Posted by Tina
Americans are told that Trump doesn’t sound presidential. He doesn’t have the intellect and he’s a poor speaker. He’s therefore unqualified. But let’s face it, these days when politicians are in their element and politicking they don’t always sound like presidential material. Obama’s “religion and guns” and his “they bring a knife we bring a gun” statements are like that. And as Gateway Pundit reports, he hasn’t learned much after almost eight years in the oval office:
Barack Obama: If we turn against each other based on division of race or religion. If-if-if-if-if-if-if-if-if-if-if we fall for, you know, a bunch of okie-doke, just because, you know it-it-it. You know, it-it-it-it-it-it sounds funny or the tweets are provocative.
See video here.
I don’t know about you but I think this ignorant argument against Trump being qualified is NOISE. Noise to keep people from talking about the possibility of a Hillary indictment, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, the terrible economic record of the past eight years, the absolute chaos in the Middle East, the refugees, the utter failure of the hope and change president, the failures of Secretary Hillary, and on and on.
I just saw this, it is pretty awful. I was thinking about putting it in a comment but returned to post the following instead about another progressive “intellectual” —
Michael Strickland takes down a progressive professor.
It’s not always easy to tell, is this guy a true believer, an Alinsky acolyte, or is he just a mouthpiece, an agitator, for the radical left? One things for sure he provides the noise.
February 5, 2007, Hillary Clinton: “When I am president, working with a Democratic Congress,” she said, “we will really take our country back and put it on the right track again.”
In October 2014 MclatchyDC reported that Joe Biden said “Time to take back America,” in a Labor Day speech in Detroit.
Starting before the Bush years many liberals used this phrase to rile up voters and label their competition as “racist.” It begs the question, does using the phrase make them racist?
In October 2010 NewsBusters helpfully pointed out that “Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, James Carville, Paul Begala, Nation editor in chief Katrina vanden Heuvel, and libtalker Thom Hartmann” were among those that “used the phrase ‘take our country back’ or some form of it in electoral rallying cries” (links provided):
Also from McClatchyDC (link above), “’My friends, it is time to take back the country we love,’ Hillary Clinton, Aug. 26, 2008, at the Democratic National Convention.
In 2008 they got “the country back.” They kept it in 2012. And what has been the result? Race relations are nearly as bad as they were in 1965 after a president and his AJ unnecessarily stirred up division, anger, and hatred. The targets (straw man enemies) were police officers and white conservative men and women. On the economic front, the result has been the slowest most shallow recovery in modern history. The rule is, I’m told, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recover. Wow, sure missed on that one. And in terms of the Constitution and the law? The Obama administration has won negative reviews even from liberals:
National Review, “Obama vs. the Constitution”
Politifact, “GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority”
FOX News, ” Off the Record: Greta Gives Obama a ‘Refresher’ on Constitutional Law”
ccrjustice.org, “CCR’s Assessment of the Obama Administration’s Record”
NOISE. More campaign noise.
“Politifact, “GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority”
Tina, did you somehow fail to notice that Politifact ranked that claim False?
The Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional the Obama administration’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board – Heritage
A federal judge in Pennsylvania deemed President Obama’s executive action on immigration unconstitutional – Washington Examiner
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 9-0, against Obama just this morning in the case of Bond v. United States. The government tried to use a federal statute against chemical weapons to prosecute a woman who put toxic chemicals on the door handle of a car owned by a woman her husband was having an affair with. – Conservative Tribune
President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty is unconstitutional, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared Dec. 16. The judge, Arthur Schwab, declared that “inaction by Congress does not make unconstitutional executive action constitutional… [and Obama’s] executive action goes beyond prosecutorial discretions — it is legislation.” – Daily Caller
A federal judge in Texas last night temporarily blocked the Obama administration’s executive actions on immigration. The judge, responding to a suit filed by 26 Republican-run states, did not rule on the legality of immigration orders but said there was sufficient merit to the challenge to warrant a suspension while the case goes forward. No law gave the administration the power “to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the Department of Homeland Security itself labels as ‘legal presence,’” the judge said in a memorandum opinion. “In fact the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed.” The Department of Homeland Security “has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions.” – Washington Post
New York Times – The Republican-led House of Representatives won a significant victory over the Obama administration on Thursday when a Federal District Court judge in Washington ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services did not have the authority to spend billions of dollars on a key element of the new health care law. Some corporations have religious rights, a deeply divided Supreme Court decided Monday in ruling that certain for-profit companies cannot be required to pay for specific types of contraceptives for their employees. The 5-4 decision on ideological lines ended the high court’s term with a legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law. – CNN
