Conservatives Slam Obama For Quoting Scripture, But He Loves God More Than Ronald Reagan Did
The right wing went predictably nuts over President Obama’s immigration speech Thursday night, but they particularly keyed in on the President’s use of biblical scripture in his address. Toward the end of the speech, the President made this reference, from Exodus 23-9:
“Are we a nation that kicks out a striving, hopeful immigrant like Astrid, or are we a nation that finds a way to welcome her in? Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger –- we were strangers once, too.”
That portion of the speech drew immediate, enthusiastic praise from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and later, a kind of hilarious backhanded slam from Reverend Al Sharpton:
“You know it really is effective when the President has Rachel Maddow excited about scripture. This is a big night.”
Contrary to popular belief, however, non-atheist liberals have a tremendous amount of respect and affection for Christianity, particularly the wisdom contained in well-chosen scriptures like these. It’s the acts and ideas of specific Christians that we often object to. To them, and to those in the ostensible center of the country’s political landscape, that quote was a big win, a concise summation of our nation’s welcoming ethos.
In conservative-land. reaction to the President’s biblical moment was…READ MORE
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Tommy Christopher
Tommy Christopher is The Daily Banter's White House Correspondent and Political Analyst. He's been a political reporter and liberal commentator since 2007, and has covered the White House since the beginning of the Obama administration, first for PoliticsDaily, and then for Mediaite. Christopher is a frequent guest on a variety of television, radio, and online programs, and was the villain in the documentaries The Audacity of Democracy and Hating Breitbart. He's also That Guy Who Live-Tweeted His Own Heart Attack, and the only person to have ever received public apologies from both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
tiredoftea November 21st, 2014 at 17:39
How dare the Kenyan usurper anti-christ spew scripture at the god fearing christians who are denying compassion and brotherly behavior to people in need. BTW, we’re suing him for Obamacare, too!
tiredoftea November 21st, 2014 at 18:39
How dare the Kenyan usurper anti-christ spew scripture at the god fearing christians who are denying compassion and brotherly behavior to people in need. BTW, we’re suing him for Obamacare, too!
granpa.usthai November 21st, 2014 at 17:55
I thought it was appropriate, considering he’s speaking to 2014 America instead of the Republican’s 1932 Germany.
– but for all his criminal activities, POTUS Reagan did the right thing on immigration.
INSTANT CITIZENSHIP for the millions cleared the blockage in the Federal System, added enough income to the US Treasury to keep America from being completely destroyed by voodoo economics and strengthened our ties with the Mexican speaking folks. Nice for the neighborhood when the neighbors are friendly.
granpa.usthai November 21st, 2014 at 18:55
I thought it was appropriate, considering he’s speaking to 2014 America instead of the Republican’s 1932 Germany.
– but for all his criminal activities, POTUS Reagan did the right thing on immigration.
INSTANT CITIZENSHIP for the millions cleared the blockage in the Federal System, added enough income to the US Treasury to keep America from being completely destroyed by voodoo economics and strengthened our ties with the Mexican speaking folks. Nice for the neighborhood when the neighbors are friendly.
Suzanne McFly November 21st, 2014 at 17:56
I think Obama did it on purpose, he probably told Michelle, “Here beautiful, hold my beer and watch this”.
whatthe46 November 21st, 2014 at 21:03
lol
Kick Frenzy November 22nd, 2014 at 00:40
I think you’re right… did you see the micro-expression smile at the end of his scripture quote?
:)
mea_mark November 21st, 2014 at 17:56
The republicans are taking the bait and freaking out. I bet Obama starts doing stuff like this a lot over the next 2 years. Might as well as play with them, goad them, and yank their chains as much as possible. What else are they good for?
m2old4bs November 21st, 2014 at 18:03
Well, I think it is more than warranted, given the actions of the republicans over the last 6 years.
Tim Coolio November 21st, 2014 at 19:48
Obama is giving them rope and they will hang themselves with it.
Suzanne McFly November 21st, 2014 at 18:56
I think Obama did it on purpose, he probably told Michelle, “Here beautiful, hold my beer and watch this”.
whatthe46 November 21st, 2014 at 22:03
lol
Kick Frenzy November 22nd, 2014 at 01:40
I think you’re right… did you see the micro-expression smile at the end of his scripture quote?
:)
mea_mark November 21st, 2014 at 18:56
The republicans are taking the bait and freaking out. I bet Obama starts doing stuff like this a lot over the next 2 years. Might as well as play with them, goad them, and yank their chains as much as possible. What else are they good for?
m2old4bs November 21st, 2014 at 19:03
Well, I think it is more than warranted, given the actions of the republicans over the last 6 years.
