Friday, January 6, 2012

THE BIGGEST LOSER...US, AS WE LOSE OUR COUNTRY

In 2008, President BO (the child president) criticized George Bush for making a recess appointment.

Now he has done the very thing he criticized Bush for.

He has bypassed Congress and invoked presidential recess appointment authority to appoint Richard Cordray to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In doing so he violated about 20 provisions of the Omnibus Spending bill.

He has also violated the Separations of Powers requirements of the Constitution, and has declared the senate to be in recess when it was not (the Senate was in "pro forma session" and technically not in recess).

He declared in a speech in Shaker Heights, Ohio, "When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them, I have an obligation to act on behalf of the American people."

With high sounding words and that big Joker like smile on his face, President BO (the child president) has made himself dictator.

I was ridiculed for saying he has a despotic personality. I was right, and that personality is beginning to reveal itself with more and more assurance as he becomes bolder and bolder in his quest for absolute power.

Here is the look of a despot:



Mitch McConnell declared, "What the president did today sets a terrible precedent that could allow any future president to completely cut the Senate out of the confirmation process, appointing his nominees immediately after sending their names up to Congress, this was surely not what the framers had in mind when they required the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate."

If he is allowed to get away with this, all of the accusations and warnings issued by the so-called “nut-job right” will have proven to be true.

And we will have lost our freedom and our right to speak out against what the government does or does not do.

We will have lost our country.

42 comments:

Ducky's here said...

Where you upset when Bush used a recess appointment to appoint a mentally ill individual, John Bolton, as U.N Ambassador?

Bush was a master of the recess appointment.

But as I explained at z's.

Good cop/bad cop

1. Obummer nominates his director of consumer protection and progressives think he may actually have a spine.

2. Republicans continue with a technicality that has nothing going on in Congress but still qualifies as being in session.

3. New appointee tries to do something. Maybe something like cracking down on a payday lender who's charging more vigorish than the local shark. Progressives think this is great.

4. Payday lender sues and has the ruling overturned. Conservatives rejoice that "big government" has been quashed.

5. Obummer has the last play and gets to tell everyone that he tried to help the people but the mean Republicans blocked him. All the time serving the financial sharks who are really his constituency.


So the democracy is working just fine for our corporate masters. Get wise people and quit falling for this crap.

Lone Ranger said...

Bush made recess appointments DURING RECESSES! The Senate was NOT in recess when Obama made this one. For someone who claims to have been a constitutional law professor (a lie, he's never been a professor of anything), Obama seems to have an abysmal ignorance -- or total disregard -- for our founding document. I'd say it's the latter, since all banana republic dictators have the same mindset. Hey, who needs Congress?

Craig said...

The Bushies toyed with the idea of challenging the legality of using pro forma sessions to block recess appointments. He still managed to make 171. Reagan, 243. Obama, 29. The Repub strategy is to abuse it, like they abuse the filibuster, and never technically be in session. Obama pulled the trigger. I guess the courts will sort it out. I don't think the Republic hangs in the balance.

Ducky. I've been disappointed by Obama but he did the right thing. I read your comment. Man, I thought I was cynical.

Craig said...

edit. I meant technically not in session. It's early.

Joe said...

Ducky: I have never approved of ANY move by ANY president that bypasses the checks-and-balances of Congress and/or the Supreme Court.

This particular appointment is a travesty, but any appointment by any president would have been.

But one of the major issues with this one is that it bypassed the Senate WHILE IT WAS STILL IN SESSION!

That's twice the problem.

LR: He has disregard for the Constitution...believes it to be a "flawed" (his very word) document.

He is destined to become our first dictator...black or otherwise.

Craig: Read my coment to Ducky. There are some things I have disapproved of in even our best presidents.

Joe said...

Ducky: I have never approved of ANY move by ANY president that bypasses the checks-and-balances of Congress and/or the Supreme Court.

This particular appointment is a travesty, but any appointment by any president would have been.

