Thursday, June 23, 2016

Spoiled Brats, We Are Governed by Spoiled Brats

(Source)
A sit-in on the House floor...
Several dozen U.S. House Democrats pushing for action on gun control protested on the floor of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, chanting "no bill, no break!" and demanding that the chamber put off an upcoming recess until legislation is debated. (Source)
When you don't have a majority in the House apparently this is how you get action if you're a Democrat. You throw a temper tantrum. You sit down on the House floor until your "demands" are met. And Shrillary has stated that she approves, this, in her fetid swamp of a brain, is what "leadership" looks like. Shows me that she is definitely not qualified for the office she is seeking.

When will we, the American people, remind those idiotic, petulant, entitled morons in Washington D.C. that they are most emphatically not our leaders. They are our representatives, they work  for us.

Meanwhile Breitbart has reported that "White House press secretary Josh Earnest intimated Tuesday that Republicans are cowards for opposing Monday’s gun control proposals." (Source)

So essentially, progressive elements in the United States government, in both the Executive and Legislative branches are upset that Republicans want to (finally) uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Rather than try to find ways to defeat Islamic terrorism, they wish to disarm the American people. Is that what they seek? It sure appears that way to me.

Here's something the progressives in the White House and on the floor (literally) of the House should make themselves familiar with first, the oaths they swore upon entering office -
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3
The oath noted in Article VI of the Constitution is defined in U.S. law as follows -
Title 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office (Source)
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
The oath sworn by the President of the United States is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution in Article II II, Section One, Clause 8 (Source) -
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"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."
Once they have familiarized themselves with what they swore to do, they should read this section of U.S. law -
Title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason (Source)
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
By seeking to disarm the American people, I would argue that these fools in government are providing aid and comfort to the enemies of this country. One of whom just slaughtered 49 innocent civilians and injured 53 more in the fair city of Orlando. Before you argue that the asswipe who perpetrated that atrocity was an American citizen, reread the part of the oath which states "all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I'm sure our enemies overseas are rooting for those nitwits on the House floor. As for me, I would charge them with treason. I do believe a case could be made for that.

(Source)





38 comments:

  1. The sit in shows that America is no longer governed by rules of law but rather is descending into the pit of mob rule. The fact that the Speaker did not evict members not following House rules tells us that he also is more interested in mob rule than law.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan is a RINO, I expected no more of the man.

      Delete
  2. These Dems know they would lose the votes they are demanding. What they are really after are sound bites and video clips to use against Republicans in House and Senate elections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you're onto something there Chaps. The compliant media is giving them just that.

      Delete
  3. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that every kid I ever knew who threatened to go home and take the only ball with him if he didn't get his way is now a Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha!

      You might be right Joe, but I do know a few Republicans who are like that.

      Delete
    2. But at least with the Republicans it was THEIR ball!

      Delete
    3. Hahaha, again you have the right of it!

      Delete
  4. I saw that crap on my mom's tv yesterday. Two thoughts.

    Ah-one: Most of the people who live in this country think and behave as directed by the television (while being absolutely certain that they "don't neither!").

    Anna-2: One Rockeye.

    Just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concur.

      I like the cut of your jib.

      :)

      Delete
  5. "Governed" is the wrong word. Oppressed. Ruled. Imposed. Regulated. Stifled. Destroyed. Enslaved. Much more accurate than "governed", Sarge. Sadly. Were that "governed" was the correct word. Perhaps treason might be a start...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a point there Jim. At least that's how they think isn't it?

      Delete
  6. As usual the liberal Democrats want to "interpret" the constitution to meet their agenda
    especially the 1st and 2nd amendment's. Their agenda is controlling the masses.

    “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
    - Richard Henry Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, the progressives just don't get it. Sad thing is, they never will.

      Delete
  7. Most, but not all, of the (P)regressives I've met or know are physical cowards. Their desire to feel "safe" requires everyone to be defanged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And therein lies the conundrum. The only people who will be defanged are the people that won't commit crimes. Put another way, the only people who will be defanged are the people that don't need to be defanged. The criminals will never be voluntarily defanged.

