Posted on 06/28/2014 7:24:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You wish you could call the police. But the neighbor who is robbing your house at gunpoint is the police. You are stupefied, so inconceivable does it seem to you that the man sworn to uphold the law could be an outlaw.
Yet, the architects who designed your house not only conceived of that danger, they took precautions. As a result, you not only have your own arsenal of emergency firepower; you’re also in charge of all the ammunition. See, the architects hoped we’d always have good, honorable police, but they didn’t make your life depend on it. They knew the police had to be strong to protect us, but that this very strength could potentially destroy the whole community if the guns and badges ever ended up in corrupt hands. So while hoping for the best, they planned for the worst: The police have to come to you for the bullets if their guns are to be of much use; and you ultimately determine whether they get to keep their badges.
So as the police rob John Boehner’s House, just like they’re robbing every house in the neighborhood, what does he do? Does he grab his gun in self-defense? Does he lock the ammo vault? Does he start yanking the badges of the lawless beat cops and warn police headquarters that the commissioner could be out of a job, too, if things don’t change?
No. Boehner instead decides to call his neighbor, the referee at the town gym. The whole community respects the ref. When we come to his court, he makes all the calls and, win or lose, the players know the game was fair and square. But the ref cannot force the police to follow the rules. And he doesn’t have a gun, just a whistle.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The US Supreme Court has already stood up to Obama TWELVE TIMES previously ... slapping him down each time. I would say that this is a very good indicator ... :-) ...
"When you strike at a king, you must kill him." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Boehner is acting similarly to Romney in 2012--and no, to anyone reading this, I am not suggesting in any way that President Obama should be assassinated. That would be an unethical act on its face, and would also have the political effect of turning Obama into a perpetual martyr (cf. Lincoln, Kennedy(s), King).
I am suggesting, however, that when the lawsuit fails--and it will, because it should, because the Judicial branch of the government is not constitutionally positioned as the arbiter between the Legislative and Executive--that will only embolden Obama further.
A lawsuit that is thrown out will accomplish nothing but strengthen Obama's position in the remaining years of his administration. By the same token, impeachment without conviction and removal from office of any in the administration will accomplish nothing but strength Obama's position in the remaining years of his administration.
The House had its chance to "kill the king" in 2011 by defunding Obamacare and then sticking to its guns, but it punted in the expectation that the Court would strike down Obamacare, and when the Court didn't, that emboldened Obama to unconstitutionally revise Obamacare every time it has suited his political purposes.
Romney had his chance after the first debate in 2012, but he punted in the expectation that conservatives who voted for McCain would vote for him, and when they didn't, that emboldened Obama to unconstitutionally decide which laws he would and would not enforce, every time it has suited his political purposes.
The House again had its chance in 2013 in the "government shutdown" to force Obama's hand concerning the petulant decisions such as closing the WWII Memorial, but they didn't bring a political bomb to the gunfight, but rather waited until they were thoroughly discredited in the public mind. This emboldened Obama further, so that now he is unconstitutionally acting in numerous ways, from the border to Bergdahl to the IRS/EPA coverup and everything else we know--and probably some things we don't know.
If you mean to kill the king, kill the king--and again, anyone reading this, I don't mean assassinating Obama, period--but when you attack Obama you better take him down, otherwise, you only embolden him.
And one more thing:
But they did not expect that the Senate would be the lapdog of a President from their own party. They thought the Senate would be strong in defending their own institution.
Part of the reason for this was that the Senate was supposed to be chosen by state legislatures, and so the Senators would reflect the landed oligarchy: men who could afford to be involved in DC for six years, "giving back" to the nation that protected their negative rights. The Senate today, by contrast, has become nothing more than a more-establishment-version of the House.
I am suggesting, however, that when the lawsuit fails—and it will, because it should, because the Judicial branch of the government is not constitutionally positioned as the arbiter between the Legislative and Executive—that will only embolden Obama further.
This lawsuit makes as much sense as bringing enemy combatants to our civil courts for trial.
We’ve forgotten the concept of “the right tool for the job.”
What else does one expect from an incompetent A-hole? Boehner has had the power to stop much of what Obama has been doing but what can one expect from such a weak and spineless creature. As a nation, we are going down the tubes faster than a toilet flushes. Obama is the instigator and Boehner and his cohorts are the grease.
it is all pure kabuki. that’s all it is.
A judge’s ruling that the president is violating the law would have exactly the same practical effect as Speaker Boehner’s whining that the president is violating the law: none.
Good points.
IOW, wrong. Andrew McCarthy’s a tool.
We do have to realize that the Republicans may win a majority in the Senate and may keep the house but there is no guarantee with the massive voter fraud the demo specialize in
In the meantime they must use every means available to them to stop this lawlessness.
The House has arrest powers and a jail. Use them.
The House has the power to deny funding. Use it.
What's to stop a governor from declaring a state of emergency and putting their National Guard on the border?
Have the governors of TX and NM put their state defense forces on the border.
Don't let anyone over the border. Let mexico deal with them.
1. Many of us believe that once Obama gets his immigration reform bill passed, he will change it, or enforce only parts of it that he chooses.
2. For instance, look at Obamacare.
3. Obama has made so many changes to the original law through executive action that it is hardly recognizable.
4. So any lawmaker who is thinking about immigration reform this year must seriously re-think his decision.
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.