Rep. Steve Stockman walks out of SOTU, drawing up Articles of Impeachment

Rep. Steve Stockman stormed out of the State of the Union address, and is considering drawing up Articles of Impeachment against President Obama.

Here’s what Stockman had to say:

“Tonight I left early after hearing how the president is further abusing his Constitutional powers. I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers.

“Even worse, Obama has openly vowed to break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree. This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense.”

Stockman didn’t stop there, either.

He went on to proclaim: “I’m considering filing Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama.”

The author of the linked piece, Floyd Brown, goes on to say, “Now we’re talking!”

Joe Biden und Barack Obama in Springfield, Ill...

Joe Biden und Barack Obama in Springfield, Illinois, right after Biden was formerly introduced by Obama as his running mate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We’ve been down this road before, and impeachment is absolutely the dumbest idea to come out of the mouth of any House member in the last 20 years. It is an absolute certain loser.

Here’s the math. You have to have 67 votes in the US Senate to uphold Impeachment and remove the President. Democrats currently hold 55 seats in the Senate – the Independents will vote with the Democrats on this – and it would be a stretch to get much more than 40 votes to uphold.

Barack Obama could call a joint session of the Congress and pass top secret documents to al Qaeda on the podium, followed by a session of group sex with 10 year olds – all on national TV – and not one of those 55 Democrats would vote to impeach.

This would be a rerun of the impeachment of Bill Clinton, only on steroids.

Clinton’s impeachment was probably the dumbest act the Stupid Party has ever committed. They had him on the ropes on issues and were beating him at every turn. It becomes public knowledge that Clinton is having regular Oval Office trysts with an intern, he lies about it multiple times, is caught in the lies, and Republicans move to impeach him, ostensibly for committing perjury before a grand jury. Clinton made the case that he was being impeached for having sex, the American people believed him. He also united a very splintered Democratic Party behind him and turned his legislative agenda around.

Republicans couldn’t even hold Republican Senators votes for the Impeachment.

This time around, if Stockman is stupid enough to draft Articles and they get to the press, all bets are off. ObamaCare is off the table, it’s no longer an issue in the 2014 election. Neither is Benghazi or the IRS. The only issue in 2014 – and 2016 – will be how much the racist Republicans hate Barack Obama for trying to do the right thing for the American people.

Every Democratic House Member and every Democratic Senator will stand with Barack. The press will be lined up on their Monica Lewinsky kneepads before him, and the low information voters will rally to save Barack – and the nation – from this ugly stain of racism.

Democrats will gain seats in the Senate and might even retake the House. After all, John Boehner and the House Republicans have been refusing to do “the people’s business” since 2011, they need to be replaced.

Rep. Stockman needs to learn how to count. It’s fine that he’s angry about Obama’s agenda and his unconstitutional actions, but impeachment will simply solidify the Democrats and the American people against Republicans.

We’re hoping that he’s bright enough to understand that this idea is a big loser and drive a stake through its smarmy heart.

Rep. Stockman, if you want to go to war and defeat this administration, pick up a spear and lead a charge past Speaker Boehner and his immigration amnesty fantasies and attack ObamaCare.

Thank you.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Articles of impeachmentWikipedia: The articles of impeachment are the set of charges drafted against a public official to initiate the impeachment process.

The New York Times vs. the Federal Reserve on Jobs
[UPDATED] Coke Balkanizes USA With Super Bowl Ad
  • SteveCrickmore075

    No wonder that Stockman is so judgmental and censorious about the President ‘being a law-breaker’ given Stockman’s past runs in with the law.

    The records state that an officer “found, in doing a strip
    search, that Stephen Stockman had 3 Valium tablets 10mg each inside
    a cellophane cigarette wrapper which was tucked inside the (fly)
    portion of his undershorts. Subject stated that his girlfriend had
    given them to him to take while serving his sentence.”

    The girlfriend, Mr. Stockman said, “shoved them in my pants, to
    tell you the truth, right before I went in for the weekend,” hoping
    to make it easier for him “to bear the weekend.”

    “Actually, I thought it was a nice gesture, but it ended up
    being a very stupid gesture,” he said.

    • jim_m

      So your position is that we should give obama a pass on anything he does because someone somewhere in the opposition did something that was bad.


