Message to Congress:
Obama is a psychopath and the only way to deal with him is to stand defiantly in his way.
He wants to destroy our country. Stop him.
Posted on 11/11/2014 8:15:13 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
The fury that will rise in coming weeks will forge an opportunity for a ‘common sense counterrevolution’.
As people fester with impotent rage, we have a golden opportunity that another group of conservatives had. Remember the New Deal? It was not as popular as reported. FDR inspired the ‘Term Limit’ amendment. Congress also passed legislation to prevent packing of the courts, but that too could probably have been a constitutional amendment as well.
For starters, we could suggest a constitutional amendment for an ‘Excoriation Hearing’ of the Obama Administration, Lois Lerner, anti-originalist ‘justices’, Jamie Gorelick, Bill Ayers, the Fred Phelps activists [God-hates-bleeps], NAMBLA, ACORN, the KKK, skinheads, US Nazis, Black Panthers, New Black Panthers, La Raza, re Conquista zealots, the ACLU, FAnnie/FReddie, the credit rating agencies that deceitfully stamped ‘AAA’ ratings on bad debt, fraudsters who funnelled tax money into corrupt schemes, the most radical Islamic fanatics of our nation, the ‘carbon credit’ fraudsters, the Southern Poverty Law Center, US flag descecrators, zealot prosecutors who agitated the maximum sentence of the Philly 5, and last but not least — SOROS and his operatives.
Part of this amendment could also involve investigations [by the states] of all the latest, most outrageous scandals.
[They felt safe and smug all this time, and now we can snag them in a bear trap.]
People will call it ‘McCarthyism’. Let them try. Only a creep would publicly defend ANY of those hideous creatures noted above. So let the Far Left kill itself and run off the cliff like lemmings in defense of NAMBLA [as just one example].
Besides, we're not talking about ‘narrow majority’ tyranny but rather a constitutional amendment would require THREE out of FOUR states to support it. If three out of four of our states are evil, then we're lost as a nation anyway [as Mark Levin says]. So what sensible person wants us to be paralyzed in fear of 3/4ths of the states?
And I believe that three out of four WILL support some manner of this idea [probably a humdrum spin-off unfortunately]. And when the overwhelming uber-majority of states support an excoriation hearing, let's see which congress critters object to the idea. And let's see which members of the Ruling Class try to hide behind congressional rules [which can be suspended with the low bar of a simple majority].
The STATES can manage this hearing collectively and judiciously, and the verdicts can be creative and ribald hazings. But make no mistake — people don't want conventional trials with all the legal baggage that goes with it. In our hearts every patriot among us yearns for subjective common sense to win the day for a change!
I for one would like a trailer park for the wealthiest of these people to live for six months [or even two months] where no trailer may be approved without mandatory seediness [including the justices who supported the Kelo ruling].
Here's an another example of what kind of creative excoriations might result:
I would also like to see Fred Phelps and his other military-funeral-trashing minions hazed by the US military. I yearn to see an M1 Abrams tank roll through their infernal church in a demolition frenzy. I would like our military to have the right to one day urinate on Fred Phelps’ grave [after his natural demise]. But that's just me — I'd support going a long way to boost their morale.
And now to address the ‘O’ word, and I don't mean President Ebola. We can avoid the mistakes of Athenian ‘ostracism’ by understanding what went wrong with them.
Excoriation will remind America and the Free World who the Boss of a republic really is and who the servants really are.
And more importantly ...
We can call for more positive constitutional amendments as well, ways to restore prosperity and patriotism like never before! [And I already outlined a BUNCH of them.]
Excoriation really isn't my idea. It dates back to ancient Athens and even before history was ever written. They are the ideas of our forefathers who used to tar and feather people. They ran people out on a rail, and they even lynched people.
Hot tar is excruciating torture which I do not recommend. But I would support a sticky syrup and feathers along with pelting these creeps with rotten vegetables.
