A NEWS FLASH, to Mr Obama, from, WE THE PEOPLE. There are 3.4 Billion of us, SENIORS.
We are wise to your, OBAMA PLOY'S.
Obama Care, no thanks.
Libya NO FLY ZONE TRICK, this will end soon and you think, WE THE PEOPLE, will give you our votes because you will say, YOU prevented another WAR. WRONG.
You BROKE THE LAW by not asking, The Congress FIRST. THIS IS A CRIME, and that is all we need. You must comment a crime before we can act, and you did, and now I hope we will act on it.
In MY EYES, you have given us a good reason to, IMPEACH YOU, that is if the public, WE THE PEOPLE, WAKE UP.
For this I thank you, Mr Obama.
wow.. 3.4 billion
Republican math is something else
I think somebody picked it up from, BUSH. Rember, FUZZY MATH, LOL.
3.4 Billion ???? Doesn't the Tea Party have anyone with an IQ higher than the speed limit on the interstate? I strenuously disagree with teabaggers but I'm embarased as an American by their posts on an international forum.
Do me a little favor, Oly, Speak for yourself. You represent your view. If you want, declare your position as popular among wingnuts. You don't speak for 'We The People' or all seniors. Oh, one other suggestion, after you learn the difference between a million and a billion, install a spellchecker.
Some seniors bought into Obama's promise to give 'em universal health care coverage. Either way, they were duped already because Obama could've found a way to make Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid more solvent. But instead he held out his liberal hand and pretended it wasn't empty.
So seniors, who were already on Medicare (government health care) voted, at least some, for Obama because they were duped into thinking they were going to get something they already had... through Medicare?
Have you taken to the bottle?
News flash to we the people from we the other people:
You're a day late and a dollar short!
Anything bad you can say about Obam has already been done.
And you LIKED it then!
We didn't LIKE going to war then either.
But we respected our leaders, and our LIVES, including YOURS.
Obama doesn't command the same respect that Bush did, because Obama isn't concerned about ANY of us.
And another well-thought out comment Brenda. Bush War x 2 = Good cause he was concerned about us. Obama participating in UN Sanctioned air-strikes = Bad cause he doesn't care about us....
PS - Brenda I highly recommend you read Bush's memoirs "Decision Points." God told him to go into Iraq; after many sleepless nights praying to the Lord, he got his answer. Well at least Bush cared about us....loll
It is not. I do not mind if someone else is Christian. People should be free to believe what they like. But I do not think that someone's religion should directly affect their decisions as the head of an entire nation.
Here's some of you guys wake up call. Been a long time behind the curtains.
They don't directly affect didly.. Just watch the whole thing... do your research, and it'll make perfect sense.
Good news is, I've got a God to rely on. And He told me this was going to happen in His book.
We are not talking about Obama right now, we are talking about Bush. Don't change the subject.
I think you had probably already just said what I said, but in fewer words.
Even I would like to follow that link and see the video, but almost every time I follow a link from here, my computer connection freezes up.
No one can (or will) entirely separate the two.
Reality bites, doesn't it?
But I prefer reality. And the truth is that that's one reason I would kick madly against anyone of the Islam religion, or an atheist, or a Scientologist, or a Bhuddist, etc., becoming an American President. Those religions aren't American; and they are anti-Christian at the very root of them. Some of the "new religions" aren't even valid religions at all. I am not "politically correct" and never will be. The liberal-minded, "tolerant" people have brought us already to such chaos (internal this time, not just external) that it's plain that the foundation of America is being undermined deliberately.
I saw it coming. Most conservativs saw it coming and spoke out against it. Even people from foreign Nations saw it and warned us! But the mis-directed vengeance of the Left forced itself upon all of us.
Maybe you don't realize it, but the "religion" that Bush espoused is the same "religion" (not heavy-handed Catholicism, nor Mormonism, nor any other "religion", but born-again Christianity) that has protected America since her inception. People are intent on destroying that now.
