Trent Franks calls for Obama impeachment over DOMA

You Tube ^ | Mar 1, 2011 | OriginalThinkProgres

[Colonel_Flagg]

I was right on Susan Angle

The rest of us call her Sharron.

And we conservatives can certainly multi-task.

[American Quilter]

Reeeeally bad idea. Ideally appropriate, but impossible to accomplish in reality. It would distract from his actual crimes, generate huge energy among Democrats, and create hostility in the majority of Americans, who dislike impeachment.

I agree with censuring or any other political action that damages Obama without giving him cover to hide behind. IMO, America’s interest will be better served by defeating him in 2012 and increasing the conservative representation in congress.

[Just A Nobody]

BUMP!

[Carry_Okie]

That's as dumb as trying Clinton over Monica Lewinsky while blowing off ChinaGate.

[fabian]

Good!

[Brain Mold]

Republicans have not got the testicular fortitude to do it.

True. One of the basic lessons of politics is, "If you strike at the king, you must win." Blathering about impeachment without actually having the votes lined up just makes this guy look silly.

[Darkwolf377]

We made this mistake before—impeachment from the top of government down.

It seems counterintuitive, but we have to basically let things go as they are because the votes aren’t there for this, and we’ll only be feeding the ‘put-upon black president’ meme the MSM loves to push. And the MSM still control the message.

We have to let Obama keep doing what he’s doing until THE PEOPLE are crying out for his impeachment. It’s the only way it’ll actually happen.

You can’t tell that to the emotional ones who think just calling for impeachment means he’s on his way out. With his popularity at the level it’s at and Senate control with the Dems, it’s a non-starter.

[LearsFool]

A nation stands or falls on its morals. If we do as you suggest and set our morals aside to fight for other causes, any victory would by pointless, as it would ensure the continuation of the war.

This argument of “first let’s get the power, then we’ll use it to promote morality” is not new. It’s the same old “If I were king...” scam in a different guise.

That’s not to say that those who advocate it are up to no good, but rather that they’ve been taken in by a promise that never has been, never will be, and in fact never can be fulfilled.

No, my FRiend, it’s long past time that good and virtous people fight for the cause of goodness and virtue. A victory on this ground is the only one worth the battle. Yes, it’s possible that we will lose. But it is the only possible way for us to win.

[firebrand]

There are many grounds for impeachment. It's so bad that even liberal New York magazine was listing them. A few people have said that not enforcing the law is the most obvious one yet.

So let's get the momentum building. Ridicule by impersonators, doubts about Biden, procrastinating until 2012--all are excuses to do nothing. People have to see the danger clearly and stop rationalizing the status quo.

[Loud Mime]

sigh

It is not a point of setting the morals aside. You just won’t get the necessary power if your sole message is morality, even if it is mixed with fairness and financial prudence.

Living in CA and living the last election results has made me cynical of your rules of engagement. We must expand the message.

[b4its2late]

He should simply resign.

[Chuckster]

The word is censure, not censor, but we get your drift, and agree.

[LearsFool]

You just won’t get the necessary power if your sole message is morality

I think you're mistaken. If by "expand(ing) the message" your aim is to increase the number and determination of supporters, what would accomplish that goal better than a message of morality?

There is a multitude in this country who have gone politically silent and will remain so because they hold to morality and recognize that as a result they are unrepresented. They come out of the woodwork and cheer when a Mike Huckabee or a Sarah Palin speak boldly and publicly of their reverence for God. How much more will they do so if our message is "It's not the economy, stupid. It's the morality!"

Power cannot make a nation good. It never has and never will. Nor can freedom. But only a good nation can remain free. This is, I'm convinced, as immutable a Law of Nature and of Nature's God as the the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Freedom has a purpose; it is a means and not an end. Power may be necessary for preserving freedom. But it is the GOAL which gives them both their purpose and their vitality; without that end, both are empty and meaningless pursuits. And a nation that forgets that end, and abandons the ground of goodness, seeks in vain to restore it by taking and holding the alternate ground of power.

As I say, we may lose a battle fought from the ground of goodness and virtue. But if our goal is goodness and virtue and all those good things that follow, it is the only battle worth fighting.

If our goal is merely power, we are of no more use to our country and our fellowman than are our opponents in the fight. (And THAT, I believe, is what so many of our good countrymen have realized, and why they have gone AWOL.)

[Eva]

Thanks for the correction. I hate it when I make a fool of myself. I’ll remember, the word is censure.

[Loud Mime]

There is a multitude in this country who have gone politically silent and will remain so because they hold to morality and recognize that as a result they are unrepresented.

Here I disagree. A multitude can mean anything; but is it enough to make a difference? Look what happened in California.

People aren't stupid, they understand the war being waged and they voted. But there are more people voting for the feed from government than there are in those who vote for morality.

They have to vote one way or the other. They may believe in morality, but they will vote for the government handouts. Morality vs. money and food.

We busted out butts to get the vote out in California and everybody seemed spirited. We lost. The lesson is in front of us, and history, supports my point.

[LearsFool]

Well, my FRiend, perhaps you’re right regarding morality vs. handouts in our country. I hope you’re wrong, but fear you may be right.

In any case, it was good to chat with you again. :-)

[DBeers]

Most Americans don’t give a darn about the social stuff right now

LMAO!!!

[DBeers]

You’re right, but may FReepers won’t understand why. They are so consumed with family issues that they can’t think tactically.

I would suggest you are among the confused minority that don't "get it". Giving you the benefit of a doubt would classify you a useful idiot.

It is PRECISELY the moral/social issues that are premise for the leftist assault on our pocketbooks. It is not merely political power it is the power of ideas. How do we win the war of ideas by remaining silent? How do we correct the perverted morality that promotes redistribution without promoting a genuine morality premised upon the unalienable e.g. individual rights and self determination?

Get a clue -the checkbook balance is but a symptom of the moral corruption that must be tackled head on and defeated...

[Loud Mime]

I don’t know where you live, but this last election in California really hit me. The fact that we have Junior Brown as Gov again is hard to stomach. We had a good candidate, a good platform, we got the votes out, and then the handout vote beat us, even with our incredible debt.

It makes no sense.

We lost a big one. Therefore, we must shift tactics.

[Loud Mime]

Useful idiot, huh? Your invidious remarks are noted; happy?

We lost in California running on the important issues.

Read my other postings on this thread; I’ve already refuted your “points.”