On Tuesday, January 5, 2016, Obama walked out as if he had an
oversized sex toy up his rectum, and later cried as if in pain from it more
than anything else,
though some observers have argued his fingertips were laced
with trace amounts of OC Pepper Spray, as he also pretended he has any
authority to dictate bans on guns by his own authority, and the hell with
everybody else. His tactic was pure feel sorry for me, me, me, and if we
can save just one life (while killing tens of thousands more annually) then we
MUST do this ban by infringements and encroachments on the Second Amendment so
we cannot only one day achieve an unconstitutional ban on guns by
first infringing on ownership by anyone receiving a direct deposit Social
Security bank deposit, but that we can annually drive up the U.S. citizen death
toll by creating more gun free lawless zones that statistically will
increase violent deaths by thousands of percent and get so many more
Americans killed (heh,heh,heh). There has also been the
concern that not only will the elderly be targeted for denial of gun ownership
and be called mentally incompetent by having a direct deposit into their
account (which most employers now require of their workers of all legal working
ages), but that merely by voicing any dissent we should be stripped of the
Second Amendment rights
http://www.infowars.com/americans-critical-of-government-can-lose-gun-rights-due-to-executive-order/
in conjunction with a demand we also lose our First Amendment
of the United States Constitution rights as well.
At the White House website, Obama issued his gun control Executive Orders of January 2015 through a pack of lies, as if marijuana smoke blown in bluff and bluster of an assumption of Congressional Powers to Legislate on his own has been delegated magically to him, and he blows this putrid smoke of his own high mixed with smells of vomit upon the American Media and the American People as those items and issues that are NOT even Executive Orders, but merely "Statements and Releases".
Statements and Releases?
In other words, NOT LEGALLY BINDING. Even were they Executive Orders, these too would be NOT LEGALLY BINDING upon the public at large.
Alex Jones of Infowars reported on his show as being told by 2
separate inside the White House sources, and it being affirmed by others in the
know (having been in the White House to personally see and observe Obama) – or words
to that effect -- citing one being a
Secret Service, one a high Administration official, that Obama has been
known and seen as wearing the Muslim prayer cap and DAILY praying on a Muslim
Prayer Mat 5 times a day to Mecca inside the White House. It was not
ascertained if this is an ongoing recent practice or if it is just done during
his annual month long Ramadan observations. The fact that Obama is being
more and more open and zealous for his Islamic faith in worshipping Satan /
Lucifer / Allah of the Moslems, shows that if he is not politically
neutralized, Obama will attempt a jihadi bloody war of violence upon the
Citizens of the United States, and most likely will arm those men of military
age who are already jihadis in the Middle East, issuing them billions of
Homeland Security bullets and rifles, authorizing them on green cards, and
employing them as mercenaries for Islam with whatever they can steal and rob
from their victims, telling them he will make sure they are immune from
prosecution in whatever they do upon civilians, just like they refuse to touch
them or arrest them in Europe and prosecute anyone who dares say word one
against the lawlessness of the Mohammedan barbarian raping and murdering hordes.
Obama wants the same here in the
United States.
Again, in his January 2016 Gun Control by Executive Orders and Executive Actions pitch,
Obama does NOT release an Executive Order,
he issues it as a "Statements
and Releases"
and "poof",
he can then act on it as policy
and infringe on the Second and First Amendments
without a political "removal from office"
Impeachment consequence?
Let me put it another way...what would be the loss of the American People to cast Obama down out of office now, have him thrown into prison, convicted, and the United States Government then execute him for Treason? Hell, it is only 11 months until the next election anyway. Does he really not care that a Congress, which could be bribed by his replacement to impeach him, might just look at Obama as political baggage to be tossed aside because to Biden, taking out Obama to officially himself be President would be such a big sex organ erection to Biden?
So what information do we glean from Obama's STATEMENT that is NOT supposed to be the Executive Order he Psychological Operations Warfare games that it is?
Obama desires "230 additional examiners and
other staff to help process ...[more] background checks." Hiring
within a given budget by Congress is appropriate under a legal Presidency,
which Obama is not.
Obama desires "200 new ATF agents and investigators", but what is not told us, is that like Ruby Ridge when they shot a pregnant woman with a baby in their arms or teamed up with 4th Army Psy-Ops to start an armed assault that shot the hell out of the front door as their form of knock and notice, regardless of any children on the other side (instead of properly serving a warrant, instead of attempting a massacre that was resisted under Janet Reno's mentally ill power tripping behest), we can expect under Obama a reasonable use of the new ATF man-power is intended to, once again with 4th Army Psy-Ops Black Operations psychopaths looking for a license to bloodbath massacre innocent U.S. citizens, that these 200 new ATF agent Obama wants are intended to effectually do the round the nation gun confiscations, probably in conjunction with federalized local Police SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) teams that will do urban and select political Conservative targets of opportunity strikes (perhaps starting first with those residing in states like New York, Connecticut, and California).
