22 Feb

Obama Brags About Bypassing Congress…Again: ‘Joe and I Are Going to Act’

Obama’s “We can’t wait” campaign is in full swing. And Tuesday, he added another soundbite to the growing collection showing him bashing Congress and vowing to got it alone.

“When Congress refuses to act, Joe and I are going to act,” Obama said at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with Vice President Joe Biden off to the side. “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”

He added later: “With or without Congress, I’m going to continue to fight for them. I do hope Congress joins me instead of spending the coming months in a lot of phony political debates focusing on the next election.”

And he’s not kidding.

“Earlier Tuesday,” CNSNews reports, “the White House announced that as part of its “We Can’t Wait” campaign, the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce will expand the federal government’s purchase of bio-based products, promote regional rural job creation efforts, and develop a rural health care workforce.”

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

48 Responses to Obama Brags About Bypassing Congress…Again: ‘Joe and I Are Going to Act’

  1. johngalt says: 1

    The real sad part is that there will be tens of millions in this country cheering Obama on as he destroys the Constitution, including those liberals who post here.

    ReplyReply
  2. Anti-socialist says: 2

    This jug eared fool is making public statements about his sincere desire to be an Imperial Presidemt. The leftist fools like Charlie Rose are mesmerized.
    The one thing that comes immediately to mind is the public education system in this country has failed horribly (or succeeded depending on weather or not you are a progressive and view ignorance of the US Constitution / rule of law / history / Utopianism / as a good thing).

    I am sadly reminded of that quote from Star Wars regarding how the ascendance of a totalitarian monster will be enthusiastically cheered.

    ReplyReply
  3. another vet says: 3

    @johngalt: It makes you wonder if he understands the Constitution or just doesn’t care and wants to dismantle it. Like you said, the really sad part is that there are plenty in this country who will cheer him on. It’s amazing how willing people are to see the document ripped to shreads which in the long run amounts to endorsing giving up their rights and by extension, ours who support the document. Like the old saying goes, “Freedom is just another word until you lose it.”

    ReplyReply
  4. Greg says: 5

    How can those who ignored 8 years of unitary executive theory in action suddenly be alarmed that Obama is somehow overstepping his own constitutional authority?

    ReplyReply
  5. Ditto says: 6

    @Greg:

    Cite or get off the pot.

    ReplyReply
  6. Greg says: 7

    Some 1,200 separate provisions of laws duly passed by the Legislative Branch, summarily circumvented or nullified by the Executive Branch by way of an all time record number of presidential signing statements, and you’re asking me to cite something?

    ReplyReply
  7. MataHarley says: 8

    Greg: How can those who ignored 8 years of unitary executive theory in action suddenly be alarmed that Obama is somehow overstepping his own constitutional authority?

    ….snip….

    Some 1,200 separate provisions of laws duly passed by the Legislative Branch, summarily circumvented or nullified by the Executive Branch by way of an all time record number of presidential signing statements, and you’re asking me to cite something?

    To the last about asking you to cite something… anything… it goes to the heart of any credibility you think you possess, Greg. And to that end, I do believe I’m going to have to start charging you for private tutoring in facts and history.

    …an all time record number of presidential signing statements…

    No, that record is held by your prior Dem POTUS, Teflon Bill at 385 for his two terms . Bush has 125 signing statements for his two terms. How quickly thee forgets. If you’d like to read them, you can find a link to all of them here, from 1929 to present.

    ….Some 1,200 separate provisions of laws duly passed by the Legislative Branch, summarily circumvented or nullified by the Executive Branch…

    No, a Presidential Signing Statement does not nullify a law, nor circumvent any law. That authority does not lie with any POTUS. I don’t have a problem with Obama’s signing statements anymore than I do with other POTUS signing statements… it’s simply an opinion added to the bill’s passage that notes what the WH feels is a deficiency.

    What your completely wrong statement says to me is you know nothing about signing statements, what they are, what they do, and how any past POTUS has used them. So here’s a little help for you… and since I know you rarely read anything provided, I’ll post the basics for you here. This document, is from Bill Clinton’s legal counsel, Bernard Nussbaum, in 1993.