Tim Coolio November 21st, 2014 at 20:48
Obama is giving them rope and they will hang themselves with it.
Roctuna November 21st, 2014 at 18:24
You can only quote scripture if there’s an “R” after your name and state, or if your a faux news pundit.
Roctuna November 21st, 2014 at 19:24
You can only quote scripture if there’s an “R” after your name and state, or if your a faux news pundit.
Budda November 21st, 2014 at 18:28
Great picture of Rachel..what.. was she in a car accident?
Budda November 21st, 2014 at 19:28
Great picture of Rachel..what.. was she in a car accident?
StoneyCurtisll November 21st, 2014 at 18:30
Last time I heard a right winger/republican quote ‘scripture’ it went something like this..
http://p1cdn01.thewrap.com/images/2014/03/FRED-PHELPS-DEAD-618-618×400.jpg
StoneyCurtisll November 21st, 2014 at 19:30
Last time I heard a right winger/republican quote ‘scripture’ it went something like this..
http://p1cdn01.thewrap.com/images/2014/03/FRED-PHELPS-DEAD-618-618×400.jpg
Tim Coolio November 21st, 2014 at 19:47
God is not pro rich or pro war like conservatives are.
Tim Coolio November 21st, 2014 at 20:47
God is not pro rich or pro war like conservatives are.
Wayout November 21st, 2014 at 20:27
Ok, now that Obama has done his dirty deed and all you libs are popping the champagne corks and slapping each other’s backs in joy, I’d like to present this scenario. It’s January 2017 and Senator Ted Cruz has been sworn in as our new president. Along with this wonderful turn of events, the Repubs have retained control of the Senate while the Dems have taken over the House.
President Cruz comes up with a bill completely overhauling the tax system and the Senate agrees, while of course the now obstructionist House refuses to bring the bill up.
After 500 days, President Cruz says he has given the House enough time to vote and since they won’t act, he will. By executive order, he directs the IRS to defer collecting all corporate income taxes and he completely changes the personal income tax scheme.
Question: In light of Obama’s precedent setting action on immigration, is President Cruz”s executive order likewise on firm constitutional grounds as you libs say Obama’s is?
whatthe46 November 21st, 2014 at 21:00
WTF are you smoking?
Wayout November 21st, 2014 at 21:05
Come on, just answer the question.
Obewon November 21st, 2014 at 22:38
Answer your own question on the teabagg site you it copied from.
Obewon November 21st, 2014 at 22:48
Ted Cruz says that in the midterms, Americans “overwhelmingly said we don’t want” Obamacare & “amnesty.”-PolitiFact proves Candan Birther Cruz False http://ow.ly/EFSbd
Wayout November 22nd, 2014 at 04:43
Can’t you ever be specific? I know, because your claim would fall flat on it’s face. None of those you mentioned have ever continually and consistently violated our Constitution like the Bamster. NONE!
Obewon November 22nd, 2014 at 08:19
? You were “Specifically” debunked preemptively by your own Pope! And by PolitiFact citing Fox News 2014 Exit polls: “Should most illegal immigrants working in the United States be. …” with one of two options. “Offered a chance to apply for legal status” was chosen by 57% of Fox News 2014 Exit Poll respondents, while “deported to the country they came from” was the choice of 39% (This question also had a 3-percentage-point sampling error margin, but the gap was so big that the error margin doesn’t come into play.) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/21/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-2014-elections-voters-made-clear-the/ Voter Majorities Exit polled by Fox News, know Wayout’s GOP and Ted Cruz are Constitutionally illiterate racists, as evidenced by Obama Derangement Syndrome delusional disorder.
Dwendt44 November 22nd, 2014 at 12:30
AND they have been here over 5 years, which means that the supposed ‘flood’ of new illegals won’t be eligible.
Dwendt44 November 21st, 2014 at 23:29
Let’s see, that’s either a drug induced fantasy or wishful thinking. Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen so he’s not eligible to be president.
Thirdly, Democrats will retake the Senate.
Forth, all monetary bills must start in the House.
Fifth, it’s not going to happen.
Sixth, and just as important, That would be altering the law, Obama didn’t alter the law, he ‘Deferred Action’, which is legal. It’s NOT amnesty.
Robert M. Snyder November 21st, 2014 at 23:33
Jonathan Turley said pretty much the same thing tonight on Megan Kelly’s program. He said the same things when Bush was president. I agree with Turley. This concentration of power in the hands of the executive is setting a dangerous precedent.
