Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
These are the words of lawmakers who are moving toward a political rebellion to arrest and depose President Obama, then try him as a criminal while seeking to restore the balance of government that places specific limits on the power of the executive branch.
Obama the tyrant king unleashes dictatorial order that will now invoke open rebellion - Senate aide - NaturalNews.com
Burn down the Capitol? Open rebellion? These are not the words of people who are going to sit down and compromise with an out-of-control tyrant dictator who recognizes no law and no limits to his power. These are the words of lawmakers who are moving toward a political rebellion to arrest and depose President Obama, then try him as a criminal while seeking to restore the balance of government that places specific limits on the power of the executive branch.
Obama supporters don't care about the balance of power. They want a tyrant king in power as long as it's their king. They are, in essence, Obama cultists who worship the person and are willing to cast aside all laws and legal boundaries to grant "their man" total dictatorial control over the future of this nation. But that's not how a Republic works. The President is not a dictator, and he or she cannot simply invent whatever wishful edicts he wants to enact at the stroke of a pen. That's not freedom; that's outright tyranny. And it must be stopped or the nation will collapse into despotism and runaway government corruption. (It may already be too late to stop that accelerating collapse, however...)
"President Obama is going rogue," writes Patrick Buchanan. "Our rogue president has crossed an historic line, and so has the republic. Future presidents will cite the 'Obama precedent' when they declare they will henceforth not enforce this or that law, because of a prior commitment to some noisy constituency. We have just taken a monumental step away from republicanism toward Caesarism. For this is rule by diktat, the rejection of which sparked the American Revolution." [2]
Again, another reference to revolution and rebellion. What Buchanan recognizes is that Obama hasn't merely done something politically disturbing; he has done something that shreds the very fabric of political balance in America. Obama has just declared Congress to be null and void. And in nullifying Congress, he has simultaneously given the finger to every man and woman in the nation, telling them that their own voices and representatives in Congress are utterly irrelevant.
I believe it is time to Restore the Rule of Law and depose the Usurper, Obama the Oathbreaker, and put him and all those who defend the Usurper in prison.
I noticed that you openly say you are a waiter. I also noticed "McDonalds" ads when I clicked on your post. I've never before seen a McDonalds online ad.
I think you are busted. YOu are poor and want to blame fight for your own poverty via Reaganomics.
I think we found guno's sock account.
Back up your claims, especially when they are personal attacks.
What in the fuck does that have to do with what I said?Those who wrote the federalist papers are the same people who wrote and signed and voted on the Constitution, and laws we had.The Second Amendment isn't there to play patty cake with Usurpers, which is why you Progressives so desperately want it abolished.
How does the Constitution specify how a President can be removed from office- and does it have anything to do with the Second Amendment?
Read the Federalist papers. Number 46 in particular "every throne in Europe"
You know that the Federalist Papers are opinion pieces, not legal documents, right?
So it's safe to say the federalist papers are relevant.
The Constitution was written to change if THE PEOPLE wanted it to. You need to find yourself on the correct side of history.
The men who wrote the federalist papers had a large input on the constitution yes or no?Those who wrote the federalist papers are the same people who wrote and signed and voted on the Constitution, and laws we had.The Second Amendment isn't there to play patty cake with Usurpers, which is why you Progressives so desperately want it abolished.
How does the Constitution specify how a President can be removed from office- and does it have anything to do with the Second Amendment?
Read the Federalist papers. Number 46 in particular "every throne in Europe"
You know that the Federalist Papers are opinion pieces, not legal documents, right?
So it's safe to say the federalist papers are relevant.
No, the people who wrote the Federalist Papers were one faction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't work out exactly how the federalist wanted.
WAY TO SIDE STEP THE QUESTION.I guess dictators are fine with you?It's distressing how badly you want to kill your fellow Americans.
Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.
Do you support dictators?
Yes the fuck you did.WAY TO SIDE STEP THE QUESTION.I guess dictators are fine with you?It's distressing how badly you want to kill your fellow Americans.
Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.
Do you support dictators?
I didn't side step the question, I shit all over it.
It's not the same thing.
Those who wrote the federalist papers are the same people who wrote and signed and voted on the Constitution, and laws we had.The Second Amendment isn't there to play patty cake with Usurpers, which is why you Progressives so desperately want it abolished.
How does the Constitution specify how a President can be removed from office- and does it have anything to do with the Second Amendment?
Read the Federalist papers. Number 46 in particular "every throne in Europe"
You know that the Federalist Papers are opinion pieces, not legal documents, right?
So it's safe to say the federalist papers are relevant.
No, the people who wrote the Federalist Papers were one faction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't work out exactly how the federalist wanted.
Dumb ass question and statement. The people in this country are supposed to be the Gov't in a Republic. The representatives are supposed to rule by the Will of the People not the other way around. Under a Republic the laws are created by Congress who are elected and represent their Will..............the executive branch has the power to check their power and VETO laws..............BUT HAS NO POWER TO CREATE THEM................executive orders are for clarification and implementation of laws....................Not openly DISOBEYING THEM.Those who wrote the federalist papers are the same people who wrote and signed and voted on the Constitution, and laws we had.How does the Constitution specify how a President can be removed from office- and does it have anything to do with the Second Amendment?
Read the Federalist papers. Number 46 in particular "every throne in Europe"
You know that the Federalist Papers are opinion pieces, not legal documents, right?
So it's safe to say the federalist papers are relevant.
No, the people who wrote the Federalist Papers were one faction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't work out exactly how the federalist wanted.
It actually did. "We The People" have the power to inform ourselves on what is right and what is wrong and change the Constitution if we think it's needed or necessary.
The Civil War was a fight of the people vs. the (lazy idiots that owned slaves) land owners. Sadly, there was no vote to change the Constitution, only a war that should have substance in today's talk.
And I'll repeat. The biggest discussion here is "WHO SHOULD HAVE THE POWER? The people, the state, or the government?"
WAY TO SIDE STEP THE QUESTION.I guess dictators are fine with you?It's distressing how badly you want to kill your fellow Americans.
Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.
Do you support dictators?
Those who wrote the federalist papers are the same people who wrote and signed and voted on the Constitution, and laws we had.How does the Constitution specify how a President can be removed from office- and does it have anything to do with the Second Amendment?
Read the Federalist papers. Number 46 in particular "every throne in Europe"
You know that the Federalist Papers are opinion pieces, not legal documents, right?
So it's safe to say the federalist papers are relevant.
No, the people who wrote the Federalist Papers were one faction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't work out exactly how the federalist wanted.
It actually did. "We The People" have the power to inform ourselves on what is right and what is wrong and change the Constitution if we think it's needed or necessary.
The Civil War was a fight of the people vs. the (lazy idiots that owned slaves) land owners. Sadly, there was no vote to change the Constitution, only a war that should have substance in today's talk.
And I'll repeat. The biggest discussion here is "WHO SHOULD HAVE THE POWER? The people, the state, or the government?"
Those who wrote the federalist papers are the same people who wrote and signed and voted on the Constitution, and laws we had.The Second Amendment isn't there to play patty cake with Usurpers, which is why you Progressives so desperately want it abolished.
How does the Constitution specify how a President can be removed from office- and does it have anything to do with the Second Amendment?
Read the Federalist papers. Number 46 in particular "every throne in Europe"
You know that the Federalist Papers are opinion pieces, not legal documents, right?
So it's safe to say the federalist papers are relevant.
The Constitution was written to change if THE PEOPLE wanted it to. You need to find yourself on the correct side of history.
Those who wrote the federalist papers are the same people who wrote and signed and voted on the Constitution, and laws we had.Read the Federalist papers. Number 46 in particular "every throne in Europe"
You know that the Federalist Papers are opinion pieces, not legal documents, right?