    To begin with, it appears to be an uncontroversial use of signing statements to explain to the public, and more particularly to interested constituencies, what the President understands to be the likely effects of the bill, and how it coheres or fails to cohere with the Administration’s views or programs.(3)

    A second, and also generally uncontroversial, function of Presidential signing statements is to guide and direct Executive officials in interpreting or administering a statute. The President has the constitutional authority to supervise and control the activity of subordinate officials within the Executive Branch. See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 112 S. Ct. 2767, 2775 (1992). In the exercise of that authority he may direct such officials how to interpret and apply the statutes they administer.(4) Cf. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 733 (1986) (“[i]nterpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of ‘execution’ of the law.”). Signing statements have frequently expressed the President’s intention to construe or administer a statute in a particular manner (often to save the statute from unconstitutionality), and such statements have the effect of binding the statutory interpretation of other Executive Branch officials.(5)

    A third function, more controversial than either of the two considered above, is the use of signing statements to announce the President’s view of the constitutionality of the legislation he is signing. This category embraces at least three species: statements that declare that the legislation (or relevant provisions) would be unconstitutional in certain applications; statements that purport to construe the legislation in a manner that would “save” it from unconstitutionality; and statements that state flatly that the legislation is unconstitutional on its face. Each of these species of statement may include a declaration as to how — or whether — the legislation will be enforced.

    Thus, the President may use a signing statement to announce that, although the legislation is constitutional on its face, it would be unconstitutional in various applications, and that in such applications he will refuse to execute it. Such a Presidential statement could be analogized to a Supreme Court opinion that upheld legislation against a facial constitutional challenge, but warned at the same time that certain applications of the act would be unconstitutional. Cf. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 622-24 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring). Relatedly, a signing statement may put forward a “saving” construction of the bill, explaining that the President will construe it in a certain manner in order to avoid constitutional difficulties. See Federal Election Comm’n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 27298 (D.C. Cir. 1993), at *11-*12 (Silberman, J., joined by Wald, J.) (citing two Presidential signing statements adopting “saving” construction of legislation limiting appointment power). This, too, is analogous to the Supreme Court’s practice of construing statutes, if possible, to avoid holding them unconstitutional, or even to avoid deciding difficult constitutional questions.

    More boldly still, the President may declare in a signing statement that a provision of the bill before him is flatly unconstitutional, and that he will refuse to enforce it. This species of statement merits separate discussion.(6)

    If you want to read about the more controversial signing statements, the link has more than a few. But I assure you, the guy you seem fixated upon, Dubya, ain’t at the top of the list. It seems he was guilty of pointing out, at regular intervals, that Congress did not have the right to usurp Executive Constitutional authorities… as did Reagan. But, as our system allows, if anyone felt he was completely out of line, impeachment charges could have been brought up against him. Certainly Pelosi and Reid had the numbers, and the time, to do so.

    Nor does a POTUS need to issue a signing statement to “refuse to enforce” a law, as best exemplified by this admin’s refusal to pursue voter fraud/intimidation against the New Black Panthers. You can also add sundry administrations refusal to enforce immigration laws to that, but isn’t solely confined to Obama’s admin.

    So now that you’ve been properly educated, and have been handed the proper tools on a silver keyboard to find that “circumvented or nullified” law you *claim* Bush did via a signing statement, I suggest you get to work… or simply dine on your words. But I’d keep some pepto bismal around in case your belly is sensitive to digesting bullshit.

    ReplyReply
  8. another vet says: 9

    @Greg: Here is a list of the signing statements made by all the presidents since Hoover. I didn’t bother to count them but according to the site Bush signed 125 and Clinton signed even more. It’s easily verifiable by counting the numbers. BTW, did Bush ever put you on an enemies list, a terrorist watch list, or encourage his supporters to get in your face just because you opposed him politically?

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#axzz1nAqn8WEG

    ReplyReply
  9. another vet says: 10

    @MataHarley: It looks like we were on the same wave length but you beat me to it as usual!

    ReplyReply
  10. Marine72 says: 11

    @Greg: Again as the man said, cite or just continue as the downstream BOHICAman.

    ReplyReply
  11. Greg says: 12

    I’ll refer you to the answer to the 6th question on this web page regarding Presidential Signing Statements, which follows:

    There are two approaches to counting signing statements. The first is to count the documents issued by the president that are categorized as signing statements. The second is to count each provision of law affected by a single signing statement document as a separate statement. Under this second method, a single signing statement document that challenges 40 provisions of law within one Congressional enactment is reported as 40 signing statements.

    In early 2006, Charlie Savage, then with the Boston Globe, Phillip Cooper, PhD, Professor of Public Administration in the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University, and Christopher Kelley, PhD, Professor of Political Science at the University of Miami-Ohio, examined the signing statement documents existing at that time and found challenges to about 750 Congressional enactments within those documents. For instance, Professor Kelley found challenges to about 50 laws in a single signing statement (for the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004).

