9 Jul

Obama Suspends the Law

                                       

king-obama

Is Obamacare unconstitutional?

Michael McConnell, a former judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote a piece in the WSJ yesterday about Barack Obama choosing not to enforce existing law because it is inconvenient:

President Obama’s decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II’s use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”

To make sure that American presidents could not resurrect a similar prerogative, the Framers of the Constitution made the faithful enforcement of the law a constitutional duty.

The President is not free to “refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons.”

McConnell makes an argument that I have been makes:

Democrats too may acquiesce in Mr. Obama’s action, as they have his other aggressive assertions of executive power. Yet what will they say when a Republican president decides that the tax rate on capital gains is a drag on economic growth and instructs the IRS not to enforce it?

This establishes an ominous precedent:

Of all the stretches of executive power Americans have seen in the past few years, the president’s unilateral suspension of statutes may have the most disturbing long-term effects. As the Supreme Court said long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress “would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King believes that Obama’s interfering with the law is illegal:

In June 2012, “Obama refused to enforce current immigration law-very bad,” he said in a June 3 tweet. “Now, he refuses to enforce his own law… The law is specific & must go into effect day one of 2014,” he said.

“Only lawful alternative is for Obama to ask Congress 2 fix.”

Let us revisit words from democrats about this sort of activity:

Dianne Feinstein:

“If the president is going to have the power to nullify all or part of a statute, it should only be through veto authority that the president has authorized and can reject — rather than through a unilateral action taken outside the structures of our democracy.”

Ted Kennedy:

“…the President consistently shows a casual disregard for the rights of Congress and the courts to make and interpret the law. This hearing is one step toward reclaiming our responsibilities, and I commend Senator Specter for his leadership on this issue.”

And how about these thoughts?

Only then will we see if the President will seek to create a gloss that Congress did not intend, or modify a provision of law more to his liking, or declare some provision of law something he and his administration will not enforce. That is wrong. That is the opposite of the rule of law. And no one–not even the President–is above the law.

and

He does not have the power to issue a decree that he will pick and choose which provisions of laws to follow in statements issued after Congress passes a law. What this President is doing is wrong.

The author of those words?

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), 2006

Obama hasn’t even bothered with a signing statement. He’s just going to ignore the law.

The President may choose not to enforce laws he truly believes are “palpably and demonstrably” unconstitutional. May we presume Obamacare to be unconstitutional? It is the only remedy available to Obama in order to ignore existing law.

If not- if the President can ignore the law with impunity, why can we not do the same?

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Constitution, Deception and Lies, Health Care, Politics, Uncategorized, WtF? and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 10:28 am
| 1,011 views

79 Responses to Obama Suspends the Law

  1. Richard Wheeler says: 51

    @another vet: The meme here generally asserts it’s the” low information voters” that support BHO I would suggest it’s low info voters who support Sarah Palin lol
    Seriously, any restriction on voting based on social or economic stature has no place in a true Democracy.Bees suggests we’d do well to look backwards.Glad you don’t see it that way.

    ReplyReply
  2. Smorgasbord says: 52

    @another vet: #42

    I turn the channel.

    About the only time I SEE obama speak is on Fox News. It is the only news station I watch, but they don’t report all of the news about the obama administration. I go to the Internet to get, as Paul Harvey would said, “The,,,,,,,,,,,,,rest,,, of the story.”

    ReplyReply
  3. another vet says: 53

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Glad you don’t see it that way.

    Then why did you make this comment?

    We are not gonna go backwards on these rights.You surprise me.

    I’d lay odds the average Palin supporter knows more about the Constitution, the impact the debt is having on our economy, what external threats this country faces, and other important issues than the welfare queens and kings who vote solely on the basis of who will guarantee them their free handouts without having to work for them. Those are very low information voters.

    ReplyReply
  4. Smorgasbord says: 54

    @George Wells: #45

    Let’s talk Ross Perot and Ralph Nader of recent memory.

    I don’t know about Ralph Nader, but Ross Perot never wanted to be president. He just wanted to draw enough votes away from Georg Bush so that he would loose the election.

