Fournier: Executive Action on Immigration Would Be ‘a Nuclear Bomb’
By Andrew Johnson
August 6, 2014 6:22 PM
Comments
844
If President Obama grants legal status to millions of immigrants in the country illegally through executive action, he will drastically divide the nation and totally discount his presidential pledge, National Journal’s Ron Fournier said. Fournier, who believes the immigrants should get legal status, argued executive orders would be the worst way to do it.
“The fundamental reason he became president was he was promising ‘There’s no red state, there’s no blue state — I’m going to bring the country together,’” he said on Fox News on Wednesday. “He’s been a polarizing president, and this would be a nuclear bomb that would blow open and make this country even more divided in a way that most Americans just don’t want.”
Earlier in the discussion, the Hill’s A. B. Stoddard warned of a potential “constitutional crisis” if the president overreached with executive action. She added that “the outrage will be so incredible on the Republican side that it will bring more Democratic losses” in the upcoming midterms.
Ka Boom!
ReplyDeleteAnother Spinal Tap post that is nothing more than a blatantly dishonest money raiser for Republicans. Since you keep posting, so will I. Even with the extra constitutional requirement imposed by McConnell that all bills from the senate must have 60 votes, the senate did pass something that more than just Democratically supported. Boehnor, thought he had a similar deal in the congress until he realized his dysfunctional children had again usurped his power. So, in order to protect himself, he simply said, "Okay, go ahead and pass a ridiculously partisan bill and just for good measure, let's go ahead and wait til the senate closes so we can say that we passed a bill and that we did our part." After that, Boehnor tosses out a little soundbite saying that Obama can act to solve this crisis without house support which is the modern day equivalent of Pilate washing his hands. While in recess, the house Republicans can claim they did something, which is technically true but functionally a blatant lie, and they also push Obama into taking more executive action which is truly what they WANT him to do.
ReplyDeleteWhere the majority of the country is on immigration reform is not in line with gerrymandered thinking. I don't like the executive power grab either, and I didn't like it when Democrats forced Bush into it. But, it's gotten kind of ridiculous that both parties have chosen to use procedural rules in an unintentional way to knee cap the power in majority rather than concede that there way partisan viewpoint is not in line with where the country is.
"Just 31 percent of Americans say they approve of how the president has handled immigration reform, according to a poll from CBS News."
Delete"the president’s handling of the issue has fallen to a record low."
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/214564-bad-news-for-obama-on-handling-of-immigration-reform#ixzz39jjzBW1J
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
And again, you post a bullshit response.
DeleteABC news poll
"Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama handling the issue of undocumented immigrants coming into the United States over the border with Mexico?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
33% 58% 8%
"Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress handling the issue of undocumented immigrants coming into the United States over the border with Mexico?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
23% 66% 10%
It's a waste of time treating your post seriously, but since we found polls that pretty much identify the same numbers for Obama, the second question I posted here tells a bigger story. The majority of the Country wants SOMETHING done, and your HAMAS like friends in the Tea Party want nothing done. If American's are even more unhappy with congress (who is doing nothing) versus Obama (who is doing something with use of executive orders), you tell me what the truth is. The anarchist goal of the Teas is simple, break government period. Make it fail.
My wife is from East Tennessee where members of some religions handle poisonous snakes to prove their faith is genuine. Once in a while one of the snakes will bite and the handler dies. Kind of reminds me of what our politicians are doing these days. Handling poisonous snakes is never a good idea, no matter what anyone tell you.
ReplyDeleteFor you viewing pleasure Mick:
Deletehttp://partycrashertshirts.com/image/cache/data/shirts/sku%200011/0011-tshirt-1-366x366.jpg
The Republicans have indeed backed themselves into a corner with the snakes of the Don't Tread On Me crowd. The Democrats, under Clinton, clearly broke free of the left of the party and became far more centrist than Republicans have. Clinton raised taxes on everybody, but he didn't just squander the money. Clinton faced a shitload of opposition from the Republicans and made a lot of compromises I'm sure he didn't want to make, but he also found ways to help out the middle class. The Republican party, IMO, has a choice wherein they can continue to let the tea party slap them around while blaming Obama for not being willing to compromise, or they could put down the rebellion by passing legislation with Democrat votes. Grover Norquist, on a Bill Maher show, said that Republicans chose to stop trying to steer the country through controlling the White House and instead focused on controlling the state legislations and congress. They sure seem to be getting bitten.
DeleteHuh Fournier
DeleteFournier gangrene was first identified in 1883, when the French venereologist Jean Alfred Fournier described a series in which 5 previously healthy young men suffered from a rapidly progressive gangrene of the penis and scrotum without apparent cause. This condition, which came to be known as Fournier gangrene, is defined as a polymicrobial necrotizing fasciitis of the perineal, perianal, or genital areas (see the image below.) In contrast to Fournier's initial description, the disease is not limited to young people or to males, and a cause is now usually identified.
Nuf said by this POS.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
DeleteMartin Luther King, Jr.
I imagine that as a matter of personal preference, no one would like to see excessive "Rule by Decree" by a President of either party. I can understand the necessity for such law making in exceptional circumstances such as the Presidential power to deploy the military/
ReplyDeletePerhaps what is not being considered is the harm being done to the political fabric of America as long as the present ideological bun fight lasts. It is passing strange, both here and your country are being strangled by ideologues. Why on earth can not the elected goverment remember the purpose for which we elected them and get the job done. Our system, with one leg of the power tripod missing is completely tied in the Senate as the country slides deeper and deeper into debit. I agree with Shakespeare’s Mercutio "a pox on both their houses"
Cheers from Aussie
It is harder to preserve than to obtain liberty.
