@mark "...racism..."When accusations of racism appear out of
the blue in a discussion about something else, I can only conclude that the
accuser is more conscious of race than he should be. Either that, or he has run
out of arguments, and is trying to shut down the debate.@mark
"There is nothing new there."Abuse of power is as old as
civilization, and is always wrong.
Nate, all those issues you say are in the partisan opinion pieces have already
been talked about. We are very aware of the accusations they make. There is
nothing new there. And if you want to talk about some of them we could discuss
them again, in the eight hundred words we are given (400 now for me).But just a list of headlines, from mostly right wing blogs, does absolutely
nothing to support any position that you may be taking. Especially if your
position is that the current president is bad for America, or that he is doing
things that previous presidents have not done.
@Res Novae "...partisan opinion pieces..."Specific
assertions made in those articles can be tested. For example, one of them
asserted that federal conditions imposed on state spending are a violation of
the local/national distinction, central to the concept of federalism. This is
true by definition.Other assertions were made that Obama had
circumvented acts of Congress and federal court rulings through environmental
regulations, labor law, immigration law, selective enforcement, and FCC
regulations. Concrete examples were provided.Another touched upon
Obama's use of executive orders. Another with his extensive use of
"czars." Another provided background on the recess appointments he made
when the Senate was not in recess.Maybe you prefer not to deal with
their actual arguments, but casually dismissing them as partisan opinions
doesn't really work."...[T]he correct approach is to use
the judicial branch as a check...."This is already happening.
The U.S. Court of Appeals struck down Obama's recess appointments. There
will be others. "Fight him in the federal courts, not on the
op-ed pages."I'll fight his ideas wherever and whenever I
choose. It's a free country.
Nate, ECR, is talking about the racism behind a large amount of the hatred
towards this president. And what that says about him is that ECR is observant.
Now I understand, Nate, that conservatives want to deny this aspect of their
feelings towards this president, and I understand why they want to deny it. And
not every conservative, or critic of this president is racist. But a vast number
of them are. You can deny it all you want, but I'm not blind, and I'm
not deaf, and it is there.As far as American values go, the
conservatives think, for some strange reason, that they, and they alone, get to
define what it means, and that only they hold those values. Of course, nothing
could be further from the truth. It's also shocking how truly
uninformed most conservatives are regarding the founders. That conservatives
spout off about how the founders support their views, at every turn, makes this
ignorance all the more silly and bizarre.
The president exemplifies American values eloquently and with class.
This letter could have been written fifty years ago without a single change
except for the dark references to "Obama". A reader then would have come
away with as little actual information as in this offering, but we might have
given it more attention then because it would have been signed (though probably
not written) by some corporate executive living the unapologetic good life. But
it's 20013, so - no sale.
@ECR "I honestly believe there remains an underlying reason why so many on
the right continue to paint the president as a demon and I think we all know
what that reason is."Maybe you could share your secret with the
rest of us, if you're not afraid that it will reveal too much about your
inner self. What is it you're noticing, that we're not noticing?
I find it fascinating the more reality moves away from the far right the more
intrenched they get. even moderate republicans are starting to drift away from
aliening themselves with the type of hyperbole in this letter.
Res Novae 10:23 Thanks for coming to my defense in regard to Nate's
comments. You and I could come up with similarly long list of pundits and
writers who support the president and his policies but that wouldn't make
us any more right that Nate and Mr. Johnson. I honestly believe there remains
an underlying reason why so many on the right continue to paint the president as
a demon and I think we all know what that reason is.
Is it not true that every law passed by our national Congress and every ruling
made by the Supreme Court and every regulation enforced by our President is
every bit the “law of the land” of equal power and authority as the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights until struck down, modified, or overridden
by those same entities? Is not every federal law an Amendment to
the American Constitution? When the President speaks or acts to
carry out the will of the American people is he speaking or acting contrary to
the American Constitution.
To David N. Johnson and commentors that followed, experts smarter than you are
still trying to interpet it as it applies to each situation for the past 230
years. I dare say your opinions do not translate to fact but a heartfelt opinion
that is no better than mine. Even Thomas Jefferson changed his views over his
lifespan. Your anti-Obama stance is disingenuous given the moderate stances the
POTUS has taken for the most part. Obamacare, the end of DADT, and a support for
Republican proposals on immigration and cap and trade laws are hardly the things
that liberals are made from. Does a true liberal give a hoot about too big to
fail? Obama is the victim of the 2 Santa Claus theory that was first proposed in
the late 70's and (R) Presidents have implimented flawlessly.
Nate, the problem is that the list of articles you cite as evidence are partisan
opinion pieces, not objective evidence of Obama's alleged constitutional
malfeasance. If he has done what your headlines have stated, then the correct
approach is to use the judicial branch as a check on his violations.
That's very clear in the Constitution. Fight him in the federal
courts, not on the op-ed pages. Otherwise claims of wrongdoing don't
amount to much more than the usual politican partisanship.
