tagged w/ Impeachment
-
On January 13, 2013, H.R. 226 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The bill will amend the 1986 IRS code and allow a credit if taxpayers “surrender” their guns to the government.
photo
Cited as the “Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act,” the proposed legislation represents another effort to convince citizens that they must voluntarily turn in their guns as a civic duty and to do their part to reduce “gun violence” and protect children, as Obama said yesterday.
The bill is yet more evidence that federal and state governments are now pulling out all stops short of door-to-door confiscation in their coordinated effort to disarm the American people.
Strikingly honest language included in the legislation specifies that the bill is part of the government’s “program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons,” in short, a program to disarm the American people.
The bill contains an exhaustive list of so-called “assault weapons” that will garner a $2,000 tax credit, including the much demonized Bushmaster AR-15 allegedly used in the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on January 14, 2013.
The inclusion of the IRS in the government’s attempt to grab guns is especially foreboding considering its effort to act as a Obamacare compliance enforcer. In July, we reported on a revelation made by Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady that the tax agency planned to hire up to 16,500 new agents.
American taxpayers must reject such cynical enticements and stand together and support the Second Amendment against all attacks by Obama and Congress.
The latest foray against the Second Amendment and the founding principles of the republic commenced soon after the Sandy Hook incident on December 15 when California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein exploited the tragedy to call for an attack on America’s “gun culture.”
“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,” Feinstein said. “I will do another assault weapons ban.”
New York governor Andrew Cuomo jumped on the anti-Second Amendment bandwagon a few days later, on December 21, and proposed gun confiscation in the state. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option,” Cuomo said. He was egged on by notorious gun-grabber advocate and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg who also demanded Obama use unconstitutional executive actions against the Second Amendment.
On December 30, Feinstein said America needs to “bite the bullet” and restrict the gun rights of Americans following comments by president Obama that he would support draconian legislation aimed at the Second Amendment.
Over the next two weeks, the establishment media launched an intense anti-Second Amendment campaign and produced corporate polls in favor of “common sense” gun bans. Alex Jones appeared on the Piers Morgan Show and a flurry of pro and con pundits and commentators debated the finer points of stripping Americans of their right to own firearms.
On December 16, Obama and Joe Biden went on national television accompanied by a gaggle of children and pushed the federal government’s anti-Second Amendment agenda. Obama brazenly signed a number of unconstitutional executive actions during the performance instructing the government to roll back the Second Amendment.On January 13, 2013, H.R. 226 was introduced in the House of Representatives by... more
-
-
Who made the list this week? -- Welcome to The Stew’s weekly column of winners and losers, heroes and zeroes, foolish and fabulous, in the world of politics, news and pop culture.
This week: Clowns take on the racists, Denny’s CEO strikes out at Obamacare, and when all else fails, let’s launch a baseless impeachment proceeding against President Obama…because he won reelection.
http://veracitystew.com/?p=45977Who made the list this week? -- Welcome to The Stew’s weekly column of winners... more
-
-
I'm under no illusion that we'll ever be able to get rid of Obama, but this should shake some of the pro-Obama crowd up a bit.
*******
When Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush on June 9, 2008, the 35 had been selected from drafts of nearly twice that many articles.
President Obama has accumulated his own massive list of high crimes and misdemeanors that were unavailable for Bush's list (thing's like openly murdering U.S. citizens, launching massive drone wars, selectively and abusively prosecuting numerous whistleblowers as spies, holding Bradley Manning naked in isolation, attacking Libya without so much as bothering to lie to Congress, etc.).
Nonetheless, it is instructive to review the 35 Bush articles in the Obama age. It quickly becomes apparent that Obama has either exactly duplicated or closely paralleled most of the 35. Here's what I mean:I'm under no illusion that we'll ever be able to get rid of Obama, but this... more
-
-
Republicans often provide us with a sense of déjà vu, as they resort to draconian practices in ways that we have seen before. Whatever Bill Clinton’s shortcomings, he did nothing worthy of impeachment, such as starting lengthily wars of aggression, torture, or using the federal bureaucracy in an attempt to attain a permanent Republican regime at taxpayer expense. Nevertheless, they did impeach Clinton, just to gridlock the government and prevent him from achieving more of his objectives. That time may well come again.Republicans often provide us with a sense of déjà vu, as they resort to... more
-
-
-
-
asherp
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers on Thursday called for a federal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to report hundreds of thousands of dollars on annual financial disclosure forms.
