Some of you who choose to read what follows will shoot it down simply because of who said it. And as to your objections, I couldn't care less. If you believe what Obama is doing is within his "right" as president, you're a fool, and idiot, unlearned, and I don't have to take you seriously.
If this were a REPUBLICAN president, doing what Obama is doing, but favoring conservative ideology instead... you aforementioned fools, idiots, and ignoramuses, would be dropping like flies from burst aneurysms and foaming-at-the-mouth apoplexy; choking on your own vomit. Which makes you all hypocrites and, again, I don't have to take you seriously. I can't even imagine what it must be like to think like you... I mean, how could you be so thoroughly devoid of sense and sensibility? to say nothing of honor and integrity?
Anyway, here it is...
Hey, folks, let's pretend for just a second. Pretend that you are the smartest person in the room, the wisest person in the world. Pretend that you are Barack Obama, President of the United States. At this moment in time, what do you focus on? What do you really "focus on like a laser"? With everything going on in the world and the country today, what do you make the biggest priority and the biggest production out of? The jobs we need and aren't getting? The exploding deficit that threatens our future? How about the soaring price of oil and the fact that we have shut down a lot of our own domestic production?
The price of oil around the world is skyrocketing. The Saudis are talking about ramping up their production. How about the crisis in the Middle East? I mean, for heaven's sake, "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste," right? We have a crisis in the Middle East, we have no job creation, the deficit continues to explode, the price of oil is soaring. We are doing nothing about compensating for that in our own country. How about Wisconsin? If you're president, the smartest person in the world, you focus on government unions and how they are choking state budgets? Do you focus on the border where unchecked illegal immigration continues?
You're The Messiah! Tell me, what do you focus on? And what's the answer?
Gay marriage.
Out of all the things going on in the country, in the world today, Obama makes a big production out of gay marriage. This is not... No, this is not a stunt. Obama, he knows how to stir the liberals. He knows how to massage the media. Of all the things going on, what do we get as a primary focus from our own president? Declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act is something he doesn't like anymore, and so he's not gonna defend it. What exactly is Obama's Plan B for oil? If the Middle East erupts entirely, what is his Plan C, what's his Plan D? He doesn't have any plan for it, because everything he does is oriented toward: How can it help him. He's out playing to the base. He's flying out to Silicon Valley last week to raise campaign cash.
It's always about him. He jumps into Arizona to pander to ethnic groups. He jumps into Wisconsin to pander to the NEA, the SEIU, and other unions. We are watching a president of the United States turn this country over to his cronies in and out of government, in and out of business and labor. This is quite a display of arrogance, ideological, self-serving arrogance. I've never seen it before in a president. I've never seen a president that does not put his country first. I've never seen that. But we're watching it right before our very eyes. His first question is always: "What will this do for me?" Whatever the issue is, whatever the story is, whatever the event is: "What will this do for me?"
And of course The Politico gets right in on the action, covering it all as a game. Their headline: "Little Downside Seen for DOMA Call." Little downside for a president acting in an unconstitutional manner simply saying, "You know, I don't like that law, I'm not gonna defend it anymore." It's a law duly passed by the representatives of the people. It has not been challenged at the US Supreme Court. He does not have the authority to declare it unconstitutional. He does not have that power. He does not have the power to say, "I'm not gonna defend it anymore," and the Politico does a story: Can he get hurt by this? We don't think so. "Little Downside Seen for DOMA Call."
Well, okay, then. If there's "little downside seen" for a president to act in ways he is not empowered to according to the law, then the next conservative president can say, based on Obama's precedent, "You know what? Obamacare is unconstitutional. I am therefore directing my attorney general to stop defending it. It doesn't exist. We've looked at it, I've never been comfortable with it, and it's just unconstitutional. We're not gonna defend it anymore." A conservative president could say, "I am directing my attorney general to stop defending the EPA's carbon dioxide regulations. I don't like what they're doing there. It's not their purview. So EPA, stand down. You can't do it. My administration is not gonna defend that anymore."
