I think everyone pays way too much attention to the President.In
reality, we need to start paying attention to what Congress and the Supreme
Court are doing.Repub Phil Gramm was greatly responsible in removing
the regulations that kept order in the financial sector. After Phil's actions,
our banking system collapsed. The was done by Congress. Corporations
are not people. This ruling wasn't made by the President, but by the courts. and
it's one horrible ruling with really devastating consequences for "The
I think we definitely expect our presidents to be miracle workers, when we
should be expecting them to only exercise the powers granted them in the
Constitution. Will they "preserve, protect, and defend" that
document?Over the weekend, President Obama signed into law the
National Defense Authorization Act. This law does significant damage to the
Bill of Rights by giving the military and police the power to detain
indefinitely American citizens without ever charging them with a crime. Ron
Paul was the only Presidential candidate to stand up against this disaster of a
bill and stand with the Constitution. When inauguration day comes, if anyone
but Ron Paul takes the Oath of Office, they will by lying the instant the words
"preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" escape their lips.
We can know what they will do by what they have done. Namely, ignore the U.S.
Constitution in favor of more government power.
I agree, one has to look at the presidency in context. And vote Obama.
The Constitutional duties of the President are far more simple than most people
think. He is charged to:1. Take an oath of office: "I do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."2. Be
commander in chief over the military.3. Make treaties, appoint
ambassadors, and appoint members of the Supreme Court (with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate).4. Give a State of the Union Address.5. Recommend "measures" to Congress.6. Convene
both houses of Congress (on extraordinary occasions).Those duties
that WE, THE PEOPLE, authorized the President to perform are far fewer than the
duties that many Presidents "assume". Not only have many Presidents
assumed other duties but some have willfully neglected those simple duties
assigned to them - to protect and defend the Constitution. Some, including Mr.
Obama selectively enforce the laws of this nation, being very careful to NOT
enforce any law that might cost votes.More than a "strong"
President, we need an "honest" President who will do his duty.
No matter who wins the 2012 presidential election, or the congressional
elections, or the governor elections, the odds are 99 to 1 that it will be a
businessman who wins the election. A businessman who will continue and promote
the oppression of people in their quest for wealth. So, democrat or
republican or even independent the ordinary people, the working people, the poor
people will lose.
Had McCain won in 08 would anything be any different? I would say not a bit,
other than we would still be in Iraq. The McCain would have done the exact same
thing Obama has done in terms of spending and bailouts. Heck, Bush began that
process. Bush's cut did nothing to stimulate the economy. Not one thing.
Poor Mike R. just can't seem to comment on anything without throwing a partisan
bomb or two into his post. If he had stopped to consider, he would have
realized, first, that the Obama administration practice of returning illegal
immigrants is certainly NOT one likely to improve his standing with Latino
voters. And if Mike regards the GWB administration as having been
"honest", he's in a true minority both in this country and the rest of
the world. Bush/Cheney and the "go get 'em, you guys" neocons made a
practice of dishonesty for which our country continues to pay. Where were you
Maverick,Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act left in place the
protections needed to avoid the collapse; the fed simply did not enforce
them.Even if they had, the removal of credit standards forced on
fannie and freddie by barney frank in the 1990s and the refusal of EVERY senate
dem along with a number of senate repubs in 2005 to better regulate fannie and
freddie caused the collapse. GLBA, because of 23A and 23B, had NOTHING to do
with it. Did you know GLBA requires banks to maintain safeguards on your
personal information? Without GLBA, there would be NO requirements for banks to
keep your personal information safe.ErnestHad McLame won there
would be LOT different. we'd be out of Iraq. Our deficits would be around $400 -
$500 billion, rather than $1.5 trillion. no job killing Obamacare, an under
control EPA, legislation that addressed financial reform, not the misguided
dudd-frank.BO himself said if he didn't have things turned around in
three years, his was a one term presidency. It's been three years, we're worse
off with higher unemployment and higher deficits. Let's keep him to his word
and vote him out.
This Country is in the midst of an epidemic of crime, substance abuse, and
immorality. One of the major causes of this epidemic is poor presidential
leadership.There is no longer any doubt that America cannot prosper
in this modern age with a left-wing president at its head. Quite simply,
left-wing efforts to turn this Country into just another European-style
post-Christian welfare state are destroying the moral fabric of American
society.We need a President who expects citizens to be hard working
and self-reliant. No more entitlement programs which create nothing more than a
lazy, indolent population.We need a President who expects the
citizens to practice the highest moral values, and leads by example. We cannot
have another President of the Clintonian tradition who has no more moral
restraint than a pack of demented stoats.In short, we must have a
President who is not only of the highest intelligence, but who also has the
highest level of moral character. Left-wing extremists need not apply.
The letter writer under estimates the power of a president. True, Pres. Obama
gets nothing done with Congress. He is ineffective at working with Congress.
