# Amend & Rescind



## Flanders (Nov 22, 2014)

*In December, 2009 Taqiyya the Liar amended: *

. . . President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.

Wither Sovereignty
       Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?
       By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton December 23, 2009

ThreatsWatch.Org PrincipalAnalysis Wither Sovereignty​
*So far, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul is the only wannabe I ever heard say he would rescind previous EOs:*

Rand Paul tells audience he would use executive orders only to rescind past orders if elected president

   Paul: 'I would use executive orders to undo executive orders that have encroached on our jurisprudence, our ability to defend ourselves, the right to a trial'

By Chris Moody August 12, 2014 7:28 PM Yahoo News

Rand Paul tells audience he would use executive orders only to rescind past orders if elected president - Yahoo News​
*Taqiyya the Liar’s INTERPOL executive order was an act of treason on behalf of the United Nations that was largely ignored by the media. Let’s hope that Rand Paul will undo that one along with the ones on illegal aliens, the ACA, the EPA, and so on. 

Amend & Rescind is such an obvious solution to repairing most of Taqiyya the Liar’s constitutional holocaust, I am not surprised talking heads avoid the subject. To no one’s surprise media mouths want the public to focus on Boehner, McConnell and the Courts. Media reasons for staying away from Amend & Rescind are obvious. It works, and it can done by the right president on his own hook.   

I do not expect any of Karl Rove’s choices to use Amend & Rescind, while every Tea Party conservative wannabe should be jumping on Rand Paul’s bandwagon. The beauty is that the Chicago sewer rat’s surrogates cannot object to the next president doing exactly the same thing their messiah did.

The media will object to rescinding Taqiyya’s EOs to be sure. Media mouths have already trotted out Hispanic anger if the Republicans torpedo any part of amnesty for illegals. Frankly, Hispanic anger is a hollow threat coming from people who cannot vote anyway; at least they are not supposed to vote. Even if every Hispanic here legally voted for the Democrat it would only affect a small number of districts in House races. In fact, a large number of Hispanic who played by the rules do not support open-borders or amnesty for illegals. 

Finally, it is far too early to zero in on Amend & Rescind. The herd has to be thinned out quite a bit before Tea Party conservatives get to that point. When the primaries get started the few remaining on their feet should be asked to declare their intentions on Amend & Rescind. Happily, it’s the type of question that demands an unequivocal answer Tea Party candidates can answer with ease, while establishment Republicans will have trouble answering.  *


----------



## Flanders (Nov 29, 2014)

*Did this slimy little America-hater ever consider leading “his people” back to where they came from?*




*I truly believe Luis Gutierrez is so full of hatred for Americans he is convinced the American people must be forced to support every illegal alien parasite, and to hell with the US Constitution. Worse still, every illegal alien parasite behaves as though they are entitled to more constitutional Rights than Americans acquire at birth.

Not one parasite will return to the Third World sewers they came from, yet scummy Gutierrez spouts hatred like he is a loyal American defending law-abiding Americans.*

Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, Congress’s most outspoken advocate for immigration amnesty, appeared on MSNBC after President Obama announced his executive actions and was asked by Rachel Maddow why Republicans were opposing Obama. Gutierrez’s reasoned response was: “If you want to make it about people from Latin America, if you want to use xenophobia, if you want to use bigotry and hatred and [the president], then you want to mix up the facts.”​
*Is that lying bum serious? Hating America and its laws is the very definition of xenophobia aimed at Americans. He goes on and on: *

Gutierrez has followed up sound-bite missiles like that with something akin to a victory lap through America’s urban areas. He tells immigrants it is “my responsibility, now that [Obama] has done the executive action, to sign up as many people as possible.” That means getting them to pre-register for the time next year when applications will be available for what is likely to lead to amnesty.

   But Gutierrez makes clear that his ultimate goal is to put as many illegal immigrants as possible on a path to U.S. citizenship. Last year, he told reporters that without eventual citizenship, immigrants would be treated just as slaves were in the original Constitution, when they were counted as only three-fifths of a person. He told reporters that it’s vital that immigrants have “the ability to acquire American citizenship, so you do not create a permanent underclass of individuals that aren’t.”​
*Illegal aliens made themselves a permanent underclass when they came here. If they love citizenship so much they can easily return to full citizenship when they return to the countries they came from.

The court is one last hope of ruling that every illegal alien is a criminal:*

Let’s hope judges resist the demagoguery and political pressure that Gutierrez and his allies put on them to ignore the Rule of Law.

November 28, 2014 12:00 PM
       The Immigration Demagogues
       Hoping for surrender on amnesty, Representative Luis Gutierrez plays the bully.
       By John Fund

The Immigration Demagogues National Review Online​


----------



## Flanders (Dec 9, 2014)

Flanders said:


> Amend & Rescind is such an obvious solution to repairing most of Taqiyya the Liar’s constitutional holocaust, I am not surprised talking heads avoid the subject. To no one’s surprise media mouths want the public to focus on Boehner, McConnell and the Courts. Media reasons for staying away from Amend & Rescind are obvious. It works, and it can be done by the right president on his own hook.
> 
> I do not expect any of Karl Rove’s choices to use Amend & Rescind, while every Tea Party conservative wannabe should be jumping on Rand Paul’s bandwagon. The beauty is that the Chicago sewer rat’s surrogates cannot object to the next president doing exactly the same thing their messiah did.



*Well, well. It sounds like the piece of garbage is telling illegal aliens to prepare for violence against the next president: *

Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Nashville, the president said it’s “theoretically” possible that the next administration could undo the amnesty Mr. Obama has granted to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, but he assured a crowd of undocumented Americans that such a step it is extremely unlikely.​
Obama’s immigration taunt: Next president won’t dare reverse my executive action
         By Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times - Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Obama Next president won t undo my immigration reforms - Washington Times​


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2014)

All presidents do that.

*Amend & Rescind*


----------



## Flanders (Dec 10, 2014)

*The Chicago sewer rat is tying a Gordian knot. The next president will have to pull an Alexander in order to cut the damn thing with a sword. 

Jerome Corsi exposed the knot 6 days ago: *

NEW YORK – It’s common knowledge President Obama signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to forgive millions of illegal aliens for their past violations of immigration law, right?

   Wrong.

   Today the National Archives and Records Administration, responsible for maintaining such filings, said no such executive order was ever signed or filed, confirming WND’s report Wednesday.

   A National Archives librarian, Jeffrey Hartley, made the confirmation in an email Thursday to WND.

   “As I indicated, it would appear that there is not an Executive Order stemming from the President’s remarks on November 20 on immigration,” Hartley wrote.​
*XXXXX*​
“The President’s new policies were effectuated through Defendant Johnson’s DHS Directive.”

   If confirms WND’s report that the only Obama administration document relevant to the plan Obama announced Nov. 20 is a DHS memorandum signed by Johnson titled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents.”​
*Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh defined the latest cozen Corsi exposed:*

“Do you know that Obama has not signed any executive action or order for this?” Limbaugh stated on his top-rated national program Tuesday. “Folks, this is even more corrupt than anybody conceived!

   “He just wrote a memo instructing Homeland Security not to deport 5 million people. There is no actual executive order.”​
*I hope I am right about this. A memo is easier to supersede than is an executive order.*



Flanders said:


> Amend & Rescind is such an obvious solution to repairing most of Taqiyya the Liar’s constitutional holocaust, I am not surprised talking heads avoid the subject. To no one’s surprise media mouths want the public to focus on Boehner, McConnell and the Courts. Media reasons for staying away from Amend & Rescind are obvious. It works, and it can done by the right president on his own hook.


 
*I’m beginning to think that Taqiyya the Liar & His Bureaucrats think that every conservative in Congress is a complete idiot. Anyway, these two links make for fascinating reading for anyone who wants to learn what the hell is going on. *

Head fake? Obama never signed amnesty order
   National Archives official confirms shocker – no such filing exists
   Published: 6 days ago
JEROME CORSI

Head fake Obama never signed amnesty order

*XXXXX*​ 
   Limbaugh: There is no executive order on amnesty
   Posted By Joe Kovacs On 12/09/2014 @ 2:40 pm

Limbaugh There is no executive order on amnesty​


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 10, 2014)

WND?  Oh boy.


----------



## Flanders (Dec 20, 2014)

Flanders said:


> Amend & Rescind is such an obvious solution to repairing most of Taqiyya the Liar’s constitutional holocaust, I am not surprised talking heads avoid the subject. To no one’s surprise media mouths want the public to focus on Boehner, McConnell and the Courts. Media reasons for staying away from Amend & Rescind are obvious. It works, and it can done by the right president on his own hook.



