PDA

View Full Version : Impeach Supremo John Roberts



mick silver
9th January 2013, 04:42 PM
Impeach Supremo John Roberts
By Staff Report
http://www.thedailybell.com/images/feedbackicon2.jpg
2








Birthers Suggest Impeaching Chief Justice John Roberts The birther movement is now targeting Chief Justice John Roberts for impeachment if he swears in President Barack Obama (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=2384) for a second term later this month. Craige McMillan, a columnist for the conservative publication WND.com, wrote a piece last week asking Roberts to not swear Obama in, because, according to McMillan, Obama does not meet the Constitution's definition of a natural born citizen. In the piece, McMillan claims that Obama is not a citizen because his father was a citizen of Kenya and the United Kingdom, and that Obama cannot be "a natural born citizen" because his father was not an American citizen. Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born and raised in Kansas by parents who were born in Kansas. – Huffington Post
Dominant Social Theme: These crazies are at it again. The less impact they have, the more they push.
Free-Market Analysis: In this video, we can see one of the most successful politicians of our age focusing on the agenda for his second term. The tone is resolutely determined and optimistic.
Barack Obama is expert at ignoring the larger controversies that continue to swirl around him. We attribute their presence to what we call the Internet Reformation (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=2195), which has continually exposed questions about his background and apparent ties to the US intelligence community long before he was a legitimate presidential candidate.
It is this background – eternally discussed on the Internet – that will continue to be an issue into Obama's second term. And because they continue to be promoted by such alternative media (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=723) as World Net Daily, they also bleed into the mainstream. In this case, the Huffington Post reacts to the WND article suggesting the impeachment of John Roberts if he goes ahead with Obama's swearing in. Here's a further excerpt from the article:
Your failure to investigate these citizenship issues surrounding Mr. Obama at the time questions were raised during his first term places you in a terrible position. You are now confronted with a most difficult choice. Your own oath of office, sworn before God and the American people, requires you to uphold the Constitution. (If not you, then who?) If you now administer the oath of office for the presidency to a man who by his own admission fails to meet the natural born citizen requirement imposed by that Constitution, you have violated your own oath of office and are rightly subject to impeachment by any House of Representatives, at any time, now or in the future.
McMillan then suggested that the outcome for the country would be "Illegal wars. Illegal debts. Illegal laws." The New Civil Rights Movement reported that the National Memo responded to McMillan's piece by noting that Obama has met all the qualifications for being a natural born citizen, including being born in Hawaii and his mother being born in Kansas.
The lines of battle are drawn. In one corner is the unflappable Barack Obama. In the other are those who in pre-Internet days would have been marginalized and silenced. But they are silent no more.
Barack Obama has his bully pulpit (see video) but now 'Net information is available as well. Regardless of what you think of the birther controversy, we would suggest that times have changed, perhaps irrevocably.

mick silver
9th January 2013, 04:43 PM
http://www.thedailybell.com/28561/Impeach-Supremo-John-Roberts

vacuum
10th January 2013, 08:57 AM
This is the kind of stuff we should start doing. Impeaching these people who are blatantly breaking the law, and in general initiating all kinds of legal actions. It won't be successful at first, but if enough people do it for a long enough period of time they won't be able to stop it.

Ares
10th January 2013, 09:42 AM
This is the kind of stuff we should start doing. Impeaching these people who are blatantly breaking the law, and in general initiating all kinds of legal actions. It won't be successful at first, but if enough people do it for a long enough period of time they won't be able to stop it.

You can't impeach anyone with congress and the senate bought, paid for and occupied by 2 parties who pat each other on the back when not in public. Washington DC is nothing more than a fucking joke.

vacuum
10th January 2013, 09:52 AM
You can't impeach anyone with congress and the senate bought, paid for and occupied by 2 parties who pat each other on the back when not in public. Washington DC is nothing more than a fucking joke.

True, but massive litigation on the local level would make progress. People would change their behavior and that would work it's way through the system. In addition, certain key cases would start breaking through here or there, which would set precedents for more cases to follow. The people at the top in the fed gov would obviously be the last thing to be broken, but I think there is value in having constant cases against them. It would put it in the back of their mind, and other people who are watching, that there are bounds on what they can get away with.

