Congress Won’t Hurt Economy So Obama Will

Barack Obama took an unprecedented step today by making the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Why is this unprecedented? Because the Senate is still in session. The Senate is the body that advises and consents to Presidential appointments and presidents are only allowed to make an appointment when the Senate is in recess and unable to take up the process.

The Senate is in pro forma session. They meet every three days so they are still in session. It is obvious that this is being done to prevent recess appointments and it is not something new. Harry Reid did the exact same thing to prevent George Bush from making recess appointments.

Of course, Reid supports what Obama did because he now views the process as obstructive. Got that? When Democrats do it then it is good but when Republicans do it then it is obstructive.

The morons at the Daily Kos are happy with Obama and support the move. Imagine how they (and Harry Reid) would have reacted had Bush appointed someone during the pro forma sessions held by Democrats. We don’t need to imagine. We know they would have lost their minds and called Bush King George and a dictator. But when messiah Obama does it then it is fine and dandy.

It was reported just yesterday that Obama would not make any appointments during this recess (that is not a recess) but he evidently was persuaded by his handlers to do this.

Obama has engaged in a power grab in order to hurt the country. Obama himself said he did this because Congress refuses to do the things that will hurt the nation:

“I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer. I’ve said before that I will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward. But when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.” [emphasis mine] USA Today

Obama makes two admissions here. The first is that Cordray will hurt the economy and people and the second is that if Congress refuses to hurt the economy and the people then it is up to Obama to do so.

Obama has been doing things that circumvent Congress since he took office. He continually claims that he wants to work with Congress but if the Congress does not do what he wants then he will look for other ways. This is not how the country works. Our government is supposed to be one of checks and balances and the Constitution spells out how things are done.

Obama has rejected the checks and balances and the Constitution in order to push his agenda. This is the mark of a dictator and Obama has left no doubt that he fits that bill.

He sees himself and his position as being above the rules and the process.

He sees himself above following the Constitution.

And he will end up getting lots of pushback from Congress. This matter will end up in court, it will end up being an issue in the campaign and it will end up biting him in his rear.

The Republicans in Congress need to refuse to do anything for this man from now on. Do not debate legislation, do not take up what he wants, and do not do any of it at all. Tell him that he gets NOTHING.

King Barack Hussein needs a swift kick in his donkey.

And to the liberals, if you think this is OK then you all need to remember that a Democrat will not always occupy the White House. If this stands then a precedent has been set and a Republican president can appoint anyone during any pro forma session and you all will need to STFU about it.

Looks like this appointment runs in opposition to the view of Obama’s own Justice Department…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

17 Responses to “Congress Won’t Hurt Economy So Obama Will”

  1. Ferd Berfel says:

    I am not going to argue that Obama is good, but look again at this point you made;

    “I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer. I’ve said before that I will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward. But when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

    Insert a comma and it is fine.

  2. Big Dog says:

    I am not seeing where a comma would change the meaning of if Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy

  3. Ferd Berfel says:

    Try this, with a pause for the coma;

    “But when Congress refuses to act (,) in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk,” yadda yadda yadda….

    The fact he made an appointment while the Senate is in pro forma session is enough to raise a flag. But the statement? He is cunning and crafty, especially with words. It would be unlike him to noose himself in words. He is a slick nigga.

    • Big Dog says:

      I can see the point you are making and he is slick with words but the reality is, he could have said it better as in When Congress continues to act in a way that hurts the economy…

      This is what happens when the teleprompter is not working correctly.

      • Big Dog says:

        I don’t know if this line is from a different speech or was rewritten by the Washington Times to take away the ambiguity but this is how it should have been said:

        “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker Heights, drawing applause from his audience. “When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

  4. Adam says:

    Republicans have blocked HUNDREDS of President Obama’s nominations. Then they pull this garbage where they stay in pretend session and have limited Obama’s recess appointments to 28 while President Bush had 171.

    What should scare Republicans is not that Obama somehow circumvented the system but that this might call to attention the obstructions of the GOP. To pretend their actions are the same as the actions of Democrats against Bush ignores reality.

    The GOP blocked Clinton in the same way so much so that apparently Bush had a record number of nominations and approvals in his first term. I guess the GOP hopes to do the same whether it ends this year or in four.

