Obama circumvents Constitution with ‘signing statements’ after blasting Bush

by
December 27, 2016

ObamaPresident Obama said Friday that the annual defense policy bill Congress sent him violated the Constitution — but he signed it anyway.

Instead of a veto, Mr. Obama issued a statement saying he would modify the law in its execution so he carries it out the way he thinks meets constitutional muster.

Mr. Obama promised during the 2008 campaign not to engage in issuing signing statements. He said that kind of behavior was a dark spot on the presidency of George W. Bush. But in the years since, Mr. Obama has become a regular practitioner, issuing more than 20 signing statements purporting to alter the way Congress wrote laws.

Over the past few weeks, the president has issued three signing statements shaping congressionally approved legislation, including one on water projects and one on fishing rights in the Pacific. In the defense policy bill, Mr. Obama lodged a long list of objections and described how he would carry them out in ways he deemed appropriate under previous laws or the Constitution.

The White House and its Office of Management and Budget, which is responsible for analyzing legislation, did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the signing statements, but administration critics said they constituted evidence of hypocrisy.

  • PoorPitifulPearl

    Please notice that this Potus is left-handed. Sinistral is the term for left-handedness, but it doesn’t mean “sinister.” I, like my grandfather before me, along with my younger sister and my grandson are all sinistral. It really irks us to see this man take his left hand to pass his SINISTER rules and regulations. He gives left-handedness a bad name. There are so few of us, we don’t want to be associated with him in any way, shape, or form. He’s an oxymoron at best.

  • Bill

    AMF…………..

  • CharlieSeattle

    Presidential signing statements do not carry the weight of law.

  • Patriot47

    J20 is imminent. Skippy can be cured after J20.

  • D-MN HYPOCRITE!!!

  • This is not the first time obama has circumvented the Constitution, with him, it’s a habit. Now he’s just trying to carry out his “…change America fundamentally….” His attack on Israel, these signings, executive orders, added regulations – obama is doing everything he can to disrupt President-elect Trump. This should show even his avid supporters that he doesn’t care about America and his agenda comes first . He is also dragging his faithful along with him, which is only to disrupt America, and protect his so-called legacy. Now, he is doing everything he and his minions can do to keep America from becoming,”Great Again” – what a rat. As far as i’m concerned he can’t get out fast enough.

  • Swampfox48

    Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka “the Dung King”, aka “the false prophet”, aka “the evil one”, aka “the puppet” aka “nothing” of which is true, because he has nothing. No B/C, no drivers license, no SSN, no legal marriage license, using a legal “foreign student card” at Columbia University, illegally being on the ticket for all elections both senate, and presidential elections, and circumventing the laws of the Constitution of the United States of America.
    All of these are offences which should put him into prison for more years than 10 men have in their lives. 760 years of torment should he received, at hard labor. But, then there are too many murders of foreign people like Momar Kadafiia s/p. in Libya, where he plans to rule until his demise.
    The four dead in Benghazi are enough to get him, Hillary, and others brought to justice and hanged for high crimes, treason, and lesser crimes of which there are thousands to spread around to the Administration of the Guilty evil ones.

  • This should show obama’s ardent admirers just how bad their hero is; he is showing, openly, his disgust for America. He has waited for his last days as president to do America as much damage as he can before leaving office. I could use some fancy terms to describe obama, like Machiavellian, pernicious, scrofulous, fatuous – but I will not; instead I will simply say that obama is a rat traitor and should be in prison. It’s up to the House and Senate to bring charges against him immediately.

  • RuFus92

    Mr. Evil; in action and carrying out his spoiled kid tantrum acts because the people told him he stinks as a person and as a President. The greatness of this country shines through with the fact that we survived his 8 years and rejected him and his policies in the end. What a total waste of this country’s opportunities blessings this president has been.

  • justinwachin

    Hopefully the Trump administration will ignore President Obama’s signing statements. If the president thinks a bill is unconstitutional he should not have signed it.

  • snowyriver

    Sorry Obama is NOT a legal president.. anything he has signed, anything he has done is NULL AND VOID.

  • Bob

    Obama admonished previous administration for “signing statement” vowing he would no engage in them, then has repeatedly. Obama promised no back room deals to get bills passed, and the lived back rooms for 8 years to get “his agenda” passed. he promised to “reach across the aisle” but forgot to say it was just to smack the Republicans in the face. Why believe anything now?

  • Jimmie Cooper Boswell

    the extreem danger of electing spoiled brats, without adult supervision.

  • There he goes again! Congress makes the law, why is this Fu**ing president allowed to do this? Signing statement my A**! Trump MUST undo this madman’s actions! Obama has proved that he is an IDIOT!

  • Betty

    only 25 more days until this muslim tratior will be out of office maybe ll he does or did can be deleted

  • Jean Langford M.

    REVOKE—REPEAL—DEFUND—BE GONE….YOUR TRAITOR IN CHIEF TYRANNY..HAS LOST IT’S POWER TO BE PERMANENT OR REVELANT…YOUR STATEMENTS PROVE YOU HAVE TRIED TO DESTROY AMERICA….BUT YOUR DONE…YOU WOULD NOT HAVE “WON.” YOUR LEGACY WILL NOT EXIST WITHIN LITTLE MORE THAN A YEAR…..YOU WILL JOIN THE RANKS OF TRAITORS LIKE BENEDICT ARNOLD, AND JANE FONDA…YOUR NAME WILL BE SYNONYMOUS WITH CONTEMPT, FAILURE, DISPICABLE,TRAITOR, AND BUTCHER MUSLIM…GOOD RIDDENCE….

  • Rick D.

    Actions like this show what a pompous ass this current POTUS really is!! He is an arrogant, elitist, narcissistic wannabe dictator. Can’t wait for Jan. 20!!!

  • DrBillLemoine

    Every president, not just Mr. Obama, implements and enforces congressional law. This bill is no exception but for the purported unconstitutional part. In the past that has caused no problems but Republicans insist on continuing the partisanship opposition to this president. The is nothing wrong as the Supreme Court SCOTUS where such matters often go as unconstitutional has frequently negated illegal parts of laws while retaining what Mr. Obama claims is OK and legal. This is an issue without a story.
    Take the Voter Rights act which SCOTUS retained while rejecting the clause that made States verify federally their own laws that could be racial discrimination. Southern States passing voter suppression laws today could not do so before Mr. Obama’s time–enforcement that was needed to reject laws from States with proven discriminatory history is harder now. So there’s no story here. It’s settled procedure that the president can refuse to enforce parts of law he finds unconstitutional.

    • ezekiel22

      If the law is an ass it is not up to the executive to decide that. Remember the pesky separation of powers? Executive, Legislative, Judicial with he latter having no enforceable powers.
      Now the question I have is will you defend Trump should he do the same? Personally I doubt it as you are way too partisan and smug.
      Have a good night.

      • DrBillLemoine

        Oh, Zeke, we’ve gone over this ground before. Take a course if you don’t believe me. Management is the prerogative of the Executive Branch, setting priorities not found in the law, making judgments about resources available, and evaluating clauses for support. Any organizational leader knows. All the presidents do it, but only Republicans question it despite their purported ‘management’ expertise. We’ll see what Trump does legally, or not. His track record so far in business and campaigning isn’t good.

        • Peatro Giorgio

          Wrong on so many counts
          The management responsibility of the Presidents is to see that all laws are faithfully executed & enforce all laws passed by Congress. As for Trumps Business Record Humm seems to me he is the billionaire. Your merely a whiner. As for his campaigning. If memory serves me correctly it was Trump who had the media during the general election completely against him with but a couple of legit media exception Further more Hitlery owned the media for they were in the bag for Hitlery as well the DNC . Yet Trump literally crushed 16 Republican primary candidates. Then went on to Crushed Both Obummer an his so called 3rd Termer Hitlery
          Final electoral count for Hitlery 8 electors who abandoned her . Trump lost 2 Trumps total 304 Hitlerys – obummer 228. I guess it really is true ! Blind partisans never wake up.

          • DrBillLemoine

            Any executive should live within his budget and do what is possible. That’s good management. When congress fails to appropriate sufficient funds for any new program, it’s malpractice to implement what isn’t affordable. You clearly have never managed anything beyond your own checkbook, which should tell you I’m correct by itself. You simply take a phrase and consider it immutable, not deal with reality.
            We don’t know if Trump is a billionaire without his tax returns released. Owning real estate with big mortgages makes it seem he’s rich when it’s cash flow and net worth that really count. I’m a multimillionaire on paper but in reality not.
            In campaigning and as president-elect Trump continues to lie and spin and use bait and switch tactics like a used car salesman. He has no substance to any ‘policy’ announcement, simply tweeting and rally speechmaking to generate ratings for himself–nothing real. Yet you believe sources that have proven wrong, lies or imaginary just as you accuse the media in general. You fail to distinguish reality and proven substance from imaginary stories maybe based on truth but elaborating beyond belief and fact. It’s a corollary of conspiracy theorizing which you righties thrive on–but not real.
            In the real world Hillary won the popular vote, was denied the Electoral College due to gerrymandering and spineless regular Republicans following Comey letters right into Trump’s hands at the last minute–dirty campaign tactics, but effective. There’s no reality to the drumbeat of anti-Hillary propaganda suggesting she’s a crook–not under the law–not believable–she’s far more forthcoming than Trump–and untrustworthy–having stretched the law and regulations as SecState but not breaking any laws as billed by Republican propagandists as Comey indicated during summer. Dems believed the polls which was affirmed by her 3 million vote plurality but discounted last minute Comey letters in only 3 states at the end.
            To his credit Trump is the modern day Marshall McLuhan orchestrating media and rallies to his benefit for disgruntled extremist conservatives. In 1964 they were defeated as John Birch Society advocates–no fluoride in the water types–but today we have reality tv–not real at all but interesting showtime programs. Hillary as a substantial but uninspiring candidate couldn’t compete on tv. Dyed in the wool Republicans without backbones simply followed their traditions and habits and voted for misogynist crook Trump. Democrats have been led by a part time DNC chair (partisan) who allowed better organized regular Republicans to prevail.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Actually : What exactly it is for which your comments speak to me is this .Your words speak of & individual ” you rather ” as one who neither posses even the most simplistic or basic understanding as to how Constitutional Governance actually works. Your secular world views when subjected to governing having proven over & over again through out this century. Have in deed prove to have been an abject failure.!
            Yet here we are Again.
            Still very much instructing the immature under developed, adolescent minds of individual such as yourself. Congress & Congress alone controls the purse strings. ” Period “. Congress upon passing budget bills shall with in said law, set specific guidelines as to how that funding shall be used. Though when in some instances with in specific areas of said expenditures congress may have written with in said bill, certain limited wavers or given minimal leeway with in certain parameters setting up certain criteria for the executive Branch. This is not the always the norm. But rather budget allocation specif. For the executive to over reached,to extend beyond the criteria, parameters set By congress. AS you have suggested. That by definition is not Faithfully executing the laws of the law. Land In fact it is truly Unconstitutional. Let us now revisit recent history. Case in point ! We need only to look back over the previous 8 years. Reflect upon all the many cases brought before the courts by groups individuals organization & the many brought by Congress. Those charges filed against the out going administration. Case after case, Federal appeals court decision, after Federal appeals court decision, district court, after district court; US supreme court decision, after US supreme court decisions. Slapping the Obama administration back to reality. Reminding them of the 3 distinct branches of government & as to how their powers are equally divided. One no greater then the other.
            Government is not now or has it ever been private enterprise.

