Obama issues more unconstitutional exec. orders on guns, fails yet again.
Standing in a room of victims of gun violence yesterday Obama issued more executive orders on guns that he tried to say would prevent more of their family members of being murdered. Obama invoked Sandy Hook, Ft. Hood and other examples of the “senseless gun violence” that could have been prevented if Congress had acted. Bull.
Obama lied yet again.
Nothing in his latest round of executive orders would have prevented the incidents he cited. Nothing in his latest round of illegal executive orders will even curtail gun violence.
After San Bernadino Obama finally called it terrorism (only because everyone else in the country knew it was Islamic Extremist Terrorism) but starting the next day he and his mouth-pieces re-framed it as gun violence.
To Obama the gun violence issue is purely political. He and his administration refuse to enforce the gun crime laws already on the books. When asked why, the FBI director Comey, one of the few honest Obama administration senior officials, deferred to the Justice Department.
Once again Obama has violated the Constitution and done nothing to address the serious problem of criminals and terrorists acquiring guns to kill American Citizens.
At least Obama is consistent. Obama is a consistent failure.
Federal gun violence convictions have fallen under the Obama administration according to the Syracuse University TRAC Project:
http://www.trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/409/
The question as to why the Obama administration will not enforce the gun laws already on the books continues to hang in the air because the Obama administration refuses to answer that question.
The Obama administration continues to label the NRA “the powerful gun lobby” however the fact is that The NRA has fought for decades to get the Federal Government to actually enforce the existing gun laws and fix the broken background system.
Universal background checks do little to stop mass shootings, study finds
The report, published by the Crime Prevention Research Center on Jan. 2, argues that not only are background checks expensive, but that they have failed to thwart mass public shootings.
http://crimeresearch.org/2016/01/new-cprc-research-do-background-checks-on-private-gun-transfers-help-stop-mass-public-shootings/
Obama's executive action on guns is unconstitutional
President Obama announced Tuesday that he is issuing an executive order on guns and background checks. Here’s a look at what the president is doing and if it is even legal under the Constitution of the United States.
Just what is an executive order? A presidential executive order is a written instruction to persons in the executive branch of the federal government informing them of the manner in which the president wants federal laws or regulations enforced. Executive orders do not direct private persons, or persons in the legislative or judicial branches of government.
Executive orders remain in effect until abandoned or rescinded by the president who issued them or by a successor president.
President Obama has very little room to issue executive orders on guns because the congressional legislation is so extensive, detailed, and clear. The principal thrust of the president’s orders addresses the requirement for background checks in occasional sales and the requirement that occasional sellers become federal licensees and the imposition of reporting upon physicians.
Congress has expressly removed occasional sales (sales not made by full-time dealers) from the obligation of obtaining federal licenses and from conducting background checks.
The president is without authority to negate the congressional will on this, and any attempt to do so will be invalidated by the courts. Mr. Obama will now require that anyone who sells a gun, that is even an “occasional” seller will be required to perform a background check. By defining what an “occasional seller” is, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts.
The courts will ignore his interpretation, and impose their own.
As well, by requiring physicians to report conversations with their patients about guns to the Department of Homeland Security, (yes, even an innocent conversation in the examination room, “we gave Bobby a bee bee gun for Christmas, we plan to get him some instruction on how to use it”) the president will be encouraging our government to invade the patient/physician privilege.
But wait, there’s more. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty. Under the Constitution, fundamental liberities (like speech, press, worship, self-defense, travel, privacy) are accorded the highest protection from governmental intrusion.
One can only lose a fundamental right by intentionally giving it up, or via due process (a jury trial resulting in the conviction of criminal behavior). President Obama -- whose support for the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally limited to the military, police, and his own heavily-armed body guards -- is happy to begin taking America to a slippery slope down the dark hole of totalitarianism whereby a president can negate liberty.
Finally, we still have a Constitution in America. Under the Constitution, Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them.
President Obama can no more write his own laws or impose his own interpretations upon them than the Congress or the courts can command the military.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/the-hear-nothing-gun-crowd.html?_r=0
The Hear-Nothing Gun Crowd
Sometimes in American politics it seems as if we are all talking past each other, that whatever one side says about an issue like, say, taxes zooms right past the other side. The current fight over gun control is not one of those moments. It is a howling storm of misrepresentation, sadly almost entirely from one side. This week’s developments fit the pattern.