DeleteJohn C. Calhoun
At some point King, you have to look beyond your question of why can't our elected leaders govern and you have to ask, why or how does such a partisan bunch get elected? I watched the most recent Lincoln movie when it came out, and in one of the scenes, Lincoln makes a speech to his cabinet that he DID give the people a chance to decide if they accepted his drastic choices. They could have voted him out, but they didn't. We didn't vote Bush out in his second term, and we didn't vote Obama out. More importantly, however, we didn't vote for a change in the way congress operates.
DeleteThe historical spirit of this country, that I think you admire, has been replaced by a particularly selfish mentality to hoard and put a fence around everything you own. We don't collectively believe we are in this together, and the collection of elected officials in Washington clearly reflects that. I won't say I believe Obama has done strong work, but the guy has been handed one grease fire after another, many of which have been started by horrible policies in this country that both parties signed off on. The leader gets the blame and that's the way it works. Still, even though I agree with the mentality of a pox on both their houses, I can't let the voters of the country off the hook who sent the members there to pretty much do exactly what they are doing.
Exactly Max. The majority of voters elected representatives to reflect their desire for limited government.
DeleteThus less legislation. Eventually less spending. Thus less regulation.
Eventually more freedom.
Thus less legislation. Eventually less spending. Thus less regulation.
DeleteEventually more freedom.....and eventually anarchy.
Straight line thinking Max. Your logic would indicate that our Founders were anarchists. The Constitution is specific in it's aims. Our Bill of Rights spells out governmental limits.
DeleteWhy the continued illogical exaggerations?
It's not illogical. The world of 2014 does not remotely match the world of the founding fathers. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned highways, speed limits, police departments, fire departments, massive meat plants who regularly send out tainted meat and so on. The limited government of the founding fathers day addressed a limited population, and arguably, a limited belief in what true freedom meant. I hate to keep belaboring this point about slavery and the treatment of women, but the bottom line is that in the founding fathers mind, freedom was meant for white men of means and THIS is part of what the Teas and other conservatives so desperately want to return to. Their thinking, though visionary at the time, is well behind what society views as freedom today.
DeleteThe teas hate everything to do with government and any sense of restraint or cooperation. They want the entirely of life to be ala cart where they can opt our of everything they don't agree with. They don't want to pay taxes, they don't want any agency like the FDA or the EPA and as you once told me, I don't have a right to know what's in my food and I'm guess I don't have that right in your eyes because the founding fathers didn't create that right. Their vision of government in today's world WOULD be anarchy.
When I listen to tea party talk, I hear this endless whining of victimhood, that somehow these people are being oppressed and held back from greatness by the evil gubmint. There is an upper tier of Tea types who are well versed in philosophy who groan in misery every time someone like Michelle Bachman opens her mouth. These, however, do not represent a wide swath of Tea party thought. I believe that if folks like yourself had your way, overnight we would end SS, end the Federal reserve, end the EPA, end the FDA, cut taxes to a flat 5% or institute a consumption tax, end speed limits, open every inch of space possible for oil drilling and fracking, ban abortion, end any and all forms of corporate taxation, take away public education entirely and in all situations, instill a mindset that if someone can find a way to rip you off and take advantage of you, to fucking bad, you should know better.
Essentially William, the teas want to remake 2014 to look like the late 1700's wherein a lot of people simply did whatever they wanted to, especially white men who were accountable only to each other and certainly not to anyone beneath them. I enjoy an enormous amount of freedom today that the people of the late 1700's couldn't have dreamed of because society has created restraints. I can't legally drive a rocket car on the freeway that I built in my garage, and neither can some other idiot who will endanger me when it blows up. THIS is what makes the teas seemingly seethe with rage that every individual has the freedom to NOT have to compete to the death for every crumb they eat and that they can bump along with some degree of blissful ignorance without having to look for danger around every corner. I'll take my limited but quite expansive freedom of 2014 over your 1700's anarchy any day.
Lol. TEAs think traffic lights on interstate highways are unconstitutional - heck, they think interstate highways are unconstitutional. After all, the FFs didn't mention them in the Constitution!!!
DeleteLol!!! That's awesome ....
So much angst leveled at as Max calls us the "tiny Tea's." We have touched a nerve deep within a molar of progressive psyche.
DeleteThe cute exaggerations, the Bill Maher mentality, the shallow comparisons,,,all negated by the principles laid out in our compact between States.
Thousands of promulgated pages of putrid pap fail to reinforce the bankrupt theories of "to each according to her need."
Thousands of promulgated pages of putrid pap fail to reinforce the bankrupt theories of "to each according to her need."
DeleteThey fail in that endeavor William, because that isn't what they are intended to do. You are not even remotely less ridiculous in your assertions that everyone is a communist and that the goal of everyone who isn't like you is to give away free shit. Aside from the speed limit crack, I see little above that is not tea party doctrine.
The internet is an unconstitutional communist tool b/c the FFs didn't mention it ...
DeleteJefferson probably would have liked the interracial adult sites!
Deletewww.ridesallyride.com?
Delete;-)
Only the shallow know themselves.
DeleteOscar Wilde
There's just a touch of irony you would post that William.
DeleteYour comment about Jefferson, one of the most important persons in all of history, and interracial adult sites brought the qutoe to mind.
Delete