David Epso [ AP ] Spews Forth Meaningless GOP Drivel
Ref The media has it backwards. [ Discuss ]
President is illegally using troops without sufficient resources. This is reckless maladministration of finite combat resources.
Looks like some editors haven't woken up to what happened November 2006: We the People trashed the media, and said: "Give us something other than David's drivel."
Fef: Speaking of failed narratives -- Did David teach Will; or did Will teach David?
Ref Ask Epso which kind of "data" he used to generate the non-sense in his article. Looks like the GOP fed him some "data" from unrelaible polling.
Epso hasn't studied the President's Saturn Invasion Plan; or the Bush Defeat Doctrine.
Ref How many days until David shaves his head like Britney?
One of the myths the Associated Press is spewing for the Republicans is the false notion that the President has any power to block the House.
David Epso fails to explain:
___ What can the President do to make the House give him money?
___ Which specific things does the President plan to do to prevent Speaker Pelosi from issuing Legislative Orders?
The President has one power: Executive. It is incorrect to suggest that the President has more than one power. All actions the President may or may not take are not new powers, but options. When the President chooses not to do something, that is not a "new power" but an option.
David Epso fails to review Article II of the Constitution. If you look closely, you'll see that the delegation of power is for only one power: Executive.
The executive power shall be vested in a President [Article II: One Power]
It doesn't say "Powers hall" (not plural) . . it says, "Power shall" . . . (singular). Nobody slid the "s" from "shall" and attached it to the power. Never happened.
Note: "power" is singular, meaning. . . [wait for it]. . . one. translation: The notion of "executive powers" [plural] is fiction, not based on any law, and disconnected from the Supreme Law.
Delegating to the President functions, options, and discretion is not a "new" power; and does not change "power" to "powers."
Contrast that with Article I which expressly does what the GOP wishes was in Article II:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress [ Article I: Multiple Powers]
___ The reference in Article I is to plural powers;
___ Plural means: More than one.
Review for Stupids in Media, GOP, Senate, and White House
___ The executive has one power: Executive
___ The Constitution delegates only one power to the President: Executive
___ The Article II language is explicit: The delegation of one power is singular, one, far less than two.
___ The Constitution delegates multiple powers to the Legislature;
___ Article II language is explicit: The delegation of multiple powers is plural, multiple, more than one, not less than two;
___ Article I powers are more than the single Article II power;
___ Multiple powers means that the Congress has more power than the President: Multiple is more than one .
It is an illusion to pretend that the President has multiple power; he does not.
It is inclusion to suggest that Congress has "no power" to do something. Rather, the President has no power to make the House do or do not do anything.
It is an illusion to pretend that the President, with his one power that he has recklessly abused, will be "constrained" if the Congress does what it should: Define how that power shall be used.
A president that, with only one power, can't figure out what to do to do something right, obvious needs some help. Yet, despite what Senator McCain calls a "well known problem" this GOP Senate refused to asset power to solve this problem, help the President or do what should have been done long ago: Make rules, give hints, and drop the big clue: "Hay, Mr. President, if you don't get this right, we'll find someone else who can follow instructions: Don't wage illegal warfare; and don't try to do things when you have no resources to do them. Duh -- face reality."
For someone in the media to parrot nonsense – to the effect, “Oh, you can’t stop the President from invading Saturn” – has got their head on backwards: There is n possible way to do it.
Arguing that someone is “getting in the way” of doing something that cannot be done because of the resource constraints is a non-sense argument.
Reality, not the Congress, is constraining this President. Yet, despite reality, this President has refused to adjust.
