Skip to comments.Day of Reckoning: Barack, Secular Heretic, Uses Constitution as a Diaper
Posted on 06/15/2014 9:50:43 AM PDT by PoloSec
Given his astounding indifference, breathtaking incompetence and incomprehensible malevolence towards Americas interest, can Barack Obama be removed from office? The simple answer is, of courseYes, he could be. Next, yet if Baracks status, being a member of a historically downtrodden and currently protected group, would keep him from being considered for impeachment, can any other theory be used for removal?
Yes, if one considers the Wests fascinating development of representative government theory, outlined during the Catholic Churchs Great Schism crisis, which resulted in Conciliar Theory. Quentin Skinner, in The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol. 2: The Age of Reformation, claims the foundation for modern constitutionalism was laid during the great debate regarding heretic Pope Urban VI. -SNIP-
Recent events lead to the inescapable conclusion the current DC Administration is hovering somewhere between incompetence and utter treason.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Never happen. It would take 67 tea party senators who can’t be blackmailed.
To be accurate, Urban VI is considered a pope, and his opponent Clement VII an anti-pope by the modern church.
Urban was highly unpopular, which he did a lot to earn, such as torturing enemy cardinals to death, but I'm unaware he was accused of doctrinal heresy.
I won't say it, and I don't support it, but...
Wrong. No hovering. Pure treason.
Never say never. They said that the US Hockey team would NEVER beat the Russians. "Miracle on Ice"! It not only can happen...it MUST!
This “lame duck” has nothing to lose in his quest to destroy, err, fundamentally transform America.
As he racks up more and more controversies each one is marginalized. If there were just one, his opposition may be viewed as rational, but with a dozen or more, we are seen as irrational partisan racist cranks.
So, as another and the next lawless action is advanced with or without push-back 0bama wins. If and when we push back, we are viewed as radical right wing anti government racist extremists etc.. When we don’t push back, he wins by advancing his anti-American agenda.
I expect 0bama to push even harder in these next two years.
I expect that he wants to provoke an armed conflict between American patriots and his government.
If we are provoked into shooting first or even shooting back, we will be painted as right-wing crazies etc..
If we exercise restraint, there is a strong likelihood that a compromise would be found and therefore, we lose again.
The next two years are going to get really interesting.
Note that Congress has actually exercised its constitutional Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I power to override presidential vetoes as recently as Bushes 41 & 43, and also with Clinton.
So if patriots would actually read the Constitution that they are always talking about then they would know that they could have started to clean up Congress to stop Obama as early as 2010 imo.
can any other theory be used for removal?
I won't say it, and I don't support it, but...
Are you kidding??? In that event every conservative, republican, or even white Anglo-Saxon male in the country would probably be rounded up and put in a concentration camp, to remain there for the rest of their lives. Criticism of the government would automatically be declared illegal and "terrorism." The US would probably become a formal, official one party state (and you-know-whom would be the party).
On top of that Obama would immediately be elevated to martyred sainthood. Every mistake, every act of illegal usurpation, every misstep would automatically be forgotten by the great unwashed masses who can't seem to tell this isn't the Fifties any more. He might even be declared the Great Leader in perpetuity (like Kim Il Sung).
Every FReeper needs to pray every single day that Obama will be protected from any harm. I'm not kidding. As much as we'd all like to see him legally removed, what you seem to be implying would make a full eight years of Obama rule look like the Early Federal Period by comparison.
You are exactly right, which is why I don't support it.
The article does not discuss who has the authority to remove a president. When there is immediate danger, it would seem the Commander in chief could probably be removed by the Joint Chiefs or the Sec of Defense. The crisis on the southern border could be the basis of action by one or more governors and/or state legislatures. At least, they have a right to petition Congress for immediate relief. Such complaint might include raising the question of identity and possibly of loyalty to foreign enemies. I’m no legal expert, but it would seem to me that if the US Congress declared him unfit for office, he would have to go regardless of the ineviitable resistance of the Dem controlled Senate. Nixon didn’t want to resign and neither did other officials who eventually did resign. And personally, I’d prefer to have him arrested and subjected to intensive questioning about his friendships with terrorists, rather than just send him to Hawaii vacation.
I fully support this idea! I'll even pay for some of the gas.
By being declared a foe of the Constitution, and therefore an enemy of the people;
By being declared gravely mentally, physically, or morally unfit;
By being put on a sabatical, whereas another permanently takes his position;
By being persuaded by his Party, family, friends, polls, etc, that he should resign;
By being declared Persona non Grata, man without a country, by Congress;
By being declared too dangerous to continue; By being judged mentally unable to understand the duties of the presidency;
By declaring obsequiousness to another sovereign being Islam, Marxism, or another;
By being disappeared, and relocated on a foreign Island, like Napoleon.¬
Obama could be sued by state or individual claiming he is risking American lives by refusing to protect the citizens from dangerous outside forces.
I VOTE FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE!