual  rights and promoting the security and happiness of those individuals is the essential business of government. Not “either-or” but both.

“We the People” were formed into a  “more perfect Union” for some precise purposes: “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” That’s not a request; that’s a duty. One from which all those sub-duties known as the laws of the Constitution flow. And those duties — all of them — flow directly down from the People to their servants in the three branches.

The founders, of course, knew there would be tension any time power is divided and they relied on the good will of  the people along with an iconic government structure to keep those powers from being usurped by the other branches. Professor Turley has written eloquently about what he perceives is the erosion of the protections of the separation of powers doctrine in favor of an imperial presidency. He notes the abundance of recess appointments under recent administrations and the mushrooming of executive orders as proof of a presidential power grab which he feels can be remedied by a renewed assertion of rights by Congress and the courts. Recent decisions of the SCOTUS, he claims, support this position though one wonders how these, in themselves, are not proof of the doctrine working precisely as ordered.

While he full well explains the steps to remedying the current state of affairs, he erroneously, in my judgment, omits the implied duty that runs throughout the separation of powers doctrine — the concomitant duty of those branches even as they assert their prerogatives to do something with that power. It is not enough to simply re-establish the balance of power. That power has to be exercised in furtherance of agreed-to national goals. A perfectly balanced system that accomplishes nothing is every bit as much a failed government as one that coerces its people. And a reestablishment of a pristine version of separation of powers is as short-lived as the mayfly if the power vacuum caused by inaction remains. It is as sure a historical axiom as we have, that power will always expand to fill a vacuum.  That is precisely what we have today even as Congress, led by Speaker John Boehner seeks to sue the President of the United States to rein in what he considers to be an administration run amok doing things.

And what prompted Boehner’s wrath? Well, the President frustrated by the Congress’ obstinacy to do anything but tease on immigration reform for purely political reasons has vowed to do all he can by executive order to address this critical problem most recently manifested by thousands of vulnerable kids fleeing war and poverty and streaming across the US-Mexican border.

Boehner has written an opinion piece for CNN explaining the reasons for his decision to seek legislation authorizing the right to sue the President. After reminding us that everyone in government swears an oath to that featured document encased in glass at the National Archives, Boehner explains:

But too often over the past five years, the President has circumvented the American people and their elected representatives through executive action, changing and creating his own laws, and excusing himself from enforcing statutes he is sworn to uphold — at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the American people to stop him.

Daring the American people to stop him? We had that chance twice – as recently as 2012. Obama won the popular vote then by 5  million voters and the electoral college vote by 126. Was the problem paramount in the public’s collective mind to be solved by the election an administration on the loose or a society desperately seeking one person who would do something about the problems that beset them? Problems which, by the way, most fair minded folks would agree did not derive with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It’s a time-tested feature of the American Presidency that holders of the office are judged by what they do for people and not how they do it. Lincoln is remembered in the consciousness of the public  for ending the Civil War not suspending habeas corpus. FDR is lionized for the New Deal and his leadership against fascism not the court-packing plan. And even ol’ unpopular ‘W” himself has received a popularity renaissance of sorts for his efforts to combat terrorism with hardly a mention of the dubious methods he employed. Why would the public in the last two elections be looking for anything different?  Give us someone who can bring about positive change in Washington and the society it oversees was the order from the populace.

Perhaps the country felt that way because the Congress they sent off to Washington time after time has totally abdicated its responsibilities to govern or even make the pretense of governing. It’s as if that Republican dominated or stymied body has taken Grover Norquist’s pledge to heart — with an added bonus: No new taxes, of course, and we’ll reduce the size of government so we really can just strangle it in the bathroom. Need some proof? Let’s take a history lesson.

In 1948, Harry Truman derided the 80th Congress the “Do-Nothing Congress.” Dominated by Republicans, the body was pro-business, anti-Fair Deal, and determined to do nothing that would aid the Democratic Party. It passed just 906 public laws even as the nation was coming out from under the burden of a world war and had to deal with the returning veterans and a threat from the Soviet Union. The public took their wrath out in the election of 1948 and sent 82 Republican lawmakers home.

Fast forward to today and the explosion of problems never even envisioned by the 80th Congress like immigration reform and the terrorist threat. How has the body partially overseen by public servant and sworn constitutionalist John Boehner done in recognizing and addressing the nation’s many problems?  USA Today answers the question in an op/ed:

Having enacted 104 laws since early 2013, the 113th Congress is on track to break the previous record low of 283, set in 2011-12 by the 112th Congress. And with last fall’s pointless government shutdown, the current Congress reached a level of dysfunction that the 112th never attained.

To call the 113th Congress bad is like calling water wet. It is harming the economy in the short term while running from serious long-term problems. Appropriately, its approval ratings are stuck in the teens, with occasion dips into single digits.


283 is a far cry from 906 and the prospects look very good for a mid-term election that will bring us even less legislation and more bickering. Viva la separation of powers and its modern-day cousin, gridlock!

The historic problem is what do you do when you’re facing very real international and domestic problems with an indispensable partner who fails –and even refuses –to act? For example, how do you address the problems of thousands of unaccompanied and exploitable kids crossing the border? If you’re Congress, you do nothing and blast someone who does. If you’re the President you push the buttons you have. Obama has vowed to ” [begin] a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress.”  These measures would take the form of increased enforcement of the borders and extend to possibly “giving work permits and protection from deportation to millions of immigrants now in the country’, according to the New York Times. 

Boehner’s response was predictable and apoplectic, “In our conversation last week, I told the president what I have been telling him for months: the American people and their elected officials don’t trust him to enforce the law as written. Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue… It is sad and disappointing that – faced with this challenge – President Obama won’t work with us, but is instead intent on going it alone with executive orders that can’t and won’t fix these problems. ”

Work with us?  In February, Boehner himself was privately trumpeting a landmark immigration bill that would address many of the problems both parties see as resolvable. That was in response to some very public polling showing Republicans being battered among Hispanic voters. But conservatives in his own party nixed the plan threatening to pull support for his speakership if he moved forward to introduce the legislation. The pretense for the reversal was Republican insistence that Obama precipitated the crisis by scaling back on deportation for younger undocumented aliens and that therefore he couldn’t be trusted to faithfully enforce the immigration laws. That doesn’t explain why Republicans backed off legislation that would address the problem and take effect after Obama’s term ends. As Senator Charles Schumer reiterated on the Senate floor, “If Republicans can’t agree to pass a bill that goes into effect after the president’s term, then we know that ‘mistrust of the president’ is nothing but a straw man.”