    In September of 2007, Neil Kinkopf, Associate Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law and former Special Assistant in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, issued a list of “every provision of a law objected to by the White House in a signing statement [between 2001 and 2007], the reason for the objection, and a link to the relevant signing statement.” The list is available for download at the website for the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. Professor Kinkopf’s ambitious project demonstrated that President Bush’s signing statements had, by that time, challenged more than 1,000 provisions of federal law.

    Some commentators failed to update their numbers after the early-2006 Boston Globe article, and some still do not distinguish between the signing statement documents and the number of laws challenged. Therefore, reports of 750 signing statements remained fairly common throughout the rest of Bush’s term.

    Recent reports that George W. Bush issued 1,200 signing statements are based on a count provided by Professor Christopher Kelly to the New York Times.

    I am reporting that President Bush issued 161 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions in 160 enactments based on both Professor Kinkopf’s and Professor

    A “proper education” involves learning how to interpret information and think for oneself. You can define a signing statement as an individual document, and then compare the numerical count of Clinton to Bush to justify a statement that Clinton did it more.

    That statement, of course, is totally misleading, if what you’re really asking about is the abuse of executive power. In my opinion, Bush/Cheney were in effect running the country at times like some banana republic. Signing statements were one method of curbing the power of the legislative branch.

    ReplyReply
  12. MataHarley says: 13

    That’s okay, another vet. Just a moment of timing that weighed in my favor. But with Greg, as we all know, provide facts once or even twice, and it still never penetrates the gray matter.

    ReplyReply
  13. MataHarley says: 14

    Greg, and you don’t find it all all curious that Ms. Green… aka “Ms. Coherent Babble”… only chose to parse the Bush 125 signing statements for those “provisions of law”, and not Clinton’s 385? If you want to talk apples to apples, it’s signing statements to signing statements, or you parse Clinton’s (or other POTUS signing statements that likely include more than one provision, or perhaps an entire section) to make it provisions of law to provisions of law.

    But then aren’t you the guy saying that Bush put on more on food stamps than Obama, using Bush’s eight years to Obama’s three? LOL

    Does it give you a clue that she only provides signing statements from Bush the younger forwards? Or that she can’t really cite anything that is out of line in those signing statements except for the fact that yet another POTUS objected to something in a passed bill?

    pffft….

    You’re being lazy, Greg. Wheres the “nullified or circumvented” law you say Bush did? Or do you need others to lift/paste from to try and save your butt? In which case, you’d better keep looking…

    Got that pepto bismal handy? I hear some A1 Sauce on eating BS makes it more palatable.

    ReplyReply
  14. Randy says: 15

    @Greg: Careful with the big words Greg!

    ReplyReply
  15. Randy says: 16

    @MataHarley: Over reach by any of the three branches of government can be reined in by the other two. Forget your 9th grade civics classes Greg!

    ReplyReply
  16. MataHarley says: 17

    Well, that’s the Founders’ plan anyway, Randy. I’d say the toughest one to rein in is the Judicial branch, and most especially the SCOTUS. I’m less worried about the Congress and WH. They both have equally big egos, and Congress has a lot more egos to foist upon a sitting POTUS.

    I’m not sure civics is Greg’s only problem. Seems he’s got a block with basic math too.

    ReplyReply
  17. Smorgasbord says: 18

    @johngalt: #1
    Reminds you of the frog in a pan of water, doesn’t it?

    ReplyReply
  18. Greg says: 19

    I didn’t hear much talk on the right about reining in overreach by the SCOTUS when they expanded on the crack-brained notion that corporations essentially have the same constitutionally guaranteed rights as individual citizens. Nor have I heard much complaining about constitutionality as the religious right tries to empower the government to exercise control over women’s reproductive function.

    Basically, constitutional principles are sacred to some only to the extent that they’re useful for imposing their will on other citizens.

    ReplyReply
  19. Randy says: 20

    @Greg: Well Greg, that is because you lefties do not have the capacities to understand what a corporation really is. I expect that even you would believe that a bunch of jerks living in tents in the village park together have a 1st amendment right together to have free speech wouldn’t you? Just because they chose to demonstrate their free speech rights in a group don’t reduce their individual free speech rights does it? (I would hope you are still following this train of thought at this point so I will proceed!)

    A corporation is nothing more than a group of people speaking as one through an organization. The people who group together as the NRA, NOW, SPCA and other corporations as long as they do not have tax exempt status are now allowed together to speak with one voice just like the unions have done. What y to lefties do not like is this makes for an even playing field. Before the SCOTUS decision only union corporations were recognized as representing free speech for the members.

