crickets
Good morning vmivo100, i hope you are well today. now is the time for patience.
Some rush in and expose themselves; some plot and look for the exact moment to overpower a mighty warrior. The Executive “Orders” were announced yesterday. They were not even orders, but directives, not having the effect and force of law.
Keep your powder dry, for now. As it has been said, “If you strike the King, you must slay the King!”
Gwjack
One thing to say for “conservatives” these days, it sure isn’t hard to get them to fight amongst themselves. Divide and conquer.
Actually, I think this was another clever ruse by the liberals to try and make us look like extremists. Plugs hinted that zero would do something drastic by executive order. While most people thought it, a few (two I believe) Congressmen spoke up that it would be an impeachable offense.
Now zero has issued a bunch of meaningless executive ‘suggestions’ I am certain that the media will be all over the ‘threats of impeachment’. I can’t say I blame people for threatening to impeach him, but we probably should have kept our powder dry till the idiot opened his mouth.
You don’t even know his name.
I’ll give you drivebys a clue.
His name starts with an “S”.
See ya’ll at the ballgame.
Pretend.
The hell with impeachment. We conservatives here in the great blue northeast are looking toward states like Texas or OK to secede. I am ready to move back to the REAL America.
He never said he would push for impeachment if Obama issued executive orders, he said he would push for impeachment if Obama issued executive orders that infringed on the 2nd Amendment.
Obama's dog & pony show didn't 'affect' anything....it was just a feel good chest-thumping program staged for his adoring masses.
-----
Did I miss something
Apparently.
Obama either blinked of head-faked.
The congressman’s implication was that if Obama did something unconstitutional, the constitutional remedy would be impeachment. Instead of real executive orders, Obama’s actions were all as meaningless as ordering himself to finally nominate an ATF director and otherwise do his job in accordance with existing law - political posturing, a campaign commercial in which he manipulated and abused innocent children for personal gain, an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Despite all the empty threats, Obama’s actual “orders” were a breathtakingly trivial distraction (meanwhile NY passed a flood of unconstitutional laws in a matter of hours as we all looked the wrong way, and it will take years in the courts to reverse that criminal action).
both parties want to keep the status quo.
They both b making lots of money. Why change things?
Gots to get rid of those damn troublesone tea partiers though cause they b rocking the gravey boat.
This guys been paid off.
I haven’t heard of an impeachment proposal.
Maybe you are referring to this ...
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507
A Texas lawmaker says he plans to file the Firearms Protection Act, which would make any federal laws that may be passed by Congress or imposed by Presidential order which would ban or restrict ownership of semi-automatic firearms or limit the size of gun magazines illegal in the state, 1200 WOAI news reports.
Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.
Maybe a few hours isn’t quite enough time to organize something like that?
If I recall, he’s a freshman which means he isn’t going to do anything that Nancy Boehner doesn’t approve.
Maybe today I'll email him again and say why don't you draw those articles of impeachment yourself.
He's good, better than Betsy Markey, but he also voted to keep Boehner. A 'Go along to get along' type.
If he is a republican that is your explanation.
From what I know of the guy I have a high opinion of him, even if he does cheer for a different school than I do.
I read his comments when they came out, and I think he was saying, actually pretty explicitly, that if 0 were to issue an executive order reclassifying any firearm(s) to class III, or maybe doing the same with any magazines because of their capacity, that he would consider that "outside the authority of the executive branch" and that it would be an impeachable offense.
Again, I'm not a Texan and I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the Texas congressional delegation - but in my opinion Gohmert isn't given to bluster. It just turns out that as some around here were saying yesterday, this situation has proven that the gunowners of this country are not one and the same with Republicans, and we aren't pussified like the Republicans are. We stood up and 0 blinked. Not my words, just read some of the threads after yesterday's press conference.
Gohmert's one of the good guys in John Boehner's House.
Someone, in the interest of clarity, advised me yesterday to keep my powder dry, and I think it's good advice all around.
0 ain't through trying and we all know that, how about let's don't alienate our friends around here?
Nothing personal on anyone, just sayin'...
Rep. Gohmert: Obama’s ‘Staggering’ Abuse of Law Grounds for Impeachment
Wednesday, 16 Jan 2013 09:30 AM
By Todd Beamon and Kathleen Walter
Should President Barack Obama move towards enacting gun-control legislation by executive order it would be grounds for impeachment, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert tells Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview.
Obama has “already abused the law enough times that it’s just been staggering,” Gohmert said.
“It’s not a president who steps up and says: ‘You know what? Previous Congresses have passed the law — and it’s been signed into law, and I disagree with it, so I’m just going to create new law — and as I speak, so shall it be,’” Gohmert, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, tells Newsmax. “That’s not a president.”
“The American Revolution was all about fighting such a monarchy — and that is not what the Constitution anticipates. It’s not something a Constitutional president would do.”
