The terrible, horrible, no good start for the Republicans

[aligncare]

Good point. I guess I must not be racist enough, because I often forget Obama is black, but I never forget that he's a Marxist and a muslim supporter.

The Democrats are exploiting what they always have used, identity politics. The next president will be a Democrat woman, and the Republicans won't dare stand in the way of the first woman president.

Political correctness started out as being incredibly silly, something no one would ever take seriously. Who would have guessed it would be the demise of a great nation?

 

Republicans have to make a decision regarding the 2016 election. Does the GOP make it a strategic election and go along with political correctness by nominating a woman in the first or second spot of the presidential ticket, or do they go with the non-politically correct action of nominating the best person for the job?

[Fishrrman]

Dex wrote above:
[[ The only other solution is to tear down our government and start from the bottom. You won't correct the problems we face from within the main party ]]

I usually ignore your posts, Dex -- just skip right over them.
But with this one, you're comin' around.

I agree that we must "start from the bottom", the "bottom" in this case being the U.S. Constitution itself.

That's why I fully support an Article V convention of the States, which would hopefully be populated with individuals from the States, and NOT from the DC government. They are the creators of the problem, and cannot be trusted to fix things -- not even most of the Republican members. They should be politely told to "stay out of it".

A good place to get some background would be Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments". One doesn't have to read the entire book -- just read the proposed amendments themselves.

And of course, here's one that Mr. Levin forgot to include -- my proposal that establishes a Constitutional "Right to Privacy":
===============================
Citizens protected by this Constitution possess an inalienable right to privacy in their persons, businesses, and homes, and while they are in public.

It shall be a violation of this Constitution for the United States or for the several States to violate or invade the individual privacy of citizens by use of physical, mechanical, or electronic means or by the use of devices on land, on water, below the ground, or from the air.

This protection shall extend to all lawful communications and acts by an individual citizen or between two or more citizens, including content that is spoken, written, or electronically transmitted. It shall extend to citizens regardless of their location, whether in private or in public.

The only exceptions will be as governed by the Fourth Amendment of this Constitution.
===============================

There ya go.
Four short paragraphs that anyone can understand.
Yet they will breathe new life into the Fourth Amendment, which has been under severe attack in the digital age.

I'd like to know who on this forum would oppose such an idea?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Interesting turn to this thread.

However, what people are forgetting is that we are laboring under a new paradigm. A first ever black president in a minority black nation hypersensitive about race because of a racial legacy of slavery and segregation.

A white president acting this lawlessly – as Obama clearly is – would've been impeached long ago by a Congress unhampered by political correctness. And as I've said many times before, political correctness will be the death of America.

This is one of hundreds of petitions circulating at the time. They're mostly still online since things rarely disappear from the net.

It's a list of grievances, impeachable offenses and "crimes" committed by GWB and Dick Cheney as perceived by the left:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

Before that, we impeached Clinton.

This next one, is aimed at Bush I and Dan Quayle:

Charging
George H.W.Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker,
Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell,
Norman Schwarzkopf and Others to be named

With
Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against
Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in
Violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
International Law, the Constitution of the United States
and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof.
Only the United States could have carried out this destruction of Iraq, and the war was conducted almost exclusively by the United States. This conduct violated the UN Charter, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter, and the laws of armed conflict.

The conduct violates Protocol I Additional, Article 51.4 to the Geneva Conventions of 1977.
The conduct violates Protocol I Additional, Article 56, to the Geneva Convention, 1977.

The conduct violates the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The conduct violates the Constitution and laws of the United States, all committed to engage in the other impeachable offenses set forth in this Complaint.

12. The United States waged war on the environment.

As a result of these acts, thousands of people died, many more suffered illness and permanent injury. As a single illustration, Iraq consumed infant milk formula at a rate of 2,500 tons per month during the first seven months of 1990. From November 1, 1990, to February 7, 1991, Iraq was able to import only 17 tons. Its own productive capacity was destroyed. Many Iraqis believed that President Bush intended that their infants die because he targeted their food supply. The Red Crescent Society of Iraq estimated 3,000 infant deaths as of February 7, 1991, resulting from infant milk formula and infant medication shortages.