Led by House Rules Committee ranking member Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), 20 House Democrats sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States -- the entity that frames guidelines for the administration of federal courts -- requesting that the conference refer the matter of Thomas' non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to the Department of Justice.
The letter outlines how, throughout his 20-year tenure on the Supreme Court, Thomas routinely checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income. But in reality, the letter states, she earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007 alone.
Slaughter called it "absurd" to suggest that Thomas may not have known how to fill out the forms.
Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/democratic-lawmakers-call-for-investiation-into-clarence-thomas-finances_n_987934.html#comments
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I say, IMPEACH the guy!WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers on Thursday called for a federal investigation into... more
-
-
Imzadi
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
Rep. Murphy has a petition drive in place, where you can show your support for his legislation, both in getting more House cosponsors and in securing companion legislation in the Senate. If the blatant disregard for even the appearance of judicial propriety on the part of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas bothers you, go sign the petition, and show your support for an ethical judiciary.
Sign the petition: http://www.chrismurphy.com/page/s/supremecourt?source=current
Image Link: http://www.toadware.com/scotus2010a.htmRep. Murphy has a petition drive in place, where you can show your support for his... more
-
-
Good report and I don't care to hear whining that it's Prison Planet. You're probably not likely to find this being reported on your average liberal or conservative newsite.
****
A new study by U-M’s Michael Heaney and colleague Fabio Rojas of Indiana University shows that the antiwar movement in the United States demobilized as Democrats took over Congress and the White House.
“As president, Obama has maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan,” said Heaney. “The antiwar movement should have been furious at Obama’s ‘betrayal’ and reinvigorated its protest activity.”
“Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement have dissipated. The election of Obama appeared to be a demobilizing force on the antiwar movement, even in the face of his pro-war decisions.”
A corporate media poll conducted in late March on Obama’s handling of the unconstitutional attack on Libya shows that two-thirds of Democrat respondents support violating international law and pummeling the oil-rich north African country with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Congress Democrats often howled about “Bush’s Wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, but supported them – including the mass murder of 1.5 million Iraqis, a war criminal of immense proportion – by continuing to fund them. The number of anti-war Democrats in Congress who worked to defund the illegal occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq was miniscule.
Obama duped the so-called anti-war faction of his party during the election. He said he’d bring home the troops and close down Gitmo. During the primaries, he tried to make Hillary Clinton look like the war candidate.Good report and I don't care to hear whining that it's Prison Planet.... more
-
-
The Constitution prescribes the rules about how the United States is to enter a war, and the Obama administration has violated those rules.
The administration argues that the hostilities, because limited, do not rise to the level of “war,” as the Constitution uses that word. But that position is almost surely wrong: Founding-Era dictionaries and other sources, both legal and lay, tell us that when the Constitution was approved, “war” consisted of any hostilities initiated by a sovereign over opposition. A very typical dictionary definition was, “the exercise of violence under sovereign command against such as oppose.” (Barlow, 1772-73). I have found no suggestion in any contemporaneous source that operations of the kind the U.S. is conducting were anything but “war.”
The Founders’ favorite authority on international law, Vattel, divided wars into three principal categories: defensive wars, offensive just wars, and offensive unjust wars. A nation fought a defensive war when it responded to an invasion. It fought a just offensive war when it responded to an infringement of its rights short of invasion. It fought an unjust offensive war if it attacked another country even though that other country had not infringed its rights. Examples of unjust offensive wars were those fought for conquest or to limit an innocent neighbor’s power.
A defensive war did not require a declaration. A just offensive war did require one, although it might be called something other than “declaration of war.” The declaration triggered certain consequences under international law, but Vattel says its principal purpose was to give the other country a last chance to correct the injury it was inflicting. Because unjust wars were those launched by a country that had not suffered legal injury, it follows that “declarations of war” issued by an aggressor were at least partially defective.
