Podesta goes too far

Analysis of the Podesta outrage. Many levels of meaning. Could have been an attempt to warn opposition of what his intentions are. Those intentions may include a coup. Another possibility is that he wants to drive a wedge between the Republican factions. Podesta apologized to Boehner only. The point of this is to annoy the GOP factions with each other and thus split the Republican Party.

Update:

The above is what I could hack out with my smart phone yesterday.  It looks rather meager.

This may be worthy of a more lengthy post because it represents something significant that needs to be addressed.

The significance was greater than the just the outrage of what Podesta said.  He went further than that.  The Townhall article linked from the original post said that Podesta wants Obama to govern by executive fiat.  Townhall says:

Whatever legislation you write with Democrats, and Obama signs into "law," will not be worth the paper it is printed on. Obama's new counselor believes Republicans are evil and therefore Obama ought to be empowered to do whatever he wants no matter what the law says.[emphasis added]

It's noteworthy also that according to Ace that Podesta is claiming:

there's a clause in the Constitution that gives the executive plenary power to fight cults

Which clause is that?  The President is constrained by the Constitution, not empowered by it.  He is constrained to be an officer of the Constitution, not the judge, jury, and executioner of his rivals and critics.  Whatever happened to checks and balances?  We heard about them during the Bush presidency, but that doesn't seem to apply anymore.  It only applies to the GOP "cult", I suppose.  It doesn't apply to the "Messiah".  I suppose we are to feel guilty that Obama has become a victim of his own hype.

Question:

So does this mean that this is the justification for the IRS harassment of Tea Party Groups?  That they are a murderous cult that is worthy of suppression and that the president has this right to suppress this group?  What clause in the constitution grants the authority to unilaterally make this determination and execute it as legitimate policy?

Update:

I'm trying to figure out what Podesta's logic for claiming that the President has the authority to suppress what claims to be a "cult".  During the Civil War, the president at that time, Abraham Lincoln, suspended the writ of habeas corpus.  What does the constitution has to say about that?  There is a clause in there that addresses this issue:  Article I, Section 9 says:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

During the Civil War, the Southern block of states left the Union.  Lincoln determined that this was illegal and that it was in effect, a rebellion against the authority of the United States.  That theory, therefore, would hold.  But what "rebellion" exists today?  Does the mere presence of political opposition to the President now constitute rebellion?  This has not be the case in the past.  There has been tolerance for dissent, and that tolerance is the law of the land, as stated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

I suspect this president and his followers seemed to be confused about what is sovereign and what is not.  The president, and any president is not sovereign.  The president is not the law of the land, the constitution is the law of the land.  Everybody in the government has to swear an oath to support and defend the constitution.  Nobody is required to swear an oath to support any president nor any other politician.  The president and all the people in this country are subject to the sovereign authority of the law.  Obama is not the law.  He is only an officer of the law, subject to that law just like everybody else.

Update:

So, who was the "someone" who should remind Podesta about Jim Jones?  Evidently, that "someone" should be "someone" important.  Evidently, nobody wants to step up to the plate and say something.

Randall Parker had something to say recently about Eloi, Proles, and Morlocks.  The Eloi are the Democrats, the Proles are the Republicans, and the Morlocks are also Democrats.  According to his sources, the GOP has to be trained first before they are allowed to govern.  Parker says that the Eloi don't want to Proles to get ideas and try to implement them.

What does this have to do with Podesta?  Well, Democrats think they are holier than holy.  Any attempt to go around them or through them will draw the most negative of negative responses.  Any opposition to their holiest of holy decrees will be considered treason.  There will be hell to pay.  Such was the case with Bush.