We have officially entered a parallel universe. This would be comical if two border agents were not dead because of the insufferable stupidity of the DOJ and now President Obama’s blind protectionism of his guy Eric Holder.
Charlie Rangel claims Obama is using executive privilege to “Protect the Constitution“.
Please accept this in the spirit of intent: Any person(s), regardless of party affiliation, who will attempt to convey a message that President Obama, is in some manner or form, protecting the constitution, by lying, is an idiot.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/20/Holder-will-lose-exec-priv-claim
Some helpful analysis on varieties of executive privilege that may be claimed.
I keep thinking the Breitbartians still have much held in reserve, and occasionally they lift their heads from their keyboards, they make eye contact and silently inquire of one another: “NOW?”
And on some day that still lies ahead, the response and consensus in their excellent American eyes across the room is going to be: “YES! NOW!!”
About two weeks before the election would be good.
Desperate and Pathetic.
Wait…are we talking about Barack Obama or Angela Corey?
obama does not even know what is in or what the Constitution states.
TRAITOR, hates The United States, AMERICAN exceptionalism and what this country has done for the world, all of it.
Well, it’s for damn sure Charlie Rangel doesn’t know what is in the Constitution. I doubt the slime bag ever read it in his entire life. Too busy searching for same sex partners who will multi-task at his tony D.C. residence.
2001 obama chicago public interview wbez.fm ..”Constitution is a charter of negative liberties,”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
If you don’t have time to listen, here is a transcript:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
No we are tired of the government doing crap behind our backs…