Now: The federal government has only those powers the Constitution grants it. The Constitution grants the federal government authority to begin and wage a defensive war: “The United States shall . . . protect each [state] against Invasion” (IV-4). (Protection of U.S. territories is impliedly authorized as well: IV-3-2) But the Constitution grants only Congressauthority to initiate a just offensive war—that is, an American attack to vindicate our legitimate rights: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War.” (I-8-11). It can be inferred from the document that the government has no constitutional power to wage an unjust war.
The Constitution entrusts Congress with creating the means for waging war: “To raise and support Armies” (I-8-12), “To provide and maintain a Navy” (I-8-13), and “To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . repel Invasions” (I-8-15). It grants the President authority to serve as Commander-in-Chief (II-2-1). Under the latter provision, the President can oppose an invader (engage in defensive war) without prior congressional authorization, since “The United States [not just Congress] shall . . . protect each [state] against Invasion” (IV-4). But there is no enumerated power authorizing the President to launch an offensive war without a congressional resolution that qualifies in substance as a declaration.
Many quotations from key Founders show that is was their understanding as well. For example, James Wilson, one of the greatest Founders, told the Pennsylvania ratifying convention:
“This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives. . . .”
(This quote is only one of several.)
Nevertheless, many well-meaning people have sought to find a presidential power to wage undeclared war. In part they rely on practice arising decades, even centuries, after the Founding. As I point out in The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant,such evidence is too remote to be a reliable source of original understanding. The fact that the President sometimes has acted unconstitutionally does not render those acts constitutional.
The most sophisticated presidential defenders make the following argument:
* What determines constitutional force is not how the ratifiers understood the document, but its objective “original public meaning” to the larger public;
* the Constitution grants the President the “executive Power” (II-1-1);
* although the Constitution does not mention undeclared wars, based on the practice of the British Crown the President’s “executive Power” included authority to initiate them.
Unfortunately for this argument, recent scholarship has largely destroyed the view that the phrase “the executive Power” conferred the King of England’s power on the President. The most comprehensive study of the subject is Curtis A. Bradley & Martin S. Flaherty’s article,Executive Power Essentialism and Foreign Affairs, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 545 (2004). In addition,my own published investigation of Founding-Era legal drafting practices discovered that those practices were completely inconsistent with the conclusion that the phrase “executive Power” conferred any authority.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/28/obamas-libyan-operations-are-unconstitutional/The Constitution prescribes the rules about how the United States is to enter a war,... more
-
-
How things change. In 2007, then presidential hopeful Biden stated unequivocally that he would work to impeach Bush if he bombed Iran without first gaining congressional approval. Now Biden is dutifully ringing up the royalty in United Arab Emirates and cajoling them to support Obama’s unconstitutional war waged on Libya and kicked off without congressional approval.
Joe didn’t mean it in 2007, of course. He was running for president, after all. The hand-picked minions of the elite who are permitted to pretend they will run the country always tell lies. It’s in their job description. Most Americans understand elections are all about promising the moon and delivering nothing but an IOU. Still, they turn out to vote for these guys.
The elite and their brokers at the United Nations wanted this shabby little war waged against Libya. Biden is simply taking orders, as usual. It does not matter an iota what he said in 2007. And the corporate media, of course, will not hold him to that comment. It found the memory hole long ago, only to be relived by the alternative media, the only media telling the truth in a time of Big Lies of the sort Hitler told.How things change. In 2007, then presidential hopeful Biden stated unequivocally that... more
-
-
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says President Barack Obama did not have the constitutional authority to order U.S. forces to participate in an attack on Libya.
In a conference call with other liberal lawmakers Saturday, Kucinich asked why the U.S. missile strikes were not impeachable offenses, according to two Democratic lawmakers who spoke to Politico.
The U.S. unleashed a barrage of strikes against the Libyan regime's air defenses over the weekend, but ruled out using ground troops in what Obama called a "limited military action."
After taking a cautious stance on armed intervention in Libya's civil war, Obama ordered the attacks citing the threat posed to civilians by Moamer Kadhafi's forces and a UN-mandated no-fly zone endorsed by Arab countries.
"We must be clear: actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced," Obama told reporters while on an official visit to Brazil Saturday.
"We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world," he said, stressing that Washington was acting in concert "with a broad coalition."