    • Big Dog says:

      Right, the Republicans are the problem. Bush had 77 recess appointments in his first 4 years (you have to compare equal time frames) and he had to make those because Democrats kept blocking his nominees. The Democrats kept running pro forma sessions to keep Bush from appointing anyone. Bush had 240 nominees waiting while Democrats blocked them. So don’t act as if this is something new. Democrats were very happy to do this and you and your friends at the DU and Kos were happy they were doing it.

      Politico wrote about the glee of Democrats over pro forma appointments

      Both sides do this and Obama has taken the unprecedented step of making an appointment while the Senate was in session according to the rules acknowledged by its own Justicve Dept.!

      The reality is this. It does not matter why the rules were broken, they were broken. You are more than happy to scream when a Republican breaks the rules but are supportive when Democrats do it. If Bush had done this you would go bat crap crazy and screm for impeachment. You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it.

      Let it play out in court. Here is a question though. If any president can do this then can they wait until the Senate recesses for the weekend and appoint? When this goes to court it might be upheld and that means that future presidents can appoint when there is a recess regardless of pro forma sessions. The Democrats will be forced to stay in DC or concede the appointments. We shall see how a court rules given that Obama’s folks clearly stated that a recess had to be longer than three days to appoint and given the history that the Democrats have done this very thing and publicly stated it was to keep Bush from making such appointments.

      I know it is not fun when they hurt you with your own tactics but turn about is fair play. Instead of understanding that you think it is OK for Obama to do what he wants because he did not get his way.

      • Adam says:

        “Bush had 77 recess appointments in his first 4 years…”

        That is incorrect. Bush had 106 of 171 in his first term. When Democrats started the policy Bush stopped recess appointments.

        “…and he had to make those because Democrats kept blocking his nominees.”

        Democrats did block some for sure. But 240? I’d like to see a source for that. Center For American Progress cites data showing record low percentages of confirmations.

        So again, you can say the Republicans are just doing what the Democrats did and so on but that’s not true. If they make a fuss over this it will only reveal how poor they are at being in Congress and the lengths they’ll go to just to prevent Obama from doing his job as president.

  5. Adam says:

    More from WP:

    The straightforward interpretation of Wednesday’s controversial recess appointments is that they were just another salvo in the ongoing war being waged by the Obama administration and congressional Republicans over nominations. In this view, what’s interesting is that Republicans were blocking a record number of appointees and using continuous “pro forma” sessions — that is to say, keeping Congress technically in session despite the fact that most everyone has gone home — to deny President Obama the power to make recess appointments. In response, the Obama administration is taking the position that, legally speaking, pro forma sessions are recesses — the Constitution is very vague on what is and isn’t a recess — and is making recess appointments anyway. If Republicans disagree, they can take him to court. Congress-expert Sarah Binder thinks, for the record, that they’ll lose that case.

    • Big Dog says:

      They might lose but since Obama’s Justice argued that a recess was more than three days it will hove to show in court how this was not a recess.

      • Adam says:

        I just work on the Bush model of the presidency I guess, the one you were fine with. When the President does something the other side disagrees with then watch what happens after the media fury dies down. Will there be investigations? Hearings? Or will there just be hot air that nothing comes of? Because that’s the state we’re in with our media. They’ll give a platform to every outrage from either side whether there is fact or basis for it. The GOP can try and make something of this and it may be something but until it is something it’s just hot air.

        • Big Dog says:

          But that is where you are wrong and I have corrected you on before. I was fine with many of the things Bush did (his ideologies and mine are more closely aligned) but I criticized him when he did things I did not like. I was all over him for spending too much and for trying to give illegals amnesty.

          I was critical of signing statements and the abuse of power by the Republican controlled Congress though I often tempered that with well they are only doing what Democrats did when they were in control.

          I was not fine with everything but you continue to make it sound as if I was.

  6. Big Dog says:

    And the media are in the left’s pocket. Look at 2008 Iowa. It was a big deal, an important race blah, blah. Then they started in 2012 talking about Paul and saying it was not a big deal or it was too white.

    It was not too white when Obama won there…