What Should Obama Be Impeached For? Discussion on FB
And here is my full response (includes notes for/based on other replies in the comments section)
This is going to get long so be warned ahead of time - I am a libertarian, not a liberal or a conservative, who refuses to reply because they know they have no legs to stand on and their arguments have no backing - mine do...and that's why this is long.
- Mark - You are likely blocked by complainer that's why you can't see his posts.
-In response to the complainer's posts about race - he has posted hate speech - go ahead and flag all of his posts. Be warned he may do the same to yours. Keep your posts clean, intelligent, non-insulting, etc and he hasn't a leg to stand on if he does report you and facebook won't take any action against you.
Regarding the original posting. I can think of several reasons...the latests being the Coast Guard's announcement of fines/felony charges for photographing w/in 65' of anything relating to the gulf oil spill.
You can't tell me that it was ONLY their (Coast Guard's) decision. As we were so recently reminded by the firing of Gen McChrystal the POTUS is the commander in chief for all military branches - that includes the Coast Guard and you know that Adm Thad Allen who is in charge of the Coast Guard's response to the gulf oil spill, is in close contact with both POTUS and Sec of Defense Robert Gates. So there's a very high (yet unproven thus far) likelihood that POTUS/SecDef approved this new decision- to make taking any photographs within 65' of any oil spill related items, birds, booms, equipment etc, a class D felony with a $40,000 fine, this includes if the booms are sitting in the water, and of oil soaked animals already rescued but not yet cleaned.
This includes any instance of photography w/in 65' of anything oil spill related, even if no safety issue is at hand if you're caught you'll be arrested. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in a briefing that the reasoning for the charges are simply for safety. I'm sorry but, the $40,000 fine is a violation of the Constitution in two ways; #1- It impedes upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press - (technically that's 2 ways right there but I'm being nice) & #2 - Amendment #7 states - 'nor excessive fines imposed' - I'm sorry but isn't $40,000 a bit much for taking a photograph that is already a guaranteed freedom granted by Amendment #1?
CG Violates 1st Amendment prohibiting photography of oil spill - this is a link to a blog - with a video from Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN (not fox news this is a CNN video - so no accusing me of only posting 'conservative voices'.)
This is a violation of the 1st Amendment - Right to Free Speech. Its not the first right this administration has tried to squash.
Trespassing on our freedoms would be biggest in my book. Using the Constituion of the United States as toilet paper basically because he doesn't like this country. He has refused to put his hand over his heart for the playing of the national anthem, he refused to wear the little flag pin for many months during the campaign until he HAD to do it to get the votes he needed from people who were concerned he wasn't wearing the flag pin. Suddenly he was wearing it and got votes from people who wouldn't have voted for him if he had still not been wearing the pin. He is not a patriot and he does not support this country. He's done everything in his power to stomp on our liberties and freedoms.
To those who may decide to disagree with my post - go ahead - just back it up - calling me a cracker only proves you're on the side of the people who scream that EVERYTHING is racist. How is it only racist in one direction. Voter intimidation - because white people were intimidated by blacks - its not racist - not against blacks (at least this is the liberal mindset its only racist if they want it to be). If whites had done the same then to the liberals it would be racist. But because people are proud to be "crackers" we're suddenly racist.
Your logic isn't.
Pure & simple.
You are the kings of double standards - pardon an old saying but what's good for the goose is good for the gander or did you forget you live in a country with a set of laws that say "all men are created equal" ALL- not just the ones you want to support. You can't support the Constitution only in the ways it supports your ideals if those ideals are not in line with the words written therein.
Its only racist if you make it out to be. I'm Native American I could complain that everything's racist against natives but I don't - I choose NOT to be offended. Are you Choosing to be Offended? read that if you're easily offended (ie everyone who screams 'everything's racist'...) pardon me while I don't hold a pity party for you.
Another reason: Failure to enforce Federal law but choosing to SUE a state because the federal government won't do the job its supposed to do - enforce immigration laws that are on the books. When Odumbo took office he pledged an oath that read: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - "To PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND" the Constitution of the United States. He has done exactly the opposite. He should be removed from office for those reasons.
As provided by the US Constitution: 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. - How many crimes has he committed, I'll admit Biden's about as bright as a burnt donut but right now he's less of a problem than Odumbo and Screecher Purelazy "All Civil Officers of the US" that means Pelosi & Odumbo could both be removed if it is proven they have committed a crime. "High crimes or misdemeanors" could be everything from bribery, treason as Denyse stated: "He has two counts against him for treason with the Logan Act and negotiated with foreign governments while Senator without the approval of the Government and for his own agenda.", he has also chosen to ask the head of NASA to be a diplomat w/o having diplomatic powers or immunity. He's backed down from doing anything in a lot of incidents - the gulf just being another one.
As for the immigration issue: Article IV - Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..."
Yet no one in the Federal Government has kept the states (border states especially) from being invaded by the thousands - Illegal immigrants are invaders - they do not belong here legally and as such it could be held over Obama's head if we had the right people in the right places - by failing to protect states from invastion by foreign entities he has failed to 'preserve, protect & defend' states are being invaded - which they're guaranteed not to be by the Constitution. Yet he's done nothing, except sue AZ.
As for gov't entitlements - the liberals try to use the logic 'but the Constitution guarantees us the right to be happy and in order to be happy we need to be paid by the government for not working, because work is hard and we dont' want to work. We want the gov't to give us free money and not have to pay taxes etc...' I've heard worse descriptions of those with different views who want more than that from the gov't - healthcare shouldn't be gov't controlled but this is MY opinion (and a lot of others as well) its just that an opinion. But they would be wrong. The Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness. The Declaration of Independence grants us the right to life, liberty (our liberties guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Federal, state & local laws) and the PURSUIT of happiness.