    You might want to consider asking if the encouragement to return to the “Tea-Party” and “Evangelical Right’s” core platform issues isn’t part of a Liberal conspiracy to trick you into effecting your own self-destruction.

    I don’t belong to any party. Both parties have had the congress and the white house, but didn’t fix Social Security, the illegals, our rising national debt, our failing schools, the increasing size of government, welfare reform, foreign aid fraud, or much else. As I have mentioned different times, we no longer have a two-party system. Just one party, with two branches, and both branches are feeding off of the same roots.

    As far as the religious angle of the republican party, I’m not a church goer, but if the USA is supposed to follow the Christian religion when deciding issues, doesn’t that ESTABLISH it as our national religion, which the Constitution forbids?

    I’m guessing that the reasoning is that since the Christian religion is the most popular religion in the USA, then that is the one that should be followed. Using the philosophy, if the Muslim religion would become the popular religion in the USA, shouldn’t we be required to use it to decide federal issues?

    It’s too bad we can’t have a morality test for anyone who wants to run for public office. Too many church goers don’t have very high morals. I see them do and say things my conscience won’t let me do or say.

    It is possible that in the long run, the republican party falling apart could be the best thing for the country. If the democrats win the congress and the white house, and they don’t completely destroy the USA before the next election, then if the republican party is still around, the individual members will have to question whether to take the campaign donations that tie them down to do what they are told to do, instead of what they should do. Then, maybe, they will either switch to another party and help make it a strong moral party that wants to follow the U.S. Constitution instead of the money, or they will just disappear. It will be too bad too. The party name comes from the type of government we are, a REPUBLIC. That is why the propaganda media calls the USA a democracy, instead of the REPUBLIC THAT it is.

    How many gays and non-religious people are there that love the USA, but the republican party has made it plain that these people are misguided, and need help? Any religion that says I should hate the act of being gay, when I don’t remember being asked whether I wanted to be gay, straight, or bisexual, I don’t want anything to do with. We are born the way we are.

    Sara Palin? REALLY?

    I was just mentioning this, since I read about it lately. I’m neutral on Palin. I don’t know enough about her to decide either way. Since I don’t belong to any political party, I can’t vote for who runs, so I don’t follow any of them very much until the parties decide who they want. If another party if formed, I will have to wait and see who they have as candidates.

    A house divided cannot stand.

    You reminded me of someone who said that the Bible says that a man shouldn’t have more than one wife, because,”….man cannot serve two masters.”

    ReplyReply
  5. Smorgasbord says: 55

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #46

    …you remind me to not forget the mighty MILITARY AS FIRST ONE ON THE VOTING BOOTH….

    You reminded me to send he below request to my three federal representatives:

    Please introduce a bill that says that national elections can’t be finalized until ALL military votes are in, with very few exceptions allowed. This will stop the liberal states from sending out military ballots too late for them to be returned in time.

    I suggest those who agree that the military who keeps us a free country should have ALL of their votes count. They are the ones risking ALL to keep us free, AND SOME POLITICIANS ARE TRYING TO KEEP THEM FROM VOTING. Their ballot should be counted first.

    ReplyReply
  6. Richard Wheeler says: 56

    @another vet Palin is the gift that keeps on giving—to the Dems.

    ReplyReply
  7. Smorgasbord says: 57

    @another vet: #47
    The ORIGINAL reason that only property owner were allowed to vote, is to keep the former slaves from voting. After they were freed, they didn’t own any property, and couldn’t find very good jobs, since most of them couldn’t read. This kept them from voting, until the law was declared unconstitutional. Then the Poll Tax was invented. Since most former slaves didn’t have much money, they couldn’t afford to pay the Poll Tax to vote, until it was declared unconstitutional.

    Different times I have said that the white man isn’t racist. They will use any non-white in any way that will suit them.

    We made slaves of blacks.
    We tool the Native American land from them.
    We hired the Chinese to build the Trans Continental Railway, then left them at the rail head, but nobody would hire them. We let them wash our clothes. I used to wonder why there was a Chinese laundry in almost every older western movie. This is why.
    Give us a non-white race and we will use them for our own purposes.

