Printable View
as it sits; John Boehner appears to be running blocker for almost all of Obama's Agenda
you better get him replaced MeriKa and Soon
Sarah Palin · Trending
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net..._3271090_n.jpg Joe the Plumber
Here's a shocker: Speaker Boehner disagrees with Sarah Palin and other Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Obama.
https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=908&sh=475
Boehner disagrees with Palin on impeaching Obama
Speaker puts distance between himself and Republicans suggesting that impeachment should be an option.
washingtonpost.com
Boehner disagrees with Palin on impeaching Obama
By Ed O'Keefe July 9 at 11:17 AM
Video at the pager link:
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) disagrees with Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Obama.
Former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of Republicans calling for the impeachment of Obama, writing in an op-ed that the influx of young illegal immigrants over the southern border "is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas.' "
"I disagree," Boehner said when asked by reporters Wednesday morning. When a reporter pointed out that some House Republicans also are calling for impeachment, Boehner said again: "I disagree."
Boehner's comments came after Palin said Tuesday night on Fox News that the speaker's planned lawsuit against Obama over his use of executive power is a weak maneuver. "You don't bring a lawsuit to a gunfight," she said. "There's no place for lawyers on the front lines."
Palin is hardly the first GOP politician to raise the issue of impeachment over the past couple years. As The Post's Aaron Blake has noted, others include Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Reps. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.), Michael Burgess (R-Tex.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), former congressmen Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Allen West (R-Fla.), and the South Dakota Republican Party. Not everyone explicitly called for Obama's impeachment, but they have suggested that it should be considered.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...eaching-obama/
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...88182234_n.jpg Freedom Outpost
Boehner: “We have a system of government outlined in our Constitution” But I won’t follow it Concerning Impeachment http://ow.ly/z1qhK
https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...sw=1024&sh=536
John Boehner: “We have a system of government outlined in our Constitution” But I won’t follow it Concerning Impeachment of Barack Obama
Suzanne Hamner 2 hours ago
1 Comment
For many, it came as no surprise when CNSnews.com reported that House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) "disagreed" with Sarah Palin's call for Obama's impeachment. Boehner would rather have the House of Representatives file a lawsuit against Obama aimed at "forcing" this president to "faithfully execute the law." Impeachment has been tabled by Boehner because he "disagrees" with impeachment; even though, the Constitutional remedy for an out of control executive is just that – impeachment.
In a June 25, 2014 statement, Boehner had this to say:"You know, the Constitution makes it clear that a president's job is to faithfully execute the laws. In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws. We have a system of government outlined in our Constitution with the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch."According to Obama, he has the "authority" to pick and choose which laws to "faithfully execute."
While Rush Limbaugh claimed that impeachment was not forthcoming because there was not the "political will" and the people were not desirous of it, Limbaugh did get it right on the "political will." Politicians are not willing to follow the law. What Americans are witnessing is a blatant display of elected officials who, for whatever reason, refuse to follow the law, the Constitution, for violations committed by a sitting president. Instead, Boehner is pressing the House to file suit.
Now, most lawsuits outline, in detail, the specifics of the case. However, Boehner is not doing that. This supposed leader will be using "generalities." Additionally, most lawsuits require some sort of evidence of damage against the party filing and a stated remedy to the case at hand. What damage will Boehner assert? Who will be the damaged party? What will the remedy be should a court rule in favor of the House and the Republicans: a court order for Obama to "faithfully execute" the law or perhaps a monetary fine? Who is going to enforce that remedy?
Of course, Boehner is talking about the House taking a vote on a lawsuit as one has not yet been filed, nothing more and nothing less. If the House does not have the "political will" for impeachment, do they have the "political will" for a lawsuit? Boehner disagrees with impeachment, the Constitutional remedy, but approves of a lawsuit. Interestingly, the American public really doesn't know what to support.