            That said I do agree our nation would & could be far better off if.Our politicians acted like business executive; treated our dollars as if they were precious, like their personal invested stock shares. While also living under the very laws they pass. Striving to work as if their very lives depended on the out come of their work.

            You ! The lunatic fringe never Trump crowd, are getting your asses slapped back to reality, as we are reading each other’s posted comment’s. With each appointed position Trump fills ,with each promised reduction in over all cost of aircraft or military expenditures. With each promise of new jobs more corporations promising to return or move production to the USA. While Trump is merely 21 days away from receiving the oath of office. This man is making you clowns look even dumber then we had originally believed. Then we look at the sorrowful last ditch efforts of the turd who presently occupies the white house. His legacy now shattered ,smashed in to oblivion,
            culminating to a sum total ZERO.

          • DrBillLemoine

            Say my post again in other words: Congress & Congress alone controls the purse strings. ” Period “.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            INADAQUATE ? TO FRIGGING BAD! THE EXCUTIVE HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO OVER REACH. AS I HAVE DESCRIBED IN MY PREVIOUS POST . AS THE CPURTS HAVE DECIDED AN PROVEN BY THE MANY COMPLAINTS FILED BEFORE THE COURTS WITH WHICH THIS ADMINISTRATION SPECIFILY HAS LOST DO TO OVER REACH .
            LOVE THE MANY TWIST AN TURNS YOU’VE CHOSEN TO SIDE WITH EXCUTIVE OVER REACH. EXSPRESSES TO THE WORLD AS TO THE ANGST YOU HOLD FOR OUR CONSTITUTION.

          • DrBillLemoine

            My, my, such anger over a clear statement. I use literary license as a writer, but you…? Care to list the cases filed and lost by Obama–it’s overblown at least.
            Since GWashington, executive orders have been issued–no biggie. We have a cabinet today from that time. Back to history class on the Revolution for you.
            ‘Over reach’ is always in the mind of the beholder. In Obama’s case orders are to improve things and insure rights of individuals–something you should be encouraging, not whining about.
            I’ve read Jim DeMint and Heritage stuff for a long time. It’s wacky, the reason he quit the Senate. Are you a wack? Any partisanship I show is from independent thinking about national aims and methods under our Constitution. You should aspire to claim the same.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Should I fill this Web page with all the Court decisions The Obama administration has lost before the Courts.
            No I need not .If however you are Truly interested. Then I shall suggest you Google Heritage Foundations initiated litigation. On behalf of The people of the US Defendent the Obama Administration. Then Google NRA, 2nd Amendment Foundation ,Gun Owners of America, Little Sisters..The Oil industry, Banking Industry ,Insurance Industry . An the list goes on an on.
            You are a rather single dimensional thinking individual. Clearly you my friend do not posses the ability to form a well reasoned logicl opinion or thought. The truth of matter, is when ever in history any branch of government has over steped it’s Constitutional Authority the out come has alawys ended with losses toward the general welfare for the vast majority of our nations People . There is no benfit. As time has proven again & again.
            ( Wacky you say ?? )
            .Clearly Jim Demint & The Heritage Foundation are far greater clarity of mind ,position, purpose an substance driven then is evident coming from either yourself or anyone on your exstremist unconstitutional side of the political spectrum.
            As for your so called independent thinking.?Question : Just who the hell are you attempting to bullshit here. ??? Each of your rambling diatribes are born out of partisan lunatic left talking points. Independent my Arse.

          • DrBillLemoine

            You can’t even cite one instance of a court decision at any level finding the president wrong–astounding, but typical of shallow thinking. You avoid dealing with reality, cases, specifics, details and what those mean for analysis and synthesis. It’s inadequate communication. I read from the Heritage Foundation with its extremist and bigoted findings. I listen to Wayne LaPierre spout his nonsense about no gun controls, which we’ve had nationally. The rest of your list is equally biased and raises no memory of significant court cases.

            You similarly evade responsibility by failing to pursue ANY instance of my ‘single dimensional thinking’. It’s simply a slogan to you, without substance. For someone who dipped into another person’s thread, you have provided no cogent opposition, not alternate position, no relevant facts–called trolling. What does this even mean: the out come has alawys ended with losses on behalf of the majority of general publics over all Welfare. There is no benfit.! It’s just words strung together with no point, no connected subject and predicate.
            And spare us the holier than thou support of our Constitution via DeMint and Heritage. They are regressive and bigoted in their positions, so obvious to ordinary people like me that we notice DeMint had to resign from the Senate as incoherent.
            You also have the benefit of writing from a fictitious set of circumstances and history. There is no far left lunatic fringe in government, now or in the past. One could argue that the far right installed Hoover and Bush2 who facilitated the Depression and Great Recession with their policies. The latter has caused a demagogue like Trump to become president, another know nothing, self-important, greedy person who continues to flout tradition, law and soon the Constitution to get himself wealthier. Mark these words–he’s bound for impeachment. Refute anything I’ve posted here and be relevant.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Okay so you’ve claimed I’m unable to cite even one case. With which Obama acted unconstitutionally #1. Unanimous Supreme court Decision : Case on Recess Apointments: Obama crushed.
            #2. Air Quality Plan Texas vs Obama’s EPA “Texas win.”
            #3. Obama’s Pollution control Permitting :Texas verse Obama’s EPA” Texas win.”
            #4. Flexible Permit program “Obama loss. Texas Win ”
            #5. The Mercury Rule :Obama loss America wins
            #6 Texas V. UNITED STATES . Fifth Circuit court of Appeals Another Obama loss Blocking as unconstitutional Executive orders on Immigration. “Decision Stands ” Win for America. Still hundreds of other pending cases still to be heard.
            As I stated in previous comment I can full up this web page How many such exsample shall I have to cite in order for you to open that dense thick cranium. Where that pea size cerebellum resides. If you desire to continue being smacked dowN I shall be more then willing to oblige your desire..

          • DrBillLemoine

            My thread started with this: ‘ Management is the prerogative of the Executive Branch, setting priorities not found in the law, making judgments about resources available, and evaluating clauses for support.’ You claim multiple court cases negating what I’ve said. Yet even after multiple exchanges you can’t cite one case and explain how I’m wrong. Extended lists don’t do that. You are simply evading and escaping and dodging my point–still. It’s a dance you want, not illumination, my purpose. If you can’t carry on the thread just stop. I’m not dancing, or as you say, ‘filling up the web pages’. So I win the debate. No amount of abuse changes that, it only alienates others who may have thin skins or pea brains or seek disruption and commotion/confusion. See ya.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Thank you so very much for the conformation. Your latest comment illustrates the deep seated naivity for which you so readily exihbit. Your very first diatribe spoke of management decisions as the proactive of the Executive. Each issue, each court decision is based entirely upon just that . Each issue is about funding ,each case decision is based upon the very management you claim to be the perogative of the execute. Funny how you refuse to see your very own hypocrisy. Point of fact ! Like a free market economy, where the public makes the decision, for those products they shall purchase or not purchase . When those products do not sell . Then it is the share holders who let board members know of the share holders displeasure,through the act of selling shares & ceasing to invest further moneys If the boards refuses to vote out exsiting management. Lost market share equals dumped , Fired CEO’s. The US Supreme court is the final arbiter of The excutives decisions. Now I’ve watched as you’ve twisted,convoluted ,deflected,diverted obfuscated contorted yourself into ever more desperate positions in or to avoid facing Reality. Keep trying . One day you might just convince yourself.

          • DrBillLemoine

            You realize it takes a degree of innocence, of naiveté, to be an optimist, a progressive. That’s me, a futurist.
            You do seem to forget that legislation must be followed by adequate appropriations in congress, a particular problem for Republicans today, pretending to be fiscal hawks when in reality they are fighting that old ‘spend like a drunken sailor’ feeling, a la Bush 2 times with prior Republican majorities. Example, the VA is a sore spot with Trump backers, yet when Obama revised the law asking for $4.7 billion to implement, congress appropriated $3.4 billion. You see my point now? That means management decisions to reorder implementation as not all the law can be implemented. No hypocrisy; just truth.
            There is no free market economy that doesn’t permit another Great Recession, a Republican fallacy and its consequences. You change the subject again, but I’m not trolling, seeking discord, just truth. What you say about consumers once was true, but requires disposable income, something lacking lately with most national wages siphoned off to the top 1%. That was what unions once insured against but Republicans kill unions, hence lower incomes for their own kind. It’s not hypocrisy there but ignorance of consequences of their aims. The rich are taking over and soon you base Trump supporters will be sorry. Billionaires in the cabinet are not a good sign. Failure to divest holdings entering public service is grounds for corruption. Watch for it.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            My Friend an I do say this with deeply felt meaning. I must take a stand an reject your false assumption that Congress is required to appropriate funding to the desired levels of that which is determined by the excutive .Wrong. Correct funding is determined by the best estimate s of the house appropriations committee.Then upon the Commit tees vote that bill released to the ful house is then voted upon often with amendments to that budget frim there on to the Senate.
            Reconciliation between house an senate. Unto Presidents desk for signiture or veto. Or he can abstain an aftwr 10 days the bill becomes law anyways.” Period ” The president can request billions. That doesn’t mean he gets what he wants. I to anlm the eternal optimistic. Praying one day even the most narrow of minded individual will at last begin to conform to the sound principles of our founding fathers Design for our Constitutional Republic.

          • DrBillLemoine

            Taking my VA example can instruct you on my stance.
            There’s much wrong with the VA program, much of which requires added resources like doctors and nurses–cash required for payrolls. Short cutting funds is literally killing vets who can’t see a doctor for years. Either adequate funds must be supplied or congress is taking executive implementation requirements and throwing them in the garbage–and killing vets. The Congressional Budget Office takes bills and costs them out without partisanship. Austerity budgeting and fiscal hawking by your Freedom Caucus members, who don’t want to understand science or budgeting requirements, are literally killing people. How’s your conscience with that? Ideological appropriations committee run by Republicans is literally killing people; ditto their efforts to repeal Obamacare. I’m much more humanitarian than them and maybe you.
            I don’t need a lesson on bill passing; you need a change of heart for the reasons just described.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Nice Try ! However what you had not known. Is this, I’m one of the very Vets your talking about. As for just who is actually to blame. For once in your miserable onesided lopsided Fuax life.
            Set aside your partisan Horse crap’Ola at least for of a single one moment.
            Tax Revenues shorted by each progressive social spending policies.increased corporate taxes extensive stringent regulation on both corperation & The ,banking industry an other heavy handed EPA put in place by non. Elected ass hole . Which when combined to gather accumulated into quick departure of corporation an reduced Federal revenus. Additional with draws of federal revenus are accounted for by the very Bailouts for failed green energy skems ,Bailouts for Wall street, bailouts for everysingle failing private enterprise that either contributed to the Democratic party. Or Sponsered democrat action commitees. Bail out skems for civil service Unions ,Bail out skems for Teachers unions. ,bailout skems for insurance industry to keep Obama no healrhcare afloat. Both establishment Parties cut defense spending .Obamas adminastration, deverting funding for border security . Deverted funding for Imigration an naturalization Those funds specifically
            allocated by Congress For border patrol & The department of Immigtation an naturalization & not approved by Congress to be used in other areas. . Final point Obamas requested 4.6 billion for The VA was rejected for one simple reason. Congress had in factalready allocated additional money’s just a few months Prior in Their CTR of an additional 1.6 billion for The VA. Obama’s request was little more then a partisan political ploy. Wish to continue attempting to mislead others with your bullshit independent ploy. Independent your are not Partisan democrate hack you are. Facts speak for themselves had you set blame where blame is doe Then an only then might I have considered you to be ,As I am. A TRUE INDEPENDENT NO PARTY Afillitation. At last You are not. Final Point with a 20 trillion dollar national debt and a 250 Trillion dollar off the books so to speak debt of mandatory spending.
            Budget hawks ate the only ones seemingly willing to save something for future generations.
            Talk about spendin unrestricted,like drunken sailors Your Idea of sound economics is increasing the debt burden of every preceding generations that this is not sustainable.
            Austerity must begin an it must begin now. And as a vet who gladly sacrificed before so I am willing once again. Or do you prefer to see AmeriGreece. Question what are you willing to sacrifice, what are you willing to ask to do for your country. That’s what I thought !NADA,NOTHING,NO WAY, NO HOW Right.

