Obama At the Bat

This was good, dang good! Great material and delivery. We need more, much more. Humiliate and harass, this pretender doesn’t like harassment. Send this to all you friends! And tell them to do the same. It’s nice to know that there are patriotic people in Hollywood, thank you! Now do some more!

Awesome find! Thank you for posting. I decided to post it at the ezine I contribute to, Conservative Hideout 2.0 – with attribution, of course.

Wonderful and inspired.

I give it 5 STARS! *****

That is awesome. I had to put it on my blog and also on my facebook page.

This was fantastic, I am still laughing.
Go Sarah

Sarah, if she was a starting pitcher, would never be pitching in the ninth inning…she would have resigned by then!

Freeing Iraq cost 1 trill over 7 years. 35 million people are now free.

Obama spent that in one Bill, in one month. It got us nothing but less freedom.

Besides…You’re a drone with no opinion of your own. Begone ye.

@anticsrocks

Nice…

You forgot to mention the 4 trillion promised to banks by Barney Frank. Yes, that’s on top of all the other billions and trillions given already.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ

The latest moves by Pelosi and Chief of staff to move for no vote but trickery
is the latest dirty move by the liberal Socialists and so called democrats. American
people will not stand for this stuff anymore. This week is showdown for this
administation. they asked for this fight, and now they have it. America will
not stand for this Socialist movement to get their way with America.

“The latest moves by Pelosi and Chief of staff to move for no vote but trickery
is the latest dirty move by the liberal Socialists and so called democrats. American
people will not stand for this stuff anymore.”

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

Publications

Bimonthly Column on Procedural Politics from Roll Call
House Executes Deliberation With Special Rules
June 19, 2006
By Don Wolfensberger,
Roll Call Contributing Writer
Back to Document List

Telling John Q. Public there is something in Congress called a “self-executing rule” likely would draw a blank stare or a shocked look. No, it is not a political suicide pact for corrupt politicians. (That’s natural law.) Rather, it is a device used by the House Rules Committee to automatically attach amendments to bills on the floor without a separate debate or vote.

Here’s how it works:

Almost every major bill must obtain a special rule, or resolution, from the Rules Committee permitting immediate floor consideration. The resolution also specifies the amount of general debate time and what amendments will be allowed. A special rule also may contain other bells, whistles, gizmos and gadgets. One of these optional attachments is a self-executing provision, which decrees a specified amendment to have been adopted upon the rule’s passage. In other words, once the House adopts the special rule it effectively has adopted the amendment before the bill has even been called up for consideration.

Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party’s bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26, the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”

The substitute submitted by the Rules Committee did not combine all the amendments adopted by the three reporting committees, as is customarily done. Instead, it deleted two amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee that would have required disclosure of lobbyists’ contacts with Members and staff, and lobbyists’ solicitation and transmission of campaign contributions to candidates.

It then further amended its own substitute by automatically deleting a third Judiciary amendment requiring a Government Accountability Office study of lobbyist employment contracts.

The third self-executing provision occurs at the end of the special rule and states: “In the engrossment of H.R. 4975, the Clerk shall … add the text of H.R. 513, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 4975.” In other words, the Clerk was authorized to add as an amendment an entire separate bill, in this case, the House-passed legislation regulating Section 527 political committees, and thereby put that issue into conference with the Senate (which has no comparable provision in its bill).

The special rule had other problems since it allowed only nine amendments to be offered out of 74 submitted. Moreover, appropriators were unhappy with the earmark provisions included in the bill. This forced Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) to pull the rule after 20 minutes of debate, followed by a five-hour recess and Republican Conference meeting before the House reconvened and the rule again was called up and narrowly adopted, 216-207.

Well, there’s always a 1st time for every thing.

Section 5: Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,

Section 7, in regards to over riding a veto: But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.

Stgeright

Everytime it’s been done in your samples, it was pre-agreed because there was no changes to the Bills in-question. It sped things up so they could go play golf or make a waitress sandwich in the back of a bar.

This Healthbill has many differences, and no one has seen all of it, in it’s complete form.

I’m REAL sure what your reaction would be if McCain/Repubs used this method to disband the Education, EPA, and NEA departments…Which could be reeeeeeal easy-like.

I’m done with this tape recorder.

@Patvann
I would hardly say it was already agreed to. Under the example cited the special rule had other problems since it allowed only nine amendments to be offered out of 74 submitted.
The agreement was among the ruling Republicans to keep the Democrats from stalling the bill. 65 amendments were killed without a hearing.
BOTH parties do it. 2 of the leading Republican critics, Gingrich and Dreier, used it quite often. It was fine when they were running the train.
As far as this particular bill, you’re right. I haven’t had a chance to read the bill for the same reasons you cite. There are things left out I’d prefer be in there. Public Option for one. I can’t see any way to get costs down with out it. Between 1993 and today the Insurance Companies have cut their MLR ( Medical Loss Ratio ) from 93% to under 80%. That means for every dollar they get in premiums they’re paying out less than 80 cents on the dollar. The Senate Bill requires that they move that number back up to at least 90%.
When you break the bill down to it’s parts, Americans approve the details in polls over 60%. The whole bill, despite all the demagoguery, is till at 48% approval.
I would suggest, and I’m not trying to be a smart a@@ here, that anyone can check the facts regarding the statements made about the bills at FactChek.org…
They gore every body’s Bull. If Obama is lying, they’ll call him on it. If it’s a Republican, they’ll clobber them also. They’re an equal opportunity stick.

How about if we “self excecute” ALL LIBERALS!!! My my, how wonderful America would be without all the LOSERS!!!!!

@Patvann
If you look at the sample I cited, you’ll note that 65 proposed amendments were quashed by the rule. I would hardly characterize that as agreement on both sides of the aisle. The rule did exactly what it was supposed to do. It kept the Democrats from stalling the bill while all the Amendments were heard.
Congressman Dreier was the Chairman of the Rules Committee in the example. It was his Rule the Republicans were using. Today, he is one of the most out spoken critics of what is going on. It didn’t bother him when he was writing the rules.
As far as this bill, I also want to read the whole thing. There are things I like ( forcing MLRs back above 90% ) and some things missing ( public option ) I wish were there. I don’t see the altruistic Insurance Companies cutting prices with out a stick over their heads. We spend 1/3rd more than almost any country in the world for a Health system rated at 37th in the world, between Costa Rica (where Limbaugh went) and Cuba. Even Sarah and Todd sometimes crossed the border to avail them selves of the cheaper health care in Canada.
When the bill is broken down, polling shows Americans overwhelmingly support the ‘guts’ of the bill.The numbers are over 60%. Despite all the demagoguery, the entire bill is still rated at 48% approval.
I listen to both sides, then I go to Factcheck to find out the truth. They tell you who’s lying no matter the party.

March 6 Speech in Calgary, Alberta, Canada

“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic? ”— Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and U.S. vice-presidential candidate

Section. 5. Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Section. 7. Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

@StageRt:

You are waisting your time attempting to teach law to the fine members of Flopping Aces. Your time would be much better spent correcting Justice Stevens, as he obviously blatantly erred in his opinion of how a bill becomes law. I doubt you would have reason to fear a scorching rebuke from Justice Stevens or his staff as your correspondence would undoubtedly find it’s way to File 13. You would then be able to assume, due to the lack of a reply, that you know what you are talking about, all will be well in your world.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, defined the procedure in the line-item case as having three steps: approval of a bill by one house, approval of the “exact text” by the other house, and a presidential signature. “The constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may ‘become a law,’” he wrote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508_Page2.html#ixzz0iRyd1EJT

If Pelosi gets her 216 votes, it’s all academic any how. I’m quite sure if the Dems resort to this tactic, there will be a court challenge.
Whether this results in a wholesale change in Congress is debatable. The mood on this board doesn’t reflect the mood in the country. The Republicans have to wrest 35 seats away from Democrats just to gain a majority. Can they? As it stands right now, every incumbent has to watch their back. More Republicans are retiring than Democrats; 10 v 8 at the last count.
And even if they do, the only thing that will change is it will be the Democrats obstructing just the way the Republicans are doing now.
That will result in the Republicans using these same tools to get legislation through, as they did under G.W., that the Dems are talking about now.
Of course, that will be a GOOD thing to this audience. It will be characterized as the Republicans out foxing the Democrats and everybody here will cheer.

@StageRt…you said:

“March 6 Speech in Calgary, Alberta, Canada

“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic? ”— Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and U.S. vice-presidential candidate”

She was referring to a time when she was a little girl.

