The President's team has been inserting Obama's name into the biographies of almost all the former President's of the 20th century since Coolidge on the White House web site in the form of bullet points (did you know ?)bragging about his own accomplishments . What an ego he must have !

Here are some examples :

•On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.
Calvin Coolidge | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/calvincoolidge)
•In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has “an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.
Harry S. Truman | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/harrystruman)
•President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare signed (sic) into law in 1965—providing millions of elderly healthcare stability. President Obama’s historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole.”
Lyndon B. Johnson | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/lyndonbjohnson)
•On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.
Franklin D. Roosevelt | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/franklindroosevelt)
•In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.
Ronald Reagan | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan)

Well Rove's Crossroads Superpac had some fun with the President's ego in these 2 ads :
American Crossroads: "Great" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qymIXlcO3JY)

American Crossroads: "Great II" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vDYkE3eD4M)

The one exception to this is poor Gerald Ford
Gerald R. Ford | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/geraldford)

You mean he had no accomplishments that President Obama can't take credit for ?

Doesn't surprise me one bit that our great dictator would do that.

A legitimate tactic

Presidents are people too!

Really I thought that in your neck of the woods they were second only to God

Clete, only good liberals worship The One (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/).

Worship is a strong word, prefer, as in whomever republican can find, is a better one. Righties love folks with money, no matter how they got it, but hate folks who have none, for whatever reason they don't.

Just an observation.

Copy/paste from many sources including: Historic Obama—A Fledgling Fark In the Making (http://thehayride.com/2012/05/historic-obama-a-fledgling-fark-in-the-making/)
I guess it's today's talking point to be disseminated.

Confirmed from many sources.. 1st heard it from the American Crossroads ad... now do you have any comment on the substance ? How lame our narcisst in chief is !

Of course he is used to altering and embellishing bio's... especially his own. Evidently he had no problem until he had ambitions for higher office that is , to let the narrative advance that he was born in Kenya .
Yeah that's right. That doesn't change my opinion that he is a natural born citizen qualified for the Presidency. (his mother is American ) But I have to wonder what was the advantage of letting his publisher's bio of him go uncorrected between 1991 when his publisher's bio said he was born in Kenya ;until 2007 when he began to insist he was born in Hawaii. Unless he really wasn't born there..

The Compost can dig up details of Romney's high school past ;but did not take the time to vet this minor detail of the President's past ?
Immediate questions come to light; since the revelation that Elizabeth Warren has used a minor heritage to the Cherokee to great advantage; how often did Obama use the fact that he was a Kenysan to his advantage ?
Was the "born in Kenya?" meme used in 1975 for the prep school application filled out by the grandparents? Was it used for the visa application to Indonesia in 74-75 filled out by his mother? Was it used for Occidental in 1979? For the Columbia transfer in 1981? For Harvard Law? We could possibly know that if any of his records were released.

But I really don't get this altering of the former President's bios . He has made the claim that he is the 4th best President ever. Is this his way of reinforcing that outrageous claim ?

Speaking of our narcissistic president, check out the official White House photo (http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/may-2012-photo-day) for Memorial Day, the day we celebrate veterans who gave everything for their country.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/o-vietnammemorial-silhouette-lg.jpg

He must have done something really spectacular to deserve his reflection, complete with halo, as the overlay to Vietnam's war dead. Oh that's right, he didn't serve.

It shows that he was there paying homage without making the picture about him.

My my, it's all really pathetic the trouble you guys go through.

Speaking of our narcissistic president, check out the official White House photo (http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/may-2012-photo-day) for Memorial Day, the day we celebrate veterans who gave everything for their country.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/o-vietnammemorial-silhouette-lg.jpg

He must have done something really spectacular to deserve his reflection, complete with halo, as the overlay to Vietnam's war dead. Oh that's right, he didn't serve.

He was 14 when the war ended, but the candidate you want went to France as a missionary, and lived off his daddys stock bonds, and none of his FIVE sons has served anything either, I mean just saying.Its okay to be a missionary with bonds to live off in a foreign land, and have a few swiss bank accouts and off shore holding while you are unemployed too!

If I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I would be sucking on it forever too!

It shows that he was there paying homage without making the picture about him.

My my, it's all really pathetic the trouble you guys go through.

You must live in some "opposite world" where everything means the opposite to you of what the reality is. That's pathetic.

If I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I would be sucking on it forever too!
And here I thought the Dems like rich people from Mass.

He was 14 when the war ended, but the candidate you want went to France as a missionary, and lived off his daddys stock bonds, and none of his FIVE sons has served anything either, I mean just saying.Its okay to be a missionary with bonds to live off of in a foreign land, and have a few swiss bank accouts and off shore holding while you are unemployed too!

If I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I would be sucking on it forever too!

I'll bet a thousand bucks that when Romney is president he won't insert himself into the biographies of past presidents or make everything about him as this imbecile does. This a guy that referenced himself 104 times in his last SOTU speech. Memorial Day was about the fallen heroes, period, this photo is an insult to their memory. You can't get get around that no matter how you spin.

Obama the egomaniac has no shame . I can't believe anyone thinks his superimposing his silhouette on the Vietnam War Memorial Wall is in good taste.

It's his shadow! LOL!

It's his shadow! LOL!

Thank you for that helpful bit of irrelevance. I called it his "reflection" in the first post and tom referred to his "silhouette." It's an absolute, inexcusable disgrace no matter what you call it and you laughing about it show how little respect you have for our fallen heroes as well.

