Vengeance is mine saith —— ?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Flanders, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,544
    Thanks Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,575
    After you read the enclosed article you can finish my title in accordance with your own understanding of vengeance.

    I have one thing to say. Every violent criminal, every child-molesting teacher or priest, gets a fairer shake than Terry Lakin ever got.


    Political views torpedo medical license application
    Kansas board puts Terry Lakin's qualifications at lower priority
    By Jack Minor
    Published 16 hours ago

    The Kansas State board of Healing Arts apparently is saying political perspectives are more important than medical knowledge for its doctors.

    That’s the result of the board’s decision this week to reject a request from Dr. Terrence Lakin for a license to practice medicine in the state.

    The decision came because of his perspective that Barack Obama may not be eligible to be president or commander-in-chief, and he, while an officer in the military, was not necessarily obligated to followed orders from someone who may be an imposter.

    Based on the doubts about Obama’s eligibility and legitimacy, Lakin declined an additional deployment to the Middle East and his subsequent charges and trial made headlines. He eventually was removed from the military.



    Edited for copyright

    Political views torpedo medical license application
     
  2. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Lakin made a mistake. He erroneously believed that a commander in chief had fullfill necessary qualifications. He forgot that those times had passed. We are now subject to the divine right of kings to rule.
     
  3. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,544
    Thanks Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,575
    To Katzndogz: Interesting choice of words. I posted a message on another board where I asked “What is the opposite of an imperial presidency?”

    My answer: A cowardly Congress.

    Why cowardly?

    Whenever most Americans hear ‘imperial president’ they think of a king or queen rather than an emperor or empress. In that sense an imperial president is a king; so it follows that members of Congress are his dukes and barons. The rest of us are his subjects fit for nothing more than paying taxes to support the ruling class. Any noble opposing the king used to be stripped of his title and wealth, and often separated from his head. An American king cannot go around lopping off heads; hence, a cowardly Congress.

    Were the president a real king his nobility in Congress would be his loyal henchmen carrying out their monarch’s wishes. Oh, wait a minute! Isn’t that what just happened?

    The Divine Right of Kings

    Hussein’s desire to be seen as a spiritual leader indicates his love for the Divine Right of Kings; i.e., not subject to earthly authority since he rules by the will of God. Islam’s God or the Christian God, it matters not which one because the king can do no wrong. In addition, all attempts to curtail the king’s power is an affront to God. Does anyone besides me see the shadow of a monarchial theocracy creeping over the Constitution?

    Lest I be accused of spouting a conspiracy theory, let me say that Hussein is basically a street-hustling preacher not bright enough to plot and plan a return to the Divine Right of Kings, yet that is where he wants to go.

    How did America go so far down the road to monarchy in spite of the Constitution?

    For one thing, members of Congress saw that the best way to stay in power was to let the courts, federal bureaucrats, and executive orders do the heavy lifting. That determination to remain in Congress made cowards of them all. Today, letting the courts, federal bureaucrats, and executive orders do the dirty work morphed into not being able to stop them. Example: All of the constitutional authority in the world cannot stop activist judges from legislating, shutdown destructive bureaucracies, or overturn an executive order. I say “cannot” with one caveat. It might be will not rather than cannot.

    Incidentally, executive orders should be called royal edicts.

    The House of Representatives

    Porkers in the House support the king’s policies with tax legislation, and do pretty well for themselves while they are at it.

    The U.S. Senate

    Kings come and go, but senators rule forever just as dukes and barons of yore outlasted many a monarch. A long-serving senator is infinitely more imperial than the king when you apply the definition of imperial to XVII Amendment senators:

    Having supreme authority; sovereign.

    You can’t name a president that had more supreme authority than did the late Ted Kennedy. And he had it long enough to implement his agenda even to the point of betraying the country. Kings would have been deposed had they done the things Kennedy was guilty of.

    An article by Andrea Tantaros looks at our imperial president in relation to gridlock. I want to offer my take on this excerpt:


    But with little moving legislatively, it will be up to them to communicate to the angry masses that a majority in Congress is still facing a President with a veto pen and executive powers (ones he plans on using). This is the scariest, and most realistic, drawback of them all.​

    Beware the imperial President: Gridlock is preferable to an Obama doing end-runs around Congress
    Andrea Tantaros
    Thursday, October 14th 2010, 8:11 AM

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/tantaros/index.html

    The more vetoes the better it is for conservatives in 2012 when Democrats refuse to vote for overriding Hussein’s vetoes. Can you see any Democrat defending his or her refusal to repeal the Affordable Care Act? Democrats are all running away from that terrible piece of legislation now, what chance do you think they will have in 2012 if that bill is still on the books because of them?

    Finally, a REPUBLICAN Congress gave Clinton the line-item veto in 1996. In plain English, Republicans were increasing the king’s powers. Fortunately, in 1998 the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional. Legalese aside, I like to think the Court said “Screw the king.”
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2012

Share This Page