L.A. Times: Romney Must Correct the Trolls
The L.A. Times reports a Very Important Story that just happens to play into Obama talking points: Romney stands silent as Obama is accused of treason.
Mitt Romney drew criticism Monday after he failed to challenge a questioner who suggested at a campaign event that President Obama should be tried for treason.
The woman, in posing a question to Romney, asserted, “We have a president right now that is operating outside the structure of our Constitution.”
She was interrupted by applause from the crowd.
“I want to know,” she said before turning to another audience member and saying, “Yeah, I do agree he should be tried for treason. But I want to know what you are going to be able to do to help restore balance between the three branches of government and what you’re going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country?”
Romney, after waiting for the applause to die down, answered the woman’s question without addressing the treason remark.
So Romney didn’t correct a troll. Big deal. It’s about the same thing as when some yahoo makes a really dumb and inflammatory comment on this blog and I don’t say anything. I don’t have a responsibility to respond to every dumb comment. (Most of them are smart, by the way!) And Mitt Romney does not have a responsibility to take on every silly comment made by some citizen asking him a question.
Of course, the Obama camp jumped all over Romney for this, as does the L.A. Times. But remember when little Jimmy Hoffa got up on stage before President Obama and delivered this inarticulately nasty battle cry?
President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.
Obama’s reaction? He came on stage and named a bunch of union leaders, including Hoffa, and said: “we are proud of them”:
How does the L.A. Times portray that episode?
The Romney campaign called foul, pointing to a 2011 Labor Day rally in which Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa used foul language to refer to Republicans and said Democrats should take them out. Obama later took the stage and made no mention of the comment.
Technically accurate, I suppose. But how about telling readers that Obama also praised the guy who made the comment?
And why must editors portray it as the Romney response, rather than putting the institutional weight of the paper behind the observation that it happened? The spin would be very different if the article portrayed this as “Obama camp makes big deal out of Romney silence. But Obama was silent in the past in a similar situation.” Instead, we get: “Romney was silent. But he says Obama was silent in the past in a similar situation.” See the difference?
At least the Times article notes the blatant hypocrisy coming out of the Obama camp, which was all over Mitt Romney for failing to denounce the “treason” comment — but which was singing a different tune back when Jimmy Hoffa was calling us all “son-of-a-bitches.” Let’s pick up where we left off:
The Romney campaign called foul, pointing to a 2011 Labor Day rally in which Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa used foul language to refer to Republicans and said Democrats should take them out. Obama later took the stage and made no mention of the comment.
Asked later if the president should have disavowed the remark, White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer said the president shouldn’t be expected to “serve as the speech police for the Democratic Party.”
Hahahaha. Hypocrites.
P.S. Let’s keep in mind that there is a sound basis to say that Obama is operating outside the structure of the Constitution. ObamaCare is a solid example. Somewhere between 4-5 members of the Supreme Court agree with me that the law is an overreach and is not tenable under our structure of government.
Ding! (and comment test)
Karl (f07e38) — 5/8/2012 @ 7:43 amI guess the Lost Angeles Times’ position is that dissent is no longer patriotic !
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:03 amI am shocked. Shocked to hear there is a double standard.
AZ Bob (1c9631) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:12 amOn the other hand, lots of liberals thought that President Bush was operating outside the constitution (vis-a-vis wiretaps and detentions) and wanted him impeached.
Had someone started a question to then-Senator Obama, in 2008, with the premise that President Bush should be impeached, and had he not addressed it, I would have expect conservatives to have been denouncing him angrily.
aphrael (fb6c5c) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:15 amYes, aphrael, that’s true.
Neither Obama nor Romney can be expected to serve as ‘speech police’, to take Karl’s quote.
I’d like for the GOP candidate to address this concern head on and explain that Obama’s policies have gone beyond what is constitutional, but the most realistic way to address it is to vote him out of office.
But I’m not hopeful that frank answers are helpful in our political system these days. That’s a shame.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:25 amAnd I suppose that all of the leftists that wailed about the unitary executive And how Bush was a war criminal a d how Gitmo and indefinite detentions etc… were unconstitutional are even more outraged now that Teh One has either maintain Ed or expanded said policies.
JD (d4dd44) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:26 amThere are a few lefties who are indeed outraged by that.
But most of them will be like me: voting against someone rather than voting for someone.
So the key to those votes is harsh attacks on Romney, and of course Obama has that covered.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:37 amAnd Romney merely ignoring the issue probably makes him smarter than Mccain was. Althouse has a couple of good posts up about that.
If Obama fans want someone to explain how this citizen’s comment is wrong, why should Romney be the one to explain that? Why not Obama? Let Obama explain how it’s unacceptable. Defending Obama is not Romney’s job.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:49 am“Romney failed to correct a troll”.