So Obama acts alone. Constitutional? We’ll see, but, the structural problem remains. Can the voters fix it? Maybe, they did in 1948, but the country was less polarized along ideological lines. A recipe for disaster?  Probably and one not likely to be fixed no matter how the conservative dominated Supreme Court rules. And action to address the nation’s woes? Well, that seems to be neither the concern of the court, nor the Congress, and, for well-articulated doctrinal reasons, perhaps not even the President’s. So who is charged with performing the duties of the Constitution? Perhaps it’s just us.

And what would Jefferson say about the nation he founded and its seeming inability to get out of its own way?  “Do you want to know who you are? Don’t ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you,”  comes the judgment from our third president. Which prompts me to ask: What, my dear Sage of Monticello, does our inaction say?

What do you think?

Source: CNN and throughout

~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor

By the way and for better or worse, the views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays of art are solely the author’s decision and responsibility. No infringement of intellectual property rights is intended and will be remedied upon notice from the owner. Fair use is however asserted for such inclusions of quotes, excerpts, photos, art, and the like.

176 thoughts on “The Boehner Manifesto: How To Do Nothing And Look Constitutional?

  1. Boehner and his Republican fanatics have worked hard to create this “Constituional” crisis. They have announced their intention to make sure Obama gets nothing done and they have been pretty successful and destructive. After 8 years of the GWB disaster–a terrorist attack on NYC, a war on Afganistant that allowed the Saudis to allude responsibility; a war in Iraq that was based in lies and resulted in the significant loss of life but to Cheney’s joy resulted in billions for Halliburton; a destroyed economy and bailouts with no strings (yes, that was Bush) and a raft of Executive orders NOW the Republicans don’t like executive orders or a president that goes out on his own. Give me a break. Obama has made one big mistake he has given in too often to crazy. You cannot negotiate with crazy.

    Has Obama made mistakes? Absolutely. So many that I am deeply disappointed and frustrated but the GOP has done nothing but reward it’s big money doners, carp about any effort to help real humans that live in this country and now their right wind SUPREME CORPORATE COURT has begun to establish classes of citizens MOST OF THEM “corporations” who have special privileges and rights. HL is just another example but it may prove to be the most damaging. In full knowledge of what happens when religion trumps reason–the ME is very clear evidence– SCOTUS has decided that corporations can have relgious sensibilities and that they and their owners should be exempted from following generally applicable laws. Look upon what the GOP has wrought. I do and I say: it is not good. Darkness is falling.

  2. Being from the Tea Party I don’t like Boehner even though I am from Ohio. But I also think the Obama is acting unconstitutional and that Reid in the Senate helps him by blocking legislation. As the founders knew all legislation is not good and the checks and balances were meant to stop fiddling with the principles set set forth. The Federal government was for mutual protection and it was for the several states to legislate civil society not the US congress. Therefore the Bill of Rights which was the first order of business of the first congress which was the promise of the new ‘federal’ government that they would not interfere with the citizens daily lives.

  3. mespo – considering the Obama administrations track record with the SC this year, Boehner has a decent chance of winning his suit. Presidents have been sued before with some wins and some losses. It is all of the process.
    FDR is only lionized by the left for the New Deal and Lincoln did not end the Civil War, generals like Grant, Sherman and Sheridan did that. And Jefferson violated his own anti-expansionist views by buying the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson also advocated periodic revolution to set things right.

  4. mespo727272 wrote “I think it was Winston Churchill who reminded us that the ‘supreme virtue’ of government is action”

    Do be careful about quoting Churchill. He may have been the best orator the English-speaking world has ever brought forth, but his micromanagement drove everyone nuts. During WWII he badged his generals to invade Europe long before they were ready. Ed Cray, George Marshall’s biographer, noted that he was annoyed at Churchill’s constant change of direction.

    mespo727272 wrote “The historic problem is what do you do when you’re facing very real international”

    Obama’s actions concerning Syria proved that he is incompetent. Declaring that a “red line” exists and then not acting proved that he has no clue regarding international affairs. Words have consequences.

    mespo727272 quoted the great Obama “giving work permits and protection from deportation to millions of immigrants now in the country”

    Look at the most accurate indicator of unemployment, U6. It stands at 12.1%. When that figure drops below 5%, we can discuss allowing more people into the country.

    mespo727272 wrote “the structural problem remains”

    I would describe it as a failure to compromise. At the risk of sounding like a 5-year-old, liberals started it by calling everyone who disagreed with them “racists,” “Islamophobes,” and/or “homophobes.” Conservatives got tired of being called names and started playing the same game. And now nothing gets done. Obama has spent most of his political capital on giving special rights to LGBTs when he should have been concentrating on jobs and other things that benefit the majority of Americans.

    The list of empty suits in Washington is long and illustrious: Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell, Paul, and many more. The only solution is to eliminate both Republican and Democratic parties, but given that they have the keys to the kingdom, don’t hold your breath.

  5. Part of the problem is while the complaints and posts and media keep covering the president’;s use of these executive actions and often commentinig along with them that it is out of bounds Boehner seems to get a free pass, as does the republican and the right.
    They are against things for which they were for until it carries the president’s name, such as Romneycare was fine but name it Obamacare, oh no! that stinks how horrid. No jobs bills from them, obstructionism from the word go, wo which they admitted that was the goal they set from the night of the first iunauguration.
    Absent the president acting almost nothing is getting done by one of the worst “do nothing congresses” from my understanding, on record.
    The dems have to take some of the blame by not even putting up a contender against Boehner so he had clear sailing to the speakership.
    (This does ot mean I endorse all of what the president has done but he has to act when the other side refuses to even make an effort to do the job for which they were elected, which means working for the country and the people, not just putting up fronts for their party.

  6. The intent was never to govern. The plan was to weaken government — by bathtub drowning if you believe Grover Norquist — to the point it could be replaced with a theocratic oligarchy. That has always been the plan. America came within 5 million votes of it in 2012. White Horse Romney is mulling 3.0. America already has the oligarchy part, making it exceedingly vulnerable to religious charismatics from within.

    None of the current posers for candidates is going to willingly cede back the awful powers granted to the President by Congress, which must repeal the Patriot Act and the authorization of forces, and stamp out any whiff of this “unitary executive” nonsense.

