“The Problem is I’m not Emperor:” Obama’s Freudian Slip

704345_303537499746320_1022674317_o

Pravda West is not going to run this story – because it is not “a poor choice of words,” it is a rare glimpse into what this man truly thinks and believes:

Poor Choice of Words? Obama Says the ‘Problem Is…I’m Not Emperor of the United States’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j3IHIsRu5yw

“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” Obama said. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Lest anyone try to argue this is just a poor choice of words, or the President’s attempt to explain why he can’t just “do what he knows needs to be done” (as Van Jones says Obama needs to do), DON’T!  This is a pattern with Obama that actually reflects this man’s resentment that he can’t just be emperor.  All Liberal/Progressives have this desire to some extent, but this man means it – as did Woodrow Wilson – and these comments are his way of pleading to his supporters to give him the power he craves.

In case I need to remind you, here, let me remind you of just some of what this man has said and done:

72590_366285316803431_413209328_n

542995_455586971155311_330654339_n

303695_546498425362107_597291284_n

406861_335214789919104_980299564_n

403033_417905794945292_2075067784_n

262679_10151199002646446_485646226_n

And just in case you don’t think Obama would or could “liquidate” millions of Americans, remember, his closest adviser is the best friend of Bill Ayres, the same Bill Ayres who led the group who was planning to “liquidate” 25 million Americans after they took over the country: the same Bill Ayres who says he does not regret anything he did, only that he didn’t do enough: the same Bill Ayres who launched Obama’s career in his living room — and who still has influence over Obama.

I don’t know how many more indications that this man is too dangerous to leave in office the Republicans need or want, but they better be careful: they may not get too many more before Obama slams the door.

About these ads

134 thoughts on ““The Problem is I’m not Emperor:” Obama’s Freudian Slip

  1. Jeez Louise – scrolling through my reader I see lovey, happy posts and then there is always you… Neither lovey or happy. Why did you guys ditch Kells last night? Not so gentlemanly. Have a great weekend.

        • Scribe,

          Seriously, I’m somewhere between gravely concerned and flat out scared: but not scared for myself so much as I am for the majority of Americans who do not know how to sling their rifle, step into the nearest woods and disappear from the world. I can do this, and I can care for a small group that I may allow to accompany me when the time comes (note: I said when — not if). But there will be hundreds of millions left behind who will have no choice but to submit to the slavery that awaits. And make no mistake, that is where we are heading. I know history It’s my hobby and my profession, and I see us quickly ticking off all the way points the Germans crossed in the 1930’s. I won’t be surprised if we’ve seen our last election.

          And so many people are so stuck in place by normalcy bias that they simply don’t believe that any of this can happen while, the whole time, it is happening right in front of him.

  2. I am sorry for teasing, I do understand your fear, I just don’t share it right now. I was raised a little differently than most, and I grew up in the wilderness – the real wilderness, without things like electricity and running water. I guess since I grew up understanding survival above all, hunting, finding water, raising livestock and recognizing useful plants I feel a misplaced sense of familiarity with other survivalists. That is not how I live now, it is not how I have lived as an adult, but my family and roots are in this lifestyle.
    I tease them, chide them, and they know my intentions are to not let them take things so seriously they forget to enjoy life. If you find me too familiar with you and your group, too quick to tease, just know it is not out of a lack of respect but rather out of misplaced familiarity.

    • Scribe,

      I am more familiar with you than you know. I’ve read your blog from time to time (thank kells ;-) ). Nor am I unhappy or failing to live life. I have a peace that comes with accepting that God has this: His will WILL be done, and I just want to be in the stream of his will and not swimming against it.

      That said, do you understand the logistics of the problem we’re facing here? If you live more than 50 miles from the dead of un-charted wilderness, you will not make it to a place where your survival skills will help you. In order for those skills to help, you have to get at least 100 miles away from any town of more than 5,000 people. Otherwise, the game and resources you expect to survive on will be gone: stripped bare by human locust.

      And for those who think this can’t or won’t happen, it will. It can happen due to an EMP strike by any one of a number of enemies. It could happen due to a natural disaster that crashes the electric grid on a larger scale or in several parts of the country, thus isolating our ability to sustain a disaster region like the wake of Sandy. Or it could happen because the world un-pins for the US dollar and starts to sell oil in some currency other than ours. Any of these would leave the nation on a cruise ship without power, and look how well they handled that.

  3. I came to the decision long ago that if that scenario unfolds, I don’t want to be here for it. That said, I am also working on my endurance and hoping to run at least a marathon and move to the ultra if I happen to change my mind :)
    And knowing Kells, I can imagine the posts you read :)

      • Talk about two gossips! Sheesh!

        Here’s the thing that bugs me about this EO. It seems unconstitutional. I believe Texas wrote a post on the EO’s. Gah! Now I’ll have to search this site. I don’t understand why that is so difficult for me….

        • Kells,

          ALL executive orders that carry the functional weight of law are unconstitutional. That means, every time the President directs a federal agency to change or make “regulation,” he is making law and, therefore, the act is unconstitutional. But the bureaucracies were designed to do just this: give the President a way around Congress while providing Congress with a shield behind which to hide (not my fault, the bureau did it). You can thank Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive. Bureaucracies were their idea. They never have liked limits on their power — especially the constitution (because they ARE the people our founders warned us to guard against).

  4. I’m sorry, but President Obama’s plan is not to disarm adults who wish to own firearms. His plan would re-authorize the assault weapons ban that America lived under for 10 years. And btw, half of all mass shootings in America have occurred in the 8 years since that law expired. The President’s plan calls for universal background checks, meaning that the gun-show loophole would essentially be closed. Both of those things are supported by over 70% of NRA members.

    This blog exists in a bubble belonging to paranoiacs and other odd creatures.

  5. You misreported what Obama said. He did not say he wants powers of an emperor, at all.

    With your blanket disagreement with what Obama said, however, a rational person might conclude that you think he SHOULD have powers to over-ride Congress, instead of explaining that he doesn’t.

    In any case, you’ve told only a small part of the story, and thereby gotten it wrong.

    Entire video here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/obama-h8rs-complain-obamas-not-emperor/

    • Ed,

      Obama has repeatedly said he would like to have the power of an emperor. At best, you “misheard” him. But he has most definitely lamented that he does not have that power, in the common vernacular, that is an affirmation of desire.

      • Joe, he didn’t say that this week, and I’ll wager that you can’t produce a statement where Obama says in anything other than a smile “I’d like to be emperor” — and frankly I doubt you can do that.

        Your reporting on this latest statement is almost tantamount to pure fiction. Shame on you.

        Come on over and see the real statement. If you see the entire immigration question, you’ll understand (but, no, I doubt you’ll do the responsible thing and retract).

        • Ed,

          First, yes, he DID say that — he just did it in typical Leftist fashion: in the negative. I posted the link to the video, and if you watch it, and you notice how he complains about “this is something I have struggled with…” then the “the problem is, I’m not emperor” makes the contextual implication VERY clear: he wishes he were emporer so he could just do what he wants.

          Second, he has said things like this before:

          Obama: ‘It Would be so Much Easier to be the President of China’

          And that is just one of many quotes by Obama that all have the central theme of “I want to be free of the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.” The logical extension — especially when taken in context with his Marxist/Progressive ideology — is that he wants to be a dictator.

          Now, you can defend your man all you want, but your argument that he does not want to be emperor in his heart fails when one considers everything Obama has said and done n his life. When that is all taken into consideration as a whole, then my assertions in this post are dead on target. Your defense also puts you in with the lot of people who have advocated making Obama dictator, and yes, there have been many of them — some were even seated Congressmen and State governors when the suggested it.

