Obama’s Chief Of Staff Admits They Want Tyranny

[DA 20]

Denis McDonough says Obama’s administration doesn’t want his executive orders subject to anything so piddly and irritating as Congress.

January 26, 2016 By Derek Monson


The White House recently made an amazing—and disturbingly un-American—pronouncement regarding its desire to move its agenda via executive actions. In describing the administration’s intent to pursue “audacious” executive orders, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough stated the Obama administration’s desire that its actions “not be subjected to undoing through [Congress] or otherwise.”

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/26/obamas-chief-of-staff-admits-they-want-tyranny/

 

[mugsy]

While I don't support a lot of the reasoning behind the President's executive actions on gun control (and other things), and also think that where they have been implemented they have often pushed the boundaries of EO legitimate authority, I don't read anything particularly alarming in what Mr McDonough said. A desire is not the same as a belief. I can easily believe that the WH desires that Pres. Obama's EOs not be undone by Congress or the Courts but that is just a wish (they could further their own goal by crafting carefully limited EOs that clearly remain within the administrative authority of the President). If the Chief of Staff had said, Pres Obama's EOs will stand regardless of Court decisions or laws passed by Congress that would be a much bigger deal.

I find much more worrying the President's assertion of a unilateral, essentially unchecked, authority to simply ignore or enforce existing laws at his sole discretion. That's a very serious and Constitutionally unsupportable interpretation of Presidential authority.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I don't need an article to tell me that Obama wants tyranny. Heck, that is the democratic way in this country. Obama is anti America and so are all the liberal democrats. And the sad part about Obama is that it seems no matter what he does whether lawful or not, nothing will ever be done about it.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

...

I find much more worrying the President's assertion of a unilateral, essentially unchecked, authority to simply ignore or enforce existing laws at his sole discretion. That's a very serious and Constitutionally unsupportable interpretation of Presidential authority.

Wait 'till it comes time for him to leave office and he decides to leave it up to his sole discretion as to when he will leave - if he will leave at all!

Woody

For all intents and purposes, anything the Feral(Federal) Government does beyond the bounds of the Constitution is the same as if it were done by a foreign government and should be treated like, and defended against, as such. B.E. Wood

 

[Norinoo]

Doesn't matter who is in the White House, tyranny is the name of the game. I figured out long ago that either the Constitution limits what a criminal in a suit does or permits what a criminal in a suit does. Since it seems that it doesn't limit it must permit. Either way, seems it is ineffective and worthless on the whole.

 

[RugersGR8]

Just remember that no matter what happens, it will never be linked to being part of Obama's term in office or the lib dem's agendas(unless he/they want to lay claim to it). Whether it be using EO's to circumvent the Constitution(as pointed out above) or never being blamed(read below) for their use of polarization, vitriol, etc.(which they continually employ) to advance their agendas, power & control. They want to lay claim to the use of EO's(tyranny) but they don't want to be blamed for polarization/meanness. Doesn't the use of tyrannical EO's increase polarization??


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obama-one-my-few-regrets-my-inability-reduce-polarization-and-meanness-our
Obama: 'One of My Few Regrets Is My Inability to Reduce the Polarization and Meanness in Our Politics'
By Susan Jones | February 11, 2016 | 6:47 AM EST


Be sure and read the replies to the article.