My Take on Separation

Whenever I have watched news on TV this past week the number of Americans who are undercover communists has sickened me.. Author of the book Rules for Radicals is sitting in hell watching his minions practice his principles. Saul Alinsky laid out the exact methods being exercised by revolting Americans on the streets of America today. It is no secret that Obama used the Alinsky’s principles, but Obama’s methods were better camouflaged.

When I see protesters spewing vile bile at Federal border security people it enrages me, and I think to myself what a failure of upbringing these protesting people had. Where are the grandparents of these separated children? Why did they not speak up when their progeny disappeared in the night leaving helpless grand-babies into their care? If that was my kid leaving my grandkids behind I would have seared his/her ass with rhetoric he never heard me say before. Yes, I would have revolted. You don’t have the fun of making babies, and then abandon them to your relatives just so you can wander off to a better life. What kind of parent does that? “Oh” you say, “one that wants to make a better life for his kids.” Have you ever thought about what kind of life the kid has being raised by step parents? Will they even know you when you finally reunite? Will you recognize your own kids when you finally send for them? What kind of parent pays someone a huge fee to bring their kid over a treacherous journey into a boiling cesspool of crazies protesting America’s terrible policies? How do we know that the people you chose to care for your kid didn’t sell them to a child trafficker just to get rid of the responsibility you left them with?  What was the problem with taking them with you? Oh, it is too dangerous for them to go with you, but it isn’t dangerous at all to allow some stranger to bring them to you later when you feel more secure.

Our immigration laws are so stupid it is hilarious to watch Homeland Security try to follow them. No doubt these laws evolved over the years into what they are today. Diligent-lazy (oxymoron) Congressmen, anxious to fix a problem, probably took major shortcuts to write attachments to the existing behemoth. The result is law that is totally unmanageable. What are we doing about it? Nothing because it is too politically charged to risk tackling the problem with a fresh approach. Why is it so charged? It is my observation that Democrats, and RINO’s who pine for open borders and no laws are at the crux of it all.  This group simply wants the world to return to the state it was in a thousand years ago, or perhaps even ten thousand years ago; think about that. People were free to roam wherever they wanted to go, and they could catch and kill what-ever or who ever to eat without any consequences. My logic tells me that these democrats merely want to return to the Neanderthal age. Let me remind you that slave keeping was a common reward of that age. When captured alive you became either a slave or a meal.

My opinion is that loving, compassionate parents don’t leave their kids behind.

On the matter of separating kids from parents who choose to border-jump as a family I have a slightly different take. If a strange family entered my house without my permission with the intention to stay, I will first ask them to leave, if they don’t turn and run I will give them the option to beat the spray of pellets that will leave the end of my shotgun at a very high-speed.

On the subject of caging children I am less stringent. Why not just let all the babies and kids roam freely once they cross. Let anyone who comes in contact with a child take them and care for them. Well, you said don’t cage them. Placing a child in custodial care is the same as caging. In either case the kid has no parent, and you force him to live under house rules. What would the liberals do?  If the child is with his parent and the parent is a felon and must be incarcerated then send the wife and children with him to prison. If a child arrives without a parent in the charge of a stranger, make the stranger be responsible. The parent allowed this stranger to walk a thousand miles with the kid, why not allow him to care for him while being processed? I suppose the liberals would set up a new bureaucracy for the purpose of caring for these kids. In this system each kid would be assigned to a degreed government paid psychologist who would room with the kid until the process ends.  All would live in an air-conditioned dorm room and choose to eat from a carefully designed menu based the country of the kids origin.

At this time President Trump is using some good psychology on us. By taking a hard stand on enforcing the existing laws he has enabled many shortcomings of immigration law to surface. These shortcomings will aid in defining problems that Congress can solve with new immigration law. That is, if congress will take the time to exercise the brains of its members and not bow to the response from lobby groups that have waited for this moment to present a package ready to go for a vote. The first way is hard, but the second way is easy. The hard one gets us a law that might work, the second way gets them elected without any effort. Which will it be?