A conservative president could then say, "I am directing my attorney general to stop defending the so-called financial reform bill. I don't happen to agree with this bill. I don't like it. I never liked it when it was being debated, I never thought it shoulda passed, and so I don't care about anything else: My attorney general has just said that we're not gonna defend it anymore. So if there are parts of the financial reform bill that prevent you from doing something, go ahead and do it now, 'cause I'm not gonna prosecute you. There is no law. I'm just gonna strike it." Can you imagine?
Would the Politico be doing stories, "President Palin, Little Downside Seen for Call on Obamacare"? Can you imagine that? Can you imagine anybody in the media doing a story on the next conservative president: "You know, I don't think this guy's gonna get in any trouble here, seeing Obamacare is not gonna be defended anymore"? It'd be just the opposite. They'd be demanding the impeachment of said president. The next conservative president can say, "I have concluded these laws don't pass constitutional muster. I've decided to drop any defense of them. I! I, the president, don't like these laws. They don't count to me."
So what's happened here is Barack Obama has decided he's not gonna enforce the law. He is not enforcing a federal judge's ruling in Florida because he disagrees with it. Judge Vinson. The constitutionality of Obamacare. He is not enforcing a federal ruling in Louisiana to allow deep offshore drilling. A federal ruling says his moratorium is illegal, but to hell with the federal ruling. Barack Obama disagrees with it. Essentially Barack Obama has said, "You know what? I'm the Supreme Court! We don't need one anymore. I don't like the Defense of Marriage Act. Neither does my attorney general.
"Neither do my gay supporters and contributors. So, you know what? We're not gonna defend it anymore. I don't care what the Supreme Court thinks. It doesn't matter. I have decided." Imagine a conservative president doing this, say, on abortion. This is lawlessness. There's no other way to characterize this. This is lawlessness. He's not securing the southern border. He's not enforcing immigration laws. That is why Arizona is having to act independently -- and what does he do? He sues them! He sues the state of Arizona. He's taken sides against a United States governor in Wisconsin, and will be taking sides against many more governors as the days unfold.
So let's step back. Imagine, for the fun of it, Sarah Palin is elected president. I pick Palin only 'cause they hate her the most (and I'm not running). Imagine that Sarah Palin appoints scores of czars who are not confirmed by the Senate. These czars run the government out of the White House; they bypass the cabinet structure. Imagine that President Palin appoints as attorney general a politically partisan conservative. Imagine that attorney general takes orders from Palin on active cases, and she orders that attorney general to stop defending lawsuits against aspects of Roe v. Wade, to stop defending lawsuits against Obamacare, to stop defending lawsuits against the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations.
Imagine if President Palin directs her attorney general to sue California to enforce border security and to stop granting taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens, in violation of the supremacy clause. Imagine if President Palin did all this. Imagine President Palin ordering the Republican National Committee to work with businesses, managers and executives that contributed tens of millions of dollars to her campaign to defeat her political opponents (especially Big Labor) in places like New York, New Jersey, Michigan, California; intervening in the affairs of states. Obama's doing this. Imagine if President Palin did it. She gets hold of the guy that runs the RNC, says, "I want you to have meetings with businesspeople that contribute a lot of money to my campaign."
Imagine President Palin decides that she will not comply with federal court rulings that she disagrees with, as in Florida and Louisiana. Imagine, if you will, President Palin meeting weekly with CEOs of the oil industry, of the insurance industry, and of the health care industry in order to help them profit and prosper. Imagine if President Palin meets with these groups to try to repair the damage done by the previous president, Barack Obama. Imagine a State of the Union in a House of Representatives chamber: President Palin attacking the sitting justices of the US Supreme Court, humiliating them for a ruling in a case in a manner that she disagrees with.