The danger is that the laws and regulations governing our lives will become less stable if they are subject to the whims of the current sitting president.
Shame on Boehner for not bringing the Senate bill up for a vote, and shame on Reid for not bring various House bills up for a vote. It seems as though everybody (house, senate, and executive) is subverting the process.
Obewon November 22nd, 2014 at 00:32
Shame on your Boehner for not bringing the Immigration bill to an Up or Down vote in the past 1.5 years that has had Huge bi-partisan support for passage! Weeper of the House fears he would lose his Lowest rated & least productive Congress Speaker job.
“And shame on Reid for not bring various House bills up for a vote.”-Only fools believe any bill not brought to the Senate floor would pass by 60 Votes: Greedy Oil Party’s Claim That House Passed 30 Jobs Bills? Bogus! http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/gops-claim-house-passed-30-jobs-bills-bogus “We’ve got to stop being the Stupid Party!”-Jindal. GOP’s Keystoner XL Pipe expansion “Creates 34 Permanent Jobs”-It’s a party for dumbasses having no realistic plans or successes in the entire 21st century! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UbGtjnluyY
Kick Frenzy November 22nd, 2014 at 00:37
While I like what you wrote and I also love that song, I just have to ask…
What’s left if you leave your body AND soul at the door?
Obewon November 22nd, 2014 at 00:42
Great question! Buddhists believe leaving the physical emanates a brilliant dharmakaya clearlight radiance also evidenced by the rainbow body left behind.
fahvel November 22nd, 2014 at 03:47
kkk
Kick Frenzy November 22nd, 2014 at 00:25
That is a worthwhile question… or rather, one that deserves a serious answer.
There are issues with your comparison.
First, would this be a temporary relief of tax burden? If not, then it nullifies the whole argument as that would be illegal.
Second, is there a significant amount of tax collection on non-corporate income not being performed because too many resources are spent on recovering corporate taxes? If not, then there’s no need to exercise prosecutorial discretion, therefore not meeting the requirements of being with the presidents purview for that reasoning.
In his favor would be that the IRS falls under the federal executive branch, so he would at least be within his power to be looking at administrative changes (like the ones President Obama has taken with immigration).
BUT, to play pretend and get to the meat…
Let’s say we had a President(e) Cruz and he somehow made a case for saying corporate tax collection was an unnecessary use of resources and could be better used to collect taxes on non-corporate entities instead, then had a plan to relieve corporate taxes on a temporary basis and finally realized it through executive action… then it seems like it might be on (not-very) firm constitutional ground.
But then, of course, the country would experience a Depression that could rival the original Great one and he would be impeached for completely f*king the country up the patootie.
Wayout November 22nd, 2014 at 04:39
First, there is nothing “temporary” about Obama’s dictate. We all know that not one illegal person covered under his scheme will ever be deported. And Obama is not just engaging in “prosecutorial discretion” but refusing to deport millions of people here illegally AND giving them valid government documents.
But I’ll play along and for the sake of comparison with Obama, yes, it would be temporary with a President Cruz bill until Congress passes the bill he wanted to sign.
It was a nice try, but your Obama like fillibustering takes a simple question and attempts to confuse things. Only a yes or no answer to a non-complicated query is required.
veggiedude November 22nd, 2014 at 11:10
“We all know that not one illegal person covered under his scheme will ever be deported.” That’s right. Why deport people who are no threat to us (such as children) when there are others who are real criminals, and it takes more resources to go after them because they are ruthless and systematic about hiding from the law? Deport the ones who are the criminals – there’s plenty of them to catch. What’s wrong with that idea??
Dwendt44 November 22nd, 2014 at 12:25
What valid government documents?
Kick Frenzy November 22nd, 2014 at 15:07
It is temporary.
Your personal assumptions don’t define reality.
And yes, he is using prosecutorial discretion when he says to concentrate resources on criminals instead of otherwise innocent families.
And the valid government documents you’re talking about are part of that discretion in practice, providing a physical means to show you’re legally allowed to be working in the country and are not supposed to be targeted for deportation.
A big advantage of this method is that instead of hiding and having to take jobs off the books, they can get regular jobs… and pay taxes!
As for Cruz’ temporary executive action, I imagine that saying it was a temporary stop-gap measure until a bill is passed would probably be allowed.
I wasn’t trying to confuse anything and if you think you’re question only needs a simple “yes or no” to completely answer the question, then you’re starting out from a disingenuous point.
The truth is that President Obama has acted like a good boss.
He’s seen that we have 11 million illegal immigrants.
He knows that Congress only approves enough resources to deport up to ~400,000 a year.
