Did you know that ‘Islam Has Been Woven Into the Fabric of Our Country Since Its Founding’?

By 126 Comments 4,258 views

800px-Islamic_Republic_of_America_svg

The latest fantasy from the fanciful imagination of Barack Obama:

We hear a lot about the United States’ Judeo-Christian heritage, but according to President Obama, “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

That’s what the president told a White House conference on “countering violent extremism” on Wednesday.

Obama has said similar things in the past:

“I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story,” Obama said in a June 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt. “Islam has always been part of America,” he said in a 2010 statement marking the start of Ramadan. And in a 2014 statement marking Eid, Obama said the holiday “also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”

What the hell is he talking about? Then again, maybe he has a point. Islam did touch the United States of America early on in its history- in the form of piracy.

Over two centuries ago, the United States was dragged into the affairs of the Islamic world by an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim pirates, the terrorists of the era. These pirates preyed on unsuspecting trade ships. The hulk­ing merchant vessels of the period were no match for the Muslim pirate ships, which were built for speed and lightning strikes. It was simply a fact of life that- over the centuries-took its toll on countless mer­chant ships and their crews.

Contemporary scholars estimate that over 1 million white Christians from France and Italy to Spain, Hol­land, Great Britain, the Americas, and even Iceland were captured between 1500 and 1800. The blood­curdling tales of brutality and horror that awaited Christians unlucky enough to fall victim to the Bar­bary Pirates were widely known, although sometimes wildly exaggerated.

Muslims were pioneers in the slave trade:

The reality was often much more prosaic, although no less cruel. After seizing the cargo and scuttling the vessel, the pirates would strip the crew of anything deemed remotely valuable. The shaken, naked, terri­fied crewmen would then be dragged back to North Africa. There, they would be imprisoned and enslaved or, if they were lucky, ransomed back to their sover­eign or their family or the company they worked for.

Often enough, however, the victims of these mari­time hijackings would languish in fetid prisons, unsure of when, or even if, they would ever be redeemed. Many perished or simply disappeared in the White Slave trade. The only other escape was conversion. Embracing Islam-“turning Turk”-instantly changed one’s status and prospects. Indeed, from time to time, some of these victims would prove rather able-bodied adventurers and mercenaries, considering their national identity, their religion, and their foreskins a small price to pay as compared with life as a Muslim pirate in North Africa.

Please do read the while thing.

Then Obama fired off another salvo:

“Generations of Muslim immigrants came here and went to work as farmers and merchants and factory workers, helped to lay railroads and to build up America.”

Because you know how important railroads were during the Revolutionary War. He wasn’t done yet:

“The first Islamic center in New York City was founded in the 1890s. America’s first mosque, this was an interesting fact, was in North Dakota.”

Uh, no. It was 1929.

Let’s review the Obama version of the birth of our nation with some images. You remember the writing of the Declaration of Independence:

write dec of indepen

The signing of the Declaration of Independence:

sign dec of indepen

And there was Washington at Valley Forge

wash valley forge m

And, of course, the surrender of Cornwallis:

corwallis surrender m

Barack Obama always plays fast and loose with facts. in other words, he lies incessantly. He is arguably most dangerous at times like this- when he assumes the role of lecturer at the Michael Moore/ Oliver Stone School of American History. Besieging other to believe things are so simply because you say them might be fine for a community organizer but it is a poor character trait for the President of the United States. Does he really believe this crap?

Islam has been part of this country since its founding like you can keep your doctor and your plan. And we are at war with radical Islam. When even Vox sees it, Obama has a problem. And so do we.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

126 Responses to “Did you know that ‘Islam Has Been Woven Into the Fabric of Our Country Since Its Founding’?”

  1. 101

    Greg

    @Bill, #100:

    Obama, on the other hand, simply issued a memo which states that laws in effect no longer have effect.

    Nope. That’s not what he did at all. That’s the republican fantasy version of what he did.

    If the head administrator of the State Police decides to curtail enforcement of highway speed limits in cases where people are driving 5 miles per hour in excess of the posted limit to focus limited resources on more serious violations, he hasn’t nullified a state law. He’s issued an administrative directive intended to maximize the benefits to be had from existing resources.