I also do not recommend the death penalty for excoriation either — only a legal criminal trial should bring such a fate.
... But ...
I could support some yelping, feathery fool with his head partially shaved wearing goggles with his legs hobbled trying to escape people armed with springy switches.
Spare the rod and spoil the tyrant.
D.C. Republicans will ridicule this idea. Fine. We don't need them, and please don't retaliate. This is simply too bold for them to handle. Let them pummel us with words while we spread the idea online and by phone, and set our sites on key state governors and legislators.
Bold ideas are just as important as common sense. We need people to jump from their seats and cheer. They need to feel like real citizens again with votes that matter. This will be distasteful for many traditionalists, but until you tap into the live wire of outrage, you will never achieve anything meaningful.
Now we can unleash these ideas during this time of turmoil and impotent rage.
There's a difference between us and the Left — we deliberate bold changes with greater care. But if there was ever a time to think bold thoughts, it's NOW.
Please consider this common sense counterrevolution.
Posts coming up will be to review:
1. Athenian Ostracism, the Diamond in the Rough.
2. Why Impeachment is a Broken System.
3. Why I am ‘the messenger’ of these ideas.
A summary of other ‘common sense counterrevolution’ ideas:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3222955/posts?page=18#18
[Most are very positive rather than negative. With your help, they will be revised.]
[The term ‘Common Sense Counterrevolution already has claims on it. So perhaps we call it the ‘US Magna Carta’? Not decided on the name of the movement yet.]
The concept of ancient Athenian ostracism is loaded with potential, and we can identify why it failed.
So just what was ostracism? In a word — exile. A man would be their defacto leader one day and then sent into exile that night.
Back in Ancient Athens, the voting public gathered at a hill and shouted at each other until they reached a consensus. A loud voice was so important that Athenian orators practiced shouting above the sound of crashing waves. So they shouted and shouted until some blowhard managed to unite the majority. There were no laws that restrained ostracism. Normally such a matter was concluded in a single day. [Pain medication could have been handy after all that shouting too.]
Most of their best generals ended up being ostracized. Their greatest statesmen were also in constant danger of being ostracized. That was why Romans scoffed at the notion, a traditional view that endures to this day.
Now you know the basics.
Was their system simple? Yes. But that very simplicity helped it function better in some ways than modern law. Ostracism did keep the aristocracy from controlling Athens politically. It was a dynamic alternative to our term limits.
No set of laws was needed to keep every Athenian on the straight and narrow. And since no laws were needed, no legal loopholes could be exploited either. The best way to keep from being ostracized [other than obscurity] was to be VIRTUOUS. And for those who were not, they tried to at least appear so.
But the word itself, ‘ostracism’, is all but defined by many as ‘disastrous impulsive and mob-like injustice.’ Well it should be. No government should ever attempt Athenian ostracism again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How to Avoid Ostracism's Pitfalls:
1. Debate and Deliberation.
Unlike ostracism, official Excoriation should have a probationary period of mandatory debate [fair time, no moderator, just a timer] and public deliberation periods between each debate. [Like the saucer cooling the tea.] At first, the outraged public will have to make do with mandatory debates — such as eighteen fair debates scheduled two weeks apart — watch the creep ‘fry’ on the hotplate for a while [unless he or she can nurture sympathy or pity]. Most people would prefer fewer debates to hurry up the fun of humiliating ‘the creep’ with Full Excoriation. I realize that most people will probably think that eighteen is too a high number, but the more debates, the more fair we are as a nation. It's not like we have to watch any debates. We're setting the goal post high for that reason, and bloggers can report the highlights.
2. No Exile — Terrible Choice
Ostracism was exile from Athens, one of the worst things to do. Ostracized generals were frequently vindicated over time, but as exiles they were either unavailable or worse — some sought revenge. One ostracized Athenian general even turned into ‘Benedict Arnold on Steroids’.
