Executive Power

Obama's 'Signature Achievement' Will Be Bypassing the Constitution

Obama is on his way to circumventing checks and balances with more regularity than any president in history.

|

For a guy who's not a fan of certain foreign leaders, Barack Obama sure does place a tremendous amount of trust in the good will of other nations. For legacy-building purposes, for example, the administration trusts that Iran will police its own nuclear ambitions—or, as John Kerry might put it, we've entered into a nonbinding agreement that is also not based on trust. The same goes for the Chinese government, whom we will soon have to trust so the president can get his legacy-building global-warming deal.

As it's been reported, Obama is working hard to nail down what he hopes will be one of his "signature achievements": a wide-ranging global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If all things go according to plan, the agreement will be signed in December. And as with most of the president's triumphs since 2010, this one will be nonbinding and unenforceable, accomplished with unprecedented executive fiat. If he keeps this up, Obama's single most notable achievement will be circumventing checks and balances with more regularity than any president in history.

All for a good cause. Brian Deese, Obama's new senior adviser in charge on negotiating the climate-change deal for United States, had this to tell Politico: "When the United States leads, we can inspire other countries to work with us and lead with us. The argument that we should hold our fire, or we should rein in our ambition on climate because only a global solution is going to solve it is backwards."

This is an irrelevant statement. Mostly because the word "we" is imprecise. Turns out that there are millions of voters, represented by numerous senators, who don't very much like the idea of the United States leading a charge on anti-growth, climate alarmism, which has the potential to slow economic progress across the globe—especially in poor and developing nations. Let's call this a disagreement about the future; one that pits economic reality against environmental idealism. It's the sort of disagreement that tends to break out in places where Supreme Leaders aren't around to tell citizens what to think. So we rely on a process, one crammed with checks and balances, to ensure we can come to some sort of consensus—or not.

This must seem like a massive waste of time to our clairvoyant president, who told Vice recently that "the Republican Party will have to change its approach to climate change because voters will insist upon it." That's not the case right now. And it's not only Republicans. The president, who believes that climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind, was unable to rally Democrat majorities in both houses to pass cap-and-trade legislation when he had a chance. So now Obama just uses the Environmental Protective Agency as his personal legislative branch. Because, evidently, the only democratic events that really matter are the ones that transpired in November of 2008 and 2012.

Obama can't have it both ways. Politico says the president is hoping for the "broadest, farthest-reaching deal in history, reworking environmental regulations for governments and corporations around the world and creating a framework for global green policy for decades," which sounds like a huge deal. The sort of consequential long-term international agreement that no one person should be able to agree to without the consent of the American people.

The deal itself is one that will be expensive for developed nations and potentially disastrous for developing ones. In content, it sounds preposterous. While the United States will almost certainly try to hold up its end, the idea that China—which will not have to do anything until year 2030 when that nation's carbon emissions are expected to peak—would follow through is more far-fetched as your average fearmongery climate-change prediction.

Some liberal pundits have suggested that Obama's deal might force Republican candidates to take unpopular positions on climate change in the 2016 cycle. It might. But Republicans have a far more powerful case to make about the Democrats' disregard for the norms of American lawmaking. It's too bad that the GOP has done so little to stop him. We live in a political environment where progressive goals are treated as moral endeavors and Constitutional constraints are treated as procedural inconveniences that can be bypassed for the good of the nation—nay, the world. No president has been as openly contemptuous of checks and balances as this one. If there are no repercussions, he might only be the first in a long line of presidents we say that about.

Advertisement

NEXT: Crimea under Russian occupation

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He bypasses the constitution for the good of the nation, the world, and future generations. Why do you hate children, clean air, and not burning to death on a ruined planet?

    1. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.jobs-check.com

    2. The good of the nation depends on laws and limits of powers not matter the intentions. You are extremely naive.

  2. Stop crying, David…you love strong Presidents when they are of the neo-con persuasion.

    “Let’s call this a disagreement about the future; one that pits economic reality against environmental idealism.”

    In truth, its one that pits the reality and dangers of man-made climate change vs. the idealism that the free market will solve all problems.