      • SteveCrickmore075

        No just adding it to the debate, I suppose it is ad hominem. But he seems an extreme bombthower, even for his fellow Republicans in Texas.

        • jim_m

          If you wanted to actually add to the debate addressing the substance of whether obama should be impeached for his misdemeanors would have been nice.

          Or perhaps a statement on the overuse of the threat of impeachment for the last 40 years since Nixon would have been interesting.

          But I will agree with you, your statement was nothing more than an ad hom.

          And I will note that you did not disagree with my interpretation of your comment.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Well, counting and arithmetic are not the strong suits of the angry and cocooned right, as that farce of a Clinton impeachment so painfully proved. The scary thing is the demographics of the “broken glass” set are so horrific many if not most of them were shocked — shocked — that Clinton didn’t get removed from office (some of them were so ignorant they didn’t even know it needed to go through the Senate) and to add insanity to injury there are some of the same people, now just a bit more senile, who will be shocked — shocked — to learn that there’s no chance of removing Obama from office. They’d actually fight you on that point. You’d have to sit them down and explain it all to them, using a puppet show and an abacus. Plus how would President Biden solve anything? Again, horrible demographics. That all said, on a related topic, Obama’s best friend is the lunatic right fringe. The latter is hard wired to burn it all down, which for obvious reasons only helps the “Mommy Party.” C’est la vie.

  • Retired military

    My understanding (and I am too lazy to check it right now) Obama can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Has he done anything that fits those 2 items? Nothing that I know of. Although he is an incompetent idiot, has ignored the law and IMO if any deserves to be ran out of town on a rail I don’t know if he has committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
    His minions are guilty IMO of dozens of things but is he?
    And as the article states, we would never get a dem to vote for impeachment so the point is moot.

    • Violation of his oath of office would qualify.

      • Retired military

        The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
        The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

        Rodney where as some violations of his oath of office would fall under one of the 4 items listed it isn’t a definite given.
        Please provide an example where it does.

        Again. I am all for Obama not being President. Show me a specific example where it fits and is legal under the constitution.
        As for Liberalnightmare, dems wont have to explain anything. The lamestream media will cover their votes and scream racism from the high heavens. to paraphrase Mr Becker. Obama could pass TS documents to AQ at the SOTU and then rape a 10 year old afterward and the dems will gladly march forth and state that we obviously are having mass delusions, the lamestream media will call us racists and decry any attempt to even investigate Obama’s actions and provide cover from day 1 until their dying breath. Plus you will have 40% of the citizens fall in line with the coverup.

        • Ken in Camarillo

          Any consistent violation of Constitutional requirements of his office (not just an isolated debatable case) is legitimate grounds for impeachment. We must demand that all in the government follow the Constitution and the laws. In Obama’s case, he clearly has a pattern of not taking care that laws be faithfully enforced.

          Becker makes a good post explaining the practical reasons for not impeaching Obama. There is a legitimate counter argument, however, that even if it is guaranteed there will not be a conviction in the Senate, there should be an impeachment. When an officeholder’s behavior is too much an affront to the Constitution, we are obligated to put it on the record through impeachment ([edit] even if we know the Senate won’t convict [end edit]), that the House found his behavior unacceptable. This is so those in the future will have a record to refer to about this behavior; that our citizens haven’t just relented and begun to accept it.

          The gain is that an officeholder in the future can refer to the impeachment if he is contemplating any similar behavior of his own. Hopefully it would serve as a deterrent and prevent some bad behavior.

          However, I think Becker’s side wins in this case, because we really must focus on repealing Obamacare, and forego anything that might get in the way of that.

          • Retired military

            “Any consistent violation of Constitutional requirements of his office (not just an isolated debatable case) is legitimate grounds for impeachment”
            Please show me the legal justification for your statement. I have shown you the exact words from the constitution which back up mine.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            Article II, Section 1 (last paragraph) has the oath of office for the President and the last part of it is: “.. and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

            Repeated violations of the provisions of the Constitution would be a violation of this oath. Certainly it is proper to remove a President who consistently violates the Constitution, as a means for the rest of us to defend the Constitution from his un-Constitutional behavior.

            Article II, Section 3 (near end of paragraph says:
            “; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,”
            If he consistently does not take care that the laws be faithfully executed, then he is violating his responsibilities as defined by the Constitution.

