By: James Carafano
Examiner Columnist
August 24, 2009
While campaigning for president, Barack Obama promised to support missile defense that was "pragmatic and cost-effective" and "does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public."
This measured support for missile defense, coupled with his pledge to combat terrorism and follow through on the mission in Afghanistan, was meant to reassure America's voters.
The intended message: A President Obama would not be negligent on national security. Once in the White House, he would protect Americans.
That was the promise. Americans believed it. And it helped carry him into the Oval Office with a comfortable majority.
Now that Congress is home for the summer holidays, we have time to reflect on the defense authorization bill it left behind. Unfortunately, the bill indicates that the president's missile defense promise will not be kept. And Obama has no one but himself to blame.
The Pentagon budget the president sent to the Hill would have slashed production and deployment of U.S.-based missile interceptors by about a third. The cuts would have come from missile defenses that are already tested, proven and, for the most part, paid for. So much for the promise of "pragmatic and cost-effective" defenses.
Case in point: The Obama budget included absolutely zero funds to replace "Missile Field One." This Alaskan missile field, now part of the missile defense shield, includes the first silos built to test the long-range interceptors.
The silos were not built for long-term use. They now need to be replaced. But the Obama budget request zeroed out that funding ... even though the budget still retained an already paid-for fleet of interceptors.
Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish! Those paid-for interceptors can be of no use without silos from which to shoot them. The Obama budget would have left them silo-less.
The White House also started backpedaling from the previous administration's commitment to field missile defense interceptors in Poland that would protect both our allies and our troops in Europe from the growing Iranian missile threat. The administration tried to justify the delay by saying it wanted to look at "pragmatic and cost-effective" alternatives.
One alternative it says it wants to consider is a mobile, land-based system. Cool, huh? Except that such a system exists nowhere other than on some PowerPoint slides. So much for "pragmatic."
The other alternative it is considering is a sea-based system. But sea-based defenses are much more expensive to operate than land-based silos. Moreover, our current sea-based system can't intercept long-range missiles.
A new sea-based interceptor will have to be developed to do the job. Thus, the "pragmatic and cost-effective alternative" the administration says it wants to consider is demonstrably more expensive and totally unproven.
Obama's defense budget also killed a missile defense research and development program called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it was "going nowhere," expensive and unproven. What he did not mention is that, so far, the only part of the KEI program that has actually been built is a "fire-control" system that links the missile-detecting sensors to the interceptors.
The fire-control part of KEI has been fully tested. It is a robust system that could be utilized with any land- or sea-based interceptor (not just the proposed KEI missile). By killing the funding for the entire program, the fire control system (the part American tax dollars have already paid for) will be terminated as well — another violation of the "proven and cost-effective" pledge.
Finally, Obama...
Read more at the Washington Examiner:
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
“A Disturbing Picture Of Putting A Political Party Ahead Of Victory In Afghanistan”: Woodward Book
Does anyone remember the comments President Obama made a few months ago about being unable to defend our borders? Seriously, what is wrong with this man that he feels disinclined to defend our country? -----lee
From patdollard.com
September 22nd, 2010
Posted By Pat Dollard
Posted By Pat Dollard
The Hill:
Republicans on Wednesday blasted President Obama for statements journalist Bob Woodward attributed to him in his new book.
Republicans were particularly incensed about Obama’s belief that the U.S. could “absorb” another terrorist attack on American soil, something Obama said he is doing everything he can to prevent that happening.
Liz Cheney, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter and the chairwoman of Keep American Safe, said the remark “suggests an alarming fatalism on the part of President Obama and his administration.”
“Once again the president seems either unwilling or unable to do what it takes to keep this nation safe,” said Cheney, a frequent critic of Obama’s national security policies. “The president owes the American people an explanation.”
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also criticized Obama’s comment on another terrorist attack.
“Well, I don’t know that I would have said that. The country has to be prepared for any terrorist attack,” Giuliani said on a conference call with reporters. “I would prefer that the president put his effort in preventing another Sept 11.
Woodward’s “Obama’s Wars” will not be released until Monday, but details in the book appeared in The New York Times and The Washington Post on Wednesday. Reaction overall was muted, though White House officials portrayed Woodward’s book in a positive light, telling The Hill Wednesday morning that the accounts show a “decisive” president focused on getting the policy in Afghanistan right.
“We are focused on supporting our strategy in Afghanistan and succeeding in our effort to break the Taliban’s momentum and build Afghanistan’s capacity,” one senior administration official said. “The book underscores the importance of our efforts in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda worldwide.”
But even some Republicans who don’t have an axe to grind with Obama said the book’s excerpts, particularly those dealing with ongoing operations in Afghanistan, are concerning.
Woodward’s account that Obama told Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) that he had to say he will being the troop drawdown in July 2011 because he can’t “lose the whole Democratic Party” was disconcerting to some.
Jordan Fabian contributed to this report
To read entire article click below.
To read entire article click below.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Economic Treason: What Kind of Country Destroys the Job Market for Its Own Citizens?