    The American people and their democratic institutions were deprived of information essential to sound judgment and were regimented, despite profound concem, to support a major neocolonial intervention and war of aggression. The principal purpose of the First Amendment to the United States was to assure the press and the people the right to criticize their government with impunity. This purpose has been effectively destroyed in relation to U.S. military aggression since the press was denied access to assaults on Grenada, Libya, Panama and, now on a much greater scale, against Iraq.

This conduct violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is part of a pattern of conduct intended to create support for conduct constituting crimes against peace and war crimes.

The members of the International War Crimes Tribunal, meeting in New York, have carefully considered the Initial Complaint of the Commission of Inquiry dated May 6, 1991 against President George H. W. Bush, Vice President J. Danforth Quayle, Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Commander of the Allied Forces in the Persian Gulf, and others named in the Complaint charging them with nineteen separate crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the First Protocol thereto, and other international agreements and customary international law:

          having the right and obligation as citizens of the world to sit in judgment regarding violations of international humanitarian law;

          having heard the testimony from various Commissions of Inquiry hearings held within their own countries and/or elsewhere during the past year and having received reports from numerous other Commission hearings which recite the evidence there gathered;

          having been provided with documentary evidence, eyewitness statements, photos, videotapes, special reports, expert analyses and summaries of evidence available to the Commission; having access to all evidence, knowledge, and expert opinion in the Commission files or available to the Commission;

          having been provided by the Commission, or elsewhere obtained, various books, articles, and other written materials on various aspects of events and conditions in the Persian Gulf and military and arms establishments;

          having considered newspaper coverage, magazine and periodical reports, special publications, T.V., radio, and other media coverage and public statements by the accused, other public officials and other public materials;

          having heard the presentations of the Commission of Inquiry in public hearing on February 29, 1992, the testimony and evidence there presented; and having met, considered and deliberated with each other and with Commission staff and having considered all the evidence that is relevant to the nineteen charges of criminal conduct alleged in the Initial Complaint make the following findings.

Findings

      The members of the International War Crimes Tribunal finds each of the named accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that each of the nineteen crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint, attached hereto, has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

      The members believe that it is imperative if there is ever to be peace that power be accountable for its criminal acts and we condemn in the strongest possible terms those found guilty of the charges herein. We urge the Commission of Inquiry and all people to act on recommendations developed by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure social justice on which lasting peace must be based.

Recommendations

      The Members urge the immediate revocation of all embargoes, sanctions and penalties against Iraq because they constitute a continuing crime against humanity.

      The Members urge public action to prevent new aggressions by the United States threatened against Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, North Korea, Pakistan and other countries and the Palestine people; fullest condemnation of any threat or use of military technology against life, both civilian and military, as was used by the United States against the people of Iraq.

      The Members urge that the power of the United Nations Security Council, which was blatantly manipulated by the U.S. to authorize illegal military action and sanctions, be vested in the General Assembly; that all permanent members be removed and that the right of veto be eliminated as undemocratic and contrary to the basic principles of the U.N. Charter.

      The Members urge the Commission to provide for the permanent preservation of the reports, evidence, and materials gathered to make them available to others, and to seek ways to provide the widest possible distribution of the truth about the U.S. assault on Iraq.
Charges of Other Countries

      In accordance with the last paragraph of the Initial Complaint designated Scope of Inquiry, the Commission has gathered substantial evidence of criminal acts by governments and individual officials in addition to those formally presented here. Formal charges have been drafted by some Commissions of Inquiry against other governments in addition to the United States. Those charges have not been acted upon here. The Commission of Inquiry or any of its national components may choose to pursue such other charges at some future time. The Members urge all involved to exert their utmost effort to prevent recurrences of violations by other governments that were not considered here.

