1 - 10 Next
Although I love the idea that Obama could be removed via the states' 10th amendment powers, I'd like to know the details of the process. The Constitution is very clear about who impeaches/indicts (the House), who is the jury (the Senate), and who presides (the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS). The 10th Amendment deals with duties/rights/tasks not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as being those of the federal government; but the specific process for for removing a president from office seems clear.
Debucked. You need to go back to a Bill Clinton-signed bill as the real root cause/culprit for all of the unaccompanied minors who are arriving now.
Sadly, those Republicans must shoulder part of the blame for Obama's reelection.
Wait, we have an apologist oxymoron for "truth," Josh Earnest!
Get on back to HuffPo, troll, where you are welcome to emphasize your ignorance with certainty! (It's obvious that you have nothing substantive to contribute here.)
My fellow Americans... Haven't ya'll figured out Obama's priorities YET? He simply does NOT care that his policies and public statements have been the root cause of the increases in illegal immigration, plus the trafficking of drugs and humans for other illegal purposes into our country. Our current resources are overwhelmed; but Obama just sees this as an "opportunity" to restock the liberal voter base with new people dependent on the government. It IS a crisis, and it IS an ongoing invasion; and the potential for a health crisis in Texas and other border states is very real. Pay attention: “Every sovereign nation has the authority to determine who can be a citizen and who can be present within its borders. As the nation’s former chief law enforcement officer, and a citizen who believes in the rule of law, I cannot condone anyone coming into this country illegally. We are a nation of laws. When people fail to follow the law with impunity, it encourages further disobedience and breeds disrespect for the rule of law; and that is not America.” -- Alberto Gonzales, the nation’s 80th Attorney General, in a speech to the Austin Economics Club. Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." Why can’t Texas and the other border states file suit in federal court based on the fact that Obama has instructed the nation’s Justice Department NOT to enforce current federal laws? And the feds have gone so far as to even sue states that have tried to protect the public health and safety of their own citizens. The entity (the federal government) that has a constitutional MANDATE to “provide for the common defense” (e.g., securing our border against a foreign invasion) has essentially refused to fulfill those duties. The millions of illegal aliens currently in the country definitely constitute an “invasion;” and, violent crimes, theft and the fraudulent consumption of welfare, medical and educational services by them certainly meets my definition of serious domestic and economic violence being perpetrated against American citizens. There have been repeated failures by the president to faithfully enforce our laws, especially our immigration laws, and "We the People" know it. Therefore, it's no surprise that Obama doesn't want a photo op anywhere near "the scene of the crime."
Bottom line, folks: By her filibuster, is Wendy Davis inferring that FIVE MONTHS (20 weeks) is NOT long enough for a woman to make a decision about terminating her pregnancy. If so, that's very demeaning and insulting to her gender! And, is she also trying to say that the termination of a pregnancy for convenience (as birth control) after 20 weeks, when a healthy human in vivo is on the threshold of viability outside the womb, somehow constitutes "healthcare?" If so, that's just sick!
His only "solution" is to restrict the ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their property. STUPID! But then again, it's entirely possible that Rham really doesn't WANT to reduce the violence. (It's an issue to be abused -- to petition for more taxpayer dollars to pay for more unionized police officers who then finance Democrat politicians. It's a transparent example of "political symbiosis." Why we have a Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution: Men without guns are not free men; they are slaves. Men without guns are not citizens, they are subjects. Men without guns have lost the right of self-defense by any means necessary. They have lost the power to defend and protect their families, their homes and their property from harm or theft. Men without guns are reduced to mere members of the animal kingdom, subject to becoming prey to those among them who might choose to maim or kill during a robbery, or just for sport. The right to protect oneself and one’s family is God-given and Christ-endorsed, as Jesus plainly ordered his Apostles, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22.36) [And it wasn’t to make a fashion statement!]
I first saw the following analysis way back when BHO was first elected. People "poo-pahed" and disregarded it, calling the narrative just more conservative "hate speech" towards Obama...because he was (half) black. After 5-1/2 years of "Santa Claus," and one re-election by the entitlement-dependent class that is nearing 50% of our population, Obama is using the massive influx of foreign nationals to "reload" his voter base and to further depress/degrade our economy. It's all part of his promised "fundamental transformation" of America, a transformation into just one more unexceptional socialist state in this world. The problem is that the author of the analysis grossly underestimated our ability to easily correct the damage done by Obama and his "sycophants for change:" “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” – an unknown author in the Czech Republic.
Cleveland?????? SERIOUSLY????????? Why does rock and roll "count" in Cleveland's favor? Why should Ohio be rewarded with a convention when the state voted for the worst president in history?
1 - 10 Next