Imagine President Palin hiring a fashion person and putting her on the public payroll and telling everybody what to eat while she and Todd eat whatever they want on trips to places like Vail, while her husband is eating hamburgers and fries and ice cream. Imagine President Palin sending her kids to the most expensive private school in Washington, while at the same time killing a school choice program for poor minorities in the inner city of Washington -- and, folks, I could go on and on and on. It explains everything, this sickening spectacle that is the left. Whether they pretend to be journalists, whether they are politicians, this is a dangerous force in this nation. We have to continue to expose them. That's all we can do.
That is what we will do.
When you're out there pretending, ladies and gentlemen, that you're Sarah Palin, President Palin, imagine that you don't have a birth certificate, what would happen?
Rush Limbaugh,
February 24, 2011
Thank you Rush.
You disagree? As I am not surprised you shouldn't be surprised at the following statement: You make me sick. You're not Americans-- not in any ideological sense. If you think this president is to be lauded for his lawlessness, then you're not an American. You're a hypocrite. And I can say that because we BOTH know that if it were Sarah Palin acting in the manner described above?... You'd be demanding her impeachment. And worse.
And there's more, folks...
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment
Friday, 25 Feb 2011
"I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job."
Why can't you Obama supporters see the truth? Don't bother, I know the answer... you don't care about Truth... Honesty... or Integrity. You'd rather have a king, no better than Mubarak or Gadaffi, than a man who obeys the law.
It's hard for me to read every word of this lunatic, but I found a few things that are problematic with what he wrote.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all the president has not stopped enforcing the law. In fact, I'd love for you to explain what he wouldn't enforce. How do you enforce a law that says one state doesn't have to recognize marriages that are legal in another state? How would the DOJ enforce that? The IRS will still be bound to not recognize any same sex marriage on tax returns. Obama has not stopped that.
See, there's nuance here. I know you guys don't do nuance. The DOJ will not defend DOMA in court when parties sue based on the law. Different from enforcing it.
What are the Republicans in Congress focusing on like a laser? Abortions.
I'm going to suppose that like the president, congress has a lot of staff, counselors, and advisers. And the president even has cabinet officers. He can actually walk and chew gum at the same time. So in ONE DAY he can spend time on jobs, the economy, the Middle East, Egypt, health care, energy, education and many, many other things.
And if Palin were elected president, she'd quit after a few months. To hard and not enough money in it.
The rest of the "hypothetical" is obviously drug induced delirium.
AH, the old "Palin is a quitter" meme.
ReplyDeleteObama should be impeached. Then jailed. He is a traitor to this country.
In 1990, then-acting Solicitor General John Roberts refused to defend a federal affirmative action law after he successfully convinced the George H.W. Bush Administration that the law was unconstitutional. He failed to convince the Supreme Court, however, and the law was upheld. By declining to defend DOMA, the Obama Administration is following the exact same approach embraced by now Chief Justice John Roberts.
ReplyDeleteThere is ample precedent for What the Obama administration did. Your argument fails.
"AH, the old "Palin is a quitter" meme."
ReplyDeleteYou betcha!
Thanks, BenT. See also:
Thomas Jefferson and the Sedition Act
George H.W. Bush and cable "must carry" law
Bill Clinton and the Dornan law on HIV-positive troops
George W. Bush on transit system funds
And numerous signing statements by George W. Bush and pretty much every other president in recent US history.
Jim. You have no ability to see truth in arguments that come from sources you despise. And this makes you a fool. There is no room for forgiveness or understanding in your heart for your enemies, and no ability in you whatsoever to see what's wrong in the people you love. You have no ability to think for yourself, and I don't have to take you seriously.
ReplyDeleteBen. Precedent gives Obama power and right to ignore the Supreme Court, and flout the law? Wrong is wrong! Period! No matter who does it. This argument of yours fails miserably.
What, because Bush did something wrong it's okay for Obama to flout the law as well?
Sorry! FAIL!
"You have no ability to see truth in arguments that come from sources you despise. And this makes you a fool. There is no room for forgiveness or understanding in your heart for your enemies, and no ability in you whatsoever to see what's wrong in the people you love. You have no ability to think for yourself, and I don't have to take you seriously."
ReplyDeleteBy that same logic, you are full of crap. You have no clue what you're talking about.
