All it takes is a phone and a pen

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
79,936
1,851
113
Obama bragged he had both to "move the ball forward" without Legislation from Congress, so he used his executive authority to overrun the Legislative process and rule through regulations. Good part all of that, is now it can all be undone with another phone and a different pen.

So say bye-bye to:

1. DACA and DAPA amnesty
The president unilaterally superseded the nation’s immigration laws by illegally granting amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants through his Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) executive orders.

This, of course, came after the president said at least 22 times that he does not have the power to make such sweeping, unilateral moves such as granting temporary legal status to illegal immigrants via executive order. The amnesty-granting move was so outrageous even the Washington Post editorial board characterized the move as “unprecedented” and wrote “Republicans’ failure to address immigration also does not justify Mr. Obama’s massive unilateral act.”

2. Obama’s Clean Power Plan executive actions
After the Obama administration failed to see cap-and-trade legislation become law in 2009, the president decided to take action himself. Through the EPA, the president instituted a series of rules that effectively instituted cap-and-trade (essentially a tax on carbon emissions). The plan is a job-killer (especially for the already-struggling coal industry) and raises costs for all U.S. households. It also illegitimately reinterprets the Clean Air Act to achieve its policy and is facing several court challenges from the states. President-elect Trump can put an end to the onerous climate regulations by instructing the EPA formally revoke the plan.

3. Forcing federal contractors to violate their religious beliefs
Executive Order 13672 required all federal contractors and subcontractors to affirmatively state that they make employment decisions without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. There was no exemption for religious liberty, and those that refused to comply with the order were declared ineligible to contract with the federal government. What this policy did, in effect, was restrict the First Amendment liberties of federal contractors, such as military chaplains, by forcing them to use vendors who disregard the religious teachings on marriage and gender identity respective to their denominations.

In the particular case of a military chaplains, they are required to have the backing of an endorsing body. If that endorsing body – say the Catholic Church – has a doctrine that disagrees with the progressive view on sexual liberty, that body will not be permitted to contract with the government and the chaplain will lose his sponsor, rendering him unable to serve. To preserve the First Amendment freedoms of federal contractors, this executive order must be revoked.

4. The transgender bathroom order
Obama issued guidelines to public school districts in the U.S. admonishing them to let transgender students use the bathroom of their self-proclaimed identity. Though the letter does not have the force of law, Obama’s Department of Education went ahead and threatened to revoke federal funding to schools that do not permit confused boys and girls into the bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex.

The most troubling aspect of Obama’s actions is, as CR’s Nate Madden wrote, “the administration has declared itself a scientific arbiter of what constitutes the very nature on man and woman.” The government should not have such power, and President-elect Trump should instruct his nominee for secretary of education, Betsy Devos, to roll back the Department of Education’s funding threats.

5. Appeasing the world’s leading terrorism sponsor: Iran
President Obama upturned a two-decade standing policy of the United States when he revoked economic sanctions against the terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime in early 2016. The move freed up as much as $150 billion of frozen Iranian assets under the assumption that Iran would comply with the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration.

A year later, we know that Obama secretly gave Iran exemptions on certain provisions in the deal, and even with these exemptions Iran is violating the terms of the agreement. President-elect Trump should reimpose sanctions on Day 1.

6. Gun control
In early 2016, President Obama announced sweeping executive actions on gun control that instructed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to redefine who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. By broadening that term, the administration could classify anyone who sells a firearm as a “firearms dealer,” potentially subjecting private sellers to a slew of onerous regulations meant to apply to retail firearms dealers.

Redefining a law to apply to individuals Congress did not intend the law to apply to is an unconstitutional overreach by the executive branch. Further, placing an undue burden on gun owners potentially infringes on the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, President-elect Trump ought to put these regulations on the chopping block.

7. Gutting work requirements for welfare
In the mid 1990s, a Republican-controlled Congress led by Newt Gingrich successfully compromised with President Bill Clinton to enact welfare reform that placed a work requirement on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. These work requirements were made mandatory and nonwaivable, and the subsequent success of the welfare reform led to a drop in welfare recipients and a decrease in child poverty.

President Obama illegally claimed the authority to waive the TANF work requirements. As a result, more individuals are back on on the government dole. If President-elect Trump wishes to pursue a pro-growth policy and get people working again, he should reinstate welfare reform requirements.

These are just a few of the many executive orders issued by President Obama that are under review by the incoming Trump administration. Obama staked his legacy on the election of a Democrat to succeed him and uphold his policies. He didn't count on a Republican to come in after him and just as easily undue his handiwork.