            A major quality of our country is our belief that we are a nation of laws not men (we rely of the Constitution and laws to control what is correct in our actions, not the arbitrary decisions of men). Thus when a President consistently fails to faithfully execute the laws, and instead “makes it up as he goes along”, he represents a significant threat to our Constitution and law based government. This abuse qualifies (in my mind) as a “high crime” which attacks our system of government.

            I understand there can be debate on when a President has “crossed the line”, but I submit that there is a line, and impeachment is appropriate when it is crossed.

          • Michael Becker

            Please, as a practical matter, list the 67 votes in the Senate who will vote to uphold the impeachment.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            You surprise me. In my first comment I explained why an impeachment can be legitimately argued, but my conclusion was that your weighing of priorities was correct: we must get rid of Obamacare, so don’t impeach in this case.

            My comment explicitly stated that sometimes an impeachment should occur, even when it is guaranteed the Senate won’t convict. Sometimes defense of the Constitution requires an impeachment to “put it all on the record” for all to see; to establish that the behavior cited in the articles of impeachment has not become accepted.

          • Michael Becker

            And again, impeaching Obama will unite a currently fragmented Democratic Party, and it will absolutely unite the American people not only behind Obama, but behind the idea – which will gel into “fact” with the constant drumbeat of the media to about 53% low information voters, that Republicans are a bunch of old, racist, white, men.

            Impeachment will insure that the Democrats hold the White House, the Senate, and the House with huge majorities for another 40 years. You can likely kiss off about 15 Governorships and state legislatures.

            The Constitution absolutely does NOT “require” an impeachment. Impeachment, by it’s very definition – in the Constitution – is an inherently political act and Republicans will pay a huge price for it. Frankly, the only thing Hillary has going for her is the fact that Republicans impeached Bill and made him one of the most popular figures in US politics.

            Even worse, it’s not just “Republicans” who will suffer, it’s conservatives and libertarian leaning Republicans who will die out. You can bet your last dime that every moderate/moderate-leaning Republican will vote NO on impeachment – we’re quibbling about the Senate, it won’t get out of the House.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            I don’t understand the point of this comment. In my original comment (unchallenged in any of my other comments), I said that the reasoning given in your original post outweighs the considerations that I cited in favor of impeachment, therefore we should not impeach at this time.

            You stated that an impeachment would cause:

            “..- which will gel into “fact” with the constant drumbeat of the media to about 53% low information voters, that Republicans are a bunch of old, racist, white, men.”

            Do you really think that not impeaching Obama will prevent this?

          • Retired military

            Again I spell out the only reasons a president can be impeached for and if he is impeached and then convicted of

            Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

            If you could lay out where one of the things you mentioned falls into one of those categories (and you cant) then I would grant that you may have a case for impeachment but you will still not get a conviction in the Senate.
            Look at when the Dems howled that Bush should be impeached for “lying” about WMDs. To the best of my knowledge nothing they said even if they could prove that he lied (unless it was under oath) that they could convict him for.
            We hound about the constitution being followed well that works both ways. You have a case that Obama isn’t carrying out his duties BUT that isn’t listed as a specific thing to remove him from office for.d
            I remember hearing a discussion a few years back about Obama golfing. One of the learned constitutional scholars stated that Obama or any other president could theoretically show up on the golf course every day and do absolutely nothing regarding governing the country and he couldn’t be impeached.
            Stick with the constitution which lays out SPECIFICALLY what you can impeach a President for.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            I am astounded by your assertions! The most dangerous thing an officeholder can do is to act consistently in conflict with the Constitution. If the Constitution does not truly control the government and its officials, then we have nothing. Consistently flouting the Constitution is a high crime, not a misdemeanor.

            The President’s oath specifically says he must preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Consistently acting in conflict with it is a violation of his oath of office. Consistently violating his oath is almost always a high crime in my opinion.

            Now as to Bush: I do not think for a second that he lied, or that anyone can make other than an absurd argument that he did. But for the sake of discussion, I offer this analysis:

            If Bush lied to Congress about the WMD’s in order to get a “declaration of war” or its equivalent, then that would have been a fraud to falsely persuade them to give the declaration. This would absolutely be a high crime and subject to impeachment. (note: being wrong about a sincerely held belief that was held by almost all other authorities on the matter at the time, is not a lie.)

