AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@cicerone imposter,

Its already been to long.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What are the republicans going to impeach Obama for?

Your question would have been more accurately stated: What COULD the Republicans ... impeach Obama for?

I don't know if they will impeach him if they regain majorities in the House and Senate.

But they could impeach Obama for violating his oath "to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," and for his violation of the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution says what the federal government can do, what the federal government must do, and what the federal government must not do. One thing President Obama has done that is not included in either what the federal government can or must do is: take the property of those who lawfully earned it and give it to those who did not lawfully earn it. According to the 10th Amendment, what the federal government must not do is something that is neither what the federal government can or must do.

President Obama has advocated and authorized the federal government to take the property of those who lawfully earned it, and give it to those who did not lawfully earn it. That is just cause for the House to impeach Obama, and the Senate to remove Obama from the presidency.

1 Reply

Quote:

What are the republicans going to impeach Obama for?

Article 2, section 4 of the Constitution says...

Quote:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Now, since it doesnt specify what "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means, the house could impeach him because they dont like the color of his tie, if they wanted to call that a "high crime"

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
What are the republicans going to impeach Obama for?

Your question would have been more accurately stated: What COULD the Republicans ... impeach Obama for?

I don't know if they will impeach him if they regain majorities in the House and Senate.

But they could impeach Obama for violating his oath "to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," and for his violation of the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution says what the federal government can do, what the federal government must do, and what the federal government must not do. One thing President Obama has done that is not included in either what the federal government can or must do is: take the property of those who lawfully earned it and give it to those who did not lawfully earn it. According to the 10th Amendment, what the federal government must not do is something that is neither what the federal government can or must do.

President Obama has advocated and authorized the federal government to take the property of those who lawfully earned it, and give it to those who did not lawfully earn it. That is just cause for the House to impeach Obama, and the Senate to remove Obama from the presidency.

It is not President Obama who authorizes our government to do these things, but instead, Laws, passed by Congress over the decades, which allow redistribution of income. If you think those laws are UnConstitutional, fine; work to get the laws repealed. But you cannot claim that Obama is not following duly enacted laws of the US, b/c, like every other president who has presided since our tax laws became what they currently are, he is following the law of the land as it relates to taxation.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I doubt very much ican understands the process of how our government works in the US.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is not President Obama who authorizes our government to do these things, but instead, Laws, passed by Congress over the decades, which allow redistribution of income. If you think those laws are UnConstitutional, fine; work to get the laws repealed. But you cannot claim that Obama is not following duly enacted laws of the US, b/c, like every other president who has presided since our tax laws became what they currently are, he is following the law of the land as it relates to taxation.

WRONG!

All president's are responsible for Congress's bills they sign into law instead of return to Congress unsigned. In particular, the president is responsible for any and all laws s/he signs that are unconstitutional.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I. Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Obama signed, instead of returned unsigned to Congress, those bills submitted to him by Congress that transfer property from persons who lawfully earned it to persons who did not lawfully earn it. Therefore, Obama is guilty of violating his oath and the Constitution of the USA.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I wonder how much longer he'll [Beck] last?

I don't know the answer to that. At an earlier point a week ago, the first group of advertisers were shifting over to other FOX shows so there was no income loss to FOX. That pattern may still hold true. But even if there is some loss in advertising dollars overall, that doesn't mean Murdoch will change what is going on. His Weekly Standard, a perennial money loser, costs him over a million dollars for each year of operation. He's making his decisions on a broader set of criteria.

But if Beck becomes even more a pariah to the point where it is tough to find prime time advertisers then there's the possibility that FOX's reputation overall will be seen as negatively effected and that will be more serious.

Clearly, Murdoch is out to influence the American political system as he had done earlier in Australia then England through the manipulation of information and opinion. His manipulation has, in each case, allowed him to expand the size and power of his media empire which in turn gives him increased personal and institutional power. What he's reaching for beyond this is anybody's guess and it might just be that he's on a kind of "I need to dominate others" auto-pilot in the manner of any political meglomaniac.