          • The issue he’s struggling with is Congress’s failure to do the right thing. Look at the whole video — I’ve given you the links.

            Your defense of the lie puts you at odds with Americans who wave the flag and work to make government work, completely at odds with the immigrants who fight to defend your freedoms.

            No one advocates making Obama a dictator.

            People who refuse to follow the Scout Law shouldn’t report this stuff. If you can’t get it accurate, don’t bother saying anything at all, eh?

            • Man, you are drinking the Kool-Aid. He is NOT the arbiter of what “the right thing” is. The House was elected the same way he was, so if they refuse to give him what he wants, that is as much the will of the People as anything he can claim to be representing. So, what he is REALLY saying is that he can’t just do what he wants — which is why he says this has been his problem the whole time he’s been President.

              It’s called logical extension. You’d do well to learn what it means and how it works because — on this issue — you are wrong and I am right. And when you take ALL of Obama’s record in total, there is no doubt as to the validity of that assertion.

              • Obama ONLY said he can’t do what he would while defending his following the law, and deporting undocumented aliens.

                May we presume, you having drunk whatever potion makes you unable to post the whole truth, that you agree with Obama’s deportations? Or are you criticizing Obama because you think the deportations should stop?

                Don’t waffle on us. What is your intent?

            • Ed, he has bypassed congress, which is why the statements uttered from his mouth are logical in their context as they coincide with his actions. Then again, he is a liar, so perhaps you do have a point.

              http://therionorteline.com/2013/02/18/who-said-it/

              Legal immigrants? Well, Obama magic happened again! Too bad my ancestors from Europe didn’t have the same consideration….or president.

              No one advocates making Obama a dictator? Why all the fuss then with abandoning the constitution and allowing for no term limits?

              On my honour, I will try to serve God, my country, mankind, and to live by the Girl Scout Law. I was a scout. I feel it extremely unlikely that Obama was.

              • Listen to the question, kellsbellsfrompc. Obama was asked why he is enforcing the laws as written. In other words, he was scored by the questioner for NOT bypassing Congress. His statement in response to the question defended why he does NOT go around Congress.

                Obama told the law as it is — he’s not “a liar,” in this case — the people who reported it incorrectly as above, fall into that category.

                Obama did NOT say he wants powers of a dictator. Obama defended NOT going around Congress.

                When people distort the president’s words to make them appear to say the opposite of what he intended, it makes me think the distorters fear they have such a weak case they cannot stand on the truth.

                That appears to me to be the case here. Rio Norte Line uses the incorrect, misleading transcription. See the full answer to the question here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/obama-h8rs-complain-obamas-not-emperor/

                • And he answered by saying that this is the problem: he can’t just “do what’s right.” A CLEAR indication that he wishes he could, which means he wants to be an emperor. Some people do not understand the English language.

                  • You ignore his explanation that Congress must act, in a Republic.

                    Obama made a statement of fact: The president is not emperor.

                    There is no good reason to take issue with that statement of fact. Surely you took high school civics and you know that to be the case. The only reason to highlight that accurate statement of fact is to hide what else Obama said, or falsely accuse him, as you have done.

                    You may find that fun. It’s destructive of the American political discourse, however, and good citizens would make corrections.

                    • Rhetorical cover. If he believed that and supported it, he would have framed his entire reply differently. As it is, his reply gave the definite impression that he agreed with the young woman (which is why she and her question were chosen, btw). The whole piece was theater designed to shape and direct public opinion in the direction of “the constitution is broken” and “capitalism is to blame”

                      You can’t argue this. It was all explained by the Progressives years ago. They said this is what they believed. They explained this is how they would go about getting their changes. Now we see those plans in action. Just because you are ignorant of this history or — worse — agree with/are one of them doesn’t change hat it is, my friend. :-)

                    • You IGNORE Obama’s entire substantive reply, and then YOU complain HE framed it incorrectly?

                      Mackerel in Moonligh politics, both shining and and stinking.

                    • No, I refuse to accept the BS he feeds you as “substance.” I have a much greater attention span that the average American, and a much longer memory. So I can reach back in history to see how this man talks and how his actions usually contradict his rhetoric, then bring that forward and apply it to this current line of BS.

                      It was the same with keeping your doc, lower cost of health care and no death panels. ALL BS, but ALL explained away by claiming it was “substantive.” Perhaps you should look that word up.

                    • I looked up “BS,” and your blog’s picture came up.

                      It was the same with keeping your doc, lower cost of health care and no death panels. ALL BS, but ALL explained away by claiming it was “substantive.” Perhaps you should look that word up.

                      So, in the end, we keep our doctors, health care cost inflation has been cut from 20%/year to 4%/year, instead of the 30% to 50% annual inflation in insuranc premiums, this year most are down to about 20% (and will drop more when the cost controls kick in); insurance companies refunded more than $1 billion to consumers last year for premiums they collected in excess of benefits provided, and there are no death panels.

                      Sounds to me as if we should listen to Obama. You had a different view?

                    • Distortion of history??? You really are ignorant, aren’t you? There is no distortion necessary: just read the plain language of Wilson. He called for everything Obama is doing.

                    • Got a source on Wilson calling for that stuff?

                      Got a source that claims Wilson as a progressive?

                      Have you ever studied the Progressive Movement, William Jennings Bryan, Child Labor, Teddy Roosevelt, the Panic of 1908, the election of 1912, or Woodrow Wilson, seriously?

                      Can you show us?

                • What he says and what he wants and does are two different things. Libya? Illegal immigrants? (I did that in the voice of Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.)

                  The man is a liar, and if you should like, I will pull up links.

                  When the people distort the president’s words? The words were from his mouth! The words that get distorted are those from conservatives! Paul? Palin? (Ben Stein voice again just for you.) Besides, the people are this fella’s employer not the press.

                  The RNL rocks. The boys are intelligent, humorous and accurate.

                  Oh, and I watched the clip. A good actor can spot one of their ilk very easily.

                • What he says and what he wants and does are two different things. Libya? Illegal immigrants?

                  On Libya, Obama said he didn’t want another war in the Middle East. He prevented the genocide of more than 200,000 residents of Benghazi, and then got burned when the inadequate security Congress insists on for our African embassies resulted in the deaths of four people, including the man who was the architect of the brilliant strategy that resulted in the overthrow of Ghadafy.

                  On illegal immigrants, Obama has deported more than 1.5 million, more than any of his predecessors — which is where the question came from that produced the answer that started this thread (but who remembers back to yesterday, right?).

                  What’s your point, or did you have one?

                  • What Obama did in Libya is got caught running guns to Al-Qaeda-associated forces. In other words, TREASON! And by definition. What’s more, there is no way to weasel out of this: the confirmation is already in the public record. It’s just that Pravda West is running cover for him and the Republicans — as part of the establishment — refuse to do their duty and impeach him for it.

                    • I didn’t realize Ghadafy had you as a friend. For all the dead from PanAm #103, let me say, take a long walk off a short pier.

                      Whose side are you on?

                    • Ed,

                      The people who overthrew Ghadafy were AL-QAEDA! Or, at the very least, Al-Qaeda-associated forces (as Obama calls them). This is in the Congressional record from Oct 2011 — BEFORE Obama committed troops. THIS MEANS IT WAS TREASON!

                      Now, whose side are YOU on?

                • You think the people who overthrew Ghadafy were al Quaeda?

                  Seriously?

                  Why, then, are you upset that Christopher Stephens was murdered. He was the architect of the strategy the U.S. and the EU used to get Ghadafy out. If you claim Obama should be punished, surely you must believe that Stevens should have been punished, too — since he was the guy who led the effort.