    The situation is similar. There are over 11 million undocumented aliens in the country, and no likelihood that the means will become available to remove them all beyond our borders. This has been the situation for years, and Congress has done nothing. So, what is a president supposed to do to maximize the beneficial effects of the resources that are available, and to handle the situation as fairly and humanely as possible? Or do we prefer not to maximize the beneficial effect, and to totally disregard what is fair and humane?

  2. 102

    Redteam

    @Greg: 91

    they become documented,

    So you’re finally admitting that they do have to be ‘documented‘ before the can get work permits and SS cards.

    As I said and tried to point out. You said ‘undocumented’ aliens could get work permits and SS Cards. I said they couldn’t. Then you said the once they do the paper work they can then be issued work permits and SS Cards. I then pointed out that ‘doing the paperwork’ makes them ‘documented’ and eligible for work and SS Cards. You are tying yourself in a knot by being on both sides of an issue. The whole contortion is so that you can try to prove you were not wrong when you said illegal aliens could get SS Cards. As you finally proved, they can NOT.

  3. 103

    retire05

    @Greg:

    The unlawfulness of the orders in question has not been established, and in all likelihood won’t be.

    Actually, it has been, as shown in a lower court ruling just last week. Now it’s on to the 5th.

    Obama’s actions are no more unusual than any number of other actions by any number of past presidents. Reagan and G.H.W. Bush both granted actual amnesty, purely by presidential decree.

    Both Reagan and Bush’s actions were based on actions taken by the Legislative branch. Obama’s was an illegal action violation of existing immigration law that can only be created by the Legislature and signed by the President.

    Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation entirely on his own authority, changing the legal status of millions of slaves with the stroke of a pen.

    Not for the Union states. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to those states had that left the Union.

    Obama has only issued administrative directives.

    While there is not a hair’s difference in EOs and administrative directives, the President does not have the authority to violate existing law. He order Jeh Johnson to do just that.

    Civilian federal employees and military personnel don’t get to ignore administrative directives or orders from a president based on their own personal opinions. Doing so would be unlawful.

    Perhaps you should read the UCMJ. A soldier has a duty to disobey an unlawful order. Federal employees have a duty to disobey an unlawful order. If either one does not, they can be held legally responsible for the results.

    You’re an idiot.

  4. 104

    Greg

    @retire05, #103:

    Not for the Union states. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to those states had that left the Union.

    And? What I said was that he freed millions of slaves with the stroke of a pen. That’s what he did.

    While there is not a hair’s difference in EOs and administrative directives, the President does not have the authority to violate existing law. He order Jeh Johnson to do just that.

    What existing law has he violated? He has curtailed enforcement of an existing law under specific, clearly defined circumstances. That’s an administrative action, not the nullification of a law or the violation of a law.

    Perhaps you should read the UCMJ. A soldier has a duty to disobey an unlawful order.

    I’m familiar with the UCMJ, having been subject to it for a number of years. Military personnel are not required to follow orders that are obviously illegal, but most military personnel are not lawyers who are firmly grounded in matters of Constitutional law. I wouldn’t advise refusing to follow orders because someone with a clearly partisan agenda and an equally obvious intense dislike for the President has opined on the internet or AM radio that there’s something illegal about what he has directed.

    There are loons who assert that there’s actually no legal requirement to pay federal taxes; that requiring the payment of income taxes is itself illegal. It’s a good idea to be careful who you listen to.

  5. 105

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation entirely on his own authority, changing the legal status of millions of slaves with the stroke of a pen.

    Contrary to common belief, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. It didn’t change the status of any slaves. The slaves in the Confederate States were not included because those states were not a part of the US and not covered by US laws at the time. The slaves in the northern states were not affected by the Eman Pro at all. So it is questionable if a Proclamation that doesn’t affect any US citizen is legal or not.

  6. 106

    Redteam

    @Greg: 99

    military personnel don’t get to ignore administrative directives or orders from a president based on their own personal opinions. Doing so would be unlawful.

    As stated above, military personnel are not required to carry out unlawful orders.

  7. 107

    Ditto

    @Redteam:

    Military Orders: To Obey or Not to Obey?

    Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you’re given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders — if the order was illegal.

    “I was only following orders,” has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn’t work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

    The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

    Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, stated, “The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, ‘Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.’ This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials.”

    Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only “following orders” as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. “In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy” of the United States.