            About a President spending all his time on a golf course. The issue would be: is he getting his job done in accordance with the Constitution? If he had appointed good enough staff and cabinet that they could do everything required of the President with minimum supervision from him, then he has not violated the Constitution, and should not be impeached, even though he would look bad.

          • Retired military

            I understand your concept. I just don’t think that you could prove it. Also even trying it would have such blowback that it would do more harm to the nation than not doing it. Sad that IMO it is such as it is. Not to mention the blowback of the next republican president (if there is one) would be assailed with the same charges by the dems no matter what they did or did not do.

    • LiberalNightmare

      The trick isn’t in getting democrats to vote for impeachment.

      The trick is forcing democrats to explain why they wouldn’t vote for impeachment.

    • Hawk_TX

      From Wikipedia: High crimes and misdemeanors

      “High” in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of “high crimes” signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes……

      High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor. Therefore this phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office.

  • GarandFan

    Bad idea. Hell, King Barack the Magnificent could shit on the US Constitution and wipe his ass with it, at high noon, on the National Mall, with full TV coverage and a majority of US citizens wouldn’t give a damn.

  • LiberalNightmare

    The impeachment of Clinton may not have resulted in actual impeachment, but it did absolutely destroy Bill’s last term. Not to mention his reputation.

    Personally, I’d prefer to keep the BIC president busy so that he doesn’t have time to sign anymore EO’s. Impeachment proceedings would take care of that nicely.

    • Michael Becker

      It most certainly did not destroy his last term. He was on his way to destroying it until Bob Dole gave in on the shutdown and the impeachment. The shutdown would have been a winner for Republicans, Clinton was looking for a way to surrender when Dole called him.

      The impeachment united the Democrats – who were splintering – and the country behind him. It destroyed the credibility of Republicans and gave him fresh wind in his sails.

    • Hank_M

      Gotta disagree about Clinton. He’s still an MSM favorite, the impeachment is never mentioned and his time in office is looked back at as the good old days.

    • superdestroyer

      If the Constitution would have allowed Clinton to run for a third term, he would have easily won re-election.

      • jim_m

        So would have Reagan. Your point? Reagan would have taken a third term, Clinton’s first term would have been Bush’s first instead. Who knows what would have happened in 1996

        • superdestroyer

          The point is that the failed impeachment of Clinton did nothing for the long term except make the Republicans look like they get too excited about scandals and care too little about governing.

          • jim_m

            That has zip to do with impeachment. Clinton probably would have been reelected regardless.

          • superdestroyer

            Liberal nightmare above was claiming that impeach “destroyed” Clinton. The last time I looked he is the most influential ex-president and his wife could be the next president. I see no evidence that the impeach of Clinton helped the Republicans achieve a single policy or governance objective.

  • superdestroyer

    Can Republicans be any stupider. Such tantrums serve no purpose but to embarass Republicans can make them look like extremist. Why not discuss the legislative process and discuss defunding any program that goes beyond what Congress has authorized. Why not acting like they actually understand how the government works instead of acting like all they know about government is what they saw on SchoolHouse Rock.

    • jim_m

      Can Republicans be any stupider.

      Call me when a GOP congressman starts questioning admirals on the possibility of Guam capsizing.

      • Hank_M

        Ah yes, the brightest of the bulbs, Hank Johnson from Atlanta.

        Off topic, but it gets worse. From the AJC April 2010…

        “Congressman Johnson has done an outstanding job,” said President Obama.
        “Together, we are fighting to renew our economy. Together, we passed historic
        health care reform. I am proud to stand with Hank and support his re-election.”

        That might explain a few things……..

    • The real question is can the Dhimmocrats be any more venal and delinquent in their duties. Sadly, the answer seems to always be yes.

    • jim_m

      Why not discuss the legislative process and discuss defunding any program that goes beyond what Congress has authorized.

      Riiiight. So says the man acting as if we didn’t run the government on continuing resolutions for 4 years because no one could pass a budget.

      How about getting yourself a dose of reality and then coming back with a cogent comment?

      • superdestroyer

        If the Republicans cannot get a budget approved, do you really think that they can successfully impeach the president. Since the Democrats control the Senate, it would be a pointless exercise and would, once again, make the Republicans look like they cannot govern and have no interest in governing.