Impeachment is the remedy for an out of control executive. However, even many conservatives squawk at following the law. Comments abound all over the internet on conservative websites stating Obama cannot be impeached because he's an ineligible president; Obama should be arrested and jailed, not impeached, for his criminal activity; impeachment, just like a lawsuit, is political grandstanding; the lawsuit has some chance where impeachment does not; and, America is stuck with him for another two years. It is obvious conservative America is just as divided on following and enforcing the law as the whole of America is divided along racial, gender, religious and socio-economic lines.
Boehner talks about the system of government outlined in the Constitution, intimating that system should be followed. But, he refuses to follow or disagrees with the remedy to restore that system. While Obama claims authority to enforce laws at his discretion, establishment Republicans, like Boehner, are following the Democratic Socialist Liberal party rhetoric of "choosing" which laws they want to follow or use in governing this nation.
RINOs, on the other hand, subscribe to the Obama ilk rhetoric, especially on the current immigration crisis. John McCain (R-AZ) supports the "pathway to citizen" or amnesty for the approximately 11 million illegal aliens residing in the US, claiming these people are being "deprived" of rights, especially the rights enjoyed by citizens. These "rights" McCain references are not the God-given individual rights endowed to all men, but what many consider "privileges" of being a citizen of this nation, such as voting or driving a vehicle. Republicans, just like the American people, are split along varying political rhetoric lines while Democrats stand united, supported by those RINOs like McCain, in their endeavor to "fundamentally transform" this nation.
To fundamentally transform this nation, to these Obama minions, the Democratic sheep and the powerful elite, means to destroy the Constitution and replace it with some charter or article giving government more power and the people less. Obama is known for his statement that the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberty." What the usurper left out is that the Constitution is a document that "limits the liberty of government to exact dominion over the people." Treating the Constitution like a Chinese buffet helps their agenda along. Refusing to recognize the power to recall and remove those in office who exhibit "less than good" behavior plays into the hands of those seeking to destroy the founding principles of America.
So far, the plan is working and will continue to work. No matter what the remedy is for an out of control executive, legislative or judicial branch, some of the American public will support everything and anything but the supreme law of the land because they are buying into the snake oil being sold by the lame stream enemedia, the political pansies, and the loud-mouth wishy-washy self-appointed spokesmen for conservatives, who pander false rationale to not follow the law or to follow the law only in certain instances. In other words, these "institutions" pander for inequity of law, which some Americans, even conservatives, are sucking down faster than a "Big Gulp" thereby helping the process along.
The exact reason impeachment will not be forthcoming, even after the midterm elections, is because of one man – John Boehner. Since he disagrees with impeachment, it will not be considered. The American people could support impeachment 100%, but it still would not happen because Boehner disagrees with it. So, the rhetoric that the Senate will not convict or Harry Reid won't allow it to the floor for consideration does not play into the scenario when the House Majority Leader disagrees with the legal remedy for a lawless president. The establishment has spoken.
Obama has basically suspended immigration enforcement by executive decree because he "disagrees" with the current law and favors a different type of immigration law or amnesty or whatever flavor it is this month. Conservatives, for the most part, do not agree with Obama's actions as it does not follow the law and call for enforcement of the law. However, some of these same conservatives do not support enforcing the law regarding impeachment for an out of control executive.
Maybe it's time we all start disobeying laws we "disagree" with and start following the laws we like. Unconstitutional laws are not required to be obeyed. Therefore, it is constitutional laws that are being referenced to pick and choose what to obey. After all, isn't that what is being supported when we do not support impeachment, when it is contained in law, but support enforcement of current immigration laws, which are constitutional as the government is responsible for establishing those? It looks as though that is the case. However, it is this inequity that leads to anarchy, confusion and instability.
Let's face facts here, impeachment has been removed as a lawful remedy for an out of control executive only because Boehner does not agree with it. One can say that impeachment has now been "unilaterally" removed from the Constitution as an option, without so much as a vote by the people or an amendment ratified by the states. While conservatives rail against Obama for unilateral action regarding changing laws, some conservatives buy into the Boehner unilateral action. It will be only a small percentage of Americans who will be willing to "pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" to maintain for the whole of Americans what the divided parts cannot agree upon.
God Bless America and those holding steadfast to our Constitution.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/jo...-barack-obama/