He has simply said to concentrate limited resources on the more egregious offenders of the law, while finding a way to collect resources from those now protected from deportation.
There’s really nothing to dislike about this action unless you simply just hate Obama and/or Democrats.
Or if you just like being anti-Christian and un-American, then yeah… those are also reasons to complain.
veggiedude November 22nd, 2014 at 00:28
Congress and only Congress controls the purse strings. Only they can change the tax system.
This video will explain it to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE
What Obama is doing with immigration has been done by many other presidents. As usual, you ignore what all other presidents have done, and attack Obama for doing the same thing over and over and over again… it’s why we can’t take your side seriously on practically anything.
Wayout November 22nd, 2014 at 04:15
Repeating the same lie over and over again does not make it true. The other presidents did their executive orders concerning immigration IN CONJUNCTION with the Congress to rectify recently passed laws.
Carla Akins November 22nd, 2014 at 04:49
No, Congress only chose to jump on the bandwagon after, far after the executive order and there is no reason to think it may not happen here.
rg9rts November 22nd, 2014 at 05:19
Common troll Carla…
Carla Akins November 22nd, 2014 at 05:23
LOL. I don’t know about common, Wayout seems to take his troll responsibilities very seriously. ;-)
rg9rts November 22nd, 2014 at 05:34
Its known in the trade as a sick puppy…obsesses to the point of terminal stupidity…sort of like Beck or Hannity
Wayout November 22nd, 2014 at 05:50
And I feel exactly the same about you. Terminal stupidity in supporting a president who consistently has disregarded the Constitution.
rg9rts November 22nd, 2014 at 06:22
Like his predecessors… Go back to bund land…you aren’t even a mediocre troll LOL
veggiedude November 22nd, 2014 at 11:07
Congress not doing their job is disregarding the Constitution! Let them pass a friggin Bill, what’s the hold up?? This is why the President has to act, and he is hoping they will do their job as a result. Good for him.
jasperjava November 22nd, 2014 at 01:10
You’re sick. You’re insane.
fahvel November 22nd, 2014 at 03:45
thank you for that – the invectives that rise in my gorge when wahoo says anything can now be kept at home so all the good folks don’t have to see them.
Wayout November 22nd, 2014 at 04:20
I see, you cannot honestly answer the question so you resort to an ad hominum attack on my mental well being. Either a President Cruz’s action is constitutional as Obama’s is, or it is un-constitutional as Obama’s is. You get a big fat INCOMPLETE.
rg9rts November 22nd, 2014 at 05:18
You are sick…but the reality is you are nothing more than a common troll …and not too good at being that either.
rg9rts November 22nd, 2014 at 05:18
Nazi’s were good christians too
bpollen November 22nd, 2014 at 07:04
You start with a faulty premise:
“It’s January 2017 and Senator Ted Cruz has been sworn in as our new president.”
It’s just as untenable as:
“It’s January 2017 and Senator Rand Paul has superpowers.”
That’s before we even get to the “precedent setting action” that was set by Ronald Reagan, not to mention the Bushies…
So, to sum up, you come up with a nonsense hypothetical in order to bash Obama. It doesn’t even have enough substance to it to be a straw-man argument. If you can’t come up with a more substantive way of presenting your opposition to immigration, there is absolutely no point in engaging your argument.
OldLefty November 22nd, 2014 at 07:48
So you should have been calling for the impeachment of Lincoln, Reagan, Bush and Bush?
Reagan declared children of legal parents would not be deported; Obama is prepared to declare that parents of legal children will not be deported. Why is one a lawful act performed by the patron saint of the Republican Party, while the other is an impeachable offense?
The tax code example has nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion as to which violators are a priority and which are not.
Look up the McNulty Memo. No problem there?
The problem now is that American politicians know they can lie all the time because the public is probably the most uninformed in history.
There is an inverse proportionality between the time spent on “news” in mass media and the public’s knowledge of the issues.
Roctuna November 22nd, 2014 at 11:08
Nice try, if a bit fantastical (Pres. Cruz, never gonna happen). The specifics of the tax code such as rates and exemptions are in the legislation that authorizes the taxation. If such specifics about status and deportation were in current immigration law we probably wouldn’t be in the situation we are. That’s what Obama has been trying to get Congress to do for 6+ years.
arc99 November 22nd, 2014 at 11:40
there is nothing in the Federal code to extend prosecutorial discretion to the collection of taxes by the executive branch.
the Federal code does in fact provide extensive prosecutorial discretion to the enforcement of immigration law.
No, a Cruz order to stop collection of taxes has no foundation in law.
Discretion on immigration enforcement does.
