Are We In Revolutionary Times?

[coachdb18]

For Obama to do what he's done, and for any future President to do as much, requires that our Constitution be held without effect, and our Congress be disbanded as the elected represntation of the people... in short, it requires that the United States become a Monarchy, with one supreme leader who does as he chooses, whenever he chooses. It is specifically why the country was set up to have conflicting branches of government, known as our system of checks and balances. We no longer have checks on our new Kings power, and the balancing mechanism is gone. The only way to change this now is by violent revolution. Elections no longer have meaning, even when the King allows them. They are his elections now, not ours.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

You won't argue the point with me because you do not have the facts, if you did you wouldn't doubt they vote. Illegal aliens are illegally protected in California and they do vote, and have voted in the past because thew state makes it easy for them to do so.

Cite?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[coachdb18]

Cite?

http://ncrenegade.com/immigration/breaking-news-clip-illegal-aliens-caught-voting-and-stealing-elections-in-florida-in-vast-numbers/

 

[KingOrfeo]

This is how illegal aliens vote in California:

STEALING THE ELECTION OF 2012
By: rhedgecock
6/10/2011 03:01 AM

<snip>

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/06/10/stealing-the-election-of-2012/

Human Events?http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Human_Events Seriously?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I wonder what Presidential power Romney might dream up when he's sworn in? Let's talk about some new powers that Romney might dream up. Which laws can he all of a sudden decide to suspend and not enforce.



Are We in Revolutionary Times?

By Victor Davis Hanson
June 15, 2012 6:51 P.M

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

More here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303037/are-we-revolutionary-times-victor-davis-hanson

I am bothered by the assassinations and the drone killings - to a degree. I think the Patriot Act should have expired. I think the Dept of Homeland Security has already outlived its usefulness and shoe be disbanded - not used as an extension of Executive Power, so yes there is merit is talking about curbing Executive power and discretion.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The trouble will come after Obama is gone from the stage. Obama's replacement will use Obama as a precedent to ignore the law and Constitution, to persecute Democrats. And Democrat protests will fall on deaf ears.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

The trouble will come after Obama is gone from the stage. Obama's replacement will use Obama as a precedent to ignore the law and Constitution, to persecute Democrats. And Democrat protests will fall on deaf ears.

No, that's what's happening now. The Obama Admin is using the "unitary executive" powers as the Bush Admin expanded them.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Get serious. The Author is the former Mayor of San Diego, the second largest city in California. He is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host, author, and lawyer. Your dismissal of the source is an insult to the truth. Why don't you read the article and refute it's facts? Instead of posturing as if only you were the real keeper of the truth.

Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage and Neal Boortz are a nationally syndicated radio talk show hosts; John Ashcroft and Christopher Yoo are lawyers; Clint Eastwood was a mayor; none of them are worth listening to. As for "rhedgecock" (there's no actual name appended to his HE article), the "Debbie Wasserperson-Schultz" bit alone makes him dismissable.

 

[coachdb18]

The trouble will come after Obama is gone from the stage. Obama's replacement will use Obama as a precedent to ignore the law and Constitution, to persecute Democrats. And Democrat protests will fall on deaf ears.

Indeed!
http://www.qualityinformationpublishers.com/historicalpictures/nazi%20concentration%20camp2.gif

 

[bra_man69]

Not all Americans are without honor James, let him sin before we condemn.

Name one politician that has honor now day's I'll wait

 

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

I say let the man take the oath of office and then we can judge. There are degrees of dishonor, Obama has reached his in my opinion. Let Romney, if elected, reach his.

And I said name just one politician with honor.
Bullshit dishonor is dishonor it is are isn't.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Cite?

The Vettepussy won't give you links, because the last time he did I exposed every last link as speculative opinion.

He was reduced to crying "but JFK in Chicago!" (1960 is soooo relevant today) and "but..but...Bob Dornan!" because Dornan "Knew" illegals voted him out because his opponent was a Hispanic.

 

[bra_man69]

The Vettepussy won't give you links, because the last time he did I exposed every last link as speculative opinion.

He was reduced to crying "but JFK in Chicago!" (1960 is soooo relevant today) and "but..but...Bob Dornan!" because Dornan "Knew" illegals voted him out because his opponent was a Hispanic.

Shut up bitch do what you do best run.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Congressional Progressive Caucus are politicians with honor. Especially Bernie Sanders.

 

[bra_man69]

The Congressional Progressive Caucus are politicians with honor. Especially Bernie Sanders.

Get the fuck out here with that bullshit dumb fuck.

 

[Liar]

*reads thread title*

Ahem.

"No."

*moves onto next thread*

 

[phrodeau]

For Obama to do what he's done, and for any future President to do as much, requires that our Constitution be held without effect, and our Congress be disbanded as the elected represntation of the people... in short, it requires that the United States become a Monarchy, with one supreme leader who does as he chooses, whenever he chooses. It is specifically why the country was set up to have conflicting branches of government, known as our system of checks and balances. We no longer have checks on our new Kings power, and the balancing mechanism is gone. The only way to change this now is by violent revolution. Elections no longer have meaning, even when the King allows them. They are his elections now, not ours.

Sure, that's exactly how a man like Obama could become President in the first place. Don't you remember the Coronation Ceremony with Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and George Soros?

 

[unregistered]