"Precedent gives Obama power and right to ignore the Supreme Court, and flout the law?"
There is no Supreme Court ruling being ignored here, EL. The only thing being ignored are the facts...by YOU.
The administration is continuing to enforce the law, which is its Constitutional duty. It has no duty to advocate for it in court. Show us anything that proves otherwise.
VERY sorry FAIL.
From what I understand, no one who cares about the righteousness and common sense of traditional marriage feels that DOJ involvement in cases brought before it regarding this issue helped the cause of traditional marriage anyhow. They didn't do their best to defend the constitutionality of it and true defenders feel they are better off not having them involved. In other words, Barry and Holder's position on the issue is not a concern, but a boon to their efforts. Now, they feel they can defend against homosex agenda assaults on the institution far better by doing not being elbowed out of the fight by the DOJ.
ReplyDeleteIt must be very hard for conscientious conservative to constantly being bamboozled by party leaders and pundits. Told things are unprecedented when they have ample precedent. Told programs and legislation will reduce jobs and increase the deficit when the exact opposite is reality. One day I know EL will get tired of the bullshit. I can't imagine him becoming a democrat or liberal, but hopefully he and those like him will wake up and demand that republicans and conservatives return to the serious foundations of their ideology.
ReplyDeleteNo one's bamboozled here Ben. Except perhaps you, and most definitely Jim who, I will reiterate, has no room for forgiveness or understanding in his heart for his enemies, nor any ability in him whatsoever to see what's wrong in the people he loves love. With no apparent ability to think for himself, I STILL don't have to take him seriously.
ReplyDeleteBen uses the 1990 case to defend Obama. But there's a big difference. Despite what the SCOTUS decision was in that case, there is no Constitutional defense for affirmative action because it is, by its very nature, contrary to the equal protection clause. It is designed to give attention, preference and consideration to one group over another.
ReplyDeleteThis is not the case with DOMA. DOMA merely recognizes a centuries old definition and supports only those cases that fit the definition. It does not bar anyone from getting married. As such, it is not in the least bit discriminatory, nor does it imply moral judgments on homosex unions, which is one of the weak reasons presented for Obama's and Holder's position.
Another way to look at is that one MUST redefine the word before any discrimination can take place. If we define it in the foolish manner demanded, then a claim of discrimination is justified. But therein lies the issue. Is the state required to redefine words for the benefit of every group, large or small, that demands it? I don't think so, and I doubt a Constitutional argument can be made for such a thing.
..."republicans and conservatives [should] return to the serious foundations of their ideology."
ReplyDeleteThis makes no sense without some semblance of context, because... Republicans and Conservative already HAVE returned to the serious foundations of their ideology.
What I would like to see is a return of democrats and liberals to the foundations this nation was built upon... namely, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. That would be a sight to see, and would end all the partisan bickering; as well as all the thievery perpetrated primarily by liberals in the name of 'the greater good'.
An abortion is not something a man should be made to pay for who views such an act as murder. You want to feed the hungry? Fine. Want to murder children? Nope. Sorry. Not with my hard-earned money.
I am, if nothing else, consistent. The same, however, cannot be said for liberals.
"That would be a sight to see,"
ReplyDeleteYep, and you can see it every day. Conservatives have no monopoly on loving and respecting the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. Ever hear of an organization called the ACLU?
"the thievery perpetrated primarily by liberals".
Yes, taxes are theft. We've heard that. If only YOU honored the Constitution and its amendments.
"Want to murder children? Nope. Sorry. Not with my hard-earned money."
Correct. Your "hard-earned money" is not used to murder children. Not used for abortions either.
"Conservatives have no monopoly on loving and respecting the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence."
ReplyDeleteNever said they did.
"Ever hear of an organization called the ACLU?"
You mean the decidedly ANTI-American group which defends the wrong position more often than not?
This one is simply a lie: "Your "hard-earned money" is not used to murder children. Not used for abortions either."
