Mister “I’m in control, so why are you still standing in my way?”, may not get the response he’s hoping for on the many fronts he’s engaged.
“within my authority as president.”
It is within my Heavenly Fathers authority ... “not to abide”.
I might have to render unto Caesar, but I don’t have to bow!!!
Say who? Holder?
The Second Amendment to The Constitution as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
der 0berFuhrer emperor Hussein 0bama may make pronouncement and "Executive Orders", but enforcing them is a whole 'nother matter!
Boehner and McConnell are gonna fold. The GOPe will have ended the party by 2016 -- perhaps by 2014 when the Dems retake the House. We'll be treated to an all-network special of Queen Nancy parading through Congress with her giant gavel, grinning and laughing like The Joker from Batman. Boehner will gratefully retire to the back bench, reelected again by the same gelatine "Republicans."
In 2011 we said, "You know, with 24/7 news and a web that would carry our message throughout the nation to every household, we will crush the Rancid Media with the truth. Guess what? They crushed us through just plain better tactics (yes, including lies, slander and violence, but a win is a win) and an army of welfare Eloi who had all day to demonstrate for Obama while on EBT cards, ADC, Section 8, free daycare, and no annoying husbands or jobs to confuse them.
Today Obama said that he's going to do exactly what he wants to do for the next four years and anyone who doesn't like can go screw themselves. Because Repub leadership is like the feckless Marine lieutenant in "Aliens," he can just watch the unfolding disaster with incomprehension and wet trousers. There is no resistance without heroics, if that means sacrificing your good life and cocktail parties and low-wage illegal immigrant workers (sorry; it's true) and glamorous life in DC and All the Right Friends and a cushy lobbyist job when you've decided to retire from your lifetime seat in government... The Founders risked it all -- in their words, their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.
It is execrable that the Left now has unlimited government money to hold rallies, terrorize children, beat-up opponents, and rent thousands of buses for protests, but we let that happen. We have jobs so we can pay for the 19,000 imaginary welfare recipients in Massachusetts that don't exist but get their checks anyway. And it won't be getting better any time soon.
Collapse? More like watching the tide slowly destroy a sand castle.
Yes, this administration real good at tracking guns/s
Newsmax
Meese: Obama Risks Impeachment If He Uses Executive Order for Gun Control
Monday, January 14, 2013 09:14 PM
By: Todd Beamon and Kathleen Walter
Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III declared in an exclusive Newsmax TV interview that President Barack Obama could easily be impeached if he bypassed Congress and enacted gun-control legislation by executive order.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/meese-obama-guns-impeachable/2013/01/14/id/471412
Newsmax
NY Times: Obama Plans 19 Executive Orders on Gun Control
Monday, January 14, 2013 04:22 PM
By: Hiram Reisner
President Barack Obama plans this week to present 19 separate executive orders on gun control and will press for comprehensive legislation to expand gun-purchase background checks, lawmakers made privy to the president’s agenda said Monday, according to the New York Times.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/guns-obama-executive-orders/2013/01/14/id/471370
JUST Piper Exclusive Part 1 Exposing Obama’s Gun-Control Weapon: Psychiatrists
I dream of the day when leftists are willing to attack our known enemies (islamofascists) as swiftly and strongly as they are willing to attack their political opponents.
We saw the same mentality before:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate “military areas” as “exclusion zones,” from which “any or all persons may be excluded.” This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
How do you think that would fly?
What's the difference with the 2nd Amendment?
It’s going to be interest to see how far Obongo goes on this issue. I’m thinking that he will finally go far enough for someone to step up through the courts to finally slap him down.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
I caught it. Mrs. Joe performed one of the fastest channel changes in history, amid a 'perfect storm' of expletives...
This is nothign new. Zero has issued over 1,000 EO’s since he got in office far more than any other president.
He is being run,told what to do. This is part of the muzzie/commie/one world govt. trying to collapse the curency and destory the economy along with eveything else BS.