On Tuesday in the East Room of the White House, President Obama formally announced that he would be taking a series of executive actions — all of them within his powers as president. It was an important step, since he sometimes seems alone in Washington in his willingness to take on the issue of guns. But none of his actions are aimed at taking weapons away from law-abiding citizens, and none will have that effect. In fact, there has been no bill in real contention in Congress for many years that would reduce the number of guns currently in circulation, or disarm any law-abiding Americans.
And yet, as happens every time, the response from the anti-regulation crowd (even before the White House said a word in public about Mr. Obama’s plans) was to deliberately misstate what Mr. Obama was intending. The president said he wanted to increase the number of government agents to process background checks and make the existing system more effective. He also plans to modestly expand the number of dealers who need federal licenses under current law and said he would ask Congress for more money to combat mental illness.
The Republican machine’s reaction took none of that into account.
“From Day 1,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, “the president has never respected the right to safe and legal gun ownership that our nation has valued since its founding.” Mr. Ryan said that “rather than focus on criminals and terrorists, he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”
Unlike Mr. Ryan, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, arch-right candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, did not even wait for the president to talk before he started spitting out his usual talking points on Monday. “This is a president who for seven years has abused his constitutional authority,” he said, adding: “We don’t beat the bad guys by taking away our guns. We beat the bad guys by using our guns.”
There may be an interesting argument over whether having more civilians walking around with guns and empowered to use them enhances public safety. Our position on this page has been that it makes people less safe.
But propagandists like Mr. Cruz are not interested in conversation. Mr. Obama is not proposing “taking away our guns.” In truth, Mr. Obama is not currently advocating renewal or expansion of the expired assault weapons ban, which is politically understandable but still unfortunate. It’s impossible to believe that Mr. Cruz does not recognize what Mr. Obama is doing, and not doing.
President Obama said Tuesday of his proposal for expanded background checks that “maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.”
Given the situation, it’s hard to imagine a serious conversation about guns as long as politicians in thrall to the gun lobby choose to misrepresent what supporters of gun safety laws are actually saying. Those supporters, by the way, include the 90 percent of Americans who favor universal background checks for gun buyers.
The hear-nothing crowd did not budge when college students were slaughtered on campuses like Virginia Tech, when grade school children were massacred in Connecticut, when people were shot to death in a movie theater in Colorado — and in so many other places, including every day on our streets and in our homes.
They were not even moved to have a serious conversation about gun safety after self-proclaimed Islamist terrorists attacked law-abiding American citizens in California using weapons obtained in the free market of death-dealing instruments so highly prized by the National Rifle Association and those who do its bidding.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/the-hear-nothing-gun-crowd.html?_ r=0
The Hear-Nothing Gun Crowd
Sometimes in American politics it seems as if we are all talking past each other, that whatever one side says about an issue like, say, taxes zooms right past the other side. The current fight over gun control is not one of those moments. It is a howling storm of misrepresentation, sadly almost entirely from one side. This week’s developments fit the pattern.
On Tuesday in the East Room of the White House, President Obama formally announced that he would be taking a series of executive actions — all of them within his powers as president. It was an important step, since he sometimes seems alone in Washington in his willingness to take on the issue of guns. But none of his actions are aimed at taking weapons away from law-abiding citizens, and none will have that effect. In fact, there has been no bill in real contention in Congress for many years that would reduce the number of guns currently in circulation, or disarm any law-abiding Americans.
And yet, as happens every time, the response from the anti-regulation crowd (even before the White House said a word in public about Mr. Obama’s plans) was to deliberately misstate what Mr. Obama was intending. The president said he wanted to increase the number of government agents to process background checks and make the existing system more effective. He also plans to modestly expand the number of dealers who need federal licenses under current law and said he would ask Congress for more money to combat mental illness.
The Republican machine’s reaction took none of that into account.
“From Day 1,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, “the president has never respected the right to safe and legal gun ownership that our nation has valued since its founding.” Mr. Ryan said that “rather than focus on criminals and terrorists, he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”
Unlike Mr. Ryan, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, arch-right candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, did not even wait for the president to talk before he started spitting out his usual talking points on Monday. “This is a president who for seven years has abused his constitutional authority,” he said, adding: “We don’t beat the bad guys by taking away our guns. We beat the bad guys by using our guns.”
There may be an interesting argument over whether having more civilians walking around with guns and empowered to use them enhances public safety. Our position on this page has been that it makes people less safe.