A bit old, but apropos to our time. It's only been getting worse since July of 2005. Different administrations but same result. However, with Bush it was pure greed and stupidity but with President Obama, in my opinion, it is deliberate. Obama has not helped the average worker except with nice phrases and fancy words. ----lee
From counterpunch.org
Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:27:21 -0400
What Kind of Country Destroys the Job Market for Its Own Citizens?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The June payroll jobs report did not receive much attention due to the July
4 holiday, but the depressing 21st century job performance of the US economy
continues unabated.
o Only 144,000 private sector jobs were created, each one of which was in
domestic services.
o 56,000 jobs were created in professional and business services, about half
of which are in administrative and waste services.
o 38,000 jobs were created in education and health services, almost all of
which are in health care and social assistance.
o 19,000 jobs were created in leisure and hospitality, almost all of which
are waitresses and bartenders.
o Membership associations and organizations created 10,000 jobs and repair
and maintenance created 4,000 jobs.
o Financial activities created 16,000 jobs.
This most certainly is not the labor market profile of a first world
country, much less a superpower.
Where are the jobs for this year's crop of engineering and science
graduates?
US manufacturing lost another 24,000 jobs in June.
A country that doesn't manufacture doesn't need many engineers. And the few
engineering jobs available go to foreigners.
Readers have sent me employment listings from US software development firms.
The listings are discriminatory against American citizens. One ad from a
company in New Jersey that is a developer for many companies, including
Oracle, specifies that the applicant must have a TN visa.
to continue reading go to:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162005.html
From counterpunch.org
Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:27:21 -0400
What Kind of Country Destroys the Job Market for Its Own Citizens?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The June payroll jobs report did not receive much attention due to the July
4 holiday, but the depressing 21st century job performance of the US economy
continues unabated.
o Only 144,000 private sector jobs were created, each one of which was in
domestic services.
o 56,000 jobs were created in professional and business services, about half
of which are in administrative and waste services.
o 38,000 jobs were created in education and health services, almost all of
which are in health care and social assistance.
o 19,000 jobs were created in leisure and hospitality, almost all of which
are waitresses and bartenders.
o Membership associations and organizations created 10,000 jobs and repair
and maintenance created 4,000 jobs.
o Financial activities created 16,000 jobs.
This most certainly is not the labor market profile of a first world
country, much less a superpower.
Where are the jobs for this year's crop of engineering and science
graduates?
US manufacturing lost another 24,000 jobs in June.
A country that doesn't manufacture doesn't need many engineers. And the few
engineering jobs available go to foreigners.
Readers have sent me employment listings from US software development firms.
The listings are discriminatory against American citizens. One ad from a
company in New Jersey that is a developer for many companies, including
Oracle, specifies that the applicant must have a TN visa.
to continue reading go to:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162005.html
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Obamacare is even worse than critics thought
To put in simplest terms: ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Period. End of debate. ----lee
from washingtonexaminer.com
Examiner Editorial
September 22, 2010
Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:
» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.
» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.
» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.
» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.
» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.
» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.
» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.
» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.
to read original article and reader comments
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html
from washingtonexaminer.com
Examiner Editorial
September 22, 2010
Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:
» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.
» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.
» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.
» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.
» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.
» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.
» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.
» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.
to read original article and reader comments
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html
Retired Army General Supports Lt. Col. Lakin
from thepostemail.com
by Kathleen Gotto
by Kathleen Gotto
Apr. 23, 2010
Army Major General Paul Vallely (Ret.), chairman of StandUpAmerica and well-known Fox News military analyst, has expressed his support for the position taken by Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a U.S. Army medical doctor and flight surgeon who has refused to follow all orders until Obama proves that he is constitutionally qualified to hold the position of Commander-in-Chief.
Lakin was formally charged yesterday on two counts, “disobeying a direct order” and “missing movement.” Lakin had been due to deploy to Afghanistan for his second tour when he announced his intentions on March 30, 2010.
In an interview on the internet program Evil Conservative Radio, Vallely stated, “I’m not convinced that he is [a natural-born citizen].”
to continue reading
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Treason charge against Obama has never been answered
The questions regarding Obama's legitimacy as president are continuing to grow. Even the State Department has unwittingly added to those doubts. So, my question is: when is the Secretary of State Clinton going to inform President Obama of this breaking news story. Most likely, a few months before the primaries in late 2011. Just a guess. (See below for link.)
----lee
----lee
From The postemail.com
by Sharon Rondeau
Sept. 9, 2010
On March 17, 2009, a criminal complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee against Barack Hussein Obama for Treason.
While the complaint called Obama an “imposter president,” it focused on the violation of the Posse Comitatus Act committed by the U.S. Army acting under Obama over the deploying of U.S. troops in the town of Samson, AL on March 10, 2009.
Filed by Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick, III, the complaint has gone unanswered. Obama has not taken steps to disprove the claims, nor has Fitzpatrick been arrested for mutiny.
Another criminal complaint filed in the Western District of New York was similarly ignored. Other public officials have been served with presentments which declared Obama guilty of fraud and treason.
