Obama Advisors Declare That President Will Institute Thugocracy If Republicans Don’t Give Him What He Wants

Posted on by ( 5 comments already! )
Spread the love

Loading

Greg:

Yeah, I know — the smelling-salts brigade has declared “thug” to be the new N-word. But given that as recently as a couple of weeks ago the word was used to describe the pasty white Chris Christie. And given that we are hearing that the president plans on working with Congress the same way some street punk with a shank works with his victim — “give me what i want or I’ll take it from you anyway.”

Consider this tidbit from Obama’s official spokesman.

“The president sees this as a year of action to work with Congress where he can and to bypass Congress where necessary,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

In other words, Obama plans on getting what Congress will give him and then taking as much as he can through executive orders.

Never mind that Article I of the Constitution begins with this very simple declaration.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Notice, the president is not given any powers to legislate matters — only Congress is. Indeed, his authority is quite happy.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Can you imagine the caterwauling from the left had Reagan or Bush said anything like this.

Obama is a tyrant. You would think anyone with integrity and intelligence would admit the complete failure of this pathetic, whiner and his anti-American policies. However while they weakly keep blaming Bush 6 years now into Obama for the worsening economy that Obama’s keynesian economic insanity continues to prolong, they refuse to acknowledge Reagan turned around Carter’s economic disaster in just 2 years while setting up the longest period of economic growth since the post WWII era.

And the damage to US prestige from this narcissistic clown is shown in the recent Syrian debacle, and the current threat from Iran to destroy the US if Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities are attacked.

I pray enough people wake up to the threat and eject this criminal and his ilk from the levers of power.

0
Reply

Greg here cites this article about ”Irish Democracy.”
There, Glenn Harlan Reynolds uses the two examples of ObamaCare and Colorado’s pot situation as proof we can use Irish Democracy to take down federal law.
But illegals are also using Irish Democracy to destroy this country’s legal underpinnings.
I guess it is very much the same as saying you have ”gone Galt.”
John Galt was Ayn Rand’s mythical composite of all the people who put down their hands and refused to assist the federal government’s policies and laws.
Glenn points out how so many Americans have NOT signed up for ObamaCare that it may collapse even if elected Republicans fail to act.
Glenn also points out that Colorado’s laws on pot do not do away with federal laws.
But that the feds could never get convictions IN Colorado were they to even try to enforce federal law there.

0
Reply

One thing I wonder. If you violate an executive order, that is not based on a law, is that a crime? I mean, we are a nation of laws and, clearly, an ‘executive order’ is not a law. So, if you violate one, can you be held guilty of violating an executive order? I know that when you are being charged, the specific law is quoted that you have violated. If you have not ‘violated’ a law, just an executive order, who is charged with enforcing illegal executive orders? Is there a branch of government that has been set up to enforce executive orders? Does anyone know, if perhaps, the specific executive order provides for it’s enforcement method? I don’t, personally, believe that an executive order that is not based on a law, can be enforced legally. The word ‘legally’ , itself, implies an act of law, of which an executive order is not.

0
Reply

I might have found the answer to my own question, seems as if Executive orders, not based on a statute that has been passed by Congress is not legal and is not usually enforced if taken to court: Very interesting. Check out the link at bottom to read the whole piece.

Lawsuits that are brought in order to force federal agencies to comply with executive orders are usually dismissed by the courts on the ground that the orders do not provide a Cause of action (i.e., a right to judicial relief). For example, in Acevedo v. Nassau County, 500 F.2d 1078 (2d Cir. 1974), low-income minority groups claimed that the General Services Administration had violated Executive Order No. 11,512 (35 Fed. Reg. 3,979 [1970]) by planning a federal office building without considering the adequacy of low-income housing in the area. The federal court of appeals refused to decide the claim because the plaintiffs lacked standing (i.e., a legally protectible interest). In Manhattan-Bronx Postal Union v. Gronouski, 350 F.2d 451 (D.C. Cir. 1965), the court denied a claim against the postmaster general for violating Executive Order No. 10,988 (3 C.F.R. 521 [1959–1963]), because the president had not granted a right of action. In Independent Meat Packers Ass’n v. Butz, 526 F.2d 228 (8th Cir. 1975), the appellate court stated that to infer a cause of action would create “a serious risk that a series of protracted lawsuits brought by persons with little at stake would paralyze the rulemaking functions of federal administrative agencies.”

Similarly, the courts generally reject claims against private defendants for violations of executive orders. For example, in Cohen v. Illinois Institute of Technology, 524 F.2d 818 (7th Cir. 1975), 425 U.S. 943, 96 S. Ct. 1683, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1976), the appellate court denied a professor’s claim against a university to recover damages for Sex Discrimination in violation of Executive Order No. 11,246, stating that the executive order could not give rise to an independent private cause of action.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order

0
Reply

Seems as if I’m not the only one concerned about Thugocracy, Executive Orders are the very definition of tyranny. might be interesting. Why is Congress and the courts not concerned?

Anderson, Leanna M. 2002. “Executive Orders, ‘The Very Definition of Tyranny,

0
Reply