    If the white man hadn’t been invented, the Earth would be a better place to live. We were just about the only race that went all over the world and made people change their way of living so we could profit off of them.

    ReplyReply
  8. Smorgasbord says: 58

    @another vet: #49

    We are not gonna go backwards on these rights.

    I took it to mean that he is saying that the USA isn’t, “… gonna go backwards on these rights.”

    ReplyReply
  9. George Wells says: 59

    @Smorgasbord #54:

    We largely agree on the sad state of religion and its chronic interference in politics. It delights me how often the politicians who pound their Bibles the hardest in moral outrage are the ones being caught “in flagrante delicto” of one sort or another.

    As well to your comments on the virtues of BOTH parties, I am reminded of Shakespeare’s Prince at the end of Romeo and Juliet, who exclaimed “Capulet! Montague!… All are punish’d.” Or at least the politicians SHOULD be.

    On your musing over the consequences and possibilities resulting from the fragmentation of the GOP, I wonder if you really would want a “moral party” as opposed to an “ethical party.” The Taliban is a “moral party,” and I would be concerned that any moral party in THIS country would easily slip into a similarly repressive role in society. I’m not ready for a Spanish Inquisition. Give a lot of power to “moral” people – that’s what you get. The “constitutional party” you suggested would be more along the ethical line, and would be necessarily dependent upon the Supreme Court. Remember that the SCOTUS pretty much interprets the constitution and does little else, while politicians of ANY party are popularity contest winners (not constitutional scolars) and used car salesmen on the side. Agree with the SCOTUS or not, I will ALWAYS defer to their judgment.

    My “house divided” comment wasn’t intended to remind anyone of the Bible. It was more to the “divide and conquer” point. I have no faith that MY party would be anything less than a disaster for the country if the Republican Party were to crumble. While I would agree that the Internet has increased the possibility of mounting a third-party challenge to the presidency, I’m not so pie-eyed that I think the chances of such a party are particularly good. At first blush, I would think that the GOP’s best prospects would be to drop its ridiculous social-issues agenda and focus on economy/ jobs/defense – its areas of enduring strength and appeal. But it is a sad truth that for many years the GOP has held its base together not with a unique vision of a financially and militarily strong USA but with the glue of bigotry – battling diversity at every turn – and now it finds itself trapped in a hopeless dilemma: Embrace diversity (competing for the Democrat’s coalition partners) and lose the GOP base, or stick with a dwindling wedge of the demographic pie. No wonder they’re angry!

    ReplyReply
  10. Smorgasbord says: 60

    @Richard Wheeler: #56

    Palin is the gift that keeps on giving—to the Dems.

    You and I very seldom agree on things, but we both agree that she is giving it to the dems.

    ReplyReply
  11. Smorgasbord says: 61

    @George Wells: #59

    I wonder if you really would want a “moral party” as opposed to an “ethical party.”

    To me they mean about the same thing. It is hard to have ethics without morality, and to have morality without having ethics.

    The Taliban is a “moral party,”….

    What is moral about their philosophy that if I don’t convert to their religion, they MUST kill me, or how they treat women?

    …and I would be concerned that any moral party in THIS country would easily slip into a similarly repressive role in society.

    When I use the word moral, I mean it to mean a person who tries to do the right thing when they know they should.

    I’m not ready for a Spanish Inquisition. Give a lot of power to “moral” people – that’s what you get.

    How do you get a Spanish Inquisition from a group of people who want to do the right thing? A long time ago we had a group of people who wanted to do the right thing, and we got a free country from them. These are the kinds of people I am referring to when I use the word “moral”.

    Remember that the SCOTUS pretty much interprets the constitution and does little else….

    I have wondered two things about the SCOTUS:
    (1) Do they have to say yes or no on an issue, or can they say, “There is no law covering the subject, so we can’t rule on it.” Then, congress would have to take it from there.
    (2) Shouldn’t they be required to point out the part of the Constitution or federal laws they are using to decide a case, and put it in the record?