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Mike Capuano (D-MA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during the conference call, a source told Politico.
Kucinich also released a statement on his website Friday questioning the constitutionality of the president's actions.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he insisted.
"While the action is billed as protecting the civilians of Libya, a no-fly-zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya and Qaddafi forces. It is an act of war. The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. War from the air is still war."
"Congress should be called back into session immediately to decide whether or not to authorize the United States’ participation in a military strike. If it does not, the action of the President is contrary to U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that the United States Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not. That was the Founders’ intent," the Ohio congressman added.
"The last thing we need is to be embroiled in yet another intervention in another Muslim country. The American people have had enough. First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq. Then bombs began to fall in Pakistan, then Yemen, and soon it seems bombs could be falling in Libya. Our nation simply cannot afford another war, economically, diplomatically or spiritually," Kucinich concluded.
Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader also said the president was committing "war crimes" in the attack against Libya.
"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader told Democracy Now! Thursday.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/kucinich-obama-could-be-impeached-for-attacking-libya/Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says President Barack Obama did not have the... more
-
-
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says President Barack Obama did not have the constitutional authority to order U.S. forces to participate in an attack on Libya.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Mike Capuano (D-MA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during the conference call, a source told Politico.
Kucinich also released a statement on his website Friday questioning the constitutionality of the president's actions.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he insisted.
Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader also said the president was committing "war crimes" in the attack against Libya.
"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader told Democracy Now! Thursday.Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says President Barack Obama did not have the... more
-
-
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Friday that President Obama had overstepped his constitutional authority with his recent decision to order his administration to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. While the move didn't immediately open Obama up to impeachment, Gingrich claimed, it did raise his worry about a future constitutional crisis.
In an interview with Newsmax, Gingrich characterized the president's latest announcement regarding DOMA, a law that allows states to not honor gay marriages, as "a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath" that "cannot be allowed to stand."
On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said Obama had determined that his administration would no longer defend a law defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but that it would continue to be enforced pending an actual legislative overturn.
Gingrich on Friday said that this plan of action was unacceptable.
"He swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States," Gingrich said. "He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody."
While Obama was sheltered by the left, which "likes the policy," Gingrich claimed, he proposed another situation that he suggested would have caused much more clamor.
"Imagine that Governor Palin had become president," Gingrich said. "Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone's right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment."
He then provided a potential legislative solution based on his belief that what the president was doing was unconstitutional.
"I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job," Gingrich said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/25/newt-gingrich-obama-impeachment-palin_n_828506.htmlFormer Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Friday that President Obama had... more
-
-
http://www.queerty.com/did-some-of-new-jerseys-supreme-court-justices-refuse-gay-marriage-case-because-they-fear-losing-their-jobs-20100816/
The New Jersey Supreme Court doesn't give interviews, so no one can ask whether the tribunal balked on the gay marriage issue because it was afraid of the reaction of Gov. Chris Christie.
"There won't be any comment," says Winnie Comfort, a spokeswoman for the court. "Of course, people are free to speculate. There is nothing we can do about that."
Comfort made the comments in response to remarks by legislators who raised the issue of whether the court — or, at least, three members — might have been afraid to touch the gay marriage case because Christie can remove them by appointing other justices. The way he did to Justice John Wallace, the court's only African-American.
Both state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) and Assemblyman John D. McKeon (D-Essex) told The Star-Ledger's Matt Friedman the decision raised the question of whether Wallace's ouster led three non-permanent court members to duck the issue.
Those members — Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens — voted against a motion to have the court immediately revisit its earlier decision in the Lewis vs. Harris case that, in 2006 ruled the Legislature must provide marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. The court then left the details up to lawmakers and they decided to create "civil unions" rather than extend marriages to gays and lesbians.
The three judges who don't have to worry about reappointment — Justices Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia, and Barry Albin dissented from the order. They wanted arguments on the motion to go forward. Coincidence?
"I think the three justices who voted against the motion looked over their shoulders and saw Chris Christie," says Frank Askin, a Rutgers Law School professor and constitutional scholar in Newark. "There is no question in my mind that fear of what the Governor would do played a part in that decision."