  7. Excellent article Mark. It is interesting that the very same people who publicly vowed to block everything the Obama Administration attempts to do is crying foul when Obama suggests he has some powers of his own. As long as he uses the Executive orders and enforcement powers correctly, I am all for him to act to help the country. Boehner will not act until and unless the Koch Brothers and his other corporate sponsors say it is ok to do so. Follow the money to find the real cause of Congressional inaction.
    Boehner’s only real option is the impeachment process as suggested by Scalia in a somewhat recent Supreme Court case. The name escapes me at the moment.

  8. “I think it was Winston Churchill who reminded us that the “supreme virtue” of government is action.” – Mark E

    We are still suffering from some of the actions of Winston (The Universal Smedley – 2).

    Nevertheless, I agree with the basic premise that Mark is making.

    The wrong-wing of the opposition party is fundamentally obstructionist, stonewalling in bad faith, and in general they are a nuisance.

    Thus, as Mark suggests, they are violating their duty and their oath.

  9. Saucy,
    The Republican definition of compromise is agree with everything we want. If the Dems are guilty of failing to compromise, why have the Republicans filibustered over 400 times?

  10. Dear Mark Esposito, Did you know George Will refers to David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer and Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University who have studied case law and believe Congress can establish “standing” if it can be obtained “conditional on four things”. I refer you to George Will’s opinion in the Washington Post:  George Will: ” Stoping a lawless president”,on June 20.

    Peggy Dufek, Team Captain for the Convention of States in TN

  11. rafflaw wrote “The Republican definition of compromise is agree with everything we want”

    I do not dispute that, but I still maintain that the damage caused by previous political correctness is the ultimate cause. I did not notice any Democrats decrying the lynching of Brendan Eich.

    The Tea Party believes it has a monopoly on the truth, but so do liberals. Obama’s use of an executive order to give special rights to LGBT contractors proved that he believes he is a king, able to give favors to his friends.

    “If the Dems are guilty of failing to compromise”

    Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, and McConnell all blocked many bills from coming to the floor when they were in the majority. There is little difference between them.

  12. Saucy,
    over 400 filibusters. Please compare the numbers. There is a lot of difference when the Republicans even vote against their own sponsored bills.

  13. Paid_Attention wrote “u6 is the real marker of unemployment, and 5% is the magic number?”

    I am certainly not going to accept some no-name, biased website as the ultimate source of truth, not to mention that websites like that often include malware. But here’s the BLS’ definition of U6 to show you that it is indeed the best indicator: “Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.”

  14. @messpoo

    Why dont we opt for RACISM since that will feed into the current mental delusions of the neo-McCarthyite Democrats. That will also help the race baiting Dems stay in power which goal is much more important than little thingies like TRUTH.

    Have you sorry Democrats no shame???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  15. The executive branch simply cannot be allowed to take upon itself what the legislative branch does not or will not do. When it does, it is the Court’s role to rebuke it. If we want the legislative branch to legislate (and I’m certainly not saying we do), then the people need to elect a Congress composed of representatives that can and will compromise. When the executive branch on its own moves to fill the void it is acting unilaterally and without the Constitution’s backing. Congresses may tempt us to resort to dictatorship, but we must never let that happen.

  16. As JT points out, the separation of powers was put in place for times like this. When there are fundamental disagreements is when the balance of powers is needed most. Voters instinctively vote to keep government divided. Truman won in 1948 campaigning against the “do nothing Congress.” Let’s see if Queen Hillary can do the same. That is if our King doesn’t sign an executive order allowing him to serve a third term.

  17. rafflaw wrote “over 400 filibusters. Please compare the numbers”

    The table from the Senate shows the cloture motions from 1917 (when the rules changed) to today. There is a steady increasing trend, which means that both parties abuse them. I’m sure you will point out that cloture votes doubled between Congress 112 and 113, but I will say in advance that the number also doubled from 109 to 110 — when ‘W’ was on watch. Ezra Klein graphed the data in his Washington Post article “Breaking the filibuster in one graph.”

    Your bias is showing.

  18. Why Saucy, I don’t have any bias except to the truth. The link that you kindly provided proves my point. Look at the rapid increase in the last 4 years alone. Whose bias is showing??

  19. rafflaw wrote “Whose bias is showing?”

    Yours, clearly, because you refused to look at the trend over time. Or perhaps data confuses you. If cloture votes had been near zero until 2008 and then climbed precipitously, you would have a point. But they didn’t and you don’t.

  20. Positively Machiavellian. Make a President impotent by being an obstructionist body and then complain when he uses the only mechanism he has available to him as Executive, Executive orders. This can happen again with a Republican President and a Democartic majority Congress. It’s always worse when your President isn’t in office.

  21. How quickly we fail to see the larger picture, always resorting to the partisan blame game. The larger picture is, of course, the distinction between the democrats and the republicans. There is no distinction left. Both are in bed with special interests, the hell with the taxpayers and voters. Picking sides at this stage destroys the author’s credibility. I mean, if you have a choice between two pedophiles to run an orphanage, you wouldn’t pick one over the other. You’d disqualify both, then start all over and find someone else.

  22. The problem is the court has shown by its consistent 5 – 4 right leaning votes that they no longer are the impartial arbiter.

  23. Saucy,
    You don’t dictate how data is used. You are ignoring the rapid increase in filibusters in just the last few years. That is a trend in itself.

  24. The problem is that I AM seeing the bigger TRUER picture. We see want to see and dismiss what isn’t convenient. What do we EXPECT a Presiednt to do with a Congress that has conspired to make him impotent? Lay down and die? Seriously? I don’t think so.

  25. “A perfectly balanced system that accomplishes nothing is every bit as much a failed government as one that coerces its people. And a reestablishment of a pristine version of separation of powers is as short-lived as the mayfly if the power vacuum caused by inaction remains.”

    Well said, Mark.

  26. I am not a fan of Obama, but to say that he has written gobs of executive orders is being disingenuous. From the National Archives (
    – Obama: 175
    – Bush II: 291
    – Clinton I: 364
    – Bush I: 166
    – Reagan: 381
    – Carter: 320
    – Ford: 169
    – Nixon: 346
    – LBJ: 324
    – JFK: 214
    – Eisenhower: 482
    – Truman: 894
    – FDR: 3467
    – Hoover: 996

    You’re welcome.

    P.S. The Wikipedia page has quite a few errors in its list of totals.