I wonder what all the loyal apologists for ABO and Romany would say to being called a troll for speaking their mind?
You can tell us ‘purists’ and ‘malcontents’ we’re traitors if we don’t support this eunuch because of the evil Ogabe has in store.
Yet you’d be unhinged wingnuts to testify to that in public by your own?
WTF?
gary gulrud (1de2db) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:10 amAll the major Republican candidates for president have been hit by this sort of thing this year.
They are accused of agreeing if they don’t stop the supporter who said X or Y. I suppose the Obama campaign is responsible for drawing the attention of whoever will listen to this.
McCain maybe had this problem to, or could have been except he (inexpertly) corrected the woman who said that Obama was a Moslem (or an Arab – the woman didn’t quite have that straight)
McCain took it as some kind of implication about polygamy.
The Puffington Host still tried to attack him over this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-uptake/mccain-responds-to-arab-a_b_133820.html
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:11 amWell, one thing’s for sure…
The Lost Angeles Times certainly didn’t remain silent when the left wing crazies called for Bush’s impeachment.
No, Sir-ree.
The Lost Angeles Times actually picked up the bullhorn and screamed, “Yessss ! Impeach him !”
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:12 amIt’s such an Orwellian Universe that is constructed by the lefties.
On the one hand, criminals are generally not responsible for their own behavior (unless they’re white collar guys like Bernie Madoff)and the underclasses are not responsible for their own behavior. And Obama is not responsible for anything that happens during his Administration—except for the killing of Bin Laden. And people who take out mortgages for homes they know they cannot pay for are not responsible for signing the paperwork.
The list is eternal and would occupy more space in this thread than all of Sammy Finkelman’s cut & pasted articles…
…but Mitt Romney is responsible for the content of a shout-out by some random woman at a speech !
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:25 amI get the concern from the Right that announcing Lord of the Flies needs an appropriate end will raise the tenor of conflict in Amerikkka and possibly permit the Obamanation to cause further Desolation.
I just don’t get how everyone keeping their own counsel secret helps.
gary gulrud (1de2db) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:29 amWhy call her a silly troll? Maybe what Obama has done isn’t technically treason but that’s a legal argument. President Obama not only ignores the Constitution, he supposed to know better being that he’s supposed to be this brilliant Constitutional scholar, so his actions do imply that he knows what he’s doing when he ignores it.
What is the legal basis for a charge of treason by a President of The United States? When Obama violated the Constitution by declaring, or deciding or whatever he did, the Senate in recess to make a recess appointment when by the Senates own rules it was NOT in recess, then did Obama break any law?
I’m not being facetious. I don’t get it. To me, that was an act of treason. So instead of calling me a silly troll and complaining about how your stupid commenters sometimes embarrass you, why not explain it for us dumb folk?
Jaynie59 (058ebb) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:31 amDid they watch the same video I watched? The girl is asking a question to Romney, stops the question, looks at someone else, and says, “and I agree, he should be tried for treason, but…”
She wasn’t addressing Romney. She was asking how Romney would do things differently, not asking if Romney would try him for treason. Romney didn’t answer a question that no one asked. The horror.
And they want him to be more like McCain, whose knee jerk to a woman calling Obama an Arab was to imply that Arabs aren’t good, family oriented people.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:36 amWhile the LAT is being hypocritical, Romney should have addressed the subject, if only to reinforce his position that fixing our economic problems is paramount and everything else is a distant second.
A simple ‘I’m not going to go there, I’m here to talk about how I will help get the economy growing again’ would have sufficed.
steve (369bc6) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:40 amIt’s also a little Freudian what the Lost Angeles Times is asserting here.
After all, the Times refused to publicly release the Rashid Khalidi videotape where then Senator Barry Obama sat silently while various people were ranting at Israel from a microphone at a black tie dinner.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:45 amHoffa’s stupid comment and the “treason” comment are a false equivalence. Hoffa used language unbecoming a public figure (it’s inappropriate to call anyone a son-of-a-bitch). Taking people out… that’s walking a fine line, too, and again, seems inappropriate. The “treason” comment, on the other hand, is part of a larger pattern of trying to declare our democratically elected President illegitimate on the basis of not agreeing with him.
Whether or not we agree with Obama politically, he hasn’t committed treason, and every time any politician allows a comment like that to pass without taking it on, it degrades our political system. Sometimes, in a democracy, our side doesn’t win — and if we can’t accept that, then we’re basically saying we don’t believe in democracy. That is why Romney should have spoken up (like McCain did) — if he wins the presidency, it will be that much more diminished because of the people that are actively pushing the idea that a President who disagrees with them has committed treason just by disagreeing with them.
