ricochet.jesse.jackson.jr.photo

Earlier, I discussed the (so far weak, yet scary) parallels between President Obama and the Ferdinand Marcos.  One disturbing aspect was how Obama's audience cheered when he discussed "bypassing Congress" to enact policies.

Now something more disturbing:  In an interview with The Daily Caller, Jesse Jackson Jr. noted:

“We’ve got to go further. I support what [Obama] does. Clearly, Republicans are not going to be for it [Obama's "jobs" bill] but if the administration can handle administratively what can be done, we should pursue it. And if there are extra-constitutional opportunities that allow the president administratively to put the people to work, he should pursue every single one of them.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

KC Mulville
Joined
Jan '11
KC Mulville

When people advocate using power despite the will of the people, they reveal their conviction that power doesn't come from the people.

If they want to go behind the backs of Congress, subpoena them to death. 

Think So
Joined
Aug '11
Think So

This type of thinking just smacks of empirical superiority. It reminds me of Leona Helmsley and her "little people." I know likening liberal thinking to historical tyranny is old hat but it is fascinating that similar tactics were used during Germany's economic crisis to grab power and institute martial law. Suggested power grabs like this and others alluded to by the POTUS himself are exactly how tyrants are unleashed and democracies crushed.

Percival
Joined
Mar '11
Percival

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Message to JJ Jr.:  Does that sound familiar, by any chance?  Something you may have said in the past?  With one hand up in the air?  These extra-constitutional opportunities of which you speak, would you care to elaborate on what they might consist of, and by what authority you would support them?

Cas Balicki
Joined
Jun '10
Cas Balicki

I hate to say it, but this is downright dangerous palaver that indicates Junior can't and shouldn't be trusted to take out the trash, never mind with a bought appointment to the Senate. 

Percival
Joined
Mar '11
Percival
Cas Balicki: I hate to say it, but this is downright dangerous palaver that indicates Junior can't and shouldn't be trusted to take out the trash, never mind with a bought appointment to the Senate.  · Oct 15 at 8:37am

Fortunately, Junior couldn't close the deal.  That seat went to the utterly gormless Roland Burris, who in his first month of raising money for reelection managed to pull in a whole $500.  He read the writing on the wall and vamoosed.  Mark Kirk (R - kinda) ended up with Obama's former seat.

Not to worry though -- Junior's seat in the House is safe as, well,  houses.  Why I bet you he could use PAC money to hush up a baby-momma.  Why not?  His dad did.

Samwise Gamgee
Joined
Jun '10
Samwise Gamgee

Good ole JJ Jr.  Representin' South Chicago very appropriately. 

Funny story, I once received a scholarship from JJ Jr., through the Black Caucus.  They awarded me the prize and then a few weeks later, I got a call from JJ's office.  The person asked if I was the recipient of the award, which I responded to that I was.  They then asked... "but... you're not black...?"

To which I applied in the affirmative.

The person sighed, said congratulations and we parted ways.

Anyway, even in our conservative household, my parents held triple J in at least respectable esteem.... that is until he and all the other democrats were bought by the abortion providers.  Since Obama, JJJ has been unbearable - especially since he tried to buy that Senate seat. 

He's been underground for a while, what with the bad press and all.  Good to see he's back in the news.

Kervinlee
Joined
May '10
Kervinlee

What a clown. No, that's an insult to clowns. Even clowns could probably have passed high school civics. Not Jackson, and not his constituents.

How about a basic civics test before one can register to vote, let alone run for office? I'd be in favor.

Edited on Oct 15, 2011 at 9:05am
The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

The left has an agenda, constitution be damned if it gets in the way. For the right, the constitution is the agenda.

Samwise Gamgee
Joined
Jun '10
Samwise Gamgee

Percival

He read the writing on the wall and vamoosed.  Mark Kirk (R - kinda) ended up with Obama's former seat.

Mark Kirk Sucks.

Paul A. Rahe

Have you noticed that this has become a theme in Progressive discourse? Peter Orszag, Bev Purdue, now Jesse Jackson, Jr. Woodrow Wilson hated the separation of powers because it got in the way of what he thought of us Progress. The current generation would be happy to do without elections and the rule of law. The tyrannical impulse is always there --  about a quarter of an inch below the surface in Progressive discourse.

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn
Paul A. Rahe: Have you noticed that this has become a theme in Progressive discourse? Peter Orszag, Bev Purdue, now Jesse Jackson, Jr. Woodrow Wilson hated the separation of powers because it got in the way of what he thought of us Progress. The current generation would be happy to do without elections and the rule of law. The tyrannical impulse is always there --  about a quarter of an inch below the surface in Progressive discourse. · Oct 15 at 9:12am

The scarier part is that he actually represents his constituents. They want to be coddled. They want womb to tomb infantilization. They will gladly take an allowance from government (post tax pay or welfare) and spend it on pleasures (iphones, tvs, etc.) so long as mommy and daddy government continues to pay the rent (housing subsidies), fills the fridge (food stamps, welfare), and keeps the lights on (energy subsidies). We've come a long way since 1776, and it has not been all progress.

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules

What annoys me about these people is their assumed superiority.  They exhibit not a shred of self-doubt that might lead them to question the wisdom their actions.  Nor do they appreciate the irony that as communitarians they lack any confidence in the very communities they represent.  They conclude the reason for failure is that they don't have enough power.  It's then an easy step from there to assume that the reason for failure is because there's not enough men dead.   Ask Bill Ayers.  I believe he put the number at 25 million.  

Charles Gordon
Joined
Dec '10
Charles Gordon

Junior is just like Senior, in 1984: “My constituency is the desperate, the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected, and the despised… They have voted in record numbers… Leadership can part the waters and lead our nation in the direction of the Promised Land…

“By the end of this year, there will be 41 million people in poverty… Small businesses have suffered under Reagan tax cuts. Education under Mr. Reagan has been cut 25 percent… Many say that the race in November will be decided in the South… Unemployment reached 10.7 percent… There were record bank failures, record farm foreclosures, record business bankruptcies; record budget deficits, record trade deficits… we now have a record 200 billion dollar budget deficit. Under Mr. Reagan, the cumulative budget deficit for his four years is more than the sum total of deficits from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined. I tell you, we need a change…

“How is he paying for these short-term jobs? Reagan's economic recovery is being financed by deficit spending -- 200 billion dollars a year…

“Dream of doctors more concerned about public health than personal wealth…”

Like father, like son, like 1984, class warfare, redistribution from the “personal wealth...”

DrewInWisconsin
Joined
Aug '11
DrewInWisconsin

His statement is alarming enough, but . . . well, it's also kind of nonsensical. Where, exactly, are these jobs coming from that the President is supposed to create by executive fiat?

BlueAnt
Joined
Aug '10
BlueAnt
DrewInWisconsin: Where, exactly, are these jobs coming from that the President is supposed to create by executive fiat?

According to Keynesian economics, it goes something like this.

It's Obama's ditch, folks.  What is our dirt doing in it?

Kozak
Joined
May '10
Kozak
DrewInWisconsin: His statement is alarming enough, but . . . well, it's also kind of nonsensical. Where, exactly, are these jobs coming from that the President is supposed to create by executive fiat? · Oct 15 at 12:33pm

Remember this from Obama?

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

15 million Brownshirts would fill the bill nicely.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In