  27. Saucy, The more this administration implodes the more whacky the cultists defense becomes. Now, that happens w/ both parties, but I’ve never seen it like this Presidency. It’s epic.

  28. Boner could be worse. He is kind of down the middle for a RepubliCon guy. You can not throw him far and still trust him. And vice versa. He smokes all the time so he has no sense of health and welfare for self or others. He hangs out on both C Street and K Street and I forget what one does on either one but I know that he got his name Boner on one of those strips. We could do a lot worse for a Majority Leader. The voters got rid of Eddie Cantor’s son so we don’t have all the vaudeville apCray from the wealthy. His southern accent was phony baloney and that is one reason his constituents wanted someone from their neck of the woods.

  29. @NickS

    Amen! I keep waiting for a visibly shaken Obama to come out and shake the hands of The Obama Youth Corps (clad in matching hoodies naturlich) as they goosestep off with their Panzerfausts to make sure the borders stay open for more illegals. Meanwhile the Dem hacks and shills pour out verbal poop to beat the band.

    I particularly luv me some of the mental gymnastics the author above went thru to arrive at the conclusion that OH NO IT’s NOT OBAMA WHO IS Unconstitutional, it’s those mean old Republicans who have violated the Constitution by not giving him what he wants. Bwaaahahaha!!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  30. Squeeky, Obama is like a petulant child. I think he was indulged in his youth, overcompensation for having an absent father.

  31. consider cognitive capture under a cult of personality undeserved but orchestrated to divide the country on populist revisionism. Forget the political posturing, consider, [quoted excerpts]:
    Alejandra Marchevsky and Beth Baker
    March 31, 2014
    “Since taking the oath of office, Obama has deported immigrants at a faster rate than any other president in US history, nearly a record 2 million people. On a typical day, there are over 30,000 immigrants imprisoned in the world’s largest immigration detention system. Most deportees never see an attorney or have a hearing before a judge before they are expelled from the country.”
    “Obama’s claim to sympathize with immigrant families’ “pain” obscures a troubling fact: while the review he ordered may lead to more “humane” treatment of some undocumented immigrants—a welcome if still-modest outcome—it will do nothing for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who get snared each year in the nation’s thickening national security and criminal enforcement webs. And these immigrants represent the majority of persons deported during the Obama era.”
    “Little of this has changed under Obama and much of it has gotten worse, thanks to his administration’s embrace of what they call a “smart enforcement” approach. Under this approach, the administration aggressively deports immigrants targeted as criminals or terrorists—even when it is clear that they do not pose any danger.”
    (read it all for complete details)

    The issue here is concentration of power in the executive office, and immigration issues are hot button items to push and shape aggressive techniques that will continue that trend under Obama. The record is very clear. Obama has, despite his rhetoric in populist campaign speeches, increased power in the Executive Office more than anyone since Nixon.

  32. How is passing over 100 bills (just this year) in the House and not one of them being brought up for a vote, obstructionism? Isn’t it very obstructionist to not even bring them up for a vote? I mean the Dems have the majority in the Senate, why not just vote on the bills?

    What this article fails (and I think intentionally) to point out is that there are a lot of Democrats in Congress. The Senate Democrats have a majority. You can’t just say it’s the Republicans that are do nothing when it’s the Senate who is holding back laws by not even voting on them.

    The reason is that Harry and the President are scared to death that several Dems would vote yes on those bills. By not even allowing a vote they are the real ones obstructing anything being done in Washington. I completely agree this is a ‘Do Nothing’ Congress but to say it’s all because of the Republicans is disingenuous.


  33. Harvard Government Professor Michael Sandel……Money incentives are counterproductive. Ok, got it…What else is on the Immigration problem radar?

  34. @RFB

    Of course omitting Harry Reid’s antics and obstructionism was intentional. That is because the intent and purpose of this article is to spin, shill and dissemble on behalf of the Democratic party.

    The amateurishness of the feeble attempt is what I find laughable. I made up better stuff when I came home drunk at age 16.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  35. Nick wrote “The more this administration implodes the more whacky the cultists defense becomes”

    I agree. Which genius advised him that declaring a “red line” on Syria without backing the statement up with force later was a good idea? Does he think international politics is a Harvard law school debate?

    “Obama is like a petulant child. I think he was indulged in his youth”

    Did you see the photos all over the news of the First Little Girl at 16? Bush II was often a twit, but at least he kept his girls out of the public eye. It must be nice to fly to Utah and Colorado for ski vacations and Europe for shopping expeditions.

    P.S. Did you notice my little joke on the list of executive orders: Clinton I?

  36. Saucy, If you watch the now infamous “red line” comment, it was not on a teleprompter. He was trying to buck up for a crowd. Just blurted it out. Hell, most boys learned @ age 10 you don’t draw a line unless you are prepared to back it up. Both Obama and Reagan are/were teleprompter Presidents.

  37. Saucy, “Clinton 1” is no joke, it’s a nightmare. But, the Queen would be a twofer. First female and gay[albeit closeted] President.

  38. @Annie

    Sure it is “lmao” when sans context. For egs why not “obstruct” another Simpson Boles thingy when Obama done already ignored the original Simpson Boles???

    And re your criminal obstructionism link, that would be a lot more applicable to Bengazi wherein Rice was sent out to lie dissemble and obstruct and where the poor video dude was subjected to a Stalinist shoe trial.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    PS: r u the same “annie” who used to be on GretaWire??? If so, hi!!!

    Published on Wednesday, May 7, 2014 by
    The Six Principles of the New Populism (and the Establishment’s Nightmare)
    by Robert Reich

    Populists on the right and left are also coming together around six principles:

    1. Cut the biggest Wall Street banks down to a size where they’re no longer too big to fail.
    2. Resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act,
    3. End corporate welfare –
    4. Stop the National Security Agency from spying on Americans
    5. Scale back American interventions oversea
    6. Oppose trade agreements crafted by big corporations.
    “Left and right-wing populists remain deeply divided over the role of government. Even so, the major fault line in American politics seems to be shifting, from Democrat versus Republican, to populist versus establishment — those who think the game is rigged versus those who do the rigging.”
    so leaders like Elizabeth Warren are gathering a peoples movement and they have populist supporters from both parties.
    of course Obama is the quintessential bipartisan leader, …right?

    Well guess who has dropped the ball on the democratic issue of inequality;
    that’s it…, Obama.