However, he gets his way through his regulatory agencies. They pass laws
without going through Congress. Obama has also increased federal workers by
more than 100,000. He is extending the power of big government.
I expected a change to believe in; transparency in government, realistic
monetary policies, tax incentive reform, bipartisanship, an end to crony
capitalism, a Department of Justice that is credible, reform bureaucratic
obstruction and unresponsiveness, prosecuting terrorists and closing Guantanamo
and not making White House appointments in the secretive imperial-Bush manner.
Failure on all counts. I was unrealistically optimistic in 2008, but never
This is a critical time for America! There is only one candidate worthy of
consideration in my opinion: Barack Obama!
"I am confident you will return our nation to a glorious land"....that
would be pre-2000 and the writer obviously thinks the party of Bush is the way
to return to glory. That makes zero sense to me.
Obama has taught his followers well. For every problem there is just one
answer: Blame Bush. It doesn't matter that Obama broke the law in seizing the
property of millions of Americans (stocks and bonds) and then gave that property
to the Unions and to the Canadian Government. To hear him tell it, it was all
Bush's fault.According to Obama, it was Bush that cost millions of
Americans their jobs. It didn't matter that Obama was sitting in the Oval
Office nor did it matter that Obama paid people to NOT work. Nor did it matter
that Obama increased the deficit $5 TRILLION - so far - it was all Bush's
fault.We have a corrupt President and we have about half the country
in his camp. They cheer him on. He dictates their ideals. He is everything
that they would be if they could just hold the scepter of power for a day. Boy,
would they show us! They would find that mythical rich guy and stick him in the
stocks until they had bled him for every penny.Maybe it's too late
for an honest man to turn things around. Until Obama is fired, we'll never
So John Charity Spring states that "pool presidential leadership" is
responsible for "an epidemic of crime, substance abuse and
immorality"Care to point to ANY specifics on what this
president or past presidents have done to cause all of these things?Awaiting your response.
J Thompson;; The corrupt presidency was that of GW Bush. He took us to war that
cost trillions on lies. You praise him for it? Much of the increased defecit
under Obama was spent by Bush. The costs of the wars were never put on the books
under the Bush administration, only NOW is the true cost coming out. You cry
that democrats blame Bush for our problems well;;; DUHH! wake up and smell the
toast burning or pull your head out of the sand ( or wherever else it is) . This
president is trying to turn the economy around. Around from what you ask,,
Around from what Bush left him. A failed economy, 2 wars, a failed housing
market, and financial system. You GOP clowns dont know what you talking about,
and everyone knows it. America is sick of you lies, deciet, and obstructionism.
Obama will win in 2012 because the GOP offers Nothing. Never have, and never
When is a lie not a lie. When a person is stating an opinion and the words
themselves are a lie, is that person a liar? If a person
deliberately understates a presidents job responsibilities, authority and
character for the purpose of diminishing his ability to be the president, is he
lying? If a person attributes the reasons for poor or improper
government actions to the public servants whos job is to execute and enforce
those actions regardless of the source motivation, is he lying?If a
politician aids in the passage of a good law and they withholds the funds to
execute the good law, is he lying?If a person creates and uses his
own special meaning for words and uses those words in a way contrary to their
original or accepted meaning for the purpose of demeaning or harming someone, is
he lying? If a person creates phony issues and phony predicted
results, is he a lying?If a person tells you he will help you,
provide good for you, and protect you and then allows the bad guys to make all
his promises false, is he lying?
Since the Republicans have taken over the House, the approval ratings for
Congress have gone down.More than a strong "House", we
need an honest "House" who will do their duty.Maybe it's
too late find an honest Republican. Until Boehner is fired, we'll never know.
Mr. Bob,It is a new year. It is time to stop trying to convince us
that the country is something that it is not. Article 2 of the Constitution
tells us what the duties of the President are. Mr. Richards listed those duties
accurately. He did not stretch the importance of the presidency and he did not
diminish the importance of the presidency. If every American read
the Constitution until he understood what the people have asked the government
to do, then we would stop having three-hundred million different ideas of what a
president is supposed to do. When Americans do not even understand
what they have limited their government to do, how will those people ever limit
themselves to only demanding that the government do those things?It
is time that everybody stopped pretending that they are the author of the
Constitution. It is time that everybody started reading and pondering and
talking the points of the Constitution. Our forefathers did that. They knew
what happens when people get lazy and expect someone else to take care of them.
Starting today in Iowa we will see if the people choose liberty or a
President Obama is returning our nation to a "glorious land" after
Bush the Republicans brought us to our knees. I have not forgotten the drama in
2008, when things were so bad and getting worse, and John McCain
"suspended" his presidential campaign and everyone knew Obama was
being handed the worst deal since Hoover handed things over to Roosevelt. It
takes time, and progress is being made. Putting that same crowd back in power
makes no sense!