                  But, if Stevens got guns to al Quaeda, and al Quaeda was in control, why did they go after Ambassador Stevens, the guy who put them there? And why were they opposed by the Libyan government — who, according to you, is al Quaeda?

                  Excuse me if I don’t grant credence to your claims. It appears to me you were not following the issue during the fight, and that you’ve not made up for that lack of information since. What you claim simply doesn’t make sense.

                  Not least, it doesn’t make sense because the U.S. wasn’t running guns as the chief strategy (or at all that I can tell).

                  Just like the claim that Obama wants to be emperor, your version of history appears completely made up, whole cloth fabrication. Who told you that? Why would you trust them?

                  This isn’t a perfect explanation, but it is quite accurate, and it should acquaint you with the situation: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/whats-happening-libya-explained

                  Remember PanAm #103. Don’t forget.

                  • Ed,

                    So you do not believe in the rule of law: you believe in the rule of men.

                    HINT: you might want to change your avatar because that flag stands for something different than what you are justifying and advocating.

                • Joe Bakanovic said:

                  The people who overthrew Ghadafy were AL-QAEDA! Or, at the very least, Al-Qaeda-associated forces (as Obama calls them). This is in the Congressional record from Oct 2011 — BEFORE Obama committed troops. THIS MEANS IT WAS TREASON!

                  In my last post, I asked you to explain how you could come to such a bizarre, absurd and wrong conclusion, based on GOP complaints about the death of Chris Stevens, based on the facts (I offered you an accurate run down of events), and based on what actually happened.

                  You answered none of the questions.

                  Instead, you dug deeper into error.

                  Please explain, if al Quaeda was the group ruling Libya, rulers who were in power because of the work of Ambassador Stevens, why did they attack him? Not only does your claim make no sense in the light of events, there is no evidence to support your claim anywhere.

                  If al Quaeda was the group attacking Stevens, why did they attack the group ruling Libya, too — which, by your claim, was also al Quaeda?

                  If al Quaeda was the group the U.S. armed, where is there evidence the U.S. armed anyone? No links. We stayed out of that one.

                  I haven’t found what you’re referring to in the Congressional Record, but of course you know that simply appearing in that catch-all publication is not an endorsement of accuracy of the report (there are lots of UFO reports in there, too). Congress has made no finding that al Quaeda was involved, and no rational person has suggested the U.S. was arming al Quaeda to fight Ghadafy. (If you have a more specific reference, we can discuss it.)

                  Now, whose side are YOU on?

                  I’m on the American side, and that side of sanity and rational action. Come on over.

                  • Ed,

                    I keep telling you: IT’S IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS FROM OCT, 2011!

                    Now, if you are going to tell me that the Congressional records are “bizarre, absurd and wrong,” then you are not only telling us who you are, you are shining a beacon on yourself to make sure none of us miss it.
                    :-)

                    • Yeah, you keep telling me, as if you know what you’re talking about, as if being in the Congressional Record means anything.

                      Help me out a bit here:

                      Was in the House side? Or the Senate side? Which member put the thing in there? What did it relate to? How is it indexed? On October 13, 2011, there were 185 pages — where do you think it might be? In that 185 pages, there is one reference to Libya:

                      Yeah, you keep telling me, as if you know what you’re talking about, as if being in the Congressional Record means anything.

                      Help me out a bit here:

                      Was in the House side? Or the Senate side? Which member put the thing in there? What did it relate to? How is it indexed? On October 13, 2011, there were 185 pages — where do you think it might be? In that 185 pages, there is one reference to Libya:

                      Global Korea has joined United Nations
                      peacekeeping operations in East Timor, Lebanon, and Haiti. Korea was the third-largest contributor of troops to the coalition forces in Iraq. We have sent reconstruction teams to rebuild Afghanistan. Our naval vessels support the United States and EU in fighting against piracy off the coast of Somalia.
                      We will take part in the international effort in bringing democracy to Libya and rebuilding its shattered economy. And we have pledged to double our overseas development assistance by 2015. And next month the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness will be held in Busan, Korea’s second-largest city.

                      I don’t think that’s what you were referring to. IF it was, then you’re a liar.

                      If it’s not, then we still need to figure out where it was, and what it said.

                      Was it in a debate? Or was it in extended remarks? Or was it an insertion?

                      The Congressional Record is a catch-all publication, to cover activities of the Congress. On an average day it will have 500 pages, noting proceedings for both the House and Senate. Those proceedings go in, transcribed by recorders working on the floor, and also captured magnetically. There is also the practice where a member will start a speech, get about a sentence in, and then ask permission to insert the remaining remarks in the record as if spoken. That permission is usually granted. Then there are the back pages. Members insert all sorts of stuff in there — newspaper accounts of dog shows sent by constituents, letters from soldiers home to parents, magazine articles, jokes, speeches delivered in other venues, recipes, etc., etc. None of that stuff is edited. That’s where the UFO reports are, and you can usually find several reports of Yeti (Bigfoot) sightings every year.

                      So, no, the Congressional Record is not an authoritative source by itself.

                      So you’ll need to provide more details for the statement you claimed was there, which I haven’t found.

                      You could start here:

                      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-10-13/pdf/CREC-2011-10-13.pdf

                      Your claim, that anything from the Congressional Record is accurate, is itself bizarre, absurd and wrong.

                      Don’t take my word for it. I only staffed Congress from 1974 to 1985; I’ve only been a student of the Congressional record since 1971. Ask your high school debate team how authoritative it is.

                      Do some research on your own.

                      You still haven’t answered a single one of the questions I asked, each of which makes your assertion false.

                    • Ed,

                      I HAVE helped you out. I told you to search the archives here on the RNL. You’ll find I posted pieces that have the links and the video in them. I do my research before I post things like this.

                      It’s becoming painfully obvious you don’t.

                    • Searching your archives — a pain, especially since you appear unable to find your own stuff — and I found this:

                      [Note: if the media were not an active part of this regime, they would have driven Obama from office over this -- just like they tried to do to Reagan over Iran/Contra. the difference here is that the evidence to impeach and convict is already in the Congressional record, as well as the news records of CBS News.]

                      That’s the best you can do?

                      Seriously, I think your bluffs are rude. If you’ve got a serious source, what is it?

                    • Congressional Record references on Libya and guns?

                      So, what does this have to do with the takeover of America and set-up of a New World Order? Well, you have to go back to the goals of the Communist Party from 1963 as entered into the U.S. Congressional Records. We’re specifically interested in #39:

                      39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

                      Strike three. You’re out.

                      There are more mentions at your blog, but none of which relate to Libya.

                      Whoever told you there was such evidence in the Congressional Record, pulled your leg.

                      Obama didn’t arm al Quaeda. You owe him, and your readers, an apology.

                    • Apologies for the format error. Here’s how it should have looked:

                      Yeah, you keep telling me, as if you know what you’re talking about, as if being in the Congressional Record means anything.

                      Help me out a bit here:

                      Was in the House side? Or the Senate side? Which member put the thing in there? What did it relate to? How is it indexed? On October 13, 2011, there were 185 pages — where do you think it might be? In that 185 pages, there is one reference to Libya:

                      Global Korea has joined United Nations peacekeeping operations in East Timor, Lebanon, and Haiti. Korea was the third-largest contributor of troops to the coalition forces in Iraq. We have sent reconstruction teams to rebuild Afghanistan. Our naval vessels support the United States and EU in fighting against piracy off the coast of Somalia.
                      We will take part in the international effort in bringing democracy to Libya and rebuilding its shattered economy. And we have pledged to double our overseas development assistance by 2015. And next month the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness will be held in Busan, Korea’s second-largest city.