    So, what SCOUUS really did was restore rights that had been abridged by ignorant legislators or calculating ones. John McCain was one of those who voted to abridge our free speech rights and likely is one reason he lost.
    See, you lefties continue to view corporations as evil enmities with minds of their own. What they really are is a group of people who decided to do business together. Their shares are distributed among the investor in accordance with the amount the invested. Every year at a mandated meeting, these owners elect people to run their company like a board of directors who select the Chief Operating Officer. The corporation is actually you, Rich Wheeler and Larry as well as thousands of elderly people who depend upon for income from their company to provide them income in retirement.

    The corporation pays a state tax on net income to the state. It also pays a tax on the net income to the federal government. After the taxes are paid, some of the remaining net income (Corporate taxes are not considered an expense to the corporation in calculating net income.) is distributed to the owners (stock holders) as a dividend. These owners who have already paid tax on that income as a group now pay tax on the same net income again as individuals. So, dear Greg, your granny in the nursing home who depends on the dividends from her company is taxed twice on her income from the company business. Is that fair? I suppose if she were to demonstrate by crapping on the village green, all of you lefties would change the rules.

    In the past, the federal government has exempted income made overseas and brought back to the US from corporate tax. Yesterday Obama considered this a loop hole and stated his goal to close it. He will lower the corporate tax a few percentage points, but make the corporation bringing needed revenue to the US and keeping US Jobs in the US pay tax on money earned overseas. So, more of granny’s money goes to fund a lefty government leaving her with even less money to use in her retirement. Not only that, but the cost of the corporation’s products to consumers (that is you and me Greg!) must rise to cover the cost of the increased tax burden.

    What happens at the next board meeting is the owners of the corporation if possible, vote to move the company overseas where the drain on company income is much less. For those corporations who cannot move overseas, they are likely to sell their overseas operations to a corporation they formed in a foreign country. Owners are likely given stock in the new company instead of being cashed out. So, the cost to the corporation after the initial maneuvering is not much. The stock holders or company owners are still paying taxes on dividends earned by their foreign company, but that company can still be competitive in foreign markets. The real losers are the employees who lost their jobs as owners moved their company overseas to stay in business and compete with foreign goods and services . You lefties blame Bush for allowing companies to move overseas, but the truth is that taxes, not cheap labor caused these companies to move overseas.

    If you want to better understand how a corporation is a group of people doing business together, invite a corporation to dinner. See if the whole corporation shows up or only a representative of the people who own the corporation shows up! I hope this provides you with the lessons you missed in your 9th grade economics class while you were playing grabass with Suzie!

    ReplyReply
  20. MataHarley says: 21

    @Greg: I didn’t hear much talk on the right about reining in overreach by the SCOTUS when they expanded on the crack-brained notion that corporations essentially have the same constitutionally guaranteed rights as individual citizens.

    Woke up wearing your “kick me” sign, Greg? LOL

    I find it amusing that you’ve got your knickers in a bunch over McCain-Feingold, upon which the case was based. The Republicans tried to avoid the “overreach” by saying no to badly written legislation. Your party shoved it thru, with the aid of a good amount of RINOs. Now your wringing your hands over the SCOTUS opinion? LOL

    Here’s the problem, Greg… it’s not the ruling. The High Court can only interpret bad law. They can not be blamed for writing it. I do believe that the SuperPAC onus is all on you and your buds. You made the rules of the game, so everyone is playing by the rules of the game. Obama’s SuperPACs have been in place since last year… you might want to visit one of the credible sources, the FEC site.

    Nor have I heard much complaining about constitutionality as the religious right tries to empower the government to exercise control over women’s reproductive function.

    Let me see if I heard that right… you think the “religious right” WANTS to empower the government to “exercise control over women’s reproductive functions”?

    Smiley banging himself on the head with a club

    First of all, most conservatives don’t want to empower the government to be in their health issues at all. I’m afraid you and your party hold the monopoly on that one too.

    Secondly, our Constitution and enacted laws have prohibited government (at all levels) from infringing on an individual’s religious beliefs. I have personally disagreed here – over and over – with those that say an employer with objections to birth control should be able to deny coverage to their employees. On the other hand, any employee who objects should not be forced to purchase coverage for medical drugs that violate that belief.

    And all most definitely NOT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL (H/T to Ron Paul for getting that correct point in last night).

    But you’ve twisted this to new heights, Greg… “the religious want to empower government..”.