*Oh be still my beating heart! Ted Cruz picked up the gauntlet: You won’t hear an establishment Republican put the fear of  Amend & Rescind in Democrats:
*
White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer conceded that he fears a President Ted Cruz will overturn President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, perhaps signaling that Cruz represents the greatest threat to the progressive left.

“Our first 100 days we spent a lot of time signing executive orders undoing what [President George W.] Bush did, and I would like not to be sitting on a beach somewhere reading about President [Ted] Cruz doing that to us, so it’s very important to us,” Pfeiffer told the Wall Street Journal on Friday.​
White House Fears ‘President Cruz’ Will Overturn Exec Amnesty
by Tony Lee19 Dec 2014

White House Fears President Cruz Will Overturn Exec Amnesty - Breitbart​


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 20, 2014)

The premise of this thread is ridiculous partisan hyperbole and lies; and Rand Paul is just as devoid of credibility as the OP – neither of whom have the knowledge or authority to decide what is or is not Constitutional.


----------



## Delldude (Dec 20, 2014)

Executive orders only work on federal agencies or employees.


----------



## Flanders (Dec 20, 2014)

Delldude said:


> Executive orders only work on federal agencies or employees.



*To Delldude: Here’s one that slipped by:*



Flanders said:


> In December, 2009 Taqiyya the Liar amended:
> 
> . . . President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.
> ​       Wither Sovereignty
> ...



*And you might take a look at this thread: *

Governing By Executive Orders Memorandums Moral Decisions US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Delldude (Dec 20, 2014)

Flanders said:


> Delldude said:
> 
> 
> > Executive orders only work on federal agencies or employees.
> ...






> FYI:
> While the fact of the executive order is real, the claims that it gives INTERPOL license to start conducting warrantless searches, arresting U.S. citizens, and violating other constitutional guarantees to due process are exaggerated.
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Executive Order Grants Immunities to INTERPOL


----------



## Flanders (Dec 20, 2014)

Delldude said:


> > FYI:
> > While the fact of the executive order is real, the claims that it gives INTERPOL license to start conducting warrantless searches, arresting U.S. citizens, and violating other constitutional guarantees to due process are exaggerated.
> >
> > Read more at snopes.com Executive Order Grants Immunities to INTERPOL



*To Delldude: Make up your mind. Either it is an EO or is it an exaggeration? *


----------



## Delldude (Dec 20, 2014)

Flanders said:


> Delldude said:
> 
> 
> > > FYI:
> ...



An EO that isn't quite what you and others are making it out to be.


----------



## Delldude (Dec 20, 2014)

Canada Free Press :  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




President Ronald Reagan issued EO 12424 in 1983 which granted “International Organization” status upon INTERPOL, but specifically excluded the immunities granted under Section 2(c), 2(d), Sections 3,4,5, and 6, which deal primarily with taxes (see PL79-291 above).

In September, 1995, President Clinton’s *Executive Order No. 12971* amended Reagan’s EO by removing some of INTERPOL’s tax-related restrictions.  Obama’s December 17, 2009 EO 13524 removed the remainder of Reagan’s restrictions.

Most significantly, Obama’s EO granted *full immunity from search of all INTERPOL properties*, essentially giving the organization *full diplomatic status*.  INTERPOL now joins more than 60 other “International Organizations” that enjoy similar immunities.  INTERPOL and EO 13524 amending EO12425


----------



## Flanders (Dec 21, 2014)

Delldude said:


> Canada Free Press :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*To  DELLDUDE: The fact is that Taqiyya the Liar gave INTERPOL diplomatic immunity for one reason —— concentrate on so-called ENVIRONMENTAL crimes.  Right from day one the Chicago sewer rat empowered  INTERPOL, the United Nations, and every America-hater he could use to betray this country. This thread touches the filthy sneak’s anti-America agenda that the media continues to sweep under the rug:* 

Recess Appointments v. EOs US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum​
*NOTE: The Catholic Church also signed on to the UN’s environmental crime.*

The Cave Man Absolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum​


----------



## Flanders (Dec 28, 2014)

*I’ve heard plenty of talking heads object to the scum in the White House solidifying his legacy in his last 2 years in office. He is so sure his moral dictates are set in cement he behaves like a ravenous vulture rather than a lame duck.

