<div dir="ltr"><h1 class=""><br></h1><div class="" title="2013-01-15T14:00:39">January 15, 2013</div>
<h1 class="">Republicans Accuse Obama of Using Position as </h1><h1 class="">President to Lead Country</h1>
<div class="">Posted by <cite class=""><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/andy_borowitz/search?contributorName=Andy%20Borowitz" title="search site for content by Andy Borowitz" rel="author">Andy Borowitz</a></cite></div>
<div class="">
<ul style="display:block" class=""><li class=""><br></li><li class="">
<br></li><li class="">
<br></li></ul>
</div>
<div class="">
<p><img alt="obama-desk-465.jpg" src="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/obama-desk-465.jpg" class="" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0px auto 20px;" height="310" width="465"></p>
<p>WASHINGTON (<a href="http://bit.ly/NhEEu0" target="_blank">The Borowitz Report</a>)—Responding
to reports that President Obama is considering signing as many as
nineteen executive orders on gun control, Republicans in Congress
unleashed a blistering attack on him today, accusing Mr. Obama of
“cynically and systematically using his position as President to lead
the country.”</p>
<p>Spearheading the offensive was Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), who
charged the President with the “wanton exploitation of powers that are
legally granted to him under the U.S. Constitution.”</p>
<div id="entry-more"><p>Calling him the “Law Professor-in-Chief,” Rep.
Stockman accused Mr. Obama of “manipulating a little-known section of
the Constitution,” Article II, which outlines the power of the
President.</p>
<p>“President Obama looks down the list of all of the powers that are
legally his and he’s like a kid in a candy store,” Rep. Stockman said.
“It’s nauseating.”</p>
<p>The Texas congressman said that if Mr. Obama persists in executing
the office of the Presidency as defined by the Constitution, he could
face “impeachment and/or deportation.”</p>
<p>Noting that the President has not yet signed the executive orders on
gun control, Rep. Stockman said that he hoped his stern words would
serve as a wake-up call to Mr. Obama: “Mr. President, there’s still time
for you to get in line. But if you continue to fulfill the duties of
President of the United States that are expressly permitted in the
Constitution, you are playing with fire.”</p></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Gary Crabtree <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:moscowlocksmith@gmail.com" target="_blank">moscowlocksmith@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Thank you for the honesty. The problem isn't the tools, it's the probability. But that said, it's the tools that the liberal elite are going to try and move heaven and earth to reduce.</div>
<div> </div><div>
Lets just face up to the facts. The current scramble for gun regulation has little to do with the most recent disaster and everything to do with the promotion of an agenda.</div><div> </div><div>Never let a perfectly good crisis go to waste they are heard to say.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div> </div><div>g<br><br></div></font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Kenneth Marcy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kmmos1@frontier.com" target="_blank">kmmos1@frontier.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>On 1/16/2013 9:06 AM, Gary Crabtree
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>So why are these "fashion accessories" effective and
necessary tools when dealing with chief exec. kiddies and not
those of the great unwashed? Why is a tool useful in one
application and not the other?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Probability. Weapons are useful tools for law enforcement officers
(Secret Service and others) because the probability of a law
enforcement officer finding himself or herself in a deadly force
situation is significantly higher than it is for the, for example,
civilian administrative leadership of an elementary school in most
locations of the United States. The children of the President are
unique because the incumbent President is unique in the powers his
position possesses, and the range of individuals the use of those
powers might affect negatively. Misguided individuals under the
strong impression they can favorably (from their vantage point)
affect the actions of the President by kidnapping or physically
harming his children may act with unexpected, sudden, random
forcefulness in an attempt to effect their wishes. Secret Service
personnel are expected to be watchful and prepared to act against
such actions with little or no notice.<br>
<br>
However small may be the actual probability of an attack against the
President's kids, the probability of an attack against almost any
other American school kid is orders of magnitude smaller. Because
such attacks are almost non-existent in their frequency, going to
the significant efforts and expenses of hiring and arming
educational institution security personnel is very likely
counterproductive not only budgetary terms, but also in kid-scary
psychological terms, too. An extremely small number of bad
incidents should not be allowed to create bogeymen brigades in our
imaginations, and thus causing more unnecessary reactionary expenses
and fears against evils found only in our imaginations.<br>
<br>
<br>
Ken<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Kenneth
Marcy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kmmos1@frontier.com" target="_blank">kmmos1@frontier.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">On 1/16/2013 8:16 AM, Gary Crabtree wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">
So, please explain why if guns are so totally ineffective in
protecting children in schools across the country they
suddenly become mandatory for protecting the children of the
democrat elite?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A little more precision would be useful here. In this case
"children of the democrat elite" does not refer to children of
millions of families across the country who might fit that
description, but rather the children of the President of the
United States, the incumbent of which office happens to be one
of the more hated individuals among various peoples around the
world (not to mention in this country). It matters not what
the President's political affiliations may be; his children
still receive Secret Service protection. Considering the
variety and range of the efforts to protect the President and
his family, one might consider that firearms are closer to
being fashion accessories for the officers rather than the
actual power that they assert.<br>
<br>
<br>
Ken<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
<br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
</div>