    Smiley laughing himself silly

    The trouble is, you’re going to having to find a Rachel MadCow audience to try and pull off that verbal sleight of hand. I know you like to claim being the victim at every avenue, but only the brain dead could possibly buy into that spin.

    ReplyReply
  21. Anti-Socialist says: 22

    @Greg as far as objections to SCOTUS and other judges legislating from the bench, try reading “Men in Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America” by Mark Levin (2005). People “on the right” have been noticing and complaining about judicial over reach for years. Regardless of your political preferences, it’s a decent book. I’m against Progressivism more than the Democrat /Republican tropes. When anyone of any political party openly states their contempt for the law of the land in the USA and would rather have a system akin to Venezuela, China or the old USSR etc they are a threat to everyones liberty. The so-called “contraception mandate” interferes with freedom of religion and contract law.
    Also please stop with the Tu-Quoque warhorse. I have several liberal friends who refuse to address the problems of Obamas’ recent order by repeating “Bush, Bush, Bush …..”
    If the government can give you rights it can take them away. There is no such thing as a right to health care. Our country was founded on the principle that your rights come from God. The purpose of government is to protect your rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness from being compromised. (please note that this does not require a belief in God). If SCOTUS rules in favor of the individual mandate we are ALL screwed. This issue goes far beyond Obama or any one person. The constitution of the Soviet Union included rights to housing, employment, healthcare. See how well that worked out?

    ReplyReply
  22. cali says: 23

    This guy is nothing but a bully; presidential qualities are missing; he acts as someone so juvenile, who huffs and puffs -sticking out his chest, demostrating to everybody that he has what it takes to be president. It is an election year; his first term has been a failure, and what does a childish bully do? He braggs, and braggs, pretending to do something about the misery he created; ergo his loudly protesting what “HE or I” will do. He knows that his credibility is shut.
    We have to look beyond the psyche of this guy; he’s devoid of critical thinking; he’s lazy. Now he’s panicked, because he wants to take advantage of another 4 yrs to have the perks he’s in love with. Knowing that his jig is up, he’s pissed that his ‘messianic pretentions’ have worn off having run it’s course.
    He has to invent, or find another method to impress; what better way then to thump his chest shouting “I,I, I will do this or that”.
    We all know that he’s not wearing the pants in his marriage, but mooch – it’s the driving force wagging the finger at thim saying ‘you better give me more time in this white house'; his psyche is damaged goods.
    He’s not grown up yet; by luck, voter fraud and deceit did he win in 2008; for him it was unexpected. We know that he doesn’t have a clue about anything presidential as well as mooch – two grifters who got lucky.
    Valerie Jarrett is the acting president, while Obama watches tv upstairs in sweatpants etc. reading Sports Illustrated. His schedule is always and, almost blank.
    The insider clearly stated, that he’s the laziest person you’ll ever meet, un-interested in anything duty related.
    Jarrett, born in Iran, naturally is inclined not to allow Israel or the USA to stop their nuclear program; it is Jarrett who calls the shots.
    Besides, she also has Secret Service Detail, driver etc.., never before had a advisor a Secret Service Detail. While she shields him from being exposed; her benefit comes brom mooch, their friendship and running the presidency.

    ReplyReply
  23. Aqua says: 24

    @MataHarley:
    #21………Brilliant!

    ReplyReply
  24. Nan G says: 25

    While Obama is figuring out how to bypass Congress, what is he, as CIF, going to do to PUNISH soldiers for FOLLOWING ORDERS?

    Obama to Karzai:

    “I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies.”
    The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

    Those soldiers did as they were told.
    The defacers of the korans caused them to need to be burned.
    Who is Obama going to hold responsible?
    HE is Commander in Chief.
    Does the buck stop with him?
    With the apologetic General?
    Or some poor soldier who was doing as he was told and as the Koran, itself, sets up as proper?

    Oh, and to solve this problem permanently?
    Never allow a koran in any prison again.

    ReplyReply
  25. Greg says: 26

    @MataHarley, #21:

    First of all, most conservatives don’t want to empower the government to be in their health issues at all. I’m afraid you and your party hold the monopoly on that one too.

    That would certainly explain why they want to dictate to adult women and their doctors concerning the most private reproduction options and decisions.

    Maybe elected Virginia republicans should be required by law to have an ultrasonic probe rammed up their rear ends to check for a brain before they’re allowed to vote on any issue affecting women’s health and reproductive issues. There’s little other evidence of the presence of such an organ.

    ReplyReply
  26. MataHarley says: 27

    Greg: That would certainly explain why they want to dictate to adult women and their doctors concerning the most private reproduction options and decisions.