But propagandists like Mr. Cruz are not interested in conversation. Mr. Obama is not proposing “taking away our guns.” In truth, Mr. Obama is not currently advocating renewal or expansion of the expired assault weapons ban, which is politically understandable but still unfortunate. It’s impossible to believe that Mr. Cruz does not recognize what Mr. Obama is doing, and not doing.
President Obama said Tuesday of his proposal for expanded background checks that “maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.”
Given the situation, it’s hard to imagine a serious conversation about guns as long as politicians in thrall to the gun lobby choose to misrepresent what supporters of gun safety laws are actually saying. Those supporters, by the way, include the 90 percent of Americans who favor universal background checks for gun buyers.The hear-nothing crowd did not budge when college students were slaughtered on campuses like Virginia Tech, when grade school children were massacred in Connecticut, when people were shot to death in a movie theater in Colorado — and in so many other places, including every day on our streets and in our homes.
They were not even moved to have a serious conversation about gun safety after self-proclaimed Islamist terrorists attacked law-abiding American citizens in California using weapons obtained in the free market of death-dealing instruments so highly prized by the National Rifle Association and those who do its bidding.
A most excellent, well-written article which makes some great points. Thanks for sharing, georgielad.
Best Blueberry Muffins
By Jennifer Segal
Servings: 12 muffins
Prep Time: 15 Minutes
Cook Time: 30 Minutes
Total Time: 45 Minutes
Ingredients
2 cups all-purpose flour, spooned into measuring cup and leveled-off
2 teaspoons baking powder
3/4 teaspoon salt
1 stick (1/2 cup) unsalted butter, softened
1 cup granulated sugar
2 large eggs
1-1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon almond extract
1/2 cup milk
2-1/4 cups fresh blueberries
2 tablespoons turbinado sugar (also called raw sugar or demerara sugar)
For Cooking
Non-stick cooking spray
12 paper muffin liners
Instructions
Preheat the oven to 375°F. Line a 12-cup muffin tin with paper liners. Spray the pan and the liners with non-stick cooking spray.
In a medium bowl, whisk together the flour, baking powder and salt.
In the bowl of an electric mixer, beat the butter and granulated sugar for about 2 minutes. Add the eggs one at a time, scraping down the sides of the bowl and beating well after each addition.
Beat in the vanilla extract and almond extract. (The batter may look a little grainy -- that's okay).
Gradually add the flour mixture, alternating with the milk, beating on low speed to combine. Add the berries to the batter and fold gently with a spatula until evenly distributed. Do not overmix.
Scoop the batter into the prepared muffin tin (an ice-cream scoop with a wire scraper works well here); they will be very full. Sprinkle the turbinado sugar evenly on top of the muffins.
Bake for about 30 minutes, until lightly golden and a cake tester comes out clean. Let the muffins cool in the pan for about 10 minutes. Run a knife around the edge of each muffin to free it from the pan if necessary (the blueberries can stick), then transfer the muffins to a rack to cool completely.
Best Blueberry Muffins
By Jennifer Segal
Servings: 12 muffins
Prep Time: 15 Minutes
Cook Time: 30 Minutes
Total Time: 45 Minutes
Ingredients2 cups all-purpose flour, spooned into measuring cup and leveled-off
2 teaspoons baking powder
3/4 teaspoon salt
1 stick (1/2 cup) unsalted butter, softened
1 cup granulated sugar
2 large eggs
1-1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon almond extract
1/2 cup milk
2-1/4 cups fresh blueberries
2 tablespoons turbinado sugar (also called raw sugar or demerara sugar)
For Cooking
Non-stick cooking spray
12 paper muffin liners
InstructionsPreheat the oven to 375°F. Line a 12-cup muffin tin with paper liners. Spray the pan and the liners with non-stick cooking spray.
In a medium bowl, whisk together the flour, baking powder and salt.
In the bowl of an electric mixer, beat the butter and granulated sugar for about 2 minutes. Add the eggs one at a time, scraping down the sides of the bowl and beating well after each addition.
Beat in the vanilla extract and almond extract. (The batter may look a little grainy -- that's okay).
Gradually add the flour mixture, alternating with the milk, beating on low speed to combine. Add the berries to the batter and fold gently with a spatula until evenly distributed. Do not overmix.
Scoop the batter into the prepared muffin tin (an ice-cream scoop with a wire scraper works well here); they will be very full. Sprinkle the turbinado sugar evenly on top of the muffins.
Bake for about 30 minutes, until lightly golden and a cake tester comes out clean. Let the muffins cool in the pan for about 10 minutes. Run a knife around the edge of each muffin to free it from the pan if necessary (the blueberries can stick), then transfer the muffins to a rack to cool completely.
A 100% guarantee this will be the best post on this thread. lol
Best Blueberry Muffins
By Jennifer Segal
Servings: 12 muffins
Prep Time: 15 Minutes
Cook Time: 30 Minutes
Total Time: 45 Minutes
Ingredients2 cups all-purpose flour, spooned into measuring cup and leveled-off
2 teaspoons baking powder
3/4 teaspoon salt
1 stick (1/2 cup) unsalted butter, softened
1 cup granulated sugar
2 large eggs
1-1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon almond extract
1/2 cup milk
2-1/4 cups fresh blueberries
2 tablespoons turbinado sugar (also called raw sugar or demerara sugar)
For Cooking
Non-stick cooking spray
12 paper muffin liners
InstructionsPreheat the oven to 375°F. Line a 12-cup muffin tin with paper liners. Spray the pan and the liners with non-stick cooking spray.
In a medium bowl, whisk together the flour, baking powder and salt.
In the bowl of an electric mixer, beat the butter and granulated sugar for about 2 minutes. Add the eggs one at a time, scraping down the sides of the bowl and beating well after each addition.
Beat in the vanilla extract and almond extract. (The batter may look a little grainy -- that's okay).
Gradually add the flour mixture, alternating with the milk, beating on low speed to combine. Add the berries to the batter and fold gently with a spatula until evenly distributed. Do not overmix.
Scoop the batter into the prepared muffin tin (an ice-cream scoop with a wire scraper works well here); they will be very full. Sprinkle the turbinado sugar evenly on top of the muffins.
Bake for about 30 minutes, until lightly golden and a cake tester comes out clean. Let the muffins cool in the pan for about 10 minutes. Run a knife around the edge of each muffin to free it from the pan if necessary (the blueberries can stick), then transfer the muffins to a rack to cool completely.
Just more idiocy in response to a legitimate effort by the President to get something done regarding expansion of background checks for guns. GEEE..........you're SO funny Bhawk.
Best Blueberry Muffins
By Jennifer Segal
Servings: 12 muffins
Prep Time: 15 Minutes
Cook Time: 30 Minutes
Total Time: 45 Minutes
Ingredients2 cups all-purpose flour, spooned into measuring cup and leveled-off
2 teaspoons baking powder
3/4 teaspoon salt
1 stick (1/2 cup) unsalted butter, softened
1 cup granulated sugar
2 large eggs
1-1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon almond extract
1/2 cup milk
2-1/4 cups fresh blueberries
2 tablespoons turbinado sugar (also called raw sugar or demerara sugar)
For Cooking
Non-stick cooking spray
12 paper muffin liners
InstructionsPreheat the oven to 375°F. Line a 12-cup muffin tin with paper liners. Spray the pan and the liners with non-stick cooking spray.
In a medium bowl, whisk together the flour, baking powder and salt.
In the bowl of an electric mixer, beat the butter and granulated sugar for about 2 minutes. Add the eggs one at a time, scraping down the sides of the bowl and beating well after each addition.
Beat in the vanilla extract and almond extract. (The batter may look a little grainy -- that's okay).
Gradually add the flour mixture, alternating with the milk, beating on low speed to combine. Add the berries to the batter and fold gently with a spatula until evenly distributed. Do not overmix.
Scoop the batter into the prepared muffin tin (an ice-cream scoop with a wire scraper works well here); they will be very full. Sprinkle the turbinado sugar evenly on top of the muffins.
Bake for about 30 minutes, until lightly golden and a cake tester comes out clean. Let the muffins cool in the pan for about 10 minutes. Run a knife around the edge of each muffin to free it from the pan if necessary (the blueberries can stick), then transfer the muffins to a rack to cool completely.
Just more idiocy in response to a legitimate effort by the President to get something done regarding expansion of background checks for guns. GEEE..........you're SO funny Bhawk.
Lighten up, Rob. I support the President's actions.
The idiocy is in full display in the OP. I was contributing to that and only that.
When deciding what is constitutional or not, I am going with the guy who taught constitutional law over a knee jerk right wing response.