So it's safe to say the federalist papers are relevant.
No, the people who wrote the Federalist Papers were one faction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't work out exactly how the federalist wanted.
It actually did. "We The People" have the power to inform ourselves on what is right and what is wrong and change the Constitution if we think it's needed or necessary.
The Civil War was a fight of the people vs. the (lazy idiots that owned slaves) land owners. Sadly, there was no vote to change the Constitution, only a war that should have substance in today's talk.
And I'll repeat. The biggest discussion here is "WHO SHOULD HAVE THE POWER? The people, the state, or the government?"
The people unless you want a dictatorship. You are one dumb ass. You don't have a clue what this country is about by asking this question.
What in the fuck does that have to do with what I said?Those who wrote the federalist papers are the same people who wrote and signed and voted on the Constitution, and laws we had.How does the Constitution specify how a President can be removed from office- and does it have anything to do with the Second Amendment?
Read the Federalist papers. Number 46 in particular "every throne in Europe"
You know that the Federalist Papers are opinion pieces, not legal documents, right?
So it's safe to say the federalist papers are relevant.
The Constitution was written to change if THE PEOPLE wanted it to. You need to find yourself on the correct side of history.
The Federalist paper were written by those who created the constitution.This is true so the federalist papers are relevant documents more than just opinion pieces.
Your comment is irrelevant
BS............A republic is a form of Democracy with checks and balances...............adding a Senate to give an equal voice to all states without regard to population.Those who wrote the federalist papers are the same people who wrote and signed and voted on the Constitution, and laws we had.You know that the Federalist Papers are opinion pieces, not legal documents, right?
So it's safe to say the federalist papers are relevant.
No, the people who wrote the Federalist Papers were one faction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't work out exactly how the federalist wanted.
It actually did. "We The People" have the power to inform ourselves on what is right and what is wrong and change the Constitution if we think it's needed or necessary.
The Civil War was a fight of the people vs. the (lazy idiots that owned slaves) land owners. Sadly, there was no vote to change the Constitution, only a war that should have substance in today's talk.
And I'll repeat. The biggest discussion here is "WHO SHOULD HAVE THE POWER? The people, the state, or the government?"
The people unless you want a dictatorship. You are one dumb ass. You don't have a clue what this country is about by asking this question.
A democracy is where every person has a voice, a Republic is when we elect officials to voice our concerns to Government.
Welcome to politics kiddo
BS............A republic is a form of Democracy with checks and balances...............adding a Senate to give an equal voice to all states without regard to population.Those who wrote the federalist papers are the same people who wrote and signed and voted on the Constitution, and laws we had.
So it's safe to say the federalist papers are relevant.
No, the people who wrote the Federalist Papers were one faction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't work out exactly how the federalist wanted.
It actually did. "We The People" have the power to inform ourselves on what is right and what is wrong and change the Constitution if we think it's needed or necessary.
The Civil War was a fight of the people vs. the (lazy idiots that owned slaves) land owners. Sadly, there was no vote to change the Constitution, only a war that should have substance in today's talk.
And I'll repeat. The biggest discussion here is "WHO SHOULD HAVE THE POWER? The people, the state, or the government?"
The people unless you want a dictatorship. You are one dumb ass. You don't have a clue what this country is about by asking this question.
A democracy is where every person has a voice, a Republic is when we elect officials to voice our concerns to Government.
Welcome to politics kiddo
You again fail the test. Our elected officials are hired to do a job. When they fail to do the job they are supposed to be fired by We the people. Like the Dem Senators who just got their walking papers. We all know they lie a lot, and don't fulfill their campaign promises and this goes for both sides.
The issue at hand is whether a President HAS THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION to give an EXECUTIVE ORDER that CLEARLY VIOLATES THE LAWS OF THIS LAND.
And UNDER A REPUBLIC...........another CHECK IS IN PLACE..............The Judicial system...............and it is in this system that the CHECK ON A ROUGE POTUS will be utilized to tell him to STFU..............
