…one of the most charmingly idiotic posts I’ve ever read! Good lord, man… How about ‘checks and balances?’

Really?  Yeah, how about those checks and balances?  Checks and balances only work when two thirds of the triad aren’t in bed together.  So, without further ado…

“IT DOESN’T TAKE A FELONY”

In response to “The Hidden Costs of ObamaCare,” commentor Kate has asked the most burning question of the day:  If we see so clearly the dangers of the path down which Barack Obama is taking us, what then can we do?  What should we do?

I say, ask instead what  MUST we do?

By way of an answer, I submit this definition: MALFEASANCE

malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance.

If Barak Obama repeatedly and deliberately excedes those authorities specifically granted to the office of President of the United States by the U.S. Contitution, then he is guilty of political malfeasance.  If the Speaker of the House or any other elected official conducts themselves in such a manner contrary to their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, then they are guilty of both Malfeasance and perjury.

Our system of separation of powers was instituted specifically to prevent to abuse of power of any one man, or group of men.  The powers and limitations of each branch are specifically enumerated.  If a man, especially the President, sees himself as above these restrictions, if he proposes that circumstances require him to set aside the rule of law in order to secure some intangible benefit or prevent some unanmed catastrophe, then he is already well down the road traveled by numerous despots throughout the world’s history.

Barack Obama is our duly elected President.  As such, we own him the courtesy and respect the office demands.  This does NOT mean, however, that we give him our unquestioning obedience.  We owe no fealty to the man.  We honor the office, at most.

Not insignificantly, the oath of office of every military officer and elected official in this country requires that he or she “support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States, against all enemies, foreign, and domestic.”  It does not mention the President.  Not a General or any other officer or individual. We pledge to uphold and defend an ideal, as set of codified laws and principles, principles which have become the very definition of freedom and liberty throughout the world.

We do not swear an oath to a man, or an office.  We swear to uphold the ideals which founded this Republic, ideals which are codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If ANY official, regardless of rank or position, undertakes to violate these principles or exceed the legal limits of his power as constrained by law, he will have proven himself to be unfit for office.  One of the foundational principles of our society, one seldom seen elsewhere in the world today or in recorded history, is that NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW.  Not even the President of the United States.

What we must do is remain vigilant.  We must remain watchful.  We must read and understand every Exective Order written.  We must hold our President and elected officials to account for every action they take or fail to take.  We must be prepared to act whenever they violate the covenants they swore to uphold.  This is not disloyalty, this is not sedition.

It is a requirement of citizenship.

Do not make the mistake of making some saber-rattling noises about “armed overthrow” or “rising up” against our oppressors.  It only legitimizes those who would seek to paint mere patriots as right-wing extremists or terrorists.  We have a legal recourse available to us.

Short of waiting it out for the next 4 years, the only option we have of stopping the damage being done to our country is to seek articles of impeachment against Barack Obama.  To seek recall elections of officials like Nancy Pelosi or Dick Durbin, and others who have shown themselves to be enemies of our free-market representative republic.

By repeatedly exceeding the authorities of his office, by committing, through either ignorance, neglect, or malice those actions which can be see to not only controvene his oath of office, but which a reasonable man might perceive to cause direct and observable harm to this country, Barack Obama is building the case for his own impeachment.

It doesn’t take a felony.  There need be no Whitewater scandal, missing minutes on a tape, or perjury before a Grand Jury.  It is enough that an individual openly flaunts the Constitutional limits of their elected authority to have grounds for impeachment.

And if we do nothing, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

UPDATE:

Something like THIS for example:

Today’s Czar Count – 32!

Even Democrat Robert Byrd wrote Obama a little note saying that the appointment of all the czars “violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight.” This, in his opinion, is unconstitutional at best.

For one, the Klebold Defense just doesn’t hold up. As we are finding out, much to our chagrin and detriment, there is simply no way for an ongoing pattern of discrimination to have survived the light of day in today’s Army. One WHIFF of a “hostile” work environment, off-color joke, or discriminatory word or action based on race or religion, and all Hasan would have had to do was notify his chain of command, and it is instantly guilty-until-proven-innocent for whomever he identified as the culprit. Today’s diversity-sensitized military gets an instant case of the vapors if anyone cast the least “unjustified” aspersion on a minority co-worker; something which may very well have prevented Hasan from being properly identified as a threat before it was too late. So to suggest that poor old Nidal was somehow the victim here is pure, festering codswallop.