    “…the idea that China?which will not have to do anything until year 2030 when that nation’s carbon emissions are expected to peak?would follow through is more far-fetched as (sic) your average fearmongery (sic) climate-change prediction.”

    Try keeping up, David.

    “Production of wind turbines and solar panels soared in 2014, as increased demand from China fuelled a turnaround for renewable energy manufacturers…Solar and wind producers benefited from China’s drive to increase renewable energy’s share of its power mix to 15 per cent by 2020, in an effort to cut smog and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea25…..z3Uw9ohrLQ

    1. One more:

      “The National Development and Reform Commission in its annual report published at the opening of the full session of parliament said it would implement policies aimed at reducing coal consumption and controlling the number of energy-guzzling projects in polluted regions.”

      http://www.scmp.com/news/china…..elp-tackle

      China has a national scandal around air pollution, rather than climate change, but that difference is meaningless when the end result is to reduce carbon emissions…it works to alleviate both problems. China is already moving forward, and doing it for internal reasons.

      1. The issue is much less about the problem of climate change but much more about the complete disregard of the constitution and the legislative process on this, immigration, war with ISIS, Iran nuclear deal, and the list goes on. I even agree with what he is trying to do on many of these things, but that doesn’t mean he should just disregard checks and balances to do it. If he does then the next guy who you don’t agree with will do the same thing and keep expanding things more and more. The president is not the elected emperor.

        1. Fair enough. I am sure reasonable people can disagree about the constitutionality of what he is doing. If interested, here is Lawrence Tribe debating it with 2 Harvard constitutional law experts.

          http://today.law.harvard.edu/e…..ange-plan/

          It will all get resolved one way or the other, thanks to all those checks and balances.

          My real point was really Harsany’s inability to keep up with what is going on in the world today in regard to climate change. He clearly has no understanding of all the steps China has taken as well as those they have planned. And none of that has anything to do with the agreement they forged with the US for actions in 2030.

          He says the US will uphold our end…I hate to inform him but we are lagging behind most industrial nations on anything to do with tackling climate change, and in some respects we even lag behind China.

          1. He says the US will uphold our end…I hate to inform him but we are lagging behind most industrial nations on anything to do with tackling climate change, and in some respects we even lag behind China.

            If building entire cities which remain empty is “environmentally responsible” and “doing something about Climate Change” you have a very interesting definition of ‘attacking the problem’.

            1. Read the above links I posted as to what China is currently doing to reduce carbon emissions. So here is another one:

              “CHINA’S emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide fell last year for the first time in more than a decade, offering fresh evidence that efforts to control pollution in the nation of 1.4 billion people are gaining traction.

              Total carbon emissions in the world’s second-biggest economy dropped 2 percent in 2014 compared with the previous year, the first drop since 2001, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) estimate based on preliminary energy demand data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics.”

              http://www.businessmirror.com……ince-2001/

              They aren’t waiting for us, much to Harsanyi’s chagrin.

              1. Your linked article is pretty thin gruel. It’s a hodgepodge of quicky soundbites, almost all of which require further investigation.

                For instance, is china closing coal plants to reduce its carbon footprint or to combat some of the worst air pollution in the industrialized world?

                o Mainland China has 24 nuclear power reactors in operation, 25 under construction, and more about to start construction.
                o Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world’s most advanced, to give more than a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then some 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.
                o The impetus for increasing nuclear power share in China is increasingly due to air pollution from coal-fired plants.

                China is doing things that could never happen in this country, precisely BECAUSE of the environmental movement.

                There’s also evidence that China’s economy is slowing down reducing the demand for energy consumption.

                For instance, the US’s carbon footprint ALSO dropped:

                After a five-year decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise again.

                http://www.scientificamerican……g-economy/

                1. If your point about thin gruel is that China is not doing enough, then I agree. But then neither are we, nor just about anyone else. PricewaterhouseCoopers publishes each year a carbon budget, in which each year they say we are busting that budget. Science says we should limit temp increase to 2 degrees, the world has commitments that will lead us to 4 degrees, and the world’s actions will lead to 6 degrees…at least according to PwC. Thin gruel from all of us.