The righties revert to there true hateful selves after Memorial Day, and start talking crazy about things they see as an affront to patriotism, or their version of it. Best let them enjoy their coffee together and get their hate out of them.

This is too funny. I've never seen such an over-sensitive emotional reaction to a shadow before. Can't imagine living my life being offended by everything everyday.

This is too funny. I've never seen such an over-sensitive emotional reaction to a shadow before.

I'm only over-sensitive to your continued gross misrepresentations and personal insults. As to the issue at hand, this inexcusable display of arrogance is deserving of much more scorn than I can muster.


Can't imagine living my life being offended by everything everyday.

You must have missed the Bush years.

You think those are personal insults? That's exactly what I'm talking about! LOL!

NOBODY forgets about the Bush years.

What you are looking at is the reflection of Narcissus.

The righties revert to there true hateful selves after Memorial Day, and start talking crazy about things they see as an affront to patriotism, or their version of it. Best let them enjoy their coffee together and get their hate out of them.

Hateful? That's a pretty strong, misguided word for simply taking to task an administration that managed once again to make a day for honoring others about Obama. Again, this was a the about honoring fallen heroes (and not the zombies Obama saw (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2008/05/zombie-time-obama-sees-dead-people-at-new-mexico-speech-video/) previously), this is an insult to their memory. If Bush had done it you'd be all over his a$$ about it. Maybe you should just accept that I'm once again going to obliterate the competition in baseball and chill with the "hate" crap.

You think those are personal insults? That's exactly what I'm talking about! LOL!.

Are you incapable of understanding a sentence or do your knees just jerk that spasmodically every time you see a post of mine?

this is an insult to their memory.
Ok, what should Obama have done in order for you to say that he has honoured the fallen soldiers?

His speech was sufficient .

Ok, what should Obama have done in order for you to say that he has honoured the fallen soldiers?

Exactly what tom said. Plus, he could have let the families of those honoring their family whose names are etched on the wall honor them instead of denying them access to the wall for the first time on Memorial Day ever - for 7 long hours.

This is what it should have looked like:

http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/VietnamWall4.jpg

Not this:

http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/VietnamWall3.jpg

You'd need to get release forms from all those people in order to post the image on the website. I know, I have to do shoots like that sometimes.

So just the speech would have satisfied all conservatives? Good to know actually.

I don't think the Wall was the appropriate place .I think Arlington National Cemetery is better suited for a Memorial Day address because it can accommodate an audience.

The cynic in me says that he picked the Wall because Vietnam Vets are a large voting block. If you heard or read the speech ,more time was devoted to the Veterans than memorializing the dead.

Still I think it was one of his better addresses as President .

You'd need to get release forms from all those people in order to post the image on the website. I know, I have to do shoots like that sometimes.

I don't think so, it's a public place, there is no expectation of privacy and the photo is not being sold.


So just the speech would have satisfied all conservatives? Good to know actually.

Now you're asking (and answering) a different question.

This is too funny. I've never seen such an over-sensitive emotional reaction to a shadow before. Can't imagine living my life being offended by everything everyday.

Are you saying your not a democrat ?

I guess since you guys can't blame him for Viet Nam, you can spit venom at a picture that was taken at the memorial. You are grasping at straws here. Funny how you can take a picture and say its unpatriotic, and then tell me to chill with the hate. OUTRAGEOUS and self serving, and another example of how righties view the world.

Don't take much to set you guys up for self righteous indignation.

And Obama found an issue he can't blame Bush for .

I did not call him unpatriotic . I called him egotistical. This fits in very well with the OP . The President can't help himself .He has to insert himself into everything be it the Vietnam Memorial Wall ,or the biographies of former Presidents .

Steve's point is well taken . The Wall is arguably the most visited site on the National Mall ;even more so on Memorial Day where for many families ,the visit is an annual pilgrimage ;for others perhaps, his speech caused them to miss a once in a lifetime chance to pay their respects to loved ones as well as comrades who didn't make it home alive. It is a disgrace that they were denied access to the wall for up to 7 hours.

He was there to launch The Vietnam 50th Anniversary Commemoration Program. There was no need to do it on Memorial Day.

Photo op Tom photo op, have you ever known a politician who could forego one

This one is not in good taste. So far it is being mentioned in this one OP . Let's see if it lasts for years in multiple references, like the Bush 'Mission Accomplished' one did.

Yeah Viet Nam heroes should have their own day, not the day that other fallen vets are honored right?

Why they are all fallen, don't exclude them again

I never called him unpatriotic either, I said he was narcissistic. This image was "OUTRAGEOUS and self serving," and another example of how lefties view themselves.

Are you saying your not a democrat ?

He's a Canuck.

Don't paint everyone with the failings of Obama, remember it is what he is that got him the job

don't paint everyone with the failings of Obama, remember it is what he is that got him the job

Black? Narcissist? Experienced? Qualified? What?

I never called him unpatriotic either, I said he was narcissistic. This image was "OUTRAGEOUS and self serving," and another example of how lefties view themselves.

There you go, calling names again to fit your own views as being better than ours and justify your... DISLIKE!


Originally Posted by paraclete
Don't paint everyone with the failings of Obama, remember it is what he is that got him the job

He is no different than any other who has held the job, but he has made the loonies come out of the closet, and the easily outraged to look for anything they can pick at. I have found that the right is so much more right that they see Obamas RIGHT wing ideas as LEFT, but those on the left scratch their heads in disbelief because he is NO leftie.

