Barack Obama is once again circumventing the legislative process in order to push his administration’s unpopular leftist agenda. First, it was illegal immigration, then transgender bathrooms. This time, it’s guns.
Earlier this year, the White House announced new policies for those receiving social security benefits in conjunction with the president’s January 5th executive order on gun ownership. When it was released, few seemed to notice that the order allowed the administration to withhold Second Amendment rights from those who collect social security.
The move makes little logical sense. Social Security beneficiaries have never proven themselves as particularly violent or incapable of gun ownership. Instead, it seems as if this is part of Obama’s larger plan to slowly and surreptitiously restrict gun ownership whenever and wherever possible.
The administration was likely hoping that this slow creep of new regulations would go unnoticed until it was too late to be repealed. Fortunately, the watchful eyes of conservative media caught them in the act.
See Obama’s secret gun ban on the next page:
You must not have read the post. He wrote an executive order saying social security people could NOT own guns. It didn’t say anything about you not getting your S.S. benefits.
You must not have read my other two posts I addressed that because I had two thoughts about SS. And the other being a ban on guns for the older folks.
Resend this one
The Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate, currently Andrew B. Willison, is the only person with authority to arrest a sitting president – if the president has violated Senate rules – which Obama certainly has.
But what if the Sergeant at Arms won’t do his job and arrest the President when crimes have been committed?
If Andrew Willison will not perform his duty and arrest the president for crimes Obama has committed, is Mr. Willison not complicit and guilty of a criminal act himself?
Can we have Mr. Willison arrested or at least removed for failing to perform his duty? Who can perform this arrest or removal?
Furthermore, if this person won’t live up to their responsibility and arrest or remove the Sergeant at Arms who is complicit in the president´s crimes, who can remove that person?
Is there some place where the rubber meets the road here?
Is there a point at which “we as a people” can take legal and lawful action, applying pressure where we can, to ultimately arrest the President and all those complicit in his crimes?
We are calling an ‘all hands’ here to try to discover if there is a valid method for ultimately having the president arrested using the above line of thought.
Loo, not for long
Willard Wright are you capable of forming a coherent sentence?
Guess not.
He can go$#%&!@*himself period
Trump will undo it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope
Ass hole!
Executive orders mean nothing and will be overturned.