    You still don’t get it, do you Greg? The conservatives don’t want any level of government… central or state.. to be dictating ANY health mandates to them at all. Most especially when they are in violation of their religious beliefs and 1st Amendment rights.

    The only one dictating to adult women and doctors is your POTUS, and your Congressional leaders, Pelosi and Reid, via their unConstitutional O’healthcare bill. All mandates about insurers minimum coverage is a states’ rights/10th Amendment power only. And they aren’t allowed to usurp the 1st Amendment either.

    No one gives a rat’s butt if someone with no religious objection wants to purchase birth control. Have at it. Nor will the state level courts allow for any employer to deny state mandated coverage to those without religious objections. Moot point.

    But the economic side of all this is covering everything from contraception to dental floss on mandated coverage does nothing but drive premiums unsustainably higher.

    Like I said… I think you’ll have to go find some MadCow supporters to engage in a debate this asinine. There is no cogency to your victim spin here. Give it up, Greg. You’re beating an imaginary dead horse.

    Maybe elected Virginia republicans should be required by law to have an ultrasonic probe rammed up their rear ends to check for a brain before they’re allowed to vote on any issue affecting women’s health and reproductive rights.

    That’s funny. I feel exactly the same way whenever I think you are allowed to vote.

    ReplyReply
  27. johngalt says: 28

    @Greg:

    Exactly how is someone NOT wanting government involvement in an issue equivalent to that someone wanting to empower the government to involve themselves in people’s lives? Seriously, Greg, sometimes I wonder if you actually stop to think if what you are posting actually makes any sense.

    ReplyReply
  28. Greg says: 29

    @johngalt, #28:

    For you it may be an entirely principled matter of what the government may and may not do, as defined by the Constitution. I respect that. I don’t believe that this is the central concern of the religious right, however. They would use the power of government to force other people to behave in accordance with beliefs that everyone doesn’t share. They’re doing that all across the United States, in a coordinated effort to deprive women of a fundamental right to have sovereignty over their own bodies. There are few other things that strike me as being so shockingly contrary to the value Americans supposedly put on personal freedom.

    I personally dislike the idea of abortion. That doesn’t mean I have a right to deny any woman her own freedom to choose. It’s not my body, and it’s not my personal choice.

    I’ll leave off on this, as it’s really not the topic of the thread.

    ReplyReply
  29. MataHarley says: 30

    Greg: I don’t believe that this is the central concern of the religious right, however. They would use the power of government to force other people to behave in accordance with beliefs that everyone doesn’t share. They’re doing that all across the United States, in a coordinated effort to deprive women of a fundamental right to have sovereignty over their own bodies.

    Man oh man.. this is like rigor mortis of the brain, watching this “victim” argument wind it’s way thru LaLa land.

    The religious rising up to say to government, you have no right to tell us we must purchase a product against our beliefs now becomes all about you? Horse manure. Your accusation is a joke, Greg… because it’s you and your leaders doing exactly what you seem to resent. And as you readily admit, there is no facts you base that on… just that’s what you “believe” they are doing.

    Can’t help it if your brain is out of order, guy. But go float your fantasies to a dumber audience. ’tisn’t gonna fly here.

    ReplyReply
  30. johngalt says: 31

    @Greg:

    They would use the power of government to force other people to behave in accordance with beliefs that everyone doesn’t share.

    No, Greg. In the case of the contraceptive mandate, those religious organizations simply want the government to not force them to act in conflict with their official position. And making them purchase a health insurance policy for their employees that includes something they do not agree with is forcing them to go against that position. It has nothing to do with the religious organization forcing their beliefs upon women at all.

    Your problem with this is that you are looking at it from entirely the wrong perspective. That is, you are looking at it from a perspective that states that a woman has a right to DEMAND someone else pay for her reproductive health services. The religious organization in the middle of the argument has never said that a woman working for one of it’s affiliated organizations cannot use contraceptives as a condition to work there.

    It all depends upon what one believes are rights in this country. I am not, and never was, of the position that a woman should not be allowed to make her own choices about reproductive issues. I am, however, of the opinion that a woman does NOT have the right to demand that someone else pay for the choices she makes.

    I don’t expect you to see the difference in that, mainly because you argue from a position that people do have a right to demand that others pay for their rights. Your warped view of what is included within a general “right” of a person including what federal government actions can be taken on behalf of that cannot be reconciled with the limitations imposed upon the federal government by the Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  31. MataHarley says: 32

    Want to have some fun, johngalt? Let’s watch Greg’s head do the exorcist spin…

    Government denying health care:

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A federal judge in San Francisco says the U.S. government cannot deny health benefits to the wife of a lesbian court employee by relying on the 1996 law [Defense of Marriage Act] that bars government recognition of same-sex unions.