And while there’s definite questions, now, on how the Supreme Court will rule on the individual mandate, Congress (which passed the law) and President Obama (who signed the law) weren’t operating outside the structure of the Constitution any more than the proponents of the line-item veto were — that law was ruled un-Constitutional, just as the individual mandate may be, even though it was passed within the Constitutional system. Did the Republican congress that passed that bill commit treason? Did Bill Clinton, when he signed it?
Loren Dunn (d7c29a) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:52 amThe Right can “correct a troll” just as soon as Jughead and his minions correct their lies about the Tea Party.
Dave (in MA) (037445) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:59 amHey, that’s pretty savvy!
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:00 amHere is one message accusing Bush of treason.
Where was the L.A. Times?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:02 amI think you’re trying too hard to associate unrelated things.
I don’t see this type of ‘the president has gone beyond the constitution’ or ‘these policies don’t seem to be loyal to the USA’s long term interests’ comments as similar to saying ‘this president was not really elected’.
It’s merely saying ‘I disagree with him’ strongly.
Did you not notice that Obama specifically challenged the Court’s role in deciding the legality of Obamacare?
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:04 amOn the other hand, lots of liberals thought that President Bush was operating outside the constitution (vis-a-vis wiretaps and detentions) and wanted him impeached.
I never immersed myself in all the details of that but my recollection is that most of what liberals were going berserk about was supported by court cases. My impression is that in general court decisions have granted Presidents a lot of leeway in the national security area. Trials for detained combatants was totally unprecedented. Calling for impeachment on those grounds was preposterous. It’s especially absurd now when you look at what Obama’s done with assassinations.
I recall Ted Kennedy made some remark which implied Bush’s reasons for Iraq were a total contrivance.
I think better examples than Obamacare of Obama operating outside the constitution would be stuff like the recess appointment when the Senate wasn’t in recess and their abuse of regulatory authority. I recall they misused repaid TARP money which under the law had to be returned to the Treasury and there’s some shenanigans going on with Medicare funds. Then there’s the Obama Justice dept. I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of examples.
Obamacare is not really an action of Obama since it’s legislation although the fact they have been proceeding to implement it when courts have ruled part of it unconstitutional is possibly unconstitutional.
Barack Hussein Obama (91f731) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:08 amHow did my sock puppet name get in there?
Gerald A (91f731) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:10 amAnd it goes without saying that many would say they did.
In fact, they are sworn up uphold the constitution and some people do not believe that this oath is taken seriously by whichever side they most disagree with.
Plenty of people have been saying (incorrectly, IMO) that Bush is a criminal. Didn’t Obama differ with Bush’s “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” policies (this is obviously a dishonest characterization of Bush)?
Your point seems to be that Obama isn’t treasonous if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional. Maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not. It depends entirely on whether Obama thought it was constitutional, in good faith, or if he was trying to fundamentally change what’s constitutional without an amendment.
I do think Obama’s own commentary on those he disagrees with is uncharitable in the extreme, and I am frustrated with commerce clause overreach and the “it’s a tax; it’s not a tax” bad faith the Obama administration has used to defend the legality of its policies.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:12 amRemember folks, the LAT’s has a job to do and that is getting their guy re-elected. This is nothing more than that. There will be 15 to 20 more of these type of stories come Novemeber. The problem is that every other major paper and media outlet in the country will do the same thing, that is what makes this so tough.
Ipso Fatso (7434b9) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:26 amOk, OT but now both Breitbart and Legal Insurrection have up posts that say not only is there NO proof that Liz Warren has any Cherokee blood— there IS proof that her great great great grandfather was part of the militia that rounded up Cherokee for the Trail of Tears.
elissa (cb96e7) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:52 amLoren Dunn wrote,
“…if (Romney) wins the presidency, it will be that much more diminished because of the people that are actively pushing the idea that a President who disagrees with them has committed treason just by disagreeing with them.”
————
No, Ms. Dunn, President Obama has actually exercised outside the parameters of his Constitutional authority—can we begin by merely naming all of the Czars that he has appointed who have never been confirmed by the Senate ?
How about if we begin by merely citing the “treasonous acts” that the left wingers attributed to Bush policies, yet have been continued by Obama ?
Wiretapping, detention at Guantanamo Bay, “the right” to carry out assassinations on foreign soil, et al.
So, it’s not merely a matter of people “disagreeing” with Obama as the impetus for characterizing him as “treasonous.”
Also, the notion that the legislature passed an un-Constitutional law (Obama Care) via the vehicle of Constitutional process, does not inherently deem the bill itself “Constitutional.”
