As Dictators go - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
The occupant of the Oval Office told reporters Wednesday that "the American people don't want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done" He blamed Congress for not acting on immigration reform, not passing a "large infrastructure proposal," college loans, and women getting paid the same as men for the same job. He blamed Republicans specifically. This "president" is pulling a massive shell game on the citizens of America by creating crisis, such as the border invasion by illegals, and then blaming Congress for the problem. He has refused to uphold the laws that are counter to his agenda, prompting even liberal reporters to label him an "imperial president."
The answer was in response to a question by ABC's Jon Karl: "When you were running for President, you said, "The biggest problems we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse." So my question to you--has Congress's inability to do anything significant given you a green light to push the limits of executive power, even a duty to do so? Or put another way--does it bother you more to be accused of being an imperial President, pushing those limits, or to be accused of being a do-nothing President who couldn't get anything done because he faced a dysfunctional Congress?"
According to the Federal Register, the "president" has issued 183 executive orders since 2009, with two more years remaining. This compares with 290 by George W Bush; 363 by Bill Clinton; 165 by George HW Bush; 380 by Ronald Reagan; and 319 by Jimmy Carter. Many use this as a barometer to point out the use of Executive Authority being dictated by a president. It is not, however, the number of the EOs that a president issues, it is the type and the authority they write into them. In addition to the many EOs that this "president" has issued that invade privacy and Constitutional rights of citizens and corporations, he has also refused to enforce voting laws, border security, marriage laws, etc.
The Washington Post pointed out in a July 10 article that the "president" used EOs to halt deportation of illegals who haven't committed a crime (hmmm); emissions cuts by power plants; 23 EOs on gun control; and extend the rights for same-sex couples. Blaming Congress for inaction as an excuse to increase presidential authority is a dictatorial theology. The Constitution separates the powers of government for a reason. If Congress is not acting, there are reservations and the "president" needs to respect that and work through it, not become a dictator. But that seems to be the direction of recent history. Galatians 5:1 says, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." This is good advice for both spirit and body, AND citizens of a government.
The occupant of the Oval Office told reporters Wednesday that "the American people don't want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done" He blamed Congress for not acting on immigration reform, not passing a "large infrastructure proposal," college loans, and women getting paid the same as men for the same job. He blamed Republicans specifically. This "president" is pulling a massive shell game on the citizens of America by creating crisis, such as the border invasion by illegals, and then blaming Congress for the problem. He has refused to uphold the laws that are counter to his agenda, prompting even liberal reporters to label him an "imperial president."
The answer was in response to a question by ABC's Jon Karl: "When you were running for President, you said, "The biggest problems we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse." So my question to you--has Congress's inability to do anything significant given you a green light to push the limits of executive power, even a duty to do so? Or put another way--does it bother you more to be accused of being an imperial President, pushing those limits, or to be accused of being a do-nothing President who couldn't get anything done because he faced a dysfunctional Congress?"
According to the Federal Register, the "president" has issued 183 executive orders since 2009, with two more years remaining. This compares with 290 by George W Bush; 363 by Bill Clinton; 165 by George HW Bush; 380 by Ronald Reagan; and 319 by Jimmy Carter. Many use this as a barometer to point out the use of Executive Authority being dictated by a president. It is not, however, the number of the EOs that a president issues, it is the type and the authority they write into them. In addition to the many EOs that this "president" has issued that invade privacy and Constitutional rights of citizens and corporations, he has also refused to enforce voting laws, border security, marriage laws, etc.
The Washington Post pointed out in a July 10 article that the "president" used EOs to halt deportation of illegals who haven't committed a crime (hmmm); emissions cuts by power plants; 23 EOs on gun control; and extend the rights for same-sex couples. Blaming Congress for inaction as an excuse to increase presidential authority is a dictatorial theology. The Constitution separates the powers of government for a reason. If Congress is not acting, there are reservations and the "president" needs to respect that and work through it, not become a dictator. But that seems to be the direction of recent history. Galatians 5:1 says, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." This is good advice for both spirit and body, AND citizens of a government.
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY PROPHECY WEBSITES...............................
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.