So let me correct you Clete since our politics escapes you, it was WHO he is that got him the job, NOT what! There are subtle differences in your assertions that you have missed entirely.

There you go, calling names again to fit your own views as better than ours and justify your ...........................................DISLIKE !

Narcissistic is an adjective, not a name.

It goes to character, not policy. And its your opinion, of which I don't agree with, as I prefer to argue policy and facts rather than explore the emotions evoked by a picture someone else has produced. It was quite artistic to me.

Just my opinion. And right now I am trying to keep Tom from burying me in the basement, so excuse my being... DISTURBED!!

It goes to character, not policy. And its your opinion, of which I don't agree with, as I prefer to argue policy and facts rather than explore the emotions evoked by a picture someone else has produced. It was quite artistic to me.

Just my opinion. And right now I am trying to keep Tom from burying me in the basement, so excuse my being...............................DISTURBED!!!!

Character matters. So does policy, and he doesn't seem too anxious to run on his failed policies. In fact his campaign theme has changed again to "do-over."

P.S. Am I the only one capable of beating the un-managed team? Maybe when he runs out of pitching starts you'll catch up to him.

Black? Narcissist? Experienced? Qualified? What?

All of the above but you left out orator, he has the ability to speak well in contrast to his predecessor, he isn't coming out of the back woods

all of the above but you left out orator, he has the ability to speak well in contrast to his predecessor, he isn't coming out of the back woods

He doesn't exactly speak well at least not without a teleprompter. And he has made some pretty big mistakes. Wasn't Poland one of them just last week on his misquote ?

Yes misquote as distinct from not being able to put two words together coherently. I doubt all his speeches are off a teleprompter otherwise there is no excuse for getting it wrong, fire the speechwriter. He would look much better if he had had some of his policies accepted, being a lame duck can't be fun

You mean like build/repair bridges roads and schools? The bridges and roads that corporations use for commerce? Paid for by taxes of 01% of incomes over a million dollars? How many jobs created? He tried that, and the right poo-pooed. The ones in congress any way. The rest of the nation was for it. Even the conservatives.

Obama says 'Pass this jobs bill.' But what's actually in the bill? - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0917/Obama-says-Pass-this-jobs-bill.-But-what-s-actually-in-the-bill/(page)/2)

Wait until the truth comes out about all those scary regulations that corporations are fighting against.

Obama tightens oil and gas drilling regulations - Apr. 18, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/18/news/economy/drilling-regulations/index.htm)

So forget the crap the politicians are talking about, all the facts are on line. Its science, not politics. But of course some don't think corporations or banks should be regulated, and when they screw up, poor people and the middle class suffer.

Why are we suffering with this high unemployment while banks, corporations, wall street are making more money than they ever have in history. Its like nobody even reads the rights budget proposal The Ryan plan, endorsed by Romney), yet they slobber all over it, yet it really enslaves our children and grand children, all except the ones who benefit from our labors.

Additional Reforms | A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans (http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=9770)

Believe In America: Mitt Romney's Plan For Jobs And Economic Growth (http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth)

Cause, and Effect.

Look the answer to high corporate profits is higher tax if they can make the money then let them contribute to the debt and repairing roads and bridges is only common sense but what will give the economy a boost is inceasing confidence and that comes when the population knows they have a government that can get things done even in the face of opposition, right now you have stalemate or is that stallmate so the recovery stalls. There is a lot of self defeating prophesy around today and it could be solved by letting a government do what it is elected to do, otherwise why not align the terms of the politicians so you get out of this nightmare of do nothing and they all sink or swim together

Your corporate tax rate is lower than the US . The truth is that we have one of the top corporate rates in the developed world.

Your corporate tax rate is lower than the US . The truth is that we have one of the top corporate rates in the developed world.That's a myth perpetrated by the right: Warren Buffett: 'It Is A Myth' That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/27/432749/buffett-corporate-tax-myth/)

The American High Corporate Taxes Myth - Marc Erickson - Open Salon (http://open.salon.com/blog/marc_erickson/2011/12/09/the_american_high_corporate_taxes_myth)

Your corporate tax rate is lower than the US . The truth is that we have one of the top corporate rates in the developed world.

Rubbish the prima face rate isn't what it is about, your net corporate tax is very low
In fact your corporations pay less than half ours and the mining tax will impact the big corporations from July 1 Don't peddle your republican myths here Tom, we have the ability to catch you out. We also give the lie for the need for a low taxing regime for corporations to prosper

Then you will continue to lose out to your nearest competitors like Hong Kong ,Singapore ,and even Malaysia... forget about the larger global market. But then again ,you are content to be the mining pit of China. Maybe they will be willing to invest capital when they are taxed 35% .

Yes misquote as distinct from not being able to put two words together coherently. I doubt all his speeches are off a teleprompter otherwise there is no excuse for getting it wrong, fire the speechwriter. He would look much better if he had had some of his policies accepted, being a lame duck can't be fun

Yes, Mr. "corpseman" who visited 57 states on his way to the "Polish death camps" is a great orator.

omHUsRTYFAU

Corporate taxes here are local, and there are so many loop holes in the federal tax code, corporations pay almost nothing, Supply side economic models are always subject to seasonal booms, and busts, and while corporations have flexibility to cutback, lay off, and slowdown, have devastating effects on people, and communities that are dependent on those who need that living wage.

