Tom Hoefling: Obama usurpation and dereliction merit immediate impeachment and removal

America's Party News ^ | June 17, 2012 | Tom Hoefling

[EternalVigilance]

"This is how great republics die"

"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"

-- George Washington

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.

Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

Also, the Constitution absolutely requires that the United States protect each of the States from Invasion.

Article 4, Section 4:

"The United States...shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion..."

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.

[BlackElk]

Strange. I don't remember Sarah actually endorsing the Massachusetts trash bag, baby-killer, marriage wrecker, enthusiast for all things rump-ranger, gun grabber, etc.

In the unlikely event that she has endorsed him, that would simply take her down a bit from the high status she still enjoys. You are no supporter of Sarah if you yearn to see her play the GOP-E prostitute game. If she refuses, she is the new Reagan. If not, she will have to credibly attack the soulless GOP-E. Given her track record in Alaska, she will.

Given the pressures brought to bear unmercifully by the GOP-E on folks like Sarah, she will be forgiven. Romney's rank and file sycophants won't be. Not now, not ever.

Conservative principle consistently applied can and will defeat Romney. I hope that you STILL have expressed no reason why I should vote for either of these persecutors of the Roman Catholic and all other pro-life religions.

Your hero is in my neighborhood today. Naturally I would not be caught dead or alive being there. He and his pimps can go straight to hell.

Hopefully Muffy's trust fund will take a well-deserved hit.

Thanks for playing and identifying yourself as someone not ever to be trusted when the GOP is forced back to principle.

[BlackElk]

Lakeshark:

I was a Reagan state chairman. Were you? It is true that we did not elect him dogcatcher.

[Principle Over Politics]

Not over stains on a blue dress they would not. For real, impeachable reasons, it would be worth a try. The fate of our country is at stake.

[Lakeshark]

She endorsed ABO at the very beginning. Breitbart did the same thing early on, even when it looked like we had a chance of getting a conservative nominee. He had the audacity to say that once everything was done, whoever the nominee was, if you didn't get behind them, you are then a part of the evil and malfeasance that is the Bambi administration.

Sarah still does not use his name, it's clear she (like all of us) did not hope for him as nominee, but she hasn't changed, neither has Newt, Santorum, Cain or Perry. Neither has Rush, Levin and most other conservatives.

It's only a tiny fraction of people that think they can afford to not be ABO. It's only a tiny fraction that don't understand we have a unique situation here, this man cannot win again without huge consequences for everything we hold dear. Like I said, most conservatives realize that, or should I say most sane conservatives realize that.

[Lakeshark]

BlackElk:

I was talking about Tom whatshisnames party, and they have never elected anyone for anything, I don't think they've gotten even 1% of any vote for any of their candidates, and it's been close to twenty years they've been working on this stuff. The point is, that doesn't even elect a dog catcher.

Of all people, an ex Reagan state chair should know that........

[BlackElk]

Lakeshark:

And we can all get together, abandon all of our principles, and re-elect Obozo so that we can be "winners." Or, we could all get together, abandon nearly all of our principles (protecting the security only of Muffy's trust fund not that I care) and elect Robamney who would be every bit as bad as Obozo on every issue that actually matters, so that we can all be "winners."

A third way is required and unless and until someone comes up with a clearly better idea, my third way is to vote for Tom Hoefling as an expression of support for that good man and contempt for both Obozo and Robamney and each and every one of their respective shameless enthusiasts (and especially the ones who disingenuously CLAIM to be conservative while supporting either one of these abominations). I don't particularly care if the only votes for Tom Hoefling are Tom's, his wife's and mine and my wife's and my kids' votes. Better, of course, that Tom should receive a majority of all votes cast. I understand that it is tragically not likely that he will get that majority.

OTOH, Lucifer does not get the soul of any Tom Hoefling supporter simply for supporting Tom because Tom may be depended upon to take every available means to end the slaughter of the innocent unborn.

IIRC, Tom is an Evangelical pro-life Christian. Obozo is, at best, a phony Christian like his mentor, the Rev. Mr. Jeremiah Wright. Robamney is, whatever he wants anyone to believe, effectively an apostate Jack Mormon and a disgrace to that church which is overwhelmingly pro-life as Robamney has NEVER been.

I am a Roman Catholic, proud of it, and my Church has PLENTY to say on this subject of abortion. One very early original source of Catholic determination is what I believe to be the first non-canonical theological book of the RCC: The Didache, published in the mid-to late 1st century, provides in relevant part: "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish." We either believe this or we do not and, by our actions, we will be known as believers or non-believers in this principle.

To those who are Reformed Christians as well as to my fellow Catholics, to Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Jehovah's Witnesses, I commend the entire Old Testament Book of Jeremiah but particularly Jeremiah 1:5 (also Job 10:8-12, Psalm 22: 10-11): "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."

For the Catholics who may look to the Second Vatican Council for guidance (mid-1960s) and any who might imagine that Church policy on abortion might somehow have changed: Gaudiam et Spes (Joy and Hope) 51, Section 3: "God, the Lord of Life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

Section 2271 of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (1994) promulgated by the late Pope Blessed John Paul II, provides: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."