The voter rebuke of November 2006 was the last fair warning: Despite ignoring reality, you cannot ignore that you no longer have power to continue down this path. The media has not woken up to reality:
___ We the People have no confidence in you
___ The arguments, articles, and drivel you are giving us are a waste of time
___ You have utter garbage in there that should be challenged, but you are effusing to do so
___ Your editors are lazy
___ You writing is not helpful
___ You fail to focus on solutions
___ You fail to check or challenge this utter non-sense this US government is spewing
___ You give no hint that you’re independently thinking about what you’re writing
___ What drive you do give doesn’t add up when compare to basic principles legal documents, and specific language in the Constitution
___ You’re parroting these meaningless statements which are not sending a clear signal that you have clue how frivolous these GOP statements are
___ You fail to communicate you understand what a filibuster means
___ You fail to under that that a refusal to pass a budget does not give the President anything
___ You fail to communicate that when the Senate refuses to debate something it doesn’t mean that the House cannot discuss the issue
___ You fail to outline any credible power, plan, or option the President, GOP, Senate, or anyone is going to use, employ, or use to “make” the House agree with illegal warfare
___ You fail to point to anything that is going to “backlash” against the People who have rejected you
___ You fail to show that your “freedom” to produce written text is linked with any useful activity, positive outcome, or something that resembles a coherent understanding of basic Constitutional law
___ You fail to show that despite the Voter rebuke of November 2006, that the media has awoken to its credibility problem and is willing to speak the truth to this bungling cess pool of idiots wandering around the GOP, President’s office, and Senate
___ You fail to show that ‘Refusing to debate” is going to make or not make the House do or not do anything
___ You fail to show that the Senate decision to “block” a bill is going to help the President get anything
___ You fail to understand that the House has the power to filibuster the Senate – as a chamber – and not cooperate with illegal warfare;
___ You fail to understand that We the People have the power to trash the media, find new outlets, and independently make adverse inferences
___ You fail to comprehend that We the People have the option to crate a New Government that is responsive, doesn’t give us this illegal activity, and is responsive to We the People
All of this seems lost on the media, GOP, Senate, and President. How many more rebukes do you need? From this perspective it appears despite combat losses, legal loses, the US government, media, GOP, and Senate refuse to face reality.
Fine. War crimes prosecutors are approaching. The media in Rwanda was fond to be complicity. The question is to what extent are people like David Epso, as people in Rwanda ware found, might be possibly be found to be complicit with, inciting, and failing to do what they should reasonably know they should have done: Used their brains, not been stupid, and opened their eyes to reality.
We the People aren’t giving you anything. Your job is to provide your defense to the war crimes prosecutors: Whether you do or do not pull your head out of the sand is meaningless. On November 2006, Americans sent a clear signal – Wake up. This government, media, GOP, Senate, and President have not woken up.
Fine. War crimes prosecutors are circling. The Justice System is expanding its discovery. The US government officials complicit with these war crimes have a difficult enemy to confront – the same civilian population which has already rebuked them in November 2006.
___ How much money do the civilian informants stand to get for providing to war crimes prosecutors data, meeting minutes, memos, and signed policy memos related o war crimes?
___ Which under cover informants working for DOJ are still passing information to the US attorneys to persecute members of the media for complicity with war crimes?
___ How many US government officials using information they gained on the job are engaged in illegal efforts to circumvent the NSA detection, and are moving funds to support illegal activity?
___ how many war crimes prosecutors know that the classification of US government activities has no connection with national security but with one goal: To hide evidence that US government officials are engaged in unlawful war crimes?
The voters sent a rebuke November 2006. The GOP hasn’t woken up. It looks like the last option – on top of the voting losses, legal consequences, and the sustained combat losses – is for the war crimes prosecutors to present to the courts: Should these people-- who are unresponsive to prudence, reality, the law, and reality -- be permitted to continue to walk this planet?
The answer after Nuremberg and The Tokyo War Crimes prosecutions was: “No. They are unfit to be left to wander. You give them rules and they ignore them.”
The voters sent a clear message to the media in November 2006: Time to put your attention on the war crimes tribunals, and ask the DoJ Staff to make a credible case that the President and Vice President, if found guilty of war crimes, might escape the death penalty.
Where’s the media? They’re still spewing forth this non-sense. Fine. Bring in the war crimes prosecutors and let’s get this media slammed up against eh wall, and decide: Do we let them live; or do we let them face the death penalty?