This strategy of large scale assault using many cases and precedents is how the president has so much power. It happened incrementally by pushing the boundaries, setting precedents, then pushing more.

Once one local case succeeds then it can be referenced by hundreds of other cases. It doesn't matter how many are thrown out, only the ones that succeed matter.

Ares
10th January 2013, 10:43 AM
True, but massive litigation on the local level would make progress. People would change their behavior and that would work it's way through the system. In addition, certain key cases would start breaking through here or there, which would set precedents for more cases to follow. The people at the top in the fed gov would obviously be the last thing to be broken, but I think there is value in having constant cases against them. It would put it in the back of their mind, and other people who are watching, that there are bounds on what they can get away with.

This strategy of large scale assault using many cases and precedents is how the president has so much power. It happened incrementally by pushing the boundaries, setting precedents, then pushing more.

Once one local case succeeds then it can be referenced by hundreds of other cases. It doesn't matter how many are thrown out, only the ones that succeed matter.

But you're still relying on a justice system of judges who are mostly corrupt and are conditioned to protect the corporate state. They know which side of their bread is buttered and who pays for it.

Cebu_4_2
10th January 2013, 10:59 AM
True, but massive litigation on the local level would make progress. People would change their behavior and that would work it's way through the system. In addition, certain key cases would start breaking through here or there, which would set precedents for more cases to follow. The people at the top in the fed gov would obviously be the last thing to be broken, but I think there is value in having constant cases against them. It would put it in the back of their mind, and other people who are watching, that there are bounds on what they can get away with.

This strategy of large scale assault using many cases and precedents is how the president has so much power. It happened incrementally by pushing the boundaries, setting precedents, then pushing more.

Once one local case succeeds then it can be referenced by hundreds of other cases. It doesn't matter how many are thrown out, only the ones that succeed matter.

Kinda like the foreclosure thing, ask me how that turned out.

vacuum
10th January 2013, 11:14 AM
The real problem is the flow of federal money to the local level. As long as we allow the federal government to tax us and pour cash into the local authorities, they will never be on our side. If there was no such cash flow, I think they'd be a lot more friendly, and local changes could occur.

So I guess the question is, how to stop federal money from flowing to local districts?

gunny highway
10th January 2013, 11:22 AM
But you're still relying on a justice system of judges who are mostly corrupt and are conditioned to protect the corporate state. They know which side of their bread is buttered and who pays for it.

plus, who is going to pay the legal fees for all these lawsuits? that's a very real question. part of the MO of these big corporations/governments is to litigate people into bankruptcy. it doesn't matter if you are right if you can't afford to "prove" it.

vacuum
10th January 2013, 11:29 AM
plus, who is going to pay the legal fees for all these lawsuits? that's a very real question. part of the MO of these big corporations/governments is to litigate people into bankruptcy. it doesn't matter if you are right if you can't afford to "prove" it.

The idea is that we would do everything ourselves on our side. They are the ones who would have to spend millions in legal fees.

For example, you file a motion for free. They have to spend a hundreds of dollars to respond and/or thousands to get their lawyer to show up in court.

Well, if thousands of people started doing that, then they'd be overwhelmed by legal fees just trying to respond to it all. For example, thousands of people like palani responding to them with bizarre legal documents that had to be responded to within x number of days would totally bring them to their knees.

We'd essentially litigate them into bankruptcy through distributed attack. Imagine that instead of writing letters to our congressmen, we instead wrote counter offers and demands for legal justification for everything? Those are a hell of a lot more expensive to respond to.

midnight rambler
10th January 2013, 11:43 AM
We'd essentially litigate them into bankruptcy through distributed attack. Imagine that instead of writing letters to our congressmen, we instead wrote counter offers and demands for legal justification for everything? Those are a hell of a lot more expensive to respond to.

Here's the problem as I see it: If only a few people are doing this and no one is hearing about their activities* (so the public servants 'get it' that the people are actually watching them) then these same public servants can easily blow them off and thwart them (like they've been doing).

*And those who DO hear about these sort of activities are easily discouraged when they see their family members, friends, and associates get blown off and thwarted, so they perceive that the same will happen to them and their efforts will be in vain.