One complainant stated:
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee also ignored my process serving of a Grand Jury Presentment for treason and election fraud against Obama and Pelosi on December 4, 2009. The Western District in Memphis pretended never to receive my process service and as we know Judge Campbell in the Middle District in Nashville regurgitated Judge Lamberth’s ruling from my Grand Jury Presentment in October 2009.
A criminal complaint with over 3,000 signatures has recently been filed with the FBI.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Barrack Hussein Obama Is A Traitor
From the Detroit Republican Examiner via examiner.com.
by Michael Curcuru
I can't think of anyway of hiding my feelings on our president. I want to remain respectful, but pretending Obama is democrat with a heart larger than most liberals doesn't describe his performance so far. The man is clearly trying to change America. The man took an oath to defend the laws of our country and there is no way to excuse his non action concerning the new immigration law in Arizona. Not only has he refused to act when clearly there is a problem, he is now flaunting his refusal to act. He knows there are votes if he can legalize all these illegals. He is clearly not defending America.
Obama's actions with the health care plan was unprecedented and will prove to be illegal. Over 18 states have filed law suits on his plan he passed only because he offered bribes and twisted arms. The tactics he used overshadow any good that could possibly come from a national health care plan. The estimates of the costs have recently skyrocketed now that the committee that analyzes costs has had time to evaluate it. He isTRYING to bankrupt our country. Literally.
After spending 80 billion dollars on the first stimulus program, they are now going to pour another 20 billion into another stimulus package. The result from the first program over a year old now has produced nothing. He has also tried to ruin the banking industry, and is trying to take over several other industries. The democrats are planning a VALUE ADDED TAX that from all indications will not only cost jobs, but will decimate any commerce in our country.
Even if you agree with Obama and think that we should apologize for being a great country, how can you still call yourself an American if you agree with his performance so far. He hasn't had an open press conference since October 2009. Why do you think that is? Isn't this supposed to be an open government with debates being shown on C-Span? Remember that promise? Even his own party can see what his real intentions are. TO CHANGE AMERICA TO A SOCIALIST COUNTRY. If we were taken over by another country, these are the things that would be forced on us. Higher taxes. Government taking over the banking, industries, and enforcing only the laws they want to enforce. We used to be a different country from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world was accepting our type of government as a great way to run their own countries.
A year ago, if someone wrote an article claiming Obama was really a socialist, they would have been called an over zealous conservative trying to deface the Obama presidency. Today, it is readily accepted that he is a radical socialist. To see Obama standing next to the Mexican president lecturing our country on our laws when their own immigration laws are much harsher is amazing to me. Obama stood there like the proud dad listening to his son lecturing his grandchildren to clean up their rooms. Obama not only hasn't tried to enforce the immigration laws on the books, he clearly has demonstrated he has no intention of doing so. Besides costing jobs, the illegal immigrants send billions of dollars earned in the United States back to Mexico. That is money that would go back into our own communities if these jobs were held by American workers. The old excuse that no one wants these jobs here is pure propaganda. How can you say no one wants these jobs when we have over 10% unemployment in America.
Obama has refused to protect America also. The open borders are an invitation to all kinds of illegals that want to enter our country and kill Americans. We have become the laughing stock of the world with Iran and North Korea both continuing with their nuclear programs. They know what most of Americans have become to realize. Our government lacks guts, and what's worse, they want us to fall from being the world leader.
Obama has not lived up to the oath he took as president. He continually stomps all over our constitution and is trying to change our freedoms and rights with his socialistic czars and policies. He has surrounded himself with radical, incompetent, traitors and he has to be stopped.
There are numerous radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levine continually bringing out the real motives of our president. Fox news has become the most watched news station in the country by showing the real agenda of this administration. Glenn Beck has shown the basic philosophy of governments in general and shown the quotes and writings of some of the most radical, liberal minds of the last century clearly analyzing Obama's motives. These radio and television personalities are successful, intelligent Americans who will be remembered as some of our greatest citizens. They have led and supplied the information showing Obama's true agenda.
Friday, September 17, 2010
GOP Blasts Obama Over ‘Insufficient’ Border Security Boost As Additional Troops Start Arriving
September 6, 2010
by Personal Liberty News Desk
Due to the ongoing plague of drug violence in Mexico, which is sending immigrants and traffickers across the United States southern border, the Federal government has begun to beef up security by deploying first contingents of additional National Guard troops.
Many politicians, commentators and ordinary citizens have criticized the Obama administration in recent months for making little headway on curbing illegal immigration or a comprehensive immigration reform.
In an effort to address some of this criticism, the president committed earlier this year to sending 1,200 additional National Guards to California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. On Aug.30, the first contingent of 30 troops began their deployment in Arizona, and 72 others started in New Mexico on Sept.1. More will continue to arrive over the next two months, according to media reports.