          • DrBillLemoine

            Set aside your pseudo-nonpartisan attack for a minute. Surplus turned into $15 trillion debt from 2001-9 (my drunken sailor spending comparison for Rs). Deregulation leading to higher unpaid deficits (same timespan). Phony budgeting making $5 Trillion in debt off books instead of raising taxes. Compare 90% corporate taxes under Eisenhower vs. 39% for Obama. If corporate taxes are cut again, the consumer/citizen/buyers pays the difference with lower take home/disposable income as 90% of income today goes to Republican fat cat CEOs (the top 1%). Your idea of taxation is fantasyland without throwing the nation back 100 years; killing unions has helped worker paychecks to stagnate for 30 years. Citizens United lets fat cats buy their legislation and permits jobs to be offshored. No bailouts cost taxpayers money as all ‘loans’ were repaid with interest. Plus national security car makers were saved from bankruptcy.
            You better study economics before spouting your reactionary voodoo economics again. All of this is salvageable by congress which doesn’t act so the president uses his authority quite naturally.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            DrBill partisan fool. Sorry I wasnt able to respond sooner. I was up at my new retirement home in northern Maine where my bride of 37 years an I shall retire to next month at the young age of 60. Facts speak much louder then lies an faux facts. Go to the Department of the Treasuries debt schedule for those years Clinton served as President. Fact #1 there never ever was a surplus. Clinton left office with both debts & deficits. The so called surplus on paper was an is a lie.That you & many other partisan flakes fell for. A total of 1 year which occurred during Clinton’s second term 2 years prior to his last day in office the deficit were at a near balance but then again began to climb again in his last year. ZERO SURPLUS CLINTONS AN THEIR CRONIE CLAN LIED LIKE HELL ( PSEUDO NON-PARTISAN ) NICE TRY MY FRIEND THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AN I . THAT DIFFERENCE IS I SEEK OUT THE TRUTH, YOU ON THE OTHER HAND SWALLOW HOOK LINE AN SINKER WHAT EVER BULLSHIT IS THROWN YOUR WAY. GOOGLE SEARCH TREASURES, DEBT SCHEDULED FOR THE YEARS 1991-2000. THEN COME BACK WITH AN APPOLOGIZE

          • DrBillLemoine

            I’ve always said ‘virtual’ surplus. You admit ‘debts & deficits, but not revenues. It’s water over the dam–I don’t care the amount when compared to the 8 year resulting total of deficit $15 Trillion, one-third of it off budget, which you righties always overlook.
            As far as faux news and lies, you Trumpies have bought his BS and we’ll all pay for the mistake soon.
            Petty Trump is now tweeting against another opponent Meryl Streep, signs of a real dictator.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            (VIRTUAL SURPLUS ? ) YOU MEANT FAUX SURPLUS. Now onto revenues ! Do you mean the increased revenues brought about by the contract with America! That old billy boy signed onto. Like welfare reform, Middle income & low income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts. Which when all combined together brought about greater revenues to the US treasury. Remember Bills word the era of big government is over. He was just as right as was J.F.K. , Ronald Reagan & CALVIN COOLIDGE. When you say off budget are you referring to the mandatory expenditures, non discretionary expenditure. Like Obama & the Demo- rat party have increased 3 fold with the expansion of the medicaid program. That program which was designed specifically for the elderly. Now having to subsides those loser, non working, unwilling to work dead beat rats. You know your Partisan pals ! My friend the only independent non party affiliate person between you and I Here is this non partisan Man who is Peatro Giorgio

          • DrBillLemoine

            Assume there was no surplus with Clinton leaving office. The Republicans ballooned the deficit to $15 Trillion in 8 years. That’s drunken sailor spending, on tax cuts, 2 wars and drug programs. No war surtax. Do you wonder why Repubs today don’t want porkbarrel, refuse to compromise, abide no earmarks, refuse to cross the aisle? That was $10 Trillion debt plus $5 unbudgeted expenditures = $15 T deficit, 2 to 3 times the Obama spending for a valuable healthcare program–that operational $$$.
            Clinton era was a 20 million jobs economic expansion, whatever you call it. Plenty of disposable income for workers–no under Republicans.
            I think you’ve got a nerve calling the elderly ‘losers’, deadbeats? We all vote.
            I read the Heritage Foundation and DeMint stuff–it’s frequently biased and bigoted. Un-American, akin to white supremacists and the KKK who support you.
            I will always support progressive aims and laws, not the regressive, reactionary, exclusive and biased stuff from the right. Mark my words, the new Trump regime with fat cat cabinet will not DTS, it will multiply the alligators preying on middle Americans and workers, to Trump’s enrichment.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Drbill still drilling a deeper an a ever deeper hole. Stop drilling bill .For t here is no need to assume! The Treasury Debt schedule speaks facts in to your Fuax fantasy. As for republicans adding 2-3 x times the cost of the affordable care act. Your repeating demo-rats talking point lies. THE CBO HAS SCORED THE COST OF THE OBAMA NO CARE OR PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AS ADDING OVER 6 TRILLION . Of off budget DEBT. WHEN ADDED WITH THE NEARLY 10 TRILLION IN DEBT OBAMA HAS ADDED to OUR NATIONAL DEBT 16 TRILLION IS 3 TIMES THE PREVIOUS DEBT ADDED. By all of OUR NATIONs PAST PRESIDENTS COMBINED. FURTHER MORE, WHEN ADDING THE ADDITIONAL COST OF THE EXSPANDED MEDICAID PROGRAM THE ACTUAL DEBT GROWS BY ANOTHER 30 TRILLION BY 2020. EVEN THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD MEMBERS BELIEVE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
            HAS BREACHED THE ABILITY OF OUR NATION TO REPAY THE DEBT DIRECTLY CAUSED BY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. WHICH HAS PROVEN NOT AT ALL AFFORDABLE BY ANY METRIC.Obama and the Dumbo rats lies will be all brought to light in the next few months as had all the republican lies of the past administration.

          • DrBillLemoine

            I could write to you without facts, too, but I don’t. Obama debt is about $4 Trillion, only 1/3rd the Bush era debt. CBO scores are at onset of bills, not 6 years later. So ACA is but a fraction of that small increase. Do the math with facts. Your numbers are all wrong.
            I’m not counting any State-caused waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid. Talk to the governors.
            The Fed is not related to Obamacare, deals with inflation and jobs with interbank rate changes.
            Obamacare is fine with congressional finetuning, not the hands-off approach taken with Repubs in charge, voting repeal 60+ times. You’ll see now with so many participants, companies and agencies involved that Obamacare is mostly good policy.
            You are forgetting that Republicans now own ACA, if it fails or succeeds for 20+ million healthcare recipients. Good luck with simple repeal.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            20 plus million you say???? Horse shit nearly 3/4 of those whom Obama claims are on the A.C.A rolls are in fact are on medicaid! Medicaid a program designed specifically for the elderly ! Further more in no time over the last 30 years was there ever anyone in this nation who had not health care available to them .Fact all across this nation every single hospital emergency rooms where required by federal law to provide anyone and everyone, no matter whether or not they could or could not pay for health care services . Further more you grossly exaggerate Any perceived savings or reduced national debt claims made by the Obama administration Obama’s Debt is not 4 trillion far from it . Congressional budget office, (C.B.O) US treasure debt scheduled speaks truth to your lies As for the federal reserve your truly and idiot. Listen to Federal reserve Chairmen Janet Yellans Last public hearing. Where she pronounced the actuary cost of the A.C.A. As one of the main contributing factors in slow to near zero market growth which directly correlated to addition nation debt By year end 2020 of 30 trillion dollars . YOUR SO FULL OF CRAP-OLA YOUR EYES ARE BROWN

          • DrBillLemoine

            Are you aware that Medicaid is part of the ACA? It represents payments to states that set up federal exchanges. Get some knowledge before ‘tweeting’, Donald surrogate.
            Healthcare availability isn’t the question; it’s policy coverage via ACA that was denied before. No ‘pre-existing conditions’, no expensive procedures, limits on yearly and lifetime expenditures, are part of ACA. That’s why the virtual government guarantees to insurers who are now raising premiums, deductibles and copays anyway. It’s just like university payments to keep tuition down; colleges raised tuition anyway. What I’d like to see is contingencies to force compliance with provisions that are ignored by companies and congress doesn’t make suitable changes along the way.
            Re the Fed, there are many factors used by economists to determine inflation rates, one of their goals to monitor and adjust. That means healthcare in general, not ACA in particular. Your knowledge isn’t matched by understanding of the interactions. I’d like you to justify lawmakers enabling the top 10% of earners raking in 90% of current income; what about their owning 50% of national assets–far beyond their numbers and which slow wage growth for workers, business expansion and shifting assets abroad to avoid taxation. Those are economic facts that impinge on Trump supporters’ concerns for jobs and wages.
            You might want to consider this–figures don’t lie, but liars can figure. We are using common metrics for the economy while you are dredging up uncommon ones. Let’s compare apples to apples.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            REALLY ! ARE YOU THAT FREAKING NAIVE ? Or are you simply to stupid to understand ” This ” The medicaid program has been around for over 30 years. Same program,operating under the very same name. Long before the A.C.A was ever conceived. Further more the only changes to medicaid are as follows. Medicaid is no longer restricted to the elderly. Open to all non paying scumbags, The only good addition to medicaid was the elimination of the donut hole. The down side is the the actual payments for services render by doctors , hospitals and prescription med’s. has actually been reduced by nearly half. Which has had the adverse effect of doctors refusing Medicaid patients.& pharmacies no longer excepting medicaid prescription plans. Thanks again dumbo rats. As for comparing college tuition to health care YOU TRULY ARE A DUMB ASS. There is no conceivable comparison ! College’s today in this nation with few exceptions are a complete & utter waste. As with most urban schools money pits of the greedy, lazy, useless,dumb ass instructors, professors teachers & bureaucrats. They who could have never earned a living in the private sector ,private industry. Further more to have even suggested a comparison; suggest to most of us as to how truly ignorant you are.