History tells us that government must be as effective, and flexible as the times and conditions indicate, to adjust to these changes. We cannot have idealogical BS that gums up the works for extended periods. Especially one that renders all branches of government helpless to address the issues before it.

The day Obama was sworn in, Republicans had already vowed to obstruct him at all costs, even at the expense and welfare of the country, the economy, and the common man, while they spew the gloom and doom, and fear, and distract us from the robbery they perpetrate over the middle class, for their plutocratic masters. No matter what this President does they pounce like hyenas and run to the cameras to decry and lay blame for his efforts, no matter how the rest of the country says it's a good idea.

Remember how they said that rising gas prices were his fault? As they come down has anyone said "good job"? When Bin Laden was killed Cheney and Rumsfeld took credit, though they abandoned the search years ago. Romney after hollering let them go bankrupt has stepped up to say the President did what he would have done, and wants credit for the auto industry coming back.

When the dismal jobs numbers came in, the republicans wanted us to know how failed the policies were of the President, while they have stifled and filibustered all his policies. They lie about the money spent, they lie about the deficit, they lie about, there own motives and play the politics of obstruction, while they starve the common man of the true motives behind their actions.

Get the democrats out of the way, so they can make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and continue the Bush policies to extract the wealth from the rest of the world. (the much sought after New World Order)

The business model has already undermined and weakened the government of the people, and made it a tool of the rich, who need the right wing votes to succeed and under guise of their interpretation of the constitution, want to dictate how you live, who you live with, who is an American, who is NOT, and who is allowed to vote, who doesn't, who is a FIRST class citizen, who is NOT. Who works, who doesn't. With the help of low informed ideologues, stuck in their own kitchens, republicans have effectively stopped the circulation of the life blood of America, HARD WORK, and FREEDOM to pursue our own happiness, and accept terms tantamount to slavery, and domination of an elite ruling class.

The business model is broken, misguided, used and abused, and blamed on those lazy a$$es that wash dishes, and need a bath. While the ones that benefit from weak government and broken business models, get fat and happy. They suffer nothing, nor do their children, but yours, ours, suffer greatly.

That's why Mitt wants to be President, to make sure his kids can stay in the ruling class, and have a country of slaves to rule over, and have the whips they need to herd them into submission, and mindless compliance. That's his version of the American Dream... and the nightmare of the dwindling middle class.

History tells us that government must be as effective, and flexible as the times and conditions indicate, to adjust to these changes. We cannot have idealogical BS that gums up the works for extended periods. Especially one that renders all branches of government helpless to address the issues before it

Yeah 100 years of progressive folly is enough.


The day Obama was sworn in, Republicans had already vowed to obstruct him at all costs, even at the expense and welfare of the country, the economy, and the common man, while they spew the gloom and doom, and fear, and distract us from the robbery they perpetrate over the middle class, for their plutocratic masters. No matter what this President does they pounce like hyenas and run to the cameras to decry and lay blame for his efforts, no matter how the rest of the country says it's a good idea.

I recall the Bush years very well. His only reprieve from the left undermining his Presidency was 9-11 ;and when he reached out to essentially introduce new domestic spending like NCLB and the Medicare Part D.

Remember how they said that rising gas prices were his fault? As they come down has anyone said "good job"? I remember him saying that the President can't influence gas prices . (untrue ). Why should we give him credit for it dropping ? What did he do besides sabotage the economy driving down demand?

When Bin Laden was killed Cheney and Rumsfeld took credit, though they abandoned the search years ago.
Untrue . What the left refuses to accept is that the pursuit of OBL did not end . All the President did was reluctantly pull the trigger after years of intel work came to fruitition. Besides ;I did give him credit for his part.
But have you notices how the major dinosaurs are upset with him about his LBJ like micromanagement of drone targeting ?

Romney after hollering let them go bankrupt has stepped up to say the President did what he would have done, and wants credit for the auto industry coming back.
Romney is a fool for backing down on this. The right move was a managed bankruptcy . The American people are the big losers for the GM bailout . Obama has permanently destroyed the rule of law regarding bankruptcy law .

Get the democrats out of the way, so they can make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and continue the Bush policies to extract the wealth from the rest of the world. (the much sought after New World Order)

The business model has already undermined and weakened the government of the people, and made it a tool of the rich, who need the right wing votes to succeed and under guise of their interpretation of the constitution, want to dictate how you live, who you live with, who is an American, who is NOT, and who is allowed to vote, who doesn't, who is a FIRST class citizen, who is NOT. Who works, who doesn't. With the help of low informed ideologues, stuck in their own kitchens, republicans have effectively stopped the circulation of the life blood of America, HARD WORK, and FREEDOM to pursue our own happiness, and accept terms tantamount to slavery, and domination of an elite ruling class.

The business model is broken, misguided, used and abused, and blamed on those lazy a$$es that wash dishes, and need a bath. While the ones that benefit from weak government and broken business models, get fat and happy. They suffer nothing, nor do their children, but yours, ours, suffer greatly.

That's why Mitt wants to be President, to make sure his kids can stay in the ruling class, and have a country of slaves to rule over, and have the whips they need to herd them into submission, and mindless compliance. That's his version of the American Dream... and the nightmare of the dwindling middle class.
Polishing that tin oil hat again ? If the business model is broken (which it is not ) then the blame goes to progressive policies over the years that fundamentally changed American business to a similar model of the state socialist model. It is years of abusing the Constitution's Commerce Clause that has brought us to this point .
You need to read 'How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution' by Professor Richard Epstein .It is their warped reading of the Constitution that created government approved cartels and businesses too big to fail .