                      I don’t think that’s what you were referring to. If it was, then you’re a liar.

                      If it’s not, then we still need to figure out where it was, and what it said.

                      Was it in a debate? Or was it in extended remarks? Or was it an insertion?

                      The Congressional Record is a catch-all publication, to cover activities of the Congress. On an average day it will have 500 pages, noting proceedings for both the House and Senate. Those proceedings go in, transcribed by recorders working on the floor, and also captured magnetically. There is also the practice where a member will start a speech, get about a sentence in, and then ask permission to insert the remaining remarks in the record as if spoken. That permission is usually granted. Then there are the back pages. Members insert all sorts of stuff in there — newspaper accounts of dog shows sent by constituents, letters from soldiers home to parents, magazine articles, jokes, speeches delivered in other venues, recipes, etc., etc. None of that stuff is edited. That’s where the UFO reports are, and you can usually find several reports of Yeti (Bigfoot) sightings every year.

                      So, no, the Congressional Record is not an authoritative source by itself.

                      So you’ll need to provide more details for the statement you claimed was there, which I haven’t found.

                      You could start here:

                      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-10-13/pdf/CREC-2011-10-13.pdf

                      Your claim, that anything from the Congressional Record is accurate, is itself bizarre, absurd and wrong.

                      Don’t take my word for it. I only staffed Congress from 1974 to 1985; I’ve only been a student of the Congressional record since 1971. Ask your high school debate team how authoritative it is.

                      Do some research on your own.

                      You still haven’t answered a single one of the questions I asked, each of which makes your assertion false.

                    • Another reference to “the Congressional Record”:

                      Is FHA doing such a great job? They have three times the default rate of conventional loans. They are not doing that great if they have a default rate running at 8.4 percent, three times the national rate for conventional loans.

                      They have a smaller downpayment, which means a much greater risk. If you have a loan with FHA, I believe the loan to value ratio is 96 percent. That is far lower than conventional loans, so you have a lot more risk and three times the default rate.

                      [Page 15,694 of the Congressional Record, July 16, 1998]

                      Strike two.

                • Joe said:

                  I keep telling you: IT’S IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS FROM OCT, 2011!

                  No, it’s not. You can’t offer anything close to a citation, the CR index doesn’t list it. I call your bluff.

                  Now, prove me wrong. Get us a page number. Nothing else works.

                  You keep telling me “GO FISH!” I keep telling you your fish is not there. You’re not listening.

        • “(but, no, I doubt you’ll do the responsible thing and retract)”

          Retract like Debbi Wasserman-Schultz?

          Clean your own closets prior to attempting to clean others Ed.

          And … OH GOD! Not another Mother Jones follower. Please!

  6. Pingback: Obama H8rs complain, “Obama’s not emperor!” « Millard Fillmore's Bathtub

  7. Thanks for conceding (ad hominem always announces the concession of the argument and start of the filibuster and diversion).

    Hey, before you lecture me, can you talk to the guy who posted this stuff?

    Man, you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
    o It’s called logical extension. You’d do well to learn what it means and how it works because — on this issue — you are wrong and I am right.
    o I have a much greater attention span that the average American, and a much longer memory.
    o Your defense also puts you in with the lot of people who have advocated making Obama dictator, and yes, there have been many of them
    o ALL BS, but ALL explained away by claiming it was “substantive.” Perhaps you should look that word up.

    So I DID look it up, and now you complain. We see how you are.

    Differences between Wilson and Obama far surpass any similarities. I’m wondering what you think might have been in any of Wilson’s platforms or actions that even come close to paralleling Obama’s, and it’s highly amusing that you call Wilson a progressive, since he had to be dragged into many of the stands some now regard as progressive. Particularly considering Wilson’s not-much hidden racism, his resegregation of the White House, his clear isolationism in foreign affairs, his opposition to women’s suffrage, I think your case is weak.

    But go ahead and make the case. Both men developed reputations for their anti-corruption work in their respective states, and both exhibited profound moral leadership in war, but that’s usually not considered part of the Progressive agenda.

      • Wilson also campaigned in 1916 with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.”

        Wilson was there in the Progressive Era. Compared to Teddy, compared to Taft, not exactly the epitome of a progressive. Racist, resegregated the White House, opposed to women’s suffrage (until he needed political support for the war), Wilson led on what progressive issues? Let us know.

        By the way, did Wilson call himself a progressive? When and where?

        • It is very interesting How you interepret theinformation you “Research”. Wilson was the Democrats 1912 nomination precisely BECAUSE he was the most articulate and Prominent Progressive in the Democratic Party.

          • So, if you wish to make a case that Wilson was the quintessential progressive, make it. What you just posted you could easily have lifted from my post. Did read the rest of it?

            I’m confused why you and the Neo-Black Shirt Right wish to claim progressivism is bad, in any case — but Wilson was not the poster boy. Could have used him to advance the progressive agenda on more fronts — increase in democracy and strengthening of democratic institutions, anti-corruption especially in government, referendum and recall, anti-child labor, pro-labor rights especially safety, etc.

            On every one of those fronts, Wilson’s opponents were leaders before and during Wilson’s presidency.

            It’s a great agenda, pro-democracy, pro-human rights, pro-development.

            What sort of disorder causes a jaundiced view of progressives, and why do you really dislike Wilson and progressives?

        • Ed,

          Where did you attend your indoctrination classes? And when did you get too lazy to use Google? I will not tell you again: search the RNL archives for Woodrow Wilson and follow the links.

          • When did you get so hubristic that you didn’t bother to look at Google when you complain others don’t?

            If you wish to make a case that Wilson was a progressive, make it. I don’t think you have a clue what the progressives were for, or you wouldn’t be so down on them.

            And you appear wholly unfamiliar with the history of the era. Who was the Progressive Party candidate in 1912? In 1916?

            Make your case, and see if you can do it with facts instead of bad, off-the-mark insults.

            • Folks, the first line on Wilson’s Wiki page says he was a leader of the Progressive movement.

              Ed,

              Seriously, why are you so insecure about what you believe? Why the compulsion to lie to people? Can’t you defend your beliefs without lying? Are they THAT weak? And, if they are and you know it, why not abandon them for something that has actually been proven to work? Either way, this is sad. Please, stop. You are only making yourself look bad — as well as the Progressives who indoctrinated you.
              :-(

        • Ed,

          You really do not think Wilson was a progressive? Is that because you would be more radical than Wilson was, or is it just by chance you aren’t familiar with “The New Freedom”, an edited collection of Wilson’s speeches from the 1912 campaign, which remains one of the best-known expressions of Wilson’s brand of Progressivism. Wilson was known as a leader of the Progressive Movement.

          Folks, this is what I spoke about before concerning the history of communists, socialists, leftist, and liberals to show exactly how the various titles “stick”…. and Ed here, qualifies justification for a re-posting of my summarization:

          The history of communists and socialists and leftists and liberals is never to take ownership of their past. If one remembers, the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. They are very diligently always trying to rework the unworkable and trying to recast their ideology into some new mold by calling it new names… modifying it, softening it, making it acceptable. Whether it was Progressives’ love for Woodrow Wilson (who segregated the military) or Progressive admiration for Mussolini’ fascism in the 1920’s, these are all indicators of the inherent rot of the movement.

          David Horowitz, one of the New-Left’s activist leaders in the 1960’s claims that pure communists in 1950’s America always called themselves “progressives”.

          So progressives then recast themselves in the forties and fifties as liberals because of the negative connotations. But they were forced to change names back again to “Progressives” after the 1980’s, because Reagan exposed them as socialists trying to make socialism acceptable by calling themselves liberal. Following that exposure by Reagan, Hilary Clinton then admitted to preferring the name Progressive.

