An Impeachable President

Upon taking office, each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If a president works against the Constitution of the United States (COTUS), specifically, if he instructs the DOJ to sue states which have passed local law to pursue and fulfill its obligation to defend its borders as mandated by Article IV, Section 4 of the COTUS …

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

… it raises questions about the president being seen as an enemy of the Constitution.

If that argument were not convincing, on June 24, Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen had this to say about the nation’s mounting debt:

“I was shown the figures the other day by the comptroller of the Pentagon that said that the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012,” Mullen said at a breakfast hosted by The Hill. “That is, noticeably, about the size of the defense budget. It is not sustainable.”

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn warned in June of 2010 that in order to find $100 billion in savings, Pentagon leaders, working with the military services, will have to identify “lower-priority programs” that are not going to be part of future budgets.

Already this year, we have seen this president slash NASA’s Constellation program to a mere pittance of its initial mission design resulting in an estimated 20,000 jobs lost in the space exploration sector. In addition, we have seen Obama’s critical thinking lead to banning off-shore oil drilling leading to thousands of more jobs being lost in the industry.

Pulling all of this together and reflecting upon the impact his decisions have on industry, the country’s diminishing lead in space exploration and now demonstrating an overt willingness to work against the Constitution by suing states who have passed laws in pursuit of their Constitutional obligation to defend their borders, we can safely surmise that the president’s policies are placing the country’s overall security into jeopardy and should be viewed as an enemy of the state.

 

How Obama got Elected

It appears many ignorant people helped.

 

Is this the change we meant?

Well folks, the change America’s voters desperately wanted is beginning to materialize before us.

During the campaign, at every stop we heard the droning from the leading Democratic candidate that to vote for McCain/Palin was to continue with the same ol’ Bush-era policies. We heard how Obama described himself as an agent of change and that he had the leadership and qualities necessary to pull Washington away from the status-quo. Rii-ight.

So, what do we have now? Well, it’s looking like this:

Veterans of Bill Clinton’s presidency will hold vital jobs throughout the government, although a bit farther from the Oval Office, Obama tapped some of Clinton’s closest allies for important jobs.

John Podesta, Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, is heading the transition effort.

Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a former top Clinton adviser, is Obama’s chief of staff.

Former Clinton appointees Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano appear in line for Cabinet posts.

Obama has signaled plans to name former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state.
As of November 29, 2008, Obama announced he will give the position to Hillary. The official announcement will take place on Monday, November 30, 2008.

While crying for a defeat of McCain citing a continuation of Bush policies, Obama’s supporters are now praising him for reaching out to his toughest primary opponent.

Doesn’t this sound a bit hypocritical? Isn’t this a double standard? On the one hand we had the battle cry for change and now on the other we get none in terms of the thinkers within the administration. This is beginning to shape up as a repeat of the Clinton administration.

The big change we got from the Clinton-era was the highest tax increase the nation has ever seen. When the surplus started to pile up we heard Al Gore telling us our government should keep that surplus in some kind of lock-box for a rainy day. Leave it to the gile of Gore.

Some may argue that Obama needs to surround himself with seasoned Democrats experienced in the ways of federal government, but can’t Obama find anyone not part of the same old bunch of tired Democrats?

Like the commercial which once asked “Where’s the beef?”, I have to ask the obvious: “Where’s the change and how is it going to come from the same bunch of Clinton-era thinkers?”

Then there is the old adage, “The more things change the more they look the same.”

Some change, huh?

 

Whose legacy do we want to undo?

When I look at the planks in each of the platforms from which we have to chose, it quickly becomes clear which of the two our country can best tolerate and at the end of the 4 years, will have less of a legacy to undo.

It’s about the country – not what government promises to do for me. I will do for me if the government will get out of my way and let me have the opportunities to do it. I do not need for the government to dip into my pocket any more than it already does and to give it to whom they deem worthy of what was mine.

If I took the attitude which Obama and his ilk wants me and the rest of the country to warm up to I would have taken the candy from each one of the Trick-or-Treaters who knocked on my door last night instead of giving them any. Better yet, I should have taken candy from one kiddos bag and given it to the other standing next to them. Boy – I can almost see the expressions on their faces now.

I will keep my money, my guns and my freedom. The Dems can keep their change.

Vote for the country’s sake.