        • jim_m

          First of all, “the Republicans” are not pushing impeachment, a single republican is. There is no evidence that this is something that the leadership supports or the broader membership. Obviously the distinction between the two conditions escapes your ability to discern the difference.

          Second, you suggested that they should target something short of impeachment and I pointed out that they could not even accomplish that so your suggestion was idiotic.

          And no, I do not support impeachment either.

          • superdestroyer

            The Republicans could actually pass a budget before the new fiscal year starts. The Republicans could hold hearing where they ask actual questions and put administrators on the ot seat instead of grandstanding and reading pointless statement. the Republicans could actually try to govern, actually think about policy, and actually try to decide how conservatives can actually govern. But it seems that too many of them get more excited about sounding foolish and being stupid instead.

        • The Republicans in the House passed several budgets which the Democratic Senate never even took up, FYI.

          • superdestroyer

            The Democrats in the Senate actually passed their own budgets and the Republicans would never negotiate or make alternate proposals. Maybe the Republicans should try working more than between Tuesday afternoon and Thursday morning it they want to actually be involved in governance.

          • Guest

            They passed their own “budgets”?? Perhaps you’d like to give Senate passes its first budget proposal in four years a little read.

          • superdestroyer

            The Senate can attach a budget to any bill that started in the House. Do you really think there is any rule that Congress cannot find a way around it?

          • jim_m

            Now you’re just being ignorant

          • jim_m

            Now you’re just being ignorant

          • No Budget may originate in the Senate as all spending bills must originate in the house you ignorant fool.

    • Jwb10001

      Sure they could be more stupid as has been pointed out they could be democrats.

  • ackwired

    Obama has issued fewer executive orders per day in office than any president in the last 115 years. I’m not sure about the latest Republican “Constitutional Crisis”.

    • Vagabond661

      I think the difference here is the quality not quantity.

      • ackwired

        I would be open to hearing someone make that case. I would be open to a constitutional amendment banning executive orders. But I am not hearing either.

        • jim_m

          That is because the typical executive order is not intended to circumvent congress. Usually they are to enforce executive branch policy where congressional action is not necessary.

          obama has decided that he should be allowed to rule by fiat and that his executive orders should be able to create new legislation where he lacks the wit and ability to get congress to act.

    • jim_m

      Lies. Not only has he not issued fewer than any President in the last 115 years, he has issued more over the 1st 5 years of his Presidency than GW Bush

      The number of executive orders issued in the first 5 years of a presidency

      obama = 129
      GW Bush = 120

      Through 6 years:
      obama = 168 (5 years 2 months)
      GW Bush = 165 (6 full years)

      I suppose that you expected no one would look it up and you thought that you could get away with a bald faced lie.

      • ackwired

        I cited a source for my comment. If there are any liars, it is the source or someone who is known to make things up so he can argue about them.

  • ackwired
    • jim_m

      And now link for us what those exec orders were. How many executive orders from Grover Cleveland exceeded the authority of the Presidency? How many were intended to subvert the law? How many were intended to circumvent Congress?

      Yeah, you really don’t give a damn about what obama is doing, your primary concern is finding clever ways to cover for his malfeasance.

      • ackwired

        You consistently have a much greater insight into other’s motives than I do. If you have any evidence of the motives of Grover Cleveland or his successors, I would be happy to listen.

      • Brucehenry

        So far none of Obama’s executive orders have “exceeded the authority of the president” either.

        • jim_m

          Not any single one. But his policy has been from day one to circumvent the authority of Congress by steering the actions of the federal government (ie the IRS, EPA and DOJ to assail political enemies) and by appointing countless policy czars to run his administration without ever being confirmed or even interviewed by the Senate.

          His entire administration has been an exercise in avoiding accountability and public scrutiny of his actions. He has also announced his intent to use executive orders to implement his policy without congressional action.

          If Bush had done this you would be screaming in the streets.

          • Brucehenry

            Shorter Jim: “I will pull out any tired, cliched boilerplate to back up my over-the-top rhetoric and paranoia.”

            “Czars.” Please.

            Sooooo 2010.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            Article II Section 2, 2nd paragraph talks about Presidential appointments. It says that for these appointments “.. and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate..”. The only people he can appoint without Senate confirmation are for offices that Congress has explicitly exempted from Senate confirmation.

