Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: What should Republicans' Top Legislative Priority Be?
Repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate
Stop the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans
Refuse to reauthorize the Import-Export Bank
Stop the ObamaCare bailouts of insurance companies
View poll and comments »
I've been wondering when this would happen. I see, now, that it has started. Conservatives at large, and especially the zealots, are about to see what it's like to have someone preaching (the opposite of their belief) at them. It is only fair, but they won't take it that way. It will become an outright battle over religious freedom; 'Satan' attacking them.
This is identical to the zealot on zealot (Muslim on Christian) battle that was created (also) by Christians not realizing that religion is a personal thing and not respecting the 'right' of others to be left alone in their beliefs.
So much talk, today, among Christians, fails to acknowledge that other people, even in other religions, have been finding happiness and wisdom for centuries. Their (Christian) insistence that only Christians are morally 'good' and 'wise' has brought us to this point, where the other side is now, justifiably, fighting back.
My mother was released from the hospital and is staying with me. She had two falls and could not get up without help from several strong men. Pray for her strength to return. Thank you!
What happens when an elected American president lets the power of the office go to his head and begins to ignore the Constitution and rule in the manner of a dictator? The answer, of course, is that the U.S. House of Representatives is empowered by the Constitution to impeach such a president, and the U.S. Senate is empowered to convict him.
What happens when an elected American president lets the power of the office go to his head and begins to ignore the Constitution and rule in the manner of a dictator? The answer, of course, is that the U.S. House of Representatives is empowered by the Constitution to impeach such a president, and the U.S. Senate is empowered to convict him. On the impeachment side of the Constitutional equation, Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the House, though not convicted by the Senate. President Nixon resigned before the House could impeach him because he knew the Senate had the votes to convict him. Impeachment is a Constitutional tool that has been used by the House of Representatives to rein in out-of-control presidents.
Being that we have the Constitutional protection of impeachment and being that is has been used in the past, Americans don’t have to worry about a president abusing his powers and becoming a quasi-dictator, right? Maybe not. The House of Representatives has used impeachment or the threat of it to prevent presidents from abusing their power in the past, but all of the presidents in question have been white. What happens when the president abusing his power is black? In today’s politically-correct, racially-charged society does the House of Representatives dare impeach a black president? This is not just a hypothetical or academic question. Rather, it is one the newly elected House of Representatives may have to answer because a defiant President Obama has made it clear he does not intend to stop ignoring the Constitution or the will of the American people. He plans to continue ruling by dictatorial fiat in the form of executive orders, orders that exceed the scope of his presidential powers as granted in the Constitution.
Before proceeding with the question of impeachment, some background is in order. Even the most optimistic Republican insiders underestimated how well the GOP would do in the mid-term elections on November 4th. Not only did Republicans pick up the seats they thought were low-hanging fruit, they picked up some seats that pundits thought were leaning toward the Democrats. The mid-term elections were about one thing and one thing only: rejecting the failed policies of Barack Obama. What political pundits missed was the depth of dissatisfaction with the president, even among Democrats. It appears that the pundits were led down the garden path by Obama’s propaganda machine—the mainstream media—and as a result were out of touch with grass roots Americans.
Being that the mid-term massacre was a rejection of everything President Obama stands for, one would think the president would be chastened, maybe even humbled. But anyone who believed this president would be humbled was under-estimating his capacity for self-delusion, not to mention his out-sized ego. Obama knows that on November 4th America rejected him and his policies, but the president’s attitude toward the Democrat’s lop-sided defeat has been to dig in his heels and defiantly reject America’s rejection of him. In his White House news conference on November 5th, the president sounded more like a petulant child who had been scolded than the chief executive of a great nation.
Incredibly, President Obama refused to accept any responsibility for his party’s election debacle. Rather, he defiantly threatened to continue governing by executive order, and herein is the rub. The Republican victory on November 4th will either be a flash in the pan or it will translate into an even more important victory in 2016. Which of these two possibilities prevails depends on what the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress do right now. If they misinterpret what happened on November 4th as an opportunity to reason with President Obama or meet him in the middle, Republicans will squander their victory. Further, if they allow President Obama to continue defiantly ruling by executive fiat like some third-world dictator, Americans who voted Republican in droves on November 4th will lose faith in them and Hillary Clinton will be our next president. However, if Republicans show they have the guts to issue a unmistakable smack down to Barack Obama, up to and including impeachment, they might just win in November and save America in the process.
