Posted on 06/13/2014 6:40:42 PM PDT by kingattax
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said she felt Congress lacked the guts to impeach President Barack Obama for acting like a "tyrant" by refusing to enforce the country's immigration laws and deliberately causing a humanitarian crisis at the border.
She said the only way to solve the illegal immigration crisis is at the ballot box and sending a message, like voters in Virginia's seventh congressional district did by ousting pro-amnesty House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), by voting against elected officials who have enabled the Obama administration's lawlessness.
In a blistering Friday Facebook post that showed she, like many Americans, is mad as hell and fed up with the illegal immigration crisis and will not take it anymore, Palin said that to "encourage and reward lawlessness by refusing to enforce the will of the people as proven by laws passed by our political representatives is the signature of a tyrant."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
NO, the numbers aren"t there yet to get a conviction, and they will still be iffy after we take the Senate (if we do). I believe that it is only just now time to start the proceedings, and keep them going thru the election, so the next Senate is the judge. That's the only way that we have a chance to successfully get an impeachment conviction, and it's still going to require some Dems to vote with us.
And more than 2 more years of this sh*t.
A Ø ‘resident usurper, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
“But Bill O’Reilly on his show tonight told everyone he doesn’t believe Obama has anything to do with the crisis at the border.”
Actually, I tend to agree with him. If the REPUBLICANS (i.e., ERIC CANTOR) hadn’t been playing footsie with Obama on the Dream Act, and instead had declared the Senate bill and anything else DOA, the newspapers south of the border would have gotten the message that these kids were NOT WELCOME.
This mess NEVER had to exist, if we had DECENT LEADERSHIP in the House.
yes, i sense that too in this sharper criticism of the House GOP leadership. i sure hope she’s going to cut the cord soon. she could be a leader in a new independent conservative party, and we independent conservatives need someone to coalesce around.
That is a true statement. A ton of people right here on FR, over several years, have mentioned all the things he could get away with. They are right. She is right. The Pubbies are gutless. They have no stomach for it.
You can agree with BOR all you want it doesn’t change the fact that this fits right in with Obama and the democrats plans for making America weaker. If you and O’Reilly think Obama’s hands are clean in this crisis, I respectfully think you and him are all wet. Even though the Republicans pushed the stupid “dream act” as a way of starting immigration reform, they never wanted this kind of action at the borders. Obama and the dems LOVE this and it fits right in with their plans to over run our country with illegals.
That's one way to guarantee that we'll have two permanent minority parties. I think we have ro work to change the R party or we end up with two parties that can't beat the dems. I remember very well Ross Perot and his 3rd party handing Bill Clinton the presidency.... Twice. Funny I can't even recall what they called that party and it was quite a large movement. In the end it cost us everything in those elections.
We have to face the fact that the vast majority of voters have no clue what or who they're voting for. People like us FReepers do know, but we're the exception. Most peole don't follow closely at all.
None of the talking heads read any other sources, nor watch or listen to any other sources, other than their own shows. BOR has no idea what is said on his own network unless it’s on the factor. Hannity doesn’t know what Kelly says. Kelly doesn’t know what Greta says. They’re all off in their own little worlds. Especially BOR.
alright, i’ll take your argument point by point.
1. first, there are no “guarantees” in life short of death and the second coming of Jesus. and a correlary of that is the overated nature of “permanence.”
2. your goal is to beat the dems. my goal is to restore America’s founding principles and thus save her for my kids and their kids. your goal, IMO, is incompatible with mine.
3. the republican party was once a “third” party. UKIP is also a “third” party.
4. i was one of the “clueless” and uncaring when perot made his run. i won’t say for sure, but i don’t think i even voted in that election. if i did, i probably voted for perot. but i’m sure that perot wouldn’t have accomplished that much against the entrenched powers that be without our Lord’s backing and a huge dissatisfaction with your party and it’s leadership and it’s message. which is from what i’ve read, exactly the same message and program the GOPe has today. my feeling is that perot was probably a huge warning to the GOP etablishment that they must accept conservatism. they obviously didn’t. thus, i accept the results as His will being done and the best result available for God and perhaps America at that moment in His plan.
oh well, over long. it could go on and on. i won’t finish this, it’s enough.
if the GOPe really wanted to counter that self-interested dem message my relatives and leftists vote for, they could do just that, by adopting true conservatism: the founding, Judeo-Christian principles that made us great, honestly and forthrightly expressed. but those principles have to be demonstrated in word and deed. but given every opportunity to do so (the latest being cantor’s loss), they haven’t yet. my dem relatives know the GOPe is playing a disingenuous game (things like bipartisanship, nafta and amnesty being prime examples of that), they sense the GOPe’s hypocrisy, and they *know* all politicans lie, so they feel might as well vote for the best gamers who give benefits, the dems. in otherwords, there really is no choice for them. they aren’t really that clueless, just venal and human.
therefore i must reluctantly conclude that GOPe will not change. they have created a comfortable, *permanent,* safe nitch as one of the top two. and if they won’t change, only the completely “clueless,” with zero knowledge of history would deny where we must end being satisfied with the “two” parties we have now.