However, the government’s effort has been criticized as insufficient by some politicians, with Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) reminding viewers on Fox News that he — and some of his fellow lawmakers from the Grand Canyon State, such as John McCain (R-Ariz.)— argued for as many as 6,000 additional troops.
by Personal Liberty News Desk
Due to the ongoing plague of drug violence in Mexico, which is sending immigrants and traffickers across the United States southern border, the Federal government has begun to beef up security by deploying first contingents of additional National Guard troops.
Many politicians, commentators and ordinary citizens have criticized the Obama administration in recent months for making little headway on curbing illegal immigration or a comprehensive immigration reform.
In an effort to address some of this criticism, the president committed earlier this year to sending 1,200 additional National Guards to California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. On Aug.30, the first contingent of 30 troops began their deployment in Arizona, and 72 others started in New Mexico on Sept.1. More will continue to arrive over the next two months, according to media reports.
However, the government’s effort has been criticized as insufficient by some politicians, with Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) reminding viewers on Fox News that he — and some of his fellow lawmakers from the Grand Canyon State, such as John McCain (R-Ariz.)— argued for as many as 6,000 additional troops.
Health-care reform is treason
We are still in the before picture stage of our debate. But this article brings several excellent points. First, taxes and governmental intrusion into our private lives, and secondly, treason. ---lee
Kate Thompson The Quad-City Times Posted: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 11:15 pm
The proposed health-care reform will bankrupt this country. Given the national debt, there is no way we can afford this kind of assault on fiscal responsibility.
Additionally, reading the Constitution as mandating supporting the general welfare is ludicrous; the general welfare referred to is the ongoing business of the federal government and how tax monies are to be used. This reform bill to overhaul our health-care system flies in the face of our Constitution.
At no time in our history have the American people been forced to purchase anything by our government. That is not one of the enumerated powers of government as listed in the Constitution.
There are many ways this health-care reform is wrong. We can’t afford it now while we are in double-digit unemployment; we can’t afford it in the future, while we are borrowing over $500 million per day for interest on the national debt and our kids should not be saddled with the debt from choices made against their parents’ wills by those who should represent them, yet refuse to consider constituents’ wills.
Voting in favor of health-care reform should be considered a treasonous act. More than likely, it will be considered a signal to constituents that the yea-sayers are ready to leave public office which is just as it should be.
to see original article
Kate Thompson The Quad-City Times Posted: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 11:15 pm
The proposed health-care reform will bankrupt this country. Given the national debt, there is no way we can afford this kind of assault on fiscal responsibility.
Additionally, reading the Constitution as mandating supporting the general welfare is ludicrous; the general welfare referred to is the ongoing business of the federal government and how tax monies are to be used. This reform bill to overhaul our health-care system flies in the face of our Constitution.
At no time in our history have the American people been forced to purchase anything by our government. That is not one of the enumerated powers of government as listed in the Constitution.
There are many ways this health-care reform is wrong. We can’t afford it now while we are in double-digit unemployment; we can’t afford it in the future, while we are borrowing over $500 million per day for interest on the national debt and our kids should not be saddled with the debt from choices made against their parents’ wills by those who should represent them, yet refuse to consider constituents’ wills.
Voting in favor of health-care reform should be considered a treasonous act. More than likely, it will be considered a signal to constituents that the yea-sayers are ready to leave public office which is just as it should be.
to see original article
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Arizona: Border Security Gets More Help From Above-NOT
I don't think that planes in the air ever stopped anything or anyone. Troops stop things and people. It's a start, though. It would also help if they actually liberated parts of Arizona from the drug and human smugglers and cleaned up the garbage refuse and litter left by same on the trails and highways. ------lee
Silly comments from our Terrorist in Chief, Janet Napolitano to the contrary, six drones do not make a secure border, and our borders are less secure than ever.---rmg
Infantile comments from our Terrorist in Chief, Janet Napolitano to the contrary, six drones do not make a secure border, and our borders are less secure than ever.
From the New York Times
By MARC LACEY
Published: August 30, 2010
As National Guard troops began arriving in southern Arizona on Monday, Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, said the boots on the ground would be assisted by more surveillance from the skies. Ms. Napolitano said that with the launching of a fourth Predator drone this week, the entire Southwest border from California to Texas would now be patrolled from above. Previously, drones were not approved by the Federal Aviation Administration for use in a stretch of West Texas. By the beginning of next year, the number of drones operating along the border should be up to six, providing “critical aerial surveillance assistance,” Ms. Napolitano said. “Numbers don’t lie,” she added, arguing that the border region, despite perceptions to the contrary, was more secure than ever.
to read original article
From the New York Times
By MARC LACEY
Published: August 30, 2010
As National Guard troops began arriving in southern Arizona on Monday, Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, said the boots on the ground would be assisted by more surveillance from the skies. Ms. Napolitano said that with the launching of a fourth Predator drone this week, the entire Southwest border from California to Texas would now be patrolled from above. Previously, drones were not approved by the Federal Aviation Administration for use in a stretch of West Texas. By the beginning of next year, the number of drones operating along the border should be up to six, providing “critical aerial surveillance assistance,” Ms. Napolitano said. “Numbers don’t lie,” she added, arguing that the border region, despite perceptions to the contrary, was more secure than ever.
to read original article
Monday, September 13, 2010
Obama, Congress, and Treason Against the Constitution
Well worth remembering just how deeply ingrained the treasonous instinct is within the democratic party--like venom in a snake.--rng
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 19, 2010
On Thursday, Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, responded to a question about the so-called “Slaughter Rule” (named after Rep. Slaughter, who sits on the rules committee) that will be used by Democrats to force through Obama’s totalitarian care bill, probably over the weekend.