Quit this utter non-sense drivel, David. Wake up.
When the President recklessly manages the finite resources that the Congress alone has the power to provide or not provide -- at their discretion, beyond what the President can make them do - the President may not expand combat to require equipment that does not exist.
Rather, the President is required to manage the finite resources which this GOP Congress 2001 - 2006 defined.
The President cannot, despite finite resources, expand illegal warfare beyond what is possible; or say that it is the fault of Congress.
When the President fails to comply with reality -- and does not face the rude reality that Congress has chose to provide him only with finite resources -- the President may not blame the President's mismanagement of those resources on Congress.
A President who, despite ignoring all people, power, and constraints, pretends that he can do anything -- but his results prove otherwise -- requires a tighter leash.
The appropriate way forward is to examine what was not working before; and change it.
The errors of the past include, inter alia, [a] not giving this President specific guidelines; [b] not compelling this President to follow them; and [c] not imposing timely consequences for his reckless results. This President ignored the law, ignored his Joint Staff, and Ignored Congress. Those days are over.
This President has no option but to face reality: He alone recklessly waged illegal warfare, and was aided by people in the GOP, enabled by the media, and not adequately challenged.
The rude reality for this President, GOP, media, and Senate is the voter awareness of this recklessness; and our knowledge that we can reasonably expect something else: Lawful activity, prudence, and development of combat plans based on reality, not delusions.
There is no basis for the President, GOP, or Senate to spew forth drivel suggesting that bad things "might" happen if illegal warfare ends; rather, the bad things have happened because this GOP, Senate, and President have allowed illegal warfare, has not ended, but expanded beyond what is possibly to sustain. The way forward, to end this illegal, reckless activity is to constrain the President as he should have been in 2001 when he was illegally using the NSA to conduct illegal surveillance before Sept 2001.
This is reckless. The appropriate way forward is for the media to accept -- as hard as it might be -- that the voter rebuke of November 2006 was went beyond the Government and this war, but rejects the nonsense drivel people like David Epso of the AP are spewing forth.
The right to a free media and the right to press does not mean you have the unchallenged power to spew forth drivel, especially when the media was not there challenging the government on the WMD issue.
This media failed. This voter backlash against the US government, media, and the reckless Us leadership hasn't advanced beyond what is fully possible: More rebuke; more lawful attacks on the media; and more lawful destruction of the failed institution which have driven this country to expand illegal, aggressive warfare as if it were a birthright.
This is coming undone. The illusions of this media -- as of the GOP, Senate, and President -- are not sustainable. Their thinking is warped. They prepared that threat of action is power, when that action is meaningless to make anyone do or not do anything.
IT is pure drivel for David Epso of the AP to suggest that the House, We the People, or the Justice System have a problem; no, the problem is, despite the fair warning of November 2006, this bungling media, buffoonery in the White House, and nonsense in the GOP Senate is not sustainable as a basis to credibly lead this nation.
The votes do not require anything: They already have it -- the power. Our power is nothing the GOP, Senate, or President can take away. Our power stems from the power we have to make adverse inferences:
___ Which war crimes prosecutors should we trust or not trust to enforce Geneva;
___ How many war crimes has the media been complicit with
___ Where is the GOP, Senate, and President planning to hide to avoid prosecution for war crimes
___ Does the media have a plan to credibly insulate itself from voter backlashes as the scope of this drivel is understood
We the People don't "need" new information, power, or anything: We already have it. The burden is on the GOP Senate, and President to make the case -- despite the Voter rebuke of November 2006 -- that something has changed.
At best, the 2002-WMD-like drivel of the media continues; and the US movement is making excuses to pretend that meaningless abatements are anything other than drivel. Get real.
US combat forces are stretched; the US President has no clue what to do; the GOP cannot make the House assent to illegal warfare; and We the People aren't required to support this war criminal-infested, reckless, buffoon government. The US Constitution is separate from the government.