Good luck with your 3rd party then. I’ve been all through this discussion the last 3 or 4 election cycles, probably more. I read the first couple lines of your reply and that’s all I care to read, I know exactly where your going, the argument hasn’t changed one bit since the last cycle. Been all through it and I’m done arguing it.
Though I, like you, want to restore Constitutional govt and the rule of law, tossing the dice on a 3rd party will only give us Hillary Clinton and all branches of power in dem hands. Then we’re out of the pan and right smack in the fire and the 3rd party will slink off to oblivion.
I’d rather take my chances with a party that at this point has a good chance of winning then go with a party that doesn’t. It’s kinda a matter of life and death to my family and their future at this point.
So again, good luck to you and your new 3rd party.
well, i’m a Christian, so i don’t believe in luck anymore, but, good hunting to you inside the GOP. i sincerely hope you accomplish your goal within your party. it would be a blessing to all of us if you succeed.
I’m not opposed to you winning with a 3rd party either, seriously, I’m not. I can’t stand the Rinos but as I’ve said, I’ve been here before. We just had a historic primary election where the first time in history an incumbent house majority leader was sent packing in the primary. Beaten by a novice first timer who was touting Constitutional governance and free market economics. That’s awesome and hopefully a sign of more good outcomes in the November midterms.
Ross Perot was almost the exact same type of movement as Palin and the TEA party has been. People were very energized to vote for him as they are for Palin but even more so, I think. I was there, I remember it well. All Perot managed to do was split the vote and allow Clinton to squeak out very close wins.... Twice. If I remember correctly Perot didn’t even finish in second place either time, he just ruined it for the Republican nominee. Although both of the R nominees were lackluster the numbers still show that without Perot’s 3rd party they probably would have beaten Clinton. I think if Palin wants to run for president her best chance is in the R party and I wish she would try to win the nomination.
I really don’t and didn’t mean to make light of your position, I respect it and if I thought it had a viable chance then I would be right there with you. but sadly I don’t.
So good luck and FReegards.
I think there’s way too many ignorant, uninformed, stupid voters to persuade to all of the sudden switch to a 3rd party. Hopefully we can get back on the right track. I think Obama has given a lot of people a taste of tyrrany and they don’t like what they’re getting. The dem turnout this yr will probably be dismal while the Rs should be chomping at the bit to get control out of the dems hands.
Hows that “work to change the R party” going?
Pretty crappy.
See tag line.
See the light yet?
Who cares if the republicans win? They do not oppose Obama AT ALL even though he is blatantly treasonous.
And on lesser - although still monumental - issues, what do the Republicans want? “Repeal and replace”. Don’t make me puke. What about the debt ceiling? The “financial cliff”? The IRS investigation - shoved off on a DOJ who said they will do nothing. F&F, depraved murder of innocents? “Great Society”? New Deal? Republicans don’t produce jack sht. If you don’t see that you’re blind.
Now we are facing an existential threat, and still they do nothing. In fact, they’re all for it - Boehner is “hellbent for it”
The U.S. is more important than any politician or his party.
Jeeze, you don’t have to be rude about it. But then again, I guess someone like yourself is probably always rude.
Enjoy your pipe dream.
CYA
Don’t make characterizations about me, I did not make characterizations about you. So who’s rude?
I guess your just too stupid to know that calling someone “blind” just because they don’t agree with you is rude and out of line.
You just made an impression on me that I will not soon forget. Now we’ve both called each other something and I’m not wasting another second on you, jerk.
Let’s compare:
Me: If you don’t see that you’re blind.
You: someone like yourself is probably always rude.
Me, if you don’t perceive a thing you must be blind
You, someone like you [meaning me] is probably always rude
You make a blanket statement that someone like me, whatever or who ever that is, is probably always rude. This is an assault on my character, a statement on my general character.
I said that if you don’t perceive a thing, that you must be blind. This is not an assault on your character. I am not saying you are always blind, that it is your general nature.
Now here you are calling me “jerk”, another blanket assault on my character.
I may have been brash, but I did not question your character. You did mine. I questioned only your judgement.
You just made an impression on me that I will not forget.
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.