But what if those ATF specifically target those like Wayne LaPierre or other notables and are misused as a political Schutz-Staffel or Shield Authority (considered "bodyguards of the State"), which were the personal and extended bodyguard detail to the dictator (which is how Adolf Hitler first used them)? It can go several ways, and none of them will likely be in anyway peaceful and without serious consequence.
Obama also demands the right that if you own one gun to sell,
he has the right to now legislate you, on his own, to have to become a licensed
firearms dealer.
But if the Department of Justice wishes, they can pat you on
the head and give you a verbal waiver...for now.
Obama Claim Of Power To Legislate Is 100% FRAUD
For him To Make
By definition in the Executive Orders Obama
signs, executive orders are
"not intended to, and does not, create
any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in
equity by any party against
the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."
the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."
Therefore the negative in which a right can be taken away by
executive order must be refuted and a claim that resistance to it is a lawful
act in which we choose the option NOT to abide by, and to legally NOT abide by
Obama executive orders, his memoranda, and anything else he unilaterally seeks
to declare as law also applies.
Article 1 – Section 1 – “All legislative
powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which
shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Obama is NOT empowered by the Constitution of the
United States to LEGISLATE, so he can take his executive orders, roll them up
into a tube, and go f*ck himself.
Obama is 3 years later once again doing an updated version of
a repeat of what he claimed he would do on January 16, 2013 announced he was
signing 23 Executive Orders.
Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
"Where rights
secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or
legislation which would abrogate them.”
To just say / lie, "by the powers invested in me by the
Constitution" to legislate or usurp powers not there, is NOT a sufficient
answer when properly challenged. We just do not hear anywhere near the
discussion we ought to have from major Conservatives in bringing up
Youngstown
Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952) @ 587-589
which governs “Presidential Policy” as opposed to
“Congressional Policy”.
By example, a smacked down President Harry S Truman executive
order on a different subject, but relevant to the "gun control" bogus
claims of Obama stated:
"Page 343 U. S. 587
It is clear that, if the
President had authority to issue the order he did, it must be found in some
provision of the Constitution. And it is not claimed that express
constitutional language grants this power to the President. The contention is
that presidential power should be implied from the aggregate of his powers
under the Constitution. Particular reliance is placed on provisions in Article
II which say that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President . .
."; that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed", and that he "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States."
The order cannot properly
be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in
Chief of the Armed Forces. The Government attempts to do so by citing a number
of cases upholding broad powers in military commanders engaged in day-to-day
fighting in a theater of war. Such cases need not concern us here. Even though
"theater of war" be an expanding concept, we cannot with faithfulness
to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed
Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property in
order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the
Nation's lawmakers, not for its military authorities.
Nor can the seizure order
be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant
executive power to the President. In the framework of our Constitution, the
President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea
that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking
process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he
thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about
who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The
Page 343 U. S. 588
first section
of the first article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. . . ." After granting
many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may
"make
all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The
President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a
manner prescribed by Congress -- it directs that a presidential policy be
executed in a manner prescribed by the President.
The preamble of the order
itself, like that of many statutes, sets out reasons why the President believes
certain policies should be adopted, proclaims these policies as rules of
conduct to be followed, and again, like a statute, authorizes a government
official to promulgate additional rules and regulations consistent with the
policy proclaimed and needed to carry that policy into execution. The power of
Congress to adopt such public policies as those proclaimed by the order is
beyond question. It can authorize the taking of private property for public
use. It can make laws regulating the relationships between employers and
employees, prescribing rules designed to settle labor disputes, and fixing
wages and working conditions in certain fields of our economy.
The
Constitution does not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential
or military supervision or control.
It is said that other
Presidents, without congressional authority, have taken possession of private
business enterprises in order to settle labor disputes. But even if this be
true, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional
authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by
the Constitution
Page 343 U. S. 589
"in the
Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof."
The Founders
of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good
and bad times.
It would do no good to
recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom
that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that
this seizure order cannot stand."
Even the current turncoat globalist and Socialist subversive,
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, even Paul Ryan knows that the political
winds are not in siding with Obama’s lawlessness and unconstitutionality on
this one issue:
Statement on Potential Executive Action to Restrict
2nd Amendment Rights
January 4, 2016|Speaker Ryan Press Office
WASHINGTON—House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) released
the following statement in response to reports that the president intends to
take executive action to restrict gun ownership in America:
"Ever since he was a candidate
...Obama’s dismissiveness toward Americans who value the Second Amendment has
been well-documented.
He acts as if the right to bear arms is
something to be tolerated, when in truth – as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in
2008 – it is fundamental.
The same goes for the Constitution and
its limits on executive power.