Even IF poor old Hasan really was being “persecuted,” it was probably not because he was a Muslim, but because he was openly advocating opposing deployments to Iraq to a group of people who most likely already had two or three deployments under their respective belts. I also suspect that listening to some medical corps whiner whinge on about how Muslims shouldn’t fight Muslims, after they’ve had to sponge up the aftermath of yet another Muslim suicide bomber in a market square full of Muslim women and children, probably didn’t go over too well.

There’s also some buzz about how his yelling “Allahu Akbar” before going on a shooting spree doesn’t necessarily make him a terrorist. Uh, actually, yeah, it sorta does. Holding this view doesn’t make one a racist, or a hater or a bigot. It’s merely a conditioned response, one conditioned in us by the terrorists themselves.

I mean, face it. If you are standing in line at McDonalds, and a middle-eastern looking gentlemen walks through the door yelling, “Allahu Akbar!!” at the top of his lungs, you probably don’t “jump to the conclusion” that he’s just excited about American fast food and wants to buy everyone fries and a shake. You figure that some pretty major violence is soon to follow, and so you promptly hit the floor or run screaming for the exits. Why? BECAUSE THAT’S THE WAY IT USUALLY HAPPENS! Time and again we’ve been exposed to news reports of militant Islamicists firing off an “Allahu Akbar” before firing off their AK-47 or bomb belt. It happens a lot, so we begin to expect it. It’s become a conditioned response. We’ve come to take that phrase as a warning sign foretelling violence, not a sign of impending religious piety.

“Allahu Akbar” is not the equivalent of a western “Praise the Lord.”  No, sadly, yelling “Allahu Akbar” has now become the Islamic equivalent of yelling “Fire in the HOLE!”

Boom.

It is also unfortunate that there is an undeniable truth to the statement that while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists have some tie to Islam. It cannot be ignored or wished away. And actions like those of two-gun Hasan at Ft. Hood only serve to reinforce this view in us slack-jawed redneck haters who don’t know no better.

I find this webcomic strangely compelling.
http://bunny-comic.com

I was thinking of starting my own webcomic, but then I realized I can’t draw, and I’m really not all that funny.  And then I also realized that that probably makes me a perfect candidate.

I’m also thinking of getting into writing fan fiction for “Man vs. Food.“

I don’t know why, but I find this cartoon to be absolutely hilarious:

Ever have one of those days where you feel like you’ve gone too far off the game’s track until hit the edge of the map and it suddenly throws you, like, a mile and a half straight up and, like, six miles away, and you land with the motorcycle on top of you and if it were real life you’d have punctured your lungs with your shin bones, but it’s not, so you just respawn 14 seconds later, but of course, being the day like it is, you respawn in the middle of the enemy base and are instantly tagged with, like, 37 laser-guided BFG rounds?

Yeah, me neither.

Shades of Samurai Jack…
http://www.chainsawsuit.com/20080505.shtml
ROTFLMAOSCOMM
(Rollin’ on the floor, laughing my ass off, spewing coffee on my monitor)

• You know you’re getting old when you’ve got more hair in your ears than on your head.

Also, really dang hilarious:

Bwanahaha!

I also like this comic (Questionable Content - noooo, that’s the name, not a warning).  I’ve become a regular reader…at least until the Firewall Fascists at work figure out blocking *.webcomic

I like the comic because, well, mostly because the girls are hot, and I’ve sort of always had a thing for hot cartoon chics.  These girls are like Jan from Day-By-Day, only slightly less well-adjusted.  Just as well-endowed, yes, but well-adjusted? Not so much.  It’s like finally being able to look inside the mind of that neurotically insecure and slightly mental girlfriend you had in college but could never really figure out, who you finally dumped but still think about occasionally and wonder if she ever managed to get a real job or ended up working in a coffee-shop, writing bad emo-poetry and posting it to a really poorly laid out blog where she’s always blegging for hits on her tip jar so she can afford to buy a new fan belt for her car and finally get outta the city?

I mean, other people do DO that, right?

