Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Personal liberty or royal decrees?

Comments

Return To Article
  • tennerifa Orem, UT
    July 24, 2013 5:36 a.m.

    @ Incite Full, so your one friend in the Netherlands expressed his open disdain for Obama? I suppose that we should all be mindful of your alleged friend`s view of the president as a tyrant, but I`m wondering just how that translates into Europe not agreeing anymore. Does this one supposed friend constitute Europe?

  • Incite Full Layton, UT
    July 22, 2013 6:48 a.m.

    Talked with a friend in the Netherlands this last weekend over skype. he expressed his open disdain for Obama, claiming he was far worse than Bush. It surprised me because it was so visceral, and the press tends to give Obama a pass, or used to... I thought that was Ironic, considering he'd always had a favorable view of US liberal politics.

    He perceived the current president in much the same way this editorial discusses him... as a tyrant with a good PR arm to excuse any wrongdoing. He is most disgusted over the wiretapping policies that Obama embraced. It has done irreparable damage to our credibility in Europe. Yet this was something Obama always claimed to have managed better than prior administrations. Guess what? Europe doesn't agree anymore.

    Epic Fail.

    The Emperor has no clothes, my friends.

  • Alfred Pheonix, AZ
    July 21, 2013 11:35 p.m.

    @Blue:
    "Reality check: Obama has issued _fewer_ Executive Orders that any president in many decades."

    He's hired more tsars that all presidents put together.

    "He's the President of the United States, fer cryin' out loud! It's his _job_ to accomplish things."

    It's his job to execute the laws passed by the Legislative Branch. And that means all the laws... not just the ones he'd like. He's not king.

    "Normally, there'd be some kind of sane process involving Congress and the normal cooperative give-take..."

    The president and congress are two separate branches of government. It's called balance of powers.

    "But not these days - we're dealing with a House of Representatives that would officially endorse suffocation if Obama said something favorable about oxygen."

    The House represents the people. If the House goes against what the president wants, it means the people are against it.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    July 20, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    I love the fact that according to Ken, only "now" is all this happening. Ken must have been playing Rip Van Winkle for quite awhile. FISA has been around since the late 1970s. The Patriot Act solidified this court. It also solidified detaining people as "terrorists" or "enemy combatants." And wait a minute, are you saying Obama has been the only president to show this attitutde of Congress can be ignored, the courts can be ignored? Get real.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    July 20, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    Redshirt, "To "Happy Valley Heretic" where did I say that Obama started it?"

    Redshirt:

    Some are just policies and regulations that his subordinates just start because that is the will of Obama.

    For example, thanks to Congress, Obama gained the authority to hold US citizens indefinately if he deems them to be a terrorist.

    That would be you saying that Obama started it. Let me help you with the English. You are giving an example of "policies and regulations that his subordinates just start because that is the will of Obama." Not only are you saying that Obama "started it", you are saying that Congress is his subordinate.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:59 p.m.

    Obama did waive the work requirement for all states. Telling them they could come up alternative requirements.

    TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03 (Guidance concerning waiver and expenditure authority under Section 1115)

    It removed much of Clintons welfare reform of 1996.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    July 19, 2013 10:39 p.m.

    All through his congressional career and after taking the office of VP. Mr. Cheney, often as a small minority, always took the view that the constitution grants almost unlimited power to the president. There's a whole branch of constitutional law which takes the same view, referring to the president as the "unitary" executive of government.

    This raises the question: Was Cheney wrong THEN or is Ken, who says the opposite from Cheney now that a Democrat is president, wrong NOW? I might also ask: who owns the group that Ken is employed by? I'm guessing the owners are closely connected to HUGE money.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "To "Maudine" I don't think a majority ever favored it. Right now it is a minority that still favors it. "

    Polling shows some quirks on this, the bill tends to run high single digits net negative (something like 46-54 minus a few points from each for undecideds) but there's a catch. Some polls ask a further question to those who say they disapprove of the bill, asking them if they think Obamacare is "not liberal enough" as opposed to "not conservative enough". What those polls tend to find is that around low 40% support the bill, mid-30% oppose the bill because it's not conservative enough and around 15% oppose the bill because it's not liberal enough. So a majority oppose Obamacare, but a majority support either it or a more liberal/socialist (in this case the term socialist applies) bill.