We the People may lawfully craft a New Constitution, bring about a new government, and do this outside the Amendment Process. There is nothing the media, GOP, Senate, or President can do to stop this. It's already started. Surprise: You're not on the distribution list and have been denied the power to have inputs. We are not required to remain loyal to a government, system of governance, or media spewing machine when those systems give us more of the same: Recklessness, junk, and utter contempt for competence.
Meaningless GOP Senate
David Epso is incorrect when he says the President can do anything in response to the House.
The Senate, GOP, and the President cannot make the House leadership do anything.
When the House zeros out a budget line, the President cannot make the House add money.
Threading to "block" a bill -- that has no money -- is meaningless threat; and threatening to "filibuster" a bill -- in the Senate -- does nothing to make the House do or not do anything.
The Problematic Quote
Take a look at this:
Any attempt to limit Bush's powers as commander in chief would likely face strong opposition from Republican allies of the administration in the Senate and could also face a veto threat.
1. "Any attempt" is a meaningless threat.
2. The President has only one power: Executive.
3. The President is powerless to make the House do or not do anything.
4. IT is meaningless that the GOP might "oppose" something -- the House is not required to respond to the GOP.
5. The GOP, Senate, and President have no power to make the House do anything.
6. A veto threat -- against a bill that has no money -- will not put money in the bill.
7. A threat to filibuster -- a bill that has no money -- is meaningless.
You've written a very convoluted argument. In your article you've not outlined anything which shows how the President, GOP< or Senate is going to credibly make the House do or not do anything.
Contrary to myth in your article, the President, GOP, and House are not required to do anything. The House may choose to zero-out the budget, and there is nothing the President, GOP, or Senate can do to make that happen.
If the House and Senate refuse to agree -- then the President is stuck with no budget. They only last two years.
Your article incorrectly fails to address who the President is going to make the House do something.
___ What magic wand is the President going to wave to make the House do something?
For the President to be able to do anything, he needs money. He can't point to vague "power" as an excuse to do something. The Constitution allows the House to revoke all funding if that is what the House wants to do.
Nothing the President, GOP, or Senate does can make the House do or not do anything.
___ Where is the pro-House support in the GOP?
___ Does the President have a plan to conduct illegal activity without money?
It is foolish to pretend that the President has more than one power; or that Constitutional restrictions on how money is spent restrict him.
This president has committed war crimes. He is not fit to be leader. He has no power to compel anyone to assent to his illegal activity.
That the GOP may want to "stop" something in the House is meaningless. The President's threat of a veto is irrelevant: He cannot "block” something that has no money.
Even if the GOP Senate does approve war crimes, this does not mean the House has to agree.
___ What does the President propose to do to the House to make them add money?
___ What is the President, GOP, or Senate going to do to "make" the House "not debate" something?
___ How is the President, GOP< or Senate going to respond to a House veto and filibuster of the Senate efforts to expand illegal warfare?
Pretending that "any attempt" to do something will face "consequences" is meaningless drivel.
___ What is the President going to "do" if the House refuses to put any money in the appropriations for illegal warfare?
___ How does the president plan to redefine the Constitution and pretend that he has more than one power?
___ If the GOP "opposes" something, how can that "make" the House do something?
___ If the GOP "blocks" action on a bill, how is that going to "help" the President "get" power?
If the GOP has "strong" or "weak" or "moderate" opposition to something in the Senate is meaningless: The House isn't required to listen to the GOP, Senate, or the President.
If the President refuses to sign -- the illusory "Veto" -- a House bill that has no money, where is the President going to get the money?
The House can veto the Senate and President: Refuse to provide funding for illegal activity; and the House can filibuster the Senate: Go on extended debate into areas the GOP doesn't want discussed.
___ What is the President going to "do" to "make" the House "not veto"?
___ what is the GOP going to "do" to "shut down" a House filibuster of the Senate and President?
The President and the Associated Press do not appear to comprehend the November 2006 voter decision: The government and media were rejected.
The President cannot make the House support illegal warfare.
The Senate, GOP and President are powerless.