          You see this today in the directional demagoguery of our current POTUS, Barack Obama who has yet to assume responsibility for his own failed agenda, poor policy decisions, and general poor stewardship of our nation.

          In any case the liberal trajectory is always downward and destructive. You see this in public policy, social norms, and political extremism of the left. The Democrat Party as you have always envisioned it no longer exists. Much like a hermit crab that assumes the shell of another, the Democratic party has been taken over by the hard left over the years.

          In all honesty, the movement really should be named “regressivism”.

            • Joe,

              Ed is an intellectual heavyweight for sure. I’ve seen him on Twitter, and he’s no dolt. However, he isn’t without error in some cases. For instance:

              “So, if you wish to make a case that Wilson was the quintessential progressive, make it”

              Ed will lower himself to putting words in to people’s mouth as he did here. No one here ever asserted that Wilson “was the quintessential progressive”. That’s just Ed’s weak attempt to deflect you from the scent trail Ed knew would come. Frankly, it’s beneath him, and I find myself disappointed. I know he’s much better than McPherson, and this was difficult to watch.

              It was only a matter of time before someone referenced to Wilson’s speeches, and Ed knew it. He won’t have any choice now but to ask me to post the quotes for him. That tactic will not work for me, as I already know Ed is more than capable of finding the truth … if he so chooses.

              We’ll get the measure of this man soon enough, though I suspect I already know the outcome.

              • Augger,

                I have only what I know of him here by which to judge him, and from what I’ve seen, I would place McFly infinitely above Ed. At this point, I would put Rezz above Ed. At least — after we repeatedly forced him to look at the truth — we were able to get Rezz to accept that this nation is a republic and not a democracy. We can’t even get Ed off his lazy keyboard long enough to read the first line of Wiki.

                  • Augger,

                    Frankly, at this point, I doubt I’ll likely read any more of his posts. I have no use for another lying subversive, or for irrational people who deny objective reality. Even more so, I have total disdain for the willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

                    • Yep, I could forgive him if he were stupid.

                      Scroll down, I furthered the point of shedding light to the Wilson argument he was hoping no one would mention.

                      It’s late, and I am signing out shortly. I’ve done my work here for the night, and we can all sleep better knowing that Ed has been exposed. :)

                    • Hey, Wilson was a flat-out evil SOB who openly stated that he favored Communism for this nation, but that he would have to “re-package” it in order to sell it to the American people. He did. He called it Progressiveness. That makes him a subversive AND a traitor — by definition.

                      As is anyone who would support his ideology and/or agenda.

                      Night :-)

                    • Of course he did. That’s the well known history of liberals (or whatever title you want to affix to them). They are always working diligently to re-cast their ideology to soften it …

                    • Wilson was a flat-out evil SOB who openly stated that he favored Communism for this nation,

                      Where do you get stuff that powerful to smoke? Or are you dropping something tonight?

                      Okay, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt: Where did Wilson say that? Citation, please. Give us a real citation, not “go fish.” You know that’s not on this blog.

          • Ed,

            You really do not think Wilson was a progressive?

            More progressive than you’re comfortable with, apparently, but no, he was not the poster boy for progressivism — which all I said.

            I challenged you and others to show actions that Wilson took, or positions he took, in support of the agenda of the progressives.

            So far you and everyone else here have cited zero actions, and zero positions.

            I detailed how Wilson was opposed by the Progressive Party in each of his three elections.

            The response here was snark.

            I detailed several issues of the progressives that Wilson opposed.

            Crickets chirping is how you guys responded here.

            Do you really think Wilson was progressive? Why can’t you cite a single thing he did in support of progressivism?

            Why don’t you deal with his opposition to almost every point of the progressive agenda?

            Why do you appear wholly unfamiliar with what progressives stoof for, even as you note the titles of Wilson’s writings (Wikipedia lists ‘em all, right?)?

            Why do you think Wilson the epitome of the Progressive Movement, if you’re so unfamiliar with his work to be able to tell anyone what he did to push that movement forward?

            Is that because you would be more radical than Wilson was, or is it just by chance you aren’t familiar with “The New Freedom”, an edited collection of Wilson’s speeches from the 1912 campaign, which remains one of the best-known expressions of Wilson’s brand of Progressivism. Wilson was known as a leader of the Progressive Movement.

            It’s because I oppose historical revisionists of any stripe, those who claim the Holocause didn’t happen, those who claim Reagan was to the right of Attila the Hun, those who claim the GOP is still the party of Abraham Lincoln, and those who claim the progressives were in error, though they cannot tell us what the errors were.

            Revisionists tend to be radical destroyers of democratic institutions, or at least cheerleaders for suppression and oppression. I’ve learned that those who get history wrong, will all too often support the burning of the books that contain the real stuff; and I’ve learned that where books are burned, generally people go on the pyres next.

            I think you need to know the history you claim to defend.

            Folks, this is what I spoke about before concerning the history of communists, socialists, leftist, and liberals to show exactly how the various titles “stick”…. and Ed here, qualifies justification for a re-posting of my summarization:

            The history of communists and socialists and leftists and liberals is never to take ownership of their past. If one remembers, the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. They are very diligently always trying to rework the unworkable and trying to recast their ideology into some new mold by calling it new names… modifying it, softening it, making it acceptable. Whether it was Progressives’ love for Woodrow Wilson (who segregated the military) or Progressive admiration for Mussolini’ fascism in the 1920’s, these are all indicators of the inherent rot of the movement.

            The history of fascism and Stalinism is to make false claims about history, demonizing people who led nobly, in order to make more people willing to watch the institutions of good government topple. A tool of those fascists and Stalinists is to try to change history, claiming good capitalists eat babies, that progressives are liberals (they weren’t, really), that their ideology was not in error when rejected before by those noble heroes, but that the noble heroes were instead nasty people involved in chicanery and conspiracies that last until this day.

            So they condemn progressives as trying to corrupt government with the 17th Amendment, for one example,though the 17th Amendment was designed to end corruption of a particular sort, and dramatically increase democracy and the power of the peoples’ voice — which it did.

            Now, maybe you are neither fascist nor a Stalinist. But I don’t know you — all I know is what you say here.

            When I make a statement of fact, and you cannot deny it, you demonize me. Where have we seen that before?

            David Horowitz, one of the New-Left’s activist leaders in the 1960’s claims that pure communists in 1950’s America always called themselves “progressives”.

            They didn’t — he’s wrong about that — but so what if any did? What’s wrong with the progressive agenda?

            Let me offer you an example of good progressivism. We had serious problems with child abuse and spousal abuse in America. Many people attributed that to abuse of alcohol, which they cited in their drive to prohibition. (See the history of Carrie Nation, for example.)

            They wanted to stop abuse of women and children.

            The progressives couldn’t get laws protecting children passed. Some enterprising progressive prosecutor in New York City arrested a man for beating his 14-year old daughter. The man protested that it was his right, as there was no law against it. The prosecutor argued that New York City had laws against abusing domestic animals, horses and dogs, chiefly. He argued that the 14-year-old girl, who was beaten for not doing her chores to suit the whims of her father, was in reality a domestic animal, used for work as all domestic animals are. And so, the prosecutor argued, this man was guilty of violating the animal cruelty laws.

            Defense lawyers argued that the girl was “not an animal,”
            but above animals, according to the Bible. And, by the way, they argued, the Bible says “spare the rod and spoil the child.”

            Fortunately, the court accepted the argument that the girl was at least a domestic animal, and therefore protected by the law from being beaten. Her father was convicted and sent to jail.