Try educating yourself and doing some research before you start parroting some ridiculous apples-to-concrete comparison scenario,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42924.pdf
More recently, in its decision in Arizona v. United States, a majority of the Court arguably similarly affirmed the authority of the executive branch not to seek the removal of certain aliens, noting that “[a] principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion entrusted to immigration officials,” and that “[r]eturning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission.According to the majority, such exercises of prosecutorial discretion
may reflect “immediate human concerns” and the “equities of … individual case[s],” such as whether the alien has children born in the United States or ties to the community, as well as “policy choices that bear on … international relations.”
arc99 November 22nd, 2014 at 11:49
If your mythical and unlikely President Cruz issued an order to suspend prosecution for tax evasion of specific groups, that could very well be legal. I do not presume to know.
But the salient point is that in your hypothetical scenario, liberals would grudgingly accept the decision and go about the business of winning elections to change the law. We would not be prone to insane rants about tyranny and lawlessness.
burqa November 24th, 2014 at 02:39
Failing to make a factual argument grounded in reality, you resort to fantasy.
Dream on…..
Wayout November 21st, 2014 at 21:27
Ok, now that Obama has done his dirty deed and all you libs are popping the champagne corks and slapping each other’s backs in joy, I’d like to present this scenario. It’s January 2017 and Senator Ted Cruz has been sworn in as our new president. Along with this wonderful turn of events, the Repubs have retained control of the Senate while the Dems have unfortunately taken over the House.
President Cruz comes up with a bill completely overhauling the tax system and the Senate agrees, while of course the now obstructionist House refuses to bring the bill up.
After 500 days, President Cruz says he has given the House enough time to vote and since they won’t act, he will. By executive order, he directs the IRS to defer collecting all corporate income taxes and he completely changes the personal income tax scheme.
Question: In light of Obama’s precedent setting action on immigration, is President Cruz”s executive order likewise on firm constitutional grounds as you libs say Obama’s is?
whatthe46 November 21st, 2014 at 22:00
WTF are you smoking?
Wayout November 21st, 2014 at 22:05
Come on, just answer the question.
Obewon November 21st, 2014 at 23:38
Answer your own question on the teabagg site you copied it from.
Obewon November 21st, 2014 at 23:48
Ted Cruz says that in the midterms, Americans “overwhelmingly said we don’t want” Obamacare & “amnesty.”-PolitiFact proves Candan birther Cruz false http://ow.ly/EFSbd Obama sounds just like Bush on #immigration… No, really. Watch full video here: http://cnn.it/1BUxmFP https://twitter.com/RichardOHornos/status/535839187048890368
Wayout November 22nd, 2014 at 05:43
Can’t you ever be specific? I know, because your claim would fall flat on it’s face. None of those you mentioned have ever continually and consistently violated our Constitution like the Bamster. NONE!
Obewon November 22nd, 2014 at 09:19
? You were “specifically” debunked preemptively by your own Pope Francis! And by PolitiFact citing Fox News 2014 Exit polls: “Should most illegal immigrants working in the United States be. …” with one of two options. “Offered a chance to apply for legal status” was chosen by 57% of Fox News 2014 Exit Poll respondents, while “deported to the country they came from” was the choice of 39% (This question also had a 3-percentage-point sampling error margin, but the gap was so big that the error margin doesn’t come into play.) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/21/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-2014-elections-voters-made-clear-the/ Voter Majorities Exit polled by Fox News, know many in Wayout’s GOP and Ted Cruz are Constitutionally illiterate Xenophobic racists. Well proven by Cruz, Wayout & today’s GOP Obama Derangement Syndrome delusional disorder.
FYI>”First, there is nothing “temporary” about Obama’s dictate.” This valid POTUS E-O is a 2 yr promise to not deport: IF these parents of U.S. Citizens “Pay All Their (Back) Taxes” and “pass a criminal background check” “Get to the back of the line” in applying for Citizenship. After proving they’ve committed no crimes (Immigration violations are an Infraction = Wayout’s speeding tickets.)
Dwendt44 November 22nd, 2014 at 13:30
AND they have been here over 5 years, which means that the supposed ‘flood’ of new illegals won’t be eligible.
Dwendt44 November 22nd, 2014 at 00:29
Let’s see, that’s either a drug induced fantasy or wishful thinking. Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen so he’s not eligible to be president.
Thirdly, Democrats will retake the Senate.
Forth, all monetary bills must start in the House.
Fifth, it’s not going to happen.
Sixth, and just as important, That would be altering the law, Obama didn’t alter the law, he ‘Deferred Action’, which is legal. It’s NOT amnesty.