          • DrBillLemoine

            You are confusing Medicare with Medicaid. Try studying their differences and then we can communicate.

            You also missed the comparison of federal caps and provisions for its money which are countered by State and universities setting costs. No basis for exchange between us without the comparison.

            College a waste??? Are you aware that college grads earn much more per career than high school diplomates?

            You now sound anti-intellectual and show little ability to use analogies and facts to argue points. You simply substitute abuse and name calling for truth and facts you don’t know. End of our exchanges.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Title XIX of the social security act: Medicaid was intended for the low income under 65 years of age Those 65 and over received medicare . I haven’t confused either program. As for knowledge I’m well above your intellectual capabilities. State’s setting costs & federal caps Horse crap-ola. Federal dollars are the main source of revenues allocated to the medicaid program . Feds set the price index. under cutting doctors services. It is & was the Federal Government which had decided to reduce payments to hospitals & doctors alike.

            Chips known as the Children’s Health Insurance program was signed into law in 1997. FEDS WHERE SUPPOSE TO PAY MATCHING STATE FUNDS, to the Chips program.THEY HAVE NOT. States as of 2017 will be required to pay 7 % of the medicaid cost. Up and until 2017 the Federal government payed the entire Bill Period. Even as some states had chosen to expand their medicaid programs. Such as Ohio’s Governor John Kasich The Governor & his state’s legislator body had predicted & increase of participation of just under 300,000 additional Medicaid users. Only to have an additional 600,000 sign up for their states Medicaid program. Can you say over loaded system.
            As for Name calling ~! How about your obtuse need to call those who support Trump’s positions on a number of issue including repeal & replacement of Obama No care as ( Donald Surrogate’s)
            ( Quite the derogatory comment ) ” Right ”
            As for Higher learning I haven’t a single issue with the Idea. What I take issue with is the exuberant cost verses benefit. You stated that fifty percent of college graduates earn higher incomes then does high school grades . Only if an when they are able to ascertain employment in their perspective fields of study. Over the past 10 years. Only 37 % of College grades earned considerable more then their high school counter parts/ Trade schools Graduates on the other hand; Receive significantly higher averages incomes Percentage wise. Then does most college Graduates with either associates or Bachelors degrees. Masters or doctorates are where the higher incomes truly begin.
            Now onto your envy of the higher income brackets Those earning 90% greater income then the other 90 % To F-ing bad They earned it they busted their asses to reach the higher pinnacles.
            Lets take a look at the real issues .Trade bills which produced the desired effects of the globalist! Written by the Global elitist for the elites & agree upon by both political parties. Including the idiot Bill Clinton with the NAFTA trade agreement. Now lets look at tax policy. Who an what party has given the most benefit to those corporation that moved their corporate offices over seas as well their manufacturing plants .Why yes here again ! The Democratic party takes the lead on this as well !
            Though it is true The Republican party is no less guilty. No less cope able. Globalist again took the lead to write draw up tax policies to benefit their over seas moves. As for impinging Trump and his supporters. Change is coming & it shall be here quite quickly. Huge tax policy changes ,Huge regulation changes are all just months away.
            ( Last point )! If you desire not to be offended then I highly suggest you refrain from offending others. For many of your comments from beginning to the end were taken as they were intended as insults.

          • mrpoohead

            Medicaid was designed for all age groups, ACA merely expanded on it.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Wrong again Crap head Medicaid was designed specifically for those under 65 years of age in low income,an not yet old enough for medicare.” MORON ” What do you think CHIP’s was for moron. Legislation specifically for those not yet adults” MORON”. MEDICAID WAS NOT FOR EVERYONE ” MORON ” !

          • mrpoohead

            Thank you “government insurance program for persons of all ages whose income and resources are insufficient to pay for health care”.Medicaid is the lar……. Ta-da!

  • Pete Bundy

    He needs a huge timeout, a box of crayons and a coloring book. Damn hurry up 1-20-17. Every time I see him on the TV I mute the sound so I don’t have to listen to this jackass.

    • ArcticGrayling

      He would be happier in a road side motel having a gay threesome with Reggie Love and Michelle (aka Michael).

  • David Gearhart

    Obama is a joke and an embarrassment. If his lips are moving, he is lying.

  • MikeS

    He is a loudmouth street N. He is not capable of shutting up. Blab is all he knows how to do.

  • Tiger

    He is irrelevant. Mr. Barack Hussein Obama is nothing but a citizen after January. Any and everything he had done is going to be taken out. Just as he immediately came into office and took out 200 of Bush’s EO so will Trump erase his EO. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you Mr. Barack Insane Obama because now the Tables have Turned and this last stunt with Israel, even having the audacity to try and take the only part of the original Temple away from the Jews, The Wailing Wall, you have taken off the gloves and shown the diaper on your head to the world.

    Thank you Egypt for putting the breaks on this and saying you are giving Trump’s administration a chance. Israel fully intends to expose what you did. I read the Israeli news daily and they knew you would pull something like this and like the rest of us they hold their breath until your ass and your family out the door.

    Get out of America Muslim. We can’t stand the site or sound of you and no you would not have won. What a pompous and arrogant bastard O is.

    • David Gearhart

      When the Israel’s took the wailing wall from the arabs the arabs had used it as an ammo dump.

      • Tiger

        The Arabs have no connection to anything in the Holy Lands and yes they did that along with what they do on the Temple Mt and what they have done to tombs of the Patriarchs. They have been known for what they are since the 30’s and before by archeologists in the area. Israel made a mistake allowing any Muslims or Arabs into Israel. The Arabs have huge countries and Israel the size of New Jersey. Proving they want Israel gone.

        • David Gearhart

          Only those countries such as israel and the USA that are controlled by whites give the minorities equal rights. For which the minorities return hate and try to take away the rights of those that gave them their rights. That is a small portion of the minorities who refuse to assimilate. they are racist that claim racism and hate , when it is their racism and hate creating the divide. The rest are good citizens and realize and are thankful for being included as an equal. People are not responsible for how they were born. they are responsible for their actions.

          • Tiger

            When you see millions upon millions from on so called religion, causing havoc and chaos daily around the world then you have to make an exception and say to yourself, there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, of those 35% up believe in Jihad and Sharia Law, Jihad means our annihilation and Sharia Law not compatible with our laws, and that 35% is millions of people then they must be segregated to their own countries.

            That is how I see it, I see them living nowhere in great numbers without causing problems. Israel the size of New Jersey, the Arabs outnumber them 50 to one and the Arab countries are huge and 50 of them too boot. Israel must do what is right for it’s citizens.

            Don’t put an asp in you skivvies and expect it to stay still and not kill you.

            You wrote a great post. You are a thinker. Great points.

          • Rob1911a1

            Tiger – In all fairness, I know a number of DECENT Muslims (and I speak a bit of Arabic as well). The DECENT Muslims themselves state that the crazed fanatics are NOT Muslims. I have read the Koran (in translation, my Arabic is not that good); the Prophet laid down a number of injunctions for correct behavior. NO KILLING OF WOMEN; NO KILLING OF CHILDREN; there are about 13 more that I have forgotten, but he also enjoined the faithful to PROTECT the ‘people’s of the book’, i.e., the Jews and the Christians, since all of us are children of Father Abraham. Again, the Muslims I know completely reject the crazed killers. I have traveled with my wife to Morocco, where we were treated with respect and graciousness; a guest in a true Muslim home is not only sacred, but the Muslims hosts will, quite literally, fight to the death to protect such guests. There are about 1.2 billion Muslims; according to a Muslim scholar, 10 to 15% are radicals, the rest are not. That means that 85 to 90% are NOT like the scum, and in fact they condemn this. Look at the wonders of Spain from the 9th through the 11th century, with all three religions working peacefully and constructing incredible sights. Having lived in Andalusia for several years and traveled there with my spouse extensively, along with our visit to Morocco, it’s never as simple as it seems. Most of today’s problems (especially thanks to the idiot Jimmy Carter) come originally from Saudi Arabia. In the 1800’s, a ‘sect’ called Wahabism arose there, giving birth to what we see today. At the time, that was just the Arabian Penninsula; the Saudi’s were one of many desert nomad tribes. They made a deal with Satan, though; they told the Wahabist sect that they would make them the national religion of they received their support to become the rulers of the Pennnsula; they made a second deal with the Brits in WWI to support the Brits against the Germans if the Brits would support the Saudi tribe as rulers. Between those two deals, it did indeed become the nation of SAUDI Arabia. The dark side is that all their religion, including their religious schools (madrassas) were extreme fundamentalists. They then used their oil money to export this corruption of Islam to other Arab nations. For example, no where in the Koran does it say that women must wear a hijab or a burka; that is an ARAB CULTURAL tradition, as is the genital mutilation of girls. Indeed, referencing Morocco again, when we were there 40 years ago, then King Hassan II was strongly fighting AGAINST such evil, and his son Mohamed the 6th is doing the same. In fact, he came out this year and openly declared his steadfast determination to see this evil destroyed. Sorry; long winded history lesson. But important; just as the KKK and neo-nazis are almost all fundamentalist Baptists, we don’t impugn the whole of Christianity for that. Ah, well, it’s late, time for bed. Good evening and happy New Year.

          • Tiger

            The good Germans did not stop Hitler, the good Russians did not stop Stalin and the good Muslims are not stopping ISIS nor did they stop Muhammad. Yes Muhammad did kill, he did rape and he did take a child for a bride and he did steal and he wrote letters to all Potentates of his time, telling them to convert and save themselves, the world already had Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Taoists and civilizations had come and gone, he especially told the people of Scripture to let go their god and accept Allah the only god, proving the Christian and Jewish god are not the same as Allah.

            Muhammad had already started killing outside Arabia and when he died his followers did as he said and took Islam to the world by the sword. Muhammad was born thousands of years after the Jews a nation and Biblical times and already the world had great art, music, poetry, mathematics, astronomy, great architecture, philosophy and as I said civilizations had come and gone. When Muhammad’s hordes began killing the managed to slaughter more people than any other people ever.
            India 80 million
            110 million blacks and 28 million enslaved. The Barbary Coast Pirates were Muslim, Thomas Jefferson took them out they killed millions of blacks and Europeans.
            1 million in the Sudan
            Millions in Balkans and South Italy
            1.5 million Armenians
            Malaysia, Thailand millions of Buddhists and still slaughtering them to this day
            The Hill people of Sumatra disappeared entirely
            Borneo, Java millions killed
            The Muslim hordes were at the gates of Europe when Pope Urban called for the First Crusade.

            The Greeks were not Muslim, nor the Egyptians, nor the Chinese, or the Romans, all those civilizations including the Sumarians and all the civilizations of the Bible and Torah and Tanakh and archeologists still marveling at the wonders of these civilizations. So don’t tell me Islam created all the greatness because it did not.

            As to the different sects in Islam those feuds started centuries ago and continue to this day and personally I don’t give a damned if they continue to kill one another, they have had centuries to stop that but when you bring it to our shores, the shores of Europe and all civilized countries then I am not happy and it is indeed the Crusades all over again.

