If any image is too small to read clearly, click on image for larger view.
Did President Obama actually WANT a US credit downgrade, so he and Soros could profit from it?
Remember the scare tactics that Obama used to scare Republicans into allowing the Democrat’s budget bill to be passed? Knowing that the Republican’s Cut, Cap, and Balance bill and possibly Paul Ryan’s bills were the ONLY two bills which could have prevented the downgrade. And yet Obama BULLIED the Republicans into signing the Democrat’s Senate bill.
During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite critical of the Bush administration’s uses of “signing statements” telling the Boston Globe in 2007 that the “problem” with the Bush administration “is that it has attached “signing statements” to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.” Then-Sen. Obama said he would “not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.
Then why did Obama go back on his promise, and use a “signing statement” to say he refused to follow all riders of the democrat’s budget bill?, just like he accused President Bush of doing?
In a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the newly passed Senate budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it.
The rider – Section 2262, de-funds four White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his “signing statement” declares that he will not abide by it.
“The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority,” he wrote. “The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it. Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President's ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President's ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Therefore, the president wrote, “the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”
In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don’t think it’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it, exactly as President Bush did when we attacked him.
What chance do the people have to control this President if he can refuse to follow any part of a lawfully passed bill simply by using “signing statements” which he promised in his campaign “…he would “not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”
WHY DOES OBAMA NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE LAND AS DOES EVERY OTHER CITIZEN?
The President threatened Social Security and Medicare checks BEFORE the Democratic budget bill passed, but now after passage of the bill of which certain parts he will ignore and not abide, he seems less worried about the credit downgrade and then the additional expansion of the credit downgrade”
Do you think that Soros and Obama benefited in some way from the downgrade? Obama seemed determined to avoid it before the Dem bill passed, but now seems to have no problem with the credit downgrade?
Now there is a rumor of a mystery investor who made $10 BILLION on an inside tip that US credit would be downgraded. Soros had made a similar insider winning bet on US currency dropping off in 1992.