The article says it better than I could. But let me add: if this isn't the time for another parallel Declaration of Independence, I wouldn't know how to recognize such a time. Does anyone want me to lay out the "He has, he has, he has" case against Obama? How about this:
"He has usurped an office to which he was in no wise eligible and could never be eligible.
"He has of late abdicated government in a sovereign State within these United States, by declaring the said State out of his protection.
"In every stage of these outrages, we have petitioned through channels. The answer has been outrage after outrage. A politician who conducts himself as befits a tyrant is not fit to lead a free people.
"Neither have we been lacking in attention to the members of certain public-employee unions, and the clientele of the entitlement state. We have warned them, from time to time, that the system they espouse and rely upon cannot last. We have reminded them of the common bond that should unite all Americans. Some of them, too, have been deaf to our suggestions. If they so remain, then we shall hold them, as we hold the rest of humanity, enemies in war; in peace, friends.
"WE THEREFORE...!"
Civil disobedience: is it time?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/06/27 00:38:50
|
|
|||||
|
98 votes
|
|
50% | |||
|
71 votes
|
|
36% | |||
|
26 votes
|
|
13% | |||
Excerpts...
We have a man occupying the White House that has stealthily declared
himself king. We have a criminal in charge of the Justice Department
(credit given to Rick Oltman for coining this title). Holder is bad but
not the only one perverting our Rule of Law. Our Manchurian president
has appointed as many foxes as he could find to guard all the hen houses
in the country. Our Alien in Chief (again credit given to Rick Oltman
for coining this title) has also shut down jobs, destroyed our
prosperity, assaulted our Christian principles, given our stimulus money
to foreign countries, and supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s rebellion
in Egypt. It should be no surprise that our Alien in Chief has gone out
of his way to protect other aliens – legality notwithstanding, The list
goes on and on resulting in our loss of sovereignty, loss of prosperity,
loss of our religious liberty, and the destruction of our
Constitutional principles at every corner turned.
We have a man occupying the White House that has stealthily declared
himself king. We have a criminal in charge of the Justice Department
(credit given to Rick Oltman for coining this title). Holder is bad but
not the only one perverting our Rule of Law. Our Manchurian president
has appointed as many foxes as he could find to guard all the hen houses
in the country. Our Alien in Chief (again credit given to Rick Oltman
for coining this title) has also shut down jobs, destroyed our
prosperity, assaulted our Christian principles, given our stimulus money
to foreign countries, and supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s rebellion
in Egypt. It should be no surprise that our Alien in Chief has gone out
of his way to protect other aliens – legality notwithstanding, The list
goes on and on resulting in our loss of sovereignty, loss of prosperity,
loss of our religious liberty, and the destruction of our
Constitutional principles at every corner turned.
On top of all of this, we have wimps
representing us in Congress and the Senate who do not legislate
properly, and legislators on the bench who either don’t understand our Constitution or are committed to changing it
to conform to their personal ideologies. Whatever happened to their
oath of office that requires them to protect this country from foreign
as well as domestic enemies? This country has suffered a coup de tat of
epic proportions and those in charge of the hen house continue to crow
as if everything is fine back on the farm.
Patrick Henry. Portrait by George Bagby Matthews (1857 – 1943), after Thomas Sully (1783-1872).
Doom and gloom would almost be a foregone conclusion – except for two
things: the supernatural Spirit that led us in the creation of this
country and the human spirit of those who pledged their lives, their
treasures and their sacred honor to follow the Spirit’s call for the
cause of liberty. Does that Spirit exist today and will it preserve what
it once created? Not if we continue to play-along-to-get along.
Compromise is only considered a virtue by those without a backbone.
Freedom has a price, as it did back in the 1700s. Hopefully this
generation is willing to pay it.
Two questions: Do we have the moral fortitude to preserve
liberty and do we understand when civil disobedience becomes our civic
responsibility?
Herewith the most famous words of Patrick Henry, words that are as relevant today as the day he spoke them:
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with
so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be
the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally
disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?
Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire
the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and
hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound
us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those
means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions
of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as
that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can
send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone.
There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who
will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is
not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it,
it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but
in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be
heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I
repeat it, sir, let it come.It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry,
Peace, Peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next
gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of
resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we
here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life
so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains
and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may
take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/26...
You won't.
Conservatives...well...you're just not built that way...mentally or emotionally.
First, it takes courage to do that, something conservatives sorely lack. You're good at talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
Second, you're afraid of getting your hands dirty. Look at the way you laughed at the 99%ers, about how they looked, how they smelled, and how they acted. Think you could fight for things like they do? Who are you kidding?
Third...you're not hungry enough to fight for anything yet. Many of you have money and maybe have some status in your community. What the hell are you going to be fighting for? You're going to leave your job for a few weeks, maybe a month, and what...demonstrate? I'll believe that when I see it. Oh, I know...you'll tell your children and grandkids that you were one of the ones who fought for the liberty of the US back in the day when it was controlled by commies and socialists...LOL. Gimme a break!
You're acting like the whiners you accuse liberals of being. Grow up!
B I N G O !
You liberal progressives cheer the Jew Killing Women Beating muslim brotherhood
The courts don't have the balls to do what is necessary to get him out of office, so it looks like we will just have to wait and vote him out, can't be soon enough though...
Wretha
According to your statement, they've already won...you've given up...live with it...wait...vote...how's that been working for us? The same thing was in many people's minds back in the 1700s,,,thankfully, some people didn't haven't your mindset, otherwise this country wouldn't exist today.
obama backs Muslim terrorist
obama hates Jews and Israel
obama defends fascust such as Egypts new thug and terrorist dictator
you are insane
you are insane
you can't spell "fascist"
Despite the absence of a "p", yes, I got "replies" out of that. Did you genuinely mean "relies"? Or were you perhaps typing in a trance and unaware of what you wrote? Your confusion really is starting to snowball on you...
It is the SCOTUS responsibility to define Constitutionality, not the Executive branch. Article III, Section 2, and reaffirmed by Justice Marshall. Nice try, but little Napolean is way out of line.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/no...
"...there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.
First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a st...
http://www.justice.gov/olc/no...
"...there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.
First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command).
Second, consistent and substantial executive practice also confirms this general proposition. Opinions dating to at least 1860 assert the President's authority to decline to effectuate enactments that the President views as unconstitutional. See, e.g., Memorial of Captain Meigs, 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 462, 469-70 (1860) (asserting that the President need not enforce a statute purporting to appoint an officer); see also annotations of attached Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel opinions. Moreover, as we discuss more fully below, numerous Presidents have provided advance notice of their intention not to enforce specific statutory requirements that they have viewed as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed this practice. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 942 n.13 (1983) (noting that Presidents often sign legislation containing constitutionally objectionable provisions and indicate that they will not comply with those provisions)."
"rhetoric of dogmatic ideologues who have no interest in honest discussion or debate."