Obama's Coup To Overthrow The Constitution

[Lil Red]

[url="http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/?p=35032"]Obama's Coup to Overthrow the Constitution[/url] (not my title)
[quote]The mask is off, and so are the gloves.

Obama and his Leftist supporters see their window of opportunity to finally dispense with our constitutional republic and permanently install a ruling class that will “fundamentally transform” the country we love into their Socialist Utopia. They can almost see the finish line.

We can’t say were weren’t warned.

The week before the 2008 election, Obama promised his supporters that he was “[url="http://youtu.be/_cqN4NIEtOY"]only five days away from fundamentally transforming this nation[/url].”

In his [url="http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/?p=18381"]2011 State of the Union address, Obama bemoaned[/url] that our “messy” and “contentious” system makes things “[i]harder because we…argue about everything[/i],” a clear shot at the members of our co-equal branches of government who dared to assert their constitutional authority to represent the American people rather than bend the knee to the Executive branch’s every whim.

He then admiringly observed:[indent]
[color=#080B12][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i][left][i]…Of course, some countries don’t have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they build a railroad, no matter how many homes get bulldozed. If they don’t want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn’t get written.[/i][/left][/i][/font][/color][/indent]
Later in March, Obama openly complained that his job would be [url="http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/03/11/obama-wishes-he-had-an-easier-job-like-president-of-china/"]so much easier if he were President of China[/url], able to issue orders without media scrutiny or challenges from other branches of government.[/quote]

this is a very long article, with lots of links. If you have the time to read it, share your thoughts - disagree or agree with the author? Agree with some, not with all? If you disagree, why do you disagree?

[BigJon16]

And away we go...

[arfink]

I see lots of quotes with no context given, and no contextual linking. I also see some wild and crazy static ads on here. I don't really like Obama, but this seems fishy to me.

[Ed Normile]

I did not bother to read the article but I agree with the title to your thread. Obama was very open in his campaign rhetoric, he in many ways has been the most honest politician we have had in a long time. he promised to drive up energy prices, he promised we would no longer be the worlds monetary leader, he promised we would no longer be the worlds military leader, he has made great strides on all those promises.

As far as the constitution goes he has trashed it at every turn, being the only President to ever engage us in a war without congressional approval was enough to impeach him, but he is the medias guy and afterall the MTV generation does not engage in much deep thought, so if Johnny Depp, Jay Leno or Bill Maher says he's the man the sheep bele-eeeive.

ed

[Clare~Therese]

Well, here we go...
Some of it does seem a little fishy to me too.
But my family watched the State of the Union Address the other night and he said, "Whoever tells you the US is in decline...is lying."
I'm thinking maybe [i]that[/i] was a lie.
I mean, our country's kind of in a mess. The economy. The HHS mandate thing soon to be looming over Catholics' (and others') heads.

I don't really consider myself a conspiracy theorist or anything, but the way some people act you'd think members of the Dear Administration have a beef with religion and morality and personal responsibility.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1327685203' post='2376211']
I see lots of quotes with no context given, and no contextual linking. I also see some wild and crazy static ads on here. I don't really like Obama, but this seems fishy to me.
[/quote]
you noticed that too? haha, here's the context of the quote where he seemed to be arguing for dictatorship:

[quote]Of course, some countries don't have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they build a railroad, no matter how many homes get bulldozed. If they don't want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn't get written.
[b]And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn't a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth. [/b]
We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution.[/quote]

that's not to say he isn't increasing Executive authority and undermining the constitution in many subtle ways (George W did so as well, Obama's just carrying things further along the line GWB started), but that quote was totally out of context I think

[Aloysius]

the rest of the article pretty solidly shows where executive power is going contrary to the constitution. but why don't our protector republicans do something big about it? why is there no one in Washington making a serious power struggle to fight back against it?

simple, precedent. they don't mind Obama doing an end-run around congress because it gives them precedent to do end-runs around congress when they get in charge. make no mistake, the higher ups in both parties want a more efficient executive branch than is allowed for in our constitution. say goodbye to checks and balances, unless you start finding yourself willing to say hello to Ron Paul

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327706491' post='2376335']
you noticed that too? haha, here's the context of the quote where he seemed to be arguing for dictatorship:



that's not to say he isn't increasing Executive authority and undermining the constitution in many subtle ways (George W did so as well, Obama's just carrying things further along the line GWB started), but that quote was totally out of context I think
[/quote]
Thanks for providing the context. I figured he was more politic than to say something like that and think it wouldn't ruffle feathers.