Good riddance.



- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/...mpaign=newslettertraffic#sthash.mn7zYsEq.dpuf
 

MountaineerWV

Sophomore
Sep 18, 2007
26,324
191
0
Pretty sure your buddy Tillerson had deals with Iran.....or were they not "terrorists" then, when he had those deals?
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,572
755
113
Pretty sure your buddy Tillerson had deals with Iran.....or were they not "terrorists" then, when he had those deals?
Pretty sure Tillerson was working on behalf of Exxon stockholders and not all citizens of the US. Most people who care to be honest with themselves would understand the difference.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Pretty sure Tillerson was working on behalf of Exxon stockholders and not all citizens of the US. Most people who care to be honest with themselves would understand the difference.
But I should feel safe letting business go free without regulation or restraint, because they will always do what's best for the American people, right?
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,684
1,749
113
But I should feel safe letting business go free without regulation or restraint, because they will always do what's best for the American people, right?
If you thought the Iran deal was about anything more than opening up opportunity for business, you really are naïve to how the world works. This was all about a money grab.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Obama bragged he had both to "move the ball forward" without Legislation from Congress, so he used his executive authority to overrun the Legislative process and rule through regulations. Good part all of that, is now it can all be undone with another phone and a different pen.

So say bye-bye to:

1. DACA and DAPA amnesty
The president unilaterally superseded the nation’s immigration laws by illegally granting amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants through his Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) executive orders.

This, of course, came after the president said at least 22 times that he does not have the power to make such sweeping, unilateral moves such as granting temporary legal status to illegal immigrants via executive order. The amnesty-granting move was so outrageous even the Washington Post editorial board characterized the move as “unprecedented” and wrote “Republicans’ failure to address immigration also does not justify Mr. Obama’s massive unilateral act.”

2. Obama’s Clean Power Plan executive actions
After the Obama administration failed to see cap-and-trade legislation become law in 2009, the president decided to take action himself. Through the EPA, the president instituted a series of rules that effectively instituted cap-and-trade (essentially a tax on carbon emissions). The plan is a job-killer (especially for the already-struggling coal industry) and raises costs for all U.S. households. It also illegitimately reinterprets the Clean Air Act to achieve its policy and is facing several court challenges from the states. President-elect Trump can put an end to the onerous climate regulations by instructing the EPA formally revoke the plan.

3. Forcing federal contractors to violate their religious beliefs
Executive Order 13672 required all federal contractors and subcontractors to affirmatively state that they make employment decisions without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. There was no exemption for religious liberty, and those that refused to comply with the order were declared ineligible to contract with the federal government. What this policy did, in effect, was restrict the First Amendment liberties of federal contractors, such as military chaplains, by forcing them to use vendors who disregard the religious teachings on marriage and gender identity respective to their denominations.

In the particular case of a military chaplains, they are required to have the backing of an endorsing body. If that endorsing body – say the Catholic Church – has a doctrine that disagrees with the progressive view on sexual liberty, that body will not be permitted to contract with the government and the chaplain will lose his sponsor, rendering him unable to serve. To preserve the First Amendment freedoms of federal contractors, this executive order must be revoked.

4. The transgender bathroom order
Obama issued guidelines to public school districts in the U.S. admonishing them to let transgender students use the bathroom of their self-proclaimed identity. Though the letter does not have the force of law, Obama’s Department of Education went ahead and threatened to revoke federal funding to schools that do not permit confused boys and girls into the bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex.

The most troubling aspect of Obama’s actions is, as CR’s Nate Madden wrote, “the administration has declared itself a scientific arbiter of what constitutes the very nature on man and woman.” The government should not have such power, and President-elect Trump should instruct his nominee for secretary of education, Betsy Devos, to roll back the Department of Education’s funding threats.

5. Appeasing the world’s leading terrorism sponsor: Iran
President Obama upturned a two-decade standing policy of the United States when he revoked economic sanctions against the terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime in early 2016. The move freed up as much as $150 billion of frozen Iranian assets under the assumption that Iran would comply with the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration.

A year later, we know that Obama secretly gave Iran exemptions on certain provisions in the deal, and even with these exemptions Iran is violating the terms of the agreement. President-elect Trump should reimpose sanctions on Day 1.

6. Gun control
In early 2016, President Obama announced sweeping executive actions on gun control that instructed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to redefine who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. By broadening that term, the administration could classify anyone who sells a firearm as a “firearms dealer,” potentially subjecting private sellers to a slew of onerous regulations meant to apply to retail firearms dealers.