    A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

    The President has no authority to unilaterally rewrite or ignore the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by himself or previous presidents. The Memo (of which it is now known Obama issued but did not sign and did not enter as is required into the Federal public register,) does far more than enact prosecutorial discretion (which is only previously applied to individuals, and not entire classes of lawbreakers,) it orders officials to ignore established law and procedures, and awards benefits to lawbreakers, including work permits, Social Security cards, and opens the door to many other benefits that the individual states have to fund. That portion of the “memo” is an unfunded mandate that was not passed through proper legislative process, but through a decree. The Constitution does not anywhere grant the office of the President any authority or power to issue decrees. An Executive Order or Presidential Directive can only be issued to manage agencies, they can not be issued to change laws, as that is a clear violation of the separation of powers, which makes any attempt at rewriting laws by executive decree an unlawful order, as it is a violation of the Constitution.. As usual Greg doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.

  8. 108

    Greg

    @Ditto, #107:

    The President has no authority to unilaterally rewrite or ignore the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by himself or previous presidents.

    He hasn’t done so.

    An Executive Order or Presidential Directive can only be issued to manage agencies, they can not be issued to change laws, as that is a clear violation of the separation of powers, which makes any attempt at rewriting laws by executive decree an unlawful order, as it is a violation of the Constitution.

    Interesting. Obama’s predecessor routinely altered or nullified provisions of legislation passed by Congress that he disagreed with in the very act of signing bills into law. Reviewing the complete list of Bush’s signing statements might be instructive. You might want to compare that with the complete list of Obama’s signing statements to date.

    Bush, as I recall, also issued a number of controversial Executive Orders that went far beyond “agency management.” Obama hasn’t come anywhere near the sort of Unitary Executive rule by decree that we had with George W. Bush. Yet for some odd reason, “presidential overreach” is suddenly a major issue that’s driving people on the right crazy.

  9. 109

    Bill

    @Greg:

    There are over 11 million undocumented aliens in the country, and no likelihood that the means will become available to remove them all beyond our borders.

    Well, you certainly speak the truth there, but it is not because such means are not available. It is due to the fact that the left will characterized any such efforts a “racist” (though it does not address any race) and anti-immigrant (when out of control illegal immigration is the greatest threat to immigration and immigrants there is) and, of course, the utilitarian media will support this. However, it would be relatively easy to resolve much of the problem.

    First (and last), stop subsidizing illegal immigration. The main reason illegal immigrants swarm here is to work; work to make money to send home. How can they, illegal immigrants working for below minimum wage, afford to send money home which, in Mexico, constitutes their greatest source of import income? Why, they have their living subsidized, that’s how. They can get housing subsidies, food subsidies and free health care. Hell, they can even get income tax refunds when they have paid NO income taxes. The solution to this would be to make proof of legal residency a requirement to receive any of this. Advertise it heavily. Border patrol would have to get out of the way to avoid being stampeded by illegal immigrants going the opposite direction.

    But, sadly, there is no will to solve any part of this problem. Democrats prefer having a contentious issue with which to stir up fear and hatred of the right. Republicans have to wait for absolute, total power to institute any sort of sensible reform of the variety that is actually needed.

    Your characterization of a state ignoring 5 miles over the speed limit as the same thing as granting illegal amnesty to 5 to 11 million people in the country illegally is, well….

    weak and silly… again.

    People going 5 miles over the speed limit are not costing the nation hundreds of billions of dollars. Further, it is not a matter or “prioritizing resources” because this administration has dedicated NO resources to the issue anyway.

    And? What I said was that he freed millions of slaves with the stroke of a pen. That’s what he did.

    As correctly pointed out, he did not “free” anyone. He freed slaves in states that were in insurrection against the United States. So, did Virginia suddenly free its slaves when Lincoln made that statement? No, actually, they didn’t. The slaves were not freed until the 13th Amendment was passed. You know…. Constitutionally.

    What existing law has he violated? He has curtailed enforcement of an existing law under specific, clearly defined circumstances.

    My God, do you believe you are talking to little children here? “Curtailing enforcement” (i.e., ignoring the law, i.e., violating the law by not enforcing it in instances that the law is intended to apply) is in violation of the law. By your perspective, when a Republican holds office, he could change laws by saying that only Democrats have to pay taxes. Only Democrats have to pay traffic violations. Or if anyone votes Democrat, they go to jail. Why not?