 

Enforce the Law

Congressman Trey Gowdy from South Carolina is one of my favorites because he delivers with passion. My own Congressman delivers what ever the party line tells him to. For that he collects a sizable salary. So instead of listening to my representative’s speeches, I listen to those who can make a point and deliver with conviction.

Why Can’t We Impeach Him?

I pose the question in the title because impeachment is not in the vocabulary of the two forces in our government that can do something about our lawless President. The three branches are separate and equal for the purpose of being able to stop any one of the three from violating the Constitution. All I can think is:

1. Congress and the Supreme Court are completely incapable of proceeding with the impeachment process.

2. Obama is skillfully skirting violation of the Constitution and his oath.

3. Somehow the rule of law has slipped through the cracks of our government and the President’s interpretation of a law is more accurate than that of the court’s.

4. The House of Representatives and the Supreme Court see impeachment as futile because the Democrat Senate would protect the President by refusing to try him.

A Blatant Disregard for the Law

mime-attachment-1

Senator Ted Cruz from Texas wrote an insightful article for the Wall Street Journal where he exposes President Obama’s reckless disregard for the law. It is my opinion that the President should face Impeachment for his offenses to disregard his oath of office to uphold the law of the land and to protect the Constitution.

********************************************************

Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. On Monday, Mr. Obama acted unilaterally to raise the minimum wage paid by federal contracts, the first of many executive actions the White House promised would be a theme of his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

The president’s taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” America’s Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too.

Rule of law doesn’t simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. That no one—and especially not the president—is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Yet rather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying and waiving portions of the laws he is charged to enforce. When Mr. Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

On many of those policy issues, reasonable minds can disagree. Mr. Obama may be right that some of those laws should be changed. But the typical way to voice that policy disagreement, for the preceding 43 presidents, has been to work with Congress to change the law. If the president cannot persuade Congress, then the next step is to take the case to the American people. As President Reagan put it: “If you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat” of electoral accountability.

President Obama has a different approach. As he said recently, describing his executive powers: “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” Under the Constitution, that is not the way federal law is supposed to work.

The Obama administration has been so brazen in its attempts to expand federal power that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s efforts to expand federal power nine times since January 2012.

There is no example of lawlessness more egregious than the enforcement—or nonenforcement—of the president’s signature policy, the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Obama has repeatedly declared that “it’s the law of the land.” Yet he has repeatedly violated ObamaCare’s statutory text.

The law says that businesses with 50 or more full-time employees will face the employer mandate on Jan. 1, 2014. President Obama changed that, granting a one-year waiver to employers. How did he do so? Not by going to Congress to change the text of the law, but through a blog post by an assistant secretary at Treasury announcing the change.

The law says that only Americans who have access to state-run exchanges will be subject to employer penalties and may obtain ObamaCare premium subsidies. This was done to entice the states to create exchanges. But, when 34 states decided not to establish state-run exchanges, the Obama administration announced that the statutory words “established by State” would also mean “established by the federal government.”

The law says that members of Congress and their staffs’ health coverage must be an ObamaCare exchange plan, which would prevent them from receiving their current federal-employee health subsidies, just like millions of Americans who can’t receive such benefits. At the behest of Senate Democrats, the Obama administration instead granted a special exemption (deeming “individual” plans to be “group” plans) to members of Congress and their staffs so they could keep their pre-existing health subsidies.

Most strikingly, when over five million Americans found their health insurance plans canceled because ObamaCare made their plans illegal—despite the president’s promise “if you like your plan, you can keep it”—President Obama simply held a news conference where he told private insurance companies to disobey the law and issue plans that ObamaCare regulated out of existence.

In other words, rather than go to Congress and try to provide relief to the millions who are hurting because of the “train wreck” of ObamaCare (as one Senate Democrat put it), the president instructed private companies to violate the law and said he would in effect give them a get-out-of-jail-free card—for one year, and one year only. Moreover, in a move reminiscent of Lewis Carroll’s looking-glass world, President Obama simultaneously issued a veto threat if Congress passed legislation doing what he was then ordering.