1. She lived at that time in a small town that had no doctor.

2. It was before Canada adopted socialized medicine.

3. Her family PAID for the care they received.

You really just keep digging yourself a deeper hole StageRt.

Point of clarification: I mistakenly said John Adams wrote the particular section of the Constitution that we are debating. Instead I should have said James Madison. Forgive me for the error.

We Americans know that obama is lying, and the Socialist democrats are lying. If
this bill is passed, democracy is lost. Pelosi and chief of staff will see to it. That
is what this fight is all about. America cannot stand for this Socialist movement
anymore. We have lost too many good men in Wars to stand for this move by
the democrats. I see the strong arm tactics being pulled on congressmen and
senators, and the unions are the democratic strong points that seem to be polluted
with dishonesty. Only democracy wins in this situation, and the bill must be voted
down. States could still secede and leave the federal government in a real swamp.

@StageRt

You repeated Art. I, Sect 7 of which I posted as trying to bolster your argument that it’s legal according to the Constitution, however, I repeat again: Is that not simple enough to understand?

The wording is in plain english, simple enough that someone with an elementary school education can read and understand it to mean that any bill which will go to the president, MUST be voted on by both houses of congress and the Yeas and Nays recorded. By simply placing a line in another bill which states something to the effect of “We deem HR XXXX to be passed upon passage of this bill” goes against the SIMPLE language in the Constitution on how a bill becomes law.

The only thing you got halfway right in all of your posts was:

As I commented above, this all becomes academic if Pelosi gets her 216 votes.

Even then, there is much that will be challenged not only to the supreme court, but by the states themselves passing legislation with the support of the 10th Amendment in opting out of Obamacare. Despite what you may read on the lefty sites, there are much more people who strongly oppose the government takeover of healthcare than support it, and it will show itself in numerous ways if this outrage is passed and signed into law, no matter which way they end up doing it. You and BRob can come here and repeat all the lefty talking points you want about the support and opposition to Obamacare, but in the end, the people will show you how wrong you are.

All the Republicans have to say if this bill is passed is to say, hey America, look at
the Socialist Democrats in Washington and the Socialist muslim leadership in the white
house. it is pretty obvious that this BILL IS BAD, BAD, BAD! and no amount of discourse
from the Socialist leaders will change Amerca’s mind on what this administration and
the Socialist Democrats are trying to do, and that is to gut America and make it totally
socialist, like Europe. AMERICA DOES NOT WANT THIS CRAP, AND AMERICA DOES NOT
WANT THESE LEADERS ANYMORE! WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF THE LIES!

G. W. told the truth. He was a great President! He told the truth! He liked America!
He was a true American citizen. That is more than I can say about the current leader
that is in the oval office.

Chuck Socialists and Muslims in the White House,impeachment,secession,GWB a great president.DAMN, you been hanging with Massa?

@johngalt
John, after reading a few more sources, I have to agree with your interpretation.
BTW, don’t lump me in with lefties. I didn’t see you when I was campaigning for Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon again, or Reagan.
I could NOT, in good conscience, support G. W. Besides being a Coke Head and drunk, he wormed his way out of serving in Viet Nam. For political gain, he besmirched the military record of an officer who didn’t hide behind his Daddy’s coat tails. The Swiftboat lies were later documented, but the election was over by then.
He lied to support his war in Iraq. That’s not precedent setting. Eisenhower did it in ‘54 and LBJ did it in ‘65. You’d think we would have learned something about politicians since ‘65.
Worse, while we went trotting off to Iraq, we lost sight of the true enemy, al Quaeda, and now we have to go fight for the same ground in Afghanistan we had already won in ‘02 against a reconstituted Taliban.
That defies Patton’s 1st Rule of combat.
He allowed the troops at Abu Ghraib to be tried and imprisoned all the while KNOWING they were following the orders of their commanding officers. You ever had a boss ‘throw you under the bus’?
I won’t even go in to his assault on the Constitution. We probably won’t know the depth of that for another 20 years.

Hey, Flopping Aces blogging cousins:

My blogging partner just emailed me this marked as “URGENT” … I’m searching for something solid on this, but thought I’d throw a cut-off to second base to you guys so you can look into it as well:

***keep an eye out. breaking news on my local channel. Iowa government passed bill to make secretary general sue the federal government if it passes healthcare reform. cant find the story anywhere yet but its coming ***

Heads up:

He just emailed again it’s NOT Iowa but Idaho.