Robert M. Snyder November 22nd, 2014 at 00:33
Jonathan Turley said pretty much the same thing tonight on Megan Kelly’s program. He said the same things when Bush was president. I agree with Turley. This concentration of power in the hands of the executive is setting a dangerous precedent.
The danger is that the laws and regulations governing our lives will become less stable if they are subject to the whims of the current sitting president.
Shame on Boehner for not bringing the Senate bill up for a vote, and shame on Reid for not bring various House bills up for a vote. It seems as though everybody (house, senate, and executive) is subverting the process.
Obewon November 22nd, 2014 at 01:32
Shame on your Boehner for not bringing the Immigration bill to an Up or Down vote in the past 1.5 years that has had Huge bi-partisan support for passage! Weeper of the House fears he would lose his Lowest rated & least productive Congress Speaker job.
“And shame on Reid for not bring various House bills up for a vote.”-Only fools believe any bill not brought to the Senate floor would pass by 60 Votes: Greedy Oil Party’s Claim That House Passed 30 Jobs Bills? Bogus! http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/gops-claim-house-passed-30-jobs-bills-bogus “We’ve got to stop being the Stupid Party!”-Jindal. GOP’s Keystoner XL Pipe expansion “Creates 34 Permanent Jobs”-It’s a party for dumbasses having no realistic plans or successes in the entire 21st century! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UbGtjnluyY
Kick Frenzy November 22nd, 2014 at 01:37
While I like what you wrote and I also love that song (awesome fan video!!!), I just have to ask…
What’s left if you leave your body AND soul at the door?
Obewon November 22nd, 2014 at 01:42
Great question! Buddhists believe leaving the physical emanates a brilliant dharmakaya clearlight radiance also evidenced by an enlightened one leaving a rainbow body for a monastery, or a Ferengi auctioneer. ‘The past is dust’-Bill & Ted’s Excellent adventure, commenting on philosopher dude SoCrates.
fahvel November 22nd, 2014 at 04:47
kkk
Kick Frenzy November 22nd, 2014 at 01:25
That is a worthwhile question… or rather, one that deserves a serious answer.
There are issues with your comparison.
First, would this be a temporary relief of tax burden? If not, then it nullifies the whole argument as that would be illegal.
Second, is there a significant amount of tax collection on non-corporate income not being performed because too many resources are spent on recovering corporate taxes? If not, then there’s no need to exercise prosecutorial discretion, therefore not meeting the requirements of being with the presidents purview for that reasoning.
In his favor would be that the IRS falls under the federal executive branch, so he would at least be within his power to be looking at administrative changes (like the ones President Obama has taken with immigration).
BUT, to play pretend and get to the meat…
Let’s say we had a President(e) Cruz and he somehow made a case for saying corporate tax collection was an unnecessary use of resources and could be better used to collect taxes on non-corporate entities instead, then had a plan to relieve corporate taxes on a temporary basis and finally realized it through executive action… then it seems like it might be on (not-very) firm constitutional ground.
But then, of course, the country would experience a Depression that could rival the original Great one and he would be impeached for completely f*king the country up the patootie.
Wayout November 22nd, 2014 at 05:39
First, there is nothing “temporary” about Obama’s dictate. We all know that not one illegal person covered under his scheme will ever be deported. And Obama is not just engaging in “prosecutorial discretion” but refusing to deport millions of people here illegally AND giving them valid government documents, all without the consent of the Congress.
But I’ll play along and for the sake of comparison with Obama, yes, it would be temporary with a President Cruz bill until Congress passes the bill he wanted to sign.
All in all it was a nice try, but your Obama like fillibustering takes a simple question and attempts to confuse things. Only a yes or no answer to my non-complicated query is really required. I can only surmise that you wish to deny the real truth of what Obama has done, or to give a President Cruz an equally positive assent for following the precedent setting action of Obama.
veggiedude November 22nd, 2014 at 12:10
“We all know that not one illegal person covered under his scheme will ever be deported.” That’s right. Why deport people who are no threat to us (such as children) when there are others who are real criminals, and it takes more resources to go after them because they are ruthless and systematic about hiding from the law? Deport the ones who are the criminals – there’s plenty of them to catch. What’s wrong with that idea??
Dwendt44 November 22nd, 2014 at 13:25
What valid government documents?
Kick Frenzy November 22nd, 2014 at 16:07
It is temporary.
Your personal assumptions don’t define reality.
And yes, he is using prosecutorial discretion when he says to concentrate resources on criminals instead of otherwise innocent families.
