Quotes of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on January 6, 2012 by Allahpundit

“Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution states that neither house of Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of session every few days.

“The president and anyone else may object that the Senate is conducting ‘pro forma’ sessions, but that does not render them constitutionally meaningless, as some have argued. In fact, the Senate did pass a bill during a supposedly ‘pro forma’ session on Dec. 23, a matter the White House took notice of since the president signed the bill into law. The president cannot pick and choose when he deems a Senate session to be ‘real.’

“It does not matter one whit that most members of Congress are out of town and allow business to be conducted by their agents under unanimous consent procedures, because ending a session of Congress requires the passage of a formal resolution, which never occurred and could not have occurred without the consent of the House…

“President Obama’s flagrant violation of the Constitution not only will damage relations with Congress for years to come but will ultimately weaken the office of the presidency.”

***

“A prudent President would have sought the advice of the Attorney General on whether the so-called recess appointments were within the President’s constitutional power. But, when asked in a White House Press Briefing on January 5, 2012, whether the Department of Justice had provided a legal opinion to the President in advance of the recess appointments, the President’s press secretary would not say. Even if the White House is going to take the position that it will not release the contents of a legal opinion rendered by the Department of Justice on the ground that the contents are legally privileged from disclosure, it is odd that the White House would refuse to confirm or deny whether such a Department of Justice legal opinion even exists.

“It is reasonable that people are asking the White House whether a Department of Justice legal opinion was issued before the President made the purported recess appointments. The question of the existence or not of such a legal memo has a bearing on the judgment of the President. If such a Department of Justice memo exists, then at least the country knows that the President demonstrated at least some measure of prudence and thought in testing the outer limits of the Constitution by seeking in advance legal advice from the country’s chief legal officer.”

***

“Two of those given recess appointments — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin — were only nominated to the NLRB on December 15, just before the Senate went into its ‘pro forma’ session during which no business was to be conducted. Yet even had the Senate been conducting business over the holidays, neither Block nor Griffin could have been confirmed. As the Heritage blog reports, the Senate’s Health, Education, and Labor Committee had yet to receive the relevant paperwork and background materials on these two nominees — materials that are typically required, in addition to a background check, for Senate consideration. (The third nominee to receive a recess appointment to the NLRB was Republican Terry Flynn who had been nominated last January.)

“It is certainly possible — perhaps even likely — that Senate Republicans would have opposed confirmation of Block or Griffin, but we’ll never know. The two were given recess appointments before they could be considered, let alone opposed. In this regard, the Griffin and Block appointments were something of a preemptive strike.”

***

Only one Senate Democrat, out of 51 asked, told The Daily Caller that President Barack Obama was correct when he claimed the Senate was in recess Jan. 3. That’s the day Obama announced that he had exercised his executive authority to fill four top posts during a Senate recess…

“Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware said be believed the Senate was in a recess when Obama made the controversial appointments, according to a statement from his office…

“Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown also endorsed Obama’s decision. He’s in a tight race with liberal heroine Elizabeth Warren.”

***

“Congress has five options to respond to this power grab by the executive branch of the federal government:

“1. Filibuster all nominations and deny unanimous consent to the waiver of any rule with regard to nominations until these four unconstitutional appointments are rescinded

“2. Condition passage of all must-pass legislation on the rescission of these unconstitutional appointments

“3. Conduct vigorous oversight to demand the production of witnesses and documents supporting the president’s legal theory justifying this unprecedented power grab

“4. Make major cuts in funding of the NLRB and the Department of the Treasury where the CFPB was placed by its authorizing statute

“5. Pursue legal remedies to get those unconstitutionally appointed officials out of office.”

***

“David Plouffe, one of Mr. Obama’s senior political advisers, has argued in meetings at the White House that Republicans will overreach in their efforts to oppose the president’s initiatives. And administration officials believe that is what House conservatives did in the case of the payroll tax cut, with the Tea Party wing of House Republicans initially balking at a compromise deal that Senate Republicans had signed on to and sparking a backlash in the public. The refusal of Senate Republicans to allow many of Mr. Obama’s nominees to be confirmed, White House officials believe, could also end up hurting the Republicans, if it feeds the notion that they are standing in the way of the business of government.

