jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (261 posts)

How can PRES get away with doubling down his bypasses of Congress and making o

  1. brakel2 profile image84
    brakel2posted 4 years ago

    How can PRES  get away with doubling down his bypasses of Congress and making
    own decisions?

    Are these actions impeachable?

  2. junkseller profile image86
    junksellerposted 4 years ago

    The Executive Branch is the third leg of the government. It has a significant amount of power. It is supposed to. He hasn't done anything that other president's haven't done, and considering how useless Congress has been, I don't really blame him for suggesting we will try to do as much as he can. Someone has to. The GOP obviously has no interest in showing up to work.

    1. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You are correct. President Obama hasn't done anything that other Presidents have done. And, just as Nixon lied and was removed from office, so should Obama be removed for lying. The current fear mongering must stop or the nation will be destroyed.

    2. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      tbHistorian: "the current fear mongering must stop (right after I talk about the destruction of the country, radical operatives, and tyranny)" Hilarious. keep up the comedy act, dude, this is great stuff.

    3. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I have a pen - is when a President refuses to negotiate - tyranny exists
      The lies:
      Benghazi was due to movie
      The IRS did nothing wrong
      you can keep your healthcare plan
      you can keep your doctor
      Patriots will soon secure the nation again.

    4. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      All pres have a pen...its the way we do
      Benghazi WAS due to movie-why you think they made it? Patreus changed the report. RW cabal
      IRS head was Bush appointee-you have problem, take up w him
      Insurance must comply w law-no more theft
      Traitors not coup

    5. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Behgazi was due to a movie"..even the President is claiming that anymore.  The IRS already admitted to illegal activity.  And the Bush Appointee to the IRS was an Obama donor. Every adm appoints people across the political isle. Doesn't tell us much

    6. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes it does. It tells there was no partisan attempt to go after poor tea party like they claimed, and for which they wasted tax money on. Just as they wasted tax money on shut-down, and RMoneys horse. They use anything to harrass and bully.Unpatriots

    7. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The IRS already confessed to illegally targeting conservative groups.  There is an active investigation into who ordered it which is yet to be concluded, which we now know originated in DC as per congressional testimony of Ohio officials in the IRS

    8. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Bulloney. They were looking at groups which claimed tax-exempt status, butwere really pushing political agenda:bingo. Tea party totally political. Theres only an Iinvestigation because Issa is in charge of it. He is out to get Obama, as he serves TP.

    9. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Eric Holder's DOJ appointed the Obama donor to investigate the IRS not Issa.  And the ratio of conservative 501c3 groups vs liberal ones was statistically implausible.  Hence their ADMISSION of ILLEGALLY targeting them.

    10. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thats not how I see it. Since they were pulling fraud, they deserved to be scrutinized. But they cry, and get attention. Naacp, eric dyson, acorn all scrutinuzed by Bush. That illegal? Liberal org only one fined, so how TP the victim? Fly right, no p

    11. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It doesn't matter how you see it.  It was illegal to target them.  And these groups were not committing fraud. 501c4 rules allow non-profit status for entities that attempt to influence legislation and promote social policy. Nothing illegal about it

    12. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Bulloney! They were not targeted any more than any other scam group. And what social policy were they promoting by depicting our president as a voodoo witch doctor w a bone thru his nose, and threatening with guns? they want special treatment, imho.

    13. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The IRS already CONFESSED to targeting them in the BOLO lists.  The ratio was nearly 300 to 6.  Please cite a specific piece of evidence of one of these groups that were held in limbo portraying the president as any of those things.

    14. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well, if a Bush appointee was doing it, maybe there was a reason to. Obviously, hes not a partisan for the dems. And I would be suspicious too, given the dirty money they deal in. And if you are going to tell me you never saw the signs I mention, ???

    15. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The Bush Appointee was an Obama donor. The illegality has already been confessed to.  The question is only whether or not it was deliberately done with motive. And congressional testimony has shown it was overseen by DC contradicting prior WH claims.

    16. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That not what I read. I read whole game changed after citizens united, political groups on the right use patriot in name. They were asking tax exempt. I would check them too! 9/12 was glenn beck political sideshow. How they to know, but investigate?

    17. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It doesn't matter what your view is of citizens united or any other law.  The law is the law. They have as much right to organize under the parameters of the law as any other group. The IRS doesn't get to single out any group based on their views.

    18. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ok, then when Greenpeace, Naacp, Planned parenthood, and Eric Dyson were singled out, it was illegal. They didnt cry, so Bush got away with it. I darn sure am not crying for tea party. As usual, its only a problem when BO is prez.

    19. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      None of those indiv's or groups had their status held in limbo indefinitely.  I have been audited multiple years in a row as well.  That is not an example of anything other than what is likely a high DIF score.

    20. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well, Dyson didnt think so. He was publically critical of Bush response to Kartina, and was subsequently audited 5 yrs in a row...that normal? If TP looked at, its because they ARE shady! Always have been. Dirty Money: no way of knowing who it is.

    21. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The IRS audits about 1% of all returns annually. But the probability of audit is increased with income.Once you are selected for audit, it is fairly common to be audited several years in a row, because they virtually always find something on everyone

    22. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So, if they audited him because he didnt like Bush, thats ok? Dyson thinks they did. I know Bush FCC came down on Stern because he was anti-Bush...so really, the TP claims, to me, are childs play. And they ARE political to the teeth!

    23. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Dyson thinks so ??? Does he have proof of this or that it was outside the statistical norm ???  The TEA party example is a clear cut violation and admission of illegal activity.  The only question is whether it was done with coordinated intent.

    24. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I do not agree with you. They were barraged with all these rwers looking for a freebie. Its their job to see its legit.Btw, do you know it was Issa who told them to do it? Turns out, he wanted Obama to look bad, and it got him 450,000 in campaigncash

    25. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Another fallacy, IRS IG report showed the number of 501c4 applications went down in 2010 from 2009 when the targeting began.  They already confessed and the legality of their actions is not in dispute anymore.  Only whether it was coordinated.

    26. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ah, but it is in dispute! Treasury dept inspector general says Issa told them to focus on tea party groups.Issa should be holding hearings on himself! Seems HE was the coordinator....and the reason was to make Obama look bad...Impeach Issa.

    27. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What are you talking about ???  Treasury Inspector never once said that Issa directed the IRS to hold up the approval of 501c4 apps in limbo, which is the entire issue. They were neither approved nor denied and given a chance to appeal for years.

    28. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well, the spokesman fir Russell George said they did. And you said they did too. He says Issa told them to "narrowly focus on tea party groups, and those with patriot in title"guess ole Issa left that part out of his investigation. Guess hes a shill.

    29. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Never said that at all.He said Issa told him to focus on the Tea party in relation to investigating who's app's were held in perpetuity,because none of the liberal groups were.There was nothing to investigate there because none were held up for years

    30. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nope. Sorry, they were looking at ALL groups asking for tax exemptions. Didnt target Tea Party until Issa asked them to. Just like Benghazi and birtherism, its concocted scandal to bring down prez. Aka: treason. These creeps will go down in history.

    31. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      the Prez is doing a great job bringing down himself. 35 scandals and counting. "We the people" have had enough. The next election will provide the strong people who will expel the tyrant.