I agree that the changes are necessary, reasonable, and Constitutional. I am bothered by the fact that this was implemented by executive action rather than legislation. It is a sad testament to current dysfunction of our government.
quote:
quote:Best Blueberry Muffins
By Jennifer Segal
Servings: 12 muffins
Prep Time: 15 Minutes
Cook Time: 30 Minutes
Total Time: 45 Minutes
Ingredients2 cups all-purpose flour, spooned into measuring cup and leveled-off
2 teaspoons baking powder
3/4 teaspoon salt
1 stick (1/2 cup) unsalted butter, softened
1 cup granulated sugar
2 large eggs
1-1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon almond extract
1/2 cup milk
2-1/4 cups fresh blueberries
2 tablespoons turbinado sugar (also called raw sugar or demerara sugar)
For Cooking
Non-stick cooking spray
12 paper muffin liners
InstructionsPreheat the oven to 375°F. Line a 12-cup muffin tin with paper liners. Spray the pan and the liners with non-stick cooking spray.
In a medium bowl, whisk together the flour, baking powder and salt.
In the bowl of an electric mixer, beat the butter and granulated sugar for about 2 minutes. Add the eggs one at a time, scraping down the sides of the bowl and beating well after each addition.
Beat in the vanilla extract and almond extract. (The batter may look a little grainy -- that's okay).
Gradually add the flour mixture, alternating with the milk, beating on low speed to combine. Add the berries to the batter and fold gently with a spatula until evenly distributed. Do not overmix.
Scoop the batter into the prepared muffin tin (an ice-cream scoop with a wire scraper works well here); they will be very full. Sprinkle the turbinado sugar evenly on top of the muffins.
Bake for about 30 minutes, until lightly golden and a cake tester comes out clean. Let the muffins cool in the pan for about 10 minutes. Run a knife around the edge of each muffin to free it from the pan if necessary (the blueberries can stick), then transfer the muffins to a rack to cool completely.
Just more idiocy in response to a legitimate effort by the President to get something done regarding expansion of background checks for guns. GEEE..........you're SO funny Bhawk.
Lighten up, Rob. I support the President's actions.
The idiocy is in full display in the OP. I was contributing to that and only that.
Excellent post Bhawk. When I saw the OP I made myself step away from the computer. I just didn't want to feed the troll.
Rob I too support the actions of the President. I just don't want to argue with the Muleman's lies and nonsense.
Meanwhile, as Congress refuses to address the gun issue, they did vote, once again to repeal Obamacare. It is good to know they have their priorities straight.
Good for the president....Here in New York state we've had basically the same expanded back ground checks in place since the SAFE act was passed several years ago. While there are areas in the state where the act has been unpopular (mostly rural areas) and there are still growing pains associated with its implementation, the sky hasn't fallen and law abiding relatively sane individuals (such as myself 
) can still purchase guns without too much hassle.
I would add that most of the resistance to the above mentioned SAFE act seems, in my experience, directed mostly at the magazine limit issue and not necessarily background checks required as part of the law.
Doesn't seem like he failed to me. If he failed you and the other NRA sheep would be happy. The fact that you're not happy most certainly means that he succeeded.
can a law abiding citizen buy a gun?
yes
should a law abiding citizen be concerned about background checks?
I think not
Will this solve all of the problems with gun violence?
no, but it is one piece of the puzzle. There are many others.
I don't see a problem here - except that Congress should have passed something like this long ago, but tha paranoia and financial reach of the NRA is too strong.
Lighten up, Rob. I support the President's actions.
The idiocy is in full display in the OP. I was contributing to that and only that.
I apologize for misinterpreting your post, Sir. I've loved a lot of your posts in the past. That one however is fairly vague and open to interpretation. But I'm glad we're on the same page and please accept my apologies. I thought this morning before I saw your message that I may have been in error.
Lighten up, Rob. I support the President's actions.
The idiocy is in full display in the OP. I was contributing to that and only that.
I apologize for misinterpreting your post, Sir. I've loved a lot of your posts in the past. That one however is fairly vague and open to interpretation. But I'm glad we're on the same page and please accept my apologies. I thought this morning before I saw your message that I may have been in error.
It's all good. Let's hug it out.
quote:
quote:Lighten up, Rob. I support the President's actions.
The idiocy is in full display in the OP. I was contributing to that and only that.
I apologize for misinterpreting your post, Sir. I've loved a lot of your posts in the past. That one however is fairly vague and open to interpretation. But I'm glad we're on the same page and please accept my apologies. I thought this morning before I saw your message that I may have been in error.
