Liberal & Obama Supporter Attorney Jonathan Turley Says Expansion of Barack Obama’s Presidential Powers Threatens Liberty
WOW, IF THIS DOES NOT WAKE PEOPLE UP, NOTHING WILL … LIB ATTY AND OBAMA SUPPORTER BLASTS OBAMA’S ACTIONS
Last night on ‘The Kelly Files,’ Jonathan Turley, a liberal Constitutional attorney and Obama supporter said a mouthful last night with regards to the imperial president, Barack Obama’s “unilateral” and Unconstitutional actions. Turley stated, “I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left” and Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism.”
This is a must watch interview and remember, this is coming from a lib. Turley is basically describing … “TYRANNY”.
KELLY: Let me ask you about this because in that soundbite we played before we went to commercial, you said the framers would be horrified because everything they did was to create balance between the branches of government and we’ve lost that.
TURLEY: Well, I’m afraid it’s quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.
And what we’ve been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that’s what the president is doing. I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.
KELLY: We heard a lot of objections when President Bush expanded the powers of the presidency from the left and from the media. They haven’t been raising the same objections now that we have a Democrat in The White House. And you say they do so at their own peril.
TURLEY: I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.
And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.
KELLY: Why is it so dangerous? What’ so bad that will come of this?
TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don’t believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we’re beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, ‘I’m going to ignore this,’ or, ‘I’m going to shift funds that weren’t appropriated by Congress into this area.’
The president’s State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it’s dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we’ve never seen it to this extent.
KELLY: What is supposed to be done about it? You know, I know in your testimony before Congress you cited Ben Franklin who believed that the other branches would work in their own self interest to try to reign in a president who got drunk on his own power, or however you want to put it. You know, Congress doesn’t have — they can withdrawal money, they can move to impeach, they can file lawsuits –which they’ve done — I mean, what are they supposed to do?
TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they’re just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.
But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.
I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn’t matter what party held the White House. But what we’re seeing now is the usurpation of authority that’s unprecedented in this country.
A real look into what Barack Obama truly thinks and believes … Its Good to be King
While visiting Monticello with the French president, President Obama said, “That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.” Hmm, you think he is joking, huh? Well, he just made another unlawful change in a law passed by Congress delaying certain employers of the employer mandate until 2016. Is some one going to remind Obama that the federal government of United States of America is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Just asking?
Remember when Our Founding Fathers created a government of, by and for the American people?
At 4:45 POTUS and president Hollande walked out from a portico and strolled in Front of your pool with Leslie Bowman, president of the Monticello Foundation. Looking at a terrace she said that Jefferson loved to admire the landscape from there. POTUS said that he’d like to take a look and seemed delighted to “break the protocol”.
“That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want” he quipped, walking to the terrace with his guest and Ms. Bowman. Pool now in the mansion as the leaders will come and visit Jefferson’s study.
More from Kristinn Taylor at The Gateway Pundit and the comparisons to France’s King Louis XVI and his wife Queen Marie Antoinette.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Says that Conservatives Who are Right to Life & for 1st and 2nd Amendmends ‘Have No Place in the State of New York’
More liberal tolerance … What has taken over the Democrat party … So much of a government in NY state of, by and for the people, all people.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said during a WCNY radio interview with Susan Arbetter that that if “extreme conservatives” are “right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay,” then “they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” Seriously? Isn’t the governor of a state supposed to represent all the people? Could you imagine if a governor from a “red” state said that no one who was pro-choice, pro-gay or pro-gun control has no place in their state? The MSM would be in a complete and total uproar. Cuomo went on to say that “moderate Republicans have a place in this state” and noted that he can work with moderate Republicans, as they’ve consistently passed his agenda. So only those that agree with Cuomo have a place in New York state. UNREAL! Imagine if Chris Christie made such a comment? Once again we are witness to another double standard. Let’s hope this socialist clown never runs for president.
“Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”
This intolerance is coming from a state governor, this is why the framers and Founding Fathers wrote a Bill of Rights to the US Constitution to protect the people from a tyrannical government.
So let’s get this correct, an individual who expresses their First and Second Amendment rights of the US Constitution have no place in New York state? I thought it was the Democrats who claim to have a big tent and are oh so tolerant. The sad reality of Andrew Cuomo’s comments is that he is being seriously and this is what the liberal, socialists who have taken over the Democrat party believe. So for all you folks outside of New York City and who live in upstate New York, you best not be for the rights of new born babies, you best not support the right to bear Arms and you best not be for religious freedom and the right to follow your religious beliefs.
