U.S. Forefathers, Put Down Your iPads And Turn Over In Your Graves

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Dummy

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) is certainly no dummy -- I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

He's recently made some very astute observations about the state of American politics,  invoking the vaunted name of our forefathers and framers of our Constitution to make his point. He has pointed out that recent executive actions by President Obama, including a plan to extend high-speed Internet connections to virtually every school in the nation, demonstrate a "blatant" attempt to subvert the will of the American people.

Maybe he's overstating the obvious. Of course that demon Obama is subverting the will of the people. He's pushed through legislation for health care, he's pulled out every trick in the book to keep voting rights for all of those lazy, undesirables who are flocking in droves to change the outcome of local and national elections. He's even backed equal rights for gays and equal pay for women. Traitor!

Contitutional abuse

How dare he consistently abuse his Constitutionally granted powers to plot against the will of the people with such disregard for the national legislature?

Fortunately for us, The Hill has captured some of the details of the presidents subterfuge in a recent article.

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) said recent executive actions by President Obama, including a plan to extend high-speed Internet connections to virtually every school in the nation, demonstrate a "blatant" attempt to subvert the will of the American people.

Imagine that. Who does this Black guy in the White House think he is, wanting to open up the world to children of all colors and nationalities with communications to the outside world? It's enough they know what is going on in their own town of Podunk. How dare he share the world with children who are so, so vulnerable. It's just not... American.

The White House, did respond to this allegation of unilateral actions, within the powers act of government.

But White House spokesperson John Earnest did acknowledge that Obama has pursued policy objectives independently because "we have seen a little dysfunction in Congress."

"You would think that connecting schools to the information superhighway would be a pretty noncontroversial topic, particularly when it's something that could be accomplished through a relatively modest investment," Earnest said. "Unfortunately, we haven't seen a lot of action in Congress, so the president has advocated an administrative, unilateral action to get this done. We're not going to wait for Congress to act."

A little dysfunction? You think? Earnest is just being overly... earnest.

Forty votes to repeal Obamacare? Refusal to vote on everything from gun control to immigration? Food stamps for the needy to enacting restrictions on women's reproductive rights? Dysfunction? Whoa there, Congressman Grimm. Aren't you being a bit... grimm(sp)?  You're one of those causing the problem.

Congressman Grimm

You're a founding member of the Overstating the Obvious Party -- the reason the president is having to act this way. What he's doing is called decision making, acting in the best interest of this country. But what would you know about that? You're too preoccupied with shutting down of the government in the futile efforts of trying to stop Obamacare before it's even kicked in.

I bet you go to the grocery store, buy a steak and then when you get to the car, return inside and demand your money back claiming the filet was too tough or it was tasteless. You haven't even tried it yet and you're passing judgement. Stupid or just plain ignorant? Pick your label.

Am I being tough on you, congressman? I'll let your own words speak for you.

"He has an agenda and he's going to do whatever he has to do to pass that agenda, regardless of the Constitution," Grimm said. "I mean, I think our founding fathers are turning over in the graves right now because he's just so blatant in his— the administrators, the people he puts in charge of these agencies are bold and brazen about saying, 'yes, we're going to make an end run around Congress.'"

Well, I'm sure you have a point, but we'd call it ignorance. The president has a responsibility to make decisions based on the best interest of this country. I'm sure the founding fathers which you invoke, if they put down their iPhone, iPads, Playstation III's and other electronic devices long enough, would be turning over in their graves, but for a different reason. They'd be ashamed of themselves for having created such a porous Constitution that allows for right-wing whack-jobs like you from being eligible to hold public office. Right now Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, and Thomas Jefferson are probably kicking themselves that they didn't add to the eligibility requirements for holding public office some sort of sanity clause. -- and no, by sanity clause I don't mean another term for jolly old St. Nick.

Santa Claus

When you are as ignorant a man as you indicate you are with your words, perhaps what you say shouldn't be held against you. But I'm not an elected official. I'm just one of the "We, the people," so I'm exercising my rights to freedom of speech. And you have yours as well.

But when you use it to pass along crazy conspiracy theories, I'm almost a bit glad that the schools don't yet have the Internet, or they might be promoting your silly conspiracy theories and accept them instead of the truth.

The New York Republican also argued that Obama had only himself to blame for Congress's inability to pass legislation.