But one of the major issues with this one is that it bypassed the Senate WHILE IT WAS STILL IN SESSION!

That's twice the problem.

LR: He has disregard for the Constitution...believes it to be a "flawed" (his very word) document.

He is destined to become our first dictator...black or otherwise.

Craig: Read my coment to Ducky. There are some things I have disapproved of in even our best presidents.

Fredd said...

Joe:

Your blog is infested with liberals and their comments, you seem to attract pinkos to your posts like flies to honey.

Craig, Ducky, XO, Sue Hanes, all liberal trolls who really need to be ignored, and not argued with. You can see how they present their arguments (calling John Bolton mentally ill?).

Joe said...

Fredd: I have called the pest control company, but they don't have a poison strong enough to eradicate pests of this ilk.

sue hanes said...

In your not all that bad post you say that President Obama has the look of a despot - and really Joe -
maybe he does.

According to google's online dictionary a despot is a ruler with absolute power - and Joe -
I'm not so sure any President really has absolute power - what with Congress breathing down his neck, lobbyists and other riff raff that forever reside in Our Nation's Capital.



but joe - didja see the really cool tie that obama is wearing the the picture in your post?

Lisa said...

Obama came n to the scene as a charming intellect. But as time goes on his true despotic colors are showing through. I agree with you Joe,even was Reagan was mocking liberals he didn't do n with the arrogance of this president an also Obama does it so often to take the focus off of his own dismal performance.
He must have been practicing his techniques way before his 2004 DNC speech all knowing what his backers had planned for him

Fredd said...

Joe:

Calling the exterminator to rid your blog of these trolls does sound expedient, but the repellant that works every time it's tried:

Ignore them.

In time they go away to pester somebody else. It's much like the mooching bears in Yellowstone National Park: people used to feed them like kings with pie, Snickers bars and Twinkies. Then Ranger Smith laid down the law, and strictly forbade feeding these moochers. In time, the bears moved on to more lucrative feeding grounds, instead of the parking lots.

Craig said...

This particular appointment is a travesty, but any appointment by any president would have been.

Recess appointments are constitutional.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


But one of the major issues with this one is that it bypassed the Senate WHILE IT WAS STILL IN SESSION!

That's what he is challenging. A pro forma session, where no work is being done, and for the expressed purpose of denying the Pres. the ability to appoint the head of an agency created by law. A position the petulant Republicans said they wouldn't vote for anyone to fill. They couldn't defeat Dodd/Frank, constitutionally, so they are trying to nullify it with procedural gimmicks. For all you with your undies in a twist over the constitutionality, there is a remedy. Let it play out. I bet $1 the Supremes won't touch it.

Craig said...

Craig, Ducky, XO, Sue Hanes, all liberal trolls who really need to be ignored, and not argued with.

Unlike you, Fredd, Joe is a good guy and has the courage of his convictions. He allows dissenting views on his blog and has even, occasionally, tried to rebut the reasoned, fact based (and extraterrestrial in Sues' case) responses to his posts.

I, and I suspect Joe, enjoy mixing it up with people we don't agree with. If you want to stay in your bubble with like minds, do it.

BTW, Joe has called all Liberals mentally ill. I'll be faxing him the results of my latest Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory along with a dead horse. Proof I'm not ill. Disturbed, but not ill.

Ducky's here said...

Have to second that, Craig.

Joe kinda mystifies me. He is a decent sort and I wish him good health but his politics just don't make sense.

As much as he stereotypes liberals/leftists he does let them speak.

Xavier Onassis said...

I just did a search of the United States Constitution and Craig is absolutely correct. Recess appointments are absolutely Constitutional.

You know what I DIDN'T find in the Constitution?

The words "filibuster" or "pro forma".

They are decidedly NOT Constitutional.

Obama wins this one.

Ducky's here said...

That's a point they seem to ignore, Craig.

If the Senate minority uses a procedural stunt to deny Constitutional presidential power then everything's fine.

Myself, I do not believe Obama is particularly keen on giving this agency much power so this is moot in some regard. You are correct to point out that it is a very reasonable constitutional challenge and it most likely will end up in court.

Ducky's here said...

XO, the filibuster is a valid constitutional procedure since the Senate is explicitly allowed to make its own rules.

Of course if Dems use it effectively we get threats of the "nuclear option" if you recall that one.

We have a fringe right winger like Jim DeMint put a filibuster on ALL proposed legislation and not a peep out of that perversion from the Baggers. They want to turn the Senate into a far right freak show and call it democracy.

sue hanes said...

Joe - Did you know that Richard Cordray (according to google)
contested the Ku Klux Klan when they wanted to erect a Cross at the Ohio Statehouse?

Absolutely Crosses belong in front of or inside churches.


And Joe - Richard Cordray is smart.

Why he was an undefeated 5 time
champion on Jepordy and a Tournament of Champions Finalist.

Won $45,0000 that he wisely used - after taxes to pay off school debts and then get a used car - a USED car Joe - this guy's frugal.

He and his wife Peggy have two children - Danny and Holly.

And check out his profile picture
Joe - he really looks like a nice guy.


And he's wearing a nice Conservative tie.


And what's more he is described as an American Democrat.



what do you think about them apples Joe

Joe said...

Craig: I haven't heard anyone mention the MMPI since I was in college. Congratulations!

That sucker's so long and has so many similar, but slightly different responses, that it is one of the hardest tests ever devised to cheat on.

Xavier Onassis said...

Ducky - The problem with the modern filibuster is that the members of the Senate are a bunch of spineless panty waists who refuse to invoke aand require a PROPER filibuster.

"In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[36] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII."

This used to be a rarely used and quite entertaining procedure that actually required the Senator doing the filibustering to stand in the well of the Senate and orate continuously to keep the filibuster going. If they stopped talking, the filibuster was over and the business of the Senate could proceed.

A filibustering Senator would stand there and talk about their love of fly fishing, their favorite baseball games, the proper way to make a shrimp gumbo or just read the phone book. Other Senators would place bets on how long the filibustering Senator could hold out before he got too hoarse to speak, passed out from lack of oxygen or fell asleep! At which point the filibuster would be over.

This required a Senator feel pretty passionately about the Bill before the Senate to resort to such an extreme measure.

They don't do that any more.

Now, as you say, Jim Demint can just THREATEN to filibuster every single bill that comes before thr Senate to up the number of votes required to get anything passed.

But they don't require him to actually do the filibustering! They shoould! They should call his bluff! Make him get up there and speak until he can't speak any more. If one of his colleagues wants to take up the filibuster, that's fine. But make them actually FILIBUSTER!

Then we'll see how committed they really are to being do-nothing obstructionists. And the rest of the country can witness their absurd and childish behavior on C-Span.

Ducky's here said...

Agreed, XO. We have seen the Republican MINORITY block the will of the populace at all turns.

It's a disgrace.

Some of Joe's blogging buds are even claiming nonsense such as:

1. This violates the idea of Federalism.

2. This is an impeachable action.

Government has fallen to a completely unhinged minority. Currently in vogue is to scream "Federalism" every time a fringe nighty is blocked or out maneuvered (darn seldom).

Xavier Onassis said...

Ducky - Yeah, I would have to say that "...we will have lost our freedom and our right to speak out against what the government does or does not do.

We will have lost our country." is absurdly over the top hysteria.

What really happened is Obama called "BS" on that riduculous Pro Forma Session nonsense where someone walks in to an empty chamber, pounds a gavel and speaks to no one about nothing for 40 seconds before heading back home for another 3 days and laughingly referring to that as "Congress being in session".

It's about time Obama grew some cajones and called their bluff.

Let the Supreme Court sort it out. That's what they do.

Ducky's here said...

Yeah, it's so obvious you wonder why the right is whining so hard about this one.


Fredd, this is a pretty good discussion. Care to join are are you just going to turtle after the ad hominem attack?

Lone Ranger said...

Recess appointments are legal. However, they must be made when Congress is in RECESS!!!

Xavier Onassis said...

Tonto's Boyfriend - Congress WAS in Recess. Sending in the nearest Congerssional janitor to pound his gavel for 40 seconds does not constitute a Congressional Session.

Ever read Robert's Rules of Order" Do you know what a "quorum" is?

"Pro Forum Sessions" are complete and total BS.

Congress can't be "in session" if Congress isn't actually there and in session doing stuff.

Just like a Senator can't be filibustering if they aren't actually in the Senate speaking.

Fredd said...

Craig:

Consider yourself honored that I will respond to your comment.

"Joe, unlike you, is a good guy.'

OK. You just suggested that I am a bad guy.

"He allows dissenting views on his blog and has even, occasionally, tried to rebut the reasoned, fact based responses to his posts."

OK. My blog has conservative points of view. Liberals such as Ducky respond to my posts with 'you sick f-word,' you demented f-word,' and so on. THAT is a reasoned, fact based response?

Why on earth would I engage in entertaining meatheads such as this? It's pointless, Craig.

And you guys accuse Joe of being drunk, and disrepect him in a myriad of ways, I am fascinated that he still engages you guys.

I've been called a coward, gutless, and 'in my bubble,' as you've suggested.

When I come out of my bubble, and get attacked as a 'sick f-word', does that make me courageous?

No, and again, I must point out to you Craig, that there is no compromise between your liberal Marxist views and my conservative, Constitutional based views.

None whatsoever, so what's the point? NOTE: that last question is what we call a rhetorical question, and does not require a response. The answer is that there is no point arguing two diametrically opposed points of view, from two committed ideologues.

None whatsoever. I am committed to defeating your philosophy, and not engaging you and your minions in mindless debate that goes nowhere.

Good luck at the ballot box next November. You've had your day in the sun, and nobody likes the taint it gives off. We will mop the floor with you and yours in November. Take that to the bank, Craig, you heard it here first.

Xavier Onassis said...

Fredd - "The answer is that there is no point arguing two diametrically opposed points of view, from two committed ideologues.

None whatsoever. I am committed to defeating your philosophy, and not engaging you and your minions in mindless debate that goes nowhere.

Good luck at the ballot box next November. You've had your day in the sun, and nobody likes the taint it gives off. We will mop the floor with you and yours in November. Take that to the bank, Craig, you heard it here first."

That is both the funniest and most sadly pathetic thing I've read in a long time.

Have you not seen the economic numbers?

Unemployment is trending down!

New jobs are trending up!

Stocks are on the rise!

President Obama's economic policies are WORKING!

We're not in the depths of the depression that Dubya had us headed for.

We are recovering from a recession thanks to President Obama! Come election time, the Republicans won't have a rhetorical leg to stand on.

They will come across to the electorate as the petulant, whiney, mean spirited, small minded bigots they are.

There isn't a single Republican candidate that can win the Genral Election against Obama.

They should stop embarassing themselves and just give up.

Lisa said...

Unemployment is trending down!
New jobs are trending up!
Stocks are on the rise!

remember when unemployment was at an all time low and stocks at an all time high when Bush was president?. All we heard from the left is those are just McDonald's jobs and the stock market only makes rich people more rich.

If the economy was so great and unemployment was at or about 6% then Obama can say look how good my policies are working but instead he has to try and convince everyone that we are doing good when we aren't.

Obama has no interest in the economy. He never even mentioned "jobs" his first 3 years.
Nobody is fooled because when it comes right down to it people know what they feel and what they are going through.
Obama is the one embarrassing himself. Going around playing the blame game. It's getting pretty tired and people are tired of hearing it and frankly they are tired of listening to him and his stupid speeches of parting the waves and all his "theoretical" nonsense.

I am a little weary of anyone Obama appoints just by some of his past appointees.
I don't think one person should have the authority without congressional oversight to be in charge over the entire sector of something like consumer affairs. It's like in the Health Care law there are about 40 different laws that state "The Secretary Shall Decide"
Whatever that means.
That's the problem this president likes to go solos. He never tries to meet with Republicans so how can they work together when he is alwasy MIA?

I think Obama purposely instigates these situations so he can use it against them. Afterall his claim to fame was "Street Agitator"

Leticia said...

No matter how many times you point out the faults of the almighty Obama the liberals will never concede that he has done anything unconstitutional. And will always bring up President Bush as a rebuttle.

You just can't win with libs.

Fredd said...

Leticia:

My point exactly. You can't win an argument with liberals. Up is down. Right is wrong, wrong is right. Backwards is forwards, forward is backwards, blah blah blah.

You saw XO's rant: everything is just peachy, we are rocking and rolling with Obama's policies, with Obama as president, he is turning America into paradise on earth, with everyone singing Kumbaya in perfect harmony.

I think you see why arguing with these imbeciles is just pointless. WE CONSERVATIVES are the morons, idiots and imbeciles. We are the reason that people suffer. We are the reason that there is injustice.

If WE evil, horrible conservatives would just go away, if we would just shut up and empty our wallets into THEIR hands, everything would be good and just in Utopia. It is US that are standing in the way of heaven on earth. Just ask XO, Sue Hanes, Ducky, Craig and every other liberal who comes down the pike. They and only they know the truth. The rest of us must go to hell and simply die.

Nuts to that.

Xavier Onassis said...

Lisa - ""...remember when unemployment was at an all time low and stocks at an all time high when Bush was president?"

Unemployment at an ALL TIME low?

What unemployment numbers are you referring to?

The year with the highest unemployment rate ever recorded was in 1982. Ronald Reagan was President. Unemployment was at 10.8%.

The year with the lowest unemployment rate was 1953 when Dwight D. Eiesenhower inherited a 2.93% from Harry Truman.

You can find the numbers here: http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

Where are your sources?

Xavier Onassis said...

Fredd - Yeah, I imagine us liberals can be pretty annoying, what with us always citing actual FACTS and providing links to prove our FACTS.

When all conservatives have are manufactured Fox News talking points and fabricated RNC spin, actual FACTS can be very problematic.

I bet it makes your vestigal basal ganglia ache like crazy!

I'll just wait right here while you go google that.

Take all the time you need.

I'll give you a head start. Click on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_ganglia

Lone Ranger said...

Must be easy to be a liberal. All you have to do is label anything that contradicts with your beliefs a lie. Anyone who says things that contradict your beliefs? A liar, of course. It's easier than thinking.

Lessee if I have an Immutable Truth to fit that. Ah, here's one. #2. Never try to reason with a liberal. They disregard any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

I'll even throw in a bonus Talking Point: #21. To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell the truth.

FACTS don't seem to matter to liberals. For instance, awhile back the BBC and Reuters conducted a survey that showed Fox News to be the most trusted news outlet in the country.

Asked which news source they most trusted, 11 percent of Americans named Fox News - more than any other news source in the U.S.

Fox News led the broadcast networks by substantial margins, with ABC coming in at 4 percent, NBC - 4 percent and CBS - 3 percent.

Oh, and for those of you who demand a source whenever they have their back against a wall, here it is.

Ducky's here said...

LR, no "fact" has been established in the matter under discussion.

Is the Senate in session or is this an irrelevant procedural stunt? Obama thinks it is.

Therefore he makes the appointment and we will possibly have court review of the matter in the future.

Pretty straight forward. The Republican minority has effectively blocked all legislation in the Senate, that's the fact. Are all their maneuvers legal? Your opinion on that matter is not a fact.