    A Republican could “curtail enforcement” of gun control laws, right? Only Republicans can buy a weapon. Only Republicans can carry a weapon. Only Republicans can buy ammunition.

    Only Republicans can drive a car. Only Republicans can own a home. Only Republicans can have a job. Only Republicans can own a business.

    Democrats have to sew a yellow donkey on their clothes. “DNC” has to be painted on their doors. Citizenship for Democrats can be revoked.

    The Constitution was put in place for a reason, Greg. The intention is that laws are to be abided by, even when we don’t like them and even when we could punish political enemies by not enforcing them or, by edict, changing them. Obama only cites the Constitution when it benefits HIM. He only knows about the Constitution in order to know how to circumvent it. He and those like him are inherently dangerous to Americans. Perhaps this is what Giuliani was referring to.

    Dangerous, too, are people who protect him and his actions will silly, weak excuses.

    There are loons who assert that there’s actually no legal requirement to pay federal taxes; that requiring the payment of income taxes is itself illegal. It’s a good idea to be careful who you listen to.

    Could you be referring to Al Sharpton, adviser to the President and frequent guest at the White House? If Obama chooses to “curtail enforcement” of tax law as it applies to the $4.5 million Sharpton owes, why the hell should I pay mine? Starting to see the dangers of pretending to be above the law yet? Anything seeping in there?

  10. 110

    Redteam

    @Ditto:

    The President has no authority to unilaterally rewrite or ignore the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by himself or previous presidents.

    This pseudo president actually, not being a ‘legal’ president, can not issue any ‘legal’ order to the military. I realize he has co-oped the office, but it’ll soon be over. See what we get for electing a clown that is not eligible or qualified for the office.

  11. 111

    Greg

    @Bill: #109:

    My God, do you believe you are talking to little children here?

    I have occasionally wondered, present company excepted of course.

    “Curtailing enforcement” (i.e., ignoring the law, i.e., violating the law by not enforcing it in instances that the law is intended to apply) is in violation of the law.

    curtail – verb – To reduce in extent or quantity; to impose a restriction on.

    Curtailing enforcement of a law is not the same thing as ignoring the law, nor is making a pragmatic administrative decision to do so a violation of the law itself. It’s done for a variety of reasons. Decisions are often made that reduce enforcement in the case of less serious infractions to allow greater resources to be applied in the case of more serious infractions. Violators of the same laws who pose minimal risk may be ignored to focus on those who pose a far higher degree of risk. There are even cases where enforcement is curtailed owning to jurisdictional issues. Several states have made it entirely lawful for doctors to prescribe marijuana for a wide variety of conditions where it’s thought to be medically useful, for example. Several have even made recreational use by adults lawful. The federal government continues to absurdly classify marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug. The scheduling comes with a list of equally absurd sentencing requirements. So, a dilemma. Since Congress is unlikely to correct this bizarre situation anytime soon—they pretty much elected to shirk their responsibilities permanently with the Controlled Substances Act to begin with—an administrative decision was made to back off on federal enforcement in states where legalization has occurred. Essentially, enforcement has been curtailed with respect to entire states. What other stopgap measure is there?

  12. 112

    retire05

    @Bill:

    What you have in Gullible Greggie is someone who likes to throw things out to see if they stick. He makes comments like:
    “What existing law has he violated? He has curtailed enforcement of an existing law under specific, clearly defined circumstances.” But asking you that question, Gullible Greggie puts you on the defense to support your opinion that Obama has violated the law. He also makes statements like:
    ” Obama’s predecessor routinely altered or nullified provisions of legislation passed by Congress that he disagreed with in the very act of signing bills into law.” yet provides no examples that you can compare.

    Gullible Greggie uses the same tactic as the boy who throws dog crap at a neighbor’s door and then runs like hell, thinking no one will see the dark brown stain on his hands. He asks questions of others, but refuses to ever answer questions posed to him.

    His sole purpose here is to be a talking head for Obama. If he can shut you down by shouting you down, so much the better. It doesn’t take anyone with two grey cells bumping together to figure out that Gullible Greggie is simply another Organizing for Obama groupie.

  13. 113

    Greg

    @retire05, #112:

    But asking you that question, Gullible Greggie puts you on the defense to support your opinion that Obama has violated the law.

    You’re absolutely correct. If someone publicly asserts that the President of the United States has violated the law of the land, the burden of proof is theirs, not to mention a responsibility to prove it. That’s how it works.