Micheal Walsh’s brilliant article dissects Taqiyya the Liar —— and the men behind him —— their plan of attack in the months ahead. For all of the talk nobody in the media, or among Karl Roves Republicans, will dare tell the public that 99 percent of everything he did to this country can be undone with Amend & Rescind. The Court may or may not overturn the ACA, open-borders, importing diseases, etc., but Amend & Rescind is the one and only thing the piece of scum cannot stop the right president from doing.*

Now we are past both the presidential election and the ’14 midterms, and have arrived at the inflection point. Change will come thick and fast now, in a flurry of “presidential memoranda” and occasional executive orders, and no one in Congress or the courts to stop him. Obama has a taste for it now and he realizes that there is not a single person or entity inside or outside of government to frustrate him. At this point, the only way he could be neutralized would be for everyone to simply ignore his extra-Constitutional orders, as if he were the Emperor Norton.

But with the Congress in the hands of the opposition party (really, the GOP wing of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party), Obama will simply ignore them when he’s not using them as a collective whipping boy. Beholden to his hard-left supporters, the president is likely to increase the racial divide, use the (Congressionally ordained) agencies like the EPA and the IRS to further his punishing rule by bureaucracy, and continue to employ the Justice Department as an instrument of his policy preferences. Already we are reading (in Politico, the court stenographers of the Obama administration) that Republicans are “warming” to Loretta Lynch, Obama’s pick to replace Attorney General Eric Holder.

With Two Years Left, the Inflection Point of the Obama Presidency
by Micheal Walsh
December 26th, 2014 - 5:02 pm

With Two Years Left the Inflection Point of the Obama Presidency Unexamined Premises​


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 29, 2014)

Flanders continues to stumble in the dark.

When the light comes on in December 2016, there will be no President Cruz.


----------



## Flanders (Jan 30, 2015)

*Now that Mitt Romney finally faced reality, I think Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul ——amend & rescind EO’s —— at least give conservatives a single issue to vote for while the rest of them are playing the same old theme songs; economy, jobs, and blah, blah, blah. Mike Huckabee should also move up nicely based on his stated intention to get the US out of the United Nations.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2015)

There will be no amend and rescind.


----------



## 1stRambo (Feb 22, 2015)

Yo, enjoy!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2015)




----------



## Delldude (Feb 23, 2015)

President Walker and the right to work country.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 23, 2015)

Flanders said:


> *In December, 2009 Taqiyya the Liar amended: *
> 
> . . . President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.
> 
> ...



To prevent abuse of Executive Office to act as unilateral Judicial Review,
I would recommend setting up Constitutional Conventions and include representation by party.

Review any orders, ruling or laws that people contest.
Resolve conflicts by consensus.
And where people/parties/states cannot agree, allow them to develop separate policies so there is no imposition.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2015)

What some consider "Imposition" is one of the inevitable results of government.

I am not trying to impose, only oppose.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 23, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> What some consider "Imposition" is one of the inevitable results of government.



JakeStarkey if they CONSENT to that.
but with people's religious and political beliefs, this seems to require their full consent in order not to violate.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2015)

You, I think, are implying that full consent is required for your plans.

Is that correct?


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 23, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> You, I think, are implying that full consent is required for your plans.
> 
> Is that correct?



I don't believe in imposing things without people's consent who are affected. I find that if solutions are truly effective, people choose to adapt them freely and don't need to be forced. It's no surprise to find the programs that work most effectively are self-directed and by free will.

If people AGREE to implement these through the regular due process that uses 3/4 or 2/3 or whatever that's fine, but I don't see that this is good enough when political and religious beliefs are involved. For those areas I recommend conflict resolution by experienced mediators.

I have NO PROBLEM where people agree to follow the standard rules for
"secular issues" but I see MAJOR problems erupt when forcing govt to address
religious or political beliefs.

I see a higher threshold of consent is required for religious or political beliefs involving things like:
* prochoice or prolife
* gun rights or voting rights
* marriage laws and health care policies
* death penalty and euthanasia
so for areas like this I have seen too many cases that require more sensitive mediation
and avoid imposing such personal religious or spiritual matters onto govt to force decisions for people.

