ALERT: Obama Bypassing Congress For UN Climate Treaty

[jclay2]

On Drudge Right Now

http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0

The tyrant is getting his executives muscles warmed up. My guess is this is a trial baloon before the big one comes, ie legalize the illigals.

[56ktarget]

If he's a tyrant, then how come he can't pass a dog catcher bill through Congress?

Oh yeah, that's right, he's actually the "weakest" president in Congressional ability since Truman.

[kcchiefs6465]

If he's a tyrant, then how come he can't pass a dog catcher bill through Congress?

Oh yeah, that's right, he's actually the "weakest" president in Congressional ability since Truman.
Would him enacting laws that you see fit through executive fiat make you happy?

[acptulsa]

If he's a tyrant, then how come he can't pass a dog catcher bill through Congress?

Oh yeah, that's right, he's actually the "weakest" president in Congressional ability since Truman.

He's a tyrant because he's trying to make us all subject to a U.N. treaty by bypassing the Senate in direct violation of the law of this land, the United States Constitution. That would pretty much be the definition of 'dictator' and/or 'tyrant' right there. We have representatives and, in a republic, we are supposed to benefit from their representation.

He's a tyrant because he swore--twice--to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution and he is trying to bypass it instead.

A tyrant doesn't need to pass anything through Congress. That's what makes them tyrants. What part of this extraordinarily simple concept is giving you difficulty?

[jclay2]

He's a tyrant because he's trying to make us all subject to a U.N. treaty by bypassing the Senate in direct violation of the law of this land, the United States Constitution. That would pretty much be the definition of 'dictator' and/or 'tyrant' right there. We have representatives and, in a republic, we are supposed to benefit from their representation.

He's a tyrant because he swore--twice--to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution and he is trying to bypass it instead.

A tyrant doesn't need to pass anything through Congress. That's what makes them tyrants. What part of this extraordinarily simple concept is giving you difficulty?

Exactly this! + rep

Looking forward to the day when 56k is banned and his nonsense leaves this forum

[staerker]

............................................^^^

Abandon the system. It doesn't work.

[AuH20]

If he's a tyrant, then how come he can't pass a dog catcher bill through Congress?

Oh yeah, that's right, he's actually the "weakest" president in Congressional ability since Truman.

And who's fault would that be? He had close to both houses of Congress in his hand and ultimately failed. Not to mention he has gone out of his way to head one of the most conniving and polarizing administrations in recent history.

[AuH20]

Exactly this! + rep

Looking forward to the day when 56k is banned and his nonsense leaves this forum

I don't have a problem with 56k. It's interesting to hear what the political opposition thinks.

[brushfire]

What part of this extraordinarily simple concept is giving you difficulty?
The persona probably cant see obama for who he is. Just change the name to bush and they'd calling him a tyrant too.

Another victim of the false dichotomy, political theater.

[green73]

I don't have a problem with 56k. It's interesting to hear what the political opposition thinks.

It's also often amusing.

[ClydeCoulter]

...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
...

^^this^^

[56ktarget]

This UN treaty specifically says it will not change US law. Try again.

[Zippyjuan]

He can persue such an agreement but it won't be binding.

[Anti Federalist]

This UN treaty specifically says it will not change US law. Try again.

No, it won't, what it will do is give regulators the impetus to change regulations that will bring US regulations into compliance with UN mandates.

Happening every day, with more and more frequency.

The vast majority of rules that we labor daily to make sure we are in compliance with are NOT US laws, voted on, debated and approved by the Congress and signed by the President.

They are regulations promulgated by the multiple alphabet soup agencies of the government, written with the force of law with no more public input than a "sixty day comment period".

Regulation without Representation.

[56ktarget]

Umm yes that's how our govt has worked for the last 100 years... We are not a pure democracy...

[Lord Xar]

I don't have a problem with 56k. It's interesting to hear what the political opposition thinks.

Let me fix that for you....


I don't have a problem with 56k. It's interesting to hear what the political opposition thinks emotions.

it is not thinking, that they do.

[Anti Federalist]

Umm yes that's how our govt has worked for the last 100 years... We are not a pure democracy...

Yes, and that is why any sensible observer of history will look at the "Progressive Era" of roughly 100 years ago as one of the turning points of the American Experiment, and where freedom and liberty took another bad hit to the jawbone.

So, you are perfectly OK with unelected and unaccountable people, both in DC and in London, running your life?

[56ktarget]

I'm sure if Anti-Fed existed in colonial times, he'd be complaining about how George Washington should be killed because he was an unelected general in the RW and a near-unelected president in the new USA. Do you even know the difference between a democracy and a republic?

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm sure if Anti-Fed existed in colonial times, he'd be complaining about how George Washington should be killed because he was an unelected general in the RW and a near-unelected president in the new USA. Do you even know the difference between a democracy and a republic?
Your posts are amusing.

Do you the difference between collectivism and individualism? Tyranny and freedom? Immorality and morality?

[brushfire]

I'm sure if Anti-Fed existed in colonial times, he'd be complaining about how George Washington should be killed because he was an unelected general in the RW and a near-unelected president in the new USA. Do you even know the difference between a democracy and a republic?

I'm sure that your sole purpose is to agitate and go back to your progressive forum and gloat about your adventures in trolling the RPF.

When you crawl back to your hole, tell the other progressive critters that it is the government that is the catalyst for corruption and corporatism. Next time they're off chanting their progressive speak on wall street, in their tent camps, please explain to them that the answer to the corporatist takeover of the government is not to grant more power to the government - regulatory or otherwise.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm sure if Anti-Fed existed in colonial times, he'd be complaining about how George Washington should be killed because he was an unelected general in the RW and a near-unelected president in the new USA. Do you even know the difference between a democracy and a republic?

Ummm, better brush up on your history...that is precisely what the Anti Feds were arguing about.

They were not out to kill Washington, but they made it clear they opposed the Executive and the powers granted to him under the 1787 Constitution.

They warned everybody what would happen, that the Executive would become, for all intents and purposes, a new monarch, just as tyrannical and powerful as the one they just overthrew.

Democracy, yeah I know what that is: three wolves and a sheep, voting on what to have for dinner.

[Anti Federalist]

Damn it, I hate arguing with the banned, it's like arguing with a zombie.

[DamianTV]

If he's a tyrant, then how come he can't pass a dog catcher bill through Congress?

Oh yeah, that's right, he's actually the "weakest" president in Congressional ability since Truman.

Well he has certainly spent more money than any other president in history. Now that statement right there doesnt tell the whole story. Does that mean he is a spendthrift president, or that the value of our currency has dropped by that much? In the case of the latter, he might be let mostly off the hook, but only mostly as he wont lift a finger to End the Fed.

[Zippyjuan]

Well he has certainly spent more money than any other president in history. Now that statement right there doesnt tell the whole story. Does that mean he is a spendthrift president, or that the value of our currency has dropped by that much? In the case of the latter, he might be let mostly off the hook, but only mostly as he wont lift a finger to End the Fed.

Presidents don't decide how much to spend. Congress does. Presidents only get to sign or veto any spending bills- he can't write them.

[brushfire]

Presidents don't decide how much to spend. Congress does. Presidents only get to sign or veto any spending bills- he can't write them.

So the president has no control over spending? He's just there for the ride?

[Zippyjuan]

Pretty much. Even Ron Paul could not make budget cuts on his own if he was President. According to the US Constitution, all spending bills must originate in the House Of Representatives. The Senate must agree with them on a budget (it gets kicked back and forth until they do reach agreement) which is then passed along to the President to either sign or veto the whole thing.