            Reformers quickly saw the folly of not protecting children, and started passing laws to disallow such beatings, not content to let animal cruelty laws be stretched to do the job, not trusting courts in other places to be willing to stretch the law.

            In the past year I’ve had several people claim that the progressive movement cited Darwin and claimed “humans were animals,” and therefore progressives were sinful, deluded and evil, ‘because they don’t think humans deserve better treatment than animals.’

            You know better. We know better. You know that the “progressives” argued humans are animals to get the better protection for a child that the animal anti-abuse statutes offered.

            Now, here you are arguing Wilson was a progressive and therefore evil. I don’t know Wilson’s views on this child abuse case — and I’ll wager you don’t either — but we know he didn’t weigh in with the force of the bully pulpit of the presidency to stand up for the girl.

            Do you really condemn the “progressive agenda?” Are we to understand from that, that you favor allowing fathers to beat their children? Their spouses?

            Do you argue that the progressive agenda did not include ending child abuse, as the history books say, because Wilson did not advocate that in this case?

            This discussion opened with a cynical, inaccurate claim that required twisting the words of President Obama — historical revisionism, of the sort Stalin and the fascists loved.

            (You haven’t condemned that that I have seen, by the way.)

            In a series of red herrings, the claim was made that Wilson was the model of a progressive, and that he was somehow evil because of that.

            To which I responded Wilson was neither progressive, nor evil.

            You jumped in to defend mislabeling Wilson as the pluperfect progressive — and from what I’ve seen, you probably agree progressives were evil.

            But you offer no specifics.

            Now I want to know: Do you support the progressives in their efforts to stop child abuse, or not?

            Can you tell us any other specific actions of the progressives that you find particularly troubling — not generalize “socialism,” because that’s both inaccurate, and too general to offer any serious anchor for discussion.

            Don’t take off in a long desultory claiming I’m a socialist — you SOB, I was a Reagan appointee. Your being able to forge a clever label doesn’t make it so (I use the disparative definition of “forge” here.)

            What are the issues?

            History is not black and white. Most history is in the gray. Was Stalin evil? In many areas, yes — but what then are we to make of Herbert Hoover’s brilliant work preventing the starvation of millions of people in Stalin’s Soviet Union? Was Hoover evil, too?

            Do you even know what the issues were that progressives were progressive about? I ask vainly to learn here, you keep failing to answer the question in any rational form.

            So progressives then recast themselves in the forties and fifties as liberals because of the negative connotations.

            What crap. Eisenhower did not claim to be progressive because he was really a communist but didn’t want anyone to know. Where do you come up with such invention? Do you blush when you say it?

            But they were forced to change names back again to “Progressives” after the 1980’s, because Reagan exposed them as socialists trying to make socialism acceptable by calling themselves liberal. Following that exposure by Reagan, Hilary Clinton then admitted to preferring the name Progressive.

            Did you sleep through the Reagan era, or were you even alive then? By the definitions offered here, Reagan goes far to the left of progressive, and comes out on the left side of what you call socialism.

            That’s historical revisionism at its most radical. Why even bother, unless you have ulterior motives?

            You see this today in the directional demagoguery of our current POTUS, Barack Obama who has yet to assume responsibility for his own failed agenda, poor policy decisions, and general poor stewardship of our nation.

            Always the other guy’s fault in your world? No wonder we can’t get anything done for the nation, when you refuse to acknowledge things need to be done.

            In any case the liberal trajectory is always downward and destructive. You see this in public policy, social norms, and political extremism of the left. The Democrat Party as you have always envisioned it no longer exists. Much like a hermit crab that assumes the shell of another, the Democratic party has been taken over by the hard left over the years.

            In all honesty, the movement really should be named “regressivism”.

            No, that’s your side. You can’t make several posts condemning “progressivism” in the terms you’ve used, and not make it clear that you oppose progress in all its forms. That makes you regressive.

            Oh, but I’m assuming you’re looking and writing honestly. I hope that’s not the bad presumption you appear to be working hard to make it.

      • Maybe we should be more seriously evidence-based: While Bryan got the nod of the organized Progressive Party in 1896, most progressives voted Republican, and McKinley won. TR was a Republican with Progressive approval. In 1912, TR was the nominee of the Progressive Party, against Wilson. He was also the nominee of the Progressives in 1916, but almost all of the Progressive activists went back to the GOP.

        Compared to some, Wilson might have appeared progressive, but it’s not exactly accurate to call him part of the Progressive Movement, certainly inaccurate to call him part of the Progressive Party since they opposed him both times he ran for president. Wilson’s run for governor was intended to drive the Bryan Progressives out power in the New Jersey Democratic Party. He was the anti-progressive candidate.

        By 1912, those “progressives” in the Democratic Party nationally favored Wilson — he was okay as New Jersey governor; they really had no other candidates who could muster a big crowd of supporters to elbow him out.

        So, out of three elections, Wilson was opposed by the Progressive Party in all three.

        Was he progressive? Make your case.

          • You really don’t have anything other than snark, do you?

            Please point to us, in that 1931 essay, where Wilson offers support for any part of the progressive agenda. Referendum? Nope. Initiative? No. 16th Amendment? Already done. 17th Amendment? Nothing there. He doesn’t mention Prohibition, but he didn’t favor it — he vetoed the Volstead Act when it passed.

            In that essay, he talks generally and generically about progress. If you oppose what he writes there, you’re not paying attention.

            But does he support the Progressive Agenda? Not in that essay, no.

            Which is why the Progressive Party supported other candidates.

            Got any facts? Love to hear ‘em.

            • “In that essay, he talks generally and generically about progress. If you oppose what he writes there, you’re not paying attention.”

              And Obama talks generally about socialism, and marxist principles, but yet he’s a progressive himself. So whats your point Ed? Diversion?

              • Where does Obama talk about socialism?

                What I’d like is some accuracy in history. As the recent Torb cartoon notes, the problem for those of us who study history is that then we have to witness the others repeat it.

                Wilson was in the Progressive Era. He was not the leader of any of the progressive agenda items, and was opposed by the Progressive Party in his elections.

                Which is not to say he was opposed to progress, as he states in his essay — but being for progress is not the same thing as supporting any part of the progressive agenda.

                Not once has anyone here cited a single action of Wilson’s that supported the progressive agenda. Not once. I don’t think you can — or you’d have done so by now.

                This was a perfect opportunity, Augger. You could have cited one action of Wilson’s.

                Instead you offer a red herring claim about Obama.

                If you’re unwilling to subject your own questions to rigorous checking, you’re liable to end up with the wrong answers, and I think you have here.

                Were you paying attention, Augger? Cite one action of Wilson’s that supported the goals of the progressives, can you? I’ve already listed how Wilson opposed most of the goals.

                Do you have a single example the other way? Not snark, not a red herring about Obama — a single example of Woodrow Wilson supporting a goal of the progressives. Got one?

                No, Joe, I don’t want a “go fish” command from you — as we discovered earlier, what you claim to have posted here is not what is findable (you never did find that “Congressional Record” citation, did you).

                Soft shoe is an okay dance in vaudeville. It’s not history, it’s a poor policy argument.

        • Ed,

          Now come on man. Wilson’s progressive reputation began as he became known in progressive circles as a reforming during his series of lectures at Columbia University; “Constitutional Government in the United States” circa 1907 or 1908 if memory serves me well.

          But you are right about one thing. He was deeply opposed, as is as today when Hillary Clinton ran against Barack Obama … but both of them were considered Liberals, right? Right.

          Intellectual diversionary dishonesty does not become a man of your stature, Ed.