    32. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You the people are 12%. If you bring him down, its thru subterfuge. We the people spoke....twice. You the people have a huge superiority complex, and cant fathom that we have moved beyond you. And Issa should be removed!

    33. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What part of the words IRS CONFESSION do you have a difficult time understanding.  Nowhere in any report cited anywhere did Issa authorize or get accused of authorizing the IRS to target the Tea Party. He is a Tea party supporter.

    34. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What report is that, Issas? I wouldnt trust that w a 10 ft pole. Since as you said, hes a tea party supporter. So, he gets irs to target them-- they get to cry victim of Obama tyrant, he get $450,000 for his dogged constant tax-funded hunt on prez.

    35. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It was a public statement issued by the IRS on 5-10-2013.  And Issa is a member of the house.  The IRS does not fall under the legislative branch.  It is under treasury, which is the Executive branch. Your accusations are logistically impossible.

    36. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Karen Kraushaar, communications director, Treasury Inspector General: investigators contrained by Issa. Told to "narrowly focus on tea party groups". Report not mention liberal orgs targeted, because that not fit Issas
      narrative: "Obama is a thug."

    37. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes...that is narrowly focus on the investigation into the IRS actions against the Tea Party.  Because their were only a dozen lib groups flagged and none held up for years.  Why would he want to investigate an area where there where no complaints.

    38. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They also targeted groups with progressive and ows in them. Must not have been as many. There was a barrage of tea party activity after Obama elected. They should be targeted-as they are political orgs! And Issa report left out targeted libs! More bs

    39. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Try doing some homework.  1500 questions asked vs 30.  Not even close to the same treatment.
      http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 … tive-orgs/

    40. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And why? Maybe they know something you dont. After all, it is their job. And the man at the Cincinnati office who was handling it was also a Republican....this is looking more and more to me like a concerted effort by Republicans to set Obama up.

    41. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Knew something ??? It is ILLEGAL !!! Pure and simple.  It is not their job to discriminate.  That is why they confessed and issued an official apology.  And the Cincinnati office testified they were under orders from DC contradicting prior WH claims.

    42. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah...Darrel Issa. He ordered it. Because they were asked and answered, and No, it was not Obama. So,why keep saying it was? Whens the hearing on Issa? Oh, thats right-hes in charge isnt he? Guess the witch hunt lives

      continue, while the guilty laf

    43. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Did you even read the sources you quote?  Issa ordered the investigation into the IRS activities.  He had nothing to do with IRS screening the applications.  He couldn't he works in the legislative branch.  You are the only one on earth claiming this

    44. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So, he ordered them to focus on tp targets, but ignore any others...and we find out the one doing the targeting is a republican, and hes doing it because rash of tp groups wanting tax free...andthe only group ever fined was a
      liberal group... waaaa!

    45. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The one who directed the targeting was an OBAMA DONOR !!! And why would he investigate any other groups ??? 100% of lib groups were approved with few inquiries. Who orders an investigation when there was no accusation of a crime ???

    46. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They did investigate other groups. It just didnt show up in the report. Cummings had to release it because Issa was going for the poor me usual tea party line.Personally,I think Lerner bowed to political pressure.Tea partydeserves scrutiny.DIRTYMONEY

    47. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes...and every lib group was approved, and none held in limbo AKA NO CRIME  So much for your spike in applications theory. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … s-says-ti/

    48. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thats right...libs not involved in crime. Tea party, however, is a different story. Trying to dodge taxes is also a crime, lest you forget. I dont think its a crime to investigate crime. The fact there were so many of them is what tipped the balance.

    49. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What ? The crime is the screening process. Registering as a 501c4 is not a crime, nor tax evasion. You're either approved or denied, not held in limbo And the screening process cant be different.The IRS already ADMITTED to ILLEGALLY targeting them.

    50. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Pressured to do so, imo.After citizens united, they had glut of dirty money calling itself social welfare. Tp words: tea party, patriot. Lib words: progressive, ows. 2 x as many tp groups approved:cause SO MANY
      APPLIED.Been many libs, ows wldv gotem

    51. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Obviously you never read the link...IRS records show 501c4 app's DECLINED !!! in the year that this enhanced screening process of Conservative groups began.  There was no Glut of anything.  Only an attempt to silence political opposition.

    52. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, its political allright....to get Obama. Otherwise, planned parenthood, naacp, eric dyson, etc etc etc could have cried as well. If Issa cared about illegality, he would have included lib groups in his report. But, its ok to target libs, inhisrule

    53. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      There were no Lib groups in the report because according the IRS NONE were denied anything or subjected to the same screening. None of the groups you named were denied any status either.  You just throw out accusations without a shred of evidence.

    54. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, that would be Issa, who maintains that Obama ordered irs to target tp. Thats a made up claim w no proof, yet look how much time and $ spent on Issas tp brown-nosing.2008, xtra scrutiny of progs..no cry, no crime! Undo citizens, no more hidden$.

    55. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Please cite specifically when Issa claimed that Obama himself ordered this ???  Or is this another statement you made with no evidence ??? What he has proven is it was ordered by people in DC as per congressional testimony of IRS officials.

    56. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      He said irs following direct orders of Obama admn to target tp. Cnn, state of union. There was also irs official said Obama adm had nothing to do w it. He not invited to hearings, ill bet. Issa needs to be investigate for ties to groups targeting BO.

    57. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes...his administration.  As IRS officials have already testified that they were directed by IRS officials in DC.  IRS falls under the Exec branch.  He did not say the President knew about it . That's why there is an ongoing investigation.

    58. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      IGs report:"All of these officials stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS." In other words, when Issa called Carney a paid liar, Issa is pot calling kettle black. Political witch hunt. As areall

    59. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      IG report is an internal investigation not the current one. And you seem to have difficulty with the 3 branches of Gov't concept.  Every single thing that happens in the IRS and treasury is the responsibility of the executive branch.

    60. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Who said that? Because an official in cincinnati said dc had nothing to do w it. Was he invited to Issas hearing? And Obama is also denying it came from his admn. Yet, this still getting play, and money.No there there. Just a bunch of groundswell bs.

    61. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUz78y0aUvo
      Do some research.  You're about 6 months behind the information curve.  IRS agent Horface...."My frustration was primarily that I had to sit on them and wait for guidance from D.C"

    62. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Tea party seen as emerging issue, not sure if political or not."micro-managed to death by an irs lawyer in dc"-this your boogyman? Agent Shafer said he asked for list on own NOT ON  ORDERS FROM DC. Seems there is lot
      of shnizzle flying in the dizzle

    63. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Are you deaf. Agent Schaefers comments are already proven false per testimony of his superiors and ADMITTED to publicly by officials in DC.  They ordered it from DC.  We don't know yet if anyone in the WH ordered anyone in the IRS in DC to do this.

    64. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, im not deaf, nor dumb and blind"political campaigns on behalf of, or in opposition to any political candidate do not promote social welfare." I think its safe to say tp is in opposition to Obama. Irs had OBLIGATION to
      scrutinize them. Notspecial

    65. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Try reading the 501c4 statute.They can "promote social policy" and "influence legislation" which are specifically in their charters. Neither you or the President get to rewrite the law and bypass the legislative branch because you disagree with it.

    66. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Really? I dont recall congress being asked about waterboarding. And Obama is doing nothing of the sort. He said there should be no political targeting of any groups. And he says there wasnt. As for me, I think tp are subversives, and belong in gitmo.