Section 2272 (ibid.) provides: "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. 'A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae.' 'by the very commission of the offense.'and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society."

See also Sections 2273 through 2275.

Suppose, if you will, that I want a particular bank to be robbed and that the proceeds be mine. I could personally rob the bank and few here would deny that I would be morally culpable for robbing the bank. I think that few here would argue that I would escape that culpability by hiring you or others to rob the bank for me and bring me the loot.

Hiring EITHER Romney OR Obozo as POTUS is hiring (whatever lies either will tell to obtain the votes of the evil, the morally blind and/or the gullible) two men with a track record as enthusiastic supporters of baby-killing, of rump-ranging, of perversions masquerading as "marriage" each of which the Roman Catholic Church to which I belong has deemed intrinsic evil. Second hand moral culpability is nonetheless culpability.

Few abortions but numerous bank robberies occur without innocent human beings being murdered. Hiring Romney or Obozo to see to it that another four million babies or more be sliced, diced and hamburgerized from 1/20/13 through 1/20/17 is morally culpable behavior, material cooperation with the murder of those innocents and an excommunicating offense in the Roman Catholic Church.

I do not owe my immortal soul and its eternal disposition to such trash as $$$ Romney and I will not encourage his evils and his perfidy by voting for him. Tom is an Evangelical and I am a Catholic and that means that he and I necessarily disagree on about 5% of religious issues. OTOH, not a single disagreement between me and Tom who is my brother in Christ will be at all affected by this election in which he and I can trust one another to agree on each and every important issue of the campaign.

Whatever your religion (if any) may be perhaps you would care to rationalize for us how voting for EITHER Obozo or Romney is other than material cooperation with the abominable crime of baby-killing (times about 4,000,000 in the next four years). Assuming that you believe in Jesus Christ, what rationalizations will you tell him when He is judging you personally with eternal stakes, surely the loneliest time of your entire existence? Do you REALLY think you can pull the wool over God's eyes at that time?

[BlackElk]

If true, how sad for Sarah but she will still be forgiven as the Romney pom pom girls and boys will not be. Breitbart knows better now. If he actually said that irrational nonsense, then he was a very flawed man and very wrong. The allegedly lesser of two evils is still EVIL.

Neither Rush nor Hannity nor Levin nor Cain nor Newt nor Perry nor even Santorum would have to do my time in hell if I listened to them with this ABO crap. Of course, they may have issues of their own. I know that, if I should go to hell, it won't be for voting for Romney.

I know me a lot better than you do and I never heard that disagreeing with the ideologically round-heeled Romney pom pom girls meant that I was not sane. I would also bet that I have a lot longer and a lot more successful track record as a conservative movement activist than you do or will ever. It is the CONSERVATIVE movement and not the PRAGMATIST movement.

I am called to be God's faithful child and servant and not God's bookie. Do the right thing (refusing to vote for Obozo OR Romney) and leave it in God's hands.

[EternalVigilance]

You don't know much of anything about our party, that's quite obvious.

One of the first premises of America's Party, laid out clearly when we founded it four years ago, is found in our first President's Farewell Address. In that important document, George Washington spoke at length warning against the dangers of both regional and party factionalism.

He was not part of any political party, by the way.

Therefore, we set out to create what is really an "un" party party. In other words, we make our political affiliations, associations, and endorsements based solely on proven adherence to, and consistent accountability to, the core non-negotiable principles of the republic, not on something so trivial as what letter happens to be by a candidate's name.

So, while admittedly the numbers are still small, we have helped elect some folks. Still primarily with Rs by their names. One of our original state chairmen is now a state senator in AL. One of our affiliates is a state delegate in MD. A number of our affiliates have won GOP primaries while not winning in the general, including several Congressional primaries.

In my state house district, one of our best leaders won election two years ago by two to one margins, and has just virtually won reelection by besting the GOPe offering two to one in this year's primary. No Democrat is even bothering to run against him.

You can scoff at that all you like, but the fact is that we are not like any other party anyone has ever seen, and we are giving principled conservatives a solid place to stand.

And as Archimedes said centuries ago:

[Tau Food]

I can't speak for Sarah Palin, but I can tell you what I'm not going to do. I'm not going to vote for any liberal that can't get Breitbart's vote this November.

I've survived nearly four years of Obama and I intend to survive the next four years, even if God permits either Obama or Romney to serve as president. I have always arranged my affairs so as to make it very difficult for government to frustrate my plans. If the election of either one of the two major liberal candidates (Obama or Romney) will hold "huge consequences for everything [you] hold dear," then maybe you have become too dependent on government for your own good. Look for ways to free yourself from your dependency on government. Ask God for relief from your fears about the future.

I will vote for Tom whatshisname and I will know that I am doing the right thing. I will organize my life so as to minimize the harm that liberal politicians can visit upon me and I will trust God.

I refuse to live in fear of the future and I refuse to shame myself by voting for a liberal. I will proudly vote for Tom.

[Lakeshark]

So, while admittedly the numbers are still small, we have helped elect some folks. Still primarily with Rs by their names.

Primarily? You mean entirely, you just can't fess up to it.