It's all good. Let's hug it out.
I think it's hilarious that I don't want to feed the troll but Bhawk wants to feed it blueberry muffins.
And not just any blueberry muffin... The "Best Blueberry Muffin"!
just shows the compassion of the ABB community Billy, only the best for our trolls.
I'm actually expecting the Dept of Commerce to try and do away with the executive order.
quote:
quote:Lighten up, Rob. I support the President's actions.
The idiocy is in full display in the OP. I was contributing to that and only that.
I apologize for misinterpreting your post, Sir. I've loved a lot of your posts in the past. That one however is fairly vague and open to interpretation. But I'm glad we're on the same page and please accept my apologies. I thought this morning before I saw your message that I may have been in error.
It's all good. Let's hug it out.
I think it's hilarious that I don't want to feed the troll but Bhawk wants to feed it blueberry muffins.
And not just any blueberry muffin... The "Best Blueberry Muffin"!
Wait 'til you see my macaroon recipe...:D
The NRA mentioned that gun-control advocates, like the president, are hypocrites because they support abortion. I don't see how that is relevant to the gun-control debate at all. Are they saying that if abortions were banned then they would support gun-control? Or do they just want to point out that we are hypocrites? Because, again, that does not address the gun-control debate at all. We are all hypocrites in many different ways. So far, the NRA has yet to address the gun-control debate. One would think they have a lot to say about it. Especially to the president of the United States. It sounds like they were scared.
For me, it boils down to a couple of basic points. The notion that since we cannot stop them all, then we should not try to stop some, is flat out ridiculous. Second, Can someone here with children please explain to me how you could oppose these gun-control measures, when they are only designed to help stop someone from murdering your family?
Surely, these measures could prevent just one mass murder. If these do prevent one murder, then isn't it all worth it? If you say no, then I don't know what to tell you about yourself.
Obama is on pace to issue fewer executive orders than any president since Grover Cleveland's first administration (1885-1889). Just sayin'.
[Edited on 1/8/2016 by gondicar]
Lighten up, Rob. I support the President's actions.
The idiocy is in full display in the OP. I was contributing to that and only that.
I apologize for misinterpreting your post, Sir. I've loved a lot of your posts in the past. That one however is fairly vague and open to interpretation. But I'm glad we're on the same page and please accept my apologies. I thought this morning before I saw your message that I may have been in error.
It's all good. Let's hug it out.
Freakin' Kansas commies.
Obama is on pace to issue fewer executive orders than any president since Grover Cleveland's first administration (1885-1889). Just sayin'.
[Edited on 1/8/2016 by gondicar]
__________________________________________________________________________
It isn't the number of exec. orders that matters. It is the intended effect and the illegality of Obamas.
Fortunately the courts have stuck down of stopped Obama many times.
This recent batch of exec. orders regarding guns are illegal and proven so in my first post.
Some here have said that they are legal but not one of the people have demonstrated why.
It would seem, yet again, that they are forming their opinions based on left-wing media and liberal blogs; not on anything factual.
When deciding what is constitutional or not, I am going with the guy who taught constitutional law over a knee jerk right wing response.
French Macarons
4 ounces (115g) blanched almonds or almond flour, or whatever nut you like
8 ounces (230g) powdered sugar*
5 ounces egg whites (144g), temperature and age not important!
2 1/2 ounce (72g) sugar
the scrapings of 1 vanilla bean or 2 tsp vanilla extract
1/2 tsp (2g) kosher saltapproximately 10 ounces (290g) Swiss buttercream
If you’d like to see step-by-step photos of this recipe, Mardi from Eat. Live. Travel. Write. has posted some fabulously detailed images here.
Preheat the oven to 300° and have ready a large (18”) pastry bag, fitted with a plain tip. If you haven’t wrangled a pastry bag into submission before (or if you have and found it frustrating), these 12 tips for using a pastry bag will make the process mess and stress free; take the time to read them before you get started and you’ll do great!
You’ll also need two parchment lined sheet pans ready too.
I am hopelessly impatient and given to rushing, even when I know better. So to prevent my macarons from growing ever larger as I pipe, I use a 1 1/2” cookie cutter to trace out guide-circles (about an inch apart) and then I flip the parchment paper over, ink side down.
If you use almond flour, you lucky dog, simply sift it with the powdered sugar and set aside. If a significant portion won’t go through your sifter, however, you’ll need to grind them up until they do.