    Published on Saturday, July 5, 2014 by Common Dreams
    Afraid to Stoke Populist Ire, Obama Abandons ‘Inequality’ Rhetoric
    Guided by pollsters and consultants, top Democrats tack to the right on economic issues
    – Jon Queally, staff writer : Sunday, July 6, 2014

    so you do the math; …if inequality is no longer the buggy and horse for Obama, what does immigration reform do in this horse and buggy show?
    It gives common ground against the mutual foundation of authentic bipartisan unison, and shifts the issue to the Border and the hot bed of immigration bias and the politics of hate that go with it to steam things up!

  40. Squeeky, Just a heads up since you’ve been on the disabled list for awhile. Don’t waste your time and intelligence on those unworthy. Just sayn’!

  41. Squeaky, aren’t you grateful to Spinelli for looking out for you? What a guy. I guess he thinks you can’t handle yourself.

  42. Bruce E. Woych quoted Robert Reich “Populists on the right and left are also coming together around six principles … 1. Cut the biggest Wall Street banks down to a size where they’re no longer too big to fail. 2. Resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act”

    The only people who have said such things are Sheila Bair, Elizabeth Warren, and maybe Simon Johnson, and none of those people are running (Johnson cannot run because he is not a native born citizen). The article stated that John McCain co-sponsored a reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, but Ann Coulter, Tea Party darling, famously declared that she would vote for Clinton over McCain.

    The article stated that “Tea Partiers are strongly supportive” but I seriously doubt that because it would involve added government regulation. I think Reich is making unwarranted assumptions regarding the Tea Party.

    “3. End corporate welfare”

    Rand Paul does NOT want to end this. He recently congratulated Caterpillar on not paying taxes.

    “6. Oppose trade agreements crafted by big corporations”

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been the biggest cheerleader of those agreements. I cannot recall any candidate opposing them.

  43. @Annie

    No problemo. People confuse me with the other one all the time. Which is why I always add the “Girl Reporter” tag. Right now I am just sooo jonesing for my laptop but believe me, I can take care of myself. It is just impossible to type fastly on a kindle.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  44. Nick,
    Any evidence of your claim that Hillary Clinton is a closeted gay? Are you suggesting that being gay would disqualify anyone from being President?

  45. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter wrote “My goodness. I am sooo blush”

    I know exactly how you feel. I thought Old Mother Hubbard lived in a shoe.

    The Dame made a curtsy,
    The dog made a bow;
    The Dame said, Your servant;
    The dog said, Bow-wow.

  46. rafflaw, You are very touchy today. Many rumors that Bill and Hill had their agreements. Weiner’s wife is reportedly Hill’s girl toy. Just rumors I like to get out in the open. And, I love the way you intimate homophobia. At least it’s not screamed @ people like the bad ol’ days. I am on the record as being fine w/ “the gays.” It would be a shame if the first gay President came in via the closet, IMO. I would want him/her to come in through the front door, and own it.

  47. As you weren’t taught this in school, many believe Buchanan hit from the other side of the plate. NTTAWWT!!

  48. Nick,
    rumors about a person’s sexuality, good or bad are not something to spread like facts. And no, I am not touchy today. By the way, if you want him/her to come in through the front door and own it as you say, wouldn’t spreading unfounded rumors defeat your alleged purpose?

  49. You’re being judgmental w/ “good or bad.” There’s nothing “bad” about being gay. I believe folks are born w/ that leaning. I didn’t say she liked to have sex w/ koalas or donkeys. That would be “bad” well, maybe?? And, getting a Clinton to admit ANYTHING takes much persistence. Unless being lesbian polls well, then she would say’s she’s a lesbian even if she’s not.

  50. @TheSaucyMugwump: Reich may or may not be precisely accurate on his summary 6 point argument, but let’s at least consider a change in the weather that has not been seen before as the new norm; while the same snake takes on a new skin. The power of cognitive dissonance over the years and identity politics for consensus is more than old in terms of reactionary distractions that are manageable. The confusions may well yet result in ‘fusions’ of a different sort, and Populist movements are generally unified forces in nature and eclectic in its overall understanding of its own civility vs. polity coordinates. The abuses of manipulation and power with Bush (paraphrasing his own words, that shorted Lincoln’s…) was that you ‘can fool some of the people all of the time,…and that’s the people you want to keep in your constituency.’

    The elites and the capture of power stations in government (bought and sold like political markets) is pushing a common stream and the information flow of how this is corrupting the constitutional protections of the average citizen is practically a daily issue on this blog alone. The extremists are becoming embedded in the same issues, or ones that parallel the demise of a common threat; not the same mindset. The middle class is still being dismantled and reorganized as if it were some social corporately owned entity,… and whether people are all aware of how and why is not important. They all feel it directly. False flags and rhetoric are flying high as control fraud and privatizing greed removes common ground from American public ownership and affordability. They may ‘react” differently ideologically but they all feel like there are too many hands in their pockets every day and every time they turn around. Paying for elitism is becoming painfully strained and political issues are becoming family burdens, while economic shills try to convince a new generation of disconnected and indebted new adults that they must work without a promise of a living wage or a 20-30 year security or a pension and that the new wave is contingency work and market rubbernecking that is the new lifestyle. This is an educated generation even if only by the internet and the access routes opened by communication, and there is an unconscious or semiconscious awareness that the war economy is not the answer for them; in fact they are being fed into it rather than by it. If you are looking for a new populist movement don’t go back to the 20th Century for models because this generation simply doesn’t play back your rules of order.

    Perhaps you won’t agree with my hasty assessment here, but I was surprised to find an answer from someone that literally went and actually read the article I linked (above), and gave an intelligent counter-perspective. In that regard you have the answer as to why the common ground becomes realism.

    I think you will enjoy this one, and i actually think (relatively speaking) it comes closer to a realistic assessment perspective on what is now emerging, and being increasing called the new populist movement. But keep in mind that my point here is that Obama is actually a false flagging institutional establishment president, and my assumption is that the game in play is one to disengage unity…, not to lead it. The populist potential is just a random walk of justice in the ever changing political park.

    Here’s the article LINK and a short quote:

    [THE]… Populist Scatter-gun

    “In short, protean “populism” explodes all left and right divisions, warring against elitism, plutocrats, and child labor abuses but also rum, immigration, minorities and “foreigners” with funny names and accents. Their legacy today: crazed Tea Partiers demanding “their country back” from “outsiders.” Too often a fallback for opportunists and demagogues, populism at its worst comes down to pitting your tribal “us” against scheming, conspiratorial predator “them” out to steal your team blind.”