            These “Czars” (the commonly used term to describe them) are sufficiently high in the administration that they cannot be considered low level employees that do not require confirmation. I don’t think Congress ever passed a law exempting them from confirmation.

            The term Czars has been used because these people are intended to be the specialists controlling the policies in the various areas of the executive branch. The term Czars is appropriate shorthand, commonly used and perhaps invented by the main stream media, and was not invented as a political gimmick.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes the term “czars” is a media invention. I first heard it, I think, during the Reagan administration to describe the WH advisor who was the President’s go-to guy on drug policy. He was “Reagan’s drug czar,” according to the press.

            Since then it became common. Bush I had a drug “czar” and I believe he had a “czar” to help him with issues relating to the Savings and Loan scandal. Clinton had several “czars” who were White House advisors heading up desks for this or that issue. So did Bush II. All of these presidents had “czars” — White House advisors who didn’t need Senate consent, and nobody blinked an eye. Because these people aren’t cabinet secretaries. They are advisors who specialize in giving advice to the president about a specific subject. “Czar” is a title bestowed upon them by lazyass reporters.

            But Obama, apparently, is “other.” He can’t do what every president since 1980 has done without arousing the paranoia of wingnuts and conspiracy theorists.

            Why IS that, you reckon?

            P.S. It’s my understanding that the WH chief of staff doesn’t require confirmation.

          • jim_m

            If obama is “other” it is because he is the first openly anti-American President in history. He was one of the slowest Presidents to fill the positions in his administration and that was partly due to his desire to not have people go through confirmation by the Senate. ( and no, of course the Chief of Staff is not confirmed as it is a purely political position)

            obama gave his czars cabinet level authority and access (better, when you look at his sorry record of holding cabinet meetings and meeting with key cabinet secretaries on significant policy issues).

            The appointment of czars was a transparent attempt to avoid any sort of scrutiny of his administration. Something you seem to feel is unnecessary because obama tells you that he is the most honest, most transparent, most ethical President in all of history and for all time. You never doubt a single pronouncement that he says and you defend them all.

          • jim_m

            If obama is “other” it is because he is the first openly anti-American President in history. He was one of the slowest Presidents to fill the positions in his administration and that was partly due to his desire to not have people go through confirmation by the Senate. ( and no, of course the Chief of Staff is not confirmed as it is a purely political position)

            obama gave his czars cabinet level authority and access (better, when you look at his sorry record of holding cabinet meetings and meeting with key cabinet secretaries on significant policy issues).

            The appointment of czars was a transparent attempt to avoid any sort of scrutiny of his administration. Something you seem to feel is unnecessary because obama tells you that he is the most honest, most transparent, most ethical President in all of history and for all time. You never doubt a single pronouncement that he says and you defend them all.

          • Brucehenry

            “If obama is ‘other’ it is because he is the first openly anti-American president in history.”

            Yeah sure that’s probably it.

            All presidents who have appointed “czars” have given these “czars” varying levels of authority and access. It was never suggested that the appointment of these “czars” was anything, ummm, …untoward — until Obama. But sure it’s because he’s “openly anti-American.” LOL. Whatever you say.

          • jim_m

            Again, my point was that his appointment of czars was to avoid congressional oversight.

            obama also appointed more than any other president and appointed in one year as many as Bush did in 8.

            So why don’t you just come out and say what you really want to? You are claiming that we are RAAAAAACIST!!!!

            Why not pony up some proof to that accusation rather than mincing words?

          • Brucehenry

            You — and by “you” I mean the rabid Obamahaters — assume that his appointment of what the media calls “czars” was to avoid congressional oversight because you — and by “you” I mean the rabid Obamahaters — always assume the worst about Obama.

            Never mind that the definition of what the media calls a “czar” is ever-changing. Never mind that this president may have a different management style than his predecessor, and that we — and by “we” I mean the majority of American voters — acknowledge that his management style is his prerogative. Never mind that there is not the slightest hint of an attempt to “avoid oversight” when one ANNOUNCES TO THE WORLD that this “czar” or that “czar” is being appointed.

            No, you — and by “you” I mean the rabid Obamahaters — won’t allow Obama to run the White House as he sees fit, something we — meaning the American people — elected him to do. Not without a lot of sky-is-falling folderol about nefarious yada yada and tyrannical yada yada.