Michael Drewniak, Christie's spokesman, declined to answer questions about the decision.
The state court action contrasts with the robust ruling handed down by federal Judge Vaughn Walker who overturned a California plebiscite — Proposition 8 — banning gay marriages. Forget worrying about a governor, Walker rejected the will of the state's voters because, he ruled, Proposition 8 "violates the due process and equal protection rights" of gays seeking to marry.
Walker's decision chews through the arguments of opponents of gay marriage, refuting contentions gay marriages are unstable and that children raised by gay parents do less well than kids from heterosexual households. He also makes it obvious supporters of Proposition 8 were trying to inject their religious views into law.
"The evidence presented at trial," Walker wrote, "fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents' proffered rationales for Proposition 8."
New Jersey once had a supreme court willing to render significant decisions. Under chiefs like Joseph Weintraub, Richard Hughes, Robert Wilentz, James Zazzali and Deborah Poritz, the state's highest court was a national leader in individual rights.
It is often in state courts that individual rights are most effectively protected. New Jersey's decisions on school funding and fair housing — also now endangered — went far beyond what the federal courts would do.
Even Walker's decision, for all the hype it has generated, could set back the cause. Rutgers Law Professor Carlos Bell, an expert on gay marriage, explains it could lead to an adverse decision by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court:
"That is why most of the other same-sex marriage lawsuits (including New Jersey's Lewis v. Harris) have been brought in state courts alleging violations of state constitutions. When a case is decided on state constitutional grounds, it cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"It is likely the court will hear the Proposition 8 case. The upside for gay people of a favorable decision is tremendous: It would mean same-sex couples all over the country would have to be afforded the opportunity to marry. But the downside is also great: It would mean a Supreme Court decision, which would likely stay on the books for a long time, holding gay people are not entitled to marry under the federal constitution."
Maybe too much has been read into the state court action. Even Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, the state's leading proponent of gay rights, says "it's not a dooms-day scenario — we'll get our day in court."
Perhaps. But a lot is at stake, and one has to wonder — do the three judges up for reappointment really think Christie will keep them no matter what they do?
This looks more like an opportunity to make history rather than curry favor.http://www.queerty.com/did-some-of-new-jerseys-supreme-court-justices-refuse-gay-marria... more
-
-
The ever-vigilant folks over at Talking Points Memo caught the full text of an article penned by Newsmax columnist John L. Perry: "Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention"
Some highlights:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic. ....
# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."....
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?....Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
(Newsmax, perhaps unsurprisingly, has distanced themselves from the article and the writer, downplaying his relationship with the organization.)
Now don't get me wrong, I am all for dissent. But am I wrong to find incidents like this worrying? Calling for impeachment would be one thing; whether or not you agree with the opinion, at least it's a part of our legal system. Calling for a coup is a much more violent and dangerous tactic. Especially in an article that reads like it's a call to military officers.
What is fueling this dangerous rhetoric? This, on the heels of the Facebook poll asking whether or not Obama should be killed, and the tea party protests with Obama/Hitler signs. What about this President (who liberals would consider to be rather centrist, but conservative commentators go so far as to call Marxist) inspires such ire? And at what point does debate over policy come back to policy?
Comment over here on Current News.The ever-vigilant folks over at Talking Points Memo caught the full text of an article... more
-
-
wow, i'm kinda surprised to hear this already being thrown out there by the washington times. long article, worth the read
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.
Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.wow, i'm kinda surprised to hear this already being thrown out there by the... more
-
-
diode
-
added this
-
3 years ago
- |
-
Obama Declares He Will Rule by Authoritarian Decree
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 13, 2010
The Obama administration has announced it will now rule by fascist decree and ignore Congress and the American people.
“With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities,” reports The New York Times. “We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff who is fond of cracking his knuckles in Obama’s face.
For the Full Story on Obamas Executive Orders (Scary) and A Video History of Our Freedoms Dying with each Executive Order...Must See ....http://ctpatriot1970.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/just-like-bush-obama-declares-he-will-rule-by-executive-ordersvideo-no-bs-must-read/Obama Declares He Will Rule by Authoritarian Decree
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com... more
-
-
A South Carolina House panel voted Wednesday not to impeach Gov. Mark Sanford for abandoning his duties and abuse of power, all but closing the door on lawmakers removing Sanford from office.