There’s been much ado lately about the posters with the Obamanation dressed out to look like the Joker from Batman.  I think they chose the wrong villian.  It should have been Two-Face.

Today via Patterico, I read about the Obama Adminstration stance which is threatening that it will not recognize the next lawful and democratic elections in Honduras, because they didn’t bow down before the O and do as he bid.  That’s right.  Our current administration is threatening to make Honduras country-non-grata because they refused to allow our Executive Branch to dictate who should govern their country.  And yet, I found myself musing over several remembered statements by The One which stated, in no uncertain terms, how reprehensible he felt such actions to be:

In Germany:

“Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.”

Except in Honduras.

“I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”

Except in Honduras.

“America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.”

Except in Honduras.

“you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.”

Except in Honduras

And from His speech in Cairo:

“It’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling … in Iranian elections,” Obama said.

Except in Honduras

I simply do not understand how this man, who would claim the title of President of our republic, would spend so much time and energy spooning with the likes of Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad and Saudi Kings, yet seem to spare no opportunity to shit all over our strongest allies.  Strong, functioning representative republics modeled after our own.

This man was raised, steeped and shaped in a culture, in a fringe pocket of society that was bred to frear and distrust American power and autonomy.  He is a globalist, and a spiritual universalist, and they only way to do that is to disavow the concepts of truth, of right vs. wrong, and to denounce any hint of nationalist pride as dangerous jingoism.

How this man got to be our President, I cannot fathom.  Oh, yeah, wait.  Because it was racist to NOT vote for him.

Glenn Beck is currently is deep doo-doo with the frothing Progs over his comments that Obama is a racist and “has a problem with” white people.

Again, I find myself hearkening back to an entire, highly vocal demographic which seemed to have no qualms about suggesting that then-President Bush delayed responding to the disaster in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina because…yes, come on, you remember it too…because he hated black people.  That’s right, say that “Bush Hates Blacks,” and it’s social commentary.  Suggest that Obama hates whites, and it’s racist hate speech and BOYCOTT GLENN BECK!

Is it too much to expect the loonie left to show even a shred of consistency?  Yes, that was a rhetorical question.

Greenpeace activists arrested for banner on Mount Rushmore

Greenpeace activists were arrested Wednesday for scaling Mount Rushmore and hanging a banner next to the carved face of Abraham Lincoln urging President Barack Obama to get tough on climate change.

Snort. Guffaw. Chortle.  Pres. B.O. is a couple of billion dollars and a couple of Czars into “tough on climate change.”  It’s never enough for these not-so-useful idiots.

I do note that Greenpeace has adopted the appropriately vague “climate change” meme.  Covers pretty much anything you want.

“If President Obama intends to earn a place among this country’s true leaders, he needs to show that courage, and base his actions on the scientific reality rather than political convenience.”

Double snorfle. Are the greenies really, really SURE they want to focus on the scientific realities behind global warming? Cuz I’m pretty sure that falls under the heading of “Be Careful What You Ask For.”

These people need to get a real job and start doing their part for economic recovery.

I say, ask instead what  MUST we do?

By way of an answer, I submit this definition: MALFEASANCE

malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance.

If Barak Obama repeatedly and deliberately excedes those authorities specifically granted to the office of President of the United States by the U.S. Contitution, then he is guilty of political malfeasance.  If the Speaker of the House or any other elected official conducts themselves in such a manner contrary to their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, then they are guilty of both Malfeasance and perjury.

Our system of separation of powers was instituted specifically to prevent to abuse of power of any one man, or group of men.  The powers and limitations of each branch are specifically enumerated.  If a man, especially the President, sees himself as above these restrictions, if he proposes that circumstances require him to set aside the rule of law in order to secure some intangible benefit or prevent some unanmed catastrophe, then he is already well down the road traveled by numerous despots throughout the world’s history.

Barack Obama is our duly elected President.  As such, we own him the courtesy and respect the office demands.  This does NOT mean, however, that we give him our unquestioning obedience.  We owe no fealty to the man.  We honor the office, at most.

Not insignificantly, the oath of office of every military officer and elected official in this country requires that he or she “support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States, against all enemies, foreign, and domestic.”  It does not mention the President.  Not a General or any other officer or individual. We pledge to uphold and defend an ideal, as set of codified laws and principles, principles which have become the very definition of freedom and liberty throughout the world.