Saturday Night Live Skit Mocks Barack Obama Selfie, the Raul Castro Hand Shake & the Fake Mandela Interpreter
It would appear that SNL has finally realized that the Obama presidency is a joke and easy fodder for their skits … The amazing part about it is that their parody is exactly what basically happened.
“First, I got roped into taking a selfie with the blonde female Danish prime minister. Some people said Michelle was angry at me for that. But, I talked to her afterwards and I can assure you, she was furious.” [pic-look at that body language]
“Finally there was a sign language interpreter who clearly had no idea what he was doing”.
COLORADO SCHOOL SHOOTING: Shooting at Arapahoe High School, One Injured, Gunman Dead … Gunman ID’d as 18 Year Old Karl Halverson Pierson
Sadly, another shooting to report, this time from Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado. The shooting took place on Friday afternoon as the gunman entered the high school with a shotgun at approximately 12:33 p.m., near the student parking lot, he asked for the teacher by name. During the gun fire, a 15 year old girl was shot and injured and was listed in critical condition at an area hospital. Eventually the shooter turned the gun on himself and committed suicide. The school is eight miles from Columbine.
A student identified as 18-year-old Karl Halverson Pierson walked into a Colorado high school with a shotgun Friday, possibly seeking revenge against a teacher, and critically wounded another student before apparently killing himself, police said.
The injured student, a 15-year-old girl, was listed in critical condition at an area hospital. Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said a second student, initially thought to have suffered a gunshot wound, was actually not injured and only covered with blood from the first victim.
The second student was released from the hospital Friday night.
Robinson also said two Molotov cocktails were found at the scene. One was ignited either “immediately prior to or during the shots being fired,” he said, releasing a “significant amount” of smoke. The second was not deployed and rendered safe.
UPDATE I: The shooter has been identified as 18-year-old Karl Halverson Pierson. The incident appears to be an attempted at revenge against the school’s librarian, Tracy Murphy, who was head of the school’s speech and debate team and who had recently kicked Pierson off the team.
Karl Halverson Pierson was the Arapahoe High School student gunman who shot a student inside the school while seeking “revenge” on a staff member, the Arapahoe County Sheriff confirmed Friday night.
Pierson, 18, went into the school armed with a shotgun looking for the school’s librarian, Tracy Murphy — who was head of the school’s speech and debate team and who had recently kicked Pierson off the team, sources told the CALL7 Investigators.
“We were just in the library doing some work and we heard a loud bang. I thought it might have been someone dropping something, but then I heard two more,” said senior Max Minne. “I knew it was a gun for sure.”
Minne, who was studying in the library during his 5th period class, said he started to approach the front door of the library to see what was happening.
“The shooter just ripped through the door, started yelling, ‘Where’s Murphy?’ — That’s the main librarian of the school. I saw him bust through the door of the library with a gun, so I just took off and started yelling, ‘Everyone get out! Everyone get out!’”
UPDATE II: Arapahoe High gunman held strong political beliefs, but he does not look like a Tea Party member. Actually, he appears to be a socialist.
The teenage gunman who entered Arapahoe High School on Friday afternoon and shot two fellow students with a shotgun was outspoken about politics, was a gifted debater and might have been bullied for his beliefs, according to students who knew him.
In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith, who through his invisible-hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as “Keynesian.”
Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: “The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ‘em Die, Climate Change: Let ‘em Die, Gun Violence: Let ‘em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ‘em Die, More War: Let ‘em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?”
Carl Schmidt and Brendon Mendelson, both seniors at Arapahoe High, knew Pierson. They said he had political views that were “outside the mainstream,” but they did not elaborate.
Out of the mainstream, really? Has anyone seen lately what the Democrat/Socialist party has been spewing lately? The PJ Tatler makes a very good observation in that Pierson’s political views hardly seem out of the mainstream for Democrats or so they seem very deep thinking. They are the same as Nancy Pelosi talking points (VIDEO) against the GOP.
But oh the all too common hypocrisy from the LEFT, he mocked Republicans, “Gun Violence: Let ‘em Die,” yet Karl Halverson Pierson takes a shotgun into the high school to cause violence and death.
TIME Magazine’s pick as the 2013 Person of the Year is …
Miley Cyrus Pope Francis.
Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical of Time’s choice for Pope Francis as being their ‘Person of the Year” for 2013, but I am. Not that Pope Francis is not a good man or deserving of this award, but TIME made the choice not because of his religious virtue and certainly not because they believe in Catholicism or the message it spreads. Doesn’t it feel like it was yesterday they were doing stories on the coverups of sexual predator Catholic priests? Let’s face it, the reason why they chose him is because Pope Francis criticized “modern capitalism” ,in an attack on “the idolatry of money.”
Like I said, Pope Francis is an easy and justifiable choice, it is the reasons why he was picked that are suspect. In any other year Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle-blower would have won this hands down. He exposed the spying ways of the NSA and will continue to do so for months and years to come. Snowden’s exposing of the NSA has even made US lawmakers and foreign leaders question what this spy organization is doing.
However, Snowden finished second to Pope Francis for pretty much one reason and that is Time’s media bias to push Obama’s agenda of “income equity” otherwise known as socialism.
Once there was a boy so meek and modest, he was awarded a Most Humble badge. The next day, It was taken away because he wore it. Here endeth the lesson.
How do you practice humility from the most exalted throne on earth? Rarely has a new player on the world stage captured so much attention so quickly—young and old, faithful and cynical—as has Pope Francis. In his nine months in office, he has placed himself at the very center of the central conversations of our time: about wealth and poverty, fairness and justice, transparency, modernity, globalization, the role of women, the nature of marriage, the temptations of power.
And yet in less than a year, he has done something remarkable: he has not changed the words, but he’s changed the music. Tone and temperament matter in a church built on the substance of symbols—bread and wine, body and blood—so it is a mistake to dismiss any Pope’s symbolic choices as gestures empty of the force of law. He released his first exhortation, an attack on “the idolatry of money,” just as Americans were contemplating the day set aside for gratitude and whether to spend it at the mall.
NY Times Reports: The Obama Administration Doesn’t Want You to Call ObamaCare “Redistribution” … Even Though It Is And They Know(Knew) It
What’s in a word, except everything.
The New York Times is reporting that Barack Obama and his administration does not want you to call Obamacare the “R” word. Not racism, but “REDISTRIBUTION”. Just as Barack Obama and Democrats have suddenly distanced themselves from calling Obama’s signature piece of legislation Obamacare as it has become toxic. They also do not want you to call Obamacare a redistribution of wealth, when it obviously is. America, how else do you think that so many millions of uninsured poor people were going to miraculously get insurance, from the healthcare fairy? The fact of the matter is, that they knew it all along and demonized Republicans when they stated the truth. Now suddenly millions of Americans don’t like it when the redistribution of wealth, the money grab is not just from the rich, but from the middle class as well. We said a long time ago, be very careful what Obama and his band of socialist define as rich, it might just be you.
Rebecca M. Blank was a top candidate in 2011 to lead President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, but then the White House turned up something politically dangerous.
“A commitment to economic justice necessarily implies a commitment to the redistribution of economic resources, so that the poor and the dispossessed are more fully included in the economic system,” Ms. Blank, a noted poverty researcher, wrote in 1992. With advisers wary of airing those views in a nomination fight, Mr. Obama passed over Ms. Blank, then a top Commerce Department official and now the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin. Instead he chose Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist.
“Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds,” said William M. Daley, who was Mr. Obama’s chief of staff at the time. Republicans wield it “as a hammer” against Democrats, he said, adding, “It’s a word that, in the political world, you just don’t use.”
These days the word is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking “socialized medicine.” But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall.
“Americans want a fair and fixed insurance market,” said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who advised Mr. Obama’s team as it designed the law. “You cannot have that without some redistribution away from a small number of people.”
The National Review On-line has 8 takeaways from the NYT article, here are a few:
- The White House intentionally hid Obamacare’s redistributive goals.
- Policy experts knew all along but didn’t tell the public.
- David Axelrod blames American political culture for Obama’s needing to lie in the first place
- Republican charges Obama feels must be deflected by disguising the truth: redistribution, socialized medicine, redistributor-in-chief, spreading the wealth around, closet socialist. (Read the rest of the takeaways HERE)
Make no mistake about it America, Barack Obama and Democrats lied to you and it was most certainly intentional. Their entire model of Obamacare is based on the redistribution of wealth and bringing others up while taking you down. That’s what socialists deem fair.
Umm, Did Democrat New York Senator Kirstin Gillibrand Just Admit “We All Knew” that Barack Obama was Misleading Americans on ObamaCare
Welcome to Obamaland where knowing lying and defrauding the American people is simply not being specific.
