A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Executive Orders signed by Presidents

Posted: Jun 19, 2012

If you want to see a breakdown and number of executive orders signed by our presidents all the way up to obama.

For the poster who said Bush had more EOs than obama, you are correct. 291 EOs were signed by Bush in his EIGHT years. 128 EOs so far have been signed by obama in his THREE+ years. To date, obama has outsigned Bush whent it comes to EOs.

;

One thing to add - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I do not think it's correct to compare 8 years to 3 years. What would be the correct assessment would be to see how many orders Bush signed in his first three years. Then a comparison can be made.

Also, what are the context of the EOs. Did one sign to help poor people and another signed to go to war without authorization and things like that. It will be interesting to see what exact EOs were signed and why.

If you go to the link the OP provided... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
and click on GW Bush, it gives you a break down year by year of how many EOS were signed - it's 126 for Bush's first three years. However, there's no information on what those EOs were -that would take a bit more research. I'd be more than willing to take that on, but probably not until Friday (that's my only day off - lol!)

Nevermind what I said about more research :) - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
If you click on GW Bush and get the year by year listing of the number of EOs signed, you can then click on the year and it gives you a numerical list of the EOs that you can then click on and it gives you a pdf that explains what each EO is. You will, however, need some time to go through them all :)

Did any of Pres. Bush's EOs disobey - the constitution?

[ In Reply To ..]
Like Pres. O's?

No Bush did not violate Constitution - Bush LOVES USA & CONSTITUTION

[ In Reply To ..]
O loves nothing except the image he sees in the mirror.

O - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
O is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Bush said it was just a *** piece of paper. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I couldn't quote him exactly, since the outright profanity he used would get me banned from this board.

No, Bush had nothing but contempt for the Constitution.

President Bush did not say that - Nice Try

[ In Reply To ..]

Doug Thompson has retracted what he wrote.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/37544

Smells like a viral email to me - Since y'all like FactCheck so much

[ In Reply To ..]
Did you bother to check on the facts. It's a disgrace when people will just make thing up because of their hatred for a person.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

And here it says CapitalBlue, has retracted the claim. It never happened.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_George_Bush_say_the_constitution_is_just_a_piece_of_paper_If_so_where_was_this_comment_first_reported_in_a_credible_media_source_and_by_whom_Who_heard_him_say_it_I_need_documentation.

Yes. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

A couple of examples - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
to illustrate this point....It would take hours and hours and more hours of time I don't have to put a comprehensive list together, but here are a few right off the top of my head. Even though it's been a few years now, my memory of Ws decrees is as sharp as though they happened just yesterday.

1. The scope of Ws Warrantless Wiretapping (terrorist surveillance program) included American citizens, raising Article I and II checks and balances issues and 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendment unreasonable search and seizure, probable cause, and due process challenges.
2. Vagaries contained in EO 13438, entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq," have been interpreted as having the potential to criminalize anti-war dissent, in violation of 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments.
3. Jerome Corsi challenged the constitutionality of the executive order entitled National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, AKA "Executive Directive 51.”
Second Amendment gun huggers challenged the constitutionality of EO 13286.
4. Not an EO, but worth mentioning, Bush signed the Military Commissions Act in 2006. Provisions contained in that Act which essentially eliminated writ of habeas corpus were declared unconstitutional June 12, 2008 in the Boumediene vs Bush case.

Numbers 3 and 4 are my faves, since W fans will have a tough time arguing with Jerome Corsi and final decisions from SCOTUS.

brava - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

If you want this mud slinging to stick - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
you should at least specify to which EO you are referring, and if you want to encourage an actual conversation, it would be helpful for you to explain exactly how you think the EO you specify is in violation of the Constitution. Otherwise, this comment is just another boring, unsubstantiated drive-by shot.

These are the same driveby "wingnuts" (direct lib quote) - that never have

[ In Reply To ..]
a fact posted, expect everybody else to do their research, namecall relentlessly, disregard every source posted by a repub or conserve, and think they are credible because they draw breath.

Define "These". Post obviously directed toward a con. - Logic MIA alert.

[ In Reply To ..]
If you can't answer the question, what do you hope to accomplish by posting these departures that only serve to emphasize that you can't (or unwilling to try to) assemble an informative response? Here's the question: What EOs of President Obama are unconstitutional and why? It's a simple question posed to the original poster to expound on the content of her own post.