Still searching …

Politico notes that federal health insurance was not put into effect until 1972, although Yukon, the territory Palin admitted to sneaking into for health insurance, did have a government-subsidized plan beginning in 1960. Talking Points Memo claims Canadian Medicare was implemented in 1966 on a national level. The Canadian health care system, as it exists today, began to take shape in the 1980s with the Canada Health Act becoming more explicit in how health care funds should be distributed.
My reference to Saskatchewan

In 1964, Justice Hall recommended the nationwide adoption of Saskatchewan’s model of public health insurance

had only to do with the model the federal government used. I KNEW Whitehorse was in YT. I ASSUMED you knew it. My bad.

@Aye Chihuahua

Sarah’s DAD and family members had to “sneak” because there was word that a strange and dangerous trapper was in the area. Prone to prose, and one with nature, his legend grew to mythical status in those parts.

He was the famed and feared creature known among the natives as “Susskookums”. (Roughly translates into: Big Funny-talking White Hunter.)

It was wise for Mr. Palin to tread lightly in his quest across the wildlands.

For some did not heed the warnings, and while details are sketchy, and the rumors rampant, it is said that only small parts of one particular rude and liberal interloper from Seattle has ever been found, and even then, parts were found hundreds of miles apart.

The only evidence so far is a small caligraphic “S” artfully pressed into each part. The Mounties thinks it’s a guy named Stanley from Quebec, but only the natives know for sure, and they ain’t talkin.

Oh, Skagway to Whitehorse, Saskatchewan? If such a place existed, would have been at least 2500 miles by the roads that existed back then, a pretty good sneak, even for the the Mad Trapper of Rat River. Of course putting Whitehorse in the Yukon Territories ( not Terrorists) blunts the effect of the story quite a bit. Being one of the most experienced with the Canadian medical system at least that of BC, I will write an article on the efficiency of said system after I eat dinner and have another glass of Cabernet. It may surprise you, not that my articles don’t surprise you all that much.

I will title it, A Conservative in A Socialist Quagmire, you can guess on how it will read.

@StageRt #59:

I could NOT, in good conscience, support G. W. Besides being a Coke Head and drunk, he wormed his way out of serving in Viet Nam. For political gain, he besmirched the military record of an officer who didn’t hide behind his Daddy’s coat tails. The Swiftboat lies were later documented, but the election was over by then.

Wow…talk about so much BDS in one paragraph. It’s always interesting when it comes from someone on the right-side of the political aisle (lemmee guess: Ron Paul Reverist?).

My own cut-and-paste:

90% of young Americans of the time, never served in Vietnam. If one wanted guaranteed avoidance of serving in combat, joining the Air National Guard as a fighter pilot would hardly be a smart move. W. Bush joined the Guard for a 6-year term. If you are drafted, you only had to serve 2 years. Pilots from the unit that he joined were being sent to Vietnam.

Letter by Col. William Campenni Ret. published in the Washington Times:

There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and I) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren’t getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys. The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush’s tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one’s life.

From aerospaceweb:

we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called ”Palace Alert” from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty.

Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush’s who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.