The House does not have to "force" anything: They can simply refuse to provide funding. Inaction and a refusal to act is the same as blocking action: Without money the President cannot wage illegal warfare.
___ What does the AP Plan to do to "force" the public to "accept" the illusory power of the President?
Nothing the media, GOP, Senate, or President can do to change reality: The House can debate, discuss, and zero-out funding, and there is nothing the Senate, GOP, or President can do.
What does or doesn’t happen in the Senate is meaningless.
The Senate GOP is powerless to force the House to support illegal warfare.
It doesn't matter if the GOP filibusters: If the President gets noting from the House, a filibuster that "blocks" something isn't going to give the President anything: When nothing is blocked, it remains nothing.
The problem is the President, GOP, and Senate are not on the same page as We the People. If there is no agreement between the House and Senate -- the President gets nothing. Budgets only last two years.
It is reasonable to impose strict standards on this President. When left to his own devices, he recklessly wages illegal warfare.
___ What is the AP plan to "make" the public believe that "less oversight" is "good" for the country?
___ What possibly can David Epso suggest to make anyone believe that "not providing strict criteria" is prudent, desirable, or beneficial?
It is reasonable to impose very specific standards on the DOD: They have failed to do this on their own.
It is incorrect to characterize Murtha's position as "denying" the President options: No, it denies the President the latitude to continue recklessly doing what he needs help with doing -- finding solutions.
Next time you want to mischaracterize a situation, you might want to check with We the People to find out which side of the argument the AP is on: You and your media friends were rejected in November 2006.
It is appropriate to prevent the President from having the discretion to wage illegal warfare; and deny the President the latitude to wander around committing war crimes. The error is for David Epso to believe that the President should be left the discretion to recklessly manage war.
___ What evidence does David Epso have that the President can be trusted to wander around without guidance?
The Public has a reasonable basis to question the integrity of people like David Epso who appear to be spewing forth nonsense.
The GOP, Senate, and President have no credible plan to make the House do anything. That is hardly any claim that something "might happen." Sure, something won't happen -- there is no option, no plan, and no means for the Senate, GOP, or President to make the House do or not do anything. If the House and Senate do not agree, ten the President is stuck.
___ How is the President, GOP, or Senate going to say that a refusal of the House to support illegal activity is going to be good or bad for anything?
It is inappropriate for the AP and David Epso to suggest that the House has to do anything.
___ What is the basis to say that the President, GOP, or Senate can make the House do something? No answer.
___ What is the plan of the GOP, Senate, or House to make "We the People" support illegal warfare?
___ How is the president going to make the argument that he should be given more latitude to expand his illegal activity?
___ Where, when, and how is the GOP, Senate, or Presidential plan to make voters -- who have rejected the GOP -- to buy into this non-sense?
___ Where s the GOP, Senate, or President going to find "support" to make the House do anything?
It is false, misleading, and incorrect for David Epso to suggest that refusing to cooperate with an illegal war of aggression is an illegal denial of something.
The President can have the discretion to manage resources. When the President ignores advisors and does not manage the finite resources he's been given, then it's prudent for the House to provide guidance.
It is reckless for the House to not do what the GOP, Senate, and President have ignored: Prudence, standards, and responsible leadership.
Overall David Epso appears to be a poodle for the GOP. Notice closely the way he's writing his comments. He fails to look at it from the perspective of We the People; We're not required to support illegal warfare; and We the People can tell the President, with rules, what he should be doing.
Authorization which is illegally abused has no legal foundation. The House does not have to revoke anything; it can simply refuse to fund what is no longer acceptable: This President' recklessness.
The President was not given any discretion to compel, demand, or expect a rubber stamp.
When the President wages illegal warfare, and he abuses power, the action he takes is not longer one for him to decide.
The House is not required to support action which is illegal; or is taken to expand illegal warfare.
There was no WMD. If David Epso does not want to mention the lack of evidence and frauds committed by the OSP and Vice President, then David Epso should not cherry pick on history: No WMD means the AUMF was a fraud.