    If they have repeatedly made such assertions about anything and everything under the sun without ever proving a single damn thing, despite having devoted enormous amounts of time, energy, and money to the effort, any intelligent person should recognize that there’s a serious credibility problem.

  14. 114

    Bill

    @Greg: You don’t get it; Obama ain’t curtailing or prioritizing or anything else; he is BREAKING the law.

    He is say that the law passed by Congress is something that he does not like. He does not like the way Congress has been behaving because they are not behaving as he has demanded. So, since they will not legally do what he wants, he will just do it illegally. He will simply ignore and break laws. Or, rather, he will direct others to ignore and break laws. They put their asses on the line. Meanwhile, he goes golfing.

    See, it’s like this. Obama is the President; he and the DOJ are supposed to enact and enforce the laws. These are laws that do not contain the phrase “… unless you don’t like this law and you want to violate it.”. Congress makes the laws. As Obama once said, elections have consequences and if this was such a high priority for him, he could have done it when he had full control of Congress. However, he didn’t need the Hispanic vote then, so they sat on the back burner.

    So, Obama’s illegal act has created a bit of a Constitutional crisis which threatens the funding for Homeland Security. Elections DO have consequences and one of those is that when you show an inability to lead and pass good laws, you LOSE elections and your capability to enact the rest of your shitty agenda. So, you and Obama are simply going to have to live with the fact that the liberal agenda is a failure.

  15. 115

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    We have no reason to accept your opinion as being worth anything when you are given facts with references and you only reply with unsupported partisan dogma. Your continued use of off the cuff semantics without providing anything to back them up is nothing but dissembling and dishonesty and, (to put it bluntly,) we aren’t buying your BS.

    When Federal law enforcers are ordered not to do their jobs as the written law requires them to, and instead are ordered to aid law breakers in breaking the law, it is not mere “curtailment”, it is knowingly aiding and abetting criminal acts, illegal actions by those ordering and blatant disregarding the law (which are in themselves punishable offenses, as has been pointed out to you with properly cited references). What Obama’s memo actually orders is complete prosecutorial misconduct, a biased misuse of enforcement discretion. Blanket biased enforcement discretion is usually considered by the courts to be a legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law. Your misrepresentation of enforcement and prosecutorial discretion is in fact patent ignorance of the law in support of lawlessness and all you are succeeding in proving is your ignorance.

    Every intelligent person here recognizes Greg that it is you who has a serious credibility problem. Let us remember that the Supreme Court has found thirteen times against this president’s unlawful actions and a Federal Judge has placed an injunction against the Federal government enacting Obama’s unsigned memo orders to not enforce the law and his granting of benefits to illegal aliens.

  16. 116

    retire05

    @Greg:

    But asking you that question, Gullible Greggie puts you on the defense to support your opinion that Obama has violated the law.

    You’re absolutely correct. If someone publicly asserts that the President of the United States has violated the law of the land, the burden of proof is theirs, not to mention a responsibility to prove it. That’s how it works.

    Since it is you that has said, from the very beginning, that Obama has the Constitutional right to change enacted law, and grant rights that Congress has conveyed on only American citizens and those who have entered our nation legally, then it is your responsibility to prove it. Your rules.

    If they have repeatedly made such assertions about anything and everything under the sun without ever proving a single damn thing, despite having devoted enormous amounts of time, energy, and money to the effort, any intelligent person should recognize that there’s a serious credibility problem.

    Then show the Constitutionality of what Obama has done, not by an Executive Order, but by a directive of a Cabinet member. Cabinet members do not have the authority to thwart enacted legislation signed into law by a President.

    And please, don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by using the “prosecutorial discretion” rationale that you have already tried. Under prosecutorial discretion, Obama could pardon all those who violated our laws of sovereignty, but cannot grant them additional benefits or burden the states with the cost of such benefits.

    “federal law – made in Congress, where the states are represented – must preserve the sovereign right of states to protect themselves. Obama’s executive action not only bypasses Congress; it undoes and countermands congressional laws designed to fulfill the federal government’s duty to protect the states. The president does not merely purport to establish enforcement priorities, as any president must do. He rewrites federal law under the guise of “prosecutorial discretion.” More blatant, he presumes to confer a de facto amnesty – an adjustment of status from deportable to non-deportable – as well as other legal benefits that the Constitution empowers only Congress to grant – e.g., work permits and Social Security numbers.”