Ducky's here said...

Asked which news source they most trusted, 11 percent of Americans named Fox News - more than any other news source in the U.S.

---------

So what?

11% of the populace (I think the figure is higher) is habitually misinformed. You proud of being in that group?

Craig said...

OK. You just suggested that I am a bad guy.

Fair enough. I have no idea if you are a good or bad guy. Joe makes sweeping generalizations about liberals that have nothing to do with reality. Joe sometimes resorts to ad homs or retreats when cornered on a fact and he's prone to hyperbole. What the hey, it's the internet. It's what people do. It's Joes' blog and he can do what he wants. I think Joe's a good guy because he doesn't delete (except some rambling, loopy ones) us who disagree. Occasionally a good discussion happens.

I have no idea what Ducky has written at your blog, here he conducts himself by Joes' rules. You included me in your list of trolls, someone Joe should ignore. I've never called you or Joe ignorant, a moron, a coward, whatever, only wrong. You call me a Marxist. I can only conclude, you have no idea what Marxism is.

If WE evil, horrible conservatives... go to hell and simply die.

Instead of telling me what I think, why not ask me.

We will mop the floor with you and yours in November.

It looks like Mittens. If I was the kind of person who engaged in insults, I'd say your prediction makes you Nostradumbass, but that would be beneath me.

Craig said...

...Fox News to be the most trusted news outlet in the country.

It is a fact that an opinion poll found 11% believed Fox was most trusted.

It's also a fact that Fox viewers are the most misinformed.

There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

Craig said...

11 percent of Americans named Fox News - more than any other news source in the U.S.

Lone, I looked at your source, did you? The most trusted news source is a local newspaper (81%).

The most trusted specific news sources mentioned without prompting by Americans include Fox News (mentioned by 11%), CNN (11%)...

You said,
Asked which news source they most trusted

They were asked which source, ie, newspaper, Network news, internet, etc. They weren't asked which specific news organization. Fox was mentioned, unprompted, by 11% as was CNN. Not only did you misrepresent the nature of the survey, you failed to include CNN, also at 11%.

Nevertheless, it's still an opinion survey and reveals nothing about the veracity of any news source.

Tim Reid, Thanks for your thoughts. Heckuva contribution.

Ducky's here said...

Odd that the only ones Joe attracts who are interested in a factual debate are Libs.

How come Timothy?

Please notice our rules of engagement require we only fire when fired upon.

Lone Ranger said...

LR, no "fact" has been established in the matter under discussion.

Is the Senate in session or is this an irrelevant procedural stunt? Obama thinks it is.

Why wasn't this a topic of discussion when the democrats pulled the same stunt when Bush was in office? The only standards liberals have are double standards.

Timothy Reids Thoughts said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

Why wasn't this a topic of discussion when the democrats pulled the same stunt when Bush was in office?

It was. In 2007, the Dems used a pro forma session to block the recess appointment of Steven Bradbury to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ. Bradbury was being blocked because of his involvement in writing and signing legal opinions that reinterpreted laws on torture. Those opinions were kept secret, not presented to Congress. Bush could have done what Obama did. He didn't because Bradbury was serving anyway as acting Assisting AG.

He stayed in that position longer than allowed by law and was forced out. Bush never put up anyone to fill the post after that. Bradbury and John P. Elwood, another lawyer in Bush's Office of Legal Council published an op-ed in The Washington Post in Oct. 2010 saying that they believed pro forma sessions were invalid as a way to prevent presidents from making recess appointments. So, yeah, it's been a topic of discussion.

The Repubs have been blocking the Cordray appointment because they don't like the CFPB. They can't stop it legislatively so they are using obstruction. They have said openly, they won't allow a vote on anyone to fill the post, effectively neutering the Bureau. Back door nullification.

You may be right, the courts might rule it unconstitutional. Bush could have challenged it. He was counseled to, but he didn't. Obama did. Stay tuned.