President BO (the amateur president) is once again side-stepping the Constitution. He is exhibiting more and more of the qualities of a first rate despot.
Look, I know other presidents have issued executive orders. But the quantity and nature of recent executive orders is scary.
As I have stated before, this president ignores the Constitution and wants to ignore congress, not for some inside process or policy, but for control of national policy. He threatens to institute and/or change laws with the swipe of a pen.
"I've got a pen and I've got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.
"And I've got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life, nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities, to try to bring more and more Americans together around what i think is a unifying theme; making sure that this is a country where if you work hard, you can make it."
President BO (the amateur president) has told Senate Democrats he plans to use his executive authority to act in 2014 when Congress stands in his way.
When Congress stands in his way? Do you understand what that means?
Are you ready to be ruled by a despot?
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Executive orders or instructions from the president to agents of the executive branch.
They have been an aspect of government from the administration of George Washington.
Obama has issued fewer than recent presidents.
Do you have any specific objections, Joe?
Joe, get off it... in as much as any president can be impeached and removed from office by Congress, our system cannot, by definition produce a despot, your misguided thoughts notwithstanding.
Before you try and quantify presidents for their desire to go around congress, you should take a look at signing statements, the action taken by presidents to themselves decide to exclude themselves, or others, from specific parts of newly approved congressional laws.
This could be understood as the Nixonian belief that something is legal if a president says it is legal.
Pres. Reagan had 250 signing statements, or times he overrode the wishes of Congress. George W Bush had over 1200. So far, President Obama has had 24. You tell me, which one of the presidents has gone around the wishes of Congress more often?
As for Executive Orders, Reagan issued 381 of these and GW Bush 291. So far Pres Obama has issued 167.
If your metric for defining a despot is Executive Orders and the like, President Obama is nowhere in the class of President's Reagan and Bush.
Again, your raw hatred and disgust is getting the best of you.
There are so many more factual ways to be critical of Obama, why go down inaccurate and untrue slopes?
Here's the thing Joe. More Americans voted for Barack Obama, twice, then for all of the Tea Party Republicans combined!
We elected him because we wanted him to lead and to govern.
But a minority of rabid, right wing, Republican House members who represent a very small slice of the electorate, have done everything they can to thwart the will of the vast majority of the American people.
Those Republicans did not come to Washington to govern, they came to Washington to obstruct.
They are determined to stand in the way of the President and the majority of the American people so that they can point to President Obama and say "See? He is a failure as a President because he didn't do everything he said he would!"
You see, they're terrified that if the first black president is successful, the people might elect another one! Or, horror of horrors, a WOMAN! GASP!
Obama is no tyrant. He's doing what we elected him to do which is to put the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Tea Party idiots in their place and GET STUFF DONE!
Ducky: Of course. But this one has strayed from the norm in that he has specifically stated that he will simply bypass Congress. He disrespects them (which is OK for you and me, but not for him) and thinks they are superfluous.
DM: "Joe, get off it"
No.
XO:"Obama is no tyrant."
Yeah. He is.
Joe, you're fond if saying our elected officials should follow the wish if the majority. We determine that through elections. Why should the GOP not follow the wishes of the voters and work with Obama?
Joe - "XO:"Obama is no tyrant."
Yeah. He is."
No, he's not.
He is the legally elected (twice) President of the United States of America, exercising his Presidential powers as defined by the Constitution, and nothing that he has ever done has been judged by the Supreme Court of the United States to be unconstitutional.
That word you keep using, "Tyrant", I do not think it means what you think it means.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyrant
Full Definition of TYRANT
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
If Obama were a tyrant, we'd have the single payer, government sponsored health care system that EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED, INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY ON THE PLANET HAS instead of RomneyCare.
Once again, Joe, executive orders have been a feature of American government from the beginning.
Obama has been judicious in his use of these orders compared to other recent presidents.
Do you have any specific order you can point to as egregious or are you blowing smoke again?
Some back story,Joe.
He wants to raise the minimum wage paid by Federal contractors.
"Oh, the humanity !!!"
Joe, three standing 8's.
Referee stops contest.
Liberals would be screaming to high heaven (if they even believed in Heaven) if a Republican governed like that. The only standards liberals have are double standards.
By the way, let's not forget the 80,000 pages of regulations the Obama regulatory agencies spewed out last year.
Lone, I've posted evidence if that the fact that presidents Bush and Reagan made even more unilateral decisions through signing statements and executive actions than has Pres Obama. Our question is why conservatives like you and Joe are unable to acknowledge your myopic view if the facts when you just don't like them?
Ducky, today maybe a TKO as opposed to the standing 8... These guys heads aren't even in the ring right now.
There's not even been a feeble attempt to argue the facts...
Joe, in what specific ways are the quantity and type of Executive Orders from Pres Obama different from other presidents?
DM: "Joe, you're fond if saying our elected officials should follow the wish if the majority."
I have NEVER said that. You just made that up.
XO: "..."Tyrant", I do not think it means what you think it means."
Actually, I do. And PBO(tac) wants to be one and is doing his best to become one. Get ready. You heard it here.
Ducky: Didn' watch the vid, did you?
LR: Yeah. And its not only the numbers, it is the "Do as I say" attitude of PBO(tac) and the nature of his EOs that is so dire.
