Posted on 06/17/2012 3:06:18 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
"This is how great republics die"
-- George Washington"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"
The Constitution of the United States, which all officers of government, in every branch, must swear to support, is crystal clear that Congress has the exclusive constitutional grant of power to establish immigration and naturalization standards.
"The Congress shall have Power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." Article 1, Section 8:
Also, the Constitution absolutely requires that the United States protect each of the States from Invasion.
"The United States...shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion..." Article 4, Section 4:
Barack Obama's actions this week in, by executive decree, granting certain classes of illegal invaders of our country a de facto amnesty are an obvious usurpation of that exclusive congressional power, AND they are a gross dereliction of one of the primary imperative duties of the Commander-in-Chief.
If a president were acting to check a lawless law passed by a lawless Congress; in other words, if he was standing firmly against a Congress or Court that had clearly breached their own constitutional limits; I would support actions by the chief executive to stop them. His oath would require that he do so.
But that is obviously not the case here.
I applaud the actions of my congressman, Steve King, in launching a court challenge to this illegitimate Obama policy. The third branch of government, the judiciary, should immediately join with the legislative branch to check the executive's lawlessness.
However, this is a perfect case to illustrate why Congress was also given the impeachment power. If they cared at all for their own oaths to support the Constitution; if they cared about the survival of the rule of law in this country, if they cared for our territorial integrity and sovereignty, they would immediately impeach this usurper and remove him from office at once.
To be frank though, experience tells me that they will not do so. Obama Democrats have no regard for the Constitution or their oaths, and Romney Repubublicans have no principles or spine.
This is how great republics die.
You. One of the biggest. Good luck with all this....these people haven’t ever elected a dog catcher and you want to join them?
There is no greater supporter of Palin than I am. If you haven't noticed she isn't trying for your scenario rather she has thrown her support to the presumptive GOP nominee as she said she would.
ABO, that's her stand, and unfortunately the only ABO that can defeat Bambi is our least conservative candidate.
She didn't and won't ever support Tom whatshisname because that's a pipe dream, one that will inadvertently hurt all conservative candidates and causes if he were to muster even 1% of the vote.
Fortunately, that's not gonna happen. I stand with her position, and Newt's, and Santorum's, and Perry's, and Cain's, and DeMint's. ABO, the only one who can beat him.
Choose a VP and cabinet in advance including Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Perry (but only if he dumps Dewhurst), John Bolton, and others similarly disposed and rip Obozo to shreds.
Speak it, brother. Loud and often.
The GOP is literally committing Treason against everything we stand for, and against everything their party is supposed to represent, by nominating a liberal Democrat sporting an R on his sleeve.
I will not throw away my priceless honor and integrity to support that, nor will I willingly give the GOP my blessing to turn the Republican party into the 'other' Socialist party.
...and incarceration.
One of the things I know is that none of these people are threatening to vote for a liberal this year.
Good luck with your candidate.
Therefore we should make certain the only chance to get rid of this scourge gets less votes.
Great thinking Chuck, good luck with this bunch, it's been almost twenty years, and not even a dog catcher yet......I doubt they've gotten .001 % of the vote anywhere, nuff said.
You’re right. Romney has refused to commit to reversing Obama’s anti-deportation policy. But, in fairness to Romney, it must be understood that his plan is to impose a more liberal, more comprehensive immigration policy which would render Obama’s recent move irrelevant.
Romney is aiming for total amnesty.
In order to understand Romney’s liberal immigration attitude, it should be remembered that his father, George Romney, was born in Mexico. His family had helped found a commune so that they could practice what they called “plural marriage” (polygamy) in a socialist setting. Anti-communist attitudes in Mexico forced the Romneys and their wives to flee their Mexican commune and sneak into the United States in the early part of the twentieth century.
Yes he is. Anyone who can’t see that at this point is willfully blind.
Yet we’re supposed to be the ‘traitors’ if we don’t vote for him. Got it.
"If this be treason, then make the most of it."-- Patrick Henry
If we now live in a world where defending our borders and supporting those who will enforce our laws is somehow treasonous, than I shall accept Patrick Henry’s challenge.
"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings...it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it."
-- Patrick Henry, Give me liberty or give me death
TS
Three questions:
A) Do you think he should?
B) Do you think he will?
C) Do you think Republican leadership would cooperate if he did?
Just to be clear, my opinions on the three questions are:
A) Yes.
B) Probably not.
C) No.
A) Yes.
B) Probably not.
C) No.
Write it down. For once we agree 3/3. So, what does it mean that I agree with a crazy man who thinks he should be President?
TS
Maybe I’m not as crazy as you think.
Or, I'm certifiable - which is possible.
TS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.