    Exclusive to OpEdNews:
    Life Arts 7/6/2014 at 12:55:46
    The Shifting, Double-edged Sword called ‘Populism’
    By Robert S. Becker

  51. Here’s another rumor from the UK rag, Daily Mail. Obama is trying to get Warren to run and has assigned his Rasputin, Valerie Jarrett, to convince her to win.

    raff, what makes rumors fun is that they are bad! They appeal to the dark side that dwells within all of us.

  52. I believe (median GDP per capita) – ((median Individual total taxation Burden) + (median Housing Expense)) is a better measure of a societies’ economic justice than just GDP alone.

  53. I love the idea of a do nothing congress. I wish there was a do nothing party. Doing nothing means less laws, less freedom taken away.

  54. Right Jim22.

    A do-nothing congress makes the current rules and regulations fixed (usually), and In such an environment businesses find the 2-yr future predictable. People and businesses like predictability.

    Having an agency with independent rule-making authority granted by a congress is an abdication of responsibility. It grants power to the executive in that that executive executes the laws and controls the agency.

    When the executive makes the rules and can change the law at whim it is no longer a government of we the people but a government of him. If there is a rubber-stamp senate, oh my. There is danger if the senate and executive are of the same party. And if the house too, what then.

  55. Every 2 years there is an election for House members. The country won’t fall apart if we have 2 years of zero bills being signed into law. If after 2 years the people like what they see, they will put the same bozos (apologies to all Bozo the Clowns) back in office. If the people want change, they will vote change.

    If the President takes power not in the Constitution (as this President has done according to the recent Supreme Court decisions) and is not held in contempt, then the genie will be hard pressed to put back in the bottle. Future Presidents will also feel at liberty to usurp power to their own advantage. Beware the President that uses that power in a way you don’t like. And indeed it is almost a guarantee that a future president will do just that.

    Stop the madness, enforce the Constitution for We The People.

  56. Jim come on!! Regulations keep us safe, don’t ya’ know. And, those regulations require many more employees. So, empty your wallet and pockets, and bend over and grab your ankles. It’s time to make sure you’re not hiding any of the governments money up there!

  57. Paul, There is a double standard by the liberal MSM. If a Republican was pulling this horseshit, there would be an impeachment trial underway.
    And, that would be what should be happening, Rep or Dem.

  58. Mark, good post.

    “Turley… notes… the mushrooming of executive orders as proof of a presidential power grab which he feels can be remedied by a renewed assertion of rights by Congress and the courts.”

    I think Obama’s use of executive orders in consistent with the usage by other presidents and JT should take a closer look at the number of executive orders of past presidents as shown in other posts here. Going after Obama’s use as if they are excessive doesn’t seem quite right.

  59. Mock were there cases where they could rule on it with other presidents. I don’t know the answer but it is possible that the only reason is brecause this time there was a case brought as opposed to all the other pres who did it even more.,

  60. When you have such a rotten government, inaction is not such a bad thing. The bickering between the Silly Party & the Stupid AH Party, however is annoying at best. The trouble comes when Obama ignores Congress & Senate and comes up with something like the NDA Act.

  61. Bettykath, JT says it is not the number, but instead the caliber of Executive orders, however that doesn’t pass muster. There were other Presidents who used Executive order to put forth some very serious laws.

  62. My favorite Churchill quote is: Nothing done in history is by accident. That applies to Pearl Harbor, the burning of the German Reigstad, 9/11, 3/11/11, etc.

  63. Remember that Churchill was out of the government until there was a war and thrown out after the war.

  64. rafflaw – Dick Morris opened a can of worms when he called into a talk radio show in DC and hypothetically said the Hillary was a lesbian. He was using the claim to give a reason for Bill to be with all these different women.

  65. The administration truly has placed the government in the bizarro world. In matters where he is authorized by the Constitution to act – Russian aggression in Ukraine, the disintegration of Syria and Iraq, the Veteran’s Administration – the President doesn’t act. In matters where he is prohibited from acting, he acts and squawks when he is called on it. For a Constitutional law professor, he really doesn’t know his stuff.

    A better President would take his pen and his phone and muster a coalition to combat Russian aggression a la Ronald Regan, to stabilize Iraq a la Bush I, and to settle the Syrian situation a la Eisenhower in Suez. The better President would next take his pen and his phone to make heads roll at the V.A. like Chris Christie did when his staff fell below his expectations and caused a traffic jam. A better President would not act like a petulant child and would work with Congress and form a coalition, a la Regan/O’Neill or Clinton/Gingrich and make laws that will not further polarize the nation. Gingrich wanted to impeach Clinton. Yet, Clinton worked with Gingrich to enact major welfare reform. The Regan/O’Neill team reformed the tax code and gave the country 25 years of nearly uninterrupted economic growth.

    I do not know whether it’s immaturity, arrogance or some combination of those and other negative traits, but this President seems to think that God only issued one set of brains and either will not or cannot see other people’s points of view. When he fails to get his way, he throws a tantrum instead of looking for ways to reach a consensus with the other branches of government. He does not work and play well with others.

  66. Vince – I have always wondered, since it is clear that Obama does not really understand the Constitution, what he passed on to the students he was teaching? Ways to subvert the Constitution?

  67. raff, I just read all kinds of stuff, from scholarly papers to UK rags. I’m not a creator of rumors, just a conduit. That Elizabeth Warren thing was posted this weekend. It’s plausible. I thought folks here would love that rumor.

  68. Nick – there is no love lost between the Clinton and Obama camps. I can see the Obama people supporting Warren. She would carry the torch for them.

  69. Very much enjoying the largely civil debate on this issue in the comments section. In truth, I thought it would bring out warring factions. Instead, the insights have been thoughtful in the main and the counter-points measured but powerful. Stark contrast to the subjects of the article.

    Bravo. Brava. Bravisimo.

  70. On the counter-narrative:
    Flawed law make bad constitutions. Nazi Germany came to power under a crisis of representation that weakened local jurisdictions, and equally so by an item called the 1933 Enabling Act, which was literally legitimized under the the rhetorical name of “A Law to remedy the Distress of People and the Reich.” Hitler gained aggressive authority to enact such laws by circumventing existing political structures, and by overstepping any approval of Germany’s Parliament (The Reichstag). The Enabling Act overturned all localized authority and left Germany to an unfettered power concentration that captured a brutal portion of global history.