Gibbs’ answer was deliberately opaque. By not addressing the question, he essentially said “deem and pass” will be used in the future to enact unpopular legislation, including a bill that will legalize millions of illegal immigrants.
It is now official — the Constitution is dead. It may as well be used to wrap fish.
Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that both houses of Congress hold recorded yea-or-nay votes on a bill before it can be presented to the president for his signature and before it can become law.
Obama approves of sabotaging the Constitution. He said he does not “spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are,” in other words violating the spirit and law of the Constitution is not a biggie for him. “What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform,” he told Bret Baier of Fox News.
“These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism,” former federal appeals court judge Michael McConnell told the Wall Street Journal earlier in the week. “They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives.”
Author and talk show host Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation plans to file an immediate lawsuit if House Democratic leaders try to use the unconstitutional maneuver to pass the Senate version of Obama’s totalitarian care.
Good for Levin. However, according to constitutional experts, the underhanded procedure is unlikely to be reversed by the courts.
In short, Obama and Congress will not be called to task. The Constitution is now about as relevant as the Sunday funnies.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Obama Proves Himself Traitor
After 18 months in office, Obama has proven over and over that he is the greatest traitor in American history. What is to be done? The answer is obvious. --RONBO
"Everywhere you look, wherever there is a crisis, Obama is not simply doing nothing. He's making things worse. America is about to plunge into unsustainable deficit spending? Obama got us started early with the stimulus package and the health care bill. Big states are being bankrupted by public employee unions? Obama wants to increase the unions' power. Not enough power plants? Obama wants to restrict them further. Iran is seeking nukes? Obama gave them a reprieve against a popular uprising. Karzai doubts America's resolve in Afghanistan? Obama wavers on our strategy and declares our intention to bug out, no matter how much disarray there is in our strategy and command.
There's an old saying: When you fail to plan, you plan to fail. But the pattern of the Obama administration has me wondering if we're seeing the inverse: when you plan to fail, you fail to plan. That is, if American contraction and retreat is your goal, why would you make any plans to revive the economy or win wars?
"Everywhere you look, wherever there is a crisis, Obama is not simply doing nothing. He's making things worse. America is about to plunge into unsustainable deficit spending? Obama got us started early with the stimulus package and the health care bill. Big states are being bankrupted by public employee unions? Obama wants to increase the unions' power. Not enough power plants? Obama wants to restrict them further. Iran is seeking nukes? Obama gave them a reprieve against a popular uprising. Karzai doubts America's resolve in Afghanistan? Obama wavers on our strategy and declares our intention to bug out, no matter how much disarray there is in our strategy and command.
There's an old saying: When you fail to plan, you plan to fail. But the pattern of the Obama administration has me wondering if we're seeing the inverse: when you plan to fail, you fail to plan. That is, if American contraction and retreat is your goal, why would you make any plans to revive the economy or win wars?
O’Reilly: Obama Could Face Impeachment If He Pardons Illegals
It's good of O'Reilly to mention the "I" word but suing Arizona for defending it's own borders should also call for impeachment. ---rng
A bit of an oversight this summer, I appeared to have missed this one. Note to Mr. O'Reilly---If Obama ever signed on to amnesty, I think the impeachment movement would go nuclear. Just a guess. ----lee
A bit of an oversight this summer, I appeared to have missed this one. Note to Mr. O'Reilly---If Obama ever signed on to amnesty, I think the impeachment movement would go nuclear. Just a guess. ----lee
From Chris Wessling
Newsmax.com
June 29, 2010
Newsmax.com
June 29, 2010
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is warning that if President Barack Obama ever bypasses Congress and uses his pardon power to make millions of illegal aliens citizens, he could face serious calls for his impeachment.
“If President Obama were to sign an executive order giving illegal aliens amnesty, his career would be over and an impeachment movement would explode,” O’Reilly said Friday night on his “Talking Points” segment during his top-rated Fox show.
At the same time, O’Reilly said he did not believe reports that the Obama administration would grant such a blanket amnesty.
Fox News, however, reported this week: “The Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants, a former Bush administration official who spoke with at least three people involved in those talks told FoxNews.com.”