      Delete
    2. WSF - good point. They won't fight for themselves as "The State" will protect them.

      But who will protect them from "The State"?

      Delete
    3. Juvat - that's what really frosts my butt, look at Chicago, drastic, unConstitutional gun laws, so only the criminals are armed and the murder rate skyrockets every year.

      Yes, add more laws, that will restrain the criminal element. NOT!

      Delete
    4. In the progressive world, some criminals are more equal than others. Especially the ones who are funding the criminal justice jobs program. Lotsa judges and lawyers kids need braces, baby.

      Delete
    5. Oh? It's "for the children"?

      Then I guess it's "okay."

      Delete
  8. All this puts me in mind that someone a couple a hundred years ago said something about oppressors, tyrants and other bullies and how to deal with them. Anyone remember who wrote/said that and what it was he wrote/said?

    Paul L. Quandt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um, um, yeah, who was that (those) guy(s)? What was that document again?

      I'm pretty sure a number of current office holders could use a refresher course. What used to be called American History 101. Do they even teach that anymore?

      Delete
    2. Well, yes and no. They have a course called American History 101, but in it, no white male is ever mentioned as not a single one of them has ever done anything worth mentioning, except enslaved poor beleaguered minorities. Only enlightened males such as Che', Stalin, Marx, Lenin, and Mao are mentioned. MLK is mentioned only as a lackey of the white patriarchy. The black panthers, OJ, and Tupac are prominently featured. Ferguson and Baltimore, along with the Watts Riots are mentioned as great uprising of the oppressed in throwing off the shackles of their oppressors.

      And so on...and on...and on...and on

      Delete
    3. @juvat/

      Is it really that bad today? Been a long time since I've cracked an undergrad hist textbook. Are you talking HS or College level? Could you provide the exact title, author(s) ISBN number, etc? I'd REALLY like to check it out. (Just another excuse to drink heavily--as if each days news doesn't provide plenty of excuses already)

      Delete
    4. Virgil, I wouldn't like to see that textbook. Life can be depressing enough as it is!

      Delete
  9. Hit that on the head --- I am going to hold my breath until I get what I want...Waah...
    As I have said repeatedly, no legislation should be passed within 6 months of any tragic event. Too much emotion to think correctly. This was all for show -- but the truth is I suspect that it did not change anyone's minds. The liberals loved it and the conservatives and gun owners think its juvenile.

    Old Navy, Esq.

    ReplyDelete
  10. John Lewis, in particular, should be ashamed of himself for both his anti civil rights stand during this issue and for the lack of progress in the minority community during his tenure. regards, Alemaster

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consider the irony that John Lewis is himself on the no fly list. If he's too dangerous to fly he's certainly too dangerous to be making laws in Congress, no?

      Delete
    2. Concur.

      Paul L. Quandt

      Delete
    3. I did not know that. I daresay the man's a charlatan!

      (Not sure about too dangerous, too dumb more likely.)

      Delete
    4. Why don't we hear more about these secret lists that one can get on but apparently can't get off of?

      I mean wasn't Ted "U-Boat Captain" Kennedy on the list at one point? Or was that because of weight and balance restrictions?

      Delete
    5. The first rule of the secret list of course is that you can't know about the secret list.

      Kennedy was indeed on it, but I think it had more to do with preventing stewardess sandwiches rather than weight and balance....then again he had killed someone while driving so having him in any vehicle couldn't have been good luck for other passengers.

      Delete
    6. Kinda like "double secret probation" in Animal House.

      A real "Jonah".

      Delete
  11. Democrats love the LGBT community so much that they seek to disarm them before the next attack. To further show their love and solidarity, they ordered in Chick-fil-A, because you know none of them has ever missed a meal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh, ya cut straight to the heart of the matter, Mike. Straight to the heart...

      Delete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)