They'll probably get their way! God knows whether or not.
And then I'd hate to be them. It's hard enough for a Christian to prepare for this, much less it must be for a non-believer....
No. You can separate the two. Other nations do it all the time. And how dare you say that an atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim or so on can't be American? What nonsense! Being American, I'm sorry to inform you, is about holding American citizenship. It's not about believing in the Bible. Or do you think my French, ultra-Christian aunt is really an American? How ridiculous. Christianity didn't even start in America, there's nothing inherently American about it.
Christianity is about tolerance. You do not sound like a Christian Jesus would be proud of.
Christianity is not about tolerance. Where did you ever get that idea?
Christianity is about mercy and grace. And preceding that, it's about REPENTANCE, being born-again, accepting Christ as your Savior because we're all sinners before that.
And why did you insert the fact that your aunt is French? I didn't say anything about France. You might want to re-read my post instead of jumping down my throat because of your own intolerance.
Mercy and tolerance go hand in hand. Or at least, they go hand in hand when they are fully understood and done correctly, instead of just talked about and then not practiced.
I said that my aunt is French because you said Christianity is American. My aunt is Christian. She is also not American. To be honest, the things you say are very hurtful - not just to me, but to lots of other people. Am I less American to you because I am not a Christian? Are there other opportunities that you think I should be banned from, or just President?
You don't think it's hurtful to people who are attacked by others and when the Bible is mocked and when Christianity is mocked and considered useless in American society?!
Do you only think about yourself? As do most atheists, at least around here?
Did it ever occur to you that it is offensive to Christians and even some secular people when others say it's okay for an Islamist or an atheist to be President or to make legal decisions in this Country?
And I didn't say a French person can't be a Christian.
I said other religions are unAmerican, and indeed they are.
Are you, like so many others here, adept at ignoring what someone of differing opinion even SAYS? Or else twisting it around to suit your preferences?
How easily some people claim to be "hurt". Lordy, if I whined every time someone hurt my feelings because they spoke against the Bible or God or me, I'd be a total basket case by now.
"Did it ever occur to you that it is offensive to Christians and even some secular people when others say it's okay for an Islamist or an atheist should be President"
Like I said, either they are phony, or the religion is.
Moral Majority my behind!
And don't worry--Beckles is enough of a basket case for all of you!!!
Brenda.... you are truly touched.... by what I don't know. As for W praying to the Lord about whether to go into Iraq, either the Lord or W got it wrong. My bet is it was the latter...
Ya all are not getting the concept. The US is a democratic oligarchy. Only the poor have to follow the law. Think that has been aptly demonstrated. Like the guy in one of the western states who the judge decided should serve no jail time for embezzling millions because he was the head of a hedge fund. But my favorite is the guy in Texas who also embezzled millions and also apparently involved in some big black government hanky-panky, was put in jail but found not fit to stand trial because while in jail he became a drug addict.
Nine liberal Democrats have found something they agree with Republicans on: President Barack Obama’s authorization of military strikes on Libya without congressional consent is unconstitutional.
Those Democrats join GOP critics, including Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and tea party favorite Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. And Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio even suggested that Obama’s action could be an “impeachable offense.”
Sen. Paul points out that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to declare war.”
“It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist,” the freshman senator says in a statement on his congressional website.
“Frankly, it is not up to the president whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up ‘no-fly’ zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution.”
Obama has no authority to launch military attacks under the War Powers Resolution, Paul argues, because the United States has not been attacked.
“This is not our fight,” he adds. “If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.”
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, a senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, echoes Paul’s view. “The United States does not have a King's army," he said in a statement Monday. "President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution."
As for Sen. Lugar, he said in a congressional hearing last week, “If we are going to declare war against Libya, we ought to have a congressional declaration of war.”
And Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, tweeted on Sunday that the president is treating Congress as a “potted plant.”