Read entire article
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/barack-obama-impeachment-illegal/2010/06/26/id/363160
Friday, September 10, 2010
The Internationalization Of Treason
It's not just President Obama, it's also the State Department, the US Supreme Court(more on the internationalization of the Supreme Court in later articles) as well as the Congress. -----lee
From The American Thinker
September 07, 2010
Obama's War on Arizona
By Pamela Geller
The Obama administration has included the Arizona state immigration law in a report of human rights abuses to the United Nations, that collective negation of humanity and home to the worst human rights abusers in the world.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer struck back Friday, demanding that the reference to Arizona's immigration law be taken out of the State Department's report to the U.N.'s human rights commissioner. Brewer wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton saying that the inclusion of Arizona in the U.N. report was "downright offensive." Brewer said -- and she was right -- that "the idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional."
First, Barack Obama attacked America by suing Arizona for passing a law that merely reflected federal immigration law. And now this.
Decades before the post-American president took office, Ayn Rand saw the U.N. for what it was and what every free person should have known it was -- and it has only gotten worse since then: "Psychologically, the U.N. has contributed a great deal to the gray swamp of demoralization -- of cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt -- which is swallowing the Western world." That, of course, is just the kind of guilt Obama and his cronies play upon. This guilt and demoralization was largely due to Communism in those days; now, the "gray swamp" is still there, but it stems from Islam.
Barack Obama is an internationalist, and this has more ominous implications for American sovereignty. As soon as he became president, he took decisive steps to submit American sovereignty to the will of international bodies.
Legal expert M. Edward Whelan III has spelled out the implications of this. He explains that transnationalists, among whom Obama and many of his appointees must clearly be numbered, "aim in particular to use American courts to import international law to override the policies adopted through the processes of representative government."
Whelan is the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the former general counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. "What transnationalism, at bottom, is all about," he explains, "is depriving American citizens of their powers of representative government by selectively imposing on them the favored policies of Europe's leftist elites."
Obama's War on Arizona
By Pamela Geller
The Obama administration has included the Arizona state immigration law in a report of human rights abuses to the United Nations, that collective negation of humanity and home to the worst human rights abusers in the world.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer struck back Friday, demanding that the reference to Arizona's immigration law be taken out of the State Department's report to the U.N.'s human rights commissioner. Brewer wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton saying that the inclusion of Arizona in the U.N. report was "downright offensive." Brewer said -- and she was right -- that "the idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional."
First, Barack Obama attacked America by suing Arizona for passing a law that merely reflected federal immigration law. And now this.
Decades before the post-American president took office, Ayn Rand saw the U.N. for what it was and what every free person should have known it was -- and it has only gotten worse since then: "Psychologically, the U.N. has contributed a great deal to the gray swamp of demoralization -- of cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt -- which is swallowing the Western world." That, of course, is just the kind of guilt Obama and his cronies play upon. This guilt and demoralization was largely due to Communism in those days; now, the "gray swamp" is still there, but it stems from Islam.
Barack Obama is an internationalist, and this has more ominous implications for American sovereignty. As soon as he became president, he took decisive steps to submit American sovereignty to the will of international bodies.
Legal expert M. Edward Whelan III has spelled out the implications of this. He explains that transnationalists, among whom Obama and many of his appointees must clearly be numbered, "aim in particular to use American courts to import international law to override the policies adopted through the processes of representative government."
Whelan is the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the former general counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. "What transnationalism, at bottom, is all about," he explains, "is depriving American citizens of their powers of representative government by selectively imposing on them the favored policies of Europe's leftist elites."
Thursday, September 9, 2010
A Short History of Impeachment
A little bit of history to help readers make up their minds regarding the impeachment of the current resident of the White House. ----lee
From infoplease.com
by Borgna BrunnerThe right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested party—if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!
What Are "High Crimes and Misdemeanors?"
Bribery, perjury, and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role.
The Infamous Sixteen
Since 1797 the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon.
Read more:
Monday, September 6, 2010
Obama's War On Arizona
It doesn't get any more impeachable than this, and, yes, it is treason...rng
From americanthinker.com
September 7, 2010
By Pamela Geller
The Obama administration has included the Arizona state immigration law in a report of human rights abuses to the United Nations, that collective negation of humanity and home to the worst human rights abusers in the world.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer struck back Friday, demanding that the reference to Arizona's immigration law be taken out of the State Department's report to the UN's human rights commissioner. Brewer wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton saying that the inclusion of Arizona in the UN report was "downright offensive." Brewer said -- and she was right -- that "the idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to ‘review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional."
First Barack Obama attacked America by suing Arizona for passing a law that merely reflected federal immigration law. And now this.
Decades before the post-American president took office, Ayn Rand saw the UN for what it was, and what every free person should have known it was -- and it has only gotten worse since then: "Psychologically, the U.N. has contributed a great deal to the gray swamp of demoralization -- of cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt -- which is swallowing the Western world." That, of course, is just the kind of guilt Obama and his cronies play upon. This guilt and demoralization was largely due to Communism in those days; now, the "gray swamp" is still there, but it stems from Islam.
Barack Obama is an internationalist, and this has more ominous implications for American sovereignty. As soon as he became president, he took decisive steps to submit American sovereignty to the will of international bodies.