            You — and by “you” I mean rabid Obamahaters — are unhinged by SOMETHING about this guy. My snark speaks for itself. If the shoe fits etc.

          • jim_m

            Show me where there has ever been evidence of good will from obama in the realm of transparency, or bipartisanship.

            Doesn’t exist. This is the most opaque admin ever. His bipartisanship goes as far as to inform the opposition that he won.

            Stick your snark up your ass where it belongs if you can find room next to your head.

          • Brucehenry

            Stay classy, Jim.

          • jim_m

            I’m not the one excusing the excesses of obama or on another thread the excesses of communism.

          • Brucehenry

            Here’s some evidence of good will from 2010. There’ve been plenty since.


            Something from 2013:


            Just because you choose to ignore things that happen doesn’t mean that things don’t happen.

          • jim_m

            Seriously? He was bipartisan in his first term? Not even remotely. Only an idiot lefty like yourself thinks that he has been bipartisan. He has taken every opportunity to insult his opponents and to divide this nation.

            You’re an ignorant ass if you think that he was being bipartisan when he forced obamacare through on a strict party line vote and didn’t accept any input from the GOP. It was the signature piece of his presidency and he would not negotiate, not one bit.

            The very notion that he attempted to cross the gulf is ludicrous. Name one piece of legislation where he supported a GOP lead initiative. No Child Left Behind was Ted Kennedy’s pet project and Bush supported it. It was a signature piece of Bush’s first term and it was really bipartisan.

            obama is a rigid ideologue and refuses to negotiate on anything because he knows that he knows that he knows that he is right.

          • Brucehenry

            Shorter Jim: “I didn’t read the linked articles and I won’t accept any information that doesn’t conform to what my preconceived notions already are. Oh, and you’re an ass yada yada.”

          • jim_m

            I skimmed them. I do not see why you would think that presenting some pbama hagiography from a left wing site would be persuasive.

          • Brucehenry

            Because even stopped clocks are right twice a day. No matter the source, open-minded people are willing to consider, if not swallow whole, viewpoints other than the one they already have.

            Both Slate and The Week, while yes, having a liberal POV, are hardly outside the mainstream of American politics. Just because you think anyone to the left of Genghis Khan is a commie doesn’t make it so.

            BTW I do not see why you would consider either of those articles “hagiography.” I know they’re not dripping with venomous vitriol about “tyranny” and such like nonsense, but they’re hardly hagiographic.

            And see, Jim, that’s where you beclown yourself. If even the mildest form of non-rightwing analysis is considered “hagiography” in your book, you reveal yourself as an inflexible ideologue who will never see anyone else’s point of view as having any validity whatsoever.

          • jim_m

            Yours very rarely has any validity.

            Let’s put it this way. You are upset because I think that it is wrong to write an article about obama without pointing out his multitude of flaws, his corruption, his dealing of favors to political donors etc.

            In a similar manner you and your fellow travelers from the left believe that it is wrong to talk about the US without bringing up the mistreatment of the American Indian, the Interment of Japanese during WWII, slavery and 300 years of oppression of the black man by primarily democrats, etc.

            So if you are uncomfortable with my attitude it is only because I am practicing exactly what your side preaches.

            I am making you live by your own rules. Get used to it.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not upset. You’re a hoot.

            If I think about the crazy shit you write here too long I do get a little sad, and feel a little guilty. Because it’s wrong to make fun of the mentally ill.

            So I don’t dwell on it.

        • Retired military

          Not an executive order that I know of but what about arbitrarily changing dates outlined in written law for Obamacare?
          Can a President simply say that if Law X specifies 1 Jan as a date as something the govt is supposed to do that that law (passed by Congress and either signed by the President or had a veto overridden) just doesn’t matter?

          What if a Republican president decided that “Hey Apr 15th is no longer tax day. In fact I have now changed the date you have to file 2013 taxes is now Dec 1, 2120”

  • fmorgan09mm

    Yes but this coupled with the evidence kits presented to congress on the forgery of his birth certificate, selective service card and social security numbers may impact the senate. They need to realize that they have now seen the evidence and.if.they do nothing they can have felony charges filed on them. This could bring the added senate votes needed.