                  My point is that Harsanyi is bleating that old tired trope, “We shouldn’t do anything because no one else will.” Quite honestly, that is BS. Many countries in the EU are well ahead of us, and there are certain areas that China is as well…investment in solar, etc.

                  If it is thin gruel, and it is, we just need to more…all of us.

                  1. You have your point.

                    I have mine.

                    http://goo.gl/jC3a9o

                  2. “If it is thin gruel, and it is, we just need to more…all of us.”

                    ALGore too ?

                    Sigh.. I guess ManBearPig will have to do with only one mansion and one private jet.

                    Damn, how will the rest of us learn how much damage we are doing to Gia without him flying around the world preaching to us about the dangers of flying around the world.

                    http://goo.gl/jC3a9o

                    .

              2. Yawn.

                We’ll see just how much they drop. But, hey, if they want to follow your idiotic fever dream, be my guest.

              3. Jackand Ace|3.20.15 @ 5:04PM|#
                “Read the above links I posted as to what China is currently doing to reduce carbon emissions.”

                Yes, read the lying twi’s cherry-picked data!
                Jackand Ace, here to spread lefty lies once again!

              4. “CHINA’S emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide fell last year for the first time in more than a decade, offering fresh evidence that efforts to control pollution in the nation of 1.4 billion people are gaining traction.

                Or that their industrial economy is about to collapse.

                1. “Or that their industrial economy is about to collapse.”

                  Or that whoever wrote the piece cherry-picks the data and idjits like Jack link it.

          2. I love it when people concentrate on things like carbon emissions instead of fun things like CFC’s that are internationally banned that are several orders of magnitude worse for the environment.

            Oh, and guess what country produces CFC’s specifically to extort money from the United States? If you guessed China you would be correct.

            You like the Financial Times do you? Here you go!

            http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0…..z3Uy1otl9r

          3. My woodlot and organically grown produce do better when they have CO2.

            1. I am currently running an experiment.

              On one tomato plant I am breathing on it regularly.

              One one tomato plant my wife is breathing on it regularly.

              On the other not at all.

              I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that:

              Tomatos breathed on with beer breath do well.

              Tomatos breathed on without beer breath do well.

              Tomatos not breathed on at all do well.

              That is science and I promise not to destroy any data like those East Anglia scientists did just because it didn’t agree with my desired results.

              I am predicting that the beer breathed tomatos produce the superior fruit and more of it so the conclusion may be foregone but I will enter mt data into a computer model just to be sure that me and my financial backers are right. All those who get paid to say I am wrong are evil because I get paid to say that they are evil..

              OK. the computers say the beer breathed tomatos are the best so the science is settled and the debate is over (if there ever was one ).

              All you deniers of the superiority of beer breathed tomatos are obviously Republicans so your thoughts don’t matter anyway.

      2. China has a national scandal around air pollution, rather than climate change, but that difference is meaningless when the end result is to reduce carbon emissions…it works to alleviate both problems. China is already moving forward, and doing it for internal reasons.

        In truth, its one that pits the reality and dangers of man-made climate change vs. the idealism that the free market will solve all problems.

        Still, it’s the market pressuring Chinese leadership into acting. The market is just people, Ace. It’s this lack of trust in people, with a corresponding naive trust in Top Men, that makes the leftist perspective so ludicrously stupid.

        1. It is indeed the market exerting pressure, but its exerting on the government…because that is who needs to do something about it. It won’t come from industry alone.

      3. “The National Development and Reform Commission in its annual report published at the opening of the full session of parliament said it would implement policies aimed at reducing coal consumption and controlling the number of energy-guzzling projects in polluted regions.”

        If you assume that Chinese blue ribbon commissions more effective than their American counterparts, that would actually mean something.

    2. In truth, its one that pits the reality and dangers of man-made climate change

      And . . . you lost me.

      1. You and everyone else here.

        1. Yeah, facts get in the way of your narrative. Tell me again about the dangers.

        2. Jack:

          How’s your zero emmisions lifestyle coming?