Legal expert M. Edward Whelan III has spelled out the implications of this. He explains that transnationalists, among whom Obama and many of his appointees must clearly be numbered, "aim in particular to use American courts to import international law to override the policies adopted through the processes of representative government."
The case for treason at the highest levels of government
From Bill Wilson
www.dailyjot.com
Imagine the uproar if the US government was found to be funding the renovation of your local church, or releasing large amounts of taxpayer money to an umbrella organization of churches for pet projects? The American Civil Liberties Union would jump on that screaming "separation of church and state." The major network news programs would think they had just won broadcast awards for breaking news. Every leftist demagogue in Congress would be demanding an inquiry. There would be cries for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate everyone involved. But the truth is, this government, headed by the man who occupies the Oval Office, is using your money to fund Muslim jihadists.
The State Department, for example, has a list of some 26 Islamic mosque renovation projects that are being funded by your tax dollars. These projects, listed on the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs website, are using tax dollars to rehab mosques in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Mali, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Tanzania, Algeria, Uganda, even in Sudan where Arab Muslims have killed all the Christians and are now killing the African Muslims. The State Department says its perfectly Constitutional because it's to preserve culture, not religion. The Daily Caller writes that the US Agency for International Development has also spent millions on mosques in Egypt and Cyprus.
But that's not all. Christine Brim of the Center for Security Policy broke the story that the Department of Agriculture was to meet with 25-30 Muslim leaders of the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations on August 31. The purpose of the meeting was to show the Muslims how to gain direct access to "funding, government assistance, and resources." This organization has direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist umbrella waging "Civilization Jihad" on the United States. An extensive search of the news, White House, and USDA websites revealed no trace of the meeting, which was announced through a newsletter email by the Islamic Society of North America, a known terrorist financier.
The White House surely knows that the government is using our tax dollars to fund our enemies. The president is attempting to hide these actions by conducting them through nontraditional venues such as the Department of Agriculture and NASA. This is no less than treason. What's worse is that even though these scoundrels are playing Americans for dupes, the government watchdogs--the free press--won't report it. This makes them accessories to treason. The prophecy of the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13 is in play: "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." Christ is the answer as He is truth. But if we do not act, is it not salt that has lost its savor?
Sunday, September 5, 2010
One Set of Articles of Impeachment---More to Follow
Good start, but the articles left out Article 4, section 4 of the Constitution, which specify that the federal government shall secure the borders of the states. It also neglected that he is giving aid and comfort to the Mexican government in their campaign of reconquista of the southwestern United States. Still, it is a start and probably worth signing as a show of solidarity...rng
Resolved, that Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has:
unlawfully exercised the authority of his office to take private property for public use in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to the People that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,” and without “due process of law”;
unlawfully interfered with the management of private companies for the purpose of achieving government control of them, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
unlawfully interfered with the economic rights of the People by imposing unreasonable impairments in the fulfillment of their intended contractual obligations, and their ability to enter into such contracts, and attempting to change our fundamental economic system, where there is no significant or legitimate public purpose to do so.
To read and sign the full petition please go to...
O’Reilly: Obama Could Face Impeachment If He Pardons Illegals
It's good of O'Reilly to mention the "I" word but suing Arizona for defending it's own borders should also call for impeachment. ---rng
A bit of an oversight this summer, I appeared to have missed this one. Note to Mr. O'Reilly---If Obama ever signed on to amnesty, I think the impeachment movement would go nuclear. Just a guess. ----lee
A bit of an oversight this summer, I appeared to have missed this one. Note to Mr. O'Reilly---If Obama ever signed on to amnesty, I think the impeachment movement would go nuclear. Just a guess. ----lee
From Chris Wessling
Newsmax.com
June 29, 2010
Newsmax.com
June 29, 2010
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is warning that if President Barack Obama ever bypasses Congress and uses his pardon power to make millions of illegal aliens citizens, he could face serious calls for his impeachment.
“If President Obama were to sign an executive order giving illegal aliens amnesty, his career would be over and an impeachment movement would explode,” O’Reilly said Friday night on his “Talking Points” segment during his top-rated Fox show.
At the same time, O’Reilly said he did not believe reports that the Obama administration would grant such a blanket amnesty.
Fox News, however, reported this week: “The Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants, a former Bush administration official who spoke with at least three people involved in those talks told FoxNews.com.”
Read entire article
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/barack-obama-impeachment-illegal/2010/06/26/id/363160
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Does This Sound Like Treason to You?
I'm reaching the point where it would be easier to make a chart(a la Glenn Beck) to keep track and explain the web of high crimes and misdemeanors our president is piling up. Frankly I forgot about this minor piece of history.-----------lee
Treason is a pretty simple concept. Here are a few choice definitions:
A violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
1. a crime that undermines the offender’s government
2. disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
3. an act of deliberate betrayal
Have you got all those definitions firmly in mind? Now read this, from Amir Taheri, reporting in the New York Post:
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”
When I was a young adult, one of the absolute worst charges Reagan’s political opponents leveled at him was the claim that, while he was running for President against Jimmy Carter, he reached an agreement with the Iranian revolutionaries that they would not release the American hostages until after the presidential election — something that would reinforce the American voter’s impression that Carter was weak and inept.