          Now to finish this story …

          One elected Wilson stuck to his Progressive ideology, and ushered in the Progressive reforms that came to fruition under Roosevelt. I am sure that Wilson’s government expansion would be downtrodden by your argument that he did this secondary to the war mobilization effort, however several of his expansions, such as the Federal Income Tax law of 1913 proceeded the war.

          • I’ve got that book on my shelf. He doesn’t argue progressivism there. Found it at a garage sale (not first edition, alas). It’s a series of lectures on how government works.

            • How convenient. Here’s a little jewel for you from the world of Medicine.

              Your brain does not function like a kidney. You cannot learn a book by osmosis. No, you actually have to pick up the book and read the thing.

              • In your rush to insult, you overlooked, my answer that the book is not what you claim it is — it is a book about how the U.S. government operates under the Constitution. It is not a progressive polemic.

                Regardless how my brain functions, it’s ahead of you. Having picked up the book and read it, and taught from it and about it, I offered you a substantial answer. True to the form of this forum, you avoid the argument and come back with invective instead.

                Dan Quayle was right, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

                • Augger,

                  See, told you he isn’t as smart as you are giving him credit for. There are only two books that explain how the constitution was intended to function: the Federalist AND Anti-Federalist Papers (and they MUST be read together to be understood).

                  All your friend here has done is defend his “authority” to change history and definitions. But then, that is the foundation of Progressive reasoning.

                • Joe said:

                  See, told you he isn’t as smart as you are giving him credit for.

                  See previous comments about more snark than argument. You’re working hard to convince me there’s more snark than gray matter. Don’t.

                  There are only two books that explain how the constitution was intended to function: the Federalist AND Anti-Federalist Papers (and they MUST be read together to be understood).

                  And the New Testament King James version — if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Constitutional interpretation, right?

                  Humor aside, regardless Wilson’s ability to explain the Constitutional government we live under, the book Augger mentioned does not lay out a progressive program, nor “the progressive agenda.” That’s not its intent. It cannot serve as a foundation for an argument that Wilson was the ultimate progressive, because it doesn’t make that argument itself.

                  Coupled with the fact that Wilson’s book was first published in the last year of Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency, we know it’s too late to make Wilson the founder of a movement that was a couple decades old and a principal thread in TR’s presidency.

                  All your friend here has done is defend his “authority” to change history and definitions. But then, that is the foundation of Progressive reasoning.

                  Rowland has posted here to defend his attempt to change history? Where?

                  The progressives were big on getting facts straight, and getting the history correct. So they led the several hearings on the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. fire, for example, getting the facts before changing the codes on building construction, fire escapes, work rules in factories, and labor relations, to prevent future tragedies.

                  Is it fair to presume that, since you indict the entire “progressive agenda,” you think companies should have the right to burn their employees to death?

                  Yeah, I can see why you’d like to change that history. It makes your position look a little rough and crude, don’t you think?

  8. “We will take part in the international effort in bringing democracy to Libya and rebuilding its shattered economy. And we have pledged to double our overseas development assistance by 2015″ . Um, ring-a-ding-ding, Ed. That’s reality calling. Wanna pick up?

    • Yeah, it’s reality. Is it something you recognize?

      Indeed, we have pledged to work for peace. You gotta problem with that?

      Are you suggesting that means Obama is Wilson redux? You’ll have to explain that one — fully, please.

      • Um, Ed, do you know the history of Libya? Furthermore, can you prove this POTUS provided a declaration of war? But what’s it all about, Alfie? That dusty document called the consititution is of no matter, right?

        Working for peace my ass. Wake up, Ed; the coffee’s ready.

        • It appears I know more about the history of LIbya, especially the recent history of the past 40 years, than you. Why do you ask?

          Where do you think a declaration of war was required? If you’re referring to our recent support of NATO efforts in and around Libya, please explain why you think the North Atlantic Treaty does not cover our limited actions there, and why that coupled with our UN Charter obligations under Security Council Resolution 1973 doesn’t give us at least a moral duty to act, wholly consistent with the Constitution. That “dusty document called the constitution” [sic] requires that we treat our treaty obligations seriously. See Article VI.

          Working for peace, even for your donkey. Yeah, I fixed the coffee for you. You’re welcome. Now drink it, do the reading I’ve suggested. You might learn something.

  9. By the way, the description you offer of Executive Order 13603 is inaccurate. It does not give the president authority over “all water,” nor “all food.”

    The order, which is required under a 1950 law and is repeated by each president upon assuming office since 1950, puts a premium on resources needed to wage war in a defense emergency. We’ve had similar orders actually used in the Spanish-American War, in World War I, in World War II, during the Korean War, during the Vietnam war, during Desert Storm, and during our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    If there is a shortage of necessary war materiel, the EO, under the law Congress passed, gives the President authority to order priority contracts — which means manufacturers and suppliers should supply that contract first in a shortage. Appeal mechanisms exist, and providing civilian needs is one of the stated purposes and considerations.

    Here’s the allocation language (and here is the entire EO):

    PART II – PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS

    Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

    (1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

    (2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

    (3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

    (4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

    (5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

    (6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

    (b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

    (c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.

    (d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

    (e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President’s approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.

    Non-business people probably aren’t familiar with priority contracts. A priority contract does not allow “takeovers” of resources.

    In World War II, businesses voluntarily sought to support the war effort, providing increased production, improving products as they were produced, and doing it all as cheaply as possible, in order to win the war. FDR didn’t order any takeovers of factories — Ford, Chrysler, GM, Boeing, Curtiss, Kaiser, Willys, U.S. Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Peabody Coal, and hundreds of other companies told the government to get out of the way and let them show how they could manage the companies better, and the government did.

    We won most of those conflicts, especially WWI and WWII, defeating dictators who DID takeover their nation’s resources. One lesson we should take is that, in a democratically-inclined nation such as ours, patriots can do the job better when left to their own resources than central government.

    That is what is intended under this EO. Your characterizing it as a dictatorial takeover gives way too much credit to Tojo, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, and assumes Americans not to be the patriots we are.

    Again I could wonder: Whose side are you on? Where in the world did you really study history (or have you)?

    I’m sure once you study the history, and the actual language of the EO and its history and purposes and extensions, you’ll want to retract that part of the post.

    • B.’s pic pretty much summed up the language IMHO. Did you study history? Do you recall when Americans had to forfeit their gold? Do you recall the POTUS? ……………….jes sayin……

      You are a curmudgeon Ed, and I find you most disagreeable. I imagine you never wear a smile or sing a happy tune. That makes me more depressed than this post.

      • Kells,

        Same guy who stole our gold placed Japanese and German citizens in concentration camps. Little known fact: he also declared war on Japan and THEN asked Congress to do the same. That’s a violation of the Constitution that led to the War Powers Act being accepted by tradition rather than law.

        Then there is the founder of the benevolent Left/Liberals/Progressives. He had Americans jailed for expressing their political opinions IN THEIR OWN HOMES! He also invented propaganda, sent his own private army of propagandists to direct public opinion into the streets and directed his justice department NOT to prosecute the murder of Americans who happened to be German.

        I’m not sure, but I think the only President associated with the Right that might be guilty of ANYTHING like this was Lincoln…

        • Little known fact: he also declared war on Japan and THEN asked Congress to do the same.

          That’s what I call prime historical revisionism. The president cannot declare war. FDR asked for a declaration of war on Monday, December 8, 1941, one day after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Congress issued that declaration within a few hours at most, at 4:10 p.m. EST on December 8:

          JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

          Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

          Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

          A little more than 26 hours between the start of the attack and the formal declaration of war. Why in the world would you make up stuff on that?