“‘It is a matter of fact that the contenders for the Republican nomination have all endorsed and adopted the position espoused by the House Republicans’ in the recess appointment battle, a senior administration official said on Thursday. And that, administration officials have concluded, puts Mr. Obama at an advantage as he seeks to establish a narrative this year of him as the defender of middle-class Americans and the Republicans in Congress of the rich.

“So in the next few weeks, there will be more executive initiatives that will portray the president as refusing to wait on a hostile Congress to take action to help Americans, officials say.

“And there could be more recess appointments, if not in the coming days, then next month, when Congress is expected to recess over the Washington’s Birthday Day holiday.”

***

“President Obama’s executive power-grab this week — making four ‘recess’ appointments when the Senate isn’t in recess — is a mark not of his strength, but of his relative weakness. He is asserting an authority he does not possess through the Constitution because he has precious little personal authority left to assert.

“He had it and he lost it, and he can’t figure out how to get it back — so he’s just going to take it…

“Maybe it’s the best hand Obama has to play, but it’s not a very good hand. For one thing, the voters who have turned on him don’t think he has exercised too little power, but rather too much — so bragging about doing things without congressional sanction may not play well.

“Second, no matter how resolute he sounds, the fact that he has to act in a somewhat rogue manner is an expression of a profound loss of presidential authority — and one that he can’t successfully blame on Congress.”

***

“Two days after defying Republicans and appointing Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, President Obama visited the new agency to take a little time to gloat.

“Making a victory lap of sorts at the independent agency, Obama cracked a joke, telling employees that he came by to help their new director move in…

“Obama was welcomed by an extremely supportive crowd of bureau employees who loudly cheered his arrival and were especially boisterous when Cordray introduced himself as the official director of the agency. A lottery was held Thursday night to dole out seats to employees who wanted to attend the event.”



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

You called me unprincipaled. You say I’ve given up on the Constitution. You say Paul is trying to save our heritage from people like me.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:00 AM

If you vote for a politician that supported the NDAA then that that is precisely what I am saying. The NDAA is the bill that Obama signed on New Years Eve that allows the president to detain American’s taken on American soil indefinitely without trial or access to a lawyer or anything. It is a violation of the most fundamental precepts of our rights and of justice sort of the basis of the American Re\/olution, not to mention the Magna Carta.

The bill that all of the Republican presidential contenders supported except Ron Paul.

So, yes, I’m saying if you vote for a candidate like that—promote that— or who, like Romney and Newt, support unconstitutional authoritarian healthcare mandates granting the government domain over our very bodies, then yes, I would call that unprincipled.

But maybe I owe you an apology. We probably just have a different set of principles. Perhaps I just place more value in the liberty and justice than you do.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:24 AM

It’s only if you claim to support the Constitution but then give up on it that a person would be unprincipled. A principled person would defend the Constitution. Period.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Another thing about Paul that really turned me off was when I saw a video of him being asked by a 911 Truther why he won’t demand an investigation of the government’s “involvement” in 911.

He looked around the room, as if to see who was watching, then lowered his voice and said he had a lot on his plate already.

That positively disgusted me. The man pandered to this nutjob. He didn’t disavow the absurd allegation. Hell, even Bill Clinton had the decency (and rationality) to tell a 911 Truther to shut up and go away when he was confronted by one, but Paul did NOT.

That tells me he’s an opportunist who is pandering to anyone who will give him money and support.

Disgusting! Talk about no principles.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:27 AM

We probably just have a different set of principles. Perhaps I just place more value in the liberty and justice than you do.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Pfft.

