Monday links from The Political Carnival
Busting the Republican Myth that Barack Obama is a Dictator (BlogTalkRadio)
One might think it takes a particularly ignorant individual, or individuals, to criticize the First Lady of the United States for wearing a ball gown to a state dinner. Yet, that is exactly what happened following last week’s official dinner honoring French President Francois Hollande.
On Tuesday, February 11th, First Lady Michelle Obama dazzled dinner guests wearing a GORGEOUS blue and black-laced gown designed by Venezuelan-America designer, Carolina Herrera. The next day, as if on cue, right wing darling Michelle Malkin, and her Twitter #BowDownWednesday crowd, were appalled – JUST appalled, I guess unhappy that Mrs. Obama did not “Bow Down” to their tacky level.
Amanda Marcotte states it best in the title for her piece on Slate.com, “How Dare Michelle Obama Wear a Ballgown to a State Dinner.”
The loonier edge of the right-wing media has been up in arms all week at the temerity of the Obamas to think they get to host state dinners for foreign leaders just because the country elected Barack Obama to be our president. The outrage (hopefully) reached maximum capacity when Michelle Malkin and her outrage crew at Twitchy discovered that the first lady wore ... wait for it ... a ballgown to Tuesday's state dinner for French President Francois Hollande. Not just any ballgown, but an expensive one, as tends to be the case when it comes to ballgowns worn to state dinners. Blood pressures at Twitchy rose to worrying heights when it was discovered that some journalists thought Michelle Obama looked lovely in her ballgown. In retaliation for the travesty of the first lady donning formal wear to a formal dining event, Malkin started retweeting her followers taking selfies of themselves in cheap clothes meant for casual events. We all know Michelle Malkin is not ignorant, no; she is just mean, mean and very good at frothing the ignorant masses.
Here are a few other First Ladies who missed the Malkinite message:
March 31, 1987 President and Mrs. Reagan host French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac and his wife, Bernadette. photo by Ron Edmonds/AP
The article below is a cross post from our wonderful, generous friend @Anomaly100's website: FreakOutNation. We love you, Anomaly! Be sure to like her Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/FreakOutNation
On ABC’s This Week, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) joined host George Stephanopoulos to respond to Obama’s State of the Union address, most especially noting the President’s vow to use executive powers just as other presidents have done before him. Also, Ryan addressed whether he believes the president’s proposals are unconstitutional. Spoiler: Of course he does.
The ABC host posed the question, ”Now you had a pretty tough reaction to this suggesting the president is, quote, “circumventing the Constitution.” Do you really think his proposals are unconstitutional? You know, his rate of using executive orders is far behind President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton.”
Ryan responded, “It’s not the number of executive orders, it’s the scope of the executive orders. It’s the fact that he is actually contradicting law like in the health care case, or proposing new laws without going through Congress, George, that’s the issue.”
Stephanopoulous asked, “So you think he’s violating the constitution?”
Ryan mentioned Obama’s “increasingly lawless presidency” and added, “We have an increasingly lawless presidency where he is actually doing the job of Congress, writing new policies and new laws without going through Congress.” He continued, “Presidents don’t write laws, Congress does. And when he does things like he did in health care, delaying mandates that the law said was supposed to occur when they were supposed to occur, that’s not his job. The job of congress is to change laws if he doesn’t like them, not the presidency. So…”
Actually Congress members haven’t been doing their jobs which consequentially has ranked last year’s Congress at an all time low historically speaking – in writing bills, passing bills, in doing anything.
Ryan continued, “Executive orders are one thing, but executive orders that actually change the statute, that’s totally different.”
Stephhanopoulos asked, “But if you think he’s lawless, circumventing the constitution, are you going to move to impeach?”
Ryan responded, “No, I’m not — look, what we — we have a difference of opinion, clearly, and — and some of these are going to get fought out in court. You have some court challenges with respect to religious freedom going to the court this spring.”
He continued, “But I am concerned about this trend, such as what he said at the State of the Union, that if Congress doesn’t give me the law I want, I’m going to go do it myself. That’s effectively what he said.”
“That is not the way our Constitution works” he said, adding, “And by the way, when we get sworn in, whether it’s a President or a Congressman, you swear to uphold “The Constitution.” And I think these executive orders are creating a dangerous trend which is contrary to “The Constitution.”"
The ABC host said, “Listening to both you and President Obama, on the other hand, this week, it does sound like you could have a meeting of the minds on immigration, reach a compromise on immigration reform, one that opens a path to citizenship to for the undocumented, but doesn’t necessarily guarantee nothing — doesn’t necessarily have a special path for the undocumented.”
He continued, “But this talk of compromise has unleashed a furious debate inside your own party.”
Wait for it.
Stephanopoulo continued, “I want to show you what Bill Kristol wrote in “The Weekly Standard” this week. He said, “Bringing immigration to the floor ensures a circular GOP firing squad instead of a nicely lined up one shooting together. And in the (INAUDIBLE) of ObamaCare and other horrors of big government liberalism, since there’s really no need to act this year on immigration, don’t — don’t even try.”
He asked, “Your response?”
Ryan, “Well, look, we don’t know who’s coming and going in this country, George. We don’t have control of our border. We don’t have control of interior enforcement. You just talked about the Boston bombers. And so doing nothing on the security side of this, we think, is not a responsible thing to do. It’s appropriate you brought this subject up after talking about these executive orders.”
“Here’s the issue that all Republicans agree on — we don’t trust the President to enforce the law.” He added, “So if you actually look at the standards that the Republican leadership put out, which is security first, first we have to secure the border, have interior enforcement, which is a worker verification system, a visa tracking program. Those things have to be in law, in practice and independently verified before the rest of the law can occur.”
In 2012, a book released revealed that Paul Ryan was among the Republicans who met at a covert meeting on the night of President Obama’s inauguration, with all attendees vowing to stop anything and everything the newly minted president tries to accomplish. So, yes, executive action is called for.
On Face the Nation this morning, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R) said that “there’s a lot of distrust of this administration” among House Republicans when it comes to President Obama enforcing laws, which will impact how the GOP approaches immigration reform in the House.
About that covert meeting: It was led by Eric Cantor. That distrust he speaks of? He built that.