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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (792792)	7/1/2014 9:46:03 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1587264

Constitutional Lawyer In The White House Out To Destroy The Constitution ................................................................................................................... July 1, 2014 by leomcneil Remind me what Constitutional law case President Obama was ever involved in before he took office. His expertise in Constitutional law is limited to pontificating about cases and leading classroom discussions as an adjunct law professor. Why does the White House insist on calling Obama a Constitutional lawyer every time they disagree with the Supreme Court? Do they really think calling him as such negates the fact that the Court is made up of practicing Constitutional lawyers? Likely they’re counting on the low information voter not realizing the Court is made up of Constitutional lawyers or that Obama was never actually a Constitutional lawyer. Take your pick. The President has declared he’s going to have to “fix” the immigration system all by himself. This after Speaker John Boehner allegedly told Obama that the House wouldn’t vote on any immigration bills this year. What does the Constitutional lawyer in the White House imagine he is going to do about fixing the immigration system unilaterally? Sen. Dick Durbin has suggested Obama will “ borrow” the power. From whom exactly? There is no Constitutional provision allowing the President to borrow power from Congress or the Judicial branch. The branches are co-equal after all, despite progressive notions that the executive is supreme. Because of Obama’s unilateral decision not to deport young illegals, the border is currently being flooded with tens of thousands of young people. The border is an absolute mess right now, unsanitary and ripe with disease. The President has indicated he will shift border patrol agents down to the Mexican border. That is one of the few unilateral moves he can make, provided Congress hasn’t passed a law requiring troop levels in specific places. The question though is what will Obama actually do with these agents. Will they be used in a humanitarian effort, thus encouraging more children to come here or will they be used to deport and prevent return? It wouldn’t surprise anyone if Obama signs an executive order that basically re-writes American immigration law. He’s already done so by ordering the Federal government to abide by the Dream Act, which was never passed by Congress. What authority under the Constitution does the President derive the power to legislate? You would think the Constitutional lawyer in the White House would understand that the power to legislate is granted not to the executive branch but to the legislative branch. Only Congress has the power to write and pass laws. It’s the job of the President to enforce the laws passed by Congress. It has never been within the power of the President to write the law unilaterally. Obama is both power hungry and a progressive. On the power hungry side of things he wants what he wants and he wants it now. He’s been critical of Constitutional government in the past, acknowledging his envy of the power Chinese dictators have. His real issue though is that he’s a progressive. Since the progressive movement began in the late 19th century their goal has been a powerful executive branch that essentially makes Congress irrelevant. Thus in his first term Obama whined about dealing with Congressmen from podunkville when he would rather be dictating to the country. Obama agrees with the progressive vision of an all powerful executive and a minimized and largely irrelevant Congress. His next move is to create precedent for unilateral executive action on a major issue of the day. If successful, the Constitution will essentially be finished.

To: FJB who wrote (792792)	7/1/2014 10:10:30 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1587264

US Refuses to Admit Palestinian Authority Involved in Terror ......................................................................................................................... Jewish Press ^ \| July 1st, 2014 \| Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu The US State Dept. ignores Hamas terrorists because "technocrats' are acting as a front for the Palestinian Authority unity government. The U.S. State Dept.’s position is that it does not know that Hamas was involved in the kidnap murder of three Israeli teenagers and that despite continuing missile attacks from Gaza, it is “reviewing” events to determine if the Palestinian Authority unity government is “abiding by…the pledges that they made” to refrain from violence. Israel has categorically identified the terrorists as members of Hamas, and it is no secret that the terrorists from Gaza, where Hamas officially is part of the unity government with Fatah headed by Mahmoud Abbas, but – no – the government of the United States is “reviewing…circumstances on the ground.” Hamas terrorists kidnap and kill children and try to kill Israelis with missiles, blowing up factories and hoping to blow up children in a kindergarten, and the United States is “reviewing circumstances on the ground,” as if it is has a front row seat in a horror movie, except that this is live action. “Would Hamas’s involvement in something like this[kidnap-murders] be cause for the Administration to rethink its support for the Palestinian – the new Palestinian Government?” Associated Press reporter Matt Lee asked State Dept. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki. She solemnly answered, “We do look at all kinds of information as it relates to our relationship with the Palestinians, our relationship with any entity that we work with. So I’m not going to make a prediction. I don’t know what the outcome will be of the final findings.” That is what the State Dept. does – it looks at information. If it furthers its agenda to expel Jews from all of Judea and Samaria and most of Jerusalem, Foggy Bottom doles it out to the hunger media hacks looking for more ammunition to shoot down Israel. If it does not further agenda, it files it away under “delete.” That explains Psaki’s comments on missile attacks. Lee asked, “There were also, I think, 14 – more than a dozen rockets that were fired into southern Israel from Gaza today. Is that something that would make you rethink your position as it relates to the Palestinian Government?” No chance, at least not for now. First of all, Psaki explained from her agenda pamphlet, the United States is going to take the really bold action to “review” circumstances to see if the Palestinian Authority renounces violence. So does kidnapping and murdering three young yeshiva students and shooting missiles at Israeli mean that the unity government has not renounced violence? No need to worry. Psaki reassured everyone, “We expect, and President Abbas has on many occasions also renounced this type of action. And there’s a certain responsibility in conveying that to any entities that the Palestinians are tied with.” But not even the State Dept. can fool all of the people all of the time. “If I shoot you at the same time as saying I renounce violence, that doesn’t really make much sense,” AP reporter Lee said and then added, “what you’re saying, though, is that apart from the teenagers – because we don’t – you don’t know – you’re not sure of the circumstances – just the rocket attacks themselves are not cause to have you rethink your relationship with the government. “You think right now that they are abiding by the requirements?” Guess what? Hamas is not involved in the government. Psaki, reading from her Agenda 101 book, recalled that the “technocratic” government “doesn’t involve members of Hamas… [and] obviously, when there are incidents of violence, when there are rocket attacks, those are certainly cause for concern and we take every incident into consideration.” Thank God, the Obama administration will show its “concern” but it also can save face for the Palestinian Authority. Psaki assured us, “President Abbas has, as you know, renounced violence. He has condemned attacks. He has been a cooperative partner in an effort even with as it relates to the three teenagers over the last several weeks. Does that change the fact that we are concerned and could certainly condemn these rocket attacks and other incidents that occur? Certainly it doesn’t change that, but again, this is not a black-and-white issue.” Why doesn’t the government of the United States of America simply call a spade a spade and say that the Palestinian Authority unity government is involved in terror and that condemnations are not the same as stopping it, especially when Abbas constantly praises his “martyrs”? The Obama administration cannot do that because that would mean there is no more peace process. So get used to it – kidnaping, murder and missile attacks are part of the peace process so long as those inciting the violence and condemn them and so long as the “technocrats” act as a front for Hamas. Now you understand? If you do, you are a candidate to work for the Obama administration. PA Silent on Condemnation and Complains to UN About Israeli Aggression The State Department and the Palestinians seem to be on the same page. 2 posted on 7/1/2014, 10:00:28 AM by SJackson To: SJackson 3 posted on 7/1/2014, 10:02:49 AM by Viennacon (Rebuke the Repuke!)