President Obama has steamrolled Republicans and run roughshod over the Constitution for six years now, and as the results of the mid-term elections showed, Americans are tired of his dictatorial propensities. Consequently, the American public is not looking to Republicans to hold the president’s hand and play nice in the sandbox. They are looking to Republicans to fix the mess he has made of our country, at home and abroad. This means Americans are expecting Republicans to not just stop but reverse the Obama tidal wave of government handouts, bailouts, entitlements, regulations, foreign policy blunders, lies, distortions, and abuses of power. They are expecting Republicans to clean out government agencies that have been using their power to bully American citizens, re-establish a foreign policy that gets out in front of the world situation rather than just reacting to it or even failing to react, and re-establish the material, manpower, and technological superiority of our military.
But more than anything, Americans expect Republicans to use their Constitutional powers to rein in this out-of-control president and force him to govern within the powers granted to him by the Founders in the Constitution. If this means the House of Representatives will be forced to impeach President Obama, then Republicans in the House must be willing to do so and the Senate must be willing to convict him. The current thinking of political pundits is that President Obama is immune to impeachment because he is America’s first black president. Their thinking goes like this: If Republicans impeach Obama—no matter how much he abuses his power—they will lose all hope of winning in 2016. The pundits were wrong in their prognostications concerning the mid-term elections, and they might just be wrong about impeachment. However, even if they are right, sometimes elected officials must do what is right rather than what is politically expedient.
Let us hope that President Obama will get over his childish snit about the mid-term elections, man up, and govern like an American president is supposed to: within the bounds of his Constitutional authority. However, if he continues to defiantly ignore the Constitution and sign more and more executive orders, he will force the hand of the new Congress. My question is this: Does the new Congress—Republicans and Democrats—have the courage to use its most potent weapon for reining in an out-of-control president? If not, they should not have run for office on November 4th and are not worthy of the offices they hold.
And in the words of Joe Wilson "YOU LIE!"
This is a very lengthy and thorough report, containing many charts and graphs. My advice is to get a cup of coffee and a bottle of Excedrin before you begin. There is a lot to absorb and as you become more aware of where your taxes are actually going, you;ll probably going to feel nauseous and get a terrible headache to accompany the overwhelming outrage you'll feel!
I hope they do! Contact your Governors and these Governors and show your support!
Should President Barack Obama go through with his plans to use executive action to unilaterally grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, he may be met with a slew of lawsuits from several Republican governors, who said Wednesday that such judicial action will be likely, The Huffington Post reported.
SHARE THIS STORY
The Republican governors, who are all potential candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential ticket as well, spoke at the annual conference of the Republican Governors Association on Wednesday about the possibility of various states suing the president should he bypass Congress to provide deportation relief for five million illegal immigrants.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said it is a "very real possibility" that Texas could sue the federal government if Obama acts unilaterally on immigration, according to the Huffington Post. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also suggested that a lawsuit is in order, as did Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
Appearing on Sean Hannity's radio program Wednesday, Walker stated, "I think the Republicans in Washington need to take the president to court. They need to force this issue. I think it's bigger than the subject matter of immigration."
Earlier this week, another presidential hopeful, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, said that if Obama does go through with executive action, he believes the Supreme Court will inevitably step in.
"I think with regard to immigration reform, [the president] is doing something that Congress has not instructed him to do and in fact has instructed him otherwise, so I think the Supreme Court would strike it down," Paul told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "That takes a while, but that may be the only recourse short of a new president."
And last week, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, weighed various lawsuit options, and has considered expanding a proposed federal lawsuit over Obama's use of executive orders to include his action on immigration. Another option gaining traction would be to file a separate lawsuit, according to The Washington Post.
Other GOPers believe Obama's actions could reap something much worse than a lawsuit - impeachment or even prison time.
Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., one of the most outspoken immigration reform opponents, told Slate, "At some point, you have to evaluate whether the president's conduct aids or abets, encourages, or entices foreigners to unlawfully cross into the United States. That has a five-year in-jail penalty associated with it."
However, others argue, including some in the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society, that the president does in fact have the legal authority to unilaterally act on immigration, according to the Huffington Post.
"There is a difference between executing the law and making the law," said Christopher Schroeder, the Charles S. Murphy professor of law and public policy studies at Duke Law School, during the group's annual meeting last week. "But in the world in which we operate, that distinction is a lot more problematic than you would think. If the Congress has enacted a statute that grants discretionary authority for the administrative agency or the president to fill in the gaps, to write the regulations that actually make the statute operative, those regulations to all intents and purposes make the law."
"I agree this can make us very uncomfortable. I just don't see the argument for unconstitutionality at this juncture," he added.
Your support keeps freedom alive!