This ridiculous letter and the responses that follow are just more prime
examples of how faux news has created their own twisted reality for their easily
led followers. They whine about how they are losing freedoms and the country is
one step away from socialism yet they can't provide one single credible
piece of evidence to support any of their claims because they just don't
live in a world where facts or evidence exist, just more hyperbole and
exaggeration from some faux news hack... Pathetic.
@BYUAlum"This president has sharply divided our country."It's not his fault you all are a bunch of bitter sore losers.
No the writer is trying to tell us that the progressives in government policy of
finger pointing, blame, dishonesty and hypocrisy are the way it is going.
This letter is merely the kind of empty partisan rant that helps Republicans
think that Paul Ryan is an intellectual.It's shallow
chest-thumping and a dog whistle for the party's fringe, and nothing more.
So the writer is trying to tell us that the GOP's policy of finger
pointing, blame, dishonesty and hypocrisy are the way to go?Methinks
the Founders would be appalled to see what's happening now.
"The progressive movement is antithetical to the values of Madison,
Jefferson and Washington " and yet in harmony with Hamilton, Jay, Adams, and
the entire federalist party. Even Washington, who remained independent favored
the federalists. One of my primary irritations with modern conservatives is
their tendency to speak as if there is only one American point of view. There
isn't, and there never has been. That's why you're losing
national elections (they can't be jerrymandered). You have all the right
answers..they are just for a world that doesn't exsist. Until you
reckognize and see merit in other points of view you'll be lost in a world
of "it should be". "we can only imagine what it would
take to get back to a point where dependency on government handouts was the
exception rather than the rule"..not hard to imagine at all chilly. All it
would take is for labor to once again be valued as highly as capital. But now
I'm living in a world that "it should be".
Most conservatives at the time of our founding were opposed to capitalism,
industrialization, and free trade. They understood that those things would
destroy traditional communities, families, and established ways of doing things.
They wanted America to remain an agricultural nation because that is where
traditional conservatism flourishes, and where little government is needed.Obviously America chose to follow a different route, and the government
we have now is more appropriate to our needs. If you want to go back to the
government of our founders, we need to go back to their economy, with 95% of
Americans working on farms and living in rural areas.
@ECR "And yet the author has chosen to not nama [sic] one of these ideas he
considers alien to our Constitution."I believe he was presuming
the "honest and serious study of our founding documents and history."The author listed federalism, limited government, natural rights, and
separation of powers as principles Obama has violated. There are plenty of
examples, and I know everyone is capable of doing their own research, but
perhaps the following articles would help the honest reader to know which
"alien" ideas the author is referring to."Obamacare's Medicaid Expansion Violates Federalism", by Ilya
Shapiro, January 17, 2012."Obamacare vs. Federalism", by James
Huffman, June 7, 2012."Obamacare Regs Obama Plans to Ignore", by
Scott Gottlieb, 2/12/2013"Obama's Escalating War on the
Separation of Powers", by Jeffery H. Anderson, Jan 29, 2013."Obama's Abuse of Power", WSJ, January 25, 2013."Obomination: Obama's Disregard for Separation of Powers", by
Maya Noronha, Sep 16 2011."Morning Bell: Five Ways Obama Is
Circumventing the Legislative Branch", by Lachlan Markay, June 29, 2011."President Obama's Executive Power End Run Around The
Constitution", by David Davenport, 1/16/2013Running out of
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess
out of the public treasury."This quote, attributed sometimes to
de Tocqueville, Alexander Tytler and others, accurately describes the arc of the
American system. Both parties are guilty of offering hunks of "the public
treasury" to voters. Obama has made it an art form. While we
watch the current "sequester" spectacle - fighting tooth and nail over
"cuts" that don't impact current spending levels at all, we can
only imagine what it would take to get back to a point where dependency on
government handouts was the exception rather than the rule.
And the hyperbolic sour grapes continues. America was somehow intact after
eight years of Bush; I think you'll survive another four years of Obama.
Outstanding piece of writing. Thank you for your critical thinking. I
wholeheartedly agree with you! This president has sharply divided our country.
Also, the pain of the neglectful media's oversight and slobbering love
affair on his term of office has inflicked harm that will be felt for years to
"Any honest and serious study of our founding documents and history will
lead to the same conclusion — that many of President Obama's ideas
are indeed alien to our Constitution and founding."And yet the
author has chosen to not nama one of these ideas he considers alien to our
Constitution. The author claims that Mr. Davis' opinions are
"absurd" but Mr. Davis, at least, illustrated some examples and sums it
up best when he says "The values of responsibility, hard work and community
are inherent in Americanism." Is that what the author of this
letter is objecting to? The Founding Fathers were not united in their beliefs
about limited government. Those that are today considered the most
conserviative, led by John Adams, were totally committed to and promoted the
idea of communitarian service - that we have an obligation to each other. That
seems like a familiar premise that I have learned in my life growing up in the
culture of the Intermountain West. I wonder why this author is so much against
that concept. Is it because it is being proposed by our current president?
The agenda of K-oss is to rule the world. 99 and Max Smart have grown old and in
a retirement home with guards to keep the in. I talk about the past [back in the
day] now on it will be called [back in the daze].