Why the fu*k is Biden saluting ???
Posted on 03/26/2010 7:07:25 AM PDT by Elderberry
Before that, he was elected, the vote certified, and he was sworn in.
Full view, indeed one thing. They also show another thing...that being he is clearly presenting the appearance of being an intruder or usurper.
You have a number of “perverts” here on F.R. who thinks it’s more important for them to kill the messenger than to kill the message and the know who they are, - the paid “AFTER-BIRTHERS”!!!
Why the fu*k is Biden saluting ???
Private emails for many of us from one coast to the other are filled with utter anger and disbelief democrats have gotten away with the larger fraud - moreso even than healthcare. It is with media blessing, political, financial and judicial assistance (including the State of Hawaii) accountability and verification are refused, denied and kept under lock and key with funds exceeding a million dollars to keep it that way. An evergrowing majority of Americans are of the firm belief something is very wrong with this picture.
Big FReeping Deal. Those are some of the requirements to *be* President, but others are being over 35, being 14 years a resident of the US, and being a Natural Born Citizen. If he isn't all of those as well, then your list doesn't count for squat.
BTW, Presidents, and other officers of the national and state governments are not "sworn in", they "take the oath of office". I did. but I also had to be a US Citizen, and prove it, (natural born not required for me, although I am). There were other reqirements as well. If I'd not met them all, but somehow got to the oath taking and it was later discovered, they'd have tossed me out on my ass... which come to think of it, they did, quite some years later for not meeting one of those requirements, which I had to continue to meet, and did not.
Big FReeping Deal. Those are some of the requirements to *be* President, but others are being over 35, being 14 years a resident of the US, and being a Natural Born Citizen. If he isn't all of those as well, then your list doesn't count for squat.
BTW, Presidents, and other officers of the national and state governments are not "sworn in", they "take the oath of office". I did. but I also had to be a US Citizen, and prove it, (natural born not required for me, although I am). There were other reqirements as well. If I'd not met them all, but somehow got to the oath taking and it was later discovered, they'd have tossed me out on my ass... which come to think of it, they did, quite some years later for not meeting one of those requirements, which I had to continue to meet, and did not.
IOW, lets just "let it slide".
Good think Patton didn't think that way, the Germans would still be in Antwerp.
Maybe he’s wiping away a tear — like Clinton at that funeral...
[Honestly, I do not know.]
excellent post! see # 23 and it’s link!
It is lengthy and takes about 10 minutes to read If you care to read it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2476713/posts?page=145#145
23 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 12:23:38 PM by Vendome
see #25
Thanks for the ping!
Excellent post and link, bitt!
I hadn’t thought about the proceeds of a house sale being unearned income. Once again, there will be a myriad of unintended consequences. Communists never factor in random behavior changes by individuals, and America has a highly creative gene pool.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2476713/posts?page=145#145
I can’t resist: it’s not rocket science to see who this guy is:
Obama was a MARXIST in college, and still is now today.
Here is an interview with a Dr. Drew, a fellow student at the time, and therefore it is from someone who knew him very very well: send to everyone you know if you wish to spread the (blocked) word:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/02/13/marxist-obama-why-the-media-has-been-silent/
http://www.wor710.com/pages/6350883
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBGBszZ2Qw0
The full interview is devastating.
Too bad Fox News ignored Dr. Drew in 2008 when he contacted them.
We now know the details of Barry’s Occidental years.
He was an avowed and committed Marxist.
He looked forward to the revolution when the Marxists would overthrow our government.
His love for Marxism was unusually strong.
He looked forward to the revolution when the Marxists would overthrow our government.
His love for Marxism was unusually strong;
He was in passionate agreement with the most radical Marxist Leninist professors.
.......according to judicial analyst, and judge, Andrew P. Napolitano healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments. Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............
============================================
Wall Street Journal | Jan. 2, 2010 | Orin Hatch et al
FR Posted by Military family member
The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects. (Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
======================================
States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema
For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.
There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.
The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.
But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Related Stories:
Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution
INDEED.
“Seriously bad strategy to muddy the waters combining with a lawsuit that keeps getting dismissed.”
Agree. This could get the whole case over the health care bill thrown out of court. It’s not a good idea.
OMG! don’t ask for an ID?!
don’t check to make sure the guy signing bills into law is actually eligible to sign bills into law!!
are you insane?! crazy coo-coo?! mental?!
only morons would expect the law to be adhered to when... umm... creating ... err... new laws...
/dripping-sarcasm
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.