DM: If you had read the post you would know that I already acknowledged that other presidents had used EOs. Sorry you can't see the difference. It must be tough being philosophically blind.
Joe - No. And I don't think we are.
Ducky: Didn' watch the vid, did you?
I did. There's nothing there to suggest Obama's EOs are extra or un constitutional. The moron who said Obama is "packing the NLRB" has no idea what he is talking about. By law, the NLRB has five members. It takes three members to have a quorum. At the time of Obama's recess appointments, there were only two, unable to function as prescribed by law, and the Repubs were blocking every appointment he made.
How is it "packing" to appoint the required number of members? It's more like nullification by the Repubs. They have filibustered or filed for cloture a record shattering number of times. It now takes 60 votes to do anything. The Senate, Constitutionally, was never meant to operate this way. When a party's sole political strategy is to obstruct, representative democracy no longer exists. The only tyranny here is the tyranny of the minority.
When Congress is this dysfunctional, a president's recourse is to use to the powers constitutionally granted, EO. As Dave has demonstrated with actual facts, Obama has been way more restrained than his predecessors.
And its not only the numbers, it is the "Do as I say" attitude of PBO(tac) and the nature of his EOs that is so dire.
Be specific on the "nature" of his EOs. As for his attitude, a little too uppity for ya?
Joe... here is your statement... " Look, I know other presidents have issued executive orders. But the quantity and nature of recent executive orders is scary. "
Now, I have shown how the quantity of EO's President Obama has issued pale in comparison to past presidents. His use of signing statements is also incredibly short of past presidents who used the practice regularly to get around the will of the people through congress.
I asked for some specific examples of the quality, or type of EO's you must be talking about since that is all that is left of your barometer of your judgement.
So how about it... can you cite a couple of those EO's that are of such a damaging quality?
Regarding your views on the will of the majority, I am taking your route.
You said it, on your blog, in your comments. Look it up. You believe that Congress should represent the will of the people that elected them if it does not violate the Constitution.
Joe, why do you persist in judging President Obama's desire to, as you say, become a tyrant?
People like you, who froth at the mouth about Obama lose credibility because his actions pale to the actions of history's real tyrants.
We have shown, through verifiable evidence, that President Obama has taken no actions that his predecessors have taken in the office. We have even shown where he has much more restrained while in office.
And yet you, like many of your extreme conservative friends, who by the way, cannot even define that term, had no such criticisms of the guys who single handedly targeted more freedoms of innocent Americans than any admin in history.
Your inability to be as critical of President Bush, the GOP, and conservatives in general [along with some libs] who supported post 9/11 policies that usurped the Constitution, and focus your criticism solely on Pres Obama is telling.
DM: "Your inability to be as critical of President Bush..."
You haven't been reading. I was very critical of a lot Bush did when he was in office. But he's not there any more, and the subject at hand is not Bush, it is President BO (the amateur president).
Tewall: You have to admit, you're not listening.
It's not so much what Obama sows but the way he says it. Any other president (R) using their forum as a bully pulpit would have been called a bully. Pointing fingers like a 5 year old,blaming everyone else for everything. I's an embarrassment to the office. Remember how he excoriated the Supreme court at the SOFU address. He may not be a despot but he sure acts like one.
Dave Miller - Joe was very mildly critical of Bush whom he deemed to be not conservative enough.
But Joe never, ever accused GWB of aspiring to be a tyrant, being a despot, side-stepping the Constitution or breaking the Law.
Joe never questioned GWB's integrity or intelligence, he never questioned the legitimacy of his presidency (anyone remember Bush v Gore and hanging chads??? Hello!!).
Joe never saddled GWB with demeaning nicknames, questioned his citizenship or his religious convictions, he never even questioned having the tax payers foot he bill for transporting GWB's dog to wherever the president was travelling.
But he has done ALL of these things to President Obama.
I don't want to rush to judgement or jump to any conclusions, but I am beginning to suspect that Joe is not overly fond of our President.
But I will go out on a limb and predict that he will really, REALLY hate the next President!
Clinton/Warren 2016!
Clinton/Warren 2020!
XO: "I am beginning to suspect that Joe is not overly fond of our President."
Now you're beginning to get it.
Actually, I though Bush was a fine man. He was one to be quick to give credit to others. I vehemently disagreed with many of his politics. The NSA scandal is an extension of and a predictable result of the inaptly named Patriot Act, which I deplored then and continue to deplore. I did not believe we should have invaded Iraq (I thought we should have assassinated Sadam H.). Once there, I though we should fight to win...only we didn't know how to define that.
Afghanistan has been and is a joke.
So, Bush did some very wrong things. But PBO (tap) has out badded him by hundreds of miles.
However, Joe, the topic is executive orders and you have not written anything which furthers your belief that Obama's use of executive orders has been extreme by any reasonable measure.
Joe loses this round by knockout.
Ducky: Thank you for your astute definition of the topic of my post, which is despotism, not EOs.
Joe - "...I though Bush was a fine man. He was one to be quick to give credit to others."
He didn't really have much choice, because he was too stupid and incompetent to do anything on his own. That's why he surrounded himself with people from his daddy's administration.
Post a Comment