Redefining a law to apply to individuals Congress did not intend the law to apply to is an unconstitutional overreach by the executive branch. Further, placing an undue burden on gun owners potentially infringes on the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, President-elect Trump ought to put these regulations on the chopping block.

7. Gutting work requirements for welfare
In the mid 1990s, a Republican-controlled Congress led by Newt Gingrich successfully compromised with President Bill Clinton to enact welfare reform that placed a work requirement on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. These work requirements were made mandatory and nonwaivable, and the subsequent success of the welfare reform led to a drop in welfare recipients and a decrease in child poverty.

President Obama illegally claimed the authority to waive the TANF work requirements. As a result, more individuals are back on on the government dole. If President-elect Trump wishes to pursue a pro-growth policy and get people working again, he should reinstate welfare reform requirements.

These are just a few of the many executive orders issued by President Obama that are under review by the incoming Trump administration. Obama staked his legacy on the election of a Democrat to succeed him and uphold his policies. He didn't count on a Republican to come in after him and just as easily undue his handiwork.

Good riddance.



- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/...mpaign=newslettertraffic#sthash.mn7zYsEq.dpuf


I think Trump surprises everyone in immigration. Here is my guess. First of all, the wall and border security will happen. DACA may go because I believe it is unconstitutional. However, I think Trump initially focuses on deporting illegals with felony convictions. That is easy to do and would make the country much safer and one that the vast majority of people would agree with. I think the next part gets trickier.

One of two things will happen. Trump will ask the law abiding illegals to go back and then reapply for entry. If they have a job, speak English and pay a fine, they get a rapidly approved green card. If after 6 months to a year, any illegal is caught in the country without a green card, they are deported. The second option is that they apply for a green card while in the U.S. They will get approved if they speak English, have a job and pay a fine. Again, after this registration period is over, any illegal caught in the country will be deported. Naturally, any illegal caught in the country with a felony record will be deported.

It's humane and legalizes those here just doing a job. They then begin to pay taxes like the rest of us. I think most of the country would support such an approach.

As for Sanctuary cities, it will take court rulings, but they will comply. In the meantime while the courts decide, they will lose federal funding.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
79,936
1,851
113
I think most of the country would support such an approach.

I'd go for that PAX, as long as they also can't vote or get free stuff like food stamps, health care services, SSI disability payments, or any other types of Public assistance including free education if they have kids.

No voting until they have full citizenship. Pay tuition at Public schools. Buy their own Healthcare, food, pay for their own rent/housing and no Social Security until they apply for and become citizens.

Voting is the key though, that's why the Dems really want more of them here. To assure their votes by promising to give them all of the rest of the free handouts and goodies at our expense.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
79,936
1,851
113
Pretty sure your buddy Tillerson had deals with Iran.....or were they not "terrorists" then, when he had those deals?

Actually we used to deal with the Shah before the Mullahs took over. Iran was once a staunch U.S. ally. Exxon was probably there even before then, so I wouldn't be surprised he (Tillerson) had some business infrastructure in Tehran he had to deal with. In no way does either he or Trump support the current Islamic extremist regime Hell bent on the destruction of Israel.

I guarantee you we will help Israel put a stop to Iran's pursuit of a Nuclear weapon unlike Obama who essentially gave them a green light to pursue one through that sham agreement Kerry negotiated with them. That turkey is likely to get dismantled, if not seriously altered.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I'd go for that PAX, as long as they also can't vote or get free stuff like food stamps, health care services, SSI disability payments, or any other types of Public assistance including free education if they have kids.

No voting until they have full citizenship. Pay tuition at Public schools. Buy their own Healthcare, food, pay for their own rent/housing and no Social Security until they apply for and become citizens.

Voting is the key though, that's why the Dems really want more of them here. To assure their votes by promising to give them all of the rest of the free handouts and goodies at our expense.

I agree. No path to citizenship. And yes, no welfare, family assistance and free education. Obviously, their children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens with the right to vote.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
79,936
1,851
113
I agree. No path to citizenship. And yes, no welfare, family assistance and free education. Obviously, their children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens with the right to vote.

I would question that if the Parents were illegal. Maybe a qualified status--like ability to vote in local elections but no Federal offices. I'm not for just greasing their skids to the same rights native born Americans enjoy even if they were born here but their Parents were illegal.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I would question that if the Parents were illegal. Maybe a qualified status--like ability to vote in local elections but no Federal offices. I'm not for just greasing their skids to the same rights native born Americans enjoy even if they were born here but their Parents were illegal.

It's a constitutional issue. Any person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen. No way to change that.