Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What will it take ????

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What will it take ????

    For Chairman O to finally get impeached or arrested along with his co-conspirator Holder? Honest American want to know. Liberalism is a disease.
    September 11, 2001 - All gave some, some gave all. Never forget -- Never forgive.......... RIP Brothers and Sisters.

  • #2
    I believe once they go down, they're gonna go down hard, SFC. The way a house of cards just goes poof with one shove.

    I love how just a few days ago the entire Supreme Court - 9 judges of every political persuasion-told him his defiance of the Constitution had gone too far. This is te 16th time the Supreme Court has sent him a unanymous decision like that. So what's he turn around and do today....another Executive Order on immigration.

    A liberal law professor (Con Law at that) here in DC - Jonathon Turley - says its only a matter of time before he starts losing Democrats.
    Last edited by EmmaPeel; 06-30-2014, 11:40 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by lawdog5169
      Working under the war powers act, since we are involved with multiple national emergency's, then nothing he does is unconstitutional. we have to remember, congress has already approved all his orders.
      I can't even find you one hawk that would agree with this.

      Perhaps you meant to put more caveats than your words suggest, but you've basically implied ALL laws go out the window.

      Comment


      • #4
        In other words, the only people that would agree with that are extremists wayyyyy out on a limb. And yes, I'd say Obama fits that description.

        Comment


        • #5
          Don't let a little thing like facts get in the way


          U.S. Code › Title 12 › Chapter 2 › Subchapter IV › § 95a
          12 U.S. Code § 95a - Regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold and silver; property transfers; vested interests, enforcement and penalties


          Current through Pub. L. 113-108. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
          US Code
          Notes
          Updates
          Authorities (CFR)
          PREV | NEXT
          (1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—
          (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and
          (B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,


          That's the actual law. Besides, even if Congress gave blanket approval to the President to enact a law would not automatically make that law "constitutional", two totally different meanings.
          Today's Quote:

          "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
          Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #6
            Ok Emma, I need your help breaking this down for me. I think his little shell game has confused me, because this isn't adding up. But this is my understanding (however limited it may be).

            For years we (the majority of the nation) has been screaming "We need more security on the border! We need to stop the flow of illegals!" - and it has fell on deaf ears.

            So the dems start discussing immigration reform (i.e. amnesty), and the house says "we will not discuss immigration reform until a few things happen -- the federal laws are followed (i.e. - catch them and send them HOME), and the borders are beefed up and made more secure". To this, the nutjob-in-charge says "YOU WILL NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO! YOU WILL NOT BLACKMAIL ME! YOU WILL NOT PLACE MANDATES ON ME!!" (I am paraphrasing of course).

            Then comes along the new "crisis" of the flood of kids (which has been going on for over a year, I have BP friends that have told me that it has been a huge problem for a while now, but it never made it into the news for some mysterious reason - but now - it has, so it's suddenly a "new issue" ). Anyway... now it has the populations attention.

            So the nutjob-in-charge says "The house will not discuss reform with me because they don't like me, and there is no time for them to act like adults, so I will just sign in executive orders with my handy little montblanc some extra judges to speed up the process, more agents to secure the border, blahblahblah and make no mistake i'm gonna kick some *****" (again, paraphrasing).

            So the left rejoices and says "SEE? HE DOES CARE!!!" -- because he is doing what the house originally just asked him to do -- which is basically do his job, but he makes this grandiose statement of using "executive power" to do so -- to rally his supporters (the very same supporters that were yelling at the house for creating a partisan government by asking him to do the very exact same thing he eventually did anyway).

            So - what am I missing?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Shush View Post
              Ok Emma, I need your help breaking this down for me. I think his little shell game has confused me, because this isn't adding up. But this is my understanding (however limited it may be).

              For years we (the majority of the nation) has been screaming "We need more security on the border! We need to stop the flow of illegals!" - and it has fell on deaf ears.

              So the dems start discussing immigration reform (i.e. amnesty), and the house says "we will not discuss immigration reform until a few things happen -- the federal laws are followed (i.e. - catch them and send them HOME), and the borders are beefed up and made more secure". To this, the nutjob-in-charge says "YOU WILL NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO! YOU WILL NOT BLACKMAIL ME! YOU WILL NOT PLACE MANDATES ON ME!!" (I am paraphrasing of course).

              Then comes along the new "crisis" of the flood of kids (which has been going on for over a year, I have BP friends that have told me that it has been a huge problem for a while now, but it never made it into the news for some mysterious reason - but now - it has, so it's suddenly a "new issue" ). Anyway... now it has the populations attention.

              So the nutjob-in-charge says "The house will not discuss reform with me because they don't like me, and there is no time for them to act like adults, so I will just sign in executive orders with my handy little montblanc some extra judges to speed up the process, more agents to secure the border, blahblahblah and make no mistake i'm gonna kick some *****" (again, paraphrasing).

              So the left rejoices and says "SEE? HE DOES CARE!!!" -- because he is doing what the house originally just asked him to do -- which is basically do his job, but he makes this grandiose statement of using "executive power" to do so -- to rally his supporters (the very same supporters that were yelling at the house for creating a partisan government by asking him to do the very exact same thing he eventually did anyway).

              So - what am I missing?
              Not a damn thing.

              I mentioned in my Bergdahl thread that the week before he was released Obama and Hillary political strategists met at the White House (this is public knowledge) and tried to come up with a timeline (this in not public knowledge but it's what we strategic thinkers do, wink) and "events" or actions to be taken or STAGED to save Obama's crumbling presidency.