    Coincidently, “…the word to the German word Reprivatisierung, first used in English in 1936 by the Berlin correspondent of the Economist, writing about Nazi economic policy. In 1943, in an analysis of Hitler’s programme in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the word ‘privatisation’ entered the academic literature for the first time. The author, Sidney Merlin, wrote that the Nazi Party ‘facilitates the accumulation of private fortunes and industrial empires by its foremost members and collaborators through “privatisation” and other measures, thereby intensifying centralisation of economic affairs and government in an increasingly narrow group that may for all practical purposes be termed the national socialist elite’. (from: James Meek: How we happened to sell off our electricity. London Review of Books:
    Vol. 34 No. 17 · 13 September 2012 :pages 3-12).

    Of course Obama is not Hitler by any stretch of historical measures, but as Andrew Kreig has indicated in his Presidential Puppetry, Obama, Romney and their Masters, there are multiple false narratives to the real politik that he serves and services. It is interesting to note that Obama’s childhood was not one influenced by people like J.F.Kennedy and democratic idealism, but closely linked to affiliations that involved in Suharto’s Indonesia and the tyranny of power. So perhaps the idea that his insidious tampering with the balance of power under Constitutional guidelines, as a President and a precedent setting capture of individualized Executive privileges and consolidation, should not be taken as lightly as some would have it due to presumptions of his immaculate conception and a liberal humble beginning.

  71. Oh, and another thingie. I am not sure you can measure the TQ (Tyranny Quotient) of a President by the quantitative number of executive orders. IMHO one is more accurate to use qualitative approach. For egs, is the EO over an issue belonging to Congress , or perhaps one directly contravening Congress or the law.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  72. as The Boehner Mephisto Manifesto

    Obama acts as judge, jury and executioner in the assassinating of American citizens. A power not given to him by any law or constitutional authority. This in a single turn, may have insidious consequences far beyond any other in the following decade and under yet unknown power grabs and Executive Orders.

    The critical distinction is not whether a great many Executive Orders are made, but as Annie says the qualitative nature and potency of those made that not only circumvent the balance of powers but dictate terms that are against Constitutional framing. Executive Orders are not meant to amend the Constitution. Even “abuses” can be essentially benign and even reasonable.
    But the gravity lies in the precedent not the presidency.

  73. Annie – I would posit they are not necessarily bad, only bad as far as Slate is concerned. There were a couple I would not have signed, but I realized the thought behind them. I can also see why Slate would be so upset. However, none of them are laws, good, bad or indifferent.

  74. I agree that the content of the executive orders is important. I’d like to see the results of an objective analysis comparing the EOs of several presidents.

  75. Paul,
    Please provide evidence that Obama doesn’t understand the Constitution? The University of Chicago Law school doesn’t hire teachers who are not qualified.

  76. annie – John Dean would not be my pick to decide on what was legal or illegal. Being part of a national political party and opposing the President, as is contemplated in the Constitution, hard rises to the level of a criminal conspiracy, regardless of what John Dean writes. Some of the comments to the article reveal some of the major legal hurdles anyone would have to get over to make it either a criminal or civil conspiracy.

  77. Action must be taken by the executive branch. The legislative branch prescribes the direction.

    The ineligible president has failed to uphold and enforce the law. He doesn’t need any new laws.

    The border is to be upheld and illegal aliens are to be deported.
    Asylum seekers have cases without merit greater than those of many citizens of the U.S. Preposterous claims for asylum must be denied and the applicants deported.

    Foreign citizens are not the burden of American taxpayer.

    A moratorium should be placed on immigration.

    The “blessings of liberty” to OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY.

  78. I am as prone as the next person to point fingers. And I can lapse into partisan rants at the mere mention of Mitch McConnell. But looking about for someone to blame ignores the fact that the present impasse in government is now systemic.

    Legislative accomplishment is not a product of inspired ideas carried forward on soaring rhetoric. It is a product of personal relationships developed among leaders wielding real political power. At present we suffer from weak Congressional leadership and a President who is aloof and increasingly withdrawn.

    The President has not forged strong relationships with any opposition members of the House or the Senate. John Boehner is unable to control his own caucus and worries about maintaining his position as Speaker. Eric Cantor couldn’t even hold on to his own seat. Harry Reid is mainly sound and fury. Nancy Pelosi stands for nothing. And Mitch McConnell reminds me of someone auditioning for the lead in “Howdy Doody-The Twilight Years.” (I warned you, didn’t I?)

    The ascent of the Tea Party has only fortified the impasse because a refusal to compromise is a refusal to govern.

    Mr. Boehner’s lawsuit threats are a cover for legislative impotence. It is quite clear that Congress intends to do nothing between now and 2016 and the President is being left to his own devices. But the truth is that Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, created the executive monster that everyone now decries.

    I don’t know the answer, but I don’t expect to see one coming from either of the major parties. Personally, I’m ready for a new Robert La Follette.

  79. “Do Nothing Congress”? You might consider redirecting your invective towards Harry Reid who has steadfastly refused to consider any of the scores of bills passed by the House for fear of putting Democrat senators on the spot and potentially undoing the havoc wreaked by the ACA, Dodd Frank and other legislative havoc foisted on the American people.

  80. I’m just curious, for all those who think that having a “do nothing” congress is bad, what laws do you feel are missing that haven’t already restricted us?

  81. Paul & rafflaw,

    Unfortunately, one of the problems with the American education system, pre-K through post-grad, is that schools sometimes hire as teachers folks who do not have a clue about the subject they will be teaching. This is especially true when the hiree is a celebrity. It would be interesting to learn whether President Obama taught a regular, rigorous, required Constitutional Law class or, rather, occasionally taught some elective seminar where the students sat around and discussed their opinions about whatever it was that the Supreme Court was doing at the time.

  82. Vince – I think I remember reading that he taught Constitutional Law II. Not sure of the University of Chicago students are required to take one or two courses in Constitutional Law. I also remember that he was adjunct.

  83. Ayres is a prof @ UIC. not U. of Chicago. I believe he and Obama got to know each other from living in the same neighborhood. Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood.

