"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
These words have always struck within me, a chord of pride, and deep admiration. Knowing that they stand as shining testament, at my homelands door, swells my chest, humbles my heart, and echos the sentiment, heard by all free men.
However. This sentiment has been tainted and cast aside. Blasphemed by the very commander and chief that swore on holy ground, amidst his countrymen, to with his very life, defend. This land is free. Free from tyranny, free from domination, and free from persecution.
However. Hear me Mr. Obama, when I say that this land, though free through the blood soaked ground of patriots, from suffering and diligent works of many a great and noble American, is not free for the taking, nor is she for sale. This land belongs to the free thinking, hard working and constitutionally minded citizenry that make up her heart. She is not to be bartered, traded or lent, for the selfish, single minded agenda of one man. Should you not have the hearts and minds of these, your chosen countrymen, then concede with honor, and relinquish your position to one that does.
We the few, born to the proud, have forged a legend, that will never die....
God bless America.....
...Just a thought...
ILLEGALS ARE NOT ILLEGAL.....anymore
snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
2012/06/25 17:52:14
Obama's Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Is Illegal and Unconstitutional! The man is a freakin' criminal!
The Obama administration decision for immunity from deportation for
young illegal immigrants is a breach of faith with Americans. It also
blatantly ignores the law. This isn't the first time Obama has waived
rules or refused to enforce laws against illegal immigration, writes
Rep. Smith.
By
Lamar Smith /
June 15, 2012
President
Obama responds June 15 as he is interrupted while announcing that his
administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to
younger illegal immigrants. Op-ed contributor Rep. Lamar Smith writes
that to 'ignore Congress and the Constitution is exactly what the
president has done.'
Susan Walsh/AP
Top Opinion
-
sundance 2012/06/25 22:17:57
In fact Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically grants to Congress, not the President, the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
The question is, what can Republicans in Congress do about it? Obama knows that if Republicans attempt to reverse his illegal act before the November elections it will solidify his support among Hispanics, and was essentially challenging them to do so when he took the action.
Never sell Barack Hussein Obama short - he is a very dangerous man to have in power! As the saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton)
In Obama's case, the president is not supposed to have absolute power but he is usurping more and more power of the congress, when he excuses himself by saying we are in a crisis and he will "go around" the Congress if he has to. Obama was already a corrupt Chicago politician when he came to office - he is getting much, much worse and the mainstream media is still approving of his actions, i.e. letting him get away with it.
CASE I
Congress passes a law, but the President contradicts it.
Supreme Court sides with Congress, but President continues to ignore it.
Congress works to withdraw funds, impeach, remove from office, etc....
President arrests Congress, appropriates funds, does whatever.
Tyranny!
CASE II
Congress passes a law, but the President contradicts it.
Supreme Court sides with President.
Congress works to withdraw funds, impeach, remove from office, etc....
President arrests Congress, appropriates funds, does whatever.
Not Tyranny?
I'm presuming that the ultimate authority that the Judicial holds is their finding - no control of money or people. No way to force recognition of a law or cessation of behavior. Likewise, presuming that the ultimate authority that Congress has is to define laws, withhold funds, and declare that the President has been removed from office. Problem with the "balance of powers" is that the ultimate authority that the President holds, is the ability to marshal forces and compel action through arrest, physical coercion, threat, or violence.
While it can be deemed that the President is behaving in an uncon...
CASE I
Congress passes a law, but the President contradicts it.
Supreme Court sides with Congress, but President continues to ignore it.
Congress works to withdraw funds, impeach, remove from office, etc....
President arrests Congress, appropriates funds, does whatever.
Tyranny!
CASE II
Congress passes a law, but the President contradicts it.
Supreme Court sides with President.
Congress works to withdraw funds, impeach, remove from office, etc....
President arrests Congress, appropriates funds, does whatever.
Not Tyranny?
I'm presuming that the ultimate authority that the Judicial holds is their finding - no control of money or people. No way to force recognition of a law or cessation of behavior. Likewise, presuming that the ultimate authority that Congress has is to define laws, withhold funds, and declare that the President has been removed from office. Problem with the "balance of powers" is that the ultimate authority that the President holds, is the ability to marshal forces and compel action through arrest, physical coercion, threat, or violence.
While it can be deemed that the President is behaving in an unconstitutional or illegal manner, there is nothing short of the rebellion of civilian and military personnel that would stop a takeover. Abuses by either of the other branches would not require rebellion to prevent abuses.
PLEASE - I'm NOT suggesting that's where we're headed, I'm just pondering whether the powers separation was balanced. In civil times, yes. But if the branches behave in an uncivil manner, two branches are holding scraps of paper while one has arms and personnel.
So is it just me or does that seem even more extreme than the initial question? I started out with a proposition that each branch exercises their authority to the fullest... and we wind up with armaments??? Seriously?
What turn did I miss?
They All Need To Go as well...
Along with a Strong Sec of State and Defence...
Much Better than an Illegal Imposter Dictator...