In the more than two centuries of our nation’s history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking private companies to do the same. As my colleague Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa asked, “This was the law. How can they change the law?”

Similarly, 11 state attorneys general recently wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying that the continuing changes to ObamaCare are “flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law.” The attorneys general correctly observed that “the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action.”

In the past, when Republican presidents abused their power, many Republicans—and the press—rightly called them to account. Today many in Congress—and the press—have chosen to give President Obama a pass on his pattern of lawlessness, perhaps letting partisan loyalty to the man supersede their fidelity to the law.

But this should not be a partisan issue. In time, the country will have another president from another party. For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unilaterally change the law? Imagine a future president setting aside environmental laws, or tax laws, or labor laws, or tort laws with which he or she disagreed.

That would be wrong—and it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness. As Montesquieu knew, an imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every citizen. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.

 

Let No Hurdle Obstruct the Path

A good friend called me recently and said how amazing it is that Obama is knocking down all the barriers set up by the Founders to protect the country. She pictured a cartoon in which Obama begins as a normal citizen (we take that loosely) and destroys the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law on his way toward assuming a throne in the White House as King of the USA.

She is not far from wrong, because he has worked successfully to knock down barriers. He certainly ignores the Rule of Law and openly dictates to his Bureaucrats about how to treat illegal immigrants, how to deal with Arizona Law Enforcement, New Black Panthers intimidating voters, abortion, voter ID, and more. He commissioned Hillary to work the UN to end run gun control to take away our Second Amendment Rights. He has ignored Freedom of Religion under the First Amendment within the Health Care Act. He has openly declared that if Congress cannot give him the laws he wants he will find a way to do it administratively via Executive Privilege .

No one can deny that he has divided the country by waging class warfare, and has neutered the USA in speeches saying that our exceptionalism is no different from the exceptionalism of an Egyptian or a Saudi. His attack on Capitalism is relentless. He regards Capitalism as a broken down old system that does not work. He does so while denying that the world is a better place because of Capitalism. One modern example is within Communist China’s short embrace of capitalism  over four hundred million Chinese avoided starvation and have reached a decent standard of living. China’s success with capitalism came from a huge redistribution of wealth from the Western World. We sent them our entire manufacturing economy.  Obama’s change toward Socialism is of course an older idea, proven to be a disaster by many countries. Socialism failed in spite of murdering over sixty million dissenters who stood in the way of trying to make it work. Obama’s problem is that he does not read history. He is too young to know first hand that Socialism existed and hated by those who lived it. So, in his mind Socialism is new.

Obama is hell-bent on obtaining a socialist agenda in the USA during his presidency. What is scarier is that he is setting up to neutralize the Congress with his end run Executive Orders. He is changing the Supreme Court by nominating über liberal judges like Sonya Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. In a second term he will probably replace a few more judges.

The result is that the hurdler is not running according to the rules. He kicks the hurdles down instead of leaping over them and changes the rules to make that acceptable. He has achieved a tremendous amount of success in making the transformation. As a side note, he attacks his opponent by arguing that Romney does not offer any detail on how he will bring back the economy. Yet, during the 2008 campaign, the only detail we heard from Obama was two words, hope, and change. Not once in his campaign did I ever hear him give any detail on what he wants to “transform the greatest country in the world” into. How could anyone buy that line? The logic escapes me. Change the greatest country in the world, doesn’t the “greatest” title imply change is not necessary?

Let No Hurdle Obstruct the Path

We cannot, we must not, allow this man another four years to succeed at his agenda. If we do, it will be you and I who suffer the consequences. King Obama will continue to have his meals served while the Secret Service chauffeurs him in armored cars, and flies him to vacations in Air Force One. We, on the other hand, will be fighting each other for a piece of bread, or a gallon of gas.

Do You Eradicate a Disease, or Just Push It Back?

Some of my friends tell me they tire of hearing all the bickering going on about the debt ceiling, withholding taxes, and general business in Washington. They are sick of hearing the barrage of news from the opposite ends of the political spectrum. They want to see and hear a middle ground. Most of these people are Democrats. They argue with me that the constant bashing of Obama and his minions is forcing them to lean away from the middle toward uber-liberal Left.