"We all are pained by the recent atrocities in our country, but no change ... [that Obama] ... is reportedly considering would have prevented them. We have seen consistently that an underlying cause of these attacks has been mental illness, and we should look at ways to address this problem. We should also better enforce the laws we have on the books now to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. Instead ...[ Obama] ... is again targeting law-abiding citizens, intruding further into innocent Americans' lives. At a time when the country wants ... [leadership in the Executive Branch] ... to lead the fight against radical Islamic terror, this is yet another attempt to divide and distract from [Obama's] failed policies.
"...[Obama] is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will.
"We all are pained by the recent atrocities in our country, but no change ... [that Obama] ... is reportedly considering would have prevented them. We have seen consistently that an underlying cause of these attacks has been mental illness, and we should look at ways to address this problem. We should also better enforce the laws we have on the books now to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. Instead ...[ Obama] ... is again targeting law-abiding citizens, intruding further into innocent Americans' lives. At a time when the country wants ... [leadership in the Executive Branch] ... to lead the fight against radical Islamic terror, this is yet another attempt to divide and distract from [Obama's] failed policies.
"...[Obama] is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will.
His proposals to restrict gun rights
were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected.
No president should be able to reverse
legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally.
The American people deserve a president
who will respect their constitutional rights – all of them.
This is a dangerous level of
executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it."
Barack Obama claims that he receives the right to issue his
orders and exercise his office on that authority granted him by the US
Constitution...but as a son of a foreign national, a son of a father who was
NOT a citizen of the United States, nor ever at any time applied or intended to
be...Obama himself HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY without a Constitutionally
required US Natural Born Citizen status via a US Citizen Father plus a birth on
United States soil.
Anyone up to why the 12th Amendment required a Vice President to be of the same United States Natural Born Citizen qualifications as the President in 1803?
Anyone up on the relevance of the 14th Amendments intent
that a person be 100% subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the
language of the author as debated over and affirmed as its intent in Congress?
Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the
United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291
(1866)), stated that a 14th Amendment
child legally defined be born of parents (plural) and not a parent (singular):
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause
[Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the
Constitution, that
every human being born
within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not
owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a
natural born citizen…”
On the Natural Born Citizen Clause…it was for
good reason the 12th Amendment requires a Vice-President to be a United States
Natural Born Citizen just like a President over him.
He must be one of sole nationality, so that
were he ever stripped of citizenship in the United States, he would be declared
as “Stateless”.
Neither parent may be of foreign citizenship, and the child
must be born 100% within United States jurisdiction and 100% a U.S. Citizen
with NO FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP (NOR A CLAIM OF SUCH IN ANY WAY) AT BIRTH.
Anyone acquiring or possessing ANY FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP AT
BIRTH IS NOT A UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and this is affirmed
indirectly by the 12th Amendment and the intent of those who argued the opening
clause of the 14th Amendment when they deliberated voting on that Amendment’s
language in the United States Senate. The question for America 2016, is will we
ever restore and enforce ALL of the Constitution of the United States anymore?
By gradual ignoring this and that language of it, the Constitution of the
United States is being stripped away piece by piece before our eyes.
Even for the most arm’s length, the bare minimum observation
for all should have been as Dick Cheney stated in April 2015 publicly.
"If you had somebody who, as
president:
who wanted to take America
down.
who wanted to fundamentally
weaken
our position in the world,
reduce our capacity to influence
events;
turn our back on our
allies
and encourage our enemies,
it would look exactly
like
what Barack Obama is doing."
- Dick Cheney 04/07/2015
|
What Dick Cheney has just done in those words uttered on April 7, 2015, and then passed around by e-mail as part of a fundraiser for the "Alliance For A Strong America" 501(c)(4) political non-profit group, was to effectually admit that Barack Obama is NOT legally President of the United States under the Constitution and to admit that Obama commits Constitutionally defined TREASON by those words and by that example.
The North American Law Center has rightly called for Obama's
Impeachment,
I would also add more citations of United States Codes that
can be used to start the process with:
The very starting of the process is simple enough.
Impeachment Under Congressional Rules
"Article 2, Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil
Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors."
The opening salvo is started in this way:
"Impeachment proceedings may be commenced
in the House of Representatives by a Member declaring a charge of impeachment
on his or her own initiative, [ III Hind’s Precedents of the
House of Representatives , §§ 2342, 2400, 2469 (1907)]
by a Member presenting a memorial listing
charges under oath,
[ III Hind’s Precedents of the House of Representatives,
§§ 2364, 2486, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515.]
or by a Member depositing a resolution in the
hopper, which is then referred to the appropriate committee.
[ 116 Cong. Rec. 11941-42 (April 15, 1970); 119 Cong. Rec.
74873 (Oct. 23, 1973). See also, Brown, W., House Practice, A Guide to
the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House , § 6 (1996).]."
Quoting from source of:
There is only ONE answer Congress and WE THE PEOPLE Of These
United States must abide by:
Barack
Hussein Obama II’s
IMPEACHMENT!
No comments:
Post a Comment