    U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ruled Wednesday that because the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples, the government’s refusal to furnish health insurance to Karen Golinski’s wife is unjustified.

    A POTUS /Executive Branch (quoting Greg) “summarily circumventing or nullifying provisions of laws duly passed by the Legislative Branch,”

    The Department of Justice originally opposed Golinski in her lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management, but changed course last year after President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder said they would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

    And how did the DOMA come about?

    Passed in the House 342-67, with only 65 Dems in opposition. Passed in the Senate 85-14, with only 14 Dems in opposition. Signed into law by a Dem POTUS, William “Teflon Bill” Clinton.

    Still want government dictating who can and cannot have health care, or what they should be buying? Still want to whine about a POTUS who decides not to enforce “laws duly passed by the Legislative Branch”?

    Need some Neosporin for that searing wound, inflicted by reality, Greg?

    Your problem is you don’t realize that your best ally in freedom is actually those battling a government’s overreach into individual health mandates/coverage.

    ReplyReply
  32. Randy says: 33

    @Greg: Greg, the religious right as you call them, (Many were the religious left until this issue.) came to this counrty for religious freedom, not free health care. The founding fathers also were well aware of government interference with religious beliefs. That is why the Constitution is written the way it is to prevent the federal government from making any law that…. The Catholics and most of the other religious leaders are well educated. They know this is a constitutional issue and have declared it unlawful and will not obay it!

    ReplyReply
  33. MataHarley says: 34

    johngalt: And making them purchase a health insurance policy for their employees that includes something they do not agree with is forcing them to go against that position.

    There are already court rulings and AG opinions that an employer cannot deny the employee access to contraceptives based on their own religious beliefs, because this infringes on the employees’ rights, johngalt. Altho I find that irony abounds that health insurance is slowing working it’s way into the national mindset as a “right”. The hazards of government, dabbling in arenas where they do not belong.

    This is the aspect of the contraceptive battle that Greg uses to play the victim card. However the courts are already on record, via the various state mandates over the past decade, that employees cannot be denied.

    However Washington State’s District Court has ruled that pharmacists are not forced to dispense contraceptives against their religious beliefs. That will head to the Appellate courts, just as the previously sought injunction did, and was remanded back to the District Court for the latest decision. That battle has been going on since 2006. Not related to coverage, but related to conscientious objection.

    ReplyReply
  34. Nan G
    yes, the GUARDS must have found a multi- billion BACTERIAL VIRUS in the book used by the prisoners hands,
    all this times, and they had to burn it to protect the PRISONERS from getting the BLACK PLAGUE,
    WHICH WOULD HAVE INFECT ALL AFGHANISTAN, IN NO TIME, AND THE ONLY PREVENTION WAS TO BURN IT along other infected items that had to be burned,
    WHAT IS THE PROBLEM with the AFGHANISTANS PEOPLE, DON’T THEY KNOW ABOUT THE PLAGUE?
    for GOD SAKE THE MILLITARIES ARE SAVING THEIR LIFES, DONT THEY KNOW HOW TO SAY THANK YOU TO AMERICA, THE GREATEST AMERICANS IN THERE SAVING THEIR LIVES AND LOOK WHAT THEY GET IN RETURN, THE PLAGUE is the most scary and deadly infection of all,
    it expand so fast, and they won’t know if they are infected for a long time.

    ReplyReply
  35. I was reading how thousands of AFGANS are trying to get out of there before the AMERICANS LEAVE, there is a lot of corruption done for that issue , they are being rob and lured in false exits for many,

    can AMERICA ENVISAGE THOSE , YOU NOW LOOKING AT COME IN AMERICA AS REFUGEES?
    CAN YOU? OBAMA CAN AND HE WILL, WITH THE OPEN BORDERS,
    AND THE UN

    ReplyReply
  36. Smorgasbord says: 37

    @Anti-Socialist: #22
    As I started reading your comment I had to stop and start playing Merl Haggards’s “The Fightin’ Side of Me.” I wish he would record a new version of the song to fit today’s situation, or that someone else would.

    ReplyReply
  37. Smorgasbord says: 38

    @Nan G: #25
    This must another item that is George Bush’s fault. How can one president mess up our government so badly that his mistakes haven’t been able to be fixed in over three years? How long did it take to fix Carter’s mistakes? How long will it take to fix Obama’s mistakes?