Judge rules against Obama’s deep-water drilling moratorium – The judge says the administration overreached in implementing the six-month halt. As an appeal is planned, the Interior secretary says he will issue a new order to justify the ban. – LA Times
Obama Defies NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) Ruling – 4th District Court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the NDAA unconstitutional – Western Journalism
In one of many lawsuits filed against the Obamacare law, the state of Virginia challenged the individual mandate — which compels Americans to purchase health insurance that could fund abortions with taxpayer funds or premiums — and the federal judge in the case ruled the mandate unconstitutional. – Life News
Judge Declares Pro-Abortion ObamaCare Unconstitutional – A federal judge in Florida has issued a new ruling in what is the largest lawsuit filed against the Obamacare health care law. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson says the individual mandate is unconstitutional and, therefore, the entire law is as well. Life News
Federal judge rules ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is unconstitutional – The judge plans to issue an injunction preventing the government from barring openly gay service members. The Justice Dept., which defended the policy during the trial, can appeal the decision. – LA Times
A federal judge in Pittsburgh ruled Tuesday that President Barack Obama overstepped his authority and violated the Constitution when he issued an executive order last month to delay deportation for millions of people living in the U.S. illegally. In an opinion issued in a local case of a Honduran man who illegally re-entered the country, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab said the president cannot use his executive powers to bypass Congress. – Pittsburgh Post Gazette
For the third time this year alone (it’s only May) the most open and transparent administration in history has been smacked down by a federal judge for its lack of transparency in the face of a(nother) Freedom of Information and/or Information Quality Act request. In this particular case it’s apparent the Obama administration is trying to squash any investigation into the “science” surrounding its continuing attempts to sell global warming. – Allen B West
Federal Court Rules Against Obama Administration in Black Panther FOIA Case – There has been relatively little attention given a remarkable ruling by United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton. In ruling that the conservative watch dog group Judicial Watch was entitled to attorneys fees, Walton found that Obama political appointees not only influenced the decision in the controversial Black Panther case but withheld documents that should have been turned over under federal law. The Justice Department originally charged The New Black Panther Party and two of its members, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson in the case. Some of us were critical of the decision of the Obama Administration to drop charges. I failed to see how the appearance of Black Panther members brandishing a weapon on Election Day in 2008 was not a violation. Indeed the decision by the Justice Department seemed to invite other groups to appear with such weapons to intimidate voters. Notably, the Black Panthers had already defaulted in the case, but the Obama Administration reversed course and dismissed charges against three of the defendants. – Jonathan Turley
Seventeen months after President Obama bolstered stem-cell research on university campuses by allowing federal support for studies involving a broad range of cells derived from human embryos, a federal judge has ordered the policy suspended, alarming academic scientists who warn of slower progress in studies seeking treatments for a variety of devastating diseases. The judge, Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said Mr. Obama’s executive order of March 2009 violated a provision that has existed in federal law since 1996, known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, that prohibits the use of federal money for the creation or destruction of human embryos for research purposes. Embryos are destroyed when embryonic stem cells are obtained from them .- Chronicle of Higher Education
Federal judges make decisions. They aren’t always final but they count as federal court rulings. I found sixteen cases where a federal judge ruled against Obama. I quit at sixteen. Some of these aren’t specifically mentioned as unconstitutional, however taken within the context of executive overreach they still apply, or should, especially since Obama is supposed to have such a brilliant mind when it comes to the Constitution.
But only three of those cases involved the Supreme Court, which was the Politifact headline.
Your larger point stands–Obama has in some ways abused federal power, much like his predecessor. I’d be curious to see how many similar cases there were of federal judges declaring Bush’s actions unconstitutional.
Evidently the possibility that Trump may be the next president has poor O completely unhinged.
“If we turn against each other based on division of race or religion…Then we are not going to build on the progress we started.”
WHAT “PROGRESS” HAS OBAMA STARTED??? He has been the most divisive president I can recall. Perhaps the most divisive president in the past 100 years. His whole presidency has been based on division, including racial and religious division, and a whole lot more.
He is who he is, eh Pie?
I can think of several things but they’re all negative. Progress toward a more Muslim Extremist world. Progress toward single payer healthcare (where government becomes a monopoly…the company store!) Progress toward dependency and children at home well into their thirties. Progress toward forced wages, fewer jobs, and higher prices. Progress toward a shrinking middle class, a shrinking upper class, and a growing lower, poverty class. Progress toward unsustainable debt. Progress toward open borders. The list goes on…its exhausting!