Your definition of "these" - Guess it is a Dem thing

[ In Reply To ..]
not knowing what the definition of "is" is, and that came for Rhodes scholar Clinton...sheeesh.

these (z) pron. & adj. Plural of this. [Middle English, from Old English thæs, variant of th s, pl. of thes, this, this; see to-in Indo-European roots.]
www.thefreedictionary.com/these - Cached

Avoiding direct questions and issues at all costs. - Must be a con thing.

[ In Reply To ..]
Despite these inartful dodges, oblique references to irrelevant grudge bearing against a globally revered former president, and failed attempts at stale political humor, the message comes in loud and clear. You decline to respond to a simple request for specifics because you don't have any. Got it.

Avoiding direct questions and issues at all costs. - Must be a con thing. - NO PURELY A DEMOCRAT "THAING"...

[ In Reply To ..]
...

Off topic - but - the term "drive-by" media - was coined by no other than

[ In Reply To ..]
Rush Limbaugh!

ROFL. - The irony is priceless. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

There was no mention of media in the post. Drive-by - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
has been used in many contexts long before Rush added media to it.

Yeah Rush - Love him!

[ In Reply To ..]
x

exactly - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Mudslinging? Not sure the original poster - was doing that, but here is a good source:

[ In Reply To ..]
It's from Wordpress:

But a President may not lawfully, by means of “orders”, exercise powers not delegated to him by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress.

Yet Obama has issued various executive orders which are unlawful because they are not authorized by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress. Here are two executive orders which are particularly pernicious because they undermine our foundational Principle of “Federalism”, and have as their object the “improper consolidation of the States into one … republic.”: 10

E.O.13575 – Establishment of the White House Rural Council: This E.O. provides for over 25 federal departments & agencies to run every aspect of rural life!

E.O. Establishing Council of Governors: The effect of this E.O. is to erase the Independence and Sovereignty of the States and consolidate us into a national system under the boot of the Executive Branch.

Joseph Stalin couldn’t do better than this. These E.O.s are blatantly unconstitutional as usurpations of powers not granted in The Constitution! So, Nullify them!

3. Likewise, executive agencies may not, by means of “administrative rulemaking”, usurp the powers of Congress. (Remember, because of Art. I, Sec.1, all rulemaking by executive agencies is unconstitutional)!

Not to mention - the most recent --

[ In Reply To ..]
--amnesty for illegal aliens.

There is no amnesty for illegal aliens. - NOT TRUE nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

No amnesty - yeah right - Amnesty EXACTLY what the ***wants

[ In Reply To ..]
.

No, amnesty and temporary deferred deportation for a select few - are NOT the same thing

[ In Reply To ..]
but don't let that stop you from spreading false info. Keep in mind that most Americans, and ESPECIALLY immigrants whose votes the GOP are hopelessly trying to capture with their misinformation campaign, know the difference very well.

The EO has no provision for a pathway to ANY legal status. Amnesty does, and it typically encompasses a much broader immigrant population. The DREAM Act does propose an elaborate set of criteria allowing this same small target group (not all immigrants) to attain legal status. It's dead in the water for the time being, though it is becoming apparent that the tide is turning on both sides of the aisle on this issue. I guess some folks are just determined to stay on the wrong side of history.

Oh, BTW, the executive branch of the govt IS authorized to address immigration enforcement issues (which is what deportation is)....it's change in the actual statutes that require Congressional approval.

Amnesty may be EXACTLY what Obama wants in the long run - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
but his EO in no way grants amnesty to anyone.

Although Obama's EO does not grant amnesty - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Anbody thinking Obama is not going to work it into amnesty is only kidding themselves. What is more disturbing than anything about this is the total disregard Obama has for the Constitution. This EO does not fix the problem, and Obama has addressed none of the long-term issues. Obama only went after those he thought could help Obama.

He can't, so he won't, but his support of the DREAM Act - is no secret.

[ In Reply To ..]
Ever hear of a presidential pardon? How about pardons from state governors? Ring any bells? The executive branch of federal and state governments is and always has been authorized to deal with enforcement issues. Deportation is part of the enforcement arm of immigration and has nothing to do with creating statutes that require congressional approval. Deferred deportation does not make the deportation order go away, so EO has nothing to do with amnesty by any stretch of the imagination. There is no blatent disregard for the Constitution anywhere in sight.

President Obama very clearly stated that his EO is only a temporary measure which is intended to help children of immigrants who may benefit from the DREAM Act to remain long enough to see the disposition of the measure, which by all accounts is gaining support, even among recalcitrant GOPers. You are fooling yourself if you think the GOP's turnarond on this issue is motivated by wanting to help those kids. If that were the case, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It's all about the vote grab.