For instance, slavery was upheld as “legal” in a variety of Constitutional processes.
The problem is that the CONTENT of the law itself was a violation of the Constitution.
In other words, please do not conflate “process” with “content.”
Also, Obama did not protest Hoffa’s language, nor did he protest Hoffa’s threats of violence against his political opponents. Your absolving Obama from failing to challenge Hoffa is bizarre, to say the least. It’s also bizarre to see you charaterize Hoffa’s threats of violence against his political opponents as merely “inappropriate (behavior).”
I imagine if someone were to threaten violence against sacred cows on your side, you wouldn’t casually dismiss it as merely “inappropriate.”
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:54 amDoes anyone remember in 2008 when Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich named Bush a war criminal and called for his impeachment on 35 counts of treason? There’s video if you have forgotten.
elissa (cb96e7) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:01 amDamn, Elissa. I haven’t seen a politician’s lies turnaround so badly, ever. This is National Lampoon’s Senatorial Election.
It’s enough to make you superstitious about building your house on Indian burial mounds, which is an apt way to describe Warren’s career.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:01 amIt was far worse for Obama not to rebuke Hoffa than it was for Romney not to rebuke the troll. The troll is one of thousands of folks who may pose a question to a stumping candidate. Hoffa INTRODUCED and IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED Obama.
The situations aren’t quite parallel; for Obama, they are worse than parallel.
Mitch (341ca0) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:02 amTreason consists of a U.S. citizen waging war against the United States or, in time of war, giving aid and comfort to her enemies. So let’s cut that shuck out.
On the other hand, no candidate should be obligated to correct every provocateur.
nk (875f57) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:04 amMr. Dunn,
Are you Attorney Dunn from Riddell Williams?
nk (875f57) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:08 am“…operating outside the structure of our Constitution…”
Does that include Recess Appointments when the Congress is not in recess?
Does that include EO’s that direct the Executive Branch to do what Congress has specifically denied then authority to do?
Does that include ignoring the specific requirements of the War Powers Act?
I’m sure there are others, but those immediately spring to mind.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:25 amNK,
“Treason” is a little broader than you pontificate. It can fall under the umbrella of actions that intentionally undermines national security.
The fact that the federal government has largely abandoned its Constitutional obligation to secure its physical borders from foreign nationals is perceived to be “treasonous” in many quarters.
Certainly, I agree that throwing “treason !” and “impeachment !” around like baseball fans chattering “hey batter, batter, swing !” at a baseball game is DEFININTELY not the way to bring independents, centrists, moderates, and other various “I don’t know who to vote for !” fools into our camp to defeat Obama in the fall.
In fact, that’s why Romney probably steered clear of saying anything one way or the other about the comment by the lady—he didn’t want “it” to become an issue.
Romney knows he must stay focused on discussing the economy, rather than getting into the tall weeds about dogs, and so forth.
However, with as much evidence as there is of the lefties camping out in front of Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch chanting “impeach Bush !,” or the Code Pink weirdos screaming, “treason !” during Congressional hearings, or the fact that Dick Cheney cannot even travel to certain countries around the world due to threat of being arrested for “war crimes”—I do think its fair to throw a little brushback pitch back toward Loren Dunn.
Also if certain Bush policies were characterized as “treasonous” or at least as “impeachable offenses,” why are the left wingers no longer screaming that they are “impeachable offenses” when Obama CONTINUES those policies ?
It’s a rhetorical question—we know the answer.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:27 amWeren’t the Libyan rebels with al Qaeda? Would that be considered giving aid to the enemy?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:35 amI think nk’s probably right that calling all that stuff treason is overstating things. Even though he’s violating the constitution as I understand it, the term has to be stretched from ordinary ‘traitor in war’ meaning.
Not that Romney is Obama’s advocate or should bother defending him at all. Obama’s a disaster. I like Steve’s response.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:35 amnk, didn’t Mr. Marshall once opine that contravening the provisions of the Constitution, by an officer of the United States, would/could be considered “treason”?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:37 amI do want there to be a category of person specific for those who knowingly betray us to our enemies that is worse than Obama’s behavior. We shouldn’t cheapen the term commonly used for them, even in good faith.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:40 amNothing that this administration does could even be remotely considered “good faith”, unless it is being faithful to the complete destruction of the republic known as The United States of America.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:43 amThat’s not what I meant.
I meant those who, in good faith, criticize that the President’s policies are not conceived with this nation’s best interest, nor are intended to be consistent with the constitution, and in good faith call that ‘treason’, are accidentally conflating one bad thing with something that is worse that I think the ‘treason’ term can be reserved for (Julian Assange and Nidal Hasan).