            Been to the ME my father worked for Brown and Root and I full well know what the ME is. Sharia Law, the Qur’an are not compatible with anyone’s Constitution or laws and it is the responsibility of the leaders of the world to stop this dream of a Caliphate the Jihad and the slaughter we see daily. As Sisi said they can’t kill everyone in the world and the teachings in the Qur’an that call for it, 100 verses or more must be changed and it will take generations for that to happen.

            In 1979 when Carter thought a religious leader named Khomeini would be better than the Shah he learned quickly. Khomeini made it clear that it was Islam for the world or the end of Islam and the embassy takeovers, kidnapping, plane hijacking, Marine barrack murders and on and on began in earnest and Iran the biggest backer of terrorism to this day. The bin laden documents showed that Iran backed laden and al Qaeda and had a hand in 9/11 and the Congress can’t get all the documents out from under O just like he keeps the gun running documents because he was busy making his Deal with that Devil Iran and didn’t want Congress to see but they will eventually.

            So we agree to disagree and I served in two wars as an Army Combat Support nurse, was introduced to the Qur’an and Muhammad by Arabic translators who had to make us understand this enemy, who they are, what they believed, how they would fight dirty and why they were so atrocious and such savages and how they would not wear uniforms, how they would torture prisoners, they read to us the battles where Muhammad slaughtered the Jewish men, took their wives raped them and his savagery. They told us how they had no Rules of Engagement, how they would not honor the Geneva Convention and if caught it would be better to pop the cyanide tablet that would be supplied us and sown into our BDU. We saw video of decapitations, mutilations, impaling, hanging, executions you name it so I know what Islam is and has been since it’s inception and if good Muslims want freedom then stand up against ISIS and Jihad across the world, you do it in the millions for a teddy bear named Muhammad.

            Sorry we will agree to disagree. Thank you for your civility and it is going to be a Great New Year we have a Real President who will clean our country out of any people threatening us. He has the laws to do it. Good Muslims no worries but those who want our deaths are gone.

          • Rob1911a1

            It’s OK for educated people to agree to disagree with civility. Having decent Muslim friends, I just don’t want the baby thrown out with the bathwater. I too am Thankful for the coming of the New Year and a REAL man for President. God Bless, Bob

          • Rob1911a1

            Oh, and as a fellow vet who worked the ME and, for a year (Embassy) Iran, Thanks for your services. Every time I’ve ever been in hospital, it was a nurse who came to help when I was in pain or crying. Nurses rock!

          • Tiger

            Indeed it is and I knew good Muslims, freed from torture chambers and how grateful and humble they were, the girls our doctors tried their best to repair who were in the Rape Palaces, those Muslims in Iraq that suffered under 23 years of Hussein who slaughtered 80,000 a year and who had a human grinding machine and I know the wonderful Kurd that Hussein killed 150,000 with Chemicals and all the graves, my God the graves across Iraq, mass graves, those Iraqi who took their lives into their hands to vote and yes the 90,000 killed before we went into Iraq to blame on Americans.

            But I also saw the bad that hid among our wounded and tried to enter our hospital and the Special unit we finally had to implore to vet them properly and not just bring them in. I have looked into the hate filled, cold eyes of a terrorist that killed our men downrange and waved his paper in front of me on the hospital unit saying I go America, I go America, I said over my dead body you caught with an AK47 you going to Hell. So I know we have a huge problem and we best to take care of these people in their own countries and not bring them into ours.

            Once the ME was considered a Romantic Mysterious Place and Morocco and such great places to indulge in a Culture so different than ours. But we saw the head of the snake and we have to defend our people against it and sadly the babies will be thrown out with the bath water. In most countries including America. The best we can do is slaughter ISIS and help them rebuild their countries but they continue to have leaders that have no care for their lives and that is their problem to change.

            I hate the killing of millions of innocents but remember in WWII we slaughtered our ancestors, civilians staked on top of one another sky high, babies, women children you name it. War is war and civilians die and many might even die here. Who knows.

            Hoping for Peace and Praying for it. You are a good person.

          • Rob1911a1

            Thank you, Tiger, that means more to me as a compliment that you shall ever know. All of us, (my brother, cousin, late father/uncle, wife, her sister and husband) all of us GLADLY put our lives on the line for American values. I am just honored that you would think well of me. (A compliment from one deserving of respect is still the greatest of things for those of us who still believe as our Founders did). God Bless and Happy New Year.

          • Tiger

            Ahhhh so welcome you are one good person and it comes across. Happy New Year and I will continue to pray for peace for all those suffering around this world. Plus do my part to take care of the animals that come my way and also to help the people around me.

            Thank you for your posts.

          • Tiger

            You are a dear person and one we need more of I am sick of death and dying and want only life for all in the world, but a good life and so many will never have it. So I pray for them, I cry for them and I count my Blessings being an American. May the Almighty take us in His mighty arms and his Legions of Angels give comfort to those less fortunate.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vpBi5J0Veg

          • ArcticGrayling

            It’s against the teachings of Islam for sand niggers to assimilate.

      • ArcticGrayling

        Everything that sand niggers touch turns into a dump.

        • David Gearhart

          I will agree with you other than the N word.

          • ArcticGrayling

            No reason to be politically correct for those goat fuckers.

            Their Koran calls us infidels pigs and monkeys.

          • David Gearhart

            I just don’t like the word. Nor it’s definition. No one has a choice in how they were born. It is their actions that they are responsible for.

          • ArcticGrayling

            I apply the term sand nigger because of the ideology they choose, not how they were born.

          • ArcticGrayling

            Lots of things I don’t like either. You are right about people having no say in how they were born, but everyone has the latitude to choose how they behave.

            The Koran calls us infidels “pigs and monkeys” (verse 5-60). It preaches hate and murder of infidels. If, in this information age, people cannot make more civilized choices, it is then open season for epithets and other forms of verbal abuse against them.

            Screw them all. I am not threatening to murder anybody.

    • Rob1911a1

      Tiger – I share your enthusiastic desire to see that happen; but the new POTUS cannot simply undo all the damage by executive fiat, even though Obama DID much of the damage that way. Much (like NOBAMA care) were corrupt bills that passed through the legislature; they must then be eliminated that way. This could proved extraordinarily difficult; only 1 or 2 RHINO (like poor McCain, who, though once a true hero, is now just a befuddled old man) defections could leave NOBAMACARE on the books. In fact, getting any legislation done usually takes TIME, it cannot be done as expeditiously as we would like.

      • Tiger

        What he can do is take out 70% of O’s EO and he can do it quickly. As to the other situations he will continue to tell the American people who is standing in his way of getting what they want done and they will just be taking themselves out of a job next election.

        I have been listening to his people and I am very convinced this is going to happen from stopping refugees to the wall to the illegals.

        ENDING REFUGEE PROGRAMS

        A president has very
        broad, unilateral discretion to determine which refugees — those fleeing
        war and other threats to their safety — are admitted into the country.

        The
        number of refugees accepted by the U.S. each year is set exclusively by
        the president. President Obama has increased the number of refugees
        from 70,000 in 2015 to 110,000 in 2017. Trump repeatedly bashed that
        decision, saying refugees from countries like Syria were threats to
        national security because they had not been properly vetted and could
        include terrorists. The State Department says Syrian refugees undergo
        the strictest background checks.

        As president, Trump could drop the total number of refugees to zero.

        “Congress can ask questions and object to things, but ultimately it’s up to the president,” Legomsky said.

        Donald Trump’s call for banning Muslims from entering U.S. draws condemnation

        THE MUSLIM BAN

        Presidents
        have the power to bar access to the U.S. to specific immigrants or
        entire classes of immigrants. That power is laid out in the Immigration
        and Nationality Act, which allows a president to block would-be
        immigrants if they are deemed “detrimental to the interests of the
        United States.”

        Yale-Loehr said that provision has been used
        sporadically over the decades to bar dictators, military strongmen and
        others who worked to undermine democracy in countries like North Korea, Venezuela, South Sudan and Libya.
        But he said it’s never been used in the way or the extent proposed by
        Trump, who had initially called for a temporary ban on all immigrants
        from all Muslim countries.

        Such a proposal would have likely faced
        a slew of lawsuits from groups claiming it violates First Amendment
        protections for freedom of religion. In recent months, Trump altered the
        description of his ban, saying he would target immigrants from
        “terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur.”

        Legomsky
        said if Trump worded such a proclamation based on terrorism grounds and
        not on religious grounds, “then I’m sure that order would hold up in
        court.”

        Border towns to Trump: The wall won’t work

        THE BORDER WALL

        Extending
        the 650 miles of wall or fencing that currently exist would require
        congressional approval because of the billions of dollars that the
        project would cost. Trump told 60 Minutes that in “certain areas, a wall is more appropriate,” but “there could be some fencing.”

        Congress
        may need to create a legal mechanism to withhold remittances that
        Mexicans in the U.S. send back to their families in Mexico, a revenue
        stream that Trump says would help pay for construction of the wall.

        So far, it looks like there’s interest on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on Wednesday that border security “is something I think ought to be high on the list.” And House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Trump has earned a “mandate” to implement his policy.

        But
        Tuesday’s election left Republicans short of the 60-vote majority in
        the Senate that would allow them to override a Democratic
        filibuster that could block legislation, meaning Republicans may need to
        craft a compromise to get the wall extended.

        Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart,
        R-Fla., one of the lead immigration negotiators in the House, said he
        would be willing to accept extensions to the border wall as long as part
        of the package includes legal protections for undocumented immigrants
        who remain in the U.S.

        “The size of a wall, the thickness of a
        wall, the size of a fence — whatever it takes to finally secure the
        border — I think Congress will have the willingness to do that,”
        Diaz-Balart said. “But in order to do all of that, you’re going to have
        to get it through the Senate. The mathematical reality of that is you’re
        going to have to deal with the (undocumented immigrants) who are here.”

        Forgot where I got this they took the site down. But have been letting one Mike know the score the rules and the regulations on the books for our president to end the Muslim situation.

        • Rob1911a1

          Tiger – By the way, have you seen MEXICOS wall between Mexico and the country bordering it on the south? What’s good for them is just as good for us – build it!

          • Tiger

            Yes and all over Europe walls being erected. Have you read their immigration laws? They are brutal. I believe this president wants the wall, wants the gun running to stop and wants help with Cartels. They are killing Mexican people in the hundreds and O wouldn’t heed their calls for help in stopping it.

        • Rob1911a1

          Tiger – the Muslim Ban could fall under a 1952 Federal Law that allows us to deport ‘subversive’ elements; and let’s face it, the Syrians (aren’t there 57 Muslim countries that could be taking them in?) are only HERE to subvert America. Perfectly legal (and the best irony is the law was passed by Dems). Also, 1940 law (also Dem) mandates that the government ‘find and deport illegal aliens’; Trump would only be following existing law.

          • Tiger

            Exactly and he is well aware of these laws. I remember the speech he made on how he would do this and he mentioned the laws. He has to secure our country and he has to protect the people. Because if he does not then there will be problems and burning out of the fiends among us.

  • Karll

    The “constitutional scholar” getting in his last licks.