  84. SWM – Ayers and Obama connection is thru their connections with the same very leftist people.

  85. Paul,

    Thanks for the info. Adjunct status can be a good or a bad thing. Some adjunct professors bring valuable real life experience into the classroom normally devoid of such things. Other adjunct professors spent their time telling war stories or spouting off their opinions and are close to useless.

  86. Can’t believe Bill Ayers is still being discussed although he might like that since he is old and retired.

  87. SWM – Ayers wrote Obama’s book and was a major influence on his philosophy. Why should we not discuss him.

  88. How about we won’t bring up Ayers if you all drop President Bush?
    Jim22 Huh? Bill Ayers was not a two term president of the United States. Bring up Bill Ayers all you want but he is not really that relevant.

    Obama Information Czar Cass Sunstein Confronted on Cognitive …

  90. Ayers did a 2 part interview on Fox last week. It covered his criminal past as well as his relationship w/ Obama. So, he is very much on topic. I doubt SWM caught the good interview by Kelly on Fox. Kelly is on opposite Maddow, I think.

  91. swarthmoremom wrote “Bill Ayers was not a two term president of the United States … not really that relevant”

    Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were often one step away from killing large numbers of people. His girlfriend before Dohrn, Diana Oughton, was killed when the nail bomb planned to kill large numbers of soldiers and their wives/girlfriends at Fort Dix went off prematurely. After learning that the government would not prosecute him for the many bombings he and his terrorist buddies committed, Ayers declared, “Guilty as hell, free as a bird — America is a great country.”

    Ayers proudly noted that Dohrn was on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list. Dohrn applauded the savage Tate-LaBianca murders in l969.

    It is a travesty of justice that Ayers and Dohrn were not convicted of treason, sedition, and attempted mass murder, and sentenced to life behind bars.

  92. Saucy, I could only stomach watching part of the Ayers interview last week. He is a smug, a-hole w/ no redeeming qualities.

  93. Dohrn is a professor at Northwestern Law School and has been for quite some time. I still say that they are not relevant to a discussion about Boehner’s lawsuit.

  94. SWM, To each their own. If we all agreed this place would be an echo chamber. There are enough of those!!

  95. Dohrn and Ayers came wealthy families, and they knew the right people. That fact made their paths much easier. But let’s not mention social class or one could be accused of envy……….

  96. Limo liberals and fat cat conservative share that same smugness, but liberals add sanctimony which makes them even more like me want to pimp slap them.

  97. Taking about class openly and honestly is a good think. Pitting classes against each other is a bad thing. HUGE difference.

    May be from Maddow but the quotes are from Perry himself.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is not backing away from a conspiracy theory he recently floated about the Obama administration somehow coordinating the surge of immigrants coming over the border for some unknown reason.

    Perry recently suggested on Fox News that the Obama administration might be “in on this somehow” and helping move immigrants over the border. Asked about that statement on Sunday, Perry didn’t back away.

    Perry told ABC’s Martha Raddatz yesterday that President Obama may have “some ulterior motive” for recent developments. How could that possibly make sense? The governor didn’t elaborate.

    That said, as part of the same interview, the Texas Republican said of the president, “I don’t believe he particularly cares whether or not the border of the United States is secure.” It’s an odd condemnation given how far Obama has gone to strengthen border security and increase deportations….To her credit, Raddatz patiently pointed to reality, reminding Perry that the humanitarian concerns along the Southern border aren’t related to the border patrol, much of the recent developments relate to a 2008 law signed by George W. Bush, and President Obama has specifically communicated an unambiguous message to those thinking about sending unaccompanied children: “He’s telling people not to come. He’s telling them in ads not to come into the United States, not to leave their homes…”

  99. leejcaroll – you are aware that the INS is moving illegals from Texas to Arizona and dropping them at bus stops?

  100. swarthmoremom wrote “Dohrn is a professor at Northwestern Law School and has been for quite some time”

    That was as appropriate as hiring Jeffrey Dahmer to be the head chef at an exclusive Chicago restaurant.

    “they are not relevant to a discussion about Boehner’s lawsuit”

    That may very well be true, but it is relevant to Obama’s character, or lack thereof. If I worked in the same building as Ayers, I would stay very far away from him. I would refuse to have social contact with Ayers or Dohrn.

    “Dohrn and Ayers came wealthy families, and they knew the right people”

    I neither pitied Patty Hearst nor accepted her story that her captors brainwashed her. Like the Columbine killers, all of these people grew up with silver spoons in their mouths and psychotic thoughts in their dreams.

  101. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – back to your usual ad hominem attacks.
    Ah, The Paul’s bottom of the barrel mantra.

    Translation: you are out of BS to spew on some subject, but you need to get your comment quota in so you can be number two.

    Spinny likes you that way.

    Spin is always first before indoctrination.

    One follows the other quite naturally.

    Like a Boner and a Limpy. ;)

    You can expect Spinny to soon say that “you are doin’ a heckuva job Limpy.”

  102. Nick Spinelli

    [Talking] about class openly and honestly is a good think. Pitting classes against each other is a bad thing. HUGE difference.
    I can see that by your huge example.

  103. Well, poll results are in:

    About 52% think the President should act on immigration either with or without Congressional approval.

    About 35% think the President violates the separation of powers doctrine in acting along.

    And finally about 13% want to withhold judgment until they see what he does with executive orders.

    Thanks to all for participating. Democracy survives!

  104. mespo – that is about the way I would say this blog breaks down. However, this blog does not represent the thinking of the vast public of the United States. :)

  105. Saucy: ” If I worked in the same building as Ayers, I would stay very far away from him. I would refuse to have social contact with Ayers or Dohrn.”

    But you don’t work in the same building as Ayers, and for good reason. Ayers is highly intelligent and well educated. He may have made mistakes, but America is a land of second chances. And at least he’s contributing.

  106. RTC – Jack the Ripper made made the same kind of mistakes as Ayers and I would live near him either.

  107. At the end of this thread, after all this “democracy,” we’re left with an ineligible, incompetent, empty suit, affirmative action poster boy president and an attorney general found in contempt, a rogue executive branch, who don’t enforce the laws of the United States of America.

    I wonder if that elitist SCOTUS can tell America if the executive branch has a constitutional duty to vigorously enforce the law to its fullest extent.

    Dereliction of duty, insurrection and treason supplement the Articles of Impeachment.

    There is a cancer growing on the presidency.

  108. John:

    You’re on the wrong site. The birther comments are supposed to be reserved for World Net Daily.

Comments are closed.