ALERT: Obama Bypassing Congress For UN Climate Treaty
On Drudge Right Now
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us...eaty.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.
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?Originally Posted by 56ktarget
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
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
Abandon the system. It doesn't work.
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.
I don't have a problem with 56k. It's interesting to hear what the political opposition thinks.
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.
Gulag Chief: "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"
It's also often amusing.
^^this^^...
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.
...
"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law
"nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence
"I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin
This UN treaty specifically says it will not change US law. Try again.
He can persue such an agreement but it won't be binding.
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.
Umm yes that's how our govt has worked for the last 100 years... We are not a pure democracy...
Let me fix that for you....
it is not thinking, that they do.
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?
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?
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
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.
Gulag Chief: "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"
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.
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 08-27-2014 at 06:57 PM.
Damn it, I hate arguing with the banned, it's like arguing with a zombie.
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.
1776 > 1984
The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.
The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide
Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled
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?
Gulag Chief: "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us