Impeach or Not to Impeach? That is the question...

What are the limits of presidential power? If you've followed the news lately, this question has cropped up more and more as we spend billions of dollars we don't have fighting a dictator that has not attacked us or our interests in quite a while. In fact, he's pretty much left the United States alone and worked with us for the better part of two decades and we rewarded him by removing Libya from our terrorist state list.. Now don’t get me wrong, Gaddafi is a terrorist, brutal dictator and a mad man. But should we have initiated what Obama calls a “kinetic military action” against him because of the civil unrest in his country that posed no threat to the US? Maybe...I don't know, but that’s not the crux of the problem I have with this administration’s decision. My problem lies in the fact that Obama did not have the common courtesy that is mandated by our Constitution, to go to Congress, lay out his plan and reasoning and ask for approval for this military action! President George W. Bush did for Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama instead unilaterally just went along with the United Nations and the Arab League, but did not notify the governing body he was constitutionally required to go to first. For the first time in my life I actually agree with something that Louis Farrakhan said about Obama and this action in Libya…”Who the hell do you think you are?!”

For some reason, world leaders decided that in the face of all the Middle East revolutions everywhere, it was time for Gaddafi to step down after more than 42 years in power. The Americans took a subservient role in the operations and allowed the other allies (who have traditionally refused to lead any global effort) to dictate the policy of this attack ... whatever that policy may be at this moment as it has constantly flip-flopping from one objective and then to the opposite of that objective. And to top off this whole thing, the crème’-de-la-crème’, now we find out that some of the rebels we are helping are our sworn enemy…al Qaeda…and we are also arming them!!! What is the matter with this administration! They are assuming that the enemy of our enemy is our friend, not that they are also our enemy. This is basic national security 101 stuff. It is amateur time in the White House. Anyway, I digress…

All we hear is that it's time democracy came to the Middle East. I caution the world on using the term “democracy” too loosely. The “democracy” we are seeing in the Middle East is nothing more than the “mob rules” kind of “democracy” which inevitably will lead to a powerful centralized figure or party corralling the passion of the mob...sound familiar? It should…after all, “democracy” is what Hitler and Lenin called for when they took power as well.

But is “democracy” what these Middle Eastern nations want? Do they really want to take our Constitution, its underlying principles, and simply yank it out of its historical context and deliver it to the nations that have nothing in common with the inherent theme and values of the "rule of law" and “inalienable rights” that underscores the foundation of this document?

So then, what do we REALLY mean when we talk of "the rule of law and inalienable rights?"
In essence, it that there is a higher law and God given rights that governs the affairs of men, ones that come from God and not from man and therefore can never be taken away or infringed upon. Because we are endowed by God with the rights enshrined in our Constitution, our human government must conform to those laws. But again, what exactly does that mean? I know what it used to mean, but believe that we as a country haven't a clue anymore.
Whether you want to believe it or not, it was essentially the Judeo-Christian framework of the Ten Commandments that formed the foundation for the laws enacted in this country. Our history also instilled within us the understanding that man was essentially sinful at heart and did not possess inherent goodness. We understood that with power usually comes corruption and that, that corruption was as evident in our governing bodies as it was in society as a whole. That is why the Constitution limits the power of government and what power it does grant must be shared equally among the three branches. Therefore, if a President authorizes a military action without approval from the Congress, who has the sole Constitutional authority to do it, then the President usurped the Constitutional power from Congress under Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress…”To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Should he be charged with a crime and impeached? You betcha! I’m not the only one that thinks this way either. Here is what VP Joe Biden said as a Senator in 2007 when President Bush was contemplating an attack on Iran over its nuclear weapons ambitions.

The truth about tax cuts and unemployment benefits

Let's face it, politics is the art of deception, and political rhetoric is the art of misstating and spinning issues to suit ones needs and views. A classic example is the current debate over whether to give money to the unemployed by extending how long unemployment benefits will be provided, or instead to give "tax cuts to the rich."

First of all, nobody's taxes-- whether you are rich or poor-- is going to be cut in this lame duck session of Congress. The only real issue is whether our current tax rates that we have had for the past nine years will go up in January, whether for everybody or nobody or just the people making under $200,000, who are defined as “rich” by Congress.

The most we can hope for is that tax rates will not go up. So the next time you hear some politician, pundit or media talking head say the words "tax cuts for the rich," that will just tell you whether they are serious about facts or just regurgitating rhetorical liberal/progressive talking points.

These politicians, pundits and media talking heads are also misstating and spinning the rhetorical liberal/progressive talking point that if these so-called "tax cuts to the rich" are extended then the government will have to borrow $780 billion and add it to the deficit. That is patently absurd! If that were in fact true, then we would have been doing this since 2001 when the Bush tax cuts took effect and by that logic, the government would have added $7.8 TRILLION to the national debt!
When the government refrains from raising someone's taxes, they are not "giving" someone anything. Even if you were actually cutting their tax rate, you would still not be "giving" them anything, but only allowing them to keep more of what they have already earned.

Is the government ACTUALLY doing any of us a big favor by not taking even more of what we have worked for from us? Is it not an insult to our intelligence to say that the government is "giving" us something by not taxing it away?
Another fashionable political and media deception is making a parallel between giving money to the unemployed versus giving money to "the rich," the unemployment benefits extension debate.

However, with unemployment compensation you are in fact giving someone something. "Extending unemployment benefits" always sounds good politically, especially if you do not ask the basic question: "For how long should they be extended?" A year? Two years? No limit?

Studies have shown what common sense should have told us without any studies: The longer the unemployment benefits are available, the longer people stay unemployed.

If I were fired tomorrow, should I be able to live off the government until such time as I find another job that is exactly the same, making the same or higher pay? What if I am offered another job that uses some of the same skills but doesn't pay quite as much? Should I be allowed to keep on living off the government?

While I agree that everyone may need a hand-up in their time of need, expecting a never ending tax-payer funded hand-out is just another form of welfare under the misnamed title of "social justice" that is covertly designed to keep the "sheeple" relying on the government for their very existance. The so-called 99ers...those who have been on unemployment for 99 weeks have now unionized (http://american99ersunion.yolasite.com) to enable them to successfully lobby for more and more unemployment extensions! So now they are going to get another 52 weeks (13 months) added to their benefits. It's supposed to be a "helping hand-up" program...not "employment" with a collective bargaining agreement for the unemployed!!

TSA calls it "Enhanced Pat-down", I call it getting to third base!

No big-government bureaucracy better embodies that reactionary principle than the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), whose utter contempt for American citizens has grown so great that they now require we submit to government agents either photographing our, to them, visibly naked bodies or groping us in molestation-style pat-downs if we ever want to fly again. Also, as if subjecting millions of Americans to x-rated x-ray scans and the humiliation of public groping sessions weren't bad enough, the agency now threatens $11,000 in fines against anyone refusing to submit to humiliation at the airport. The TSA has crossed the line on what is necessary to keep us safe and what is not.

Listen up TSA, “My wife and doctors are the only ones who are allowed to see my naked body or touch my junk!" For a sane person in a sane country, that's the ultimate in a "no shit, Sherlock" statement. But not in America, not anymore! They are trampling on Americans' fourth amendment constitutional rights which state:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As if that weren’t enough to put a stop to this clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL act, it is also against STATE law. Here are The US and Arizona’s laws against “sexual contact”, which TSA enhanced pat-down procedure clearly falls within the definition of it.

18 U.S. Code
Section 2244, "
"sexual contact" means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade."

Arizona Revised Statute, Title 13 Criminal Code
13-1401. Definitions
2. "Sexual contact" means any direct or indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus or female breast by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact.

13-1403. Public sexual indecency; public sexual indecency to a minor; classification
A. A person commits public sexual indecency by intentionally or knowingly engaging in any of the following acts, if another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether such other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act:
1. An act of sexual contact.
2. An act of oral sexual contact.
3. An act of sexual intercourse.
4. An act of bestiality.
B. A person commits public sexual indecency to a minor if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in any of the acts listed in subsection A and such person is reckless about whether a minor who is under fifteen years of age is present.
C. Public sexual indecency is a class 1 misdemeanor. Public sexual indecency to a minor is a class 5 felony.
D. A person who is convicted of a felony violation of this section and who has two or more historical prior felony convictions for a violation of this section or section 13-1402 involving indecent exposure or public sexual indecency to a minor who is under fifteen years of age shall be sentenced pursuant to section 13-709.05.

13-1403. Public sexual indecency; public sexual indecency to a minor; classification
A. A person commits public sexual indecency by intentionally or knowingly engaging in any of the following acts, if another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether such other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act:
1. An act of sexual contact.
2. An act of oral sexual contact.
3. An act of sexual intercourse.
4. An act of bestiality.
B. A person commits public sexual indecency to a minor if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in any of the acts listed in subsection A and such person is reckless about whether a minor who is under fifteen years of age is present.
C. Public sexual indecency is a class 1 misdemeanor. Public sexual indecency to a minor is a class 5 felony.
D. A person who is convicted of a felony violation of this section and who has two or more historical prior felony convictions for a violation of this section or section 13-1402 involving indecent exposure or public sexual indecency to a minor who is under fifteen years of age shall be sentenced pursuant to section 13-709.05.

13-1404. Sexual abuse; classification
A. A person commits sexual abuse by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person who is fifteen or more years of age without consent of that person or with any person who is under fifteen years of age if the sexual contact involves only the female breast.
B. Sexual abuse is a class 5 felony unless the victim is under fifteen years of age in which case sexual abuse is a class 3 felony punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

13-1410. Molestation of a child; classification
A. A person commits molestation of a child by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact, except sexual contact with the female breast, with a child who is under fifteen years of age.
B. Molestation of a child is a class 2 felony that is punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

You should never have to explain to your children, “Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it's a government employee, then it's OK.”

In case you still can’t equate TSA’s enhanced pat-downs to “sexual contact, listen to what Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri had to say during a Senate hearing on the issue.
"I'm wildly excited that I can walk through a machine instead of getting my dose of love pats,"

Love pats…? Why the hell would she say something like that if she herself didn’t perceive the pat downs were sexual in nature?

For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The TSA claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded." They lied…SHOCKING! Now it turns out that there are and over 100 images that have found their way onto the internet.

Ron Paul's has intoduced legislation to combat this intrusion of our constitutional rights, it is H.R. 6416 and is just two sentences long...not 2000 pages! It states:

"No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), X-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent."


You mark my words; In order to be “politically correct” TSA will concede and Muslim women (who believe in jihad and the reason we are in this predicament in the first place) will throw such a hissy fit that they will end up being exempt from the procedures based on their religious beliefs, but of course, Catholic nuns won’t have same exemption…even though they are not the ones TSA is supposedly protecting all of us from. It's no longer "politcally correct or expedient" to be a Christian in America anymore. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed of what we have become.