In rape cases, they call this "blaming the victim."

"Leadership is about leading. The president hasn't led!" Grimm said, saying "a real leader" rises above partisanship.

Isn't that the very point you're making, Obama is rising above partisanship?

Grimm also suggested that the president might intentionally be alienating members of Congress so he could unilaterally implement his policy agenda.

Now your borrowing from the stop and frisk adage, guilty of leading while Black.

"I really do believe because of political reasons, it's more advantageous for the president to keep us divided so that he can make these end runs and use these administrators and the people he puts in charge to just go around the Congress to do an agenda that he knows ultimately the people are not going to support," Grimm said.

So it's politics that to blame, not the people who are in it. Interesting argument. And doing the "end around play" is for an agenda that the people are not going to support? Really? That's the best you can do? You and your party are trying to push through a voucher system for students. Well, according to a recent independent poll conducted on behalf of the American Federation of Teachers:

...polling firm Hart Research Associates, surveyed 1,000 parents this month and found that most would rather see their neighborhood schools strengthened and given more resources than have options to enroll their children elsewhere.

Strengthened -- meaning additional resources -- not vouchers.

You say a leader should lead. You claim Obama is making unilateral choices to overcome the bottleneck. Then you accuse him of not being a leader. How confused can one man be?

Do you ever listen to the words you utter? Make up your mind. Using your argument, Obama is exactly a leader. And you, sir, on the other hand, could be considered a tyrant for obstructing Congress. Instead of tearing things down, why don't you build them up? What do you have against educating our children? Offer a plan, not sticks of dynamite to detonate what's left of our fragile democracy. Stop attacking Obama for trying to give kids an education so they can make themselves more valuable and productive members of our society.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
  • Mark

    No doubt David. House Republicans are being as obstructionist as possible about anything Obama would like to do.

    I would only add that this is kind of how the the founder's intended it. Would it be better (in all seriousness) if every Congressmen was a moderate and the President could push forth his entire Agenda year after year after year. Or did the Founder's deliberately set up a system of government that would only allow for incremental and slow change?

    Does a modern time mean we require more change faster? You seem to be arguing that. But imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and its 2016, and Ted Cruz is the new President elect with a House that flips over to Democrats. You wanna see Ted start repealing, by executive fiat, the entire legacy of the Obama Presidency without Congressional debate, approval, veto, etc.

    I think the hijacking of the Republican party by the extreme right doesn't benefit the political process because you can't get anything done. But we'd be careful to consider what happens when a President sees those roadblocks and starts legislating from the Executive branch. That is alarming. The more we skirt the Constitution from the President's office (thanks Bush, Obama) the more we run the risk of ending up with a President some day who might bring the house down on us. Or how about a drone missile? Far-fetched? If we can do it to a Pakistani child as collateral damage you think some yahoo down the road won't do it to a "domestic" threat here? You like having the President be the sole voice on who we kill overseas in the name of keeping us safe? Or do you like the Congress to sort of "check" the President on that. I don't know...maybe I am paranoid.

  • Mark

    No doubt David. House Republicans are being as obstructionist as possible about anything Obama would like to do.

    I would only add that this is kind of how the the founder's intended it. Would it be better (in all seriousness) if every Congressmen was a moderate and the President could push forth his entire Agenda year after year after year. Or did the Founder's deliberately set up a system of government that would only allow for incremental and slow change?

    Does a modern time mean we require more change faster? You seem to be arguing that. But imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and its 2016, and Ted Cruz is the new President elect with a House that flips over to Democrats. You wanna see Ted start repealing, by executive fiat, the entire legacy of the Obama Presidency without Congressional debate, approval, veto, etc.

    I think the hijacking of the Republican party by the extreme right doesn't benefit the political process because you can't get anything done. But we'd be careful to consider what happens when a President sees those roadblocks and starts legislating from the Executive branch. That is alarming. The more we skirt the Constitution from the President's office (thanks Bush, Obama) the more we run the risk of ending up with a President some day who might bring the house down on us. Or how about a drone missile? Far-fetched? If we can do it to a Pakistani child as collateral damage you think some yahoo down the road won't do it to a "domestic" threat here? You like having the President be the sole voice on who we kill overseas in the name of keeping us safe? Or do you like the Congress to sort of "check" the President on that. I don't know...maybe I am paranoid.