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.
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.
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.
Another case of "too little, too late."
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
... and don't forget: Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii (was it
even really a "state" back then?) is suspect...
DN loves to "feed" red meat to the ravaging wolves.
The work requirements for welfare were never abolished. Just because Mitt Romney
said it doesn't make it true.
I love the smell of right-wing whining in the morning...
I haven't got past his first comment after his 1st election. "Now they
can ride in the back of the buss".
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!
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
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.
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.
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
@mntmanIn 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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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)
"Restore americas voice foundation"....like they haven't got an axe
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
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.
We have 2 types of "royalty" in 21st century America... Celebrities
& Ivy Leaguers.
@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
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
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.
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
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.
@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.
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
@ 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