That tends to cause backlash because neither side can tolerate less than 100% inclusion of their beliefs. so from my experience, the usual thresholds of majority rule aren't enough to settle the issues and just create further political division, lawsuits, and other destruction and damage to good faith relations with govt.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2015)

You have not made a compelling argument, as far as I am concerned, and that's only me.

I would think the answers are in what you as an individual can do: do or don't have an abortion; do or do not use self euthanasia; do or do not marry some one you don't want to marry. do or don't buy a gun.

However, you, if you are a conservative Christian 'constitutionalist', I think the opportunity to secure your type of world ended in April 1865.

The generation of millennials become the largest voting block by age group next year.  They are not afraid of government .  They believe in democratic constitutional republican procedures for running government.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 23, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have not made a compelling argument, as far as I am concerned, and that's only me.
> 
> I would think the answers are in what you as an individual can do: do or don't have an abortion; do or do not use self euthanasia; do or do not marry some one you don't want to marry. do or don't buy a gun.
> 
> ...



No, I am a secular Constitutionalist. The reason I am not a Christian Constitutionalist is this idea that you have to obey and worship what the govt authority hands down as coming from God is too much for me to agree to.

I believe you retain the right to petition to redress grievances until there is a consensus.
So that is almost atheist level "proof" that something is the truth, by reaching consensus on it as proof
it is not imposing on someone's beliefs unfairly.

P.S. I agree with what you said about an INDIVIDUAL doing, but unfortunately
because the left has tied in govt funding into things, then PUBLIC FUNDS have to be agreed upon or else you are forcing people to fund things they don't believe in. it is no longer private once you mandate it through govt; and that's what is going wrong with gay marriage and health care, you drag the public into all your decisions and half the public may not agree to your beliefs.

If you look at the pattern of laws and rulings, you will see the prolife are winning their arguments against FUNDING abortion. So that is what I mean by consent on policies.
If these were written by consent, the funding would be separated to begin with.
Instead of wasting taxpayer money pushing this through law just to fight to get it back out again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2015)

BOTH the left and the right have tied up the funding is the more accurate statement.

And neither party will give that up, I believe.  The abortion funding argument is a good one.

Since right now almost 80% believe in some sort of regulated abortion from life of the mother only to on demand, I don't see a final consensus developing any time soon.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 24, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> BOTH the left and the right have tied up the funding is the more accurate statement.
> 
> And neither party will give that up, I believe.  The abortion funding argument is a good one.
> 
> Since right now almost 80% believe in some sort of regulated abortion from life of the mother only to on demand, I don't see a final consensus developing any time soon.



That's because they'd both have to agree to stop imposing and start recognizing political beliefs equally.

I think that will happen the MORE people realize they don't like being imposed upon.
So eventually they will figure out they can't impose either.

Like this whole ACA mandate business: either it is backlash from Bush imposing collective punishment of war on innocent people without due process (and overriding any objections as 'purely political and nothing to do with Constitutional limits on govt', or it could be backlash from prolife people pushing, and threatening prochoice people screaming for the right to choose without penalty. Not it's the prolife people's turn to scream and "not be heard but dismissed."

So after both sides understand how miserable it is to have your beliefs dictated and excluded by law, maybe they will both figure it out.

If not, I will plan a hunger strike, and explain why, and give people time to figure it out this is NOT acceptable.

Either the Constitution means "free exercise of religion" for all people and views
and "equal protection of the laws" for people of all beliefs, or it means nothing, it means you can "overrule beliefs left and right as long as you get majority".

So you decide. And so will I. I cannot force my beliefs on others, but I do not have to live on the planet with a bunch of freaks who can't figure out what equal protection and inclusion means.

If i can figure it out, surely the President of the United States with a Harvard law degree can figure it out. And If not, I'm out of here. I don't have to stick around and see how stupidly this ends. No thanks, I've seen enough!


----------



## Flanders (Aug 9, 2015)

*If terminating the Iran Deal is Scott Walker’s only shtick he is an hour late and a dollar short:*

Scott Walker Vows to ‘Terminate’ Iranian Nuclear Agreement if Elected President
   Kate Scanlon
   August 09, 2015

Scott Walker Vows to Terminate Iranian Nuclear Agreement​
*Walker can pick up some serious gravitas if he also promises to undo the liar’s EOs: *


Flanders said:


> Amend & Rescind is such an obvious solution to repairing most of Taqiyya the Liar’s constitutional holocaust,


----------