Take a look at the demographics of the 2008 outcome, along with the current poll stats on the Latino vote. The president is not the one who has a pressing NEED to get their vote. He already has it. The GOP, on the other hand, is having problems with Latinos, Blacks, the youth vote, students, elders and, last but not least, WOMEN, but you can rest assured they can do no wrong when it comes to the angry white rich dude block.

Obama did what was within his power, deferring deportation and - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
granting work permits to a select few. Anything permanent such as amnesty or a path to citizenship will await congress approval. This is similar to Clinton's EO "don't ask don't tell". Congress took almost 20 years to allow LGBT people to openly serve in the military but it did happen.

Was NOT in Obama's power - completely ignored constitution

[ In Reply To ..]
which is pretty much normal for Imperial Wizard Obama.

Wrong, again. It is actually quite funny that you - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
refer to Obama with a KKK term.

YOUR WRONG AGAIN - GET YOUR POSTERS STRAIGHT - Too bad you think you know everything

[ In Reply To ..]
Just highlights how *** you are in your assumptions. If you are going go after a poster, make sure you got the right one. Makes you look ***. BTW - Not one single part of my post had to do with KKK. Get a little water for your flame.

Wrong, again. It is actually quite funny that you - sm - MESSAGE REPORTED

[ In Reply To ..]
Misrepresentation of post responding to, lying about what was posted by OP, making false accusations, wrongly identifying poster(s) claiming to "know" which anonymous poster(s) wrote what.

Please tell me that you're not - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
so uninformed or *** that you don't know the term Imperial Wizard refers to the KKK. You're not an MT are you?

And are you one always asking if someone is an MT/ - Are you an MT? Let me enlighten the uninformed

[ In Reply To ..]
Nixon was constantly referred to as the Imperial pres. Those of you with any history knowledge (not just lib lies) would have a clue. That term was far more volatile as Nixon served relatively close to post-racial law enactments, even though it had nothing to do with race because people like the ones on this board jump to racism as a knee-jerk reflex. No lib outrage then. Now you got the knee-jerk racists that see NOTHING and I MEAN NOTHING other than the color of someone's skin and never miss a chance to go after anyone THEY DEEM RACIST IN THEIR OWN MINDS, regardless of the content. Shows you the race hatred they have to jump to that conclusion. See the post below where definitions were given for Imperial Wizard Obama. If someone doesn't understand the Webster definitions and wants to wave the race card...Oh well, just tells everybody where the racism lives.

"BOARD RACIST AT IT AGAIN - Only you mention KKK...Posted: Jun 20th, 2012 - 2:32 pm In Reply to: the KKK is for amnesty? - -

imÂ·peÂ·riÂ·al (m-pÃ®r-l) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of an empire or a sovereign, especially an emperor or empress: imperial rule; the imperial palace.
www.thefreedictionary.com/imperial - Cached

wizÂ·ard (w z rd) n. 1. One who practices magic; a sorcerer or magician.

YOU RACISTS REALLY NEED TO WAKE UP AND BUY A DICTIONARY. "

Google the words together not separately - Imperial Wizard. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Ohhh and NOW they'll finally do a - little research if they think

[ In Reply To ..]
they can play the race card. WHAT HYPOCRITES!!!!

Here's a new flash - LIBERALS USED THE TERM IMPERIAL WIZARD

[ In Reply To ..]
in regards to Lou Dobbs, white, because he did not care for one of Barry Os, half white, economic policies and said so. Where was the liberal racist outrage then? Why no defense of Lou Dobbs who merely had the audacity to point out flaws in Obama-nomics? Term was also used by LIBERAL SUPPORTERS OF OBAMA towards Rush Limbaugh, white. Dems also called Glen Beck, white, the Imperial Wizard. See a pattern here. Nothing more here than a another case of feigned lib outrage in these posts to further their race card agenda. Okay for dems and libs to call white, conservative men "Imperial Wizard" and that has no racist intentions....yeah, right. What a bunch of hypocrites y'all are! Blows your fake outrage over the term Imperial Wizard out of the dam water, unless you want to start to own your racist namecalling. But the little board racists can keep on reading into posts what is not there. OP NEVER made mentioned Barry Os race...only those looking to flame the race fire. Research that...oh wait, probably won't because it doesn't support misguided race agenda of the libs.

inflammatory no matter who says it - two left feet

[ In Reply To ..]
If a liberal refers to someone as the Imperial Wizard, I will find it just as foolish as a conservative who does the same thing. Never hold up a poor example to justify your own behavior.

the KKK is for amnesty? - -

[ In Reply To ..]