The problem is, that every single person we think of as a decent conservative in office has an (R) by their name. Before you say it, I realize that doesn't mean everyone with an (R) behind their name is a conservative, but the fact remains, outside of those (R)'s, there are no elected conservatives.

Also, your new party may be four years old, but you've been trying this schtick for some 20 years being the head of the other "conservative" party you were the head of with Alan Keyes. It's gone nowhere, it's going nowhere, you're nothing but a distraction and a siphon of votes against the most destructive, hateful administration we've ever had.

Sorry, that's the truth.

[Lakeshark]

You are not doing the right thing, you are being foolish and silly, helping reelect the most destructive administration ever, and you will continue to be irrelevant if you keep to the same path.

If you don't think freedom can be stolen by this man and his minions, you need to look at what Chavez did, and bone up on your history. I'm certain there is one just like you that said they had nothing to fear from Hugo Chavez.

Sorry bub, no deal, you're not doing the right thing at all.

[Lakeshark]

I can't address all your posts, sorry, so I'll try again.

I've asked over and over and get the same answer to my question. Is this the most destructive, the most pro-death, pro-Marxist, pro-muzzie, pro-gay, anti-Christian, anti-free enterprise, anti-American, anti-everything we all love about this country admninistration ever?

You all would answer: yes, yes it is.

I'm sorry, working in a manner to reelect this atrocity of a group is beyond the thinkable, yet here I am speaking to a group that wants to do just that.

You all seem to think you're smarter and more righteous and pure than every candidate you once supported, every great warrior talk show host and conservative journalist, each of whom have taken the ABO pledge, each of whom will support this nominee (who shall remain nameless), because they understand we cannot have this man and his minions in office another four years.

If you truly answer yes to my question (and all of you do), there is no other action that is sane or right than to get rid of these people.

Pretending the GOP candidate who shall not be named is the same as the most destructive, the most pro-death, pro-Marxist, pro-muzzie, pro-gay, anti-Christian, anti-free enterprise, anti-American, anti-everything we all love about this country admninistration ever is as fatuous, unfounded and silly as claiming Mitt is a conservative. Working against him will get you nothing but chains as this man goes full Hugo Chavez on us if you help him get elected.

There are only two people who can win this election, get over it, get real, and stop trying to reelect the most destructive, the most pro-death, pro-Marxist, pro-muzzie, pro-gay, anti-Christian, anti-free enterprise, anti-American, anti-everything we all love about this country admninistration ever

It demeans you all.

[EternalVigilance]

You’re speaking of things you know little or nothing about. That’s abundantly clear.

I was a very, very active Republican right up until the moment it became obvious that they were going to nominate John Judas McCain.

That was a bridge too far.

And Mitt Romney is a plunge into the political abyss.

[EternalVigilance]

the GOP candidate who shall not be named

That was certainly good for a hearty laugh.

[Tau Food]

It may be hard to believe, but prayer and faith, particularly faith, can lift you from the mists of fear that engulf you.

It’s simple, really. Reject evil. Trust God.

Bless you.

[EternalVigilance]

"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."

-- George Washington

[Tau Food]

Thank you. What a wonderful quote from a man who did so much to establish an early course (moral and political) for our young nation.

With this quote, I think he reminds us of our human limitations, the importance of humility, the reality that we do all that we can do when we choose to do the right thing now and leave to God the heavy lifting involved in outcomes.

[SoConPubbie]

It demeans you all.

No, what demeans you Lakeshark is sacrificing your pinciples on the alter of political expediency and fear of the unknown where Obama is concerned to vote for a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal like Mitt Romney.

My description of Romney is not hyperbole; his own record bears out this statement as an objective truth.

As for me, I am with Alexander Hamilton:

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

[BlackElk]

If you think that your #92 is an answer to my #86, you must be deaf, dumb and blind. What part of my obligations to God as a Roman Catholic make voting for EITHER Obozo OR Romney. My faith and my God (and each precious infant who would be slaughtered under either of these barbarians) are INFINITELY more valuable than your petty ideological obsessions.

I will not be the square peg to be hammered into your infernal round hole.

I am certainly smarter, more righteous and more pure than any cretin who would be caught alive or dead voting for Robamney. Demeaned??? Not on your life. It is not demeaning to obey my God, obey my Church, be faithful thereafter to my nation and then my customary party and to vote not only No but Hell, NO!!! to both of these despicable barbarians. As you well know, there can be NO effective pro-Romney propagandistic surrender monkey answers to the specifics of #86.

[Norm Lenhart]

“You all seem to think you’re smarter and more righteous and pure than every candidate you once supported, every great warrior talk show host and conservative journalist, each of whom have taken the ABO pledge, each of whom will support this nominee (who shall remain nameless), because they understand we cannot have this man and his minions in office another four years.”

As to smarter, definitely. It’s the height of stupidity to vote for/support a liberal and expect to maintain any credibility as a conservative. As to purity, well duh. That’s obvious.

As for demeaning, the only persons demeaned in this are the ones who sacrificed their integrity on an altar of fear. The rest of us are doing just fine.

Spin as you like. The above is a documented fact.