    67. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      First of all waterboarding is part of basic training for our special forces and has been since the 40's.  If Obama is concerned about the targeting he should tell Holder not to appoint Obama political donors to lead the "independent" investigation

    68. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And we should not have tea party suck ups running House, acting like everything Obama does is impeachable, while having no problem when Rs do it. Making up new rules as they go along. Crying victim everytime they dont get their way. Obama not devil.

    69. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So know you're going to determine who should be running the house.  I guess you want to just bypass elections as well.  Any other totalitarian ideas you want to articulate.  Making up rules ??? Another accusation you have no evidence you can cite.

    70. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nah, just dont cry to me about Obama when you have a supporter of tea party running an investigation on alleged mistreatment of them: leaving progressives and ows groups out if his report, knew libs were focus
      in 08, and leaving out he met w George.

    71. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah next time Issa should include Lib groups in the report even though there was no evidence that any of them were discriminated against or received similar treatment. And the IRS already CONFESSED to targeting ONLY Conservatives  Make perfect sense

    72. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Whoever said they only targeted cons is lying. A prog group had its 501 status declined. Dems say George gave Issa just what he wanted:"outright misleading report". Crying boohoo to make Obama look like thug, and also garnering Issa $450,000 tp cash.

    73. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Name the group that was denied. Cite your source.100% of progressive groups were approved during the period in question as per the IRS released records which I have already cited.  50% of Conservative groups never received approval.

    74. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Maine chapter,Emerge America, trains women for office.Partisan status, so denied "common good".No con group denied status, but delayed approval du to bureaucracy.SO MANY OF THEM!.2/3 of groups reviewed, no tp ties.ONLY focus on tp when Issa toldem to

    75. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That was not during the period of the IRS screening process.  IG report below.
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06 … s-flagged/

    76. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And? It still happened to them.Are you saying its only bad when tp get it?"Problem is phony 501 groups exploiting tax status to protect donors." AKA: Citizens United.They were flooded w tea party, patriot groups, and not knowing which phony,which not

    77. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The group you cited was approved during the Bush Adm and later revoked for cause.  That it what you are supposed to do. The screening process is the crime, which is what you seem to be missing.  And no such evidence of this ever happening before

    78. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Beeeekuz, there was no such influx of these dirty money groups before 2010, and citizens united. IF you are having rallies, and demonizing an opponent, and threatening ballots or bullets-
      someone BETTER screen you! Cause thats politics, and not free

    79. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You keep repeating the lie that there was an influx of apps.  They actually went down between 2009-2010 when this began.  And rallying is called freedom of speech.  In a free country we don't apply separate standards based on political views.

    80. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes we do. Wheres the police at tp rallies? Nowhere to be found, even tho some of them are strapped! But college kids get pepper sprayed for protesting wall street. Tp gets and wants special treatment everywhere. They got stuck in red tape...joinclub

    81. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No you can't. You're back to citing laws that don't exist.  And in most states they are legally permitted to be "strapped" Try reading the constitution. There were NO violent Tea party rallies.Not a single person injured. Just limited gov't rallies

    82. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      really? I consider it quite violent to portray the prez w a noose around his neck, say were going to water the tree of liberty, and we didn't bring guns....this time. Not to mention getting the crowds so ginned up, theyre screaming "terrorist" (Palin

    83. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, thats logical. take one or two people with an inappropriate sign and condemn millions of people.With that logic we have to ban all liberal groups because some libs held signs portraying Bush as a Nazi.Strong advocate for the 1st amendment I see

    84. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      well, its a lot more logic than Issa shows! Lets see....2,996 American died on 9/11, 2001. Do the Republicans call to impeach? Hold investigations? Hearings? No-they call you un-American for suggesting such a thing. 4 dead Benghazi...impeach now.uyup

    85. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Actually yes...it was called the 9-11 commission and was a bipartisan committee.  You must have been asleep for a few years after the events in question.  Are you at some point going to make a factually correct point that can be cited somewhere ???

    86. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, and the republicans fought it tooth and nail. Only the families of the dead made it happen. You remember, that paragon of class, Coulter, said the Jersey Girls enjoyed their husbands deaths because they pushed the issue, and got the spotlight.

    87. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The commission was ordered by President Bush and a republican controlled congress.  Nice Try...any other facts you want to just make up.  Why not...it's not like you ever cite a credible source or anything for that matter.

    88. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "But President Bush successfully opposed the creation of the commission for more than a year. He said publicly that an independent investigation would distract leaders from his newly-declared war on terrorism."
      and I will add: members on it say it BS

    89. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      He opposed PUBLIC hearings to avoid a media circus.  Not the creation of a commission.  Why would he oppose it.  The planning of 9-11 happened for years before he was ever sworn into office and the Clinton Adm took the harshest criticism.

    90. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Really? PNAC asked Clinton for regime change in Iraq...he said no. Guess who said yes? And if Bush so honest, why agree to testify only if not under oath? Let me guess,national security?Well, then you rwers should have no problem w NSA! But Obama.

    91. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The biggest critique in the report was the inability to share info between CIA and FBI which was initiated by Jaimie Gorelick. And I have no prob with the NSA and Obama.I only have a problem with him blaming film makers weeks after intel briefs

    92. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "If this decision stands [to limit access toWhite House documents] I,as a member of the commission,cannot lookany American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say thecommission had full access.This investigation is now compromised."

    93. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Genius...the reason the commission was limited was the same reason it should have been a congressional commission.  It is hard enough to keep sworn members of congress to keep their mouths shut about top secret intel, let alone civilians.

    94. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, that was Max Cleland, and he was saying that the Bush white house was hindering the investigation by refusing to submit requested information. Aka coverup of crime. So, he could not be associated with it, and quit the commission. Many not believe

    95. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      LOL Cover up of crime. And what crime was this?One of these other made up crimes.If the hearing was exclusively through congress with those that had top secret clearance then access would have been greater. Maybe Tea party covered up Lochness Monster

    96. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No offense, but the rank and experience of those who call the commission bogus far exceeds yours. They all know who did it, thats why there is battle ongoing now. Had RMoney won, we would already be at war w Iran. Sorry you refuse to see. Your loss.

    97. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Do some homework. Not even all members of Congress have top security clearance unless they sit on certain committee's.Do you really think that top secret access would be given to a public commission with unelected officials.Don't even know the rules

    98. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, I've done a lot of homework. 13 yrs of it. You cannot budge my position a smidgeon. First, I just "knew", then, I found out. It's been a long wait, but lies don't survive forever. Especially the heinous ones. What goes up, comes down.Or, 2+2=4.

    99. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes..you've done your homework and don't even know how security clearance works. LOL  You're right...it was the TEA PARTY who took down the WTC. They also are behind the crop circles and the bigfoot conspiracy.

    100. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They weren't called Tea Party then. Just plain ole Neo Cons. Read up on it. PNAC....half of GW's admn was full of em. Coincidence? Yeah right. And I'm the Easter Bunny. Maybe you know why Cheney was in charge of NORAD that morning?Nother coincidence?

    101. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You're incredibly lost...The entire Tea Party movement HATES the Bush administration and all the other country club republicans.  Dick Cheney was not put in charge of NORAD.  Another Alex Jones conspiracy theory that was debunked years ago.

    102. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Tea Party hate Bush? SINCE WHEN? I dont see Bush signs at ANY rallies. Cheney was in charge.Conducting drill,just like what happened Madrid bombing,and by golly,CIA doing drill on Benghazi day! Who in charge? Why, Patreus, RMoney man. Mitt/Bibi.2+2=4

    103. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The entire Tea Party Movement is another incarnation of the Reagan revolution which sprung out of discontent with the Republican establishment the same way Reagan tried to primary Ford. Nice Try
      http://911myths.com/index.php/Cheney_in_charge_of_NORAD

    104. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I can put up plenty of links that Cheney was in charge too..you won't believe me, and I don't believe you. And fact that TP loves Reagan shows what phonies they are. He raised deficit, and used twice as many Executive orders as Obama...so why hate BO

    105. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Any link you would post would extrapolate ridiculous conclusions from no evidence.Deficits and Debt are only relevant as a share of GDP.Surpluses can be just as dangerous.A deficit of 2-3% of GDP is normal, healthy and beyond your understanding.

    106. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "before 9/11,he granted powers to his office to make sure the information flowed through him"•Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11 and Secret Service was the supreme command."Deficit under Reagan went from 2.7 to 6%. Demonize him!

    107. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      There is ZERO credible evidence of this Cheney claim.  And a 6% deficit to GDP ratio is in no way concerning if the deficit targeted production and not consumption.  Which is why it was the fastest rebound in decades.  You're in over your head.

    108. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sure there is. All they had to do was ask him, but he refused to talk under oath.Like a true liar. Funny that they made Bill do it,but George and Dick got a pass. Same as it ever was in USA. Cheney:"Reagan showed us deficits don't matter" But Obama.

    109. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      We already covered the topic of security clearance and the ridiculous nature of public hearings. Nobody said deficits don't matter.  Your comments demonstrate you don't even understand the topic of what a deficit is and how and why they happen.

    110. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sure I do.Reagan deficit Good! Obama deficit: Bad!Bush 3,000 dead: Not his fault.Obama 4 dead: Impeach! Obama NSA:Impeach! Bush NSA, Patriot Act:Needed for security. You're too easy. And yet, All you have is  superiority complex w nothing to backitup

    111. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Increased deficits that target productive capacity increase monetary velocity,produce results in the labor market and are temporary in nature .The current adm targeted consumption which has never worked.And Bush adm blocked access to Clinton files

    112. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      LIKE I SAID: Your idea of good is good. Democrats idea of good is bad.That is all you have. That is why you think no one else deserves to govern, even if elected by the country.Only you know anything. And Bush blocked 9/11 for yr. Not Bill he saving.

    113. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I am the only one who has cited a single fact check in this discussion instead of making up facts and laws which you have been caught doing numerous times & presenting crazy conspiracies. I am not the one who wants to block political speech, you

    114. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ha! Show me one fact I have "made up". I have sources for everything iI believe...and the best source: inner knowing. Sorry, but I dont trust  anything coming from you.You excuse all of Rs behavior, and demonize all of Ds.You ignore 30 yrs of history

    115. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "IRS screened Tea Party groups differently because they where overwhelmed"  You wanted it to be true...so you said it.
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … s-says-ti/

    116. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "In early 2010-right-wing opposition to President Obama-- "the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United had sparked an explosion of political groups seeking tax-exempt status—and the IRS office was overwhelmed"
      American Prospect May 15, 2013

    117. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And yet and ACTUAL fact check of IRS records proved that to be a made up allegation as the number of applications actually declined.  I guess your "inner knowing" missed that one.

    118. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Applications are unusual, and when you receive lot of them from a particular set of right-leaning groups, it raises suspicion. Scheiber notes,“The IRS was unexpectedly flooded by dodgy 501(c)4 applications and was at a loss over how to manage them.”

    119. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Now they're "unusual".  So unusual that in 2009 they received 1751 of them.  And then where overwhelmed by the decline in 2010 to 1735 of them.  That is quite the standard deviation.  I now see the great disparity your are citing. LOL

    120. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Campaign finance operates by shaky, or even nonexistent, rules, and powerful players game the system with impunity. A handful of IRS employees saw this and tried, in a small way, to impose some small sense of order.”-Jeffrey Toobin. No scandal,HUNT.

    121. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Keep moving the goal post.  And the IG report which I cited earlier proves that a LIE.  As does the later IRS CONFESSIONS that this was not confined to a few people in a Cinncinati office, but ILLEGALLY directed from DC. Another miss

    122. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Who said that? Because I heard agent -DC had nothing to do w it.Issa hearing not include him.Gee,wonder why?Also read it was DC lawyer. But, "obvious that White House had nothing to do with the process, and couldn’t have known"...But, IMPEACH anyway.

    123. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Let read what the IG said one more time in a copy of his letter

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06 … s-flagged/

    124. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry, I do not read the blaze, Glenn Becks baby. Not on yer life.If you call MY sources garbage, I call him a garbage dump! My hand would burn if touched that site. Try another source. Must be plenty, if its real and true.

    125. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Didn't ask you to read the blaze. The hard copy letter from the IG is posted to the article. And I have already posted video of congressional testimony of Cinn agents testifying that they were awaiting orders from DC.  "Inner knowing" missed again

    126. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      inner knowing? You accused me of making up facts! I can back up errythang. So, who in DC were they supposedly waiting orders from, and for what? Cause DC lawyer making them dot ps an qs, and Issa telling them narrowly focus on TP...this? What exactly

    127. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You lied or fell for the "flood of applications" story.  And ONLY the Tea Party Apps were sent to DC and held in perpetual review as per IG report and the testimony of Elizabeth Hofacre and Carter Hull. Ofcourse NO lib groups needed their I's dotted

    128. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That was no lie,there was a flood.And, IF you are social group, you just do your thing, and file 990 form end of year. So,ALL these TP, Patriot applications WERE unusual, and REQUIRED x-tra scrutiny. If there was flood of Occupy,or Progressive,same.

    129. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes...ofcourse a decline in applications from 1751 in year 2009 to 1735 in year 2010 constitutes a flood of new applications.  Congrats, you just re-wrote the laws of Mathmatics. Extra scrutiny is ILLEGAL. 501c4 laws permit political speech

    130. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Claiming to be for the common good to avoid taxes is also against the law. IRS had no choice but to do what they did. Issa chose to use it as another hammer to nail Obama. Just like Benghazi, Birtherism Lybia....whatever else they can CON KOCHT.

    131. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      We'll overlook your trouble with math for now.IRS doesn't get to determine who is or isn't for the common good. The treatment under the law has to be the same.  And once again, the IRS CONFESSED to acting illegally.  The only ? left is who ordered it

    132. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh Bullshwacky! They didn't do anything that any other IRS did. This is political witch hunt because TP controls House. Here--I beamed this to him from my head,since I made it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 6R6BLc7aHE

    133. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If you don't like a law, propose legislation. You don't get to apply it differently to CERTAIN groups. We learned last week that Lois Lerner was coordinating with treasury in emails "off plan"
      http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/offplan.pdf

    134. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Certain" groups, who go around with signs threatening prez, and calling him terrorist..you think they are being singled out as not being political? Is that primarily common good to you? No way. If Occupy Group says they are common good--what happen?