  10. I told you to search the archives here on the RNL.

    Still haven’t found any reference to a statement in the Congressional Record about the U.S. arming al Quaeda.

    Can you offer any assistance, or are you willing to concede that the evidence you thought you saw doesn’t even appear as an allegation here?

  11. Ed, I trust you will read “The New Freedom”, an edited collection of Wilson’s speeches from the 1912 campaign, which remains one of the best-known expressions of Wilson’s brand of Progressivism.

    I’m sure you can find your way to the collection, if you choose to do so. If not, I suggest you cease your fallacy and tootle along now.

  12. Ed claims that Woodrow Wilson was not a Progressive???

    The Progressives: A brief History of the Progressive Movement

    If progressivism as we know it today had a single founding father, Woodrow Wilson was that man–Woodrow Wilson, who introduced a graduated income tax to American political life, and having done so had the effrontery to call it a gift to the American people. Wilson had given the American people no gift. What he had done instead was use the government’s monopoly of legal force for redistributionist purposes and to redistributionist effect. Wilson’s embrace of the idea and the fact of the League of Nations was mischievous too, though far less so than his work in enacting a graduated income tax. But it was not Wilson who led the nation in its biggest steps toward what now would be called progressivism, it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    I’ve no use for the willfully ignorant or those who are intentionally dishonest. Both are traits of an ideology subversive to the ideals and principles upon which this nation was founded, and individual rights and liberty rest.

    • Koil Rowland erred, Joe. Wilson came into the game nearly two decades late to be the “single founding father.” Go back to 1896, and a high-water mark for the progressive movement, William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech. By the time Wilson came along, Bryan was already on his third or fourth career, the Spanish-American War was done, we had a roiling war in the Philippines, the National Forests had been created, the foundations of the Federal Reserve were laid in response to the Panic of 1908, the trust-busting legislation was more than 15 years old, and we’d had 7.5 years of Teddy Roosevelt showing us how progressives get things done.

      Who is this guy Rowland, and why doesn’t he acknowledge the 19th century, or at least Teddy Roosevelt? How in the world did he forget Teddy? Surely you must have wondered about that.

    • I’ve no use for the willfully ignorant or those who are intentionally dishonest. Both are traits of an ideology subversive to the ideals and principles upon which this nation was founded, and individual rights and liberty rest.

      Then why are you quoting Koil Rowland? Your humor is way too dry for the internet. (I hope that was humor.)

    • Do you think Rowland is calendar challenged? The 16th Amendment flew out of Congress in 1909, more than three years before Woodrow Wilson was elected; it was ratified by 1913, but that’s an action by the states. President’s do not have a formal role to play in passing Constitutional Amendments, nor did Wilson seek to make one for the 16th.

      When Rowland says Wilson gave us the income tax, Rowland reveals that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      • Oops. “Presidents,” plural, not possessive.

        The 16th Amendment was ratified in February 1913. Wilson wasn’t sworn in as president until the next month. So the 16th was passed by Congress AND ratified on Taft’s watch, not Wilson’s. Wilson played no role.

    • Edward; must you write novels as your response? Gawd……zilla! As a favor to me, could you put your responses in limerick form? While I do have a short attention span, I also have boobs! What could possibly be wrong with my request, right? I’ll kick it off, then:

      Ed Darrell today made the claim.
      Woodrow Wilson was not of lib fame.
      He brought up some dates,
      and facts that he states,
      but reality puts him to shame.

      • That’s funny. Our host cited a source who claimed Woodrow Wilson gave us the income tax. I pointed out that the Amendment was approved by Congress and 3/4 of the states, and fully ratified, before Wilson took office.

        It’s a calendar issue, kellsbellsfrompc.

        Rather than try to respond, you give us red herring limerick, as if limericks can change history.

        Is that how you think we should deal with problems, just make stuff up about other people?

        The facts remain: Wilson didn’t give us the income tax. You probably don’t recall Ronald Reagan saying “Facts are stubborn things.” Reagan, a flaming liberal to you, attributed that line properly, to John Adams.

        Doesn’t that frost you, that Ronald Reagan, of all people, worked for accuracy from time to time?

        • You’re not amusing me, Ed….. Where’s my dang limerick?

          While I’ve only read portions of Wilson’s biography, he is a flamer, IMHO. (My refererence being to the liberal community so as not to offend the the gay community……)

          It seems I’m very adept at being offensive. I care…….deeply. As deeply as Obama cared the night the boys in Libya were getting deeply penetrated.

          You go on and on about the Congressional Record, but the reality is that I do not believe we know the truth. Quite frankly, I wonder if we ever shall. Hmmm….. this is how I feel:

          Half the country votes for this man
          They’re paid by the socialist plan
          The other half thinks
          This really stinks
          They’ll change it, if only they can…….

          • It seems I’m very adept at being offensive. I care…….deeply. As deeply as Obama cared the night the boys in Libya were getting deeply penetrated.

            That’s repugnant. You go beyond the pale. You did NOT care about those boys, at all. You demonstrate that now when you fail to note that Amb. Stevens was a personal friend of Hillary Clinton, a good friend of Barack Obama, and Obama’s personal appointment, at Stevens’s request.

            You did not write to protest the lack of security forced on the State Department by Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz. You did not protest the pending genocide of the people of Benghazi. You didn’t know Chris Stevens existed until he was killed, and then you blame those who fought for him and his friends, instead of those who were most responsible for the poor security.

            As for deep penetration, it’s unlikely a thought could ever penetrate your gray matter, even shallowly. Certainly facts have not.

            You’d be blathering idiot, if you didn’t know better.

            Some people should give thanks they were born to citizenship. It’s unlikely they could earn it.

            • You’re speaking in circles now……

              Deep down, I tink yoof got a crush on me. Und vhy vouldn’t you? I can pull a limerick out uf mein ahss at da drop uf a haht. ~ Gretchen

              This is how libs treat a friend
              Abandon them in the end
              With all of their might
              They avoid a fight for
              Good souls they will not defend

              Issa is one of the few squeaky wheels, IMHO.(Bully for him!) As to the death of a U.S. ambassador, I would blame this administration. Period.

              I can assure you that my gray matter is a place you wouldn’t want to penetrate….Oh, and I am a blathering fool. At least I can admit it.

              Citizenship? Why, they’ve already earned it! Ta-da!

              Ed, as an aside, can I just say that were I married to you, you would so have little red hand prints all over your bum? You are causing me to grind my teeth……not good……spankings are far more healthy…

            • I knew you adored me, Ed! Tell me, do you live in Texas or were you just visiting? I only ask because it doesn’t seem the right (no pun intended) state for you.

              You should be happy you’re not in FL as we are currently under water…..

  13. The context in full
    “Wednesday night, President Obama participated in a Google+ ” Fireside Hangout.” These sessions take their cue in part from FDR’s Fireside Chats. In the modern, Google+ version, it’s not just the president talking. He takes questions from a panel of interrogators, and from people who send in questions by Tweet or e-mail. Obama took questions from citizens.

    One woman, Jackie Guerrero (sp?) complained that the Obama administration enforces our immigration laws with much more toughness than any previous administration, ever. She said too many people who shouldn’t be deported, are being deported. She asked President Obama to explain why his administration has done that.

    Obama said he’s the executive, and he’s required to carry out the laws. He urged the woman to support changes in the laws, but he pointed out that must come from Congress. His answer took two-and-a-half minutes, and he outlined the need for immigration reform. In a few seconds, he started his answer with this:

    “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” said Obama. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

    So its,

    “Why are you enforcing bad laws?”
    “That’s my job, I have to. “

  14. Pingback: The Bully in the Whitehouse | Grumpy Opinions

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s