I agree about the amount of bashing going on, it isn’t pretty. I absolutely don’t agree that the arguments make me want to lean toward the left, I am the polar opposite. An analogy popped into my tired old brain today, and I must bore you with it.

When dealing with a disease like HIV, small pox, chicken pox, polio, diphtheria, etcetera, the disease fighters do not look for a cure that will allow them to go middle ground. They want to eradicate the disease completely, worldwide. Even Leftists agree with the approach. Disease fighters have a very good track record at eliminating diseases. Small pox is gone, diphtheria is unheard of, polio a memory, and so on. What my argumentative colleagues don’t see is that the political extreme of leftism is a disease. Socialism does not work, yet proponents continue to foist it upon the rest of us. I see socialism as a disease worse than small pox. Eradication from Earth is the only positive cure. Worse yet, Socialism without God is communism, and I am old enough to know what the communists did to Europe after WWII. I still have relatives in former communist countries who live the way they did in 1940. Socialism will set the world population back, or at least freeze it at its current status much like Islam did to the middle east in the 12th century.

I believe that the Obama bashing I, and all the others do is trying to eradicate a disease running its course through humanity. There is no room for a middle ground at this point, the right must push the left back to zero if we are to return to a civilized middle ground that allows rational debate, compromise, and civilized discourse to occur. I also believe that the country is so divided at this point that another civil war, much like the one of the 1860’s, looms ahead as a possible solution.

The 2012 choice will be telling. If the country gives the communist leaning Obama another four years to carry out his brand of change, the United States will die. The USA will be in the history books as another has been super power. On the other hand, if the country elects a true conservative, there is a chance for the complete survival of a society based on a Constitution, a belief in God, the Rule of Law, and Liberty for all.

So all my friends who are sick of the Obama bashing going on by the right leaning Tea-Party people, put your brains into gear  and decide for yourselves what kind of system you want to live under because the 2012 election is about that.

I Know I Made You Smile

cartoons/humor/fiction/nonfiction

Attila Ovari

Loving Life and Inspiring Others

Remember The 14 Words

We Must Secure The Existence Of Our People And A Future For White Children

galesmind

Come take a journey through my mind

Nutsrok

The humor and humanity of storytelling.

Henry Game

The Next Testament

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

Gamintraveler

Digital Nomads on a World Travel

summershaffer

A topnotch WordPress.com site

blogsense-by-barb

at the Re-Birth of America!

The Honking Goose

something to honk about

The Dangers of Allah

Confused about Islam, Muslims, Taqiyya, Kitman, The Islamic State, and Sharia? I've spent 14 years studying these confused beings.  They are not at all what they want us to believe, especially those who are ruled by al Qaeda , ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as those who commit overt and covert Jihad while practicing Sharia tortures upon women

dancingczars.wordpress.com/

“ The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility. ” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

THE WAKING GIANT

United States Second Amendment Pitbull

Caustic Synergy

United and alone in the world

ELLIOT LAKE News

Road To Political INcorrect Content & Forbidden Knowledge -- Yours To Discover

tutorials4view

Watch free tutorials in Full HD (1080p) quality video tutorials, sorted by subjects, like: Photoshop, Gimp, Facebook, Torrents, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Viruses and malware removal ( like ask,com, vqo6, Babylon ) and more and more.. If you like our tutorials and guided, please SUBSCRIBE to out channel at: http://www.youtube.com/user/ShaiSoft - tutorials4view.

Aspiring Conservative

Conservative blog with articles about today's politics!

Conservative Kentucky

Reality From my Perspective

Creeping Sharia

Documenting the Islamization of America

Hearing Aid News

HEAR it HERE first! The latest on developments in hearing aids and the hearing industry.

Socialism is not the Answer

Limited Government Is

leaf and twig

where observation and imagination meet nature in poetry

chBrott

yutyfrter

Just Cruisin 2

Where Intellectuals and Rednecks foregather.