    @Mountanman
    "There is no job seeking requirement anymore to receive food stamps. Both houses of congress passed this requirement and Bill Clinton signed the law (welfare reform act) but Obama issued an executive order removing the work requirement. "

    The work requirement was already waived in all but 4 states by the end of the Bush Administration.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    We have 2 types of "royalty" in 21st century America... Celebrities & Ivy Leaguers.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    Redshirt1701 asked The question for you is do you agree with edicts that Obama has been issuing? (Leave Bush out of this because he is no longer in office and anything he did is irrelevant at this time, unless Obama was to reverse it, which he hasn't).

    No, I do not agree with him resigning many of the "patriot acts" unconstitutional bits.
    That being said, trying to somehow erase the fact that if President Cheney wouldn't have instituted these power grabs in hopes of maintaining power, there wouldn't be these over reaching programs to continue.

    The programs previous presidents start, are not going to be "irrelevant" when he/she leaves office even if Mitt promises to overturn them on day 1.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    Great op-ed, Ken. President Obama does not like the Constitution, capitalism, or freedom, and he’s doing his best to undermine all three. He also does not want his ideas to be debated in an open and honest manner. Instead he wants to destroy those disagree with him. He wants to win by corruption, not by the honest choice of a free and informed citizenry. When a president says, “If Congress doesn’t act, I will,” those are the words of a dictator.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 19, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    "Restore americas voice foundation"....like they haven't got an axe to grind.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 19, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    Re:Mountanman
    "Romney claims President Barack Obama caused a doubling of able-bodied persons on food stamps by taking “work out of the food stamps requirement.” That’s an exaggeration. All but four states had already received waivers from specific work requirements for some or all of their residents before Obama became president.

    Obama granted a blanket suspension of that work requirement for 18 months as part of his 2009 stimulus law. But the Bush administration had already granted waivers covering some or all of 46 states and the District of Columbia, and more waiver requests were pending as the economy tanked. And despite the rise under Obama, these working-age adults without dependents still made up less than one in 10 on food stamps. That waiver covered April 2009 through Sept. 30, 2010."
    (Factcheck)

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    Why do some so readily embrace any and every rumor, half-truth and outright lie that might discredit the President? Are we to believe as they do that well into his second term and after considerable effort the President cannot rightly lay claim to a single accomplishment? What of their constant harangue, unjustly laying at the President's feet the blame for much of the world's problems? Who can succeed politically here in the land of the far-right who is not fully committed to the cause to delegitimize the President?

    Call me crazy, but it all sounds rather extreme to me.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    I appreciate Ken's efforts to articulate/summarize Republican talking points.

    It would be wonderful if Ken do this more often.

    Please Ken, keep it coming.

    Thanks Ken.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    The South felt the same way about Abraham Lincoln. Very true, they were Democrats, they created the KKK to destroy Republicans politically in the South and to maintain segregation in the states.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 19, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" where did I say that Obama started it? I was just giving a current example of edicts that the President can give without issuing an executive order.

    The question for you is do you agree with edicts that Obama has been issuing? (Leave Bush out of this because he is no longer in office and anything he did is irrelevant at this time, unless Obama was to reverse it, which he hasn't).

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 19, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    @mntman
    In response to a request from a bipartisan group of governors for more flexibility, the Obama Administration has said the federal government would consider waiving existing work participation requirements for states that were experimenting with "new, more effective ways" of helping welfare applicants find work, "particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment."
    Either way, the Obama Administration hasn't gotten rid of the work requirement or laid out a new theory of what it ought to include. It has given states the ability to seek executive branch approval for new methods.
    Do you believe in state rights or not?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 19, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    Redshirt1701 said:
    "For example, thanks to Congress, Obama gained the authority to hold US citizens indefinately if he deems them to be a terrorist. He does not have to issue an executive order to declare you a terrorist and hold you until you find a way out."

    For some reason that seems familiar for a while now, but if you say Obama started it, it must be true.