You’re an ass. Go pound sand, you mindless drone.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is gut-check time. With these appointments on Wednesday, the Executive branch has determined that the document constraining the Federal government can be breached. This bold act has made every one of us less free. The President has thrown down the gauntlet. He has done this because he believes that we will be to afraid, too cowed, too swayed by political winds to take it up.
Will we sit back and discuss the political ramifications of taking back our freedom? Some of you might think that Obama will be defeated in November, so there is no reason to take any political fallout that will result from an impeachment. And there will be political ramifications. But what is more important, losing a political battle or showing the government that there is never a good time to take away our freedom?
I wish we could beat Obama in November. I think we can. But why should we be blackmailed into thinking that the Government can take our freedoms because it is an election year?
I am genuinely worried that if we bang the drums for impeachment, it will help Obama in November. But I still say that our freedoms are more important. Why if god’s name should we allow this tyrant the luxury of being in the White House, paid for with our tax dollars without knowing that we will not stand for this?

We are a Nation of Laws, not Men.

“Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them”

Joffen on January 7, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Still got a little place in Taos for skiing and it’s really nice in the summer, too, but I don’t go anywhere near Sante Fe. Sante Fe’s very much like a woman you once loved but who changed so much you just want to be on the other side of street of as you walk by her.

TXUS on January 7, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Ron Paul is the only candidate that opposed the unconstitutional NDAA.
Ron Paul is the only genuine, principled candidate still in the race.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a credible plan to balance the budget.
Ron Paul is is far from perfect, but the other candidates represent everything that is wrong with our country.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Joffen on January 7, 2012 at 1:30 AM

I’m for impeachment. And conviction. But the Senate won’t convict him.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:34 AM

You’re an ass. Go pound sand, you mindless drone.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:29 AM

In other words there’s no way for you to refute it because it’s true.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:34 AM

Ron Paul is the only candidate that opposed the unconstitutional NDAA.
Ron Paul is the only genuine, principled candidate still in the race.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a credible plan to balance the budget.
Ron Paul is is far from perfect, but the other candidates represent everything that is wrong with our country.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Mindless drone droning.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:35 AM

In other words there’s no way for you to refute it because it’s true.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:34 AM

You remind me of Pee Wee Herman.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Still got a little place in Taos for skiing and it’s really nice in the summer, too, but I don’t go anywhere near Sante Fe. Sante Fe’s very much like a woman you once loved but who changed so much you just want to be on the other side of street of as you walk by her.

TXUS on January 7, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Santa Fe is pretentious – got invaded by a bunch of artiste types.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:36 AM

I’m for impeachment. And conviction. But the Senate won’t convict him.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:34 AM

Heck no, a few weeks ago they all voted to pass an unconstitutional bill of their own that was actually signed into law, (as apposed to a throwaway bill)—after all the the insider trading and backroom deals and shoving down our throats, they probably don’t want to bring too much scrutiny down on Obama for his transgressions against the Constitution.

Unprincipled.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Unprincipled.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:37 AM

…Referring to Congress in this case.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:38 AM

I’m for impeachment. And conviction. But the Senate won’t convict him.

Let me put this into doubt. It has been said that if you were in the Senate Cloak Room, and said, “Excuse me, Mr. President” they would all turn around. Senators believe themselves to be “Little Presidents”. They are prideful. That is the difference between this unconstitutional act, and say, Libya. This hits them where they live. What the President did took away some of their power. A lot of them will still be in office long after the President finishes a second term. Obviously, I will do my best to prevent a second term, but the point still stands.

Do you honestly think that when push comes to shove they will actually allow the Executive Branch to take some of their power?

Joffen on January 7, 2012 at 1:39 AM

dukecitygirl

You missed Step 1.

The House, under Boehner, doesn’t have the guts, testicles or love of our Constitutional form of government to bring Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

The fox is not only in the chickenhouse, he now owns the place.

Horace on January 7, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Do you honestly think that when push comes to shove they will actually allow the Executive Branch to take some of their power?

Joffen on January 7, 2012 at 1:39 AM

The Donks will. And they control the Senate.

And we have betrayers like Scott Brown.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:41 AM

The House, under Boehner, doesn’t have the guts, testicles or love of our Constitutional form of government to bring Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

The fox is not only in the chickenhouse, he now owns the place.

You do realize that we can put pressure on them, right? Are we that willing to let our freedom be taken from us?

Joffen on January 7, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Horace on January 7, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Oh I think you’re right – on their own they don’t have the guts.