As he was completing training and being certified as a qualified F-102 pilot, Bush’s squadron was a likely candidate to be rotated to Vietnam. However, the F-102 was built for a type of air combat that wasn’t seen during that conflict, and the plane was withdrawn from southeast Asia in December 1969. The F-102 was instead returned to its primary role of providing air defense for the United States. In addition, the mission of Ellington AFB, where Bush was stationed, was also changing from air defense alert to training all F-102 pilots in the US for Air National Guard duty. Lt. Bush remained in the ANG as a certified F-102 pilot who participated in frequent drills and alerts through April of 1972. … By this time, the 147th Fighter Wing was also beginning to transition from the F-102 to the F-101F, an updated version of the F-101B used primarily for air defense patrols. Furthermore, the war in Vietnam was nearing its end and the US was withdrawing its forces from the theater. Air Force personnel returning to the US created a glut of active-duty pilots, and there were not enough aircraft available to accommodate all of the qualified USAF and ANG pilots. Since USAF personnel had priority for the billets available, many of the Air National Guard pilots whose enlistments were nearly complete requested early release. The ANG was eager to fulfill these requests because there was not enough time to retrain F-102 pilots to operate new aircraft before their enlistments were up anyway. Bush was one of those forced out by the transition, and he was honorably discharged as a first lieutenant in October 1973, eight months before his six-year enlistment was complete. Bush had approximately 600 flight hours by the time he completed his military service.

~~~

While Bush did not see combat in Vietnam, it is also obvious that he was not seeking a way to avoid the risk of being sent to Vietnam. At the time he was training to be an F102 pilot, ANG units and that aircraft type were based in Vietnam.

More BDS:

He lied to support his war in Iraq.

What specifically, did he lie about?

Worse, while we went trotting off to Iraq, we lost sight of the true enemy, al Quaeda,

If it’s just al Qaeda who is the enemy, what prompted Bush to say the following:

“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”
-President Bush in an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington D.C., September 20, 2001.

Were KSM and Zubaydah part of al Qaeda before 9/11? Was Zarqawi?

and now we have to go fight for the same ground in Afghanistan we had already won in ‘02 against a reconstituted Taliban.

Waah, waah, waah. Does NATO share any of the blame? Or is it just “Bush took his eyes off the ball” blame-handing? Guess what?

“The going is likely to get harder before it gets easy… the enemy will fight back.“

Setbacks are a part of life. The Taliban aren’t going to just roll over for us. Wars are messy and sometimes protracted.

That defies Patton’s 1st Rule of combat.
He allowed the troops at Abu Ghraib to be tried and imprisoned all the while KNOWING they were following the orders of their commanding officers. You ever had a boss ‘throw you under the bus’?

Admiral T. Church III, Navy Inspector General, conducted an independent investigation and said: “the vast majority of detainees held by the U.S. forces during the Global War on Terror have been treated humanely.”

Going into the investigation, he had expected to find a policy of abuse that went up the chain of command. What he found was: “none of the pictured abuses…bear any resemblance to approved policies at any level, in any theater.”

An early focus of our investigation was to determine whether DoD had promulgated interrogation policies or guidance that directed, sanctioned or encouraged the abuse of detainees. We found that this was not the case.

Also from an Independent Panel led by James Schlesinger and Harold Brown, along with Congresswoman Tillie Fowler and Air Force General Charles Horner: “The events that took place at Abu Ghraib were an aberration when compared to the situation at other detention operations….No approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in fact occurred.”

I won’t even go in to his assault on the Constitution. We probably won’t know the depth of that for another 20 years.

and

@StageRt #52:

No President has put the Constitution under higher attack than G. W. Bush when he authorized the tapping of YOUR phone without a court approval.

Two book recommendations: John Yoo’s Crisis and Command: A History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush (Yes, THAT John Yoo):

Given Yoo’s strong conservatism, it would be easy for liberals to dismiss “Crisis and Command” as one more venture in a hackneyed debate. That would be a big mistake. True to form, Yoo does use his two brief final chapters to defend the George W. Bush legacy and drive progressives nuts with the idea that President Obama has some strangely reactionary ideas struggling to control his brain. But the heart of the book is the highly favorable treatment that Yoo extends to five great presidents — all of whom should rank high on any liberal’s list of admirable leaders: Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — followed by a broad survey of the Cold War presidents from Truman through Reagan.

This is a deeply serious history of the presidency, sometimes selective in its emphasis, but always provocative and thoughtful. The recurring theme is how well the republic was served by the initiatives these leaders took.

In two early chapters, Yoo briefly surveys the origins of the presidency, tracking historians (such as myself) who have explained how the anti-executive biases of the first constitutionalists of 1776 gave way to the fresh thinking of 1787. These chapters could have been better argued. There are some errors of fact and, more important, Yoo owes readers a better account of the ambivalence about executive power that still surrounded the presidency after its establishment. It was the least republican office in the new government, and the one position that most of the Constitution’s framers, with the exception of Alexander Hamilton, struggled to comprehend. How it would operate once Washington served a term or two was a mystery that no one in 1789 could decipher.