I don't think anyone tried to impeach Carter for anything other than just being an inept buffoon

There were petitions to impeach Reagan because of Iran-Contra and a dozen other grievances.

We wanted to impeach Ford for pardoning Nixon.

We impeached Nixon.

There was talk of impeaching Johnson over the Vietnam war.

The point is that in essence, in the opinion of the opposition arty, every President can be impeached

The dispute over whether or not Obama can, by Executive action, do the things that he's been doing must be first settled in the Court system, before impeachment can be considered.

That's why I believe the GOP is letting things work through the Court system.

[Fishrrman]

sinkspur wrote above:
[[ And a third party hasn't been viable for 160 years. ]]

In 1855, the Republican party WAS "the third party", not yet viable on the national stage.

And what happened to the "second" party (actually, it might have been the "first" party, preceding the democrats) in the next few years?

It happened before in American history.
It can happen again.

[Fishrrman]

Dex wrote above:
[[ Are you so sure a Republican land slide will result in the changes we all want to see happen? ]]

Folks, got to admit Dex hit a good one here.

We JUST HAD a "Republican landslide" only a few months ago.

How much has really changed?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Dex wrote above:
[[ Are you so sure a Republican land slide will result in the changes we all want to see happen? ]]

Folks, got to admit Dex hit a good one here.

We JUST HAD a "Republican landslide" only a few months ago.

How much has really changed?

They took office two months ago.

How much change did you expect in eight weeks?

[Dexter]

They took office two months ago.

How much change did you expect in eight weeks?

When is the last time Republicans notably reduced spending or the size of our government? 

[Longiron]

They took office two months ago.

How much change did you expect in eight weeks?

Keep doing the same thing over and over and EXPECT different results. That IS THE answer, WE ALL JUST KEEP MISSING THE point??? DAMM CONSERVATIVES!!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Keep doing the same thing over and over and EXPECT different results. That IS THE answer, WE ALL JUST KEEP MISSING THE point??? DAMM CONSERVATIVES!!!!

How much change did you expect to see in two months?

It's a legitimate question.

[Luis Gonzalez]

When is the last time Republicans notably reduced spending or the size of our government?

This is a partial listing of what the GOP accomplished in December that fits your question:

They established no new funding for Obamacare.

They blocked funding of the risk corridors that, under the Affordable Care Act, could lead to a government bailout of the insurance companies.

They maintained all the existing pro-life policy and funding provisions and added three more while cutting the funds for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (which is the body that would be recommending any rationing of health care) by $10 million.

They cut funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by $60 million, which is the fifth consecutive year the agency’s budget has been cut and may finally convince the bureaucrats who run the place they cannot go beyond what they are legally authorized to do without congressional approval.

They cut the allocation of federal dollars to the IRS by $345.6 million, prohibiting it from targeting organizations because of the way they chose to exercise their First Amendment rights or on an ideological basis, punishes it for its profligate abuse of taxpayer dollars on expensive, needless videos and conferences at luxury resorts, and prohibits the White House from ordering the review of any organization's tax exempt status.

So, in response to your question... last December.

[Bigun]

When is the last time Republicans notably reduced spending or the size of our government?

President Calvin Coolidge was the last to actually CUT the federal budget!!

[DCPatriot]

How much change did you expect to see in two months?

It's a legitimate question.

What made ObamaCare such a travesty for the Democrats is how it became law.  Their total focus and attention was to get it passed anyway they could. 

They had a super majority...stronger than the one the GOP currently enjoys, and 'used' all their goodwill on the ACA.

Looking at the past 6 years...and looking forward for at least the next 2 years, the public sentiments toward Obamacare are now mostly negative.

But my point is that they came out of the gate preening and telling us "Elections have consequences.  We won.  You lost".  [dead with it]

And who really 'won' the voters' confidence?

[Bigun]

This is a partial listing of what the GOP accomplished in December that fits your question:

They established no new funding for Obamacare.

They blocked funding of the risk corridors that, under the Affordable Care Act, could lead to a government bailout of the insurance companies.