  • bobnstuff

    Less then 1% of the bills President Obama sign got signing statements, so it’s a big deal? Over the eight years in office Obama has signed just under 1300 bills and vetoed just 9. Look at every other President in the last half century and none wrote less then 100. GW had 157 so Obama hardly had any. Until Reagan signing statements were very rare. So Obama wrote only 20 in eight years, big deal.

    • Tiger

      Right O doesn’t need the Constitution or Congress he uses EO’s and writes Legislative Law through the EPA who enforces it and punishes those who don’t follow it. This is unconstitutional and the EPA will pay for this under a Real DOJ. He also ignores the laws and that is why he has court cases across this country. His telling the border guards and police to not enforce the immigration laws is over also. We have laws on the books for inciting riots Soros and Hillary and O are guilty Mr. O might find his butt, his scrawny butt before Congress for this and Treason.

      Ohhhhh Happy Day. When this traitor washed away.

      • bobnstuff

        Funny how you think that President Obama did something wrong by using the same tools that every president in the past has used. In case you didn’t know President Obama used EO’s less then most presidents, not more. He also didn’t even come close to the most extreme use. Lincoln use one to free the slaves. Also you seem to believe that agencies writing regulation is something new. The EPA was created by Nixon and it wasn’t the first agency to create regulations. Not one of the things that President Obama has done as president hasn’t been done before. Have you even read the constitution? I bet you don’t even know how regulations are created. In the last eight years the only real traitors were the Republicans in congress who tried to undermine the power of the President.

        • Tiger

          Funny that you still don’t understand that NO president in the past has written law or changed existing law like O has.

          Wrong in case you didn’t know O not only used EO but other things to get his agenda.

          The EPA or n o agency can write laws PERIOD that is the job of the Congress.

          The Problem with Congress is that NOBODY reigned him in NOBODY. They betrayed all of us and that is why we want them out the RINO.

          Yes I know the Constitution do you?

        • Tiger
        • Tiger

          From the article.

          By issuing his directives as “memoranda” rather than executive orders, Obama has downplayed the extent of his executive actions.

          (Photo: Carolyn Kaster, AP)

          WASHINGTON
          — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the
          presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history —
          using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer
          executive orders.

          When these two forms of directives are
          taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive
          actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the “Do Nothing
          Congress” almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of
          presidential documents.

          Obama has issued executive orders
          to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose
          economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified.
          He’s used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control,
          immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to
          declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

        • Tiger

          This is how many times O has messed with the Constitution illegally. He still has court cases pending for changing the Welfare laws already in place along with his Dreamer crap that is still in the courts even the Supreme Court has said he has stepped on the Constitution.
          https://tisaboutfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-violations/

        • Tiger
          • Worried Vet

            Great post.

          • Tiger

            Thank you my friend.

          • Worried Vet

            Your welcome. I haven’t had much time but I have looked at a few responses. Yours hit the point. A few others are right on. I am trying to follow up on one about Obama really not being born here. I thought it was over, but if it’s true his social security number was issued in Connecticut and the number belongs to someone else, and a judge had proof, well why wasn’t that all over the news? Conspiracy theories was never my thing but this guy brings out all of them to the point we have to at least do some research. The one I ever held any truth was the Kennedy assassination. I always wondered what LBJ had to do with it, I really don’t think he was totally innocent. He had his corruption problems from the start of his career. It was also a well known fact he hated JFK and his family. The facts are there that Joseph Kennedy wasn’t a very honest man, and the unions helped JFK win in 1960 at least in Chicago. That place has been corrupt for decades going back to Capone at least. One day maybe the truth will come out. I don’t know if it’s as bad as some of the theories, but I would bet the Warren commission ignored or covered up something’s. I voted for Ford back then even though he was on that commission. I was young and the facts were left out of many things back then. What’s really sad is Nixon committed the unforgiving crime of spying on his opponents. Obama has been caught doing much much worse and stayed POTUS. The liberals have had way to much control, and two sets of rules for way to long. I know with the way things are shaping up the liberals are not going to be easy to take away their power. They are greedy, and corrupt with no intentions of changing for the good of our country. I pray Trump gets in and let’s the new attorney general do any all investigation he deems to be worth while. If he does like I’m praying, I think many of these elites need to shut the hell up and stop drawing attention. If their corrupt in any way they should be shutting up and not poking the bear, so to speak. If our new POTUS really does drain the swamp, the corrupt ones should be scared. I know if the facts come out, there isn’t enough room in the federal pens. They will have to build a new prison for the corrupt elites and their donors and minions. That would be a great day in history.

          • Tiger

            Great thoughts and yes O has a seedy past and it is leaking out and has been for years, nobody would read about it and the Main Media of course wouldn’t touch it with someone else ten foot pole. There are many official people that Sheriff Joe brought in and his news conference was right on and O is not and never has been an American now he is showing it full force. He perpetrated the hugest hoax and who vetted him? That is another strange case. O said in his bio that he wrote for his book that he was born in Kenya, like everything else surrounding him nobody believes what is right in front of their face.

            As to Kennedy he sought to wake up the American people about the shadow government. To which many belonged and that old longing for the One World Order and full control of the people has been around for sometime. I read a great book you might want to look to. “Plausible Denial”, Mark Lane and it has a lot of new evidence along with the question was the CIA involved in the assassination. The author critiques the Warren Report and he really does make some startling revelations concerning CIA involvement.

            Here is what I believe. I watched O go from cautious to full blown out and out exposing his identity via his partiality to Muslims, even those killing us to his disdain for Israel. He tried to interfere with Israeli elections, it was all over the Israeli news, Netanyahu knew it, he let it go but they knew. O’s seething hate for Netanyahu is apparent. Netanyahu a soldier and a brave, powerful and honorable man. O would love to see Israel taken out. When the fires hit and burned 50% of Israel O didn’t send help until they were under control and 35 Arab Muslims caught, he then sent 1 plane, one. Russia saved Israel. Sent huge planes to stop the fires. Also the blatant bashing by Lynch and O of anyone speaking out on terrorists, Kerry caught saying if the news didn’t talk about it people wouldn’t know, the scrubbing of the Pulse killers posts and Lynch threatening people when that little girl raped by Muslim boys, all accumulating huge facts that shown a Spotlight on O and his administration. In the end he doesn’t even pretend he is just continuing to ram and to do his evil wherever he can.

            We have total COWARDS in Congress they could have and should have stopped him long ago. They should punish him now for this turncoat event on Israel. This Swamp is deep and it contains the beasts of this plan to take America down and that belly of that beast needs to be slit wide open, it’s contents removed and the carcass thrown away never to come back to life and if that does not happen, we will once again be on that brink and I don’t know if we will be able to pull back.

          • Tiger
          • Tiger
        • Tiger

          From the Article you need to read the whole thing then talk to me about the Constitution and all.

          “This regulatory environment does violate the Constitution in many fundamental ways.

          Only the US Congress has the power to write laws that are legally binding on the general public.

          Only laws that are passed through the formal legislative process have the full force of law.

          Only laws that do not violate the Constitution are valid laws.

          Congress is not granted the authority to delegate legislative power to anyone therefore it cannot.

          The constitutional authority of the federal government does not
          extend down to the individual citizens of this country nor does it
          extend down to the individual businesses located here. Only the State
          governments have the constitutional authority to regulate the lives of
          those living inside their borders and the companies doing business
          there.”

        • Tiger
        • Tiger

          Here is the article read it.

          “A‌rticle I of the Constitution vests “All legislative powers herein
          ‌granted” in Congress, while Article II, section 3 requires that the
          President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But
          what happens when the President fails to execute the law?

          Time and again, President Barack Obama has pushed the limits of this
          duty, acting unilaterally to change or ignore the law. From refusing to
          abide by statutory deadlines, waiving requirements written into laws
          that he does not like, and choosing not to enforce laws against whole
          categories of offenders, President Obama has not been shy about
          circumventing Congress and essentially rewriting laws. Through
          unilateral actions, President Obama has effectively amended the Patient
          Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), the 1996
          welfare reform law, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, and the WARN Act,
          and he has “enacted” certain “laws,” such as the DREAM Act, that
          Congress never passed.[1]

          These examples, among others, make it clear that President Obama is
          failing to faithfully execute the law. Many Members of Congress have
          expressed serious concerns about whether President Obama is trampling on
          the separation of powers doctrine and usurping legislative powers, but
          what, if anything, can they do to remedy this situation? Is this a
          problem that the judicial branch can resolve, or is it one that the
          political branches must work out on their own?

          Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner (R–OH) believes
          he has found the key to reining in the executive branch: suing President
          Obama.

          Under Article III of the Constitution, the judicial power extends to
          resolving only “Cases” or “Controversies.” This ensures that courts do
          not issue advisory opinions, but rather adjudicate actual disputes
          between adverse parties that are capable of resolution by a court. The
          case or controversy requirement also prevents the judiciary from
          intruding into matters reserved for the executive and legislative
          branches and protects the courts from becoming referees in every dispute
          between the political branches.

          Establishing Article III Standing

          To satisfy this constitutional requirement (known as “Article III
          standing”), a party must establish three things: (1) an injury-in-fact
          that (2) is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct and (3) is
          capable of being redressed by a court.[2]
          This procedural requirement is the same for all lawsuits, including
          suits filed against the executive branch by private citizens, individual
          Members of Congress, or an entire chamber of Congress.

          Demonstrating an injury-in-fact—an actual harm—is typically the
          biggest hurdle when Members of Congress attempt to sue the President for
          violating the separation of powers. For that reason, most successful
          challenges against abusive executive actions have been filed by private
          parties that were demonstrably harmed by those actions.

          For example, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a steel company challenged President Harry Truman’s attempt to nationalize American steel mills.[3]
          In finding that the President had exceeded his authority, the Supreme
          Court of the United States recognized that the President’s “power to see
          that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be
          a lawmaker…. [T]he Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about
          who shall make laws which the President is to execute.”[4]

          Likewise, in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha,
          the Supreme Court struck down the one-house legislative veto in a case
          brought by a foreign exchange student who challenged a House resolution
          ordering his deportation.[5]
          Congress had delegated to the Attorney General the authority to suspend
          deportation decisions on a case-by-case basis, but Congress
          subsequently passed a law that allowed one chamber the ability to “veto”
          the Attorney General’s decision simply by passing a resolution. The
          Court determined that Congress may not “control administration of the
          laws by way of a Congressional veto.”[6]

          The Supreme Court has been called upon twice to resolve a dispute over the line-item veto. The first challenge, Raines v. Byrd,
          was brought by six Members of Congress who voted against the Line Item
          Veto Act, which authorized the President to “cancel” certain spending
          and tax benefit provisions after he signed them into law.[7] The Court rejected this “sore loser”[8]
          challenge, finding that the Members lacked standing because they failed
          to allege a particularized harm to a private right and the claim that
          they suffered an institutional injury (a diminution of their power as
          legislators) was too “abstract and widely dispersed.”[9]

          The following year, the Court heard another challenge to the same
          law—this time brought by the City of New York and a group of private
          parties including a farmers’ cooperative and a hospital. In Clinton v. City of New York,
          the Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act, noting that the
          Constitution does not allow the President to “enact, to amend, or to
          repeal statutes.”[10]

          Just this past term, the Supreme Court decided another separation of powers case, National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, which involved a dispute between President Obama and the Senate over presidential appointments.[11]
          President Obama made “recess” appointments to the National Labor
          Relations Board (NLRB) when he deemed the Senate “unavailable to conduct
          business” even though it had been conducting pro forma sessions
          every three days. A bottling company appeared before the NLRB on unfair
          labor practices charges and subsequently challenged the board’s adverse
          decision on the basis that it lacked a quorum to act because three of
          its five members had been invalidly appointed. The Supreme Court agreed,
          stating that the Senate is in session “when it says that it is.”[12]

          Establishing Congressional Standing

          In contrast to private parties who file suits challenging abusive
          unilateral acts by executive branch officials, Members of Congress have
          not fared as well. Courts generally recognize two types of injuries for
          congressional standing: (1) a private, personal injury or (2) a direct
          and concrete institutional injury that amounts to vote nullification.