    As long as the election system depends on someone else’s money, those someones get what they want. The high dollar ones who donate to the democratic party seem to be mostly socialists, communists, or unions. They all want the illegals in the USA for their own reasons. The high dollar ones who donate to the republicans are mostly businesses who want the illegals for cheap labor. They also want the politicians to write laws that favor big business, and to make it harder on small business. WE THE PEOPLE don’t donate enough to either party for them to pay any attention to us until election time. If I ever win the lottery, I might buy me a politician, just so I can say I have one in my pocket.

    The only way I see a third party winning any major elections is if they have well know people that the general public like and TRUST.

    ReplyReply
  12. Smorgasbord
    you should have put the two side of what the WHITES have done
    and it far out weight the things you said and the progress of HUMAN IS THE PROOF, THE WHITES WHERE MARTYR AS WELL AS OTHER,
    AND COLOR HAS NONE DIFFERENCE IN THE ELEVATION OF HUMAN BEING,AS WE SPEAK,
    BUT THERE ARE THOSE WHO GOT STUCK ON NEGATIVE EVENT, BUT THE OTHER TURN TO PROGRESS AND LEARN FROM THE OPPRESSOR INSTEAD OF CRYING FOR THEIR PAST,
    AND THEY LEARNED FROM THE OTHER COLOR HUMANS AND TAUGHT WHOEVER WANTED TO LEARN
    THAT YOU CAN GO TO THE MOON OR YOU CAN GO TO HELL.

    ReplyReply
  13. Smorgasbord says: 63

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #62
    I was just pointing out that we are not the purist race that some people try to say we are. We have our dark past. Most of us have learned from our ancestor’s mistakes, but there are a few who like to think we are better than other races. It turns out that we are just like all of the other races: Some are good, and some are bad.

    ReplyReply
  14. George Wells says: 64

    @smorgasbord #61:

    Your comments regarding morals and ethics drove me to a dictionary, where I discovered that I have been “imprecise” in my use of both terms. I had “decided” that “morality” derived from the Bible (or in the case of the Taliban – from the Koran) and this was not entirely correct. I had also concluded that “ethics” was essentially a secular exercise, one arrived at by the subtraction of “religiosity” from morality. I think that the meanings I had invented for the two words actually work better than their correct definitions, but that point’s moot.

    Regarding whether or not the Taliban is “moral,” I suggest that “morality” derives in different places from different authorities, not from some universal standard. Much of what Americans consider to be “moral” comes from Biblical scripture, yet the Bible contains mountains of advice and rules that we find repugnant today. What was moral thousands of years ago is not necessarily so today.
    The Bible DOES set standards of “moral” behavior, and as you correctly pointed out, also presents an ethical framework for faithful Christians to follow. Similarly, the Taliban follow Sharia Law, the strict adherence to which accomplishes an equivalent measure of righteousness.

    “While in power, (the Taliban) enforced its strict interpretation of Sharia law,[8] … The majority of the Taliban are made up of Pashtun tribesmen.[12][13] The Taliban’s leaders were influenced by Deobandi fundamentalism,[14] and many also strictly follow the social and cultural norm called Pashtunwali.[15]”

    A similar-looking snapshot of Judeo-Christian heritage would reveal no sinister structural differences between these two opposing perspectives.

    By standards shared throughout the Western World, Taliban ethics are brutal. Yet our own experience with the evolving standards of Christian “morality” (re: Biblical positions on slavery, homosexuality, capital punishment, etc. etc.) should convince us that morality is relative rather than absolute, and that both time and place are relevant considerations to the fact. In its context, the Taliban is moral.

    “How do you get a Spanish Inquisition from a group of people who want to do the right thing?”

    Do you think that the point of the Spanish Inquisition was a group of people trying to do the WRONG thing?
    Do you think that people who hunted and burned witches were trying to do the WRONG thing?
    These were moral folks who were misguided. Happens all the time.

    “I have wondered two things about the SCOTUS:
    (1) Do they have to say yes or no on an issue, or can they say, “There is no law covering the subject, so we can’t rule on it.” Then, congress would have to take it from there.
    (2) Shouldn’t they be required to point out the part of the Constitution or federal laws they are using to decide a case, and put it in the record?”

