Rich Lowrey = punk

I don't like Rich Lowrey. He's a conceited, arrogant little punk. What he's doing being editor of the National Review I don't know. He, like most conservatives I know, seems to have mental problems. Their hatred of President Obama is irrational, but then again, conservatives have rarely been known to exhibit rational behavior.

One exception to that rule is Lee, a conservative family member who lives in San Antonio. Below, Lee takes Lowrey to task for Lowrey's ignorant (but red meat to the bigots) column about Obama's immigration moves. This behavior would have been just fine with Lowrey if a conservative President had done it, but as Obama is a Democrat, well, Obama is just shredding the Constitution. What a pile of crap.

Have at him, Lee.

Richie Boy,

If your article were headed "President Obama" instead of just "Obama", where you showed  total disrespect for the President of the United States, probably because he is a Democrat or worst Black. Then perhaps, I would have addressed you as Mr. Lowry but I don't think you deserve that kind of dignity, Richie Boy; both of us are Southerners so I'm sure you understand the lingo.

As a person who has studied political science for longer than you've been alive, I'm going to address just a few of the inconsistencies in your Thanksgiving Day article. First, I'll mention the fact that you used all the key words which are red meat for red necks and your kind of followers, tea partiers and extreme right wingers.

You used the term "executive amnesty".

Richie Boy, you are disingenuous or you handle the truth carelessly.

Some folks will define your words as a lie but you decide if what you wrote is an outright lie. However, I'm certain your choir just loves to hear or read your words of "executive amnesty", whether it's true or false, it doesn't matter. Just like throwing a dead fish in the ocean and let the sharks have a feeding frenzy.

The President did not offer or gave amnesty to one single human being. 

You  know or should know that to be a fact.

Interesting term you used: "Anglo American political history";  As a political scientist with extensive background in history, I was not aware that only Anglo Americans contributed to our political history. Using that term merely accentuates your Southern-bred bigoted writings. Give it some thought, if you're smart enough or knowledgeable enough to comprehend to which background I'm referring.  Since you studied history in Virginia as a true soldier of the South, you learned only the Southern faces of our history. I think I had better history professors than you did.  It's obvious based on your very one-sided arguments. Or, you didn't do your history homework and just listened to your confederate comrades.

You, Sen. Cruz, Speaker Boehner, and Sen. McConnell love to use the term "unilateral action" (we only have one President) and then proceed to repeat the President's civics class to which you referred.  I found that amusing. If you had taken one of my freshmen or sophomore poli-sci classes you would have also mentioned  "Separation of Powers" and "Checks and Balances".  While the Congress and the Courts have a check on the President, the President also has a check on Congress via the veto power, regulatory power, and Executive Power. The President also has a check on the courts through enforcement procedures or regulations and Executive Orders. Do your homework, Boy.

Before I finish dismantling  your attempt at writing a political article for which you are not qualified, in my judgment, let me offer you a little history lesson which you failed to learn in your study of history. Pres. Reagan signed 380 Executive Orders in eight years. One of those legally provided amnesty to undocumented immigrants (do your homework, Richie Boy).  Pres. G.H.W. Bush signed 165 Executive Orders in four years. President Clinton signed 363 Executive Orders in eight years. Pres. G.W. Bush signed 291 Executive Orders in eight years. Pres. FDR signed 3,728 Executive Orders in thirteen years. Thus far, Pres. Obama has signed 189 Executive Orders, and none of those executive actions offered amnesty to one single human being.

Pres. G.W. Bush singed exceptions via hand written comments to hundreds of laws passed by Congress which he signed, basically excusing himself from a particular law being applicable to the Executive. Do your homework Richie Boy.  