On the Democratic side, nine liberal House members “strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during a Democratic Caucus conference call Saturday, two Democratic congressmen who took part told Politico.
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” a Democrat lawmaker said.
One of the nine Democrats, Rep. Kucinich, has publicly issued the strongest criticism of Obama. "President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have congressional authorization. He has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story in an interview on Monday.
“I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”
That doesn’t mean Obama should in fact be impeached and removed from office, Kucinich said. “That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about."
Kucinich now says he plans to offer up a measure that would defund U.S. efforts in Libya.
Another Democrat, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia — a former Marine and Navy secretary — complained on Monday on MSNBC that Congress has “been sort of on autopilot for almost 10 years now, in terms of presidential authority, in conducting these types of military operations absent the meaningful participation of the Congress.”
An Obama Flip-Flop
As an Illinois senator and presidential candidate, Obama himself strongly stated that the president can’t authorize military action without congressional approval unless it’s necessary to stop an imminent attack on the United States.
In a December 2007 interview, a Boston Globe reporter asked Obama under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.
But apparently his view has changed. On Monday, Obama sent Congress a letter stating that as commander-in-chief, he has constitutional authority to authorize the Libya strikes, which were made in concert with our allies. The White House also noted that Obama met with congressional leaders to consult about the Libya situation Friday.
National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, asked about Obama’s 2007 statement, said the administration “welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support,” according to The New York Times.
But he insisted Obama could authorize the action on his own. “This is a limited — in terms of scope, duration and task — operation, which does fall in the president’s authorities,” Donilon said.
Most constitutional scholars agree that our founding fathers purposely separated the power to decide to start a war from the power to conduct it. But since the Korean War, presidents of both parties have ordered military action without going to Congress first.
The split between presidents’ actions over the last 60 years and the Constitution’s text makes it difficult to conclude whether the attack on Libya is lawful, constitutional experts tell The Times.
On the budget front, the attacks on Libya could erase much of the budget cuts Republicans pushed through Congress recently.
GOP leaders say those reductions have totaled $285 million a day since March 1. But defense analysts tell The Hill that the Libya action could be draining the Defense Department of more than $100 million per day.
“We are working on cost estimates,” Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said. For now, the Defense Department is “cash flowing the Libyan operations out of funding available under the  continuing resolution.”
Sen. Lugar says his colleagues should discuss the cost issue.
“Congress has been squabbling for months over a budget to run the federal government for a fiscal year that is almost half over,” he said in a statement Monday. “We argue over where to cut $100 million here and there from programs many people like. So here comes an open-ended military action with no end game envisioned.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Dems Rip Obama on Libya, Bring Up 'Impeachable Offense'
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
But we will ignore that the War Powers Act allows this.
And we will ignore that military action without a declaration of war dates back to 1800 when Thomas Jefferson sent warships to engage pirates operating out of Tripoli. The same region. No authorization. No impeachment. Since then, no less than 160 military campaigns by presidential order with no declaration of war.
Suddenly, it's an impeachable offense. And neocons are suddenly pacifists.
Look folks, President Obama took action in concert with our allies in a very limited military engagement against a tyrant who ordered the murder of over 200 American civilians in the Locherbee bombing. To any thinking moderate voter, this will play well as we enter election season. Because it will play well to moderates, it must be discredited at all costs.
Man how do you live your lives like this. I can't get this worked up over this.
Beause Republibaggers are out to destroy America..you'd better wake up before it's ALL gone, and you are living in serfdom, and your masters are them.
They are trying to dismantle America. All the hard-won advantages, down the money-shoot.
They think of Reagan and Bush as hero's for god's sakes...that should tell you enough.
"Just what is this Koch Industries? Should it be called a “company?” If so we need to re-think the idea of what a company and a business is supposed to be. Even the brother of Koch Industries owners David and Charles Koch called the company an “organized crime” operation.
Koch money is a key driver of the conservative movement. Almost every conservative-movement rock you turn over has Koch money crawling around under it.