    (1) “Covering” is likely the most important word in (1). Laws may “cover” a subject but do so in a way that conflicts with the Constitution. The SCOTUS doesn’t generally take cases in the first place if, in their opinion, there is not sufficient law “covering” the subject and/or constitution principle upon which to base a decision. They DO sometimes decide after taking a case that they had done so “improvidently,” but those occasions are rare.

    (2) Every decision rendered by the SCOTUS is accompanied by many pages of discussion explaining the rationale of the decision, and these explanations rely almost exclusively upon constitutional principle. All of it, including the complete text of both concurring and dissenting opinions, is entered into the Court’s permanent record and is readily available.

    ReplyReply
  15. another vet says: 65

    @Smorgasbord: The requirement of having to own property to vote was done away with well before the 13th and 15th Amendments were passed. Voter participation in this country was only in the teens up until the modern party system really came on strong (Martin Van Buren was perhaps the first one to utilize it as we know it). Then voter participation rates skyrocketed to some of the highest levels in U.S. history.

    http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/hancock/pol204/history.htm

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php

    ReplyReply
  16. Smorgasbord says: 66

    @George Wells: 64
    I guess my definition of morality is not saying or doing anything bad about anyone unless you have to.

    ReplyReply
  17. twolaneflash says: 67

    Richard Wheeler, as America is NOT a Democracy, but is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, your point has no meaning or relevance here. The Founding Fathers had it right: limit the vote to people with skin in the game, people who actually PAID taxes. Many of Us The People can see that the fundamental change of America to Mobocracy has brought the nation to the brink of ruin, at home and abroad. I’m glad my son is a senior weapons sergeant on a Green Beret team; he’ll need those skills in the future in this lawless “democracy” to protect him and his.

    ReplyReply
  18. SMORGASBORD
    HI,
    IT OCCUR TO ME AFTER THINKING ABOUT IT,
    AND AFTER THE COMMENT OF THAT PREVIOUS PERSON,
    TWOLANEFLASH,
    YES AMERICA IS WAY BETTER than any other countries of the WORLD,
    the WARRIORS ARE ALL OVER TO HELP THOSE UNDER OPPRESSION,
    THEY DIE BECAUSE OF IT, THEY LOSE LIMBS BECAUSE OF IT,
    AND WE DON’T HEAR THEM COMPLAIN NOW THAT THEY ARE BEING SCREWED BY THE GOVERNMENT DELAYING THEIR RIGHTFULLY OWN MONEY, THEY ARE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY THE GOVERNMENT WHO WANT TO BAN THEIR CHRISTIANITY WHICH THEY NEED FOR SUPPORT
    FROM A DIVINE AUTHORITY, THAT IS GOD HIS SON JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT,
    STEPPED ON BY A GOVERNMENT OF MUSLIM AFFILIATION AND ATHEIST WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN NOTHING EXCEPT THEY WHERE NOT CREATED BY ANY MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE,
    YES THE GOOD AMERICANS WHO LOVE THEIR COUNTRY ABOVE ALL, ARE BETTER BY FAR, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, THEY ARE ALL OVER THE USA
    WORKING FOR AMERICA, AND NOT THE DESPOTIC LEADERSHIP.
    WE JUST HAVE TO STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT AND THE ANSWER COME FAST, TO US,
    GEEZ YES, THERE ARE BETTER BY FAR.
    SPECIALLY THE CONSERVATIVES WHO KEEP THEIR VALUES INTACT AND THE LAWS OF THE LAND
    VERY PRECIOUSLY AND MORE TODAY WHEN THE ATTACK TO DESTROY IT IS MORE AND MORE VIRULENT FROM THE LEADER WHO DON’T FOLLOW ANY RULES BUT HIS OWN,
    THAT IS WHY THE EGYPT DEMOCRACY WAS KILLED, BECAUSE ONCE ELECTED,
    IT FAIL TO BE
    A DEMOCRACY,

    ReplyReply
  19. Greg says: 69

    @twolaneflash, #67:

    America is a democratic republic. That’s what the founders designed by clear intention. They didn’t create the nation as either a pure republic or a pure democracy.

