Alex has this article up, it's from yesterday, that is really stupid. It details how the United Nations will ban guns here in America and I'm getting fucking tired of these idiots calling my house and telling me of the "danger" of gun control. This is a bunch of bullshit, like always, and I'll show you how it i bullshit. I'll go one by one down the line on this article pointing out the bullshit. Now, let's get to it.
---------
The United Nations’ agenda for disarmament goes beyond the rhetoric the UN Arms Trade Treaty being debated in New York this month. The globalists want a total weapons ban– so they can kill innocents without opposition from the local populations. Crime rates soar wherever guns have been taken away– it is simple victim disarmament arithmetic. Look at all the uncovered martial law revelations: Troops have been trained to confiscate guns inside America (and it actually happened after Hurricane Katrina), while the politicians have been priming the nation to grudgingly accept new firearms restrictions.
---------------
"The United Nations’ agenda for disarmament goes beyond the rhetoric the UN Arms Trade Treaty being debated in New York this month."
Too bad it's already been Snoped, huh? If it's already been snoped, you've already lost. Even better, the snopes article on this treaty has been updated only a few days ago on July 9th.
"The globalists want a total weapons ban– so they can kill innocents without opposition from the local populations."
Did Alex ever say who these "Globalist" are or is this just a figment of his imagination which he has sold to the people that listen to this goofy shit.
"Crime rates soar wherever guns have been taken away (...)"
Yeah, you should see Europe. Blood and gore everywhere....oh, wait! So, how the hell is taking away guns a bad thing? What, you'll have to go up to the person to hit him a couple of times instead of the usual shooting from 50 or 60 feet? Shooting someone, to me, sounds like a pussy move, unless you're in a war, of course.
"(...) it is simple victim disarmament arithmetic."
Once again, you should see Europe...
"Troops have been trained to confiscate guns inside America (and it actually happened after Hurricane Katrina), (...)"
Um...no. The gun confiscation after Hurricane Katrina was done by the NOPD (New Orleans Police), so you're wrong. Troops may have been trained to handle protests and rioting but not that...I don't think.
"(...) while the politicians have been priming the nation to grudgingly accept new firearms restrictions."
I'm not that sure which politicans you have been talking to, but they can't offically take away all firearms because of the law that the NRA despises, know as Reid v. Covert, that was handed down in 1957. In this, it states that any United Nation law can't bypass the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights. I said that the NRA despises this law, not because it states that the UN can't bypass our laws, but because if people actually knew about this law, this type of scare tactic to get people to by more firarms (yes, this type of fear mongering conspirarcy theory works) would not work at all.
(*** Please Note: The next part of this artcle comes from a website known as the JPFO, or the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. It is not by Alex Jones, but I will go over it because, for some reason, Alex has mirrored the whole article of "Death of Gun Control" on to his website. Thank You. ***)
------
Why must all decent non-violent people fight against "gun control"? Why is the right to keep and bear arms truly a fundamental individual right? You can find the answers in this new book.
-------------
The new book is known as: Death by "Gun Control". I'm pretty sure it's as stupid as this article from the JPFO is.
I'm going to skip two paragraphs because they're stupid.
-----
The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe – they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die.
----------
Here's my question. If all the people are disarmed, how do criminals have weapons and you don't? What, you can't hit someone with a broomstick if they come in to rob you with, what, maybe a knife? They would need to get at least 4 or 5 inches to you to stick the knife in you. If you had a broomstick, or something to that effect, you could keep him at bay and maybe knock the knife out of his/her hand. You can't be that fucking stupid to say that you wouldn't have a weapon...anything could be a weapon.
"When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, (...)"
You're in the United States in 2012, not Germany in 1933. This person though does have a point. That point is when someone is saying something really terribly bad about one group of people (like Hitler talking to people about how the Jews caused the destruction of the banking system) you shouldn't vote for him. Just the idea of blaming a whole group of people for something that was out of their control seems stupid enough. It's like saying all the Christians are accountable for the Norway shooting and bombing. It's just ridiculous.
-----
Professor R.J. Rummel, author of the monumental book Death by Government, said: "Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth." For power to concentrate and become dangerous, the citizens must be disarmed.