    Actually a majority of folks like the individual parts of the ACA, and say so, they tend to not like it when it's called Obamacare though. So it would seem those who oppose it, do so through ignorance not actual knowledge of the act.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 19, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    Brilliant --
    8 hours of daily AM hate radio all summed up in one letter.
    A Literately masterpiece.

    FYI --
    The South felt the same way about Abraham Lincoln.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 19, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    You would expect that a group calling itself “Restore America’s Voice Foundation” would represent the people of America. That is until you remember that conservatives only regard business as people. The word Foundation probably means that it is tax exempt.

    The president of the United States of America is the only person elected by the people of America. All other elected officials are elected and represent states. State governments do not represent the people, not even those of their own state, due to their surrender and control by business interests.

    When a group declares itself to be an enemy of the American government based on false notions about the president I can only think of the group as an enemy.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 19, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    To "Maudine" I don't think a majority ever favored it. Right now it is a minority that still favors it. The ACA is a mess and will do us no good.

    To "Blue" not all edicts coming from Obama are in the form of executive orders. Some are just policies and regulations that his subordinates just start because that is the will of Obama.

    For example, thanks to Congress, Obama gained the authority to hold US citizens indefinately if he deems them to be a terrorist. He does not have to issue an executive order to declare you a terrorist and hold you until you find a way out.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 19, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    Roland Kayser. You are wrong. There is no job seeking requirement anymore to receive food stamps. Both houses of congress passed this requirement and Bill Clinton signed the law (welfare reform act) but Obama issued an executive order removing the work requirement. Since then the number of food stamp recipients have more than doubled. If the requirement of seeking work has not been removed, unemployment would have dropped dramatically and the number of food stamp recipients would not have increased. Its unaffordable for taxpayers but it sure wins elections for Democrats!

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    July 19, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    I haven't got past his first comment after his 1st election. "Now they can ride in the back of the buss".

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    July 19, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    I love the smell of right-wing whining in the morning...

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 19, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    The work requirements for welfare were never abolished. Just because Mitt Romney said it doesn't make it true.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 19, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    DN loves to "feed" red meat to the ravaging wolves.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    July 19, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    ... and don't forget: Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii (was it even really a "state" back then?) is suspect...

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    July 19, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    Congratulations to Ken Hoagland. He has managed to pack every false accusation about the presidency of Barack Obama into one concise op-ed essay. Of course, as is usually the case, accusations are made without documented evidence or statements are made with the assumption that everyone will simply accept them without question.

    "...the government takeover of health care was enacted over the objections of a majority of citizens."

    Just of the phony statements made by Mr. Hoagland who apparently isn't aware of how our government works. Representative are elected to the House and Senate and those representatives pass the laws of the land. The "majority of the people" were represented by those elected officials and the law was passed. And by the way, despite the election of new representatives and, at last count, 39 attempts to overturn that law, it hasn't happened - because the majority doesn't want it too.

    The latest controversy about NSA surveilance is only evidence of how uninformed the American citzens are about their government. The FISA Court has been in place since 1978 and the wholesale use of it shifted into high gear after the Patriot Act was passed. What a surprise.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    July 19, 2013 6:06 a.m.

    Another case of "too little, too late."

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:03 a.m.

    Actually, the majority of American citizens supported healthcare reform and voted for Obama because he said he would do it.

    Obama is not a perfect President and there are a lot of real concerns that can and should be brought up - but over the top rhetoric like that contained in this piece does nothing to forward the conversation.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 1:43 a.m.

    Ken, tell us how you really feel. Seriously this piece is one of the most rabid rants you have ever run in your paper. I'm sure more is to come, and all of same mindset.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:11 a.m.

    This article is to political discourse what cotton candy is to nutrition.

    Reality check: Obama has issued _fewer_ Executive Orders that any president in many decades.

    He's the President of the United States, fer cryin' out loud! It's his _job_ to accomplish things. Normally, there'd be some kind of sane process involving Congress and the normal cooperative give-take relationship between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government.

    But not these days - we're dealing with a House of Representatives that would officially endorse suffocation if Obama said something favorable about oxygen.