    ReplyReply
  38. Smorgasbord says: 39

    @Greg: #26

    Maybe elected Virginia republicans should be required by law to have an ultrasonic probe rammed up their rear ends to check for a brain before they’re allowed to vote on any issue affecting women’s health and reproductive issues. There’s little other evidence of the presence of such an organ.

    I don’t know a whole lot about human anatomy, but I know doctors don’t check a republican’s or an independent’s rear end for a brain. Is that where they check for a democrat’s brain?

    I can understand your confusion, since a liberal democrat’s brain puts out the same substance as their rear end.

    ReplyReply
  39. Richard Wheeler says: 40

    Greg #29 Well stated. I concur 100%

    ReplyReply
  40. Ditto says: 41

    @Smorgasbord:

    How long will it take to fix Obama’s mistakes?

    How long will it take to fix what Obama did deliberately to this nation and our Constitution?

    ReplyReply
  41. Smorgasbord says: 42

    @Ditto: #41
    This is what I was suggesting. Obama is intentionally doing things to turn the USA into some kind of non-free country. How long it takes to fix Obama’s “mistakes” depends on who gets elected president and in congress.

    If you are having problems with your car, you take it to a repair shop. They do diagnostics on it and refer your car to a mechanic. I don’t see any “mechanics” running for the presidency. None of the candidates have said how they are going to fix the American car, but all of their diagnostics say that it needs to be fixed. I want a “fixer” in office, not diagnostic expert.

    ReplyReply
  42. Smorgasbord
    hi,
    I think that CONGRESS, has decided to neutralize OBAMA decisions now, because he is left alone with BIDEN as he said, and the only thing for him left is his mouth to tell anything come in his head, promise anything that come to his head, smile arrogantly to the people paid to be there where he stop , TO SAVE HIS ASSETS
    I think now his powers are very few and what ever he does the CONGRESS WILL BLOCK IT,
    because they found him dangerous and just waiting for the PEOPLE TO VOTE HIM OUT,
    AS THE LAWS OF THE LAND DEMAND, and CONGRESS KNOW THOSE LAW AND USE THEIR POWER TO
    NEGATE THE PRESIDENT DECISIONS, UNTIL THEN, AS MUCH AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN to cover him
    as long as he is PRESIDENT, AND WHEN HE IS REMOVE HELL WILL BE UNLEASH ON HIM BY THE CONGRESS USING THEIR POWER TO GIVE JUSTICE TO THE 4 YEARS OF HIS FAILED PRESIDENCY.

    ReplyReply
  43. Smorgasbord says: 44

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #43
    Obama is doing what all of today’s politicians have been doing for years: Promise everybody everything. Wherever a politician is campaigning they promise they will get them money to do a lot of things. The politician knows none of the promises will be kept, because congress has to appropriate the money, and the politician knows it won’t happen, so it’s congress’s fault, not the politician’s.

    I wish I could share your enthusiasm about congress seeing the light, but I have been watching too many things happening over the years that are telling me that congress is more wrapped up in themselves than they ever have been. More people and organizations that want the USA to be a socialist kind of country are getting more of their people elected. I wouldn’t doubt that those people and groups have their people run for office in the republican party so that both parties are under their control. I just don’t like what I see happening to MY country.

    ReplyReply
  44. Smorgasbord
    hi,
    do you really think some socialist communist would have infiltrate the REPUBLICANS to continue their agenda of pushing the COMMUNIST DEEPER IN AMERICA, it does make sense that they would do any dishonest things to win ,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  45. Smorgasbord says: 46

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #45
    Who knows if or how far into any political party a country or group has infiltrated our politics? It could even be that the politicians are just greedy and want as much as they can get. They become politicians, then in a short time they are millionaires. Money changes a lot of people. This is why I am one of a lot of people who want ALL the politicians thrown out and have term limits, among many changes that need to be made.

    ReplyReply
  46. Smorgasbord
    hi
    yes but I think with the election comming the Republicans and CONSERVATIVES will get on line
    they have no choice now, and they will do their share for AMERICA, THEY CARE for her more then the
    DEMOCRATS who think they do as pretend they do, take of their goodies and money they would leave
    AMERICA even if she would be in the worse situation, they even are helping the worse situation because they are not thiking further ahead, of any thing happening now, it.s a normal now as it is in their mind,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  47. Smorgasbord says: 48

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #47
    Hopefully, the republican party is realizing that they need to go back to the original ideals they used to have.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>