[arfink]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1327711909' post='2376387']
Thanks for providing the context. I figured he was more politic than to say something like that and think it wouldn't ruffle feathers.
[/quote]

No kidding, he's not an idiot at all. He's probably one of the most outwardly conciliatory presidents we have had. That's probably why people on both sides hate his guts.

But this all just boils down to the "almost-a-conspiracy-theory" idea that both parties are going to maintain the same damaging status-quo that's fueling the destruction of our economy, of the American system of checks and balances, of our society's morals, and a thousand other things I won't go into. Many people see only the polarizing issues that Democrats and Republicans can't seem to get over. People in the newspapers have lately been gabbering on about the "yawning gulf of ideology" the Republicans (or Democrats depending on who you read) are trying to set up.

The problem isn't that the left and the right can't agree on critical issues. The problem is that the left and right actually DO agree on critical issues. They would much rather fight about things neither side has any intention of budging on, and distract from the much bigger problems we have which both parties seem perfectly fine with leaving alone instead of fixing them.

EDIT: I just want to mention one sticky point of my argument which I know someone will bring up. What about abortion? Don't we have to support the Republicans for their stand against abortion? I am not inclined to think this. This is based on my personal observation, which is that both the GOP and DFL seem to care about stopping abortion about as much as they care about whether it rains tomorrow. Both parties will admit they'd like less abortions to happen. The DFL wants to keep it legal, despite how tragic it is that women are forced to turn to abortion, or at least that's the more centrist line they take.

The GOP on the other hand has a few members who are fiery in speech and say things like "We'll defund Planned Parenthood," or "We'll reverse Roe vs. Wade," but few candidates will admit to having a viable plan to do this, and even fewer will actually attempt to put such a plan into action in large enough numbers to win votes. The status quo obviously suits them well enough, or they'd have no problem overcoming their own inertia. I don't buy that the opposition has been so strong they haven't been able to do anything. If the GOP actually cared enough about this issue it would have already been taken care of. The plain fact is that it's not important enough to them to get things done.

Edited January 28, 2012 by arfink

[arfink]

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but as added proof that the GOP don't actually care about stopping abortion, I present SOPA and PIPA.

SOPA and PIPA were supposedly bipartisan, but tons of supporters were Republicans. You have all seen what happens when these officials get enough prodding and money to get moving. SOPA and PIPA were on the brink of actually going somewhere until millions of Americans stormed congress' telephones, email, and mailboxes to forcefully stop it. If we actually were able to get a serious number of candidates moving towards a real action to stop abortion, enough so that the masses of concerned Americans had to become involved, we'd be able to solve this. So far that has not happened because the GOP has been screwing around with their own interests (getting paid by lobbyists) instead of actually caring about stopping abortion like they claim to do.

Edited January 28, 2012 by arfink

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327707219' post='2376339']
the rest of the article pretty solidly shows where executive power is going contrary to the constitution. but why don't our protector republicans do something big about it? why is there no one in Washington making a serious power struggle to fight back against it?

simple, precedent. they don't mind Obama doing an end-run around congress because it gives them precedent to do end-runs around congress when they get in charge. make no mistake, the higher ups in both parties want a more efficient executive branch than is allowed for in our constitution. say goodbye to checks and balances, unless you start finding yourself willing to say hello to Ron Paul
[/quote]

Ron paul is a whacko! he is rated 56% by the NRLC for his inconsistent pro life voting record. He beleives that states should regulate abortion which is constitutional but then he voted for federal regulations requiring states to provide transportation for minors seeking an abortion. He is inconsistent on every issue he ever speaks or votes on. If you really wanted a constitutional conservative for Prez you would need a miracle to get Rick Santorum elected.

Paul is loved by the legalize drug crowd, and of course those wanting to decrease the military, he actually said we could defend the country with two nuclear subs and should just let the rest of the world police itself and deny aid or help to Israel.

ed

Edited January 28, 2012 by Ed Normile

[Aloysius]

I give your post about 3 pinnochios. there's so many half truths and mistruths in it it's hard to know where to begin.

it is a twist Paul's voting record because he votes consistently with the Constitution. his percentage is irrelevant because he voted consistently with the Constitution and nothing that he voted against actually did anything against abortions. they're side projects, distractions that do nothing to actually work towards a solution wherein abortions can be made more rare and illegalized. Note that he has a 0% rating from NARAL indicating an anti-abortion voting record. just because he hasn't supported some of the inefficient pro-life plans that would be unconstitutional (some of which likely would have been very quickly struck down in the Supreme Court) doesn't mean he's not pro-life, it means he's smart about how to be pro-life.

