Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (354813)	3/21/2010 9:09:18 PM
From: LindyBill	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793914

The most dramatic thing that could have been done today is if the Republican house members had walked out today and refused to be in the house chamber when the bill was passed. That would have REALLY dramatized the split. I am for legal abortion, as I suspect most here are. It is such an emotional issue with the opposition that I don't think it should be paid for with Government money. Stupak was looking for some cover. He took this out. Those independents in his district that voted for him for because of his independence should now vote against him.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (354813)	3/21/2010 9:18:41 PM
From: KLP	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Hijinks explains it exactly! Executive Order Hijinks [Andy McCarthy] Sunday, March 21, 2010 I know we tire of the hypocrisy, but I really think this is remarkable. We spent the eight years through January 19, 2009, listening to Democrats complain that President Bush had purportedly caused a constitutional crisis by issuing signing statements when he signed bills into law. Democrats and Arlen Specter (now a Democrat) complained that these unenforceable, non-binding expressions of the executive's interpretation of the laws Bush was signing were a usurpation Congress's power to enact legislation. But now Democrats are going to abide not a mere signing statement but an executive order that purports to have the effect of legislation — in fact, has the effect of nullifying legislation that Congress is simultaneously enacting? The Susan B. Anthony List observation that EOs can be rescinded at the president's whim is of course true. This particuar EO is also a nullity — presidents cannot enact laws, the Supreme Court has said they cannot impound funds that Congress allocates, and (as a friend points out) the line-item veto has been held unconstitutional, so they can't use executive orders to strike provisions in a bill. So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause. But even if all that weren't true, how do we go from congressional Democrats claiming that signing statements were a shredding of the Constitution to congressional Democrats acquiescing in a claim that the president can enact or cancel out statutory law by diktat? 03/21 04:25 PM Share corner.nationalreview.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (354813)	3/22/2010 4:01:09 AM
From: LindyBill	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793914

The AIPAC Crowd By Jennifer Rubin on Contentions AIPAC's annual conference got under way today in Washington D.C. The crowd was, in contrast to past years, more on edge, more distressed, and, frankly, more anti-administration. The conference comes after an eye-opening (for some) clash between the Obami and the Israeli government. In the talk in the halls, the questions at the panels, and the crowd reaction to speakers' remarks, one senses that these people have had quite enough of the Obami's approach to Israel. I spoke to a rabbi of a New Jersey Conservative synagogue and a group of his congregants. They had 65 attendees before the Obami's war of words. That number went up to 76. What was their reaction to the Obami offensive? "Disappointed," responded several in the group. One congregant said, "This is going to have to blow over. Everyone understands East Jerusalem is not negotiable." I asked, "You think the administration does?" He replied, "This is just to show the Arabs how tough he is." I asked if they were concerned about the administration's approach on Iran. "This has all been a step backward," another answered. "The blowup is to distract attention from the fact we've done nothing on Iran." And how will they greet Hillary Clinton on Monday? The rabbi said with great deliberations: "With respect." Another added, "She's not getting a standing ovation." A woman from Atlanta, a first-time attendee, says she votes Democratic. She was obviously pained over the recent flap. "Why is Israel the only one we tell what to do?" Her group's attendance set an all-time high of 120. (Overall, the conference has a record 7,500.) An elderly couple from Florida were agitated by recent events. The wife explained she that had fled Nazi Germany as a child for Shanghai. "There are parallels," she said. "This is depressing. It's scary." She said that she had argued with her liberal friends during the campaign about Obama's associations with anti-Israel figures. "My mother always said where there is smoke, there is fire," she explained, then added wearily, "They didn't listen." She bemoaned the fact that Jews' political activities are fragmented on issues like global warming. "There are plenty of people to do that," she said. "Where are they on Israel?" That's just a sampling, but it gives you a sense of the angst. This is not a crowd that is celebrating. They are worried. Very worried.