Voting for Any Obama AG is Voting for Corruption

This week ten purported Republicans joined the most power mad president in American history to confirm his next candidate for Attorney General, mz. Loretta Lynch. These so-called Republicans cited presidential privilege in their votes but at this point any vote for anything Obama wants is a vote for pure corruption, not the American way.

In the normal course of American history, it has been traditional to pay deference to a president’s nominations. This is a sensible practice because when a president wins election–especially if he has been given anything like a mandate vote—it is expected that he has been given the nod by the people to attempt to implement his own policies.

So, in the normal scheme of things a president should be able to expect a chance to get his handpicked team in place to do just that.

However, the founders never, ever expected a president to have a completely free hand to do any old thing he wants. Aside from being expected to abide by the Constitution, the president must also obey the decision of the upper chamber. The Founders put in place what is commonly called “advice and consent” giving the Senate the opportunity to give a final up or down vote on those nominees (and on ratifying treaties with foreign powers). This system was put in place in case a president seems to have proven that his personal grab for power was more important to him than our national character, our history and the rule of law.

The fact is, the Senate’s job is to confirm based on whether or not a nominee will obey the US Constitution–not whether that candidate is merely “qualified.”

In the case of our current president, Obama has proven to be the worst of all worlds where it concerns corruption. He is unconcerned with the desires of voters, he despises our history, our national character, our laws and our ideals. He wants to wipe out America as it is and “fundamentally change” her into something that the founders never wanted nor imagined.

Obama has spent his entire presidency ignoring the law–in fact breaking it–and invoking “executive authority” to do anything he wants to do in order to destroy the country as it is and to remake it into something it should never be.

In the case of Obama and Lynch, giving him the normal deference afforded past presidents is an act of anti-Americanism and ten Republicans did just that.

Lynch virtually told the Senate outright that as the US Attorney General she would not uphold the law. During her hearings she said at various times that she would work to give illegal aliens a pass on the law, she would not investigate Hillary Clinton for her illegal email servers, would work to undermine the Second Amendment and would push abortion. She also signaled that she didn’t think there was any limits at all about what a president could do using executive action–Constitution be damned.

Despite that, Obama’s newest AG nominee received the “yes” votes of Kelly Ayotte (NH), Thad Cochran (MS), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), Orrin Hatch (UT), Ron Johnson (WS), Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

So, in voting to confirm, these ten Republicans voted against the law, against the Constitution and against the American way. Each of these Republicans didn’t merely buck their party and their voters, they proved themselves to be actual traitors to the country.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
OPEN THREAD: Did Clint Eastwood Threaten to Kill Michael Moore? Wait 'Til You Hear His Answer
  • Paul Hooson

    As uninspiring as Obama’s nominations often are, one Republican senator essentially felt that she was probably an “improvement” over Eric Holder. That’s hardly inspiring either, but probably true. – If it took this vote to get Eric Holder to resign, then it was probably well worth it…I suppose if you don’t get the AG choice right the first time, try, try again….Just ask Edwin Meese…

    • Retired military

      Paul
      What a low bar you set.

      • Paul Hooson

        Absolutely. I have this little faith in Obama’s lightweight appointments. A stronger manager appoints stronger managers…

  • Par4Course

    We’d be better off keeping Eric Holder as AG? I know it’s not much of a choice.

    • Paul Hooson

      No, Holder was too troubled where a breath of fresh air was needed from someone new. We have yet to see how well she performs for the last part of two years, but I expect less controversy from her at least than Holder. I was never a Holder fan to begin with, so I was not surprised what we got. Holder was worse in some areas than I expected, but was better in some other areas than I expected. Obama just keeps up these lightweight appointments to positions that really disappoint me.

  • Mjolnir

    It’s not like Obama would nominate for AG anybody who would oppose his moves or do anything but use the DoJ as a shield for Obama and favored Democrats (e.g. NOT Menendez). Their first requirement is not to the Constitution or to obedience to the law, but loyalty to the President and to the Party.
    In this regard, Lynch is probably no better than Holder – a defender of corruption and lawlessness.

  • jim_m

    Not voting for corruption, but more like an admission that nothing can be done for at least another year and a half.

  • Retired military

    I expected nothing less from RINOs like McCuckold McConnel and Grahamnesty.

    • Paul Hooson

      Replacing Holder with anyone new at this point was worthwhile enough and worth the measured low risk.

  • superdestroyer

    Who cares? since the chance of the Repubican ever controlling the executive branch again is shrinking, conservative have to adjust to the idea that the Democrats are going to control the White House and Democrats are always going to control the Justice Department. Maybe Repulbicans should have spent more time thinking about the laws that they were passing back during the Reagan and two Bush Administration so that enforcement of those laws would not be so dependent on the personalities of the people in charge of the executive branch.

    • jim_m

      Yeah, because the dems are going to in the WH with no white voters. Obviously you have been reading too much lefty propaganda.

      The dems have a major problem with the majority. They are continuing to dig themselves a deeper hole. The GOP just needs to stop itself from alienating thheir base (not an easy task for a party establishment that does this routinely).

      • superdestroyer

        The Republican can win 60% of the white vote and still not be competitive in a presidential election. Considering that the U.S. is only 62% white and that number is shrinking. The Democrats know that every demographic trend is in their favor. If the Republican go along with comprehensive immigration reform, there is no longer be a relevant conservative party in the U.S.

        • Wild_Willie

          Your skewed outlook only applies if the dem’s get ALL Hispanic votes, Jewish votes and Asian. Homosexuals and blacks together make up about 22% of the population as a whole about half may vote. So believe what you want to, but Obama has hurt this country and Hillary is carrying his luggage. ww

    • Wild_Willie

      Ah! In my lifetime, liberals said after Nixon republican’s won’t ever get the WH again. After Clinton and the impeachment liberals stated republicans won’t get the WH. After GW Bush liberals say again the republicans won’t get the WH. Who should I believe? History or a liberal wishing? ww

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    The GOP has the same problem as Fox News. When they lose a voter or viewer, well, they really “lose” them.