In that case, or if you’re using whole nuts, bust out your food processor. Process the almonds and powdered sugar for about a minute. Take out the mixture and sift it, reserving whatever bits don’t pass through the sieve. Add these bits back to the food processor and run the machine for another minute. Sift again. You should have about 2 Tbsp of slightly chunkier almond bits, but hakuna matata. Just add those into the dry mix.
In the bowl of a stand mixer, combine the egg whites, sugar, vanilla bean (not the extract), and salt and turn the mixer to medium (4 on a Kitchen Aid). Whip for 3 minutes. They will not seem especially foamy at that point.
Increase the speed to medium-high (7 on a Kitchen Aid) and whip another 3 minutes, then crank the speed to 8 for go another 3 minutes.
At that point, turn the mixer off and add in any extracts/flavor/color and whip for a final minute on the highest speed, just to show it who’s boss (and to evenly distribute the color/flavor). I highly recommend not adding any flavor or color if it’s your first time, or if you’re wanting to learn about macarons. Additives make learning trickier. If you’re not here to learn, just to eat, then carry on!
At the end of this minute, you should have a very stiff, dry meringue. (Check out this photo if you’d like to see a picture of how your meringue should look.) When you remove the whisk attachment, there will be a big clump of meringue in the center, just knock the whisk against the bowl to free it. If the meringue has not become stiff enough to clump inside the whisk, continue beating for another minute, or until it does so.
Now dump in the dry ingredients all at once and fold them in with a rubber spatula. Use both a folding motion (to incorporate the dry ingredients) and a rubbing/smearing motion, to deflate the meringue against the side of the bowl.
First timers: the dry ingredients/meringue will look hopelessly incompatible at first. After about 25 turns (or folds or however you want to call “a single stroke of mixing”) the mixture will still have a quite lumpy and stiff texture. Another 15 strokes will see you to “just about right.” Keep in mind that macaronage is about deflating the whites, so don’t feel like you have to treat them oh-so-carefully. You want to knock the air out of them.
Undermixed macaron batter: quite stiff. If you spoon some out and drop it back into the mix, it will just sit there and never incorporate. Do this test before bagging your batter and save yourself the trouble of baking of undermixed macarons!
Overmixed macaron batter: has a runny, pancake batter-like texture. It will ooze continuously, making it impossible to pipe into pretty circles. Um, try not to reach that point.
You can evaluate your batter one stroke at a time, no rush.
Essentially, the macaron batter needs enough thickness that it will mound up on itself, but enough fluidity that after 20 seconds, it will melt back down. I’ve heard people describe this consistency as lava-like, or molten, and that’s pretty apt.
Transfer about half the batter to a piping bag. (When your bag is too full, the pressure causes the batter to rush out in a way that’s difficult to control, making for sloppy macarons.)
Pipe the batter into the pre-traced circles on the baking sheet. Stop piping just shy of the borders of the circle, as the batter will continue to spread just a bit.
After piping your macarons, take hold of the sheet pan and hit it hard against your counter. Rotate the pan ninety degrees and rap two more times. This will dislodge any large air bubbles that might cause your macarons to crack
Bake for about 18 minutes, or until you can cleanly peel the parchment paper away from a macaron. If, when you try to pick up a macaron, the top comes off in your hand, it’s not done.
Once the macarons have baked, cool thoroughly on the pans, before peeling the cooled macarons from the parchment. Use a metal spatula if necessary.
Fill a pastry bag fitted with the buttercream of your choice and pipe a quarter sized mound of buttercream into half of the shells, then sandwich them with their naked halves.
Macarons, against all pastry traditions, actually get better with age. The shells soften and become more chewy, mingling with the flavor of the buttercream too. So, while of course you can eat them right away, don’t hesitate to store them refrigerated for up to a week. If at all possible, set them out at room temperature for a few hours before consuming, because cold buttercream is kinda gross.
Does it have to be "Swiss" buttercream? I only have French buttercream.
Does it have to be "Swiss" buttercream? I only have French buttercream.
Low class heathen! 😛
When deciding what is constitutional or not, I am going with the guy who taught constitutional law over a knee jerk right wing response.
________________________________________________________________________
Do you mean the guy who calls himself a "constitutional law professor"? He was not.
Do you mean the guy that was hired as an instructor and after one semester was not asked to return?
Do you mean the guy who issues exec. orders that have been stopped by the courts?