And the valid government documents you’re talking about are part of that discretion in practice, providing a physical means to show you’re legally allowed to be working in the country and are not supposed to be targeted for deportation.
A big advantage of this method is that instead of hiding and having to take jobs off the books, they can get regular jobs… and pay taxes!
As for Cruz’ temporary executive action, I imagine that saying it was a temporary stop-gap measure until a bill is passed would probably be allowed.
I wasn’t trying to confuse anything and if you think you’re question only needs a simple “yes or no” to completely answer the question, then you’re starting out from a disingenuous point.
The truth is that President Obama has acted like a good boss.
He’s seen that we have 11 million illegal immigrants.
He knows that Congress only approves enough resources to deport up to ~400,000 a year.
He has simply said to concentrate limited resources on the more egregious offenders of the law, while finding a way to collect resources from those now protected from deportation.
There’s really nothing to dislike about this action unless you simply just hate Obama and/or Democrats.
Or if you just like being anti-Christian and un-American, then yeah… those are also reasons to complain.
veggiedude November 22nd, 2014 at 01:28
Congress and only Congress controls the purse strings. Only they can change the tax system.
This video will explain it to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE
What Obama is doing with immigration has been done by many other presidents. As usual, you ignore what all other presidents have done, and attack Obama for doing the same thing POTUS has done over and over and over again… it’s why we can’t take your side seriously on practically anything.
Wayout November 22nd, 2014 at 05:15
Great. You answer correctly in your first paragraph and I will remind you that only the Congress can likewise legally make substantive changes to the immigration laws. At least you made an attempt to partly answer, but then go on to repeat the lie that Obama is only doing what other presidents have done. Not true, as the other presidents made their executive orders concerning immigration IN CONJUNCTION with the Congress to rectify recently passed laws by the Congress. Obama didn’t.
Carla Akins November 22nd, 2014 at 05:49
No, Congress only chose to jump on the bandwagon after, far after the executive order and there is no reason to think it may not happen here.
rg9rts November 22nd, 2014 at 06:19
Common troll Carla…
Carla Akins November 22nd, 2014 at 06:23
LOL. I don’t know about common, Wayout seems to take his troll responsibilities very seriously. ;-)
rg9rts November 22nd, 2014 at 06:34
Its known in the trade as a sick puppy…obsesses to the point of terminal stupidity…sort of like Beck or Hannity
Wayout November 22nd, 2014 at 06:50
And I feel exactly the same about you. Terminal stupidity in supporting a president who consistently has disregarded the Constitution.
rg9rts November 22nd, 2014 at 07:22
Like his predecessors… Go back to bund land…you aren’t even a mediocre troll LOL
veggiedude November 22nd, 2014 at 12:07
Congress not doing their job is disregarding the Constitution! Let them pass a friggin Bill, what’s the hold up?? This is why the President has to act, and he is hoping they will do their job as a result. Good for him.
jasperjava November 22nd, 2014 at 02:10
You’re sick. You’re insane.
Anybody who thinks that Ted Cruz as president would be a “wonderful” thing is dangerously mentally unbalanced. I suggest you get yourself committed to a mental institution, for your own protection and that of those around you.
fahvel November 22nd, 2014 at 04:45
thank you for that – the invectives that rise in my gorge when wahoo says anything can now be kept at home so all the good folks don’t have to see them.
Wayout November 22nd, 2014 at 05:20
I see, you cannot honestly answer the question so you resort to an ad hominum attack on my mental well being. Either a President Cruz’s action is constitutional as Obama’s is, or it would be as un-constitutional as Obama’s is. You get a big fat INCOMPLETE.
rg9rts November 22nd, 2014 at 06:18
You are sick…but the reality is you are nothing more than a common troll …and not too good at being that either.
rg9rts November 22nd, 2014 at 06:18
Nazi’s were good christians too
bpollen November 22nd, 2014 at 08:04
You start with a faulty premise:
“It’s January 2017 and Senator Ted Cruz has been sworn in as our new president.”
It’s just as untenable as:
“It’s January 2017 and Senator Rand Paul has superpowers.”
That’s before we even get to the “precedent setting action” that was set by Ronald Reagan, not to mention the Bushies…
So, to sum up, you come up with a nonsense hypothetical in order to bash Obama. It doesn’t even have enough substance to it to be a straw-man argument. If you can’t come up with a more substantive way of presenting your opposition to immigration, there is absolutely no point in engaging your argument.
OldLefty November 22nd, 2014 at 08:48
So you should have been calling for the impeachment of Lincoln, Reagan, Bush and Bush?