We do not swear an oath to a man, or an office.  We swear to uphold the ideals which founded this Republic, ideals which are codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If ANY official, regardless of rank or position, undertakes to violate these principles or exceed the legal limits of his power as constrained by law, he will have proven himself to be unfit for office.  One of the foundational principles of our society, one seldom seen elsewhere in the world today or in recorded history, is that NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW.  Not even the President of the United States.

What we must do is remain vigilant.  We must remain watchful.  We must read and understand every Exective Order written.  We must hold our President and elected officials to account for every action they take or fail to take.  We must be prepared to act whenever they violate the covenants they swore to uphold.  This is not disloyalty, this is not sedition.

It is a requirement of citizenship.

Do not make the mistake of making some saber-rattling noises about “armed overthrow” or “rising up” against our oppressors.  It only legitimizes those who would seek to paint mere patriots as right-wing extremists or terrorists.  We have a legal recourse available to us.

Short of waiting it out for the next 4 years, the only option we have of stopping the damage being done to our country is to seek articles of impeachment against Barack Obama.  To seek recall elections of officials like Nancy Pelosi or Dick Durbin, and others who have shown themselves to be enemies of our free-market representative republic.

By repeatedly exceeding the authorities of his office, by committing, through either ignorance, neglect, or malice those actions which can be see to not only controvene his oath of office, but which a reasonable man might perceive to cause direct and observable harm to this country, Barack Obama is building the case for his own impeachment.

It doesn’t take a felony.  There need be no Whitewater scandal, missing minutes on a tape, or perjury before a Grand Jury.  It is enough that an individual openly flaunts the Constitutional limits of their elected authority to have grounds for impeachment.

And if we do nothing, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

UPDATE:

Something like THIS for example:

Today’s Czar Count – 32!

Even Democrat Robert Byrd wrote Obama a little note saying that the appointment of all the czars “violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight.” This, in his opinion, is unconstitutional at best.

Cap and Trade in all it’s glory. Hello $5 a gallon for gas, and double or triple your electricity bill in the next 10 years.

Bastards.  We are so phuq’d.

Here is one especially telling quote:

In that sense, the true contributor to our economic downturn wasn’t so much the failure of banks, but instead a bipartisan failure within Washington to let market forces prevail whereby finance substitutes would have entered a marketplace badly served by various dead banks walking. Put more simply, the unraveling of major financial institutions is not what presently ails us, but an unwillingness to allow them to die so that they could be replaced by healthy substitutes is.

Rather than let the free market carry on as it has for over two centuries, the sudden socialistic rush to “save” big business by imposing government regulation has actually made things worse, not better.  Something us crazy right-wing nuthouse conservatives were screaming about all along.  It really brings home the much-maligned saying, “I’m from the government, I’m here to help.”  We often forget to add in the two necessary collaries of, “Whether it’s a good idea or not” and “Whether you like it or not.”

And another blinding flash of the obvious in this snippet:

For the institutions supposedly lucky enough to be tapped by our federal minders as too big to fail, the much remarked upon “optimistic” scenario is one in which their cost of capital will drop for them being protected by Washington. This ensures that the many financial institutions not important enough to fit under the Fed’s umbrella will be weakened for having to lend in an environment distorted by larger institutions profiting from their tight relationship with Uncle Sam.

By showing preferential treatment for certain “big” banks, by backing or guaranteeing only certain banks, the government in it’s so-called wisdom has actually helped speed the potential demise of many others who don’t enjoy the same protection from free-market forces.  Moreover, these smaller lenders will simply be unable to compete with “government” banks who can offer lower rates, greater security (in the short term) and the dubious honorific of being under federal “protection.”   The Obama cabinet will essentially be determing which banks/business/institutions “deserve” to survive, and which will be left to the wolves.

There is, of course, the down side of sleeping with the Devil:

Of course that’s the optimistic scenario. Indeed, Obama made plain that in return for their implicit protection, procedures will be put in place for regulators to seize them if they run into financial trouble. It’s a nice idea, but collective investor memory is surely long, and after seeing how secured creditors were dealt with when Chrysler was seized, who in their right mind will deal with banks that redefine the term “federally chartered institution”?