Rather than exile we should keep whoever we excoriate within our reach and track such rascals electronically [or however else the FBI prefers]. If they manage to escape they should feel like hunted fugitives no matter where on earth they hide.
3. Not Barbaric but Still Ribald
Athens discouraged barbarism during ostracism votes. But with modern technology we can tap into the energy of barbarism without being barbaric physically. There's something to be said for rowdy mob energy, spontaneous jeers, the wildness of hazing someone who richly deserves it — but short of injury other than a few welts perhaps from springy switches.
4. National Deliberation of the Process
First this idea will not merely be vetted — it will be mocked, ridiculed, and the subject of fear-mongering. In fact, it might be suicidal for the GOP to initially embrace it, and the Left will probably call this idea a ‘hate crime’.
But in the end, the states should conclude that the REAL ‘hate crime’ is against patriotism, against safe borders, and even against our veterans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusion:
Our nation's ‘primal side’ has been suppressed for far too long. When a thug threatens your family, you fight to the death. There's this inner voice that tells you to inflict bodily harm. It's a survival instinct. Just like a porcupines, our primal side has ‘quills’ that discourage predators.
Well guess what? Thugs are threatening our ENTIRE NATION. They are playing for keeps, and we feel completely disarmed. So load your political ‘guns’ and run out the door with a flurry of ‘bullets’. Please help spread the word!
Excoriate! But only after we deliberate.
“IMO, an immigration amnesty for 10m illegals qualifies as a felony. What if he issued an executive order making the entire population of Pakistan US citizens? Would that qualify?” — Zhang Fei
— You are absolutely right, and something incredible is on the wings, something much greater than impeachment. The more this mess rots and stinks, the sooner our nation will be ready for a common sense counterrevolution.
A ‘high crime and misdemeanor’ is NOT clearly defined. Dereliction of duty and moral turpitude are both ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. Executive fiat that violates the balance of powers is also a ‘high crime and misdemeanor’. Nor do they need to be proved. The APPEARANCE of dereliction of duty is a high crime and misdemeanor. Nothing need be proved.
Professor McDonald explained this with great detail during the Clinton impeachment hearing, and Ann Coulter [former clerk to the Supreme Court] wrote an entire book about it entitled, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. But you see, they're ‘nobodies’.
Leftist professors infiltrated the education system so effectively that even many conservative lawyers have conformed. Professor Tribe, whose plagiarism scandal has been kept very quiet, repeated empty buzz words about the ‘Committee on Style’ that Professor McDonald completely blew away [and was ignored].
If you believe that the Committee on Style was not a group of savvy Founding Fathers who wanted one more crack at honing the Constitution in a real way and then reviewed by the rest of the Convention who AGREED with their suggested changes, then you are not a sufficient scholar of the Constitution. You would then turn to the Constitution's ‘rough draft’ and call it the actual contract, which only referred to ‘High Crimes’, a completely different legal term. That is exactly what our leftist professors did, and that is why their text books are LIES.
The impeachment of leftist commissars is a broken system until the next Nixon comes along. Only then will they see ‘the Light’.
More on impeachment, the technical problems:
No matter what 0 does, we would need members of the D.isease Party to vote for removal during an impeachment ‘trial’. And we would need Harry Reid or McConnell to allow witnesses and a cooperative spirit because even though the Chief Justice is assigned to preside, the tradition is for the Senate Majority Leader to orchestrate the entire joke-of-a-trial. I actually agree with Arlen Spector — Clinton's impeachment was ‘not proved’ because no witnesses were even allowed. I can't think of a better way to slap Trent Lott in the face for how he shut out witness intimidation and the strange death of Betty Currie's brother. [Currie was a witness whose brother was apparently beaten one day before her testimony, and then hit by a truck one day before her testimony, and then run over by a truck near Richmond — two truck ‘accidents’ on the same day — he had the same name of her brother and the only question is — was the name a coincidence that she was a nervous wreck in utter panic? Neither the beating nor the peculiar death has ever been seriously investigated except by this forum with limited access.]
Prior to the 17th Amendment, the senate represented the state governments which therefore made that once-great body opposed to centralized power. And since the ‘supreme sandwich’ Court is confirmed by the Senate, there is no longer a branch of federal power that has any natural opposition to centralized power.
Mark Levin suggested repealing the 17th Amendment, but that idea doesn't seem to be exciting enough to take off. Not to worry, there's more than one way to skin a central-power cat.
I promise that this is just a one-time ping unless you ask otherwise.
Old Glory’s red stripes mean something, and we OWE it to those stripes to bring down this current crop of creeps in a BIG WAY.
While congress flounders [and it will], we don’t need to hope for a string of pathetic oversight hearings.
If you agree, I have built a reputation of never ‘over-pinging’ anyone for the past five years. I promise that my ‘Common Sense Counterrevolution Ping’ will never be more than once a day.
Please ask to be on that list.
God bless our veterans! This is for you! Happy Veterans Day!
“And what exactly are liberals?”
They are zealots for centralized power who don’t want states to ever have any say in the federal government again.
Quick summary:
A constitutional amendment for the states to plan a massive exoriation process to deliberate all manner of evils in our nation allowing plenty of fair debate, and resulting in creative outcomes.
The only question we need ask: do you trust 3/4th of our states? Or do you trust the federal government?
Please make no mistake — I'm no role model for anyone. Some people hate me with a white hot passion, and I deserve the the hatred of a few. I wake up some nights and feel hatred for myself. But I don't deserve to navel gaze. My penance is patriotism.
I'm dyslexic by the way. And my memory seems to be dyslexic too [all too often].
I tried to form groups but people generally conform to their current environment. So I've been picking at peoples’ brains, encouraging them to think like ‘Kings for a Day’. Some did, and many of these are their ideas, not mine. I am nothing but a messenger who tries to speak from the hearts of many.
I also try to think like other people, to ‘channel’ them. For example a conservatives maxim: “Competition can be a powerful thing.” So why not competitive nominations?
I only have two virtues:
1. Optimism countered by moments of painful reality-checks.
2. My problem-solving skills tested off the charts.
Only on that basis am I ‘the messenger’.
Go ahead, keep me on it.
Keep it up!
If we can't get a conviction on that, what the hell are you talking about?
“If we can’t get a conviction on that, what the hell are you talking about?”
First off, I would love it if Obama were impeached. But we would need STATES to fill the power vacuum via a constitutional amendment, not congress.
You just wait and see — the democrats will never support impeachment of Obama, and without their support, impeachment will never even get very far. Perhaps a hearing? A simple majority vote in the House? Even that is a long shot.
The reason for that is covered in Post 4:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3225815/posts?page=4#4
Welcome aboard, and happy Veterans Day!
I think that's what I said in the first place. It is a politically hazardous pathway compared to the alternatives. Simply referring a charge of Social Security fraud, finding his claim of being a foreign student in college, or getting a verifiable look at Hawaii's BC records could start a drumbeat that would keep the creep very busy.
If 2/3 of the States vote to remove the president, then he must resign. The removal votes would all have to be within a certain time period, maybe two years.
Unfortunately, Obama’s photo-shopped photo-op had been enough for Donald Trump.
But let’s start with one of the left’s weakest links — NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
When state legislators realize how popular an excoriation hearing of NAMBLA would be, that’s when the floodgate starts to open. From that point on, the left is on the defensive — Ben Ghazi, Fast & Furious, you-name-it.
Message to Congress:
Obama is a psychopath and the only way to deal with him is to stand defiantly in his way.
He wants to destroy our country. Stop him.
You and I are thinking along the same lines. For example, one idea is the states grading the President’s efforts on border safety. Enough low grades result in a state-managed ‘impeachment trial’ where the verdict is guilty, not for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’, but for a new definition of impeachment:
“poor job performance”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.