But I think if we marched on DC and demonstrated, screaming for it, they might get some cojones and go for it.

These people are in a bubble. Unless we hold their feet to the fire, they won’t do squat.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:43 AM

“Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown also endorsed Obama’s decision.

Oh. You were surprised, were you?

Cleombrotus on January 7, 2012 at 1:45 AM

You do realize that we can put pressure on them, right? Are we that willing to let our freedom be taken from us?

Joffen on January 7, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Hasn’t worked so far.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:47 AM

Joffen

Oh, you poor naive soul.

Do you have any idea how many faxes, emails, letter, phone calls, tweets, Tea Party rallies and other pressure was put on Congress not to pass ObamaCare? Do you really think anyone in Congress cared or even looked at or listened to them?

Ah, but you remind me of the innocent days of my yute – the days when elected representatives represented the people who elected them, who fought for their people against Washington, who listened to the people, who were re-elected because they represented the people’s will.

Now it is money. You got $10 million to pay lobbyists to badger those in Congress to get this going? No, you don’t. Neither do I.

The Praetorian Guard answers only to Caesar. Pay your taxes and keep your mouth shut.

Horace on January 7, 2012 at 1:49 AM

Horace on January 7, 2012 at 1:49 AM

But Congress was controlled by the Donks. They wouldn’t have listened to us no matter what. We certainly let them know where we stood on the matter and that counts. It made them look worse for foisting this on an unwilling people.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Joffen on January 7, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Sorry, I read your comment out of context. I thought you meant we could pressure a RINO congress or WH to cut spending.

Regarding impeachment, I’m not against it as long as the American people are for it. Otherwise we’d have to be very careful not to get trapped.

Unfortunately the way banana republics work is that the beloved leader can get away with a lot if s/he has the people with him. In this case Obama doesn’t entirely have the people but he could get them back if Republicans play their cards wrong, and the Republican Party is really good at playing their cards wrong. That’s all they’ve ever done in my lifetime.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:54 AM

FloatingRock:

Ron Paul is the only candidate that opposed the unconstitutional NDAA.

It’s not unconstitutional. You only wish it was.

Ron Paul is the only genuine, principled candidate still in the race.

Your opinion. In my opinion, he’s an egotistical lunatic, who manipulates followers like you by telling you what he knows you want to hear.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a credible plan to balance the budget.

Credible is in the eye of the beholder. Once again, this is nothing more than your opinion.

Ron Paul is is far from perfect, but the other candidates represent everything that is wrong with our country.

Once again, this is from your point of view, only. Ron pork project Paul is an unaccomplished congressional representative who has done nothing but talk about reining in big government, while getting earmarks, that he claims to oppose, for his district. He’s a hypocrite, and his foreign policy of isolationism (no, sorry, it’s not non-interventionism) is suicidal.

I would vote for Obama before I voted for him. And I despise what Obama has done with every fiber of my being!

JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Why in the world is Fox News tagging the guy with “Bureau Chief” when he was obviously unconstitutionally appointed? All that they are doing is helping Obama’s lie.

Does anybody else feel as if they are watching the Republic unravel in front of their eyes?

Theophile on January 7, 2012 at 1:58 AM

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 1:43 AM

As much as I would love it, no way the House would impeach nor the Senate convict and thus dethrone this President, no matter what he did. He is genetically (read, ethnically) immunized, so to speak. The only way we rid the nation of his tyranny and abject arrogance is by replacing him in November. If we fail to do so, we will be hanged, as well we should. Either by the government or our own children.

TXUS on January 7, 2012 at 1:58 AM

TXUS on January 7, 2012 at 1:58 AM

I’m afraid I agree with you. They won’t do a thing but make some feeble verbal protests. I think they fear that if they pursue impeachment, it might draw sympathy and support for Obama and jeopardize the election for the GOP candidate.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 2:00 AM

JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Amen.