He doesn't make the laws............He is to enforce them...........No state should even recognize this executive order..................TELL HIM TO STUFF IT WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE..............He doesn't have the authority to give this order....................and therefore..............WE HAVE NO REASON TO OBEY AN INVALID ORDER.........................
Welcome to the Republic ass hat.
He doesn't make laws or was elected, your bitterness for the rich has skewed your thinking, maybe if you worked as hard as he did to get where he is at, someone would be bitching about you.WAY TO SIDE STEP THE QUESTION.I guess dictators are fine with you?It's distressing how badly you want to kill your fellow Americans.
Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.
Do you support dictators?
Rupert Merdoch is a dictator.
No one is arguing about the constitutional authority of the executive order.“I believe it is time to Restore the Rule of Law and depose the Usurper, Obama the Oathbreaker, and put him and all those who defend the Usurper in prison.”
What you believe is ignorant and wrong; what you're advocating exhibits contempt for the rule of law:
'[T]he Constitution...gives the president “executive power,” which has always been understood to include the discretionary power to allocate resources among enforcement efforts. The significance of this power has grown over the last century, as Congress has created vast regulatory agencies and given the president control over them.”
The Constitutional Authority for Executive Orders on Immigration Is Clear - NYTimes.com
Again showing you don't have a clue about our Republic. and under this Republic Congress creates the laws not the President. He doesn't have that power and just like FDR, doing the same thing his pen will get overturned..................BS............A republic is a form of Democracy with checks and balances...............adding a Senate to give an equal voice to all states without regard to population.No, the people who wrote the Federalist Papers were one faction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't work out exactly how the federalist wanted.
It actually did. "We The People" have the power to inform ourselves on what is right and what is wrong and change the Constitution if we think it's needed or necessary.
The Civil War was a fight of the people vs. the (lazy idiots that owned slaves) land owners. Sadly, there was no vote to change the Constitution, only a war that should have substance in today's talk.
And I'll repeat. The biggest discussion here is "WHO SHOULD HAVE THE POWER? The people, the state, or the government?"
The people unless you want a dictatorship. You are one dumb ass. You don't have a clue what this country is about by asking this question.
A democracy is where every person has a voice, a Republic is when we elect officials to voice our concerns to Government.
Welcome to politics kiddo
You again fail the test. Our elected officials are hired to do a job. When they fail to do the job they are supposed to be fired by We the people. Like the Dem Senators who just got their walking papers. We all know they lie a lot, and don't fulfill their campaign promises and this goes for both sides.
The issue at hand is whether a President HAS THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION to give an EXECUTIVE ORDER that CLEARLY VIOLATES THE LAWS OF THIS LAND.
And UNDER A REPUBLIC...........another CHECK IS IN PLACE..............The Judicial system...............and it is in this system that the CHECK ON A ROUGE POTUS will be utilized to tell him to STFU..............
He doesn't make the laws............He is to enforce them...........No state should even recognize this executive order..................TELL HIM TO STUFF IT WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE..............He doesn't have the authority to give this order....................and therefore..............WE HAVE NO REASON TO OBEY AN INVALID ORDER.........................
Welcome to the Republic ass hat.
A Republic is where the States have the power. A Democracy is where every state has the power. In both cases, the people SHOULD be the driving power. This is basic politics.
“I believe it is time to Restore the Rule of Law and depose the Usurper, Obama the Oathbreaker, and put him and all those who defend the Usurper in prison.”
What you believe is ignorant and wrong; what you're advocating exhibits contempt for the rule of law:
'[T]he Constitution...gives the president “executive power,” which has always been understood to include the discretionary power to allocate resources among enforcement efforts. The significance of this power has grown over the last century, as Congress has created vast regulatory agencies and given the president control over them.”
The Constitutional Authority for Executive Orders on Immigration Is Clear - NYTimes.com