In the 1990s, both the House and the Senate investigated these charges and found nothing. Nevertheless, amongst Democrats and those further to the Left, mention Reagan’s name and this charge comes up as yet another example of the Left’s ability to believe simultaneously that conservatives/Republicans are yokels with two-digit IQs and evil manipulators whose savvy enables them constantly to double-cross naive Democrats.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama grew up knowing about this charge against Reagan, and saw it as yet another example of Reagan’s and the Republicans’ myriad calumnies. Heck, I don’t even doubt that Obama dismisses the official debunking and believes it’s completely true that Reagan engaged in this heinous act. Or, let’s put it another way — an act that was heinous when a Republican committed it against a Democrat.
To read more...
Bookworm on Sep 15 2008 at 11:07 am
Treason is a pretty simple concept. Here are a few choice definitions:
A violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
1. a crime that undermines the offender’s government
2. disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
3. an act of deliberate betrayal
Have you got all those definitions firmly in mind? Now read this, from Amir Taheri, reporting in the New York Post:
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”
When I was a young adult, one of the absolute worst charges Reagan’s political opponents leveled at him was the claim that, while he was running for President against Jimmy Carter, he reached an agreement with the Iranian revolutionaries that they would not release the American hostages until after the presidential election — something that would reinforce the American voter’s impression that Carter was weak and inept.
In the 1990s, both the House and the Senate investigated these charges and found nothing. Nevertheless, amongst Democrats and those further to the Left, mention Reagan’s name and this charge comes up as yet another example of the Left’s ability to believe simultaneously that conservatives/Republicans are yokels with two-digit IQs and evil manipulators whose savvy enables them constantly to double-cross naive Democrats.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama grew up knowing about this charge against Reagan, and saw it as yet another example of Reagan’s and the Republicans’ myriad calumnies. Heck, I don’t even doubt that Obama dismisses the official debunking and believes it’s completely true that Reagan engaged in this heinous act. Or, let’s put it another way — an act that was heinous when a Republican committed it against a Democrat.
To read more...
How to Impeach a President
It continues to amaze what one can find on the internet. Every once and while I find something so helpful I have to send it on to my readers. As the saying goes, don't do this at home(do it in as many places you can find with as many people you can find.) ---lee
From ehow.com
An impeachment of a United States president is rare, but it has happened on two occasions and been proposed a number of other times. Because it's one of the most dramatic and important happenings in politics, you should learn the process of how to impeach a president.
Difficulty: Challenging(no kidding!)--l
Instructions
1. Begin impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee, which is a subcommittee in the House of Representatives. The House Judiciary Committee considers evidence for of wrongdoing, and votes whether to pass the matter along to the entire body.
2. Schedule formal hearings. The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings investigating any allegations against the president.
3. Draw up articles of impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee composes articles of impeachment outlining the crimes the president has committed and the evidence of those crimes. According to the United States Constitution, the House of Representatives may impeach the president for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4. Take a vote on whether to send the articles of impeachment to the full House of Representatives for a vote. If a majority of the members of the House Judiciary Committee votes to send the articles on, they are then submitted.
5. Vote on the articles of impeachment. The House votes on whether to accept the articles of impeachment. To impeach a president, a majority of the members must vote for the articles of impeachment. The articles of impeachment are then sent to the Senate.
6. Consider the articles of impeachment in the Senate. If the House of Representatives votes to impeach the president, the Senate can remove him from office with a two-thirds majority vote. The senate runs the hearing much like a trial. The president is found guilty of his alleged crimes if two thirds of the Senate votes to remove him from office.
An impeachment of a United States president is rare, but it has happened on two occasions and been proposed a number of other times. Because it's one of the most dramatic and important happenings in politics, you should learn the process of how to impeach a president.
Difficulty: Challenging(no kidding!)--l
Instructions
1. Begin impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee, which is a subcommittee in the House of Representatives. The House Judiciary Committee considers evidence for of wrongdoing, and votes whether to pass the matter along to the entire body.
2. Schedule formal hearings. The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings investigating any allegations against the president.
3. Draw up articles of impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee composes articles of impeachment outlining the crimes the president has committed and the evidence of those crimes. According to the United States Constitution, the House of Representatives may impeach the president for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4. Take a vote on whether to send the articles of impeachment to the full House of Representatives for a vote. If a majority of the members of the House Judiciary Committee votes to send the articles on, they are then submitted.
5. Vote on the articles of impeachment. The House votes on whether to accept the articles of impeachment. To impeach a president, a majority of the members must vote for the articles of impeachment. The articles of impeachment are then sent to the Senate.
6. Consider the articles of impeachment in the Senate. If the House of Representatives votes to impeach the president, the Senate can remove him from office with a two-thirds majority vote. The senate runs the hearing much like a trial. The president is found guilty of his alleged crimes if two thirds of the Senate votes to remove him from office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)