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 2:01 AM

In other words there’s no way for you to refute it because it’s true.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 1:34 AM

No. Because a sycophantic bot like you won’t listen to or face the truth. Because a little bot like you would rather see obama be re-elected and continue his destruction of America so that you can feel smug. Because you are so besotted by ronpaul that you are unable to see that he’ll change absolutely nothing…that he’ll be the same sort of ‘president’ as obama…and that ronpaul would have even less scruples about *dictating* and ruling rather than governing and leading.
I’d worry more about being “disappeared” or sent to a ‘camp’ by a ronpaul regime than I do under the present regime.

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 2:02 AM

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Never go full retard.

John the Libertarian on January 7, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Thanks John! (my kids were home from school and were watching that last week-ironic)

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 2:03 AM

here’s the latest from McCain….and we wonder how we got here?

this guy may have been good in 2000…but he’s way past prime..these guys need to retire, go out to the pasture, leave…don’t let the door hit you on the way out…you get my drift

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/07/oops-video-mccain-calls-romney-president-obama/

just watch the vid…McCain is phoning it in just like he did in 2008…retired on the job…keeps getting propped up

r keller on January 7, 2012 at 2:04 AM

I would vote for Obama before I voted for him.

JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 1:57 AM

That figures

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 2:05 AM

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 2:02 AM

POW!!! BAM!!!

Bravo!

dukecitygirl on January 7, 2012 at 2:06 AM

I’d worry more about being “disappeared” or sent to a ‘camp’ by a ronpaul regime than I do under the present regime.

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of history. It is authoritarian big-gov that is dangerous, not the freedom and liberty of small-gov.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 2:11 AM

dukecitygirl

No, they don’t think it will cause support or sympathy for Obama.

They KNOW it will cause riots in the street across the country by Holder’s “people.” And it would. As another poster said, Obama is ethnically immunized from any impeachable acts.

The only solution is to get rid of him in 2012. Even then there are likely to be riots, but he will be gone and the riots can be contained.

If not, better load up the guns and aim them at Fort Sumter again, because that is where we might be headed.

Horace on January 7, 2012 at 2:23 AM

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 2:11 AM

And you think ronpaul will bring about “small government” because he says so? Based on what, exactly? His sterling record of accomplishments in congress? Perhaps his faithful adherence to his principles by not adding earmarks to any…..oh, wait. Well, his obvious agherence to Constitutional principles of equal treatment under the law…except for black youths? Ummm, not that, I guess.
What makes you think that ronpaul would accomplish anything at all…when he hasn’t accomplished anything more than beating his gums and getting rich while in congress?

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 2:24 AM

And you think ronpaul will bring about “small government” because he says so?

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 2:24 AM

No, I expect him to try.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Goodnight all. It’s been real – and I’ve enjoyed the hell out of it.

And, Goodnight, America…wherever you are.

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 2:29 AM

And you think ronpaul will bring about “small government” because he says so?

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Do you think Ron Paul would have signed Obama/Romneycare? Would he have signed the NDAA that allows the president to violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens indefinitely? No way to both, there is no question he would veto it. Ron Paul was the only candidate wise enough to oppose the NDAA. That’s the importance of the veto.

In fact I don’t expect that things will change overnight if Ron Paul is elected POTUS because Congress will slow him down, and maybe it will be for the best in some cases. President Paul can use the bully pulpit to make his case to the American people for the Constitution and Congress can make theirs. I suspect that he’ll be able to accomplish a lot, and if Congress doesn’t play along then they are going to continue to suffer high turnover.

FloatingRock on January 7, 2012 at 2:38 AM

Derrangement on display, nothing new here………….

residentblue on January 7, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 2:02 AM

You have no clue what you’re talking about.

Have a nice day.

gyrmnix on January 7, 2012 at 3:46 AM

“President Obama’s flagrant violation of the Constitution not only will damage relations with Congress for years to come but will ultimately weaken the office of the presidency break the Constitution, as intended.”

The author was going gangbusters up to that point.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 7, 2012 at 4:33 AM

FloatingRock:

Ron Paul is the only candidate that opposed the unconstitutional NDAA.

It’s not unconstitutional. You only wish it was.

Ron Paul is the only genuine, principled candidate still in the race.

