Tuesday thoughts

Tim: your cheap-shot pre-emptive strike on the State of the Union badly misses the mark, and shows not-much-Tuesday-thought. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain which provisions of the Constitution the President has violated? Please be specific, as you may be onto an impeachable offense.

As to the question of income inequality, nobody, but NO-BODY is seeking equal outcomes. That's such a ridiculous charge that to call it a strawman is an insult to grasses everywhere. That term was coined by the same people who brought us the equally absurd "class warfare" nonsense. That's not Mr. Obama, it's just the worst, stupidest and least applicable, and most thought-bereft caricature of him and his policies. You can do better than that ... can't you?

Thoughtful people know that the current system is un-sustainably out-of-whack, and needs a healthy dose of rebalancing equity. I suspect that you know it, too, but would prefer to delay that day-of-reckoning. If you are wise, however, you'll help the process of reinvigorating the middle class, on whose spending the top-end ultimately depends for their own continued well-being.

Maybe it would be better if you hold-off 'til Wednesday to have any thoughts?

Which one are you?

Web Link

Thank you John Hancock for a thoughtful and on the spot response to Tim Hunt\'s silly remarks.

Ed Dantzig

Tim, thanks for your thoughts !

Mr. Hancock, the problem is there are too many to site. Heck, in the ACA alone there are many impeachable offenses. Just to name a few...

1)Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -Article II, Section 3; Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment.

2)Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

3)Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

4)Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3.

5)The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

6)Congress did not approve Obama's war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3.

7)Four Executive appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)

8)Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3
Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Article II Section 3

9)DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. " he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Article II Section 3

And on and on and on....

I can well appreciate your comments Tim though not in agreement with your "take" on the State of the Union Address, which I thought a real 'shot' of determination in finally going forth almost in spite of congress. That said?

Ken Mercer was a remarkable man. That was a great sendoff, one his friends and family can be most proud of.

It's not Mark DeS's fault no one has yet "thrown" their "hat in the ring" with him. He's a good guy, has integrity and real dignity. Though different than George M. ??? I have little doubt he will do a fine job of representation if elected, even though I perceive him as "warm apple pie with a glass of milk" in his approaches...

Thanks for always giving balance and perspective (-others could learn a little less verbose, self-centered thinking if they took the time to read your POVs) You go guy!

"Giving balance and perspective?" What, is he balancing on a bicycle while offering his undefended perspective? Bad enough the poor guy can't think himself out of a paper bag -- formulate a coherent argument, anyone? He seems to have learned nothing from those who have commented on his immature cheap shots, and he has proven himself too cowardly (or airheaded?) to respond to anyone's remarks.

When offering a validity claim, one should either give it argumentative backing (evidence, reasoning) while making the claim, or be prepared to openly defend the claim with argumentative backing. My 10- and 8-year olds have learned this basic communicative skill. But this homer apparently has never learned this. A consequence of living all of one's life in the Pleasanton bubble zone? Likely.

Here's the irony: How can he bark about others getting handouts from the government when his entire professional 'career' has been nothing but receiving handouts from his employers for seriously substandard 'work'?

John Hancock nailed it. Tim has copied Thomas Sowell's technique of grotesquely mischaracterizing the other side's actual position and then ridiculing that stupid parody as if it actually expressed the thoughts being attacked.

Bad on you, Tim. Seriously - you should be embarrassed and ashamed, if you have the integrity to honestly assess the nature and quality of your statements.

Government policy has always affected how wealth is distributed. Always. The idea that it should only do so in a way that **increases** income inequality is actually what you're promoting, although I doubt that you even realize that. If you were to study the changes in policy and law which were instituted in the 70's and 80's which upset the balance of the distribution of wealth and income which had existed for the previous 50 years (none of which raise constitutional concerns) and caused a significant and ongoing increase in income inequality since that time and considered the merits of revisions of law and policy which might tend to counteract those changes so as to nudge the balance of wealth back towards its previous equilibrium (none of which raise constitutional concerns either) you might demonstrate having had some "thoughts." Instead, you have indulged in shopworn cliches.

If there's any grave spinning going on it's out of horror that you're wrapping yourself in the flag of the founding fathers to defend your vacuous exercise in mindless propaganda.

Biff boy, what IS YOUR PROBLEM? If you don\'t think well of Tim Hunt? That\'s your business dear, I mean seriously do ANY of us CARE? (-any more than they should care about my issues with TC? Really now Biff boy, do get a "grip")

Cheers!

My issue with Obama is he is not a leader, in any sense of the word. He never works for consensus, and he would rather make unilateral decisions in a 'lone wolf' manner. It's kind of ironic that being a former senator, he didn't learn a thing about the legislative process.

Mark D. is the consummate politician. I have always enjoyed working with Mark, he is a man of his word. Now what the Republicans will do is find 8 or 9 really mediocre candidates to battle royal each other into submission and then not be able to fund a competitive race against Mark.