Then you will continue to lose out to your nearest competitors like Hong Kong ,Singapore ,and even Malaysia ....forget about the larger global market. But then again ,you are content to be the mining pit of China. Maybe they will be willing to invest capital when they are taxed 35% .

You just can't help yourself can you? You get the bull by the tail and get covered in B/S and you feel you must spread it around. They don't have to invest Tom we have corporations and individuals with sufficient resources and willingness to develop the mines. They are lining up to invest Tom because they understand the importance of stable government that can do what it says it is going to do, and while our investment rules upset them a little they keep coming. I was't aware that Hong Kong Malayasia and Singapore had the ability to compete with us in agriculture and mining, they don't scare us Tom

You need to read 'How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution' by Professor Richard Epstein

Tom, this is just another take on Original Intent. A exposition on how 'Progressives' have moved the Constitution away from the Locke/Madison understanding into something completely different

In other words, the changing of the Constitution into something that reflects the wisdom of the intellectuals of today, rather than reflecting the wisdom of intellectuals of the Classical Period.

Epstein is choosing a starting point for his Originalism. In his case it seems to be somewhere between Locke and Madison. I have asked these questions before. Why choose Locke/Madison? Why not choose the actual ratification process as a starting point? Why not, as I do and choose the very beginning ( Natural Laws). We can choose any point we like.

As I said before, the reason anyone chooses a starting point is because it reflects their political beliefs. It has very little to do with substance and everything to do with ideology.

They just got #2 man in al Qaeda, and his henchmen, Thank God for Cheney, and Rumsfeld!

Abu Yahya al-Libi, al Qaeda deputy leader, killed in U.S. drone strike - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57447601/abu-yahya-al-libi-al-qaeda-deputy-leader-killed-in-u.s-drone-strike/)

Clearly if you are chosing a point of orginalism then you would chose the ratification if the topic was Constitution. In his case ,Epstein notes that Hamilton ;who was as close to the progessives vision of big government as any of the founders, still understood that national government intervention in the commerce was restricted to the clear language of the Constitution. The founders intent ;which was undestood before the progressive era ,was that interstate commerce was pretty much a free trade zone. It was only with laws like the ones that Filburn objected to ,that the government breached into a central managed economy imposing price controls and creating government approved private cartels . Epstein of course goes into greater detail into the legislative and judicial history that lead us to today's national socialist economy in America.
Bigger than my beef in the direction the nation has taken is the clear distortion of the legal document that brought us to this point. The clear constitutional way to "reform " society would've been through the amendment process If they wanted Constitutional restrictions to the power of the central government revoked then they should've amended the language of the Constitution rather than distort the meaning of the language beyond all recognition.

They just got #2 man in al Qaeda, and his henchmen, Thank God for Cheney, and Rumsfeld!

Abu Yahya al-Libi, al Qaeda deputy leader, killed in U.S. drone strike - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57447601/abu-yahya-al-libi-al-qaeda-deputy-leader-killed-in-u.s-drone-strike/)

And if the strike was a Bush era attack no doubt your party line would be that the US is violating sovereign Pakistani territory. I on the other hand give kudos to the attack that took out that scum regardless of who is the CIC . I'll give the President his moment to spike the football . Maybe he can make hay running on a tough war on terrorism platform now that he is surrendering the "war of necessity" . Oh wait... we don't have a war on terrorism anymore .We have overseas contingency operations.

If Hamilton, Madison or Epstein don't like it, there is a process to get heard by the Supreme Court. The only authorized interpreter of the Constitution.

Anything else is opinion, speculation, and high hopes.

Or high crimes

If Hamilton, Madison or Epstein don't like it, there is a process to get heard by the Supreme Court. The only authorized interpreter of the Constitution.

Anything else is opinion, speculation, and high hopes.

Yeah that after the Supreme Court seized such power in Marbury V Madison. The fact that such a ruling has not been challenged doesn't make it sacrosanct.

So challenge it.

This is what Thomas Jefferson said of Marbury.
The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
Indeed they have elevated themselves to a branch of government that is not at all co-equal.

Clearly it is too late to reverse Marbury ,but I would amend the Constitution to put term limits on the black robed oligarch political appointees . Why the judiciary has been elevated to the level of power they've obtained is beyond all recognition of the republican and democratic ideas of the founders.

And if the strike was a Bush era attack no doubt your party line would be that the US is violating sovereign Pakistani territory. I on the other hand give kudos to the attack that took out that scum regardless of who is the CIC . I'll give the President his moment to spike the football . Maybe he can make hay running on a tough war on terrorism platform now that he is surrendering the "war of necessity" . Oh wait ....we don't have a war on terrorism anymore .We have overseas contingency operations.

Apparently we don't have state secrets any more either.

Senate Democrats blast national security leak about cyberattack against Iran (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/230985-senate-dems-blast-leaks-about-iranian-cyberattacks)

But who cares as long as it makes Obama look tough, eh? And by the way, these cyberattacks were a Bush program - something else for the Great Obama to take credit for.

Apparently we don't have state secrets any more either.