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:45 amComment by Elephant Stone — 5/8/2012 @ 11:27 am
Read the Constitution.
nk (875f57) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:48 amAssange not being a traitor to this country, specifically, so I screwed up my point a little bit.
But he’s a traitor to his own, so that’s OK.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:48 amWell, I sort of agree with Mr. Marshall on this, that Treason does not just involve overt acts within war, but could include acts to subvert the Constitution of the United States – for that does give “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the United States.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:48 am44…more…
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:49 amboth foreign, and domestic.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 5/8/2012 @ 11:37 am
I don’t know about that AD, but I do know that during his tenure, Mr. Burr’s getting an army together, in preparation to overthrow the US government, was not considered treason because “preparation” is not the same as “waging”.
Are we in a state of war with Lybian rebels? First I’ve heard of it.
And I’ve been blaming my medicines for the supidities I have read here, lately.
nk (875f57) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:55 amAre we in a state of war with Al Qaeda?
nk (875f57) — 5/8/2012 @ 12:00 pmNK/Dustin,
The President has an obligation to protect our physical borders. It’s not optional—it’s obligatory.
The President takes an oath to uphold federal laws—not merely the ones he “likes.”
I actually very explicitly stated we shouldn’t be throwing around “treason !” and “impeachment !” around so casually.
The left established the current standard for screaming “treason !” and “impeach him !” during the Bush years.
If the lefties contend that certain Bush policies amount to “treason” or an “impeachable offense,” why are those policies no longer so draconian now that their sacred cow Obama is facillitating them ? (It’s still a rhetorical question.)
A mere four years ago, dissent was “patriotic.”
Now, not so much.
The focus ought to be more about the Lost Angeles Times, rather than on the one unnamed lady at a Romney sppech who nobody knows, and will likely never see again.
Not only did the Times sit on the Rashid Khalidi videotape because they didn’t want to cause embarrassment or awkwardness for Obama, who was apparently acquiescent as people made disparaging remarks about Israel at a microphone at a black tie dinner, but the Times has also published a lot of news stories that undermine national security.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 12:14 pmAnd that is much, much more important than what some random lady asked at a stump speech.
Guys,
The Founding Fathers knowed wat dey waz doin. They got rid of lese majeste, and treason for f***** the King’s wife.
If anybody should be convicted of treason, it should be us for electing these a*****s.
nk (875f57) — 5/8/2012 @ 12:20 pmIf Romney needed to say anything about the treason remark it should have been “damn straight he should.”
CrustyB (69f730) — 5/8/2012 @ 12:30 pmNK,
Don’t blame it on your meds, buddy !
(Ha, ha, ha.)
And who are these “Founding Fathers” of which you speak ? They don’t have anything to do with Elizabeth Warren’s ancestors, do they ?
Tell us more, Old Wise Owl ! Enlighten us !
😉
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 12:36 pmThe guys who bled to build this country and knew what country they wanted to build, free of such bs as “treason”?
nk (875f57) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:02 pmIf you had to correct all the yahoos there would be no comments left on this site.
tye (eca5fb) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:03 pmThey may have shared ancestry with the native Indians. A lot of people claim descent from Thomas Jefferson. Who knows?
nk (875f57) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:05 pm56. The wife is a descendant of his guardian, Thomas Walker. I suppose that makes her a cousin, many times removed, of Babs Bush.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:21 pmtye, you are still commenting, yahoo? After the slanders you have been caught out on?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:26 pm“…against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
Well, I would suppose that half of those mentioned in that clause, would be classified as “treasonous”.
And, Yes!, a state of war does exist between the United States, and those that claim allegiance and membership in al Qaeda.
It is within the AUMF-2001.
Just as a state of war exists, and has existed since 1979, between the United States, and the Islamic Republic of Iran – it is about time we started to act like it. They certainly haven’t shied away from doing whatever they can to support that war.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:33 pmHow could obama be convicted of treason when he can’t prove he is American?
sickofrinos (44de53) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:40 pm48-gary Galdarn right kill the lawyers. Without lawyers most of the problems for the middle class would evaporate. All they do is write rules and regulations for the common folk to abide by, while they insure their continued raping of the public, by stealing their hard earned cash.
“tye” is a lying liar what tells lies.
JD (d4dd44) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:41 pmComment by Elephant Stone — 5/8/2012 @ 12:14 pm
The President takes an oath to uphold federal laws—not merely the ones he “likes
No, he doesn’t. Read the oath.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
He swears an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, NOT to execute the laws.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:42 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/08/Elizabeth-Warren-Ancestor-Trail-of-Tears
Jonathan Crawford, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford’s husband and apparently Ms. Warren’s great-great-great grandfather, served in the East Tennessee Mounted Infantry Volunteer Militia commanded by Brigadier General R. G. Dunlap from late 1835 to late 1836. While under Dunlap’s command he was a member of Major William Lauderdale’s Battalion, and Captain Richard E. Waterhouse’s Company.