The seven-member panel, instead, voted unanimously to censure Sanford, which means the General Assembly would admonish Sanford for his behavior. But, Sanford would get to serve the rest of his term, which has roughly one year remaining.
Lawmakers said that while Sanford may have used a 2008 Argentina trade trip as a cover to initiate an extramarital affair and that his use of state aircraft deserved an S.C. Ethics Commission review, the charges did not meet the high standard they felt was necessary to remove Sanford from office.
More @ linkA South Carolina House panel voted Wednesday not to impeach Gov. Mark Sanford for... more
-
-
The Republicans ever manage to retake Congress, they will absolutely try to impeach President Obama. And it'll be based upon a supremely ridiculous charge such as, say, the president refusing to nourish our crops with a sports drink instead of water.
Okay, so maybe the Idiosyncrasy example is over-the-top, but if we follow the current trajectory of far-right attacks to their logical yet insane conclusion, it makes sense in a very eerie way. Have you seen the television commercials solemnly defending our right to poison our kids with "juice drinks and soda?" There you go.
I've been following the Republican descent into the realms of the bizarre for some time now, and it wasn't until the "czars" thing broke that I became convinced that if they retook Congress the Republicans might try to impeach the president. The grounds for both the impeachment and the language used to sell it will likely be fabricated by either Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
I mean, 100 Republican members of Congress have signed onto Rep. Jack Kingston's cartoonish czar bill. 100 House Republicans out of 177 have attached their names to a bill that was essentially invented as a television bit by Glenn Beck without any regard for the fact that "czar" is a nickname invented by the press, and that every president -- all of them! -- has employed policy and political advisers within their administrations. But it functions as an effective Beck attack because he knows his audience isn't bright enough to distinguish "czars" from "communists." By the way, not to be out-crazied by his House colleagues, Senator Ensign introduced an amendment to the Finance Committee health care reform bill called "Transparency in Czars." This might as well be "Transparency in Hobbits" because it's just that ludicrous.
Nevertheless, there's a growing conventional wisdom in the press alleging that both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty of wackaloon attacks and conspiracy theories.
Granted there might be one or two very fringe exceptions but this is otherwise a false equivalency written by the establishment media as part of their self-conscious effort to seem balanced. The distinction is that any "fringe" attacks from the left during the Bush years weren't mainstreamed and legitimized the way the wingnut attacks are today, even though the fringe attacks from the left turned out to be mostly accurate.
On the right, we're hearing about communist takeovers, birth certificates, Oval Office dress codes, teleprompters, death panels, czars and a return to segregated buses. During the previous administration, on the other hand, the left insisted that Iraq didn't have WMD. This turned out to be true. The left insisted that there wasn't a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Also true. The left alleged that George W. Bush was incompetent. The rest of the nation caught up with the left when Katrina slammed into New Orleans, shattering the levees while Bush was eating cake with John McCain.
Some, but not all, of the left thought Bush had prior knowledge of the September 11th attacks. It's a matter of record that he knew an attack might be imminent based upon the famous PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." So that one was partially true.
The left also accused the administration of using illegal wiretaps, torture and other human rights violations. All true. Did Bush have business connections with the Bin Laden family? Yes.
And throughout the Bush years -- no matter how accurate the left's "fringe" attacks might've been -- liberals were marginalized and laughed off by the establishment press, ignored by certain leaders in our own party and attacked as unpatriotic by the Republicans. Sean Hannity, Tom DeLay and Bill O'Reilly, who are all busily ripping the current president an array of new holes, actively accused the left of undermining the troops.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-impeachment-of-presid_b_297330.htmlThe Republicans ever manage to retake Congress, they will absolutely try to impeach... more
-
-
http://www.GetReal.tv - When David Axelrod stood up to say that his message to all of "those" people - ie the protesters in Washington for the TeaParty Express demonstration on September 12th 2009, were "wrong" he said a mouth full.
Tell us, Mr. Axelrod: With which of these voters' statements do you disagree, and why?
See you at the polls...http://www.GetReal.tv - When David Axelrod stood up to say that his message to all of... more
-
