Like cockroaches in the night

[funkfool]

This.......


Sickens me!

You, my friend, are NOT alone.
"Honest Leadership" - MY A$$
"Open Government" - SO FAR from it.
These folks are worse than scum - and should be prosecuted to the FULLEST extent that the LAW allows.

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
Samuel Adams

I must have put in a thousand emails and at least 300 phone calls to various elected officals to voice my opposition to these latest assaults on our freedoms and know for a fact that the majority of responses these reps got was HEAVILY weighted AGAINST these ill-concieved ideas.
They just ignored the will of the people and plowed onward, towards socialism.
They aren't afraid of not being re-elected, in my opinion, because they are putting in place a bureaucracy of such size and scope that they will just be appointed to a cushy, life-long govt. job by those still in position to do so.
They no longer believe they have anything to lose.
I believe them to be VERY WRONG and hope to prove them so.

[GMCSW]

In 1982 I took an oath, "To defend the U.S. constitution from all threats, both foreign, and domestic". Having seen the inner workings if you will of our government, it sickens me to see and hear the changes some people are wanting to make to the Constitution.
If in fact, the government is the employee of the people, then we should, without pause do whatever is within our power to maintain our rights, and freedoms, as set forth. Our country has evolved into a "me" mentality, and separated from the family unit our grandparents new. There are far too many "sheeple", out there who are happy as long as they have their fancy cars, big houses, and club memberships. People who give their children money to get them out of there hair instead of teaching them basic skills much less how our government is supposed to work. Too many people who have sat on the fence for far too long. If we the few don't start barking loudly now, soon we will have no voice at all, and as it has been proven we will be condemed to repeat our past.

7idl -
Well - let's start the wheels for a recall.
Udall and Bennet are not doing the job they were elected to do and swore an oath to fufill. REPRESENTING the voters of their state and support and defend the Constitution.

US Senate Oath of Office

"I 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. "

On further research regarding recall of Senators:
http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf...rom_Office.pdf

As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the States for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the Framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United States Congress exists under the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other Supreme Court decisions, as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative decisions, rulings and opinions, indicate that: (1) the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides exclusively in each House of Congress as established in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the length and number of the terms of office for federal officials, established and agreed upon by the States in the Constitution creating that Federal Government, may not be unilaterally changed by an individual State, such as through the enactment of a recall provision or a term limitation for a United States Senator or Representative. Under Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, since individual States never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be “reserved” under the 10th Amendment.

Then:

RECALL
In some States, State legislators and other State or local elected officials may be removed from office before the expiration of their established terms not only by action of the legislature itself through an expulsion (or for executive officers, through
an “impeachment” and conviction by the legislature), but also by the voters through a “recall” election procedure. While an expulsion is an inherent authority of legislative bodies incident to their general powers over their own proceedings and
members, recall is a special process outside of the legislature itself, exercised by the people through a special election. Recall provisions for State or local officers became popular in the “progressive movement,” particularly in the western and plains
States, in the early part of the 20th Century.21

- So - is it possible?
If so - only 25% of the total number of votes from the last election?

Quote Article XXI

"A petition signed by registered electors entitled to vote for a successor of the incumbent sought to be recalled, equal in number to twenty­five percent of the entire vote cast at the last preceding election for all candidates for the position which the incumbent sought to be recalled occupies, demanding an election of the successor to the officer named in said petition, shall be filed in the office in which petitions for nominations to office held by the incumbent sought to be recalled are required to be filed; provided, if more than one person is required by law to be elected to fill the office of which the person sought to be recalled is an incumbent, then the said petition shall be signed by registered electors entitled to vote for a successor to the incumbent sought to be recalled equal in number to twenty­five percent of the entire vote cast at the last preceding general election for all candidates for the office, to which the incumbent sought to be recalled was elected as one of the officers thereof, said entire vote being divided by the number of all officers elected to such office, at the last preceding general election; and such petition shall contain a general statement, in not more than two hundred words, of the ground or grounds on which such recall is sought, which statement is intended for the information of the registered electors, and the registered electors shall be the sole and exclusive judges of the legality, reasonableness and sufficiency of such ground or grounds assigned for such recall, and said ground or grounds shall not be open to review."

That has to be the LONGEST sentence I have ever read . And I still don't know if it is feasable. I need to examine these documents in detail - so full of legalese.

[ColoEnthusiast]

There is more. Apparently B.O. is also planning to nominate around 15 people for positions in government while the Senate is in recess.
I don't know how many of my fellow board members read this, but B.O., when asked about his using non-applicable rules to push through healthcare reform (despite majority disapproval in both government and the U.S. public), he replied essentially: that's what elections are for.
The obvious message here is, he knows better than we all do what is best for us. Regardless of what we think he will do whatever he wants with our laws, our persons, our money and our nation.
I think there's a word for this...?