          1. Doing much better, thank you very much. Who said anything about 0 emissions? Certainly no one reasonable.

            But I do drive an electric hybrid, I do use the bike as much as possible, took out all air conditioning, eat as little meat as possible…I’m getting there. I think I can do more, so thanks for suggesting the same.

            1. Jackand Ace|3.21.15 @ 10:32AM|#
              “But I do drive an electric hybrid, I do use the bike as much as possible, took out all air conditioning, eat as little meat as possible…I’m getting there. I think I can do more, so thanks for suggesting the same.”

              No wonder you’re an insufferable asshole.

              1. I wonder if he does yoga, too. And gets pissed when his favorite Fair Trade coffee shop runs out of almond milk.

              2. +1 Smug emission credit

        3. Stop it ok. Have you seen what’s been going on with doubling sensitivity lately?

          There is not enough “settled science” to support a global initiative.

          * The warmers don’t even have one validated climate model.
          * Not one prediction made by these people has been verified (polar amplification, increase in hurricane frequency/power, sea level acceleration, hot spot in the tropic troposphere, ocean heat content, etc.)

          There is nothing at all that suggests drastic action of any kind. Reducing particulate pollution, increase use of nuclear power, etc are all good things. Renewables though like wind and solar are not broad based grid powering options. These technologies are subsidized, they take up too much land, chop birds and bats to bits (imagine if nuke plants killed that much wild life), they are unreliable. At best renewables are niche solutions for small off grid applications.

          1. Awesomely said, Eggs Benedict Cumberbund!!!

            Nuclear energy sure seems like a cool way to go, if we are REALLY concerned about globabble warmerererering!!! … Except the lefties are not… They are “watermelons”, green on the outside, red (collectivist) on the inside…

            They are also BANANAs… Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything… Unless it is a Shrine to the Worship of Gaia the Earth Goddess, and the Government Almighty… Which, along Scientology, is one of the ONLY USA-Government-Almighty-Blessed religions! And THAT is what Scienfoology is all about!

            1. So let / left us worship now…
              Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

              Government loves me, This I know,
              For the Government tells me so,
              Little ones to GAWD belong,
              We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              My Nannies tell me so!

              GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
              Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
              Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
              And gives me all that I might need!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              My Nannies tell me so!

              DEA, CIA, KGB,
              Our protectors, they will be,
              FBI, TSA, and FDA,
              With us, astride us, in every way!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              My Nannies tell me so!

    3. David H. is not a neoconservative.

      1. and Chinas economic growth has been on a substantial downward slope prior to these weak-kneed carbon emission numbers. Something to think about.

        1. By the way, note the date on that article I cited…2002. You know, when we had a chance to avert disaster, when Ron Paul was begging us to avert it. But Harsanyi? He wanted it.

      2. He’s not?

        Here is his defense of neo-cons, and his suggestion that those who wanted the Iraq War were correct:

        http://archive.frontpagemag.co…..RTID=23270

        “Hussein’s actions have proven that if not stopped, he will use chemical, biological and nuclear warfare to push the Middle East into a ghastly war. A majority of Americans believe action is a must against Hussein, not because they’ve been tricked by crafty necons, but because they have a lot more common sense than the elitist pundits give them credit for.”

        You know who he was calling out in that piece? The likes of Ron Paul. He most certainly is a neo-con.

  3. President Dean’s inauguration would go like this:

    [Ceremony ends.]

    [Aide brings thick three-ring binder to podium. President Dean signs first Executive Order. And its a doozy. Pot rescheduled, swathes of federal agency regulation laid waste, illegal exercises of executive power negated, non-binding agreements disposed of, process to lay off or reassign thousands of federal employees begins, etc., etc.]

    Think of the Dean administration as the Iron Laws administration, and we’d kick off by showing how You today, me tomorrow works. The decades-long statist project of giving more and more power to the President would bite them in the ass, so hard.