The US illegal invaded Iraq. Even if the Senate refutes to repeal anything, the House is not in a position to be required to provide any funding.
"Protecting the troops" is a non-sense argument to justify expanding this illegal war of aggression.
The President, GOP, and Senate have no power to compel the House to provide any funding. We the People support the House. We the People have rejected the media and this illegal, reckless activity. If the GOP, Senate, and President want to support what we have rejected, then We the People may legally support the House decision to provide no money for what we do not support; War crimes, recklessness, and failed leadership and management of finite resources only the Congress has the power to provide. The President has no power to make anyone keep giving him resources -- which the GOP has not made available when they alone controlled Congress -- when the President has recklessly managed those finite resources. The wrong answer is to let him have more resources.
The GOP, Senate, and President cannot credibly argue "there is going to be a backlash" when that backlash, despite happening November 2006, has occurred; but hasn't resulted in anything other than more GOP, Senate, and Presidential denial about their war crimes and complicity with illegal warfare.
Nothing has to be "revoked". Regardless what the Senate does or does not do; the House is not required to provide funding that is illegal, cannot be supported, and has put at risk Americans.
Whether the US government does or does not agree that the House is the superior chamber is meaningless. The longer the GOP, President, media, and Senate spew forth fiction about "what might happen" if we the People refuse to support illegal warfare, the more difficult it will be for We the People to forget: You are reckless, incompetent, unresponsive, subject to further rebukes, and should be given higher standards, and more difficult burdens of proof to convince anyone that your drivel should be taken seriously.
David Epso of the AP has well written but poorly argued article. His writing style is captivating, but the ease of reading should not be confused with credibility or objectivity. The assumptions about power are incorrectly deferential to the President.
I would prefer if David Epso would look at the options the President, GOP, and Senate have on the table to compel the House to do or not do anything.
Making meaningless threats to "block" something that has no money isn't a solution, but an empty threat.
In the future, I would ask that David Epso look at the plans the President, GOP, and Senate has to ensure their actions are lawful; and to come to some agreement how they will pretend illegal war crimes from going unchallenged.
Please discuss the GOP, Senate, or Presidential plan to prevent a House filibuster of the Senate; what is the GOP, Senate, or President going to do to prevent the House from discussing things that the Senate reuses to discuss?
The GOP, Senate, and President have no power to make the House add any money.
The Voters accelerated a backlash against the AP, Media, GOP, Senate, and President in November 2006. Anything suggesting the US government, media, or buffoons in the GOP are going to "push back" against the voters is drivel. We the People have the power and are able to make more adverse inferences. Threats of what "might happen" if the House refuses to support illegal warfare are backwards: It's already happened -- the likes of David Epso have been shown to be wanting, unable to answer questions, an unwilling to press the President, GOP, or Senate over what they plan to do to make the House add one dime.
David Epso is powerless to compel the powerless to explain their plan: They have no plan to force the House to give them any money.
The House and DNC have nothing to fear: The real problem is for the AP, David Epso, GOP, Senate, and President to explain: Now that they've run out of options, and the public is not longer buying this non-sense, what do we plan to do next?
Spewing out non-sense isn't a plan, but more of the same. The voters already rejected that, David Epso. Try again.
If the GOP, Senate, and President, and media want to remain relevant they need to confront the illegal warfare, bring it to an end, and be part of the process than transition the American government from the illegal warfare, through the adjudication, then into the punishment for these war crimes.
Until the GOP, Senate, President, and directly confront this government's illegal warfare, then We the People and this government are going in the opposite directions.
We the People are on the right side of the law; we may lawfully seek international assistance to protect the Constitution; and if needed, lawfully create a New Constitution and establish a new government.
We the People spoke on November 2006. The media, GOP, Senate, and President have not credibly sent the message that they understand what a wakeup call means. War crimes prosecutors continue their work, they are circling. All other efforts to end this illegal rebellion and insurrection against the rule of law by this government have failed. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Civilian leaders and members of the media may be legally prosecuted for having failed to prevent, or for inciting unlawful warfare.