Obama is the wolf offering to guard the hen house against bigger and meaner wolves.  Nevermind that by eating the chickens, this wolf becomes stronger and bigger and meaner, and pretty soon the farmer becomes more afraid of his “guard dog” than of the vague and distant threat he once saw as so dire.  Pretty soon, the farmer has to ask the wolf’s permission to gather the eggs, and then who’s really running the farm?

One final snapshot of stupendously self-evident truth, which seems to have escaped the notice of most of the mainstream mouthpieces singing the praises of the mighty One:

But most unfortunate was Obama’s failure to embrace the basic truth that profit and loss are the best, most effective regulators of all.

It was not a failure to embrace, it was a premediated decision to ignore.  Make no mistake.

Go read the whole thing, and then send it to your Lib friends who still think Obama really has the best interests of this country at heart.

I want enough wind power to peel skin cells off the back of my hand, taking any germs with them.

But nooooooooo.  Gotta be green.  And damp.

I hate the environment.  GIVE ME BACK MY PAPER TOWELS!!!  {{shakes fist in impotent fury at a deaf and uncaring world.}}

It was a “top of the hour” news blurb about how the push for Hate Crimes legislation is gaining steam, being pushed through Congress to bring harsher penalties to those who commit crimes motivated by hate.  You know, rather than the much nobler greed, anger, disinterest, or predatory exploitation.  It’s HATE that we have to watch out for, right?  I mean, in addition to all those “love crimes” we’ve got on the books.  But I digress.

What really rocked me back on my heels was one sentence that came across towards the end of the sound bite.  Some mouthpiece promoting the legislation spoke of trying to keep better track of “bias motivated events.”

Bias. Motivated. Events.  Think about that fer just a sec.

In one swift and subtle movement, we knocked the edges off the definition of “hate crime” and squishy-coated it down into “bias motivated events.”

Can you see the inherent, insidious danger here?

If someone mugs a pedestrian, say, man dressed up in women’s clothes, does this constitute a hate crime?  What is the burden of proof to say that the alleged criminal  didn’t target this person because of their “lifestyle”.  What if the crook took the dude’s predilections for frills and lace to suggest he might be an easy target.  Not because the crook hated the tranny, but because he figured he/she might be an easy mark.  Too effeminate to fight back, who knows?

Instead of 6 months, suspended, for attempted robbery, our felon gets 5 years because it’s a “hate crime.”

But wait.  This goes back to prosecuting intent, rather than actions.  If I further dumb this down to say that any “bias-motivated event” can be prosecuted, ANYTHING I DO that is motivated by my personal bias or worldview, can now become prosecutable.

Anything.

Say a church decides that since Sally has decided to become Sam, that maybe we don’t want him/her teaching Sunday School anymore.  Is that my right as a private institution, or is it now a hate crime, because it was motivated by a religious bias against Transgendereds?  Not that we hate them, but just that we don’t want them teaching our sunday school class.  That’s not hate, it’s bias.  Instead of just being unfaaaaaaaair, is it now also a hate crime?

If I choose not to rent to a couple of guys because they look, act, and sound like belligerent gang bangers, can I be prosecuted for my “bias” against thugs who will likely wreck my rental?

If a pastor speaks out against men preying on boys for sexual exploitation, can I be prosecuted for a hate crime because of my BIAS?

This is an incredibly dangerous area, a slippery slope that, in the name of protecting rights, will end up destroying them.  I mean, short of a diary, a blog post, or a text message, etc., how can you prove INTENT behind an individual’s action?  Do gays, or blacks, or hispanics have special protections against crimes that others don’t?  Shouldn’t all be equal under the law?

Robbery, murder, rape, arson.  They are crimes.  They are illegal.  They shouldn’t be MORE illegal because of who the victim is.  WHY I committed the crime might make me an asshole, a reporbate, a truly descpicable human being.  Sadly, or thankfully, there’s no law (yet) against being an asshole.  It is only the CRIME I commit which makes me a criminal, regardless of my motivations for it.

Isn’t that what this trend in hate crimes suggests?  That eventually, what you THINK about a situation will have as much legal weight as what you actually DID about it?

Scary stuff.  Beyond even 1984.  Madness.