Reagan declared children of legal parents would not be deported; Obama is prepared to declare that parents of legal children will not be deported. Why is one a lawful act performed by the patron saint of the Republican Party, while the other is an impeachable offense?
The tax code example has nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion as to which violators are a priority and which are not.
Look up the McNulty Memo. No problem there?
The problem now is that American politicians know they can lie all the time because the public is probably the most uninformed in history.
There is an inverse proportionality between the time spent on “news” in mass media and the public’s knowledge of the issues.
Roctuna November 22nd, 2014 at 12:08
Nice try, if a bit fantastical (Pres. Cruz, never gonna happen). The specifics of the tax code such as rates and exemptions are in the legislation that authorizes the taxation. If such specifics about status and deportation were in current immigration law we probably wouldn’t be in the situation we are. That’s what Obama has been trying to get Congress to do for 6+ years.
arc99 November 22nd, 2014 at 12:40
there is nothing in the Federal code to extend prosecutorial discretion to the collection of taxes by the executive branch.
the Federal code does in fact provide extensive prosecutorial discretion to the enforcement of immigration law.
No, a Cruz order to stop collection of taxes has no foundation in law.
Discretion on immigration enforcement does.
Try educating yourself and doing some research before you start parroting some ridiculous apples-to-concrete comparison scenario,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42924.pdf
More recently, in its decision in Arizona v. United States, a majority of the Court arguably similarly affirmed the authority of the executive branch not to seek the removal of certain aliens, noting that “[a] principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion entrusted to immigration officials,” and that “[r]eturning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission.According to the majority, such exercises of prosecutorial discretion
may reflect “immediate human concerns” and the “equities of … individual case[s],” such as whether the alien has children born in the United States or ties to the community, as well as “policy choices that bear on … international relations.”
arc99 November 22nd, 2014 at 12:49
If your mythical and unlikely President Cruz issued an order to suspend prosecution for tax evasion of specific groups, that could very well be legal. I do not presume to know.
But the salient point is that in your hypothetical scenario, liberals would grudgingly accept the decision and go about the business of winning elections to change the law. We would not be prone to insane rants about tyranny and lawlessness.
burqa November 24th, 2014 at 03:39
Failing to make a factual argument grounded in reality, you resort to fantasy.
Dream on…..
fahvel November 22nd, 2014 at 03:43
what does exodus have to do with xians?
Carla Akins November 22nd, 2014 at 04:45
It’s the 2nd book of the old testament (if I remember correctly) it tells of the Israelites leaving Eqypt and slavery.
fahvel November 23rd, 2014 at 03:32
old testament – not xian – just an old ancient history of sorts.
Detected_as_spam November 22nd, 2014 at 18:00
Also
thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger,
seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. – Exodus 23:9
fahvel November 23rd, 2014 at 03:31
nothing to do with xians – nice thought though as long as El is telling you not to do it any one outside your own personal cult – these ragamuffins weren’t even hebrews at the time.
Detected_as_spam November 23rd, 2014 at 14:18
Moses wasn’t Hebrew? That’s news to me. How about if you back to your Moose Limb country and enjoy all that peace.
burqa November 24th, 2014 at 02:37
Sorry, but in the portion of the Bible specifically addressed to Christians, we are informed that some of the Scriptures are for our doctrine, and others, like the Book of Exodus, are for our learning.
Once this is understood, many of the so-called “contradictions” in the Bible are shown to not be contradictory at all and things become much more clear.
fahvel November 22nd, 2014 at 04:43
what does exodus have to do with xians?
Carla Akins November 22nd, 2014 at 05:45
It’s the 2nd book of the old testament (if I remember correctly) it tells of the Israelites leaving Eqypt and slavery.
fahvel November 23rd, 2014 at 04:32
old testament – not xian – just an old ancient history of sorts.
$129617082 November 22nd, 2014 at 19:00
Also
thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger,
seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. – Exodus 23:9
fahvel November 23rd, 2014 at 04:31
nothing to do with xians – nice thought though as long as El is telling you not to do it any one outside your own personal cult – these ragamuffins weren’t even hebrews at the time.
$129617082 November 23rd, 2014 at 15:18
Moses wasn’t Hebrew? That’s news to me. How about if you back to your Moose Limb country and enjoy all that peace.
burqa November 24th, 2014 at 03:37
Sorry, but in the portion of the Bible specifically addressed to Christians, we are informed that some of the Scriptures are for our doctrine, and others, like the Book of Exodus, are for our learning.
Once this is understood, many of the so-called “contradictions” in the Bible are shown to not be contradictory at all and things become much more clear.