Koch funds both socially conservative groups and socially liberal groups. However, Koch’s financing of front groups and political organizations all have one thing in common: every single Koch group attacks workers’ rights, promotes deregulation, and argues for radical supply side economics."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/22 … oil-theft/
Better hurry, LMC, I think I hear those black helicopters warming up.....the GOP boogeymen are coming for you......
No. luckily my gvr. is a Democrat....
He won't be seeking to impose un-elected, chosen officials on me.
Nor will he cut funding from our schools, to give to wealthy millionaires.
Phew! Someone who remembers America.
They're a dying breed.
Yeah, because we all know that Democrats don't appoint unelected chosen officials (cough, czars, cough)
You have no idea what these Republcian gvrs are up to, do you?
But, I already know, when it's YOUR criminals, you don't care.
I am an American. You do not speak for me. Stop pretending you do. You only speak for yourself.
Your "Presidency" does mean beans anymore..
I wouldn't pay that group any mind dingdon....
Because I would LOVE to know how a born-again Christian allows torture of your fellow human beings.
Either he's a phony, or the religion is.
He's a born-again idiot. Read his book. It's really telling.
Let me guess, you think sleep deprivation and waterboarding are torture. Really?
Well, most of the civilised world thinks that they are torture, why don't you?
Well I have had neither applied to me. But John McCain did - in Vietnam. And he answered in the affirmative on both. But I suspect we "out-source" our torture, as has been reported, to other countries where laws are lax or non-existent. There is always a way to get around things.
Not to mention burning with cigarettes, raping, and standing in human waste.
Hooking electrodes up to finger-tips, attacking with trained dogs,hitting with rods on the bottom of feet.
Or there was the classy throwing used tampons at them.
Blindfolding, standing in torture positions for hours...remember, Rummy even mentioned that one!
"If I can stand for hours at a time, they can!"
And of course, some died during the interrogations...and that was at Baghram AFB....and that place is still operating.
If you call that Christian, you dis-honor Christ.
I'm kind of shocked that you don't, frankly.
"every single Koch group attacks workers’ rights, promotes deregulation, and argues for radical supply side economics."
"Maine Tea Party Gov. Paul LePage (R) has ordered the removal of a 36-foot mural depicting Maine’s labor history from the lobby of the state’s Department of Labor offices, claiming they received “some complaints” from business owners. The Governor has also directed that eight conference rooms named after labor leaders — including Cesar Chavez — be renamed “after mountains, counties or something.”
sleep deprivation and water-boarding?
sounds like that weekend I spent at Cesar's Place in Vegas
by TMMason 7 years ago
Earlier today, The Blaze reported on the bi-partisan lawsuit that congressional members filed this week against the White House. Now, President Barack Obama’s administration is speaking out, claiming that the War Powers Act does not apply to U.S. action in Libya. The New York Times has more:In a...
by OLYHOOCH 8 years ago
Well, I am back with the latest on, The Donald and, The Obama Birth Certificut. April 7, 2011... Here is an UPDATE on, The Donald and, The Obama Birth Certificut. I watched a few of these video's.There is a little bit of something for everybody on just about all Issues pertaining to the 2012...
by Susan Reid 8 years ago
Every day we hear from hubbers about how Obama is out to destroy the Constitution. Across this great nation there is a movement of very vocal, very serious "pro-contitutionalists."The Constitution is suddenly quoted and defended like the Bible.It's all the vogue -- ALL OF A SUDDEN.My...
by dutchman1951 7 years ago
...Title should say Raise the Debt, not Deb.. sorry.A facinating Article below. From Huffington Post. Is it a real possibility that President Obama could, or should Bypass and Ignore Congress, If Negotiations fail?Could Obama ignore Congress if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling?...
by Doug Hughes 7 years ago
Section 7 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.Section 81: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the...
by Doug Hughes 7 years ago
The 14th AmendmentSection 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|