    1. I’d be impeached within a week. All for behaving constitutionally.

      1. So would have James Madison:

        Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

        The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers,

        http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

        Imagine Pelosi screaming, “Are you serious… are you serious?”

        1. Geez, you write the Constitution and suddenly you think you’re king of the world.

          1. I’m sort of thinking that Madison, having a hand in its construction may have thought specific words had more meaning than our current crop of people sworn to defend the document.

    2. For a second there I thought you were talking about Howard Dean.

  4. . If all things go according to plan, the agreement will be signed in December. And as with most of the president’s triumphs since 2010, this one will be nonbinding and unenforceable, accomplished with unprecedented executive fiat.

    I’m confused. What is this document that Clinton is “signing” on behalf of 320,000,000 people? His “signature achievement” will be something that he felt good about, so he put his name at the bottom? Treaties have to be ratified by the senate… Why are we talking about this?

    1. They’ve snuck treaties in by calling them other names in the past. In any case, they’re going to be the ones enforcing the “treaty” and anyone who wants to challenge it can look forward to a very long, expensive, and risky court battle.

  5. Obama, achievements?

    I for one, cannot wait for this worthless little man-child to pack up his toys and get the hell out of the Whitehouse.

    1. ACTUAL FOOTAGE FROM THE FUTURE WHEN OBAMA LEAVES OFFICE

      1. Wow, I’m amazed, real footage from the future and the US is now 100% Korean. Astonishing. What’s sad about this footage, is that all of these kids probably couldn’t give a shit about Kim’s death and were far too afraid to look like it.

        I’ve always had this secret fantasy, seeing Obama fall down the stairs departing AF1, and breaking his scrawny little neck. One can only hope.

    2. Whitehouse /

      Rayciss !!11!

  6. “We live in a political environment where progressive goals are treated as moral endeavors and Constitutional constraints are treated as procedural inconveniences that can be bypassed for the good of the nation?nay, the world.”

    Such is life in the Progressive Theocracy. Ayatollah Obama enforces The Good at his divinely inspired whim. Our duty is to Submit to power.

    1. Those who fail to submit may find themselves on a disposition matrix. Of course, we won’t really know since the criteria of how you wind up there seem to by FYTW.

    2. I’m the last person to go “BOOOOOOSH” but that did happen when the other side held the WH too. To a much lesser extent of course, but it’s not a problem with progressives per se.

      1. Absolutely agreed. I think the problem here is that we’ve been on a long downward trajectory that is picking up steam with each successive administration. I can’t exactly pinpoint when the downward slide began, but I would have to say it predates the birth of my deceased grandparents.

        1. +1 Zombie Coolidge

  7. If the author wishes to assert that Obama’s “signature achievement” may very well be finding ways to get around the Constitution, would it not be fair to include a paragraph or two of examples of what he has done or has expressed plans to do in that area with regard to carbon emissions and other climate issues? Or is that already assumed to be common knowledge and therefore redundant in an informal blog post, where it is appparently perfectly OK to make an argument that depends on evidence, which the writer expects readers to dig up on their own…?

    1. James Anderson Merritt|3.20.15 @ 8:08PM|#
      “If the author wishes to assert that Obama’s “signature achievement” may very well be finding ways to get around the Constitution, would it not be fair to include a paragraph or two of examples of what he has done or has expressed plans to do in that area with regard to carbon emissions and other climate issues? Or is that already assumed to be common knowledge and therefore redundant in an informal blog post, where it is appparently perfectly OK to make an argument that depends on evidence, which the writer expects readers to dig up on their own…?”

      Sarc or stupidity?
      Have you heard of the EPA?

    2. I’m gonna go with common knowledge. If it’s not, you are on the internet you know.

  8. “The norms of American lawmaking” have nothing to do with how lawmaking is (not) being done now. You guys hate democracy, right? Our version has produced a political party that doesn’t even acknowledge the scientific reality about the biggest threat to mankind and a government that can’t do anything about it for that reason. As a defender of democracy, I dearly wish it had worked out. Oh well. A dictator who does the right thing is better than a democracy that causes disaster. You all believe this. You just think the biggest threat to mankind is a 5% tax hike on billionaires.

    1. Just. WOW.

    2. Thanks for finally being honest about your preference for fascism Tony.

    3. Tony
      I hate the concept of two wolves and one sheep voting on what to eat for supper. Same concept was applied to the Nuremburg Laws. I’m an environmental engineer that doesn’t drink the AGW Kool Aid. But I also don’t get paid a six figure salary to support that position nor do I have multitudes of folks fawning over me because of that.

      1. It is beyond comprehension how you people rationalize your dismissal of scientific reality by a conspiracy theory about nearly all researchers in the world being paid off to do fake science, by governments, when they all clearly could be much better paid by the oil industry to produce bullshit.

        1. It’s not beyond comprehension that you first accuse someone of believing in a conspiracy where none was indicated and then turn around and make the opposite claim with no evidence whatsoever.
          It’s not beyond comprehension, since you’ve proven to be a stupid and dishonest piece of shit.

    4. Tony you moronic piece of shit how can you make your statement about scientific reality when on these forums you argued against the CO2/H2O feed back loop? Since that is the only mechanism whereby CO2 could cause any significant warming, then its obvious that you don’t have a fucking clue. In fact, you are worse than stupid on this subject.

      So kindly just shut the fuck up about stuff for which you have not the slightest capacity to understand.

      1. Reading denier blogs does not make you an expert.

        1. Tony|3.21.15 @ 8:25PM|#
          “Reading denier blogs does not make you an expert.”

          Repeating propaganda does not make you and expert.

        2. Did you or did you not argue against the only mechanism whereby co2 can effect global temps? Just answer the question you piece of shit.

          1. I understand the greenhouse effect well. Do you?

      1. I suspect it’s much, much worse.

  9. It’s too bad that the GOP has done so little to stop him.

    What the heck are they supposed to do to stop him? How are they supposed to keep him from using the executive branch powers that have been piled up for decades while it was assumed that the president would be someone with a shred of honor?

    The same dolts who urged limited govt voters to sit on their hands in 2012 because Romney wasn’t perfect are now whining that nobody’s standing in front of the freight train they helped get started.

    1. How are they supposed to keep him from using the executive branch powers

      Amazingly, Top Turtle McConnell is running around telling all 50 governors to ignore the EPA.

  10. People will only insist when it too late. lol I give humans a thousand years. Most of which will be spent as hunter gatherers living in a post apocalyptic cesspool competing for a few remaining and dwindling food and water resources. Eventually the atmosphere will become too toxic to support human life. We’ll literally be buried in our own garbage for future “alien” archaeologists to find and ponder over. This could be one of the greatest achievements in human history – enough to propel us past Type 0 status, possibly – but we can’t even get past the denial stage. IMHO, Fermi’s Great Filter. There’s no apparent life in the universe because lifeforms have yet to figure out how to set aside selfishness.

  11. Brooke . even though Manuel `s blurb is terrific… yesterday I bought a new Chevrolet Corvette when I got my cheque for $5102 this-last/five weeks and even more than ten grand last-munth . with-out any question its the easiest-job I have ever done . I started this nine months/ago and straight away began to earn more than $80, per hour .

    Read More Here….. ?WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  12. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!….

    http://www.NavJob.com

  13. The GOP is still too enthralled by social conservatives and religious maniacs, too obsessed with abortion and gay marriage, to accomplish anything that matters.

    1. Said the already born individual.

  14. a modest proposal: if climate change really is the all-out planet-destroying crisis that obama says it is then why doesn’t he simply ration gasoline and other fossil fuels by executive fiat. Skip all the new taxes, fees, studies (“it’s already settled”), wealth redistribution, and so on. We’ll soon enough adapt and the price of energy can remain low perpetually due to decreased demand.

  15. TODAY ONLY : Get Your Own Mac Book Pro With $1000 Visa Gift Card .Get It Here

    http://goo.gl/LpNgjp

  16. TODAY ONLY : Get Your Own Mac Book Pro With $1000 Visa Gift Card .Get It Here

    http://goo.gl/LpNgjp

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.