Senate Democrats blast national security leak about cyberattack against Iran (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/230985-senate-dems-blast-leaks-about-iranian-cyberattacks)

But who cares as long as it makes Obama look tough, eh? And by the way, these cyberattacks were a Bush program - something else for the Great Obama to take credit for.

Now Tom let's not have sour grapes, one President starts something and the next either cleans up the mess or exploits the opportunity, it was ever so. Obama is still wearing some Bush decisions, it is only right he gets some kudos out of things that go right once in a while.

I think his micromanagement might be a mistake, if it backfires he cannot distance himself

Now Tom let's not have sour grapes, one President starts something and the next either cleans up the mess or exploits the opportunity, it was ever so. Obama is still wearing some Bush decisions, it is only right he gets some kudos out of things that go right once in a while.

I think his micromanagement might be a mistake, if it backfires he cannot distance himself

I'm not tom.

I predicted that he would essentially follow the Bush template in the War against Jihadistan .In some areas he has done so and I've given credit . Where he has deviated ,I've generally disapproved (the snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq... his attempt to engage the 12'ers... his surge and then quick announcing a date certain for defeat in Afghanistan [the necessary war in his rhetoric]) .
I'm thrilled he has continued the counter-terrorist attacks in Pakistan ,in the Arabian peninsula ,and in sub-Sahara Africa. I suspected his rhetoric was all bluster about closing GITMO ;and he has of course given up on the ridiculous notion of trials for foreign Jihadists in civilian court .

This is what Thomas Jefferson said of Marbury.
The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
Indeed they have elevated themselves to a branch of government that is not at all co-equal.

Clearly it is too late to reverse Marbury ,but I would amend the Constitution to put term limits on the black robed oligarch political appointees . Why the judiciary has been elevated to the level of power they've obtained is beyond all recognition of the republican and democratic ideas of the founders.



Sorry Tom, but what else do you expect if you are a common law country with an overriding civil code. Given the passage of time this was always going to be a problem.

The real question here is who governs the country the supreme court or the congress, the executive doesn't seem to get a look in. It surely was not the intention of the constitution that the supreme court should govern the country

the real question here is who governs the country the supreme court or the congress, the executive doesn't seem to get a look in. It surely was not the intention of the constitution that the supreme court should govern the country

The president governs through presidential powers. The congress can make laws to govern the people and the supreme court can seek placement of the laws. The president is the one who can sign a bill into law that has been passed through congress and if the president vetos then congress can overide by vote.

The supreme court is there to meet the constitutional test of the law. Each are a separate yet identical branch of the government with respective powers.

Sorry Clete, but the Koch brothers govern the country.

Koch family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family)

The Billionaire Koch Brothers' War Against Obama : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer)

Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html)

Koch Industries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries)

This is the god the right wing worships, and pays tribute to. Now you know!

Tal is just upset that there is a special interest to match the power of the special interests behind the Democrat machine.

Sorry Clete, but the Koch brothers govern the country.



This is the god the right wing worships, and pays tribute to. Now you know!!

Thanks Tal that is clear now I thought it was Burfett

Clearly if you are chosing a point of orginalism then you would chose the ratification if the topic was Constitution. In his case ,Epstein notes that Hamilton ;who was as close to the progessives vision of big government as any of the founders, still understood that national government intervention in the commerce was restricted to the clear language of the Constitution.
The founders intent ;which was undestood before the progressive era ,was that interstate commerce was pretty much a free trade zone. It was only with laws like the ones that Filburn objected to ,that the government breached into a central managed economy imposing price controls and creating government approved private cartels . Epstein of course goes into greater detail into the legislative and judicial history that lead us to today's national socialist economy in America.
Bigger than my beef in the direction the nation has taken is the clear distortion of the legal document that brought us to this point. The clear constitutional way to "reform " society would've been through the amendment process If they wanted Constitutional restrictions to the power of the central government revoked then they should've amended the language of the Constitution rather than distort the meaning of the language beyond all recognition.


Hi Tom,

I think we have been down this path before. You seem to be using Originalism and Original Intent as being one and the same. This is not a valid comparison. However, leaving that aside

You say:
"......interstate commerce was pretty much a free trade zone". Is this an example of clear language? How would you define, pretty much?

I don't think the Commerce Clause is an example of clear and precise language. In fact I don't think we can go past the word, 'commerce' before we run into trouble. You have an exact definition for the word, 'commerce?'

Before you throw in Humpty Dumpty in will repeat my previous argument. Those who control the language control the reality. In this particular instance, and every other, those who control the language are the people of that particular age.

The people who control the language of this age are the general public. Or what, reasonable people understand by the meaning of words. People of a different age would have had a sightly different meaning for the word. It is possible that 'commerce' as it applied to the past may prove to be incompatible or even a contradiction when examined in light of today's meaning.

Tut

Hi Tom,

I
I don't think the Commerce Clause is an example of clear and precise language. In fact I don't think we can go past the word, 'commerce' before we run into trouble. You have an exact definition for the word, 'commerce?'

It is possible that 'commerce' as it applied to the past may prove to be incompatible or even a contradiction when examined in light of today's meaning.

Tut

Indeed, commerce in the eighteenth century included the trade in slaves so a loose intrepretation of the commerce clause would suggest the trade in slaves is permitted even if failure to pay people for the work they do isn't, or holding people against their will isn't

Indeed, commerce in the eighteenth century included the trade in slaves so a loose intrepretation of the commerce clause would suggest the trade in slaves is permitted even if failure to pay people for the work they do isn't, or holding people against their will isn't
Nonsense. Slavery was a human rights violation that has been corrected . Commerce is a transaction in goods and services The elimination of slavery doesn't change the definition of commerce.