Check this out, New York Democrat Senator Kirstin Gillibrand just admitted on ABC’s ‘This Week’ that they all knew that Barack Obama was lying when he promised the American people, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan, period.” When asked by Martha Raddatz whether she had been mislead by Barack Obama, Gillibrand’s response was … “No, we all knew.”
New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said this morning on “This Week” that President Obama should have been more specific when he made his famous promise — which he subsequently backtracked on — that Americans who liked their health care plans could keep them under his signature health care law.
When asked a second time if she felt misled by the president, Gillibrand repeated, “He should have just been specific.”
“No, we all knew.
How do you like them apples America? This Democrat Senator just admitted that they all [Democrats] knew that people could not keep their insurance if they liked it. Kirstin Gillibrand thinks that Obama’s credibility issue is the implementation of “glitchy” Healthcare.gov, not the fact that he and the rest of Democrats knowingly lied to people. What Obama and Democrats did is called FRAUD!
However, its more than that. If they knew and knowing mislead the people as Alinsky principles teach them that the ends justify the means, it would mean they also partook in a conspiracy, collusion and a cover up. Democrats are kidding themselves if they think that they and Obama do not have a credibility problem with “We the People”. Democrats are in for a hell of a time in 2014.
Comments from video:
Raddatz: Do you feel misled by Obama?
Gillibrand: He should have been more specific. Because the point is if you are being offered a terrible health care plan that the minute you get sick you are going to have to go into bankruptcy. Those plans should never be offered. [But yet millions of Americans lost perfectly good healthcare plans, even Democrat Kirsten Powers.]
Raddatz: So were you misled?
Gillibrand: No, we all knew. The whole point of the plan is to cover things people need.
Hmm, In 2007 Hillary Clinton Made Promises Just Like Obama: “You Can Keep the Doctors You Know and Trust” … “You Keep the Isurance You Have, If You Like It”
BACK TO THE FUTURE: This is not government run healthcare … Haven’t we heard this before?
In 2007 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton offered up her own form of healthcare reform, that resembled an awful lot like Obamacare. Hillary Clinton said in Sept. 17, 2007 in Des Moines, Iowa, “You can keep the doctors you know and trust. You keep the insurance you have. If you have private insurance you like, nothing changes — you can keep that insurance.” Wait, haven’t we heard this before. But where, it just sounds so familiar.
Oh wait, it was Barack Obama and his BS promise to the American people that if you like your doctor or healthcare plan, you can keep it, PERIOD! In 2016, do we really need another one of these lying Democrats in the White House? Hillary Clinton is nothing more than the white, female Barack Obama. For the love of God, America … WAKE UP!!!
When she was last a candidate for president in 2007, Hillary Clinton unveiled her own health care proposal, which, like Obamacare, included beefed-up benefits and a catchy pitch: “If you have a plan you like, you keep it.” Obama went on to defeat Clinton, but he adopted her tag line to help win support for his own health care plan — making the same promise, for which he recently apologized.
“You can keep the doctors you know and trust. You keep the insurance you have,” Clinton said on Sept. 17, 2007, at the Broadlawns Medical Center in Des Moines, Iowa. “If you have private insurance you like, nothing changes — you can keep that insurance.”
Clinton’s campaign website echoed that claim. “If you have a plan you like, you keep it,” it read.
Hillary Clinton is an old hand at health care reform. In 1993, when her husband was president, she led a health care reform effort that ultimately crashed and burned.
Even Liberal Democrat Howard Dean Asks, “I Wonder If Obama Has the ‘Legal Authority to Do This’ Regarding Obama’s Fix (VIDEO)
Folks, even Howard Dean can see this is tyranny …
Following Barack Obama’s speech where he proposed a “keep your plan” fix for Obamacare, former Vermont Governor, DNC Chair and Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean pondered while on MSNBC whether Emperor Obama had the legal authority to even propose such a “FIX” as the law had been passed by Congress. Hmm, many Conservatives are asking the same question regarding Obama’s actions. Wow, does that make Dean a racist?
“I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this, since this was a congressional bill that set this up?”
So what is it with Barack Obama? Does he think because it is called Obamacare that he has the legal authority to change any part of the law he feels by executive fiat? Imagine if a Republican did that with abortion? When Republicans confront Obamacare, they are constantly told that it is the law of the land. Really? If it is, then how come Barack Obama thinks he can just change it himself? Maybe the real probalem with Obama is that he was too busy reading the Communist Manifesto as a youth instead of watching School House Rock and “I’m Just a Bill”.