Why is it that president Obama does not ban Fox News for lying?
1) The first amendment protects free speech, even when it is stupid, inflammatory, somewhat liablous and especially under the guise of the press.2) The abilities of the POTUS are limited by law and review by Congress (they actually make law) and the Supreme Court (they define whether a law is in agreement with the Constitution).3) What good would it do? People who believe lies aren't going to swayed because the liars are off the air. Such action would give credence to Fox News and reinforce their position.
What does Donald Trump's executive order on immigration mean?
The basic provisions of Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration are as follows:Citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somolia and Syria are barred from entering the United States for 90 days.Refugee submissions are blocked for 120 days with “case by case” exceptions. Preference is given for Christian over Muslim refugees from the Middle East. The number of refugees allowed into the United States in 2017 is reduced to 50,000, and suspends the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely.Green card holders who are returning to the US will go through additional screening and national security checks upon landing. Unless they have a significant criminal history or links to terrorism, they will be allowed back in the country.A friend of mine who works for the Department of Homeland Security explained the reasoning behind the executive order as follows:It is a temporary change and affects only those seven countries which are not willing to play ball with us. All of the other forty remaining countries with an Islamic majority play ball with us. These countries provide us with background security information to help us vet people crossing our border. There are only seven countries who are not playing ball with us and the new evidence from the most recent terrorist attacks over the past 12 months have discovered that we need to find a new way to better secure our borders. Yes, it is a slight inconvenience, but it is a necessity to pause immigration from these countries while we re-evaluate our vetting procedures to ensure that we can minimize the attacks here on US soil.Whether or not this executive order is constitutional or otherwise legal will be up for the courts to decide; however, the declared preferential treatment of Christian refugees is blatantly problematic.
When will Obama mandate we all buy homes to deal with the problem of homelessness in America?
Sounds good. I would also like a mandate for everyone to buy a car so they'll stop asking me for a ride. @Glenn: that's a phony law made to make a point. Learn the facts, liberal.
Do you agree with Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm's brother) that the Hippocratic Oath is inconvenient?
The Hippocratic Oath probably is inconvenient to a society that has moved from revering human life to a pragmatism that says, "What good is this sick person to me?" We see this in the demand for abortion up to the moment of birth and the demand for infanticide for unwanted babies who survive abortion. Barack Obama cut his teeth in politics in Illinois by stonewalling the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which required medical care for babies who survive abortion. That would unnecessarily burden women and medical personnel who wanted the baby dead, said Obama. In the compassionate society of liberalism, the government will decide who gets medical treatment and who dies. This is the flip side of the story of government providing for the indigent sick, for the government rather than the individual will decide who lives and who dies. Interesting, when asked if he would let government decide such questions for his own family, Obama said no. Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get. The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care." Translation: We the liberal elite don't have to suffer with you second-class Americans. We're powerful and we're rich.
Be Honest- Has Obama lived up to the hype?
Obama shares a dream with current World Dictators for a Post American World. Obama said “America is the greatest country in the world, and I hope you will join me in changing that." Obama said in his book 'Audacity of Hope', “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction what better place for the Muslins to control our country, than in the office of the President of USA.” The American Problems Obama wants to fix are the World’s Problems with America. Obamas believes wrecking the American economy will fix the World’s Problems with America. Never in the history of the United States has a president and his party worked so actively against the interests of his own people. Obama is a pain in the a s s for America and an aid and comfort to America's enemies. A person can’t truly love America and Obama too, for to truly love one is to truly hate the other. Semper Fi
What is the absolute very first duty of the President of the United States after being sworn into office under the Constitution of the United States?
I’ll assume that “absolute very first duty” refers to a sort of timeline upon being sworn in, rather than “first” in any moral or rhetorical sense…One of the earliest duties of the President, upon taking the Oath of Office, is to formally receive the Nuclear football, containing nuclear weapon authorization launch codes. The football - actually a briefcase - is carried by a military aide who is always physically near the President. Another football is near the Vice President, in case the President is “taken out” in an attack.(Image: Wikipedia)
Gun owners in New Jersey and California, how inconvenient is it to be limited to purchasing one handgun per month?
It’s one of those laws that make the Left feel like they’re doing something and report that they’re being “tough on crime” and passing “common sense” gun laws. Tripping over themselves at press conferences. A thinking person can pay no attention.Impact on gun violence will be close to zero. Urban violence due to drugs and gangs is much tougher to solve with laws not followed by the GangBangers in the first place. Crimes are so rarely committed by people who follow the process to obtain legal weapons, including NJ’s strict Pistol Permit process without a right for concealed carry (exception for retired law enforcement and friends of judges).Either stupid or naïve, or both.Tomorrow, it will be one every 3 months, then one a year, etc until the courts step in and declare unconstitutional. Punish the wrong people. An old story. Unfortunately, our votes came up short this year. With political opposition now completely lost in one-party NJ/NY/CA, do not expect to change in my lifetime. I’m awaiting new draconian measures shortly from the State of NY, called Son of SAFE Act II."Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton.
What is the soonest the court can declare the ban of refugees unconstitutional and reverse it? What are your predictions for the future regarding this matter?
It is important to understand that banning refugees is not unconstitutional. Nor is it unconstitutional to ban people from other countries from visiting the United States. There is plenty of precedent for such things. There may well be portions of the executive order which are unconstitutional, but this part of it, and its implementation of that aspect of it, are very unlikely to be found to violate the constitution.So, I think the answer to your question is that it won’t happen.The unconstitutional portion of the ban is more likely to relate to green card holders and people who were already legal residents of the United States. Further, if any evidence develops that refugees or others are being treated differently based on religion, that implementation would likely be declared unconstitutional. But that is not delineated in the order. Rather some have made statements about preferential treatment. There would have to be provable inappropriate action.