Didnt use Executive Order - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
A number of Republican officials and conservatives have responded to Obama’s immigration announcement by attacking it on process grounds, arguing that the decision to circumvent Congress was an abuse of power, an affront to democracy, and even unconstitutional — and could encourage further lawbreaking.

But in an interview with me just now, Mark Shurtleff, Utah’s conservative Republican attorney general, dismissed those objections, arguing the move was perfectly within Obama’s powers, good law enforcement policy, and even a “conservative” solution.

“This is clearly within the president’s power,” Shurtleff said. “I was pleased when the president announced it.”

Shurtleff, a Mitt Romney supporter who is a diehard conservative on many other issues, is perhaps the nation’s most prominent Republican staking out an alternative to the GOP’s hard line on immigration. His support for the president’s policy represents a larger split within the party, between those who see Arizona as a model for the nation and those who want the party to adjust to demographic (and related political) realities with another approach.

Republicans and conservatives have argued either that Obama did this by executive order or more broadly that ignoring Congress represents dictatorial rule by fiat. But Shurtleff rejected that view, noting that this decision was not made via executive order and that the administration has the discretion to decide whom to prosecute.

“Law enforcement makes decisions based on the resources available to them — until Congress acts, we’ll be left with too many people to deport,” Shurtleff said. “The administration is saying, `Here’s a group we could be spending our resources going after, but why? They’re Americans, they see themselves as Americans, they love this country.’”

Shurtleff added that the decision, by allowing children brought here illegally to go to school and work, could encourage them to stay out of gangs — which he called a “conservative” goal. He dismissed the claim that this would encourage further illegal immigration, noting that the president’s plan has a cutoff — you are only eligible if you came here before you turned 16 and are younger than 30, and have been in the country for at least five continuous years.

Asked to respond to the case made by some that this constitutes “amnesty” because it gives illegal immigrants the legal status they were trying to steal, he rejected it.

“You’re not giving [legal status] to the parents who came here,” Shurtleff said. “You’re giving it to the child who was brought here. That child didn’t get to choose.”

A rare example of a sensible GOP moderate - willing to voice support for

[ In Reply To ..]
a good policy initiative from President Obama. A state attorney general is certainly a credible source, qualified to clarify the difference between immigration enforcement and statutes, and to address the phoney constitutionality claims being hawked by his party's misinformed fringe. Bravo, Mr. Shurtleff. It's refreshing to hear from a conservative who actually has a mind of his own.

Too bad there are no sensible Democrats - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Dems appear to understand the difference between - legislation and enforcement

[ In Reply To ..]
and agree with the sensible Mr. Shurtleff, as is apparant by their many posts to that effect on this forum. They also know a bogus constitutionality claim when they see one.

So let me get this straight. You think "…a president" - excludes all others who came before Obama?

[ In Reply To ..]
"But a President may not lawfully, by means of “orders”, exercise powers not delegated to him by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress."

By my read, this means any and all presidents, not just one. Wiki published this incomplete list of EO signed by the following presidents:

Andrew Jackson (enforced by Martin Van Buren)
Ulysses S. Grant
Teddy Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
FDR
Harry S. Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
GHW Bush
Bill Clinton
GW Bush, who currently holds the all-time record in terms of EO count

According to your opening statement, they all must be in violation of the constitution. Perhaps you’d like to take a moment to reserve judgment while considering the company President Obama keeps.

I appreciate your posting specific examples of what you think are questionable EOs signed by President Obama. I'd like to respond to those a bit later, but first I have to feed my growling stomach and get a bath! Please do not expect the extraneous Joseph Stalin slam to be worthy of comment, unless of course you are applying that judgment on all of the above listed presidents....from both sides of the aisle, I might add.

Sorry for the confusion . . . - . . . that must have gone right over your head.

[ In Reply To ..]
"A president" is part of the source's quote, not mine. All presidents have issued EOs, but LEGAL ones. Pres. O. could care less if his are legal or not. And the examples given are NOT. Likewise, the Joseph Stalin comment was not mine, but a direct quote from the source given.