          Powell v. McCormack is an example of the former.[13]
          That case involved a private injury because the House of
          Representatives excluded a member (Adam Clayton Powell) from taking his
          seat based on allegations of corruption; the Supreme Court allowed
          Powell’s case to proceed. Coleman v. Miller is an example of the latter.[14]
          In that case, a majority of state senators challenged the ratification
          of a state constitutional amendment that had passed only because the
          state lieutenant governor cast an improper tiebreaker vote. The Supreme
          Court found that the senators had standing to challenge the ratification
          given that they did not simply lose the vote: The lieutenant governor
          effectively and improperly invalidated their votes.

          Speaker Boehner has indicated that he will seek to have the House
          pass a resolution authorizing the filing of a lawsuit against President
          Obama. Congressional standing in a case challenging unilateral executive
          action would most likely involve not a private injury but an alleged
          institutional injury, which can be difficult to prove without the
          express authorization of the House or Senate. When an individual member
          or group of members sues the executive branch without authorization, the
          real dispute is often not with the President but with the other members
          of their chamber. The Supreme Court declined to entertain such a “sore
          loser” suit in Raines in 1997 and has not directly addressed congressional standing since then.

          The federal district and appellate courts in Washington, D.C., have
          attempted to define the contours of congressional standing following Raines.
          Generally speaking, suits authorized by either the House or the
          Senate—particularly those seeking to enforce subpoenas—have been more
          successful than suits brought by individual members or groups acting
          without express authorization.

          In Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers,
          the federal district court for Washington, D.C., ruled that a House
          committee had standing to seek judicial enforcement of a subpoena issued
          to executive branch officials to testify before the committee about the
          firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.[15]
          The court found that the executive branch’s refusal to comply with the
          subpoena created an injury-in-fact: the “loss of information to which
          [the Committee] is entitled and the institutional diminution of its
          subpoena power,” which was “precisely the injury on which the standing
          of any government body rests when it seeks judicial enforcement of a subpoena it issued.”[16]

          By contrast, in Campbell v. Clinton, 31 Congressmen filed
          suit challenging President Bill Clinton’s involvement of U.S. forces in a
          NATO air strike against Yugoslavia without obtaining a declaration of
          war from Congress.[17]
          In fact, Congress had voted against declaring war and authorizing air
          strikes. The Congressmen argued that their case was more in line with Coleman (the state senators whose votes were “nullified”) rather than Raines, but the D.C. Circuit disagreed, finding that the ratification vote on a constitutional amendment in Coleman was “unusual” in that there would be no recourse once the amendment was ratified. In Campbell (as in Raines),
          the court found that the Congressmen had other options to stop the
          President’s actions and ruled that they lacked standing to sue.

          Three Conditions for a Lawsuit

          Any lawsuit brought by the House against President Obama for his
          unilateral actions will be an uphill battle. Speaker Boehner has
          expressed his belief that the House as an institution can challenge the
          President in court if three conditions are met:[18]

          No one else can challenge the President’s failure, and harm is
          being done to the general welfare and trust in faithful execution of our
          laws;

          No legislative remedy exists; and

          The House explicitly authorizes the suit on its behalf.[19]

          To demonstrate how this might work, consider a potential
          challenge to the President’s seemingly unilateral implementation of the
          DREAM Act, a bill that would effectively grant amnesty to many illegal
          aliens currently in this country and that Congress has repeatedly
          considered and refrained from enacting. In June 2012, acting at the
          President’s direction, the Department of Homeland Security directed
          immigration officials to defer deportation proceedings against as many
          as 1.7 million illegal aliens who are under age 30 and came to the
          United States before they had reached age 16, among other
          qualifications. The Obama Administration claimed that its authority to
          set priorities and exercise prosecutorial discretion allowed it to
          institute this amnesty scheme without congressional approval, despite
          the existence of clear (and constitutional[20]) laws against illegal immigration.

          The first condition for a lawsuit (unavailability of
          private parties; harm to general welfare and faithful execution) shows
          the difficulty of challenging a “benevolent” suspension of the law. It
          seems fairly clear that no private party could file such a lawsuit since
          none could demonstrate that they suffered an actual, concrete harm.
          After all, President Obama is abusing the law to help a particular
          group, not to harm others. But the lack of faithful execution of the law
          is fairly straightforward: Congress has passed a law requiring that the
          executive branch take certain actions with respect to illegal aliens,
          and the executive branch is doing the exact opposite of what the law
          mandates. Since there are no private parties and the executive branch’s
          actions effectively nullify the existing law, congressional standing may
          be appropriate.

          The second condition (lack of legislative remedies) is a
          highly contentious one. Some scholars have argued that Congress has the
          tools to deal with problems such as this but lacks the political will to
          do so. In general, there are three legislative remedies derived from
          Congress’s enumerated powers: Cut appropriations to the particular
          programs involved, cut appropriations to other programs, or impeach
          executive branch officials (or even the President).[21]
          Each is a very dramatic action, and it would seem strange for a court
          to force Congress to avail itself of one of these remedies to get the
          President to do what he is obligated to do in the first place. In
          addition, none of them would necessarily solve the problem. In the case
          of appropriations, Congress would have to undercut laws it wants
          enforced, to the potential detriment of people who receive benefits
          under those programs. Impeachment also may not solve the problem of
          faithless execution of the law either: It would simply put a new person
          in charge.

          The third condition (authorization) is simple enough: The House can pass a resolution authorizing a lawsuit.

          Assuming a court did reach the merits of such a suit, yet
          another obstacle emerges: fashioning a remedy. If a court found that
          the executive branch must enforce the existing immigration laws, what
          sort of remedy would the court fashion? The President has cited
          prosecutorial discretion as a justification for refusing to apply
          immigration laws to DREAMers; however, it is certainly a stretch to
          argue that such discretion would entitle prosecutors, who are executive
          branch officials, to suspend the application of such laws to an entire
          category of clear offenders whom Congress has not exempted—but to whom
          the President is sympathetic.

          Even if a court directed the President to enforce the
          laws, how much enforcement would constitute faithful execution of the
          law? Would deporting a single DREAMer be “faithfully” executing the law?
          What about five or 10 or 100? Clearly, federal prosecutors are not
          required to enforce every federal law against every offender; otherwise,
          there would be no such thing as prosecutorial discretion. Under these
          circumstances, a court might be reluctant to step in.

          A draft House resolution indicates that Speaker Boehner
          will target President Obama’s failure to fully implement the
          requirements of Obamacare. This may be a wiser choice than focusing on
          the DREAM Act or some other laws that involve questions about the scope
          of prosecutorial discretion, as a judicial remedy would be easier to
          fashion.

          Unambiguous statutory mandates[22] (such as express deadlines in Obamacare that the executive branch has “relaxed”) are routinely enforced by courts. In Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance,
          the Supreme Court held that “when an agency is compelled by law to act
          within a certain time period…a court can compel the agency to act,”
          provided that an injured party has challenged the agency’s inaction.[23] The Court reaffirmed this principle recently in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, noting that “Congress makes laws and the President, acting at times through agencies like EPA, faithfully executes them.”[24] The President’s duty “does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.”[25]

          The House resolution would authorize the Speaker to
          initiate a lawsuit against the President, heads of departments and
          agencies, and any other federal government employee for failing to act
          “in a manner consistent with that official’s duties under the
          Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to
          implementation of (including a failure to implement) any provision of
          the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”[26]
          This would enable Speaker Boehner to sue over the various waivers from
          Obamacare that the Administration has granted, such as waiving deadlines
          for the employer mandate and caps on out-of-pocket expenses, delaying
          implementation of and granting a “hardship” exemption from the
          individual mandate for certain people, waiving requirements that
          Congressmen and their staffs participate in the exchanges, and extending
          subsidies to people who purchase insurance through the federal
          exchanges.[27]

          Conclusion

          If the House chooses to file a lawsuit against President
          Obama, it will face what may prove to be an insurmountable hurdle in
          establishing standing. To be sure, President Obama has expanded
          executive power at the expense of the separation of powers that the
          Founders so carefully devised in the Constitution, but while the merits
          of any lawsuit against President Obama for abusive unilateral actions
          may seem clear, the issue of congressional standing is anything but
          that.

          The House will have to demonstrate to a court’s
          satisfaction that as an institution, it has been personally harmed by
          President Obama’s actions, which have effectively nullified the votes of
          its members, leaving it little recourse to rectify this injustice
          without court intervention. Such a lawsuit would require the courts to
          police the limits of the political branches’ powers, and overcoming the
          natural reluctance of courts to get involved in disputes that have
          political overtones involving the other branches of government will not
          be easy. ”
          —John G. Malcolm is Ed Gilbertson and
          Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow and Director of the Edwin
          Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage
          Foundation. Elizabeth H. Slattery is a Legal Fellow in the Meese Center.

  • 3ronald1

    President Bush stated that his successor deserves his silence. Obummer will never back off and be silent.

  • 3ronald1

    The man is EVIL and has NO class. He intends to interfere with the presidency of his successor and make his life miserable. Do we need a law stating that past presidents cannot interfere with their successor’s presidency. I think so in this man’s case. What a creep.

    • Tiger

      Israel fully expects to expose O’s involvement in this last stint with the UN. Thank God Egypt stopped it. Obama showed his diaper head to the world with this one and he is being taken down for it.

      He is through, he and his New Shadow Government, don’t know what the Shadow Government on the 7th floor spoken of in the leaks is going to do, will fall through the cracks as Trump Stomps through O’s EO’s etc.

      • pappy450

        Tiger,
        I will absolutely LOVE IT when TRUMP sends OSCUMBAGS so-called LEGACY down the crapper of History. He (and his minions) need to be arrested, tried, and convicted of treason and punished accordingly.

        • Tiger

          Agreed and when 50 CIA went and talked to Congress telling them O was scrubbing their reports on ISIS, then we had the heads of the CIA, FBI and Homeland Security tell Congress how O was breaking our laws on immigration and these refugees dangerous and then Congress heard the border guards tell how they were threatened with being fired if they enforced our laws along with police and which laws O was breaking, one would think the dullards would have had all it needed to give O and his minions an enema and clean the crap out but NO they even went against Trump.

          Our enemies are in our skivvies and time for a changing of the drawers.