Our hard-earned dollars... taxes... support Planned Parenthood in the U.S. and they go to support abortions abroad; on foreign soil. What's REALLY telling is your stripping the act of murder from the act of performance of an abortion. To perform an abortion is to cease the existence of life.
You're sick.
But let's lay that aside for a moment and go back to the ACLU, specifically what's wrong with the ACLU, and by extension Liberal philosophy in general. Separation of Church and State? Guess what, all you Constitution loving liberals? It's not in the Constitution. No where do those words appear, nor are they implied ANYWHERE in our Constitution. And yet liberals like you have used that phantasm to abridge the rights of Christians for decades. All the while bending over backward to accommodate Muslims. If there were such a thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution then our government would be guilty of violating the Constitution by enabling Islam over other religions. By enabling any religion which rears its head in public... except, that is, Christianity.
There is a deficit of truth and understanding in this nation... no, strike that... in the world.
ReplyDeleteQuoting Bill Wiese from his book 23 Minutes in Hell:
The main reason why truth is difficult to find is because the acceptance of truth is hindered by man's pride and arrogance. All of us possess some knowledge, but none of us can know it all. Chuck Missler, an exceptional scholar with a genius IQ, has said, "The only sure barrier to truth is to assume you already have it." Man's nature is to get defensive when told we are wrong, and it is this stubborn unwillingness to receive instruction and/or correction that keeps truth from us. Billy Graham said, "The sin of pride particularly has caused the downfall of Lucifer in heaven; most certainly it can bring down mortal man too."
---
I believe you mean well, Jim. You too, Ben. But just because you mean well, doesn't mean you are right. As I stated in my first comment to this post:
"You have no ability to see truth in arguments that come from sources you despise... There is no room for forgiveness or understanding in your heart for your enemies, and no ability in you whatsoever to see what's wrong in the people you love."
I was overly harsh by using the word 'whatsoever'. I should have used the word 'apparent'; that would have been more accurate.
"I believe you mean well, Jim. You too, Ben. But just because you mean well, doesn't mean you are right."
ReplyDeleteBut you believe you are...because you mean well?...because you have a faith that tells you you're right?
There are hard questions in this world. Questions with no simple answer. Questions with no answer. And most assuredly questions without a universal answer. What is right for me, may be wrong for you. But what is right for you may be wrong for me.
Because all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, in many ways I get to choose where I am right even though you believe I am wrong. That is the basis of separation of church and state.
"That is the basis separation of church and state."
ReplyDeleteA basis that does not reside in the Constitution.
---
"I get to choose where I am right..."
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
--Proverbs 14:12
Your right its the Declaration of Independence. The drafters of the Declaration used the word Creator. Not God, or Christ or Buddha, or Allah, or Yahweh, or Brahma, or Izanagi-no-Mikoto and Izanami-no-Mikoto, or Spider Grandmother, or Gaia, or Mbombo, or Ptah, or any number of other creator deities.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because they wanted a word that all faiths could support. A word that was inclusive of ALL.
You say there is no basis for church state separation in the Constitution. I say there is no basis for their union.
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
ReplyDelete--Proverbs 14:12
Pray for me if you wish, but as long as the ideals of America stand you will never be able to tell me what to do or speak or think or believe.
Perhaps one day your fanatic fires will sweeps away the country I love and build some sort of perverted parody. Where everyone has free speech as long as they spout Christian hymms, but I will be dead because I will raise arms and fight you before I let that happen to my country. You have been warned.
No one, least of all me wants a theocracy in America. What I and many others DO want, is a return to the America our founders had, sans slavery.
ReplyDeleteThe reason the word 'Creator' was used was because it was understood that the "God of the Bible" WAS THAT CREATOR.
You and yours want to push America further from the image our founders painted for us in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. You want an Americanized socialist democracy. I will raise arms and fight you before I let THAT happen.
But all this blustering is unnecessary. No one with any sense wants a theocracy in America; the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. No human governed theocratic state would work. THAT is something I would join you, in raised arms, to prevent. But you are presently operating upon a specious argument; no one wants to force you to sing hymns or worship God.