Going through past presidents, beginning with the first “GW”, there’s nothing at all “unprecedented” about the 43rd president’s exercise of executive authority.

and then there’s Geoffrey R. Stone’s “Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism.”

Max Boot:

It tells how John Adams jailed a congressman for criticizing his “continual grasp for power.” How Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had the army arrest up to 38,000 civilians suspected of undermining the Union cause. How Woodrow Wilson imprisoned Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs for opposing U.S. entry into World War I. And how Franklin D. Roosevelt consigned 120,000 Japanese Americans to detention camps.

You can also read about how presidents from FDR to Richard Nixon used the FBI to spy on, and occasionally blackmail and harass, their political opponents. The Senate’s Church Committee in 1976 blew the whistle on decades of misconduct, including FBI investigations of such nefarious characters as Eleanor Roosevelt, William O. Douglas, Barry Goldwater and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

All you have to do is recite this litany of excess to realize the absurdity of the cries of impeachment coming from the loonier precincts of the left. Muttering about “slippery slopes” isn’t enough to convince most people that fascism is descending. If the president’s critics want that part of the nation that doesn’t read the Nation to believe that he’s a threat to our freedom, they’d better do more than turn up the level of vituperation. They’d better find some real victims — the Eugene Debses and Martin Luther Kings of the war on terror.

Civil libertarians thought they were in luck when a college student in Massachusetts claimed that two FBI agents had shown up to interview him after he had requested a copy of Mao Tse-tung’s Little Red Book. Ted Kennedy cited this incident to warn of the Patriot Act’s “chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom.” Relax, Senator. Free speech is safe. The student lied.

The anti-Bush brigade hasn’t had any luck in turning up actual instances of abuse, despite no end of effort. The ACLU compiled a list of supposed victims of the Patriot Act. After examining each case, however, Sen. Dianne Feinstein — no friend of the administration — said “it does not appear that these charges rose to the level of ‘abuse.’ “

C’mon…Bush is a saint.

I contacted the Congressional Democrats and told them to vote against the
Health Care bill that this president is still lying about. Who is going to pay
the Cadillac tax? Why did the administration want to take away military coverage?
Why is there so many taxes in this bill? The big lie that the president is telling that
it is not for him? Well, hell, it must be, for he is lying awake at night trying to
figure out the next lie to tell the American people. He wants this bill for it was
a Socialist democrat campaign issue, and he continues to hide behind the desk
of the presidency and thinks that it is enough sway for the american people to
believe.WE ALL KNOW WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH, AND IT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT,
PEOLOSI, OR THE CHIEF OF STAFF! The Socialist democrats in the congress have
been thrown to the fear mongers of not being re-elected, and not receiving money
for their campaigns. These people have no idea that the States of these United States
of America has something to say in this manner, and Idaho and several other
western states have already stepped up to the plate and NO- to the Socialists
and a Muslim in the white house.

Incidentally, November 10, 2010 is not that far away. So, Democrats, pack your
bags, for you are going away, and I don’t care where, maybe Mexico.

Also, the white house wants to approve illegals! Hell, the illegals already get Social
Security and other benefits that is costing us taxpayers a hell of a lot of money that
these Socialist democrats want to spend foolishly in bankrupting our country.

Therefore, America let us strike a blow for freedom and democracy and say NO to
all proposals that this administration is proposing. TEA PARTIES- LET’S SPEAK OUT NOW
AND EVERYDAY TILL WE CLEAN HOUSE IN WASHINGTON DC AND GET RID OF PELOSI,
REED, CHIEF OF STAFF AND THE Muslim president who is not serving the USA but
the devil!

@Flo

It’s a good thing for you that hate and stupidity don’t hurt, or you’d be writhing on the floor screaming.

@Flo…you need to brush up on your history. You can thank the late Teddy Kennedy for the change in our immigration policies from that of numerical quotas and immigration based on what trade skills were possessed to chain immigration that literally opened the floodgates of immigrants.

“# The 1965 revamp of the entire immigration system. It ended 40 years of low immigration, got rid of solid numerical caps and opened up chain migration into every overpopulated country in the world, exploding annual immigration numbers
.

# Massive expansion of the refugee programs in the late 1970s, opening up massive loopholes and encouraging a domestic resettlement industry that became a major lobby for more and more overall immigration.”

And what is chain immigration?

“It begins with one immigrant legally bringing a spouse and minor children � keep in mind that Mexicans average four children per family � and, within a few years, after they’ve been naturalized, parents and siblings; the same process is then repeated by their relatives, ad infinitum.”

Thank you Ted Kennedy, still screwing America from beyond the grave.