          • ItsJo

            Obama, the Little Boy Crybaby, wants to cause chaos, and spitefully wanted the ISIS reports G o n e…..HE IS PUTTING AMERICA IN DANGER, AND THE CIA, ETAL SHOULD CARE ABOUT THIS NATION, AND NOT THE TRAITOR THEY COVER UP FOR. IT WILL ALL OUT!!

          • Tiger

            The Question I have is how is he able to have such a strangle hold on all these people? Wait I know he owns the DOJ and the AG at the top along with the IRS so guess I answered my own question.

            I will say this much the six that died in short order during this election who where going to report on Hillary surely got it fast and hard she has a better Mafia than he has.

            But then her father was Mafia.

          • Tiger
          • downdraft

            Everything you say about Obama’s P’n and Moan’n is correct…except the part as a cry baby…
            No, what you hear is the rattle of a snake…Let us BEWARE!

          • Anouk

            You are so right downdraft…Let us BEWARE from the rattle snake in the White House.
            He is so venomous. Our President Elect Trump should be extremely careful.
            January 20th is not coming soon enough.

          • CharlieSeattle

            But Congress did nothing. Why?

            Congress is complicit in enabling Obama’s treasonous agenda.

        • downdraft

          Better do so FAST! This is a rattle snake who isn’t going to leave easily…and plans not to…he has planned far ahead before we started discussing it as a possibility…and he truly believes we out here love him and will drink his snake oil and follow him anywhere!
          No, Obama actually believes his plan to remain is going to happen…and that we here will fight tooth and nail to defend him…as our Savior.
          Course, God has something say about that!

          • PoorPitifulPearl

            And he knows he isn’t going to be popular except for the progressive liberals, so he’s already started having a brick wall built around the house they are renting while remaining in D.C. He should have the decency to leave town until the stink blows over, but I guess he likes the smell of his tranny and sulpher.

      • kbfallon

        I got a hunch that all that sneaky back door treachery will be exposed real soon and that is why Mr. Wonderful is running his ignorant mouth about what Donald is going to do …trying to legitimize himself at every turn. Obammie is one sneaky scoundrel of immense proportions.

        • Tiger

          Take a look at who his Czars were he has always been a low down filthy diaper head and hater of America and especially White people, he said so in his books.

          http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/

          • ItsJo

            Right AGAIN, Tiger. He Actually DOES Hate America!-
            Just as he was taught by his COMMUNIST MENTOR, for 10 yrs.- Frank Marshall Davis of Chicago/Hawaii….

          • Tiger

            He made it pretty clear.

        • ArcticGrayling

          Obama has about as much chance of legitimizing hmself as Haiti has of becoming a world renowned centre for advanced study in theoretical physics.

          • Tiger

            LMAO That would surely be an eyebrow raiser there for Haiti to become world renowned for anything but poverty, misery and worse.

          • ItsJo

            True, EVEN as Bill Clinton USED Haiti to raise MILLIONS supposedly for the people…but, they ONLY got a SMALL amount, and Hate him and his FAUX GLOBAL CHARITY, and THEY KNOW BILL/HILLARY USED THEM, AND RIPPED OFF HAITI…..FOR THEIR “OWN BANK ACCOUNTS”

          • Tiger

            The Leaks talked about the Child Sex Trafficking in Haiti by the Clinton Foundation and the woman investigating found dead, she was number six during this election time.

      • Rob1911a1

        Tiger – We aren’t supposed to talk about family members in government, so I (literally) cannot reveal my sources. However, I know FIRSTHAND that ALL of the lawyers and investigators at the FBI felt Hillary deserved to be indicted for her email scandal. (5 members of our family hold/held TS/SCI clearances, so we KNOW what she did was a violation of the Espionage Act, not even counting the classified aspect). The FBI director DID want to prosecute, but was refused by the DOJ (that Loretta Lynch cow), but when the NYPD found the emails on Huma’s perv ex-husband’s cell and notified the FBI, Comey cleverly went public with it, so that it couldn’t be easily hushed up. Just about everything done by Obama in office, including most of his executive orders, was illegal. (Sadly, the recent one tied to a 1952 Federal Law prohibiting drilling in various places DID happen to be legal, albeit unethical, and will require Congress to overturn it. Obama is such scum (and Hawaii has STILL never verified his birth certificate!!).

        • Tiger

          I knew much of what you said to be true with the exception that Comey wanted it. That is good news but I don’t think it will stop him from being taken out of his position he almost helped get our country thrown down the Progressive/Communist Rabbit Hole so would love to see Guliani put in his place.

          Thank you for the good news.

    • ItsJo

      Excellent idea for a LAW to STOP past POTUS from interfering deliberately, as Obama has Already said he will do ‘if needed’……..This Narcissist, who LOVES hearing his Own Voice, should STFU and just GO AWAY. The people REJECTED the past 8 yrs.Obama set out to DESTROY America/Our Constitution/and Push Globalism, and THAT IS YOUR LEGACY, YOU SPITEFUL, HATE-FILLED, ANTI AMERCA S O
      B. You And your wife? have NO CLASS, but Trump WILL fight Back!!

    • podunk1

      Key SUPREME Article 6 CONSTITUTION LAW text… IT’S, 1) Supreme Law, 2) anything to the contrary notwithstanding, and 3) applies to ALL US executives and judges “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion…” (2nd oath)! It’s ABSOLUTE!

      The executive office is about executing and enforcing the Constitution, which in no way includes legislating (Article 1-1) or judging (Article 3 – civil or criminal), each is totally separate.

      Think about it… The Constitution “trumps’ Obama in every respect of law! If the newly elected Mr. Trump doesn’t trump Obama’s treasonous trespasses against the Constitution, who will trump Mr. Trump to save the nation?

    • Anouk

      Law or not law we know Obama never paid attention to anything else than his own power of destruction.
      He will continue to rush to destroy this country. 23 more days of anxieties, worry for We the People before our President elect Trump will take the driver seat.
      This rat obo looks like he didn’t want to leave the control he had for 8 years. His dream to destroy completely the America he hates is not completely over.
      His dark soul is still trying to find a way to continue his dirty job. Let’s pray God he just disappears and leave We the People alone and free to live in a country which is Great again.

    • downdraft

      A key item to investigate is WHY??? he is doing this, and what does he seek to gain??

      Obama wants to set the tables for a 3rd term…

      This is not a minor issue because Obama intends to upset many things before “E” day (EVICTION)…

      …mostly the nation’s security that is so weak because of him that the “little twin brother” of his, the puppet-narcissist in North Korea, is being enticed to “try his luck”….and toss his nuclear grenade into the mixture…

      ..probably on the west coast because it is closer to our mainland.

      Obama ‘s narcissist category is not just that of a character flaw…it is the most dangerous one, which to the infected rejection is a realistic assault to his very existence….

      And he will do whatever necessary to destroy those who threaten him…in this case Trump, us out here, some of the military…our Constitution…

      His defense will include the responsibility the POTUS has to defend the nation in any “Emergency”…which includes maintaining control by any means…

      So I choose not to view Obama simply as an outgoing “lame duck”president …but a dangerous person to corral and restrain…before he strikes with his sick plan…

      Paranoia? You betcha! Over cautious? You betcha! Over reaction? Nope! Obama is a sick man…Michelle knows this and carried him through adult puberty to the white house…she isn’t going to let go either…

      Mr. Trump…have your Generals watch this man carefully…

      • Anouk

        Good post! Unfortunately true.

  • Peatro Giorgio

    As a last ditch effort on Obummers part to prove his claims as a Constitutional scholar. When in fact what it is Obummer has managed quite well to prove, is his law degree was bought an paid for. Just remember folks Obummer had supposedly attended Columbia University. Obummer has never answered this question? Why Barrack insane obummer obam isit that 400 of of your so called fellow alumni do not recall ever seeing you speaking with you on that campus ,Not a single one has ever recalled witnessed seeing you Barrck in a lecture hall ,class room , lunch room ,bathroom or anywhere else on campus. Question ! Would a true US Constitutional scholar ever publicly state! Our nation is made up of 57 states . When infact we are but 50 with 5 territorial holdings, non states,never eccepted,requested statehood. And yes of course not a single one of those territories has ever seen Consituationally ratification as states either. No I believe Obummer to truly be the fraud ,interloper, manccurian candidate for which he has so very well proven himself to be.

    • Tiger

      Many questions remain unanswered and answers will be forth coming when he is no longer the boss of every department in our government. No longer carrying the hammer of the DOJ and of the EPA and IRS. The Gig is up.

      The only reason O studied the Constitution and Podesta pretty much made it clear when speaking on the Chris Wallace show in 2008, was to learn how to undermine it, bypass it and get all his powers straight given him in the Constitution including being the Commander and Chief of the military. Using our military to fight Ebola in Africa was not in our Mission Statement.

      He appears to not understand he is not the president anymore but this stunt with Israel has put him in the spotlight and Israel will show how he brought this plan together. O is a disgrace and his last trip to Europe he was met with riots everywhere he went telling him to get out.

      • Peatro Giorgio

        Let us Pray President Donald Trump Brings forth any & all evidence to Justify The Honorable Sheriff Joe Arpiaos & his investigative all volunteer posse Comitatus’s Claims of Forgery.

        • Tiger

          Trump was hot on that trail also until he decided to run that is one sticky wicket that must be brought out and O disgraced forever. He made a fool out of millions of Americans biggest stunt ever pulled off in the history of our country.

    • Yes, he is a fraud! We the People supposedly voted him into office, TWICE! He is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of America! He should not, forthwith, be allowed anywhere near any political arena for the remainder of his life. He should also lose his perks he received while in office, and any retirement benefits! And by all means, take away his SS protections! He paid no attention to national secrets while in office, so he knows nothing of value. If he was taken hostage by a foreign power, no one would care!

  • Terry

    Well, Now the entire World are getting to see & know the “Real” Barak Hussein Obama. I had no idea any American President would or could ever be this Intentionally EVIL & Destructive to our Country & Others as well! He finally has his Eternal Legacy written in Stone in Infamy! The WORST AND MOST EMBARRASSING AMERICAN PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. i feel so sorry for the African American Population having to live with his failures as the First Black American President. Talk about a knife in the back(s) of so many innocent people and countries. So very very sad! Such a coward as he burns the late night oil cowardly hatching & perpetrating evil and running off to Hawaii or to the Golf Course. Bragging on “Himself” since it’s just him and Michele doing so now.

    • Tiger

      Great sentiments and I share them. He has shown his Turban to the world with this last situation in the UN with Israel. Thank God Egypt said no and won’t sing on and Netanyahu intends to show O put this into motion.

      It means no never minding because Israel has now doubled down and there is a really good chance, since Arabs burned down one half of the country recently that Muslims will no longer be tolerated in Israel. Muhammad was born thousands of years after the Jews a Nation, Jerusalem it’s capital and the Temple built on Mt Zion, nothing in the Holy Lands belongs to Muslims and it is time they understood that.

    • ArcticGrayling

      Don’t overestimate the world. There are a billion Muslims who are too stupid to see that Allah is a phoney.

      There are lots of others who still believe Obama is the magic nigger.

?>

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Google Analytics Alternative