"then he voted for federal regulations requiring states to provide transportation for minors seeking an abortion"
you stated that backwards, he voted AGAINST federal regulations regarding the transportation of minors, he didn't vote FOR federal regulations. he voted not to add another Federal regulation that would have made it perfectly legal for a minor to seek an abortion in their own state, but if their parent happened cross state lines in taking them to get an abortion it would be illegal... since when does the Federal government get to limit the rights of parents to travel accross state lines with their kids? again, remember, this would not illegalize the ABORTION, it would illegalize the TRAVELLING ACCROSS STATE LINES. It's a ridiculous trampling over parental rights for no actual pro-life gain because the parent is still allowed to get their kid the abortion, just not by taking them accross a state line. it's a total distraction side-project.

so his stance was consistent. in reversing the order of that you tried to make him sound inconsistent, but he actually has the most consistent voting record of anyone in congress.

The thing about all these things that he voted against (consistently in line with Constitutional limits on Federal power) is that none of these things have, in reality, been doing anything against the abortion holocaust. He has a plan which would actually do something about that. He is the ONLY one with a plan to get the Legislature itself to overturn Roe v. Wade IMMEDIATELY. And guess what, the Republicans never did anything about his plan because they don't actually care about seeing that happen, they like to vote up their little distracting side-projects so it looks like they're working to end abortion when they're doing very little.

the only things that Republicans have been doing on the pro-life front that have been actually beneficial is things that work on taking away Federal funds for abortions (which Ron Paul has consistently been on the pro-life side on) and banning partial birth abortion (Ron Paul voted to ban it)

your line about foreign policy is so ridiculously uninformed as to be laughable. Paul's plan keeps the military strongly funded around 2005 levels of spending, except all the spending would be on keeping a strong defensive military based within our homeland. He wants to cut offensive military spending and use the money saved to strengthen defensive military spending, so no, he has no intention of reducing the entire military to "just two nuclear subs" lol. it's not only unconstitutional for us to be policemen of the world, it's against the Just War Doctrines of the Catholic Church to do it the way we have been doing it.

okay, anyway, if someone wants to split this off now before it gets ugly, do so by all means. I didn't actually mean to hijack this into a Ron Paul discussion, just threw a name out there for the specific purpose of mentioning, as per the topic, the only candidate who wants to limit the power of the executive branch. all the other debating on Ron Paul is clearly off-topic, my ONLY point in this topic is to say that Ron Paul, unlike Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, wishes to decrease the Executive branch's power and let the legislative branch trully restrict it.

[Aloysius]

also Paul has said he would support a Constitutional Ammendment defining life as beginning at conception (though such an ammendment will never happen, his actual plan is much more feasible) and then he would leave it to the states to write and enforce laws against that (the way states currently write and enforce their own laws against murder). the genius of this constitutional approach would be that if it was written into the constitution that way, then any law which permitted abortion could be struck down as unconstitutional... say if a father took a mother to court for killing his child and the lower court ruled that the state law allowed her to kill his child, the Supreme Court could decide that because of this ammendment no law can infringe upon the baby's right to life.

now, this scenario is not actually going to happen in our lifetimes. the only thing that could happen in our lifetimes is for Congress to strip the Federal Courts of jurisdiction over this issue effectively invalidating Roe v. Wade as Ron Paul's "We the People Act" would do (it was done to the Dredd Scott decision, it's the only solution that doesn't keep these ineffective clowns from ABUSING the pro-life movement by holding us ransom with the idea of supreme court nominees)

[StMichael]

Take his SOTU and have Hugo Chavez read it.

As for the article, it covers off that all he has been doing is throwing the balance of powers out of whack. He is our nations first ever imperial President.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1327813743' post='2376855']
Take his SOTU and have Hugo Chavez read it.

As for the article, it covers off that all he has been doing is throwing the balance of powers out of whack. He is our nations first ever imperial President.
[/quote]

yeahh... Bush 2.0 is the first imperial...