              I mean I could have sat down and come up with the same timeline and "actions." So could you or anyone. Those of us used to project managing anything in the corporate world do the same thing in principle.

              It's called strategic planning. Now we get to see how well the strategic planners predicted the public's reaction to each staged event. How ya think they're doing so far, LOL?
              Last edited by EmmaPeel; 07-01-2014, 09:25 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                The only way BO would get in hot water is if the media turns against him. What exactly do they disagree with? They'll cover for him all day every day and ridicule all those who don't sing the same tune.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by EmmaPeel View Post
                  Not a damn thing.
                  Oh good. When I first heard the "news" that he was going to use executive power again, I swear I sounded just like a minion with my "WHHHAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTT???!!!!"

                  If only he'd do something bad to either college football or MMA fighting, then FINALLY there would be something this country could band together on to kick his tail out.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                    The only way BO would get in hot water is if the media turns against him. What exactly do they disagree with? They'll cover for him all day every day and ridicule all those who don't sing the same tune.
                    Jasp, my friend, you have not seen the power of Twitter then. People are going around the press. The press has worked as hard as they can to suppress, skew, misinform....but the press can no longer cover the massive amount of sh*t up anymore. They just can't. There are just too many altermative means for getting the word out.

                    Here's an example, a few weeks ago I tweeted something the press tried to suppress. The very first guy to retweet it had 29,300 followers. Then his followers started retweeting to their massive list of followers. Then there's the growing list of original retweeters who come across my tweet. Things that are legitimate spread like wild-fire. When you tweet something, you'd better be right or your credibility's gone. Twitter has become the new free press. Then folks on twitter spread it to their non-twitter networks.

                    A whopping 74% of the public wants Congress to keep investigating the IRS Scandal. The press, no matter how hard they try, just can't manipulate that one. And now the press risks its reputation with those few remaining independents that thought it had credibilty. You'll see in November. There's an undercurrent that the establishmnt in both parties can't see.
                    Last edited by EmmaPeel; 07-01-2014, 10:54 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Considering the arrogant, totally stupid individual this clown is, I'm not really surprised. I can only thank Heaven for term limitations.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        An impeachment in the House would be meaningless if there is no possibility of a conviction in the Senate. With Harry Reid as Majority Leader there is a good chance that a trial wound never be held, and if one was convened the American public would never get a fair hearing. Perhaps it could happen next year after the make up of the Senate changes.
                        When Society makes war on its police, it better be prepared to make friends of its criminals.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by PABear31 View Post
                          An impeachment in the House would be meaningless if there is no possibility of a conviction in the Senate. With Harry Reid as Majority Leader there is a good chance that a trial wound never be held, and if one was convened the American public would never get a fair hearing. Perhaps it could happen next year after the make up of the Senate changes.
                          Or not even impeach him at all. Biden would be just as bad. What I'd rather see is House and Senate go Republican so they would then have power to shut down anymore of his agenda. And if he keeps ignoring the entire Congress and the Supreme Court regarding stomping all over the Constitution, have it out with him. At that point Congress would have a megaphone if it's all one party - and the corrupt press could no longer suppress information from the public.

                          Because at that point, the Congress could start threatening to boycott any press appearances.

                          In fact after November when Obama loses the whole Congress and is stopped in his tracks....I think the next thing Republicans and the public should do is find a way to go after the corrupt press and expose their corruption that allowed Obama a second term that would never have happened had they done their job.

                          Like Obama declaring Al Qaeda is decimated right before the 2012 election. Right.

                          And lying that he left a stable Iraq. Right. Or that there's not a smidgeon of corruption at the IRS. Right.

                          It will be so easy to "train the guns" on the press for their blatant suppression of info from the public if Republicans win the whole Congress.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Neither is blinder and rose colored glasses

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lawdog5169
                              Correct, and beliefs that "government is here to serve me" is what keeps people from seeing the truth. It is right there in black and white...you got a s.s. card, you are a federal employee.

                              You claim "us citizen" then you are domiciled on federal territory, and then you want to bitch that Obama is doing something unconstitutional? It does not matter if it is constitutional or not. congress regulates the union AND the territories.

                              There is 50 titles in the us code, 20 of the codes apply to state citizens and territories(these are passed by both houses of congress and called "positive law") 30 of these titles apply ONLY to residents/citizens of us territories(not passed by both houses and NOT called positive law).


                              ask your self a couple of questions here gentlemen.

                              The "income tax act" has been passed since the early 1900's, but yet both houses of congress has not passed it into positive law(like title 18), why do you think that would be?

                              Come up with something good please.

                              after the tax on "EVERYONE" was passed back then, it took 30+ years to get 50% of americans to even file taxes, how come over 50% of americans did not go to jail or get hit with liens back then if it was mandatory?

                              In the 14th amendment it states persons born or naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction are citizens of the us. Now who in the hell can be naturalized and NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the us? By definition naturalization is the pledging of obedience to the country, thus submitting to it's jurisdiction, or so you would think if you do not understand the law and how we fit into it.

                              Maybe these are questions you need answered, maybe your happy just doing what your told and never questioning anything.

                              That can be a good thing, herders ALWAYS need sheep.
                              Learn some basic English, your fellow inmates will be more impressed.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5300 users online. 321 members and 4979 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X