But this project to get advertisers to reject what Beck is up to is still a very positive thing because it demonstrates that we can, working together, cut a swath into Murdoch and Fox. If we are smart, we'll cut it much bigger. Murdoch is a genuinely pathological figure who has damaged the American polity (true in Australia and England as well) as much as anyone. I think we are going to have to damage his enterprise somehow, and near fatally. I don't see how the US can return to an educated, reasoning and civil politics while his operation (and talk radio as presently represented) remains in place.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

So.. Congress should impeach the President for signing into law legislation Congress passed and WANTED to be law?

Not only is your argument silly ican, it makes absolutely NO SENSE.

2 Replies

@parados,

CORRECTION of what you posted, parados:
So.. Congress should impeach the President for signing into law UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation Congress passed and WANTED to be law?

That will require a shift of the majorities of both houses of Congress to those who think the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," and the violation of same is an impeachable offense for Congressman as well as the President. First things first:
(1) Impeach the president;
(2) Impeach those members of Congress, who, if not defeated in their attempted at re-election, WANTED (i.e., submitted) those unconstitutional bills to the President.

1 Reply

@parados,

What ican is really implying is that the total government, congress and the president, should be impeached. How silly! One doesn't work without the other. ican still doesn't understand how our government works.

That's another ican jerkoff!

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

..Clearly, Murdoch is out to influence the American political system as he had done earlier in Australia then England through the manipulation of information and opinion....

exactly.

it's all about rupert. and what rupert wants. and what rupert likes. and what rupert believes. and what rupert insists on.

and rupert's money.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Yes, it's Rupert's money and the no-brain conservatives who sold their soul for the money to push his agenda.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, it's Rupert's money and the no-brain conservatives who sold their soul for the money to push his agenda.

pretty funny considering all of the outrage when somebody points out something that another country is doing as maybe working a little better than ours.

but for this guy they just roll over.

sluts ! Laughing

0 Replies

The obamacrats are just rolling over and sucking George Soros's wallet.

Ruppert Murdoch is an ally of individualism.
George Soros is a boss of collectivism.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Ruppert Murdoch is an ally of individualism.

rupert murdoch is an ally of rupert murdoch.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Individualism? ROFL What I've been observing about the conservative party is all bitching with no solutions. They follow the leader as if they were pre-programed with the same "software." Once they hear something, no matter what, they parrot the same thing without giving it any independent thought. They are all robots! LOL

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Ican.. Only the congress can impeach the President. Why would the Congress impeach a President for signing bills Congress wrote? You don't seem to understand anything these days.

2 Replies

@parados,

ican and okie just love to jerk us around.

0 Replies

Sampling of political cartoons in recent days. In my opinion THIS is why the pendulum of trust is swinging back toward the GOP.

Latest news flashes: The White House has apparently closed down the Flag.gov website due to negative publicity. They are reorganizing their White House e-mail list after people questioned how they got on it in the first place (denying that the "Flag.gov" site was the source of it.) After pushing single payer and government option for healthcare for the last two+ years, Obama now says that he has not advocated either.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gm09080820090808120157.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0813wj20090814021126.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0812wj20090812022814.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0810wj20090810044756.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/GM090814CLR-Dr.Obama20090814011539.jpg

And now after the President denies 'wanting a public option', he is now going to push medical co-ops patterned after electrical co-ops, but these will be government funded and government regulated. His task, after convincing so many that his word was good as gold--something that is really hard to sell these days--will be to convince the people that these co-ops aren't just a repackaged public option.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/090816beelertoon20090815020357.jpg

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Is any sane person not convinced at this time that the bunch in Washington doesn't have a clue what they are doing about healthcare? Other than intent to wrest all the power away from the people?

Quote:

In today's article titled "White House appears ready to drop 'public option,'" the Associated Press reports the Obama administration is signaling it's prepared to drop the option of government-run insurance as a component of ObamaCare. The piece states in part:

Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Not a deal breaker? It certainly seemed to be one as recently as last month. On July 20, The Washington Post's Web site included Ezra Klein's report, "Obama Says Health-Care Reform 'Must' Include Public Option." Cited is Obama's radio address of that week, in which the president declared:

"(A)ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family. "
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michael-m-bates/2009/08/16/ap-obama-never-made-public-option-deal-breaker

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know