    135. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So then the IRS should have singled out Lib groups for holding signs of Bush as Hitler. But they didn't.  There was NOT ONE lib group sent to DC.  It's illegal to apply the law diff because someone held a sign at a rally. No such legal authority.

    136. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If the libs holding signs of Bush had asked for 501 status, they would have been. You keep sayingTP is being singled out, when really, they want special treatment! They want to spend unlimited bashing Dems, without say who pay, AND get tax exemption!

    137. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Are you on drugs.  I have been to literally dozens of Tea Party demonstrations.  There were no such signs. These were a few obscure instances.  We filed for permits, cleaned up our trash and went home.  You can't link everyone together.

    138. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well, bully for you.Just hope you realize that you are in no way a social organization working for the common good, and I should not be expected to subsidize your political org. And quit acting pure.Your guy called Obama a subhuman mongrel.NO MANNERS

    139. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I don't have a guy.  Please cite a specific example of a person who was denied 501c4 status seen holding a derogatory sign. Or did  you once again you just MAKE IT UP.  When did you become the arbiter of what groups represent the common good ???

    140. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I did not say that. I said IF a person holding a derogatory sign applied for 501 status, they would be denied. Hence, the TP. And yes, I decided that calling our president a subhuman mongrel is not in the common good. T Nugent, Tea Party Patriot,Fox

    141. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So you have NO evidence that anyone who applied for 501c4 status said or held a derogatory sign. You're just prejudice.Nugent holds no political office or title with any group. Jesse Jackson called NY Himey town. Guess All Dem's are now anti semetic

    142. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh yes I do.Just google tea party rally,see plenty. And you will see them blame Obama for TARP. And threaten and hate.Ted Nugent was star at 1st TP televised event. Good friends w Hannity, muckity muck with the NRA.JJ IS called anti-Semite, as am I.

    143. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Since I can Google this that means by the SAME standard you are affiliated with dangerous leftists and Obama supporters like Farrakhan, which make you a Jew hating bigot.
      http://binscorner.com/pages/d/death-thr … sts-i.html

    144. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Finally, your true colors come out. Heritage Foundation, or Hasbara?

    145. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Dont need a foundation to expose your for the double standard hypocrite you are who has never been to a Tea Party rally and doesnt even understand that it is not a unified organization.But like a true bigot you condemn an entire group based on a few

    146. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I hope you see the ridiculousness of your logic. Because I think TP people are bigots, that makes me a bigot. Not really. TP IS intolerant of others views. Thats why they have blocked Obama, whom WE voted in. Even tho he won election, they refuse US!

    147. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What is ridiculous is you trying to link millions of people to a few bad remarks. But the same standard can't be applied when an Obama supporter like Farrakhan says something inflammatory.That makes you a hypocrite. And congress was also elected

    148. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ok then, i'll just stick to the ones in gvt, who yell out LIAR when he speaks, align w conspiracy demonizations, and completely insult him by not showing up when he invites them.And I see you forgot what happened to Wright. And we ARE stereotyped.47%

    149. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You mean like when Dem Rep Alvin Thomas called Justice Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom". The only nut I hear using conspiracies theories is you with your 9-11 propaganda. No fact checks & Pier reviewed papers. Instead you cite "Google a picture"  L

    150. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Really? You never heard Obama was born in Kenya,and is a secret Muslim working to bring about the Caliphate with the Muslim Brotherhood? Never heard that hes gay? Faked his whole past? Sheeesh, you don't listen to your own party.And google showstruth

    151. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And I have heard countless ridiculous accusations about conservatives.  Only IGNORANT people assume the comments of a few apply to the whole group.  That is the definition of Prejudice. "Google shows truth"  I should have used that in my thesis...LOL

    152. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      yeah..I say them! And when I do.....guess what? I'm accused of hating America, hating Republicans and hating Jews.....so: Do you hate America, hate Black people and hate Democrats? Or do you get to have your opinions without the demonization?

    153. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Learn to read...I didn't say you hate Jews.  I said if I were dumb enough to apply the same standards to progressives that you apply to the Tea Party then you are just has guilty of hate speech because Farrakhan supports Obama as you do.

    154. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      oh yes you did: "which make you a Jew hating bigot".Your words to me. And, you're not the only Bagger on Earth,you know. Since 2001,I have been smeared by your ilk.Because you can't handle the truth about yourself, or the things you believe.InsideJob

    155. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Precisely...if Ted Nugent makes all Tea Party supports racist...then Farrakhan makes all Obama supporters "Jew hating bigots".  Only an idiot would believe either one is true. Its called an analogy.  Learn to read. You have enough trouble with Math

    156. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, its not just a small number, I'm afraid.....its the thread running through all of it.Nugent...Trump....Rush....Beck.....Palin....TP organizer here in Boston.....Hussein Hussein Hussein....food stamp president....."Liar"...."boy"....its the theme!

    157. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Never been to a Tea Party Rally and you know the whole strain. Yeah they don't say the nice things that progressives said about Bush or Reagan. You really are an example of someone who is so far behind in the race you think your actually winning.

    158. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I don't recall progressives holding signs w Bush or Reagan as voodoo witch doctor w bones thru their nose. That is wholly for Obama.....care to guess why? And no one EVER questioned a presidents birth....and one of YOUR guys was born in Canada!! Race

    159. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Which of those groups had representation in the US congress? Your people control the GOP.Bush haters NEVER controlled the Dems. Don't know why you so defensive: you get what you want
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … v=77rtyQf6

    160. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The congressional black caucus has met numerous times with racist like Farrakhan to get his input on policy agenda, along with men like Jackson who also have made racist remarks.  And the primary focus of the Tea Party is to represent limited gov't

    161. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Netanyahu is a racist, and we give him 3 bil+ a year. Everyone is racist, I guess, but the poor ole Tea Party, huh? And limited gvt does not include directing my private life, and enlarging the military--that is the opposite of limited.

    162. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You are the only one who extrapolates the statement of a few people to mean that everyone thinks the same thing.  I simply pointing out how your standards work when applied to you. And Tea Party members are close to 10th amendment libertarians.

    163. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Love how you laughed at me for saying u tube is the truth, and here you are using it....Again...anti Bush was citizens, not sitting members of gvt. The hatred has infiltraited into our gvt, via the TP, and members are using it to Get Obama, FOR Bibi.

    164. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I said "Google search" I have no problem using youtube if you have a credible source viewed on it...not a Lawerence O'Donell monologue. Not to mention pier reviewed papers.  Sitting Congressman Pete Stark called Bush a "Liar and Murder"

    165. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      really? You show videos of Bush haters, I show videos of Obama haters...your credible,mine not?And so did Stark arrange hearing on Bush? Vow to block all legislation?And how did R's characterize him? Bet they called him un American.But not them, ohno

    166. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You really cant read. Any video of any protestor doesn't tell us anything about an entire group.Only you believe that.Bush was called unpatriotic by Sen Obama, Loser by Reid. Various leg propsals were blocked such as SS reform and SCOTUS appt's

    167. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, but we see what they do when they come to power. Snyder, Walker...destroying unions, cutting taxes for rich, while raising for poor. Putting road blocks up for voting, erasing womens rights....the proof is in the puddin'. Anti Freedom. Pro Corp.

    168. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Dear lord...There is NO correlation between tax revenue to the treasury and the marginal tax rates for rich or poor. The wealthy paid a higher % of the overall revenue after EGTRAA than before.And yes, Dems like Kucinich & Wexler screamed impeach

    169. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Kucinich didn't scream. He went to Congress with 38 articles of impeachment drawn up. Republican House,Republican Senate, Not even a chance of a hearing.But Rs spent ALL Clinton terms and now Obama terms on hearings/smearing/downgrading.No Integrity.

    170. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      There are no articles of impeachment against Obama unlike Bush. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and was subsequently disbarred as an attorney. Educate yourself 
      http://taxfoundation.org/article/compar … h-tax-cuts

    171. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, just 5 yrs of unending hearings and accusations and obstructing his job. They cant impeach, because Senate is Dem. If that changes, you can bet they will do it. And yes,I know, Clinton had to testify under oath, but Bush and Cheney didn't.unequal

    172. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So during the Bush 43 ACTUALLY filing Impeachment articles, blocking nearly every piece of legislation and appointment and constant investigation as well, along with media outlets like Dan Rather drumming up fake National Guard records was OK.

    173. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, he filed, and then what? Nothing. He also filed them on Obama. Again, nothing. And your version of history differs from mine. No constant investigation..if did, it in basement, away from media. 60 minutes also mess w Obama.Benghazi liar--wooop

    174. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Because your delusional.  Valerie Plane, AG firings, Abu Ghraib...etc.  Most were baseless or no evidence the Prez did anything illegal. The reason Kucinich got nowhere with his calls for impeachment is they lacked credibility.  He is as crazy as you

    175. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I see you never read those articles of impeachment. It is serious business, and you people sluff it off. Because a Republican did it, its sacrosanct. All Rs above the law. OBVIOUS, as the 60 dead from embassy bombings during
      Bush didnt elicit 1 tear

    176. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Every prez has bad things happen during his adm.  Not every Prez blames it on innocent film makers.  Kucinich never filed any articles of Impeachment against Obama as well.  Once again...you just MADE IT UP.  You'd be a great fiction writer.

    177. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      U right-he never filed them, but he was going to. Over Lybia. And u tell me...why Bush embassy bombings no constant hearings, and blaming him?Rs say Obama did it. Why not same for Bush? Dont break your brain figuring it out. Duh, its obvious.POLITICS

    178. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nobody is saying Obama issued an attack on Benghazi except a few fringe conspiracy nuts like you.The issue is he told the country it WASN'T a terrorist attack for weeks and blamed a film maker when he was briefed otherwise just before his re-election

    179. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ehhh! wrong.He said it terror next day, and CIA told adm it cause of movie.Issa:"As long as President Obama is in office, I feel the job I'm doing is the most important job I can do and I intend to continue".See? When Bush was there, he didn't care.

    180. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The Prez gave a speech 2 weeks after the incident at the UN and blamed a film maker.  Nice Try again...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233975/Petraeus-tells-Congress-Obama-administration-altered-CIA-talking-points-Benghazi.html

    181. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "You’ve probably been told by outraged Republicans that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton issued a “stand down” order in Benghazi. That allegation belongs to Republican Representative Darrell Issa of California" Big Fat Liar...nice try, YOU.

    182. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That's not what Petraeus said.  He said the CIA made clear that this was know immediately to be unrelated to a spontaneous protest over a video.  Yet 2 weeks later the Prez was still telling a diff story at his UN speech.  Why...Re-election concerns

    183. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I have a different opinion. I think Patreus did Benghazi to help RMoney win election. An Obama October Surprise,if you will. CIA analyst Tarpley, And In fact, it was Republican House that refused x-tra money for embassy security....so look in mirror.

    184. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah...And the station chief in Libya who said the same thing is also in on it. And when The prez finally admitted is wasn't a film maker...he was also in on framing himself.  That makes sense.

    185. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nothing makes sense. But you can get a faint glimmer of whats going on when you find out Qui Bono? And Certainly, Obama did not benefit one iota from Benghazi. In fact, it's a constant political gambit from now until 2016. Issa promised. Groundswell.

    186. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Of course he didn't benefit from it.  It was an example of an incompetent attempt to create a false picture of a more stable middle east.The truth came out, and his adm was once again shown to be incompetent.They make people long for the Carter days

    187. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I see it as failed attempt by the zio-cons to put RMoney in charge, so they could bomb Iran, and all the rest of the deranged planes they have. Told you already..PNAC. Also believe there is a group of American Patriots who refuse allow thisto happen

    188. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Back to your paranoid delusions again.  Romney might have bombed Iran...and Obama did bomb Libya.  Now I see the difference. PNAC is a think tank. There are literally hundreds of them all over D.C. In order to understand you need the ability to think

    189. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "To Get the Truth about Benghazi,Probe the CIA Mormon Mafia and the Romney Campaign.The Benghazi killings represent: a US Ambassador killed by CIA asset,while CIA team and another group of CIA assets conveniently fail in mission to provide security."

    190. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Mormon mafia...LOL.  Let me guess...another Alex Jones type nut job that is lacking in a single fact check...pier reviewed paper or even a white paper from a single credible source.  Have you thought about asking the Dr to increase the Aripiprazole ?

    191. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Mormon Mafia. Just like Irish and Jewish...or are we only allowed to mention the Italian? You do know RMoney is being sued for racketeering? And god knows where he stashes his billions, to avoid paying taxes to my country. Thats a st8up gangster

    192. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You're really off the wall.  When you send money offshore, you're still subject to US income taxes. My guess is Romney paid more in taxes yesterday than you'll pay all year. Keep reading those Larouche pamphlets the nuts hand out at the grocery store

    193. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Im sure he did. He "makes" more in a day than I do all year . But he still pays less tax rate than my senior mom. How you like that? Well, you probably do. And youre a funny one to mention ANYONE! Beck,
      Hannity, Oreilly, Limbaugh..Bwahahahaha!

    194. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You're not smart enough to understand the tax code..but I'll try. People like Romney are taxed at two levels. C-corp and then again at the personal level. The combined amount is far higher. Only personal level is lower because it comes from Cap Inv

    195. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sure I understand it. Rich people pay less a percentage of their income than the working poor. $$-wise more, because they have all the money! Its not rocket science. And your constant belittling shows much about your character...I see why u a Bagger.

    196. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No they pay a higher combined % rate and more of the proportionate amount of national taxes. The top 0.10% pay more than the bottom 80%.  And your ignorant accusatory statements prove why you're not smart enough to make that kind of money.

    197. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The top 10% have more wealth than the bottom 80%...combined! AND they do not pay more a percentage of income.Some pay 0,and we know it.Like Mittens, who for some reason didn't share his tax returns, breaking w tradition. Wealth disparity USA obscene!

    198. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The top 0.10% earn a HUGE portion of income from dividends. Which means double taxation.  You are only counting the one half of the tax code that you don't understand. Wealth is infinite. You have what you create. If they have more they earned more.

    199. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Eh,I don't call sitting on money "earning" anything.And if $ infinite,they shouldn't mind paying taxes,instead of looking for ways to hide it.Afterall, they can always get more,right?Because dude has 21.5 bil,and hates Obama cause of carried interest

    200. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sitting on money ??? Ever here of capital formation.  The creation of wealth requires things like ingenuity.  The more taxes paid the less working capital exits for capital investment.  The system is propelled by increases in monetary velocity.

    201. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Some have ingenuity,some inherit, some get lucky,ALL have help! And I think less taxes means more to stuff in the banks..all over the world, like RMoney does.Puts it in wifes name, kids name, probly dogs name..all these shady things. Not honest,slick

    202. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      More money in the bank means more available for cap ex and economic expansion. If banks aren't capitalized with base money then M2 money can't grow and the economy slows for all of us.Putting money in your wifes name changes your tax liability how ??

    203. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh bulloney. Biz is sitting on 2.2 trillion, refusing to invest. My opinion? They are waiting for tea party reps in gvt to bust all unions, remove all taxes, and remove penalties for hiring illegals. Biz goal is maximize profit, minimize cost/quality

    204. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Bingo, Lower marginal rates and a more friendly biz climate increases investment and rich people pay MORE in taxes due to increased velocity.  That's what class warfare idiots never get.  The more you attack Biz, the less economic activity there is.

    205. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Biz isn't under attack, workers are!The less they earn, the less safe their work environment: the less available to spend, and the less enthusiasm for giving their sweat and blood.More pay, more ownership of own labor,and less scales tipped to ceo's.

    206. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Spoken like a person who know nothing about what it is like to be a successful entrepreneur. My compliance burden has increased 10 fold in this adm.Thats more money that is not being devoted to increasing capacity, and instead endless paperwork.

    207. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Hate to tell you entrepenuers, but you would be nowhere without the hard work put in by people you employ. My idea of success is not gaged on bank accounts, but human accounts. You treat people well, youre a success, you use and abuse......LOSER!

    208. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Once again you have the supply an demand concept backwards. People who provide services that are highly skilled are paid highly.  People who don't aren't.  People who RISK their own capital are rewarded if and when they are a success.

    209. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds good, until the one with the money has all the power and controls all the options. Example: we in my place went without raise for 6 yrs, cause boss couldnt afford. Then, he has great year, huge profits which we all work
      and sacrifice.Heshare?

    210. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You pay is not a function of profits, nor should it be.  If you want to get compensated 100k you need to produce more than 100k in profit on your own.  If you left and profit didn't go down by 100k, then you're weren't worth 100k.

    211. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Who decides what I'm worth?The man with the money.Who decides what hes worth?The man with the money.Ridiculous,and shtupid.He wouldn't do what I do.Hows he know what its worth?If HE did it,suddenly, itd be worth 35 million! You worship money, I don't

    212. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Wrong, the people that consume the product or service you produce decide your value by what they are willing to pay for it.  If you believe you're under paid via productivity then offer your services directly to the public and sub yourself out.

    213. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Never the fault of the money men is it? Even when they are subsidized by the tax payer, they still take full credit for everything, and raise prices when ever the feeling hits, and demand low taxes....Nothing but take take take....talk about entitled

    214. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You have it backwards again. The private sector pays for the gov't. Not the other way around.  So essentially you want to reap the rewards of profit without taking the risk of your own capital & get paid more without offering additional skills

    215. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, it's the private sector that takes no risk...unless it's banksters risking other peoples money. Biz gets help from gvt, then takes all profits for themselves. As they say, "Capitalism on the way up, socialism on the way down."...aka Ponzi Scheme.

    216. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Dear God...where did you study economics. Gov't creates only currency.  Currency only derives its purchasing power from the productive capacity of the private sector AKA...Wealth  Otherwise gov't is nothing more than another ex of a Weimar Republic

    217. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nooo, the Federal Reserve creates currency, then charges Uncle Sugar interest on it.If it wasnt' so precious in the eyes of Capitalists,it would only be the dirty, snot-infested paper I know it to be.Private sector these days in only in it for greed.

    218. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The Fed Res is the gov't. And the way money is created is through deficit spending. Simple concept.  Every dollar of deficit is new currency in circulation. Every dollar of surplus means a dollar is removed from circulation. It is called base money.

    219. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I share this view:
      http://www.monetary.org/is-the-federal- … on/2008/02 When fed head threatens martial law if banks not get TARP..Houston, we have problem. House of Cards, Based on Greed

    220. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Try reading the ACTUAL Federal Reserve Act  http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm  The lack of understanding of how the economy and monetary system functions is frankly astounding for someone who talks about it as thought they understand

    221. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. Hard workers lose their savings to inflation. Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit."-you?

    222. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I am not disagreeing with monetary policy being too lose. But the claims made on that site are grossly misleading made by people with no back round in monetary economics. One of them designed elevators for a living. This qualifies him how ???

    223. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Hes one of many.Off the top  of my head, I know Sanders, Frank, Paul, and Grayson have prob w it.And I also know Lincoln issued greenbacks:murdered. Kennedy issued US Notes: murdered.Read that Fed had prob w Nixon:humiliated and Reagan: shot.NotNice.

    224. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Stop with the conspiracies.  The Fed inflates prices to subsidize the cost of growing entitlements because that is the only way to make them manageable line items in the Fed budget.  Because nobody in DC wants to cut entitlements and lose votes.

    225. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      They wouldn't need to cut anything if rich people paid their taxes! You do know that one in particular has a net worth of 21.5 billion dollars, and wants Obama out because of the carried interest loop-hole Obama wants to end? No conspiracy--sickness!

    226. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Increased tax rates DO NOT increase tax revenue.  The US treasury collects the same amount of revenue as a share of GDP regardless of how high rates are.  There is NO correlation.  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts … ?Docid=205

  3. dashingscorpio profile image88
    dashingscorpioposted 4 years ago

    According to public records this president has executed the least amount of "executive orders" of recent presidents. Executive orders are used by every president to run and manage the branch of government they control. Guess how many executive orders Ronald Reagan signed? On average, (48) a year. George W. Bush averaged 36 a year. President Barack Obama? He's averaging 37.http://www.policymic.com/articles/80393/obama-has-issued-fewer-executive-orders-than-5-republican-presidents-before-him
    I believe whenever people dislike whomever is in office they get upset with the president having this power. However it's important not to rebuke power that you may want a president to have that you like who is pushing an agenda you're in favor of.
    Obama is not breaking any laws by using executive orders.

    1. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Least executive orders in 100 years! But im sure these people were all in line to impeach Bush, Bush, Reagan and Bush...SNARK

    2. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      low numbers do not make them better or good -
      content and outcome do.
      many have lost health insurance
      many are feeling a tremendous economic pinch due to the unnecessary coal bans
      many are unemployed due to the radical agenda
      Semper Fi

    3. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      People are unemployed because the jobs were out-sourced. No one need be w/o health insurance any more. TONS of jobs available in new technology/re-newable nrg. Replace coal, but unprofitable for robber barons.
      Your good outcome bad for me
      Obama won.

    4. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      when a President states "I won - you lost", it is definitely viewed as treasonous in a democratic republic where the elected officials are expected to work for the people not vice versa.
      Obama has always been a failure - except when it comes to lying

    5. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Except that the President never said that, not that reality has any interest to you. Even if he had it is hardly treasonous to state a matter of fact.

    6. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      " "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation." meaning "I won, you lost".
      Huffington Post
      Washington Post
      NY Times
      Politico
      Washington Monthly
      ABC
      NBC
      CNN
      MSNBC
      FactCheck
      FreeRepublic
      Semper Fi

    7. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "I won" meaning the American majority ALREADY decided this issue when they elected him. Time to move on. That's a simple statement of fact you are somehow twisting into treason.

    8. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Right. Like Bush said "I am the decider", and Cheney wanted a Unitary Executive. Treason then? Ahaha.Patriotism then! Like Kasich: "We are in charge now, you dont HAVE a say"... Stunning hypocricy on display daily. And ignorance of history!

    9. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Few politicians have shown wisdom during the present Administration tyranny. When the President abuses power to attack those that disagree with him, it is tyranny-no matter what his worshippers may think. Many societies have perished this same way.

    10. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Obama has attacked? More like the other way around! Show me once he hasattacked anyone!

  4. lovemychris profile image60
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Because the congress by-passed their job for 5 yrs and counting. If anyone should be impeached, it is every member of the Republican party, who all took money for doing nothing but try and bring down our elected leader.....can you say insurrection? How about dereliction of duty? Treason.

  5. M. T. Dremer profile image95
    M. T. Dremerposted 4 years ago

    Maybe we should ask the question: "Why does the president feel the need to bypass congress?" Is it because he disagrees with the laws they are putting on his desk? Or is it because they aren't putting ANY laws on his desk? Maybe if the U. S. was perfect, we wouldn't need any new legislation, but it isn't perfect. Which means the House and Senate have been getting paid to do nothing for years. I can't understand why more people aren't enraged by this. Stop using Barack Obama as a scapegoat for the real problem in Washington.

    1. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Statesmen negotiate - Tyrants dictate.
      It is easy to view President Obama as savior when one permits lies to be the basis for dictating law.
      Radical political operations are the rule under Obama.
      That is why good people have lost healthcare insurance

    2. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It doesn't count when you're just making stuff up.

    3. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Truth always counts even when someone tries to deny it.

    4. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And calling something the truth, doesn't make it so.

    5. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No one can make up the lies told by the President and his worshippers. They have done nothing to improve or bring about Hope and Change. The deranged attitudes of the current administration is equal to that of all tyrants previously removed.

  6. WiccanSage profile image94
    WiccanSageposted 4 years ago

    I don't think any president should get away with it, or at least it should be severely restricted and limited. I don't think they should be impeached for it under most circumstances, but it's wrong for the goose & the gander; the bickering of who does it more reminds me of kids pointing at each other going "He did it first!" It's pointless, and still wrong.

    1. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I dont think you realize the subversive undertone going on here. The same people who called me an America hater for questioning their pick for prez are going to march on Washington-with guns- to remove my pick for prez. They are using EOs as excuse.

    2. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Tyranny portrayed as Partisan Democratic rule is still Tyranny no matter the document used by the tyrant. The USA is a republican form of government based upon the Articles and Amendments within the Constitution. Tyranny is unconstitutional.

    3. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Tyranny was here under Reagan, Bush and Bush and Bush. Why a coup now? I think its obvious. Its all political, and also racial, imo.
      Rex 184 was Reagan. Promis was Bush. They all lied and spied. But
      they white, so allright. Right? What else couldbe

    4. profile image55
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      as usual - when someone does not have truth on their side, they throw the RACE card. WELL lovemychris, I am a member of the minority group. But I still know what is right and what is wrong. I do not worship at the alter of tyranny.

  7. LandmarkWealth profile image80
    LandmarkWealthposted 4 years ago

    Practically speaking the president can do anything he wants as long as he is not challenged by congress.  The constitution does not explicitly give such authority to issue executive orders.  But there is quite a bit of precedent in the use of Presidential executive orders as long as the President is doing so in the execution of the law.  When the President issues an executive order that contradicts a law or the Constitution, that becomes a problem.  Or in the case of the current President, who seems to think he can simply write the law himself and bypass the legislative branch, it is a real problem.  He did this with his own healthcare legislation.  And when he has given directives to agencies not to enforce specific laws such as DOMA and areas of our immigration laws, he is directly violating his oath of office.  And he is not the first President to do so.  Maybe just more blatant than many others in his disregard for the checks and balances.  One major difference is that in most past cases of a President refusing to enforce a law, it was based on a belief that a law was unconstitutional.  Whereas the President more often uses language like "fairness" rather than cite the lack of constitutionality.     

    Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the provisions of a piece of legislation from a policy perspective, it is still the job of the executive branch to enforce the law.  Not pick and choose which laws they will enforce and simply arbitrarily change them because they want to.  If you disagree with a law, then you propose legislation and move it through the legislative branch.  If you can't...then too bad.  That is why we have a sharing in the balance of power.  Ultimately, the President in the real world can do anything he wants as long as he is not challenged by the other branches of gov't.  And he may be openly critiqued by his political opponents.  But they will never do anything to remove him from office, even if they have the majority control after a mid term election.  The political willpower isn't there for an ugly fight.  The President knows that, and he knows the majority of the media are on his side.  So nothing will change.

    1. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      @lovemychris, Prez Bush was burned in effigy, called a nazi...a disease and various other comments and even threatened to kill him repeatedly.  Let's refresh your memory.
      http://binscorner.com/pages/d/death-thr … sts-i.html

  8. Kray -Mimi profile image60
    Kray -Mimiposted 4 years ago

    There is no Government! It's all an illusion so we think we have a choice.
    We are modern slaves that is all. They don't care about us or the fact that they're destroying the environment to make themselves richer. The media only tells us what they want us to think, NOT THE TRUTH. They have violated the constitution left and right, it doesn't matter who gets impeach, the people on top are always going work this corporations who run the world.

  9. vlogan25 profile image60
    vlogan25posted 3 years ago

    Past Presidents and the present Chief executive have accomplished this through Executive Oder.  There is no provision or statute that explicitly states that the president can issue such orders, however, the term "executive power" under Article II, section I, clause I of the constitution refers to the title of the President as the Executive. He is therefore instructed in the carrying out of his duties to " take care that the laws be faithfully executed". This is the language used that has been interpreted to allow the presidents Executive Orders to be carried out. These acts that the Congress of the United States have delegated to the President.

    Executive orders have the full force of law (and the following is the key point!) When they take authority from a power granted directly to the executive by the constitution.

    1. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Yes,but according to some Republicans,it only applies to Republican presidents.When a Democrat president uses them, it's an impeachable offense.They said Obama Tyrant.Then,finding out that Reagan and Bush used MORE eo's than him, it was "content".SMH

    2. vlogan25 profile image60
      vlogan25posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The problem that I consistently see today is that people are so caught up in the left/right paradigm that they appear incapable of producing a single thought that is truly their own. Beliefs built on a foundation of misapprehension,

    3. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I disagree there. There is MAJOR difference in party's as far as I'm concerned. And I consider this Tea Party to be a threat to America. Not Kidding.

    4. vlogan25 profile image60
      vlogan25posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I can understand your concern. I personally think the "Tea Party" is a non-entity that has been co-opted by the Republican party. They have for all practical purposes accomplished nothing. With the exception of flag waving and inflammatory rhetoric.

    5. lovemychris profile image60
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      And shutting down the gvt, and the sequester, and the fiscal cliff, and cutting food from hungry people, and removing womens choice from them,and making it impossible to vote, and taking over cities, and threatening a coup, like in Egypt, and hate.

  10. Sullen91 profile image78
    Sullen91posted 3 years ago

    How can a senior government official get away with committing perjury in front of congress, avoiding criminal charges and keeping his job?

 
working