Your opinion. In my opinion, he’s an egotistical lunatic, who manipulates followers like you by telling you what he knows you want to hear.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a credible plan to balance the budget.

Credible is in the eye of the beholder. Once again, this is nothing more than your opinion.

Ron Paul is is far from perfect, but the other candidates represent everything that is wrong with our country.

Once again, this is from your point of view, only. Ron pork project Paul is an unaccomplished congressional representative who has done nothing but talk about reining in big government, while getting earmarks, that he claims to oppose, for his district. He’s a hypocrite, and his foreign policy of isolationism (no, sorry, it’s not non-interventionism) is suicidal.

I would vote for Obama before I voted for him. And I despise what Obama has done with every fiber of my being!

JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 1:57 AM

I agree with everything JannyMae said, except I will never vote for Obama or the absolute nut, conspiracy theorist, isolationist, anti-Zionist Ron Paul. I will vote Third-Party before I ever consider committing harakiri before I ever consider voting for either one of those two, in that very specific order.

John Hitchcock on January 7, 2012 at 5:12 AM

urban elitist on January 6, 2012 at 10:48 PM

So, if Speaker Gingrich were to become the new president, and one of his very first acts as president is to issue an executive order eliminating every bureaucrat that Obama has put into position by bypassing Congress, which he has promised to do, you’ll be fine with that?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Flora Duh on January 7, 2012 at 5:13 AM

Is it me, or does that pic of Cordray look like he just p00ped himself?

askwhatif on January 7, 2012 at 6:16 AM

There will be 10 more months of this folks. And, katy bar the door when the obamanation loses on Nov. 7th…

Btw, Reid will do all he can to help further the (mis)administration’s socialist agenda between now and when the new President is sworn in a year from now…

p.s. WPS

Gohawgs on January 7, 2012 at 6:19 AM

Cordray’s power stymied by 2010 law that created his new agency

President Barack Obama says he has used his executive authority to make Richard Cordray the director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that Democrats claim will protect Americans from the nation’s huge financial-services industry.

But an obscure paragraph in the 2010 law that created the bureau may keep Cordray in check unless the Senate formally approves of his hiring — an approval Obama sought to circumvent by making him a so-called “recess” appointment.

Section 1066 of the law says many of the bureau’s new powers are to be held by the secretary of the Treasury “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate.”

That legal technicality ensures that Cordray’s power will be legally crippled, said Roger Pilon, the founder and director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies…

Flora Duh on January 7, 2012 at 6:47 AM

“..just do it, you don’t neeed to follow no stiiinkin’ con-stituuution.”
- Jarrett, into O-jerkface’s ear.

askwhatif on January 7, 2012 at 7:03 AM

“..just do it, you don’t neeed to follow no stiiinkin’ con-stituuution.”
- Jarrett, into O-jerkface’s ear.

askwhatif on January 7, 2012 at 7:03 AM

Yes, that newly released book sort of verifies what most of us have suspected all along.

Flora Duh on January 7, 2012 at 7:07 AM

Andrew McCarthy analyzes how Obama skirts the democratic process and how the Republicans have been ineffectual in defining and defeating the problem.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287424/obama-skirts-democratic-process-andrew-c-mccarthy

onlineanalyst on January 7, 2012 at 7:28 AM

So, if Speaker Gingrich were to become the new president, and one of his very first acts as president is to issue an executive order eliminating every bureaucrat that Obama has put into position by bypassing Congress, which he has promised to do, you’ll be fine with that?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Flora Duh on January 7, 2012 at 5:13 AM

I don’t think you’re really getting it, Flora Duh. There’s a big difference between Gingrich and Obama, between Republican and Democrat: in a nutshell, one is bad and the other is good. Republicans interfere with state business and prevent needed reform; Democrats prevent evil capitalists from exploiting the poor. Get it now? I hope so. (sarc)

Burke on January 7, 2012 at 7:30 AM

I don’t think you’re really getting it, Flora Duh. There’s a big difference between Gingrich and Obama, between Republican and Democrat: in a nutshell, one is bad and the other is good. Republicans interfere with state business and prevent needed reform; Democrats prevent evil capitalists from exploiting the poor. Get it now? I hope so. (sarc)

Burke on January 7, 2012 at 7:30 AM

*gives myself the V-8 forehead slap*

How could I forget that?

//

Flora Duh on January 7, 2012 at 7:38 AM

O/T,Heads Up!
=============

2012 Primary Debate Schedule
*****************************

Here is the most up-to-date and complete schedule we have for the 2011 / 2012 Republican Primary debates. These debates are between all the Republican candidates. For the schedule of debates between the Republican nominee and President Barack Obama, see the 2012 Presidential Debate schedule page. Upcoming debates are listed at the top. Scroll down for past debates including the full video of each debate.
============

January 7, 2012
***************

9pm ET / 6pm PT on ABC – Live Stream
Location: Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire
Sponsor: ABC News and WMUR
Participants: Santorum, Romney, Paul, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman

AND,Early Bird!

January 8, 2012
***************

9am ET on NBC=====================(Yes, 9am)
Location: Chubb Theatre at the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, NH
Sponsor: NBC News, Facebook and the Union Leader
Participants: Santorum, Romney, Paul, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/

canopfor on January 7, 2012 at 7:48 AM

canopfor on January 7, 2012 at 7:48 AM

Thanks for the info. Don’t know if I’ll be watching Sunday, I don’t think I can stomach David ‘The Grand Wizard’ Gregory that early in the morning.

Flora Duh on January 7, 2012 at 7:54 AM

O/T,Intell Alert!
——————

California Dream Act foes fail

to get needed 500,000 signatures to put immigrant law repeal on ballotStory metadata:
Submitted 7 hours ago from http://www.latimes.com by editor
=========

5 p.m. filling deadline for Ill. Primary passes:

Obama, Romney, Paul, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Roemer. No John Huntsman. #Decision2012Story metadata:
Submitted 13 hours ago from twitter.com/nbcchicago by editor
=========

Freddie Mac to grant breaks on mortgage payments

for up to a year for unemployed homeowners – @chicagotribuneStory
metadata:
Submitted 13 hours ago from http://www.chicagotribune.com by editor
========

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on January 7, 2012 at 7:56 AM

canopfor on January 7, 2012 at 7:48 AM
————————————–
Thanks for the info. Don’t know if I’ll be watching Sunday, I don’t think I can stomach David ‘The Grand Wizard’ Gregory that early in the morning.

Flora Duh on January 7, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Flora Duh:I hear ya,wee bit too early,I would imagine,the Debate
Re-Play video,will be ready,after 12 noon!!

Oh,gots more info to come:)

canopfor on January 7, 2012 at 7:59 AM

NBC are such pagans. Debating at 9am on a Sunday. I suppose it never occured to them that people go to church on a Sunday.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on January 7, 2012 at 8:02 AM

I suppose it never occured to them that people go to church on a Sunday.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on January 7, 2012 at 8:02 AM

NBC. Need I say more? /

Flora Duh on January 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Flora Duh on January 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM

NBC must stand for: No Body’s Christian… LOL!

Aslans Girl on January 7, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Aslans Girl on January 7, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Well I’ll be in church…

OmahaConservative on January 7, 2012 at 8:32 AM

O/T,
====

Ron Paul wins pay-to-play Idaho GOP straw poll – IdahoStatesman.com
Story

metadata:
Submitted 7 hours ago from http://www.idahostatesman.com by editor
==========

Detroit airline bomber @freep tweeted:

#Breaking: Federal judge denies underwear bomber’s request for new lawyer

http://t.co/f1zXcgmGStory metadata:
Submitted 21 hours ago from twitter.com/freep by partner
==========

politics tweeted:

#BREAKINGNEWS: White House proposes 0.5% pay increase for federal workers

http://t.co/vjnzaTFkStory metadata:
Submitted 21 hours ago from twitter.com/postpolitics by partner
=========

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on January 7, 2012 at 8:32 AM

I think we’re finding out that we have no one on our side. The current crop of dems will follow Obummer in lock step to assist him and the group of repubs are too afraid of the media and the chance that they might lose an election to do anything. That’s the gridlock we are in now.
Bam must really want something bad out of the NLRB to use the recess appointment thing for the latest two. He should be more aware the faster he moves on anything.

Kissmygrits on January 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM

O/T,
===

New Zealand hot air balloon crash:

Police confirm people on board were five couples from the wider Wellington region

– @TVNZNewsStory metadata:
Submitted 14 hours ago from tvnz.co.nz by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/
==============================

11 killed as burning balloon crashes – Helicopter Footage and Eyewitness Report
Added: 13 hours ago Occurred On: Jan-6-2012
*****************

Five couples from greater Wellington region and pilot died in balloon crash. Balloon crash witness David McKinlay from Carterton saw the crash. A nurse who was one of the first on the scene of today’s fatal hot air balloon crash in Wairapara risked her life trying to save the lives of two people who had tried to jump clear.
(More….)
==========

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e0_1325893593

canopfor on January 7, 2012 at 8:43 AM

This action is part of the new Obama re-elect theme……

KISS THE RING AMERICA!………Obama 2012.

PappyD61 on January 7, 2012 at 9:02 AM

If you don’t think that the debate was scheduled on Sunday morning for a purpose, I’ve got two bridges over the Mississippi River @ Memphis to see you.

kingsjester on January 7, 2012 at 9:08 AM

And seriously….the gop (lowercase earned) isn’t gonna do shinola!

Scott “naked boy” Brown and the whole bunch of Lilly livered PANTYWAIST republicans aren’t interested in anything but re-election and where the next lobbyist bought meal and fundraiser are.

And WE VOTED FOR these clowns!

We get what we lazily accept Amerika.

PappyD61 on January 7, 2012 at 9:08 AM

That’s “sell” you.

kingsjester on January 7, 2012 at 9:10 AM

I have a friend who works at the CFPB and says all of the hiring has been totally political. It’s a nest of liberal activists who now have career civil service jobs and cannot be fired. My friend is a liberal and even he is disgusted by what he is seeing there and is looking for a other job. Many of the people there came from Soros-funded groups like the Center for Responsible Lending, or were in Elizabeth Warren’s coterie from Harvard Law School.

Oh, and the Administration has done a very clever thing with this new agency, changing its name from what is in the statute. The law named it the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. With no legal authority at all, the Admninistration just changed it to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, of course to put the word “Consumer” first and not “bureau.”

rockmom on January 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM

President Obama’s executive power-grab this week — making four ‘recess’ appointments when the Senate isn’t in recess — is a mark not of his strength, but of his relative weakness. He is asserting an authority he does not possess through the Constitution because he has precious little personal authority left to assert.

This is a sad characteristic — blustering all sorts of nonsense and claiming great power, all the while knowing how weak and pathetic he truly is. Reminds me of Amadmaninadinnerjacket in Iran. Just pathetic.

Jaibones on January 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM

“Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown also endorsed Obama’s decision. He’s in a tight race with liberal heroine Elizabeth Warren.”

Need anyone say more about that, that, thing we helped elect?

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 7, 2012 at 11:16 AM

gyrmnix on January 7, 2012 at 3:46 AM

Then, prove me wrong, paulbot.
All I see from ronpaul is neo-fascism on display; and a money grubbing little whiner that hasn’t got the stones to admit his own hypocrisy. He won’t even acknowledge that he wrote his own newsletter – including articles that appeared over HIS signature – but tries to tell people he “doesn’t know who wrote the racist articles”.
If he can’t even control who writes racist and anti-semitic articles in the newsletter that – supposedly – represents HIS thoughts and ideas for America, how is he going to maintain control of America’s government? Unless, of course, he DID write the articles. Which brings ub back to him being a lying racist hypocrite without the stones to take responsibility for his own works.

Paul is just another conman who’s making a fine living from malcontents and assorted neo-fascists. He’ll never be president.

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I suppose it never occured to them that people go to church on a Sunday.

Aslans Girl on January 7, 2012 at 8

Of course it did. Why do you think they selected that time?

Solaratov on January 7, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3