They maintained all the existing pro-life policy and funding provisions and added three more while cutting the funds for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (which is the body that would be recommending any rationing of health care) by $10 million.

They cut funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by $60 million, which is the fifth consecutive year the agency’s budget has been cut and may finally convince the bureaucrats who run the place they cannot go beyond what they are legally authorized to do without congressional approval.

They cut the allocation of federal dollars to the IRS by $345.6 million, prohibiting it from targeting organizations because of the way they chose to exercise their First Amendment rights or on an ideological basis, punishes it for its profligate abuse of taxpayer dollars on expensive, needless videos and conferences at luxury resorts, and prohibits the White House from ordering the review of any organization's tax exempt status.

So, in response to your question... last December.

NOPE! Reductions in the rate of growth don't count!

[Dexter]

So, in response to your question... last December.

This might sound absurd to you, but those figures are relatively small fry in the scope of things. I don't consider any of that a notable cut to government size or spending.

[Luis Gonzalez]

This might sound absurd to you, but those figures are relatively small fry in the scope of things. I don't consider any of that a notable cut to government size or spending.

Moving the post?

You placed no caveats on your question.

[Dexter]

Moving the post?

You placed no caveats on your question.

I did say notable in my post, but perhaps I should have specified more. The 2015 federal budget will be about 4 trillion dollars; how are the Republicans planning on making a dent in that number?

[Luis Gonzalez]

NOPE! Reductions in the rate of growth don't count!

Nothing there says that those are reductions in the rate of growth.

The point is that you are all pretty much anti GOP, all posting in a GOP forum, and no matter what the GOP does, you all pounce on them.

There are more posts critical of the GOP in this forum than there are of the Democrats.

If Sun Tzu is correct and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then many here are friends of the DNC.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I did say notable in my post, but perhaps I should have specified more. The 2015 federal budget will be about 4 trillion dollars; how are the Republicans planning on making a dent in that number?

What would you suggest that they do?

You want to know how they will make a "dent" but you also said that @ half a billion in cuts is nothing.

Define a "dent".

[Dexter]

There are more posts critical of the GOP in this forum than there are of the Democrats.

I highly doubt that.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I highly doubt that.

You can, but it doesn't make it true.

[evadR]

I agree that we must "start from the bottom", the "bottom" in this case being the U.S. Constitution itself.

I agree, but it also means starting at the ground roots.

IF we can develop good solid conservative ideals in the schools and the local levels of government, then we can progress up the ladder until we develop a solid base of responsible citizens and pols.
IF we can't do that, then we're just peeing in the ocean.  We can put all the Rs we want in the Congress, we're not going to accomplish anything until we get a respectable number of conservative Rs.  The only way to accomplish that is from the ground up.

If it's a choice between a RINO and a dim, I will always vote for the RINO.
If it's a choice between a RINO and a republican conservative in the primary, I will always vote for the Conservative.

[Dexter]

What would you suggest that they do?

Within the main party their hands are all but tied. Not having a lot of options to do what you're supposed to do does not excuse complete uselessness as a politician. You all know what my solution would be.

[Dexter]

You want to know how they will make a "dent" but you also said that @ half a billion in cuts is nothing.

Define a "dent".

Get a calculator and tell me what percentage of the national budget that was.

[evadR]

Define a "dent".

$2,426,385,299.99

[Bigun]

Nothing there says that those are reductions in the rate of growth.

The point is that you are all pretty much anti GOP, all posting in a GOP forum, and no matter what the GOP does, you all pounce on them.

There are more posts critical of the GOP in this forum than there are of the Democrats.

If Sun Tzu is correct and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then many here are friends of the DNC.

That is patently untrue as well! A CUT is less money to spend this year than last year! A reduction in the rate of growth is still having more money to spend than last year but less than you asked for .

When the GOP actually stands up and FIGHTS I'm their number one cheerleader!  They haven't given me much opportunity for cheerleading lately!