To "homebrew | 5:33 p.m." and "Esquire | 7:45 a.m." please
tell us what has changed under Obama?Obama's policies are nearly
identical to Bush's, except bigger. So, if Bush was bad, why is Obama
considered good for doing the same things only in a manner that is bigger and
Redshirtallow me to respond for homebrew and esquire.bush was
a repub (bad), BO is a dem (diety).period.
@ RedShirt and lost in DC, nothing, and I mean nothing, will alter your views of
the universe. The facts won't matter one whit.
Esquire | 7:45 a.m. President Obama is returning our nation to a
"glorious land" nothing, and I mean nothing, will alter
your views of the universe. The facts won't matter one whit. Facts:
unemployment when BO took over - 7.7%unemployment now - 8.6% (0.9%
HIGHER, would be higher expect for the hundreds of thousands who have given up
looking for work)# of US jobs when BO took over: 142,201 million# of US jobs now: 140,580 million (1.621 million FEWER)average
federal deficit under bush (INCLUDING off budget items) $544,673 millionaverage federal deficit under BO $1.5 trillion (THREE times as high)Speaker of the House 2008 - Nancy Pelosi (D)Chairman of the House
Banking Committee 2008 - Barney Frank (D)Majority Leader of the Senate
2008 - Harry Reid (D)yeah, they created and added to the drama.These are the facts that suport my view of the universe. I see NOTHING in
them that speaks to a return to glory.Oh, and Carter handed off to
Reagan a much worse ship of state than BO ever dreamed of.
To "Esquire | 9:50 a.m." so what you are saying is that you have
absolutely nothing to show how Obama is any different from Bush. Just admit
that Obama equals Bush in ideas, and exceeds Bush in the cost to implement the
ideas.I have had many self proclaimed liberals try to show the
difference, and the best they have come up with is the names of tyrants
killed.If there is a difference, please give it because so far I
haven't seen any.
'To "Esquire | 9:50 a.m." so what you are saying is that you have
absolutely nothing to show how Obama is any different from Bush.' - Redshirt1701
| 1:23 p.m. Jan. 3, 2012 Reply fact: *'Osama bin Laden
Killed: 'Justice Is Done,' President Says' - By DEAN SCHABNER - ABC News -
05/01/2011 *'We have been waiting for this moment': Libya confirms
Gadhafi is dead' - MSNBC - 10/20/2011 *North Korean Leader Kim Jong
II dead at age 69 AP Published by KSL 12/18/11 Oh, that's
right. A Republican will claim these shouldn't 'count.'
That George W. Bush started a war with Iraq based on nothing...
*'Ex-M15 spy chief: No link between Iraq and 9/11' - By David Stringer - AP -
Published by the DSNews - 07/20/10 And Obama takes us OUT of
Iraq... *'Obama announces total Iraq troop withdrawal' - By Ben
Feller - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/21/2011 And there is 'no
difference' between the two. Sure. If you want to mean
the complete OPPOSITE of 'no.' And that there has been, and will continue to be
VAST differences in leadership.
Obama is similar to Bush in that both embraced a position of military aggression
upon other states, of "pre-emptive attack", and of using a secret army
- namely the CIA - to do a great deal of dirty work (yes, Bush had his secret
prisons, but Obama has his CIA drones). There is a reason individual members of
the military wholeheartedly do not support Obama for re-election - his policies
eerily mimick - and often go farther than - his aggressive predecessors. Obama has signed into law the federal government's ability to arrest and
hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. Obama has approved of (or not
been told about - either option should raise eyebrows) a large number of CIA
drone attacks on foreign nations. Obama has continued the wars in the Middle
East under new names. Obama has involved the United States in wars not approved
of by Congress. Obama has not renounced the "Patriot Act" (wonderful
example of double-speak, that). The evidence is fairly overwhelming that Obama
continued - and sometimes went far beyond - Bush's aggressive policies.The same military contractors that thrived under Bush still thrive under
Pagan,you're telling us BO had Kim Jong Il killed? You're giving BO
credit for it.You seem proud of the fact BO withdrew the troops from
Iraq since you keep mentioning it. What you FAIL to mention each time is that
BO withdrew the troops under the timetable bush established, and BO was
negotiating to STAY LONGER!Since it's a good thing that we have
withdrawan, why do you so blindly support BO even though he wanted to STAY
LONGER??Since this is my fourth comment, I'll leave it to you as I
won't be able to respond. Please do not mischaracterize my comments as you so
To "Pagan | 4:26 p.m." you prove my point.Bush took out
Sadam and the Taliban, Obama got Bin Laden, that really isn't a big difference
because they both took out tyrants. FYI, Kim Jong Il died of natural causes.Bush negociated the treaty that required that all troops withdraw from
Iraq by December 31, 2011, Obama carried it out.Like I said before,
the names are different, but both Obama and Bush have the same policies.I am still waiting to for one of your ilk to show anything of
significance the illustrates a difference between Bush and Obama.