These were the troops responsible for removing Cherokee families from homes they had lived in for generations in the three states that the Cherokee Nations had considered their homelands for centuries: Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
Maybe one of the women he saw looked beautiful to him and he married her.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:48 pmWhat exactly does it say on that 1894 marriage certifcate of her son>?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/8/2012 @ 1:49 pmNot on the marriage certificate sorry – the marriage certificate application.
It is understandable that she could be Cherokee (but of mized blood probably) and that would be hidden in Tennessee till the Civil War.
Was she a widow by the time she got to Oklahoma? Why did she move to Oklahoma? Was there family there?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/8/2012 @ 2:02 pmWhy is Elizabeth Warren worth talking about?
nk (875f57) — 5/8/2012 @ 2:23 pmSammy,
You may not be aware, Mr. Finkelman, but the President actually takes an oath to execute THE OFFICE of the President of the United States—it’s right there in the oath.
THE OFFICE of the President entails that the President is the head of the Executive Branch.
The Justice Department, as well as various other enforcement agencies fall under the umbrella of the Executive Branch.
Therefore, it is fair to say that the President takes an oath to enforce federal laws.
He may not be wearing Matt Dillon’s chaps and tin star and ten gallon hat as he struts down Main Street in Dodge City, but he is the head of the federal law enforcement umbrella.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 2:28 pmI think there’s been a lot of genealogy posted that possibly you’ve missed, Sammy. This may help. OC Sarah Smith Crawford was not “rounded up”.
From Breitbart: We know that between 1794 and 1799, Wyatt Smith and Margaret “Peggy” Brackin Smith had a little girl they named O.C. Sarah Smith. There’s no evidence that “Peggy,” O.C. Sarah’s mother, was Cherokee, and her father’s father—Andreas Smith—was the son of two Swedish immigrants, Hans Jurgen Smidt and his wife Maria Stalcop, who settled in Delaware shortly before Andreas’ birth in 1731.
O.C. Sarah Smith—known in some records as “Oma” or “Neoma”—appears to be the mother of both Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-grandfather, Preston Crawford, and his brother, William Crawford, who is said to have claimed she was Cherokee on that wedding application.
It is upon this claim by O.C. Sarah Smith’s son that Ms. Warren’s assertion of Native American ancestry precariously sits. But under the best case scenario for Ms. Warren, her great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith was only half Cherokee and half Swedish, making her not 1/32 Cherokee, as most press reports have stated, but 1/64 Cherokee.
However, with a mother whose name was Margaret Brackin it is more likely that O.C. Sarah Smith had no Cherokee heritage.
Census records that listed O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford (her married name) as a resident of Tennessee in 1830, 1840, and 1860 classify her as white, not Indian.
Also consider that the OKlahoma land rush rules may have played a role in the out of nowhere 1894 “mom was Cherokee” entry. An earlier Breitbart article posited that there many have been a tactical or logistical benefit at that particular time/event to claim Indian blood whether you had any or not. Check that box, baby. Check that box. (Just like Liz did in the late 20th century to get a leg up.)
elissa (cb96e7) — 5/8/2012 @ 2:34 pm==Why is Elizabeth Warren worth talking about?==
Some of us find her stumbling and mumbling and wiggling about being an Indian hilarious. Some of us find her lying mendacity and her willingness to skirt the rules to get ahead in life using benefits that were created specifically to help the underprivileged to be problematic. Some of us feel that should be a deal breaker for someone running for the US Senate and that this character flaw should accordingly be highlighted. YMMV
elissa (cb96e7) — 5/8/2012 @ 2:42 pmFirst — Elephant Stone — you’re right, Obama absolutely should have confronted Hoffa about his rhetoric, or, as someone suggested Romney do, at least address it when the comment was made. I still think there’s a larger pattern of questioning Obama’s legitimacy as President that I find troubling, and in that sense, I see an important distinction between the two comments. And you seem to agree that it wasn’t appropriate when the Left was doing it, and it’s no more appropriate to do it now. At some point we have to say, “no.” And doing so will, if Romney is elected, only make it easier for him to undercut the opponents that will likely emerge who will find a reason to question his legitimacy simply because they don’t like his policy.