“That is something to consider if the president is going to attempt to destroy the Constitution strictly with a pronouncement of his mouth or the stroke of his pen,” he said.
The president plans to announce his program to combat gun violence on Wednesday at the White House. He is expected to present 19 proposed actions — ranging from universal background checks for gun buyers to bans of high-capacity ammunition magazines to initiatives to strengthen mental-health checks — many of which he said can be implimented through executive order.
Obama also plans to seek a tougher ban on assault weapons, which are expected to draw strong resistance from House Republicans and from the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups.
Congress should cut funding to Obama proposals that impose on constitutional freedoms, Gohmert said.
“That’s what the Founders anticipated when in the Constitution they gave Congress the power of the purse. The problem is we have tried to defund things that appear to be illegal outside the scope of the current law — and we’ve passed those measures in the House, but there is a Senate, and you have a Senate that’s controlled by Democrats that are complicit with the violation and prevent the cut of funding to the White House or to the measures that overstep the president’s boundaries.
“Anytime the president overstepped his authority and usurped authority from Congress in the past, then there was a bipartisan effort on both sides of the aisle,” Gohmert added. “Both sides of the Capitol would come together and say: ‘Mr. President, privately we’re telling you, you have stepped beyond your authority. You have abused the power of the Congress, and we’re going to defund whatever you’re doing. We’ll defund the White House unless you stop this, knock it off.”
“But, now, unfortunately the Senate Democrats have been complicit with the president — and have refused to come together in a bipartisan, bicameral effort to let the president know that it’s illegal and that it is just compounding the intent of the Founders who set up these checks and balances.
“No one branch has overstepped its boundaries like this president has — and I’m hoping that, at some point, Senate Democrats will realize that protecting and saving the Constitution is more important than just petty, partisan bickering,” Gohmert said.
An assault-weapons ban will not survive in the U.S. House of Representatives, either.
“I don’t see how it would pass in the House, because we have had a so-called assault weapons ban,” Gohmert said. “Let’s face it, a knife can be an assault weapon, a machete – in Rwanda, they slaughtered 800,000 people with machetes.
“An assault-weapons ban has been tried for 10 years. It did nothing to stop gun violence. It doesn’t work. It is just an assault on the Second Amendment. It is not an assault on assault weapons.”
As for the upcoming negotiations on raising the nation’s $16.4 trillion debt ceiling, any agreement must have deep spending cuts, Gohmert said. “I would vote against any measure that doesn’t make massive spending cuts.
“The president, unfortunately, has been done such a disservice by people working for him,” he added, referring to historical references Obama has made about the role of spending cuts in previous debt-ceiling extensions. “Whoever is putting in the words in the president’s teleprompter is lying. He just said that nobody had ever used the debt ceiling for bringing down spending — and yet it just shows the absolute ignorance of the White House to reality.
“Every time in the last 30 years, if there has been a substantial measure to stop overspending, it’s been related to a debt-ceiling bill,” he said, referencing, for instance, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation from 1985. The bill, which President Ronald Reagan signed into law, was the first that sought to cut the federal deficit via automatic spending cuts.
“You can go on and on, and it’s all very clear — 1990, 1993, 1997 — every time the debt limit was increased, it was tied to spending restrictions,” Gohmert said. “This president has surrounded himself with people who are just giving him absolutely false information — and it’s an embarrassment to this president that he’s being lied to by the people on his staff.”
The United States will not default on its financial obligations, he said, because provisions have been made to pay our debtors, the military, and recipients of Social Security.
“For the president to be out there scaring senior citizens and telling them, in essence, although I’m not going to cut down on my multimillion-dollar vacations, you may have your check cut by order of the president if Congress doesn’t do what I say — that’s basically a temper tantrum,” Gohmert said. “He cannot control his own spending, so he’s being a fear-monger to senior citizens. It’s outrageous.
“It’s been done before with the military, and that’s why there is absolutely no reason for the United States government to default on spending,” he added. “It would be unconscionable — and if the U.S. government did, there would be only one reason, and that’s because the Secretary of the Treasury and the president have acted unconstitutionally, irresponsibly, and have ordered the government not to pay its debts, because we do have the money to pay our debts.”
Seems a few states have law makers etc discussing or filing bills or methods to opposed the feds. I didn’t see any Ohio officials listed, have you heard of any?
Mississippi
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant joined House Speaker Phil Gunn
Texas
State Rep. Steve Toth
Missouri
State Sen. Brian Munzlinger
Rep. Casey Guernsey
Tennessee
State Rep. Jeremy Faison and Sen. Frank Nicely
Wyoming
State Rep. Kendell Kroeker and several other state legislators
Oregon & Kentucky
Sherrifs indicated they wouldn’t enforce Fed. law.