Neither you or this article - says anything about

[ In Reply To ..]
HOW these EOs violate the Constitution. Are you able to cite an Article or Amendment that applies to your argument, or is this just another WordPress hit-and-run whiner intent on spreading half-truths (which usually turn out to the half-lies under scrutiny) who has no interest in examining the content of the EO or the Constitution? What is the substance or your argument, or is that too confusing for you to articulate? I have a suggestion. Try taking your focus off how over my head this issue is and concentrating on the subject matter. It just might help you clear the fog long enough to present a viable case.

Here's my question. What is it about the content of these EOs that violates the Contitution? What parts of the Constitution are allegedly under attack?

Similar Messages:

Jul 21, 2011
Congress has not been doing their job. They allow the presidents to have totalitarian power by way of executive orders. Go into U.S. Congress and read some of them. They are quite hair-raising. Not even a sunset clause in some of them. Washington is lost. They government that was designed to protect the individual rights is lost. The Federal Government usurps states' rights and individual rights on a daily basis. To accuse any one party or any ...

Jul 23, 2015
We are supposed to be a republic with checks and balances. Allowing executive orders, places the president in a position of a dictator. Is that what we really want for our country? Presidents of both parties have had their puppet strings pulled by the powers that be and they have issued executive orders that trample the rights of the individual. If I hear somebody call us a democracy again, I will scream. Democracy is mob rule. A republic is supposed to respect the ...

Nov 10, 2016
dangerous and unfit to lead the nation, but he’ll ask the Republican president-elect Thursday not to wipe out his cherished, legacy-making executive actions on everything from the Iranian nuclear deal to Obamacare. In a meeting at the White House to prepare Mr. Trump for taking office, Mr. Obama will try to persuade the president-elect to honor what his aides call a “tradition” of preserving executive actions implemented by the departing chief executive. ...

Apr 26, 2017
This one really is terrible. Bye bye national parks. Is this all just a game to him? ...

Jan 23, 2017
on federal funding to international groups that perform abortions. I wonder if that applies to Israel too?! ...

Feb 05, 2013
By Stephen Dinan The Washington Times | Monday, February 4, 2013 The former chief of deportations in the Bush administration will testify to Congress on Tuesday that President Obamaâ��s new nondeportation policies would have let the Sept. 11 hijackers remain in the country even if they had been picked up in the months before their deadly attacks. And the current chief of the union that represents Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will tell the House Judiciary Committee that IC ...

May 22, 2017
If you do nothing else for the rest of the day, please take the time to read this. It's long, but well worth the read! Presidents I've Known by George Roof, Chief Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired) Interesting Google Search on His Name http://www.truthorfiction. com/george-roof-presidents- ive-known/ Because I am a “lifer” in the military, I’ve seen the impact of a president more than many of you can imagine. I enlisted with LBJ and saw just what a Democrat clusterflock ...

Jan 26, 2017
It iis a federal crime for anyone to either aid someone to enter the country illegally OR TO ASSIST THEM TO REMAIN in the country illegally. I'd like to see criminal charges brought against a few of these scofflaw city officials. They can join their precious illegals in jail for awhile and then we'll see how much they like that sanctuary policy. I never in a million years would have thought I'd ever see such brazen lawlessness in this country. We're not Colombi ...

Apr 06, 2011
Presidents have been critized for years. John Kennedy was Irish-CatholicRonald Reagan was too "Hollywood"Jimmy Carter was a "red-neck" peanut farmerGerald Ford was an "accidental" presidentRichard Nixon was a crookGeorge W Bush was a cowboyGeorge H Bush was too preppyBill Clinton was a womanizerAnd let's not forget about the first ladies...anyone remember Betty Ford? So, why is it racist to criticize Obama? What makes him any different than previous presidents? What criticism would ...

Aug 23, 2012
You can't make this stuff up! ...

Mar 06, 2010
By Daniel TencerFriday, March 5th, 2010 -- 5:27 pm Officials and student leaders at Virginia colleges are reacting mutedly, so far, to an order from state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli that the schools stop protecting LGBT students. In a letter (PDF) sent to the state's public colleges and universities and obtained by the Washington Post, Cuccinelli declared that the schools don't have the authority to uphold bans on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when the state ...

Mar 16, 2013
From the NY Times. Note, this is a narrow victory, other cases pending. Entire article at link at bottom. A dem WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court held Friday that the Central Intelligence Agency must disclose, at least to a judge, a description of its records on drone strikes in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Connect With Us on Twitter Follow@NYTNationalfor breaking news and headlines. Twitter ...

Jun 02, 2013
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100781516 ...

Jan 29, 2017
...