-----------
Yeah, because people armed is way safer...
-----
What disarms the citizens? The idea of "gun control." It’s the idea that only the government has the right to possess firearms, and that citizens have no unalienable right to use force to defend against aggression.
----------
"What disarms the citizens? The idea of "gun control." "
Um....not really. The idea of gun control just gets more people to buy into the NRA and buy more weapons. So, you're wrong.
------
Death by Gun Control carefully examines the "gun control" idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.
-----------
So, what did you nut jobs fin...oh good, it's a chart! Wonderful. Let's take a look at it.
So, the first box on "Gun Control" is about the Armenian Genocide which killed 1 to 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 - 1917. The "Gun Control" laws are as follows from the JPFO: "Article 166, Penal Code, 1866 and 1911 Proclamation, 1915" That's exactly what it states in the box for "Gun Control laws". It's really funny, I looked up all of those "Laws"...and I couldn't find a single god damn thing on those "laws"
But, I did find something. I looked up the Armenian Genocide and guess what I found? This:
---
In addition to other legal limitations, Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: testimony against Muslims by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law; they were forbidden to carry weapons or ride atop horses; their houses could not overlook those of Muslims; and their religious practices were severely circumscribed (e.g., the ringing of church bells was strictly forbidden). Violation of these statutes could result in punishments ranging from the levying of exorbitant fines to execution.
---
"Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: (...) they were forbidden to carry weapons (...)"
Because the Armenians were not Muslim (they were mostly Christians) they couldn't own a firearm. It wasn't gun laws, it was bigoty and religious intolerance. And anyway, that didn't really stop the Armenians from getting weapons, like in the fight for, or seige of, Van.
So, the idea that Gun Control had in anyway played a part in this is half right and half wrong. Half right because there were laws against Christians, who were not Muslims, to not be able to buy weapons. Half wrong because it wasn't for the whole Ottoman Empire, only for those who were Christians, and even then they got weapons to fight back against the Genocide of their people.
The second one is about the Soviet Union. The "Gun Control" "laws" are as follows from the chart the JPFO has: Resolutions, 1918 Decree, July 12, 1920 Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926.
I looked up the "1918 Decree" There's a list of decrees from the Soviet Union in 1918, none of them gun laws.
The text in the box on the JPFO page says that the Article 59 and 182 was in July 12, 1920, but then this makes no sense. The only times the Constitution of Russia / Soviet Union were called to change were in 1918, 1924, 1936 and 1977. This makes no damn sense. There is an Article 59, but it's in the Constitution of 1936 in which it states:
---
"Article 59: Citizens' exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws, comply with the standards of socialist conduct, and uphold the honour and dignity of Soviet citizenship."
---
It would be nice if the JPFO would just put down some of the things that they say exist and show it, instead of just putting it down and saying it's true.
But, once again, I found something. This:
---
Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the initial period from 1918 to 1929, and the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the repressive Stalinist regime.
---
It's at the end of the "Resisting Governance" part.
The next one, of course, is Nazi Germany. The JPFO state that the "Gun Control" "laws" are as follows from the chart on the site: Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928, Weapon Law, March 18, 1938, Regulations against Jews, 1938
The first one (Firearms and Ammo 1928) comes in before the Nazi's even rise to power and is in the Weimar Republic years, so, I'll skip over that one.
The 1938 Weapons law dosen't do what you think it does and it does do something that you think it wouldn't do. Seeing that I can't find the origanal text, and most of the website I look up are propaganda for the gun lobbiest or redneck dumbasses who get their facts from Limbaugh or the JPFO website, here's a more independent look at that "Gun Control" law.
---
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
* Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."
* The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichbaun Railways were exempted.
* The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
* The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
* Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.
---
And that leaves us with the Regulations Against Jews in 1938. That was because of intolerance and hated toward the Jewish Community...so, that's two gun laws, this one and the 1938 law, that forbids the Jews to have weapons. Hey, good news JPFO, you finally got me...on this one thing, only for the Jewish people through.
They also have, on the chart on the JPFO site, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. The box that says the "Gun Control" "laws" says this: Article 322-328, Penal Code Royal Ordinance 55, 1938.
I have looked up 1938 with all of that other crap, and I didn't find one piece of evidence that this is even truthful. I can't find anything on this whatsoever, unless if you want to call this same propaganda on other sites as evidence, there is no evidence of this. Maybe the JPFO can find it and show it on their website instead of just doing this.
On the same chart they had the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. They blame the genocide on a law in 1979 known as Decree 12/79. Here are the Gun laws in Rwanda as of right now. The 1979 law, whatever the hell that is, doesn't have any effect on the genocide in 1994. What happened was that the Hutu, which was the majority, presdients plane was shot down in 1994, which the majority suspected that the minority, the Tutsi tribe, was the ones who were responsible. The Hutu had a bunch of extremist who had went out and killed people who were of Tutsi orgin. A war had started automaticlally after the presidental plane was shot down. Maybe someone needs to tell the JPFO to research these things a little more instead of pulling stuff out of their asses.
That's it for today.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Alex Jones Will Win America By Making Idiotic Movie About President Obama.
You might be wondering what Alex Jones was up to this whole time I was away (or not). If you didn't, I'm goign to tell you anyway. He's too busy making a stupid movie known as Obama Impeachment 2012. It's jammed packed with bullshit and so is the article we will be going over today (the same as the "Obama Impeachmet 2012" link). You might be wondering why he's making this movie. Alex explains beacuse President Obama committed some type of "war crimes"...beacuse George Bush never did. /rolleyes/ (Please Note: Three minus symbols (---) means the start of a paragraph(s) and two (--) of them means the end of the paragraph(s) in the article.)
---
"We can only win by launching Impeach Obama 2012. Whether or not we fully impeach him, we are committed to rebuking these unconstitutional and criminal power grabs and are determined to take the case to the court of public opinion.
–Alex Jones"
--
When I saw that second part I thought they were talking about George Bush...why wasn't there a movie to impeach Bush at the end of 2004? He committed war crimes ( launching illegal offensive on Iraq and oking torture), so where is the Bush movie?
---
Film director, producer, actor and writer Sean Stone has thrown his weight behind a resolution introduced in the House last month by North Carolina Republican Walter Jones. Resolution 107 states that should the president use offensive military force without the authorization of Congress that such an act would be "an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress the power to declare war. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the power to declare war must reside in the legislative branch of government and the president will only act as the commander-in-chief and direct the war after it is declared by Congress.
--
Ok, two question. Why do we need a resolution if it's already in the Constitution (the Republicans really are stupid aren't they)? And what "war" did the President Obama start?
---
"The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature," Madison wrote.
In the video, Stone notes Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya was waged "despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya."
--
Wait...President Obama waged a "war" on Libya? Uh, no. The UN Security Council had voted, which we are a part of, to help out the Libyan people, rebeling against Colonel Gaddiffi, with a No Fly Zone. Other countries had help out (France, and England) taking the lead into Libya to set up a No Fly Zone for Colonel Gaddiffi's Airforce. We didn't even lead into Libya. And a side note; We didn't need Congress to say yes to a "war" because it wasn't a "war". It's was a humanitarian crisis. The Libyan people needed International help from Colonel Gaddiffi killing them and we gave it to them by putting up a No Fly Zone.
Oh, forgot one thing...
"(...)unconstitutional war on Libya was waged "despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya."
One word: Iraq. Now where is the film about getting George Bush impeached?
---
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said during questioning by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that the Obama administration does not believe Congress has the exclusive right to declare war and that the Pentagon answers to the United Nations, not the people of the United States.
The Obama administration "does not believe that the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war," Stone notes, and "accordingly the president should be impeached."
--
One thing should be said of this paragraph about Leon Panetta. He said that, "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress." about the intervention in Libya. While I think it would be a good thing to go throug the Congress, it could mean trouble for the Libyan people who are needing our help (you know that the Congress would never pass the resolution bill and let people die at the hands of Colonel / Dictator Gaddiffi).
---
Stone also mentions Obama’s facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 "bailout" as an additiojnal reason he should be tried for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and impeached. Obama’s efforts worked in favor of the "consolidation of private banks, many of them in Europe."
--
Well, this sentence tell me that this Mr. Stone is really retarted. Why, you may be asking? Let's see if I can point it out for you:
" (...) Obama’s facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 "bailout" (...).
2008? Didn't President Obama get in office on January 20, 2009? So, how is the banker bailout of 2008 Obama's fault? Like I said, Mr. Stone is retarted.
---
"There was no investment of any meaningful type in the physical economy, there was no protection of the American people," Sean explains. "Rather, an illegal commitment made on behalf of private banking interests, to commit the American people to paying a debt that the American people did not accrue."
He rightly notes that Obama’s actions "represent the most clear violation of the principal of the general welfare of the people in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States."
--
So, we're blaming President Obama for what President Bush, in 2008, did? Grand! Once again I ask, where is the movie for Impeaching President Bush at?
---
In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people and waging illegal and unconstitutional wars, Obama has committed a number of other egregious violations of the Constitution.
Specifically, Obama violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chystler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.
--
Um...isn't that suppose to say, "Bush has committed a number of other egregious violations(...)" because Bush did. For example, Bush ok'ed the use of torture. And yet you rednecks are yelling about helping out the Libyan people.
"In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people(...)"
Oh, you mean the Bush Tax Cuts that the Republicans really like because it helps out the rich people by taking from the poor that was installed by the Bush Administration. Hoe nice of you to blame that on President Obama too...
"(...)when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chystler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar (...)"
GM...don't forget about GM. You're talking about the Auto Bailout that helped out a bunch of people that could have been fired from their job. Yeah...that was such a bad thing.../rolleyes/.
---
In addition, the Dodd-Fran "reform" bill created the so-called Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability Oversight Council, bureaucratic monstrosities that are now engaged in unchecked and unconstitutional economic action without consulting Congress. The Dodd-Frank bill also further empowers the bankster's preferred teatment, the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years).
--
Well, I'm just glad that Alex hasn't went all the way to declare that the Dodd-Frank reform bill was the reason why the the economy collasped...yet.
"(...) the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years)."
Here's the funny thing. Alex cries about how President Obama didn't go though Congress took the No Fly Zone for Libya, but doesn't notice that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (that put up the Federal Reserve) was passed by Congress and the Senate in 1913, and states that it's "unconstitutional" because he doesn't like it. Just keep on throwing out you're hypocrisy, Alex...we all love it.
---
The Obamacare mandate is the most obvious violation. "No list of President Obama’s constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine.
The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term," writes Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
--
Do you know that there are states that have mandates for car insurance. Yes, you have to have car insurance in most states in the US. Click on the words "mandates for car insurance" and scroll down the page that comes up for an extra laugh at Alex Jones, because he's too much of an idiot to look at where he lives. Once again, it's a need to have car insurance but not health insurance. Oh, and if you don't have car insurance, you'll get fined by the police, like you would with this health care mandate.
---
Obama signed into law the NDAA with a provision allowing the military to indefinitely detain American citizens. "He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romeo.
--
Yeah, because George Bush isn't real. It's was only your imagination...I don't like the idea of the NDAA because it's just more money to the military that we could be spending on things that this country needs.
---
Finally, Obama may be tried and impeached for signing a large number of executive orders. Article II of the Constitution provides the president with three options when presented with legislation – do nothing, sign the bill, or veto it in its entirety.
--
Once again, George Bush isn't real.
---
"Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness tocontinue the George Bush legacy– not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by ‘executive fiat.’ Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow – or expand upon," writes Aaron Dykes
--
"Obama’s use of signing statements (...)"
Like George Bush did...
"(...) not only of torture(...)"
Yeah...what? Not even near it. The torture was stopped on January 22, 2009 by President Obama.
"(...)and illegal detainment(...)"
Hey, you got something...finally...
---
Obama is definitely a renegade president in violation of the law. He is guilty of treason and must be brought up on formal charges. The House must introduce a resolution for impeachment and a trial must be held in the Senate.
It can be argued that Obama has done little different than any number of presidents going back to Abraham Lincoln. Now is the time to put an end to this treasonous and tyrannical behavior. If we continue to allow the executive to flagrantly violate the Constitution, we will eventually end up with a full-blown dictatorship run out of the White House. Congress will become ceremonial and the will of the American people will be null and void once and for all.
--
Yeah, because all of George Bushes "war crimes" was not war crimes at all and when George lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD's (WHICH IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, BY THE WAY!), he didn't do anything wrong...somehow. Wait...what the hell...?
"(...) Obama has done little different than any number of presidents going back to Abraham Lincoln. Now is the time to put an end to this treasonous and tyrannical behavior."
Did Alex just call Abraham Lincoln (and all the other presidents from President Lincoln up to President Obama) a traitor? What the hell dude?
Thank you for reading and looking. Hope you enjoyed my first post back.
Shydude89.
---
"We can only win by launching Impeach Obama 2012. Whether or not we fully impeach him, we are committed to rebuking these unconstitutional and criminal power grabs and are determined to take the case to the court of public opinion.
–Alex Jones"
--
When I saw that second part I thought they were talking about George Bush...why wasn't there a movie to impeach Bush at the end of 2004? He committed war crimes ( launching illegal offensive on Iraq and oking torture), so where is the Bush movie?
---
Film director, producer, actor and writer Sean Stone has thrown his weight behind a resolution introduced in the House last month by North Carolina Republican Walter Jones. Resolution 107 states that should the president use offensive military force without the authorization of Congress that such an act would be "an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress the power to declare war. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the power to declare war must reside in the legislative branch of government and the president will only act as the commander-in-chief and direct the war after it is declared by Congress.
--
Ok, two question. Why do we need a resolution if it's already in the Constitution (the Republicans really are stupid aren't they)? And what "war" did the President Obama start?
---
"The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature," Madison wrote.
In the video, Stone notes Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya was waged "despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya."
--
Wait...President Obama waged a "war" on Libya? Uh, no. The UN Security Council had voted, which we are a part of, to help out the Libyan people, rebeling against Colonel Gaddiffi, with a No Fly Zone. Other countries had help out (France, and England) taking the lead into Libya to set up a No Fly Zone for Colonel Gaddiffi's Airforce. We didn't even lead into Libya. And a side note; We didn't need Congress to say yes to a "war" because it wasn't a "war". It's was a humanitarian crisis. The Libyan people needed International help from Colonel Gaddiffi killing them and we gave it to them by putting up a No Fly Zone.
Oh, forgot one thing...
"(...)unconstitutional war on Libya was waged "despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya."
One word: Iraq. Now where is the film about getting George Bush impeached?
---
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said during questioning by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that the Obama administration does not believe Congress has the exclusive right to declare war and that the Pentagon answers to the United Nations, not the people of the United States.
The Obama administration "does not believe that the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war," Stone notes, and "accordingly the president should be impeached."
--
One thing should be said of this paragraph about Leon Panetta. He said that, "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress." about the intervention in Libya. While I think it would be a good thing to go throug the Congress, it could mean trouble for the Libyan people who are needing our help (you know that the Congress would never pass the resolution bill and let people die at the hands of Colonel / Dictator Gaddiffi).
---
Stone also mentions Obama’s facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 "bailout" as an additiojnal reason he should be tried for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and impeached. Obama’s efforts worked in favor of the "consolidation of private banks, many of them in Europe."
--
Well, this sentence tell me that this Mr. Stone is really retarted. Why, you may be asking? Let's see if I can point it out for you:
" (...) Obama’s facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 "bailout" (...).
2008? Didn't President Obama get in office on January 20, 2009? So, how is the banker bailout of 2008 Obama's fault? Like I said, Mr. Stone is retarted.
---
"There was no investment of any meaningful type in the physical economy, there was no protection of the American people," Sean explains. "Rather, an illegal commitment made on behalf of private banking interests, to commit the American people to paying a debt that the American people did not accrue."
He rightly notes that Obama’s actions "represent the most clear violation of the principal of the general welfare of the people in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States."
--
So, we're blaming President Obama for what President Bush, in 2008, did? Grand! Once again I ask, where is the movie for Impeaching President Bush at?
---
In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people and waging illegal and unconstitutional wars, Obama has committed a number of other egregious violations of the Constitution.
Specifically, Obama violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chystler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.
--
Um...isn't that suppose to say, "Bush has committed a number of other egregious violations(...)" because Bush did. For example, Bush ok'ed the use of torture. And yet you rednecks are yelling about helping out the Libyan people.
"In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people(...)"
Oh, you mean the Bush Tax Cuts that the Republicans really like because it helps out the rich people by taking from the poor that was installed by the Bush Administration. Hoe nice of you to blame that on President Obama too...
"(...)when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chystler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar (...)"
GM...don't forget about GM. You're talking about the Auto Bailout that helped out a bunch of people that could have been fired from their job. Yeah...that was such a bad thing.../rolleyes/.
---
In addition, the Dodd-Fran "reform" bill created the so-called Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability Oversight Council, bureaucratic monstrosities that are now engaged in unchecked and unconstitutional economic action without consulting Congress. The Dodd-Frank bill also further empowers the bankster's preferred teatment, the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years).
--
Well, I'm just glad that Alex hasn't went all the way to declare that the Dodd-Frank reform bill was the reason why the the economy collasped...yet.
"(...) the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years)."
Here's the funny thing. Alex cries about how President Obama didn't go though Congress took the No Fly Zone for Libya, but doesn't notice that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (that put up the Federal Reserve) was passed by Congress and the Senate in 1913, and states that it's "unconstitutional" because he doesn't like it. Just keep on throwing out you're hypocrisy, Alex...we all love it.
---
The Obamacare mandate is the most obvious violation. "No list of President Obama’s constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine.
The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term," writes Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
--
Do you know that there are states that have mandates for car insurance. Yes, you have to have car insurance in most states in the US. Click on the words "mandates for car insurance" and scroll down the page that comes up for an extra laugh at Alex Jones, because he's too much of an idiot to look at where he lives. Once again, it's a need to have car insurance but not health insurance. Oh, and if you don't have car insurance, you'll get fined by the police, like you would with this health care mandate.
---
Obama signed into law the NDAA with a provision allowing the military to indefinitely detain American citizens. "He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romeo.
--
Yeah, because George Bush isn't real. It's was only your imagination...I don't like the idea of the NDAA because it's just more money to the military that we could be spending on things that this country needs.
---
Finally, Obama may be tried and impeached for signing a large number of executive orders. Article II of the Constitution provides the president with three options when presented with legislation – do nothing, sign the bill, or veto it in its entirety.
--
Once again, George Bush isn't real.
---
"Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness tocontinue the George Bush legacy– not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by ‘executive fiat.’ Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow – or expand upon," writes Aaron Dykes
--
"Obama’s use of signing statements (...)"
Like George Bush did...
"(...) not only of torture(...)"
Yeah...what? Not even near it. The torture was stopped on January 22, 2009 by President Obama.
"(...)and illegal detainment(...)"
Hey, you got something...finally...
---
Obama is definitely a renegade president in violation of the law. He is guilty of treason and must be brought up on formal charges. The House must introduce a resolution for impeachment and a trial must be held in the Senate.
It can be argued that Obama has done little different than any number of presidents going back to Abraham Lincoln. Now is the time to put an end to this treasonous and tyrannical behavior. If we continue to allow the executive to flagrantly violate the Constitution, we will eventually end up with a full-blown dictatorship run out of the White House. Congress will become ceremonial and the will of the American people will be null and void once and for all.
--
Yeah, because all of George Bushes "war crimes" was not war crimes at all and when George lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD's (WHICH IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, BY THE WAY!), he didn't do anything wrong...somehow. Wait...what the hell...?
"(...) Obama has done little different than any number of presidents going back to Abraham Lincoln. Now is the time to put an end to this treasonous and tyrannical behavior."
Did Alex just call Abraham Lincoln (and all the other presidents from President Lincoln up to President Obama) a traitor? What the hell dude?
Thank you for reading and looking. Hope you enjoyed my first post back.
Shydude89.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)