    ReplyReply
  20. Hankster58 says: 70

    Richard, I note you attacked PALIN, but did NOT COMMENT, on the TOPIC of the ARTICLE!! WHY IS THAT???

    ReplyReply
  21. Hankster58 says: 71

    GREG 69.. TRUE, which is why we have LAWS, and a CONSTITUION that MUST be followed.. and NOT just “whenever it suits Obama”!!

    ReplyReply
  22. Smorgasbord says: 72

    @twolaneflash: #67
    When your son retires from the Army, please encourage him to retire in Idaho. We love people like him, and might need his skills some day.

    ReplyReply
  23. Smorgasbord says: 73

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #68
    Once-in-a-while a veteran will tell a liberal demonstrator that they fought for the liberal’s right to say what they are saying without being punished by their government.

    I have wondered if one reason for the high suicide rate among our vets is because they are trying to defend our freedoms, but our president, and a lot of the members of congress, aren’t backing them up. The vets are risking their lives for us, but the politicians keep reducing their funding, and the vet has to fight for years for the benefits they EARNED. I want politicians in office who believer the military should be funded first. Without them we don’t have a free USA. Could that be what is going on?

    ReplyReply
  24. Smorgasbord says: 74

    @Greg: #69
    A simple definition of “democracy” is when ALL of the people vote on an issue.

    A simple definition of “republic” is when SOME of the people vote to have someone represent them to vote for an issue.

    Since ALL of the people in the USA vote for someone from their district to go to congress to vote for issues, we are a democracy. Since only the politicians elected can vote for issues, and not the people, we are a republic. Thus the term “democratic-republic.” I guess you could say that we are a democracy until the politicians are elected, then we become a republic.

    ReplyReply
  25. Smorgasbord says: 75

    @Hankster58: #70

    Richard, I note you attacked PALIN, but did NOT COMMENT, on the TOPIC of the ARTICLE!! WHY IS THAT???

    He is using a smart military tactic. When you know your forces aren’t strong enough to defeat your opponent’s forces, a wise thing to do is the “hit-and-run” techniques. Quick attacks that will distract the enemy, and make them split up to try to defend a much bigger area than they want to.

    ReplyReply
  26. Smorgasbord
    I like what you said and I believe it,
    those WARRIORS are there and alone all together, they have been transported in a hell where they are not able to kill their enemies at will at sight, they are so frustrated some become with ptsd because they are not THE MIGHTY WARRIORS WHO CAN WIN A WAR. IT IS SO SICKENING,
    ENOUGH FOR THEM TO MAKE MISTAKES AND BE KILLED BY THOSE IEDS OR SHOT IN THE BACK BY THOSE AFGHANS THEY TRAINED TO FIGHT FOR THEIR COUNTRY.
    WHAT EVER HAPPEN I THINK THEY SHOULD ALL COME BACK HOME NOW YESTERDAY.
    BECAUSE THEY ARE EXAUSTED AND IT’S DANGEROUS FOR A WARRIOR TO LET HIM GET TO HIS LIMIT
    DON’T THE COMMANDER THINK OF IT ?
    NO, HE DOESN’T GIVE A SHIT IF THEY COME BACK WITHOUT LIMBS OR IN A BOX, HE WILL REPLACE THEM BY THE ILLEGALS,
    DOES ANYBODY CAN HELP THEM IN THE GOVERNMENT? OR THE PENTAGONE?
    NO, THEY ARE GETTING PAID AND THEY DON’T WANT TO BE DISTURB,

    ReplyReply
  27. Greg
    where do you see either one at work,
    first of all how many people should work for the PEOPLE
    IN GOVERNMENT, ACCORDING TO THE FRAMERS?
    FREE THE GOVERNMENT IF YOU WANT TO SEE DEMOCRACY AGAIN.

    ReplyReply
  28. Smorgasbord says: 78

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #76

    …where they are not able to kill their enemies at will at sight….

    I had forgotten about our president not wanting our soldiers to kill his friends. They have too many restrictions on when they can fire.

    ReplyReply
  29. Smorgasbord says: 79

    @Greg: #69
    Why do you keep calling it a democracy?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>