GINGRICH GIVES OBAMA 'IMPEACHMENT' WARNING

I get the fact that since he wasn't prosecuting cases in court before it makes little practical difference stating that he won't do so in the future. But the point here is bigger than the law that he's choosing to start ignoring. It's the principle that's important.

Giving him a pass on a public declaration that he's going to pick and choose what he wants to do instead of being bound by his oath of office (regardless of the spin that I feel Raoul is putting on that) is shortsighted. At what point do we quit NOT taking notice of and excusing these things and realize we've elected a dictator?

Will people only take offense if it's something they don't like?

It's impossible for the DoJ to prosecute violations of DOMA, because only the Fedgov can violate it, and they haven't. And they won't. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring the executive branch to defend laws in court - hardly unsurprising given that judicial review wasn't a part of the Constitution either.

Obama is not choosing not to enforce the law; he will be doing that when he makes Texas recognize Vermont's gay marriages, and/or directing the IRS to accept joint filings from the same.

But he won't do that until and unless SCOTUS strikes down DOMA (which I think they won't, at least not the 2nd half).

Question for supporters of Mr. Gingrich's stance:

If Mr. Obama is indeed obliged to enforce the laws of the United States, should he not then arrest those in the previous administration who, it can be argued, are guilty of violating the United Nations Convention on Torture, including potentially the former President?

I mention this because early in his administration there were calls to enforce that law, but Mr. Obama thought it best to ignore it in the interest of "moving on."

In short, perhaps one should be careful in what one wishes for.

Saying this is acting like a dictator is a bit harsh, was Bush 1 being a dictator when he did a similar thing?

Sure why not. I'd agree to each and every living politician that supported that, or allowed it to happen to be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned.

An organization that allows countries run by dictators, thugs, and murderers as members has no credability as who to prosecute for what.

Then perhaps President Reagan should not have signed the treaty.

However, he did, and therefore the United States is bound to enforce it, just like any other treaty.

Which former President?

Bush or Clinton or both?

I must not be capable of making this point so I won't even bother.

Are you one of those who believes that Mr. Clinton is capable of time travel and not only piloted all four airliners but planned it all to make Mr. Bush look bad?

If so, I applaud the success of your show, Mr. Beck.

Actually I was thinking of his sending people in secret to foreign countries to be tortured.

Oh....you forgot about that?

This whole thing is one of the greatest examples of "making a mountain out of a molehill" that I have ever seen. I am no Obama supporter, by any means, but this is childish, partisan, ODS material. I am disappointed with Gingrich, and with all those trying to make out that he has some kind of reasonable point here.

BEAUTIFUL PICTURE