Hi Tom,

I think we have been down this path before. You seem to be using Originalism and Original Intent as being one and the same. This is not a valid comparison. However, leaving that aside

You say:
"......interstate commerce was pretty much a free trade zone". Is this an example of clear language? How would you define, pretty much?

I don't think the Commerce Clause is an example of clear and precise language. In fact I don't think we can go past the word, 'commerce' before we run into trouble. You have an exact definition for the word, 'commerce?'

Before you throw in Humpty Dumpty in will repeat my previous argument. Those who control the language control the reality. In this particular instance, and every other, those who control the language are the people of that particular age.

The people who control the language of this age are the general public. Or what, reasonable people understand by the meaning of words. People of a different age would have had a sightly different meaning for the word. It is possible that 'commerce' as it applied to the past may prove to be incompatible or even a contradiction when examined in light of today's meaning.

Tut

I don't need to dance on the head of a pin . All I need to know is what the founders meant by commerce ;and they authored enough so one can easily determine that they were in agreement that the powers they gave the Federal Government were limitted and enumerated .

Nonsense. Slavery was a human rights violation that has been corrected . Commerce is a transaction in goods and services The elimination of slavery doesn't change the definition of commerce.

Hi Tom,

Wasn't there some sort of agreement that protected the interest of slave owners by preventing congress from taxing and exporting good from state to state.

If this was the case then the definition of commerce back them included slavery. Commerce today doesn't include slavery therefore the definition of commerce has changed.


Tut

I don't need to dance on the head of a pin . All I need to know is what the founders meant by commerce ;and they authored enough so one can easily determine that they were in agreement that the powers they gave the Federal Government were limitted and enumerated .


I am glad you are happy with your definition, but other people are not. If you were a Constitutional lawyer then you would need to dance on the head of a pin when defining commerce.

Tut

You don't like Humpty Dumpty ;but that is the only take that applies . If the meaning the founders understood doesn't apply, then the document should be scrapped and a new governing document created. The one thing that is close to intolerable in the current system is leaving the ulimate arbitration to the handful of politically appointed for life judiciary.

You don't like Humpty Dumpty ;but that is the only take that applies .


I quite like Humpty Dumpty. Lewis Carroll started us out on the path to understanding language.

It is a very seductive argument to think that words like 'commerce' have a clear and precise meaning. It is just as appealing to believe these words retain their meaning over time. However, we know these accounts are wrong.

We are all masters of a common language. This is were we get our meaning of words. Most people of the 18th century got the meaning of commerce from the institutions and practices of their time. What they didn't know was that many words don't have a precise definition.

In the 21st century we are master of the common language. We also get our meaning and understanding of the word, 'commerce' from the institutions and practices we experience. Unlike the 18 th century we know that many words don't have a precise meaning






If the meaning the founders understood doesn't apply, then the document should be scrapped and a new governing document created. The one thing that is close to intolerable in the current system is leaving the ulimate arbitration to the handful of politically appointed for life judiciary.

Not necessarily. If we give away original intent then this will help clarify the issue somewhat. I suspect Justice Scalia is a textualist for an important reason. He is not an original intent-ist, he is not a strict constitutionalist and he is against the 'living breathing' version. I think he is a textualist because he would agree with my arguments on language. Perhaps he feels being as a textualist he can as far as possible avoid passing legislation from the bench.

As a textualist he could see the benefit of implementing a decision based on the common understanding of the words congress used when framing legislation. In doing this he might think that the role of SCOTUS is diminished.

Tut

Scalia Defends Originalism as Best Methodology for Judging Law (http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm)

Scalia Defends Originalism as Best Methodology for Judging Law (http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm)Hello again, tom:

So, if precedent can be adjudged NOT to be originalist, judicial activism is in order...

I understand...

excon

You don't like Humpty Dumpty ;but that is the only take that applies . If the meaning the founders understood doesn't apply, then the document should be scrapped and a new governing document created. The one thing that is close to intolerable in the current system is leaving the ulimate arbitration to the handful of politically appointed for life judiciary.

Ah now, at last, we have reached the nub of the argument. If the passage of time has changed things so the ordinary meaning of what the founders understood no longer applies then it is an anachanism to attempt to continue to intrepret their writings in the context of today's reality. Your constitution has become the toy of those politically appointed judges and surely that was not original intent

. Your constitution has become the toy of those politically appointed judges and surely that was not original intent
Indeed it was not. Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality is flawed.Too many obviously bad decisions by the court proves that the power they have seized makes them a superior unequal branch .That is too much power for an unelected branch of government... espeically one occupied by life time appointees.

.That is too much power for an unelected branch of government ....espeically one occupied by life time appointees.

Well Tom you know there is only one answer to the unelected branch of government, I believe you applied it once with some interesting results

Hello again, tom:

So, if precedent can be adjudged NOT to be originalist, judicial activism is in order...

I understand...

excon

Hi Ex,

Yes, I think this correct. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that SCOTUS needs to take into account precedent when it comes to handing down a decision. It would be irresponsible not to give some weight in this direction.