To someone else’s comment (sorry, couldn’t find it when I scrolled back through) — I understand the Constitutionality of the individual mandate to be a real question, still — in other words, that there are plenty of legal scholars who argue it is. So, again, whether it proves to be un-Constitutional or not, there’s no reason to think that Congress or the President believed it to be un-Constitutional when the bill was passed. Again, I don’t think anyone would seriously suggest that the 104th Congress is guilty of treason or otherwise subverting the Constitution for passing the line-item veto. I don’t think either Congress or either President can really be reasonably called traitors to the Constitution.
Finally, as to the czars that someone mentioned (and someone else mentioned recess appointments earlier), that’s another symptom of the disfunction of the system as a whole. If we’re going to criticize Obama for circumventing a Senate that does everything it can to slow down (or stop) every piece of legislative business, from bills that go on to pass with an overwhelming majority, to non-controversial administrative appointments, shouldn’t we also criticize the Senate that has made a filibuster proof super-majority a requirement to get (almost) anything done? That certainly isn’t in the Constitution — it’s a series of Senate rules. Bottom line is, I don’t think it qualifies as “treason,” and with the tangle of rules (including the ones that determine whether or not the Senate is technically in session), it strikes me as a little too easy to point to that as Obama’s mortal sin — particularly because he’s not the first president to use recess appointments and czars.
I actually disagree with whomever said that I’m confusing process with content (again, couldn’t find the comment scrolling through gain) — an enormous part of what the Constitution dictates is process: how laws are created and executed, and the role of the judiciary in this process. Particularly as there’s no evidence to think that the President and Congress didn’t think the Supreme Court would uphold the law (certainly at the time, and from what I understand today, my understanding is most legal scholars believe that the mandate is constitutional, and whether they’re right or wrong, we’re not going to label them all traitors, too, are we?), it seems like the process is working perfectly here, and everyone, regardless of their actual position on the policy will have to accept the Supreme Courts decision, and move to the next Constitutional option for seeing their preferred policy carried out.
Loren Dunn (d7c29a) — 5/8/2012 @ 2:45 pmFinkleman writes: “He swears an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, NOT to execute the laws.”
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/8/2012 @ 2:47 pmI point you to our Constitution, Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution: refering to the President “… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …”
Loren Dunn, please point out to me where in the Constitution, it is required that the Senate make it convenient for the President when the Senate is carrying out its Constitutional powers?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/8/2012 @ 2:48 pmThese special assistants have been around in the pasr, but rarely have their been those who agree
narciso (8d0f34) — 5/8/2012 @ 3:05 pmwith Mao that ‘power flows from the barrel of a gun,(auto zone Bloom) believe that Chavez’s was a wonderful democratic revolution, (FCC, Lloyd,) believe that no one ever is an independent actor, from government (prospective Cherokee Liz)
Recess Appointments usually require a recess.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/8/2012 @ 3:18 pmWell if you’re going to be technical about it,
narciso (8d0f34) — 5/8/2012 @ 3:20 pmLoren Dunn,
I appreciate your well-written, civil response. It doesn’t sound like you’ll be confused for one of the flame-throwers in the Daily Kos army.
The equivalency between the one lady asking a question of Romney VS all the allegations of “treason” by the outrageous Code Pink, and Cindy Sheehan, and war criminal this, and war criminal that, and illegal wiretapping this, and illegal wiretapping that, and the books and movies fantasizing about President Bush’s death…seriously, there’s no equivalency between a “de-legitimatizion” of Obama vs a “de-legitimization” of Bush.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 4:16 pmWith Obama in the White House, we have a news media that gets thrills up their legs everytime he speaks. He can even assert that there are 57 states or that the Austrians speak Austrian or that the Maldives are a couple hundred miles off the coast of Argentina, and the thrill never seems to go away.
Loren Dunn,
A continuation of our conversation, if I may.
I think you misunderstood my point about conflating “process” with “content.”
It is absolutely possible to Constitutionally pass a law (process) that happens to be UN-Constitutional in its content.
I don’t grasp why that’s not a clear delineation to you.
The fact that Obama Care was passed “Constitutionally,” (although a lot of people do have questions about the way reconciliation was facillitated) does not exclude the law from being struck down for the UN-Constitutionality of its content.
You also assert that “recess appointments” are a symptom of the dysfunction as a whole.
Call me ‘cynical,’ but I would actually reply that Obama knew his controversial nominees might be embarrassed in a confirmation hearing, so he chose to circumvent the process of confirmation altogether. “Recess appointments” are intended to allow the President to appoint someone when the Senate is out of session, and perhaps in the instance of an untimely death, eliciting a need for the position to be filled right away.
It wasn’t intended to be used as a cyncical tool to avoid the confirmation process. (I’m biting my tongue to avoid actually saying, “as if there’s any bureaucratic position in DC that absolutely needs to be filled ‘right away’ !)
As for your rhetorical inquiries as to if we all want to charge the Senate with treason, I don’t recall anyone asserting such a notion. The Senate makes its own rules for procedures, and the Democrats have been in charge of the Senate for the past several years.
The Founding Fathers WANTED a certain degree of gridlock. They created three co-equal branches of government with checks and balances because they wanted slow change rather than passions and rushes to judgment to prevail. The electoral college re-affirms that. So does the fact that US Senators were voted on by state legislatures, rather than popularly, until that awful amendment in 1913 which made US Senators electable by the popular vote.
As SPQR asks, where does it say in the Constitution that the Senate is supposed to go along with everything the President wants to do ?
Most LIBERAL legal scholars may argue that Obama Care is “Constitutional,” but Obama’s hot shot Solicitor General seemed at a loss for words when asked some pretty obvious questions that he had to predict would be asked by the Justices.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 4:23 pmAlso, nobody can cite a good example of where the federal government retains the authority to force someone to engage in commerce when they’re not interested in buying that product. If it were such an obvious authority of the federal government, it probably would have been attempted before. Let’s keep in mind, the federal income tax was unconstitutional, until an amendment to the Constitution allowed for it beginning in 1913. If despite the fact that the Constitution didn’t initially allow the federal government to tax income, how does it follow that the Founders would at the same time construct the Constitution to enable the federal government the “obvious” authority to force citizens to purchase a product they didn’t want to purchase ?
Let me get this straight. Someone in the audience, close to the woman who had risen to ask Romney a question, made some kind of treason statements. The woman, in the midst of asking her question, acknowledged the unknown audience member’s comment, and then continued with her own question. Romney answered the question asked of him.
So, Romney’s sin is that he didn’t immediately demand that the unknown audience member, who made the comment, reveal himself and then what? Dress him down for expressing his 1st Amendment opinion? Get in a discussion of what constitutes treason? Have a mock trial right there to decide if the comment was true or not?
Sara (e8f5d4) — 5/8/2012 @ 4:57 pmI think that the gun running in fast and furious that got an American killed is treason. Sadly he will not be the only American killed by weapons this administration used to try to remove the 2nd ammendment
pam (c4171d) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:41 pmIf you had to correct all the yahoos there would be no comments of mine left on this site.
Comment by tye — 5/8/2012 @ 1:03 pm
— CTFY (Corrected That For You)
Icy (868e5e) — 5/8/2012 @ 9:57 pmThe person wearing the Dunn’s cap wrote:
shouldn’t we also criticize the Senate that has made a filibuster proof super-majority a requirement to get (almost) anything done? That certainly isn’t in the Constitution — it’s a series of Senate rules.
— Article I, Section 5: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings”
If you’re gonna talk about it, read it.
Icy (868e5e) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:09 pm“I don’t have a responsibility to respond to every dumb comment.”
Amergo Vespucci (6e9398) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:15 pmYou censor your blog and do so while claiming to excise dishonesty, offensiveness, etc. So, yeah, you do have a responsibility to do so. By failing to enforce anything like that on conservative commenters, you merely underscore that your blog exists as a reality-free zone where you weed out comments and commenters who win arguments against you, just so you can pretend that your views make sense.
Methinks this “Amergo” guy (“Amergo“?) got lost on his way to LGF.
Icy (868e5e) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:24 pmDear Mr. Vespucci,
If your comments were an attempt to apply some “reality” to the blog, it didn’t work.
I guess there’s a reason we have a “Columbus Day,” but not a “Vespucci Day.”
Good luck in your quest to find “The Fountain of
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:30 pmYouthTruth.”“You censor your blog and do so while claiming to excise dishonesty, offensiveness, etc”
Amergo – Where does it say that? You’re just making sh*t up, right?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:31 pmIcy, with respect to “views making sense” I think even “Amergo” himself will probably not understand what his comment was about when he rereads it later– once his happy hour buzz wears off.
elissa (1461d4) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:32 pmHe’s so pro-censorship he even censored the “i” in Amerigo!
Icy (868e5e) — 5/8/2012 @ 10:48 pmWhat did the Democrats do with that 2004 Presidential candidate who suggested that Bush was behind 9/11? Did they ride him out on a rail? Oh, wait, they made him Party Chairman.
Imagine that.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:55 amIn case anyone is confused about how the 2012 election is going to go.
Mary Frances Berry:
Dims like Amergo will be showing like mosquitoes, demanding we talk about anything except how miserable the economy is, or that we continuously condemn each other for all sorts of imaginary sins.
Because they realize that if people talk about them and what they do when they take the reins, they lose.
Steve (90e0d3) — 5/9/2012 @ 6:01 am