    I’m sure your long history of being a Constitutional scholar will allow you to present a cogent rebuttal.

  17. 117

    Greg

    @Bill, #114:

    You don’t get it; Obama ain’t curtailing or prioritizing or anything else; he is BREAKING the law.

    If that’s so, and if it’s so obvious, why hasn’t the Republican-majority House initiated impeachment proceedings? The answer is because they know full well their accusations are bogus.

  18. 118

    Greg

    @retire05, #116:

    Since it is you that has said, from the very beginning, that Obama has the Constitutional right to change enacted law, and grant rights that Congress has conveyed on only American citizens and those who have entered our nation legally, then it is your responsibility to prove it.

    I have never once said that. I have, in fact, repeatedly denied that he has done that.

  19. 119

    retire05

    @Greg:

    If that’s so, and if it’s so obvious, why hasn’t the Republican-majority House initiated impeachment proceedings?

    Why do you think David Axelrod picked Joe Biden? He was a warranty against impeachment because no one, not even Democrats, want that idiot to be president.

  20. 120

    retire05

    @Greg:

    I have never once said that. I have, in fact, repeatedly denied that he has done that.

    Then show me, in any immigration law, where Obama has the right, as POTUS, to violate legislation as written, and signed into law by a president, to not enforce the law as written.

    Come on, Gullible Greggie, put your money where your mouth is and stop dodging.

  21. 121

    Bill

    @Greg:

    If that’s so, and if it’s so obvious, why hasn’t the Republican-majority House initiated impeachment proceedings? The answer is because they know full well their accusations are bogus.

    No, it is because impeachment proceedings is a political loser for those that initiate them, at least when initiated against a Democrat.

    See, when a Republican puts himself in the position to be impeached, Republicans do not rally round him to defend him no matter what he did. However, Democrats do and they have the corrupt media to support them. Democrats do not care about the law or justice, they only care about political power.

    But, make no mistake and do not be confused; issuing directives to ignore written law and threatening punishment of those who do not aid and abet in the breaking of the law (not duly processing illegal immigrants per the law) is a VIOLATION of the law…. not “prioritizing”.

  22. 122

    Redteam

    @Bill:

    See, it’s like this. Obama is the President; he and the DOJ are supposed to enact and enforce the laws. These are laws that do not contain the phrase “

    Bill that’s not correct. the Pres and DOJ have nothing to do with ‘enacting’ laws. They only execute and enforce them.

    Greg:

    If that’s so, and if it’s so obvious, why hasn’t the Republican-majority House initiated impeachment proceedings? The answer is because they know full well their accusations are bogus.

    That’s not true. It’s because it takes 67% of the Senators to convict on impeachment and there is no way that many Dimocrats care about enforcing laws.

  23. 124

    Greg

    @retire05, #120:

    Then show me, in any immigration law, where Obama has the right, as POTUS, to violate legislation as written, and signed into law by a president, to not enforce the law as written.

    Written law is expressed in terms of absolute standards. The real world is not a place where our very large collection of such absolute standards can ever be fully realized. Those who administer the law strive to do so in the real world. Administrators do the best they can to achieve what the laws require, taking into account competing considerations and the realities of the world that must be dealt with in doing so.

    What do you not understand about this simple fact of human existence? Do you need a statement in the Constitution acknowledging that the world is not a place where perfection can be achieved?

  24. 125

    Ditto

    President signs the laws into effect, thus enacting them.

    Enacting however, is not writing nor creating and does not allow changing or modification (regardless of the mythical pseudo-legality of Dem/Rep presidential signing statements, which have never been upheld to be valid). It merely legally affirms and finalizes the transformation of them from bill into law and sets them in motion. Congress with it’s power to override executive veto shares the power to enact law.

  25. 126

    Redteam

    @Bill:

    the President signs the laws into effect, thus enacting them

    According to the Constitution, the Legislature makes laws, the President executes them and the Judiciary decides what’s legal.
    The president does not make or enact any law. If he wants to sign what the Congress passes, he does. If not, he doesn’t. Congress can still make the law without him.

    Congress with it’s power to override executive veto shares the power to enact law.

    ONLY Congress can write or make a law. The president can not do either without the Congress passing the law to begin with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *