Tuesday, December 03, 2013

Must we use force?






During a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government.



“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government ...  overthrow it.”

“If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.” [Full]


Horry clap! This is a first in my lifetime. Yours too.  In anyone's, I wager. Hearing those words spoken in a public forum. Not just any forum either; the United States Congress.  And I concur.  How arrogant is this man Obama?  This, below, is just a tiny example of his arrogance  that caught my eye about the same time Michael Cannon's words did.

Who was standing behind Obama today? White House won't say

Nineteen people stood behind President Obama on stage in the Executive Office Building Tuesday as the president kicked off a new campaign to promote Obamacare. One of those people, a young Florida woman named Monica Weeks, introduced Obama after telling the story of being struck with Crohn's Disease at age 19 and receiving expensive treatments for several years that were covered by her parents' health care plan — because Obamacare allowed her to remain on that plan until age 26. (I am not making this up)

But Obama never said who those people were, and, unlike other events, the White House did not release their names or biographies. A spokesman later said the White House would not provide the information.



The White House would not provide the information.?!?  Have  I suggested that Obama is an arrogant martinet who acts in every way like someone who wants a fight?  Like, he dares us to remove his government?  It's part of his deal.  Having divided the nation
oh yes he hasthe next step is final, bloody destruction.  Nicolae Ceaușescu.  That's who I see.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is the barn still there Rodge?
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Clayusmcret said...

This hearing may have started like gangbusters (I didn't see the early parts), but when the last democrat came out and confronted the speakers with "Which one of you is saying the current president has committed an impeachable offense?", it was like watching four kids in front of the school principal. If the camera had shown below the table, we would have seen feet shuffling. They acted scared to answer, all of them. When Cannon was singled out, he gave a squeaky response about "well maybe on Libya", but they were all afraid to give a straight answer.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Thanks for that dispiriting update. I mean, WTF? I/we could, and have, off the top of my/your head listed a half dozen impeachable offenses. But we're not talking impeachment here, are we? What's important is to get the word "overthrow" into the debate lexicon, oui? It's time. If Obama is not a lawless, tyrannical ruler, none exist.

iri said...

"Nicolae Ceaușescu. That's who I see."

Could be but this is who I want..


R.I.P. Augusto Pinochet.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.