Would You Vote for Bill Clinton Over Barack Obama?

since your to stupid to google or too much of a drone to even look, here are just a few:

Obama’s power grabs are designed to implement his ideological goals, no matter whether they violate his oath of office. November can’t come soon enough.

1. Immigration

By declaring that he will no longer deport most young illegal immigrants, Obama is refusing to follow congressionally passed immigration bills signed into law by earlier presidents. For a constitutional law professor, Obama seems to have forgotten that a presidential administration is supposed to administer the law, not pick and chose which ones to enforce.

2. Fast and Furious

With Obama asserting executive privilege to keep Fast and Furious documents hidden, one has to wonder what the administration is hiding. Why risk a contempt of Congress charge against the attorney general unless the material is politically explosive? The president’s action was reminiscent of Richard Nixon, but no one died at Watergate.

3. Drones

Where is the anti-war left, which was so incensed when President George W. Bush indefinitely detained terrorists but are nearly mute over Obama personally targeting drone victims? The drones aren’t just killing terrorists but also are claiming numerous civilian victims and Obama has deemed that any males near the selected target are fair game for slaughter. It makes Guantanamo look like the more humane option.

4. Obamacare

Obama and congressional Democratic leaders ignored the wishes of the American people and passed into law a highly partisan and unpopular health care bill. The way Obamacare was enacted into law stretched the boundaries of legislative maneuverings by doling out goodies to fence-sitting congressmen. Now there is word from the White House that even if the Supreme Court overturns the law, the president will implement much of it by executive order.

5. Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act is another area where the Obama administration is deciding which laws to enforce and ignoring ones it doesn’t like. Signed into law by President Clinton, the law defines marriage for federal purposes as the legal union of one man and one woman. Apparently enforcing that law is not popular with the president’s campaign donors.

6. Recess appointments

Most presidents make a recess appointment or two during their time in office, but Obama’s method of implementing the practice circumvents the Constitution. The law allows the chief executive to install an official without Senate approval when the chamber is not in session. But when Republicans kept the Senate officially open by scheduling informal sessions during a break, Obama went ahead and made his appointments anyway.

7. Ideological appointments

If personnel is policy, then it should come to no one’s surprise that president’s agenda tilts solidly to the left. Instead of simply looking for the best person to do the job, Obama populated his administration with left-wing ideologues, often drawn from academia and the activist community, meant to advance a progressive agenda. How else to explain Labor Secretary Hilda Solis or Energy Secretary Steven Chu?

8. Executive orders

Obama has signed 128 executive orders, making his own laws by bypassing Congress. The orders have ranged from the futile (closing the Guantanamo Bay terror prison), to the hypocritical (ending torture of terrorists while escalating the drone program, killing them instead.) It is Obama’s favorite method of ignoring laws he doesn’t like (immigration, see No. 1, and DOMA, see No. 5.). He used it to allow states to bypass the No Child Left Behind requirements. Someone, please give this man a copy of the Constitution.

9. Emergency powers

One of Obama’s executive orders deserve special mention: “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” Stunning in its scope, the order gives the president the power to essentially take over the nation’s industrial and technological base in case of a national emergency. Remember, this is the president who doesn’t like to waste a good crisis (see Emanuel, Rahm, 2009).

10. Global groups

Obama is fond of ceding U.S. powers to multilateral organizations like the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and NATO. His “leading from behind” during the Libyan conflict is a case in point. Instead of allowing Congress to perform its constitutional duty to declare war, Obama asserted the U.S. military into the conflict through NATO, with the military alliance calling the shots over U.S. troops.


Clinton's Power Grab Through Executive Order
By Phyllis Schlafly

Faced with a Republican Congress unwilling to grant him all the powers he wants, Bill Clinton has unleashed a blizzard of Executive Orders to grab new authority for the executive branch, make broad public policy changes, and even restructure our governmental system.

Executive Orders have a proper place in federal rulemaking and in implementing the routine business of the executive departments. But Clinton has discovered that Presidential Executive Orders function in a Never Never Land of almost unlimited power, and he is pressing the envelope to move his agenda, both domestic and foreign.

Clinton advanced three of his favorite goals when he issued Executive Order (EO) 13107 on December 10. He increased executive branch authority, he moved America closer into the "web" of treaties, which he promised in his address to the United Nations on September 22, 1997, and he rewarded the feminists who are standing by him in his impeachment trial.

EO 13107, entitled Implementation of Human Rights Treaties, sets up an Interagency Working Group, with representatives from major federal departments, to implement our alleged "obligations" under the many United Nations treaties on human rights "to which the United States is now or may become a party in the future."

Clinton's impudence in presuming to implement treaties that the Senate has refused to ratify is becoming characteristic. Congress had to pass legislation last year to forbid him from using funds to implement the Global Warming Treaty, which the Senate won't ratify.

The first treaty listed in EO 13107 is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted by the UN in 1966, signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977, and ratified by the Senate during George Bush's Administration in 1992. Aggressive implementation of this treaty can open up a can of worms in regard to our First Amendment rights, criminal law, and unique system of federalism.

The treaty's repeated references to the elimination of sex discrimination are just what the radical feminists want in order to "implement" their exotic judicial interpretations of sex. The treaty's Article 23 even binds governments "to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses during marriage," one of the UN "rights" to be monitored by the Article 28 "Human Rights Committee" on which the United States may have only one out of 18 members.

Among the unratified UN human rights treaties that could be "implemented under EO 13107 is the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Administrations all rejected this treaty because it refuses to recognize one of the most fundamental American economic rights, the right to own property.

This UN treaty would bind us "to take steps," including "legislative measures," to the "maximum" of our resources in order to achieve "full realization" of "adequate food, clothing and housing" of everyone in the world. It would bind us "to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need."

The unratified UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would bring about massive UN interference in family life, education, daycare, health care, and standard of living. Article 43 sets up a committee of ten UN "experts" to monitor the raising of children and our "progress" in complying with the treaty's "obligations."

The UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) would require us to follow UN/feminist dictates about "customs and practices," "social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women," "family education," and even revision of textbooks. The Clinton Administration has already started implementing this unratified treaty through the project launched after the 1995 UN Conference on Women called "Bring Beijing Home."

The term Executive Order does not appear in the Constitution, but the President's authority derives from his Article II, Section 3 power to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The validity of particular Executive Orders has often been questioned, but neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has defined the extent of their power, and courts have rarely invalidated or even reviewed EOs.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed a national emergency and issued wide-reaching Executive Orders, notably his 1933 bank holiday and prohibition on private possession of gold, but those orders were subsequently ratified by Congress. The notorious EO 9066, under which some Japanese-Americans were interned during World War II, was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court under FDR's war powers.

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Harry Truman's EO 10340 to seize the nation's steel mills. In 1996, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit invalidated Clinton's EO 12954, which attempted to prohibit federal agencies from doing business with companies that had permanently replaced strikers.

Clinton attempts to insulate his Executive Orders against judicial review. He included a clause in EO 13107 declaring that it "does not impose any justiciable obligations on the executive branch."

It's time to stop Clinton's unprecedented use of Executive Orders to implement ratified and unratified treaties. Our freedom and independence are at stake.

there you go drone, read if you can see with yourt head stuck in the sand.