If you had one ounce of journalistic professionalism, integrity and honesty, you would have admitted that what bothers Republicans more than anything is that Mr. Obama's Executive Order may affect some four million-plus immigrants while Pres. Reagan's actions affected considerably fewer undocumented.  It's the numbers that bother you. True or False? The other side of this equation is that you and Republicans fear that a substantial majority of these Hispanics may turn out to be future Democratic voters.  Of course, if these Hispanic undocumented immigrants came from Cuba and most likely would be future Republican voters then I am certain you would not have objected to Mr. Obama's Executive Order with such force and neither would immigrant Canadian-Cuban-American Sen. Cruz.  There is nothing like a certified documented hypocrite. (Do you know why Cuban-Americans vote Republican? Take another history course or ask William F. Buckley's favorite family, the Kennedys).

Of course, you had to use the term "prosecutorial discretion". When I think of that term, I think of St. Louis County Missouri prosecutor on the Wilson case and not the immigration agents along the Rio Grande border. I was born and raised on the Rio Grande in the huge metropolitan area of Pharr, Texas.  This has been going on since I was a child down in the Valley in the late 40s and 50s, but it sure is an impressive sounding term. There is absolutely nothing new about that term.  If you look at NYC and how many thousands upon thousands of immigrants came from those European boats and how many thousands if not millions did our NY agents just "leave them alone"?  You probably didn't study the Hungarian invasion of 1956.  Of course a lot of those folks were white with blue eyes, no problema there. Right?  Yes, my history professors were far superior to yours, they taught me the truth, not Southern Confederate style.

I also found amusing that you mentioned Pres. G.H.W. Bush and Tiananmen Square. There is  an asterisk on this issue in the history books. You really used  a "monster" of an example. FYI, I ran for Congress under the G.H.W. Bush ticket in 1988 and to this day he is one of my favorite Presidents.  He is a good and honest man with colorful socks and integrity. I'm sorry I can't say that today for the Republicans, you being one of them. However, many of my friends are Republican and include several family members; there is nothing like a good political fight at the turkey table. Since most of my immediate family, to include wife, kids, brothers, sisters, in-laws are all degreed at least once, many of us with multiple degrees engage in  wholesome well-informed conversations. I'm sorry to inform you that your article on President Obama and his Executive order did not meet our standard for a wholesome conversation. As I mentioned earlier, your articles are mostly red meat for red necks, the poorly informed, poorly educated, and those who need guidance through the wilderness of society. Your kind feed on each other's rhetoric, whether it's true or false doesn't matter, but it surely makes you folks feel good. A very dear and close Republican friend brought this article to my attention and frankly I welcomed it. Excellent comedy while my Cowboys lost to Philly.

If William F. Buckley were alive today, he would be embarrassed by your writings and commentaries. I loved to listen to that man. He was brilliant,  he made sense, he was logical and could back up him comments with facts. You do none of those things.

I do not write for any newspaper nor do I have a blog. I do write political commentaries often on the issues of the times and all my recipients are family, friends, colleagues when I was teaching poli-sci, or when I was a corporate executive during my first career. So this memo will be going  to 97 people around the country and some news organizations as they need to read the other side of the story also.

Yesterday I read in a "Newsmax" article which reported that you are recommending to Speaker Boehner that he should not invite the President to deliver his State of the Union address to Congress as "he is not welcomed".  Richie Boy, you are the most disrespectful writer and un-American citizen I have ever been familiar with in my life. Are you sure you are not a descendent of Virginia KKK blood?  I've known a lot of journalists over the years, and you are a despicable disgrace to such a noble profession. Your are "shamefully careless" with your writings and comments. In the future be careful with the adjectives and adverbs you use, as they may come back to haunt you.

I understand that your speeches and writings are intended for your conservative audience and the more you feed them, the more money you make.  That's the American spirit.  But shouldn't you have some semblance of self-respect and dignity with your work?  I've read Mr. Buckley extensively and am a great admirer of his work. I had a great time in poli-sci grad school discussing and debating his views.  I honestly feel that if you worked for him today, he would fire you on the spot.  But of course, the Republicans of the 60s, 70s, and 80s are not the Republicans of today.  

Richie Boy, in the future when you write this kind of article, please do your homework, comprende?