How can you not see that an argument against the O-man … is not … an argument for Trump. We know you loath Obama, but this does not qualify Trump.
“Extinction-level event” (Trump or “The ELE”) is my new favorite phrase. Expect to hear a lot of it in the weeks and months to come.
Libby Trump qualifies Trump. He won an election fro among 17.
besides, it’s not really an argument against the O-man as much as it is an argument to demonstrate the hypocrisy, the underhanded targeting, the intolerable hyperbole…the noise being created about a man that is not as unqualified as is being suggested. We know why you do it. You do it to draw attention from the last standard bearer’s record. this was a man that was supposed to be imminently qualified and extremely articulate. (Not entirely true it turns out)
Yes, you guys on the left are good at clever phrases, agitation, and sign waving. Its all symbolism and meaningless symbolism at that. That is exactly how Obama was elected…hope and change? Really?
Where’s the beef old girl? Where’s the evidence of substance? Why should anyone listen to the noise makers?
You said it was ok for Trump to be an airhead because you think Obama is … and he’s President.
You do know how bizarre that is, don’t you? It’s also a variation on the schoolyard argument and carries no weight with grown-ups.
Furthermore, for you to propose that it’s ok to have an unstable personality in the Presidency, whatever his politics, is obscenely irresponsible and explains how The ELE come to pass.
“You said it was ok for Trump to be an airhead because you think Obama is … and he’s President.
oh, I know, that’s what you heard. But it isn’t what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s absurd to disqualify Trump when you all found and find Obama, Hillary and Bernie so damned “presidential.” You look like a bunch of clowns ranting and raving about this very straight forward, UNSRCIPTED, candidate. We all laughed about how differently Obaam sounded in 08 when he was off the teleprompter. He was a side show, carefully scripted for the news…and then in a small gathering the uh, uh, uh stuff came out and those ridiculous “they bring a knife” type statements too.
You did the same with Romney and Bush. The criticisms of both were outlandish and ridiculously overblown. Its what you do. I suspect because you really can’t compete in the arena of ideas. You really can’t sell your socialist wonderland without manufacturing a villain for your voters to hate. It’s an effective ploy but shallow and lacking in substance, so, it eventually falls on it’s a$$…as it’s doing now.
“I’m saying it’s absurd to disqualify Trump when you all found and find Obama, Hillary and Bernie so damned “presidential.”
And that would work, if any of these other people carried on like a wildly ignorant, blustering bully in public. Most of these other people can remember what they said yesterday policy-wise. They’re quite tedious, actually, but some of us think is is just the thing for the Oval Office.
And, Tina, “Bushism” … has got itself a Wiki entry.
Tedius…now there’s a selling point!
And for all of the Bushisms that you think are so indicative of a man who should have been disqualified, Bush’s record as president far outshines that of the smooth talking teleprompter artist.
It all boils down to the inability or unwillingness to evaluate the whole person. You on the left think in symbolic terms and are impressed by empty slogans. The meat underneath your candidate often turns out to be either rotten or tasteless. The hope and change candidate, for instance, has not served this nation well on any front. I’ll spare us all the long-suffering list. Bill Clinton worked with Republican Newt Gingrich and it won him a strong economy which he dumped on with his reckless tasteless behavior. arrogance, and lying to the people and the courts. His fundraising practices were also tasteless and unethical if not illegal.
You excuse and defend deplorable behavior and speech in your own. So the bottom line is that you are hypocrites…and incredibly partisan. Do you recall how you spit that charge at me during the Bush years? It’s a silly game, this nitpicking and labeling, don’t you think?
Bush shouldn’t have been disqualified. He was, for all his faults, still a statesman.
Trump is a clown.
Obama’s a clown, just the silent sad tall skinny kind.
No, Tina. You can’t tell the difference between serious people you disagree with, and unserious people.
And someday I’m going to produce an error-free post on this damned iPad thingy.
As soon as you do the software will give you a double entry. 😉
And some of us can tell the difference between a momentary stutter, and a complete lack of intelligible things to say.
Yeah?
WHO!
Not you, clearly.
Ya did walk right into that one, Tina.
Yep I did.
But only if I consider myself a member of Chris’s “some of us”club, which I don’t.
The plot thickens—
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/huff-post-pulled-article/
In a family that is already thick with corruption.
Mind blowing article RHT447. Be sure to read the comments and responses below it too.
There is a pop song for the Obama generation in this speech somewhere …
1966