It seems to me that it makes no sense to make a ruling based on a 'previous moment in time' (original intent if you like) and apply it to this 'moment in time'. By 'moment in time' on this occasion I mean the previous decisions handed down in subsequent cases(precedent). To put it another way, would make no sense to hand down a decision in a vacuum.

The obvious question is which one do you favour? I wouldn't worry too much about what Scalia has said in the above clip. He shows us his political hand right at the beginning when he says that it is his burden not to show that originalism is perfect but to show it is better than everything else.

Hey, I know language isn't perfect but politics is his original intent. Anyway, I'll check his history in order to confirm my beliefs.

But I think you are right they are in conflict most of the time and this conflict would probably result in legislation from the bench.

Tut

Hello again, tom:

So, if precedent can be adjudged NOT to be originalist, judicial activism is in order...

I understand...

Excon


There is a lot of precedent that deserves reversing because it was wrongly decided. Note the court got Dredd Scott ,Plessy and Korematsu all horribly wrong(among others ).

Yes misquote as distinct from not being able to put two words together coherently. I doubt all his speeches are off a teleprompter otherwise there is no excuse for getting it wrong, fire the speechwriter. He would look much better if he had had some of his policies accepted, being a lame duck can't be fun

Umm I suspect otherwise. He doesn't stumble over his words like Bush did when he was being too cautious in his replies . Instead he makes gaffes that the White House has to carefully walk back. Yesterday ,as an example,during his presser , he told the country that the private sector is doing fine.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_the_private_sector_is_doing_fine.html


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_backtracks_its_absolutely_clear_the_economy_ is_not_doing_fine.html

I'm sure you recall this gaffe that followed John McCain until the end of the 2008 elections : (paraphrase)" the fundamentals of our economy are strong." I wonder if the dinosaurs will frequently quote the President assessment of the health of the private sector throughout the campaign ?

Umm I suspect otherwise. He doesn't stumble over his words like Bush did when he was being too cautious in his replies . Instead he makes gaffes that the White House has to carefully walk back. Yesterday ,as an example,during his presser , he told the country that the private sector is doing fine.

Obama: "The Private Sector Is Doing Fine" | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_the_private_sector_is_doing_fine.html)


Obama Backtracks: "It's Absolutely Clear Economy Is Not Doing Fine" | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_backtracks_its_absolutely_clear_the_economy_ is_not_doing_fine.html)

I'm sure you recall this gaffe that followed John McCain til the end of the 2008 elections : (paraphrase)" the fundamentals of our economy are strong." I wonder if the dinosaurs will frequently quote the President assessment of the health of the private sector throughout the campaign ?

Um no, they will methodically note how he walked it back. Count on it.

Yeah he kind of blew it, but then your boy Mitt doubled down on his own idiocy

Mitt Romney: We don’t need more cops, firefighters or teachers - The Plum Line - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitt-romney-we-dont-need-more-cops-firefighters-or-teachers/2012/06/08/gJQAvOgDOV_blog.html)


Romney said of Obama, “he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

It's a wash, and maybe they both should take a time out and regroup the messaging.

No Romney got it right. The President wants to double down on his previously failed stimulus plan .

You saying it fails goes against both conservative and progressive economist in general, and the data that's available. The data also shows that congresses failure to follow through has started contracting the economy, and slowing growth.

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm)

If the job creators where fair, and not greedy, they would create jobs for more than politicians, and we wouldn't need a stimulus.

Team Obama finally decided that the historical Obama (http://obamainhistory.tumblr.com/) might be a bit much so they quietly removed the Obama bullet points from presidential bios.

Now that he's merely human again let's all join Michelle in wishing him a Happy Father's Day (http://www.barackobama.com/fathers-day-card?source=em12_20120613_mo_nd&utm_medium=email&utm_source=obama&utm_campaign=em12_20120613_mo_nd&email=peter.suderman%40reason.com&zip=20002&firstname=&lastname=)!

Oh, he's not your father?

Who's your daddy ,and what does he do ?

I wish him a Happy Fathers Day, with respect, and honor because despite tremendous opposition and obstruction, he still has managed to accomplish more in 3 years than the previous president did in 8.


Corrected thanks to SpeechlessTX

It's not his birthday.

No wonder I'm in last place huh?!

Look on the bright side, you're within striking distance of the week 1 champion.

Look on the bright side, you're within striking distance of the week 1 champion.Hello Steve:

You know that trophy I awarded you... Admire it good...

excon

Team Obama finally decided that the historical Obama (http://obamainhistory.tumblr.com/) might be a bit much so they quietly removed the Obama bullet points from presidential bios.

Now that he's merely human again let's all join Michelle in wishing him a Happy Father's Day (http://www.barackobama.com/fathers-day-card?source=em12_20120613_mo_nd&utm_medium=email&utm_source=obama&utm_campaign=em12_20120613_mo_nd&email=peter.suderman%40reason.com&zip=20002&firstname=&lastname=)!

Oh, he's not your father?

Just checked . They have been removed from the bios of the former Presidents ;and instead have been placed in a separate dialogue box at the bottom of the bios . They are still there.

Ah, so they just made him a footnote. That's much more appropriate.

I like how on Silent Cal's page they contrasted him restoring "the dignity and prestige of the Presidency" to Obama being "the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc."

From character, prestige and dignity to virtual snitching (https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/report-an-attack). We have come a long way haven't we?

Hello Steve:

You know that trophy I awarded you... Admire it good....

excon

I've had plenty of time to do so :p