On your quarterly statement, send them this:
by Constitution Party National Committee Fort Worth, Texas
WHEREAS, in January 2009 Barak Hussein Obama pledged to obey the oath of office as President of the United States pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, President Obama has openly and repeatedly violated his oath of office in numerous ways including but not limited to:
A. Issuing executive Orders that usurp Congress’s exclusive power to make legislation as detailed in Article 1, Section 1, Sentence 1 of the Constitution of the United States
B. Using U.S. combat forces to make war upon foreign nations without the necessary Congressional Authority that can only be granted by a formal declaration of war
C. Collaborating with enemies of the United States, both foreign and Domestic, to destroy the sovereignty of the United States, destroy the monetary stability of the country and, contrary to Article VI of the Constitution, engage in a concerted plan of action to so weaken the United States so as to compel a merger with other authoritarian governments around the world under the leadership of the United Nations
THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Constitution Party calls upon all members of the U.S. House of Representatives, pursuant to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, to issue articles of impeachment against President Obama
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=1308
On your quarterly statement, send them this:
Tick
Tick
Tick.....
Maybe my tagline is getting out of date.
If the president issues an executive order, and no one pays any attention to it, and completely disregards it, did he actually issue an order? Is not obeying a clearly unconstitutional order a crime? In the words of a former president, “ The supreme court has issued their opinion. Let THEM enforce it”.......
So basically any contractor bidding on a government job would be excluded if he hadn’t contributed to the democratic machine.
So basically any contractor bidding on a government job would be excluded if he hadn’t contributed to the democratic machine.
So basically any contractor bidding on a government job would be excluded if he hadn’t contributed to the democratic machine.
This is a THREAT that really reads:
SO YOU WANT A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT-better be affliated with DEMOCRATS by proving you are a democrat [donating big time].
Also-this is a direct threat to BOEING because the union IS TRYING TO FORCE BOEING to NOT MOVE part of its operations to CAROLINA.
This is sick, and cannot happen.
This what happens when the UNIONS become an unspoken branch of the democrat party.
This is a way to break our system of bidding, to STIFLE free enterprise and the right to compete on the basis of quality product or support and cost containment.
Unspoken it reads:SO YOU WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, YOU had better be able to show that you donate to the democrat party.
It is not unlike forced dues. Ya wanna work for us, you had better hand over the cash.
This cannot happen, in the end, it is probably just a way to publically get it out there that this is how you are going to get business, and if your company is already doing business with us, break out the checkbook to preserve your contract.
We have a VERY BAD GROUP of people in our administration.
Political affliation is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS. Maybe uhbama's proposed executive order should read: BIRTH CERTIFICATES of all company executives wanting to work under contract for the gov must PRODUCE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE to prove citizenship. /sarcasm
That way, since Boeing has a lock on plane building, uhbama's brown shirts cannot offer contracts to foreign plane builders to continue the threat against Boeing.
FUBO!
I think John Galt is warming up in the green room as we speak!
Well we can count on one thing here, this is another isle Senator McCain will be thrilled to reach across.
I can already hear his glowing praise of Obama for doing something like this.
What could this bunch possibly say to justify this crap?. This alone is grounds for impeachment
LOL! If it turns out that the name on his BC is NOT Barack Hussein Obama, does that make the Petition non-binding?
BTW...you misspelled his first name.
Executive Order? So what. That’s not a law. Ignore anything Obama’s Executive Orders require. They are not Law.
Companies: Ignore the Executive Order. It is not a law.
FUBO!
Oddly enough, I do not support articles of impeachment against Obama, but for a reason that in reflection, many might support.
Are you (all) aware that cabinet officers can be impeached?
Historically, only one cabinet officer has ever been impeached. He was Secretary of War, William W. Belknap, and he was impeached even though he had resigned.
But while Obama will be defended by the Democrat controlled US senate, so that he will not be removed from office, the same situation may not apply to some of his more loathsome cabinet secretaries and especially his Czars.
As far as cabinet secretaries goes, Eric Holder leads the pack. As Attorney General, he has made the Justice Department a laughingstock. He ignores the law, he refuses to carry out his duties, he has made favoritism in law enforcement the norm, and has otherwise corruptly mismanaged his office.
But here’s the zinger. While his impeachment is almost assured, there is a good chance that at least some of the Democrats would join with Republicans in voting to remove him from office.
And if he did not resign, nor it is likely that Obama would demand his resignation, he would still be *effectively barred* from any future service in the US government.
While Holder would be the “meat” of the impeachment process, the “potatoes” would be Obama’s numerous Czars.
In short, the Republicans will impeach them *on the grounds* that they should have been confirmed by the US Senate, and were not. And in the process, the House could issue each and every Czar a subpoena to testify at their own impeachment hearing.
And if they refused to honor that subpoena, the House, by simple majority, could cite them for “Contempt of Congress”, which can have criminal penalties.
This impeachment of Czars puts the Democrats in the Senate in the awkward position of defending the right of the president to *snub* the Senate! Unless they vote to convict and remove Czars, the next president could make a hundred of them, uncaring what the Senate thinks.
When is this “Resolution for Impeachment” going to be filed? Or is it just wishful thinking?
It's an outrage...another typical liberal elite totalitarian piece of thuggery.
BTT.
What a prick move...