We have the right to TRY to be happy. That doesn't guarantee that we will be happy, simply that we have the right to pursue happiness, to work and make a wage, to turn that wage into food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and lastly fun, entertainment. No one can make anyone else happy. You can choose to be happy even if your conditions are miserable, or you can choose to be miserable even if you have everything you could ever be for want of - it really is up to the people whether or not they find the happiness they persue. Its not up to the government to give you all these extra benefits simply because you're not happy in your current situation.
Get up, get out, go make changes, make a difference, change your situation, TRY, pursue happiness but don't expect it to be handed to you.
Going back to the Arizona immigration law & Obama's lack of enforecement of immigration law, recommending that the law not be enforced by claiming it is racist. Its not racist if its the truth - if you break a law you're guilty of a crime - from animal abuse to shoplifting to murder, why are illegal immigrants who are guilty of breaking a law that says they need to come into the country legally and with valid documentation suddenly not guilty of breaking that law because somehow the enforcement of a law that applies evenly across the board - no matter the country you come from if you're here illegally you can be arrested & deported back to where you originated - how is that racist?
I don't get it. I really don't.
Anyway in the Declaration of Independence there are a series of statements that were applied to the King of Great Britain who the Founding Fathers were trying to get out from under. It is frightening to me that at least one of these statements applies to our current POTUS - at least one - if not multiple statements.
Obama wishes to be a tyrant, the supreme leader, some have called him "the One", or the 'messiah'. He's neither, he's also not a King, though he's acting more and more like a monarch, like the ones that the founders of this great nation fought so hard to get out from under.
The statement against King George that most accurately describes Obama right now is: He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has chosen to sue the state of Arizona for passing a law of immediate importance - blocking the flow of illegals into their state, giving jobs back to the residents who are here legally - under law and are citizens of the United States - to stop the state from paying out mountains of money for people who have no legal protection under the Constitution (as it was written). Because there is a federal set of regulations (laws) that prohibit people from entering the country illegally - and Obama has stated he doesn't want immigration laws enforced. He wants to give free money to illegals, but not support the residents of this country who are here legally - he wants to grant Constitutional protection to anyone already w/in our borders - whether they're citizens or not. He is no different than King George III.
Other statements in the Declaration of Independence which fit not just King George III but also Obama:
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance. (how many new Czars has this man created - new offices, new officers - not saying the whole thing applies but the first part certainly does)
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended legislation. (Healthcare - gov't doesn't have the power to do this)
For imposing taxes on us without our Consent. (We elected him, he's enacted a stimulus and seemingly unending spending none of which any of us approved - and we've told our elected officials we don't support digging us deeper in debt that we need to be because he simply likes to spend money and make us dependent on foreign countries to get us out of debt.
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: (again taking away laws/altering gov't by adding czars to do jobs that already existed there's a lot of ways this can apply)
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. (he's done nothing to fix the Gulf, he's refused help from foreign countries that have more vessels and other equipment that we could use to help. By doing nothing he's plundered the seas, ravaged the coastal areas of the gulf, and in doing so destroyed the lives of the people who live there. 3 months later almost and we're still no closer to a solution or even a semi-decent attempted solution - ie skimming most of the oil off the water if we had more help...People are out of work in record numbers, thereby having no income and many don't qualify for unemployment because there is no work and people have been out of their jobs long enough that they've run out of benefits for the short term. The economy's tanked and he's still spending - more lives destroyed, families ripped apart, etc.)
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.
He made promises he knew he couldn't keep during the election campaigning, people have questioned him, petitioned the government about the rampant spending, the gulf dilemma (he goes golfing to solve that), the healthcare thing - he and most of Congress ignored the will of the people to get healthcare approved. People have spoken that they are against the governmental regulation of healthcare etc and yet he goes on to appoint yet more new offices new czars to further control our life and limit our liberties.
So pick which reason you think is easiest to prosecute and push your legislators to push the government to impeach the man and actually remove him from office. We all know the VP has no real power. Give Biden the job of being president, screecher becomes VP and we get someone new as speaker of the house.
To the those with differing opinions, if you think we're wrong, you think I am wrong in what I've written - please open a discussion with me, do not sling slurs, hate speech, racial epithets, slang language you think is funny, do not make this a joke, it isn't. I have done my best to be clear, concise in my explanations - of each point I made, and I've tried very hard to cleanse this post of any names that could be construed as offensive, hateful, racist etc so at this point the only ones who will find this offensive will be those who choose to do so.
The only names I have changed are those of POTUS and Speaker of the House. I'm sorry they may be president and speaker but I refuse to call them by names they are not worthy of. I am not military so he is not my Commander in Chief so I am free to speak of him as I wish - I have not directly threatened him, his post, that of the Vice President or Speaker of the House - and per the Constitution of the United States of which I am a legal, natural born citizen I am entitled to say whatever I my opinions may be.
You if you are a citizen, natural born, legal citizen of this country then you too are entitled to speak your mind as well. The question is - can you do the same, give your opinion, without name calling, without threats, and without running and hiding behind the namecalling and threats - or are you that afraid that you really don't have any standing for your points? Provide proof, documentation, explain your points - actually participate in a discussion for once. Can you do it?
A note on being racist. That word works in many ways. It doesn't JUST apply to describe white people who dislike blacks. The word means:
- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
As a final note you will notice that nowhere in this document did I mention the big issue of gun ownership - because it doesn't apply to this discussion - so unless you can do it in a really good way that's not insulting, not hateful, don't bring it up in your response.
No comments:
Post a Comment