May 30, 2015
set a trial date in the racketeering case against the Clinton Foundation and Bill and Hillary Clinton. Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ordered the racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations, or RICO, case to head to trial January 20, 2016. The order, entered Friday and obtained by the Washington Examiner, came days after Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch filed a lengthy civil complaint against the Clintons and their foundatio ...

Nov 10, 2013
... As a reflection of their presidency. Redefining their core principles if their presidency didn't go so well, i.e. Jimmy Carter in Habitat for Humanity and being a per diem foreign diplomat in crisis situations, not to mention all the other amazing things he continues to do. Or if you leave in favor of the American people, you are welcomed and sought for endorsements and fundraisers (Clinton). George Bush so far has so far not been sought out to represent his party, so ...

Oct 12, 2010
America's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans gay men and women from serving openly in the US military, suffered a potentially crippling blow tonight after a federal judge ordered a halt to its enforcement. The move, which could bypass political deadlock on the measure in Washington, sprang from a court case brought by a Republican gay rights group – the Log Cabin Republicans. US district court Judge Virginia Phillips ordered an immediate worldwide injunction on the ...

Mar 06, 2013
Steve Amstrup/U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service, via Associated Press Matthew Ryan Williams for The New York Times George Frey/European Pressphoto Agency Reuters Ted S. Warren/Associated Press NEXT 1 2 3 4 5 The habitats of polar bears have become threatened in part because of shrinking ice levels resulting from climate change. The Interior Department has pledged to make rulings on the enda ...

Aug 12, 2013
"Messiah is a title, and it's a title that's only been earned by one person, and that one person is Jesus Christ." When asked what she thought about the name "Jesus," pronounced both ways, Judge Lu Ann Ballew thought about it and decided that was not relevant to this case. Even if Judge Ballew felt free to impose her religion on others, surely as a conservative in a very conservative region she would be well aware of the issues of judicial overreach, big government intrusion in ...

Nov 23, 2014
The percentage of Americans against this lawless act is 68%. I am in that 68%. ...

Nov 17, 2014
I had a hard time choosing between 1 and 2, but here are my top 3 picks and why: 1. Teddy Roosevelt (Republican, Progressive Party): One of the best thought out, organized, and well-implemented presidential goals of all time, the "Square Deal" between companies, consumers and workers with the "3 C's" as the motivating force behind everything he did domestically: Conservation of natural resources (federal protection acts to preserve natural resources) , Control of corporations (anti- ...

Feb 08, 2015
President Barack Obama, who campaigned on a promise to unify America, instead has become the most polarizing president in modern history.A Gallup Poll finds that the gap in Obama's approval rating in his sixth year in office between those who like him, Democrats, and those who do not, Republicans, has held steady at 70 percent, with 79 percent of Democrats voicing approval and only 9 percent of Republicans doing likewise. Since the days of President Dwight Eisenhower, in 1953, onl ...

Jul 21, 2017
I bet Trump wishes he had come clean on his taxes. Thinking there is going to be a whole lot of information about foreign (Russian) investments (money laundering) coming to light. He might just lose everything. ...

Jun 18, 2012
Someone on a different website posted this today: Next Presidential executive order: If the ACA goes down with the justices, letting the uninsured buy in to Medicare on a sliding scale. ...

Jul 23, 2014
It just never ends. I googled obamacare gao report July 2014 and got many hits. ...

Sep 09, 2012
link ...

Mar 14, 2013
Considered a homicide case, news conference at 1:00. "A Mercedes owned by a missing Fox executive -- who is now believed to be a homicide victim -- was found at a storage facility in Simi Valley and detectives have linked the discovery to a drug dealer previously identified as a person of interest." ...

Apr 23, 2016
Just heard the governor of Virginia has made an executive order that inmates 200,000 of them can now vote. Funny, I thought all of your rights were taken away from you when you started serving prison sentences. Anything for his Hillary to win. ...

Dec 03, 2014
People, we need to wake up - and do so before it's too late. The situation in Washington is becoming dire, and it has nothing to do with what party you might belong to, or what "political philosophy" you might espouse. This is about the survival of the Great American Experiment in Self-Governance - which is in the ICU on life support at this very moment. I will give you, first, that there ARE, whether we care to acknowledge it or not, genuine patriots on BOTH sides of the libe ...

Dec 31, 2015
Not enough, not soon enough, but a step in the right direction. If only he would "come for their guns." Alas--too busy sending federal aide for flood disasters. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/obama-guns-gun-control-217234 ...